On Evil

[MichaelSomething]

Funny, I thought this was the embodiment of evil...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWYCS6k1IOA

 

[N'raac]

I've seen very few if any that weren't played this way at least to some extent.

Is it possible that you have seen few if any characters that weren't played as evil at least to some extent? I have seen many games where the primary, much less only, objective of the characters was not to kill things and take their stuff.

The game in all editions gives experience points for killing things, and in 1e for taking their stuff as well; and as at the most basic level the object of the game is to gain experience and thus get better at what you do

If gaining power for its own sake, and not caring how it is done, is the objective of the character, I submit that the character is evil. In the games I played, the players accepted defeat of enemies and acquisition of gold = xp as a proxy for the other actions characters took, on screen and off screen, to grow and advance. The characters were not seeking opportunities to gain xp. Some sought opportunities to gain wealth, an objective generally acknowledged as neither good nor evil unto itself. The purpose of gaining that wealth, and the means the characters were prepared to utilize to gain it, better defined their morality. Gaining xp and levels was a byproduct of play, even in my 1e days, not the focus of play. The focus was on objectives the characters, not the players, would perceive. That might be gaining wealth (commonly a campaign involving neutrality, mercenaries, etc.). It might be protection of the innocent and defeat of the guilty (a long-running campaign of largely LG characters). It might even be seeking power, but here the characters would largely be focused on ancient magicks, not "kill them and take their stuff because that's how we get xp - see the xpmeter on my forehead?".

it serves no purpose from a game perspective to define these things as evil. This is one significant area where a real-world definition and a game-based definition of evil probably ought to differ.

Let's assume that killing newborns gains character power. It certainly could. Lots of evil creatures in 1e were capable of granting Wishes, and wishes could grant power in many forms. So, every newborn you kill, the mysterious robed figure will grant you a Wish. Does that somehow make it "not evil" to kill newborn babies? Similarly, if the PC's use their abilities to loot, steal, pillage and slaughter the locals, because "gold and dead bodies = xp and that's the goal of the game", I submit they are evil.

As I said above, when stripped down to its absolute essence the basic objective of the game is to get better at what you do. Self-interest, be it unrestrained or not and at the individual or party level, is what ultimately makes your character better at what it does. So from a game perspective it becomes at least neutral if not good simply out of necessity...again differing from a real-world outlook.

A nice summary. My counterpoint: if the character is prepared to compromise his own morals for self-interest, then the character begins the slide to Evil. Unrestrained self-interest (backstab my buddy so I get a bigger share of the loot; kill the villagers for their treasure/xp) is evil. Slay the orcs to protect the townsfolk? That also gains xp, and treasure, but the xp and treasure are not the objective.

You suggested good and evil are defined by what you kill. I suggest they are actually defined, in game, by what drives you to kill.

Carting treasure out of the dungeon was a major objective of the game, good or not; and the more you brought out, the better. What you did with it afterwards doesn't mitigate the fact that the acquiring of it in the first place usually involved a series of actions steeped in greed...and probably bloodshed as well.

If the story hook was "hey, guys, there's a whole bunch of sentient beings living a hundred miles out of town - we don't like them, so it's OK to slaughter them and steal their treasure", then the characters taking that story hook are neutral at best, and I'd say evil. That wasn't the typical story hook in any games I recall playing, though. Exploration of the ancient ruins, perhaps. Defend the town against the depredations of the evil Orcs, pretty common. But "hey, they are just minding their own business, but since they look different/have a different philosophy/follow a different religion, it's OK to pillage their homes and slaughter them" was not the games I recall playing.

Not really wanting to get into the whole "fornication" issue, but I'll just comment that this seems more like Law vs Chaos than Good vs Evil. Stable bonds, family units, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: Well, at least I have some notion of what your logic appears to be. You appear to be constructing an argument something like this:

1) D&D is good.
2) How D&D is usually played is what D&D is.
3) D&D is usually played in a greedy manner.
4) Therefore, greed is good, at least for the purposes of the game.

There are problems with that at every step, and I have an almost unlimited number of rebuttals, but lest you accuse me of kicking down a strawman, I'll use your own words.

As I said above, when stripped down to its absolute essence the basic objective of the game is to get better at what you do. Self-interest, be it unrestrained or not and at the individual or party level, is what ultimately makes your character better at what it does.

