# [BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...



## Son_of_Thunder (Sep 24, 2002)

Musings on Dragon #300 and the Industry

Ok, with all the brouhaha over Dragon Magazine #300 and the Book of Vile Darkness I’ve had some thoughts about the Gaming industry in general. I also read Johnny Wilson’s comments about mature content in the aforementioned issue of Dragon. When the threads started over on ENWorld about the Book of Vile Darkness it quickly turned into a flame war with poster accusing poster of shoving ones brand of morality down another’s throat. Let me leave this for a moment and go to my thoughts and opinions on the gaming industry.

Does the gaming industry know what customer service is? Can a company afford to lose a longtime loyal fan of D&D, even if it’s just one fan? Here’s my opinion on this. It seems to me that the entire industry is going to a “Screw you” attitude. And by that I mean the prevailing attitude seems to be, “I’m doing this book, or article or what have you, and I don’t give a rats rosy red behind what you think”, or “White Wolf’s done stuff like this for years, why not Wizards?” Even the publishers of Dungeon and Dragon Magazines have the same attitude. Just read Johnny Wilson’s comments and his condescending tone to Tracy Hickman, a man who will have published more game materials and novels than a lot of us put together. Mr. Wilson seems to make it clear that the squeaky cleanliness of AD&D is what drove gamers to “grittier stuff”; and to make TSR go down the hole. From my observations it was management of the game lines and greediness on the part of executives that caused the downfall of TSR in the 90’s.

I have a friend who was posting legitimate concerns about the Scarred Lands setting over on Sword and Sorcery’s message boards. He riled up one of the authors on the game line, who also happened to be a moderator, and was subsequently banned for awhile. Are game companies today unable to take criticism? I know my friend wasn’t trolling or flaming, he had legitimate complaints. This same friend had complaints about another product by Necromancer Games, and he got into an argument with Orcus himself. Because of that instance I will choose not to spend money on anything published by Necromancer Games. Why? Because I don’t think the president of a company should get into shouting matches with a regular Joe gamer. That brings up a question I have; should game designers and authors post to message forums? I say yes, but not to get into a heated discussion with a poster. Should game designers be moderators? I say no, because they have emotions just like the rest of us but they have the power to close and delete threads, maybe just because of an opinion opposite of theirs. And finally, moderators should moderate, be neutral and stop things before they go too far. There was a prime example for this when the thread on ENWorld started after Tracy Hickman’s newsletter was released. Several of the “moderator’s”, and I use that term loosely, added to the flames.

It also seems to me that the newest generation of game designers takes a ‘mightier than thou’ attitude. I recently re-read Tracy Hickman’s and Monte Cook’s dueling letters in a back issue of Dragon. Did Monte think he was trying to champion every player in the world by decrying Tracy’s article? I don’t believe you would have seen the likes of Jeff Grubb or Ed Greenwood or Skip Williams writing to Dragon in an “It’s unfortunate that this must be my first letter to the magazine” type of way.

Johnny Wilson’s defending of the content in issue #300 is expected. They pay his salary and he genuinely believes in what he does. Issue 300 was the 5th issue I trimmed pages out of my copy of Dragon. I had never had to do so until 3rd edition was released. It started with the full page ads of the bloody clowns; I blacked out a certain word on the cover of the fighter’s issue; then it went to the halfling issue; then to the Fear issue with the prestige class by guess who; finally it’s to the point of my greatest culling of the issues with 300. I must have culled out 20 pages. The only articles I liked in the issue were fiendish dragons and risen dead article. I now know that I will have to trim out the adventures that’s supposed to be sealed in the next issue of Dungeon. Why do I tell you this? Because I think the material is unnecessary in my game, and no, I’m not trying to tell you it’s unnecessary in your game. I have a son that’s already interested in the game and he’s only 14 months old. He’ll sit on my lap and roll dice as I’m DMing. I don’t want him to see such crap in my gaming magazines when he’s old enough to look at them. And no, I’m not some right wing moral extremist nut. I understand some gamers desire to have ‘vile’ elements in their game. I would also like the same courtesy shown towards me that I don’t want to have ‘vile’ content in my game. So, just don’t buy it you say. I won’t, thank you very much, but I didn’t have much choice when my subscription of Dragon came.

This post isn’t to “force my morality” on someone else. It’s to let my opinion be heard on what I think is happening in the gaming industry. Imagination has always been a hallmark of the game. I don’t need ‘vile’ and evil acts spelled out for me. And when my son is old enough to play I will have evil and bad things happen in my game, just as I do now. But some gaming material isn’t worth defending or championing; some game material will even affect your real life. Now, don’t start that freedom of speech argument on me; I’ve heard it before. I’m not telling you to publish or not to publish; I’m just sharing my opinion. Let’s look at the facts. They’ve (Dragon #300 and the Book of Vile Darkness) generated a lot of controversy. Monte himself said, and I quote, “Well, working on that book did occasionally get me down, because it was so dark” (taken from his message boards). Finally, I have the right to share my opinion against the book and Wizards and anyone else who would print such stuff, as you have the right in supporting them. I just guess that everyone except Tracy Hickman and a small minority, such as myself, have a right to share their opinion.

One more thing before I end. I remember when the big excitement was about “Monte’s Secret Project”. The few clues we got, that were kind of accurate, were: 1) It was a magic item out of the DM’s Guide and 2) It was something gamers have been wanting for a long time. My question pertains to number 2. I have been involved with D&D for well nigh on twenty years now, and I never recall there being a big demand for this type of a book, even within the three to five years leading up to 3rd edition. Did I miss something?

Son of Thunder

_Edit:  updated the thread title...Dinkeldog_


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 24, 2002)

If this topic generates the same kind of response as it did a week ago Friday, expect this thread to shut down really quickly.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 24, 2002)

It's not worth posting on this thread.

I've got some points...but...it's all going down in flames. No matter how nice it starts - flamethrowers in 10, 9, 8, 7...


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

Personallly, I'm neutral regarding the BOVD till I see it..but your comments on the attitudes of Johnny Wilson and WOTC are right on the mark.

That being said, I've dealt with Clark Petersen from Necro, and I think he's a good guy, and runs a good outfit. I don't know the problem that your freind and him had, but they make good stuff, and certainly not anything I would liken to what was seen in D300.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> *
> Now, don’t start that freedom of speech argument on me; I’ve heard it before.  *





 what does this mean. 

 in all seriousness, and with respect to your views.

 what does that mean?


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 24, 2002)

If it's anything like the section in issue 300, I'm not really interested.  I have no moral objection to the material, and occasionally have some "vile" content in my campaign.  However, I don't feel that the sealed section in issue 300 was particularly well-written, or innovative enough to warrant a purchase of the book.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> * I just guess that everyone except Tracy Hickman and a small minority, ...... have a right to share their opinion.
> *




 i recall many people being offended by what hickman wrote, but i don't recall anyone ever saying he didn't have the right to share it.

  in a recent poll here on the boards, gamers were 2to1 saying they would buy the bovd. i think this says many DO wish for this content and see it as a normal part of the game.


----------



## EricNoah (Sep 24, 2002)

Great post, Son of Thunder!  I'm not necessarily "with you" in your stance (my reaction to the sealed section was, "Where's the vile stuff?").  But I liked your post (except for the hyperbole about how you and Tracy Hickman aren't allowed to express your opinions, etc., but I'll take that with the necessary grain of salt).  Your post is miles above Hickman's, in my opinion, because it doesn't use broad generalizations, it doesn't have an accusatory tone, and it doesn't make the issue bigger than it really is (yes, it affects you, and yes it will affect your buying habits, but no the Dragon Magazine staff aren't terrorists, etc.).  I think if more posters had your level of tact and restraint we'd have had days of good discussion on this instead of the flamefest that was inadvertently started by the posting of Hickman's rant.  

I would like you, however, to cite an example where the moderators fanned the flames in the Hickman letter case.  I didn't see such behavior though admitedly I didn't follow the thread as closely as others.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 24, 2002)

All I can say is that certainly all of the "industry" people who post on this board, whatever company they come from, have all impressed me with their interest in what their fans think, their determination to provide real value at a reasonable cost, their dedication to improving the gaming world at large, and their willingness to listen to and pay attention to criticism.

That's been invariably my experience with any of these people on this here board. I've never seen a designer or a publisher get into a "shouting match" with a customer.

Maybe there's something in the water...


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

Maraxle said:
			
		

> *If it's anything like the section in issue 300, I'm not really interested.  I have no moral objection to the material, and occasionally have some "vile" content in my campaign.  However, I don't feel that the sealed section in issue 300 was particularly well-written, or innovative enough to warrant a purchase of the book. *




Exactly.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 24, 2002)

son of thunder.

 what do you recommend?

 i am trying to state this in a way that shows the civility of my intent.


 do you not want these things published?
 published and kept behind the counter?
 or do you not want to affect the publishing at all, and just want to air your opinion?


----------



## angramainyu (Sep 24, 2002)

> Finally, I have the right to share my opinion against the book and Wizards and anyone else who would print such stuff, as you have the right in supporting them. I just guess that everyone except Tracy Hickman and a small minority, such as myself, have a right to share their opinion.




Unfortunately this is where you are incorrect.  Expecting something like a constitutional right to free speech within a private forum like this (or the WotC boards, or where ever) is simply... wrong.

We certainly try to keep things fair, but unfortunately some debates get rather heated, and the moderators must balance fairness with a non-inflammatory atmosphere.

And, unfortunately, this puts the moderators in a lose-lose situation where they must decided between fairness/freedom and the friendly atmosphere.  It's long been the stance on these boards that keeping everything member-friendly is paramount.

That said, I find your point about Monte's project being "... something gamers have been wanting for a long time" most interesting.  I wonder it it was just hype, or if the marketing machine changed the direction of the book itself.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 24, 2002)

I didn't think the VC content of the sealed pages really even warrented a sealed section. With the exception of maybe one or two things, it wasn't really any 'worse' than things published earlier, even before 3E.

I'd say that in regards to the whole thing, it really just flew under my radar as far as any sort of strong response one way or the other. Personally, I just have a hard time believeing anyone could get upset about such things. (Obviously, they _can_ but the reasoning behind it just escapes me.)

If it's really that offensive, then vote with your dollars.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 24, 2002)

angramainyu said:
			
		

> And, unfortunately, this puts the moderators in a *loose-loose* situation...




he wasn't commenting on your morals.  

unless, of course, you meant *lose-lose* ...


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> *Musings on Dragon #300 and the Industry
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, in reading through the post, this is the most interesting section to me.

My first question is "Have you considered that your friend might well be asking questions or making complaints in a way that is overly abrasive, too confrontation, or downright annoying?"

Honestly, no disrespect to you or your friend intended, but it seems a bit telling that the same person got into it with designers/owners of two different gaming companies. 

Plus, message boards are far from the perfect medium for communication. It's easy to take things, on both ends of a discussion, much more personally than they are intended.

My second question is "Why do people hold game designers to a higher standard and yet simultaneously demand that they be regular joes in every other fashion?"

I understand the need for "customer service", and I agree that game designers/CEOs should put their best face forward as a matter of policy, but I also believe that game designers should have the right to call foul when they need/want to. 

If you want a high degree of dialogue between fans and creators, then, IMO, you have to be prepared to take the a bit of salt with the sugar.

Patrick Y.


----------



## BlackMoria (Sep 24, 2002)

*Much Ado About Nothing....*

I have read the sealed section and found nothing offensive or vile or questionable about it.

As a matter of fact, if there was no fanfare about the sealed section and all the hyperbole that went with it and Dragon published the articles 'normally', it would not have generated the controversy that it has now.    The articles might have generated a complaint from a very small minority in that case - those outraged enough to write to the editor of Dragon, but nothing on the level of controversy that it has now.

I am more offended by Dragon magazine ads for computer games who show far to much gratitous blood and gore for my taste.  The sealed section of Dragon 300 is postively 'tame' in comparison.  So, where is all the outrage about these ads.

Tis much ado about nothing, IMO


----------



## angramainyu (Sep 24, 2002)

> he wasn't commenting on your morals




Heh... opps, fixed that... although, given some of the moderators... oh, I've said too much.


----------



## Zappo (Sep 24, 2002)

I'd like to point out that the "vile" material in Dragon 300 (be it tolerable or not) is _not_ representative of the BoVD. Monte stated on these boards that the BoVD doesn't contain anything more offensive than another product he co-authored, Hellbound. I have Hellbound and I guarantee that it doesn't contain anything more offensive than any other D&D manual.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Sep 24, 2002)

Having just gotten Issue 300, I have to say I'm not that impressed.  Nothing in it I haven't already done during the past 10 years, nothing that would make my application of such more plausible or realistic.  If anything, BoVD might likely be rather tame compared to what I have done and plan to continue doing.

I have higher hopes for Chains and Misery.

The most irritating thing about it was having to cut up a "collectors" issue in order to get at information that was only marginally inspiring and overall lacking in usefulness.  I'd have been better off not cutting up the issue (for collectors value) and doing things as I always have done.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> * what do you recommend?
> *




Not speaking of Son of Thunger here. 

I recommend WotC stay with a marketing plan that this is a "family" game. 

D&D 3E is by far the best selling RPG, it didn't need "vile" content to get to that point. In fact, I would make the case that it got there specifically because it did not focus on 'mature' themes. There are already products out there focusing on that market and they are not the #1 publisher.

As this hobby continues to mature and the demographic ages, the hobby's growth will rely on older generations passing it on to their children. Son of Thunder is already questioning if he will be able to do that if WotC (and Paizzo Publishing) continues their current direction. As someone planning on a family, I have that same question. 

I would rather the hobby have a reputation for family entertainment rather than one as a 'mature' hobby. WotC (and Paizzo as a publisher of official material) has the biggest impact on that reputation and they are harming it right now.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> *I have a friend who was posting legitimate concerns about the Scarred Lands setting over on Sword and Sorcery’s message boards. He riled up one of the authors on the game line, who also happened to be a moderator, and was subsequently banned for awhile. Are game companies today unable to take criticism? I know my friend wasn’t trolling or flaming, he had legitimate complaints. This same friend had complaints about another product by Necromancer Games, and he got into an argument with Orcus himself. Because of that instance I will choose not to spend money on anything published by Necromancer Games. Why? Because I don’t think the president of a company should get into shouting matches with a regular Joe gamer. *




To be blunt, it really sounds more like your friend doesn't know how to express himself civilly. "Criticism" does not mean one can say anything one wants without the possibility of a response. But, since we know nothing about the actual "concerns" expressed, all we have to go on is your characterization of events - and we know that the person having the trouble is your friend, so I'm sure you realize we have to assume you're presenting him in the best light.


----------



## Winterthorn (Sep 24, 2002)

*Hype, hyperbole, marketing tricks and hot air...*

I've been watching this "vile" drama unfold--with a skeptical eye--and I'll just wait to see things for myself thank you. All along I've had this nasty feeling the rumours and hype are the sole "engines" running this issue (pun intended).

For me, the greatest offense thus far is the marketing hype. The act of pitching a product--I speak in general terms here (think of any big brand name out there)--is where we all should take a good look and ask ourselves "how am I being manipulated today"?

So I'll munch on my chill pills until I've seen Dragon 300 and the BoVD. Afterwhich I may join in the discussion with a better sense of the issues...

I hope I wasn't rude there, but hype _annoys_ me--greatly!

Cheers anyways 

-W.


----------



## herald (Sep 24, 2002)

I'm with BlackMoria on this. I'm a 35-year-old father of two. There was nothing in the pages that I couldn't find in a pg-13 movie if I looked for it.

Personally, I think that Hickman is the last person in the world to complain about vileness. He turned one of his characters of his books into the most evil peron in his world.

That character devovers the soul of another evil mage. He brings his world to the brink of distruction for apothiosis.

Lastly in punishment he is chained to a rock and has his guts ripped out by a zombie every day. (Sounds pretty vile to me.)

He made Anti-heroes in D&D cool, between Raistlin and Strad von Zarovich, they are two of the most identifiable characters of the TSR days.

Did he not think that by opening this door that others might walk through it and find something worth exploring?

This reminds me of a story Kirk Douglas used to tell about John Wayne.

Kirk had just played Vincent Van Gogh in a movie and it had won him many accolades (and possibly an oscar.)

Being quite happy about the situation, he happened to call upon John at some function and asked him what he thought of the movie. 

John told him that he was angry at him and asked him about what right he had to make a movie like that.

Kirk was stunned and asked him what he meant.

John told him, "Your a box office hero, a tough guy. You have no right doing movies about ""weaklings"" that cry."

And John was quite serious.

John came from a point of view that for many reasons makes sense. He was a very successful actor and had a very matter of fact way of seeing things. He was a box office superstar. He did one thing right, and did it over and over again.

Kirk was a young actor that had decided that he would go in many directions, try many things and have the courage carry on, even if his fans and supporters wouldn't like it. He was bound to try and reach a further audiance, and hopefully in the end he thought, history will prove me right and remember my work.

Hickman is John in this situation,...

Monte is Kirk.


Now don't get me wrong. On a rainy saturday afternoon, I just might hit one of the cable stations, and I will watch a John Wayne movie, just for fun. Everything is black and white and john is hard not to like.

But I just as well might catch Clint Eastwood in a Spagetti Western. Things are pretty grey and the protaganist is not nice.


People had the same reaction to those types of movies just like they had to this debate. In the end, they stand on thier own.

Now, if you pardon me, I gotta shake out my duster, and do something about this stubble...


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I would rather the hobby have a reputation for family entertainment rather than one as a 'mature' hobby. WotC (and Paizzo as a publisher of official material) has the biggest impact on that reputation and they are harming it right now. *




For me, I don't see this as necessarily a thing which is either one or the other.  It's obviously been, and continues to be, not only both, but supporting a range of products.

The hobby will never be an exclusively 'family' hobby over a 'mature' one.  It never has been, either.  But neither are movies, or books, or whathaveyou.  There is a range of tastes, and a range within each medium to cater to those tastes.

Should we stop making adult, R-rated movies, because children can watch movies?  No - you just make sure that your children do not watch said movies; that's what G, PG and AA rated movies are for.  No one says you have to buy the Vile book and apply it to your game.  Your children never have to see the book, until you think they are mature enough to handle it.  Yes, this does require some thought and care on the part of a parent, but that's what parents are for - to shield, to protect, to teach.  But as a consumer, I want choice.

The Book of Vile Darkness isn't my thing, but neither will I begrudge the company for wanting to make it, or for the community to buy it.  In the end, it's all about who's buying it.  If there are enough, it gets supported, and if not, it doesn't.  Voting with your wallet is a much more democratic way of resolving this than demanding a company not to produce something at all.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I recommend WotC stay with a marketing plan that this is a "family" game.
> *




 i cannot seem to understand what is "family" about d+d.

 in the core books alone we find some of the most vile things imaginable.
 setting creatures on fire, weapons for disemboweling and clubbing others to death, cloning involving soul hopping(!), biological warfare, the creation of undead, poisoning, complete disentigration, terrible snares and traps, the ability to dispel good(!), life draining magics, people being turned to stone, the harnessing of negative energy, summoning...the list goes on and on.

 i would, in the spirit of freindly debate,like someone to explain what they mean by "family game".


----------



## nyrfherdr (Sep 24, 2002)

Son of Thunder,
You go over a bunch of stuff here which makes it really difficult to comment on all of it and many of us have chosen different topics to speak to.
I choose Customer Service.

While I understand the comments you make about attitude and poor customer service, your examples don't really prove the attitude, except maybe that many of the authors and designers are no longer sitting silently by while all manner of comments are made around them.
I have to say that I am happy that the authors, artists, designers and industry professionals participate in all of these different forums.  It is great to send an e-mail to Privateer Press and get a response back.  That has to be one of th coolest parts of the new d20 world of publishing and the internet.
That also means that many of these people speak their mind.  That's a dangerous thing when you look at it from a Customer Service perspective.  They could very well anger many of the people they hope to serve.
Is it wrong?  I don't think so.
Would I choose to do it?  Probably not.  In the business I'm in every customer counts.  I can't afford to lose one.

I can tell you though.  I've had some pretty tough conversations with some of my customers.  They are not all nice people.  They do not all wish me well, even on their best days.  It takes every ounce of control not to let some of my frustration slip out and I am a seasoned veteran with years of Customer Service training and experience.

I choose to let these industry professionals speak and I listen.  And I make my own choices based on their actions and the products they produce.  That's close enough to Nirvana for me.
(I'll leave the vile content discussion to others more eloquent than I)

Nyrfherdr
Customer Service Executive
Software Industry


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> * i would, in the spirit of freindly debate,like someone to explain what they mean by "family game". *




Sure, your basic good vs. evil where the PCs play the good guys whose goal is to overcome evil. The fact that such a game can contain undead or violence does not exclude it from being a family game. Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). When the situations used above are clearly defined as evil actions then the social, team-building, and moral lessons are valuable. 

Taking your example, one can criticize previously mentioned John Wayne movies. They show murder, theft, lieing etc. But in context they are morality plays. Those things are clearly defined as bad and force is used to overcome evil. 

Society really has changd. When I was young, and we played cops & robbers everyone wanted to be the good guys. In fact, nobody played the robbers, they were imaginary since no one wanted to play them. In roleplaying games, I've seen too many games where the good guys are imaginary. I think that is sad. People are better for being encouraged to be more than they are, even in pretend.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). *




 wow, i see cops shooting suspects as tragic, and believe most cops do too.

 your opinion seems to be stating "violence is o.k. when the RIGHT people do it" which is very foriegn to what i think most people mean when they use the term "family oriented"

 but your post does make your thought process much clearer to me, and i appreciate that.


----------



## jasper (Sep 24, 2002)

freedom of speech is only free
if you own the paper, web site, tv station.
To quote Heinlien "Not in my court room, clerk find this gentleman a soap box and place it out on the front lawn".

Now customer service is not listening to every Tom, Dick, or harry, scream their views at you, or on the web repeatly post the same arguement again and again and again just because you learn to cut and paste and feel strongly. 
Customer service is trying to make the customer happy while watching the bottom line. That's Money and Profits folks.

Most moderators are willing to let slide alot until you become tiresome. And you can't whine about your free speech rights because they have not be violated. Only the government can violate those. And sometimes they can get away with it. 

Herald good pts about Hickman.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I recommend WotC stay with a marketing plan that this is a "family" game.
> 
> D&D 3E is by far the best selling RPG
> ...




1)  As the best-selling RPG, with, I assume, the largest, broadest demographic, wouldn't a broad strategy, with products targeted at every section of the market, be the the most appropriate?

2)  I'm really bothered by the notion that this boundless, boardless, totally open ended, still-after-all-these-years revolutionary game of the imagination should be supported solely by products that pass some ill-defined criteria of "family friendly". There are a lot of ways to play the game. Some appropriate for young teens and even children, others not. Imagine someone suggesting that fantasy literature ought to confine itself to "The Chronicles of Narnia" or "The Prydain Chronicles". Fine works, to be sure, but it absurd to want the shelves of the local bookstore to be empty of everything that isn't in that mold.

Does the inclusion of a few more graphic {I hestitate to use the word mature} products really constitute any kind of change at all in the industry? Which leads to...

3)  D&D was never, to my mind, family friendly. The early 1st Ed. AD&D material that I started with had an assasin class, big tables full of posions, and lots of grim, deadly, badly illustrated {this added to my horror} where the underlying assumption was that the good guys would die frequently and roll new characters. The overall feel of the material was far more Robert E. Howard than J.R.R Tolkien....


----------



## Utrecht (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure, your basic good vs. evil where the PCs play the good guys whose goal is to overcome evil. The fact that such a game can contain undead or violence does not exclude it from being a family game. Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). When the situations used above are clearly defined as evil actions then the social, team-building, and moral lessons are valuable.
> 
> *





However,(and please correct me if I am wrong), I was under the impression that the BovD was not really intended for PCs - but more as a DM tool to enhace the depravity of the villains. Thereby keeping the morality play aspects of the game in tack. 

 i.e. the PCs still wear the white hats - the bad guys Black hats just got darker.....

edited for spelling and removing unrealtes parts of the quote


----------



## rounser (Sep 24, 2002)

> Hickman is John in this situation,...
> 
> Monte is Kirk.



I think your analogy is flawed beyond relevance.  Kirk's new work didn't involve suggestions of necrophilia, nor was he putting it into a continuation of movies featuring Wayne's characters.  Nor did Wayne have a history of defending the reputation of his movies as not being "vile" etc. etc...there's no comparison to be made here.

Besides, I read that that's not Monte Cook's work in Dragon mag.  Based on reputation, I'm expecting Monte's work to be more pulp fantasy "Conan" vile than puerile shock factor vile, if you get catch my drift.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> 
> wow, i see cops shooting suspects as tragic, and believe most cops do too.
> *




My point was that violence is not alway evil. Sometimes it is necessary. 



> *
> your opinion seems to be stating "violence is o.k. when the RIGHT people do it" which is very foriegn to what i think most people mean when they use the term "family oriented"
> *




Pretty much, yes. Violence (i.e. physical force) is OK when used to overcome evil. By contrast, violence is not OK when used in an evil manner (e.g. to rob a bank, committ murder) I do find that to be a valuable lesson.

Since children, especially boys, naturally play games that include fantasies of physical force (like cops & robbers), it is valuable to direct those fantasies to socially beneficial behavior. I want my boys to dream of being the hero and stopping the 'bad guys'. I want my friends to fantasize about being the hero and stopping the evil Baron rather than being the evil PC who wants to completely dominate other people.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 24, 2002)

Hurray! Now I can make use of that cool heat-resistant suit I bought for sampling lava flows!

FLAME ON!


----------



## herald (Sep 24, 2002)

*I think your analogy is flawed beyond relevance. Kirk's new work didn't involve suggestions of necrophilia, nor was he putting it into a continuation of movies featuring Wayne's characters. Nor did Wayne have a history of defending the reputation of his movies as not being "vile" etc. etc...there's no comparison to be made here.* 

If you think that then perhaps are mising part of the point.

The movie about Vincent van Gogh actually addressed his struggles with dipression, (some might say insanity), and his self multilation in which he cut of his the top ear and his subsiquent sending of that body part to the woman he was maddly infatuated with. Van Gogh painted his famous self portrait at this time, his head still wrapped with bandages.

What Vincent van Gogh was doing was stalking. Plain and simple. I'd call it even "vile and sick". But we often clean up history.

And Monte isn't continuing any of Hickman's work. Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.

Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.

And as far as John Wayne having to defend his work. You just don't know what your talking about. The latter part of his career he was labled a racist, and bigot. His movies were panted as being insenstive and overly violent. He portrayed as a man who hated women and would treat them as equals when he worked with them.

But this is besides the point. 

The real point is this. There are two sides to this story, each one is just as valid as the other. And if you don't agree with me, I really don't care.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

Utrecht said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> However,(and please correct me if I am wrong), I was under the impression that the BovD was not really intended for PCs - but more as a DM tool to enhace the depravity of the villains. Thereby keeping the morality play aspects of the game in tack.
> *




This is where Dragon #300 comes in. In a side bar to Monte Cook's "How far will you take it" article, he suggests that PC's can take BoVD feats in a vile campaign. 

Of course we don't know what the introduction to BoVD itself says. I will be interested to find out how the book actually presents the information. 

And Baroomscore:
Regarding your flame on comment, why? This thread has been the epitomy of calm rational debate to this point.


----------



## Pyske (Sep 24, 2002)

Some random thoughts:

I have no problem with and no interest in BoVD.  I will be voting with my dollars.  On the other hand, I have no problem with people trying to convince me which way to use that dollar vote.  Informed democracy, and all that.  Generally, I find people who are reasonable about convincing me do a better job.  References to terrorists, the end of an era, and moderator bias only undermine the effectiveness of this sort of advocacy for me. 

I don't feel that game publishers nor moderators give up their right to an opinion when they take on their jobs.  On the other hand, were I a mod, I might consider keeping 2 separate accounts, to keep some clarity between my personal and policy related comments.  Just for my own convenience, to avoid this kind of issue / accusation. 

 . . . . . . . -- Eric


----------



## rounser (Sep 24, 2002)

> And Monte isn't continuing any of Hickman's work.



They both work on D&D.


> Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.



Oh dear.


> Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.



Oh dear oh dear.


> You just don't know what your talking about.



That makes two of us.


----------



## Zappo (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *My point was that violence is not alway evil. Sometimes it is necessary.*



IMO, violence is always evil; sometimes a necessary evil.

Edit: ...that is, IRL. In many RPGs, there are situations where violence can be considered good (eg, when you slaughter fiends, who _are_ evil incarnate)


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

BoVD..OK..Dragon 300...I can deal with..JOhnny Wilson..allright...

But when people start talkin' trash about John Wayne...it's time to whoop some serious A$$....

Who's first?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *And Baroomscore:
> Regarding your flame on comment, why? This thread has been the epitomy of calm rational debate to this point. *



Well, regardless of what we consider the epitome of calm, rational debate, it doesn't do any good to put the suit AFTER you're swallowed by lava, now does it?


----------



## herald (Sep 24, 2002)

To rounser:

*They both work on D&D.* 


Hickamn doesn't work on D&D. When is the last time he turned out a game?

*Hickman Wrote at best one decent module and the Dragonlance novel series. The Ravenloft Champaign was someone elses idea and work.* 

*Oh dear.* 

Hey, don't hold back, if you have new and better information than I do, put it out there.



*Monte hasn't touched any of Hickman's work. Hickman can't even hold his own against Monte as a game designer. (This is the way I feel) Monte has out produced him in so many ways it's not worth mentioning.* 


*Oh dear oh dear.* 

Like I said, if you have facts, bring them. But I'm a 35 year old man. I'm a little old to be your dear. 


And do us a favor, before you take me out of context again, do you have a point to refute me. or are you just trying to get this thread closed by trolling?


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 24, 2002)

A very articulate post, Son of Thunder.  Nice and controlled, even if the opinions therein are in disagreement with others'.  Some comments.



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> Does the gaming industry know what customer service is? Can a company afford to lose a longtime loyal fan of D&D, even if it’s just one fan? Here’s my opinion on this. It seems to me that the entire industry is going to a “Screw you” attitude. And by that I mean the prevailing attitude seems to be, “I’m doing this book, or article or what have you, and I don’t give a rats rosy red behind what you think”, or “White Wolf’s done stuff like this for years, why not Wizards?”



That I can't really speak to.  I'll tell you that as a small publisher, I don't do my books based on public opinion, though - I do them based on, "what do I (a) find lacking in the system and (b) think I am capable of doing well?"  That necessarily limits me.  If we had a way to measure the typical gamer in advance, I'm sure we would - unfortunately, the only real way of measuring if we have read the community correctly comes when we have already produced something and look at the sales figures.



> Even the publishers of Dungeon and Dragon Magazines have the same attitude. Just read Johnny Wilson’s comments and his condescending tone to Tracy Hickman, a man who will have published more game materials and novels than a lot of us put together. Mr. Wilson seems to make it clear that the squeaky cleanliness of AD&D is what drove gamers to “grittier stuff”; and to make TSR go down the hole. From my observations it was management of the game lines and greediness on the part of executives that caused the downfall of TSR in the 90’s.



I could not have put this better myself.  The comments themselves did not disturb me so much as the tone of the comments.



> ... finally it’s to the point of my greatest culling of the issues with 300. I must have culled out 20 pages. The only articles I liked in the issue were fiendish dragons and risen dead article. I now know that I will have to trim out the adventures that’s supposed to be sealed in the next issue of Dungeon. Why do I tell you this? Because I think the material is unnecessary in my game, and no, I’m not trying to tell you it’s unnecessary in your game. I have a son that’s already interested in the game and he’s only 14 months old. He’ll sit on my lap and roll dice as I’m DMing. I don’t want him to see such crap in my gaming magazines when he’s old enough to look at them. And no, I’m not some right wing moral extremist nut. I understand some gamers desire to have ‘vile’ elements in their game. I would also like the same courtesy shown towards me that I don’t want to have ‘vile’ content in my game. So, just don’t buy it you say. I won’t, thank you very much, but I didn’t have much choice when my subscription of Dragon came.



I agree whole-heartedly here.  As I mentioned in one of the original (flame-closed) threads, to me this was the equivalent of opening up Time Magazine and having a sealed Playboy centerfold in the center.  The audience was all wrong.  Any magazine that (in theory) is meant to be a magazine suitable for a large segment of a community needs to be moderate to conservative IMO.  There are conservative magazines in which I should expect hyper-conservatism.  There are liberal magazines in which I should expect hyper-liberalism.  In a moderate magazine, I should expect neither - a moderate magazine should tread safely down the center.  IMO, Dragon claims to be a moderate magazine - which means my expectation is that it will stay away from "fringe" material.  And IMO it failed miserably in that.  Books are a different story - each book is targeted at a certain segment and needs only to maintain a certain tone and style within the book.

That said, the difference between Dragon and BoVD is just that - Dragon is a magazine and I expect a certain type and style of material when I subscribe.  The BoVD doesn't bother me - that has a definite target audience and that audience has the choice whether or not to purchase it after leafing through it.  I think the main object of Dragon and Dungeon readers who are up in arms is that they were not offered the choice - they feel (perhaps rightly) that they aren't getting what they paid for (or were baited-and-switched).

I find it interesting that the flame argument basically boiled down to this:
1.) Someone (call him "Subscriber A") found material unnecessary and/or offensive, going counter to their expectations of the magazine.  These expectations are NOT unrealistic, but rather reflect the experiences the person has had with past issues of the magazine up until that point.  The subscriber has every right to complain when something breaks convention in a way that makes him uncomfortable, because it nearly amounts to a "bait-and-switch."  Moral principles and other arguments aside, this is basically a matter of taste (the reason for your taste may vary - and it's not important for this discussion).
2.) Someone else (Subscriber B) takes umbrage with the fact that Subscriber A took offense to the material.  Actually, he takes offense to the fact that Subscriber A made known his disappointment (or perhaps the tone/manner in which Subscriber A made his disappointment known).  Subscriber B, it should be noted, also has expectations for the magazine, based upon his experiences with it, and to him the material was not offensive and/or unnecessary.  Subscriber B decries Subscriber A for trying to impose a set of tastes upon him that Subscriber B does not have.
3.) Subscriber A decries Subscriber B for trying to impose a set of tastes upon HIM that Subscriber A does not have.

Then the shouting match has begun.

Now, I personally was rather put off by the whole issue of "Mature Content" (which I personally consider a gross misnomer).  However, I have heard a lot of the same sentiment quoted by jasper and attributed to Heinlein...

"Not in my court room, clerk find this gentleman a soap box and place it out on the front lawn."

It seems to me that this is Subscriber B's gripe with Subscriber A.  However, it cuts both ways... Subscriber B's defense of the material on "moral grounds" such as "who are you to restrict free speech and discussion of this material" also belongs on a soapbox.  Arguing in this fashion will serve only to entrench each party more deeply in its own position.



> The few clues we got, that were kind of accurate, were: 1) It was a magic item out of the DM’s Guide and 2) It was something gamers have been wanting for a long time. My question pertains to number 2. I have been involved with D&D for well nigh on twenty years now, and I never recall there being a big demand for this type of a book, even within the three to five years leading up to 3rd edition. Did I miss something?



As has been noted by several posters, #2 is the more compelling question.

Is this really something that has been in demand?  How does WotC know?

I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but I have been involved with well over 100 gamers in my campaigns over the last 18 or so years.  *Not one* of them has ever said, "you know, I wish there was viler stuff in D&D like there is in (insert book or system here).  Wouldn't that be great?"  I know I have never even had that thought BEGIN to cross my mind.

Even amongst those who support the inclusion of the material in Dragon #300, I would ask, "did any of you say to yourselves, 'gee, viler material would really make D&D so much better' prior to the BoVD and Dragon 300?"  It's not a representative sample, I know, but I truly and honestly do not believe this was the case.  Anyone out there who was clamoring for "dirtier, grittier" games and rules to support them a year ago?

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I think Dragon was wrong to print such material because it is inappropriate for the established tone and image of the magazine - in the same way it would be wrong for Time to print a Playboy spread.  Note that this is not because I am claiming that printing a Playboy spread is in and of itself wrong but because that is not what is expected nor desired from Time... in the same way "Vileness" was neither expected nor desired from Dragon, IMO (again, PRIOR to the fact, not after it - and IMO once the decision was made and it was announced that we would see Vile Content in 300, that's "after the fact" - even if I hadn't received the hard copy yet).  I also have a hard time thinking that there was a demand for this type of thing before WotC created one by saying, "this is coming."

Please leave aside the question of whether "printing Vile content" is morally right or wrong in and of itself.  My question is, "was printing Vile content _in Dragon Magazine_ appropriate?"  (Note: not right/wrong, but "appropriate")  Again, I believe that such material is VERY inappropriate in Dragon Magazine, though it IS appropriate in the BoVD or the Netbook of Carnal Knowledge and other such publications.

I'm interested to see what others have to say on this.  We can leave moral debates elsewhere, as they will lead to flaming and thread closure.

--The Sigil


----------



## Mallus (Sep 24, 2002)

*Semi-hijak...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Since children, especially boys, naturally play games that include fantasies of physical force (like cops & robbers), it is valuable to direct those fantasies to socially beneficial behavior.
> *




Like killing everything with a different {evil} alignment?

Alright that was a cheap opening salvo, but it does get to heart of the matter. If you want to use the game to impart moral lessons {and I think that's perfectly valid, though I play with an older set and we prefer to 'raise moral questions'}, then that demands a highly sophisticated and nuanced campaign, one that isn't at all like traditional high fantasy.

The trouble with a game that uses the black and white moral schema thats the hallmark of fantasy literature as a teaching tool is that the students may actually try and apply the lesson to the real world. All criminals don't belong to an evil subrace of humanity as described on page 34 of PHB. All our nations {current} enemies aren't peopled by fiends from Abyssal Layer 665...

The better way to use the game as a teaching tool would be to make it far more realistic; full of complex conflicts and antagonists rather then clear-cut villians.


----------



## jasamcarl (Sep 24, 2002)

I think Son of Thunder's opinion is on the whole irrational. I expect nothing more from a game company than to give me my dollar's worth on the options i choose to take. I always find it quite frustrating when certain individuals comment on a company's strategy to the point where they say something can't even be published and in fact want to DENY OTHERS CERTAIN OPTIONS. This type of industry punditry is mostly the province of a certain counter-culture fanboy clique which i loathe...

