Piracy And Other Malfeasance

[GrimCo]

I don't do villains. Plain and simple. Just people with goals, wants and desires opposite of those that PCs have. In D&D games, i threw out alignment long time ago, even house ruled it heavily in 3.x.

For pirate themed games, i'll use mostly 7th sea. I like that system much better than D&D.

My last real campaign was based on historical events. Players were part of "Uskoks", think pirate/ guerilla fighters. They raided both Ottoman and Venetian ships, raided Venetian held islands in Adriatic sea. Were they good guys? Depends who you ask. For Croats, yes, they are folk heroes. For Venetians and Ottomans, they were pirates.

Good and bad guy is a matter of perspective. History is written by the victors.

Things i'll discuss in session zero is hard limits. What level of violence is ok for players to be played out and what is left in background. Same with romance. For instance, torture is not fun. So if it comes to that, there is setting up scene when prisoner is taken to interrogator, than fade to black, than aftermath when interrogator tells them what prisoner said. What happened in between is left in the dark.

 

[kenada]

I came in at 2E and my GMs were very old school. The default play was skill play and I got a lot of side eye looks when I asked about campaign metaplot and grander ideas of accumulation of play overall. To them, playing the game was the point of the game. It didnt matter why the PCs were doing it, they did it because it had to be done to have a game. Each week was just moving from one dungeon to the next. All X were irredeemably evil, not out of spite or some political point, but because the rationalization of it just wasn't important to playing the game. In fact, these motivations and philosophical examination were simple unnecessary complications to, you guessed it, playing the game.

I didnt have much experience with organized play, nor with the satanic panic, so TSR code of ethics is not surprising, but not something I have ever encountered. I did join PFS for a couple years and they had a "no evil" policy. That was largely to stop players from being awful to each other. They allowed a smidge of grey into things, but overall, PCs were folk promoting good in the world. Winning is often conflated with heroic in both the sense of the above skill play and the organized play allowance of certain behavior.

I’m referring to the TSR code of ethics they imposed upon themselves and freelancers working for them. Players would experience them indirectly through the games they play using content designed according to them (e.g., “hero” or “heroic” doesn’t appear at all in 1e PHB [outside of product, item, or level names], but it appears 23 times in the 2e PHB [also excluding the same]).

I found a copy online here. A few in particular that stick out and seem topical to this thread: depictions of good versus evil, crime (e.g., thief PCs should be encouraged to work towards the common good), and the treatment of evil monsters (should be able to be clearly defeated). They say explicitly that PCs should always be portrayed as heroes, but it’s implied strongly by the depiction of good versus evil requirement.

 

[Umbran]

And - why should "heroic" be the baseline assumption?

First and foremost, because the people who make it seem to want it that way, and since they make it they get to choose what they want as the baseline assumption.

Fine. Go ahead and play 'em. Nobody's going to stop you.

Nobody's stopping you, either, so maybe lean back just a tad, hm?

The point of fantasy roleplay is to be able to generate scenarios that are larger than real life and do things in those scenarios that you can't do in real life. Right? This doesn't seem controversial.

(emphasis mine) That's one point among many.

So why not market the game a bit more along the "play your character as you like" line?

I'm not marketing any games at all. I cannot answer for WotC....

To answer my own question (and repeat myself from upthread): they can't market it this way due to potential backlash from those who make it their role in life to be offended (a la 1980s Satanic panic people).

...But, really, you seem to have already made up your mind, in a rather unflattering way. Is there actually a reason to continue, given that?

You are an adult. But need we remind you that this game is marketed to minors? You live in a culture that feels some fictional materials are not appropriate for kids. That's not about "people whose role in life is to be offended". It is about people whose role in life is to protect and guide their kids.

So, if you want marketing to actively make it clear that, yes, you can play villainous folks of low moral character, yeah, maybe that's a bit much to ask, given minors as a major target market.

But that doesn't mean we on the inside have to take that marketing to heart.

And again, the implication that those of us who prefer more white-hat games are doing so because we "take marketing to heart" is lame and insulting. Please stop.

 

[payn]

I’m referring to the TSR code of ethics they imposed upon themselves and freelancers working for them. Players would experience them indirectly through the games they play using content designed according to them (e.g., “hero” or “heroic” doesn’t appear at all in 1e PHB [outside of product, item, or level names], but it appears 23 times in the 2e PHB [also excluding the same]).

I found a copy online here. A few in particular that stick out and seem topical to this thread: depictions of good versus evil, crime (e.g., thief PCs should be encouraged to work towards the common good), and the treatment of evil monsters (should be able to be clearly defeated). They say explicitly that PCs should always be portrayed as heroes, but it’s implied strongly by the depiction of good versus evil requirement.

Yes, I was just mentioning my experiences with it. Which was not much, but I was also not deep in the public scene either.

