Killing as fun and games: a question for the Good Guys

[Edena_of_Neith]

This thread should be renamed Insane Aerdi versus Insane Medegia: Who is more Good Aligned?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Leaving aside the specific requirements of the D&D rules for a second.... Do y'all realize that you're effectively defining 99% of all human beings who have ever lived as Evil?

Of course, the orcs and Uruk-Hai in LotR were pure evil, molded to be so by Melkor, then Sauron. And Saruman took some orcs to make Uruk-Hai, training them to fight and kill for the Enemy's purposes too, so he could garner alliance with Sauron rather than be destroyed.

There was no moral quandary in slaying the orcs in LotR. They were well and truly Evil.

If you're an Englishman of the right time period, from your point of view the French are well and truly evil. You believe that with your entire soul. If you kill a Frenchman in battle, and feel good and justified, even holy, about it, believing what you do, does that make you evil?

I asked: How do we create a good aligned people, who view killing as fun and games?

Apparently, nobody can answer the question.

Almost every group of people on earth went through a LONG period where killing people WAS fun and games. Was every citizen of Rome who went to the coliseum evil-aligned? What about the Tudors, who came up already, and like most of Europe for hundreds of years, made festivals out of public killings?

If they weren't all evil, you have the answer to your question.

"Killing" isn't even defined as evil in most modern religions. "Murder" usually is. "Murder" is basically "killing someone in your religious/social in-group." In modern times, most enlightened people have expanded their in-groups somewhat.

Now, I have a fundamental issue with a rules system defining everyone who lives in the society it's allegedly modelling as "Evil." We can probably argue that the modern-ish "morality" of the D&D rules is ENTIRELY incompatible with a "real" medieval world. One way we could address this is to make the semantic distinction between killing and murder and decide whether or not one of them is probably exempt from D&D "Evil."

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Leaving aside the specific requirements of the D&D rules for a second.... Do y'all realize that you're effectively defining 99% of all human beings who have ever lived as Evil?
If you're an Englishman of the right time period, from your point of view the French are well and truly evil. You believe that with your entire soul. If you kill a Frenchman in battle, and feel good and justified, even holy, about it, believing what you do, does that make you evil?
Almost every group of people on earth went through a LONG period where killing people WAS fun and games. Was every citizen of Rome who went to the coliseum evil-aligned? What about the Tudors, who came up already, and like most of Europe for hundreds of years, made festivals out of public killings?
If they weren't all evil, you have the answer to your question.
"Killing" isn't even defined as evil in most modern religions. "Murder" usually is. "Murder" is basically "killing someone in your religious/social in-group." In modern times, most enlightened people have expanded their in-groups somewhat.
Now, I have a fundamental issue with a rules system defining everyone who lives in the society it's allegedly modelling as "Evil." We can probably argue that the modern-ish "morality" of the D&D rules is ENTIRELY incompatible with a "real" medieval world. One way we could address this is to make the semantic distinction between killing and murder and decide whether or not one of them is probably exempt from D&D "Evil."

I was afraid that a post like this would come out.
Canis, whether you are right or wrong is not relevant. What is relevant is the REACTION of people to your post, and the ensuing chaos that would occur.
Consider just how much chaos would occur, if a serious effort was made to discuss your post.
The issue of what we are, who we are, how we are, and why we are, is too big a subject for Dungeons and Dragons or this board (and it's not allowed, anyways, on ENWorld.) I would have to be a theologian, scientist, philosopher, historian, biologist, sociologist, psychologist, and psychiatrist to even attempt to discuss it.

Therefore ...

Let's go back to discussing my Resurrecting, Manaical, Insane ... but good aligned! - Oerthians.
Because, after all, I have yet to hear one reason - one reason! - why my idea (of everyone resurrecting everyone, and making war into a fun time) wouldn't work.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Besides, when *I* talk about evil, it's truly nasty.
No need to pay for the goods from the merchant or deal with the townsfolk.
Your evil PC, instead, tortures and kills the merchant, tortures and kills the next merchant, and the next, and the next, then burns the town down, has his way with the mayor's daughter, plunders the treasury, hangs the guards upside down for the vultures, starts a forest fire, and ... (well, ok, my evil character didn't get that far. The party, killed him after the third tortured merchant and setting the town on fire.)

Now, I'm not asking that the 'good guys' go in for such things. Merely that they view killing as fun and games. That's all. No biggie ...

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Now, I'm not asking that the 'good guys' go in for such things. Merely that they view killing as fun and games. That's all. No biggie ...