Its a consumer relationship....if you think there is a moral component to it, you have problems...


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 24, 2002)

Let's not call other people's opinions 'irrational', please.  It doesn't lend well to a calm discussion.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 24, 2002)

An interesting article that may be old to you, but I just ran across it, is an interview with the magazine folks regarding the 'Vile' content:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1841.html


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 24, 2002)

> This same friend had complaints about another product by Necromancer Games, and he got into an argument with Orcus himself.




Was this on ENWorld or the Necro-boards? I would be most curious to see it as I don't remember seeing or hearing anything about this.

And since your "friend" allegedly got into it with the guys at SSS and Orcus (Necromancer), it seems your friend might have a "social behavior" problem of sorts not the SSS or Necro guys.


----------



## rounser (Sep 24, 2002)

> Like I said, if you have facts, bring them.



Not facts, just opinions, and our opinions of what Hickman has added to the game differ drastically, to the point where I assumed that you must be ignorant of his contributions to understate them so much.

I don't see the point in directly comparing his work to that of Cook.  We're talking serious apples and oranges here....but that's not a fact either, just an opinion.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 24, 2002)

I don't know, I thought the sealed section of Dragon 300 was pretty tame. If the book of vile darkness is anything like that I'm not too worried about it. I think WOTC has a ways to go before they even get close to the "vileness" that White Wolf (black dog) has had in some of there stuff, anybody see clanbook Baali, Yech.

I personally don't need any more vileness in my campaign and will probably buy the book of vile darkness just for curiosity's sake.


Dirge


----------



## Sinistar (Sep 24, 2002)

Actually I think The Sigl has it right. I don't think Dragon is the appropriate place for such information. Moral objectives aside, what sort of magazine are we asking for in Dragon?

I actually am looking forward to BoVD. I have wanted some good, mechanical interpretations of some evil acts (drug use, slavery, etc.) for my game so that I can make it more nuanced and in fact realistic. The evil slaver cult has to be slavers for some reason other than because they are evil. Is there profit in it? Etc. That is not for every campaign, even every campaign that I run. But it is something I would like to see. So put me in the camp that has called for BoVD. 

But put me in the camp that is AGAINST putting this information in Dragon. I have found the publication to lose credibility and to lose useability by playing to every sensationalistic impulse it can market. Because in the end this is a marketing scheme not a game related issue. The drow bondage queens on the cover, the halfling-clown-faced-assassin-of-joy, the fighter comment. These are all marketing schemes not content providers. My objection to the sealed section of D300 is more because it is hype for hype sake. The same people who complained to Dragon because it was a vehicle for the next WOTC release should be complaining now as it is the same thing. (this includes me..)


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 24, 2002)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> *I don't know, I thought the sealed section of Dragon 300 was pretty tame. If the book of vile darkness is anything like that I'm not too worried about it. I think WOTC has a ways to go before they even get close to the "vileness" that White Wolf (black dog)...
> 
> Dirge *




I agree with ya 100%. The sealed section was nothing more than a marketing ploy (a very good one too, as it apparently worked). But the level of vileness in there was more akin to (and I said this in the BoVD/Hickman thread) Jason Vorhees/Michael Myers/Freddy Krueger rather than something like Hellraiser, the Exorcist, or if ya want real-life vileness...Vlad the Impaler.

http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm#Atrocities


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Semi-hijak...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Like killing everything with a different {evil} alignment?
> 
> The better way to use the game as a teaching tool would be to make it far more realistic; full of complex conflicts and antagonists rather then clear-cut villians. *




Clever, but you are twisting my view. A "different" alignment is quite a seperate issue from and "evil" alignment. 

In my game one does not attack a creature because it is different. It is attacked (if necessary) specifically because it is evil. Your argument can lead to the conclusion that there is no seperation between good and evil aside from a matter of opinion. I disagree. 

Your last sentance is a matter of preference. In play many times I prefer simplified good vs. evil. Regardless of simple or complex, it comes to the same thing in the end. It is better for people to pretend to be good and heroic than it is for them to be evil.


----------



## BlackMoria (Sep 24, 2002)

Dragon is and has been a 'house organ' for its D&D product line.

Think not?  Then look at the number of 'theme' issues over the past year.  The Drow issue heralding the 'City of the Spider Queen' and the new book series by Salvator.  The Epic Theme issue heralding the Epic Level Handbook.  The Castles/Strongholds issue heralding The Stronghold Builders Handbook.  And it goes on...and on.

So, for The Sigil and others in his camp - With Book of Vile Darkness immiently due, and the given that Dragon was and is a 'house organ' for the D&D and D20 product line, just how are they to showcase the new product without offending your sensibilities?  

It is no surprise that 'theme' issues exist.  There is probably a  correlation between sales of the product and the fact that the product got some coverage in the form of companion articles and the like, which is why 'theme' issues exist.

So, just how where they supposed to do showcase BoVD?  Not at all, according to naysayer arguments.  And what.... have another product that posts poor sales because of lack of exposure.  For a company that is struggling with the bottom line.

IMO, they showcased the theme of the pending BoVD the best way they could without offending more people had they done it another way.

Dragon mainly exist to promote the playing and growth of D&D and WOTC products for D&D.  It is not Reader Digest.  Some people seem to have overlooked this aspect.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 24, 2002)

all these posts because of one man? This is ridiculous this guy is going to come back and say oh my they sure have noticed what ive said! How important I am. Look at the pages and pages of posts you people are feeding this guy and that's exactly what he wants!


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 24, 2002)

and yes he did get me to post but no more


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *all these posts because of one man? This is ridiculous this guy is going to come back and say oh my they sure have noticed what ive said! How important I am. Look at the pages and pages of posts you people are feeding this guy and that's exactly what he wants! *




Which guy are you referring to?


----------



## herald (Sep 24, 2002)

*Not facts, just opinions, and our opinions of what Hickman has added to the game differ drastically, to the point where I assumed that you must be ignorant of his contributions to understate them so much.* 

I'm not ignorant of hs contributions. I'm very aware of him. He was outsourced writer. Not a D&D core designer. He certainly didn't mold TSR. 

If you want to give platatudes to the originators, fine by me, just give them were they are do. Thank Gygax, Kuntz, Lofka, and even Greenwood (the list could go on and on). But Hickman wasn't even around for OD&D. He was standing on the shoulders on the people who came before them and he didn't even contribute as much as those after him.

The whole point of my post was to point out that these differing points of view could and do have merit, but not be suficent to cancel the other one out. There will be no one direction for this hobby, and that is a good thing. If there wasn't, you could bet your bottom dollar, something else would take it's place.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which guy are you referring to? *




 LOL!


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *If you want to give platatudes to the originators, fine by me, just give them were they are do. Thank Gygax, Kuntz, Lofka, and even Greenwood (the list could go on and on). But Hickman wasn't even around for OD&D. He was standing on the shoulders on the people who came before them and he didn't even contribute as much as those after him.
> 
> . *



*

Picking Nits....

Hickman was putting out stuff right along with Lakofka (who also wasn't involved, at least in having an original pre1E product published uner his authorship)..maybe a years difference..L1 came out in mid to late 1981 and I3 about a year later....hardly anything to raise a point on. And barring Ed's occasional article in The Dragon..his first TSR product was several years after Hickmans first published product (by about 4 to 5 years). 

Don't mean to be a butthead, but if you want to use those as facts to back up the argument, you have to know that you are basically wrong on those 2 counts.


We now take you back to ENWORLDS Tuesday Night Fights!*


----------



## herald (Sep 24, 2002)

Jeff, you might want to read Gary Gygax's posts on Lenard's contributions to the Greyhawk Campaign here. 

So, I just backed my self up!


And as far as Greenwood, he had a campaign world almost as old as Gary's even though it was unpublished. Ed's articals in Dragon predate Hickman's work.

So jeff, maybe you should do some homework....


Ring bell, school is in.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 24, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *
> LOL! *




Does that mean me? I didn't even start this thread. 

So instead of engaging my ideas, you infer that I have some type of ego problem. 

Its clear that you do not know my motivation. The real reason for my posts is to encourage improvements in gaming. 


I also like exchanging ideas with other people. Isn't that the whole purpose of a message board?


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

Ding Ding...

Read my post...you said OD&D...I said neither had any OD&D products published with them as an author...correct?

Len's first PUBLISHED product was L1...Tracy's was I3....about a year apart. 

I wasn't talking about contributions..I was talking about products they authored.

Ed was one of hundreds of D&D players who made a campaign setting...just like Tracy did  w/ DL,and Len did the Lendore Isles thing which got tacked on to GH. Ed didn't get a D&D product out til 1987. 

My facts, as I stated them are correct.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 24, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Does that mean me? I didn't even start this thread.
> 
> ...




He's talking about the original poster who has not been around since he started the thread.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

JeffB said:
			
		

> *He's talking about the original poster who has not been around since he started the thread. *




I still think the ideas are worthy to discuss. For me it is interesting conversation. 

The fact that the original poster hasn't made a reply could just indicate that he has a real job  

I can't say I recognize his name as a troller here and I thought it was a thoughtful post.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Is this really something that has been in demand?  How does WotC know?*



I believe Monte was referring to the arch-fiend statistics more than anything else, though I can guarantee you that there _is_ an audience for mature content.



> *I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but I have been involved with well over 100 gamers in my campaigns over the last 18 or so years.  Not one of them has ever said, "you know, I wish there was viler stuff in D&D like there is in (insert book or system here).  Wouldn't that be great?"  I know I have never even had that thought BEGIN to cross my mind.*



That really adds nothing to the discussion, though.  I can say (truthfully) that I sent the announcement about the upcoming book to friends and one of them, who previously saw nothing of value in D&D openly considered getting into the game because of this book.



> *Even amongst those who support the inclusion of the material in Dragon #300, I would ask, "did any of you say to yourselves, 'gee, viler material would really make D&D so much better' prior to the BoVD and Dragon 300?"*



Absolutely.  I prefer a more adult game.



> *Please leave aside the question of whether "printing Vile content" is morally right or wrong in and of itself.  My question is, "was printing Vile content in Dragon Magazine appropriate?"  (Note: not right/wrong, but "appropriate")*



Yes.  The magazine is consumed mostly by adults, there were warnings for months beforehand, and the material inside wasn't even that bad.


----------



## Theuderic (Sep 25, 2002)

LOL ( that is what I was talking about Jeff and yes I am laughing even harder now! LOL ) Hey Jeff I think I know you from Dragonsfoot. Over there, my name is Ermanaric.


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

Ding ding..

You're out of context.

I was talking about people who shaped the game. If you can prove otherwise then do so. for that matter, go back and reread my post so you can atleast understand what I'm talking about.

I don't care when thier publishing dates are. 

You are correct. L1 was released in 1981 and Ravenloft was released in 1983.

Be before that Lakofka was published in articals in Dragon Magazine as an expert on D&D rules. His advice was helpful and inciteful and I remember using it in many of the games I ran.

You can discount Greenwood's and Lakofka contributions in Dragon Magazine all you want. But it thier repeated and consistant work helped create an interest in the game that Is without a doubt more significat than Hickman's.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 25, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> I believe Monte was referring to the arch-fiend statistics more than anything else, though I can guarantee you that there _is_ an audience for mature content.



I'll back you in that there HAS been a very noticeable demand for arch-fiend statistics.   I wonder though, what the size of the audience that desires "mature content" (different than the audience FOR mature content) is compated to the size of the audience that does not desire "mature content" (which probably does overlap the audience FOR mature content).  

I consider myself in the audience for mature content (i.e., the audience that can handle seeing it), but strongly prefers not to use it.



> That really adds nothing to the discussion, though.  I can say (truthfully) that I sent the announcement about the upcoming book to friends and one of them, who previously saw nothing of value in D&D openly considered getting into the game because of this book.



Interesting.  At least now I have some anecdotal evidence of someone who DID want to see more mature stuff in D&D.  It's about as useful as my evidence of those who don't, I suppose, but it is useful to know that there are those out there who wanted it (my personal tastes notwithstanding).



> Absolutely.  I prefer a more adult game.



"More adult" - I won't take too much umbrage because I'm sure no offense was intended, but I think the correct term is "more vile."  Or perhaps you meant "of a sexual nature" - I'm not sure.  If you are using "adult" as a synonym for "mature," well, IMO there is nothing "immature" about a conscious choice to exclude vile content, just as there is nothing inherently "immature" about the choice to include it.



> Yes.  The magazine is consumed mostly by adults, there were warnings for months beforehand, and the material inside wasn't even that bad.



Fair enough.  You certainly have the right to your opinion and have presented it in an amicable and reasonable manner.  I may disagree with it (do you feel that if Time gave sufficient warning, it would be appropriate for it to drop a Playboy spread into it just because it is read mostly by adults?), but hey, that's what these forums are for, right?   If we all agreed on everything these would be really boring forums.

--The Sigil


----------



## JeffB (Sep 25, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *Ding ding..
> 
> You're out of context.
> 
> ...




I do not discount anyone's work except in how you were making your argument.You said OD&D..Apparently you meant AD&D...which is entirely different. If I'm out of context it's because you "mis-spoke"

In addition I am not speaking of Ravenloft which uses the designation of I6. I specified I3..which is the first in the Desert of Desolation series.. which was Hickman's first module.

Perhaps we should get back to the point of the thread though.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 25, 2002)

Theuderic said:
			
		

> *LOL ( that is what I was talking about Jeff and yes I am laughing even harder now! LOL ) Hey Jeff I think I know you from Dragonsfoot. Over there, my name is Ermanaric. *




Aye, I do know the name and post occasionally at DF. Enjoy your stay here!


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 25, 2002)

JeffB and herald...

I appreciate both of your points, but let's go straight to the heart of the matter...



			
				herald said:
			
		

> I was talking about people who shaped the game.
> 
> I don't care when thier publishing dates are.
> 
> You can discount Greenwood's and Lakofka contributions in Dragon Magazine all you want. But it thier repeated and consistant work helped create an interest in the game that Is without a doubt more significat than Hickman's.



The fact of the matter is, I think you will have a hard time convincing each other that one is more significant than the other.  And to be honest, I think you are both downplaying each others' "Favorites" in an attempt to strengthen your own positions.

If you were to ask people to name the #1 Favorite Campaign Setting of all time for D&D, you would likely get "the Forgotten Realms."  I would suggest that Greenwood's Realms were influenced by earlier work to some extent, but doubtless is the campaign setting that, for good or ill, has had the greatest impact on the way campaigns are played.  Greenwood has probably had the biggest effect on DMs and campaign creation of anyone around.

If you were to ask people to name the top 5 modules ever published, I'd be willing to bet the Desert of Desolation series is near the top of the list for most people who have read them.  Also, don't discount the popularity of the Dragonlance novels - those novels were wildly popular in their day and shaped the conceptions people had about the "typical" fantasy world and often were gateways into D&D for the casual fantasy fan.  IMO Hickman has done as much for establishing the "mood" of high fantasy as anyone and is probably the most influential person in terms of creating BBEGs and establishing the D&D milieu as anyone.

Now, me, personally, I hate the Realms and all the garbage that comes with them (IMO R.A. Salvatore has had a bigger hand in the Realms than Greenwood for the last decade-plus) but I like Dragonlance even less.   While I appreciate that both made huge contributions, I can't say I'm necessarily a fan of either of them (I'm not).  I like certain pieces of work that they did, but IMO, both have had a huge effect on the hobby and it would be difficult to rate one ahead of the other in terms of influence.

All my opinions of course, but there they are.

--The Sigil


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

Okay, so little pedantic arguments between people that aren't on topic are annoying, y'all know?  Can we drop those going now and get back to the subject.  Thanks.


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

You do realize that Dragon Pre-dates 1st edition, Right....

And that Lakofka was one of Gary's DM's. I mean you did understand that right. 

And that Ed was a Oe player and that his articals were drawn mostly from his Oe material?

The fact is since Greyhawk Campaign predates 1ed and that the took the Oe material, revamped it for 1e. 

Jeff, you just don't know your stuff.


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

Except that thing about the Dod series. you were right on the money on that.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *You do realize that Dragon Pre-dates 1st edition, Right....
> 
> And that Lakofka was one of Gary's DM's. I mean you did understand that right.
> 
> ...




Okay, so I have this problem where I post things and people say, "Pedantic argument?  That can't be me."

For the record, this is a pedantic argument.  Quite hijacking the thread and save it for Jeopardy.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 25, 2002)

I'm not playing faves at all..I don't even really like RL and barring the first novel trilogy I could care less about Tracy Hickman. I also thought Len's modules were poor compared to his contemporaries.

My point is simply that regardless if Len Lakofka washed Gary's car or did an article in Dragon..they were both putting out AD&D products in the same time period..neither published a D&D product under OD&D rules. In my first post I said "nitpick" and I meant it..Barring that... I was playing before the 1E books were published, so AFAIC they are both Second Generation..

I could care less...really...I just made a nitpick about using a purported "fact" as a means to "win" an argument...

But as I said before..let's get back to the thread at hand...I've said all I'm going to say on the matter.


EDIT: Sorry Dinkle..saw your post after this one.


Enjoy..


----------



## Son_of_Thunder (Sep 25, 2002)

*Thanks Folks!!!*

Yup, others have wondered where I was, and here I am. I posted while I was at work (a no no... hush be vewwy quiet). And I check about once a day. I appreciate the civil tone that has been here.


Son of Thunder


----------



## Zulkir (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure, your basic good vs. evil where the PCs play the good guys whose goal is to overcome evil. The fact that such a game can contain undead or violence does not exclude it from being a family game. Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). When the situations used above are clearly defined as evil actions then the social, team-building, and moral lessons are valuable.
> 
> ...




So, by this post I assume you are in favor of BoVD?

AV


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Zulkir said:
			
		

> *
> So, by this post I assume you are in favor of BoVD?
> AV *




I hope you are being ironic  

For the record though, I will be passing on BoVD. I certainly will discourage players from using it as a resourse for PC feats as Dragon 300 suggests in the How far will you take it? article.


----------



## MulhorandSage (Sep 25, 2002)

Tracy's ability and hjs influence on the hobby is beyond question, IMO; but no one's pedigree is strong enough to mitigate the utter tastelessness of that remark. Passion is not an excuse. If anything, both Johnny and Monte should be commended for the extraordinary civility of their responses, given what Tracy was labeling their work.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 25, 2002)

Out of curiosity, who wrote the sealed section in Dragon?  Was it the same guy that wrote the BoVD?  

I think I already filed the issue in my stack of "nothing I need at this time" Dragon issues, and don't feel like digging it out.


----------



## Olive (Sep 25, 2002)

Maraxle said:
			
		

> *Out of curiosity, who wrote the sealed section in Dragon?  Was it the same guy that wrote the BoVD?  *




nope, it wasn't. monte cook wrote the BoVD. some other guy whose name i can't remember wrote the dragon article...


----------



## Olive (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *As this hobby continues to mature and the demographic ages, the hobby's growth will rely on older generations passing it on to their children. Son of Thunder is already questioning if he will be able to do that if WotC (and Paizzo Publishing) continues their current direction. As someone planning on a family, I have that same question. *




ok two points:

1) well, my parents certainly didn't pass the game on to me, and i'm pretty sure that none of the people i play with played with their parents either. so i'm not sure why its going to 'rely' on parents passing the game on to grow...

2) current trend? you call two magazines and one book a trend? what aout the stronghold building trend? there was a dungeon adventure, and dragon issue (which from my understanding had more to do with the actual book that this one), and a book... my ghod, WotC s becoming a stronghold guidebook publisher!!!  

put me down in the wanting BoVD camp... i like having mechanics for things... if there's no benefit to human sacrifice then why do it? if there's no benefit to selling ones soul to Asmodeus, then why do it? thats what i think the book will have, and thats why i'm gonna buy it...


----------



## tburdett (Sep 25, 2002)

The thing that matters the most in our group is "Will the DM use or allow the material that is in this book?"

If the answer is "no" then WotC doesn't sell any copies to my group.  We are all adults with families and we don't buy anything that we aren't going to use.

That gives me, as the DM, the ability to decide, in a small way, whether WotC will make any money off of my group of 10 fairly active players and 4 semi-regular players.  I realize that 14 books will not make or break WotC, but if enough DM's make the same choice it could send the message that we're not interested in heading down this path with them.

Dragon magazine may have done a Monte Cook and the BoVD a grave disservice if the material presented in the magazine is not representative of the material in the BoVD because it's has cost them, potentially, 14 sales.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> * I recommend WotC stay with a marketing plan that this is a "family" game. *




The problem with this is, whose definition of 'family' are we going to go with?  In a pluralistic society, there are many different kinds of families, with many varying comfort levels for certain issues.  My definition might be radically different than yours.  Which one should WotC go with?  Since politics and religion are verboten subjects here, I won't go into detail, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 25, 2002)

I've got a smashing idea!  WOTC can put out a adult 3e game with slaver and torture, sold souls and all the rest.  Then they can put out a revised 1e game that is very family friendly!  

Ok maybe not...


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

tburdett said:
			
		

> *The thing that matters the most in our group is "Will the DM use or allow the material that is in this book?"
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Dragon magazine may have done a Monte Cook and the BoVD a grave disservice if the material presented in the magazine is not representative of the material in the BoVD because it's has cost them, potentially, 14 sales. *




So are you saying that you've already judged the book sight unseen based on the Dragon issue, or that you're keeping an open mind?  Or did you like the tie-in articles or not?  Really not sure here.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem with this is, whose definition of 'family' are we going to go with?  ... Which one should WotC go with?  *




Why, mine of course!  

I say that half-heartedly. The whole purpose of a discussion board is to sway people's opinion to your way of thinking. So I would be very happy if WotC designed their marketing around my philosophy. 

Now realistically I know that won't happen. That doesn't keep me from expressing those views though


----------



## tburdett (Sep 25, 2002)

I'll expand on what I said to try and clarify my position.

I believe that WotC wanted the readers of Dragon magazine to believe that the material in the sealed section of Dragon was representative of what was going to be in the BoVD.

Monte seems to be saying that this isn't the case.  Either he is misrepresenting the BoVD (which I seriously doubt) or WotC is misrepresenting BoVD (which wouldn't surprise me).  Hype.

Somebody is lying.

Either way, there are going to be a lot of people who buy the product expecting it to be one thing, when it may be something completely different.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the BoVD is not really very vile, and that the stuff in Dragon was basically a bait and switch tactic.  Show vile and depraved and then deliver more of the same old stuff you'd ordinarily see.  That may come as a shock to the people who buy the book (especially by pre-order).

I've decided that I'm just not going to take the plunge.  My group will not be using the material in the BoVD.  My group (14 players and myself) will not be buying the BoVD.

I'm not pre-judging the book, I'm just choosing to pass on the product because I'm tired of these types of marketing games.


----------



## gregweller (Sep 25, 2002)

It's been my experience that in intellectual freedom arguements (which I maintain this thread boils down to), when people say that they aren't talking about freedom of expression, they are, and that when they say that people should be free to look at what they want, it's usually followed by a 'but' . So here's my 'but' ...but I really like vileness.  And that's every bit a valid opinion as any other. Now for anyone who accepts thevalidity of that opinion, then I will happily accept your opinion. It's as simple as that. But if you don't accept that vileness has it's aesthetic charms, then I'm under no obligation to accept the opinion that 'sweetness and light' does as well.

And yes, I did spend about a half hour making that statement as knotted as I could. (well, that and the time I spent recalling how my faith was restored in the potential of RPGs when I saw the back cover of the Tzimisce Clanbook).


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ok two points:
> 
> 1) well, my parents certainly didn't pass the game on to me, and i'm pretty sure that none of the people i play with played with their parents either. so i'm not sure why its going to 'rely' on parents passing the game on to grow...*




I'm not sure how old you are, but the demographic is getting older. I believe the median age is now in the mid-20s for gamers. That is old enough to have kids. When I started playing, the average age was much younger. The market was very different. 

Now WotC needs to take into account what the older generation is going to say about the hobby. Unlike years past, more gamers will be getting their introduction to the game from their parents. 




> *
> 2) current trend? you call two magazines and one book a trend?
> *




Well, there are more publishers than WotC releasing 'vile' content. The WotC/Paizzo trend has admitted by the publisher has been to push the envelope. As WotC is the industry leader, they set the standard hence the criticism for them specifically. Still, the three items you mention is not all inclusive.

Thankfully, WotC and Paizzo seems to indicate this is not a permanent path. We are posting so that they will hopefully make wiser choices in the future.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> We are posting so that they will hopefully make wiser choices in the future. *




 with all due respect sj, i cancel out your post, by asking for all of it, in drippy goodness.

 but at least we are not flamin' eh?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

gregweller said:
			
		

> *It's been my experience that in intellectual freedom arguements (which I maintain this thread boils down to), when people say that they aren't talking about freedom of expression, they are, and that when they say that people should be free to look at what they want, it's usually followed by a 'but' *




The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not. 

I also accept your opinion that vile content has an aesthetic value. By that I mean, I accept that as your opnion, even though I believe that opinion is wrong. At the same time you do yourself a disservice to reject a point as untrue just because it is a different stance from yours.  The fact that I don't find a vile campaign pleasing has no baring on whether or not a good campaign is pleasing.

So please, let us avoid the "you're trying to reduce my freedom argument." I'm merely trying to convince people to freely change their opinions. Again that is the whole purpose of a message board, right?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> but at least we are not flamin' eh?  *




That is my intent.You can't really exchange ideas when you flame/insult people. 

I have enjoyed this exchange this evening alsihi2o.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *"More adult" - I won't take too much umbrage because I'm sure no offense was intended, but I think the correct term is "more vile."*



I didn't want to use "mature" because people misinterpret (I'm not sure if it's purposeful or not) how the word is used.  How's this: "I prefer a more not-for-all-audiences game."  Pretty clunky but at least it removes the bugaboo of anyone's feelings getting hurt.



> *do you feel that if Time gave sufficient warning, it would be appropriate for it to drop a Playboy spread into it just because it is read mostly by adults?*



That's not really a valid comparison.  There was no explicit nudity in Dragon 300.  If Time had labeled an article as for "mature" audiences and warned in a previous issue that they'd talk in very nonspecific terms about a necrophilic and/or about semen (again, in very nonspecific terms), yes, I'd regard that as completely appropriate.  Moreover, they're a news magazine, I wouldn't feel that they would have to even issue a warning to discuss necrophilia or semen in detail (read: almost complete lack of detail) that Dragon did.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Sep 25, 2002)

What I find sort of interesting is that reference was made in the sealed section (the spells) to the addiction rules found in the BOVD -- but didn't Monte say there was no discussion of drugs, prostitution, etc.?


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 25, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> I didn't want to use "mature" because people misinterpret (I'm not sure if it's purposeful or not) how the word is used.  How's this: "I prefer a more not-for-all-audiences game."  Pretty clunky but at least it removes the bugaboo of anyone's feelings getting hurt.



LOL - You're right, that is clunky... could we call it an NFAA game?  No, then people would get confused with college sports and... well... you're right.  There is no good term for it.  I think I understood what you were going for, though.  A game that's probably not for the 8- and 9- year olds (or even the 13- and 14- year olds) in the audience.

Too many shades of meaning to words in English... perhaps it is "double-plus-ungood" for children under 13, neh? 

--The Sigil


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Sep 25, 2002)

I think my wife and I just pegged down how to describe our game:

R with occasional forrays into NC17 depending on specific villains and specific location.



I must say, though...  I've got a few items here of note: Demons & Devils, Dragonlords of Melnibon'e, Primal Codex, Of Places Most Foul, AEG's Evil, Demonology: The Dark Road, Secret College of Necromancy...  WotC is a tad late in regards to both addressing many of these subjects as well as quantifying them to any degree, to the point that the only real selling points it has left is that it's an "official" 3E product, all in one book as opposed to scattered everywhere, and Monte Cook wrote it, and only the later two has any signifigance to me in all honesty.

My big wonder is: Are they going to actually release adventures with this information in it?  And if not, are they going to make the material OGC?  Because if it's not supported and no one else can use it, then it takes a major step towards being nothing more than a token effort to capture some of the sales that they are loosing to the grittier content offered by other publishers.

If they really want to impress, we'll see adventures and story lines out of WotC that actually make use out of it, or they green light it for other publishers to take advantage of.

Will I buy it?  Yes.  Will I make use of it?  Only if it's as dark as it's hyped to be.

Otherwise, I've already bought or written all that I really need to, and on every subject they've used to plug it, plus a few more.


----------



## Knight Otu (Sep 25, 2002)

As it seems, this has not been brought up yet, but I think it could be important to remember.

SemperJase brought up this:


> This is where Dragon #300 comes in. In a side bar to Monte Cook's "How far will you take it" article, he suggests that PC's can take BoVD feats in a vile campaign.




and this:


> For the record though, I will be passing on BoVD. I certainly will discourage players from using it as a resourse for PC feats as Dragon 300 suggests in the How far will you take it? article.




As I have not seen Dragon #300 yet, I cannot say in what way Monte Cook did not clarify this, but in this thread, he says the following:



> The ?vile? game, is, in my personal estimation, a description of taking the game a bit too far. There is a small group of players out there who enjoy gaming in a very dark world, where it?s very difficult, almost impossible, to be a hero. That?s not my cup of tea, but it?s also always my position that people can game however they want. To these players, the Book of Vile Darkness will probably be too tame.




I think that should be kept in mind. 

Edit: added another quote


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2002)

gregweller said:
			
		

> * Now for anyone who accepts thevalidity of that opinion, then I will happily accept your opinion. It's as simple as that. But if you don't accept that vileness has it's aesthetic charms, then I'm under no obligation to accept the opinion that 'sweetness and light' does as well.*




It's not a trade!  You don't _choose_ what you believe.  You either believe that  'sweetness and light' do as well - or you don't; you don't decide to believe it just because someone else has accepted your view on 'vileness'.


----------



## Olive (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure how old you are, but the demographic is getting older. I believe the median age is now in the mid-20s for gamers. That is old enough to have kids. When I started playing, the average age was much younger. The market was very different.
> 
> Now WotC needs to take into account what the older generation is going to say about the hobby. Unlike years past, more gamers will be getting their introduction to the game from their parents. *




since you brought it up, i'm 26... some of my friends are starting to get married others are having kids. but this doesn't actually address what either of us said before. you said that the hobby needs parents introducing their kids to DnD to grow. I refute that...



> *Well, there are more publishers than WotC releasing 'vile' content. The WotC/Paizzo trend has admitted by the publisher has been to push the envelope. As WotC is the industry leader, they set the standard hence the criticism for them specifically. Still, the three items you mention is not all inclusive.
> 
> Thankfully, WotC and Paizzo seems to indicate this is not a permanent path. We are posting so that they will hopefully make wiser choices in the future. *




again, you said they were heading in a certain direction, and i said that three things did not a direction make. i'm perfectly aware of the direction the industry is taking, but thats not what we're talking about...


----------



## Morrus (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> *There was a prime example for this when the thread on ENWorld started after Tracy Hickman’s newsletter was released. Several of the “moderator’s”, and I use that term loosely, added to the flames. *




Example, please.  I very much dislike being accused of things, especially when, as far as I can tell, they're basically made up.


----------



## Dragongirl (Sep 25, 2002)

That was a nasty thread, but as far as I can recall, no ENworld moderators I know were "adding to the flames".


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm not sure how old you are, but the demographic is getting older. I believe the median age is now in the mid-20s for gamers. That is old enough to have kids. When I started playing, the average age was much younger. The market was very different.
> 
> ...




I agree with you on the fact that some parents are going to introduce their kids to RPGing. I know I certainly will give it a go, and if my kids like it, all the better.

However, I must strongly refute the idea that this should be taken into account by RPG designers. My role as a parent is to make sure that I know what my kids are watching on TV, reading and (if they RP) playing. Delegating that responsability to a publisher and/or machinery (I'm thinking of the TVs that automatically cut out content of specific ratings) would not only be irresponsible on my part, it would be lazy.

So, in other words, when my son is old enough to enjoy RPing, if he's interested, he will have access to those books which I think he can 'safely' use and not to those which I think he's too young for, in the same way that I will watch Dark Crystal or Princess Bride with him and not Alien or Conan, in the same way that I will lend him Harry Potter of the LotR and not James Ellroy's novels. When he's old enough to exert proper judgement, he'll see for himself.

Shifting one's responsability as parents to whoever produces content is lazyness.


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...*



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Example, please.  I very much dislike being accused of things, especially when, as far as I can tell, they're basically made up. *




Morrus,

I certainly don't recall any moderators fanning the flames, quite the contrary.

However, I must admit to having been originally surprised at the fact that Tracy's rant was "officially" published on the forums. I believe that, had Tracy been an unknown contributor like most of the rest of us, his contribution would immediately have been edited because of the offensive comparisons and inflammatory accusations he was making (quite independantly of the point he was trying to make). 

And then I thought, if Morrus hadn't posted it, someone else would have. Still, I had an odd feeling for a few seconds...


----------



## Havoc (Sep 25, 2002)

The Book of Vile Darkness is the anti bible, I shall buy it just for the sake of ripping the pages out and burn them.
I have not read it yet but it is certainly much worse than AEG's Evil.
Monte Cook is the vilest D&D author ever, aiding WoTC to corrupts our families. 
Speaking of WoTC, they are just capitalist pigs out to steal the money from our purse with half-finished products full of decadent art. And Dragon, they just use evil as marketing ploy! Imagine that some magazines could do the same with *sex*! 
They shall all burn in the flames of Hell!
We should all play  games set in a universe where Morality is respected.
Smurf RPG, anyone?


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 25, 2002)

Havoc said:
			
		

> *Smurf RPG, anyone?  *




I've always thought that would be a great idea.

Although I must insist that the smurfette be banned from the smurf rpg since here presence in the comics is always ripe with sexual innuendo...

Havoc, go finish reading my Story Hour instead of making me laugh


----------



## Zappo (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I hope you are being ironic  *



I don't think he was being completely ironic. The BoVD has as its primary objective to depict really evil NPCs. If you are going to use the game to teach moral lessons, it can undoubtedly be useful. The fact that it _can_ be used for PCs is a completely secondary purpose.







> *I say that half-heartedly. The whole purpose of a discussion board is to sway people's opinion to your way of thinking.*



Not really, the purpose is to exchange information and opinions. Of course I'm happy when I can persuade someone, but the main reason I post is to gather information, or to better understand a problem or the way people think. I gave up on swaying people through message boards long time ago.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 25, 2002)

Sammael99 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've always thought that would be a great idea.
> 
> ...




I really did a mini smurf campaign muhuhahaha


----------



## Darklone (Sep 25, 2002)

Sheesh, dudes. Not to offend anyone but have you ever joined one of the many discussions about evil and adult content in *FAIRY TALES*?

It's a very interesting matter. People get skinned, grilled, eaten, whatever. Those are the stories parents read to their children.

I don't see much difference to D&D books.

It's both painting morals in black & white. IMHO, as long as you know what you are doing, and we are all adults here, aren't we, it's not a problem. It's about growing up and learning.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Now WotC needs to take into account what the older generation is going to say about the hobby. *




Well, I suppose I'm the older generation then.  I'm 46 and my husband is 50.  We don't have kids.  We spend a great deal of $ on D&D and D20.  Why shouldn't WotC cater to us instead of 20 somethings with young children and little disposable income?  Here's what we say about the hobby:  "We don't care if it's suitable for children.  We care if it's suitable for us.  We want high production values, interesting and varied content, and sophistication.  We purchase books because we think we will use the contents in our games, now or in the future."

I'm not trying to be inflamatory.  I just want to point out that D&D players don't all have the same world view or demographic.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

I agree with Darklone save in one respect.  We're not all adults here.  I have a 13-year old in one game I'm running.  I'm adding more complication and moral ambiguity to the game now than I did before, but still nothing like what I'd unleash on Wulf&Co.

Fairy tales are gruesome stuff, though.

I don't know if I've done my official chip into the bucket yet.  I'm most likely going to get it, but it's a DMs resource, not a player's resource, from what I've seen so far.


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

In an discustion about censorship, I being told I'm pendantic and that I should avoid being what I have to say to the table for discustion. 

I stand by what I said as validity to my original post. 

To restate my point.

Your not likely to get one side or the other on this issue to meet. 

At best you can hope for is to both sides to respect each other.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.
> *




But you see, it is the *shoulds* and *shouldn'ts* in your argument that have been causing agitation all along.  Some might ask why you are qualified to tell others (besides your own children) what they should and should not do.  By definition, you are suggesting that your position is morally superior to that of the people on the other side of the argument.  

I'm delighted that the discussion this time around has remained civil.  I want it to stay that way.  I just wanted to point out that your use of should and shouldn't are precisely what is getting my back up.


----------



## JeffB (Sep 25, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *In an discustion about censorship, I being told I'm pendantic and that I should avoid being what I have to say to the table for discustion.*




I think Dinkel meant that regarding our little "side" argument.  

*



			Your not likely to get one side or the other on this issue to meet. 

At best you can hope for is to both sides to respect each other.
		
Click to expand...


*
Agreed. And I apologize to Herald, Dinkel, and the rest of the boards for getting the thread OT for a bit.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 25, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *
> 
> But you see, it is the shoulds and shouldn'ts in your argument that have been causing agitation all along.  Some might ask why you are qualified to tell others (besides your own children) what they should and should not do.  By definition, you are suggesting that your position is morally superior to that of the people on the other side of the argument.
> 
> I'm delighted that the discussion this time around has remained civil.  I want it to stay that way.  I just wanted to point out that your use of should and shouldn't are precisely what is getting my back up. *




Exactly, and exactly, Buttercup.  

What works for you, SemperJase, doesn't work across the board.  That's why it's a personal preference, and why it will ultimately be settled by the consumer, not the advocate.


----------



## BlackMoria (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by SemperJase
> The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.




The following comments are not directed at anyone in particular.

Try to define 'Vile' with any 10 people on these boards and you will not find a consensus.  Now try it with 100 or 1000 people

I, for one, did not find the sealed section of Dragon 300 'vile' or more to the point, what I define as vile.  Your definition may vary and therein lies the problem - there is no universality of definition of vile, since 'vile' is a matter of personal taste and is highly subjective.

I consider people who espouse the burning of Harry Potter books and who try to ban the books from libraries and schools as vile, according to my own definition of vile.  Others would not and would take issue with me over that designation.

