There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[carmachu]

Evil is "cool", thats why its so prominent in 4E.

Its really simple. The next D&D Edition will feature those things which the target audience like most. And this time those things include dark, brooding characters and wuxia fighting styles. And currently everyone loves "the underdog". Thats why good is "loosing".

And there in lies the issue. Evil isnt "cool". Evil is evil. I think your mixing up the idea of, in wrestling they call a "tweener" with an actual bad guy.

There's nothing wrong with a shades of grey character so to speak. But that doesnt make them evil or equivilant to evil.

Thats why some are having issues. I dont think anyone with kids is going to want them thinking evil is cool. I know I dont.

 

[GVDammerung]

Evil is regarded as "cool" by many. This may take the form of evil as rebellion or evil as a (slightly less rebellious) "shock to the system" or some personal statement in the face of conformity or more "normative" behavior. Such "cool" evil is not (or rarely) the evil of the serial killer or mass murderer etc.. "Cool" evil plays with evil ideas, themes and images but is generally sanitized and thus rendered "safe" as sufficiently set apart from actual or true evil acts that demand recognition as such because of the details of the acts involved and their consequences. "Cool" evil 1) focuses not on real actions, just the use of evil ideas, themes or images divorced from actual evil actions, and 2) "cool" evil does not dwell on consequences of evil acts, if it mentions them at all.

Long story short, "cool" evil sells and hence 4e may be looking to harness "cool" evil to help drive sales to some degree.

_If_ there is a problem with "cool" evil, with playing at a sanitized and "safe" evil, it is that it _may_ desensitize reactions to actual evil in _some_ people. Wide spread "cool" evil would be a coursening of thought, much as occurs with widespread use of "acceptable" vulgarity - the boundaries are slowly but steadily pushed and what was once less acceptable becomes more acceptible through "safe" or "harmless" expressions.

Personally, I have no problem with any of this.

 

[Wormwood]

The issue he raised seems to be more....call it options, for evil character creation right out of the gate with the first PHB. And is that a good thing?

4e has no more 'options' for evil characters than 1e did. In fact, 1e had an evil only class (Assassin), so you could make the point that 4e actually does less to encourage playing an evil character. Even the vaguely "dark" Warlock isn't limited to evil.

Evil PCs have existed in all periods of D&D, and nobody ever needed a pair of devil horns on their character portrait to encourage them.

What 4e is doing with tielfings and warlocks is not encouraging evil play as much as using the trappings of evil as a design element. And from what I've seen so far, horns on a tiefling are about as evil as the pentagrams on Motley Crue album covers.

 

[BadMojo]

Conversations like "We should donate half our money to the orphanage." "No, what are you saying? We should donate all of it!" "Splendid idea!" are not my idea of fun. Inter-Party conflict and all that.

So, more like...

"We should donate half of the orphans to Orcus."

"Half of each orphan?"

"Sure, but which half?"

"We'll alternate."

"Splendid idea."

 

[carmachu]

Curiously, those who said Wizards is out to get the younger players seem more and more correct to me. Speaking as a 21-year old, thus way below the EnWorld average, groups that had "good" written on all their character sheets have turned out very, very boring for me.
And I never understood why morally unquestionable heroes (like Superman, Captain America or what have you) can possibly be popular.

This is going to come off bad, and perhaps insulting, so I'll tender apologies in advance.


The above comes off as very sad, frankly. ANd you cant understand why those folks might be popular? *shakes head*

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

I don't care about elements of evil and diabolism in D&D. If they add entertainment to the game, I'm all for them. I don't think they'll corrupt me nor do I really think they have much potential to corrupt kids, but I understand that I'm approaching it objectively. But as for the backlash:

D&D has had a long history of bad press and opposition from groups who associate the hobby with devil worship, and over the years, the brand has taken steps to distance itself from such accusations (such as by renaming things in 2nd Ed.). Now it seems to be moving in the other direction, and I'm afraid that this will only add fuel to the fires and bring about a renewed era of controversy.

This is not new. 3rd Edition restored many of the old 'diabolic' names and took the major steps back toward those themes. If there was any uproar, it wasn't heard very loudly. Nor will it be this time. D&D drew a lot of controversy in the early days because it was insanely popular. It was a major fad, to the point that 'D&D' became a household name. Harry Potter, which drew much of the same controversy, was similarly popular.

Chances are D&D is never going to be that popular again. Now it's an old fad with a largely cult following. They might draw in a few new fans with the new edition, but it's probably not going to achieve the same kind of popularity it did in the 70's. No matter how many 'digital initiatives' WoTC takes, it will still be a board game in a world of video games. I don't think the fundamentalists who generally raise public uproar about these sorts of things will care enough about D&D to spark any kind of controversy. They just won't consider it enough of a cultural threat.

 

[Wolfspider]

On the one hand, I think it would be a mistake to cater the game to the BADD crowd

Hey!

 

[Wormwood]

Chances are D&D is never going to be that popular again. Now it's an old fad with a largely cult following. They might draw in a few new fans with the new edition, but it's probably not going to achieve the same kind of popularity it did in the 70's. No matter how many 'digital initiatives' WoTC takes, it will still be a board game in a world of video games. I don't think the fundamentalists who generally raise public uproar about these sorts of things will care enough about D&D to spark any kind of controversy. They just won't consider it enough of a cultural threat.

Bears repeating.

 

[Wolfspider]

They may be putting a bit more focus on fiends or what have you, but what I'm really jazzed about is it looks like there will finally be more focus on Fey!

…Yay!

I am also excited about that. I love the Fey.

 

[Wolfspider]

Bears repeating.

Hmm?