So, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil? Is there evil (or alignment)?
Do you set up the setting to be good-centric? Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met? Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?
How would you handle a priest of Jubilex, or another deity of a not-so-nice persuasion? How about a real assassin? How would they fit in?
I think what's hardest is playing evil in an otherwise good/neutral party. I tried it once (the game had no alignment, but still); we were meant to be hardened mercenary types working for a dubiously moral faction, so I figured that meant play fairly evil (i.e. not shirk from brute intimidation or interrogation, or worry much about saving innocents), but a lot of the other PCs decided to play more typically good characters. On our first proper mission some civilians were going to get in the way, and probably would end up killed. My character was fine with it, but the others resolved to disobey orders and save them instead, and I pretty much had to go along with it. It was quite an interesting character to play, and I had a lot of fun with him, but I was constantly in tension with the other group members.
On the DMing side, I usually present a more amoral universe where it's unclear which side in a given conflict is good (a vampire vs demon turf war, for example); if I was ever to DM a CE campaign it'd probably be that way as well. One early game I ran for awhile had a couple of evil PCs who were professional thieves, but because of various guild codes they didn't turn on each other as much as you might expect, and the traditional forces of "good" (or, at least, authority) such as town guards became the bad guys. Even that was verging on shades of grey-black, though, since most of the authorities were corrupt anyway.
Quote from: SteerpikeI think what's hardest is playing evil in an otherwise good/neutral party. I tried it once (the game had no alignment, but still); we were meant to be hardened mercenary types working for a dubiously moral faction, so I figured that meant play fairly evil (i.e. not shirk from brute intimidation or interrogation, or worry much about saving innocents), but a lot of the other PCs decided to play more typically good characters. On our first proper mission some civilians were going to get in the way, and probably would end up killed. My character was fine with it, but the others resolved to disobey orders and save them instead, and I pretty much had to go along with it. It was quite an interesting character to play, and I had a lot of fun with him, but I was constantly in tension with the other group members.
On the DMing side, I usually present a more amoral universe where it's unclear which side in a given conflict is good (a vampire vs demon turf war, for example); if I was ever to DM a CE campaign it'd probably be that way as well. One early game I ran for awhile had a couple of evil PCs who were professional thieves, but because of various guild codes they didn't turn on each other as much as you might expect, and the traditional forces of "good" (or, at least, authority) such as town guards became the bad guys. Even that was verging on shades of grey-black, though, since most of the authorities were corrupt anyway.
And that, of course, brings up the fact that evil does not (always) equate to stupidity. Enlightened self-interest can be percieved as acting 'good, when in fact is can be just playing intelligently.
sometimes, also, it is harder to be 'evil' in a morally ambiguous setting like CE (or another one that comes to mind that starts with 'C'), since there is no real good to contrast with.
QuoteSo, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil? Is there evil (or alignment)?
Do you set up the setting to be good-centric? Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met? Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?[/quote]
I generally have no completely "good" sides (although one player in a game couldn't get the idea that the good/evilness of the groups they were running up against might be more complicated than it initially appeared) ; but of course I often have clearly evil demons -- everyone likes to kick back and relax sometimes. But everyone has a recognizable motive.
My highest point of which I am quite proud is when I had the players and 4-5 differentiated sides- after a 4 scenario game- locked in a room, negotiating the fate of a magical item. Every side had good reasons for possessing the item and everyone wanted to do something different with it. Some argued it was evil and hoped to destroy; others wanted to study it; to others it was holy and they said it would never be used for evil; etc.
The players pondered the puzzle for about 2 hours in real life, then we decided to push ahead after one commented. "This is interesting, but it's like the Treaty of Versailles... I don't think we're going to come to a good solution."
So I added in some action to help the players decide.
--
I am a large believer in people having "Interests" rather than, necessarily, "morality"... Good and Evil only make sense if the world has a standard Morality. On Earth, for example, people generally believe that euthanasia is bad because of cultural reasons or religious reasons- but what really makes it "evil"? Religion has an answer; Culture has an answer; but is there an objective reason why Euthanasia is evil? Even the statement "it results in death" warrants an answer of "so what?" what makes killing certain groups of people objectively evil? In wars, people kill all the time; even in religious literature there is a large body of support for killing enemies. (Note: Rhetorical question... I would rather not threadjack Vreeg's interesting thread here)
Quote from: Lord VreegSo, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil? Is there evil (or alignment)?
