peeves

[Mary K. Kuhner]

A small rant on things which seem abundant in games (published
and otherwise) but don't work for me at all:

--Plot-driven illness, injury or death that ignore the system's
healing skills and/or magic. For example, the messenger who
runs up to the PCs, gasps out a message and drops dead--despite
the fact that the PCs would naturally heal him, and that such
healing would naturally, in the system, work. Or the sudden
death of the king throwing the kingdom into chaos, even though
the presence of Raise Dead is well established and it's clearly
available to people like him.

I guess this is just a specific form of:

--Plots stolen without modification from other settings where various
abilities just aren't available. Lords who assume that walls will
keep people out, when they should know that flight is a common
ability. Mysteries that ignore easy access to mind reading or
lie detection. Innocent-under-suspicion scenarios, ditto.
Scenarios where people are killed by a single shot when that
can't happen in the game system.

--Expecting the PCs not to notice patterns. FASA put out a whole
string of modules in a row where the PCs' employers double-crossed
them in the end. Hey, they said, it's in genre! But the genre
stories *don't all happen to the same group of characters*, and
presumably there are also employers who pay their hirelings in the
end, else no one would be willing to be hired anymore. It is too
much to ask the PCs to keep responding to hooks if the results
are invariably bad for them.

--Futility. Being hired to rescue someone who is already dead.
Arriving at the village just in time to see it burned to the
ground. Being asked to stop something that is already unstoppable.
These may work as motivators in stories, but I have generally
found them to be crappy motivators for players--certainly for me.

And a variant on it:

--Bad job offers. The players may feel that they have an obligation
to take up job offers, so as to insure the GM gets to run what
he has prepared. If so, the GM or module has, to my mind, a
corresponding obligation not to make the employers so obviously
unpleasant, arrogant, dishonest, etc. that it would be unreasonable
to *take* the job.

--Set pieces that require the PCs to freeze in place and not
react. In the _Witchfire_ modules there's a setpiece near the
end of one module where one NPCs has the McGuffin and another shows
up to take it from her. They argue; they fight; at one point the
McGuffin is tossed to the PCs and they have to decide which NPC
to give it to. Chance that this will work out as scripted, with
PCs allowed to act: zero.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I am really grumpy
today.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Stephen McIlvenna]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
A small rant on things which seem abundant in games (published
--Plot-driven illness, injury or death that ignore the system's
healing skills and/or magic.
--Plots stolen without modification from other settings where various
abilities just aren't available.

Absolutley agree. I think it has been mentioned in other threads that the
game mechanics and world reality have to match up in somehow for player and
character conceptions to make sense. I don't mind fudging the odd dice roll
or tweaking game mechanics so that they match the needs of a particular
setting, but once this is done the setting needs to live up to the results.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Expecting the PCs not to notice patterns. FASA put out a whole
string of modules in a row where the PCs' employers double-crossed
them in the end. Hey, they said, it's in genre!

One of my GM's liked his important NPCs to be sullen, suspicious, to keep
their agendas close to their chest and to turn out to be something other
than they first appeared. This happened so much that we felt we just
couldn't trust anybody in the game world. It ended up as a sort of social
version of turtling where our player characters ended up displaying the same
paranoia and deception as the NPCs they loathed.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Futility. Being hired to rescue someone who is already dead.
Arriving at the village just in time to see it burned to the
ground. Being asked to stop something that is already unstoppable.

I might not mind this too much as an introductory encounter to a bigger
plot. But it would certainly getting demoralising pretty quickly,
particularly if the goal was of personal importance to the character being
played. A bigger (and related) turn-off is when the mighty and powerful NPCs
of the world send a group of low-level adventurers out to do a job for which
they are clearly ill-equipped, while they (the aforementioned mighty and
powerful NPCs) sit back in their keep / tower and do bugger all.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Bad job offers. The players may feel that they have an obligation
to take up job offers, so as to insure the GM gets to run what
he has prepared.

Going along with crappy jobs because they are the only job on offer has
certainly happened within our groups. I agree that the GM has a
responsibility to ensure buy-in from the players just as much as the players
face an obligation to go along with his initial set-up.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Set pieces that require the PCs to freeze in place and not
react.

I certainly hate when this happens in computer games (I have just started
playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and it's happened a few times already).
Thankfully I have never played a traditional game where the GM has been
foolish enough to attempt such a set piece (although I have seen them
written that way in many published adventures).

Stephen
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.mci/

[gleichman]

Post by Stephen McIlvenna
A bigger (and related) turn-off is when the mighty and powerful NPCs
of the world send a group of low-level adventurers out to do a job for which
they are clearly ill-equipped, while they (the aforementioned mighty and
powerful NPCs) sit back in their keep / tower and do bugger all.

I have an NPC in my Shadowrun Campaign () who could be mistaken for
representing this problem. Vastly powerful personally (think a SR
version of Dr. Strange) with the resouces of a double A corp at her
beck and call.

The twist here however is that her link to the PCs is that one of the
characters is being trained by her to take her place. She doesn't
expect to live forever you know. By the same token, she doesn't
*knowingly* send them on tasks they aren't suit for. But she's of the
opinion that the sooner they learn to play in the real world the better.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that Stephen McIlvenna was not wearing

(Mary:)

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Set pieces that require the PCs to freeze in place and not
react.

I certainly hate when this happens in computer games (I have just started
playing Neverwinter Nights 2 and it's happened a few times already).
Thankfully I have never played a traditional game where the GM has been
foolish enough to attempt such a set piece (although I have seen them
written that way in many published adventures).

Even worse, and nearly as common (or at least it once was), are ones
that actually *dictate* what the PCs do. Even when I was a teenager and
had never really thought about this stuff in any depth at all, I knew
enough to stop and ask "guys, is it reasonable to assume you'll do
that?" on such occasions.

[gleichman]

I agree with all of these although I differ in how I handle some of
them when encountered.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Plot-driven illness, injury or death that ignore the system's
healing skills and/or magic.

<snip>

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Plots stolen without modification from other settings where various
abilities just aren't available.

I generally consider this problem to be more due to a system design
failure, if you're going to do Heroic Fantasy with castles, then don't
put things in the game mechanics that make castles worthless. If the
game mechanics don't match the genre, and allow the use of standard
genre plot twists- you have a problem before anything else is read or
done.

I typically go through a ruleset and yank out (or modify) all the stuff
that causes this upfront. As a result I'm seldom irked with an
adventure modules on this point.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Scenarios where people are killed by a single shot when that
can't happen in the game system.

Always the first thing I alter in a game system.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Expecting the PCs not to notice patterns. FASA put out a whole
string of modules in a row where the PCs' employers double-crossed
them in the end.

I changed this in every SR module that it appeared.

Besides your point on why this fails a reality check, there's the other
side of the coin too. If I hired a group of expert security crackers
and killers- the last thing I'd want to do is give them a reason to
came after *me*.

In our SR campaign, my wife's character even pulled the classic "Ok,
we'll accept your explaination on this- and if it was a lie... we
*will* be back" line the one time she even had a hint of of a something
not being on the up and up.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Set pieces that require the PCs to freeze in place and not
react.

HERO systems has the stated rule (at least it did in previous editions,
not that I mention it I don't know if it appears in 5th edition or not)
that you can take a much time as you want for soliquies and the like-
it's non-time action.

Fits Superheroes really well, but isn't bad in other genres. However it
doesn't allow for your example when included timeouts for a battle.



I'll add a couple of pet peeves:

-Politically Correct Settings where they shouldn't be: I list Deadlands
and Shadowrun as the worst examples I've used although I assume their
are others that make these like reasonable.

-Built in assumptions that the PCs will never reach the level of the
settings 'experts'. Again Deadlands and Shadowrun are shinging examples
of this mindset to the point where they refuse to stat or define many
of their NPCs. Other systems have NPCs who flatly break the character
creation/advancement rules.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by gleichman
-Politically Correct Settings where they shouldn't be: I list Deadlands
and Shadowrun as the worst examples I've used although I assume their
are others that make these like reasonable.

What was PC about them? I'm only vaguely familiar with Shadowrun (having read
the 1st edition rules when they came out) and not at all with Aftermath.

[gleichman]

Post by David Alex Lamb

Post by gleichman
-Politically Correct Settings where they shouldn't be: I list Deadlands
and Shadowrun as the worst examples I've used although I assume their
are others that make these like reasonable.

What was PC about them? I'm only vaguely familiar with Shadowrun (having read
the 1st edition rules when they came out) and not at all with Aftermath.

Aftermath? I think you've crossed threads. I haven't said anything
about that game.


Deadlands was the worst offender because it was consistent in it's PC
sweetness. It was suppose to be a Western at its heart, except...

The Civil War was still going on, but the South has free its Slaves and
now treats them as equals. Women are completely indistinguishable to
men (a common bit of RPG PC). It doesn't matter if your Indian,
Christian, Morman, Islamic, or whatever- you're all Blessed (i.e. have
the option for divine power). Everyone is right, no one is wrong except
the not so subtle undercurrent that whites are evil of course.


Shadowrun is rather inconsistent as it depends upon what you read when.
At times it remembers that it's suppose to be a dark future where
mankind's worst nature has been freed.

But at others it seems almost like the writer's idea of an Utopia where
everyone is forgiven their differences and get to carry big guns in
additon.

The Sprawl Guide for example says that discrimination based upon sex,
sexual orientation, and race is gone- like that is going to happen in
the immoral world that SR assumes with massive gang violence and a
large percentage of the human population abandoned by the elites. And
talk about sweeping the supposed wave of Japanese culture under the
rug...

Again we see the mythical noble savage (very PC) throughout the
products with 'native' groups being the first best at magic and taking
back huge chunks of their lands (like they have anything close to the
numbers required just to inhabited those lands, let alone defend them).
And what is this fixation on "The South Shall Rise Again!"?

It's not so much that they took the approach they did (these are
fantasy games, and people are free to play their fantasy as they wish-
this includes making settings different from their source and/or
illogical if they so chose), it's that both works went out of way to
make sure the reader knew they were PC- and thus to force as best they
could that same mindset upon the buyer.

I think such details should be left to the group. But then again, I'm
the guy willing to publish a game system with no world background at
all.

[s***@sonic.net]

Post by gleichman
Deadlands was the worst offender because it was consistent in it's PC
sweetness. It was suppose to be a Western at its heart, except...
The Civil War was still going on, but the South has free its Slaves and
now treats them as equals.

I'll have to go back to look at the sourcebooks, but I *think* you're
mistaken on this point... I *know* that I recall it being an issue for
some black PC's as the group considered an expedition from the northern
territories to the southern; and I'm pretty sure at least one had the
"Escaped Slave" flaw, with a presumption that he was (a) at severe risk
any time he went South; (b) occasionally subject to being waylaid by
paid bounty-hunters from the South, hired to return him to his owner in
the Confederate States.

Post by gleichman
Women are completely indistinguishable to
men (a common bit of RPG PC).

Nearly universal, IME. Certainly if you consider as %-of-$-volume-sold.

IIRC, my first-ever HR's for D&D were -2 STR and +1 CON for all women...
I wasn't exactly happy with that, but it seemed "more realistic" than
being entirely genderblind.

Post by gleichman
It doesn't matter if your Indian,
Christian, Morman, Islamic, or whatever- you're all Blessed (i.e. have
the option for divine power). Everyone is right, no one is wrong except
the not so subtle undercurrent that whites are evil of course.

Errr... again, this appears mistaken. Sure, Injuns can be Blessed...
if they convert. But mostly, they're shamans, which is different from
Blessed. Can't have both Blessed and the native Shaman powers.

BUT, I do believe that all the non-native religions use the "Blessed"
rules. This isn't TOTALLY unreasonable for the "People of the Book" but
IMHO it's rather more problematic for, e.g., Shinto or Buddhism getting
Judeo-Christian-esqe "Blessings".

Post by gleichman
Shadowrun is rather inconsistent as it depends upon what you read when.
At times it remembers that it's suppose to be a dark future where
mankind's worst nature has been freed.
But at others it seems almost like the writer's idea of an Utopia where
everyone is forgiven their differences and get to carry big guns in
additon.
The Sprawl Guide for example says that discrimination based upon sex,
sexual orientation, and race is gone- like that is going to happen in
the immoral world that SR assumes with massive gang violence and a
large percentage of the human population abandoned by the elites.

Well, racisim *IS* explicitly still there... it's just meta-human based.

As the core book puts it (I paraphrase, not having books to hand): what
does the skin-color of the guy on your right hand matter, when the guy
on your left is 3 meters tall, with tusks and armored skin?

Given that goblinization cut across all racial/cultural lines, I can see
how it would disrupt all the old "in-groups" & "us-vs-them's" &c...

Post by gleichman
Again we see the mythical noble savage (very PC) throughout the
products with 'native' groups being the first best at magic and taking
back huge chunks of their lands (like they have anything close to the
numbers required just to inhabited those lands, let alone defend them).

Eh. I don't so much have problems here, if you simply note that the
roots of Western power (and taking the land from the natives) were based
on technology and organization, and many of the natives' (attempted)
answers, historically, were based on religion and spirituality. When
a Ghost Dancer was finally able to demonstrate reliable "proof vs. bullets"
to the others on the reservation... it's no wonder they were able to make
HUGE inroads against the forces that persisted in using bullets against
them over and over.

Similarly, they're nature-focused magic, so their shamanic-style magic
& spirits were able to catch the western-style magicians (when the govt
FINALLY got some...) by surprise. But, there are enough western-educated
"hermetic" mages who still are (or sympathize with) the natives that the
same "surprised by a different style" wouldn't apply; lesser, but still
notable, advantage to the natives.

NOTE that it's all backstory -- by the beginning of the game, no such
advantages exist with the native-american shamanic traditions, and any
"nobility" is likewise pretty much gone to corporate infighting.

I *do* note your point about the sheer population issue, in Shadowrun...
I hadn't considered that before, but there IS a certain absurdity there,
eh?

Post by gleichman
And what is this fixation on "The South Shall Rise Again!"?

Errr... the fact that it's a genuine subculture within the South?

The idea that, if things destabilize, there's a natural opportunity
for new power-centers to arise?

[gleichman]

Post by s***@sonic.net

Post by gleichman
Deadlands was the worst offender because it was consistent in it's PC
sweetness. It was suppose to be a Western at its heart, except...
The Civil War was still going on, but the South has free its Slaves and
now treats them as equals.

I'll have to go back to look at the sourcebooks, but I *think* you're
mistaken on this point...

Deadlands Reloaded, page 30: "Let's get this out of the way early - whether
in the North, South, West or somewhere in between, slavery is a thing of the
past".

Deadlands Reloaded, page 31: "By 1879, racism is becoming a thing of the
past in the Weird West"

Post by s***@sonic.net

Post by gleichman
It doesn't matter if your Indian,
Christian, Morman, Islamic, or whatever- you're all Blessed (i.e. have
the option for divine power). Everyone is right, no one is wrong except
the not so subtle undercurrent that whites are evil of course.

Errr... again, this appears mistaken. Sure, Injuns can be Blessed...
if they convert. But mostly, they're shamans, which is different from
Blessed. Can't have both Blessed and the native Shaman powers.

