(Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

[Psion]

No offense, Psion, but we're not actually discussion Dragon magazine's editorial policies. The topic is the relationship between evil, vile and mature. What you're stating isn't a caveat to my argument, it's a disconnected statement of opinion on Dragon magazine.

I consider it a direct implication. After all, you are talking about "personal preference", and it is the tantamount example. No getting around that.

No offense, but I'll keep my own counsel as to how I approach an argument. If you don't want to discuss my angle, feel free not to respond.

 

[Mallus]

Props... and a question about evil PC's

First... Barsoomcore, your game sounds great. Plus, your username makes me think of the Boris Vallejo {sp?} painting of Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium, which is always a good thing.

Second, a question. How many of you really feel that allowing an evilly aligned PC is equivalent to granting their player license to do any one of a number a campaign breaking things; namely the robbery, exploitation, and wholesale knife-in-back murder of their unsuspecting good-aligned fellow PC's?

In the games I've played in, the level of PvP antagonism/treachery is always mutually agreed upon before the campaign starts. Alignment plays no part in it. Someone who can't abide by some basic rules isn't asked to play. Either we're playing a friendly game of touch football, or tackle. And I'm not suggesting either is inherently better.

Arguments along the lines of "this infringes on my right as a player" seem ridiculous. Its like claiming its a players right to start a fistfight if they lose too many hands on poker night.

And the last word, for me, on "realism" and evil PC's{as in, "It's realistic for my rogue to knife you and steal your cash"} is this: Realistically, you as player are engaged in a usually long-term, social engagement where the goal is mutual enjoyment. This is ultimate "rule zero" when it comes to PC interaction.

For me. Agree or disagree?

Glad I got that off my chest...

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Props... and a question about evil PC's

First... Barsoomcore, your game sounds great.

Oh yeah, it SOUNDS great. The fact that it totally sucks is beside the point

Second, a question. How many of you really feel that allowing an evilly aligned PC is equivalent to granting their player license to do any one of a number a campaign breaking things; namely the robbery, exploitation, and wholesale knife-in-back murder of their unsuspecting good-aligned fellow PC's?

Don't use alignment anyway so the question doesn't really come up. But I would not encourage such behaviour and certainly try to prevent players from coming up with characters likely to behave in a sociopathic fashion.

Not to say that there is never any betrayal of one PC by another, but not in a campaign-breaking or even fun-inhibiting manner.

Either we're playing a friendly game of touch football, or tackle. And I'm not suggesting either is inherently better.

Right. Well said.

Agree or disagree?

Well of course I'm going to agree after you said so many nice things about me. Or one, anyways. But how do you know what my campaign sounds like?

This is sort of a subset of the whole evil != vile conversation -- how much vileness is it necessary to show for an evil PC (as opposed to an evil NPC as we've been talking about so far)? I would argue that an evil PC is necessarily going to demand a higher level of explicit vileness than an NPC, and as such is likely only to be approved of by DMs comfortable with that level of vileness.

 

[Mallus]

Re: Re: Props... and a question about evil PC's

But how do you know what my campaign sounds like?

Well, your world is intriguing, and from what you've said in this thread and others suggest a pretty damn good take on creating conflict, establishing motivations and in general setting the skeleton for dramatic plots; shorn from the usual problems afflicting D&D campaigns --which quite possibly stem from taking the alignment system at face value. You might just be right. Down with alignments.

And how vile for a PC? It's more a question of "How vile do I need to be to establish this character? I wouldn't create a rapist, but I have created casual killers --well, casual killers who understand that they're still guilty of murder, unlike the majority of sword-swinging, eco-system depopulating adventures who never seem to link all those kill XP's with actual killing.

So pretty vile, I'd say. Vile enough to distinguish it from the cartoon mayhem/malfeasance found in summer movies. Actually, vile like Frank Booth in Blue Velvet A film that reacquaints its {presumebly somewhat jaded} audience with the idea that watching violence and sadism should be unpleasant. In fact, sickening.

I guess I also use evil characters to question some of the moral assumptions that usually go unquestioned {ummm, in this harmless recreational activity based on simulating fantasy novels....}.

Please refrain from mocking my spiral into pretention. Its my idea of fun. That and gin.

 

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: Re: Props... and a question about evil PC's

setting the skeleton for dramatic plots;

I love dramatic plots involving skeletons.

You might just be right. Down with alignments.

Alignments are GREAT if you want to run a "Stalwart Heroes Vanquish Evil" sort of campaign. With which I have no problems. I may even run one myself one day. I'm just not doing so at the moment.

And how vile for a PC? It's more a question of "How vile do I need to be to establish this character?"

