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

[Barak]

In the end, it is a game. If you identify with your character in the game so much that playing an evil character will lead you to become evil in RL, then even playing only good characters is not good enough. Not playing the game would be the only healthy thing to do. As for the rest of the world, playing an evil character will not make them evil, just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats.

 

[JesterPoet]

...just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats.

Tell me about it...


All those hours, wasted!

 

[RobNJ]

In the end, it is a game. If you identify with your character in the game so much that playing an evil character will lead you to become evil in RL, then even playing only good characters is not good enough. Not playing the game would be the only healthy thing to do. As for the rest of the world, playing an evil character will not make them evil, just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats.

Exactly. I mean does playing a thiefish rogue mean you're going to become a kleptomaniac? There are plenty of antisocial behaviors in D&D which are regarded as good or neutral that if Jase's bizzare logic are applied to them (practicing leads to doing) would recommend D&D never be played again. Nor Nobokov read.

Scenario. You live in a big city where drug dealers operate on the corners and the cops don't do as much as you'd like to about it.

You also play D&D and play heroes with the exact same problem.

In D&D you would likely find out who the drug dealer is, tell him to stop, if he didn't, kill him.

Does that mean that's what you'll do in real life? Of course not. Not whether you play D&D or not. If you're going to become a vigilante, what you do in D&D has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore if you play an avenging paladin out to kill the servitors of an evil god, does that mean in real life you should go out and kill people with a religion you perceive to be evil?

Of course you shouldn't. Nor would playing this paladin make you do so.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why are activities which are unacceptable in real life but acceptable in game okay if they're labeled "good" by the games system and not if they're labeled "evil" by the games system?

 

[barsoomcore]

Why are activities which are unacceptable in real life but acceptable in game okay if they're labeled "good" by the games system and not if they're labeled "evil" by the games system?

I just gotta say... SMACK!

That was tasty, Rob. Full-flavoured and zesty, with an agreeable finish and a hint of GROUND MEAT. Very nicely noted, a crucial insight that had not yet been brought to bear.

Here's a corollary:

Do we accept that Monte Cook, Jonathan Tween and Skip Williams are the arbiters of what is good and what is evil? No offense to any of those gentlemen, but I say, "As if!" Ergo, using the descriptions they provided for us as though they were real guidelines of true good and evil is foolish and unwise and without basis.

(I know, I know, I promised to stay out. But Rob made me so happy...)

 

[Anabstercorian]

Wow. That was the harshet flame war I've ever seen that ended politely. I'm proud of both of you for managing to debate your issues with each other in a fervorous, rabid fashion while retaining your core civility Seriously, way cool.

 

[barsoomcore]

Wow. That was the harshet flame war I've ever seen that ended politely. I'm proud of both of you for managing to debate your issues with each other in a fervorous, rabid fashion while retaining your core civility Seriously, way cool.

I'm well-known for my fervorous, rabid civility.

 

[Zulkir]

Folks,

This is one of the more interesting and well discussed threads I have ever come across. I don't blame any of you if you don't believe me but really this *is* one of the things we hoped would come about because of this product.

There are things in the book that are evil acts by anyones standards, and their are things in the book that could be debatable (drug use for instance). It was always our intention to create a book that would create complex and interesting dilemnas for players and DMs. We always assumed that only mature adult players could include those sorts of things and maintain civility, thoughtfulness and empathy with each other.

Truthfully I don't find the BoVD that outrageous, but that is a personal perspective (some people will find it way over the top, others will shrug their shoulders and wonder what the big deal was). But I advocated the "Mature" label not so much for the "ickiness" of the content but more because we wanted mature thoughtful gamers to be the ones who would use this product and, hopefully, use it to spur players into thinking about issues of morality, ethic, situationalism vs. absolutism, good vs. evil, evil choices by good players and good choices by evil NPCs.

If this thread is any indication I am very pleased.

AV

 

[Barak]

The whole point of contention of Semp is flawed anyway. Anyone who played AD&D will remember how TSR went out of their way to make sure that the books printed in black & white that evil characters should only be NPCs. Anything that had a whiff of evil to it, such as assassin kits, were marked as "the DM's province". Of course, back in those days the hysteria about D&D being a tool of the devil was at it's apex, so that, along with purging the books of any "true" demonic names and such, was in part to make sure the company had an easy defense to such nay-saying. But did that truly keep anyone from playing evil characters? Heck no. Would such steps in 3E would prevent anyone who wants to play an evil character from doing so? Hah. It's not like the rest of the books aren't rule 0'd as it is. Putting a "DM only" on anything doesn't change the way people game. Oh, it does in LG, and in tournament play, perhaps, but that is far from being the most common form of gaming. So the fact that WoTC "encourage" or "discourage" players from playing evil characters doesn't change what they'll do. Heck, they sure went out of their way to discourage people to play rangers, and some people still do so, in some basements..

 

[buzz]

Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it.

Others have already pointed this out, but after reading though this whole (refreshingly interesting) thread, I am compelled to respond to this.

These boys did not "explore" evil. They committed evil. Using them as an example of what barsoomcore was talking about is ludicrous.

I'm totally buying the BoVD.

 

[SemperJase]

Man, I don't need to even contribute to keep conversation going!

Anyway, don't wait up for me guys. I'm off to save the world tonight! Good gaming!