There's Powerful Deviltry at Work Here...

[Epic Meepo]

How about here

Well, that discusses the ages of 564 people; not a very big sample. But I'm even more interested to know how the poster I previously quoted arrived at the conclusion that most ENWorld members consider characters to be avatars of the players. Personally, I've met very few people who play that way in pen and paper games, and I'd be interested to know if I'm in the minority.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's all well and good, but where's the class that vanquishes foes with an ear-splittin' guitar solo? Y'know, just one guitar... to blow them away... just one guitar...

This is a summary of the plot of the anime called Legend of Black Heaven.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not so sure that D&D has no influence on people, particularly young people. I know plenty of people who have become rather unhinged because of their obsession with D&D. I also know plenty of people who talk to spirits and believes in magical spells are real because of D&D.

I think you should think more carefully about the direction of causation in that sort of situation.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

It's the other way around.

mod edit: sorry, no politics or religion here

 

[Anthtriel]

I would be interested in seeing the data you used in calculating the "ENWorld average" you mention. Could you post that somewhere for the rest of us to see?

In terms of age, the aforementioned poll is pretty good proof. Not absolute of course, but you don't get much closer outside of mathematics.

As for the "player as a avatar"-attitude: That's speculation, mostly. I thought I had put an "apparently" or "perhaps" before for it, but I was mistaken.

The reason why I believe it is that most campaigns I have been involved in goes against most D&D assumptions, rarely more than one combat in a session, compared to D&D's assumed four encounters, for example. In fact I would probably play different systems or without systems more often if it were not for tradition and legacy.
The EnWorld average is probably closer to the default assumptions. Also, most examples of play and campaigns I have read here have been way more heavy on combat than mine.
And combat heavy campaigns, along with the belief that there should be character death in the game (that I have seen multiple times in discussions here) will necessarily tend to lean more towards "characters as avatars".

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that statement was mostly speculation without being properly marked as such, but I will also point out that "seeing characters more as avatars than x" is a relative, not an absolute statement.

I am genuinely saddened that you think the above conversation in any way characterizes what it is to be Good.

No I don't. There is a difference between "good" and being the knight/paladin in the shining armor. And I refered to the latter. And thanks to the alignment system, the former easily ends up as the latter.

I sincerely hope that no one thinks any of the above is even remotely "cool."

Most people would argue that Darth Vader is "cool".
Most people wouldn't call a real mass-murderer cool of course. Quite a bit of difference.

Ultimately, it cheapens what Evil is to say that angsty occultists who believe in eye-for-eye justice and tough sacrifices in the name of justice or revenge are Evil. If that's what one thinks evil is, then one is turning a blind eye to the real problems going on in the world; there are acts many, many times more heinous than any of that stuff happening every day. Compared to real evil, yonder emo PC is just a wannabe evildoer, much as an untalented amateur musician with a guitar is a wannabe rockstar. They're not even in the same league.

Well, that strongly depends on how broad you consider evil to be. By D&D assumption's, it's pretty much humanity's most selfish 1/3. Which does not only consists of mass-murderers and rapists.
The alignment system tends to make D&D-world consist of exactly nine different characters.

 

[Mercule]

Because of D&D?

I've met some whackjobs in my 25+ year gaming career and I'm confident that they were all fully nuts before they rolled their first die.

That said, the hobby does seem to attract its fair share of social misfits and borderline personalities.

It also gives some nuts a method to their madness, so to speak. That's not exactly a good thing.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

Most people would argue that Darth Vader is "cool".
Most people wouldn't call a real mass-murderer cool of course. Quite a bit of difference.

You may want to avoid with the 'most people ... argue .... is cool' statements - it's subjective to the people you know, and amongst my friends I doubt there's many who think Darth Vader is "cool".

Well, that strongly depends on how broad you consider evil to be. By D&D assumption's, it's pretty much humanity's most selfish 1/3. Which does not only consists of mass-murderers and rapists.

Per my reading of the RAW for 3E, Evil characters are only those who show a commitment to evil and actively commit evil (as defined in the rules) acts - the rules seem to suggest the majority of people are actually neutral, not showing a commitment to good or evil, which suggests your "humanity's most selfish 1/3" may not be an accurate way to count evil?

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Please go and review The Rules. Note specifically the prohibitions against discussion of real-world politics and religion. We find those topics to be fast-track to nasty arguments. Please do not include further discussion of real-world political or religious groups in this thread. Please do not respond to any characterizations made earlier in the thread. Just let it drop. Thank you.

 

[timbannock]

Per my reading of the RAW for 3E, Evil characters are only those who show a commitment to evil and actively commit evil (as defined in the rules) acts - the rules seem to suggest the majority of people are actually neutral, not showing a commitment to good or evil, which suggests your "humanity's most selfish 1/3" may not be an accurate way to count evil?

Not to aim this at any one person, but let me just chime in with a quote from the SRD:

A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

Emphasis mine.

I always find statements of RAW and alignment really kind of strange because according to RAW, there's really nothing RAW about alignment (other than how other rules interact with it, such as detect/protection spells and the like).

One person's view of what constitutes evil in D&D and another person's are often widely different, and rarely are either of them (in)correct.

This is just one of my niggling points. Please ignore me at your leisure!

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

You may want to avoid with the 'most people ... argue .... is cool' statements - it's subjective to the people you know, and amongst my friends I doubt there's many who think Darth Vader is "cool".

Well, when we were growing up, my brother and I thought Darth Vader was cool. We'd mimic his respirator voice and make grasping motions toward people's necks while saying 'your lack of faith disturbs me.' I've thought the Grand Theft Auto game series was cool from the very first PC version that came out back in 97 (I was in my late teens). Neither one of us has ever assaulted another human being or stolen a car or invaded and toppled another civilization ... nor would we ever consider doing so appropriate. That's the key thing, the ability to make the distinction between fiction and reality.

People who decry the bad influences that games and films have on children usually use the argument that they blur that distinction. But as been pointed here already, that shortcoming is usually brought to the table. The original 'D&D victim', Dallas Egbert, turned out to be your typical troubled teen, dealing with depression and drug addiction caused by many other factors even before he stumbled onto D&D. It's no surprise that an escapist game would have appealed to him.

I'm not so sure that D&D has no influence on people, particularly young people. I know plenty of people who have become rather unhinged because of their obsession with D&D. I also know plenty of people who talk to spirits and believes in magical spells are real because of D&D.

If you're talking about -really- young people, like 8 year old kids, I'd see no more harm in their believing in magic than I would in their believing in the Easter bunny. It's something they'll grow out of.

If you're talking about adults ... well, those beliefs go much deeper than anything that D&D or any other influence can cause or discourage. And they may not even be harmful -- just different beliefs, of which there are thousands and thousands in the world (there's a catalogue of them somewhere on the Internet). If they're leading productive lives and not causing anyone any harm, more power to them.