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

[SemperJase]

Barsoomcore,

Since I bowed out of the debate last night, I have come across some new information that pertains to a subject we discussed.

Is it valualbe to explore evil from evil's side? That is, is it worth committing evil to learn from it? If not is it because the risks outweigh the reward?

Last night the local news reported a story. North of Denver a family was driving back from a trip and stopped at a gas station to refill. The man got out to pump the gas. While he was doing so three 17 year old assaulted him. One had a golf club and beat the man over the head.

The man's wife and 3 young children watched this happen. Police happened to be near the gas station, but were not close enough to stop the beating. They did arrest the punks. The man now is in the hospital in critical condition.

When the police asked the boys why they did it the one who used the golf club said, "Because I felt like it." The undisputed fact is the man in no way provoked this attack.

This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person.

Is that lesson valuable? I say no. By not exploring evil, they would not have changed this family's lives forever.

Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The consequences out weight the reward.

 

[RobNJ]

This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it.

Dear god, are you actually comparing bludgeoning a man to playing a game?! There is a world of difference. You are completely missing barscoome's (sp?) point. Commiting heinous acts is nowhere near on the same level as making pretend in a game.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Just like Darth Vader, there was no going back for him once he plunged in and started choking people as a power demonstration designed to induce fear and obedience . . . oh wait, he did come around in the end because of his son and a realization of what he had become. Yoda you were wrong! And I found "try" in the dictionary, it does exist. I'm so disillusioned.

 

[Havoc]

This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person.

Is that lesson valuable? I say no. By not exploring evil, they would not have changed this family's lives forever.

Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The consequences out weight the reward.

Well maybe they should have done that evil exploration with D&D?

Hum are you saying that exploring evil by bludgeonning someone with a club is the same as reading a book or playing a rpg? If it is the case I guess I would better quit orc-bashing right now!!!

Barsoom's explanation about exploring evil is certainly seductive, but frankly, we do play evil just because it is fun; killing orcs by the hundreds is evil and justifying these murders by the fact that they are orcs is just bigottery. Saying that beheading someone is less evil that raping him is a strange concept to me. Some people love to kill animals in the woods, not to eat them... i find that loathsome, but hey, we are animals and part of us revel in violence.

So I do not need a justification for playing assassins on my pc or in my rpgs. As for rapes and other unsavory things, well... its just like peeing in the woods.
How many time you roleplay peeing in the woods? I do not play rape scenes, I do not play sex scenes, I do not play peeing scenes, I do not play cleaning my boots of whatever evil substance stuck there, because from a game point of view it is uninteresting. If I want some sex fiction, I'll rent a video or something.

I did a mini campaign on request, with evil PCs; they got bored because they lacked a glorious objective; playing villain pc requires from the players to create their own opportunities, to become the evil emperor of the world for instance. Anything less, because the nature of evil, is just wanton destruction (funny for 2 hours maybe?) or being a lackey or some more ambitious master.

I sure do not need a book describing me what rape is. If one vilain in my campaign rapes, tortures or engage in such gross activities, I would just say 'he tortures' and that is all.
I hope that the BoVD will help me flesh some of my villains, and I suppose it is the object of this book.
But I will wait until I read some reviews.

 

[SemperJase]

A number of them:

I thought I had addressed all of these. So at the risk of being redundant:

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

The simple answer is yes. I believe that you are what you practice. Roleplaying is practice, ask every corporate trainer why they always use roleplaying. Will D&D alone turn you into a murder? No. That way it effects you is a matter of degree. The flip side is that playing an evil character does not help you interact with other people positively.

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

This seems to be a redundant question. Call it villain or evil PC. I see playing evil characters as unhealthy.

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?

I know I have addressed this one. DMs do not internalize their characters the way players do. They are referees rather than participants. In addition, most of the evil actions taken by NPCs occurs offstage. If a DM were to internalize the actions he in essence creates a DM's PC. That creates more problems regardless of the alignment of the character.

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?

Authors do not generally identify with every character they write. Time after time I see interviews where the author says, "I mostly identify with X character." Observations about behavior are not identification.
Now those that do identify with the evil characters, I have the same reservations.

Here is a new example. The great author C.S. Lewis wrote a book called the Screwtape letters. The book is a series of fictional letters from one demon (Screwtape) to another on how to tempt a human. The book was actually a consolidation of newspaper articles.

Lewis did identify with the demons. "Ah ha!" you say, "that's my point." Well, Lewis said he stopped writing those letters because it got too easy and he stopped because it was negatively effecting him. He decided it was not healthy for him to continue.

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?

I think there is danger in this. Actors must be careful. Jim Carrey was known to lose himself in the role in "Man on the Moon". (I can't remember the comedian's name that he portrayed). People around him were worried. It can happen. Strangely, people consider that the mark of a great actor.

