Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SMHWorlds" data-source="post: 7816186" data-attributes="member: 6853809">It has taken a bit for me to come back to this article as it struck me in a different way than I suspect it struck some others. As I see it there are three basic issues that the article brings up:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The behavior of players, especially aggressive players</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The alignment of Chaotic Neutral (in D&D) and people hiding under its umbrella</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The need for people / players to avoid consequences for the actions of their proxies</li> </ul>Behavior of PlayersPlayers are a crazy bunch. They come in all flavors and shapes and come from different traditions when they enter into gaming. There are almost as many doors into the RPG world as there are stars in the sky. Naturally any activity that has an allure to outsiders is going to bring unpleasant individuals as well. However, even though players are not my favorite mammals, my long held belief is that players learn to play the game in a manner consistent with their first game experience. What this means is that this behavior is largely attributable to Game Masters who have, through intention, recklessness, or inexperience, reinforced these behaviors. Some behaviors are good, some bad, and some bear the weight of our disapproval far more than they should. In particular the creation of the murder-hobo. Speaking of not taking responsibility for our actions, GMs and especially DMs need to take responsibility for running such aggressive games, creating those aggressive crucibles, and subjecting players and their characters to them. I do not say players are blameless, far from. I am saying that behaviors are learned, by and large, and can be unlearned given time and incentive.Chaotic NeutralAlignment suffers because it has been freed from its cosmic meaning: Law vs. Chaos, science vs. magic, stasis vs. movement and growth. It goes from showing a character's allegiance to forces greater than themselves to being a measure of relative moral and ethical considerations. If you want, my impression of alignment in D&D since about 1985 has been a case of What Do You Want? (Law vs. Chaos) and How Do You Want to Get It? (good vs. evil). And more and more we want absolutes, even though we say we prefer games where morality is grey. Chaos across the spectrum of good to evil is hardly understood and variously defined. I am not going to try and define it, but what I will say is that yes I have witnessed bad behavior being excused by the CN alignment, I just as often watch a CN alignment character never deviating from the group zeitgeist, doing good and helping people. Not once taking the opportunity to balance their own behavior with something even a little bit naughty. And again, as a GM if I prescribe certain behaviors to certain alignments, these will naturally attract players who want to enact that behavior.No ConsequencesI am an old man and I have a small lawn and I have no room for you no consequences kids. Oh, wait, no I did not mean you Gen Z or Millenials or whatever. No I mean those of my age or older who I will happily reveal whined just as much in our day as we accuse the new generations of doing. Trust me, I was there and did my fair share. No one wants to suffer the consequences of their actions save perhaps masochists. I enjoy the idea that there may be consequences for doing crazy or bad things, but I sure don't WANT to suffer. I mean, this is escapism? Escaping to a place where I don't escape the dungeon is an entirely different kind of fantasy, friend. The possibility that I might, that random rolls might mean my death or demise, is what is exciting.Last thing. The term "hood" has taken on different connotations over the years. I do not believe it works as a characterization of players or their behaviors. In fact I think it could create unintended associations, especially as the kind of behavior mentioned is entirely negative and the term itself is not always a negative characterization. I think if we want players to accept consequences of play, we need to set good examples and offer the game sessions where their choices have meaning.  In addition, this is almost entirely a D&D or D&D adjacent issue because that style of game influenced so much of this behavior.</blockquote>

Verification