Too may people are taking the moral high ground on this topic, which is wrong. Morality is defined within the mind and conscience of each individual - it is not a absolute to be jammed down the throats of those who differ in opinion.

As I have stated before, Dragon was and is a 'house organ' for the D&D game and has been used since Issue 1 as a showcase for TSR and WOTC products.   Look at all the 'theme' issues in the past year and it is absolutely no surprise that the theme issues of Dragon come out about the same time that a product pertaining to that theme is release.   Epic issue - Epic Handbook.  Drow issue - City of the Spider Queen and Salvatore's new book.  Castle/Stronghold issue - The Stronghold Builder's Guide.

Sealed section of Dragon 300 - Book of Vile Darkness.  Why are so many people surprised and dismayed?  I am not.

How else was Dragon to showcase the new product - The Dance of the Suger Plum Faeries?

They did it the best way.  They warned us in advance that it was coming and the section in question was sealed.

Now as an individual, you can either open the sealed section or not.  If you did, and now you have taken offence, you have no moral high ground to stand upon - you were duly warned.

If you don't like the sealed section - cut it out of the magazine and throw it in the trash.  But don't presume to impose your moral yardstick of what is 'vile'  to a situation where 'individual' choice is the proper choice.

End Rant


----------



## Mallus (Sep 25, 2002)

*SemperJase, let me try and sway you...*

...just a little. I respect that you want to play the game differently than I do. 

I want to challenge your basic belief that its better to "pretend to be heroic". Can you except that playing evil might be cathartic to some? That finding a harmless avenue of expression for some ugly, antisocial impulses might be a positive experience for some people. Or do you think that any engagement with these nastier impulses has a detrimental effect on people?

Consider just how many people you wind up indicting {in my opinion double-plus-wrongly --damn, why did someone have to bust out the Newspeak??}. A lot of sane and balanced people enjoy horror and true crime fiction. And action movies which celebrate the amoral joy of power and violence, usually with the flimsiest of "moral" justification tacked on so they enjoy the mayhem with a clear consciense {but whose kidding who??}. And videogames --I can't tell how hooked the gentlest and nicest guy I know got on Grand Theft Auto 3 when I showed it to him. His wife got a kick out of it to. BTW, they're expecting their first child in Feb.

Consider that Iago and Richard the Thrid are popular roles for actors, though they make fairly poor role models. Consiser that narractive artists of all stripes create malcontents and monsters on a regular basis. There's a need for this. To create them, consumse them, even ididentify with them on some level --as well as be repulsed.

Consider that the folktales that became our Disneyfied fairytales are dark, dark affairs. And they were explicitly meant to instruct children, and scare the hell out them, and show them the monsters are for all intents and purposes, quite real. And the moral order of these stories are a lot less clear than in the later, Technicolor animated versions...

<soapbox starting to wobble...>

So far from being antisocial, this engament with nasty matters is actually a time-honored socializing tool. Or at least it can be.

Which isn't to say you should enjoy what you don't or play in a fashion that makes you uncomfortable. Different solutions for different people with different problems...

<soapbox splintering...>

But if you're serious about taking the exploration of the nastier side of the human conditon of the things we play with {games, literature, heck, musicals}, that pretty much renders them useless.

I'll stop now. Thanks for your time...


----------



## Dr. NRG (Sep 25, 2002)

My compliments to the board for an insightful and civil conversation on a typically heated topic. 

The heart of the matter, IMHO, lies in BlackMoria's following statement:



			
				BlackMoria said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Morality is defined within the mind and conscience of each individual - it is not a absolute to be jammed down the throats of those who differ in opinion.
> 
> *




I believe many people would disagree with this statement.  Consider the moral authorities widely identified by our society, and what their opinions on the above thesis would likely be... 

I would venture to guess that many of those who oppose the release of the BOVD would take issue with the statement (or perhaps support an affirmative version of it -- say "morality is defined external to individuals, is an absolute, and people should adhere to the moral standard").  Unfortunately, the capacity of people to rationally discuss the topics we're approaching (primarily politics and religion) is so limited that they cannot really be brought up in public...

Ironically, we all play a game where morality IS absolute... is it chaotic to buy BOVD, is it evil?  Is the book itself evil?    

Dr. NRG


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 25, 2002)

*The Value of Vile*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *So far from being antisocial, this engament with nasty matters is actually a time-honored socializing tool. Or at least it can be.*



Has anyone here read Bruno Bettleheim's _The Uses of Enchantment_? He's a psychologist whose theory is that fairy tales are full of horrible, horrible things -- especially CHILDREN performing horrible acts (murdering their parents, most commonly). His idea is that fairy tales have remained popular all these years precisely because they fulfill a very important socialization need -- they allow young children the chance to express feelings they have -- and KNOW are wrong.

He claims that most children have moments where they want to do terrible things -- like kill their parents. They know it's wrong, and just as importantly, they know they can't pull it off. Frustration sets in and desires get sublimated, possibly to turn up unhealthily later on. Fairy tales smooth that process over. The child, hearing the story of Hansel and Gretel, thrill to the vicarious notion that their mother hates them and their father is willing to abandon them. Just as they always suspected! And when they snap the witch into the oven, it's a cathartic murder of their own mother they're experiencing.

Horrible stuff. Not good guys at all -- or rather a paper-thin justification for good guys and bad guys, all existing solely to set up the chance to murder one's own mother.

And children get it. They know what's going on, better than adults who have been socialized to gloss over these terrible crimes. They know perfectly well they can't toss their own mother into an oven -- no matter how much they may want to sometimes. They know it's wrong. But they want to do it anyway, and without fairy tales (or some similar outlet) they have no way to actualize those desires, to see that it's normal in some sense to feel this way. They repress the desires, never allowing themselves to confront them -- and trouble begins to brew.

Now, whether you buy this specific case or not, there still exists the possiblity that _catharsis_ provides a psychologically healthy process. And vileness in some fashion (it might be time to start defining this term) will always be a part of that. And there will always be a fuzzy line between cathartic engagement and dangerous obssession. I argue that that risk, the risk of slipping over the line between (let us say) catharsis and obssession, is essential to the cathartic nature of the experience itself. Without the risk, and the survival of the risk, no catharsis can occur, no healing.

Only by looking evil in the eye and withstanding it will we ever know how much evil we can withstand. The risk that this time we will not be able to withstand it is an essential part of that learning and healing experience.

My thoughts on the value of vile.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: The Value of Vile*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *My thoughts on the value of vile. *



Just when I start despairing for the human race, I see stuff like this post.  Excellent.


----------



## gregweller (Sep 25, 2002)

Along with the excellent 'Uses of Enchantment', I'd also recommend: 'Killing Monsters: Why children need fantasy, superheroes and make-believe violence.' by Gerard Jones. He basically brings Bettleheim into the new century. His main thesis is that no matter how much parents may be dismayed at the idea, children *need* violent fantasy--and sometimes very explicit and yes *vile* fantasy in order to develope as normal human beings.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: The Value of Vile*



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Only by looking evil in the eye and withstanding it will we ever know how much evil we can withstand.B]*



*


Let me add/alter: "Only by looking evil in the mirror can we even begin to decide how to go about operating as moral entities".

Read about The Uses of Enchantment, but haven't read it. A lot of my knowledge of authentic fokltales comes from my wife the children's librarian/barely closeted Celtophile...*


----------



## Chrisling (Sep 25, 2002)

*What drove me away from D&D and what brought me back.*

I played 1st ed AD&D an enjoyed it.  I stopped playing it when 2nd ed AD&D game out.  The reason is because I found the 2nd ed AD&D stuff to be very dull and pablum; I felt they emasculated all the interesting stuff in favor of a dull sort of safety that I felt was literally childish.  So I quit.

When D&D3 came out, I was rather hoping it would be more mature and complex.  Largely, it has been.  The BoVD is the sort of thing that will keep me interested in the game because, quite frankly, I don't want my games to be pablum PG rehashes of overdone quest adventuring.

My point in all of this is that while stuff like <u>The Book of Vile Darkness</u> is going to drive away some gamers, it's likely to bring others in.  WotC is making a business decision that might pan out for them (and thus increase the likelihood of keeping gamers like me) and might not (thus proving Tracy Hickman right about what D&D players "really" want).

And, for the record, I'm definitely one of the people who has gone "big deal" about Dragon 300 and what I know of the BoVD.  I've read the purple histories about Roman Emperors, which is certainly going to be worse than anything WotC publishes.


----------



## kkoie (Sep 25, 2002)

I have to agree with the opinions of Grazzt and others, I thought the 'vile' contents of Dragon 300 to be tame, definately nothing to shake a stick at.

I thought the spells in the sealed section were _cute_, but I thought the PrCs were about the same level and quality as the cultish PrCs from a past issue.  

Anyway, I still don't understand what all the hub-bub is all about.  Ok, they used a fire word (rape) and ok, they had a spell that calls for necrophilia.  So yes those are "icky."  But the issue as a whole was no worse than the Drow issue.  Is it really so bad that its worth getting in an uproar?  And tearing out pages... ugh.  I think a 9 or 10 year old boy will probably get in to more trouble and have more "naughty thoughts" when he stumbles onto dads pile of playboy and penthouse magazines under the bed than the so called "vile" contents of a dragon magazine!

K Koie

"Wake me when something really bad is going on, til then I'll be buzy snoozing in the back while the rest of you argue."  Me - after reading issue #300.


----------



## Maraxle (Sep 25, 2002)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *I have to agree with the opinions of Grazzt and others, I thought the 'vile' contents of Dragon 300 to be tame, definately nothing to shake a stick at.
> 
> I thought the spells in the sealed section were cute, but I thought the PrCs were about the same level and quality as the cultish PrCs from a past issue.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of what you said.  The one part I'm not sure about is "the PrCs were about the same level and quality as the cultish PrCs from a past issue."  I'm not sure to which PrCs you are referring, so I can't comment on the quality of that issue.  However, I thought the quality of the "vile" section was lacking, and its contents lacking in imagination.  To me, the only thing "vile" about the whole thing was the writing.  I am glad to know that someone other than the author of that article is writing the book.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Sammael99 said:
			
		

> *
> Delegating that responsability to a publisher and/or machinery (I'm thinking of the TVs that automatically cut out content of specific ratings) would not only be irresponsible on my part, it would be lazy.
> *




You are crediting a theory to me that is the opposite of what I suggest. My theory is based on ACTIVE parenting. I am suggesting that parent gamers will steer their children away from the hobby if it continues this vile trend. 

That does not suggest that parents abdicate their responsibility. In this case, they would be embracing it. As a result, a family friendly game would create more sales.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *
> By definition, you are suggesting that your position is morally superior to that of the people on the other side of the argument.
> 
> ... I just wanted to point out that your use of should and shouldn't are precisely what is getting my back up. *




I agree. I do believe my position to be morally superior. My belief that people improve themselves by roleplaying "good" behavior and degrade themselves by playing "evil" behavior is mutually exclusive from the belief that people benefit from playing "evil" characters.

I do respect your right to hold your opinion. I am not forcing my morality on anyone. Please note that I am not proposing laws or enforcement of my beliefs on others. 

As for getting you hackles up, you are giving me power over your emotions. I appreciate that I hit a nerve though. That tells me there is something worth debating.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree. I do believe my position to be morally superior. My belief that people improve themselves by roleplaying "good" behavior and degrade themselves by playing "evil" behavior is mutually exclusive from the belief that people benefit from playing "evil" characters. *



But this is precisely why, no matter how strenuously you insist that you're not moralizing or taking a superior tone, people will read that in what you write, no matter how flowery you make it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *My belief that people improve themselves by roleplaying "good" behavior and degrade themselves by playing "evil" behavior is mutually exclusive from the belief that people benefit from playing "evil" characters. *



Is this all you have to say on the issue of catharsis and the need to confront evil that I brought up in my above post "The Value of Vile"? I'm a little disappointed -- I was looking forward to your comments on those ideas.


> *a family friendly game would create more sales.*



Not necessarily. See my post in the "Family Game?" thread about risk versus reward both in the film industry and gaming. Although this conversation ought to stay on that thread since this thread has really been more about the moral values of vile, rather than the appropriate business direction for Hasbro to be taking.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *But this is precisely why, no matter how strenuously you insist that you're not moralizing or taking a superior tone, people will read that in what you write, no matter how flowery you make it. *




I am moralizing. So are people on the other side of the debate. According to their morals, evil characters are good. 

As for being superior, let me clarify. I do not claim to be superior. I claim that this moral code of playing only good characters is superior. There is a difference. It is a superior moral code that makes people better.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am moralizing. So are people on the other side of the debate. According to their morals, evil characters are good.
> 
> As for being superior, let me clarify. I do not claim to be superior. I claim that this moral code of playing only good characters is superior. There is a difference. It is a superior moral code that makes people better. *



My point is that you can't possibly not offend people when you take the kind of tone you do, no matter how you try to disguise it.  Many people are going to find it inheritly offensive.  I'm trying not to reciprocate, but it's why such discussions can almost never be polite and well-reasoned.  At best you get the sense the person you're talking to is smiling and nodding at you like a retarded child and saying, "Well, I'm sure with your limited faculties you beleive you're right; I forgive you for being so limited."


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Is this all you have to say on the issue of catharsis and the need to confront evil that I brought up in my above post "The Value of Vile"? I'm a little disappointed -- I was looking forward to your comments on those ideas.
> *




Sorry to disappoint barsoomcore  . I was trying to avoid being redundant. 

I disagree with your source. If you go to a sports psychologist to improve your performance, he will tell you to visual success. You are what you practice to be. Now you may not become a murder, but you will be practicing mistreatment of others. If you view yourself as someone who wants to improve the world around you, you won't get there by practicing oppression. 

I also base this on my personal observations. I have not yet met  a gamer who enjoys playing evil characters that I find trustworthy. Would you trust the guy who likes to roleplay a rapist as a baby sitter with your daughter?


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I also base this on my personal observations. I have not yet met  a gamer who enjoys playing evil characters that I find trustworthy. Would you trust the guy who likes to roleplay a rapist as a baby sitter with your daughter? *



Would you trust--oh, I don't know--Clive Barker or Stephen King with your child?  Assuming you knew them as people of course and found nothing else horrible about them other than what they wrote?

If you write a story about a rapist or play a rapist in a film, only silly people would believe that you are a rapist.  Same thing here.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *My point is that you can't possibly not offend people when you take the kind of tone you do, no matter how you try to disguise it.  Many people are going to find it inheritly offensive.  *




Well, don't be offended Rob. I am fully disclosing my biases and motivations. 

To claim that others in this debate are not trying to convince others that their position is morally superior is to be willfully ingnorant. Of course people like Buttercup and Barsoomcore believe their position is morally superior. That is why they make the choices they do. 

Now I would be insulting them if I thought they held a position they believed to be morally inferior.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 25, 2002)

Depends on who it is.  My brother likes to play evil PC's on occasion.  I'd let him babysit, hell I babysit his kid on occasion.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *If you write a story about a rapist or play a rapist in a film, only silly people would believe that you are a rapist.  Same thing here. *




The difference between this example and our discussion is that an author writing about a character in a book is different from identifiying and personalizing the actions of a character you roleplay. 

Generally, the author is describing the actions of someone else and presents that as a conflict to be overcome. Now the person who writes rapist fantasies disturbs me. I don't find that person trustworthy.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> * I agree. I do believe my position to be morally superior. *




Ok.  I figured that you did.  I was just trying to be polite.




> *I appreciate that I hit a nerve though. That tells me there is something worth debating. *




Not exactly.  It tells you that you offend people by telling them how to live their lives and how to think.  It might surprise you to know that I don't allow evil PCs in my games.  I'm not interested in DMing an evil campaign.  Nor am I interested in playing an evil PC (evil NPCs are necessary). But in spite of your protestations to the contrary, you *have* advocated censorship.  That offends me.  Your high horse offends me.

I give up.  Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> You are what you practice to be.  *




 so, does this mean you, and everyone else in a good campaign are vigilante thugs? magicians? sword weilders?

 i personally have played many space games without turning into an astronaut, and have as yet to cast a spell, weild a sword or heal someone by calling on a god......


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

Just a warning, we're getting really close to getting this thread closed.  Let's trying being a little less judgmental of each other, 'kay?


----------



## Zappo (Sep 25, 2002)

A couple of questions, aimed at anyone who wishes to think about it. One I've already posed, but I feel it could still be useful. It also introduces the second, which is new, but more generic.

How many think that the BoVD is evil, in the sense that it promotes RL evil, and how many think that it isn't evil but other people (eg. fundamentalists) may find it evil (thus damaging the hobby)?

Among the first group, how many think "I could become evil IRL by exposure to "vile" themes", and how many think "I'm strong willed enough, but someone else (eg. kids) could become evil IRL by exposure to "vile" themes"?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> i personally have played many space games without turning into an astronaut, and have as yet to cast a spell, weild a sword or heal someone by calling on a god...... *




I haven't explored an underground cave or jumped over at 15' pit in real life either. 

Let me be more specific. Johnny Wilson in his prison article noted the most sited benefit of D&D. It encourages teamwork, socialization and problem solving. 

What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> That is the impact that translates into the real world. *




 but it doesn't. some of the most selfish people i have ever met were great gamers, could pull a ragged party together into a fighting unit in no time at all. 

 i have never heard of a well socialized, normal person turning into a vigilabte thug from gaming with a "good" group....so how would gaming with an evil group turn one into a rapist or necrophiliac?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> *snip*
> 
> What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world. *




Any game I would run would teach that those activities land you into a big heap o' trouble.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 25, 2002)

Here's a question, Jase:

Do you think that all DMs are doomed to become evil people?  After all, they typically play all of the bad guys in a campaign.  Running that much evil should have a pretty strong impact on them, right?


----------



## herald (Sep 25, 2002)

Sorry SemperJase,

But there is a whole big enough to drive a truck though in the logic that you are proposing.

I'll give you an example.

Let's say I'm cast in the part of a villian at a reniassance festival. I'm not getting paid for it, but what the heck. It's kind of like community theater. 

They want me to really play it over the top. They want me to play a voilent, corrupt, lustful, inpious priest. A powerful one at that.

So, I go ahead with it. I have fun with the character. I torment peasants and give viled threats. I reward my underlings for thier devious natures. When audiance members insinuate that I might even participate in nasty things with alter boys, I coyly skirt the issue. I even go so far and try and entice audiance members to be just a cruel and debauced like me.

And all the while, the audiance keeps asking for more.


Am I morally wrong?

Am I evil?

After all, I am role playing in the strictest sense of the word. 


Am I polluting myself because I an putting forth a fictional persona who is corrupt?

Think about this, because you should realize that you can't have light with out darkness.

You can't have a virtuous hero if they is not some villian to overcome.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> *
> you have advocated censorship.  That offends me.  Your high horse offends me.
> 
> I give up.  Welcome to my ignore list. *




I find it strange that you take offense at me. Apparently you enjoy the type of game I suggest which means you do agree that kind of game is better.

I must clarify again that I have not advocated censorship. Not once have I suggested that WotC not be allowed to publish what they want. I have not suggested that gamers be prohibited from playing the kind of game they want.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> i have never heard of a well socialized, normal person turning into a vigilabte thug from gaming with a "good" group....so how would gaming with an evil group turn one into a rapist or necrophiliac? *




Good point. I agree that D&D alone will not turn you into a thug. It is one piece of a larger picture. 

I am not suggesting that evil D&D characters and unsocial behavior are cause and effect respectively.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Sep 25, 2002)

I have some questions for you SemperJase.  

How "evil" are the villians in your game?

What motivation do you give your "good" characters to oppose them?

It can get awfully boring portraying evil NPCs as vanilla, mustache twisting cartoon villains. So what do your villains act like?

I think a point a lot of people have made is that the BOVD is not really meant for PC's but can help DM's create some truly memorable villains. I for one will buy the BOVD and just not use the thngs I find distasteful.

Dirge


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I do not claim to be superior. I claim that this moral code of playing only good characters is superior. There is a difference. It is a superior moral code that makes people better. *




 a. a moral code of playing only good characters is superior
 b. a superior moral code is better.
 c you have the former moral code.
 which can only lead to d. you think you are better.

 if you are not saying it outright in these post, you are definetely implying it, and i think you are too smart to get by pretending that thsi shouldn't insult people. yes?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Any game I would run would teach that those activities land you into a big heap o' trouble. *




You are using your game to reinforce positive social behavior. That sounds like a great environment to me.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Good point. I agree that D&D alone will not turn you into a thug. It is one piece of a larger picture.
> 
> I am not suggesting that evil D&D characters and unsocial behavior are cause and effect respectively. *




 "You are what you practice to be. Now you may not become a murder, but you will be practicing mistreatment of others. If you view yourself as someone who wants to improve the world around you, you won't get there by practicing oppression"

 actually, yes, you do suggest just that, very clearly


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I disagree with your source. If you go to a sports psychologist to improve your performance, he will tell you to visual success.*



A pretty facile example, I think you have to agree. We're not talking about hitting a baseball here. We're talking about the best way to live one's life. It seems like you see everything that you do as a sort of "practice" of previously defined patterns. That is, the question of what is the best way to be has already been decided and our job is simply to get better at being that way.

I don't view life as that sort of activity at all. To me, life is an exploration, a constant growing and learning experience -- the very antithesis of "practice". I don't know what the best way to be is -- I doubt I ever will. I have theories on good ways to be and I constantly test those theories -- which necessarily entails going down some blind alleys and getting myself into trouble. So far from practicing a method of living my life I am constantly searching out new methods and comparing them against the ones I have now.

I'm not practicing to be anything.


> *I have not yet met  a gamer who enjoys playing evil characters that I find trustworthy. Would you trust the guy who likes to roleplay a rapist as a baby sitter with your daughter? *



More than I would the guy who pretends he never has to face evil. That man doesn't know himself and his behaviour under stress cannot be predicted.


> *Of course people like Buttercup and Barsoomcore believe their position is morally superior.*



I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I do not in any way consider my position to be morally superior.

I consider it correct. I consider myself correct. I consider you wrong. It's got nothing to do with morality and everything to do with truth and falsehood. It's simply false to suggest that exploration is without value. To say that confronting evil within ourselves will only make us worse people. 

It sounds rather like you are suggesting that people are weak and incapable of making value judgements for themselves. That seems to be why you resist the notion of value in vile -- because in your way of seeing things, we all insensibly become whatever it is that we practice. You don't seem to allow for the possibility that in exploring something vile we might reject it even more strongly than we ever did -- and with better reason. Again, I suggest that your way only works if we're satisfied that the answers provided to us are adequate.

Which I am not, and will never be. I believe that this sort of satisfaction is what allows injustice and cruelty to persist -- the unwillingness to have one's values tested.

This is not a moral judgement. It is a factual one.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 25, 2002)

*A thousand times no SJ...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The difference between this example and our discussion is that an author writing about a character in a book is different from identifiying and personalizing the actions of a character you roleplay.
> 
> Generally, the author is describing the actions of someone else and presents that as a conflict to be overcome. Now the person who writes rapist fantasies disturbs me. I don't find that person trustworthy. *




Authors identify with their characters all the time. Objectifying internal emotional/cognitive states is the very core of art. If there isn't a piece of yourself in your work, how did it get made? Morever, why did it get made?  To say a gamers relationship/identification with a character is stronger than that of an author does a great disservice to all artists practicing their craft. Writers, actors, sculptors, puppeteers, you name it.

Authors create villians to be overcome, but who are those villians exactly? Is it too trite to mention that these unpleasant guys spring forth from the author, and for some very act of creating weak/despicable/fallen/futile characters allow them to safely, healthily deal with issues that never get expressed as actual behavior?

Viola, catharsis.

I'm not asking everyone to find value in this, only to consider that some do. Some people that you could very well trust as babysitters.

Also, to invert your other statement, why would you automatically trust a person who played a paladin? Its a simple matter to always do the right thing when nothings on the line. Hard choices simply do not exist in a narrow, bounded, unreal world of the game. When its your life, future and happiness in the living, breathing world thats at stake, then do moral choices have meaning.


----------



## BlackMoria (Sep 25, 2002)

> SemperJase wrote:
> I must clarify again that I have not advocated censorship. Not once have I suggested that WotC not be allowed to publish what they want. I have not suggested that gamers be prohibited from playing the kind of game they want.






> SemperJase earlier wrote:
> The debate is not about whether they can print vile content. It is if they should and if people should read it. My position is that they should not and people should not.




At face value, your statements above don't sync up, putting your argument on a slippery slope.

If you are not hinting at censorship in the second quote above, just what are you saying then?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

BLACKDIRGE said:
			
		

> *I have some questions for you SemperJase.
> 
> How "evil" are the villians in your game?
> *




Generally they threaten the lives or freedom of other characters for self interest.
Do you mean are they vile? The answer to that is no. However my beef isn't with graphic content (although I personally don't use it).



> *
> What motivation do you give your "good" characters to oppose them?*




Usually to prevent an immediate threat to themselves or their family/neighbors. There are hundreds of ways to do that. 



> *
> I think a point a lot of people have made is that the BOVD is not really meant for PC's but can help DM's create some truly memorable villains. I for one will buy the BOVD and just not use the thngs I find distasteful.
> Dirge *




I understand you point. My difficulty with BoVD is that Dragon 300  does (and at this point I have to assume that the book itself will) suggest that PCs take feats from BoVD. (see the side bar on page 47.)


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> 
> "You are what you practice to be. Now you may not become a murder, but you will be practicing mistreatment of others. If you view yourself as someone who wants to improve the world around you, you won't get there by practicing oppression"
> 
> actually, yes, you do suggest just that, very clearly *




OK, let me say, my position has been revised. You are right, D&D itself will not lead to depravity. It is a step on that road though when used to reinforce negative social behavior. 

See, I'm reasonable


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *D&D itself will not lead to depravity. It is a step on that road though when used to reinforce negative social behavior. *



How would you feel about this restatement of your position:

_Roleplaying evil behaviour exposes players to the danger that they will feel encouraged to participate in evil behaviour in real life._

Then the issue becomes one of "Do we consider the danger worth facing?" Perhaps most of us would agree that the danger, to a greater or lesser degree, exists. Where we disagree are on the questions of risk and potential gain. You seem to see a very high risk coupled with very little (perhaps no) potential for gain. I see almost no real risk and a reasonable potential for gain (we're talking about a game, it's not likely to change your life, but you never know).

Does that sound right? It does to me.


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are crediting a theory to me that is the opposite of what I suggest. My theory is based on ACTIVE parenting. I am suggesting that parent gamers will steer their children away from the hobby if it continues this vile trend.
> 
> That does not suggest that parents abdicate their responsibility. In this case, they would be embracing it. As a result, a family friendly game would create more sales. *




By the same token you could easily argue that parents will ban movies and TV for the same reasons. You can't deny that much viler content exists there. And yet this has not happened. If anything, the contrary has !

My point was simply that I don't believe RPing parents will ban anything because some products in the product line appeal to adults rather than kids. As has been argued many times here, I doubt very much they'll be anything more vile than stuff we have already seen in D&D product lines in the past...


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

BlackMoria said:
			
		

> *
> At face value, your statements above don't sync up, putting your argument on a slippery slope.
> 
> If you are not hinting at censorship in the second quote above, just what are you saying then? *




Censorship is a frequently misused term. It implies enforcement. For me to censor anything I would be making choices for you or taking your choices away. 

I have not said that people cannot buy our use BoVD for their PCs. Saying people should not do something (not use evil PCs) as a result of their freewill is far different from saying people cannot do something as the result of the imposition of my will on them. It is entirely appropriate to encourage people to change their mind about an issue while in many cases it is not appropriate to forcibly make people conform (exceptions are real murder, rape, etc) 



> _Originally posted by barsoomcore_
> *I do not in any way consider my position to be morally superior.
> I consider it correct. I consider myself correct. I consider you wrong.*




I believe that correct is superior to incorrect, right is superior to wrong.  You view your position as right/superior. I have no problem with that. Others did have a problem with me believing that my position is right and their was wrong. It seems a double standard to me. 

 For example, the person who put me on her ignore list is not upset about my position (other than a misinterpration she insists on), but moreso that I think my position is right.  I'm confused about that one. I am not going to debate for a position I think is wrong.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> 
> a. a moral code of playing only good characters is superior
> b. a superior moral code is better.
> ...




See my last. 

I do believe that people should not be offended that I believe my position is right. Substitute "right" for superior. 

I think they believe their moral position is superior to mine. If they did not believe that, they would not take the trouble to reply. That is what I want to engage. It does not offend me at all that people have a different opinion from mine which they inherently think is superior. It is an intergral part of debate.

But maybe this subthread should be for the meta-board.


----------



## MissHappen (Sep 25, 2002)

*Vileness*

This has been a thread with great amounts of gravity. I keep getting pulled back to read it.

The way things have turned, I've got a little bit to add... first, for the record, I was not at all shocked at issue 300. The only thing that made me raise eyebrows was the demon-semen spell. I admitted to a certain trepidation about issue 300, but that was because I was afraid of a TnA gorefest. As it was, I didn't think the issue was all that bad.
About the upcoming Book... well, I'm interested, but not really any more than I am in any other gaming book. If it has material I'll use, then I'll probably buy it (particularly if the monsters are good, because I'm a monster junky... but anyway...). I don't think they'll really go anywhere nobody else has gone regardless... after all, consider some of White Wolf's 'Black Dog' material, along with some of the other titles mentioned in this forum from other companies. 
It's a neutral issue for me. 
Now, I'm a DM who runs a 'mature' game, and this often spikes in 'vile' directions. In fact, I've got a sort of reputation for disturbing players (although I should mention that being a woman with a penchant for acting seems to disturb many male gamers for no apparently good reason...), and my players would argue I never need help in making a believable, hate-able, just plain nasty villain. 
But myself? I'm a nice person. I'm courteous, good sense of humor, not plagued by horrible dreams (not technically), etc. If using 'vile' material is a path to degradation, then by all counts I should be fairly nasty at this point. After all, I've been developing foulness for campaigns for years now. 
No, I'll have to disagree. It's all in how you use it. Information of any kind is just neutral; it doesn't do anything at all unless you use it for something. Better that we have information, though; education is always far better than ignorance.

For myself? I enjoy having vileness in the game. It provides a grand linchpin for character development, alignment examination, philosophical debate, story hooks and plots, and so much more. It's excellent for contrast, and it can really scare and provoke players if properly presented.

But properly presenting vileness.... aesthetically pleasing vileness... that's a whole other thread, really.

-MsM


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 25, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I believe that correct is superior to incorrect, right is superior to wrong.  You view your position as right/superior.*



Use whatever definitions of "right" and "superior" you like. My objection was to you saying that I considered myself morally superior. I do not. One can be right without considering oneself _morally_ superior. Now if by the term "morally superior" you actually meant "correct" then fine, we agree on terminology.

I have to point out that "superior" is a synonym with "better" -- so your original statement could be interpreted to mean that I think I am "better" than you. Which I most emphatically do not. I can think that I am right and you are wrong without holding any opinion at all as to which of us is "better".

I hope we're not descending to a semantic argument and I hope the above is not your only response to my concerns.

We're certainly keeping you busy! It's fun to be unpopular, isn't it?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 25, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> * I can think that I am right and you are wrong without holding any opinion at all as to which of us is "better".*




I agree. I did not mean to say I was better. Someone else made that inference. I was not trying to characterize you, just to illustrate that each person has their own biases and thinks their position is right. That in itself is not sufficient reason to dismiss a debating point. 

So let us give one final clarification. I am not superior to others on this board. 



> *
> We're certainly keeping you busy! It's fun to be unpopular, isn't it? *




No kidding. But really, I'm probably the most laid back guy you could meet. I do love discussion though.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Generally, the author is describing the actions of someone else and presents that as a conflict to be overcome. Now the person who writes rapist fantasies disturbs me. I don't find that person trustworthy. *



Are you a writer?  When I write I really internalize the POV character I'm writing (well, usually), and I think you'll find that this is fairly common.

Furthermore, you ignored the actor part of the question.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world. *



This is really a straw man, because the Book of Vile Darkness and Dragon 300 are no more intended to encourage people to role play villains than the DMG is by putting the Blackguard prestige class in it.

You keep talking like these products advocate playing villains, which they patently do not do (disclaimer: this is inargueable from Dragon 300 and I'm trusting Monte when he says he doesn't overly encourage it in the BoVD).

What these books are for is to make villains scarier.  That's how 90% of people are probably going to use them.  And if people use them to play PCs, well, they can already play villains with the core rules.

Please stop setting up unnecessarily steep cliffs to throw your tied and helpless victims over, 'k?


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I am not suggesting that evil D&D characters and unsocial behavior are cause and effect respectively. *



That is not true.  You clearly intimated that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I understand you point. My difficulty with BoVD is that Dragon 300  does (and at this point I have to assume that the book itself will) suggest that PCs take feats from BoVD. (see the side bar on page 47.) *



That doesn't mean that they will be villains.  You don't know what these feats are.  My guess is that Monte is probably referring to feats that are temptations that don't, at first, seem like anything all that bad.  They're probably the milder feats.  For example:

My PCs nearly became drug addicts.  They found this drug that pumped up their stats and had no hangover or ill side effects.  They saw no detriment in not taking the drug at first.  Eventually, they figured out it would be a bad idea to do, but it's that kind of edgeplay and tension that I see being advocated in Monte's article in Dragon 300.

Even if there are outright evil feats characters could take, that doesn't necessarily make them villains.  I could have a lot of fun with a hero that had sold his soul to a demon.


----------



## Griswold (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *
> Please stop setting up unnecessarily steep cliffs to throw your tied and helpless victims over, 'k? *





outstanding!


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *
> You keep talking like these products advocate playing villains, which they patently do not do (disclaimer: this is inargueable from Dragon 300 and I'm trusting Monte when he says he doesn't overly encourage it in the BoVD).
> 
> Please stop setting up unnecessarily steep cliffs to throw your tied and helpless victims over, 'k? *




I suppose you mean that it is inargueable that Dragon 300 does encourage people to play evil characters. 
If Monte Cook says that he does not encourage people to do so, he is contradicting his own article. Read the side bar. It clearly encourages PCs to use feats from the BoVD.

In addition another article, The Risen Dead, encourages players to take prestige classes that have evil alignments.

Pg. 71 "a player character with a template is little different from any other character, and anyone reading this is ready for the challenges they present. 

Pg. 73 (Creating a mummy)
"Alignment: Always lawful evil"

Pg. 76 (Wight)
"Alignment: Usually evil"

Pg. 77 (Wraiths)
"Alignment: Always evil"
My argument is based on what the author of BoVD and Dragon Magazine in general states. There is no inference here.  That is not a strawman argument.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 26, 2002)

are you sure you aren't confusing encouragement with explaining possibilities there sj?

 possibility: you could jump off that cliff

 encouragement: you should jump off that cliff


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *That is not true.  You clearly intimated that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist. *




I still believe that. Now, does D&D create those fantasies? I doubt it. But the game can be used as a vehicle to promote this behavior. 

My position is that it is not healthy to encourage those fantasies. D&D can be positive or negative. I encourage people to use it for positive social interaction. 

I would make it a policy to avoid a person who sought to actively act out evil fantasies. I am much more comfortable being around people who act out behavior that is socially beneficial.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *are you sure you aren't confusing encouragement with explaining possibilities there sj?
> *




Yes. A couple issues ago the theme was paladins. I didn't see any statement in the issue that says you should play paladins. Clearly the information was presented so it could be incorporated into the readers' campaigns. 

Dragon 300 had choices to make, either they could made no statement about the material's use, they could have said the material should be used for NPC's only, or they could have said that the material can is appropriate for PCs (that is encouragement). As I sited above, they chose the latter.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I would make it a policy to avoid a person who sought to actively act out evil fantasies. *




 but you sit around chatting with us anyway.....


  (it was joke, i think sj knows it  )


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Clearly the information was presented so it could be incorporated into the readers' campaigns.
> 
> Dragon 300 had choices to make, either they could made no statement about the material's use, they could have said the material should be used for NPC's only, or they could have said that the material can is appropriate for PCs (that is encouragement). As I sited above, they chose the latter. *




 again, could, not should.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *My position is that it is not healthy to encourage those fantasies. D&D can be positive or negative. I encourage people to use it for positive social interaction. *



Does this mean you're simply rejecting my points about exploration, seeking out one's own answers rather than blindly "practicing" the strictures provided, and the notion that risk is an essential part of learning? Are you just going to ignore these arguments without providing any sort of counter? If so, then I guess my work here is done. The incorrectness of your position has been clearly demonstrated, and you're offering nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

I put it to you again: We agree that there is a degree of risk associated with the exploration of "negative" behaviour. We disagree on the level of risk, as well as the potential for gain. 

Is it your position that exploring negative behaviour is devoid of value, OR are you concerned that the level of risk is too high in exchange for the potential gain? Different concepts, you see. If you feel there is no value in exploring negative behaviour, then it becomes difficult to communicate -- this is so alien a notion to me (and I think to Western culture generally) that it's difficult for me to come to terms with. If on the other hand you feel that the risk is too high to justify the potential gain, well then, we can begin a discussion on just what the gains might be, and why we rate the risk as we do.

And from _that_ discussion, I think, we might learn things.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> again, could, not should. *




That is encouragement. The magazine inidates it is appropriate to use it. Encouraging someone to do somthing indicates they have a choice whether to do it or not (i.e. they could). 

I will grant you the magazine does not say people should do that. Just as it did not say that everyone SHOULD play a Paladin. It still encouraged people to play paladins should they decide to do so. Dragon 300 encourages people to play evil characters should they wish to do so. 

My stand is principled that people should not play evil characters. I am encouraging them to play good characters to encourage positive social behavior.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Does this mean you're simply rejecting my points about exploration, seeking out one's own answers rather than blindly "practicing" the strictures provided, and the notion that risk is an essential part of learning?  *




Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy.


----------



## herald (Sep 26, 2002)

*Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy.* 

Define act them out.


Are you saying that no fantasy story should contain such elements?

After all, it is implied in D&D that such things do go on with regular frequency. 

It's doubtful that Human women are lining up to meet available Orcish Men, marry them and breed with them. 

And yet we know that there are plenty of Half-Orcs in the game worlds.

