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

[RobNJ]

Break it down like a mid-80s rap rekkid

1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life. Correct or incorrect?

2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain. Pretending to be a villain. True or false?

3) If true, why is a DM not in danger of becoming evil? Yes, the DM has as one of his responsibilities staying neutral with respect to the players' success. But when he's role playing this villain, he must internalize being a villain at least as much as players must do. So why is he not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

4) Furthermore, authors. Authors are just as immersed in their characters as role players are. In my opinion, any author good enough to be published is going to be getting further into his or her characters than most role players. Even if you disagree with the percentages, there must be some authors who are at least as involved with their characters as role players are. Why, if these characters are evil, aren't they in just as great a danger of becoming evil in real life?

5) Actors. You've still failed to address this. If someone is playing a role as a villain in a movie, and her actions are extremely evil, maybe even vile, why is she then not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

6) The only counterargument for 3, 4 and 5 that I've seen you make seems to have something to do with intent. A DM, author or actor doesn't intend to glorify the evil their characters do. A pretty flimsy explanation if you ask me. I mean if the danger comes from pretending to be evil, why does it matter what your intent is?

7) Furthermore, why is it impossible for a role player to be playing an evil character with the intent to show that evil is a bad thing? To my hero who sold his soul to a demon example before: Such a character could be tainted by evil, have evil impulses, and still be struggling mightily to reign them in and defeat them. He might do truly atrocious things and be trying to stop or be trying to fight a greater evil. Indeed, that's one of the basises of Vampire: The Masquerade. How can you not allow for this possibility?

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Once more into the breach...

I do not believe in the catharsis argument. As others have said, you do not need to roleplay a rape in order to get it out of your system. As I have said before, those urges should be supressed, not expressed.

So you don't believe in catharsis at all? Or you don't believe playing characters with antisocial --but party friendly, I insist upon that as a player and DM-- traits counts as carthartic? Please clarify...

How about the related issue of channelling negative emotional impsulses --like my fave, agression-- into more positive pursuits? This seems to undergird not just RPG but games in general. While I have no deisre to grind another human being down in real life, cutting off their avenues of expression until they have no choice but to capitulate to me, that's what I like about chess.

And you mentioned sports psychologists way back when... so I'm assuming you have an interest, and acceptance, of sports. If violence for sport is bad --say, beating a homeless man senseless for kicks-- why is violence in sports OK? If not for, in part, channeling some our inborn violent impulses. I don't see a lot of suppression on the gridiron. On in the stands, sometimes... Fans of football derive pleasure from watching organized acts of physical violence. Should that be encouraged?

You know, the funny thing is, we're both arguing for the a kind of instructive play. We agree that games can {and possibly should}, teach. But we're miles apart on the nature of the lesson.

To each his own... But please, since you don't play evil characters, refrain from discussing what motivates people who do, or what they take away from the experience... If you'd like some first hand knowledge, I tell you about my namesake. I'm curious to know you'd think about him. He's not a rapist --I couldn't play that, too uncomfortable for me-- and he's only slightly more of a murderer than the rank and file...

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't find this arrogant. I consider it using common sense. People declare their alignment in the game before hand. Players declaring their characters good are trying to perform good actions. Players declaring their characters evil plan on committing evil actions.

I'm stunned. I'm flabbergasted. You understand that you are claiming to know people's intentions? To know why they do the things they do? The possibility that you might be wrong does not exist?

I argue that what you are proposing is impossible -- that there is no way for any human being to know the true intention of any other.
Then there would be no need to declare an alignment. So you should Rule 0 alignment in your game.

I guess I haven't been clear. I'm not talking about whether or not a character in a fictional game world can know the intentions of another character, I'm talking about whether you, as a real live human being, can know the intentions of another real live human being. Say, me. You're claiming to be able to determine my intentions with no possibility of error. I am saying that's impossible. But maybe you honestly believe that you can.

I really need to hear you say this clearly. Please tell me that you know my intentions. You know (not have a good idea of, or can make a pretty good guess at, but KNOW) my intentions. That there is no possibility that you could be in error on that score. I can't imagine what to say to you if you honestly believe this is true.

Good is good and evil is bad. One can know that before killing one's neighbor. So we have opposing views on this point.

Again with the facile examples. I'm willing to grant the notion that killing one's neighbor is not a useful means of exploring much. I'm willing to say that killing one's neighbor is unlikely to provide much value. That, unfortunately for you, wasn't what I said was the problem with your position.

Shall I restate it?

By suggesting that intention determines value, you are suggesting that the value of an exploration can ALWAYS be determined before the exploration takes place. All we need to do is examine the intentions of the person about to undertake the action in question and, without any knowledge of that action, accurately predict the value they will get from it.

I said that this is nonsense. We only know the value of an exploration AFTER it has occurred. Throwing up a simplistic example from which we can say that SOMETIMES value is pretty obvious beforehand doesn't get you off the hook. Your position is still a nonsensical one.