Do you set up the setting to be good-centric? Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?
Or do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met? Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?
How would you handle a priest of Jubilex, or another deity of a not-so-nice persuasion? How about a real assassin? How would they fit in?
My games don't have an alignment. You can be good or evil or whatever you want and it won't affect you mechanic wise (though it will probably effect you fluff wise).
That is one of the things I try to pride myself on with Haveneast - it's black-and-white good and evil, but at the same time that doesn't mean that good and evil can't function together; there are greater things at stake. Good and evil are obvious, identifiable forces, but the real powers and dividers are the factions that make war with each other. The best examples are probably the legions among legions of knights and knightly orders that infest the courts, the border territories, and sometimes hold their own small lands: beyond their own specific codes, oaths, and religions that they follow, they're free to be good or evil (hell, even though Justaism is a "good" religion and there are evils opposed to it, there are more than a few evil knights that crusade against them in the name of Justahn... just with more brutal and uncaring methods). It's a "faction first" setting; even though your alignment can affect what factions you choose to ally yourself with, at the end of the day your faction - organization, cult, state, nation, etc. matters more.
Dystopian Universe is pretty much the same thing there, only I didn't worry too much about actually establishing good and evil both because there's no real magic or any other effects to function based on it (psionics are pretty neutral), and because the moral ambiguity fits the government conspiracy theme very well.
[blockquote=LD]I am a large believer in people having "Interests" rather than, necessarily, "morality"... Good and Evil only make sense if the world has a standard Morality. On Earth, for example, people generally believe that euthanasia is bad because of cultural reasons or religious reasons- but what really makes it "evil"? Religion has an answer; Culture has an answer; but is there an objective reason why Euthanasia is evil? Even the statement "it results in death" warrants an answer of "so what?" what makes killing certain groups of people objectively evil? In wars, people kill all the time; even in religious literature there is a large body of support for killing enemies. (Note: Rhetorical question... I would rather not threadjack Vreeg's interesting thread here)[/blockquote]
Not threadjacking as long as it pertains to Good and evil in a setting.
Sometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral reaslism, can ruin a 'game'. I have stated before that GM's are players also, We just play the 'rest of the world'. At times this is a tall order. Also, most of our games involve different religeous backgrounds than what we GMs grew up with, so the moral signposts may be subtly or greatly changed. Euthenasia proponents view this particular intentional killing as the lesser of two evils, not a happy outcome, just better than the alternative, while foes find the intentional taking of life morally repugnant and the bailiwick of the deity only. Evil is sometimes a perception.
Sometimes.
Often when someone plays evil it ends up becoming a caricature: evil for the sake of evil. In my current game we don't use alignment and most of the characters are not exactly moralists (except for two who are rather saintly). I made some modifications to the system so the characters had a specific ambition, and following that ambition would yield them XP.
I had a very short modern d20 campaign where my players played the founding members of an evil organization out to control the world from their underground base on Malta. Although ruling the world is a more concrete goal than evil, it was still obviously an over-the-top campaign.
When i play evil or less-than-good myself i usually focus on one or more "evil" traits. I once played a female halberd-and-kukri-swinging mercenary captain who i defined in my mind with greed and cynicism. So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there) and would generally do anything for money.
>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)
How is that evil?
Quote from: Light Dragon>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)
How is that evil?
Maybe the orc was alive when she started to flay off the pieces?
Quote from: Light Dragon>>So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there)
How is that evil?
Ok let's put this in other light. Imagine an orc making a morbid costume from the remains of your father (and smiling while he works).
So, it's a disguise-- the creature is dead. It's a creepy action, and disgusting, but not evil.
If it was done with the intent to frighten, humiliate, or scare other orcs, then perhaps it would be evil; but CC clearly said that it was for the purposes of a disguise.
Well, i'm pretty sure skinning humanoids is frowned upon in most societies. But then we are back to the discussion about whether something is evil/bad merely because consensus says so (like euthanasia). Anyway, was not a good example. I just liked the story... And all the other players seemed to find it somewhat evilish.
Another way to look at evil might be that they don't care about what means they have to use to get to a specific end, while good characters are more limited in their means even if the cause is good.
CC- that might be a good way of looking at it;
When I get into discussions relating to good/evil with my players I try to define it thusly:
Good = Altruistic and Kind
Neutral = Selfish (a bit) and Amoral
Evil = Selfish and Brutal
Neutral is a bit difficult to differentiate from Evil in that axis; but I think it clearly defines Good.
