From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 08:06:02 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA04707; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:56:15 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id HAA04704 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:56:13 +1300 Received: (qmail 11113 invoked from network); 21 Nov 1999 18:49:18 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO Escher) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 21 Nov 1999 18:49:18 -0000 Subject: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:47:25 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2918.2701 From: "Mandos Mitchinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Just a small campaign question, Do we have a codified scheme of good and Evil in DQ? It seems just lately that a large number of guild players are opting for the "Im good, they are Evil, Lets hit them" principle of characterisation. Why is this? It is getting to the point where over half the characters I can name will fit neatly into the "Im Good" or "Im Bad" catagories. The points I am wondering are. 1. Is it a response to the types of games being run at the moment? 2. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? 3. Is it actually a really complex character thing disguised as a simple "I wanna hit things excuse" or am I missing something here? 4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? I don't think this is a problem as such, just something that I noticed. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 09:21:05 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA04783; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:19:25 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA04780 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:19:23 +1300 Message-ID: <383851F4.1539FDEB@peace.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:11:33 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mandos Mitchinson wrote: > Just a small campaign question, > > Do we have a codified scheme of good and Evil in DQ? > > It seems just lately that a large number of guild players are opting for the > "Im good, they are Evil, Lets hit them" principle of characterisation. Why > is this? It is getting to the point where over half the characters I can > name will fit neatly into the "Im Good" or "Im Bad" catagories. > > The points I am wondering are. > > 1. Is it a response to the types of games being run at the moment? I suspect the Samael thing has brought several people into the PoL camp who otherwise would have been religiously neutral. I can't comment on whether they would have been good/bad neutral. There have been a fair few anti-demon games recently. Is this more than usual? (I've only been around for a few years, and notice more what happens at the low level.) > 2. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? Who is encouraging it? I don't think it is a good thing to punish players for their choice of characterization, unless it is clearly detracting from the enjoyment of others. You can present them with morally fuzzy situations and see how they react. > 3. Is it actually a really complex character thing disguised as a simple "I > wanna hit things excuse" or am I missing something here? I have two 'good' characters. (Well, two Powers of Light characters anyhow.) Anathea doesn't want to hit things (although she wants others to hit undead and demons.) Aligning with Raphael is a logical extension to her character. Barth is much more 'I wanna hit things' - I wanted to try a character who could become powerful and who was a fanatical nutcase. His characterisation is not very deep at the moment, but I find this generally grows with playing. Currently he's trying to come to grips with the fact that Saint Ithelmore says some witches are OK. > 4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? I don't think so. The only problem I've noticed is that the characterisation of the Angels and Demons varies between GMs - for some, all the Angels are good, and all Demons evil, for others they are just two factions in a power strugle, one of which is more direct that the other. > I don't think this is a problem as such, just something that I noticed. > > Mandos -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 10:21:16 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA04852; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:19:44 +1300 Received: from letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA04849 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:19:39 +1300 Received: from [130.216.108.110] (clare.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.108.110]) by letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id KAA23705 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:12:16 +1300 (sender clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: clare@staffpop.cs.auckland.ac.nz Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:12:09 +1300 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" From: clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Clare West) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Currently he's trying to come to grips with the fact that Saint Ithelmore says >some witches are OK. "oh my - a saint and I'm not even dead yet" (no that isn't a hint William). Ithilmor thinks it's a good thing Barth doesn't know everything she says. It might blow his brain. On the Good vs Evil thing. Well I have never met so many demons as I have in the past year or so, but maybe that's just the fact that I have been on a lot of Andrew Withy Games. The influence of the Western Church seems to me to have been growing, and they probably need to be pegged back a bit. clare -- Clare West, Rm 111, Ext 8266 clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 10:36:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA04887; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:26:36 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA04884 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:26:35 +1300 Received: (qmail 24009 invoked from network); 21 Nov 1999 21:19:39 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO Escher) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 21 Nov 1999 21:19:39 -0000 Subject: RE: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:17:45 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2918.2701 From: "Mandos Mitchinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > 2. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? > > Who is encouraging it? I don't think it is a good thing to punish > players for > their choice of characterization, unless it is clearly detracting from the > enjoyment of others. You can present them with morally fuzzy > situations and see how they react. It is not a case of punishing, but as GM's we should be encouraging better roleplaying. If the character is there so that the player can relieve some stress by killing things thats fine, but it seems to be a growing "character concept" that seems to be ground in laziness. There are players out there who play this type of character well and do have well developed reasonings and character traits that support the role and have developed the crusader style very well. However there are an increasing number of players using it as a way to have a "I hit stuff" personality without the effort of really characterising it to any real extent. That is their choice as a player to do that. However characters of this type when they are badly reasoned and undeveloped can ruin a game and the enjoyment of others. Of course this is a little off the topic which is why is this character type becoming more and more prevailent in recent times. > > 4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? > > I don't think so. The only problem I've noticed is that the > characterisation of > the Angels and Demons varies between GMs - for some, all the > Angels are good, > and all Demons evil, for others they are just two factions in a > power strugle, one of which is more direct that the other. So is this an area that should be tightened up or left loose for GM freedom of interpretation? Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 11:36:25 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA04970; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:30:01 +1300 Received: from qedweb.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.140] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA04967 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:30:00 +1300 Received: by QEDWEB with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:21:46 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:21:38 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz The two factions have their own agendas and motivations which for the most part are "beyond the ken of mortal man", obviously each side will portray themselves as being on the side of mortals when they want the help of mortals, and each side will have its fanatics who will believe no wrong of their masters. In the adventures we run and the world we create, we should have adventures that are good vs evil, in fact most of them will be as everyone perceives themselves as being good and their enemies as being evil - the exceptions to this are usually labelled sociopaths or saints. The things to be cautious of are that we maintain a certain level of balance in the world, if neither side is completely dominant then it leaves more room for character variation and "neutral" mercenary organisations like the guild. - It's when your local lord or religion fails you (isn't powerful enough or doesn't care) that you have to resort to those high priced mercenaries from Seagate. - Characters aligned with the Powers of Light or Dark are most interesting and fun in a world of grey. If you're light aligned and the majority of the world is light, then you're expected to toe the company line, follow orders, and kill those you're told to kill. If the majority of the world is dark then your options become hide or fight until killed. Players get more choice and room for character development when there is a range of environments and situations, and sometimes you even need to side with those evil PoL followers for the greater good. - As we get more fanatics in the guild we need to make it clear to them that as guild members their first loyalty is expected to be the guild and their fellow members. Acting against your fellow members is grounds for expulsion from the guild. I think that this is a message that we need to make clear to everyone, develop your character and characterisation as you see fit, but be sure that it includes a reason to belong to the guild and not act against your fellow guild members. Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mandos Mitchinson [SMTP:mandos@nexus.org.nz] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 10:18 AM > > > > 4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? > > > > I don't think so. The only problem I've noticed is that the > > characterisation of > > the Angels and Demons varies between GMs - for some, all the > > Angels are good, > > and all Demons evil, for others they are just two factions in a > > power strugle, one of which is more direct that the other. > > So is this an area that should be tightened up or left loose for GM > freedom > of interpretation? > > Mandos > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 11:51:42 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA05005; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:47:22 +1300 Received: from westpac.co.nz (firewall1.westpac.co.nz [210.55.236.18]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA05002 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:47:19 +1300 Received: by firewall1.westpac.co.nz id <32266>; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:42:52 +1300 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WESTPACTRUST Message-Id: <99Nov22.114252nzdt.32266@firewall1.westpac.co.nz> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:39:36 +1300 Subject: RE: Good And Evil. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: "Mark Simpson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mandos wrote: >There are players out there >who play this type of character well and do have well developed reasonings >and character traits that support the role and have developed the crusader >style very well. However there are an increasing number of players using it >as a way to have a "I hit stuff" personality without the effort of really >characterising it to any real extent. However good a characters "reasons" for adopting that style I think that these characters do detract from everyone elses enjoyment if they adopt the attitude that their first reaction to any situation is to start hitting people with large pieces of bladed metal. I don't really care if they have rationalised why there character my have developed in this way - the fact is that unless the GM is pandering to them (basically getting them out of and actively steering them around trouble) they should end up killing themselves quickly, along with a good number of their party. Who would actually go out with these homacidal maniacs if they actually had the choice? (rather than turning up to the first session and discovering they are in the party). But getting back to good and evil, I think the guild should steer clear of trying to define these to any great extent. The guild has rules of membership which should be policed - ie not abandoning the party, stealing from the party, killing another party member etc. and I'm all in favour of these being strictly enforced. But the guild should not be attempting to define the nature of good and evil and then, by implication, try to force each character into accepting the "good" label. I think the putting to (permanent) death of Deadwood by the guild was very poorly handled by the guild and was an example of the guild officiousness and the guild attempting to enforce some GM's idea of what "good" is onto the guild and its members. What Deadwood did and didn't do did not really have anything to do with the guild in that it did not adversely effect any other member of the guild nor the Duke. We should leave it to individual GM's to decide what to do in their own games when confronted by either the "hit first and ask questions later" character discussed above or equally the character "of questionable morels" or "evil" character. As soon as the former kills/maims a town guard or the later is caught is some evil and illegal act that character will have violated the law of the land and should suffer the consquences. The guild is within the lands of the Duke and subject to his laws. If a character transgresses those laws and is caught then the primary sanction should be whatever the Dukes' laws prescribe and not some substituted guild justice. The guild should pretty much stand aside from such a process other than cooperating with the duke as required. /\/\ark -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 12:36:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA05059; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:30:02 +1300 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id MAA05055 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:30:00 +1300 Received: from sci4 (ccx-122-4.ccx.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.4]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.2/8.9.2/8.9.2-ua) with SMTP id MAA00914 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:22:24 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: RE: Hey You Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:21:48 +1300 Message-ID: <000101bf3477$2ed09f40$047ad882@sci4.libraryserver.lbr.auckland.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz > "Yes, nobility. How do you do it? You're one so you should know. Exactly > what does it involve and how do you talk to the even higher ups and repress > an urge to decapitate them. And you think that decapitating aristos [spits on floor, because no bloated or effete despicable lordling-suppressor of the proletariat/workers is within range] is a bad thing because ... ? Come to think of it, I should rank axe; hmm ... [His eyes glaze over. If you have Telepathy up, you notice the gears churning over the fact that as a Master Weapon & mechanician he ought to be able to come up with something more efficient than a mere headsman's axe. Perhaps giant shears that cut off may head at once? ... ] Hagan the republican Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 ------------------------------------------------- ... no matter how often it is proved, the theorem of Pythagoras always manages to retain its beauty, its freshness, and its eternal sense of wonder. -- William Dunham, The Mathematical Universe, 1994. ====================================== -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:11:25 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA05401; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:56:55 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA05398 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:56:53 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p456-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.202]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA27225 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:49:16 +1300 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:49:25 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf34a4$f3c63f80$cae86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz George wrote:>Just a small campaign question, > >Do we have a codified scheme of good and Evil in DQ? The answer is: No. Nor is one required. > >It seems just lately that a large number of guild players are opting for the >"Im good, they are Evil, Lets hit them" principle of characterisation. Why >is this? It is getting to the point where over half the characters I can >name will fit neatly into the "Im Good" or "Im Bad" catagories. > Really? Well, that will be an increase in the variety of morality of players, since recent times, then. In the not very distant past, characters were either evil, or they were amoral. They weren't good, at all. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with a character that chooses to play a kind of melodramatic evil character. They are large and colourful, like Ughbash, the Dark Celestial Orc. They give life to a game, and generate lesser stories. I do have a problem with the evil that one used to see with a certain tedious monotony. These are characters that never do anything except as a step toward maximising their own safety, income or power or all three. And I draw your attention to characters like Sinn Fein. Not that I have a problem with the players performance, but it is not a characterisation that takes a lot of effort. You just do what would be the least dangerous thing. It doesn't generate stories. If anything, it turns the world into a greyer place. >The points I am wondering are. > >1. Is it a response to the types of games being run at the moment? No. It is a response to a void in games that prevailed beforehand. Moral questions just weren't raised as regularly, before. Now they are. Or, perhaps I should say that the moral questions were hidden, so that they could be easily missed. It was possible for a player to completely miss the moral significance of an action, because you weren't aware what might happen as a result of that choice. Information was a lot more scarce. > >. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? Yes, of course it is. A character that makes a moral choice is limiting their range of responses. If you choose to play a character, for example, that won't use permanent magical items, then you have reduced the kind of actions you can sensibly take, and also the kind of treasure that you'll be willing to use. The electives that players may make as a result of a choice of morality similarly limit a character. While I agree that a character that declares themselves to be good, and then does nothing to justify that declaration isn't really playing in character (provided, of course, that an opportunity to make some sacrifice in the pursuit of that choice). If this is the case, then the DM must reduce the players roleplaying award. That is why it is a limitation. On the other hand, a player whose moral ambit would have to be described in a novel the size of War and Peace, while fascinating, is just too involved and complex to make a sensible fist of (for the DM at least, and probably the player as well). Therefore, some middle ground should be chosen. Initially, a player may choose to play a character who is 'Good', with very little else hanging off of it. As they play, it is to be hoped that the character will develop a more internally resonant code as the character progresses. PC x will do y, but not z, for whatever reason. If a character does not develop anything more interesting, then one is drawn to the conclusion that they're good merely because it's too hard for the player to think of anything interesting to go with it. If that's the case, then they would probably have problems with any other kind of characterisation. The problem, in this case, is not one that would be cured by getting rid of concepts like Good and Evil. All PCs should be encouraged to play good characters. Very few of them will actively play good characters, but as a result of such encouragement, we might see more. What we want to see is fewer evil characters. There are a few players that play evil characters in such a way that they don't interfere with the game. And I mean, there are a very few. Most players do a bad job of it...the wages of sin, no doubt. An evil character is less connected to the average story. It is hard to engage the sympathies of a character for a pair of orphans, when the character is the kind that would happily sell them poisoned sweets.An evil character will have limited interest in putting themselves at risk for any cause other than their own advancement. This denies them the opportunity of doing the only two things that a player can do better than a DM: Character sacrifice in the pursuit of some great ideal, and courage in the face of dreadful threat. Evil characters should be extremely rare. Much more rare than good characters. The reason should be obvious. A good character, however fanatical, is not usually bent on the destruction of the world as we know it. An evil character may not be, either, but all the characters that are keen on that sort of hobby are usually safely described as evil. I don't know that many people who are going to quibble over the exact nature of such an entity's morality, in the face of the extremity of the threat they pose. An evil character is just too 'unnatural' to have many stable points of reference. This makes it very hard to play the character in any other way than 2 dimensionally. In reality, a person is trapped, if you like, in a web of social constraints. We are (or at least the majority of us are) constrained against stealing, rapine, murder, and so on. These things rail against us. If we did them, we would feel bad about it. An evil person either does not care or does not allow themselves to care about these niceties. This puts them outside our easy understanding of them. If they regularly perform acts of evil, then they lose contact with the society they belong to, and they become distanced, remote and even more unpredictable. In a roleplaying game, the natural consequence of evil actions may not follow the character, let alone the player. As a result, a player may see a nett increase in character development as a result of being evil. Or at least, as a result of having no active moral propensity. In a multi-DM environment, it is very hard to bring a consequence to bear against a player. As a result, it is easy for a character to gain advances, over and above those set aside for them in EP. I'm not saying that the membership of the Guild should be good. What I am saying is that we should have fewer characters that are evil, more characters that are good, and all characters should have a concise, succinct, internally sound code of behaviour that makes sense to the player and the DM. If terms like good and evil help players to develop these concepts, then I don't have a problem. If they are used to conceal a lack of internal coherence, then I believe that they would always lack such qualities. In conclusion, I don't believe that characters that call themselves good or evil are a problem. Depth of characterisation is the problem, and would be if the terms were green and orange. > >3. Is it actually a really complex character thing disguised as a simple "I >wanna hit things excuse" or am I missing something here? What? Don't understand. > >4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? There is no need to codify good or evil. Great acts of good or evil should be noticed by the DM, though. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:23:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA05440; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:16:06 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA05437 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:16:05 +1300 Received: from dworkin (p50-max29.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.100.50]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA30794 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:08:26 +1300 Message-ID: <002201bf34a9$0b31e580$4301a8c0@dworkin.