Actually, I was more thinking that it's harder to keep the vileness offstage for a PC than it is for an NPC. The actual level of vileness the character involves themself in isn't the point I was trying to make -- rather that no matter WHAT LEVEL I decide is right for this character, as a PC it's harder to keep their actions offstage.

Actually, vile like Frank Booth in Blue Velvet.

Not my idea of a suitable PC, but obviously that would vary from one group to another. As an NPC, sure, but not really the "plays well with others" type I like to see in my PCs. It makes my job as DM much easier if I don't have to come up with reasons why this group would stick together -- and really, why would anyone sensible hang around with Frank?

I guess I also use evil characters to question some of the moral assumptions that usually go unquestioned {ummm, in this harmless recreational activity based on simulating fantasy novels....}.

Yeah, me too. I find it fascinating.

Please refrain from mocking my spiral into pretention. Its my idea of fun. That and gin.

Mm, pretention PLUS gin. Now THERE'S a good time.

 

[barsoomcore]

No offense, but I'll keep my own counsel as to how I approach an argument.

And so you should. I was out of line, there, Psion, my apologies.

Guess I'm just tired of watching people discuss a magazine I don't own and was afraid this thread, too, would get swallowed up in that whole tempest.

Doesn't mean I should go around telling people not to post whatever they want to post. I'll save that for when I am the Ruler of All, the Madman of the Galaxy and all mortals must bow to my will. Because after all, until then, it's not going to do any good, anyways, is it?

Sorry again.

 

[Grazzt]

Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?

Is that axe ground enough for you yet or do you wanna take a few more weeks on it?

Take a pill dude. If ya have nothing to add to the thread, don't waste time posting to it.

 

[LostSoul]

When we start going behind closed doors, we start to see the "mature" side of gaming. Rather than seeing the prostitute on the street, we see her suffering physical violence at the hands of a pimp. Rather than seeing the leper huddled in his robes, begging for money while keeping himself hidden, we also see the skin falling off of him. We see the abuse of innocents. We start seeing some of the truly dark parts of human behavior. This starts to get into "mature" gaming - the realization that our private life is at best only as good as our public life - and usually worse. This is where those not emotionally ready for such realizations can be disturbed (or those who are RL victims can have their wounds opened). That's why we start treading carefully here - this is mankind at its worst, with very little of its best. The one worry about being here too long without exposing ourselves to "standard" or "lighthearted" is that we can forget man's nobility, since we rarely see it here - indeed, this is almost the opposite of "light-hearted" as we are glossing over the good and highlighting the bad.

This isn't my view on "mature".

I think "mature" is when you start to look at the evil and put a face on it. And that face is you, your mother and father, your friends. You realize the dark nature of mankind. You realize that, in a way, you are just like that pimp. That there is no reason why the leper was struck down with disease and you were spared.

That's why I think it can be more noble than a "lighthearted" game - because you are forced to face the darkness and turn against it. (Or more tragic, as you realize your own fatal flaws and fall to them.)

Where does "vile" come into this?

I think that "vileness" comes into this because vileness should shock you. The vileness crystallizes things, makes you suddenly realize the effect, the impact, of those dark desires in the soul.

Once "vile" becomes standard, it loses its value.

That's just my view.

Good essay.

 

[William Ronald]

Over all, good opinions.

I think players and DMs need to agree on how evil and unpleasant topics will be dealt with in game. If I have a young gamer in my group, I will likely use less vivid descriptions than I might with a group of people in their 20s.

One thing that should be stressed is how comfortable everyone in a group is with a presentation of certain themes. I usually prefer to have some descriptions, and let people imagine what is going on. (I prefer to have some subtlety in my descriptions. Also, I seldom feel a need to shock people.)

Complex character may have sides of their personalities that they do not wish to acknowledge or struggle with. However, I think those struggles can give characters additional depth. As an example, a character may be tempted to torture his enemies but may be able to restrain himself. It is how the character's internal struggle is played out by the character that interests me as opposed to the details of torture.

As for evil, I think there is room for vile evil and the sort of evil that looks exactly like one's next door neighbor or one's own self. Indeed, many evil people in history have tried to make themselves seem reasonable. Several evil regimes have tried to hide their actions under the smokescreens of rhetoric and misdirection. So, there is room both for vile evil and an evil that tries to appear genteel in the same campaign.

 

[LostSoul]

As an example, a character may be tempted to torture his enemies but may be able to restrain himself. It is how the character's internal struggle is played out by the character that interests me as opposed to the details of torture.

I think that's a great point. You don't have to go into details about the torture; saying, "I torture him until he cries out in agony," is good enough.

However...

If you really want to show the depths your character (or NPC) has sunk to, then you will want to show the details. That will force everyone to "deal with it". It puts the horror of torture in their face. But I think that you only need to do this once, and then everyone will get the point.