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

[alsih2o]

A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally.

i realize you guys decided this one was over while i was gone. but wow the above line really floored me.

 

[Henry]

i realize you guys decided this one was over while i was gone. but wow the above line really floored me.

Floored you in what way? That it was cogent in some way, or that it was wholly unsound in some way?

Technically, I can see the reasoning to that argument - most fictional evil characters will only promote good if it serves their purposes. By the same token, Good characters will typically perform evil actions only if it is helping another in some capacity.

Emotional states and such moderating factors aside, this is the way that most fictional characters act. Real humans are tricky as heck, unfortunately, and we do things that make no sense all the time.

I'll second Piratecat - everyone's been great! This is the most fun I've had reading a thread in ages! I'll bow out now, myself.

 

[ced1106]

It seems to me that the entire industry is going to a “Screw you” attitude. And by that I mean the prevailing attitude seems to be, “I’m doing this book, or article or what have you, and I don’t give a rats rosy red behind what you think”,

Funny thing. I agree with this, but not about Dragon 300. I recently reviewed two fantasy rpg products: Orcfest, an introductory book and adventure for new GMs and players; and "Kaiin's Player Guide", a fantasy city setting. Despite the "d20 glut", my impression was that there were few d20 products for newbie GMs, and few d20 fantasy cities. Doing a little research with the FLGS, I found that to be indeed so. I mean, really, how many campaign settings, new items, new spells, new classes, and same-old-same-old adventures do we really need? It's like everyone's publishing the easy stuff (writing introductory products and cities is **hard**), and ignoring certain parts of the market.

Oh, well. Maybe they'll start thinking when they find out we're not buying their products.


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[Celebrim]

In the DL novels, Kitiara could be seen as an evil character who 'fails' and does good because of her lack of strong will, in the same way that heroes sometimes fail to do good because they lack the strength of will.

However, in general, I agree. Evil people don't have as much choice in their actions as good people. That is the nature of evil. It's easier, quicker, more seductive, and once you start down its path, forever does it dominate your destiny. In other words, evil people have less freedom to change.

 

[RobNJ]

We could go on like this forever. The two of us will not come to an agreement but we have raised some interesting issues to think about.

Is this why you refused to answer a number of straightforward questions I posed to you a few threads back? That ought to be pretty easy to do, but perhaps it just shows too clearly the fact that your position is extremely weak.

 

[Mallus]

Not knowing when to quit...

Technically, I can see the reasoning to that argument - most fictional evil characters will only promote good if it serves their purposes. By the same token, Good characters will typically perform evil actions only if it is helping another in some capacity.

Emotional states and such moderating factors aside, this is the way that most fictional characters act.

The last thing I'll say, I swear...

But that treats alignment kind of like political affiliation {I know, the rules encourage this}. The lables obscure the particulars of individual actions.

Good characters in the games I've seen {much like good people} do evil {or simply wrong} when they lose control, get angry, act selfishly, drink too much, lash out for a hundred unrelated reasons, etc. Evil is about weakness, isn't it? Right? Not some kind of devotion to the Dark Side...

And so with evil... doing harmful/hateful things doesn't perclude loyalty {to some}, love {to some}, a kindness towards the elderly and pets... Being bad doesn't mean your an Iago-esque machine for doing evil. Not always...

 

[Zulkir]

With that in mind, do you see D&D taking on a more "edgier" tone in the core rules and future suppliments, or is this just a "one-off" sort of book, and the flavor of it's content would not be revisted or alter the existing tone of the game in any event?

I think that may be a big concern among the devoted ( I know it is with me).

(hope that makes sense )

Thanks!

Gris.

Even if it were to be the best seller of the year it will not effect how we make our main line products (they will be no more or less "edgy" then they have ever been). On the other hand if it does sell extremely well we may follow it up with another product next year. But no more than one.

AV

 

[SemperJase]

Is this why you refused to answer a number of straightforward questions I posed to you a few threads back? That ought to be pretty easy to do, but perhaps it just shows too clearly the fact that your position is extremely weak.

I apologize if I missed something. This thread was me debating against 10 others.

I tried to answer evey question posed to me as straightforward as possible. In the interest of trying to be concise I did not answer some questions specifically as I thought they had already been addressed by other answers I provided. In some cases there were so many questions in one post I chose to answer only the ones I thought carried the greatest weight, again with the interest of trying to be concise. I just don't think 5000 word replies are interesting to read, so I try not to bore other people with mine.

My reason for bowing out of the debate was that I thought we had gotten to the point of rehashing the same points.

Is there a particular question you have in mind that I had not already addressed?

 

[JesterPoet]

I have to say the most amazing thing about this thread (and threads like it, for that matter) is how many people insist on saying the same thing 10 other people have already said.

Wow... this thread could easily be 3 pages...

>Jester<

 

[RobNJ]

Is there a particular question you have in mind that I had not already addressed?

A number of them:

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?