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?

I think pretending to be evil is unhealthy.

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?

One can show that evil is a bad thing without being an evil character.

I like the theme of the struggle for redemption. But start with a character that has already committed evil. You don't need to map out the character and say, "let me commit evil so that I can struggle for redemption later."

So, that is the clarification on my stance.

 

[SemperJase]

Dear god, are you actually comparing bludgeoning a man to playing a game?! There is a world of difference. You are completely missing barscoome's (sp?) point. Commiting heinous acts is nowhere near on the same level as making pretend in a game.

No. I was addressing the philosophical question of, is it worth exploring evil.

 

[barsoomcore]

Since I bowed out of the debate last night, I have come across some new information that pertains to a subject we discussed.

I'm truly appalled, SemperJase. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to say. I'm deeply, profoundly appalled by this "contribution" to our discussion. I had thought much more highly of you.

Point to ANY place where I suggested that beating people to death was somehow worthwhile. Where I said that performing acts of senseless violence was a good way to spend time?

But fine. I'm game. I'm still right, SemperJase, and you're still wrong, no matter what kind of tactics you employ.

This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person.

Is that lesson valuable? I say no. By not exploring evil, they would not have changed this family's lives forever.

Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The consequences out weight the reward.

And do you claim to be able to see the future? Can you say with no possibility of error that you KNOW nothing good will come of this? How can you claim that? The world is not a simple chain of cause and effect, SJ. Who can trace the reasons for any event in our world? Or the effects? Gandalf says "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." If you cannot see ALL ends, SJ, then you cannot see which ends are more likely than others. You cannot predict the future.

Only God can do that, SemperJase. Are you arogating to yourself the power of omniscience? Because nothing short of that can reveal the true consequences of this or any other act. Great good arises out of great evil, and vice versa, throughout history. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Of course it is terrible that this man suffered such a cruel death. It is probably true that his family is now suffering horribly (it is also possible that he was a child abuser and a faithless husband and perhaps the family is well rid of him, but that's beside the point), and of course this is terrible. It is also true that these youths will never be able to atone for what they have done and that no matter what good they do with the rest of their lives, this tragedy will remain undimmed.

We spend our lives exploring what is right and what is wrong. Invariably we will make mistakes along the way and end up causing unnecessary pain to others and ourselves. There is no way for us to predict the outcome of any path we may choose to follow. My point was simply that there is always value in following a path, yes, even a path that leads to violence and death. There is VALUE in it, if we have the wit and the sensitivity to see it.

That does not suggest that we are freed from any obligation to make the world a better place, to embrace what is noble and brave and compassionate and reject what is false, cowardly and cruel. Hopefully our paths will take us upwards and not spiral us into pain and suffering, but we CAN'T KNOW THAT until we have travelled those paths.

Your argument is a cold-hearted exploitation of other people's suffering and I find it offensive in the extreme that you should impute to me such foulness. I ask you again to demonstrate where I suggested that such horrors were to be encouraged. If you cannot do so, I require an apology from you. I think I'm entitled.

 

[SemperJase]

I sincerely offer my apology. My intention was to specifically address this as a philosophical question and used a real world example to base my conclusion. I did not mean to infer that you support these actions.

Also, thankfully this husband and father of 3 did not die, but his recovery is questionable. I believe the biggest concern is brain damage.

I ask you again to demonstrate where I suggested that such horrors were to be encouraged. If you cannot do so, I require an apology from you. I think I'm entitled.

I do have a couple ideas regarding exploring evil within a game. Are lessons learned from a game and how? Specifically related to the evil exploration. But that is another thread I think. Why don't we leave that serious topic for next week and enjoy the weekend?

 

[barsoomcore]

I sincerely offer my apology.

And it is sincerely accepted, and I thank you for it. I know I kind of flew off the handle there but nothing infuriates me more than having things imputed to me that I did not suggest. I think we all know that feeling.

My intention was to specifically address this as a philosophical question and used a real world example to base my conclusion. I did not mean to infer that you support these actions.

I understand. I still think it was a misguided effort, but I know what you were trying to illustrate.

I do have a couple ideas regarding exploring evil within a game. Are lessons learned from a game and how? Specifically related to the evil exploration. But that is another thread I think. Why don't we leave that serious topic for next week and enjoy the weekend?

Very well then. I had actually just gone back through the thread and pulled out the progress of our discussion. Perhaps next week I'll post a summary and we can have it again.

 

[SemperJase]

Very well then. I had actually just gone back through the thread and pulled out the progress of our discussion. Perhaps next week I'll post a summary and we can have it again.

Thanks Bar, I look forward to it.

-Jason