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

[RobNJ]

Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense).

Of the many bumper stickers on my car, this is my favorite:

 

[Zappo]

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.

Just as an aside, boys watching TV for many hours a day are typically boys whose parents use TV as a 24-hours baby-sitter. That (growing with uncaring parents) certainly leads to personality disorders.

RobNJ, I love that sticker. I don't even live in the USA, but I can see so many adaptations for it worldwide...

 

[RobNJ]

RobNJ, I love that sticker. I don't even live in the USA, but I can see so many adaptations for it worldwide...

Yeah, I love it. Though a friend of mine told me a cautionary tale after seeing it. He told me never to drive through the South with my car. Here is his tale:

"My friend is driving through Georgia at about 100 miles per hour and gets pulled over by a state cop. Cop comes up to the window and says, 'Son, no one drives through Georgia that fast.'

"My friend says, 'Sherman did.'

"He spent a few nights in jail."

 

[alsih2o]

This assumes that extortion is not evil.

and this in turn assumes negotiation is extortion, which i don't think even you would try to prove sj

 

[barsoomcore]

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.

Great. That's how I meant it. I'm glad that we at least agree on what your argument actually is -- I've seen more debates fall apart because people just won't listen to each other.

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?

Yes I do.

Perhaps I'm not being clear, and so I want to rephrase my question so as to make sure you're really saying what you seem to be saying. It just astonishes me that someone could answer this question the way you have.

If you possess an infallible means of determining good from evil (you'll note I'm saying nothing about a STANDARD you rely on to make decisions -- I'm talking about the decision-making process itself. An fallible system may rely on an infallible standard), then it is impossible that your judgement on good and evil could ever be wrong.

So I ask instead: Is it possible that you could ever be wrong about your determination of something's good or evil nature?

This is what I meant to ask in my previous question. My apologies if I was unclear.

 

[SemperJase]

If you possess an infallible means of determining good from evil (you'll note I'm saying nothing about a STANDARD you rely on to make decisions -- I'm talking about the decision-making process itself. An fallible system may rely on an infallible standard), then it is impossible that your judgement on good and evil could ever be wrong.

This is where human fallibility comes in. The standard is the means. The standard is not fallilble. I am. Therefore it is possible for me to be wrong. A real life example:

My moral standard tells me that I must respect my wife.

A few years ago not long after I got married I would say "yes dear" in a sarcastic manner to my wife when she wanted me to do something (her tone in certain circumstances came across as patronizing). My purpose was to try to tell her that I thought the way she talked to me these circumstances degraded me. I did this for sometime watching her become more and more upset when I would do it.

I did not realize that I in turn was disrespecting her, especially when I did this in front of other people. I was doing something evil even though I did not interpret it that way. Finally I realized what I was doing and stopped. When I talked to her about the way I was feeling, she changed her behavior.

So I ask instead: Is it possible that you could ever be wrong about your determination of something's good or evil nature?

So based on my example above, yes.

 

[Ezrael]

Wow, This debate sure took a distasteful turn with the whole "Southerners deserve to die" argument. But at least Samper limited himelf to slaveholders (and possibly their wives and children; he hasn't been clear). Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense). Turning an argument about a game into a declaration of whether real people deserve to die is wrong, and thankfully the discussion has moved away from it before anyone could unceil their plan to punish those who do evil by going door-to-door and killing their firstborn sons.Blahbleh

Uhm...that certainly wasn't my intention. However, I've yet to hear another definition for taking up arms against one's nation and declaring war upon it that isn't treason. Certainly, many people recently declared John Walker Lindh a traitor for doing so...does that argument only apply to him? I also don't think that all Southerners, then or now, deserve or deserved to die, that's a different discussion and my argument there would be that the South (and the North, for that matter) went through hell during that war and more or less paid the price for their opposing views. I'm simply saying that the Confederate Army was in a state of open rebellion against the United States, and to me that's treason. If I'm wrong about the definition of treason (for instance, if it only means attempting to suborn the nation through treachery such as Benedict Arnold attempted at West Point and not, say, the takeover of an army base like Fort Sumter) then I apologize.

