EGG on 'The Spirit of AD&D'

[Pseudopsyche]

Nod. I bowed out of the 4e discussion completely. WOTC will do what it wants regardless of what I say, and I'll buy the basic books and see if I want to port over to it when it comes out. Seems most like people are in wait-and-see mode (N), some are all for it sight unseen, and some hate it sight unseen.

Yes, in analogy to the topic of this thread, I think it's easy to overlook the silent majority of unaligned/neutral people. It's just the vocal minority of strongly aligned people who are posting about 4e with any regularity.

I won't touch the question of which camp corresponds, in this analogy, to good and which to evil.

 

[Raven Crowking]

*clap, clap, clap, clap, clap*

Well said!

Thank you.

Another way this might be looked at is: People want to view themselves as being good. When possible, they want to do good. Given the opportunity and the expectation, most people are able to behave better than they believe themselves capable of. It is the consequences of behaving properly, along with the ease of rationalizing bad behaviour, that throws them off. This might be a form of neutrality, but it is one that leans towards the potential to be good.

People who are truly evil are more rare; even villians may have a change of heart. Witness Darth Vader.

If you can't believe this in real life, it nonetheless works extremely well in a fantasy game.


RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'll also posit that campaigns where almost everyone is a scheming, swindling, liar can be quite fun. I'm thinking of something like the adventures of Cugel the Clever.

 

[Gez]

I'll also posit that campaigns where almost everyone is a scheming, swindling, liar can be quite fun. I'm think of something like the adventures of Cugel the Clever.

But it needs a level of witty banter and sophistication that isn't necessarily to be found in most gaming groups. Cugel vs. Krusk will result in a short-lived entertainment.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the idea of Gygax's "good" is different than what we are prescribing for it. Humanity isn't "Good" as the alignments LG/NG/CG define it, though perhaps many are those alignments. Rather, he means that on a cosmic scale, there are more humans willing to do what is right rather than what is wrong. Not all of them do good things all the time nor are many of them willing to stick their own necks in search of greater goodness, but if a paladin and a blackguard are fighting in the center of their town, more would root for the paladin than the blackguard.

This is key to a game where we have to justify having paladins and clerics go into goblin warrens and slaughter the evil SoBs before they organize another raid on defenseless townsfolk. If the people the paladin is defending are as bad, or only slightly less selfish, cruel or bloodthirsty as those goblins, whats the point?

Admittedly, its sometimes fun to get thrust into a "lesser of two evils" scenario, but a world full of lesser and greater evils often leads to jaded, bloodthirsty "heroes" as well. Sadly, this type of "moral anti-hero" is becoming more popular again in modern culture (at least here at the US of A) so I can see the allure of being a selfish mercenary rather than a tireless champion of goodness.

As for my games, I'm running Eberron at the moment and enjoying a touch of gray to my otherwise blk/wht world. However, when I return in 4e to my homebrew, I probably will return to a more classic good vs. evil method, if only to to enjoy a relief from the terrible grayness that fills my days in the "real" world...

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the idea of Gygax's "good" is different than what we are prescribing for it. Humanity isn't "Good" as the alignments LG/NG/CG define it, though perhaps many are those alignments. Rather, he means that on a cosmic scale, there are more humans willing to do what is right rather than what is wrong. Not all of them do good things all the time nor are many of them willing to stick their own necks in search of greater goodness, but if a paladin and a blackguard are fighting in the center of their town, more would root for the paladin than the blackguard.

This is key to a game where we have to justify having paladins and clerics go into goblin warrens and slaughter the evil SoBs before they organize another raid on defenseless townsfolk. If the people the paladin is defending are as bad, or only slightly less selfish, cruel or bloodthirsty as those goblins, whats the point?

Admittedly, its sometimes fun to get thrust into a "lesser of two evils" scenario, but a world full of lesser and greater evils often leads to jaded, bloodthirsty "heroes" as well. Sadly, this type of "moral anti-hero" is becoming more popular again in modern culture (at least here at the US of A) so I can see the allure of being a selfish mercenary rather than a tireless champion of goodness.

As for my games, I'm running Eberron at the moment and enjoying a touch of gray to my otherwise blk/wht world. However, when I return in 4e to my homebrew, I probably will return to a more classic good vs. evil method, if only to to enjoy a relief from the terrible grayness that fills my days in the "real" world...