Shaman powers *are* basically blessed powers- they just use a mechanic more
suited to that religion. Something more in line with the actual western
genre would have used a system more like hucksters.

Post by s***@sonic.net
Well, racisim *IS* explicitly still there... it's just meta-human based.

Yes, where it can be 'safely' addressed as a fictional construction. Even
here however, the rules and adventures beat you over the head time and time
again about how Orcs and Trolls and even Ghouls are people too.

Never mind that if you reduce the human life span, vastly increase their
size and strength, hugely up their breeding rates, and have them as prone to
violence as seems to be the case from game fiction- you will without a doubt
produce not only a culture, but individual psychology that differ greatly
from human norm. One that would be in line for full scale war in a matter of
years, not decades for dominance of the world.

Post by s***@sonic.net
As the core book puts it (I paraphrase, not having books to hand): what
does the skin-color of the guy on your right hand matter, when the guy
on your left is 3 meters tall, with tusks and armored skin?

How can no outwardly visible difference result in 6 million deaths for the
Jews, 6 or 7 million more in the Ukraine, etc. etc.?

People don't need much of a reason for hate. And oppression of various
groups in gang areas would be hellish- after all the *entire* point of the
gang is to define and oppose the other.

If western culture drops to the level indicated in SR, there is no way that
the past evils of man would simply disappear in favor of hating the goblin,
unless it was to group together to *kill* the goblin befoe going back to
deal with other older matters.

Post by s***@sonic.net
Eh. I don't so much have problems here, if you simply note that the
roots of Western power (and taking the land from the natives) were based
on technology and organization, and many of the natives' (attempted)
answers, historically, were based on religion and spirituality.

I don't consider this to be valid. Western Culture at the time was very much
a conflict of Spirituality on both sides. It just so happened that one sides
added technology (and numbers) to the conflict.

Besides, if true, where are the in-game modifiers that provide bonuses for
such groups 'racially' attuned to the old ways. They don't appear in the
game. Everyone is equal you see?

I hate systems that claim an advantage for something, and then find it's no
where to be found in the game.

Post by s***@sonic.net
NOTE that it's all backstory -- by the beginning of the game, no such
advantages exist with the native-american shamanic traditions, and any
"nobility" is likewise pretty much gone to corporate infighting.

Depends upon what you read, again the game system is very inconsistent.

Post by s***@sonic.net
Errr... the fact that it's a genuine subculture within the South?

It's more like there's a genuine subculture between high population cities
and suburbs/rural areas. And it seems that Southern culture you speak of was
basically wiped out in the first place or you wouldn't have seen it replaced
by the SR culture.


My point here with both games is that taken in total- they show a
unmistakable PC lean that is my Peeve for the thread. I like game systems
that leave such things up to the individual groups (I want evil Orcs dang
it).

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by gleichman

Post by s***@sonic.net
Well, racisim *IS* explicitly still there... it's just meta-human based.

Yes, where it can be 'safely' addressed as a fictional construction. Even
here however, the rules and adventures beat you over the head time and time
again about how Orcs and Trolls and even Ghouls are people too.

<snippage>

Post by gleichman
My point here with both games is that taken in total- they show a
unmistakable PC lean that is my Peeve for the thread. I like game systems
that leave such things up to the individual groups (I want evil Orcs dang
it).

I certainly agree that utopian PC-ness is rather dumb, especially
given that RPGs, like any stories, need conflict to make them
interesting. The less people (or orcs or ghouls) understand each
other, the more they tend to fear and hate each other seems to be the
rule. And then there's scapegoating of course.

I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Surely it's all a matter of perspective? If the elves are spiritual,
humans material and orcs experiential in their values systems, then
they are each bound to do things the others find at best
incomprehensible and at worst abhorrent, even ignoring competition for
resources and the desperation that can bring.

"Stranger in a Strange Land" comes to mind.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

Post by gleichman

Post by s***@sonic.net
Well, racisim *IS* explicitly still there... it's just meta-human based.

Yes, where it can be 'safely' addressed as a fictional construction. Even
here however, the rules and adventures beat you over the head time and time
again about how Orcs and Trolls and even Ghouls are people too.

<snippage>

Post by gleichman
My point here with both games is that taken in total- they show a
unmistakable PC lean that is my Peeve for the thread. I like game systems
that leave such things up to the individual groups (I want evil Orcs dang
it).

I certainly agree that utopian PC-ness is rather dumb, especially
given that RPGs, like any stories, need conflict to make them
interesting. The less people (or orcs or ghouls) understand each
other, the more they tend to fear and hate each other seems to be the
rule. And then there's scapegoating of course.
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

I don't think it is PC to have a milieu in which there are no sapient
species or races that everyone feels a person can kill on sight and
feel right about it, absent an ongoing war. It may annoy some people to
have to make these decisions but it can also make for a richer game
environment, in my opinion.It isn't necessary to run it that way and I
have played in many campaigns that had kill on sight people but I don't
see much gain in it.

There are player-characters and NPCs in my game world who feel that
killing Goblins, for example, without provocation is fine and dandy but
the reality of the world they live in is that there are Goblins who
livve at peace with human and other neighbors. So they have to deal
with what they think of themselves if they do something like that and
sometimes what those neighbors think of them if it becomes known. There
are situations where it is obvious that these are Goblins you have to
attack. If you are in some areas, the only Goblins you meet will be
Northern Scumbaggi, probably Ear-Eaters at that, and getting the jump
on them would be advisable.

And some of my players over the years have siad "I want evil Orcs dang
it" but they still play in the game. I tell them they can kill any Orc
they see. But we don't have Orcs.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

Post by gleichman
i

Surely it's all a matter of perspective? If the elves are spiritual,
humans material and orcs experiential in their values systems, then
they are each bound to do things the others find at best
incomprehensible and at worst abhorrent, even ignoring competition for
resources and the desperation that can bring.

That is quite correct. The game rules don't have to declare whole
species to be evil for there to be conflict. It's gonna HAPPEN.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
"Stranger in a Strange Land" comes to mind.

? You sure you don't mean <Starship Troopers>?

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by Will in New Haven
I don't think it is PC to have a milieu in which there are no sapient
species or races that everyone feels a person can kill on sight and
feel right about it, absent an ongoing war. It may annoy some people to
have to make these decisions but it can also make for a richer game
environment, in my opinion.It isn't necessary to run it that way and I
have played in many campaigns that had kill on sight people but I don't
see much gain in it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have groups/races that are
considered kill on sight by the PCs' culture, but from a GM-as-god
POV, I think it's still better to be able to see those creatures as
having some justifiable-in-its-own-way world view than to just play
them as if they truly were evil for the sake of being evil.

There is a difference between "mortal enemy" and "evil fiend" after
all.

Post by Will in New Haven
That is quite correct. The game rules don't have to declare whole
species to be evil for there to be conflict. It's gonna HAPPEN.

Indeed. In fact a game in which the PCs come to consider a group
"evil" for their own reasons is probably going to be richer than one
in which they are told "X are evil".

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
"Stranger in a Strange Land" comes to mind.

? You sure you don't mean <Starship Troopers>?

No, Stranger in a Strange Land. It does a great job of setting out a
society in which an individual life has little value - it is the
community as a whole that matters and individuals happily dispose of
themselves for the greater good. Some people would consider that evil
(for not holding life sacrosanct), but SiaSL does a good job of
portraying it as simply different.

[tussock]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Real world evil pretty much is for it's own sake, though I see what
you mean. The issue I'm bumping up against with internal consistancy is
that it's all too ordinary.

Sure, too much testosterone kinda works, but it's just not as
interesting to me as polite creatures who have to "evil" in the same way
a cat has to hunt.
Who cares if their "evil" actions are unpredictable and
inconsistant when being that way makes them a little more creepy.


Not that I use such things for Orcs: better saved for proper
fiends, dragons, tentacled things, and other terribly ancient creatures.
My Orcs are just fearlessly riotous glory hounds, hateful because it
gets them into more fights, cowardly because losing costs them their glory.

[gleichman]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Generally I find that people who "don't buy evil for its own sake" don't
have a clue as to what evil actually is or they wouldn't describe it in such
an inaccurate and dismissive way.

I'll leave it there as I'd rather not debate this point further. This group
isn't Theology 101 after all. Let's just say that the mindset you just
described is very PC to my mind and fits nicely into my pet peeve.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by gleichman

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Generally I find that people who "don't buy evil for its own sake" don't
have a clue as to what evil actually is or they wouldn't describe it in such
an inaccurate and dismissive way.

There IS "evil for its own sake," it just isn't nicely divided so you
can slaugher people on sight. But having it seem that way can be much
simpler.

There are evil actions, evil individuals, evil cultures, evil actions,
evil leaders. All kinds of evil. You don't have to have evil races. Or
maybe you do. Maybe you just have to have it as simple as possible.
Moral ambiguity and tough decisions aren't for everyone.

Post by gleichman
I'll leave it there as I'd rather not debate this point further. This group
isn't Theology 101 after all. Let's just say that the mindset you just
described is very PC to my mind and fits nicely into my pet peeve.

Go ahead and be peeved about it. It's not PC. It's reality. You want
games to model a worldview that makes life very easy.

Will in New Haven

--

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends".Gandalf in <The
Lord of the Rings>

[Irina Rempt]

Post by Will in New Haven
There are evil actions, evil individuals, evil cultures, evil actions,
evil leaders. All kinds of evil. You don't have to have evil races. Or
maybe you do. Maybe you just have to have it as simple as possible.
Moral ambiguity and tough decisions aren't for everyone.

We currently have an evil empire-- at least that's what the PCs and most
if not all of the NPCs thought, because the empire's armies are out to
conquer the world and they're not very civilised about it. Fortunately,
the setting of the game is right at the edge of their action radius, so
they've been beaten back (at least for now).

Now, however, one PC has discovered a group of refugees from the empire:
ex-citizens of that empire itself, driven away because they didn't fit in
the culture. *She* has no trouble believing that these people are not in
fact evil, though they come from the evil culture; she's going to have a
hard time getting others, beginning with her own husband who has spent
all his life up to now fighting them, to believe that.

*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right that
perhaps not everybody does.

(heck, I play NetHack as well)

Irina

[gleichman]

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right that
perhaps not everybody does.

I'm beginning to reach the end of my patience for being called childish and
simple minded by people who have never played in my game.

[Irina Rempt]

Post by gleichman

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right
that perhaps not everybody does.

I'm beginning to reach the end of my patience for being called childish
and simple minded by people who have never played in my game.

If that's addressed to me (i.e. if you think I'm calling you childish and
simple-minded), I don't see how! All I did was say that my players and I
like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions in *our* game. If I
inadvertently hurt you, please accept my (puzzled) apologies.

Irina

[gleichman]

Post by Irina Rempt
If that's addressed to me (i.e. if you think I'm calling you childish and
simple-minded), I don't see how! All I did was say that my players and I
like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions in *our* game. If I
inadvertently hurt you, please accept my (puzzled) apologies.

I'll accept it, after all it's not like I haven't done the same by mistake
to you.

But consider for a moment the impact of what you just said. If "moral
ambiguity and tough decisions" are not suited for my game- what are you
saying is suited about my game? If that doesn't make my objection clear,
let's just drop the matter. I respect you too many to make this a major
fight without real purpose.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that gleichman was not wearing pants when

Post by gleichman

Post by Irina Rempt
If that's addressed to me (i.e. if you think I'm calling you childish and
simple-minded), I don't see how! All I did was say that my players and I
like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions in *our* game. If I
inadvertently hurt you, please accept my (puzzled) apologies.

I'll accept it, after all it's not like I haven't done the same by mistake
to you.
But consider for a moment the impact of what you just said. If "moral
ambiguity and tough decisions" are not suited for my game- what are you
saying is suited about my game? If that doesn't make my objection clear,
let's just drop the matter. I respect you too many to make this a major
fight without real purpose.

Umm... you did notice that the post in question was a reply to Will, not
you, right?

Unless you managed to miss that somehow, I'm having an awfully hard time
seeing why it's such a problem. (And it's not the first time I've seen
you go off like this at a post that seemed innocuous to me.)

[gleichman]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Chances are suprisingly good that gleichman was not wearing pants when

Do you have any idea how stupid that line is when it's the only clue to your
post I have in a two-line preview reader? To say nothing of the lack of
respect it indicates you have for everyone? I've nearly killfiled you a
number of times for it already.

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Umm... you did notice that the post in question was a reply to Will, not
you, right?

Yes I noticed that.

Did you notice my desire to drop the subject?

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Post by gleichman

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Chances are suprisingly good that gleichman was not wearing pants when

Do you have any idea how stupid that line is when it's the only clue to your
post I have in a two-line preview reader? To say nothing of the lack of
respect it indicates you have for everyone? I've nearly killfiled you a
number of times for it already.

The first of these strikes me as a problem with the reader or the
settings, not the intro. As to the second, while I could possibly see
someone finding cutesy intros tiresome or annoying, I have no idea what
you find disrespectful about it (especially given that the only further
reference I've made to it, ever, was a joke at *my own* expense) and
must suspect this is one of those complaints that says more about the
reader than the writer. I can, at any rate, assure you no such
disrespect is intended.

I can't stop you killfiling me if that's the way you want to go, but I
*can* point out that I think such would reveal a lot more about you than
it would about me. You have some very insightful things to say about
RPGs, but I can't help but notice that you seem excessively sensitive in
a lot of your Usenet interactions over the years, routinely (three times
in this thread alone) going off on people for what seems to me to be no
real reason. I'll certainly continue to read your posts, but it's no
real skin off my back if the reverse is not true.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Post by Jeff Heikkinen
The first of these strikes me as a problem with the reader or the
settings, not the intro.

I just realized this could be taken in a way I didn't intend. In *this*
sentence, my "reader" I mean "newsreader software".

[psychohist]

Jeff Heikkinen posts, in part:

As to the second, while I could possibly see
someone finding cutesy intros tiresome or annoying,
I have no idea what you find disrespectful about it ...

I don't know about Brian, but what I find disrespectful about it is
that it speculates on something that (1) is none of your business (2)
based on a complete lack of data.

I understand it's an attempt at humor, but in my opinion it fails badly
in the context of the net. For me it doesn't really go beyond
"tiresome or annoying", but if you're trying to communicate with
people, starting out by annoying them may not be the best strategy.

Warren

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Irina Rempt

Post by gleichman

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right
that perhaps not everybody does.

I'm beginning to reach the end of my patience for being called childish
and simple minded by people who have never played in my game.

If that's addressed to me (i.e. if you think I'm calling you childish and
simple-minded), I don't see how! All I did was say that my players and I
like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions in *our* game. If I
inadvertently hurt you, please accept my (puzzled) apologies.
Irina

He can't be talking to me. He has me killfiled. However, I haven't
called him childish and simple-minded. I have disagreed with him that
people who run games with no kill on sight races are being PC. I have
to admit that RULES that forbid kill on sight races are probably BEING
PC but, not being one to slavishly follow rules when the group doesn't
like them, I don't consider that a problem. I guess I don't play enough
canned settings to think this a problem.

And now he's whining about me when he won't read my response. I have
found much of what he says about gaming quite interesting and useful,
even though I disagree with some of it but he killfiled me after one
exchange of messages or maybe two. If he's so damned sensitive, let him
stew.

