[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[SemperJase]

No. If I meant that, I would've said that.

That is a lie.

He says that in a vile game (and maybe in a mature one, I don't remember), there might be PCs using feats from the Book of Vile Darkness. But see my post upthread a few where I outline how people with evil feats can still be heroes.

Another lie.

It encourages nothing. It describes what you must do if you wanted to take such a character. It does not encourage it.

For it to be a lie, I would have to believe the comment I made to be untruthful. I believe it is the truth, and I have given references to prove my logic. So please do not characterize my points as lies. Calling it a lie is an assertion that does not disprove my point.

en·cour·age Pronunciation Key (n-kûrj, -kr-)
tr.v. en·cour·aged, en·cour·ag·ing, en·cour·ag·es

1. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.
2. To give support to; foster: policies designed to encourage private investment.
3. To stimulate; spur: burning the field to encourage new plant growth.

Dragon gives support to players to stimulate the use of evil PCs.

An example, was an Assasination handbook (nonfiction). When someone used the book to murder a man in front of his son, the author claimed he he did not intend the information to be used to actually kill someone. The court found otherwise.

When Dragon 300 says that people "can" use the information for PCs without recommending against that use, it is clearly an encouragement.

So the question is not if the magazine encourages it. The question is, is it appropriate to be used in that manner.

 

[SemperJase]

You are clearly still against rape and the like existing in a game, even if it occurs as a result of NPCs. Why?

No, I did not say that. For there to be a conflict in a game, the villain must commit and evil act.

My whole thread has been that PCs should not roleplay evil charactes.

The DM generally illustrates the evil by reporting what the NPC has done not by acting it out, that is not quite the same.

But, if the DM were to personalize and internalize the actions of the NPC and enjoy roleplaying the rape and murder. In that case you are talking about an NPC turning into the DMs PC which is another issue. In a "good" campaign you wouldn't want the DM PCing and NPC and resolving the conflict.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.

An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?"

Maybe in Bond films and comic books, "evil characters" are that simple. In real life, however, things aren't so cut-and-dry. What if I want to play an evil character who is desperately seeking redemption but finds himself somehow drawn to commit evil acts? What if my "evil" is done for a good purpose?

 

[RobNJ]

An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?"

Some evil characters never have doubts. Some evil characters now they're evil and are full of self-revulsion. Some evil characters doubt whether what they're doing is evil and some think they're definitely not evil.

 

[RobNJ]

For it to be a lie, I would have to believe the comment I made to be untruthful.

No, for it to be a lie you would have to assert facts which were false, which you did.

Dragon gives support to players to stimulate the use of evil PCs.

No more than the core books do by publishing the Blackguard prestige class.

When Dragon 300 says that people "can" use the information for PCs without recommending against that use, it is clearly an encouragement.

You're misunderstanding the definition of encourage (and there's nothing more pedantic than quoting the dictionary in a discussion other than maybe correcting someone else's spelling). The defintion you quoted didn't mean support in the sense of computer support or something like that. It's clearly meant to be an affirmation. Assertions otherwise are just being disingenuous and twisting the definition.

 

[barsoomcore]

My answer is that one does not need to portray evil to understand it. You can explore the moral questions you raise without choosing the side of evil.

It seems like you're ignoring the important part of my post. The bit where I pointed out how exploration necessarily means that you DON'T KNOW whether or not something is evil? That you explore in order to FIND OUT?

Forgive the all caps, I know it's rude, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring the problematic parts of my argument and simply offering platitudes against evil. Ignoring the notion that we may not KNOW something is evil before we investigate it.

I'm NOT proposing that people should play evil characters. My basic assumption is that:

We sometimes must explore unknown territory in order to find out if it is healthy or not.

This has has as its corollaries:

Exploration always entails a risk that the territory we enter may turn out to be unhealthy (evil, if you like).

Exploration provides value to us regardless of whether we enter unhealthy or healthy territory.

I further posit:

What is known territory to one may be unknown to another, due to each person's individual explorations.

Which leads us inexorably to the position that:

There may be value for someone to explore territory we consider unhealthy or evil.

Therefore, we cannot condemn the act of exploration itself, though we may deplore the manner in which it is carried out, or the idea of value someone applies to it.

Again, one does not need to play evil to discover it.

That may be true. Is it your contention that playing an evil character is NOT exploration? I'm jumping the gun here, I know, since you haven't even addressed the issue of exploration at all yet, but assuming you agree with my argument, then we now turn to the question of METHOD. You may indeed argue that playing an evil character is not a useful form of exploration.

I argue that it is, but I won't bother to develop this argument further unless you indicate that I have characterized your position correctly. No point in arguing with myself.

Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.

An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?"

Why not? Once again you are presupposing the nature of evil, not to mention drawing a great big line between evil and good and allowing no ambiguity whatsoever.

My whole point, which you are apparently in agreement with, is that sometimes we don't know if something is evil or not and we must investigate to determine the truth. All of my points descend from that in logical fashion, and unless you can refute any of them, I assume that you agree with me.

 

[SemperJase]

No, for it to be a lie you would have to assert facts which were false, which you did.

I gave references and page numbers. Please tell me which ones were false.

No more than the core books do by publishing the Blackguard prestige class.

Yes it is. The DMG does not say it is for PC use as "The Risen Dead" article and the "How Far Will You Take It Articles Do." Both the assassin and blackguard classess use the term " As an NPC" and not once say "PC in the descriptions. Clearly one can use them as such as a matter of choice, but the DMG does not say players are ready to use the prestige class just because they read the entry in the book, unlike "The Risen Dead" article does.
That crosses the line from presentation to encouragement.

 

[SemperJase]

My whole point, which you are apparently in agreement with, is that sometimes we don't know if something is evil or not and we must investigate to determine the truth. All of my points descend from that in logical fashion, and unless you can refute any of them, I assume that you agree with me.

I see it from a different angle. Good and evil is worthy of exploration, but only from the view point of embracing good.

Finding out what is good and evil from a good perspective means that you are tyring to improve the world around you.
Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil. That is what I find to be negative to society.

 

[Mallus]

Once more into the breach...

Finding out what is good and evil from a good perspective means that you are tyring to improve the world around you.
Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil. That is what I find to be negative to society.

You're totally avoiding the cartharsis angle. Plenty of people who do actual good in the world --my friend the underpaid, overworked social worker in North Philly comes to mind-- simply need to blow off steam. Occasionally this is in the form of a less-than-noble game character. What would you say about him? His vocation is doing real objective good for underprivilaged people. Is he still harming society because a few of his character sheets are marked with an alignment you find distasteful.

This, among other arguments you've sidestepped, point to the fact your concept of the relationship between evil in the game/book/film and evil behavior out in the world is deeply flawed. There just isn't the correlation you state. Its like you're trying to use Boyle's Law to describe the motion of an object in flight. You're logics consistant, it just doesn't apply at all.

Is this just sophistry to you, or do you really believe ethics are this black and white, cut and dry, Martin and Lewis {err, strike that last pair}?

 

[Zappo]

Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil.

IMO, playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil, period. The ultimate end of this exploration is only known to the person doing it.