Well put, Sir, and I think you are exactly right.

RC

 

[Reynard]

This is very similar, btw, to DMs who want their players to talk to monsters instead of just wading in with spells and swords blazing. If you want that, you have to provide an environment that nurtures and rewards it. You have to demonstrate that it is worth doing. You have to demonstrate the pitfalls of the opposite approach.

In a very insightful post, this is the point that I think is most important. Of the many duties of the DM, fostering a particular playstyle that is most condusive to everyone's fun, including his own, is the greatest duty. Doing that requires rewarding certain behaviors and punishing others.

Exactly what that playstyle is isn't important. What's important is that DMs need to realize that the ruling they make, the adventures they design, the NPCs they run and all the other elements of play tell the players how to go about engaging the game. If the PCs win every time they rush pell mell into battle because the DM is a poor tactical player or because he purposefully makes easy combats, the behavior is rewarded. If merchants and peddlers regularly carry pocketfuls of gems and the best way to get these is after the merchant has bled out, and no constables come running, the behavior is rewarded. Likewise, if definding the town nets derision from the local lord and apathy from the peasants, the behavior is punished. If choosing a moral stand for a character means constantly having that morality tested in no-win qualms, that behavior is punished.

We often blame the rules or the fluff of the game for the things that people do at the table that we don't like, instead of looking at the table and how it is run to see what kinds of play are being promoted or admonished.

 

[Lanefan]

In a very insightful post, this is the point that I think is most important. Of the many duties of the DM, fostering a particular playstyle that is most condusive to everyone's fun, including his own, is the greatest duty. Doing that requires rewarding certain behaviors and punishing others.

And if you can do that when the preferred playstyles of your players are in direct conflict, you're a better DM than I am. (says he, having been in this position more than once...)

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

And if you can do that when the preferred playstyles of your players are in direct conflict, you're a better DM than I am. (says he, having been in this position more than once...)

Lanefan

IMHO, you look at what the individual players want. If one player wants heavy RPing, and another wants heavy combat, you reward the combat-guy for letting the RP-guy do his thing by making sure that a fair percentage of those RP bits lead directly into combat. Likewise, you make sure that a fair percentage of combats include, or lead directly to, RP opportunities.

Make what one player wants into the reward for doing what the other players want, and you will have a happier table! IME, at least.


RC

 

[Ourph]

pg 26 Role-Playing Mastery (1987), by E Gary Gygax:

"This is a fantasy RPG predicated on the assumption that the human race, by and large, is made up of good people. Humans, with the help of their demi-human allies, are and should remain the predominant force in the world. They have achieved and continue to hold on to this status, despite the ever-present threat of evil, mainly because of the dedication, honor, and unselfishness of the most heroic humans and demi-humans - the characters whose roles are taken by the players of the game."

This is just another example of Gary's consistent inconsistency when commenting on the D&D game. On numerous occasions he has asserted that D&D is primarily based on and intended to emulate the pulp sword and sorcery genre (as typified by the works of Howard, Leiber, Vance, Burroughs, Lovecraft, etc.). A quick perusal of that genre reveals worlds where the vast majority of humanity is corrupt, selfish, short-sighted and dishonorable, and the protagonists rarely act in anything other than their own self interest. Most of the conquests over evil associated with the heroes of S&S fiction derive accidentally from some quest for personal comfort or survival, not because of an altruistic or honorable dedication to the greater good (i.e. seeking out evil and destroying it for the greater good of humanity). As much as Gary likes to insist that Lord of the Rings wasn't a major influence on the conception of the D&D game, the above certainly sounds more like Tolkien's world-view of humans and demi-human than anything you're likely to encounter in Howard, Leiber or any of the other S&S authors Gary does cite as major influences (should you encounter anything corresponding to a demi-human at all, which is rare).

I've found that examining anything Gary says about the D&D game too closely is usually an exercise in futility, as you can usually find (with a little looking) an example of him saying exactly the opposite in some other conversation. He is certainly entitled to his opinions (and to change them as the mood strikes him), but I've given up on trying to reconcile the many contradictions in the Gospel of Gygax.