Murder is part and parsel of D&D. You can't remove it. characters that decend into Kobold Lairs are no less guilty than any other kind of killer.


----------



## Skarp Hedin (Sep 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by RobNJ _
> That is not true. You clearly intimated that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist.






> _Originally posted by SemperJase_
> I still believe that.




Peter Greene plays a rapist in _Pulp Fiction_.  Ving Rhames plays a criminal and soon-to-be torturer.  I'm sure we can agree that these actions are potentially vile (depending on one's definitition of vile of course) and that they are at the very least unacceptable social behavior.

So basically, my question is this:  Does your belief that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist hold true for actors as well?  If not, why does it stop at D&D?  If it stops somewhere other than D&D, where?

edit: spelling


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Sep 26, 2002)

*awaits answer to previous post with interest*

Being as I'm an actor.


----------



## Zulkir (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I hope you are being ironic
> 
> For the record though, I will be passing on BoVD. I certainly will discourage players from using it as a resourse for PC feats as Dragon 300 suggests in the How far will you take it? article. *




No, I am not be Ironic. You said:



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Sure, your basic good vs. evil where the PCs play the good guys whose goal is to overcome evil. The fact that such a game can contain undead or violence does not exclude it from being a family game. Violence is used in real world situations everyday for good (cops shooting and killing criminals). When the situations used above are clearly defined as evil actions then the social, team-building, and moral lessons are valuable.
> 
> Taking your example, one can criticize previously mentioned John Wayne movies. They show murder, theft, lieing etc. But in context they are morality plays. Those things are clearly defined as bad and force is used to overcome evil.
> *




So by this I assume that you are in favor of the DM presenting evil dispacable villains to be overcome by the heroic PC's. Unless I am desperately misunderstanding what you are saying. 
Allow me to quote the opening of the BoVD:



> _Book of Vile Darkness Introduction _
> *
> 
> Before you put this book down in disgust, however, consider this: The darker the shadow of evil, the brighter the light of good. The more horrible the villain, the greater the hero. If you are interested in adding the truly horrific to your game as something for the palyer characters (PCs) to vanquish, then this book is for you.
> ...




So given your statement and given the position of the _book_ (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.

AV


----------



## herald (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm interested in the actor response since I'm one too.


----------



## Barak (Sep 26, 2002)

Well..  From a psychological point of view, it appears to me that Semper is a behaviorist.  By that I mean that he believes that for someone to grow, the best way is 1-If possible, disallow "incorrect" behavior in any form, 2-if not possible, punish "incorrect" behavior (I use the term punish lightly.  It could simply be making sure that "incorrect" behavior is automatically followed by bad consequences).  And, of course, on the flip side, reward "correct" behavior.  

Now, a few things strikes me as wrong with that.  At the start, it assumes that the DM has, in part, a role of "teacher".  It is his role to insure the player learns RL values from the game.  I, for one, wouldn't want to play with such a DM.  The role of the DM, in my view, is to 1-create the world, 2-advance, through various mean, plotlines, 3-roleplay all the NPCs.  He is, however, a -part- of the story being unfolded, and so are the players.  Yes, in the end his part might be "greater" in a way, but he isn't in a -real- position of authority over the players due to that.  Yes, he is also the arbitrator, the one who decides which material is and isn't used, but I view that -simply- as a balancing role, not as a moralistic one.

Secondly, to espouse such a view means that every action that would be viewed as "bad" in the real world should carry a bad consequence, if not be outright banned.  Therefore, any action from the players to "correct" any wrong without proper authority should be frowned upon.  A village is attacked by bandits?  Contact the authority, do not act as a vigilante.  A rogue wants to pickpocket a rich, greedy and evil merchant?  He -must- be caught, otherwise it is assumed the player of said rogue will become a modern Robin Hood, which is, after all, illegal.

But much more then that.  Although behaviorism is still taught by some psychology teachers, and some books are still written espousing it, it has, by and large, been rejected as a valid psychological view for humans.  It does work very well on dogs and very small children.  But from 8-9 years old onward, the human psyche is much more complicated then that, and such a simple view do not suffice.  It is my contention that the simple use of "evil content" in a RPG, no matter how vile, will not, by itself, corrupt the players to espouse such content in their RL.  Especially evident, of course, if such material is used solely for the NPCs in a campaign.  The only caveat -might- be teachings that such concepts even exist.  Yes, if Joe Smith didn't even know that necrophilia -existed-, and he was to read about it in a book, the chances of him becoming a necrophile -might- be bigger then before he read about it.  But even that idea is somewhat sketchy, and, let's face it, I doubt the BoVD will introduce new vileness many of us hadn't heard of before.  

As for the idea that the very -existence- of a line of such books should turn parents from introducing children into the hobby, it reeks of "throwing the baby with the bathwater".  After all, there is many books out there that I wouldn't want my children to read.  What is the best way to prevent them from reading those books?  To not teach them to read.  Well..  Too late for that, Thank God.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> *
> So basically, my question is this:  Does your belief that someone who plays a rapist it not trustworthy to not be a rapist hold true for actors as well?  If not, why does it stop at D&D?  If it stops somewhere other than D&D, where? *




What is the theme of the movie and the purpose of the portrayal? The theme that these actions are evil and they should be overcome? Then I see a valid reason for these portrayals. It is what the overall message is.

The actor may be portraying an evil action, yet he is participating in message that is beneficial to society. That is murder and rape are evil actions and those who commit them need to be removed from society. 

Evil roleplaying games do not send the same message. There the goal is for the PC to commit evil actions and to avoid any consequences. I still say that is not beneficial to society.


----------



## Griswold (Sep 26, 2002)

Zulkir said:
			
		

> *
> 
> given the position of the book (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.
> 
> AV *




I'm bothered by the existance of the satanic bible, the BoVD doesn't strike me as being that big of a deal, that may change once I read it though  

Quick ? please.

BoVD is sitting at ~950 on the amazon charts right now, and is likely going to sell very well. 

With that in mind, do you see D&D taking on a more "edgier" tone in the core rules and future suppliments, or is this just a "one-off" sort of book, and the flavor of it's content would not be revisted  or alter the existing tone of the game in any event? 

I think that may be a big concern among the devoted ( I know it is with me).

(hope that makes sense )

Thanks!

Gris.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy. *




SJ, it's been already pointed out that behind the "good triumphing over evil" theme, D&D is all about murder. That's its core structure: "kill things and take their stuff." Sure, most of the times those things are evil or neutral, but they're often intelligent, and murdering an evil person is still murder.  Does this make D&D bad or evil itself? No, of course not. It's a tremendously fun game, delightful for setting up exciting adventures and difficult moral quandries in-game.  The fundamental theme of "kill the enemy" has never made me want to go kill my officemate when they take my stapler.

So I think it's hypocritical to say "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so they are BAD and no one should", instead of "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so I won't."  I respect other peoples' judgement enough that I don't think I can judge what's appropriate for their campaign.  

3e is all about choices. You want to play a monster, or an evil character, and your DM lets you? Cool. I may not want to game with you, but what you do isn't going to affect my game in the least.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

Zulkir said:
			
		

> *
> So given your statement and given the position of the book (as opposed to what people are saying about the book, or are speculating about the book, or are writing about the book, or are afraid the book is about). Are you in favor of the Book of Vile Darkness?? And by this question I mean its existence - not that you are planning on buying it yourself.
> AV *




I understand its use for NPCs. I'm not debating that use. I accept its existence. Again I am not saying that action should be taken to prevent its printing if that is what you are inferring.  For my personal taste, I won't use the book as I find that level of graphicness( is that a word?) unnecessary for my campaign. 

I am somewhat relieved that BoVD itself does not encourage use as PC material from what you say. Still, official D&D material does encourage that use. That is my concern.


----------



## takyris (Sep 26, 2002)

From a social responsibility standpoint, I think it's reasonable to accept that if you put a feat out there, and it's an NPC feat, PCs will still try to take it.

Players not bastions of moral certainty.  How many half-dragon PCs are there?  How many Aasimar PCs?  How would the players have known about these choices if they hadn't gotten the Monster Manual and DMG for themselves, or read the SRD?  As a DM, one must fundamentally accept the possibility that the players are gonna read just about everything and try to use it themselves if they can.  A header saying "For DMs only" isn't going to change that.

However, as for evil D&D games causing evil behavior in real life, that only happens if:

1) The player is a freakin' psycho to begin with

or

2) The player has had so much of their life messed up that their personality has collapsed and can be shaped by anything that gives them a sense of social acceptance

The latter is how the armed forces work -- or used to work, anyway.  You were yelled at, exhausted all the time, worked half to death, until your old personality collapsed and you formed a new, obediance-driven personality to fit the armed forces' needs.  This is also how cults work -- no food, little sleep, only way to get social acceptance is utter belief in the cult leader.  You could call it brainwashing.  It's not always bad -- the armed forces NEED people to be disciplined, trained to obey quickly and effectively, so they create that sort of personality in their trainees.  It can be good OR bad.

But anyway, I guess my thought is that anyone who does something evil in real life because of what they did in a D&D game is someone who was going to go bad on something -- if not D&D, then death metal, gangs, neo-Nazis, whatever.  The Book of Vile Darkness isn't going to push anyone over the edge who wasn't staring over it to begin with staring sweaty-eyed at a home-made collage of cut-out pictures of the 1st Edition Succubus, Nereid, Aphrodite, and for some reason, the Catlord, breathing heavily to themselves and wondering why that girl in math class won't talk to them.

By the way, I won't be getting the BoVD.  My game has enough icky in it already, in terms of ugly monsters, and because I made them up myself, the players have no idea what's coming.  I nearly had a TPK with an undead creature made from the skins of people who were skinned alive -- and this was after they were attacked by the skinless zombies of those victims.  As for my villains, I learned everything I need to know about good villains from Shakespeare.  I can do the tragically wrong hero figure who doesn't understand that he's gone over the edge, and I can do the loathesome parasite who revels in his villainy.

-Tacky


----------



## Mallus (Sep 26, 2002)

*Yes, but...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes. It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy. *




I don't think anyone is seriously questioning that rape and murder are evil.

I believe 'acting out' negetive emotions/impluses in a safe environment describes how some types of actual psychotherapy works. Or I am I getting this from movies-made-for television?

I also believe its also self-evident that the emotional states the underlie actions like murder and rape, while still evil, are also common. Everyone wants to be a walking mass of unrestrained id from time to time. 

And make a crude analogy, its self-evident that painful physical violence --serving no higher, "just" cause-- is bad, yet we have organized sports like football and boxing. Which in the case of football is popluar with our youth. Real, occasionally bone-breaking violence... as a form of play. Now who would participate in such a thing?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> So I think it's hypocritical to say "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so they are BAD and no one should", instead of "I don't like to play these types of evil characters, so I won't."  I respect other peoples' judgement enough that I don't think I can judge what's appropriate for their campaign. *




With all due respect PC being hypocritcal is saying one thing and doing another. I am saying people should not play evil characters while at the same time refraining from playing evil characters myself. That is consistency not hypocrisy.

By inference, you claim that my game is about murdering creatures and taking their stuff since that is 'what the game is about'. Well, that is not what my game is about. 

My last game invovled revisiting the old Keep on the Borderlands. The party visited caves that were home to orcs and other monsters in order to rescue people captured as slaves. Non-combatants, women and children were not slaughtered.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *It is self evident that murder and rape are evil without the need to act them out in fantasy. *



That's your answer to all my questions? "Murder and rape are evil"?

Am I correct to assume then that for you, all moral decisions have already been made? That somehow you've been provided with a scorecard and all you have to do is tick things off, add up the numbers and get your answer?

You keep reducing this to very simple, black and white concepts. Sports psychology. Murder and rape. Is there no ambiguity in your world? Are there no situations that make you scratch your head and ask yourself, "Now is that evil or not?"

Because if there is, then suddenly there's a need to explore. When we are presented with situations for which we don't have scorecards, we are obliged to investigate and attempt to learn the truth, to assess the nature of the situation. Is it good or evil? Healthy or sick? Exploration is the only means we possess for making these determinations.

And it is the very nature of exploration that we don't know the answer before we begin. Therefore, the danger always exists that we may find ourselves exploring truly evil pathways. There's no way to avoid this risk.

In fact, any attempt to avoid this risk is sets oneself up for disaster. The need to explore will come upon you no matter how hard you try to stick to the known, to make use of the answers provided to you by authority. If you have already set upon a path of exploration, of investigating that which is unknown to you, not only will you be smarter, stronger and healthier than those who were afraid to venture forth, but you will be much better prepared when life yanks the rug out from under you and you find yourself suddenly needing to make determinations of your own.

My final point is this: if we accept the need for exploration, and therefore the possibility that we will end up traversing unhealthy paths, I suggest that we must perforce accept the notion that paths whose unhealthiness seems self-evident to us, what seems unneeding of any exploration, may not seem so to others. And that since we accept exploration has value, we cannot condemn _out of hand_ those who explore paths that to us are clearly without value.

We can question the value of what they find. We can condemn their methods or their definitions of value. But we have no basis on which to condemn the act of exploration itself.

EDIT: typo


----------



## herald (Sep 26, 2002)

But your players did invade thier homes and kill the inhabitants, didn't they? I'm sure that the orc thought of that cave as thier own. I'm also sure that the players had no way of reasoning that not all the Orcs were involved. At best, they may not have asked that question at all.


----------



## Dr. NRG (Sep 26, 2002)

*Morally Superior Killer?*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *snip*
> 
> What kind of socialization is it teaching when you revel in torture, rape, and murder? Negative socialization. That is the impact that translates into the real world. *




I would reply with, what kind of socialization is it teaching when your sole method of becoming "better" involves slaying sentient beings (as in most RPGs)?  If you believe engaging in pretending to carry out "evil" behavior is going to impact people's real-life behavior, why are you engaging in a killing-driven hobby?  Are you not morally imperiling yourself and others by spending hours pretending to be engaged in killing?  Does it make a DM "worse" or "more evil" to run monsters that try to kill the presumably innocent characters?  Is a player who tries to improve his combat (killing) capabilites doing something morally wrong?  

What I am pointing at here is that I believe that you are making a relative, not absolute, judgment about the BOVD.  Taking the position that something is "too vile for me" is a world apart from taking the position that something is "too vile, period."  Taking the second position implies that others should be held to the standard by which you're judging -- a standard they may not share, regardless of whether you believe it's superior.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> That's your answer to all my questions? "Murder and rape are evil"?
> *




My answer is that one does not need to portray evil to understand it. You can explore the moral questions you raise without choosing the side of evil. 



> *
> You keep reducing this to very simple, black and white concepts. Sports psychology. Murder and rape. Is there no ambiguity in your world? Are there no situations that make you scratch your head and ask yourself, "Now is that evil or not?"
> *




Again, one does not need to play evil to discover it. For example, is it moral to kill/imprison the character who has not yet murdered or raped or let him go knowing that he will do that later? 

Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.

An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?"


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I suppose you mean that it is inargueable that Dragon 300 does encourage people to play evil characters.*



No. If I meant that, I would've said that. 



> *If Monte Cook says that he does not encourage people to do so, he is contradicting his own article. Read the side bar. It clearly encourages PCs to use feats from the BoVD.*



That is a lie.

He says that in a vile game (and maybe in a mature one, I don't remember), there might be PCs using feats from the Book of Vile Darkness.  But see my post upthread a few where I outline how people with evil feats can still be heroes.



> *In addition another article, The Risen Dead, encourages players to take prestige classes that have evil alignments.*



Another lie.

It encourages nothing.  It describes what you must do if you wanted to take such a character.  It does not encourage it.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Morally Superior Killer?*



			
				Dr. NRG said:
			
		

> *
> If you believe engaging in pretending to carry out "evil" behavior is going to impact people's real-life behavior, why are you engaging in a killing-driven hobby?  Are you not morally imperiling yourself and others by spending hours pretending to be engaged in killing?  *




No. I believe there is a clear moral distinction between killing and murder. 
In real life, I was in the Marine Corps where I was trained to shoot and kill real people ( I was never required to use that training). I do not see a moral conflict there. We were not trained to murder. In fact, we were trained to preserve the life of non-combatants.



> *
> Is a player who tries to improve his combat (killing) capabilites doing something morally wrong? *




So, based on that moral distinction, no, the player is not morally wrong.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

Barak said:
			
		

> *Although behaviorism is still taught by some psychology teachers, and some books are still written espousing it, it has, by and large, been rejected as a valid psychological view for humans.*



That's not really true.  Strict behavorism focused exclusively on observable behavior and ignored the inner world.  _That_ strictly-exterior-behavior view has largely fallen out of fashion.  However, cognative behaviorism--behaviorism that takes into account thought processes and emotions as well as observable physical actions--is still very much accepted.  Indeed, I would guess that it's the dominant paradigm (Freudian psychodynamism surely isn't).


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *What is the theme of the movie and the purpose of the portrayal?*



Argh, this his so frustrating.  Book of Vile Darkness explicitly says that it's not for players, it's for DMs.  Let's leave aside people playing evil PCs.

You are clearly still against rape and the like existing in a game, even if it occurs as a result of NPCs.  Why?  If these hideous acts are undertaken by villains and are shown to be wrong, yet are still vile . . . does that mean that the DM is absolved of sin in your eyes because he doesn't advocate the behavior, even though he's depicting it?

The way I see it the position you're taking only has 2 conclusions:

1)  Vile content is always bad and taints the soul of whoever produces or consumes it.

2)  Any extremity of vile content is fine as long as it's labeled with a big blinking neon sign overhead that says, "BAD!!!!"

1 is goofy as all get out and I don't believe 2 is how you feel.

Furthermore, what is so wrong with producing a morally ambiguous work?  If someone does something vile, but is still partially a good person (Gollum in Lord of the Rings, for example), is that a bad thing?  I would find such an unambiguous story very boring myself.  I suspect most others would too.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *No. If I meant that, I would've said that.
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> ...




For it to be a lie, I would have to believe the comment I made to be untruthful. I believe it is the truth, and I have given references to prove my logic. So please do not characterize my points as lies. Calling it a lie is an assertion that does not disprove my point.

en·cour·age   Pronunciation Key  (n-kûrj, -kr-)
tr.v. en·cour·aged, en·cour·ag·ing, en·cour·ag·es

   1. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.
   2. To give support to; foster: policies designed to encourage private investment.
   3. To stimulate; spur: burning the field to encourage new plant growth.

Dragon gives support to players to stimulate the use of evil PCs. 

An example, was an Assasination handbook (nonfiction). When someone used the book to murder a man in front of his son, the author claimed he he did not intend the information to be used to actually kill someone. The court found otherwise.

When Dragon 300 says that people "can" use the information for PCs without recommending against that use, it is clearly an encouragement. 

So the question is not if the magazine encourages it. The question is, is it appropriate to be used in that manner.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *
> You are clearly still against rape and the like existing in a game, even if it occurs as a result of NPCs.  Why? *




No, I did not say that. For there to be a conflict in a game, the villain must commit and evil act. 

My whole thread has been that PCs should not roleplay evil charactes. 

The DM generally illustrates the evil by reporting what the NPC has done not by acting it out, that is not quite the same. 

But, if the DM were to personalize and internalize the actions of the NPC and enjoy roleplaying the rape and murder. In that case you are talking about an NPC turning into the DMs PC which is another issue. In a "good" campaign you wouldn't want the DM PCing and NPC and resolving the conflict.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.
> 
> An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?" *





Maybe in Bond films and comic books, "evil characters" are that simple.  In real life, however, things aren't so cut-and-dry.  What if I want to play an evil character who is desperately seeking redemption but finds himself somehow drawn to commit evil acts?  What if my "evil" is done for a good purpose?


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?" *



Some evil characters never have doubts.  Some evil characters now they're evil and are full of self-revulsion.  Some evil characters doubt whether what they're doing is evil and some think they're definitely not evil.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *For it to be a lie, I would have to believe the comment I made to be untruthful.*



No, for it to be a lie you would have to assert facts which were false, which you did.



> *Dragon gives support to players to stimulate the use of evil PCs. *



No more than the core books do by publishing the Blackguard prestige class.



> *When Dragon 300 says that people "can" use the information for PCs without recommending against that use, it is clearly an encouragement.*



You're misunderstanding the definition of encourage (and there's nothing more pedantic than quoting the dictionary in a discussion other than maybe correcting someone else's spelling).  The defintion you quoted didn't mean support in the sense of computer support or something like that.  It's clearly meant to be an affirmation.  Assertions otherwise are just being disingenuous and twisting the definition.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *My answer is that one does not need to portray evil to understand it. You can explore the moral questions you raise without choosing the side of evil. *



It seems like you're ignoring the important part of my post. The bit where I pointed out how exploration necessarily means that you DON'T KNOW whether or not something is evil? That you explore in order to FIND OUT?

Forgive the all caps, I know it's rude, but you seem to be deliberately ignoring the problematic parts of my argument and simply offering platitudes against evil. Ignoring the notion that we may not KNOW something is evil before we investigate it.

I'm NOT proposing that people should play evil characters. My basic assumption is that:  

*We sometimes must explore unknown territory in order to find out if it is healthy or not.*

This has has as its corollaries:

*Exploration always entails a risk that the territory we enter may turn out to be unhealthy (evil, if you like).

Exploration provides value to us regardless of whether we enter unhealthy or healthy territory.*

I further posit:

*What is known territory to one may be unknown to another, due to each person's individual explorations.*

Which leads us inexorably to the position that:

*There may be value for someone to explore territory we consider unhealthy or evil.*

Therefore, we cannot condemn the act of exploration itself, though we may deplore the manner in which it is carried out, or the idea of value someone applies to it.


> *Again, one does not need to play evil to discover it.*



That may be true. Is it your contention that playing an evil character is NOT exploration? I'm jumping the gun here, I know, since you haven't even addressed the issue of exploration at all yet, but assuming you agree with my argument, then we now turn to the question of METHOD. You may indeed argue that playing an evil character is not a useful form of exploration.

I argue that it is, but I won't bother to develop this argument further unless you indicate that I have characterized your position correctly. No point in arguing with myself.


> *Playing and evil character, there is no moral question. The motivation is to satisfy their desires with no regard for the consequences to others.
> 
> An evil character does not say "is this evil or not?" *



Why not? Once again you are presupposing the nature of evil, not to mention drawing a great big line between evil and good and allowing no ambiguity whatsoever.

My whole point, which you are apparently in agreement with, is that sometimes we don't know if something is evil or not and we must investigate to determine the truth. All of my points descend from that in logical fashion, and unless you can refute any of them, I assume that you agree with me.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *No, for it to be a lie you would have to assert facts which were false, which you did.*




I gave references and page numbers. Please tell me which ones were false.

*



			No more than the core books do by publishing the Blackguard prestige class.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes it is. The DMG does not say it is for PC use as "The Risen Dead" article and the "How Far Will You Take It Articles Do." Both the assassin and blackguard classess use the term " As an NPC" and not once say "PC in the descriptions. Clearly one can use them as such as a matter of choice, but the DMG does not say players are ready to use the prestige class just because they read the entry in the book, unlike "The Risen Dead" article does.
 That crosses the line from presentation to encouragement.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> My whole point, which you are apparently in agreement with, is that sometimes we don't know if something is evil or not and we must investigate to determine the truth. All of my points descend from that in logical fashion, and unless you can refute any of them, I assume that you agree with me. *




I see it from a different angle. Good and evil is worthy of exploration, but only from the view point of embracing good. 

Finding out what is good and evil from a good perspective means that you are tyring to improve the world around you. 
Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil. That is what I find to be negative to society.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 26, 2002)

*Once more into the breach...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Finding out what is good and evil from a good perspective means that you are tyring to improve the world around you.
> Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil. That is what I find to be negative to society. *




You're totally avoiding the cartharsis angle. Plenty of people who do actual good in the world --my friend the underpaid, overworked social worker in North Philly comes to mind-- simply need to blow off steam. Occasionally this is in the form of a less-than-noble game character. What would you say about him? His vocation is doing real objective good for underprivilaged people. Is he still harming society because a few of his character sheets are marked with an alignment you find distasteful.

This, among other arguments you've sidestepped, point to the fact your concept of the relationship between evil in the game/book/film and evil behavior out in the world is deeply flawed. There just isn't the correlation you state. Its like you're trying to use Boyle's Law to describe the motion of an object in flight. You're logics consistant, it just doesn't apply at all.

Is this just sophistry to you, or do you really believe ethics are this black and white, cut and dry, Martin and Lewis {err, strike that last pair}?


----------



## Zappo (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil.*



IMO, playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil, period. The ultimate end of this exploration is only known to the person doing it.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Once more into the breach...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> You're totally avoiding the cartharsis angle.
> ....
> 
> ...




I have not sidestepped arguments. This question has been address. I do not believe in the catharsis argument. As others have said, you do not need to roleplay a rape in order to get it out of your system. As I have said before, those urges should be supressed, not expressed.


----------



## Zappo (Sep 26, 2002)

Ultimately, we'd need some statistics on alignment played compared to criminal record. Sounds like some tough data, tho'.


----------



## Henry (Sep 26, 2002)

First, to all, don't forget to separate Ethics from Morality.

Morality is what many people perceive to be the "absolute compass." This is the part that guides what is right and wrong, good and bad. (This applies not just to D&D, but life as well).

Most people who claim to adhere to a religious or personal code believe that morality is a clearly defined thing, for which there should be consequences for your actions.

Ethics, however, are not so cut and dried; and many people, lexicographers included, confuse ethics with morality. Ethics are those things that vary between social situations. It concerns duty or expected behavior, rather than any absolute code of right or wrong.

My proof?



> mor·al   Pronunciation Key  (môrl, mr-)
> adj.
> 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
> 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
> 3. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.






> \Eth"ics\, n. [Cf. F. ['e]thique. See Ethic.] The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.




-----------------------

Now, on to vile content...

Some have asked, who are these people who have been wanted material from BoVD?

Me, for one.

I don't want vile content for its sake alone; I want it because concrete rules content for vile actions is important to me, as a DM. I have for years thought that D&D was kept a little too tame - tame compared to White WOlf Products, tame compared to popular novels, tame compared to the Bible or the Koran, for that matter! As another tool in the toolbox, it's arrival has been looked forward to by me with anticipation since it was announced.

For being truly upset, there are plenty of other suitable targets - Jack Chick publications, snuff films, and The Netbook of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, for starters.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Finding out what is good and evil from a good perspective means that you are tyring to improve the world around you. *



"From a good perspective"? Okay, so suddenly we're talking about intention. Fair enough.

So it seems we agree on the notion that exploration is worthwhile. I assume my argument has convinced you of that much, at least. You're now moving to the position that what determines the value of exploration is the intention behind that exploration. There are some profound problems with this idea. Let me lay out two of them:

*Problem One: Knowing intention*


> *Playing an evil character and exploring from that perspective indicates you are trying to find out what is evil so you can commit evil.*



It sounds as though you are claiming to know the intentions of others, and condemning them for the intentions you are attributing to them. I find this breathtakingly arrogant. What gives you the ability to sit in judgement on others and determine what lies within their hearts? Where do you derive this confidence that you have all the answers -- that there is no possibility you might be wrong, that there might be other reasons to play an evil character? I'm very curious -- how do you know these things?

I argue that what you are proposing is impossible -- that there is no way for any human being to know the true intention of any other. Or at least, it is always possible for us to be wrong about someone else's (perhaps even our own?) intentions. Therefore there is no means for us to determine the value of an exploration by examining the intentions of those who conduct it.

*Problem Two: Prejudgement*

Aside from the issue of determining intention (which I have indicated is impossible), we also have the problem that determining value by intention implies determining value BEFORE the exploration even takes place. In fact, according to your scheme, the nature of the exploration doesn't enter into the value equation at all. If the intention of the explorer is what determines the value of the exploration, than clearly any exploration can be as good as any other. Or as worthless. This is plainly ridiculous, and flies in the face of all human experience.

One exploration is NOT as good as any other. Some explorations are clearly more valuable than others, regardless of who undertakes them. I agree that one person may derive more from a given exploration than another person, for any number of reasons, but I do not agree that we can determine the actual value before the exploration has taken place.

As an alternative, I suggest that the value of an exploration can only be known AFTER the exploration has been conducted. We have to examine what we learned, what new truths have been revealed to us, what falsehoods have been exposed, in order to judge the value of any exploration.


----------



## takyris (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Once more into the breach...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I do not believe in the catharsis argument. As others have said, you do not need to roleplay a rape in order to get it out of your system. As I have said before, those urges should be supressed, not expressed. *




I disagree.  I think the best thing to do is to explore those urges -- not to do them, but to figure out what makes you want to do them.  That way you can fix the problem so you don't HAVE those urges anymore, as opposed to treating the symptom and suppressing the problem until the point where you snap and take out six of your co-workers with a machete.

As for how that whole thing relates to the argument... I don't think that the BoVD is going to do anything but clarify what's already there.  Someone who wants to use D&D to live out their violence fantasies can already do it with a half-orc barbarian or dwarven necromancer.  Making official feats and prestige classes for it just requires a little less imagination.  And for the most part, I'm not going to play D&D with someone who is using it for a power trip/wish-fulfillment purpose -- be it good or evil.  A guy who insists on playing his Anime-wannabe black-coated badass paladin and asking the DM to have girls swoon all over him while he ignores them, intent only on killing the evildoers, is just as distasteful to me as a guy who insists on playing a necromancer who gets his power from eating his victims after having sex with them.

-Tacky


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> It sounds as though you are claiming to know the intentions of others, and condemning them for the intentions you are attributing to them. I find this breathtakingly arrogant.*




I don't find this arrogant. I consider it using common sense. People declare their alignment in the game before hand. Players declaring their characters good are trying to perform good actions. Players declaring their characters evil plan on committing evil actions. 



> *I argue that what you are proposing is impossible -- that there is no way for any human being to know the true intention of any other.*




Then there would be no need to declare an alignment. So you should Rule 0 alignment in your game.

*Problem Two: Prejudgement*

As an alternative, I suggest that the value of an exploration can only be known AFTER the exploration has been conducted. We have to examine what we learned, what new truths have been revealed to us, what falsehoods have been exposed, in order to judge the value of any exploration. [/B][/QUOTE]

I disagree. Good is good and evil is bad. One can know that before killing one's neighbor. So we have opposing views on this point.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> My last game invovled revisiting the old Keep on the Borderlands. The party visited caves that were home to orcs and other monsters in order to rescue people captured as slaves. Non-combatants, women and children were not slaughtered. *




My friend, your argument seems specious to me. You slaughtered dozens of intelligent and social humanoids who happened to keep slaves, all (or most) of whom were most likely non-combatants until you invaded their homes!  And that's D&D, and it's darn fun escapism, but let's not split hairs and claim that it isn't premeditated murder. 

That's why I mentioned inadvertent hypocrisy earlier, although I certainly didn't mean to offend or insult you. Telling ourselves that it's okay to ambush, attack and kill them because they were keeping human slaves doesn't relieve someone of the moral responsibility attached to the act.

It's like the wonderful "mourning the henchman" scene in Austin Powers. Evil henchmen are MEANT to be killed... but hey! Turns out they have friends, and wives, and personalities of their very own. Same thing should apply to creatures like orcs, if you really want a game like that. I don't, personally.  In my D&D game, "murder" seldom comes up, as it's more commonly a kill-or-be-killed situation.

Anyways, the point is that I wouldn't get all hung up on the murder aspect of BoVD. It's not any more damaging to our mass psyche than normal gaming is, so long as you're an adult who can separate fact from fiction.  People with good sense - like yourself - will not want to use it for PCs, and will want to use it for NPCs. People who do use it to run evil PCs aren't going to be scarring themselves for life.

Anyways, it'll be easier to judge once we've actually seen the book.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I argue that what you are proposing is impossible -- that there is no way for any human being to know the true intention of any other.
> *




Aha, but its not impossble to know these in the context of the game. There's a host of spells that will grant you such knowledge. If you even need to resort to magic, since [conveniently] some whole races are irrevocably evil, and the bad guys in general tend to wear large blackish hats... Not just intent but absolute moral alignment [hey, a pun...]

And that points to the uselessness of using the game [in high epic mode] as a tool for moral instruction. While I do wholeheartedly agree that the game can be used for all manner valuable psychological exploration [if that's fun for you], its value breaks down when you begin suggesting the black and white moral schema in the game is applicable in the outside world.

Its the most dangerous kind of power fantasy, in which the identication with a 'mighty' fictional self is coupled with an unerring knowledge of the moral position of others. A fantasy in which heroes always know right from wrong, and are always justified when they let slip the dog of war... Its bad because its so seductive... Discerning right from wrong, helpful action from hurtful, is stripped of all its attendent anxiety, difficulty, and outright terror. 

Simple games are fine. Simple worldviews are not...


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My friend, your argument seems specious to me. You slaughtered dozens of intelligent and social humanoids who happened to keep slaves, all (or most) of whom were most likely non-combatants until you invaded their homes!  And that's D&D, and it's darn fun escapism, but let's not split hairs.*





An interesting moral question. Apparently you believe that beings who kidnap, enslave, and abuse others are not evil, but just defending their home when rescuers come. I don't. The alternative was to doom the slaves to a life of torture because the orcs might misunderstand our motivation for rescuing our countrymen.

Here is where our moral dilemna came. There was a cell holding a variety of creatures as slaves. Some were human, some were orcs (and some other creatures). Now the characters had to decide whether to free the orcs or kill them as evil creatures (as they are portrayed in our campaign).
We decided to free them knowing the risk that these orcs may attack a human settlement later. Threat of a future evil act was not enough to condemn a person (or orc as the case maybe. )


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> An interesting moral question. Apparently you believe that beings who kidnap, enslave, and abuse others are not evil, but just defending their home when rescuers come. I don't.  *




More evil than those who kill them, on the off chance that they _may_ do something evil in the future? I do... at least when I'm playing devil's advocate to make a point.  

It's just too easy to turn the moral tables, assuming you have any empathy. The orcs say, "These humans will kill many, invade our homes, slay our elders. We have not hurt them. Our slaves are not of their families. And yet they attack us, unprovoked?  They are evil!"

By your logic, the orcs would attack you _even if they were good_, just to stop the threat of an evil attack sometime in the future.

Hmmm... I've drifted off topic.  My apologies.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 26, 2002)

*Break it down like a mid-80s rap rekkid*

1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life.  Correct or incorrect?

2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain.  Pretending to be a villain.  True or false?

3) If true, why is a DM not in danger of becoming evil?  Yes, the DM has as one of his responsibilities staying neutral with respect to the players' success.  But when he's role playing this villain, he must internalize being a villain at least as much as players must do.  So why is he not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

4) Furthermore, authors.  Authors are just as immersed in their characters as role players are.  In my opinion, any author good enough to be published is going to be getting further into his or her characters than most role players.  Even if you disagree with the percentages, there must be some authors who are at least as involved with their characters as role players are.  Why, if these characters are evil, aren't they in just as great a danger of becoming evil in real life?

5)  Actors.  You've still failed to address this.  If someone is playing a role as a villain in a movie, and her actions are extremely evil, maybe even vile, why is she then not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

6) The only counterargument for 3, 4 and 5 that I've seen you make seems to have something to do with intent.  A DM, author or actor doesn't intend to glorify the evil their characters do.  A pretty flimsy explanation if you ask me.  I mean if the danger comes from pretending to be evil, why does it matter what your intent is?

7)  Furthermore, why is it impossible for a role player to be playing an evil character with the intent to show that evil is a bad thing?  To my hero who sold his soul to a demon example before:  Such a character could be tainted by evil, have evil impulses, and still be struggling mightily to reign them in and defeat them.  He might do truly atrocious things and be trying to stop or be trying to fight a greater evil.  Indeed, that's one of the basises of Vampire: The Masquerade.  How can you not allow for this possibility?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 26, 2002)

*Re: Re: Once more into the breach...*



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I do not believe in the catharsis argument. As others have said, you do not need to roleplay a rape in order to get it out of your system. As I have said before, those urges should be supressed, not expressed. *




So you don't believe in catharsis at all? Or you don't believe playing characters with antisocial --but party friendly, I insist upon that as a player and DM-- traits counts as carthartic? Please clarify...

How about the related issue of channelling negative emotional impsulses --like my fave, agression-- into more positive pursuits? This seems to undergird not just RPG but games in general. While I have no deisre to grind another human being down in real life, cutting off their avenues of expression until they have no choice but to capitulate to me, that's what I like about chess. 

And you mentioned sports psychologists way back when... so I'm assuming you have an interest, and acceptance, of sports. If violence for sport is bad --say, beating a homeless man senseless for kicks-- why is violence in sports OK?  If not for, in part,  channeling some our inborn violent impulses. I don't see a lot of suppression on the gridiron. On in the stands, sometimes... Fans of football derive pleasure from watching organized acts of physical violence. Should that be encouraged?

You know, the funny thing is, we're both arguing for the a kind of instructive play. We agree that games can {and possibly should}, teach. But we're miles apart on the nature of the lesson.

To each his own... But please, since you don't play evil characters, refrain from discussing what motivates people who do, or what they take away from the experience... If you'd like some first hand knowledge, I tell you about my namesake. I'm curious to know you'd think about him. He's not a rapist --I couldn't play that, too uncomfortable for me-- and he's only slightly more of a murderer than the rank and file...


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I don't find this arrogant. I consider it using common sense. People declare their alignment in the game before hand. Players declaring their characters good are trying to perform good actions. Players declaring their characters evil plan on committing evil actions. *



I'm stunned. I'm flabbergasted. You understand that you are claiming to know people's intentions? To know why they do the things they do? The possibility that you might be wrong does not exist?


> _I argue that what you are proposing is impossible -- that there is no way for any human being to know the true intention of any other._
> *Then there would be no need to declare an alignment. So you should Rule 0 alignment in your game.*



I guess I haven't been clear. I'm not talking about whether or not a _character in a fictional game world_ can know the intentions of another _character_, I'm talking about whether you, as a real live human being, can know the intentions of another real live human being. Say, me. You're claiming to be able to determine my intentions with no possibility of error. I am saying that's impossible. But maybe you honestly believe that you can.

I really need to hear you say this clearly. Please tell me that you know my intentions. You know (not have a good idea of, or can make a pretty good guess at, but KNOW) my intentions. That there is no possibility that you could be in error on that score. I can't imagine what to say to you if you honestly believe this is true.