Will in New Haven

--

"Pot-Limit has more thinking involved; young people can't think"
Norm Chad

Post by Irina Rempt
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 08-Sep-2006

[Beowulf Bolt]

Post by gleichman

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right
that perhaps not everybody does.

I'm beginning to reach the end of my patience for being called
childish and simple minded by people who have never played in my game.

She wasn't saying anything at all about *your* game. You are reading
an insult in where none were intended. Her reply - to Will, not you -
merely distanced herself from the hypothetical likes and dislikes of a
significant subset of gamers.

Now *Will* *might* have been passing judgement on your game (then
again, he might merely have been speaking broadly in response to you),
but nothing Irina wrote would suggest she was doing so.

Biff

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Irina Rempt
We currently have an evil empire-- at least that's what the PCs and most
if not all of the NPCs thought, because the empire's armies are out to
conquer the world and they're not very civilised about it. Fortunately,
the setting of the game is right at the edge of their action radius, so
they've been beaten back (at least for now).

That sums up the situation in my now-on-eternal-hiatus D&D campaign,
especially as the first inkling that whatever was driving the goblins down
out of the hills was worse than a hard winter was when the first column of
invaders marched through their home village and burned it to the ground
without even offering surrender first (and no, the PCs weren't "just too
late" to save it - they had no chance at all), sparing only girls, women
under the age of 40, and pre-pubescent male children (they were taken away
to be slaves). As the bulk of the army was orcs (a hitherto unknown
race/sub-species), they became viewed as utterly evil and slaughterable on
sight.

Interestingly, one of the PCs initially most determined to wipe the orcs
off the face of the world was the first to actually treat orcs as just
another (albeit somewhat uncivilised) group of people - he accepted an orc
leader as a vassal, and guaranteed the rights if that orc's subordinates
in exchange for overlordship of the town the orcs held. The rest of the
PCs were less than happy with this.

[psychohist]

Irina Rempt posts, in part:

*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right
that perhaps not everybody does.

I like moral ambiguity and tough decisions in my game, too, and my
players haven't objected terribly hard so far. There have been times
when player characters have sided with one or another faction for
reasons pragmatic or personal, even when it wasn't clearly the "right"
thing to do.

On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by psychohist
On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.

This is what I would expect of the typical fantasy world (although yours
isn't typical in many respects) and reflects what's found in my own.

[gleichman]

Post by gleichman

Post by psychohist
On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.

This is what I would expect of the typical fantasy world (although yours
isn't typical in many respects) and reflects what's found in my own.

hmm.

That came out too concise and may have dropped my meaning. I would expect a
mix in the typical fantasy world, as that is what the genre contains. Evil
Orcs, Mislead or foolish humans, Misunderstood Giants, fallen heroes and
redeemed villains. Having one does not remove the others.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right
that perhaps not everybody does.
I like moral ambiguity and tough decisions in my game, too, and my
players haven't objected terribly hard so far. There have been times
when player characters have sided with one or another faction for
reasons pragmatic or personal, even when it wasn't clearly the "right"
thing to do.
On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.
Warren J. Dew

I never said that you SHOULDN'T have evil goblins. I just said that not
having evil goblins, or any species that is always evil is not
necessarily PC. I was responding to a pet peeve. It might just be a
desire to have things be more complex. I have played in lots of games
with a kill on sight enemy. I don't prefer it but it can still be a
great campaign.

In fact, I can think of times and places in my campaign where everyone
involved considered goblins evil. They would have been surprised to see
what was going on a; few hundred miles away or a few years later but,
in that place and time, goblins were evil. There was a human
nation/ethnic group that was a kill on sight enemy until their
God/Emporer was slain. Then they became a scattered, bewildered bunch
of directionless savages.


Will in New Haven

--

"Pot-Limit has more thinking involved; young people can't think"
Norm Chad

[John Morrow]

Post by psychohist
On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.

Yeah, that's always fun to play out the first time. "What do you mean the
goblin is tring to rip my throat out? I raised him from the time he was
an infant, was nice to him, and treated him like my own son!" It's sort
of like the people who keep tigers as pets and then get surprised when
they are suddenly attacked by a several hundred pound beast with sharp
teeth trying to kill them because, well, that's what they do.

John Morrow

[Will in New Haven]

Post by John Morrow

Post by psychohist
On the other hand, I also have evil goblins. Player characters are
welcome to hold the theory that they "are just misunderstood", but if
they investigate the theory in any detail, they'll soon be disabused of
it.

Yeah, that's always fun to play out the first time. "What do you mean the
goblin is tring to rip my throat out? I raised him from the time he was
an infant, was nice to him, and treated him like my own son!" It's sort
of like the people who keep tigers as pets and then get surprised when
they are suddenly attacked by a several hundred pound beast with sharp
teeth trying to kill them because, well, that's what they do.
John Morrow

The peeve that started this thread was that one HAD to have
kill-on-sight enemies except if you were being PC. It is perfectly
possible to have Goblins that meet your description. I just don't think
having them behave differently is PC or harmful to the game.


I find the anology with exotic pets quite a stretch. Goblins are
sapient beings. I think that the experience of people who have adopted
sapient beings has been different than those making pets out of tigers
or raccoons.

We don't, however, have much (if any) experience with non-human sapient
beings. So we can't make the assumption that they must be like humans.
On the other hand, the assumption that they must be like tiger cubs
would be equally invalid.

It would be up to the game designers, for some people, but up to the GM
and the players, ultimately.

Will in New Haven

--


"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends".Gandalf in <The
Lord of the Rings>

[John Morrow]

Post by Will in New Haven
The peeve that started this thread was that one HAD to have
kill-on-sight enemies except if you were being PC. It is perfectly
possible to have Goblins that meet your description. I just don't think
having them behave differently is PC or harmful to the game.

I think that's a misreading of the original complaint.

You are taking one small piece of a much longer and more comprehensive
list of "PC" changes to a setting dealing with all sorts of issues
(including race, slavery, sex, etc.). And the reason why they are
"changes" and noticeable is that these are areas where the game setting is
changed from historical reality or the genre source material.

Much of the fantasy source material does have kill-on-sight enemies, so
the question becomes, "Why did the author of this setting choose to change
them into something different?" What's the purpose of having orcs and
goblins in a setting if they aren't kill-on-sight enemies? Then ask
yourself if that answer sounds PC.

Further, such changes often go hand-in-hand with a removal of "evil for
its own sake" from the humans, as well, in the form of NPCs and groups in
the setting. Why might that be considered PC? In one of the articles
that I posted a link to earlier (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html),
you'll find this quote:

"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists,
sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare
says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's
overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it
-- but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what?
Psychopathy is a mythological construct.' They have political and
social agendas: 'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give
them a hug, a puppy dog, and a musical instrument and they're all
going to be okay.' "

If Hare sounds a little bitter, it's because a decade ago,
Correctional Service of Canada asked him to design a treatment program
for psychopaths, but just after he submitted the plan in 1992, there
were personnel changes at the top of CSC. The new team had a different
agenda, which Hare summarizes as, "We don't believe in the badness of
people." His plan sank without a trace.

If a setting author doesn't "believe in the badness of people" and that's
reflected in the way they write their setting (not only the bad species
but also the humans in the setting and so forth), it can cast a distinct
"PC" shadow over the setting. It is very much how, in the later Star
Treks, that even the Borg had to be come sympathetic creatures that you
could make friends with.

Post by Will in New Haven
I find the anology with exotic pets quite a stretch. Goblins are
sapient beings. I think that the experience of people who have adopted
sapient beings has been different than those making pets out of tigers
or raccoons.

Whether they are sapient or not isn't really relevant. What you may be
missing is that normal humans do not make moral decisions based on
rational thought alone, and that if you damage, change, or remove those
other components (including empathy, a conscience, fairness, etc.) you get
*very* diferent moral decisions. There has been a lot of recent research
into how and why humans make certain more decisions. For more details,
see:

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-04/features/whose-life-would-you-save/

Post by Will in New Haven
We don't, however, have much (if any) experience with non-human sapient
beings. So we can't make the assumption that they must be like humans.
On the other hand, the assumption that they must be like tiger cubs
would be equally invalid.

The problem is that you are turning this into a straw man so you can knock
it down. I am not claiming that sapient beings must be any way. I'm
simply demonstrating that they *can* be very different from normal humans
and *could* all be psychotic, because I was responding to someone who said
that they couldn't buy such a thing existing. I'm explaining how it
*could* exist.

Post by Will in New Haven
It would be up to the game designers, for some people, but up to the GM
and the players, ultimately.

Of course. And that brings us back to *why* the setting author makes the
choices that they make. The source material of the standard fantasy that
much of role-playing draws from (including Shadowrun) includes kill-on-
sight bad guys. So it's as much of a valid question why an author leaves
them out as why they put them in, when dealing with conventional fantasy
races. And as I said above, if the author doesn't believe in the badness
of people or can't imagine imagine a sapient being that is evil for its
own sake, then that's going to cast a shadow over the setting, thus the
charge that the setting is "PC".

John Morrow

[Will in New Haven]

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
The peeve that started this thread was that one HAD to have
kill-on-sight enemies except if you were being PC. It is perfectly
possible to have Goblins that meet your description. I just don't think
having them behave differently is PC or harmful to the game.

I think that's a misreading of the original complaint.
You are taking one small piece of a much longer and more comprehensive
list of "PC" changes to a setting dealing with all sorts of issues
(including race, slavery, sex, etc.). And the reason why they are
"changes" and noticeable is that these are areas where the game setting is
changed from historical reality or the genre source material.
Much of the fantasy source material does have kill-on-sight enemies, so
the question becomes, "Why did the author of this setting choose to change
them into something different?" What's the purpose of having orcs and
goblins in a setting if they aren't kill-on-sight enemies? Then ask
yourself if that answer sounds PC.

That's a good point. Part of the problem here is that I don't use
someone else's setting. I imagine some people do make PC changes for
published game settings. I just don't think that the lack of
kill-on-sight enemies in a campaign is a bad thing. In my campaign, for
instance, we don't have Orcs and Goblins are not always kill-on-sight
enemies, depending on where you are and who you are and I don't think
that this is for PC reasons. Some societies in my setting have slavery,
the status of women ranges from fairly modern to decidedly UN-PC. The
idea of being politically correct never came up.

Post by John Morrow
Further, such changes often go hand-in-hand with a removal of "evil for
its own sake" from the humans, as well, in the form of NPCs and groups in
the setting. Why might that be considered PC? In one of the articles
that I posted a link to earlier (http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html),
"There's still a lot of opposition -- some criminologists,
sociologists, and psychologists don't like psychopathy at all," Hare
says. "I can spend the entire day going through the literature -- it's
overwhelming, and unless you're semi-brain-dead you're stunned by it
-- but a lot of people come out of there and say, 'So what?
Psychopathy is a mythological construct.' They have political and
social agendas: 'People are inherently good,' they say. 'Just give
them a hug, a puppy dog, and a musical instrument and they're all
going to be okay.' "
If Hare sounds a little bitter, it's because a decade ago,
Correctional Service of Canada asked him to design a treatment program
for psychopaths, but just after he submitted the plan in 1992, there
were personnel changes at the top of CSC. The new team had a different
agenda, which Hare summarizes as, "We don't believe in the badness of
people." His plan sank without a trace.
If a setting author doesn't "believe in the badness of people" and that's
reflected in the way they write their setting (not only the bad species
but also the humans in the setting and so forth), it can cast a distinct
"PC" shadow over the setting. It is very much how, in the later Star
Treks, that even the Borg had to be come sympathetic creatures that you
could make friends with.

That is objectionable. I don't think a campaign without evil
individuals, tribes, nations or cults would be very interesting. I do
happen to think that a campaign without kill-on-sight enemies who can
be easily distinguished by species, or race if you will, may have the
potential to be more interesting, not that it necessarily will be. I
have played in settings WITH kill-on-sight enemies that were fine but I
prefer the other.

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
I find the anology with exotic pets quite a stretch. Goblins are
sapient beings. I think that the experience of people who have adopted
sapient beings has been different than those making pets out of tigers
or raccoons.

Whether they are sapient or not isn't really relevant. What you may be
missing is that normal humans do not make moral decisions based on
rational thought alone, and that if you damage, change, or remove those
other components (including empathy, a conscience, fairness, etc.) you get
*very* diferent moral decisions. There has been a lot of recent research
into how and why humans make certain more decisions. For more details,
http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-04/features/whose-life-would-you-save/

Post by Will in New Haven
We don't, however, have much (if any) experience with non-human sapient
beings. So we can't make the assumption that they must be like humans.
On the other hand, the assumption that they must be like tiger cubs
would be equally invalid.

The problem is that you are turning this into a straw man so you can knock
it down. I am not claiming that sapient beings must be any way. I'm
simply demonstrating that they *can* be very different from normal humans
and *could* all be psychotic, because I was responding to someone who said
that they couldn't buy such a thing existing. I'm explaining how it
*could* exist.

I am not claiming that they couldn't. I am saying that a setting where
no group can be ASSUMED to be like that is just as reasonable as one
where some can be.

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
It would be up to the game designers, for some people, but up to the GM
and the players, ultimately.

Of course. And that brings us back to *why* the setting author makes the
choices that they make. The source material of the standard fantasy that
much of role-playing draws from (including Shadowrun) includes kill-on-
sight bad guys. So it's as much of a valid question why an author leaves
them out as why they put them in, when dealing with conventional fantasy
races. And as I said above, if the author doesn't believe in the badness
of people or can't imagine imagine a sapient being that is evil for its
own sake, then that's going to cast a shadow over the setting, thus the
charge that the setting is "PC".

That's a good point. I happen to believe in evil but I have seen rather
little of it in my life. My campaigns over the years have abounded with
evil and I would have a difficult time using a setting that lacked it.
On the other hand, I don't use published settings and right now no one
I game with does either. So it is rather moot. I occasionally read
published settings for entertainment and information (ie to mine for
ideas) and the most recent is the one based on GRR Martin's series.
There is no lack of evil there.

Will in New Haven

--

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983

Post by John Morrow
John Morrow

[Del Rio]

Post by Will in New Haven
I game with does either. So it is rather moot. I occasionally read
published settings for entertainment and information (ie to mine for
ideas) and the most recent is the one based on GRR Martin's series.
There is no lack of evil there.

What alignment is Jaime Lannister? How about Sandor Clegane?

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Del Rio

Post by Will in New Haven
I game with does either. So it is rather moot. I occasionally read
published settings for entertainment and information (ie to mine for
ideas) and the most recent is the one based on GRR Martin's series.
There is no lack of evil there.

What alignment is Jaime Lannister? How about Sandor Clegane?

They don't map to D&D alignments but no one does. Gregor might be
chaotic evil, I suppose. Jaime seems to be in the process of
redemption, although I have my doubts, and Sandor is dead or mostly
dead for the moment. Jaime's sister is evil and so was his father.
Dany's brother was evil. The Iron Islanders have an evil culture and so
do the Dothraki.I think Cat was very close to evil, although she was on
the side of good when she was alive.

There's plenty of evil in those books but it isn't simple and people
are shown to change over time. Great books.

