Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jasperak" data-source="post: 4657005" data-attributes="member: 2487">I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign.This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong. Moral ambiguity can work in D&amp;D, I've seen it though it works for some games more than others. Paranoia comes to mind. I have always had the most fun with D&amp;D when it was a simple diversion from life. Moral questions were black and white when I started playing in the mid 80's, though the way we played shifted slowly towards dealing with more difficult questions. I stopped having fun when I realized some of the people I played with were clueless and couldn't put 2+2 together about the meaning of life. D&amp;D became fun again when we started playing it as a GAME instead of as a proxy for the real world.I understand what you are saying about character feelings though. There was a time that I did enjoy play like that, but eventually i found that the majority of the character remained inside my head. It was around then that I realized I would be better off writing those stories instead of trying to act in character. I don't know if I am a better writer than roleplayer, but I do get more enjoyment from expressing and developing a character through writing than acting.I have seen enough people try to work through their issues playing D&amp;D that I don't think it needs to be actively encouraged by Scott and the design team, and that's what I think would be more likely to happen if his vision of evil was the default assumption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jasperak, post: 4657005, member: 2487"] I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign. This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong. Moral ambiguity can work in D&D, I've seen it though it works for some games more than others. Paranoia comes to mind. I have always had the most fun with D&D when it was a simple diversion from life. Moral questions were black and white when I started playing in the mid 80's, though the way we played shifted slowly towards dealing with more difficult questions. I stopped having fun when I realized some of the people I played with were clueless and couldn't put 2+2 together about the meaning of life. D&D became fun again when we started playing it as a GAME instead of as a proxy for the real world. I understand what you are saying about character feelings though. There was a time that I did enjoy play like that, but eventually i found that the majority of the character remained inside my head. It was around then that I realized I would be better off writing those stories instead of trying to act in character. I don't know if I am a better writer than roleplayer, but I do get more enjoyment from expressing and developing a character through writing than acting. I have seen enough people try to work through their issues playing D&D that I don't think it needs to be actively encouraged by Scott and the design team, and that's what I think would be more likely to happen if his vision of evil was the default assumption. [/QUOTE]

Verification