Someone who is merely altruistic could very well be evil... if they believe that by torturing people they will help thousands. The good character would find an alternative way other than torture because the good character is kind to all. The neutral character may or may not torture the person, but the neutral character certainly would want to help the thousands. and an evil/brutal person would torture the person, but not care about the thousands at all.
Another reason why the axis is difficult in the real world is that... even hitler thought he was doing a good thing- so he may say he was altruistic... But he certainly was not kind- which I think, keeps him out of the Good square.
I think that a lot of people who play "good" characters really play neutral characters at best. I do not think there is anything wrong with this, but as CC points out, being "good" is difficult when there are lives at stake.
In Kaidan, its a bit strange. Most of the powers in control are undead, but they're undead so they can maintain their position of power, and not die, reincarnate and move to a lower position of power. While they definitely try to get advantage from others in power - this is more power hunger than actually evil.
Also most every faction, organization or group among those not in power strive to take advantage of those around them to maintain strength and achieve longterm goals - this is a lesser form of power hunger and not truly evil unto itself.
The state religion, known as Zao, attempts to maintain the cosmic order as it pertains to the Wheel of Life, at the same time it actively hides the mechanism of salvation (escape the reincarnation cycle to the Pure Lands, and/or eventual escape to Nirvana.) The religion considers pursuing salvation as both a heresy and act of treason. Thus will overtly destroy those who are publically seeking or spreading the idea of salvation. Is that being evil or attempting to maintain the status quo, which they believe is the correct thing to do.
There is a faction from Hell (Yomi or Jigoku) whose primary agenda is the destruction of that which is not Hell - they want to burn Kaidan to ashes. They have agents including both Oni-demons and demon spirits that actively do evil in small and large doses. This I believe is the only truly evil faction in Kaidan.
In every way all NPC participants seek to maintain status quo, gain advantage over others, promote their own causes and otherwise seek to keep things as they are.
While Kaidan is a dark fantasy setting. Except for the Hell faction, is it truly an evil empire? I am not sure.
GP
I see good as wanting to help people you don't know just for the sake of helping them. You might get a reward, but that's generally not why you do it. I see evil as more of a "if it doesn't help me why should I do it?" type thing. My one and only evil character was considered good by all the other pcs because of how much I helped random beggars/orphans/poor people for (seemingly) no reason, but my real reason was to create an army of loyal people whom I had helped so that I could start a coup in the country I was in and shove my ideals down the populaces throat.
Quote from: Light DragonWhen I get into discussions relating to good/evil with my players I try to define it thusly:
Good = Altruistic and Kind
Neutral = Selfish (a bit) and Amoral
Evil = Selfish and Brutal
QuoteI once played a female halberd-and-kukri-swinging mercenary captain who i defined in my mind with greed and cynicism. So she had no trouble with creating a "disguise" from the remains of a fallen orc (with a knife; okay, i probably went a bit too far there) and would generally do anything for money.
Seems awfully evil to me according to your definition of evil (which I tend to agree with).
GP, I wouldn't call it an evil empire, just a brutal, self absorbed one.
Now, the idea of keeping people from getting off the wheel.. .those guys are bad.
Nomadic- while CC's character as a whole might be evil due to the "would generally do anything for money." part; the disguise seems neutral. Apparently there was a reason for the disguise. I was just confused why someone would have thought the disguise was inherently evil.
Quote from: Lord VreegGP, I wouldn't call it an evil empire, just a brutal, self absorbed one.
Now, the idea of keeping people from getting off the wheel.. .those guys are bad.
However at the Shogunate level and the Imperial Court, hiding salvation is state policy, so they too are evil.
Those in power, I mentioned, was refering to provincial lords, who, though undead, are just power hungry and seeks to maintain their position at the top of society. So I agree, they are brutal and self-absorbed, but not evil.
Quote from: Light DragonNomadic- while CC's character as a whole might be evil due to the "would generally do anything for money." part; the disguise seems neutral. Apparently there was a reason for the disguise. I was just confused why someone would have thought the disguise was inherently evil.
Well if you think cutting up people to make a disguise is ok there's not much I can say to change your mind :P
...
It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.
>>It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.
Well... Yes and especially if the person wasn't dead when they were cut or that was the only reason to kill them--IE in DnD the orc was not terrorizing people or orcs are not necessarily an "evil" race in that setting.