Will in New Haven

--

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983

Post by Del Rio
--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[John Morrow]

Post by Del Rio
What alignment is Jaime Lannister? How about Sandor Clegane?

Jaime Lannister? Lawful Neutral. Sandor Clegane? Offhand, I'd say Lawful
Neutral or possibly True Neutral.

John Morrow

[John Morrow]

Post by Will in New Haven
That's a good point. Part of the problem here is that I don't use
someone else's setting. I imagine some people do make PC changes for
published game settings.

Well, that's what the peeve was in reference to. When it's your GM's
homebrew setting, you can always have a talk with him or her if you don't
like an element of the setting. The presence or absence of kill-on-sight
bad guys as well as the contexts in which heroic good guys are able to
kill is a common discussion my group has before a GM runs a campaign.

Post by Will in New Haven
I just don't think that the lack of kill-on-sight enemies in a campaign
is a bad thing.

It's not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on why it's done and what
the players want.

Post by Will in New Haven
In my campaign, for instance, we don't have Orcs and Goblins are not
always kill-on-sight enemies, depending on where you are and who you are
and I don't think that this is for PC reasons.

What are the reasons why (A) you have Orcs and Goblins in the setting and
(B) why they are not kill-on-sight enemies, then?

Post by Will in New Haven
That is objectionable. I don't think a campaign without evil
individuals, tribes, nations or cults would be very interesting. I do
happen to think that a campaign without kill-on-sight enemies who can
be easily distinguished by species, or race if you will, may have the
potential to be more interesting, not that it necessarily will be. I
have played in settings WITH kill-on-sight enemies that were fine but I
prefer the other.

I think that a setting can be interesting, tough, complex, or whatever
either with or without kill-on-sight enemies. It's all a matter of how
those elements are used.

But I am left wondering the purpose of things like orcs and goblins in a
setting if they are not kill-on-site enemies. Are they simply different
looking humans that are pretty much just like humans in every other way?
If so, why include them and not just make them humans? And if they
different, what's their purpose?

Post by Will in New Haven
I am not claiming that they couldn't. I am saying that a setting where
no group can be ASSUMED to be like that is just as reasonable as one
where some can be.

Sure. But the reason why a group can be assumed to be kill-on-site can
very well be "PC", though it doesn't necessarily have to be. Again, the
original peeve that started this line of discussion was not simply about
this one point but a whole series of elements that pointed to that
diagnosis for the settings in question.

John Morrow

[Will in New Haven]

<snipped>

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
In my campaign, for instance, we don't have Orcs and Goblins are not
always kill-on-sight enemies, depending on where you are and who you are
and I don't think that this is for PC reasons.

What are the reasons why (A) you have Orcs and Goblins in the setting and
(B) why they are not kill-on-sight enemies, then?

I must have worded that badly. I don't have Orcs because they are
beings warped by an evil force and part of a particular work of
fiction. They don't have any place in my campaign because Melkor,
Sauron and Saruman aren't in my campaign. I love and admire LotR but I
didn't intend to model my campaign on it. I am sure I had Orcs in the
first campaign I ran in my setting, back around 1978, but they didn't
last past the Great Retcon of 1980, when I created a backstory and
cosmology of my campaign.

Goblins are there because they were formed from the flesh of the First
Giant, as were Giants, Ogres, Men, Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves. As the
First Giant, who was created by the God Who Went Away, was technically
immortal, none of these species (or races, if you will) can ever be
completely destroyed. Trolls, the First People, were created by two of
the Latter Gods, to aid in the struggle against tGWWA, are NOT
technically immortal. So there is some hope of getting rid of them,
especially since most of the Latter Gods find them aesthetically
unpleasing.

Goblins came under the care of several of the Latter Gods and their
nature reflects the Gods who care for them. They got a bad lot, on the
whole. Some of them are ruled by the Trolls and serve the Troll Gods.
Several tribes serve Vishilak, the Tiger God. He is one of the more
active of the Latter Gods and one of the most cruel and evil entities
in the setting. The rest serve three Latter Gods who became bitter when
they were assigned such inferior people. However, the Gods did not,
although they could have, make what we would call "genetic" changes to
make Goblins evil. The Latter Gods tend to be somewhat lazy and depend
heavily on just giving orders and having people carry them out. They
guide Goblin societies and most of what they do make Goblin societies
evil. However, some Goblins have come under the influence of others of
the Latter Gods or even of the New Churches and those Goblins have only
their cultural heritage to overcome.

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
That is objectionable. I don't think a campaign without evil
individuals, tribes, nations or cults would be very interesting. I do
happen to think that a campaign without kill-on-sight enemies who can
be easily distinguished by species, or race if you will, may have the
potential to be more interesting, not that it necessarily will be. I
have played in settings WITH kill-on-sight enemies that were fine but I
prefer the other.

I think that a setting can be interesting, tough, complex, or whatever
either with or without kill-on-sight enemies. It's all a matter of how
those elements are used.
But I am left wondering the purpose of things like orcs and goblins in a
setting if they are not kill-on-site enemies. Are they simply different
looking humans that are pretty much just like humans in every other way?
If so, why include them and not just make them humans? And if they
different, what's their purpose?

The differences, besides which Gods they serve, are quite major.
Goblins, in my setting, are binary in a sense. One is born destined to
be big, strong, swift and fierce or small, clever, and devious. There
are very few who fit in between, almost none. Almost no one is average.
On the plains, most of the children born, to any couple, will be the
bigger variety. In the (silly but part of the setting) vast cavern
systems beneath the earth, almost every baby born will be the latter
variety. In the swamps and the forests, you will get more of a mix. The
big ones, called Hobgoblins because of game convention, know that the
small ones are smarter and that they will be better off having the
small ones make the decisions but it is grating and they don't like it.
The small ones are often mages or priests, occasionally thieves. The
large ones are usually scouts and hunters, sometimes simply fighters.

Particular Goblin societies, most of them, are kill-on-sight enemies
and there are areas where one can assume that any Goblin one meets will
fit that mold. Others are people you can deal with if you exercise
care. A few are citizens of human-ruled lands under the Gods of those
lands and under the law of those lands.

A few Player Characters have been Goblins, one, Krunch Muskrat, driven
from his people because he was a 'tweener, too big to be a one thing
and too small to be another. His "people," besides exiling tweeners,
had some other nasty customs but they didn't have much contact with
other sapients, so he wasn't killed on sight when he got to Sugartown
on the edge of his home swamp. For the rest of his life, he had many
problems convincing Elves and Dwarves, who have more traditional
attitudes toward Goblins than their Human neighbors, that they should
put up with him. However, he made a name for himself for courage and
loyalty among the people he worked with. I would have, had we used
alignments, called him Lawful Neutral because of his strong feelings of
loyalty and honor, before he came under the influence of the cult of
Sword-Randl, a Latter God who was the god of law and soldiers in the
local pantheon. Then he became lawful-good. However, using your other
post as an example, I doubt if he would have returned anything on a
"detect good" spell as he was not that extreme.

Post by John Morrow

Post by Will in New Haven
I am not claiming that they couldn't. I am saying that a setting where
no group can be ASSUMED to be like that is just as reasonable as one
where some can be.

Sure. But the reason why a group can be assumed to be kill-on-site can
very well be "PC", though it doesn't necessarily have to be. Again, the
original peeve that started this line of discussion was not simply about
this one point but a whole series of elements that pointed to that
diagnosis for the settings in question.

I probably wouldn't like that setting either and that might be part of
the reason. For the most part, I find PC reasoning for fiction and
gaming a very poor substitute for logic and creativity.

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

Post by John Morrow
John Morrow

[David Meadows]

Post by Will in New Haven
I don't have Orcs because they are
beings warped by an evil force and part of a particular work of
fiction. They don't have any place in my campaign because Melkor,
Sauron and Saruman aren't in my campaign. I love and admire LotR but I
didn't intend to model my campaign on it.

[...]

Post by Will in New Haven
Goblins are there because they were formed from the flesh of the First
Giant, as were Giants, Ogres, Men, Hobbits,

Does not compute...

[Will in New Haven]

Post by David Meadows

Post by Will in New Haven
I don't have Orcs because they are
beings warped by an evil force and part of a particular work of
fiction. They don't have any place in my campaign because Melkor,
Sauron and Saruman aren't in my campaign. I love and admire LotR but I
didn't intend to model my campaign on it.

[...]

Post by Will in New Haven
Goblins are there because they were formed from the flesh of the First
Giant, as were Giants, Ogres, Men, Hobbits,

Does not compute...

Just another creation mythos. I wouldn't have left Hobbits in, if truth
be told, but there had been some important Hobbit PCs and the people
who had played them were active in the game. And friends of mine.

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

Post by David Meadows
--
David Meadows
"I never need to watch my opponents when I fight. My
power takes care of that." -- Sara, Heroes issue 39
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[Del Rio]

Post by John Morrow
If a setting author doesn't "believe in the badness of people" and that's
reflected in the way they write their setting (not only the bad species
but also the humans in the setting and so forth), it can cast a distinct
"PC" shadow over the setting. It is very much how, in the later Star
Treks, that even the Borg had to be come sympathetic creatures that you
could make friends with.

Although I realize that this brenach of the conversation has
veered onto far more philosophical topics, I'd just like to
point out that while I believe in the potential badness of
people (or, let's say "intelligent beings"), I can't stand
"alignment" as a mystic aura that people radiate, that tells
anyone with access to some simple low level spells whether
they're trustworthy or not.

It's really not much different from my problem with "Detect
Lie".

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
I can't stand
"alignment" as a mystic aura that people radiate, that tells
anyone with access to some simple low level spells whether
they're trustworthy or not.

I agree with you on this point. Even in the far distant past when I played
D&D, we quickly altered such magics to only work on mystical creatures-
never simple humans and the like. It remains that way to this day in AoH.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
I can't stand
"alignment" as a mystic aura that people radiate, that tells
anyone with access to some simple low level spells whether
they're trustworthy or not.

I agree with you on this point. Even in the far distant past when I played
D&D, we quickly altered such magics to only work on mystical creatures-
never simple humans and the like. It remains that way to this day in AoH.

Yeah that's exactly what I did. The only things that radiate
the actual Alignment "aura" in my campaigns are supernatural
creatures, or people who have aligned themselves very strongly
with such (like Paladins, for example).

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
Yeah that's exactly what I did. The only things that radiate
the actual Alignment "aura" in my campaigns are supernatural
creatures, or people who have aligned themselves very strongly
with such (like Paladins, for example).

Throwing Detect Good on a Paladin is like throwing Detect Expensive on a
Saleen S7.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
Yeah that's exactly what I did. The only things that radiate
the actual Alignment "aura" in my campaigns are supernatural
creatures, or people who have aligned themselves very strongly
with such (like Paladins, for example).

Throwing Detect Good on a Paladin is like throwing Detect Expensive on a
Saleen S7.

Yeah most of the time. ;-)

But maybe he was in shackles and rags, and he just "told" you
he was a Paladin unfairly imprisoned by the local lord. Is he
really, or is he a Rogue pulling a bluff on you? See, I find
it more fun without detectable alignments, because now you have
to try to figure out whether to believe him or not, without the
benefit of unassailable truth.

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
But maybe he was in shackles and rags, and he just "told" you
he was a Paladin unfairly imprisoned by the local lord.

To draw on a non-Middle Earth example, it wouldn't matter if the Paladin was
an illiterate French farm girl, it would be become plain to any who didn't
refuse to see.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
But maybe he was in shackles and rags, and he just "told" you
he was a Paladin unfairly imprisoned by the local lord.

To draw on a non-Middle Earth example, it wouldn't matter if the Paladin was
an illiterate French farm girl, it would be become plain to any who didn't
refuse to see.

Yeah I mostly agree. Paladins are the ones who feel the True
Calling and it would be writ plain on their faces.

But actually I plan to allow *any* God to call Paladins.
Listing them by their domains:

god of war, justice - most like what would be thought of as
"typical" Paladins
goddess of mercy, healing - like the (early) Knights
Hospitallers, running shelters and charity houses
god of knowledge, wisdom - mostly act as councelors,
diplomats, etc.

Still trying to figure out what the Paladins of the fertility
goddess would be like. The Knights Bordellars? ;-)

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
But actually I plan to allow *any* God to call Paladins.

I have a hard time linking the term Paladin to any non-monotheistic setting.
Another thing to blame D&D for for...

I like the term Champion better as that is what such servants would be,
especially given the flaws typically in the gods of various pantheons.
Aways an interesting experiment, however one must wonder at the difference
between a Cleric and Paladin for some of these domains, what use does a
goddess of mercy and healing have for a divine warrior? It would seem to me
that asking her brother war-god for some smack down is more fitting than
picking and sending her own champion.

Post by Del Rio
Still trying to figure out what the Paladins of the fertility
goddess would be like. The Knights Bordellars? ;-)

I once spent a couple of weekends going to a D&D group, upon arrivial I
rolled up a Paladin. I was then handed a copy of Deities & Demigods to pick
my patron from and it had to be Norse or one other I've forgotten. This
caused me a great deal of puzzlement at first as I attempted to fit a round
peg into the square hole.

I created something of stir when I selected Freya.

[w***@mit.edu]

Speaking of political correctness, part of what bugs me is the
COMBINATION of characters that are Good with a capital G, meaning they
act in a benevolent manner to all other (non-evil) races and religions
and cultures, but they can treat a small subset of
races/religions/cultures as "evil" and kill and rob from those groups
at will. It's sortof a wierd half-assed political correctness. If we
ditched political correctness entirely, then "good" characters would
probally treat other members of their race, religion, and/or culture
with kindness, and all other races on a sliding scale of racist
distrust. Races like orcs could be "objectively" evil or just
misunderstood, but it wouldn't matter, because humans would treat them
the same either way as long as orcs had a reputation for being evil. IF
we embraced political correctness, then we shouldn't have objectively
evil foes. Multiculturally good characters would always at first try to
solve the problems with orcs and goblins peacefully, and
sometimes/oftentimes they should succeed.

But the DnD half-way approach is just feels obviously contrived to
rationalize certain gameplay without a serious regard to internal
consistency. Sure, I can come up with rationalizations for it, but at
this point the Willful part of Willful Suspension of Dibelief is gone
for me.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
But actually I plan to allow *any* God to call Paladins.

I have a hard time linking the term Paladin to any non-monotheistic setting.
Another thing to blame D&D for for...
I like the term Champion better as that is what such servants would be,
especially given the flaws typically in the gods of various pantheons.

Well, I'm not going to get too hung up on terminology, Champion
is as good a name as any. Frankly I don't much like calling
people by their character class, anyway: in-game they're called
by their social station. So the "Paladin" will probably be
called "Knight", as many fighters are also called "Knight"
if they're of noble birth or serve an institution that has
dubbed them (or "armsman" if they're not).

Post by gleichman
Aways an interesting experiment, however one must wonder at the difference
between a Cleric and Paladin for some of these domains, what use does a
goddess of mercy and healing have for a divine warrior?

Think of the Knights Hospitallers and their devotion to the
Virgin. They ran hospices and wayhouses, they promoted
charity, they protected the faithful in foreign lands, etc.
They were defenders of the faith, shield of the helpless...
these are terms right out of the medieval knightly codes.