- emphasis added

The bolded section doesn't follow. It's not objective fact. It's a subjective assessment. Fundamentally what you've just said in that section is, "The reason we play is to gain levels." And I put it to you that that is absurd. Gaining levels isn't even the destination, but it is certainly not the journey. The reason we play is to have fun. The reason we play is to socialize. The reason we play is to explore a shared imaginative space. The reason we play is to put ourselves against various challenges. The reason we play is to explore an imagined character. The reason we play is to feed our egos with the illusion of success. The reason we play is to tell stories. The reason we play is to live out fantasies or scenarios that would be dangerous, impossible or immoral if done in real life. Often the reason we play is many of these things at once. We certainly don't all play for the "phat loot" or the levels, which are useless things in and of themselves. They aren't the goals of play, but merely the means. Sometimes getting the "phat loot" or XP points or other things helps us achieve our goals of play, but it would be a mistake to think they are the purpose of play itself.

But what is even more important is that the fact that we have something as a goal of play doesn't make that goal good. Whether or not our goals of play are good are judged by the same standards of what makes something good as anything else. We can't say simply because "I want this", that it is it is good to want it or any means that we go about attaining what we want are good. That's ridiculous on its face. Examine your words again, this time slightly altered:

As I said above, when stripped down to its absolute essence the basic objective of life is to get better at what you do. Self-interest, be it unrestrained or not and at the individual or group level, is what ultimately makes you good.

- alterations in bold.

Applying your statement about the game to life, as I've done in the above paraphrase reveals just how ridiculous it is to apply it even to the game. It's no more objective fact that the purpose of the game is to get more powerful than it is objective fact that the purpose of life is to get more powerful. It's no more factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as the game's purpose, than it is factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable regarding life because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as life's purpose.

If greed is evil, then it can't be good for the purposes of the game. We could for the purposes of the game define that we are all playing greedy evil SOBs and therefore our goal in the game is an evil and greedy one, but we can't ennoble this purpose as good simply because it is the objective of the game. Rather, our objective would be to explore some evil in a safe and hopefully harmless manner.

If in fact it was part of the essential nature of the game that it confused the player regarding what was good and what was evil, if the game inevitably did that, then indeed the game would be evil. If the in game definition of evil had to be so radically different from the real world definition of evil, such that "Greed was good", then the game would be evil indeed. And we should not at all refrain from "opening that can of worms". We should be shouting that danger from the rooftops. If the game was indeed pernicious and subversive, then we should be announcing that fact first and foremost above all others and warning people against the game.

But obviously, I don't agree that the game is required to be pernicious, subversive, and well evil. I don't agree that for the purposes of the game evil is good.

As for my usage of the word Munchkin, so capitalized, I thought I'd made it clear that I was referring to the stereotypes satirized by the card game Munchkin and other humorous send ups of D&D dysfunctional play. I have already admitted that such dysfunctionality is commonplace, otherwise the stereotype likely wouldn't exist. But I don't agree that every character acts like a greedy psychopath, however commonplace it may be (or even pervasive in some groups).

I don't agree that some how this greedy psychopathy is a game necessity or inevitability, and even if I did it wouldn't make it good.

I'd buy into this a bit more if the whole "fornication" section wasn't there.

I don't see how that section is incongruent with what I've said. The section itself declares that it is a mistake to think Fornication is principally about sex. It says it is linked to sex because sexuality is intrinsically apart of our self because it is intrinsically a part of our physicality and something others will intrinsically value about us regardless of whether they value anything else at all about you. That is to say, people will gladly treat you as a slave or a tool, even if they value you no higher than that. But that's not even remotely the same as saying sex is evil. All I can tell is that the discussion makes you uncomfortable, and causes you to accuse me of prudery as if a prude would unashamedly discuss such topics.

But ok, since I'm not at all actually naïve, let me address what I think your real complaint is in a round about manner without actually stating it.