But that statement is a little like saying:
Getting into yelling arguments with people is not evil per se;
But evil people think it's a great idea to get into yelling arguments with people at any time.
I think you might agree with me then on my major and minor assumptions.
Cutting up dead people to make a disguise may be disgusting and often unnecessary, but there might be a circumstance in a fantasy game where it might be necessary and not evil; BUT evil people will often cut up dead people for no reason at all-- just for their own enjoyment.
Which I can certainly agree with.
LD, you, of all people, with your cool and quirky take on alignment, I expect and welcome interesting perspectives on this.
Your description of good above sounds like "Lawful Stupid", when they won't do what is needed to help more people. This opens up a question to everyone.
Is the demarcation of 'good' how many net people you help, or do you lose good status points if you hurt anyone innocent purposely?
Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?
Quote from: Light Dragon>>It wasn't that cutting people up to make a disguise was evil, it was that being an evil person made cutting said person up ok in their eyes.
Well... Yes and especially if the person wasn't dead when they were cut or that was the only reason to kill them--IE in DnD the orc was not terrorizing people or orcs are not necessarily an "evil" race in that setting.
But that statement is a little like saying:
Getting into yelling arguments with people is not evil per se;
But evil people think it's a great idea to get into yelling arguments with people at any time.
I think you might agree with me then on my major and minor assumptions.
Cutting up dead people to make a disguise may be disgusting and often unnecessary, but there might be a circumstance in a fantasy game where it might be necessary and not evil; BUT evil people will often cut up dead people for no reason at all-- just for their own enjoyment.
Which I can certainly agree with.
I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you so much as explaining to you what he was talking about since you seemed a bit confused about it.
Quote from: Lord VreegSometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.
The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM. For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is
too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play. The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo. When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.
There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for! You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.
[blockquote=Vreeg]Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?[/blockquote]This seems to be what most alignment debates boil down to: utilitarianism vs. deontology, consequences vs. The Act Itself. Because alignment in DnD is absolute - it's almost a substance, a material, or at least an energy, since it can be measured empirically and objectively, using spells - I'd say that as written, the alignment system tends towards a deontological view, since context and consequences are a lot more debatable and must by their very nature happen in the future, after an act has occured.
If alignment in DnD did work according to utilitarian logic, some bizarre scenarios could occur, wherein a change in alignment (or the universe's recognition of a good/evil action) could almost be divinatory: if the consequences are good and an action justified, a person's aura would glow Good, whereas if in fact they were not justified, it'd glow Evil, or whatever... imagine if the murderers of the Russian Tsar, or the pilots of the Enola Gay, were to cast Detect Good/Evil etc on themselvse after their actions. There'd be no arguing with the results, whatever those results were.
It all gets very Dungeons & Discourse (http://dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_059.html). I sort of want to play that game...
I shouldn't get involved in an alignment thread again, however.
Quote from: EladrisQuote from: Lord VreegSometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.
The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM. For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play. The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo. When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.
There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for! You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.
I try to look at this from the standpoint of gamers as a whole, not just one style of play. I like moral ambiguity in my games; but it is still a game. There is constant humor in the better games (up to the use of the Village People lyrics by Bard Cucino lately) It can be fun to have to stew over a moral dilimma once in a while, but it can eb a grind if it is an every game thing.
[blockquote=Steerpike]I shouldn't get involved in an alignment thread again, however. [/blockquote]
Of course you should. AS always, you add a lot to the discourse. A lot of alignment is determined by the religeons, as well. Back a few decades ago, when I was still using alignment, I had written up each churches view on the moral code, and some of them were very utilitarian, while others considered curtailing choice as serious as ending life.
"LD, you, of all people, with your cool and quirky take on alignment, I expect and welcome interesting perspectives on this.
Your description of good above sounds like "Lawful Stupid", when they won't do what is needed to help more people. This opens up a question to everyone."
I understand why you may have thought that the description is "lawful stupid"; but it is not really- I said that a good actor would try to find a way to not torture the creature. Torture rarely leads to correct information. A "good" person could probably justify torture, but that still does not make it a "good" action.
Then again in real life I have met very few "good" people; so perhaps I have too narrow a view of "good". I see people as self interested- not good or evil.
>>Is the demarcation of 'good' how many net people you help, or do you lose good status points if you hurt anyone innocent purposely?
Fireballing a house with a archvillain and 3 kids in it, is it evil if it was your only way to get him and it saves hundreds of lives?