Post by gleichman
It would seem to me
that asking her brother war-god for some smack down is more fitting than
picking and sending her own champion.

Well, I'm allowing all gods to call military champions to them
to promote their causes. Especially since this is the pantheon
of a particularly militaristic society, where knighthood is
supposed to represent all the highest ideals of the society.
Not to mention that the chief of the pantheon is a war god.
Some gods of other pantheons might be more pacifistic.

But lets face it, the goddess of bounty and the harvest
probably just isn't going to call a lot of knights to champion
her faith. But I'm not disallowing it, and I think it would be
wildly entertaining if someone took up that particular
roleplaying gauntlet. ;-)

Frankly if the Paladin class proves too deeply ingrained with
the Arthurian mythology, I may have to abandon much of this
idea.

Post by gleichman
I once spent a couple of weekends going to a D&D group, upon arrivial I
rolled up a Paladin. I was then handed a copy of Deities & Demigods to pick
my patron from and it had to be Norse or one other I've forgotten. This
caused me a great deal of puzzlement at first as I attempted to fit a round
peg into the square hole.
I created something of stir when I selected Freya.

Yeah, my Norse analogs don't have Paladins, their society isn't
built around a Knightly ideal. *Their* societal ideal is the
skin changing berserk warrior, whose goal is to die gloriously
in battle and have epic songs sung about his exploits. All
warriors of this ethos have a totem animal, and the highest
eschelon are the ones who actually have the ability to
transform into their totem animal.

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
Well, I'm not going to get too hung up on terminology, Champion
is as good a name as any.

Names matter, by calling something different- you can make people actually
feel it's different because it forces them to jettison their existing image.

Post by Del Rio
Frankly I don't much like calling
people by their character class, anyway: in-game they're called
by their social station.

The best classes are those where the class name and profession match.

As a sidenote, there is something to be said for a Paladin not taking that
title themselves in certain world views. Joan of Arc's answer to the
question about her being in God's Grace for example. A fictional example
would be Michael from the Dresden Files series.

Post by Del Rio
Frankly if the Paladin class proves too deeply ingrained with
the Arthurian mythology, I may have to abandon much of this
idea.

Slight nitpick, Paladins are less Arthurian than they are Roland.

[John Morrow]

Post by Del Rio
Think of the Knights Hospitallers and their devotion to the
Virgin. They ran hospices and wayhouses, they promoted
charity, they protected the faithful in foreign lands, etc.
They were defenders of the faith, shield of the helpless...
these are terms right out of the medieval knightly codes.

I seem to remember that the basic Cleric is a combat-oriented character
modeled after Medieval military-religious orders (which is why there are
so many quasi-Christian elements in that class). That's why their combat
progression and hit points are so good. So in a way, the vanilla Cleric
is already a defender of the faith, shield of the helpless, and so on.
The Paladin was designed to be a very special type of paragon of Good and
not a generic type of religious warrior.

John Morrow

[Del Rio]

Post by John Morrow

Post by Del Rio
Think of the Knights Hospitallers and their devotion to the
Virgin. They ran hospices and wayhouses, they promoted
charity, they protected the faithful in foreign lands, etc.
They were defenders of the faith, shield of the helpless...
these are terms right out of the medieval knightly codes.

I seem to remember that the basic Cleric is a combat-oriented character
modeled after Medieval military-religious orders (which is why there are
so many quasi-Christian elements in that class). That's why their combat
progression and hit points are so good. So in a way, the vanilla Cleric
is already a defender of the faith, shield of the helpless, and so on.

Fighting Priests occupy a different place in the social order
than Knights. The society in my campaign that I'm discussing
in this thread is derived from c.1200 England and France.

Post by John Morrow
The Paladin was designed to be a very special type of paragon of Good and
not a generic type of religious warrior.

Yes, I know that. The Paladin was the very paragon of the
"knight as holy warrior" in real world legend, and the D&D
Paladin was modeled on that, thus the Judeo-Christian slant in
his ethos and abilities. What I'm saying is that in a
non-christian D&D campaign, the concept of a "holy warrior"
could take very different shapes, dependant on what god his
knighthood was consecrated to. And in a society where
Knighthood was the highest societal ideal, any god of the
pantheon might have Knights to serve him/her.

Also, Good and Evil aren't really strongly represented concepts
in this campaign. Except for undead and certain other
supernatural entities, there will really be little that would
set off a "Detect Evil".

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by gleichman
I once spent a couple of weekends going to a D&D group, upon arrivial I
rolled up a Paladin. I was then handed a copy of Deities & Demigods to pick
my patron from and it had to be Norse or one other I've forgotten. This
caused me a great deal of puzzlement at first as I attempted to fit a round
peg into the square hole.
I created something of stir when I selected Freya.

Why? Because she's not lawful, or because she's usually taken to be a
goddess of fertility? ISTR that Freya has a hall filled with warriors,
just like Valhalla, so I'd have no problem with it (in fact, in our last
D&D game for a while I played a priestess of Freya who took the War domain).

[John Morrow]

Post by Del Rio
Although I realize that this brenach of the conversation has
veered onto far more philosophical topics, I'd just like to
point out that while I believe in the potential badness of
people (or, let's say "intelligent beings"), I can't stand
"alignment" as a mystic aura that people radiate, that tells
anyone with access to some simple low level spells whether
they're trustworthy or not.

Before I ran my D&D campaign, I spent time deciding what I wanted out of
the alignment system and the Detect spells. I think the key to making the
alignment system work for me was determing that most normal people, acting
largely out of self interest, would be Neutral. In order to be Good, a
person had to essentially be saintly and to be Evil, a person had to be
cruel and/or murderous (similar to the Exalted and Vile categories).
This largely agrees with the definitions of Good, Neutral, and Evil
provided by the SRD and PHB (though not perfectly).

Thus a person who radiated a Good aura was essentially uncorruptable and a
person who radiated an Evil aura was essentially irredeemable. Between
those lines, most people were Neutral and had no Aura. Thus the low level
spell tells you if you are dealing with a saint or a psychopath but not
necessarily whether you are dealing with a person who donates money to
feed orphans or a person who killed someone else for their money. In
other words, if you keep Neutral wide in D&D, you can have black, gray,
and white rather than just black and white morality.

John Morrow

[gleichman]

Post by John Morrow
Thus a person who radiated a Good aura was essentially uncorruptable and a
person who radiated an Evil aura was essentially irredeemable. Between
those lines, most people were Neutral and had no Aura.

This brings up another pet peeve of mine. The assumption that Good/Evil = =
Ying/Yang, or that they are opposite forces in balance. Protection from Good
my foot.

D&D is such a horrid mix of Christian and non-Christain concepts, it does
nothing but a disservice to both.

[John Morrow]

Post by gleichman
This brings up another pet peeve of mine. The assumption that Good/Evil = =
Ying/Yang, or that they are opposite forces in balance. Protection from Good
my foot.

Within the cosmology of my D&D game, Protection from Good wasn't really a
problem because the Good religion was playing a very different game than
the Neutral religions or the Evil religions. Yeah, Evil clerics had the
same sorts of spells that Good clerics had and Druids had lots of power,
too, but that didn't mean that Good and Evil were equal and opposite
forces in balance, nor did it mean that the Neutral religions were on the
same level. They were playing to very different goals.

Post by gleichman
D&D is such a horrid mix of Christian and non-Christain concepts, it does
nothing but a disservice to both.

Well, that's a common problem all over the place, including movies. I
still wonder where the heck the chanting American Indians came from in the
movie _The Prophecy_, a movie otherwise about Angels and a quasi-Judeo-
Christian cosmology.

I do think it's possible to mix Christian and non-Christian concepts if
it's done thoughtfully. I thinkt he reason why D&D's mix sometimes seems
so horrid is that it wasn't done thoughtfully.

My D&D cosmology was designed to contain the elements required or implied
by D&D's magic system, monster list, and so on and does include a mix of
Judeo-Christain, Greek, Neo-Pagan, Buddhist, and so on elements. But I
essentially placed them in the context of a larger cosmology that each of
the religions has different a perspective on and made some of the larger
questions about the core cosmology unknown and unknowable so that they
could remain issues of faith. I also compartmentalized them so that many
of the different religions operated at different levels of scope. I
didn't simply toss everything into a blender to see how it would stick.

If I had to do it over again, there are certainly things that I need to
revise. But overall, I think it worked pretty well. I did get some
complex philosophical debates out of the characters based on their
sometimes different perspectives. So I do think it's possible to mix
elements from different religious sources so long as it's done
thoughtfully and with a big picture in mind. Tossing elements into a
blender because they look cool just produces a mess.

John Morrow

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by John Morrow
Thus a person who radiated a Good aura was essentially uncorruptable and a
person who radiated an Evil aura was essentially irredeemable. Between
those lines, most people were Neutral and had no Aura.

This brings up another pet peeve of mine. The assumption that Good/Evil = =
Ying/Yang, or that they are opposite forces in balance. Protection from Good
my foot.

Yes, and another peeve: nobody, except maybe insane people,
have ever been committed to the cause of "Evil" as some kind of
abstract ideal. Alignments are a nice shorthand for keeping
track of how NPCs should be behaving. Thinking of them as some
kind of universal forces, locked in eternal conflict is
just... dumb.

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by John Morrow
The problem is that you are turning this into a straw man so you can knock
it down. I am not claiming that sapient beings must be any way. I'm
simply demonstrating that they *can* be very different from normal humans
and *could* all be psychotic, because I was responding to someone who said
that they couldn't buy such a thing existing. I'm explaining how it
*could* exist.

That would be me. But by not buying evil for its own sake, I didn't
mean that I didn't believe in evil at all. I understand psychopathy.
What I meant is that I find it hard to believe in evil as a conscious
goal, especially for a whole race.

I don't buy the old fantasy schtick of races or other groups setting
out with the explicit intention of "being evil". I can understand
them setting out with some other goal in mind and being evil along the
way, because that's what they do, but the whole "My demon god tells me
to advance the cause of evil" thing just doesn't ring true.

What is to be gained by making the world more evil? I guess if you
get into fantasy metaphysics, like demons that feed off evil, it could
make sense. But if evil is just evil, and not some metaphysical
currency, what's the pointing of making more of it?

[John Morrow]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
That would be me. But by not buying evil for its own sake, I didn't
mean that I didn't believe in evil at all. I understand psychopathy.
What I meant is that I find it hard to believe in evil as a conscious
goal, especially for a whole race.

For the psychopath, evil (to the extent that "evil" means intentionally
causing pain and death in others toward no other mitigating goal) really
is often their conscious goal. There are psychopaths who clearly tell
those trying to treat them in prison that they like being the way they
are, enjoy hurting other people, and if they are let go, they will go
right back out and hurt other people. They don't think of themselves as
good. To the extent that "good" and "evil" have any meaning to them (they
understand what others mean by it), they understand that they are evil and
are quite happy with that.

And once it's possible to have individuals who think that way, I don't
think it's impossible to imagine an entire species of sentients that
thinks that way.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I don't buy the old fantasy schtick of races or other groups setting
out with the explicit intention of "being evil". I can understand
them setting out with some other goal in mind and being evil along the
way, because that's what they do, but the whole "My demon god tells me
to advance the cause of evil" thing just doesn't ring true.

It's really simple: They enjoy hurting and killing people. And they have
no conscience or guilt so they don't feel bad about what they've done
afterward. That they enjoy it and can get away with it is enough reason
to do it. They don't need a better reason or bigger goal.

Do you think people really need more than that?

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
What is to be gained by making the world more evil? I guess if you
get into fantasy metaphysics, like demons that feed off evil, it could
make sense. But if evil is just evil, and not some metaphysical
currency, what's the pointing of making more of it?

While I think the assumption of that question is flawed (it assumes that
the purpose of evil is to make the world more evil -- it's often simply to
do evil, then and there, without regard for the big picture), there is a
very simple answer to that question to explain why evil creatures might
work together to further the influence and power of the evil perspective.
What is gained by making the world more evil is more opportunity to do
evil things to others without fear of retribution from those who would
organize to fight evil, either because they have been eliminated or
because they are busy fighting other evils.

John Morrow

[Del Rio]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I don't buy the old fantasy schtick of races or other groups setting
out with the explicit intention of "being evil".

Even Tolkien, who a lot of people point to as the wellspring of
the whole "Epic Clash of Good & Evil" fantasy paradigm, didn't
really have Good and Evil as some kind of cosmological
absolutes that each side adhered to. Melkor, who can be
pointed to as the source of "Evil" was actually first guilty of
hubris, and then of jealousy and resentment. He created the
"Evil" races twisted, like himself, hating the brightness and
beauty of the other races. They weren't committed to any kind
of abstract cause of Evil - what made them evil was that they
were full of bitterness and venom toward the other races. The
idea of turning these things into some sort of cosmological
absolutes that people serve because they're committed to them
as abstract ideals was a dumb thing to do in 1st Ed AD&D, and
it hasn't improved with time.

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
Melkor, who can be
pointed to as the source of "Evil" was actually first guilty of
hubris, and then of jealousy and resentment.

We're getting into Theology 101. Basically what you're doing here is
breaking down elements of Evil, and doing that does not magically make it go
away- it only helps to bring into human terms.



Doing Evil for the sake of hubris is doing evil for the sake of evil. Doing
evil for the sake of jealousy is doing evil for the sake of evil. And so on.

Post by Del Rio
He created the
"Evil" races twisted, like himself, hating the brightness and
beauty of the other races.

Melkor did no such thing for he was incapable of creating life the same way
Aule was incapable of creating life.



Instead he modeled soulless automations upon actually the creations. Much
like the dwarves before Ea give them true life- they could only and always
obey his will. Beyond that they had no true existence. Indeed, it seems that
Melkor in at least some cases diminished himself by passing a part of his
own being into his pawns such that they could act outside his direct
command- little soul shards as it were of his corrupted nature sent into the
world.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
Melkor, who can be
pointed to as the source of "Evil" was actually first guilty of
hubris, and then of jealousy and resentment.

We're getting into Theology 101. Basically what you're doing here is
breaking down elements of Evil, and doing that does not magically make it go
away- it only helps to bring into human terms.

What I'm saying is that Melkor was evil (small "e"), but was
not in the service of some abstract cause of "Evil". He was a
bad person (errr, "entity") doing bad things, not a servant of
a higher cause, dedicated to the promotion of some abstract
cause of evil. He was dedicated to imposing his will on the
world (in the form of putting his giant smoking bootprint all
over it), but that was his own psychotic desire to control or
destroy, not his service to some abstract ideal of Evil.

Post by gleichman
Doing Evil for the sake of hubris is doing evil for the sake
of evil. Doing evil for the sake of jealousy is doing evil for
the sake of evil. And so on.

I *think* we're having some very combative agreement here. ;-)
I'm just pointing out that Evil is not something supernatural,
it's a way of behavior, and it shouldn't come with a mystical
aura attached to it.

Post by gleichman
Melkor did no such thing for he was incapable of creating life the same way
Aule was incapable of creating life.

When I say "created" I spoke too loosely. I know that in fact
didn't create anything: he took already existing things and
warped them.

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
What I'm saying is that Melkor was evil (small "e"), but was
not in the service of some abstract cause of "Evil".

