Dragon 300 a bad idea

[SemperJase]

I value rational discussion very highly when it comes to emotionally charged topics, so the use of emotionally-charged fallacy is particularly disturbing to me.

I disgree with your and others' assertions that the Columbine example was a fallacy or that it was not rationally relevant.

The premise is that roleplaying evil actions is harmful.

The Columbine killers have been documented as fantasizing (at the very least internally roleplaying) completely dominating other people to the point of killing them.

Gaming is influencial in peoples lives. It can be positive or negative. It does teach creativity, basic math, and teamwork. Those are not the most important skills however. Treating people with dignity and respect is more valuable than creativly killing, raping, or torturing people as a team.

 

[Zappo]

First of all, from a logical point of view, fantasizing about violence could have been a symptom and not the cause. So, the Columbine example doesn't prove anything. Secondly, millions of people - heck, everyone - every now and then wants to do something evil and thinks about it, but that doesn't mean they are likely to do it.

 

[SemperJase]

Playing an evil character shows you what evil really is. This is a valuable thing -- you understand what is wrong with this. Rejecting simple-minded fantasies of power and domination is a part of growing up and becoming a human being. For many people, exploring those fantasies is the quickest way to discover their essential hollowness.

But one can know that evil is wrong without participating in it, even as fantasy.

To say that you must do it to really understand it is false. One can observe how the acts others have commited effects the victims to see learn how wrong it is. That doesn't even consider that being a victim also shows you the evil of those actions.

 

[Morose]

To suggest that one should fantasize about being evil in order to appreciate good is an absolutely horrible idea. Should a good, moral husband and father fantasize about having illicit sex with his children so he can be the best father he can be by turning away from the thoughts afterward? I should sincerely hope NOT.

Come on people, stop trying to defend it as a morally acceptable thing to do. Just because it's within your legal rights doesn't mean it's also moral. Racist hate groups are protected by our constitution in their ability to gather and say whatever they like (and as an aside, I think this is a good thing)... but they are still evil. I don't need to join one to see that or appreciate the opposite view.

For the christians among us the illustration is very clear. We are instructed to flee from temptation... not invite it in and then attempt to resist it. Anyway... this topic concerned me and I just wanted to chime in.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

To suggest that one should fantasize about being evil in order to appreciate good is an absolutely horrible idea.

I haven't seen anybody suggest that. To dramatize or role-play an act is not to fantasize about it.

Should a good, moral husband and father fantasize about having illicit sex with his children so he can be the best father he can be by turning away from the thoughts afterward? I should sincerely hope NOT.

Clearly not. There would be no useful point in him doing so. There may be a perfectly good reason for such a person to portray such a character.

If such a person found himself having such fantasies unbidden, I would hope that he would at least use them as occasions for moral reflection (and preferably to seek therapy, if such thoughts were recurrant and compelling). But that is not the same thing as engaging in antisocial fantasies purposefully as a supposedly edifying act. Again, I haven't seen anybody suggest such a course of action with respect to fantasizing.

Come on people, stop trying to defend it as a morally acceptable thing to do.

I haven't seen anybody attempt to defend the things you suggest. I've seen them defend role-playing, and I've done so myself. I've done so because I believe it is morally acceptible. I'll not stop doing so simply because you believe otherwise and ask me to abandon my defense of my beliefs.

Just because it's within your legal rights doesn't mean it's also moral.

Is this relevant to anything that anybody said? I didn't notice any legal argument before this point.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I disgree with your and others' assertions that the Columbine example was a fallacy or that it was not rationally relevant.

Again, my objection was not about the relevance of the topic. It was about demonizing the opposing argument, apparently simply for the sake of doing so, as the reference seemed to me to include no addressable forensic claims.

 

[Zappo]

I don't think that you SHOULD play evil. I'll gladly leave the "Here is how you must play" to someone else.

I think that the assumption "play evil = become evil" is nothing but an assumption. I have presented a reasoning to the opposite to show that simple talk without data can lead in any direction.

My position is that playing evil or good doesn't influence in any way your RL behavior (unless one is deranged to begin with).

 

[Ziona]

Tracey Hickman had a good point in his news letter. When thinking about September 11th, would you rather be a firefighter or a terrorist? If the latter, you have some serious issues. By playing in an evil campaign you are saying "I want to be the terrorist".

How do you combat evil? Our President suggested you do that by embracing good. I agree. Spurn evil (i.e. terrorist) campaigns and play the good guys. And let Dragon magazine know they need to clean up their act.

Both you and Hickman need to realize that this is just a game. It has NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING to do with terrorism, and for you to continue to refer to it as so, (and to use it as a comparison) is simply sickening.

It's as simple as this...if you don't like running or partaking in "evil" campaigns, then DON'T. If you didn't like Dragon #300, then DON'T read it. Toss it out or burn it or do whatever, but don't talk about it like it was an attack on America.

If you're going to compare it to anything, I would compare it to gory horror movies. No one is forcing you to watch "I Spit On Your Grave" and no one is forcing you to read Dragon #300. The pages are sealed and it says "For Mature Audiences," just like movies that are rated R or cds that have Explicit Lyrics stickers. You had an idea about what you were going to see when you tore open that magazine, so don't react like someone forced it upon you.

And DON'Tcall it terrorism. To compare it or call it such is ludicrous. (you may not agree & that's fine, but that's my two cents.)

And for the record, I agree with Zappo...the character you play IN GAME does not effect who you are IRL. You guys have to calm down some...

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Might I suggest that possibly the crux of the issue is this:

People engaged in role-playing games typically both portray actions by characters (which has a dramatic function in itself, and therefore an aesthetic value) and fantasize about engaging in those actions. There is therefore an issue: are these inextricably linked? One side of the argument seems to tacitly assume that they are, by characterizing the discussion in terms of fantasizing. The other side of the argument seems to not consider this linkage necessary, even though it is common. A third position might hold that for moral purposes, the two should be treated as equivalent simply because they coincide in common actual practice.

I would claim that since the portrayal has value in itself, it is of value (not necessarily to all) to role-play even if you do not fantasize about engaging in the acts you portray.

I also claim that it is possible to roleplay without fantasizing about the engaging in the acts you portray, though it is not necessarily possible for all role-players.

I personally am willing to concede that it is a reasonable point of view (whether I subscribe to it myself, which I would have to think about) that fantasizing about doing evil is in itself immoral, because of the argument that it invites temptation. It is the argument that portrayal requires fantasizing that I reject.

 

[JLXC]

I think Dragon 300 is a GREAT idea. We need more "mature" material as MANY of us are over 18 and mature. The idea that this material has anything to do with Real-Life terrorism shows the Immaturity of the people who said it.

Freedom. People cry terrorism and then decry Freedom by making innane excuses for curtailing them. Hey new Dragon Owners. Thanks. Thanks for treating us like we are all NOT 13. Some of us ARE mature, and I thank you for treating us like it.