> *Good is good and evil is bad. One can know that before killing one's neighbor. So we have opposing views on this point. *



Again with the facile examples. I'm willing to grant the notion that killing one's neighbor is not a useful means of exploring much. I'm willing to say that killing one's neighbor is unlikely to provide much value. That, unfortunately for you, wasn't what I said was the problem with your position.

Shall I restate it?

By suggesting that intention determines value, you are suggesting that the value of an exploration can ALWAYS be determined before the exploration takes place. All we need to do is examine the intentions of the person about to undertake the action in question and, without any knowledge of that action, accurately predict the value they will get from it.

I said that this is nonsense. We only know the value of an exploration AFTER it has occurred. Throwing up a simplistic example from which we can say that SOMETIMES value is pretty obvious beforehand doesn't get you off the hook. Your position is still a nonsensical one.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> More evil than those who kill them, on the off chance that they may do something evil in the future? I do... at least when I'm playing devil's advocate to make a point.
> 
> ...




We didn't care what the orcs thought. The facts were, they attacked our countrymen and were holding them as slaves. We went to rescue our countrymen. I say that killing orcs in the pursuit of that goal is not murder regardless of what the orcs thought. One may step over the line in killing non-combatants in that scenario.

Now, going 10 miles the other direction and going into a camp of orcs who have not attacked anyone and slaughtering them for their possesions would be murder.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I say that killing orcs in the pursuit of that goal is not murder regardless of what the orcs thought.  *




 this goes beyond eye for an eye all the way to town for an eye. you call that moral or ethical?

 that is seething evil. you dodn't kill the non-combatants, but how long will they survive without protection in such a world? very vile.

  are all wrongs in your campaign world corrected with capital punishment? do you not see that as excessively evil and vile?


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 26, 2002)

orc a takes a slave.

 orc b doesn't take slaves but defends his home.

 you slay a + b.

 you should be writing a book of darkness, yes?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Apparently you believe that beings who kidnap, enslave, and abuse others are not evil*




Beings like Cristopher Columbus? There's a staue of him down at Penn's Landing here in Philadelphia that curiously omits the word evil... 

Not to mention the Founding Fathers... {of the good old U.S of A. Sorry, for a moment I assumed everyone reading this was American. Bad me...}

So its easy to discern and label evil? Without bothering to go into the details?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> I guess I haven't been clear. I'm not talking about whether or not a character in a fictional game world can know the intentions of another character, I'm talking about whether you, as a real live human being, can know the intentions of another real live human being. Say, me. You're claiming to be able to determine my intentions with no possibility of error. I am saying that's impossible. But maybe you honestly believe that you can.*




But I am talking about the game! That is the whole point of talking about good and evil characters. 

You are right. I do not know your motivations and I have no intention of making a conclusion about your personal real life motivations. 

I can make conclusions about a character's motivations and by extension the player's motivations _within the game_. Again, that is the whole purpose of declaring an alignment.



> *
> We only know the value of an exploration AFTER it has occurred. Throwing up a simplistic example from which we can say that SOMETIMES value is pretty obvious beforehand doesn't get you off the hook. Your position is still a nonsensical one. *




Perhaps you will give me an example because I clearly do not understand why one needs to act out evil actions to understand how evil they are. I simply find no value in that.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 26, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *orc a takes a slave.
> 
> orc b doesn't take slaves but defends his home.
> 
> ...




Here comes the moral question of is there guilt by association. I say yes. Our society agrees. For example, there is a woman here in Colorado who is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of a police officer. She was handcuffed in a police car hundreds of yards away from the crime when the officer was shot. The decision was that she aided the killer before the fact.

An orc living in the same caves profiting from the trade or use of slaves is guilty by association.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 26, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *You are right. I do not know your motivations and I have no intention of making a conclusion about your personal real life motivations.
> 
> I can make conclusions about a character's motivations and by extension the player's motivations within the game.*



Well, which is it? Either you know my intentions or you don't. Or are you suggesting that writing two letters in a box labelled "Alignment" is a _special_ action which your insight allows you to divine intention from? The player's motivations are ALWAYS hidden from you. You don't know why people do the things they do. Any of the things they do. 


> *Again, that is the whole purpose of declaring an alignment.*



No, the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic. The game itself doesn't CARE what you put in that little box. There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str". People may have their own reasons for doing either, of course. I'd be interested to hear how it is you are able to determine those reasons unerringly and not others.


> *Perhaps you will give me an example because I clearly do not understand why one needs to act out evil actions to understand how evil they are. I simply find no value in that. *



What's clear is the degree to which my entire argument isn't registering with you.

How do you identify evil actions? Is any action taken by an evil person an evil action? That would certainly simplify the whole issue (at least in D&D, it doesn't help us much in the real world, though, does it?), but it's obviously ridiculous. Evil people can do good things. Just as good people can do evil things. Sometimes it's not so easy to tell the difference, even in D&D.

My whole argument has been about how sometimes we need to explore things to determine if they are, in fact, good or evil.

Let's take a simple example, the one that's currently being debated in this very thread: killing those who take your fellow captives. Is it CLEARLY a good thing to do? I would suggest that from the arguments put forward on this board that it is not. Exploring the facts, considering one's own feelings, and, since we're playing a game here, trying out possibilities, may lead us to some new and unexpected conclusions regarding this situation.

It's worth exploring, even if ultimately we decide that it IS evil.

Voila! It's worth exploring evil. It's even worth it to act out evil actions.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> No, the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic. The game itself doesn't CARE what you put in that little box. There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str". People may have their own reasons for doing either, of course. I'd be interested to hear how it is you are able to determine those reasons unerringly and not others.
> *




If there was no purpose for it, I suggest it wouldn't be there. Ignore it in your game (Rule 0) but the game is designed with that in mind. 

As for your claim that there is no purpose for putting a score in STR I'm baffled. There is no difference between an 18 STR and a 3? I say there is as big a difference to a character between a 3 in STR and an 18 as there is to a character who chooses LG over CE.

Again, I cannot judge your motivations outside the game.

[qutoe]*My whole argument has been about how sometimes we need to explore things to determine if they are, in fact, good or evil.*[/quote]

I agree to some extent. Our difference is that I believe we explore that for the purpose of avoiding evil. That is not what a CE character would do. A CE character does "whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do." PHB pg. 90


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> this goes beyond eye for an eye all the way to town for an eye. you call that moral or ethical?
> 
> that is seething evil. you dodn't kill the non-combatants, but how long will they survive without protection in such a world? very vile.
> ...




No. Not every wrong is corrected with captial punishment in our campaign. So I guess that makes the next question irrelevant.

In addition, we didn't kill the whole town. We only killed those necessary to free the slaves. Had they not fought us to prevent us from freeing those slaves, we would not have killed those we did. For that matter, we did not kill every combantant.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> An orc living in the same caves profiting from the trade or use of slaves is guilty by association. *




A stranger living in the same town as you do, who profits by the gold you bring back from your orc slaughtering mission, is guilty by association as well?

Exact same circumstance, with the roles reversed.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2002)

By the way, folks, thanks again for keeping this a discussion - not an argument. You guys are cool.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *If there was no purpose for it, I suggest it wouldn't be there. Ignore it in your game (Rule 0) but the game is designed with that in mind. *



Hold on. I didn't say there was no purpose in it. I thought I was pretty clear. Let me quote myself:


> _the purpose of declaring an alignment is to provide data for a game mechanic._



I'm sorry if you interpret that to mean I think there is no purpose, but I don't see how I could be any clearer. 


> *As for your claim that there is no purpose for putting a score in STR I'm baffled.*



Again, not to be didactic, but what I said, and what you in fact quoted me as saying is:


> _There's no more a purpose to it than there is for what you put in the box labelled "Str"._



You'll notice I'm not saying "There is no purpose to putting a score in STR." Why are you pretending that I am?

Let me try to be more clear:

There is a purpose to both alignment and STR. They are both data sources that serve game mechanics. The value applied to both affects game results.

Is that clear? And why exactly are we discussing this? I hope you have more substantial arguments to make, or is this your admission that my _actual_ argument is correct?


> *Again, I cannot judge your motivations outside the game. *



Okay, so then you don't know why I might choose to play an evil character. Is that correct? That's the point I was trying to make.

Again, I trust a further response is forthcoming.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A stranger living in the same town as you do, who profits by the gold you bring back from your orc slaughtering mission, is guilty by association as well?
> 
> Exact same circumstance, with the roles reversed.   *




Not valid for a couple of reasons:

1. We are talking about a group of 20 orcs. All were associated with the trade.

2. For someone else to be guilty by association, we would have to be guilty of some sin. As we were not, they were not.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *You guys are cool. *



Well, duh.


----------



## takyris (Sep 27, 2002)

What about the LG Orc in that town who was working and training to become a better fighter so that he could become chieftan through right of combat, with the goal of ending slavery?  The same Orc who knew that tensions were rising between his people and the humans and wanted to free the slaves but couldn't, because he didn't have the authority, and he believed in the law of his people?  The same Orc who saw his brother, a True Neutral guy who wasn't much for thinking and pretty much always did what he was told, get hacked down by humans before he could even get his sword drawn?  The same Orc who, in defense of his flawed but blood-bound people, drew his sword to defend the women and children from the attackers (because how is he supposed to know that you're not coming in with a Total War mentality)?

You can always come up with shades of gray.

-Tacky


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *2. For someone else to be guilty by association, we would have to be guilty of some sin. As we were not, they were not. *




I don't think my point could have missed by a wider margin. Ah, well.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Let me try to be more clear:
> 
> Okay, so then you don't know why I might choose to play an evil character. Is that correct? That's the point I was trying to make.
> ...




Outside the game, I don't know why you chose to play that character. Inside the game, for a CE character, your motivation is to be "ruthless and brutal" PHB pg 90.

Apparently you reason for choosing the character is to explore evil as you put it. I believe that position is misguided as there is no benefit to learn about evil by intentionally committing evil acts. 

The intention of a CE character is inherently trying to committ evil while the intention of a good character is to try to committ good acts. 

A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> *What about the LG Orc in that town who was working and training to become a better fighter so that he could become chieftan through right of combat, with the goal of ending slavery?  You can always come up with shades of gray.
> 
> -Tacky *




Guilt by association. 

I still say it was not evil to kill that orc when he took up arms against people trying to rescue others from evil. He should have joined us.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't think my point could have missed by a wider margin. Ah, well. *




I think your point was one of moral reletavism. As I don't believe in that philosophy I don't accept the premise that the characters were wrong in freeing the slaves.


----------



## Claude Raines (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Guilt by association.
> 
> I still say it was not evil to kill that orc when he took up arms against people trying to rescue others from evil. He should have joined us. *




That is assuming that the orc knew why he was being attacked. Maybe  in your campaign all the bad guys  realize that they are being attacked for some bad thing they did, but in RL and in other campaigns that may not be the case. The orc could think that there are just crazy adventurers bent on looting and plundering. He might not realize that he had an option to surrender. Of course your players might all shout out "surrender or die." I don't know quite what went on, but there are cases where the good heroes could easily needlessly kill or murder those that would help the heroes or surrender hoping for leniency.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I think your point was one of moral reletavism. As I don't believe in that philosophy I don't accept the premise that the characters were wrong in freeing the slaves. *




To bring this back on topic, you'll see that my professed interpretation of who is "evil" and what is appropriate in a game might differ from yours. I can easily argue that you weren't playing what I consider a "family" game, because your heroes were engaging in what I could label the mass murder of intelligent individuals.  

Although you probably won't agree with me, I then compare this discussion to your original premise that WotC should maintain a "family" game. Where does the definition lie? You think it lies with how you play the game, but isn't my more conservative viewpoint that slaughter is inappropriate equally valid? And if someone in WotC really wants to make a game appropriate for the whole family, which viewpoint should they listen to: the one that involves "heroes" killing a bunch of intelligent creatures, or one with much less violence/violence only against truly eeevil creatures?

Yeah, I know; the more violent one, if they want to sell any copies.  

My point is that by you asking for a "family" game, you step onto a very slippery slope. I remember all too well 2e's attempt to sanitize the game, to its detriment.

I'm personally happier with a D&D game that embraces the classic concept of violent swords against evil, and which allows each individual group to decide for themselves what level of violence/evil is appropriate. If you want it, buy it. If you don't, don't, and no problems result.


----------



## Claude Raines (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first. *




This I definitely disagree with. A character who is good or evil by alignment restrictions does not have to always make the choice that is good (or evil). Such actions that don't always conform to alignment don't automatically change or invalidate alignment either. Now some characters (paladins especially) must make the extra effort to always conform, but most have no rule or roleplaying punishment for occasional straying.

This is especially the case for evil characters. I feel that there are many cases where someone who is definitely evil would often promote good behavior or do good acts. Especially to manipulate people. The despotic ruler who oppresses peasants could easily chase down all thieves and imprison them. The streets are now safe at night. This is a good act that is regularly enforced by an evil person so he can more easily oppress and restrain his citizens (i.e. no lawbreakers to oppose him). This is not unintentional good. It is intentionally carried out. 

Good and evil are not absolutes in people PCs or NPCs. Interesting characters are usually a mix of these. Heroes should be mostly good and villians should be evil enough to be worth opposing. But straightjacketing PCs and NPCs by alignment is not a necessary part of the game. In fact, in my opinion, it devalues the game.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Inside the game, for a CE character, your motivation is to be "ruthless and brutal" PHB pg 90.*



Now you're conflating the reasons to play a character with the motivations of the character itself. We may have reasons to play a ruthless and brutal character that are not in and of themselves ruthless and brutal. Perhaps we're interested in seeing how a ruthless and brutal person becomes repentant and humble. We don't actually want to BE ruthless and brutal with our friends, so we play a game in which we take on the role of a ruthless and brutal person, and see what sort of stimuli inspire a shift in character.

Is that being ruthless and brutal? I say that it clearly is not. On the contrary, it is compassionate and hopeful.


> *I believe that position is misguided as there is no benefit to learn about evil by intentionally committing evil acts.*



Wait, wait. You're conflating MORE stuff here. Are you asserting that there is no value in learning about evil or in learning about evil by role-playing (I assume you meant role-playing when you said committing) evil acts?

That is, is your concern on the learning about evil or the method by which it is undertaken?

Let me slam both concerns.

Learning about evil is every bit as valuable as learning about good. A lesson is a lesson, whether it teaches us we were right or wrong. In fact, I'd argue that learning you're wrong is actually MORE valuable than learning you're right, but that's because most of the time I lack the maturity to actually learn much from my successes. 

In any event, the process for learning is as follows: You don't know, you learn, you know. At first you don't know if something is good or evil. Then you learn it is one or the other. If it is evil, then you have just learned about evil. I suggest that this is every bit as valuable a result as if you had learned it was good. Ergo, learning about evil is valuable.

As to the method: role-playing allows for a reduced risk in investigation of possibilities. The military calls this _simulation_. We may role-play any sort of scenario with the intention of learning about it. We may role-play any sort of person with the intention of trying to understand how that sort of person thinks. Understanding is a first step in compassion, and compassion is surely a good thing.

We may reject someone as evil yet remain compassionate towards them. This, I would argue, is MORE GOOD than lacking compassion.

So much for both those concerns.


> *The intention of a CE character is inherently trying to committ evil while the intention of a good character is to try to committ good acts. *



Already dealt with thoroughly, don't you agree? But just in case you think there's still life remaining in this poor tired argument, consider this: Do all evil characters consider themselves to be evil? Do they consider themselves unprincipled fiends whose sole joy in life is the misery of others? Or is it possible for an evil person to be evil through misguided beliefs -- perhaps he feels that he is in fact doing good, but his beliefs are guiding him towards actions of horror?

I suspect that most evil people, if asked, would say that what they are doing is a good thing. To anyone who believes what they believe, these people are good. I guess you would say that THOSE people are also evil, and that's fine. I don't really care WHAT you consider evil.

What I am suggesting is that this is interesting and worth exploration. It is essential to the human experience and the source of much of our richest art and culture.

Take _King Lear_, one of the great jewels of Western culture. Are you suggesting that there is no value in the exploration of evil that is Lear? He certainly fits the mold I provided above. Are you saying that role-playing a character like Lear would provide no value whatsoever? What about a character like Macbeth? Or Hamlet? All of whom perform horrible acts and I would argue can be easily considered evil. And yet they remain some the most powerful personal explorations ever conducted.


> *A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. I prefer the first. *



Well, that's great, but I'm not interested in what you _prefer_. I'm interested in what is true and what is false. And what I have demonstrated thoroughly is that it is false to assert that there is no value in role-playing evil.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> And what I have demonstrated thoroughly is that it is false to assert that there is no value in role-playing evil. *




I will leave that for other observers to decide. 

I think this debate has run its course. Thank you for the exchange. 

-Jason


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I think this debate has run its course. Thank you for the exchange.*



Does that mean you now agree with my position? Or that you disagree but are unable to defend your reasons for doing so? Or that I have demonstrated such thick-headedness that you despair of ever being able to get your point across? 

I'm not attempting to goad you into a response, SemperJase, but without knowing why you think the debate is over, the debate provides me with less meaning than it otherwise might. I would greatly appreciate an explanation from you.

In any event, I thank you likewise for a stimulating exchange. I look forward to more.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

I think we got to the point of saying the same things and I don't think anything new will come of this thread. 

We could go on like this forever. The two of us will not come to an agreement but we have raised some interesting issues to think about. 

If you think of any other moral issues related to gaming, I will happily debate them  

I think this was much more entertaining than:
Drizzt sucks.
No he doesn't
Yes he does.

Yah know?


(For the record, I like Drizzt).


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I think we got to the point of saying the same things and I don't think anything new will come of this thread. *



I won't pretend I'm not disappointed by this attitude, SemperJase. After all, I HAVE to disagree with you NOW, don't I? 

Seriously, I am disappointed, but obviously if you feel the issue has been exhausted I shan't attempt to convince you otherwise. Rather salute you for a thought-provoking discussion. Thanks again.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *A good character may fail and do something evil. While an evil character would only do good unintentionally. *





 i realize you guys decided this one was over while i was gone. but wow the above line really floored me.


----------



## Henry (Sep 27, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> i realize you guys decided this one was over while i was gone. but wow the above line really floored me. *




Floored you in what way? That it was cogent in some way, or that it was wholly unsound in some way?

Technically, I can see the reasoning to that argument - most fictional evil characters will only promote good if it serves their purposes. By the same token, Good characters will typically perform evil actions only if it is helping another in some capacity.

Emotional states and such moderating factors aside, this is the way that most fictional characters act. Real humans are tricky as heck, unfortunately, and we do things that make no sense all the time.

I'll second Piratecat - everyone's been great! This is the most fun I've had reading a thread in ages! I'll bow out now, myself.


----------



## ced1106 (Sep 27, 2002)

Son_of_Thunder said:
			
		

> *It seems to me that the entire industry is going to a “Screw you” attitude. And by that I mean the prevailing attitude seems to be, “I’m doing this book, or article or what have you, and I don’t give a rats rosy red behind what you think”, *




Funny thing. I agree with this, but not about Dragon 300. I recently reviewed two fantasy rpg products: Orcfest, an introductory book and adventure for new GMs and players; and "Kaiin's Player Guide", a fantasy city setting. Despite the "d20 glut", my impression was that there were few d20 products for newbie GMs, and few d20 fantasy cities. Doing a little research with the FLGS, I found that to be indeed so. I mean, really, how many campaign settings, new items, new spells, new classes, and same-old-same-old adventures do we really need? It's like everyone's publishing the easy stuff (writing introductory products and cities is **hard**), and ignoring certain parts of the market.

Oh, well. Maybe they'll start thinking when they find out we're not buying their products. 


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 27, 2002)

In the DL novels, Kitiara could be seen as an evil character who 'fails' and does good because of her lack of strong will, in the same way that heroes sometimes fail to do good because they lack the strength of will.

However, in general, I agree.  Evil people don't have as much choice in their actions as good people.  That is the nature of evil.  It's easier, quicker, more seductive, and once you start down its path, forever does it dominate your destiny.   In other words, evil people have less freedom to change.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *We could go on like this forever. The two of us will not come to an agreement but we have raised some interesting issues to think about. *



Is this why you refused to answer a number of straightforward questions I posed to you a few threads back?  That ought to be pretty easy to do, but perhaps it just shows too clearly the fact that your position is extremely weak.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 27, 2002)

*Not knowing when to quit...*



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> *
> Technically, I can see the reasoning to that argument - most fictional evil characters will only promote good if it serves their purposes. By the same token, Good characters will typically perform evil actions only if it is helping another in some capacity.
> 
> Emotional states and such moderating factors aside, this is the way that most fictional characters act. *




The last thing I'll say, I swear...

But that treats alignment kind of like political affiliation {I know, the rules encourage this}. The lables obscure the particulars of individual actions.

Good characters in the games I've seen {much like good people} do evil {or simply wrong} when they lose control, get angry, act selfishly, drink too much, lash out for a hundred unrelated reasons, etc. Evil is about weakness, isn't it? Right? Not some kind of devotion to the Dark Side...

And so with evil... doing harmful/hateful things doesn't perclude loyalty {to some}, love {to some}, a kindness towards the elderly and pets... Being bad doesn't mean your an Iago-esque machine for doing evil. Not always...


----------



## Zulkir (Sep 27, 2002)

Griswold said:
			
		

> *
> 
> With that in mind, do you see D&D taking on a more "edgier" tone in the core rules and future suppliments, or is this just a "one-off" sort of book, and the flavor of it's content would not be revisted  or alter the existing tone of the game in any event?
> 
> ...




Even if it were to be the best seller of the year it will not effect how we make our main line products (they will be no more or less "edgy" then they have ever been). On the other hand if it does sell extremely well we may follow it up with another product next year. But no more than one.

AV


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Is this why you refused to answer a number of straightforward questions I posed to you a few threads back?  That ought to be pretty easy to do, but perhaps it just shows too clearly the fact that your position is extremely weak. *




I apologize if I missed something. This thread was me debating against 10 others. 

I tried to answer evey question posed to me as straightforward as possible. In the interest of trying to be concise I did not answer some questions specifically as I thought they had already been addressed by other answers I provided. In some cases there were so many questions in one post I chose to answer only the ones I thought carried the greatest weight, again with the interest of trying to be concise.  I just don't think 5000 word replies are interesting to read, so I try not to bore other people with mine.

My reason for bowing out of the debate was that I thought we had gotten to the point of rehashing the same points.

Is there a particular question you have in mind that I had not already addressed?


----------



## JesterPoet (Sep 27, 2002)

I have to say the most amazing thing about this thread (and threads like it, for that matter) is how many people insist on saying the same thing 10 other people have already said.

Wow...  this thread could easily be 3 pages...

>Jester<


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Is there a particular question you have in mind that I had not already addressed? *



A number of them:

1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life. Correct or incorrect?

2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain. Pretending to be a villain. True or false?

3) If true, why is a DM not in danger of becoming evil? Yes, the DM has as one of his responsibilities staying neutral with respect to the players' success. But when he's role playing this villain, he must internalize being a villain at least as much as players must do. So why is he not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

4) Furthermore, authors. Authors are just as immersed in their characters as role players are. In my opinion, any author good enough to be published is going to be getting further into his or her characters than most role players. Even if you disagree with the percentages, there must be some authors who are at least as involved with their characters as role players are. Why, if these characters are evil, aren't they in just as great a danger of becoming evil in real life?

5) Actors. You've still failed to address this. If someone is playing a role as a villain in a movie, and her actions are extremely evil, maybe even vile, why is she then not in danger of becoming evil in real life?

6) The only counterargument for 3, 4 and 5 that I've seen you make seems to have something to do with intent. A DM, author or actor doesn't intend to glorify the evil their characters do. A pretty flimsy explanation if you ask me. I mean if the danger comes from pretending to be evil, why does it matter what your intent is?

7) Furthermore, why is it impossible for a role player to be playing an evil character with the intent to show that evil is a bad thing? To my hero who sold his soul to a demon example before: Such a character could be tainted by evil, have evil impulses, and still be struggling mightily to reign them in and defeat them. He might do truly atrocious things and be trying to stop or be trying to fight a greater evil. Indeed, that's one of the basises of Vampire: The Masquerade. How can you not allow for this possibility?


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

Barsoomcore,

Since I bowed out of the debate last night, I have come across some new information that pertains to a subject we discussed.

Is it valualbe to explore evil from evil's side? That is, is it worth committing evil to learn from it? If not is it because the risks outweigh the reward?

Last night the local news reported a story. North of Denver a family was driving back from a trip and stopped at a gas station to refill.  The man got out to pump the gas. While he was doing so three 17 year old assaulted him. One had a golf club and beat the man over the head. 

The man's wife and 3 young children watched this happen. Police happened to be near the gas station, but were not close enough to stop the beating. They did arrest the punks. The man now is in the hospital in critical condition. 

When the police asked the boys why they did it the one who used the golf club said, "Because I felt like it." The undisputed fact is the man in no way provoked this attack. 

This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person. 

Is that lesson valuable? I say no.  By not exploring evil, they would not have   changed this family's lives forever. 

Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The _consequences_ out weight the reward.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it.*



Dear god, are you actually comparing bludgeoning a man to playing a game?!  There is a world of difference.  You are completely missing barscoome's (sp?) point.  Commiting heinous acts is nowhere near on the same level as making pretend in a _game_.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 27, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *In the DL novels, Kitiara could be seen as an evil character who 'fails' and does good because of her lack of strong will, in the same way that heroes sometimes fail to do good because they lack the strength of will.
> 
> However, in general, I agree.  Evil people don't have as much choice in their actions as good people.  That is the nature of evil.  It's easier, quicker, more seductive, and once you start down its path, forever does it dominate your destiny.   In other words, evil people have less freedom to change. *




Just like Darth Vader, there was no going back for him once he plunged in and started choking people as a power demonstration designed to induce fear and obedience . . . oh wait, he did come around in the end because of his son and a realization of what he had become. Yoda you were wrong!  And I found "try" in the dictionary, it does exist. I'm so disillusioned.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person.
> 
> Is that lesson valuable? I say no.  By not exploring evil, they would not have   changed this family's lives forever.
> 
> Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The _consequences_ out weight the reward.




Well maybe they should have done that evil exploration with D&D?

Hum are you saying that exploring evil by bludgeonning someone with a club is the same as reading a book or playing a rpg? If it is the case I guess I would better quit orc-bashing right now!!!

Barsoom's explanation about exploring evil is certainly seductive, but frankly, we do play evil just because it is fun; killing orcs by the hundreds is evil and justifying these murders by the fact that they are orcs is just bigottery. Saying that beheading someone is less evil that raping him is a strange concept to me. Some people love to kill animals in the woods, not to eat them... i find that loathsome, but hey, we are animals and part of us revel in violence.

So I do not need a justification for playing assassins on my pc or in my rpgs. As for rapes and other unsavory things, well... its just like peeing in the woods.
How many time you roleplay peeing in the woods? I do not play rape scenes, I do not play sex scenes, I do not play peeing scenes, I do not play cleaning my boots of whatever evil substance stuck there, because from a game point of view it is uninteresting. If I want some sex fiction, I'll rent a video or something.

I did a mini campaign on request, with evil PCs; they got bored because they lacked a glorious objective; playing villain pc requires from the players to create their own opportunities, to become the evil emperor of the world for instance. Anything less, because the nature of evil, is just wanton destruction (funny for 2 hours maybe?) or being a lackey or some more ambitious master.

I sure do not need a book describing me what rape is. If one vilain in my campaign rapes, tortures or engage in such gross activities, I would just say 'he tortures' and that is all. 
I hope that the BoVD will help me flesh some of my villains, and I suppose it is the object of this book.
But I will wait until I read some reviews.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *A number of them:*




I thought I had addressed all of these. So at the risk of being redundant:



> *
> 1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life. Correct or incorrect?*




The simple answer is yes. I believe that you are what you practice. Roleplaying is practice, ask every corporate trainer why they always use roleplaying.  Will D&D alone turn you into a murder? No.  That way it effects you is a matter of degree.  The flip side is that playing an evil character does not help you interact with other people positively.



> *
> 2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain. Pretending to be a villain. True or false?*




This seems to be a redundant question. Call it villain or evil PC. I  see playing evil characters as unhealthy.



> *
> 3) If true, why is a DM not in danger of becoming evil? Yes, the DM has as one of his responsibilities staying neutral with respect to the players' success. But when he's role playing this villain, he must internalize being a villain at least as much as players must do. So why is he not in danger of becoming evil in real life?*




I know I have addressed this one. DMs do not internalize their characters the way players do. They are referees rather than participants. In addition, most of the evil actions taken by NPCs occurs offstage. If a DM were to internalize the actions he in essence creates a DM's PC. That creates more problems regardless of the alignment of the character. 



> *
> 4) Furthermore, authors. Authors are just as immersed in their characters as role players are. In my opinion, any author good enough to be published is going to be getting further into his or her characters than most role players. Even if you disagree with the percentages, there must be some authors who are at least as involved with their characters as role players are. Why, if these characters are evil, aren't they in just as great a danger of becoming evil in real life?*




Authors do not generally identify with every character they write. Time after time I see interviews where the author says, "I mostly identify with X character." Observations about behavior are not identification. 
Now those that do identify with the evil characters, I have the same reservations. 

Here is a new example. The great author C.S. Lewis wrote a book called the Screwtape letters. The book is a series of fictional letters from one demon (Screwtape) to another on how to tempt a human. The book was actually a consolidation of newspaper articles.

Lewis did identify with the demons. "Ah ha!" you say, "that's my point." Well, Lewis said he stopped writing those letters because it got too easy and he stopped because it was negatively effecting him. He decided it was not healthy for him to continue.



> *
> 5) Actors. You've still failed to address this. If someone is playing a role as a villain in a movie, and her actions are extremely evil, maybe even vile, why is she then not in danger of becoming evil in real life?*




I think there is danger in this. Actors must be careful. Jim Carrey was known to lose himself in the role in "Man on the Moon". (I can't remember the comedian's name that he portrayed). People around him were worried. It can happen. Strangely, people consider that the mark of a great actor.



> *
> 6) The only counterargument for 3, 4 and 5 that I've seen you make seems to have something to do with intent. A DM, author or actor doesn't intend to glorify the evil their characters do. A pretty flimsy explanation if you ask me. I mean if the danger comes from pretending to be evil, why does it matter what your intent is?*




I think pretending to be evil is unhealthy.



> *
> 7) Furthermore, why is it impossible for a role player to be playing an evil character with the intent to show that evil is a bad thing? To my hero who sold his soul to a demon example before: Such a character could be tainted by evil, have evil impulses, and still be struggling mightily to reign them in and defeat them. He might do truly atrocious things and be trying to stop or be trying to fight a greater evil. Indeed, that's one of the basises of Vampire: The Masquerade. How can you not allow for this possibility? *




One can show that evil is a bad thing without being an evil character. 

I like the theme of the struggle for redemption. But start with a character that has already committed evil. You don't need to map out the character and say, "let me commit evil so that I can struggle for redemption later."

So, that is the clarification on my stance.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Dear god, are you actually comparing bludgeoning a man to playing a game?!  There is a world of difference.  You are completely missing barscoome's (sp?) point.  Commiting heinous acts is nowhere near on the same level as making pretend in a game. *




No. I was addressing the philosophical question of, is it worth exploring evil.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Since I bowed out of the debate last night, I have come across some new information that pertains to a subject we discussed.*



I'm truly appalled, SemperJase. I'm sorry but I don't know what else to say. I'm deeply, profoundly appalled by this "contribution" to our discussion. I had thought much more highly of you.

Point to ANY place where I suggested that beating people to death was somehow worthwhile. Where I said that performing acts of senseless violence was a good way to spend time?

But fine. I'm game. I'm still right, SemperJase, and you're still wrong, no matter what kind of tactics you employ.


> *This brings us back to the topic. Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it. Now let's be optimistic and say that six months from now the boys realize that their actions were wrong and that they cause irreparable harm to this man and his family. As a result they decide never to viscously beat another person.
> 
> Is that lesson valuable? I say no.  By not exploring evil, they would not have   changed this family's lives forever.
> 
> Yes, the risks outweigh the reward. Let me rephrase. The consequences out weight the reward. *



And do you claim to be able to see the future? Can you say with no possibility of error that you KNOW nothing good will come of this? How can you claim that? The world is not a simple chain of cause and effect, SJ. Who can trace the _reasons_ for any event in our world? Or the _effects_? Gandalf says "Even the very wise cannot see all ends." If you cannot see ALL ends, SJ, then you cannot see which ends are more likely than others. You cannot predict the future.

Only God can do that, SemperJase. Are you arogating to yourself the power of omniscience? Because nothing short of that can reveal the true consequences of this or any other act. Great good arises out of great evil, and vice versa, throughout history. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Of course it is terrible that this man suffered such a cruel death. It is probably true that his family is now suffering horribly (it is also possible that he was a child abuser and a faithless husband and perhaps the family is well rid of him, but that's beside the point), and of course this is terrible. It is also true that these youths will never be able to atone for what they have done and that no matter what good they do with the rest of their lives, this tragedy will remain undimmed.

We spend our lives exploring what is right and what is wrong. Invariably we will make mistakes along the way and end up causing unnecessary pain to others and ourselves. There is no way for us to predict the outcome of any path we may choose to follow. My point was simply that there is always value in following a path, yes, even a path that leads to violence and death. There is VALUE in it, if we have the wit and the sensitivity to see it.

That does not suggest that we are freed from any obligation to make the world a better place, to embrace what is noble and brave and compassionate and reject what is false, cowardly and cruel. Hopefully our paths will take us upwards and not spiral us into pain and suffering, but we CAN'T KNOW THAT until we have travelled those paths.

Your argument is a cold-hearted exploitation of other people's suffering and I find it offensive in the extreme that you should impute to me such foulness. I ask you again to demonstrate where I suggested that such horrors were to be encouraged. If you cannot do so, I require an apology from you. I think I'm entitled.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

I sincerely offer my apology. My intention was to specifically address this as a philosophical question and used a real world example to base my conclusion. I did not mean to infer that you support these actions. 

Also, thankfully this husband and father of 3 did not die, but his recovery is questionable. I believe the biggest concern is brain damage.



> *
> I ask you again to demonstrate where I suggested that such horrors were to be encouraged. If you cannot do so, I require an apology from you. I think I'm entitled. *





I do have a couple ideas regarding exploring evil within a game. Are lessons learned from a game and how?  Specifically related to the evil exploration. But that is another thread I think. Why don't we leave that serious topic for next week and enjoy the weekend?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I sincerely offer my apology.*



And it is sincerely accepted, and I thank you for it. I know I kind of flew off the handle there but nothing infuriates me more than having things imputed to me that I did not suggest. I think we all know that feeling.


> *My intention was to specifically address this as a philosophical question and used a real world example to base my conclusion. I did not mean to infer that you support these actions. *



I understand. I still think it was a misguided effort, but I know what you were trying to illustrate.


> *I do have a couple ideas regarding exploring evil within a game. Are lessons learned from a game and how?  Specifically related to the evil exploration. But that is another thread I think. Why don't we leave that serious topic for next week and enjoy the weekend? *



Very well then. I had actually just gone back through the thread and pulled out the progress of our discussion. Perhaps next week I'll post a summary and we can have it again.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 27, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Very well then. I had actually just gone back through the thread and pulled out the progress of our discussion. Perhaps next week I'll post a summary and we can have it again.  *




Thanks Bar,  I look forward to it.

-Jason


----------



## Barak (Sep 27, 2002)

In the end, it is a game.  If you identify with your character in the game so much that playing an evil character will lead you to become evil in RL, then even playing only good characters is not good enough.  Not playing the game would be the only healthy thing to do.  As for the rest of the world, playing an evil character will not make them evil, just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats.


----------



## JesterPoet (Sep 27, 2002)

Barak said:
			
		

> * ...just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats. *





Tell me about it...


All those hours, wasted!


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 27, 2002)

Barak said:
			
		

> *In the end, it is a game.  If you identify with your character in the game so much that playing an evil character will lead you to become evil in RL, then even playing only good characters is not good enough.  Not playing the game would be the only healthy thing to do.  As for the rest of the world, playing an evil character will not make them evil, just like playing battleship will not send them to the marina to blow up sailboats. *



Exactly.  I mean does playing a thiefish rogue mean you're going to become a kleptomaniac?  There are plenty of antisocial behaviors in D&D which are regarded as good or neutral that if Jase's bizzare logic are applied to them (practicing leads to doing) would recommend D&D never be played again.  Nor Nobokov read.

Scenario.  You live in a big city where drug dealers operate on the corners and the cops don't do as much as you'd like to about it.

You also play D&D and play heroes with the exact same problem.

In D&D you would likely find out who the drug dealer is, tell him to stop, if he didn't, kill him.

Does that mean that's what you'll do in real life?  Of course not.  Not whether you play D&D or not.  If you're going to become a vigilante, what you do in D&D has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore if you play an avenging paladin out to kill the servitors of an evil god, does that mean in real life you should go out and kill people with a religion you perceive to be evil?

Of course you shouldn't.  Nor would playing this paladin make you do so.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Why are activities which are unacceptable in real life but acceptable in game okay if they're labeled "good" by the games system and not if they're labeled "evil" by the games system?


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Why are activities which are unacceptable in real life but acceptable in game okay if they're labeled "good" by the games system and not if they're labeled "evil" by the games system? *



I just gotta say... SMACK!

That was tasty, Rob. Full-flavoured and zesty, with an agreeable finish and a hint of GROUND MEAT. Very nicely noted, a crucial insight that had not yet been brought to bear.

Here's a corollary:

Do we accept that Monte Cook, Jonathan Tween and Skip Williams are the arbiters of what is good and what is evil? No offense to any of those gentlemen, but I say, "As if!" Ergo, using the descriptions they provided for us as though they were real guidelines of true good and evil is foolish and unwise and without basis.

(I know, I know, I promised to stay out. But Rob made me so happy...)


----------



## Anabstercorian (Sep 27, 2002)

Wow.  That was the harshet flame war I've ever seen that ended politely.  I'm proud of both of you for managing to debate your issues with each other in a fervorous, rabid fashion while retaining your core civility   Seriously, way cool.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 27, 2002)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Wow.  That was the harshet flame war I've ever seen that ended politely.  I'm proud of both of you for managing to debate your issues with each other in a fervorous, rabid fashion while retaining your core civility   Seriously, way cool. *



I'm well-known for my fervorous, rabid civility.