I'm also aware that one could define the Founding Fathers as traitors to England via this argument, and I'm even aware that it does nothing to address the very real reasons people often feel forced into actions that one could define as treasonous. I didn't think that I needed to say that in my previous post...I assumed it was understood that we didn't have time for a full history of the origins and development of the Civil War. (As an aside, studying that history can be really useful if you want to create a rebellion in your own game...in the previous post, I mentioned DM'ing an evil character who took over an Empire. I took cues for his plans from both the American and English Civil Wars, in particular the character of Cromwell. And yes, he could certainly be seen as a great hero in English history...or, if you are Irish, he could be seen as a monster. Either way, he was very useful.)

I also wouldn't make a blanket statement about individuals like "Every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line" because I know that there were Union loyalists down there, I know that many people did not take up arms (although certainly, we could debate if supporting the Confederacy by other means is also treason, like for instance supplying the army with food) and for that matter, I don't necessarily think that just because someone's state does something (like secede from the Union) that the individual citizens all support it. But I do believe you could describe secession as treason, yes.

As massively off-topic as this is, I thought I should respond to clarify. I freely admit the off-topicness is my own doing and I apologize.

 

[Storm Raven]

I will say that their participation in slavery certainly did them harm. Booker T. Washington (himself a former slave) saw as great a harm to whites as there was for blacks:
http://www.bartleby.com/1004/1.html (paragraph 18)

Booker T. Washington's quote, insofar as it assumes that the insitution of slavery casued economic waste or left things undone properly, is directly contradicted by the detailed analysis of the data done in the book Time on the Cross in which the authors, through careful analysis of the data concerning farms in the antebellum North and South (and keeping slaveholding Southern farms as a seperate category in the analysis), found that slaveholding farms were significantly more productive than non-slaveholding farms, both in the North and South.

Booker has anecdotes, Time on the Cross has analysis. I know which I find more compelling.

 

[psionotic]

SJ:

I'm curious, do you think that certain in-game behaviors are more likely to be modeled out of game than others? (ie, the darker, 'viler' ones?) Or is it just as likely that the heroic aspects of the characters will be shown out-of-game, too?

In most games that I've played in, D&D characters tend to be vigilantes.. They take the law into their own hands whenever they feel its required for 'good' to prevail. They kill many, many evildoers in their careers, usually without a second thought or any feeling of guilt.

Do you think that D&D players are more likely IRL to take the law into their own hands by shooting would-be robbers, running down purse-snatchers, etc? It seems that if your theory is correct, there would be a correlation there. (and maybe there is one...)

Anecdotally, that's not the the case with me... While I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself against someone who tried to seriously hurt me or someone I loved, I don't own a gun and likely never will.

 

[William Ronald]

Even if we hold to a moral standard, we can still fall short of it. I am as influenced by emotion as any other human being, and can make flawed decisions.

Perhaps a key point to consider in this issue is how we define good and evil in our campaigns. For example, a very good guideline to what is good is to not do something to others that we would not wish done to ourselves. Looking at this as a possible guideline, evil can be perhaps looked at as either intentionally or through neglect causing harm.

For example, I would argue that someone who makes a profit on someone else's suffering (such as a slave owner) is committing an act that can be interprepted as evil. Mind you, the person may well have good and noble qualities. There can be conflicting impulses in a person which are sometimes never reconciled. (For example, Thomas Jefferson struggled with the contradiction between the philosophy "All men are created equal" and being a slave owner.)

As for evil, there can and perhaps should be many different types of evil in a campaign. Some may seem psychotic, others may be far more subtle. Indeed, many villains may try to hide their true natures behind a cloak of good deeds. (As a very simple example, in the comics Lex Luthor tries to portray himself as a good-hearted businessman and someone who does support charity. The good PR is good for business.)

In a campaign setting, different faiths and cultures may still be considered good but have different takes on the nature of good. I think trying to develop this can add to a campaign, and give players more to work with. Indeed, good people can be in conflict over difference of belief and how to approach a given situation.

I would like to see less ad hominem attacks. Also, maybe do the political debates over at http://pub53.ezboard.com/bnutkinland in the Fighting Words forum.

I have a great deal of respect for the people on this thread, and wished I had more time to participate in it.