Have you ever read the Kama Sutra? I mean the real Kama Sutra and not the illustrated picture books passed around in some circles as self-help manuals or aids. Whether you have or not, the Kama Sutra is in actuality a pious religious text of the Hindu religion. It is in fact some real person's sacred scripture. It is admittedly somewhat different in character from the sort of religious text that most Westerners would associate with sacred scripture (considered piously or not), but sacred scripture it remains. Comparing the text of the Kama Sutra with a Judeo-Christian text, it is not immediately clear that they have anything at all in common regarding their teachings on sexuality. The only similarity appears to be that both are a list of prohibitions or requirements for engaging in lawful (that is 'licit') sexual behavior. But the list in the Kama Sutra while being a lot more detailed in many ways (a full list of the lawful ways to kiss, a full list of the lawful ways to pinch your lover, a full list...) appears to have a very different set of mores and in many ways actually does have a different set of mores. For example, in the Kama Sutra you are allowed exceptions to explicitly to break certain sexual mores if in doing so you could get a promotion or if in doing so you could avenge yourself on an enemy.

I'm not going to judge between the two ethical codes regarding which is more moral or which regions of the alignment wheel the two religion's ethics seem to be most easily aligned. What I do want to draw your attention to is the fact that these two very different essays on sexual morality do actually agree on one very basic and fundamental point regarding what is illicit sexuality, and when it is wrong to engage in sexuality and that is precisely the definition given in the section on Fornication - you aren't allowed to sell yourself short. Both the writer of the Kama Sutra and the writer of the Pentateuch agree with the basic precept that it is possible to sell yourself short, and that you should by all means refrain from doing so.

If the writer of the Kama Sutra can have that as a thesis, then I put to you that you are in complete error to accuse me of being a prude or of calling sex evil.

 

[Celebrim]

Not really wanting to get into the whole "fornication" issue, but I'll just comment that this seems more like Law vs Chaos than Good vs Evil. Stable bonds, family units, etc.

To a certain extent I think you are correct. Certainly, LG and CG will tend to define very different things as being illicit sexuality. And certainly CN will have a very different definition than LN. CN we would expect to say something like, "There is no such thing as illicit sexuality. If it feels good do it. As long as there is mutual consent, then it's all good." CN is mostly interested in the freedom of the self to seek what it desires.

And without offering my opinion of what CG would say exactly, because when you start defining 'Good' you can't make everyone happy and lots of people bristle, but it would logically not be far different than CN. It would consider CN only a teeny bit wrong. But my point is only that for CG, it would still define as wrong any sexuality it saw as destructive because it would still largely agree as to what evil was. It likely wouldn't have a list of rules to follow, per se, but would judge each act on the basis of whether it was healthy. And, if it saw that it wasn't healthy for one of the parties, then it would claim it was wrong. LG by contrast would make a bunch of lists of shalts and shalt nots, and then assert that even if it seemed healthy to engage in something prohibited, it still was not. The difference here is a difference in perceived remedy to the problem of evil, but very little disagreement over what that problem was.

CG would see arguing over which particular acts were wrong as a good example of why making lists was wrong. And perhaps that's something I sympathize with.

But I'm not really interested in getting derailed on the ethics of sexuality, though (sigh) I'm hardly surprised that we seem to be.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: Well, at least I have some notion of what your logic appears to be. You appear to be constructing an argument something like this:

1) D&D is good.
2) How D&D is usually played is what D&D is.
3) D&D is usually played in a greedy manner.
4) Therefore, greed is good, at least for the purposes of the game.

There are problems with that at every step, and I have an almost unlimited number of rebuttals, but lest you accuse me of kicking down a strawman, I'll use your own words.

- emphasis added

The bolded section doesn't follow. It's not objective fact. It's a subjective assessment.

It's objective fact, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle. To explain...

Fundamentally what you've just said in that section is, "The reason we play is to gain levels." And I put it to you that that is absurd. Gaining levels isn't even the destination, but it is certainly not the journey. The reason we play is to have fun. The reason we play is to socialize. The reason we play is to explore a shared imaginative space. The reason we play is to put ourselves against various challenges. The reason we play is to explore an imagined character. The reason we play is to feed our egos with the illusion of success. The reason we play is to tell stories. The reason we play is to live out fantasies or scenarios that would be dangerous, impossible or immoral if done in real life. Often the reason we play is many of these things at once.

These are all fine reasons to play. But I did not say "the reason to play is to gain levels", I said "the (or a primary) objective of the game is to gain levels". Big difference.

You play Scrabble to have fun and exercise your brain, etc. The objective of the game is to score the most points.

D&D of course isn't as cut-and-dried as Scrabble but at the most basic level the same kind of thing applies. You play D&D to <see your reasons above>. The (or an) objective of the game is to gain levels.