There are very few conceptualizations of evil that state it is anything but
a choice to turn away from Good. The core idea that basis for evil is the
elevation of self beyond all other concerns indicates this.

That said, Melkor certainly deserves the capital E in Evil.

Melkor was the first to turn from will of Eru and in so doing laid the
groundwork for all evil that would follow thereafter. It is by his power,
his 'creations', and his influence that temptation to evil could raise even
in the undying lands. He is the ultimate enabler and a source of power for
those would who see their advancement at the cost of others. As one cannot
do anything without glorifying Eru, one may not commit evil without
glorifying Melkor.



Melkor = Evil, when one is said to be in service to Evil- they are in
service to Melkor.

Post by Del Rio
I'm just pointing out that Evil is not something supernatural,
it's a way of behavior, and it shouldn't come with a mystical
aura attached to it.

Here we're likely in agreement, in general and for humans.



However one should ask oneself, in mystical terms if one reaches beyond
oneself for power to do evil- where does that 'request' go? And upon it
being granted, what marks are likely to be left upon one's soul? It is in
the answer to these questions that the concept of an evil aura exists.

[Del Rio]

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
What I'm saying is that Melkor was evil (small "e"), but was
not in the service of some abstract cause of "Evil".

There are very few conceptualizations of evil that state it is anything but
a choice to turn away from Good. The core idea that basis for evil is the
elevation of self beyond all other concerns indicates this.

Well, except D&D, where you can have a Priest who doesn't
declare an actual god but just serves the absract cause "Evil".

Post by gleichman
Melkor = Evil, when one is said to be in service to Evil- they are in
service to Melkor.

That's fine, he's an actual god. And so for his creatures to
serve him, either out of fear or in hope of advancement, makes
sense.

Post by gleichman

Post by Del Rio
I'm just pointing out that Evil is not something supernatural,
it's a way of behavior, and it shouldn't come with a mystical
aura attached to it.

Here we're likely in agreement, in general and for humans.
However one should ask oneself, in mystical terms if one reaches beyond
oneself for power to do evil- where does that 'request' go? And upon it
being granted, what marks are likely to be left upon one's soul? It is in
the answer to these questions that the concept of an evil aura exists.

Well, the way I'm playing it my new campaign is that only
supernatural entities or the people who have dedicated
themselves to such, will radiate an actual detectable evil
aligment, so Paladins, Necromancers, Priests, etc. So, what
you're getting at above is actually what I'm doing. I'm
figuring I'll use the old AD&D rule of people needing to be
both 8th+ level, and "strongly aligned" to radiate an
alignment.

See, I'm thinking that even a psychopath who tortures and
murders for pleasure wouldn't actually radiate evil in the
supernatural sense, unless he's at least 8th level, and doing
it actively in the service of some evil power (like, dedicating
their pain and death to Arioch, or some such).

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
Well, except D&D, where you can have a Priest who doesn't
declare an actual god but just serves the absract cause "Evil".

D&D let's you get away with that? Silly game. I suppose you could lump such
a priest in as a general follower of all the evil gods...

Post by Del Rio
Well, the way I'm playing it my new campaign is that only
supernatural entities or the people who have dedicated
themselves to such, will radiate an actual detectable evil
aligment, so Paladins, Necromancers, Priests, etc.

The issue of a Detect Evil working on such humans hasn't even come up in my
campaigns. Mostly because it would be rather pointless, a Necromancer and
Priest that powerful and that dedicated would surely already be showing
signs of corruption. The Mouth of Sauron didn't exactly give off the same
vibs as the guy next door.

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Del Rio
Well, except D&D, where you can have a Priest who doesn't
declare an actual god but just serves the absract cause "Evil".

Not in my games - I ditched that as dumb right away.

[John Morrow]

Post by Del Rio
I'm just pointing out that Evil is not something supernatural,
it's a way of behavior, and it shouldn't come with a mystical
aura attached to it.

Well, that's one way to look at it but not the only way. There are other
explanations for an Evil aura, among them is the idea that the aura is a
mark placed upon the Evil by the powers of Good to help guide paladins and
good clerics (and the Good aura is designed to mark them as enemies of
Evil) or that the aura represents a strong linkage to the supernatural
outer plane destination of their soul when they die. As such, the
Protection from Good/Evil spell is simply an aura-aware protection spell.

John Morrow

[Del Rio]

Post by John Morrow
Well, that's one way to look at it but not the only way. There are other
explanations for an Evil aura, among them is the idea that the aura is a
mark placed upon the Evil by the powers of Good to help guide paladins and
good clerics (and the Good aura is designed to mark them as enemies of
Evil) or that the aura represents a strong linkage to the supernatural
outer plane destination of their soul when they die. As such, the
Protection from Good/Evil spell is simply an aura-aware protection spell.

If I found "mystical aura" alignments to be useful and good for
roleplaying in my campaign I wouldn't even bother rationalizing
them, they'd just exist, same as magic.

[John Morrow]

Post by Del Rio
If I found "mystical aura" alignments to be useful and good for
roleplaying in my campaign I wouldn't even bother rationalizing them,
they'd just exist, same as magic.

My game cosmology was designed to be harmonized with as much of the
existing D&D cosmology (as reflected in spells, monsters, paladin
abilities, and so on) as possible and it produced some useful role-playing
angles in my game. YMMV.

John Morrow

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Irina Rempt

Post by Will in New Haven
There are evil actions, evil individuals, evil cultures, evil actions,
evil leaders. All kinds of evil. You don't have to have evil races. Or
maybe you do. Maybe you just have to have it as simple as possible.
Moral ambiguity and tough decisions aren't for everyone.

We currently have an evil empire-- at least that's what the PCs and most
if not all of the NPCs thought, because the empire's armies are out to
conquer the world and they're not very civilised about it. Fortunately,
the setting of the game is right at the edge of their action radius, so
they've been beaten back (at least for now).
ex-citizens of that empire itself, driven away because they didn't fit in
the culture. *She* has no trouble believing that these people are not in
fact evil, though they come from the evil culture; she's going to have a
hard time getting others, beginning with her own husband who has spent
all his life up to now fighting them, to believe that.

To me, this is a more interesting situation than "here's some more
Orcs, lets kill them." In many campaigns, it is possible to have both
kinds of situations. In my campaign, there have been situations where
the characters were fighting demons. There was never any ambiguity
about demons. One character killed a demon who was acting as (or posing
as) a herald. There is a very strong tradition of not attacking
heralds. A knight who killed a TROLL herald a few generations earlier
was so affected by the disapproval of his peers that he went on a quest
that nearly cost him everything he held dear. Vannar did get some rough
teasing for killing the demon herald but it was never held against him
in the way it would have been had it been a real herald.

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right that
perhaps not everybody does.

Not everyone does and no one should have to. If a set of rules requires
that you do, it is clear that a player group that doesn't want to
should avoid or modify those rules. If a campaign features such things,
it is not helpful to call it PC.

Will in New Haven

--

"I am Vannar Danjeskold, bold ranger of the Northern forests <chorus
"who fouly killed a herald under the sacred flag of truce"</chorus> cut
that OUT"

Post by Irina Rempt
(heck, I play NetHack as well)
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi Latest: 08-Sep-2006

[John Morrow]

Post by Irina Rempt
*We* like the moral ambiguity and tough decisions, but you're right that
perhaps not everybody does.

Moral ambiguity does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with tough decisions.
One can still have tough decisions in a game where it's entirely clear who
is Good and who is Evil. Some examples from my D&D game, where certain
species were irredeemably Evil:

1) The party attacked a goblin lair that including goblin women and
children. The party slaughtered them all, which by the morality of the
Paladin was the correct thing to do because they were all irredeemably
Evil and they were all quickly dispatched. The scene was still so grim
(due to the disconnect between what the party rationally knew and their
empathy for the goblins) that there was silence when the battle was done.

2) The party captured an Evil enemy who had knowledge they needed. After
some negotiation, they traded the release of the Evil enemy in exchange
for information that made their life easier.

3) The party travelled into an underground realm where they were greatly
outnumbered by irredeemably Evil creatures. They were trying to rescue
some people captured and put into slavery. They wound up buying the
people they were trying to rescue, rather than killing the Evil slavers to
rescue them because the were so outnumbered an attack would have failed.

4) The party was trapped underground and they came upon an Evil kobold
Druid. The party contained a Neutral Druid. They accepted help from the
kobold Druid and other kobolds and largely left them alone because in that
particular moment, they were allies against a common and worse enemy and
it would have pitted the party against itself, which was a battle they
couldn't afford.

I'm sure I can think of more situations from that game like that, if you
want. Bottom line, even if you know who is Good and who is Evil and know
that it's OK to kill the Evil characters without pause, that doesn't mean
that the tough decisions or emotional depth goes away because you won't
always have the opportunity to kill those Evil characters without pause.
It all depends on how it is run. And as several others have said, just
because some intelligent creatures are morally unambiguous and evil to the
core does not mean that the humans and other creatures in the game can't
be more morally ambiguous.

John Morrow

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by gleichman

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Generally I find that people who "don't buy evil for its own sake" don't
have a clue as to what evil actually is or they wouldn't describe it in such
an inaccurate and dismissive way.

There IS "evil for its own sake," it just isn't nicely divided so you
can slaugher people on sight. But having it seem that way can be much
simpler.

My main problem with "evil orcs" is that I have trouble imagining how
a society would function if its fundamental motivation, either
collectively or severally, was truly evil.

It does depend somewhat on exactly how you define evil (Theology 101),
which is a non-trivial problem in itself, but I struggle to come up
with one that is compatible with social organisation, at least on a
large scale.

Perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of "evil orcs" as social creatures? I
suppose an evil race might work if they were solitary. But most
versions of orcs I've come across have them operating within
hierarchical social structures, which I can't imagine working in the
face of anything I'd consider truly evil, from an internal
perspective.

What I'm left with, is an impression of a feudal society which values
strength, punishes weakness and treats other races as sub-orc (ie.
having no rights). From a human perspective that looks evil, because
it means human life, liberty, happiness and property are not valued,
but it's really little different to the way people treat pest animals.
That doesn't mean the orcs are any less evil, from the human
perspective, but it does make it a matter of perspective.

I may be missing something, of course. It's not a topic that I've
ever given a great deal of thought to, because most of my games
occurred in (almost) exclusively human settings. My bad guys tend to
be selfish and/or amoral (non-good), rather than positively evil.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh

Post by Will in New Haven

Post by gleichman

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

Generally I find that people who "don't buy evil for its own sake" don't
have a clue as to what evil actually is or they wouldn't describe it in such
an inaccurate and dismissive way.

There IS "evil for its own sake," it just isn't nicely divided so you
can slaugher people on sight. But having it seem that way can be much
simpler.

My main problem with "evil orcs" is that I have trouble imagining how
a society would function if its fundamental motivation, either
collectively or severally, was truly evil.

There are so MANY historical examples that I have a problem with your
having a problem with it. The reason I have my objection is that even
in those historical examples, there is no way that one could argue that
all the individuals were evil.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
It does depend somewhat on exactly how you define evil (Theology 101),
which is a non-trivial problem in itself, but I struggle to come up
with one that is compatible with social organisation, at least on a
large scale.

A culture or nation is evil if it has accepted conquest, enslavement
etc as a way of life. Such a culture can be all too WELL organized. A
culture or nation can be organized around bigotry and cruelty. Such a
culture can be very well-organized.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of "evil orcs" as social creatures? I
suppose an evil race might work if they were solitary. But most
versions of orcs I've come across have them operating within
hierarchical social structures, which I can't imagine working in the
face of anything I'd consider truly evil, from an internal
perspective.

The cannonical Orcs, from Tokien, were created to be evil. They were
under the control of an evil entity. They had a vicious kind of
leadership and were not much given to resisting their authortty
figures. If there are Orcs in ones campaign, they SHOULD be evil. If an
individual Orc could be redeemable or good from the git-go, that would
be worthy of a newspaper article. However, there don't HAVE to be Orcs
or Orc-substitutes in a good campaign. I have played in campaigns with
kill-on-sight villains and ones without kill-on-sight villains and I
find the latter more interesting. However, evil societies are easy
enough to envisage.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
What I'm left with, is an impression of a feudal society which values
strength, punishes weakness and treats other races as sub-orc (ie.
having no rights). From a human perspective that looks evil, because
it means human life, liberty, happiness and property are not valued,
but it's really little different to the way people treat pest animals.
That doesn't mean the orcs are any less evil, from the human
perspective, but it does make it a matter of perspective.

That is carrying cultural relativism to an extreme. That means that the
Nazis weren't evil; they just had a different cultural perspective.
Sure, there were non-evil and redeemable people in their society but
their society was evil.

A large number of tribes of Goblins in my campaign could be described
like this, although some other Goblins have come to terms with
coexistance. The ones who have not come to terms kill and eat other
sapient beings, practice slavery against other Goblins and against
non-Goblins and exist in a state of war with their neighbors. These
tribes are objectively evil. They cannot be tolerated as neighbors and
we have had long periods of campaigning where these tribes were the
only Goblins the Player Characters knew about. So we had kill-on-sight
villains but it wasn't a universal thing and eventually the characters
learned about other situations.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I may be missing something, of course. It's not a topic that I've
ever given a great deal of thought to, because most of my games
occurred in (almost) exclusively human settings. My bad guys tend to
be selfish and/or amoral (non-good), rather than positively evil.

Sometimes, quite often in fact, my major bad guys are just the other
side in a violent politica struggle in a non-modern setting. Other
times, they are Demons, which are always evil. In my most recent
campaign, the bad guys are a force for reaction in a major empire that
is becoming more tolerable over the years. Since they are the
equivalent of the KGB, they have a great deal of power and they are
trying to cause a major war in order to force the empire back into the
straight-jacket that is traditional. Oddly enough, the members of this
agency violate almost every tenet of the imperial culture in their
daily lives. Many of them see the irony in this. But they continue.

Will in New Haven

--

"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman

[Thomas Lindgren]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
What I'm left with, is an impression of a feudal society which values
strength, punishes weakness and treats other races as sub-orc (ie.
having no rights). From a human perspective that looks evil, because
it means human life, liberty, happiness and property are not valued,
but it's really little different to the way people treat pest animals.

Rights, liberty, property and so on in their modern meanings appeared
a couple of hundred years after the feudal age, I seem to recall. The
chivalry had their own virtues, though:

"Although honor was the guiding principle for chivalry there were
certain chivalric codes that knights followed. There were several
lists written down during the Middle Ages. One example code can be
found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon
Gautier.

* Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt
observe all its directions.

* Thou shalt defend the Church.

* Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself
the defender of them.

* Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.

* Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

* Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and
without mercy.

* Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be
not contrary to the laws of God.

* Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.

* Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.

* Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right
and the Good against Injustice and Evil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice

An evil society might discard or invert suitable ones of the above, or
perhaps emphasize various mortal sins (e.g., pride, avarice, gluttony,
lust, wrath, sloth, envy).

However, this is also one spot where the lawful/chaotic vs good/evil
distinction makes sense. Being obedient, dutiful, loyal, scrupulous,
etc are what I loosely consider "lawful" characteristics, since they
support a strong society, and so also could apply to a 'lawful evil'
society.