Leaving aside the weightier elements of what I posted earlier, I just don't think that works with the rules as written. But the rules as written define good and evil in such a way that isn't compatible with the nature of the game itself, IMO. Killing is one of the three core attributes of "evil" as per the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

To keep it to a rules question: Is that definition of evil (and what it implies for good), at all reasonable given the nature of the game as played? It's certainly stumping people on this issue of Greyhawkian "politics," even though that is, itself, perhaps outside the purview of the game rules.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Leaving aside the weightier elements of what I posted earlier, I just don't think that works with the rules as written. But the rules as written define good and evil in such a way that isn't compatible with the nature of the game itself, IMO. Killing is one of the three core attributes of "evil" as per the SRD: "'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others."

To keep it to a rules question: Is that definition of evil (and what it implies for good), at all reasonable given the nature of the game as played? It's certainly stumping people on this issue of Greyhawkian "politics," even though that is, itself, perhaps outside the purview of the game rules.

(musings)

Ok, now that we're back in the realm of pure fantasy ...

Most people who play really never give it much thought, as far as I know, and based on my own experiences. This thread is an exception in that I'm trying to discuss the issue philosophically, but I've rarely seen it done outside threads like this one.
Some DMs beat their players over the head with alignment. Don't ask me why, for I don't know. It can make playing a paladin a real headache, if you get a DM like that. But even then, if you're playing a non-cleric, non-good character, you can pretty much do what you want.

When I was a kid, and first starting in the game, I played entirely good characters. I was the only person I knew who did that. I was out in the wilderness, so to speak.
*Everyone* around me played evil characters. Neutral evil was the favored alignment. It was viewed as the Fun alignment, the Freedom alignment, and the Kill, Kill, Kill! alignment (LOL ... TRUST ME when I say THOSE games were all about killing!)

So we had this wizard, and he was 75th level, and his army of mages wrecked half the Flanaess (my Solistari War is based on the actual history of play of the players I knew.)
Then he was assassinated by the Guildmaster Assassin. The Guildmaster Assassin PC also trapped the *entire army* of Greyhawk City, and slaughtered them all.
We had Crownose the Executioner, Vlad the Impaler, Morgoth the Malevolent, and Glomeron the Gross. This adventuring group, styling itself the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, did just about what you'd expect out of them. Then, they started robbing banks, and after they reached 30th level from it, one player declared he's Won the Game, and retired from play.
We had 100th level characters stating they were invincible and could take the Tomb of Horrors with ease (and they found out, the hard way, that even 100th level characters are not immune to the Tomb's special infamy.)
The Skylord trashed one Greyhawk city after another from his flying citadel (and this was long before Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman came out with flying citadels) and nobody could figure out how to bring it down. He destroyed Rel Astra, Irongate, Rel Mord ... you name the coastal city, he blasted it from the air.
And then there was the one player I knew, and his motto was: 'I pulp him! I PULP him! I PULP HIM!' (killing, dismembering, and otherwise trashing the body wasn't enough, see: it had to be pulped.)

I seriously doubt that anyone involved in the game at that time, considered the relevance of alignment or wanted to discuss it philosophically!!
It was just kill, kill, kill! And gather the plunder into piles of 1 billion gold pieces (I once saw a character get allowed to pick up, carry around, and fight with 100,000 gold pieces on him. No Girdle of Giant Strength, no nothing. No biggie ... anyone can waltz around carrying 2 tons of metal. And in an ordinary large sack, at that.)
The few 'good guys' I saw played, were generally as terrifying as the evil guys. (The idea of someone playing an exalted character, from the BOED, back then would have probably caused half of those I knew to faint!)

So we all grew out of it, right?
Nah. The adolescent is still there, in all of us. And he (or she) wants out. Sometimes, he slips past our guard and gets out and causes trouble, despite all our efforts at stomping him down with an industrial drill press.

The point? You can have your 'good guys' be as bad as the baddest bad guy around, worse than Ivid by far, not pay a whit's worth of attention to alignment, have a great time, kill lots of stuff and get the loot, and enjoy it over pizza and pepsi.
The other point? That doesn't work for me anymore. But instead of 'powering down' as so many of my fellows have done, I've turned to the rules for aid in creating 'interesting' (read: messed up, munchkin, horrifying, game-breaking stuff) ideas.

Now, in the case of Medegia, we have a clear case of a Large Power stomping a Small Power. Aerdi is big and strong, and they squish Medegia like you'd step on a bug.
Enter me.
I concede the canon. Then try to figure out how, within those fiendish rules, how the Medegians could have turned the tables on Aerdi. That's me. That's how I work.