I did experience a lot of "no evil" in 3E era. That was mostly due to folks being dinks under the guise of "just playin ma character". I dont recall the code of ethics being a thing anymore with WotC at the helm. Then again, I wasnt playing in FLGS or organized play so still not aware of it.

Interesting enough, Paizo in PF1 started putting out players guides that gave more nuanced details of the campaigns and what type of characters work and which dont. PFS had "no evil" to stop folks from being disruptive in a pick up group environment. Though, they did allow for a more varied experience at the table. They even put out an AP where the intention is that the PCs are evil. An interesting contrast to WotC and 4E which went in a good, bad, or dont care direction. Then, finally booting the idea to the realm of we remember but don't care anymore in 5E.

What is the state of the code of ethics in current D&D?

 

[kenada]

Yes, I was just mentioning my experiences with it. Which was not much, but I was also not deep in the public scene either.

I did experience a lot of "no evil" in 3E era. That was mostly due to folks being dinks under the guise of "just playin ma character". I dont recall the code of ethics being a thing anymore with WotC at the helm. Then again, I wasnt playing in FLGS or organized play so still not aware of it.

I think WotC dropped it, but the point I was trying to make was whether it had become an assumption that (for example) of course fantasy RPGs are about heroes fighting villains. My interest in a survey was in seeing how changes in assumptions tracked with how TSR was changing what content it put into D&D products.

Interesting enough, Paizo in PF1 started putting out players guides that gave more nuanced details of the campaigns and what type of characters work and which dont. PFS had "no evil" to stop folks from being disruptive in a pick up group environment. Though, they did allow for a more varied experience at the table. They even put out an AP where the intention is that the PCs are evil. An interesting contrast to WotC and 4E which went in a good, bad, or dont care direction. Then, finally booting the idea to the realm of we remember but don't care anymore in 5E.

That was one of the things I liked about PF1. The setting had some stuff that subverted expectations around alignment. The Church of Erastil and the Cult of the Dawnflower were nominally Good, but they were also responsible for some awful stuff. Cheliax is evil, but it’s a functional country. My impression of PF2 when I read the setting information included in the CRB was that it seemed like Paizo was moving away from that.

What is the state of the code of ethics in current D&D?

I assume WotC has guidelines on design and what’s appropriate. I doubt they’re framed as a “code of ethics”.

 

[payn]

I think WotC dropped it, but the point I was trying to make was whether it had become an assumption that (for example) of course fantasy RPGs are about heroes fighting villains. My interest in a survey was in seeing how changes in assumptions tracked with how TSR was changing what content it put into D&D products.

Yes, and im saying from my perspective im not sure it did. I think alignment fights might have done more to bring the assumption around.

hat was one of the things I liked about PF1. The setting had some stuff that subverted expectations around alignment. The Church of Erastil and the Cult of the Dawnflower were nominally Good, but they were also responsible for some awful stuff. Cheliax is evil, but it’s a functional country. My impression of PF2 when I read the setting information included in the CRB was that it seemed like Paizo was moving away from that.

Thats too bad, another reason i'm not really moving into PF2.

I assume WotC has guidelines on design and what’s appropriate. I doubt they’re framed as a “code of ethics”.

Not that I have heard anyway.

 

[Voadam]

TSR started off with PCs being fairly freelance mercenary in OD&D and 1e (evil only assassins as a PC option for instance) then shifting to a more heroic default with Dragonlance in later 1e and then compounded by the Satanic panic and their code of 2e ethics where evil should always be defeated, changing demons to Tanari, etc. Later stage 2e AD&D this loosened up significantly with stuff like Vecna Lives!, From the Ashes being a darker evil on the rise post great wars Greyhawk, the release of The Book of Hell, etc. WotC took over late 2e, but I think some of these darker trends came before the new ownership.

The code of ethics was particularly seen in FR where big villains and evil organizations kept losing in 2e and there were lots of powerful not villain NPCs, many of whom were good. The 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book took a specifically different focus with evil being more competent and a threat and outnumbering good.

 

[Lanefan]

You are an adult. But need we remind you that this game is marketed to minors?

Marketing the game to (and in some ways designing the game for) minors is a corporate decision with which I've strongly disagreed ever since TSR went that route with 2e.

Not from a stance that says kids should be protected or coddled, but from a stance of "intentionally make it a game for adults"; and then if kids want to try and figure it out anyway, don't stop them.

And again, the implication that those of us who prefer more white-hat games are doing so because we "take marketing to heart" is lame and insulting. Please stop.

Pretty much every time a thread about evil characters comes up, there'll inevitably be posts in it along the lines of "We play heroes because that's what the game tells us to do".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Pretty much every time a thread about evil characters comes up, there'll inevitably be posts in it along the lines of "We play heroes because that's what the game tells us to do".

Haven't exactly seen it a lot in this one.

 

[GrimCo]

Just out of curiosity, what is this code of ethics that is mentioned here? Never heard of it before.

As for game being aimed at minors. There are degrees of minors. That's why all other forms of media have parental guidance ratings.