While the above emphasizes the medieval western perspective, the
enterprising GM might also rebuild things from the ground up.

Regarding how morals change over the years, I'm reading Tim Parks'
excellent MEDICI MONEY, about renaissance banking:

"Indeed, as they approached their deathbeds, it seemed that usury
[ie, charging interest on loans] was not just _a_, but _the_ sin on
the minds of wealthy men. Their illegitimate children, the sex
they had enjoyed with child slaves from North Africa or the Slavic
countries, their greed, gluttony, and general intemperance worried
them far less. Or perhaps it was just that /.../ [usury could only
be expiated through full restitution]."

(p.10, paperback edition) Yet nowadays, charging interest isn't
considered too controversial.

NB. Unrelated but funny: Florence at the time also had an actual
fashion police.


Best,
Thomas

[psychohist]

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh posts, in part:

My main problem with "evil orcs" is that I have trouble
imagining how a society would function if its fundamental
motivation, either collectively or severally, was truly evil.

It does depend somewhat on exactly how you define evil
(Theology 101), which is a non-trivial problem in itself,
but I struggle to come up with one that is compatible with
social organisation, at least on a large scale.

Can a society be based entirely on each and every individual gaining
only through others' loss, delighting in the resulting suffering of
those others, and refusing to engage in any constructive or productive
activities?

Obviously not, if the society is a closed society; someone has to be
productive or everyone will starve. There's nothing that says that a
society has to be closed, though.

Warren J. Dew

[Del Rio]

Post by psychohist
Can a society be based entirely on each and every individual gaining
only through others' loss, delighting in the resulting suffering of
those others, and refusing to engage in any constructive or productive
activities?

Isn't that the great experiment of our times? ;-)

[John Morrow]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
My main problem with "evil orcs" is that I have trouble imagining how
a society would function if its fundamental motivation, either
collectively or severally, was truly evil.

First, how well do you want it to function? A decade ago, there was a
thread on "Game Histories and Handouts" here on rec.games.frp.advocacy and
Neel said, "I can't figure how to create a expansionist, totalitarian
regime that can last more than a few years without going bankrupt."
Mary's excellent response can be found here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/abd0a4adf951da12?dmode=source

In particular, I think points (a) and (e) are relevant here. You don't
necessarily need evil to be able to sustain an eternal empire. There are
ways that can happen, but it's not necessary. All that's needed for many
evil creatures is to reproduce sufficiently to keep going despite high
fatality rates and have enough cohesion that they band together into
tribes, clans, or whatever against humans. If they sometimes reach the
level of an empire, that's great, but it can be a short lived thing or a
relatively short lived thing.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
It does depend somewhat on exactly how you define evil (Theology 101),
which is a non-trivial problem in itself, but I struggle to come up
with one that is compatible with social organisation, at least on a
large scale.

I think evil is pretty easy to define. Cruelty and murder because
it's enjoyable or maybe even just because one can get away with it are
evil. It's one thing to torture to get information out of someone or
to kill them because they are an enemy. It's another thing to torture
and kill those who are at your mercy because you get a kick out of it.
While I do think there is some complexity in defining when exactly one
crosses into the realm of being evil (or good, for that matter), I
don't think it's that difficult ot define when a person has both feet
firmly planted in the territory.

As for social organization, being a sadistic murderer is not
necessarily incompatible with making the trains run on time. The most
obvious solution is to turn the cruelty outward toward other sentients
outside of the group. Such racist governments are hardly unheard of
in the real world but there are plenty of other models to choose from
that don't rely on racism, including the current government of North
Korea, which sustains itself through a variety of outside support,
including that gotten through extorting its neighbors while doing
sadistic and horrible things to its own citizens.

Tribal groups are, of course, much easier to imagine. Again, there
are real world models that, at worst, simply need to be kicked up a
notch or two. Even where the real world models fall short of being
evil for evil's sake, they do demonstrate how such a system might look
even if it lacked any rational or comprehensible motivation for being
evil. In fact, much of the effort that real world totalitarian
regimes spend breaking up the humanity of their citizens can be saved
if a fantasy species is born without that humanity in the first place.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of "evil orcs" as social creatures? I
suppose an evil race might work if they were solitary. But most
versions of orcs I've come across have them operating within
hierarchical social structures, which I can't imagine working in the
face of anything I'd consider truly evil, from an internal
perspective.

I think the problem comes from the assumptions built into the common
concept of "social creatures". Assume that they are not social in the
sense that they have empathy or a conscience but are social creatures
in the sense that they can cooperate for mutual advantage or through
intimidation. Despite their lack of conscience, it's not unheard of
for psychopaths to act together for mutual benefit and, in fact, some
serial killers have worked in teams. Their cooperation can be
mutually beneficial. Further, many psychopaths manage to lead
relatively normal lives in many ways, despite being, say, serial
killers. They can be very patient and lead an otherwise normal life
in order to support their evil plans. Don't equate "evil' and
"stupid" and don't equate "evil" with "impatience".

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
What I'm left with, is an impression of a feudal society which values
strength, punishes weakness and treats other races as sub-orc (ie.
having no rights).

Let's adjust that a little to make it really evil. You have a feudal
society in which brute force is not so much valued but it just works.
So does cleverness and even ganging up. Heck, whatever works gets
used. The society doesn't punish weakness because it values strength.
It punishes weakness because it can, and watching other creatures
suffer is a heck of a lot of fun for them. The weak get punished
because punishment is normal and they can't stop it and, in return,
they punish those even weaker than they are.

In other words, there is no abstract value or respect for strength.
Strength or clever thinking or whatever works is a means to assert
advantages over others and others "respect" it only to the extent that
they can't do anything about it. As soon as the strong stumble, the
weaker take advantage of it. Weakness isn't something society
punishes because it's bad. They become the target of cruelty because
they can't do anything to stop it and they are the most convenient
targets. *Nobody* has any rights that any other member respects.
Like psychopaths, they don't care what other people think or feel.
The whole idea of "rights" seems absurd to them.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
From a human perspective that looks evil, because it means human life,
liberty, happiness and property are not valued, but it's really little
different to the way people treat pest animals. That doesn't mean the
orcs are any less evil, from the human perspective, but it does make it
a matter of perspective.

Ah, I think that's defining evil so it's not really evil. We have laws
against animal cruelty because there are limits to what we will allow
people to do even to animals. And there is a difference between
eliminating an animal that causes you harm (e.g., termites, rats) and
seeking out an animal that does you no harm just so you can torture it for
fun. Heck, there have been people cited on animal cruelty charges for not
killing a rat humanely enough (smacking it with a shovel -- not even
torturing it on purpose). I'm not talking about the man who sprays ants
because they are in his kitchen. I'm talking about the guy who burns
puppies alive because he thinks it's fun.

Imagine that the evil sentients don't simply not value the lives of
others. They enjoy watching them suffer. See Iris Chang's book _The
Rape of Nanking_ for a good example of what a really evil empire
taking over a city might look like. I can give you plenty of other
examples because history and even the current world is full of them
(e.g., take a look at what Saddam was doing at Abu Ghraib). There is
ruthless and there is evil. Evil takes the time to make sure those who
are conquered suffer before they die, if they are allowed to die. Maybe
they just keep on suffering.

Now, there can certainly be rational people who feel they are
justified in being cruel to their enemies and even people who feel
they are doing those they are cruel to a favor. There are also people
who are evil because they are following orders or feel that they have
no choice. That's the gray sort of evil that I think many are talking
about -- the "evil" with a cause. I'm talking about evil without a
cause. Cruelty of innocents because the person enjoys it. That
exists, too. Read the articles on psychopaths that I posted links to
in my earlier reply.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I may be missing something, of course. It's not a topic that I've
ever given a great deal of thought to, because most of my games
occurred in (almost) exclusively human settings. My bad guys tend to
be selfish and/or amoral (non-good), rather than positively evil.

Well, there is a reason why I'm pointing topsychopaths and real events
like the Rape of Nanking. There are humans who are positively evil,
too. Some are simply monsters who use others for fun and profit. A
few become sadistic serial killers. So such creatures do exist in the
real world, and they are often quite intelligent and even rational in
their behavior.

Once there are concrete examples of such evil and some patterns to it,
it becomes possible not only to imagine and model such evil in a
role-playing game, but possible to imagine entire sentient species who
are psychotic. Some researchers estimate that between 1% and 4% of
all humans are psychotic (a few estimate the number to be even higher,
but there is some overlap with narcissism and other disorders).
Imagine a species where that's normal, not abnormal, because they are
born without the capacity for a conscience and, worse, enjoy cruelty
and inflicting pain on others. While I think that can be horrible to
imagine, I don't think it's impossible to imagine, nor do I think it's
impossible to imagine a society run by such people.

As for such absolute morality somehow avoiding "tough" decisions and
not being complex, I would argue that it replaces one sort of tough
decision with a different sort. Determining how evil another sentient
creature might be is often just a small part of the complexity
involved in making moral decisions about that creature. And in my
experience, even when the players and characters know a creature is
irredeemably evil, when that creature starts playing on their mercy
and empathy, all of the "tough" comes right back into the decision
(think HAL in the movie 2001 begging not to be killed and playing on
Dave's emotions) and there is also plenty of "tough" when the players
have to decide whether or not to cut a deal with a creature they know
is evil for the greater good.

John Morrow

[psychohist]

John Morrow posts, in part:

Some researchers estimate that between 1% and 4% of
all humans are psychotic (a few estimate the number
to be even higher, but there is some overlap with
narcissism and other disorders).

Does that number include children? The definition at your earlier link
didn't include the "actually takes pleasure in others' pain" part, and
absent that part, children who haven't yet had a chance to get past the
"obey the rules because you'll be punished otherwise" stage would
qualify. I'd think that would take it past 4%.

Heck, judging by behavior patterns in some age groups in some online
games, 40% might be a better estimate.

Of course, "would be evil if they could get away with it" doesn't make
them actually evil, by my definition. To me, evil is as evil does. In
a way, having an evil society - such as the one you describe earlier in
your post, which is very much along the lines of how my goblin
societies work - makes it much easier for the individuals to be evil in
practice.
Yeah, that's always fun to play out the first time.
"What do you mean the goblin is tring to rip my throat
out? I raised him from the time he was an infant, was
nice to him, and treated him like my own son!" It's
sort of like the people who keep tigers as pets and
then get surprised when they are suddenly attacked by
a several hundred pound beast with sharp teeth trying
to kill them because, well, that's what they do.

I'm not sure how that would work with goblins from my game world.
Depending on the human society they were brought up in, it's barely
possible that they would end up in the "would be evil if they could get
away with it, but can't get away with it" category. They'd probably
still pull the wings off flies for the fun of it, though.

I was thinking more about people who tried to learn about goblins in
their own society, perhaps by learning their language and somehow
getting an inside view for a while. No one has actually done it,
though.

Warren J. Dew

[gleichman]

Post by John Morrow

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
My main problem with "evil orcs" is that I have trouble imagining how
a society would function if its fundamental motivation, either
collectively or severally, was truly evil.

First, how well do you want it to function? A decade ago, there was a
thread on "Game Histories and Handouts" here on rec.games.frp.advocacy and
Neel said, "I can't figure how to create a expansionist, totalitarian
regime that can last more than a few years without going bankrupt." Mary's
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/abd0a4adf951da12?dmode=source
In particular, I think points (a) and (e) are relevant here.

I too like point e.

It's basically the original one put forth in Middle Earth. Morgoth's
'creations' weren't meant for anything else but what they were used for- to
take Middle Earth from the Valar and any who would side with them. If all
that was left at the end was rubble and death, that was as good as if he
taken it in perfect condition. His intent was to remake that world according
to his own design in any case.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

For an online DnD campaign that appears not to have really started, I created
a succubus character and had to convince the DM that she was playable as
someone who'd cooperate with a group. The SRD definition of "chaotic evil" --
the "destroyer" personality -- was unplayable. I redefined "chaotic" for her
as having a very high value on personal freedom, but willing to take on
temporary restrictions to cooperate with a group that matched her immediate
goals. "evil" meant she was almost a sociopath, but could still form
(shallow) friendships. She didn't go out of her way to attack people; she
preferred taking subtle revenge on people who especially annoyed her. She
might wind up doing some evil things, but she'd have to have a reason (that
wasn't insane).

So, perhaps not strongly chaotic or strongly evil, but at least somewhat so,
and likely playable. I probably won't get a chance to try out.

[Del Rio]

Post by David Alex Lamb
the "destroyer" personality -- was unplayable. I redefined "chaotic" for her
as having a very high value on personal freedom, but willing to take on
temporary restrictions to cooperate with a group that matched her immediate
goals. "evil" meant she was almost a sociopath, but could still form
(shallow) friendships. She didn't go out of her way to attack people; she
preferred taking subtle revenge on people who especially annoyed her. She
might wind up doing some evil things, but she'd have to have a reason (that
wasn't insane).
So, perhaps not strongly chaotic or strongly evil, but at least somewhat so,
and likely playable. I probably won't get a chance to try out.

Playable in a limited context, I would say. I long ago stopped
allowing "evil' characters in any of my campaigns, because one
way or another it always seems to end up in bad feelings all
around. This rule isn't due to any particular philosophy of
roleplaying... I have nothing inherently against the idea of
someone playing an evil character. It's just based on years of
roleplaying experience where the presence of even one evil
character equated to a failed campaign, and the more evil
characters there were, the faster the collapse occurred.

[gleichman]

Post by Del Rio
I long ago stopped
allowing "evil' characters in any of my campaigns, because one
way or another it always seems to end up in bad feelings all
around.

I learned this same lesson back in the 70s during our D&D days and its been
reinforced a couple of times since. I've reach the point in fact that I'll
not invite a player (or remove them from the game) if they even ask to run
such a character.

I've have significant success with the classic "...working to overcome an
evil heritage or an evil upbringing", but only with players who are very
trustworthy and willing to be low keyed about it.

[psychohist]

Del Rio wrote:

It's just based on years of roleplaying experience
where the presence of even one evil character
equated to a failed campaign, and the more
evil characters there were, the faster the
collapse occurred.

The traditional game format places a very strong emphasis on party
unity; if the party splits up on a long term or permanent basis, it
becomes very difficult to run with all the players at a common session.
"Evil" characters are unlikely to put much emphasis on the group
welfare or cohesion, so they're likely to cause party splits - or short
of that, unpalatable contortions on the part of other players to avoid
party splits.

In theory, I think a group of what D&D calls "lawful evil" from a
common group could work, though I haven't observed it in practice. For
that matter, players don't like to form groups with common backgrounds,
anyway; I'm not sure why that is.

What I have seen work is an evil character working entirely
independently from other player characters, being played at separate
sessions. This requires a lot of extra gamesmaster time, though.

[David Alex Lamb]

Post by psychohist
"Evil" characters are unlikely to put much emphasis on the group
welfare or cohesion, so they're likely to cause party splits - or short
of that, unpalatable contortions on the part of other players to avoid
party splits.

The DM for that game insisted that any character be able to work well in a
group, so I rewrote "chaotic evil" from that perspective. The idea was that
the party would become (shallow) friends, protecting them from her vindictive
tendencies, and her desire to have her own kind of fun and survive hardships
would lead her to *want* to cooperate like this -- for a while, at least. I
think that with what I tried, the "chaotic" part would be more of a problem --
not wanting to stick with a group forever if it became "boring" -- but that
would have applied to a chaotic good character, too.