----------



## Zulkir (Sep 27, 2002)

Folks,

This is one of the more interesting and well discussed threads I have ever come across. I don't blame any of you if you don't believe me but really this *is* one of the things we hoped would come about because of this product. 

There are things in the book that are evil acts by anyones standards, and their are things in the book that could be debatable (drug use for instance). It was always our intention to create a book that would create complex and interesting dilemnas for players and DMs. We always assumed that only mature adult players could include those sorts of things and maintain civility, thoughtfulness and empathy with each other.

Truthfully I don't find the BoVD that outrageous, but that is a personal perspective (some people will find it way over the top, others will shrug their shoulders and wonder what the big deal was). But I advocated the "Mature" label not so much for the "ickiness" of the content but more because we wanted mature thoughtful gamers to be the ones who would use this product and, hopefully, use it to spur players into thinking about issues of morality, ethic, situationalism vs. absolutism, good vs. evil, evil choices by good players and good choices by evil NPCs.

If this thread is any indication I am very pleased.

AV


----------



## Barak (Sep 27, 2002)

The whole point of contention of Semp is flawed anyway.  Anyone who played AD&D will remember how TSR went out of their way to make sure that the books printed in black & white that evil characters should only be NPCs.  Anything that had a whiff of evil to it, such as assassin kits, were marked as "the DM's province".  Of course, back in those days the hysteria about D&D being a tool of the devil was at it's apex, so that, along with purging the books of any "true" demonic names and such, was in part to make sure the company had an easy defense to such nay-saying.  But did that truly keep anyone from playing evil characters?  Heck no.  Would such steps in 3E would prevent anyone who wants to play an evil character from doing so?  Hah.  It's not like the rest of the books aren't rule 0'd as it is.  Putting a "DM only" on anything doesn't change the way people game.  Oh, it does in LG, and in tournament play, perhaps, but that is far from being the most common form of gaming.  So the fact that WoTC "encourage" or "discourage" players from playing evil characters doesn't change what they'll do.  Heck, they sure went out of their way to discourage people to play rangers, and some people still do so, in some basements..


----------



## buzz (Sep 27, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Clearly these boys explored evil for evil's sake. After the crime, they clearly did not learn anything from it.*




Others have already pointed this out, but after reading though this whole (refreshingly interesting) thread, I am compelled to respond to this.

These boys did not "explore" evil. They _committed_ evil. Using them as an example of what barsoomcore was talking about is ludicrous.

I'm totally buying the BoVD.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 28, 2002)

Man, I don't need to even contribute to keep conversation going! 

Anyway, don't wait up for me guys. I'm off to save the world tonight! Good gaming!


----------



## volcivar (Sep 28, 2002)

*Chill pill*

Hello,

I must say that at first, my reaction to BoVD was cold.  I couldn't see the need for it.  And after reading Mr. hickman's post, I was beginning to lean to his way of thinking.

However, after reading many of the posts here and doing a bit of reflecting:

1.  I play DnD to have fun, to kill the bad guys and let out a little steam,k to imagine I am someone I am not.

2.  DnD is just a game.

3.  If I read the BoVD and do not like it, I will not buy it.  (I know a lot of people who will buy it)

4.  People have been moralizing about DnD for a long time.  Most, if not all, of thier aguments were proven, in time, to be invalid.

I am simply going to let the game be a game.

Some may see this point of view as simplistic.  That's fine by me. 


volcivar the humble


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zulkir:_
> 
> Folks,
> 
> ...




Now, *THIS* is high praise for a thread!!

I think we have to individually choose what we want in our campaigns.  As such, I like to have options.

Have I and my co-DMs had rather vile opponents at times?  Yes, but we did not always feel a need to describe every act.

Also, one can learn something from studying portrayals of evil or even portraying an evil character.  I have occassionally played evil characters in one shot adventures.   I have tried to make them interesting.  In one case, I made the character polite and civil to others.  Mind you, he was a blood thirsty priest of Set, but believed diplomacy had its uses.

It is possible to portray a complex villain, without having it corrupt you.  However, some actors who portray villainous characters have said that they do feel a need to take a break or leave the character back at the movie studio or playhouse.  I am sure that Sir Anthony Hopkins has left Hannibal Lector at the sound stage, instead of bringing him back home.  (Although maybe he did want to have a quiante and some fava beans with dinner? )

Moral dilemmas can add a lot to a game.  Players will have to think how their characters would approach some of the difficult issues that we see in real life.  As such, additional depth can be added to a character and a campaign.


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Sep 29, 2002)

Well, at first i thought it was just america. But apparently sex and Violence sell everywhere.  i am only 21, but i am sick of over glorified death. many of people dont know what its like to actually see someone die a very violent death, i have, and its not something to glorify.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 29, 2002)

Hopping Vampire said:
			
		

> *Well, at first i thought it was just america. But apparently sex and Violence sell everywhere.  i am only 21, but i am sick of over glorified death. many of people dont know what its like to actually see someone die a very violent death, i have, and its not something to glorify. *




I agree with you, but how does this tie in to RPGs and the BoVD? I'm curious if in your game combat is abstracted out to bloodless levels.


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 29, 2002)

I have to join in praising the participants. I could see things verging on the edge at times, but the thread always stayed within the limits of warm. Great stuff.

Trying to look at this with as little passion as I can :

a. Isn't it amazing that 15 people came in to try and convince one guy ? Wow ! Talk about drive !!!

b. I can't agree with Semper's views on real life, but to each his own. However, it is everyone's decision to make D&D relative or absolute, alignment wise. I like my RPGs relative, because I know my players like being confronted to moral dilemnas and I like watching them pitched against these a lot more than I like watching them pitched against the local orcs. But D&D gives you the option of making good and evil cardboard cut-out and always knowing that an opponent is inherently evil. Again, it's up to each group of players to decide how they like it. 

c. As regards players playing evil characters and doing evil deeds in-game, I doubt if the release of the BoVD is going to change anything to that. It's not like these things don't happen already and this new supplement is gonna change anything...

d. I don't pay much heed to the playing evil as catharsis thing. I agree with some that playing is a way to let out some steam, but I doubt very much if it has much psychological effect beyond that. In fact, either way, I think gaming behaviour does not affect real-life behaviour much, if any. I have had one player in all my years of GMing whom I felt to be overly affected by the game (what I call "taking things too seriously"). We discussed it. He had real-life problems and was pushing escapism a bit far. If anything, I thought that discussion was beneficial and his playing style was more detached from then on. (He wasn't playing "evil-ly" btw, just way too involved.

e. I have occasionally engaged in a kind of "moral teaching" attitude in game. Very occasionally. In fact I can only remember one occurence. I was GMing a Vampire campaign set in pre-revolutionary Russia. The (Vampire) characters found out about a Methusela (a really old badass Vampire for those who don't know the game) who was preying on others of his kind. When he found out he'd been discovered, he led them on a cross-continental chase all the way to Egypt. While crossing the mountains leading to Turkey, the characters came upon a village full of butchered people, where all the vile perpetrations you can imagine had been performed. They naturally blamed the evil bad-ass guy and his retinue. In the next town they reached they found out their nemesis hadn't gone through that road. The Turkish army was responsible for having massacred yet another kurd village. The whole point for me in the game was to show that even though the Vampires are considered Evil, humans can be just as evil if not more without help.

f. Having played a lot more games than just D&D, I find it interesting that performing evil deeds (even under the guise of good intentions, as in Semper's Bordelands example) is directly related to character power in respect to the game setting. In a high mortality rate game where it's very difficult to be better than the next guy in combat, strangely enough, players start to think before they act and they do a lot less immediately evil stuff like killing and looting. I wonder what other GMs think of this, even though it may be a topic for another thread...


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Sep 30, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree with you, but how does this tie in to RPGs and the BoVD? I'm curious if in your game combat is abstracted out to bloodless levels. *




yeah, my combat is pretty pg 13 ish. think street fighter rather than Mortal Kombat. of course, my opinon is odd anyways, because John Woo happens to be my favorite director.


----------



## Nightstorm (Sep 30, 2002)

Some thoughts and comments I've had regarding this issue.
1. The people at White Wolf have become stuck up "I dont care what you think" attitude type of writers. Which is sad as I remember the days( them there good old days!) when the writers were also the people that printed , shipped and man the desks at white wolf. Think you have apathy here? go to white wolf boards. For over three years WW has been stringing the changeling fans by the balls. 
2.People are pissed off by BOVD. Well good for them. "I can say Bunny rabbits are cute" and I swear to you I'll get  20 responses for "yea you go girl" to " you vile bastard". THE FACT IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PRINT THIS BOOK/MAGZINES ETC. What will determine what goes in? SALES. Dont like it? DONT BUY IT. Nothing stops the presses more than low sales. If BOVD does poor, you will never see a book like that again. GOD BLESS OUR CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY.


----------



## Ulrick (Sep 30, 2002)

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Vote with your pocket book.

---
Yet what I find a bit amusing is that there are already books out there dealing with these kind of "mature" themes.  Just look at some of the books White Wolf has put out.  "The Guide to the Sabbat" and "Infernalism: The Path of Screams" come to mind.  Those are the two books I keep out of easy viewing from guests.

Then there's the D&D Guide to sex. (I can't remember its real name) that was put out years ago.

When I heard about Monte's "Secret Project" I became interested.  When I heard that it was a BOVD, I thought "Oh.  So what. Big deal.  It's been done." 

 

However, if it does contain stuff that I might be able to use, I'll probably buy it later on when I can get it for half price.

Ulrick


----------



## tburdett (Sep 30, 2002)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unless I'm mistaken, those gentlemen were paid a vast amount of money to memorize a script, assume a role, and act out a part  that was created by a third party.  They had very little to do with the content.

Performing these actions within the framework of D&D is entirely different.  In that arena the content is ENTIRELY under the control of the player.

Do you really fail to see the difference?


----------



## Ezrael (Sep 30, 2002)

tburdett said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, those gentlemen were paid a vast amount of money to memorize a script, assume a role, and act out a part  that was created by a third party.  They had very little to do with the content.*




Unless they are illiterate, they read the script. They could have chosen not to perform those roles. Or is it only okay if you're being paid to do it? Money somehow abrogates us from being responsible for what we choose to do? That's a terrifying argument, in my eyes. 



> *Performing these actions within the framework of D&D is entirely different.  In that arena the content is ENTIRELY under the control of the player.
> 
> Do you really fail to see the difference? *




I see a difference...we're not being paid to play D&D. Since I don't think being paid to perform a task excuses me from owning up to having done so, I fail to see why one is acceptable and one is not. For that matter, what of those who write such things? Is it okay that they do so merely because they are paid for their work?

I don't understand your argument. I personally don't see why playing in a campaign with such elements is somehow *less* moral because I'm not being compensated for it. I don't think the opposite, either...my lack of pay for my hobby doesn't make it of higher moral or ethical standing, but neither does it make it less. Actors are not robots, and they don't have to play roles they find unethical, just as gamers don't have to game in ways they find unpalatable. There's a choice involved. Excusing one from making it because they're paid to do so inches painfully close to the old 'I was only following orders' justification.

I play the games I play in because they work for me, with full knowledge (as full as anyone in an rpg with other people who may do something completely unexpected, anyway) of my choices. I don't feel immoral, and I wouldn't feel any more moral if I were being paid to do it.


----------



## Barak (Sep 30, 2002)

Although I do not agree with Semper's arguments, I have to help him out on one little subject.  The "actors play parts who are vile in movies, does that make them vile" argument that keeps popping up doesn't do anything.  Semper doesn't argue that there should be no "bad guys" in the game.  He argues that the -players-, who are, after all, the "main characters of the game, shouldn't be vile characters.  In 99% of the movies, the actors mentionned play parts that, if it was a D&D game, would be controlled by the DM.  They are basically NPCs.  Semper has no problem with that, so such arguments are pointless.  As for movies in which the vile characters -are- the main characters, and are basically the "heroes" of the movie, so to speak, I would guess that Semper doesn't think much of these movies either.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Barak said:
			
		

> *Although I do not agree with Semper's arguments, I have to help him out on one little subject.  The "actors play parts who are vile in movies, does that make them vile" argument that keeps popping up doesn't do anything.  Semper doesn't argue that there should be no "bad guys" in the game.  He argues that the -players-, who are, after all, the "main characters of the game, shouldn't be vile characters.*



Correction, he says they shouldn't be evil characters, not vile characters.

The problem with the opposition arguement is that in fiction, things aren't black and white.  Or at least, in good fiction, they're not.  In good fiction, you're not always sure who's the bad guy and who's the good guy, or you know who the protagonist is, but he's not always a nice guy.

Here's a good example.  I've been watching Swingers a lot lately because I got the DVD and there're 2 commentaries on it.  There's this bit where Trent is trying to encourage Mike and coach him on how to successfully hit on this girl.  He tells him, "I don't want you to be the guy in the PG-13 movie everyone's _really_ hoping makes it happen. I want you to be like the guy in the rated R movie, you know, the guy you're not sure whether or not you like yet. You're not sure where he's coming from. Okay? You're a bad man. You're a bad man. You're a bad man, bad man."

Check out True Romance.  You've got as your protagonists a hooker and her murdering, drug-stealing-and-selling boyfriend.  Oceans Eleven: a bunch of theives.  The Sopranos: A bunch of murderers and thugs.  Star Wars: A bunch of insurrectionists, the most charismatic of which won't hardly do anything unless he's very well paid and has a price on his head for his part in a smuggling ring.

Yet these people are still protagonists.  They're still the "hero" of the piece.  And the actors who portray them, even the most vile of characters, may not automatically be assumed to be evil.

The same situation holds for role playing games and playing evil characters.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Somehow I reposted


----------



## Henry (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Check out True Romance.  You've got as your protagonists a hooker and her murdering, drug-stealing-and-selling boyfriend.
> 
> Oceans Eleven: a bunch of thieves.
> 
> ...




Y'know, I don't cotton to players playing Evil PC's much myself, but the man does make an interesting point.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *You are crediting a theory to me that is the opposite of what I suggest. My theory is based on ACTIVE parenting. I am suggesting that parent gamers will steer their children away from the hobby if it continues this vile trend.*




As opposed to parents doing the much more logical thing and simply sterring their children away from the more adult themed material?

I let my children watch movies. I don't let them watch _Showgirls_. Why are rpgs different in that just because some content is adult oriented, children will be restricted from all rpg material?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I also base this on my personal observations. I have not yet met  a gamer who enjoys playing evil characters that I find trustworthy. Would you trust the guy who likes to roleplay a rapist as a baby sitter with your daughter? *




DMs regularly create and portray hideously evil villains, even playing those determined to be incurably evil such as demons and devils as well as twisted and terrible villains. Do you find all DMs untrustworthy?


----------



## vsper (Sep 30, 2002)

*Book of slighty Grey*

Well I know there has been a heated debate as to the "Vileness" of the BOVD. I can't say how bad it is, since I haven't seen it. If dragon 300 is any indication I am probably going to disappointed. I have been gaming since chainmail (the original) and for a long time my game has had a bit of grittyness. There are no prancing elves, no hobbiton look alikes. So when I heard of a the book of vile darkness. I though cool.

As a Gamemaster I am looking for things that will cause emotions in my players. The game I run have players as hero's and sometimes Anti-heros's. It is hard to tell what is right and wrong. When I do include something that is very dark, I want it to be dark as possible. Somethings that may even take the player by surprise and shock them. I want their moral outrage. The problem is it is hard to get that in general. Honestly CNN has things far more scary than in BOVD probably will.

Now BOVD has been hyped a bit as the baddest thing out there. I hope its "more vile" than Evil (from AEG). I suspect that it won't even come close to some of the things we see in the news. So for those of you who are affraid of your children seeing this, my advice is don't turn on the TV or see a movie. The BOVD is probably pretty watered down, and not nearly as scarry as the real world


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

*Bingo! --and this thread isn't done yet??*



			
				RobNJ said:
			
		

> *
> Yet these people are still protagonists.  They're still the "hero" of the piece. *




Thanks Rob, that's a point I was trying to make earlier, and you stated it far more succintly. Some bad guys are meant to be identified with, not just overcome. That allows the audience to vicariously experience living outside the bounds of law/convention/morality --without leaving those bounds themselves. And I think this desire to operate unfettered of constraint {at times} is damn near universal. To believe otherwise is to suggest that maintaing control over one self is an easy matter. And that cheapens real moral behavior in a way I find unconscionable...

And this is just one way of looking at things. 

Let me restate what I think is the core of this debate: "What's the proper use for the imagination?"

There are so many answers to that, right? Probably as many as there are people...

Also, Samael99, you didn't buy the catharsis angle, eh? I'm only suggesting one way you could look at/play the game. I'm not sure how carthartic my own gaming experiences have been, but I'm positive I understand a few of my old friends better through the characters they've created, so I can't honestly downplay the psychological component of the game.

And RobNJ, my fave. example of bad guy protagonists has to be Al Pacino's Scarface. Never did I root for more despicable character... {oh, except maybe Ian McKellan's Richard 3rd}.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *2. For someone else to be guilty by association, we would have to be guilty of some sin. As we were not, they were not. *




You assume, without questioning, that you have not committed any morally questionable acts in your raid. I find the fact that you make this assumption shows how truly simplistic your moral code is.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *While an evil character would only do good unintentionally.*




Incorrect. An evil character might do good if it suited his purposes. Evil characters are not necessarily evil for evil's sake, they have motivations like anyone else. They will pursue whatever means they see as most likely to allow them to fulfil their goals, inclduing engaging in activities one would view as "good".


----------



## Haldross (Sep 30, 2002)

*Vileness in Games*

Son_of_Thunder wrote:

2) It was something gamers have been wanting for a long time. My question pertains to number 2. I have been involved with D&D for well nigh on twenty years now, and I never recall there being a big demand for this type of a book, even within the three to five years leading up to 3rd edition. Did I miss something?

****

I've been DMing now for about 10 years. For the first couple of years, while I was learning and pretty well exclusively playing DnD I kept it to sugar-coated stuff.....you know, nothing that was really vile. I think that the nastiest thing that happened was some nasty poison traps or something.

That having been said, I gradually altered my style until it's the "gritty" feel that it is now. For example, in a recent session a PC was held, and then his throat was slit by the chief enemy....this wasn't the height of the module, but rather towards the beginning.

This kind of nastiness makes the players, feel good when they finally nail one of the badguys. I also add in a sense of moral ambiguity, wanting them to think about their actions. This is to ensure that they, as players, think about their actions, and how those actions fit into their own, personal, moral paradigm. 

I've found that all of my players enjoy my games, and hosts of people that I've never met ask to get into one of my games because I run them in a "nasty" way. By that I don't mean that on every streetcorner is a prostitute or dealer (like how most WW games seem to be run) but rather the areas that the adventurer's delve into aren't particularly pleasant. They are confronted with real evil, not sugar-coated evil, and seem to view their foes with a real vigour as opposed to one that is more-or-less made up, which seems to be common in many other people's DnD games.

Now, does this mean that my view is right, and that other people are wrong? Not at all. It simply means that there IS a market for this book, and books like it. Hell, if no one in the gaming industry was interested in books like this, white-wolf would have been out of business years ago...  

Anyhow, the entire point of this was just to indicate that there ARE people who are interested in this book, and will procure it. I know that I'm one of them.

Regards
Chris Parsons


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *No. I was addressing the philosophical question of, is it worth exploring evil. *




No, you were comparing two fundamentally disparate situations in an attempt to create a straw man for your facile argument.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *The problem with the opposition arguement is that in fiction, things aren't black and white.  Or at least, in good fiction, they're not.   *




A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com.


----------



## Skarp Hedin (Sep 30, 2002)

> Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white




Even Gollum?

Can't really argue that Gollum isn't evil.  After all, most of his desires revolve around killing various hobbits.  However, he leads Frodo and Sam into Mordor more-or-less safely (more safely than their other possible route at least), and he himself destroys the One Ring, thus saving all of Middle-Earth from being covered in a second darkness.

Certainly his motives were black, but his results were white.  What's that make him?


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com. *



Not so much a false premise as it is a matter of opinion.  But it's a widely held matter of opinion, that I think you'd find among most people who study the English language and its writings.  Protagonists who are completely unambiguous are boring, one-dimensional and predictable.  Someone whose every action is perfect and pristine is a boring read.

Furthermore, your example of Lord of the Rings is a very poor one.  In Lord of the Rings we have a vicious murdering psychopath with shreds of good still in him (Gollum), and our main heroes are all deeply tempted by the Ring and do selfish or wicked things.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> You assume, without questioning, that you have not committed any morally questionable acts in your raid. I find the fact that you make this assumption shows how truly simplistic your moral code is. *




The fact that I have come to a conclusion about the moral actions does not inherently mean that conclusion is wrong as you suggest. 

I also see nothing wrong with a simple moral code. In fact, the simpler the better. As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> *
> Certainly his motives were black, but his results were white.  What's that make him? *




That makes him evil. The fact that an outcome beneficial to society results from evil actions does not change the nature of the actions.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That makes him evil. The fact that an outcome beneficial to society results from evil actions does not change the nature of the actions. *



Then you're ignoring the text of the book, which says that there is some good in him.

Are you telling me that you literally believe that people in real life are wholly only evil or good?  That people are not capable of being a mixture of good and bad?

Assuming you don't take that audacious position, then you must agree that such things are possible in art (books, movies, role playing) as well?

At what point is evil too evil to play?  51%?


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com. *




I see many many ways in which Lord of teh Rings is not black and white. And it's morals, if any, are definetely not simplistic !

Boromir
The Ents
Denethor
Wormtongue
Galadriel and Celeborn

I could go on and on.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Then you're ignoring the text of the book, which says that there is some good in him.
> 
> Are you telling me that you literally believe that people in real life are wholly only evil or good?  That people are not capable of being a mixture of good and bad?
> 
> ...




You have changed the subject again. We were discussing if characters could be purely good or evil in fiction. 

Didn't people get offended at me when I drew a real world parallel to fiction? You are doing the opposite. 

Gollem may have had the capability to do good. He did not use that capability. His actions were calculated to put him in a position to steal the ring back. The consequences of that action led to his death and the unmaking of the ring.


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Incorrect. An evil character might do good if it suited his purposes. Evil characters are not necessarily evil for evil's sake, they have motivations like anyone else. They will pursue whatever means they see as most likely to allow them to fulfil their goals, inclduing engaging in activities one would view as "good". *




Furthermore, pitching PCs against characters that are evil for evil's sake in RPGs gets boring real quick : no depth, no motivation. I like pitching PCs against a variety of characters of varying shades of goodness or evil.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Sammael99 said:
			
		

> *
> Boromir*




Wanted to use evil to overcome evil. The story concludes that you cannot do that. It will only lead to more evil. 



> *The Ents*



I see no evil actions here. Perhaps it was a statement about neutrality. The ents wanted to stay neutral but found they could not



> *
> Denethor*



edit:
Was thinking of the wrong character earlier. 
Again, a character who tried to use evil to overcome evil. Look what it led to, suicide and the attempted murder of his son. No moral ambiguity there.



> Wormtongue
> Galadriel and Celeborn
> I could go on and on. [/B]




I'm really not sure of your point on these two. I don't recall any morally ambiguous actions. Wormtongue was evil, hence his name for the lies he spread.
Galadriel and Celeborn?

Tolkein may have presented moral questions in the LotR, but he also came to conclusions.


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Gollem may have had the capability to do good. He did not use that capability. His actions were calculated to put him in a position to steal the ring back. The consequences of that action led to his death and the unmaking of the ring. *




He most certainly did ! There's a whole passage until the scene where Frodo lures him into being captured by Faramir's men when he is acting good. Confused, uncertain, definetely, but on the whole, more good than evil. Then he shifts because, amongst other things he feels betrayed. That's how I read it anyway.

But that's besides the point. The whole moral of LotR is that both Gandalf and Aragorn did not kill Gollum when they had the opportunity because they do not feel that judging his evilness is reason enough to do so. Gandalf even states that Gollum certainly deserved death, but still, he did not kill him. In the end, that pays since Gollum is instrumental in destroying the ring. That's moral ambiguity staring you right in the face !!!


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You have changed the subject again. We were discussing if characters could be purely good or evil in fiction.
> 
> ...



You managed 1) To not read what I wrote, 2) to bring up a confusing and as far as I can tell irrelevant point and 3) to ignore the thrust of my question.

I said, "Surely you must believe X is true in real life, so why can't it be true in fiction?"  This isn't changing the subject.  Not even a little bit.

I got offended when you compared bludgeoning a man nearly to death with playing a role playing game.  There's nothing as offensive as that in anything I wrote.

Let me ask this question again.  Surely you must agree that there are characters in fiction that can be a mixture of good and evil.  At what point does this mixture become morally damaging to the player?

If it's a difficult quesiton to answer, that is because it underlines the inherit flaws in your point of view.  You have this belief that there is an objective measure of good and evil, and there just isn't.  The worst rapist/murderer/cannibal might still have a tender love for kittens that is pure and wholesome.  And the most morally upright churchman might be a seething bigot somewhere deep inside himself.

Here's the question, and I beg you answer it:  How much evil must a character have in her spirit before you think that playing her will morally corrupt the player?  Selfishness is defined by the D&D alignment system as evil, do you therefore conclude that even a marginally selfish character cannot be played without being damaging to its player?  Where does this clear, unambiguous, perfect moral line get drawn?

If you're unable to answer this question directly, I must be forced to conclude that you have no valid point to make.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> I also see nothing wrong with a simple moral code. In fact, the simpler the better. As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism. *




SJ, I beg to differ with you {surprise!}. You sound like a moral relativist to me. You claim that killing is justifiable in some cases, and not in others. What is that if not moral relativism?

My suggestion to you is to consider all moral questions relative {which is not the same as considering all moral choices equivalent}. I never understood how people could purport to discuss moral action devoid of its context --its relationship to other moral action/situation? Morality isn't mathematics.


----------



## herald (Sep 30, 2002)

*As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism.* 

And this is why this discussion wll never end.

Before long other people could bing in a variety of philosophies and this discussion will become so broad as to be hard to focus.

Philosophy allows people to view situations in so many differant ways, that any given time, at least one person (if not more) that will totally disagree with some other person and have reasons to back it up. 

This is why acceptance of diversity is important. Differing view points ensure that we have a multiple option in the "marketplace of ideas."

Not everyone is going to like BOVD. This doesn't surprise anyone. But anyone who has been involved in the 3e/D20 community of consumers knows that this is a cap end book. It's not likely to see many more like it simply because WOTC has done it, it's pretty much saturated the market on that kind of idea. 


Now as far as I am concerned, some of the heat that started this discussion could have been better focused. Instead of some individuals blasting WOTC to never do a product like this, they could instead make suggestions on products they could create that people would buy. Perhaps even creat polls on message groups to ask if people feel the same way. 

Do not get me wrong. Discussions on this type of topic are good. But I wouldn't expect it to end, simply because you can't debate away all the points. My hope is thought that when people have had enough of the discussion that they come away with a better understanding of how diverse this group is.


My own favorite quote on the topic of gamers is simple:

"If you didn't what to hear how your point of view is wrong, you would have never become a gamer."


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *Here's the question, and I beg you answer it:  How much evil must a character have in her spirit before you think that playing her will morally corrupt the player? *




The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose _intentions_ are to commit evil.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose intentions are to commit evil. *



So therefore you don't really have a problem with evil characters, just with characters that think they're doing something evil?  By that logic, someone could play Jeffrey Dahlmer, and be okay.  Jeffy boy believed he was just keeping his lovers with him so they wouldn't leave him.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> SJ, I beg to differ with you {surprise!}. You sound like a moral relativist to me. You claim that killing is justifiable in some cases, and not in others. What is that if not moral relativism?
> *




A moral decision. Killing is not necessarily murder. The moral absolute is that murder is wrong.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The line is drawn where a player chooses a character whose intentions are to commit evil. *



For that matter, a paladin who felt guilty whenever he had to go to the toilet because it was a dirty thing wouldn't be able to play in your game. . . .


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *So therefore you don't really have a problem with evil characters, just with characters that think they're doing something evil?  By that logic, someone could play Jeffrey Dahlmer, and be okay.  Jeffy boy believed he was just keeping his lovers with him so they wouldn't leave him. *




Now you are back to moral relativism. 

I'll keep it simple. It is unhealthy for a player to play characters of evil alignment.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A false premise. Lord of the Rings is most definitely black and white. It is also considered to be the best fiction novel of the last century. At least according to Amazon.com. *




I love LotR, but I'll take Gatsby any day...

There's an admitted bias against the literature of the fantastic. But the root of this isn't just critical snobbery. It has more to do with goals, ambition. The assumptions is that that fantasy is merely escapism. It doesn't constitute a meaningful exploration {there's that word again} into the human condition, thus it isn't serious art.

There's more than a shred of truth to this. A kind of fiction that usually presents such a simplistic moral viewpoint doesn't seem particularly well suited to comment on real human experience. It doesn't further our attempts to understand the world/ourselves, it merely provide a refuge from the stress of said process. 

And to suggest arts only goal is simple, clear instruction of 'right behavior' puts you in the same boat as Plato in The Republic --that is, as a cheerleader for a high-minded police state. Shall we begin rounding up all the poets?

Can fantasy fiction contain ambiguity? Can it provide both confrontation and escapism? I think thats something worth debating... 

The literature of the fantastic certainly did both those things, back at its very start...


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now you are back to moral relativism.
> 
> I'll keep it simple. It is unhealthy for a player to play characters of evil alignment. *



This is exactly my point.  Morals are inheritly relatvistic.  I'm not using any of my own definitions, I'm using yours.  You said that if you had a character who believed he was doing evil, you thought that his player was doing himself harm.

I'm pointing out that there are plenty of characters (and people) who do really heinous things but think they're doing good.  Ku Klux Klan members, men who beat their wives, Lou Perlemen and The Backstreet Boys.  These are all people guilty of horrific crimes against humanity, but they all think what they're doing is not only okay, but the morally perfect thing to do.

So I put it to you again.  Which of these characters is going to hurt me morally?

1) An elvish rogue who's basically a heroine, but she steals everything she really likes.

2) Same character, except she also engages in promiscuous, dangerous sex with unsavory characters (because she's selfish and thoughtless)?

3) Same character, except when she kills her enemies, she finds to her horror, she likes it?  She fights mightly against this impulse but it's there nonetheless?

4)  Same character, except she feels unrepentant about getting joy at killing hobgoblins, because they killed her entire family?

5)  Same character, except she takes unrepentant joy in murdering anyone who gets in her way, and feels it's right, because she can, and therefore she should (might makes right)?

And so on.  At some point a character goes from "good" to "bad".  The problem is that in your mind, at some point, I am harming myself morally by playing this character.  At what point does this occur?

Again, this is the inherit flaw in your perspective.  There is no absolute line after which a person is damned forever, or after which the player of that character is undeniably hurting himself.

You previously said, "When the character thinks they're doing evil," but every example I gave above the character doesn't think they're doing evil.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *Can fantasy fiction contain ambiguity? Can it provide both confrontation and escapism? I think thats something worth debating...
> 
> The literature of the fantastic certainly did both those things, back at its very start... *



It's still doing it today.  George R. R. Martin's Songs of Ice and Fire series (A Game of Thrones is the first book in the series) is a perfect example.

I personally get all ticked off when elitists look down on genre fiction.  As far as I'm concerned, it has all the world building stuff to do, _plus_ it has as much responsibliity to question the human condition as any other fiction (that is, as much as the writer decides to take on).

But with fans like we've got here, who seem to conclude that any questioning of moral precepts is akin to embracing the devil, it's no wonder we're in the ghetto.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A moral decision. Killing is not necessarily murder. The moral absolute is that murder is wrong. *




Sure, a moral decision made inside a relative moral context. I don't think ambushing enemy soldiers is wrong per se, but it falls under the category justified murder. I don't subscribe to the notion that you redefine morally questionable acts until they fit into a more pleasant-sounding moral framework.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *
> So I put it to you again.  Which of these characters is going to hurt me morally?*




With all of these examples, you have taken alignment out of the question, which was my whole beginning premise.

To directly answer your question, it depends on the consequences of the actions. If there are none, then probably all of them.

That actually leads into a different topic about the effect a DM has on the moral context of a game.



> *Again, this is the inherit flaw in your perspective.  There is no absolute line after which a person is damned forever, or after which the player of that character is undeniably hurting himself.
> 
> You previously said, "When the character thinks they're doing evil," but every example I gave above the character doesn't think they're doing evil. *




You are right. That answer was not definitive or all inclusive. But it was not meant to be exclusive either. So I will repeat my clarification:

It is unhealthy to play a character of an evil alignment.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 30, 2002)

Skarp Hedin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Even Gollum?
> 
> ...




Damn, I got 150 pages into Return of the King before someone told me how the book ends....


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *It is unhealthy to play a character of an evil alignment. *



At least we're finally becoming clear as to what your perspective is.  This is valuable.

The problem is you're putting way too much power in the hands of the writers of the Player's Handbook to make moral decisions for you.  You are suggesting that you become morally endangered solely on the basis of what they wrote?  Here's the definition of evil as related by these moral leaders 

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdalignment.rtf



> Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.



If you're using this as some kind of moral compass, there are problems.  The definition of "innocent", for example.  Furthermore, whether or not your character feels compassion is an entirely internal thing.  If you're playing a good character or an evil character, I have no way of knowing whether you feel any compassion for the victim of your attacks.  In fact there are many times where unquestionably good characters don't feel compassion when they kill enemies.

Furthermore this doesn't address the concerns of such moral "damage" in other media.  Are actors bound by those guidelines as well?  If so, how do we make them aware of them?  Angelina Jolie is too pretty to have her eternal soul imperiled that way, and I'll take it upon myself to personally warn her.

That is, if you're able to properly impart your received wisdom on the absolute nature of good and evil to me.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *It's still doing it today.  George R. R. Martin's Songs of Ice and Fire series (A Game of Thrones is the first book in the series) is a perfect example.
> 
> I personally get all ticked off when elitists look down on genre fiction.  As far as I'm concerned, it has all the world building stuff to do, plus it has as much responsibliity to question the human condition as any other fiction (that is, as much as the writer decides to take on).
> 
> But with fans like we've got here, who seem to conclude that any questioning of moral precepts is akin to embracing the devil, it's no wonder we're in the ghetto. *




Sure, "Ice and Fire" by Martin is great. Its the first fantasy epic I've read hungrily in years. And the moral ambiguity of its characters fuels its drama... Those books surprised me regularly. I don't see why a person would read if not for that experience.

I'd add China Mieville's "Perdido Street Station". The early parts of Gaiman's "Sandman" --but not the end.  Going back a little farther, Wolfe's "Book of the New Sun". Father still, anything by Angela Carter {I loved "The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman...}.

Sure, I believe the literature of the fantastic can take on all the functionality of more 'serious' fiction. But are we in the minority believing that? Is the demand simply for escapist fare? There's a place for that too. And I hesitate to say that constitutes a 'ghetto'. Though I've made that point many times to my friends who read Forgotten Realms novels.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *I take a slightly more technical view of the problem: without the introduction of more moral ambiguity, can fantasy remain viable even as 'exciting escapist fare'? Where's the thrill in a compltely forgone conclusion? *



What a refreshing hijack .  It'd probably be best suited to its own thread, but I'll reply anyway.  I think something can be exciting and escapist and still make us ask questions about ourselves.  Earlier in this thread I invoked the movie Swingers.  There's a lot of glitz and escapism and god-I-wish-I-talked-that-cool-ism in the movie, but it also makes you (or me) really think about relationships and men and women and my position as a man today (for the record, I mostly identified with Mikey ).  Similarly, Quentin Tarantino's movies.  Other than True Romance (which wasn't really _his_ movie), they are escapist fun that also makes me think.

And of course, I'm a complete idiot and misread your main question.  To whit: yes, I think that a lack of moral ambiguity can still result in entertaining escapism, however, familiarty breeds contempt.  You can only get your rocks off by a cool visual for so long before you start to want more.

But I think there'll always be a market for the empty thrills.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> It is unhealthy to play a character of an evil alignment. *




Can you offer any proof of this whatsoever? I understand this is your deeply felt position on the matter. But you've gone beyond stating your personal preference --which I respect-- you're talking about objective harm. If this effect is real, there has to be some corroborating evidence.

The sheer ubiquitous of violent, amoral entertainment in America, coupled with our still-manageable homicde rate, seems to invalidate your position. Completely.


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *Can you offer any proof of this whatsoever? I understand this is your deeply felt position on the matter. But you've gone beyond stating your personal preference --which I respect-- you're talking about objective harm.*



Actually, that's what he's been doing all along.  That's why some people have gotten hot under the collar.  It's just people more sensible than me have given up on it already .


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

RobNJ said:
			
		

> *What a refreshing hijack .  It'd probably be best suited to its own thread, but I'll reply anyway.  . *




That's funny. I edited out the part you replied to for exactly that reason... But thanks for replying. 

Sure, there's always a market for cheap thrills. The porn industry doesn't seem to hurting in the light of an overabundance of unchallenging, repetive product...


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *edit:
> Was thinking of the wrong character earlier.
> Again, a character who tried to use evil to overcome evil. Look what it led to, suicide and the attempted murder of his son. No moral ambiguity there.*





Actually, Denethor didn't want to use evil to overcome evil. He used the _palantir_, which was not an inherently evil item (being, in fact, the work of the Numenoreans in their heyday). He wanted to use good to oppose evil, but became convinced that evil would tiumph nonetheless because of its overwhelming strength, and fell into despair.



> *Galadriel and Celeborn?*





Galadriel was involved to some extent in the kinslaying, she also defied the Valar and returned to Middle-Earth with Feanor. (In other words, she defied the authority of God's highest representatives).



> *Tolkein may have presented moral questions in the LotR, but he also came to conclusions. *




Not always.


----------



## Zappo (Sep 30, 2002)

Yeah, well, actually there's not much proof that roleplaying evil does _not_ harm you, either. The comment about murder rate in the USA doesn't prove much.

I wasn't completely joking some pages ago when I said that without hard figures, which would be extremely hard to collect, we can keep on arguing forever. We have a few researches proving that roleplayers in general enjoy a lower crime rate, and we have the fact that no murder has ever been proven in court to be connected with D&D, but it's not like these data are broken down by alignment.

