[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...
- Thread starter Son_of_Thunder
- Start date
- Status
SemperJase
First Post
Tiefling said:
As I said before, the fact that others would come to rescue people you kidnapped is a forseeable consequence of the action. It is not valid to say, "I wonder why these people are infiltrating these caves where we are keeping the the people we just kidnapped."
Ezrael
First Post
I have to admit, I wouldn't bother to think all that much about (in character) killing a bunch of orcs to free their slaves. I certainly wouldn't put as much thought into it or try half the things people seem to expect SemperJase to do. Granted, they expect this of him because of his stand on morality in gaming (and this is not a stand I share) but still, if while gaming you see a pack of orcs holding a group of captives, it's generally accepted that the heroic thing to do is to attempt to liberate them.
The Civil War's a hard topic because people to this day have strong feelings about it. To my eyes, the South committed treason. The states that seceded did so without any mechanism in the Constitution for it, and then siezed US Government property by force and took up arms against it. I know a lot of people don't share this opinion (I've lived in the South) but as far as I can see, slavery is and has always been an evil practice and all the societies that practiced it knew that, or at least individuals did...from Hesiod and Xenophon in ancient Greece to Tacitus in Rome, there were always those who decried the practice, and no one wanted to be a slave. (I'm sure you could find one or two people who, raised as slaves, did not want to be freed...but such is explainable by acclimation, much as people today who are more comfortable in prison than free. This does not make imprisonment desireable, and that practice at least has as an intention the ideal of addressing wrongs and injustices. Slavery does not.) Slavery is as close as any human practice outside of genocide to an absolute evil. (For that matter, many human societies have practiced genocide in human history, and that doesn't make genocide any less wrong.)
I don't think playing an evil character will warp anyone's mind. I've done it. I've played a character who deliberately and with malice aforethought overthrew the rightful government of a world-spanning empire and then used that empire to try and destroy the world. (Yes, I was the DM at the time...but I played Sejuk Mejur to the hilt, as far as I could take him.) I've played a character who was 'lawful evil' and who made it his life's mission to hunt down and kill every descendant of the woman who exiled my family. The fact that his ancestors were in fact guilty of the crimes they were exiled for didn't enter into his duty, playing that character. And as each session ended, I was capable of leaving the game and being myself again.
I don't agree with SemperJase's stand about evil characters, not at all. But I don't think trying to twist his party's actions in this case until they are evil actions in order to show him the error of his ways is fruitful here. For one thing, this *is* a game, with certain genre conventions. Secondly, the moral and ethical codes of a party of adventurers in a fantasy setting are not our own...for one thing, they're a lot more liberal with the lethal force than I would be in real life. In history, which is not fantasy but which often informs it, men who were later considered Saints like Louis IX of France led armies into battle and killed their fellow men. Louis genuinely was one of the most charitable, pious, generous men ever to live (he founded leper hospitals at a time when most were unwilling to and visited them, he was a great lover of erudition and supported monasteries to increase the level of learning in his land), and yet he slaughtered Saracens for no other crime than being in the Holy Land. This at once shows how morality is relative and yet how absolute it can be at the same time, and it shows how hard it is to gauge motivations.
It can be interesting to bring such elements into a game, of course, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that. Yet expecting every single encounter to be one of tightly measured moral judgements is kind of taking things too far for the game to remain enjoyable, to me anyway. Not that anyone's said that, but the distance this back and forth discussion as to the justifiable nature of killing the orc slavers has run tends to imply that, to my mind.
So what am I saying, exactly? Well, first off, I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their positions here, but we all knew that. Secondly, that while the subject of how much flexibility a game will have morally is a good one to discuss, it should remain second to the primary goal of playing the game. Thirdly, that in my own experience playing an evil character or characters either as the DM or as a player is no more morally or ethically corrosive than reading a book or seeing a film or writing or acting or even just sitting back and imagining. Furthermore, I would argue that *every single human being in the world* has a capacity for evil, and that blanket dismissing the possibility that exploring such a capacity in the relatively safe confines of a game has merit is a bit rigid for my imagination. I've played Aashuran the Whisper of Death. At no time did I forget that I am not really him.
