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

[SemperJase]

What about the LG Orc in that town who was working and training to become a better fighter so that he could become chieftan through right of combat, with the goal of ending slavery? You can always come up with shades of gray.

-Tacky

Guilt by association.

I still say it was not evil to kill that orc when he took up arms against people trying to rescue others from evil. He should have joined us.

 

[SemperJase]

I don't think my point could have missed by a wider margin. Ah, well.

I think your point was one of moral reletavism. As I don't believe in that philosophy I don't accept the premise that the characters were wrong in freeing the slaves.

 

[Claude Raines]

Guilt by association.

I still say it was not evil to kill that orc when he took up arms against people trying to rescue others from evil. He should have joined us.

That is assuming that the orc knew why he was being attacked. Maybe in your campaign all the bad guys realize that they are being attacked for some bad thing they did, but in RL and in other campaigns that may not be the case. The orc could think that there are just crazy adventurers bent on looting and plundering. He might not realize that he had an option to surrender. Of course your players might all shout out "surrender or die." I don't know quite what went on, but there are cases where the good heroes could easily needlessly kill or murder those that would help the heroes or surrender hoping for leniency.

 

[Piratecat]

I think your point was one of moral reletavism. As I don't believe in that philosophy I don't accept the premise that the characters were wrong in freeing the slaves.

To bring this back on topic, you'll see that my professed interpretation of who is "evil" and what is appropriate in a game might differ from yours. I can easily argue that you weren't playing what I consider a "family" game, because your heroes were engaging in what I could label the mass murder of intelligent individuals.

Although you probably won't agree with me, I then compare this discussion to your original premise that WotC should maintain a "family" game. Where does the definition lie? You think it lies with how you play the game, but isn't my more conservative viewpoint that slaughter is inappropriate equally valid? And if someone in WotC really wants to make a game appropriate for the whole family, which viewpoint should they listen to: the one that involves "heroes" killing a bunch of intelligent creatures, or one with much less violence/violence only against truly eeevil creatures?

Yeah, I know; the more violent one, if they want to sell any copies.

My point is that by you asking for a "family" game, you step onto a very slippery slope. I remember all too well 2e's attempt to sanitize the game, to its detriment.

I'm personally happier with a D&D game that embraces the classic concept of violent swords against evil, and which allows each individual group to decide for themselves what level of violence/evil is appropriate. If you want it, buy it. If you don't, don't, and no problems result.

 

[Claude Raines]

A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first.

This I definitely disagree with. A character who is good or evil by alignment restrictions does not have to always make the choice that is good (or evil). Such actions that don't always conform to alignment don't automatically change or invalidate alignment either. Now some characters (paladins especially) must make the extra effort to always conform, but most have no rule or roleplaying punishment for occasional straying.

This is especially the case for evil characters. I feel that there are many cases where someone who is definitely evil would often promote good behavior or do good acts. Especially to manipulate people. The despotic ruler who oppresses peasants could easily chase down all thieves and imprison them. The streets are now safe at night. This is a good act that is regularly enforced by an evil person so he can more easily oppress and restrain his citizens (i.e. no lawbreakers to oppose him). This is not unintentional good. It is intentionally carried out.

Good and evil are not absolutes in people PCs or NPCs. Interesting characters are usually a mix of these. Heroes should be mostly good and villians should be evil enough to be worth opposing. But straightjacketing PCs and NPCs by alignment is not a necessary part of the game. In fact, in my opinion, it devalues the game.

 

[barsoomcore]

Inside the game, for a CE character, your motivation is to be "ruthless and brutal" PHB pg 90.

Now you're conflating the reasons to play a character with the motivations of the character itself. We may have reasons to play a ruthless and brutal character that are not in and of themselves ruthless and brutal. Perhaps we're interested in seeing how a ruthless and brutal person becomes repentant and humble. We don't actually want to BE ruthless and brutal with our friends, so we play a game in which we take on the role of a ruthless and brutal person, and see what sort of stimuli inspire a shift in character.

Is that being ruthless and brutal? I say that it clearly is not. On the contrary, it is compassionate and hopeful.

I believe that position is misguided as there is no benefit to learn about evil by intentionally committing evil acts.

