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

[Haldross]

Vileness in Games

Son_of_Thunder wrote:

2) It was something gamers have been wanting for a long time. My question pertains to number 2. I have been involved with D&D for well nigh on twenty years now, and I never recall there being a big demand for this type of a book, even within the three to five years leading up to 3rd edition. Did I miss something?

****

I've been DMing now for about 10 years. For the first couple of years, while I was learning and pretty well exclusively playing DnD I kept it to sugar-coated stuff.....you know, nothing that was really vile. I think that the nastiest thing that happened was some nasty poison traps or something.

That having been said, I gradually altered my style until it's the "gritty" feel that it is now. For example, in a recent session a PC was held, and then his throat was slit by the chief enemy....this wasn't the height of the module, but rather towards the beginning.

This kind of nastiness makes the players, feel good when they finally nail one of the badguys. I also add in a sense of moral ambiguity, wanting them to think about their actions. This is to ensure that they, as players, think about their actions, and how those actions fit into their own, personal, moral paradigm.

I've found that all of my players enjoy my games, and hosts of people that I've never met ask to get into one of my games because I run them in a "nasty" way. By that I don't mean that on every streetcorner is a prostitute or dealer (like how most WW games seem to be run) but rather the areas that the adventurer's delve into aren't particularly pleasant. They are confronted with real evil, not sugar-coated evil, and seem to view their foes with a real vigour as opposed to one that is more-or-less made up, which seems to be common in many other people's DnD games.

Now, does this mean that my view is right, and that other people are wrong? Not at all. It simply means that there IS a market for this book, and books like it. Hell, if no one in the gaming industry was interested in books like this, white-wolf would have been out of business years ago...

Anyhow, the entire point of this was just to indicate that there ARE people who are interested in this book, and will procure it. I know that I'm one of them.

Regards
Chris Parsons

 

[Storm Raven]

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

No, you were comparing two fundamentally disparate situations in an attempt to create a straw man for your facile argument.

 

[SemperJase]

The problem with the opposition arguement is that in fiction, things aren't black and white. Or at least, in good fiction, they're not.

A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com.

 

[Skarp Hedin]

Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white

Even Gollum?

Can't really argue that Gollum isn't evil. After all, most of his desires revolve around killing various hobbits. However, he leads Frodo and Sam into Mordor more-or-less safely (more safely than their other possible route at least), and he himself destroys the One Ring, thus saving all of Middle-Earth from being covered in a second darkness.

Certainly his motives were black, but his results were white. What's that make him?

 

[RobNJ]

A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com.

Not so much a false premise as it is a matter of opinion. But it's a widely held matter of opinion, that I think you'd find among most people who study the English language and its writings. Protagonists who are completely unambiguous are boring, one-dimensional and predictable. Someone whose every action is perfect and pristine is a boring read.

Furthermore, your example of Lord of the Rings is a very poor one. In Lord of the Rings we have a vicious murdering psychopath with shreds of good still in him (Gollum), and our main heroes are all deeply tempted by the Ring and do selfish or wicked things.

 

[SemperJase]

You assume, without questioning, that you have not committed any morally questionable acts in your raid. I find the fact that you make this assumption shows how truly simplistic your moral code is.

The fact that I have come to a conclusion about the moral actions does not inherently mean that conclusion is wrong as you suggest.

I also see nothing wrong with a simple moral code. In fact, the simpler the better. As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism.

 

[SemperJase]

Certainly his motives were black, but his results were white. What's that make him?

That makes him evil. The fact that an outcome beneficial to society results from evil actions does not change the nature of the actions.

 

[RobNJ]

That makes him evil. The fact that an outcome beneficial to society results from evil actions does not change the nature of the actions.

Then you're ignoring the text of the book, which says that there is some good in him.

Are you telling me that you literally believe that people in real life are wholly only evil or good? That people are not capable of being a mixture of good and bad?

Assuming you don't take that audacious position, then you must agree that such things are possible in art (books, movies, role playing) as well?

At what point is evil too evil to play? 51%?

 

[Sammael99]

A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com.

I see many many ways in which Lord of teh Rings is not black and white. And it's morals, if any, are definetely not simplistic !

Boromir
The Ents
Denethor
Wormtongue
Galadriel and Celeborn

I could go on and on.

 

[SemperJase]

Then you're ignoring the text of the book, which says that there is some good in him.

Are you telling me that you literally believe that people in real life are wholly only evil or good? That people are not capable of being a mixture of good and bad?

Assuming you don't take that audacious position, then you must agree that such things are possible in art (books, movies, role playing) as well?

At what point is evil too evil to play? 51%?

You have changed the subject again. We were discussing if characters could be purely good or evil in fiction.

Didn't people get offended at me when I drew a real world parallel to fiction? You are doing the opposite.

Gollem may have had the capability to do good. He did not use that capability. His actions were calculated to put him in a position to steal the ring back. The consequences of that action led to his death and the unmaking of the ring.