 

[SemperJase]

More evil than those who kill them, on the off chance that they may do something evil in the future? I do... at least when I'm playing devil's advocate to make a point.

It's just too easy to turn the moral tables, assuming you have any empathy. The orcs say, "These humans will kill many, invade our homes, slay our elders. We have not hurt them. Our slaves are not of their families. And yet they attack us, unprovoked? They are evil!"

By your logic, the orcs would attack you even if they were good, just to stop the threat of an evil attack sometime in the future.

Hmmm... I've drifted off topic. My apologies.

We didn't care what the orcs thought. The facts were, they attacked our countrymen and were holding them as slaves. We went to rescue our countrymen. I say that killing orcs in the pursuit of that goal is not murder regardless of what the orcs thought. One may step over the line in killing non-combatants in that scenario.

Now, going 10 miles the other direction and going into a camp of orcs who have not attacked anyone and slaughtering them for their possesions would be murder.

 

[alsih2o]

I say that killing orcs in the pursuit of that goal is not murder regardless of what the orcs thought.

this goes beyond eye for an eye all the way to town for an eye. you call that moral or ethical?

that is seething evil. you dodn't kill the non-combatants, but how long will they survive without protection in such a world? very vile.

are all wrongs in your campaign world corrected with capital punishment? do you not see that as excessively evil and vile?

 

[alsih2o]

orc a takes a slave.

orc b doesn't take slaves but defends his home.

you slay a + b.

you should be writing a book of darkness, yes?

 

[Mallus]

Apparently you believe that beings who kidnap, enslave, and abuse others are not evil

Beings like Cristopher Columbus? There's a staue of him down at Penn's Landing here in Philadelphia that curiously omits the word evil...

Not to mention the Founding Fathers... {of the good old U.S of A. Sorry, for a moment I assumed everyone reading this was American. Bad me...}

So its easy to discern and label evil? Without bothering to go into the details?

 

[SemperJase]

I guess I haven't been clear. I'm not talking about whether or not a character in a fictional game world can know the intentions of another character, I'm talking about whether you, as a real live human being, can know the intentions of another real live human being. Say, me. You're claiming to be able to determine my intentions with no possibility of error. I am saying that's impossible. But maybe you honestly believe that you can.

But I am talking about the game! That is the whole point of talking about good and evil characters.

You are right. I do not know your motivations and I have no intention of making a conclusion about your personal real life motivations.

I can make conclusions about a character's motivations and by extension the player's motivations within the game. Again, that is the whole purpose of declaring an alignment.

We only know the value of an exploration AFTER it has occurred. Throwing up a simplistic example from which we can say that SOMETIMES value is pretty obvious beforehand doesn't get you off the hook. Your position is still a nonsensical one.

Perhaps you will give me an example because I clearly do not understand why one needs to act out evil actions to understand how evil they are. I simply find no value in that.

 

[SemperJase]

orc a takes a slave.

orc b doesn't take slaves but defends his home.

you slay a + b.

you should be writing a book of darkness, yes?

Here comes the moral question of is there guilt by association. I say yes. Our society agrees. For example, there is a woman here in Colorado who is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer. She was handcuffed in a police car hundreds of yards away from the crime when the officer was shot. The decision was that she aided the killer before the fact.

An orc living in the same caves profiting from the trade or use of slaves is guilty by association.

 

[barsoomcore]

You are right. I do not know your motivations and I have no intention of making a conclusion about your personal real life motivations.

I can make conclusions about a character's motivations and by extension the player's motivations within the game.

Well, which is it? Either you know my intentions or you don't. Or are you suggesting that writing two letters in a box labelled "Alignment" is a special action which your insight allows you to divine intention from? The player's motivations are ALWAYS hidden from you. You don't know why people do the things they do. Any of the things they do.

Again, that is the whole purpose of declaring an alignment.

No, the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic. The game itself doesn't CARE what you put in that little box. There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str". People may have their own reasons for doing either, of course. I'd be interested to hear how it is you are able to determine those reasons unerringly and not others.

Perhaps you will give me an example because I clearly do not understand why one needs to act out evil actions to understand how evil they are. I simply find no value in that.

What's clear is the degree to which my entire argument isn't registering with you.

How do you identify evil actions? Is any action taken by an evil person an evil action? That would certainly simplify the whole issue (at least in D&D, it doesn't help us much in the real world, though, does it?), but it's obviously ridiculous. Evil people can do good things. Just as good people can do evil things. Sometimes it's not so easy to tell the difference, even in D&D.

My whole argument has been about how sometimes we need to explore things to determine if they are, in fact, good or evil.

Let's take a simple example, the one that's currently being debated in this very thread: killing those who take your fellow captives. Is it CLEARLY a good thing to do? I would suggest that from the arguments put forward on this board that it is not. Exploring the facts, considering one's own feelings, and, since we're playing a game here, trying out possibilities, may lead us to some new and unexpected conclusions regarding this situation.

It's worth exploring, even if ultimately we decide that it IS evil.

Voila! It's worth exploring evil. It's even worth it to act out evil actions.