I simply cannot see the mechanism by which playing an evil character can directly cause a player to commit evil actions IRL, and until someone explains it to me without resorting to empty rhethoric, I am not going to change my mind. From that to having proof, there's still some room.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *The fact that I have come to a conclusion about the moral actions does not inherently mean that conclusion is wrong as you suggest.*





No, it means that you appear to have assumed without question that what your characters were doing was moral and correct. You had LG written on your character sheet, therefore the things you do are good, especially when you are killing guys with CE on theirs.

That sort of simple minded assumption framework is more dangerous than anything you have come out against in this thread.



> *I also see nothing wrong with a simple moral code. In fact, the simpler the better. As I said before, I am not a believer in moral relativism.*




You do not have to be a believer in moral relativism to have a complex moral code. You just have to think about it more than you appear to have done.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *The comment about murder rate in the USA doesn't prove much.
> *




Why not exactly? Its true I wasn't offering up the results of an empircal study, rather a more informal observation. But how is it invalid?


----------



## Zappo (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *Why not exactly? Its true I wasn't offering up the results of an empircal study, rather a more informal observation. But how is it invalid? *



Oh, it's not completely invalid, but it isn't an irrefutable proof either. The "low" murder rate in relation to the diffusion of violent entertainment could be due to any number of reasons. And one could argue that, since murder rate in the USA is fairly higher than, say, Europe, then violent entertainment does cause violence (though again that could and probably is due to who knows what else). That's why I think that that datum doesn't sustain either position.


----------



## Johnny Wilson (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> [I do have a couple ideas regarding exploring evil within a game. Are lessons learned from a game and how?  Specifically related to the evil exploration. But that is another thread I think. Why don't we leave that serious topic for next week and enjoy the weekend? [/B]




Frankly, back in 1st Edition AD&D, I played an assassin character. My goal through the entire campaign was to build up enough to be able to kill the lawful good leader of the party who had been playing longer than I had. I finally accomplished this task--VERY UNSATISFYING--I killed him but I found that I felt really crappy about it. Even though he was eventually raised, I felt like my efforts had completely invalidated the months he had spent developing that character. Also, I felt like a traitor to my own party (duh!). The only good part was the subsequent chase and the thrilling ambush where, by that time to my relief, my character bought it.

I went back to a good character and, outside of DMing bad guys, I've played good and neutral characters ever since. Did I learn something from "exploring evil?" You bet your bippy! [Warning: Said reference dates the poster as being a hopelessly out of touch '60s era has-been.] I learned that I didn't even want to double-cross people in a GAME, MUCH LESS in real life. I sort of knew that before, but I knew it viscerally after that campaign. Further, it's a lesson I've often shared with young munchkins who WANT to play evil characters. They may not "hear," but at least they listen.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it means that you appear to have assumed without question that what your characters were doing was moral and correct. You had LG written on your character sheet, therefore the things you do are good, especially when you are killing guys with CE on theirs.
> 
> That sort of simple minded assumption framework is more dangerous than anything you have come out against in this thread.
> [/B]




The last paragraph would be a valid criticism if your assumptions were true, which they are not.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Johnny Wilson said:
			
		

> *
> Did I learn something from "exploring evil?" You bet your bippy!  *




Interesting. I do note that the lesson was learned as a result of real personal interaction. There were real players behind the characters. 

Would that lesson have been learned if it were an NPC?


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *Oh, it's not completely invalid, but it isn't an irrefutable proof either.*




Granted. I try not to traffic in irrefutable proof. I've heard the stuff's radioactive.

Causal arguments are tough. I might have been better off stating that's its been my totally annecdotal experience, as an American who grew up immeshed in the violent power fantasies which were custom-designed for adolescent males {you know, video games, Mad Max films, Arnold, Scarface, etc}, that these entertainments have been harmless.

Except for the boardgame Risk. Now there's a game that can still make me come to blows...


----------



## Zappo (Sep 30, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *Granted. I try not to traffic in irrefutable proof. I've heard the stuff's radioactive.
> 
> Causal arguments are tough. I might have been better off stating that's its been my totally annecdotal experience, as an American who grew up immeshed in the violent power fantasies which were custom-designed for adolescent males {you know, video games, Mad Max films, Arnold, Scarface, etc}, that these entertainments have been harmless.*



Ok, ok... I've played and seen the same stuff too, and I'm a good person nonetheless. The same holds true for about everyone I know (including people who routinely play evil D&D PCs). But I like hard numbers when talking about proof. It's probably my mathemathical background surfacing every now and then, I can't help it.


----------



## Tiefling (Sep 30, 2002)

Why is it that people believe that 13 - 14-year-olds (and heck, even younger kids) are not aware of and perfectly capable of handling supposedly mature ideas such as drug-use, torture, and prostitution?

Also, why are drug-use and prositution being called "evil" and "vile?"


----------



## Mallus (Sep 30, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *It's probably my mathemathical background surfacing every now and then, I can't help it.  *




No problem... I have a background in English Lit. {can you tell?}.

Forgive me if I try to prove up is down {sans the hard numbers, of course...}


----------



## RobNJ (Sep 30, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Why is it that people believe that 13 - 14-year-olds (and heck, even younger kids) are not aware of and perfectly capable of handling supposedly mature ideas such as drug-use, torture, and prostitution?
> 
> Also, why are drug-use and prositution being called "evil" and "vile?" *



I certainly did at that age.  And if I've called them such, it's only by mistake.  In my personal morality, the addiction to drugs is as evil as things get, but it's more the pusher-and-drug that I find evil than it is the addict.  If I characterized them that way, it was only in the assumption that those on the other side of the argument would frame them that way.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 30, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *The last paragraph would be a valid criticism if your assumptions were true, which they are not.*




I can only work with the evidence available, and you haven't given any information that would indicate that you put any more thoguht into your PCs actions than "they're orcs with slaves, kill them!"


----------



## Ezrael (Sep 30, 2002)

In general, in the country I live in both drug use (save for a few legal ones like alcohol, caffeine or tobacco products) and prostitution are illegal, and the problem with illegal activities like they are is that the procurement of either is dominated by people who will casually murder others in gruesome manners in order to maintain control of those cash-cows. This excludes the involvement of my government in both industries (For instance, in the 1960's and 1970's the CIA ran brothels in which it experimented in dosing the clientele with LSD without their knowledge...look up Operation Midnight Climax for some details, starting here:http://www.mistersf.com/notorious/notciaacid.htm) and so it tends to be considered solely the reserve of violent men and women who will kill and torture without concern for the lives of others merely for profit.

In addition there are religious concerns, but I'm an agnostic and cannot speak to them.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 30, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> I can only work with the evidence available, and you haven't given any information that would indicate that you put any more thoguht into your PCs actions than "they're orcs with slaves, kill them!" *




I believe I explained it better than that. Regardless of how the orcs would see the issue, kidnapping and enslaving people is an evil action. Rescuing those victims by force, up to and including slaying as many orcs as necessary to secure the release of the slaves is not an evil action.  

The reasoning had nothing to do with the alignment written down on character sheets other than the previously stated desire of the characters to do good.


----------



## Tiefling (Sep 30, 2002)

Okay, now I've read through the entire thread. (I want some sort of award for that!)

SJ, you're contending that playing evil characters is unhealthy, and that people should not do it. You don't have any evidence of it. You're basing it entirely on your gut feeling. But you insist that you're holding the moral high ground. This makes people, quite understandably, angry. Until you get some sort of statistical analysis of the number of people who aren't psychos to begin with and then play evil characters and become them, people are going to continue to be angry. Perhaps if you said, "It seems to me that playing evil characters *might* be unhealthy, although I don't really know," people would be cool with it. Instead you say, "Playing evil characters is definitely unhealthly, and people should not do it. So there."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 1, 2002)

Keep fighting the good fight SJ!  Never let them get you down.


----------



## alsih2o (Oct 1, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Rescuing those victims by force, up to and including slaying as many orcs as necessary to secure the release of the slaves is not an evil action.
> *




 did your party try anything but the slaying?

 show of force? negotiations and explanantions thru and interpreter? stealth?

 or was it just the nice and easy morally correct slaughter?

 i just feel the need to point out that this crosses the line from "eye for an eye" to "head for an eye", and makes me wander what types of crimes aren't capital offenses without trial.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 1, 2002)

Ummm, quick point: if playing evil characters is inherently wrong and leads to a degredation of morals, doesn't that mean that all DMs should be psychotics, forthing at the mouths and running through the streets, killing people with grapefruit spoons? I mean, a DM role-plays *mainly* evil characters and, if he is a skilled DM, he does them in an interesting and invovled manner. As someone who has been DM'ing constantly for about 99% of my gaming experiences in the past 18 years, doesn't that mean I should be plotting the best way to kill you all?

For those who say there is no solid evidence concerning the relation between the alignment of the characters you play and the morals you define for yourself, I say look to your DMs for all the imperical evidence you could ever need. Seems to me that the obvious answer is: "no, playing evil characters does not make you evil." Or, am I the only one who remembers that role-playing is about make-believe and imagination, not one's real life?


----------



## Anabstercorian (Oct 1, 2002)

Mr. Trustum makes an excellent point.  Most DM's are stuck in a naturally unhealthy job if your positions are true, SemperJase.  I'm not entirely clear on everyone's positions, but I do respect all of them.  Personally, I'm a moral relativist who believes that his own relative position is worth making a fuss over preserving.  Just because all moral positions are equally VALID doesn't mean they're all equally good for people, after all.


----------



## EarthsShadow (Oct 1, 2002)

It's amazing just how touchy some people can be.  One person doesn't like the content of Dragon Magazine 300, and thinks it should be banned or recalled, or never done again.  Another person thinks its a great thing that they printed what they printed, and they should again.  Other's take a middle ground.  Other's dislike it because they think its a marketing ploy to get people to buy an upcoming book... in this case, the BoVD.  To some, the articles were gross...to others, it wasn't vile at all.  You are all arguing with each other to try and prove to the other person that they are wrong and only you are right.  

Now, if you are able to take your self opinions away, and look at the situation from a different angle...you would see and understand that each and everyone of your opinions are correct.  None of us are wrong.  WotC is not wrong for printing that article.  You are not wrong for disliking the article, and you are not wrong for liking the article.  You are not wrong if you don't  purchase the book for whatever reasons you decide for, and the other person is not wrong if they do purchase the book for whatever reasons.  All of us are right, none of us are wrong.  Period.

We are all playing this game, each of us has our own styles of gaming, and that's all right for us.  Some may not agree with others, and that's fine.  LIke someone said, if we all played the same kind of game, we would be very boring people.  Life is like that.  

I guess the only thing wrong that I have read is for someone to specifically tell someone else that they are wrong because they don't believe the same exact thing...gosh, it kinda reminds me about christianity (sorry if this offends some of you, but to me, its the same).  

Buy the book, don't buy the book, in the end who really cares what someone else is going to do.  Speak your opinions but take care not to specifically slam others.  All of us are right, because we are sticking to our own view, and keep with it.  

I will buy the book.  I will use it.  I want to run a game where the players run across a Owl Bear that just rampaged through a farm, with the body of its victims disemb....you get the picture.  Your playing a fantasy game, with creatures that would, in real life, do these things.  You can use them, or not, its your choice...frankly...final point...

IF ITS IN THE GAME, ITS IN THE GAME!!


----------



## Rock Lord (Oct 1, 2002)

My useless opinion:

This discussion is an old one....

It started i believe with story books, than movies, songs, video-games, and now rpg books.

The people complaining is always the same defenders of good moral.

The arguments are always the same. "The content of this book will hurt the moral integrity of those who read". The concern  about their children in the near future is very common too.

The answer to that is also the same... NO book, os movie, or song, or whatever can change a person´s integrity. 
Of  course, if you are already a latent psycho, probalby the content may be a trigger...

SO if u are worried about your children, just give them a good education, love and affection. Thats what I do.

or

Just dont buy the book...

but plz, stop complaining about it, I want it. If they cancel the BOVD I´ll have to awake the latent psycho inside me


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 1, 2002)

I think people can have differing opinions, and can disagree politely.  

For myself, I do not see playing evil characters as inherently evil.  Actors, for example, need not become their characters.

To briefly address some of the philosophical/ethical issues, I personally believe that some things are clearly wrong.  However, I do respect the right of people to disagree with me even if I do not agree with their opinions.

Rock Lord has raised a valid point in that a single book or television program will likely not irreparably damage someone.  However, there are  some exceptions, including those with personal issues or psychological problems.

I think the best way to approach the BOVD or any other controversial material is to use our own best judgement as individuals.   

Sometimes, it is perhaps appropriate to show how truly evil and wicked a villain or a government can be to players.  It can give them a sense of why their characters oppose something in the case of many characters.  It may represent to some characters a line that they will not cross.  However, I believe the option on how to present evil or any topic in a game ultimately must be an individual decision.


----------



## vsper (Oct 1, 2002)

*Morality and elf soup*



			
				Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> *Ummm, quick point: if playing evil characters is inherently wrong and leads to a degredation of morals, doesn't that mean that all DMs should be psychotics, forthing at the mouths and running through the streets, killing people with grapefruit spoons? I mean, a DM role-plays mainly evil characters and, if he is a skilled DM, he does them in an interesting and invovled manner. As someone who has been DM'ing constantly for about 99% of my gaming experiences in the past 18 years, doesn't that mean I should be plotting the best way to kill you all?
> *




I know my players more often than not believe I am evil. I am not of coarse. I do what I need to. I say if we were not meant to eat elves, Corellon wound have made them so tasty. 

On a more serious note I run probably one of the darkest campaigns I have ever seen. Yet I have no urge to do any wrong doing. 

I had a halfling theif in my campaign who was a "mob" boss. He also is one of the nicest guys in the world. Wrong is something that we bring with us to the game not that the game gives to us. To blame a game, videos, or books for improper behavior says that the human mind or will is so weak that we can not think or believe  for ourselves.

I am willing to bet that if you asked all the people who commit murder almost all will tell you that it is wrong. That means they had to make a choice to do something wrong. I believe that the circumstances of their lives were the real factor in their decision, not their type of roleplaying. 

Vsper
janus_01@yahoo.com


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 1, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I believe I explained it better than that. Regardless of how the orcs would see the issue, kidnapping and enslaving people is an evil action.*





Given that at many points in our history, it was seen as a virtuous action, I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that it is universally evil. In ancient Greece, slavery was not only viewed as a good thing, but those who practiced it were seen as being virtuous. Are the ancient Greeks the moral equivalent of orcs?

Is a draft of soldiers evil? It is removing people from their preferred living area and making them do a job they didn't want to do. Is this morally different from slavery? How?



> *Rescuing those victims by force, up to and including slaying as many orcs as necessary to secure the release of the slaves is not an evil action.*





What if: The orcs actually were imprisoning an evil deity who could not be otherwise contained by feeding it a hundred human souls to lock its prison for another hundred years. This divine beast, if allowed to be free will kill all living creatures in the world within days. The orcs don't want anyone to know about this for fear that some insane non-orc will release the beast either intentionally or by accident. Your actions in interfering with this ritual, has ensured the death of every individual in the world.

Are your actions still justified? Are they still good? Did you bother to find out?

Did you try to ransom the prisoners from the orcs before you slaughtered them? Did you try to negotiate? Did you try stealth without bloodshed? Did you use a _sleep_ spell to knock any of the orcs out? If you did, did you kill them while they were helpless? Is death an appropriate punishment for the kidnapping and enslavement of others? Did your characters have the right to determine the sentence appropriate for the crimes of these orcs? Where did you derive this right?

I can find lots of things that would call into question your methods, and the morals of your actions. But your characters live in a cartoon world where killing orcs is just dandy because they are, after all, orcs.



> *The reasoning had nothing to do with the alignment written down on character sheets other than the previously stated desire of the characters to do good. *




Given your "clarifications", I'd say, no, it was actually just the alignments written down on the paper that "justified" your actions. You didn't bother to think about it first, showing that your moral code is just a facile way to get what you want (lots of orc killin' in this case).


----------



## takyris (Oct 1, 2002)

To the folks who mentioned the "evil for the DM" thing -- SJ has already responded to this.  Multiple times, in fact.  It might not be a response you agree with, but it's been beaten to death.

His take was that DMs don't internalize their NPCs the way PCs do their characters.  For what it's worth, I agree with him on that point.  My Evil Orc isn't someone I'm trying to deeply empathize with.  Some NPCs I put a lot of thought into -- others, I don't.

That doesn't mean I agree with him about Evil PCs leading to Evil Players, mind you.  Some players who play CE murderers then go murder people in real life -- I will freely grant correlation.  But I strongly disagree about causation, and would not consider "playing evil PCs made this guy kill people in real life" to be accurate any more than I would consider "eating lots of ice cream made that guy drown."***

Just wanted to keep the conversation flowing.

-tacky

*** That may have been esoteric.  It's an old study that shows how ice cream sales at beaches correlate strongly with the number of drownings -- more ice cream, more drownings.  But that doesn't mean that ice cream CAUSED the drownings.  Increased ice cream sales were a result of more people on the beach due to a very hot summer.  Increased drownings were ALSO due to more people on the beach due to a very hot summer.  If that study had blamed ice cream for drownings, ice cream vendors could have kicked off the beaches with anecdotal evidence about ice cream causing cramps while swimming and all that stuff.  BoVD would, in this instance, be the Ice Cream.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Given that at many points in our history, it was seen as a virtuous action, I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that it is universally evil. In ancient Greece, slavery was not only viewed as a good thing, but those who practiced it were seen as being virtuous. Are the ancient Greeks the moral equivalent of orcs?
> 
> Is a draft of soldiers evil? It is removing people from their preferred living area and making them do a job they didn't want to do. Is this morally different from slavery? How?[/b]




Yes, it is different. Soldiers get paid for their service. They still have rights (like voting). 

*



			What if: ...Are your actions still justified? Are they still good? Did you bother to find out?
		
Click to expand...


*
You've gone to a lot of trouble to set up a complex what if. I find the scenario irrelevant. They were not imprisoning an evil god. If they were the actions still would have been good. 

Actions are not defined as good or evil because of their outcomes. A correllary is the end does not justify the means.



> *Did you try to ransom the prisoners from theorcs before you slaughtered them? Did you try to negotiate? *




This assumes that extortion is not evil. 



> * Did you try stealth without bloodshed? Did you use a sleep spell to knock any of the orcs out? If you did, did you kill them while they were helpless?*




Respectively: yes, not available for all combatants, and we did not kill any helpless orcs.



> *You didn't bother to think about it first, showing that your moral code is just a facile way to get what you want (lots of orc killin' in this case). *




It is clear that no matter what I say (from the fact that you make conclusions without the answers), you have determined our motivations were to kill orcs and revel in slaughter. In fact our motivations were to free the people that were wrongfully kidnapped, not free for all slaugther. We did not kill anyone that did not raise a weapon against us. In addition to not killing women and children and non-combatant males, we freed other enslaved orcs rather than killing them as evil creatures.

It amazes me that people are trying to define the rescuers as evil and the orcs who kidnapped, enslaved and tortured people as good.


----------



## Henry (Oct 1, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *Is a draft of soldiers evil? It is removing people from their preferred living area and making them do a job they didn't want to do. Is this morally different from slavery? How?
> *




In my opinion, yes. Prior to the advent of Selective Service in the U.S., Some considered conscription a "necessary evil," Just as Slavery was considered by the founding fathers of the U.S. People like Thomas Jefferson disliked the idea of slavery, but to preserve the Union at the time, it was dealt with in as best a manner as they knew how. When theories such as social darwinism began to rear their ugly heads in the early 19th century, slavery was once again considered a "good thing", and "helping those poor slaves to know what's best." Now, slavery has been exposed as wrong, unnecessary, and one of the viler things one human can do to another.

Should the U.S. revert to conscription again, there would have to be a compelling need for such that overrode all systems we currently have in place, because the general populace considers it "wrong."



> *
> What if: The orcs actually were imprisoning an evil deity who could not be otherwise contained by feeding it a hundred human souls to lock its prison for another hundred years. This divine beast, if allowed to be free will kill all living creatures in the world within days. The orcs don't want anyone to know about this for fear that some insane non-orc will release the beast either intentionally or by accident. Your actions in interfering with this ritual, has ensured the death of every individual in the world.
> *




And I say THAT would make for one HECK of an adventure seed. If you don't mind, I am filing that away for future use. In some ways, it's reminiscent to what Piratecat's players did when they killed off the Skaven in the Defenders of Daybreak campaign.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Oct 1, 2002)

After all this discussion, I can see that this very civil thread will be going for a while yet.

And SemperJase, so far as I can see, people aren't trying to make out that the orcs were good, they are just trying to make the point that creatures are not all good, or all evil, but that they can be various stages in between.

This may be moral relativism, which you don't hold to, but it seems to me to be more accurate to the real world. There are always shades of grey. These are what cause arguments and debate. It is easy to say "Killing someone is wrong," and stick to that no matter what. It's much more true to real life, however, to say "Killing someone is wrong, but it happens. And in war, killing someone is heroic, so long as they are on the other side."

I could further my argument by using other issues outside of gaming, but I would upset Eric's Grandma (and the other moderators!).

Anyway, I shall continue to read this thread with interest, but I don't intend to contribute to it again.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

*How you act effects how you act.*

So I'm listening to the radio and the speaker's premise is that you are how you act. If you are mean in practice, you will be mean in real life. 

His example was that Ralph Fiennes said that he was glad to complete the role of Amon Goeth (a sadistic commandant) in Schindler's List after he realized that while playing the role, he found it was effecting his behavior off camera. He was being mean to people. 

Interesting.


----------



## takyris (Oct 1, 2002)

Wait, SJ, I was also listening to the radio, and I heard this OTHER actor talk about how playing the evil character was refreshing because it got the evil impulses out of his system and made him a better person because of it!

So, which of our bits of anecdotal evidence is superior?

No offense.  I think you're asking good questions and raising concerns that need to be thought about -- but you're not gonna sell me on anecdotal evidence.  Anecdotal evidence is garbage.  Anecdotal evidence is how infomercials try to part fools from their money.

-Tacky


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

SJ, I have a question for you: Do you believe that slave-owners in the American South were all evil? Note that I'm not asking whether the act of slavery is evil, but whether the people who participated in it were necessarily evil.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

There were some good men involved in slavery. Some of them made lasting contributions to our society and the world - 
Thomas Jefferson,  and George Washington for instance. 

I will say that their participation in slavery certainly did them harm. Booker T. Washington (himself a former slave) saw as great a harm to whites as there was for blacks:
http://www.bartleby.com/1004/1.html  (paragraph 18)
_



			The slave system on our place, in a large measure, took the spirit of self-reliance and self-help out of the white people. My old master had many boys and girls, but not one, so far as I know, ever mastered a single trade or special line of productive industry. The girls were not taught to cook, sew, or to take care of the house.All of this was left to the slaves. The slaves, of course, had little personal interest in the life of the plantation, and their ignorance prevented them from learning how to do things in the most improved and thorough manner. As a result of the system, fences were out of repair, gates were hanging half off the hinges, doors creaked, window-panes were out, plastering had fallen but was not replaced, weeds grew in the yard.
		
Click to expand...


_I have also previously said that good people may fail and commit evil. I believe this is the case with our Founding Fathers who were involved in slavery. 

Does that answer your question?


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

Pretty much. Although previously I'd thought that by "failing and doing evil" you meant succumbing to strong emotion and doing something that they otherwise wouldn't have done rather than doing something over the course of their whole lives and simply never questioning its moral value because it was accepted at the time.

Incidentally, I find that kinda scary. Suppose we're all doing something that generations later will be recognized as evil, and we don't realize it because it's commonly accepted behavior.

What it leads to is this: If the orcs had never stopped to consider the morality of enslaving others, had simply grown up in a culture where it's common and OK, would they be evil?


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Although previously I'd thought that by "failing and doing evil" you meant succumbing to strong emotion and doing something that they otherwise wouldn't have done rather than doing something over the course of their whole lives and simply never questioning its moral value because it was accepted at the time.*




Actually both Jefferson and Washington did question it. They did come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. Yet they still did not have the courage of their convictions as both men freed their slaves only after their deaths. Basically, they took the easy way out.

*



			What it leads to is this: If the orcs had never stopped to consider the morality of enslaving others, had simply grown up in a culture where it's common and OK, would they be evil?
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes. At least they were still committing evil actions. Unless of course, you are a moral relativist. In that case, Hitler was not evil because he did not think that exterminating 10 million civilians was evil.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually both Jefferson and Washington did question it. They did come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. Yet they still did not have the courage of their convictions as both men freed their slaves only after their deaths. Basically, they took the easy way out.*




I was originally talking about people who didn't question it, who were not Founding Fathers. Normal slave-owners who were arguably nice people. People who didn't question the morality of slavery because society had ingrained on there minds that it was normal and OK.



> *Yes. At least they were still committing evil actions. Unless of course, you are a moral relativist. In that case, Hitler was not evil because he did not think that exterminating 10 million civilians was evil. *




Actually I think Hitler was extremely mentally ill.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> I was originally talking about people who didn't question it, who were not Founding Fathers. Normal slave-owners who were arguably nice people. People who didn't question the morality of slavery because society had ingrained on there minds that it was normal and OK.*




Actually, the debate about the morality of slavery (in the "new world") went all the way back to the earliest colonies that had slaves. It was never universally approved. 

Even so, the people who did not believe they were committing evil still had negative consequences from their actions. That is, if you believe Booker T. Washington.



> *Actually I think Hitler was extremely mentally ill. *




Not evil?


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Actually, the debate about the morality of slavery (in the "new world") went all the way back to the earliest colonies that had slaves. It was never universally approved.*




Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that in the South during the first half of the 19th century, society had a mostly uniform thought about it.

Either way it's beside the point. If someone is otherwise a nice person, does the practice of owning slaves automatically make them evil, in your opinion?



> *Not evil?*




I try not to classify people as good or evil. I sometimes classify actions as good or evil, and I may have an opinion on whether a person needs to be stopped, but I think it's ultimately futile to classify people. If you don't believe that either a person is totally good or totally evil, then you're left with trying to judge people based on relative merits either way. You have to also take into account intentions and moral upbringing. Since there's no way to quantify morality, peoples opinions will inevitably differ, and since there's no benefit to classifying someone as "Good" or "Evil" anyway, it's a waste of effort.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 1, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> If someone is otherwise a nice person, does the practice of owning slaves automatically make them evil, in your opinion?
> *




No. Good people sometimes do evil.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 1, 2002)

So are the orcs automatically evil for practicing slavery? Deserving death? I'm assuming you didn't know them personally, so you wouldn't know what they're like otherwise.


----------



## takyris (Oct 1, 2002)

So what if your party was attacking a cave that happened to contain the families of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington?

 

-Tacky


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *So are the orcs automatically evil for practicing slavery? Deserving death? I'm assuming you didn't know them personally, so you wouldn't know what they're like otherwise. *




The lesson is that there are consequences for actions. The orcs who fought against the liberation of the slaves died for that. 


Tacky -

If Jefferson and Washington fought to protect their slaves, and died, they would have been paying the consequences of their actions. After all IRL tens of thousands of confederate soldiers did.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 2, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> *To the folks who mentioned the "evil for the DM" thing -- SJ has already responded to this.  Multiple times, in fact.  It might not be a response you agree with, but it's been beaten to death.
> 
> His take was that DMs don't internalize their NPCs the way PCs do their characters.  For what it's worth, I agree with him on that point.  My Evil Orc isn't someone I'm trying to deeply empathize with.  Some NPCs I put a lot of thought into -- others, I don't. *



My response? A) get a DM who gets into character more (there are villains that I've created that I like playing far better than most of the player characters I've made and run), or B) learn to distance yourself from your characters more. Yeesh, your character is just that, a character. You aren't supposed to make every character a mirror image of yourself, in elf form, or whatever, you're supposed to exercise your imagination and be creative. If the point of playing a character was to extend one's own ethics into the characters as some people seem to suggest, I'd have a party of players who'd never go adventuring and would have long since died, having paused to think "maybe we should try to capture this evil red dragon and drag him in before a magistrate. He does have rights to due process, after all"  

It's a game, people. Let that phrase guide you through the twisting turns of your dimentia and try to remember why you got into role-playing to begin with. I know I certainly didn't start playing because I wanted to start moralizing anything, and yet here I am today, roughly 18 years later, a law-abiding person who doesn't go around slaughtering people and keeping them in my freezer.


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Oct 2, 2002)

so the BoVD drowns people?


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *The lesson is that there are consequences for actions. The orcs who fought against the liberation of the slaves died for that.
> *




So you stopped and explained to the orcs why you were attacking them?



> *If Jefferson and Washington fought to protect their slaves, and died, they would have been paying the consequences of their actions. After all IRL tens of thousands of confederate soldiers did. *




Oh great. Now you're telling people that the confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War deserved it.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> So you stopped and explained to the orcs why you were attacking them?*



Its only evil if slavers admit its evil? I don't agree.



> *
> Oh great. Now you're telling people that the confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War deserved it. *




I suppose you can say that. Its tragic that so many gave their lives for an evil institution.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Its only evil if slavers admit its evil? I don't agree.*




What does that have to do with it? You said the orcs died because they fought against the liberation of the slaves. How did they know you weren't attacking them to steal their gold and rape their women?



> *I suppose you can say that. Its tragic that so many gave their lives for an evil institution. *




I'm just going to bite my tongue about all this.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What does that have to do with it? You said the orcs died because they fought against the liberation of the slaves. How did they know you weren't attacking them to steal their gold and rape their women?
> *




As I said before, the fact that others would come to rescue people you kidnapped is a forseeable consequence of the action.  It is not valid to say, "I wonder why these people are infiltrating these caves where we are keeping the the people we just kidnapped."


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

Orcs aren't known for being particularly bright.


----------



## Ezrael (Oct 2, 2002)

I have to admit, I wouldn't bother to think all that much about (in character) killing a bunch of orcs to free their slaves. I certainly wouldn't put as much thought into it or try half the things people seem to expect SemperJase to do. Granted, they expect this of him because of his stand on morality in gaming (and this is not a stand I share) but still, if while gaming you see a pack of orcs holding a group of captives, it's generally accepted that the heroic thing to do is to attempt to liberate them.

The Civil War's a hard topic because people to this day have strong feelings about it. To my eyes, the South committed treason. The states that seceded did so without any mechanism in the Constitution for it, and then siezed US Government property by force and took up arms against it. I know a lot of people don't share this opinion (I've lived in the South) but as far as I can see, slavery is and has always been an evil practice and all the societies that practiced it knew that, or at least individuals did...from Hesiod and Xenophon in ancient Greece to Tacitus in Rome, there were always those who decried the practice, and no one _wanted_ to be a slave. (I'm sure you could find one or two people who, raised as slaves, did not want to be freed...but such is explainable by acclimation, much as people today who are more comfortable in prison than free. This does not make imprisonment desireable, and that practice at least has as an intention the ideal of addressing wrongs and injustices. Slavery does not.) Slavery is as close as any human practice outside of genocide to an absolute evil. (For that matter, many human societies have practiced genocide in human history, and that doesn't make genocide any less wrong.) 

I don't think playing an evil character will warp anyone's mind. I've done it. I've played a character who deliberately and with malice aforethought overthrew the rightful government of a world-spanning empire and then used that empire to try and destroy the world. (Yes, I was the DM at the time...but I played Sejuk Mejur to the hilt, as far as I could take him.) I've played a character who was 'lawful evil' and who made it his life's mission to hunt down and kill every descendant of the woman who exiled my family. The fact that his ancestors were in fact guilty of the crimes they were exiled for didn't enter into his duty, playing that character. And as each session ended, I was capable of leaving the game and being myself again.

I don't agree with SemperJase's stand about evil characters, not at all. But I don't think trying to twist his party's actions in this case until they are evil actions in order to show him the error of his ways is fruitful here. For one thing, this *is* a game, with certain genre conventions. Secondly, the moral and ethical codes of a party of adventurers in a fantasy setting are not our own...for one thing, they're a lot more liberal with the lethal force than I would be in real life. In history, which is not fantasy but which often informs it, men who were later considered Saints like Louis IX of France led armies into battle and killed their fellow men. Louis genuinely _was_ one of the most charitable, pious, generous men ever to live (he founded leper hospitals at a time when most were unwilling to and visited them, he was a great lover of erudition and supported monasteries to increase the level of learning in his land), and yet he slaughtered Saracens for no other crime than being in the Holy Land. This at once shows how morality _is_ relative and yet how absolute it can be at the same time, and it shows how hard it is to gauge motivations. 

It can be interesting to bring such elements into a game, of course, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing that. Yet expecting every single encounter to be one of tightly measured moral judgements is kind of taking things too far for the game to remain enjoyable, to me anyway. Not that anyone's said that, but the distance this back and forth discussion as to the justifiable nature of killing the orc slavers has run tends to imply that, to my mind.

So what am I saying, exactly? Well, first off, I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else to change their positions here, but we all knew that. Secondly, that while the subject of how much flexibility a game will have morally is a good one to discuss, it should remain second to the primary goal of playing the game. Thirdly, that in my own experience playing an evil character or characters either as the DM or as a player is no more morally or ethically corrosive than reading a book or seeing a film or writing or acting or even just sitting back and imagining. Furthermore, I would argue that *every single human being in the world* has a capacity for evil, and that blanket dismissing the possibility that exploring such a capacity in the relatively safe confines of a game has merit is a bit rigid for my imagination. I've played Aashuran the Whisper of Death. At no time did I forget that I am not really him.


----------



## Psion (Oct 2, 2002)

Much belated, I know, but:



			
				herald said:
			
		

> *I'm with BlackMoria on this. I'm a 35-year-old father of two. There was nothing in the pages that I couldn't find in a pg-13 movie if I looked for it.*




I don't know what PG-13 flicks you are watching, but none that I have seen involve necrophilia as _corpsebond_ does, nor are you likely to find the effects of the hentai-esque _searing seed_.

Dungeon 95 is a bit different. It had some artwork that probably is a bit tacky, but the adventure wasn't all that bad... women that are really mosnters? I think I've seen an episode of outer limits like that.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 2, 2002)

Wow. I thought we were taking a break! Okay, let me jump back in here.

SemperJase, I previously characterized your position as follows:

_Playing evil characters exposes players to the risk that they will feel encouraged to perform evil acts._

Note that I'm saying nothing about DMs, actors or writers. Not drawing a causal link. Not depending on anecdotal evidence. It's a risk, not a certainty. You never spoke against this characterisation so I'm assuming you agree with it. If you do not, please speak out.

When we assess risk we consider three things: what is the likely *impact* should we suffer the bad result? What is the *likelihood* of suffering the bad result? And what *benefit* do we stand to gain by running this risk? Now, impact and likelihood are both difficult to measure but the best evidence we have for both is the current state of the world, since I would argue that we are all of us being encouraged to perform evil acts every day by TV, advertising, movies, yada yada yada. The fact that the world is not a wretched hive of scum and villainy suggests that both likelihood and impact are low. So the only question is that of benefit -- given sufficient benefit, it it worth running the risk.

Is there any benefit to be found in playing an evil character? Now we come to familiar terrain for us both -- the value of exploration. I have some questions for you on this subject. Questions I've already asked but have not gotten an answer on. So I'll restrict myself to asking them one at a time. I'm very serious about this, SemperJase. I want to know how you answer these questions. I believe there is a fundamental logical flaw in your view of the world and I believe I can show it to you if you want to see it. If you will answer my questions, I believe we can uncover this flaw.

Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *Playing evil characters exposes players to the risk that they will feel encouraged to perform evil acts.*




I can go with that. What I think is more likely is that assasinating people in a game will not necessarily lead to murder IRL. The bigger danger is in an overall attitude of treating people poorly, for instance more likely to disregard others and cut into a line. It may be seemingly trivial, but it is disrespect of others. In this case society does not benefit from your actions.



> *
> I would argue that we are all of us being encouraged to perform evil acts every day by TV, advertising, movies, yada yada yada. *




I agree wholeheartedly. We need to be aware of the messages we receive through all entertainment, not just roleplaying games. But I am purposely trying to focus this discussion on RPG's. 



> *
> The fact that the world is not a wretched hive of scum and villainy suggests that both likelihood and impact are low. *




There is actually emperical proof that disagrees. A recent study shows that the more TV young boys watch, the more likely they are to act violently. (As an aside, I do not believe that there is no wisdom without empiracal proof. In other words, one does not always need a study to determine truth in life although it necessary for science).



> *
> Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before? *




Yes I do. I try to live by a moral standard, not a moral relative. 
Where variables come in is how fallible people live by an infallible standard.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

Well I guess that goes to the root of the problem. SJ instantly knows whether something is right or wrong, and thus has no need to explore morality through something like an RPG. Thus, he can't imagine that anyone else is not as perfect as he, that anyone else might need a tool such as an RPG to explore morality. Thus, he labels it wrong.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *Thus, he can't imagine that anyone else is not as perfect as he, that anyone else might need a tool such as an RPG to explore morality. Thus, he labels it wrong. *





Now you libel me. I have never said I was perfect. In fact numerous times I have said good people do bad things.


----------



## Henry (Oct 2, 2002)

So far, this thread has done very well for itself, only taking occasional dips into _ad hominem_ attacks before getting returned to course.

Let's please dispose of the personal attacks? We can all defend our positions well enough without disparaging others.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

I didn't mean perfect in general, but you do seem to clearly say that you're perfect at determining Right and Wrong.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Tiefling said:
			
		

> *I didn't mean perfect in general, but you do seem to clearly say that you're perfect at determining Right and Wrong. *




Actually, I at least inferred the opposite. I try to abide by a moral standard. I admitted that I am fallible and do not always live up to that standard, most often by bad choice, but sometimes by bad judgement in not recognizing the choice is wrong.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Oct 2, 2002)

And because of this, if we don't abide the same moral standard _in game_, we run the risk of becoming thieves, murderers, rapists and necrophiliacs?

Yeah...  Right...


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> *And because of this, if we don't abide the same moral standard in game, we run the risk of becoming thieves, murderers, rapists and necrophiliacs?
> *




No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, I at least inferred the opposite. I try to abide by a moral standard. I admitted that I am fallible and do not always live up to that standard, most often by bad choice, but sometimes by bad judgement in not recognizing the choice is wrong. *






			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?*






> _Originally posted by SemperJase_
> *
> 
> Yes I do.*




Can you clarify?



