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

[Sammael99]

Incorrect. An evil character might do good if it suited his purposes. Evil characters are not necessarily evil for evil's sake, they have motivations like anyone else. They will pursue whatever means they see as most likely to allow them to fulfil their goals, inclduing engaging in activities one would view as "good".

Furthermore, pitching PCs against characters that are evil for evil's sake in RPGs gets boring real quick : no depth, no motivation. I like pitching PCs against a variety of characters of varying shades of goodness or evil.

 

[SemperJase]

Boromir

Wanted to use evil to overcome evil. The story concludes that you cannot do that. It will only lead to more evil.

The Ents

I see no evil actions here. Perhaps it was a statement about neutrality. The ents wanted to stay neutral but found they could not

Denethor

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.

Wormtongue
Galadriel and Celeborn
I could go on and on. [/B]

I'm really not sure of your point on these two. I don't recall any morally ambiguous actions. Wormtongue was evil, hence his name for the lies he spread.
Galadriel and Celeborn?

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

 

[Sammael99]

Gollem may have had the capability to do good. He did not use that capability. His actions were calculated to put him in a position to steal the ring back. The consequences of that action led to his death and the unmaking of the ring.

He most certainly did ! There's a whole passage until the scene where Frodo lures him into being captured by Faramir's men when he is acting good. Confused, uncertain, definetely, but on the whole, more good than evil. Then he shifts because, amongst other things he feels betrayed. That's how I read it anyway.

But that's besides the point. The whole moral of LotR is that both Gandalf and Aragorn did not kill Gollum when they had the opportunity because they do not feel that judging his evilness is reason enough to do so. Gandalf even states that Gollum certainly deserved death, but still, he did not kill him. In the end, that pays since Gollum is instrumental in destroying the ring. That's moral ambiguity staring you right in the face !!!

 

[RobNJ]

You have changed the subject again. We were discussing if characters could be purely good or evil in fiction.

Didn't people get offended at me when I drew a real world parallel to fiction? You are doing the opposite.

Gollem may have had the capability to do good. He did not use that capability. His actions were calculated to put him in a position to steal the ring back. The consequences of that action led to his death and the unmaking of the ring.

You managed 1) To not read what I wrote, 2) to bring up a confusing and as far as I can tell irrelevant point and 3) to ignore the thrust of my question.

I said, "Surely you must believe X is true in real life, so why can't it be true in fiction?" This isn't changing the subject. Not even a little bit.

I got offended when you compared bludgeoning a man nearly to death with playing a role playing game. There's nothing as offensive as that in anything I wrote.

Let me ask this question again. Surely you must agree that there are characters in fiction that can be a mixture of good and evil. At what point does this mixture become morally damaging to the player?

If it's a difficult quesiton to answer, that is because it underlines the inherit flaws in your point of view. You have this belief that there is an objective measure of good and evil, and there just isn't. The worst rapist/murderer/cannibal might still have a tender love for kittens that is pure and wholesome. And the most morally upright churchman might be a seething bigot somewhere deep inside himself.

Here's the question, and I beg you answer it: How much evil must a character have in her spirit before you think that playing her will morally corrupt the player? Selfishness is defined by the D&D alignment system as evil, do you therefore conclude that even a marginally selfish character cannot be played without being damaging to its player? Where does this clear, unambiguous, perfect moral line get drawn?

If you're unable to answer this question directly, I must be forced to conclude that you have no valid point to make.

 

[Mallus]

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.

SJ, I beg to differ with you {surprise!}. You sound like a moral relativist to me. You claim that killing is justifiable in some cases, and not in others. What is that if not moral relativism?

My suggestion to you is to consider all moral questions relative {which is not the same as considering all moral choices equivalent}. I never understood how people could purport to discuss moral action devoid of its context --its relationship to other moral action/situation? Morality isn't mathematics.

 

[herald]

As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism.

And this is why this discussion wll never end.

Before long other people could bing in a variety of philosophies and this discussion will become so broad as to be hard to focus.

Philosophy allows people to view situations in so many differant ways, that any given time, at least one person (if not more) that will totally disagree with some other person and have reasons to back it up.

This is why acceptance of diversity is important. Differing view points ensure that we have a multiple option in the "marketplace of ideas."

Not everyone is going to like BOVD. This doesn't surprise anyone. But anyone who has been involved in the 3e/D20 community of consumers knows that this is a cap end book. It's not likely to see many more like it simply because WOTC has done it, it's pretty much saturated the market on that kind of idea.


Now as far as I am concerned, some of the heat that started this discussion could have been better focused. Instead of some individuals blasting WOTC to never do a product like this, they could instead make suggestions on products they could create that people would buy. Perhaps even creat polls on message groups to ask if people feel the same way.

Do not get me wrong. Discussions on this type of topic are good. But I wouldn't expect it to end, simply because you can't debate away all the points. My hope is thought that when people have had enough of the discussion that they come away with a better understanding of how diverse this group is.


My own favorite quote on the topic of gamers is simple:

"If you didn't what to hear how your point of view is wrong, you would have never become a gamer."

 

[SemperJase]

Here's the question, and I beg you answer it: How much evil must a character have in her spirit before you think that playing her will morally corrupt the player?

The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose intentions are to commit evil.

 

[RobNJ]

The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose intentions are to commit evil.

So therefore you don't really have a problem with evil characters, just with characters that think they're doing something evil? By that logic, someone could play Jeffrey Dahlmer, and be okay. Jeffy boy believed he was just keeping his lovers with him so they wouldn't leave him.

 

[SemperJase]

SJ, I beg to differ with you {surprise!}. You sound like a moral relativist to me. You claim that killing is justifiable in some cases, and not in others. What is that if not moral relativism?

A moral decision. Killing is not necessarily murder. The moral absolute is that murder is wrong.

 

[RobNJ]

The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose intentions are to commit evil.

For that matter, a paladin who felt guilty whenever he had to go to the toilet because it was a dirty thing wouldn't be able to play in your game. . . .