And that basic objective is best fulfilled in all editions by killing foes, except in 1e where it is also fulfilled by gaining treasure (and, notably enough, can be fulfilled by avoiding foes instead of killing them).

Now obviously that particular underlying objective isn't the primary *reason* for play in many circles, including mine, particularly in 1e games that have dropped xp-for-gp (and all 2e games) where level advancement is or can be very very slow. But it's still there notwithstanding; and in 3e and 4e (and 5e, it seems) it's much more pronounced because you tend to level up just about every time you sneeze and levels do become the game instead of just a side effect of play.

And it should be noted that I prefer level-ups to be no more than a side effect of ongoing play, and have stated such countless times in this forum.

So, back to evil. What's the point of defining a core objective of the game as inherently evil? I'd posit there really isn't one.

Applying your statement about the game to life, as I've done in the above paraphrase reveals just how ridiculous it is to apply it even to the game. It's no more objective fact that the purpose of the game is to get more powerful than it is objective fact that the purpose of life is to get more powerful. It's no more factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as the game's purpose, than it is factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable regarding life because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as life's purpose.

You've got it backward. It's ridiculous to apply it to life, as you say, but not necessarily so ridiculous at all to apply it to the game.

If greed is evil, then it can't be good for the purposes of the game. We could for the purposes of the game define that we are all playing greedy evil SOBs and therefore our goal in the game is an evil and greedy one, but we can't ennoble this purpose as good simply because it is the objective of the game. Rather, our objective would be to explore some evil in a safe and hopefully harmless manner.

If in fact it was part of the essential nature of the game that it confused the player regarding what was good and what was evil, if the game inevitably did that, then indeed the game would be evil. If the in game definition of evil had to be so radically different from the real world definition of evil, such that "Greed was good", then the game would be evil indeed. And we should not at all refrain from "opening that can of worms". We should be shouting that danger from the rooftops. If the game was indeed pernicious and subversive, then we should be announcing that fact first and foremost above all others and warning people against the game.

BADD tried that crap in the 80's, didn't they? You have fun shouting. Me, I'll be out recruiting players.

Greed is good in Monopoly; in fact, it's the entire point of the game. Is Monopoly evil?

As for my usage of the word Munchkin, so capitalized, I thought I'd made it clear that I was referring to the stereotypes satirized by the card game Munchkin and other humorous send ups of D&D dysfunctional play. I have already admitted that such dysfunctionality is commonplace, otherwise the stereotype likely wouldn't exist. But I don't agree that every character acts like a greedy psychopath, however commonplace it may be (or even pervasive in some groups).

Ah. To me a munchkin (character) is one that has been build-optimized and mechanically designed to exploit loopholes and advantages in the rules without regard to its personality or characterization; and a munchkin (player) is one who does this sort of thing.

Lan-"and to my way of thinking munchkins are every bit as evil as anything else you'll ever see in the game"-efan

 

[Celebrim]

It's objective fact, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle. To explain... These are all fine reasons to play. But I did not say "the reason to play is to gain levels", I said "the (or a primary) objective of the game is to gain levels". Big difference.

Err... not really. D&D quite famously doesn't have any fixed win condition. You set your own object of play.

You play Scrabble to have fun and exercise your brain, etc. The objective of the game is to score the most points.

That's because the objective of Scrabble is to win the game and you win the game when you finish with the most points. But the objective of D&D is not 'to win' (or at least, there will be no agreement that this is true) and the person with the most XP doesn't 'win' (which is certainly true). To be quite frank, you are now appearing to be openly disingenuous, because it's abundantly clear you don't even believe the stuff you are spouting about the objective of the game being to gain levels.

Now obviously that particular underlying objective isn't the primary *reason* for play in many circles, including mine...And it should be noted that I prefer level-ups to be no more than a side effect of ongoing play, and have stated such countless times in this forum.

Yeah, right. And obviously the gaining of levels isn't even the particular underlying objective. For example, if I play in a tournament scenario, which at least does have the objective of 'win', then gaining levels won't necessarily and probably won't be the measurement of success. And if my group plays a one shot, the goal won't be to level up, but to conclude the story successfully. And even if we are playing a normal campaign, the goal isn't to 'gain levels', but something particular to the campaign. The point is that gaining levels is not the fundamental objective of the game, generally isn't even in the rare occasions the game is played competitively.