Steerpike analyzed the situation better than I will say it here.
In real life concepts of good or bad depend on people to agree on a system of morality, I think it might be more profitable to analyze what is economically profitable because that is generally a much better way to measure utils of happiness.
If it was a net economic gain to kill everyone in the house, then there are no worries.
In a system that does not acknowledge god or a devil or an afterlife and which puts a clear price on human life-- it is a little easier to justify collateral damage. The problem, of course, is in the valuations- who knows what the children could have economically accomplished if you had not murdered them; who knows what their lives would really have been worth; and then there are the externalities-- will your murder of the children ruin the lives of the childrens' parents, their relatives? Will it start a blood-feud between your families?
It is difficult, if not impossible to answer these questions except in retrospect.
although RM Hare wrote some good things on utilitarianism, to save it from the fallacies inherent in Bentham's original works-- the crucial problem of course, is the lack of precise knowledge and computational power to discover everything immediately.
In Dungeons and Dragons, that action is clearly a neutral action at best. There is almost always another way to catch such a villain. In a fantasy world people can be "gooder" and "eviler" than they are in the real world. It is the DMs job to allow the good characters to be "amazing" while they are saving people-- to sacrifice more and to do more. It is a difficult job, but ultimately rewarding. The more one thinks and plans while playing DnD, the better it is as a literary excursion.
Of course, many people just play as a dungeon-crawl WOW style. Personally, I am not attracted by that style of play, but I fully understand that it appeals to many.
nomadic
>>I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you so much as explaining to you what he was talking about since you seemed a bit confused about it.
Ok, you were putting words into his mouth-- much as the Lorax who speaks for the trees because the trees have no mouths.
Steerpike
>>It all gets very Dungeons & Discourse. I sort of want to play that game...
They actually set out all the rules on the forums at KoalaWallop. :)
Quote from: EladrisQuote from: Lord VreegSometimes the level of realism in a game, especially moral realism, can ruin a 'game'.
The ideas in this thread are great, but this quote 100% sums up the way I feel about the issue as both a player and GM. For me, and my players, I think, moral ambiguity is too real an issue to constantly struggle with during the course of play. The occasional debate can add a lot of flavor to a story, sure, but after the rigors of "real life", I prefer comedy or tragedy to, well, limbo. When I do present these no-win situations to my players, I try to give them an "out", to avoid a three-hour session culminating in some players feeling as if nothing was accomplished.
There are merits to objectively exploring certain themes through role-playing; it's just not what I use gaming for! You can chalk me up for a points-of-light preference, but that's probably already evident in my writing.
Everyone plays for different reasons.
I consider DnD and RPGs to be intellectual exercises similar to a Model UN or Moot Court/Mock Trial.
But as you said- usually as a GM you have to give players an out even if you want to set up a "no win" situation. Most players do not find moral ambiguity to be entertaining.
This does bring up one issue though-- which is why many people do not take DnD or traditional fantasy/sci-fi seriously-- too often it fails to address the central questions of what makes people human; to attack traditional themes that are covered in mainstream classical literature.
Without the connection to life-- DnD will forever remain esoteric and relegated to the dustbin and corner of mainstream respect. But if DnD, like some movies, can help people explore life and love, and struggle, and learn how to become better human beings-- then it will no longer be considered a "kiddy" game; an intellectual "gnats" game.
It is not enough to teach battle tactics or min-maxing mathematics... for DnD to actually be respected- it needs to acquire the attributes of good computer games; like Civilization, like Age of Empires, Bioshock, etc. To educate, to challenge, and to help people become more "human."
That hidden potential is what I like about DnD. And that is how I like to play my fantasy games-- not to escape, but to discover (in an entertaining fashion) more about myself and to confront the pressing issues that challenge the world.
(When I make games, I spend hours pouring over the motivations of characters; the moral issues; and complicated webs of interaction-- I find it fulfilling to challenge both myself and the characters and to live a game that is like a book that is like a reflection of real life in a strange and fantastic setting. :))
Quote from: Light DragonOk, you were putting words into his mouth-- much as the Lorax who speaks for the trees because the trees have no mouths.
Haha... something like that. Though I am not near as furry.
Quote from: NomadicHaha... something like that. Though I am not near as furry.
Urge to misinterpret on purpose rising...
To answer the original question: Does evil pay in my settings?
