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

[Mallus]

It is unhealthy to play a character of an evil alignment.

Can you offer any proof of this whatsoever? I understand this is your deeply felt position on the matter. But you've gone beyond stating your personal preference --which I respect-- you're talking about objective harm. If this effect is real, there has to be some corroborating evidence.

The sheer ubiquitous of violent, amoral entertainment in America, coupled with our still-manageable homicde rate, seems to invalidate your position. Completely.

 

[RobNJ]

Can you offer any proof of this whatsoever? I understand this is your deeply felt position on the matter. But you've gone beyond stating your personal preference --which I respect-- you're talking about objective harm.

Actually, that's what he's been doing all along. That's why some people have gotten hot under the collar. It's just people more sensible than me have given up on it already .

 

[Mallus]

What a refreshing hijack . It'd probably be best suited to its own thread, but I'll reply anyway. .

That's funny. I edited out the part you replied to for exactly that reason... But thanks for replying.

Sure, there's always a market for cheap thrills. The porn industry doesn't seem to hurting in the light of an overabundance of unchallenging, repetive product...

 

[Storm Raven]

edit:
Was thinking of the wrong character earlier.
Again, a character who tried to use evil to overcome evil. Look what it led to, suicide and the attempted murder of his son. No moral ambiguity there.

Actually, Denethor didn't want to use evil to overcome evil. He used the palantir, which was not an inherently evil item (being, in fact, the work of the Numenoreans in their heyday). He wanted to use good to oppose evil, but became convinced that evil would tiumph nonetheless because of its overwhelming strength, and fell into despair.

Galadriel and Celeborn?

Galadriel was involved to some extent in the kinslaying, she also defied the Valar and returned to Middle-Earth with Feanor. (In other words, she defied the authority of God's highest representatives).

Tolkein may have presented moral questions in the LotR, but he also came to conclusions.

Not always.

 

[Zappo]

Yeah, well, actually there's not much proof that roleplaying evil does not harm you, either. The comment about murder rate in the USA doesn't prove much.

I wasn't completely joking some pages ago when I said that without hard figures, which would be extremely hard to collect, we can keep on arguing forever. We have a few researches proving that roleplayers in general enjoy a lower crime rate, and we have the fact that no murder has ever been proven in court to be connected with D&D, but it's not like these data are broken down by alignment.

I simply cannot see the mechanism by which playing an evil character can directly cause a player to commit evil actions IRL, and until someone explains it to me without resorting to empty rhethoric, I am not going to change my mind. From that to having proof, there's still some room.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

No, it means that you appear to have assumed without question that what your characters were doing was moral and correct. You had LG written on your character sheet, therefore the things you do are good, especially when you are killing guys with CE on theirs.

That sort of simple minded assumption framework is more dangerous than anything you have come out against in this thread.

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.

You do not have to be a believer in moral relativism to have a complex moral code. You just have to think about it more than you appear to have done.

 

[Mallus]

The comment about murder rate in the USA doesn't prove much.

Why not exactly? Its true I wasn't offering up the results of an empircal study, rather a more informal observation. But how is it invalid?

 

[Zappo]

Why not exactly? Its true I wasn't offering up the results of an empircal study, rather a more informal observation. But how is it invalid?

Oh, it's not completely invalid, but it isn't an irrefutable proof either. The "low" murder rate in relation to the diffusion of violent entertainment could be due to any number of reasons. And one could argue that, since murder rate in the USA is fairly higher than, say, Europe, then violent entertainment does cause violence (though again that could and probably is due to who knows what else). That's why I think that that datum doesn't sustain either position.

 

[Johnny Wilson]

[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? [/B]

Frankly, back in 1st Edition AD&D, I played an assassin character. My goal through the entire campaign was to build up enough to be able to kill the lawful good leader of the party who had been playing longer than I had. I finally accomplished this task--VERY UNSATISFYING--I killed him but I found that I felt really crappy about it. Even though he was eventually raised, I felt like my efforts had completely invalidated the months he had spent developing that character. Also, I felt like a traitor to my own party (duh!). The only good part was the subsequent chase and the thrilling ambush where, by that time to my relief, my character bought it.

I went back to a good character and, outside of DMing bad guys, I've played good and neutral characters ever since. Did I learn something from "exploring evil?" You bet your bippy! [Warning: Said reference dates the poster as being a hopelessly out of touch '60s era has-been.] I learned that I didn't even want to double-cross people in a GAME, MUCH LESS in real life. I sort of knew that before, but I knew it viscerally after that campaign. Further, it's a lesson I've often shared with young munchkins who WANT to play evil characters. They may not "hear," but at least they listen.

 

[SemperJase]

No, it means that you appear to have assumed without question that what your characters were doing was moral and correct. You had LG written on your character sheet, therefore the things you do are good, especially when you are killing guys with CE on theirs.

That sort of simple minded assumption framework is more dangerous than anything you have come out against in this thread.
[/B]

The last paragraph would be a valid criticism if your assumptions were true, which they are not.