Wait, wait. You're conflating MORE stuff here. Are you asserting that there is no value in learning about evil or in learning about evil by role-playing (I assume you meant role-playing when you said committing) evil acts?

That is, is your concern on the learning about evil or the method by which it is undertaken?

Let me slam both concerns.

Learning about evil is every bit as valuable as learning about good. A lesson is a lesson, whether it teaches us we were right or wrong. In fact, I'd argue that learning you're wrong is actually MORE valuable than learning you're right, but that's because most of the time I lack the maturity to actually learn much from my successes.

In any event, the process for learning is as follows: You don't know, you learn, you know. At first you don't know if something is good or evil. Then you learn it is one or the other. If it is evil, then you have just learned about evil. I suggest that this is every bit as valuable a result as if you had learned it was good. Ergo, learning about evil is valuable.

As to the method: role-playing allows for a reduced risk in investigation of possibilities. The military calls this simulation. We may role-play any sort of scenario with the intention of learning about it. We may role-play any sort of person with the intention of trying to understand how that sort of person thinks. Understanding is a first step in compassion, and compassion is surely a good thing.

We may reject someone as evil yet remain compassionate towards them. This, I would argue, is MORE GOOD than lacking compassion.

So much for both those concerns.

The intention of a CE character is inherently trying to committ evil while the intention of a good character is to try to committ good acts.

Already dealt with thoroughly, don't you agree? But just in case you think there's still life remaining in this poor tired argument, consider this: Do all evil characters consider themselves to be evil? Do they consider themselves unprincipled fiends whose sole joy in life is the misery of others? Or is it possible for an evil person to be evil through misguided beliefs -- perhaps he feels that he is in fact doing good, but his beliefs are guiding him towards actions of horror?

I suspect that most evil people, if asked, would say that what they are doing is a good thing. To anyone who believes what they believe, these people are good. I guess you would say that THOSE people are also evil, and that's fine. I don't really care WHAT you consider evil.

What I am suggesting is that this is interesting and worth exploration. It is essential to the human experience and the source of much of our richest art and culture.

Take King Lear, one of the great jewels of Western culture. Are you suggesting that there is no value in the exploration of evil that is Lear? He certainly fits the mold I provided above. Are you saying that role-playing a character like Lear would provide no value whatsoever? What about a character like Macbeth? Or Hamlet? All of whom perform horrible acts and I would argue can be easily considered evil. And yet they remain some the most powerful personal explorations ever conducted.

A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first.

Well, that's great, but I'm not interested in what you prefer. I'm interested in what is true and what is false. And what I have demonstrated thoroughly is that it is false to assert that there is no value in role-playing evil.

 

[SemperJase]

And what I have demonstrated thoroughly is that it is false to assert that there is no value in role-playing evil.

I will leave that for other observers to decide.

I think this debate has run its course. Thank you for the exchange.

-Jason

 

[barsoomcore]

I think this debate has run its course. Thank you for the exchange.

Does that mean you now agree with my position? Or that you disagree but are unable to defend your reasons for doing so? Or that I have demonstrated such thick-headedness that you despair of ever being able to get your point across?

I'm not attempting to goad you into a response, SemperJase, but without knowing why you think the debate is over, the debate provides me with less meaning than it otherwise might. I would greatly appreciate an explanation from you.

In any event, I thank you likewise for a stimulating exchange. I look forward to more.

 

[SemperJase]

I think we got to the point of saying the same things and I don't think anything new will come of this thread.

We could go on like this forever. The two of us will not come to an agreement but we have raised some interesting issues to think about.

If you think of any other moral issues related to gaming, I will happily debate them

I think this was much more entertaining than:
Drizzt sucks.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.

Yah know?


(For the record, I like Drizzt).

 

[barsoomcore]

I think we got to the point of saying the same things and I don't think anything new will come of this thread.

I won't pretend I'm not disappointed by this attitude, SemperJase. After all, I HAVE to disagree with you NOW, don't I?

Seriously, I am disappointed, but obviously if you feel the issue has been exhausted I shan't attempt to convince you otherwise. Rather salute you for a thought-provoking discussion. Thanks again.