In the short run: yes. If you don't give a rat's arse about what people think of you and how your actions hurt others, you have a shorter and more direct way to your goal. The problem is: if you play evil in the sense of Dark Lord Stabhappy McDumbass, sooner or later you'll tick someone of who has the clout or the purse to get people to shut you up. If you are clever about it - no repercussions. Y'know, like in real life. ;)
IMO, the best game for moral "education" or conundrums is Dark Heresy. As an inquisitorial agent, you fight for mankind's survival. The question is simply how far you will go when there are few people who have jusrisdiction over you. "Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Hmm.
I'm trying to distill something out of this thread. SOmething like a rating or at least the proper way to scale the morality set of a setting, at least in terms of good and evil.
LD said something about how the Fireball The House example would be neutral in D&D. This line also came up.
Quote from: still cool, howeverI do have to say, in a somewhat contrarian tone, that the 2 letter alignment codification that Gary came up with is incredibly useful and expository. [/note] I see often in writeups for religions whole paragraphs that describe everything else, but centuroes of moral codification, histories, parables, and jusdgement is reduced to a 2 letter code..."CG", or some such.
So moral behavior strictures and how PLayers should see the setting through the eyes of their religions is up to us, and maybe we don't look at it in that light often. And we should.
Lord Vreeg-
The interesting thing about the Gygaxian morality code is that it actually mattered in the early games.
He built his cosmology around the 9 alignment directions-- that is why there was a plane for each alignment; and a struggle between Law/Chaos; Good/Evil. It was a fairly central aspect to the setting.
I think that might be why you think it is "useful and expository" but might lament when some people use the terms as a short-cut to designing a setting. Did I hit on a possible idea here?
Quote from: Lord VreegSo, in each of your games, does it pay to play evil? Is there evil (or alignment)?
Do you set up the setting to be good-centric? Is it a Points 'o' light setting, but still set up for good PCs?
In most of my games I haven't used alignment. Consequently, I've had almost no PCs in those games that I thought of as good or evil. Just people. Which is not to say none brought moral codes to their characters, but they were personal codes.
If the campaign is going to involve fighting the forces of evil, I'm usually pretty clear up front about that. But even in those games, PCs are rarely purely good or evil. And being evil, if we had such a concept in the game or now applied one, didn't stop them from fighting a greater threat. As a player playing a relatively immoral former assassin explained in one such game, stopping the apocalypse is in his character's best interest for obvious reasons. Cooperating and trusting more noble characters is one way to do that.
QuoteOr do you carefully set the table so that every type of game can be met? Or is the game made for some righteous 'good vs evil' buttkicking?
How would you handle a priest of Jubilex, or another deity of a not-so-nice persuasion? How about a real assassin? How would they fit in?
I've had some campaigns where anything goes, and some with a stronger main plot. In either case, I usually figured out what the players wanted, maybe even had them write backgrounds--and then wrote the campaign.
I had one game where three players played assassins, all of different natures. Two became heroes. One became a vampire and joined what another player termed "the dark side" (which by the end of the game consisted of almost exactly half the players).
If Jubilex is an evil god, then I think that's harder. Mainly because I'm not going to tell the other players they're characters have to deal with a character doing things they don't like. If it's a party-based game (and not all games are, but I will usually tell you in advance), it's the responsibility of each player to make a party-friendly character.
Quote from: Light DragonThis does bring up one issue though-- which is why many people do not take DnD or traditional fantasy/sci-fi seriously-- too often it fails to address the central questions of what makes people human; to attack traditional themes that are covered in mainstream classical literature.
Fantasy, and especially sci-fi, has a long tradition of exploring those questions. One of the main rationals given for it is that by dressing it up as something else, we become more free to explore the idea in depth without bringing as much baggage along for the ride.
Quote from: Light DragonLord Vreeg-
The interesting thing about the Gygaxian morality code is that it actually mattered in the early games.
He built his cosmology around the 9 alignment directions-- that is why there was a plane for each alignment; and a struggle between Law/Chaos; Good/Evil. It was a fairly central aspect to the setting.
I think that might be why you think it is "useful and expository" but might lament when some people use the terms as a short-cut to designing a setting. Did I hit on a possible idea here?
LD, I know Gygax's inspirations well. I think it was central to how his game and class system worked. But Too often, I see the terms, and the deities 'cut and pasted' into a setting, where it does not belong. and these terms and the constructs need spuernatural foci to make them viable.