But it's not even worth me continuing to argue that obvious fact, because it doesn't really matter. Even if it was the underlying objective, it by no means followed that any means of obtaining that objective was good. If I smash the evil dingus, lift the curse from the valley, rescue the captive children, slay the undead menace and return the stolen treasure to the good townsfolk, that's a very different method of obtaining XP than if I burn the town down, smash in the skulls of the children, slay the high priest of light on his own alter, and loot the town treasury. Even amongst the usually rapacious greedy behavior generally observed in PC's, the players generally distinguish between the modes of behavior. Nothing about the game forces characters to play in morally reprehensible ways. Greed still wouldn't be good. It would still matter how you got your score. And players would care.

So, back to evil. What's the point of defining a core objective of the game as inherently evil? I'd posit there really isn't one.

At the very least, it informs you that you are going to be playing evil characters in some sort of game about greedy acquisition. Of course, that's a bunch of BS, because we both know that fundamentally that's not what D&D is about, and no one is required to a play an evil character. Fundamentally, D&D is a role-playing game. Fundamentally, D&D has elements of a simulation in it. Fundamentally, D&D is about acting out a character. Fundamentally, D&D is about playing out a role in a fantasy story of your own making. The XP isn't what it's about, as you yourself have managed to admit through all your hemming and hawing. If it was really true that D&D had as its fundamental objective gaining levels, then your preference of "level-ups to be no more than a side effect of ongoing play" would be just doing it wrong. But in fact, the fundamental objective is in fact roleplaying, and the level ups are incidental. We could switch that around for some sort of tournament scenario and say, "The only thing that matters is winning.", however that was defined for the scenario, and we could in fact ignore the characterization and by and large the story in favor of winning, but that's not the default way to play.

The one player that has no PC deaths in my current campaign is the one player who is psychologically incapable of playing anything but an honest, forthright, generous, honorable, self-sacrificing character. It drives the other players up the wall that he's not more ruthless and he ruins their 'cunning' plans by blurting out the truth. But then, he's not died yet either and if XP was the measure of success, he'd be the leader.

Greed is good in Monopoly; in fact, it's the entire point of the game. Is Monopoly evil?

Monopoly is a game where you pretend to be ruthless land barons, engaging in the worst sort of rent seeking behavior, driving your competitors into destitute bankruptcy and obtaining Monopoly control over the real estate so you can lord it over your tenants as a slum lord. So long as you keep in mind that this is not behavior we want to emulate, then Monopoly is made harmless by its frivolity. But there isn't usually a lot of role-playing going on in Monopoly, and there is little or no capacity to get confused about what is going on here.

 

[N'raac]

It's objective fact, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle. To explain... These are all fine reasons to play. But I did not say "the reason to play is to gain levels", I said "the (or a primary) objective of the game is to gain levels". Big difference.

I don't see players take levels in Commoner. I think, to the extent one has an objective to gain levels, it is to gain power. This is also a reason to gain wealth in 3e, where magic becomes commoditized. It was a reason, in 1e, to fiddle with the Artifact that had a 95% chance of executing the character and a 5% chance of granting him vast power - I can keep running new characters in until that 1 in 20 shot paid off. If playing purely for power, that is "good play". If one had objectives such as portraying a reasonable, thinking character, this was not such great play. Tossing pure random dungeon encounters in was not viewed as great play in some circles, even back in 1e, but was viewed as the whole purpose of the game in others.

You play D&D to <see your reasons above>. The (or an) objective of the game is to gain levels.

It need not be. Celebrim provides many examples. I also know people who enjoy monopoly, scrabble, etc. but do not play to win. They enjoy the game. Failure to win does not diminish their enjoyment of the game. Their objective, then, is not to achieve the defined victory conditions of the game, but instead to enjoy the game play itself. Those game, however, lack any in-game morality element.

And that basic objective is best fulfilled in all editions by killing foes, except in 1e where it is also fulfilled by gaining treasure (and, notably enough, can be fulfilled by avoiding foes instead of killing them).

1e referred to "defeat" of foes, as I recall. There was a 1e module where the goal was not to kill the inhabitants of the area, and it suggested a revised xp model that rewarded killing less than other means of defeating foes, but the game at its core definitely assumed the common means of defeating one's foes was violence. Just as it was in the source material - LoTR, Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser solved problems at the point of a blade, not with clever negotiation. It did not mean that they sought power by any means possible - in fact, LoTR defined both virtue and victory in the opposite fashion.