[John Morrow]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
The less people (or orcs or ghouls) understand each
other, the more they tend to fear and hate each other seems to be the
rule. And then there's scapegoating of course.

I'm not sure that's really true. Near the end of his book _War Before
Civilization_, Lawrence Keeley discusses what causes conflicts between
societies and he makes a very interesting claim. He suggests that the
more cultures interact (e.g., trade, intermarry, etc.), the more they come
into conflict with each other for the very good reason that they have more
to fight over (e.g., trades gone wrong, marriages gone bad, etc.). Yes, I
know that conflicts with conventional wisdom (and ideas such as multi-
culturalism producing peaceful coexistence) but it does make sense and
agree with a lot of my personal observations about, for example, how
ethnic biases change regionally.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
I do wonder about the "evil orcs" bit though. It seems to me that
even "evil" orcs need internally consistent motivation (well, mostly
anyway). I don't buy evil for its own sake.

You probably don't because I assume you aren't evil and you probably
assume that all rational people have a conscience. But they don't all
have a conscience.

Take a look at psychopaths (as defined by Dr. Robert Hare and others).
Essentially, they are people who have no conscience and empathy that
functions differently than it does in normal people. They don't have that
little voice inside of their head that makes them feel guilty when they
tell a lie, cheat someone, or torture a child to death. When shown cards
with words on them, their brains react to the words "rape" and "torture"
the way a normal person reacts to the words "tree" and "flower". If you
combine that with a fascination for cruelty or murder (as happens in at
least some cases), as you get in sadistic serial killers, then you've got
evil for it's own sake.

They hurt people because they like it. They don't want to change because
they like who they are and don't think there is anything wrong with them.
And they find it silly that people assume they have a conscience that they
don't have and take advantage of that fact by playing on empathy and
emotions they don't have.

"The psychopath understands the wishes and concerns of others; he simply
does not care. He believes that he has the right to do what he wants and
to take what he can. He manipulates others by deception and/or
intimidation, has an inflated opinion of himself and seeks out, then uses,
the weaknesses he finds in others. There is no fair mindedness, no self
doubt, no compassion or true affection."

Read the rest of the article here:

http://psychological.com/april_01_newsletter.htm

Some more online articles to consider:

http://www.hare.org/links/saturday.html
http://www.geocities.com/lycium7/psychopathsite1.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/08/25/do2501.xml
http://www.geocities.com/lycium7/hare-checklist.html
http://cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html

In other words, whether you buy it or not, the evidence strongly shows
that evil for evil's sake exists in the real world in real human beings.
Or, to put it another way that might make more sense, their "internally
consistent motivation" is that they enjoy hurting and killing other people
and lack the conscience to stop them from acting on those impulses.

John Morrow

[R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh]

Post by John Morrow
You probably don't because I assume you aren't evil and you probably
assume that all rational people have a conscience. But they don't all
have a conscience.
Or, to put it another way that might make more sense, their "internally
consistent motivation" is that they enjoy hurting and killing other people
and lack the conscience to stop them from acting on those impulses.

Okay, I grok that, and applying that to a whole race would make for a
scary bunch of bad guys.

I still struggle with the idea of a society made up entirely of
conscienceless members. Sure psychopaths can work together when it
suits them, but for a whole race to function as a social society,
presumably for generations, they'd have to have an incredible
homogeneity of purpose.

Lacking such universal, or at least universally compatible purpose,
how do any of them sleep, if none of them needs a reason to torture or
kill the next? They'd need to be able to survive an undefended attack
while they were sleeping for even the strong to survive for long.
That, or they'd have to be very light sleepers.

An evil army might work, if there was greater prospect for inflicting
suffering as a member of the group than alone, provided the stronger
members could restrain themselves from torturing their own weak beyond
their limits of tolerance...

Which perhaps offers another explanation for how creatures which enjoy
causing suffering could manage to live in reasonably large social
groups: If the species has developed a high pain tolerance then it
wouldn't be much fun torturing each other.

Accordingly, I withdraw my objections to evil races, provided they
have high pain thresholds, thick skins and sleep lightly. ;-)

[John Morrow]

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Okay, I grok that, and applying that to a whole race would make for a
scary bunch of bad guys.

I thought that was the whole objective of having "monsters" in a setting.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Lacking such universal, or at least universally compatible purpose,
how do any of them sleep, if none of them needs a reason to torture or
kill the next? They'd need to be able to survive an undefended attack
while they were sleeping for even the strong to survive for long.
That, or they'd have to be very light sleepers.

If they enjoy domination and pain as much as killing and see value in
keeping others of their kind around, it's not that difficult to imagine
them working together in fairly large bands, even though any normal person
would consider their lives a living Hell. Yes, they probably sleep light,
are a bit tough, probably breed like rabbits, and may even be born with
the ability to run, bite, scratch, and forage for their own food. And,
yes, it would probably be more fun to torture and kill nice people than
members of their own species who are much more desensitized to the whole
process. See, think it through and it can work.

Post by R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
Accordingly, I withdraw my objections to evil races, provided they
have high pain thresholds, thick skins and sleep lightly. ;-)

That sounds like traditional orcs and goblins to me.

John Morrow

[psychohist]

R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh posts, in part:

Lacking such universal, or at least universally compatible
purpose, how do any of them sleep, if none of them needs
a reason to torture or kill the next? They'd need to be
able to survive an undefended attack while they were
sleeping for even the strong to survive for long.
That, or they'd have to be very light sleepers.

I think in such a society there could be pragmatic reasons to
cooperate, even if cooperation didn't come naturally to the individuals
involved.

For example, Wormtongue may know that the Uruk Hai will tear him limb
from limb if he loses the protection of Saruman. He's therefore
willing to wake or warn Saruman of threats, even though, in the absence
of the Uruk Hai, he'd prefer to stab Saruman in the back. Likewise,
Saruman keeps him around in part for his usefulness as a warning
system, without having any actual respect for the individual.

Warren J. Dew

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by gleichman
I think such details should be left to the group. But then again, I'm
the guy willing to publish a game system with no world background at
all.

Once upon a time that was more common than not. I blame RuneQuest. :)

[Russell Wallace]

(Hi again everyone, long time no see! I just happened to notice 600+
posts beside this group when glancing through the list and dropped in to
see what was going on.)

Post by gleichman
I generally consider this problem to be more due to a system design
failure, if you're going to do Heroic Fantasy with castles, then don't
put things in the game mechanics that make castles worthless. If the
game mechanics don't match the genre, and allow the use of standard
genre plot twists- you have a problem before anything else is read or
done.

Indeed this is a problem with static fiction too, and not just in the
fantasy genre (I'm told e.g. Star Trek is notorious for it). Basically
the two issues you want to consider are:

- What you put in your setting.

- What you make _common/repeatable_ in your setting.

If the Chosen One and his arch-nemesis can fly and throw fireballs and
earthquakes, that's consistent with medieval-type castles (and gives
them a chance to strut their cool stuff). If every town and county has a
couple of mages who can do it, that's a different matter.

Similarly, I've written settings where resurrection was repeatably
available, but only for character backgrounds. I've never run a game in
one of them, and if I did it would be very different from your usual
campaign. On the other hand the last campaign I ran had two dead PCs
come back to life - but each time the circumstances were very special.

Post by gleichman
HERO systems has the stated rule (at least it did in previous editions,
not that I mention it I don't know if it appears in 5th edition or not)
that you can take a much time as you want for soliquies and the like-
it's non-time action.

Common enough convention in my experience, at least in a weak/informal
version - but as you say, that's for conversation, not combat actions.

Post by gleichman
-Built in assumptions that the PCs will never reach the level of the
settings 'experts'. Again Deadlands and Shadowrun are shinging examples
of this mindset to the point where they refuse to stat or define many
of their NPCs. Other systems have NPCs who flatly break the character
creation/advancement rules.

*nods* I tend to do this the other way round - give PCs stuff that isn't
available to NPCs, or at least not more than a handful of named ones, as
above; you can get away with a lot more that way.

[gleichman]

(Hi again everyone, long time no see! I just happened to notice 600+ posts
beside this group when glancing through the list and dropped in to see
what was going on.)

We're back! At least for a while.

If the Chosen One and his arch-nemesis can fly and throw fireballs and
earthquakes, that's consistent with medieval-type castles (and gives them
a chance to strut their cool stuff). If every town and county has a couple
of mages who can do it, that's a different matter.

Excellent point.

This why the palantíri worked in Middle Earth, there were very few of them
and they could be successfully used by very few people. Thus the power of
instant communication/recon was contained- and neat bits like the beacon
fires were still part of the book.

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that Mary K. Kuhner was not wearing pants

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Plot-driven illness, injury or death that ignore the system's
healing skills and/or magic.

Or, indeed, the system's rules for inflicting such in the first place.

[Will in New Haven]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
A small rant on things which seem abundant in games (published
--Plot-driven illness, injury or death that ignore the system's
healing skills and/or magic. For example, the messenger who
runs up to the PCs, gasps out a message and drops dead--despite
the fact that the PCs would naturally heal him, and that such
healing would naturally, in the system, work. Or the sudden
death of the king throwing the kingdom into chaos, even though
the presence of Raise Dead is well established and it's clearly
available to people like him.

I see where this would violate the contract that the GM and the players
set when they set down. "We are going to play by X rules." However,
rules with those features are variably, in my opinion, undesirable.

That the healing would ALWAYS work would be ok, depending on the nature
of the messanger's illness or whatever. This is especially true if the
healing WOULD always work for a Player Character. In that case, you
should always be able to save that NPC.

That Kinds would, barring a malevalent entity taking drastic action,
could never die, would really make many interesting story lines or
histories impossible.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Plots stolen without modification from other settings where various
abilities just aren't available. Lords who assume that walls will
keep people out, when they should know that flight is a common
ability. Mysteries that ignore easy access to mind reading or
lie detection. Innocent-under-suspicion scenarios, ditto.
Scenarios where people are killed by a single shot when that
can't happen in the game system.

Again, these violate the contract that says that the group is playing
certain rules. However, rules can be modified or new rules sets can be
substituted. In my opinion:

Game systems where flight is a _common_ ability: OK but is it usually
_common_ enough that walls would be just useless. The people across the
mountains from my campaign are modeled on Poul Anderson's Ythri. They
can ALL fly. People still build keeps, although they don't overly rely
on them for protection. The presence of powerful magic, more than the
flying ability of some beings, makes them less useful than they might
be.

Rules that make mystery plots impossible: Undesirable. Rules that make
it necessary to go to some trouble to create a mystery plot are great
but rules that make it impossible aren't any fun.

Game systems where a single shot cannot kill someone: Undesirable. It
makes people blase about what should be scary. If carried to extremes,
rules like that model combat like bars of soap with little picks,
carving slices off one another. Going into battle should not be
trivial.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Expecting the PCs not to notice patterns. FASA put out a whole
string of modules in a row where the PCs' employers double-crossed
them in the end. Hey, they said, it's in genre! But the genre
stories *don't all happen to the same group of characters*, and
presumably there are also employers who pay their hirelings in the
end, else no one would be willing to be hired anymore. It is too
much to ask the PCs to keep responding to hooks if the results
are invariably bad for them.

Were all those modules by the same author? In that case, he or she was
lazy or didn't understand what a problem that would create. If there
were multiple authors, the editors should have noticed OR it was a very
bad policy decision. Never having run modules (except one run of "Keep
on the Borderland") I have a little more control of that sort of thing.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Futility. Being hired to rescue someone who is already dead.
Arriving at the village just in time to see it burned to the
ground. Being asked to stop something that is already unstoppable.
These may work as motivators in stories, but I have generally
found them to be crappy motivators for players--certainly for me.

If there can eventually be success, each such frustration might be ok.
As a steady diet they are awful.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Bad job offers. The players may feel that they have an obligation
to take up job offers, so as to insure the GM gets to run what
he has prepared. If so, the GM or module has, to my mind, a
corresponding obligation not to make the employers so obviously
unpleasant, arrogant, dishonest, etc. that it would be unreasonable
to *take* the job.

Yes, this can be bad. It is just railroading the characters into going
on the adventure. If done with some finesse, luxury railroading? it can
be OK. Why the same GM's who give out stupid amounts of unbelievable
treasure play their NPCs as such skinflints always amazes me. Right
now, most of the characters in my campaign are doing some work for the
local military governor and he is underpaying them but only a little.

As a player, my character keeps being sent on missions by his liege
lord. He can't refuse AND he has a skimpy allowance to hire the other
PCs, who are not under feudal obligation. This would all be very
annoying but my liege did me a great many favors and I owe him more
than feudal loyalty. And he doesn't have much cash , being somewhat
land-poor, so I tolerate it.

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
--Set pieces that require the PCs to freeze in place and not
react. In the _Witchfire_ modules there's a setpiece near the
end of one module where one NPCs has the McGuffin and another shows
up to take it from her. They argue; they fight; at one point the
McGuffin is tossed to the PCs and they have to decide which NPC
to give it to. Chance that this will work out as scripted, with
PCs allowed to act: zero.

I have never seen anything that fits this description. But it sounds
annoying.

Will in New Haven

--

"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. I am really grumpy
today.

[Del Rio]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
A small rant on things which seem abundant in games (published

[...]

My addition:

Plots that require that something happen, no matter what
precautions the PCs might take to prevent it. "On the third
night, the artifact will be stolen". This despite the fact
that the PCs locked it in a magically locked and alarmed chest,
guarded day and night by party members on rotating shifts.

[psychohist]

Del Rio posts:

My addition:

Plots that require that something happen, no matter
what precautions the PCs might take to prevent it.
"On the third night, the artifact will be stolen". This
despite the fact that the PCs locked it in a
magically locked and alarmed chest, guarded day
and night by party members on rotating shifts.

This is why I prefer not to have plots in my game. I'd prefer that if
the players really guard something well enough, it be safe.

In fact, you could put that on my personal list of pet peeves -
predefined plots.

Warren J. Dew

[Del Rio]

Post by Del Rio
Plots that require that something happen, no matter
what precautions the PCs might take to prevent it.
"On the third night, the artifact will be stolen". This
despite the fact that the PCs locked it in a
magically locked and alarmed chest, guarded day
and night by party members on rotating shifts.
This is why I prefer not to have plots in my game. I'd prefer that if
the players really guard something well enough, it be safe.
In fact, you could put that on my personal list of pet peeves -
predefined plots.

That's great, as long as you're not expecting to play out the
rest of the module. Which might in fact be why I so seldom use
modules or even written adventures (except in Call of Cthulhu,
because investigative adventures pretty much need to be
pre-written). I tend to just create situations with an
interesting backstory and cast of characters, and turn the PCs
loose in it to see what happens. There's typically no "plot"
there's just a story that evolves out of their choices and the
way they stir the pot.

[John Morrow]

Post by Mary K. Kuhner
A small rant on things which seem abundant in games (published

This old thread, again from about a decade ago, hit on some peeves of
mine (including your contributions):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/7608cf4e02a92972/63fc3bf60635a45d?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#63fc3bf60635a45d

John Morrow