The Civil War's a hard topic because people to this day have strong feelings about it. To my eyes, the South committed treason. The states that seceded did so without any mechanism in the Constitution for it, and then siezed US Government property by force and took up arms against it. I know a lot of people don't share this opinion (I've lived in the South) but as far as I can see, slavery is and has always been an evil practice and all the societies that practiced it knew that, or at least individuals did...from Hesiod and Xenophon in ancient Greece to Tacitus in Rome, there were always those who decried the practice, and no one wanted to be a slave. (I'm sure you could find one or two people who, raised as slaves, did not want to be freed...but such is explainable by acclimation, much as people today who are more comfortable in prison than free. This does not make imprisonment desireable, and that practice at least has as an intention the ideal of addressing wrongs and injustices. Slavery does not.) Slavery is as close as any human practice outside of genocide to an absolute evil. (For that matter, many human societies have practiced genocide in human history, and that doesn't make genocide any less wrong.)
I don't think playing an evil character will warp anyone's mind. I've done it. I've played a character who deliberately and with malice aforethought overthrew the rightful government of a world-spanning empire and then used that empire to try and destroy the world. (Yes, I was the DM at the time...but I played Sejuk Mejur to the hilt, as far as I could take him.) I've played a character who was 'lawful evil' and who made it his life's mission to hunt down and kill every descendant of the woman who exiled my family. The fact that his ancestors were in fact guilty of the crimes they were exiled for didn't enter into his duty, playing that character. And as each session ended, I was capable of leaving the game and being myself again.
I don't agree with SemperJase's stand about evil characters, not at all. But I don't think trying to twist his party's actions in this case until they are evil actions in order to show him the error of his ways is fruitful here. For one thing, this *is* a game, with certain genre conventions. Secondly, the moral and ethical codes of a party of adventurers in a fantasy setting are not our own...for one thing, they're a lot more liberal with the lethal force than I would be in real life. In history, which is not fantasy but which often informs it, men who were later considered Saints like Louis IX of France led armies into battle and killed their fellow men. Louis genuinely was one of the most charitable, pious, generous men ever to live (he founded leper hospitals at a time when most were unwilling to and visited them, he was a great lover of erudition and supported monasteries to increase the level of learning in his land), and yet he slaughtered Saracens for no other crime than being in the Holy Land. This at once shows how morality is relative and yet how absolute it can be at the same time, and it shows how hard it is to gauge motivations.
It can be interesting to bring such elements into a game, of course, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that. Yet expecting every single encounter to be one of tightly measured moral judgements is kind of taking things too far for the game to remain enjoyable, to me anyway. Not that anyone's said that, but the distance this back and forth discussion as to the justifiable nature of killing the orc slavers has run tends to imply that, to my mind.
So what am I saying, exactly? Well, first off, I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their positions here, but we all knew that. Secondly, that while the subject of how much flexibility a game will have morally is a good one to discuss, it should remain second to the primary goal of playing the game. Thirdly, that in my own experience playing an evil character or characters either as the DM or as a player is no more morally or ethically corrosive than reading a book or seeing a film or writing or acting or even just sitting back and imagining. Furthermore, I would argue that *every single human being in the world* has a capacity for evil, and that blanket dismissing the possibility that exploring such a capacity in the relatively safe confines of a game has merit is a bit rigid for my imagination. I've played Aashuran the Whisper of Death. At no time did I forget that I am not really him.
Psion
Adventurer
Much belated, I know, but:
I don't know what PG-13 flicks you are watching, but none that I have seen involve necrophilia as corpsebond does, nor are you likely to find the effects of the hentai-esque searing seed.
Dungeon 95 is a bit different. It had some artwork that probably is a bit tacky, but the adventure wasn't all that bad... women that are really mosnters? I think I've seen an episode of outer limits like that.
herald said:
I don't know what PG-13 flicks you are watching, but none that I have seen involve necrophilia as corpsebond does, nor are you likely to find the effects of the hentai-esque searing seed.
Dungeon 95 is a bit different. It had some artwork that probably is a bit tacky, but the adventure wasn't all that bad... women that are really mosnters? I think I've seen an episode of outer limits like that.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Wow. I thought we were taking a break! Okay, let me jump back in here.