Now obviously that particular underlying objective isn't the primary *reason* for play in many circles, including mine, particularly in 1e games that have dropped xp-for-gp (and all 2e games) where level advancement is or can be very very slow. But it's still there notwithstanding; and in 3e and 4e (and 5e, it seems) it's much more pronounced because you tend to level up just about every time you sneeze and levels do become the game instead of just a side effect of play.

I don't find mindless pursuit of xp wherever it may be found to be a major objective of play in any edition, from 1e on. I have not played 4e or 5e to any extent, but I don't see them as any different.

Ah. To me a munchkin (character) is one that has been build-optimized and mechanically designed to exploit loopholes and advantages in the rules without regard to its personality or characterization; and a munchkin (player) is one who does this sort of thing.

That would be the character who most rapidly gathers power and xp, wouldn't it? By your own definitions, that would appear to be the height of 'good', if gaining power and xp is the objective, and the objective must, by definition, be good.

I find these discussions are often conflated by players projecting themselves on their characters. The characters behave in this fashion. The character is an extension of self. I perceive my self as good, and by extension want a 'G' on my character sheet. Thus, I must rationalize that the behaviour my character engages in is 'Good', lest I myself be classified as "not Good". Sorry, mindless pursuit of personal power and self-interest is not "Good".

Lan-"and to my way of thinking munchkins are every bit as evil as anything else you'll ever see in the game"-efan[/QUOTE]

 

[Celebrim]

Greed is good in Monopoly; in fact, it's the entire point of the game. Is Monopoly evil?

Interestingly, Monopoly was originally intended to be an economic teaching tool and a protest against monopolists, rent seekers, and complex arbitrary taxation systems. So, while Monopoly was not intended to be evil, it certainly was intended to illustrate the evils (real or perceived) of certain sorts of economic activities believed to be harmful to freedom. Indeed, the whole point of the game as it was conceived was to hammer home the evils of greed.

If it failed in this completely, and you think the lesson of the game is greed is good, then I suggest that it's creator Elizabeth Magie would likely consider her creation evil in at least some small degree.

Moreover, gaming is common pastime in my family, but Monopoly is the one game which is banned from family reunions, as it saw too many bitter arguments because of people's cutthroat desire to win and its inherent unfairness and dysfunctionality.

So, in short, I think the question, "Is Monopoly evil?", is one I've had to give a great deal more thought than you might expect from an apparently rhetorical question. If it wasn't already obvious, Monopoly was what was on my mind when I referenced, "We could for the purposes of the game define that we are all playing greedy evil SOBs and therefore our goal in the game is an evil and greedy one." I still haven't fully made up my mind.

Do you think that Monopoly teaches that greed is good?

 

[Lanefan]

Interestingly, Monopoly was originally intended to be an economic teaching tool and a protest against monopolists, rent seekers, and complex arbitrary taxation systems. So, while Monopoly was not intended to be evil, it certainly was intended to illustrate the evils (real or perceived) of certain sorts of economic activities believed to be harmful to freedom. Indeed, the whole point of the game as it was conceived was to hammer home the evils of greed.

Interesting. I always saw it as something of a primer on basic capitalism.

If it failed in this completely, and you think the lesson of the game is greed is good, then I suggest that it's creator Elizabeth Magie would likely consider her creation evil in at least some small degree.

Moreover, gaming is common pastime in my family, but Monopoly is the one game which is banned from family reunions, as it saw too many bitter arguments because of people's cutthroat desire to win and its inherent unfairness and dysfunctionality.

Do you think that Monopoly teaches that greed is good?

Inasmuch as the game is competitively played to win, and the win condition is to end up with the most (or all of the) money, and being a greedy SOB is the best way to achieve this, then yes I think within itself it not only teaches that greed is good, it drives the lesson home with a sledgehammer. Whether said lesson translates over into real life is, of course, up to each player on his-her own.

Lan-"who is beginning to wonder if he learned some of his D&D ethics from Monopoly"-efan

 

[GMMichael]

Funny, I thought this was the embodiment of evil...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWYCS6k1IOA

You know this link took me straight to a Walmart commercial?

Anyway, show me a character who refuses to kill ANYTHING, and I'll show you a Good character.