> _Originally posted by SemperJase_
> *
> 
> No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.*




Evidence?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> There is actually emperical proof that disagrees. A recent study shows that the more TV young boys watch, the more likely they are to act violently. (As an aside, I do not believe that there is no wisdom without empiracal proof. In other words, one does not always need a study to determine truth in life although it necessary for science).
> 
> ...




Please forgive me intruding on this exhange BC and SJ, but...

1) SJ, its always good to consider exactly what you've learned from looking at the empircal data. In this case, while I don't doubt the studies' findings, I have to wonder about the host of other social, cultural and economic factors at work. The fact so much parenting {and socialization} gets done by televsion in the first place always seemed more a contributing factor to antisocial behavior than its content.

and...

2) BC said _infallible_. You're dodging his question. From your point of view the system your using to view the world yields incorrect results sometimes. Thus you do not have access to an infallible system in practice. Its kidna like saying this artificial heart's perfect, except when the person you've transplanted it into's body gives out and dies. Well, its a perfect artificial heart when its sitting on the workbench... Function matters.

What's worse, when you're talking about moral stances, if you claim the that fallibility is always in the person, not the ideal, what you've done is made the ideal completely unverifyable by any means available to actual living people. In this way moral absolutism renders absolute moral positions essentially arbitrary. Its good because it is, and if it seems bad in some situations, the problem is you...


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Mallus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 2) BC said infallible. You're dodging his question. From your point of view the system your using to view the world yields incorrect results sometimes. *




That is an incorrect charactization. If followed, the standard I use never lead to an incorrect result. 

The problem is that due to human fallibility, the moral standard I subscribe to is not always followed. An analogy: our laws say that murder is immoral. Yet people still murder. It is not the standard that is at fault, but the murderers. 

That is of course unless you believe that murder is moral (which I doubt you do.)


----------



## blahbleh (Oct 2, 2002)

Wow, This debate sure took a distasteful turn with the whole "Southerners deserve to die" argument. But at least Samper limited himelf to slaveholders (and possibly their wives and children; he hasn't been clear). Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense). Turning an argument about a game into a declaration of whether real people deserve to die is wrong, and thankfully the discussion has moved away from it before anyone could unceil their plan to punish those who do evil by going door-to-door and killing their firstborn sons.

Oh, and a question for Samper. Does disagreeing with you make me a bad person? Or am I going to Hell if I don't storm the WOTC office and hold a public burning of issues Dragon 300 in their parking lot? Just looking for some guidance.

Blahbleh


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

blahbleh said:
			
		

> *
> Oh, and a question for Samper. Does disagreeing with you make me a bade person? Or am I going to Hell if I don't storm the WOTC office and hold a public burning of issues Dragon 300 in their parking lot? Just looking for some guidance.
> Blahbleh *




Again, I have not said that.  I have yet to condemn anyone for their belief and I have no intention of doing so. 

Have I been extended that same courtesy?


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That is an incorrect charactization. If followed, the standard I use never lead to an incorrect result.
> 
> ...




1) Well, my argument was that if the standard cannot always be followed correctly, its not infallible {in any meaningful way} from that individuals point of view. This is where relativity comes in very handy...

2) BC was talking about knowledge; the ability to discern right from wrong immediately, without process. So a better example... a murder trial. No matter how perfect the legal code of a state may be, its still up to the jury {or a judge} to ascertain a defendants guilt.  Thus the system, on the whole, is fallible. The jury has no way to determine absolutely truth from falsehood. 

BC wasn't asking you about the nature of the  law, he was asking you as a juror...

And no, for the record, murder==bad...{well, usually}.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 2, 2002)

blahbleh said:
			
		

> *Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense).*



Of the many bumper stickers on my car, this is my favorite:


----------



## Zappo (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *There is actually emperical proof that disagrees. A recent study shows that the more TV young boys watch, the more likely they are to act violently.*



Just as an aside, boys watching TV for many hours a day are typically boys whose parents use TV as a 24-hours baby-sitter. _That_ (growing with uncaring parents) certainly leads to personality disorders.

RobNJ, I love that sticker.  I don't even live in the USA, but I can see so many adaptations for it worldwide...


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 2, 2002)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *RobNJ, I love that sticker.  I don't even live in the USA, but I can see so many adaptations for it worldwide... *



Yeah, I love it.  Though a friend of mine told me a cautionary tale after seeing it.  He told me never to drive through the South with my car.  Here is his tale:

"My friend is driving through Georgia at about 100 miles per hour and gets pulled over by a state cop.  Cop comes up to the window and says, 'Son, no one drives through Georgia that fast.'

"My friend says, 'Sherman did.'

"He spent a few nights in jail."


----------



## alsih2o (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This assumes that extortion is not evil.
> *




 and this in turn assumes negotiation is extortion, which i don't think even you would try to prove sj


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *What I think is more likely is that assasinating people in a game will not necessarily lead to murder IRL. The bigger danger is in an overall attitude of treating people poorly, for instance more likely to disregard others and cut into a line. It may be seemingly trivial, but it is disrespect of others. In this case society does not benefit from your actions.*



Great. That's how I meant it. I'm glad that we at least agree on what your argument actually _is_ -- I've seen more debates fall apart because people just won't _listen_ to each other.


> _Question One: Do you have an infallible means of determining whether or not ANYTHING you encounter in your life is good or evil, even things you have never encountered before?_
> 
> *Yes I do.*



Perhaps I'm not being clear, and so I want to rephrase my question so as to make sure you're really saying what you seem to be saying. It just astonishes me that someone could answer this question the way you have.

If you possess an infallible means of determining good from evil (you'll note I'm saying nothing about a STANDARD you rely on to make decisions -- I'm talking about the decision-making process itself. An fallible system may rely on an infallible standard), then it is impossible that your judgement on good and evil could ever be wrong.

So I ask instead: Is it possible that you could ever be wrong about your determination of something's good or evil nature?

This is what I meant to ask in my previous question. My apologies if I was unclear.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> If you possess an infallible means of determining good from evil (you'll note I'm saying nothing about a STANDARD you rely on to make decisions -- I'm talking about the decision-making process itself. An fallible system may rely on an infallible standard), then it is impossible that your judgement on good and evil could ever be wrong.*




This is where human fallibility comes in. The standard is the means. The standard is not fallilble. I am. Therefore it is possible for me to be wrong. A real life example:

My moral standard tells me that I must respect my wife. 

A few years ago not long after I got married I would say "yes dear" in a sarcastic manner to my wife when she wanted me to do something (her tone in certain circumstances came across as patronizing). My purpose was to try to tell her that I thought the way she talked to me these circumstances degraded me. I did this for sometime watching her become more and more upset when I would do it. 

I did not realize that I in turn was disrespecting her, especially when I did this in front of other people. I was doing something evil even though I did not interpret it that way. Finally I realized what I was doing and stopped. When I talked to her about the way I was feeling, she changed her behavior. 



> *So I ask instead: Is it possible that you could ever be wrong about your determination of something's good or evil nature?
> *




So based on my example above, yes.


----------



## Ezrael (Oct 2, 2002)

blahbleh said:
			
		

> *Wow, This debate sure took a distasteful turn with the whole "Southerners deserve to die" argument. But at least Samper limited himelf to slaveholders (and possibly their wives and children; he hasn't been clear). Ezrael took it a step further bt saying that every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line at the time was a traitor (and last I heard that was a killing offense). Turning an argument about a game into a declaration of whether real people deserve to die is wrong, and thankfully the discussion has moved away from it before anyone could unceil their plan to punish those who do evil by going door-to-door and killing their firstborn sons.Blahbleh *




Uhm...that certainly wasn't my intention. However, I've yet to hear another definition for taking up arms against one's nation and declaring war upon it that _isn't_ treason. Certainly, many people recently declared John Walker Lindh a traitor for doing so...does that argument only apply to him? I also don't think that all Southerners, then or now, deserve or deserved to die, that's a different discussion and my argument there would be that the South (and the North, for that matter) went through hell during that war and more or less paid the price for their opposing views. I'm simply saying that the Confederate Army was in a state of open rebellion against the United States, and to me that's treason. If I'm wrong about the definition of treason (for instance, if it only means attempting to suborn the nation through treachery such as Benedict Arnold attempted at West Point and not, say, the takeover of an army base like Fort Sumter) then I apologize.

I'm also aware that one could define the Founding Fathers as traitors to England via this argument, and I'm even aware that it does nothing to address the very real reasons people often feel forced into actions that one could define as treasonous. I didn't think that I needed to say that in my previous post...I assumed it was understood that we didn't have time for a full history of the origins and development of the Civil War. (As an aside, studying that history can be really useful if you want to create a rebellion in your own game...in the previous post, I mentioned DM'ing an evil character who took over an Empire. I took cues for his plans from both the American and English Civil Wars, in particular the character of Cromwell. And yes, he could certainly be seen as a great hero in English history...or, if you are Irish, he could be seen as a monster. Either way, he was very useful.)

I also wouldn't make a blanket statement about individuals like "Every single person south of the Mason-Dixon line" because I know that there were Union loyalists down there, I know that many people did not take up arms (although certainly, we could debate if supporting the Confederacy by other means is also treason, like for instance supplying the army with food) and for that matter, I don't necessarily think that just because someone's state does something (like secede from the Union) that the individual citizens all support it. But I do believe you could describe secession as treason, yes.

As massively off-topic as this is, I thought I should respond to clarify. I freely admit the off-topicness is my own doing and I apologize.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I will say that their participation in slavery certainly did them harm. Booker T. Washington (himself a former slave) saw as great a harm to whites as there was for blacks:
> http://www.bartleby.com/1004/1.html  (paragraph 18)*




Booker T. Washington's quote, insofar as it assumes that the insitution of slavery casued economic waste or left things undone properly, is directly contradicted by the detailed analysis of the data done in the book _Time on the Cross_ in which the authors, through careful analysis of the data concerning farms in the antebellum North and South (and keeping slaveholding Southern farms as a seperate category in the analysis), found that slaveholding farms were significantly more productive than non-slaveholding farms, both in the North and South.

Booker has anecdotes, _Time on the Cross_ has analysis. I know which I find more compelling.


----------



## psionotic (Oct 2, 2002)

SJ:

I'm curious, do you think that certain in-game behaviors are more likely to be modeled out of game than others?  (ie, the darker, 'viler' ones?)  Or is it just as likely that the heroic aspects of the characters will be shown out-of-game, too?

In most games that I've played in, D&D characters tend to be vigilantes..  They take the law into their own hands whenever they feel its required for 'good' to prevail.  They kill many, many evildoers in their careers, usually without a second thought or any feeling of guilt.

Do you think that D&D players are more likely IRL to take the law into their own hands by shooting would-be robbers, running down purse-snatchers, etc?  It seems that if your theory is correct, there would be a correlation there.  (and maybe there is one...)

Anecdotally, that's not the the case with me...  While I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself against someone who tried to seriously hurt me or someone I loved, I don't own a gun and likely never will.


----------



## William Ronald (Oct 2, 2002)

Even if we hold to a moral standard, we can still fall short of it.  I am as influenced by emotion as any other human being, and can make flawed decisions.

Perhaps a key point to consider in this issue is how we define good and evil in our campaigns.  For example, a very good guideline to what is good is to not do something to others that we would not wish done to ourselves.  Looking at this as a possible guideline, evil can be perhaps looked at as either intentionally or through neglect causing harm.

For example, I would argue that someone who makes a profit on someone else's suffering (such as a slave owner) is committing an act that can be interprepted as evil.  Mind you, the person may well have good and noble qualities.   There can be conflicting impulses in a person which are sometimes never reconciled.  (For example, Thomas Jefferson struggled with the contradiction between the philosophy "All men are created equal" and being a slave owner.)

As for evil, there can and perhaps should be many different types of evil in a campaign.  Some may seem psychotic, others may be far more subtle.  Indeed, many villains may try to hide their true natures behind a cloak of good deeds.  (As a very simple example, in the comics Lex Luthor tries to portray himself as a good-hearted businessman and someone who does support charity.  The good PR is good for business.)

In a campaign setting, different faiths and cultures may still be considered good but have different takes on the nature of good.  I think trying to develop this can add to a campaign, and give players more to work with.  Indeed, good people can be in conflict over difference of belief and how to approach a given situation. 

I would like to see less ad hominem attacks.  Also, maybe do the political debates over at    http://pub53.ezboard.com/bnutkinland in the Fighting Words forum.            

I have a great deal of respect for the people on this thread, and wished I had more time to participate in it.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Booker T. Washington's quote, insofar as it assumes that the insitution of slavery casued economic waste or left things undone properly, .....
> Booker has anecdotes, Time on the Cross has analysis. I know which I find more compelling. *




I think you missed the point. There was no discussion of economic loss in Washington's observation. The observation was how whites sufferred personally. They lost the spirit of being self sufficient. They may have had wealth, but what they lost as a result was incalcuable.

By the analysis you site, one could assume that ending of slavery was of moral loss to the country. I disagree.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Oct 2, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.



Well, after 20 years of playing, including over 10 years of DMing (and thus playing EVIL characters), I've yet to see it happen in real life.  It must be one incredibly small risk.  After all, I can, in game, portray characters that have performed some of the most heinous acts imaginable: Human sacrifice, rape, incest, murder, fornication with demons, selling their souls, bloodletting and mutilation, torture, defilement of holy sites and corpses, nailing people to trees, keel-hauling, and so on.

None of this _ever_ effect my life outside of the game (aside from people telling me that I run a good game, that is).

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you.  It's just that my personal experience makes what you are saying seem about as rediculous as Tom Hanks jumping off of a large building looking for his brother.



			
				SemperJase said:
			
		

> Again, I have not said that.  I have yet to condemn anyone for their belief and I have no intention of doing so.
> 
> Have I been extended that same courtesy?



No, but what you have done is indicated that by upholding to _your_ morals, _you_ are in a position of _safety_, while implying that those that play in a manner which is somewhat darker in flavor and style (i.e., based on _differing morals_) are somehow in _danger_.

Your mistake is the assumption that others require the same protection as yourself.  If anything, your need to protect yourself is more indicative of your own weaknesses than any imagined danger hovering over the heads of others.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 2, 2002)

*A serious question, SJ, please answer...*

{and I know you're busy holding up the moral absolutist side of this debate amidst a relative horde of moral relativists...}

How does one find at a moral standard? If I can ask, how did you?

I understand your point about an infallible standard and fallible people trying to adhere to it. Right or wrong at a personal level becomes a question of comparison between your standard and the actual situation at hand. You might make an error in the comparison, leading to a poor moral choice, but that doesn't invalidate your standard...

But how did you go about adopting the guideline in the first place?

I'm trying very hard not to put this in religious terms --you've done a great job keeping this secular-- but forgive me if stray a little here.

Either you take your standard as a matter of faith; received knowledge from your family/community/religious authority figure {or you choose it, --I'm knocking the value of believing in something that you set off-limits for logical proof}, or you arrive at the standard by some process {observation, introspection, fasting in a convenient desert...}.

If its a matter of faith, then logic is essentially an unwanted guest --and that is not in any way meant derogatorily. I'm a firm believer that logic isn't paramount among the human graces...

And if not, then you and someone like BC can be seen as two people at different points of the same journey {with the caveat that he may not end up the same place you did}.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 2, 2002)

*Re: A serious question, SJ, please answer...*



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> *How does one find at a moral standard? If I can ask, how did you?
> But how did you go about adopting the guideline in the first place?
> 
> I'm trying very hard not to put this in religious terms*




I'm not sure if I can answer this without going outside the bounds of this board. 



> *
> Either you take your standard as a matter of faith; received knowledge from your family/community/religious authority figure {or you choose it, --I'm knocking the value of believing in something that you set off-limits for logical proof}, or you arrive at the standard by some process {observation, introspection, fasting in a convenient desert...}.*




I adopted the standard as a matter of observation. I found that anyone who lived up to the standard improved themselves and those around them (e.g. a man who respects his wife has a happy wife, she in turn will treat him with respect). It was people who violated the standard (including some who publicly claimed to live by it) that hurt society. At the very least, no one who lived by the standard did any harm.


----------



## blahbleh (Oct 3, 2002)

Ezrael:

Thanks for clarifying your statements. I actually agree with what you wrote for the most part. I just read something into it that probably wasn't intended. Plus I threw flak at you that should have been directed toward previous comments by Samper and Tiefling.

RobNJ:

Just because I questioned killing the entire population of an area (responding to an ugly Civil War argument), that does not mean I'm some "Stars'n'Bars" waving yahoo. Personally, I find that flag a racist symbol (but that's really off-topic) and don't like being associated with it. 

Samper:

If sarcasm is evil, than the entire interet is going to hell. 

Blahbleh


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 3, 2002)

> _So I ask instead: Is it possible that you could ever be wrong about your determination of something's good or evil nature?
> _
> *So based on my example above, yes. *



Phew! My whole argument was about to go down the tubes! 

Actually, you've jumped ahead quickly enough that I think I can dispense with the plan I was going to take. Battle plans, contact with enemy, and all that.

Let me refer to your example of how you learned to adjust your conduct towards your wife. You said:


> *I was doing something evil even though I did not interpret it that way. Finally I realized what I was doing and stopped.*



Would you say that you learned something, something positive from this? (I'm just being didactic, don't worry) Of course you did. You learned something very important about yourself -- namely that you possessed an ability to be inconsiderate even about someone who means so much to you. Once you realised this you were able to stop behaving in such a manner.

I suggest that this is a positive result. This is a benefit. A benefit gained from performing an evil action. So clearly there is benefit to be found in the performing of evil actions. You have found benefit yourself. You are a better person because of the actions you performed.

You might say, no, I am a better person because of my own honesty and integrity which enabled me to observe my conduct clearly. I say that without the conduct to observe in the first place, all the honesty and integrity in the world serves no purpose. The clear fact is that you performed an evil action and as a result you are a better person.

This is exactly the sort of thing I have been trying to put into words all along. What we see here is exploration at work. You acted in a manner you did not see as evil. Let us say that you explored a path that did not have a big "EVIL" sign over the entrance. As you travelled down that path, however, you came to realise that it was in fact a path to evil. As you did so, you learned important things about yourself and people in general.

This is what I mean when I say that sometimes we don't know that we are exploring evil until we have done some exploration.

This means that sometimes we will necessarily explore evil.

There's a further corollary to this, which is that our knowledge of evil is constantly growing, as we try out certain paths and reject them when we discover they, too, are evil. This means that not all of us can possibly possess the same degree of knowledge of good and evil at all times.

The path of sarcasm to one's wife, for example, is clearly evil to you. It may not be so to me, and perhaps the only way I can learn is by travelling that path just as you did. If this is true in this case, it is true in all cases. This is NOT moral relativism. We still apply our perfect and true moral standards to whatever we discover, assuming we possess such. 

Now to you it may seem clear that exploring the path of "writing CE in the box labelled Alignment" is evil. But to others it may not, and indeed, for them it may turn out to provide them with all sorts of benefits. You have no way of predicting that. What benefits one of us may not benefit another -- we never get the same results from travelling similar paths. My point is that there is no way to infallibly predict the result of ANY given path.

I repeat, this is NOT moral relativism. We can still apply as perfect a set of standards as we can find. We just need to know to what we are applying them. And we can suggest that certain paths are very likely to produce few if any benefits, if we have the evidence to back them up.

The point is we can say without hesitation (I suppose) that murder is evil. The problem comes in trying to define a particular case as murder or not. So yeah, we can say that murder provides no benefits (though speedy inheritance comes to mind), but that doesn't always help the individual trying to decide if THIS particular case is actually a murder or a justifiable homicide, and therefore presents a path they should be following.

What I believe I've just proven is that there is no way to say that playing evil characters provides no benefit. Correct me if you think otherwise.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 3, 2002)

Ezrael: IIRC, Robert E. Lee defended himself, successfully, from accusations of treason after the war by saying that when the South seceded he no longer belonged to the Union, thus fighting against it wasn't treason. In other words, the people who decided to secede were traitors (from the Union's point of view), but once they did it wasn't treason to fight for them.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, merely that he argued that way and it worked.


----------



## SemperJase (Oct 3, 2002)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> *
> Would you say that you learned something, something positive from this? (I'm just being didactic, don't worry) Of course you did.
> I  suggest that this is a positive result. This is a benefit. A benefit gained from performing an evil action.
> *




There is quite a difference between saying I am trying to be a good husband and making a mistake while doing that than saying I'm going to disrespect my wife intentionally and see what happens. 

Something tells me I'm not going to be married long with that attitude (maybe some women would put up with that, but you only need to meet my wife for 2 minutes to realize that she would not ).



> *
> You might say, no, I am a better person because of my own honesty and integrity which enabled me to observe my conduct clearly. I say that without the conduct to observe in the first place, all the honesty and integrity in the world serves no purpose. The clear fact is that you performed an evil action and as a result you are a better person.
> *




I disagree. I'm a better person because I _learned_ from my mistake (evil action), not because I did the mistake. I would have been a better person if I had stopped to think about my actions and their consequences before I did that. 

I appreciate your view and I even agree that exploring moral questions has value. I disagree that intentionally practicing evil is the means to learn those lessons. 

Let me throw another conclusion out. Actually, I'll start another thread on that.


----------



## Tiefling (Oct 3, 2002)

But the whole point is that you DON'T have to intentionally do evil - the game provides a safe environment where you can pretend such things and learn from them without generating negative consequences.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 3, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I suppose you can say that. Its tragic that so many gave their lives for an evil institution. *



This statement would seem to infer that the issue of slavery was the issue that the war was actually begun over. That would be incorrect, as far more factors than that were involved.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum (Oct 3, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play. *



Proof, please. No anecdotes, no opinions. Proof only need apply.


----------



## LostSoul (Oct 3, 2002)

One thing I''ve been thinking about.

What if there was no World War II, or Hitler?

Would we have seen an arms race between Democracies and Communism?  Would it have resulted in a Cold War, or a hot one, where many small-yield warhead (re: Hiroshima) were used?

I think this discussion is interesting, even though I don't believe in evil.  In the end, we're all just food for black holes.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I think you missed the point. There was no discussion of economic loss in Washington's observation. The observation was how whites sufferred personally. They lost the spirit of being self sufficient. They may have had wealth, but what they lost as a result was incalcuable.*





You miss my point: among other things, Booker claimed that things were being left undone, and that the slaves were not as effective at their jobs as free men would have been. This claim is not supported by the record analysis which shows that the slaves were much more effective at their jobs than free workers (insofar as their productivity could be measured).

In this case, I'm inclined to take the rest of Booker's statements about the "loss of self-sufficiency", which is a vague standard at best, with a grain of salt. If he doesn't even get the hard data correct, I'm not sure how his subjective analysis of the psychic effects on individuals can be trusted.



> *By the analysis you site, one could assume that ending of slavery was of moral loss to the country. I disagree. *




I'm just questioning whether Booker's claims have any merit. Given that his claims about the economic aspects of slavery are verifiably false (or at least verifiably contrary to the data), assuming his claims about the degeneration of self-reliance to be true seems to me to be a stretch.

His primary claim appears to be that the sons of slaveholders didn't learn any useful trade. That's only a problem if you assume that learning a "useful trade" is a paramount goal. I am drawn to John Adam's quote (given in another context):



> _I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain._




This sentiment clearly views learning a "useful trade" to be a subordinate goal to studying the arts. This was pretty much a general sentiment throughout most of upper class or upper middle class America through the Civil War. Booker was very focused on the idea that people should pursue trade based occupations, in this he was opposed by men like W.E.B. Dubois who believed that a full liberal education was the ultimate goal. It is no wonder that a society that valued education in philosophy, mathematics and art might not meet with Booker's approval.

I find it hard to credit Booker's analysis as having much merit.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Yes, it is different. Soldiers get paid for their service. They still have rights (like voting).*




Not always. In several societies, draftees are not paid (for example, in ancient Greece it was cheper to field an army than a navy, since sailors had to be paid, and drafted citizen-soldiers weren't). At many points in history, draftees had no rights to vote.

In many societies, draftees have no right to vote or similar political rights. In Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example, draftees have no voting rights. In the sformer Soviet Union draftees had no voting rights. If that an equivalent to slavery.

I note you failed to answer my other question: was ancient Greek society evil? It viewed slaveholding as a virtuous act. Does that make their society evil?



> *You've gone to a lot of trouble to set up a complex what if. I find the scenario irrelevant. They were not imprisoning an evil god. If they were the actions still would have been good.*




It isn't a very complex what if scenario, nor is it one that doesn't use genre conventions. Boiled down to the essentials it is:

(1) Evil god is imprisoned in a magical prison
(2) Orcs need humanoid sacrifices to keep prison secure
(3) Orcs kidnap humans to use as human sacrifices

This could easily be the plot of a Conan novel, or an Elric novel, or something involving any number of other classic genre staples and fit right in with the rest of the collection.

The question is not whether they _were or not_, the question is _did you know beforehand_? The orcs are attempting to accomplish a positive good: sacrifice of the few to save the many. You interfered with that. Are you still good?



> *Actions are not defined as good or evil because of their outcomes. A correllary is the end does not justify the means.*




So you disagree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in some circumstances?



> *This assumes that extortion is not evil.*




No, it assumes it is less evil than wholesale slaughter.



> *Respectively: yes, not available for all combatants, and we did not kill any helpless orcs.*




So you let the helpless orcs go free?



> *It is clear that no matter what I say (from the fact that you make conclusions without the answers), you have determined our motivations were to kill orcs and revel in slaughter.*




Thus far, you have provided no evidence that this was not the case. You appear to have pursued no other alternatives before wading in swords swinging. That indicates to me that you did little reflection other than to note that your character sheet had a "G" on it, and the orcs had an "E".



> *In fact our motivations were to free the people that were wrongfully kidnapped, not free for all slaugther. We did not kill anyone that did not raise a weapon against us. In addition to not killing women and children and non-combatant males, we freed other enslaved orcs rather than killing them as evil creatures.*




But you killed the other orcs wholesale. I note you did not bother to answer several of my questions, such as: Is death an appropriate penalty for kidnapping? On what authority do you decide that death is an appropriate penalty? On what authority do you decide that you are entitled to enforce it?



> *It amazes me that people are trying to define the rescuers as evil and the orcs who kidnapped, enslaved and tortured people as good.*




You are the one espousing an absolute moral code. You have maintained that your actions were _absolutely_ good, and that they _could not possibly_ have been evil in any way. This is a foolish statement for you to make. There have been several points made that have indicated that your actions _could very well have been evil_. Given that your stance is that there is no way what you did was evil, it doesn't have to be likely that they were evil to compeltely falsify your argument, only possible.

You feel you were on rock solid moral ground with respect to your actions. That is silly. You weren't. You were on _probable_ moral ground, but that is not what you have claimed.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 3, 2002)

Kidnapping is a capital crime....I think.  Even if it wasn't I'd make it one.  Put those pigs to the sword!


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

blahbleh said:
			
		

> *Just because I questioned killing the entire population of an area (responding to an ugly Civil War argument), that does not mean I'm some "Stars'n'Bars" waving yahoo. Personally, I find that flag a racist symbol (but that's really off-topic) and don't like being associated with it. *



I didn't mean to suggest that that's how you felt, blah.  Can I call you blah?  Rather, I just saw your post as an opportunity to brag about my really cool bumper sticker .


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> *
> This statement would seem to infer that the issue of slavery was the issue that the war was actually begun over. That would be incorrect, as far more factors than that were involved. *



It wouldn't be incorrect, it would just be a too-limited answer.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Kidnapping is a capital crime....I think.  Even if it wasn't I'd make it one.  Put those pigs to the sword! *




And who put you in a position to decide this? Is overfrying eggs to be a capital crime on your say-so as well?

At one point in time, bigamy was a capital crime in Virginia. Does that mean that adventurers should burst into bedrooms and make sure that no one has more than one wife?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 3, 2002)

> And who put you in a position to decide this? Is overfrying eggs to be a capital crime on your say-so as well?




Should I really respond to this stupidity?


----------



## blahbleh (Oct 3, 2002)

No problem Rob. _Mea culpa_ accepted. And it is a cool bumper sticker. I was just peeved when I assumed I was the target. And "blah" is fine.

blahbleh


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *Should I really respond to this stupidity?*




If you consider questions such as "where does your authority to determine who should be killed for their crimes come from" to be "stupidity" then I think we can dismiss your opinions on morality as being infantile.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 3, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Should I really respond to this stupidity? *




Give it a rest, guys.  This is a discussion, not an argument.  Time to walk away from the keyboard for a bit, and return to the thread when you can stay polite.  

Thanks. If this is somehow a problem, please fell free to email me.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 3, 2002)

My opinions on morality in a D&D game may be infantile.  It's not that important.   Do you sit up at night and contemplate the morality of orcs kidnapping people or something?   We run an adventure based game, there isn't a focus on exploring morality.  We play to have fun, and that isn't exploring the human condition and morality.  

But to let you know the Kingdom the players are in right now would pay a reward for the heads of the orcs who have been kidnapping people.   Yes it is a capital crime, and nobody would care if the players killed the orcs to the last man, woman, or child.   They are evil and the King would be happy to see the infestation gone.


----------



## RobNJ (Oct 3, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *My opinions on morality in a D&D game may be infantile.  It's not that important.   Do you sit up at night and contemplate the morality of orcs kidnapping people or something?*



The problem, Flexor, is you're apparently coming into the middle of the discussion without having read and paid attention to the entire thing.  He's having a conversation about absolute morality versus relative morality.  Yes, it's silly to argue that characters might actually be killing people who appear to be evil but who are in fact doing good.  You would admit that you can't absolutely be sure the people you're dealing with are evil.

The problem is that SJ is claiming that he has received wisdom on what good and bad is, and it is infallible.  The point was merely being made that infallability is impossible.

You read one of the comments without all the context and therefore lept to the wrong conclusions about the conversation.  He then assumed you DID have all the details and were making ludicrous statements in that context, and things got outta hand.


----------



## barsoomcore (Oct 3, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *There is quite a difference between saying I am trying to be a good husband and making a mistake while doing that than saying I'm going to disrespect my wife intentionally and see what happens. *



Well, since that's been the whole point of my argument up to now, I'm glad you see it my way.


> *I'm a better person because I learned from my mistake (evil action), not because I did the mistake. I would have been a better person if I had stopped to think about my actions and their consequences before I did that. *



Stopping to think about your actions? You mean, imagining what might happen if you tried a particular course of action? Oh, I see. Roleplaying. Playing an imaginary character -- yourself being disrespectful. Hey, that's role-playing an _evil_ character, isn't it? Evil SemperJase, being rude to his wife. By having that character try things you discover something about yourself, don't you?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. At last we agree.


> *I appreciate your view and I even agree that exploring moral questions has value. I disagree that intentionally practicing evil is the means to learn those lessons. *



You "disagree that intentionally practicing evil is the means", do you? And I suggested it might be the means... where? How can you possibly be _disagreeing_ with something I never said?

Honestly, SemperJase, if you don't understand my argument, please say so. I'll endeavour to make it clearer for you. If you do understand and disagree with some point of it, identify that point and explain why you disagree.

As far as I can see, we're in complete agreement. Role-playing evil characters may provide some people with beneficial results. You agree with this statement, right? That's all I've been trying to prove, SJ. Not that we should run around clubbing people to death, not that we should intentionally perform evil acts upon each other, and not that moral standards are relative. Just that role-playing evil characters may provide benefits to some people.

If you're suggesting in some sort of oblique way that role-playing an evil character is "intentionally practicing evil", well, you've already agreed that it isn't so without some new evidence I can't imagine why you would suddenly start asserting this. If this _is_ what you're trying to say, please be clear. Assume I'm not very bright and we'll get along much better.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 3, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Give it a rest, guys.  This is a discussion, not an argument.  Time to walk away from the keyboard for a bit, and return to the thread when you can stay polite.
> 
> Thanks. If this is somehow a problem, please fell free to email me. *




I was only referring to the question that SR put to me.  I never refered to him/her as stupid.  But if that's out of line I'm sorry.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2002)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> *My opinions on morality in a D&D game may be infantile.  It's not that important.   Do you sit up at night and contemplate the morality of orcs kidnapping people or something?   We run an adventure based game, there isn't a focus on exploring morality.  We play to have fun, and that isn't exploring the human condition and morality.
> 
> But to let you know the Kingdom the players are in right now would pay a reward for the heads of the orcs who have been kidnapping people.   Yes it is a capital crime, and nobody would care if the players killed the orcs to the last man, woman, or child.   They are evil and the King would be happy to see the infestation gone.*




So you basically play with cartoon superhero type morality. That's fine, but that's not what SJ has been saying. He's saying that in his game morality is important, and his characters do "good" things when viewed from a moral context, not just that they are the "good guys" and the villains are the "bad guys". He asserts that his heros follow standards of conduct that make the players "better" people in the real world due to their playing heroes.

To support this he showed what he thought was a sterling example of his party acting "good". The problem is that in "real world" terms, his party may or may not have been doing good. At face value, his party charged into a community of orcs with no real knowledge about the group other than they had taken slaves, used no option other than to bash them to death, and determined that they had the authority to determine an appropriate punishment for the crime of kidnapping and the right to enforce that punishment.

His statements have led me to the conclusion that the only distinction his players have made is the cartoon superhero type: Dr. Doom is evil because the writers tell us he is. Ghost Rider is a good guy because the writers tell us he is, and so on.


----------



## Serps (Oct 25, 2002)

I find it ironic that SJ is defending and responding to challenges to his moral code by answering hypothetical questions posed by other forum members, yet fails to see the benefit of other gamers challenging and exploring their own (ostensibly less airtight, since they don't  have his rock-solid moral code) moral and ethical frameworks in the context of an RPG.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an untested conviction isn't much use to anybody.

(For the record, I've read the BoVD, but not Dragon #300. I found the book to contain information which was useful to me, albeit distasteful in parts. I would even allow PCs to take certain (vetted) Vile feats, but I doubt any of my players will. They like to stay on the (oft-Lawful) Good side, so all the book does is make some of the villains in my Freeport adventures that touch more despicable.)


----------



## Zappo (Oct 25, 2002)

Welcome to the forums, Serps! Leave that dead horse alone, though, ok?


----------



## herald (Oct 25, 2002)

All right, if this is going to get off track and become the debate over the American Civil War, Then somebody should shut this thread down.

Let me go on the record right now and say I find the idea of Slavery to be one of the great wrong that any society has ever done, second only to genocide. 

Slavery forms humanity of it's victims and its owners. It deprives society of reaching its true potential and no world class society has survived very long with out outlawing it. No one can say where the worlds greatest minds will be born and American inventors have proven that time and time again.

But I will not go on to allow to go unchallenged that the United State entered into war to "free the slaves." 

I will be glad to avoid the "States Rights" argument and move ever so closely to the crux of the problem that brought on the war. 

The high cost of moving the goods from southern states to where the factories in the Northern states was destroying Southern economies. The Southern State were at best existing like third world countries. Cheep labor costs was provided by slaves, but laws had already been past to prevent slave owners from aquiring more slaves. 

With a dwindling labor supply and rising costs of tariffs on goods moving from south to north and the rising cost of goods being shipped south, the stage had already been set to make Southern states from being equal.  

So the South did what it could. It took it's fight to Congress. it tried everything in its power to change the tax burdens, but their calls fell on deaf ears. 

In the end, Southern leaders felt that they were trapped, their economy would go down in flames because they could not afford to pay for manual labor, and they couldn't produce enough goods to pay for need good from the North and they had no power to do anything about it.

Current thinking was that if they could break off from the union, they could bargain with other countries directly to sell their goods abroad. England was one of those counties. 

You could understand where the Southerners fealt like they had history to back themselves up. Taxation without representation. 

The North had to realize what was going to happen. It wasn't like this was a suprise, even when rebel forces attacked. News papers printed stories with headlines warning about war. Leaflets, broadsides, booklets all talked about problems faced in the south. 

The President and Congress could have negotiated before a single shot was fired, but the didn't. The stonewalled, and waited until the south was desperate, and still they were stubborn. 


This doesn't make the North evil, it doesn't make the South right. But it is a mistake that they both made, a both paid a price so severe that it makes the American loss of life in World War II pale in comparison. 

I would also right now like to take exception to comment made by the individual who stated that every person who lived South of the Mason Dixon line was a traitor during the Civil War.

Every state in the South provided at least one unit of men to fight on the Union side. That was not the Confederacies idea, that was citizens taking matters as well as their lives and the livelihoods into their own hands for the sake of the whole Union. So don't be so quick to judge everyone who lived south of the Mason Dixon line.

Lincoln, the great emancipator, didn't even get around to the Emancipation Declaration until two years after the war, and he didn't bother to free the slaves in the North that still existed. Those slave would have to be freed by their owners themselves, or die that way. The Emancipation Declaration was just a document created with a two fold process, it was propaganda to bring other forces into support the President and other Nations, and to try and further damage the Southern economy (which was sadly already broke.)

But, ploy that it was, it was the second greatest thing that he had ever done. It was second only to fighting to keep the Union together. 

IMHO, world history shows that without America's combined ability to create goods that prevented Germany's ability to conquer Europe in WW II. 

I don't own a Confederate Flag, I'm not the kind of guy that goes around shouting "The South will rise again!" Mostly because I don't want it to. And I am always offended and disturbed by racest individuals of any stripe using it as a symbol of hate against anyone. 

But I respect those that honor that flag as a common people that had their ancestors stood up against a government that would not help them when their backs were up against the wall. 

My name is Michael Griffin-Wade.
I am a seventh generation Floridian, and Southerner and Citizen of the United States, and I am proud of it.


----------



## alsih2o (Oct 25, 2002)

herald said:
			
		

> *
> Slavery..... no world class society has survived very long with out outlawing it. *




lol, this is actually funny.

 what would you consider "very long"? the hundreds of years that some of the early great societies existed on the backs of slaves?

 looked at with a broad scope, the wrongness of slavery (whic i do not argue) is a very modern concept.


----------



## EricNoah (Oct 25, 2002)

Hrmm, I don't know when this turned into a political thread, but it clearly has.  And so it is time to tuck this one into bed and let it sink into the mire of history...


----------