SemperJase, I previously characterized your position as follows:
Playing evil characters exposes players to the risk that they will feel encouraged to perform evil acts.
Note that I'm saying nothing about DMs, actors or writers. Not drawing a causal link. Not depending on anecdotal evidence. It's a risk, not a certainty. You never spoke against this characterisation so I'm assuming you agree with it. If you do not, please speak out.
When we assess risk we consider three things: what is the likely impact should we suffer the bad result? What is the likelihood of suffering the bad result? And what benefit do we stand to gain by running this risk? Now, impact and likelihood are both difficult to measure but the best evidence we have for both is the current state of the world, since I would argue that we are all of us being encouraged to perform evil acts every day by TV, advertising, movies, yada yada yada. The fact that the world is not a wretched hive of scum and villainy suggests that both likelihood and impact are low. So the only question is that of benefit -- given sufficient benefit, it it worth running the risk.
Is there any benefit to be found in playing an evil character? Now we come to familiar terrain for us both -- the value of exploration. I have some questions for you on this subject. Questions I've already asked but have not gotten an answer on. So I'll restrict myself to asking them one at a time. I'm very serious about this, SemperJase. I want to know how you answer these questions. I believe there is a fundamental logical flaw in your view of the world and I believe I can show it to you if you want to see it. If you will answer my questions, I believe we can uncover this flaw.
Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?
SemperJase, I previously characterized your position as follows:
Playing evil characters exposes players to the risk that they will feel encouraged to perform evil acts.
Note that I'm saying nothing about DMs, actors or writers. Not drawing a causal link. Not depending on anecdotal evidence. It's a risk, not a certainty. You never spoke against this characterisation so I'm assuming you agree with it. If you do not, please speak out.
When we assess risk we consider three things: what is the likely impact should we suffer the bad result? What is the likelihood of suffering the bad result? And what benefit do we stand to gain by running this risk? Now, impact and likelihood are both difficult to measure but the best evidence we have for both is the current state of the world, since I would argue that we are all of us being encouraged to perform evil acts every day by TV, advertising, movies, yada yada yada. The fact that the world is not a wretched hive of scum and villainy suggests that both likelihood and impact are low. So the only question is that of benefit -- given sufficient benefit, it it worth running the risk.
Is there any benefit to be found in playing an evil character? Now we come to familiar terrain for us both -- the value of exploration. I have some questions for you on this subject. Questions I've already asked but have not gotten an answer on. So I'll restrict myself to asking them one at a time. I'm very serious about this, SemperJase. I want to know how you answer these questions. I believe there is a fundamental logical flaw in your view of the world and I believe I can show it to you if you want to see it. If you will answer my questions, I believe we can uncover this flaw.
Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?
SemperJase
First Post
barsoomcore said:
I can go with that. What I think is more likely is that assasinating people in a game will not necessarily lead to murder IRL. The bigger danger is in an overall attitude of treating people poorly, for instance more likely to disregard others and cut into a line. It may be seemingly trivial, but it is disrespect of others. In this case society does not benefit from your actions.
I agree wholeheartedly. We need to be aware of the messages we receive through all entertainment, not just roleplaying games. But I am purposely trying to focus this discussion on RPG's.
There is actually emperical proof that disagrees. A recent study shows that the more TV young boys watch, the more likely they are to act violently. (As an aside, I do not believe that there is no wisdom without empiracal proof. In other words, one does not always need a study to determine truth in life although it necessary for science).
Yes I do. I try to live by a moral standard, not a moral relative.
Where variables come in is how fallible people live by an infallible standard.
Tiefling
First Post
Well I guess that goes to the root of the problem. SJ instantly knows whether something is right or wrong, and thus has no need to explore morality through something like an RPG. Thus, he can't imagine that anyone else is not as perfect as he, that anyone else might need a tool such as an RPG to explore morality. Thus, he labels it wrong.
SemperJase
First Post
Tiefling said:
Now you libel me. I have never said I was perfect. In fact numerous times I have said good people do bad things.
- Status
Similar Threads