They can't do it with mere military force.
They can't do it with clever, game-breaking tricks the other side could pull (such as Polymorphing Other an orc in the midst of the enemy army into a tarrasque.)
They can't do it with ultimate game-breaking stunts, since the other side can pull them also (like Polymorphing Other half their own population into nilbogs.)
They can't do it by any means I can think of. But that doesn't mean it can't be done!

I bet that if I shouted: Medegia cannot be saved! Medegia, is DOOMED! ... that half a dozen people on ENWorld would jump in with brilliant answers on how to save Medegia. LOL. That's what I should have done ...

Well, consider my latest insane idea: that Medegia is full of these clerics, and they're resurrecting everyone, and everyone is accustomed to resurrection, and everyone is high level from constantly fighting each other. Sorta like the drow under Lolth, only more zany, taking the rules to the nth degree.
So when Ivid shows up, Medegia pounds his army and sends it running with it's tale between it's legs.

Only three problems:

They can't pull this stunt and remain sane. (Or, if it's sanity, it's a wierd sanity.)
Ivid can pull the same stunt, which then snowballs to envelop the entire world in this fine madness.
If they are still a 'good' people, it's a most particular good.

I'll tell you something: if you think my hypothetical Medegians are nutty, look at the actual rulers in the Ivid the Undying PDF. I'm telling you, after Aerdi disintegrated, the lunatics took over the place, and I mean they REALLY took over. And that's canon.

-

I guess my question cannot be answered, because there is no answer. The 'good guys' can't enjoy killing as fun and games. They're just stuck being good guys. (sighs)

And Medegia, is doomed.

Heh. In my last thread, I argued that the elves were doomed, and everyone said: No, they're not!
In this thread, I'm arguing that Medegia is not doomed, and everyone has said: Yes, it is!

 

[Arkhandus]

I asked: How do we create a good aligned people, who view killing as fun and games?

Apparently, nobody can answer the question.

I believe quite enough of us have already told you the cold, hard truth that there cannot be a good-aligned people who view killing as fun and games.

It is simply impossible for that kind of mindset to exist with a good-aligned people in D&D.

 

[Arkhandus]

Heh. In my last thread, I argued that the elves were doomed, and everyone said: No, they're not!
In this thread, I'm arguing that Medegia is not doomed, and everyone has said: Yes, it is!

......No, it is not. We've already tried explaining to you how Medegia could save itself with 'good' methods rather than turning into a chaotic evil society of slaughtering maniacs with l33t ninja death skillz. -_-

You just brush it aside as being impossible. Yet the only reason Medegia was crushed so thoroughly in canon is because the authors felt like it, as an example and a sign of just how evil Ivid and his forces had become. And you continue to deny every possibility as though the authors had not, in fact, chosen to destroy Medegia purely on narrative whim. And yet that's exactly what they did. There was no in-game reason for Medegia to have been doomed. They could have seen the signs of Ivid's corruption and made secret preparations just in case. They could have done something. Ivid was not omniscient.

If Medegia's fate had been determined by actual PC-influenced events, it would've managed to ward off Ivid through all kinds of plans and tricks and alliances, building up enough power and sowing enough discord in Ivid's forces that, when the time came, Medegia would be able to turn Ivid's army aside with bolstered military forces and an extra-large number of mages and clerics on-hand. Because PCs, being clever and resourceful usually, would have done what was needed to forge alliances between Medegia and others, send out Medegians to learn magic and bring in loot from slain monsters to fund the escalating military and magic training in Medegia, etc.

 

[Sound of Azure]

(musings)
I guess my question cannot be answered, because there is no answer. The 'good guys' can't enjoy killing as fun and games. They're just stuck being good guys. (sighs)

And Medegia, is doomed.

Heh. In my last thread, I argued that the elves were doomed, and everyone said: No, they're not!
In this thread, I'm arguing that Medegia is not doomed, and everyone has said: Yes, it is!

It is doomed... if we stick to the strict paradigm of the canon, as you suggested.

If Dwarves, a "race/nation" of warrior/smiths, reknown for the skill at warfare can be predominantly Lawful Good in alignment, why not the Medegians?

Perhaps the nation needs not only to remain Good, but become Lawful and disciplined as well. Given the propensity for humans to change and adapt quickly from generation to generation, I don't think that's unreasonable.

Arkhandus' points above are very valid also.

 

[Arkhandus]

.....Of course, there is no problem that cannot be solved with enough ninjas, or just one über-ninja.




.....So, where do we go to hire a ninja death squad on Oerth...?