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Hey You Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:18:41 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Dworkin" To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz > >> "Yes, nobility. How do you do it? You're one so you should know. Exactly >> what does it involve and how do you talk to the even higher ups and repress >> an urge to decapitate them. > >And you think that decapitating aristos [spits on floor, because no bloated >or effete despicable lordling-suppressor of the proletariat/workers is within >range] is a bad thing because ... ? Come to think of it, I should rank axe; >hmm ... >[His eyes glaze over. If you have Telepathy up] >Hagan the republican > I still believe the random slaughtering of people to be a bad thing and the extermination of most greater nobs (as desirable as that is) would put undue strain on what seems to be a very shoddy and poorly organized culture. I still fail to see what being a soak has to do with politics. And why would I be running Telepathy in this retched hive of scum and villany? Liessa -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:24:29 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA05418; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:09:19 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA05415 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:09:17 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p456-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.202]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA29016 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:01:40 +1300 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:01:49 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf34a6$af24c020$cae86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz George Mitchell wrote: >> 2. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? Michael Woodhams responded: >Who is encouraging it? I don't think it is a good thing to punish players for >their choice of characterization, unless it is clearly detracting from the >enjoyment of others. If the choice of characterisation isn't tested, then it isn't a characterisation, is it? If a character says that they are attracted to donkeys, because they're so masculine and strong, then I, and many like me, I suspect, am not going to be interested in testing this characterisation. Aside from being definitely on the odd side, a fair number of people are likely to be offended by the gratuitousness and graphic quality that would be required to actually test it. In the event that it was important to a player, I might present the situation, and then draw a veil of decency over the whose sorry episode. However, if a player tells me that they are a steadfast defender of the poor, the weak, and the defenceless, then I'm probably going to test that declaration. I am not going to take their word for it. A player must show how their character behaves. I'm quite happy for a player to tell me any number of things about their character, so long as they don't bore me. I will require them to follow up on it, sometime in the future. This isn't punishment. This is character development. In character theory, a character must be presented with a critical choice, the result of which choice has ongoing consequences for that character. There must be some sense of reversal, or possible renewal. I agree, a player may well feel as if they have been punished, because their stated internal rationalisation has been tested. These would be people who just want to write these rationalisations down on their character sheet, but not actually have any part of their story intersect with them. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:26:08 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA05449; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:17:34 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA05446 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:17:33 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p456-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.202]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA30967 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:09:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:10:02 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf34a7$d53b9da0$cae86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Stephen Martin wrote: >The two factions have their own agendas and motivations which for the most >part are "beyond the ken of mortal man", obviously each side will portray >themselves as being on the side of mortals when they want the help of >mortals, and each side will have its fanatics who will believe no wrong of >their masters. Upon what basis did you decide this was the case? I certainly don't use this rationalisation. I could give twelve different kinds of crap whether you do or not. >In the adventures we run and the world we create, we should have adventures >that are good vs evil, in fact most of them will be as everyone perceives >themselves as being good and their enemies as being evil - the exceptions to >this are usually labelled sociopaths or saints. >The things to be cautious of are that we maintain a certain level of balance >in the world, if neither side is completely dominant then it leaves more >room for character variation and "neutral" mercenary organisations like the >guild. This is a human social group. There is no chance that this is a 'neutral' organisation. It is connected to, and dependant on, the good graces of a greater social group. The reasons why it is 'neutral' may be self-preservatory. Nevertheless, there is no way that the Guild would consent to being seen in any other light than a beneficial one. The world is full of peasants, hay ricks, and torches. >- It's when your local lord or religion fails you (isn't powerful enough or >doesn't care) that you have to resort to those high priced mercenaries from >Seagate. >- Characters aligned with the Powers of Light or Dark are most interesting >and fun in a world of grey. If you're light aligned and the majority of the >world is light, then you're expected to toe the company line, follow orders, >and kill those you're told to kill. If the majority of the world is dark >then your options become hide or fight until killed. Players get more >choice and room for character development when there is a range of >environments and situations, and sometimes you even need to side with those >evil PoL followers for the greater good. >- As we get more fanatics in the guild we need to make it clear to them that >as guild members their first loyalty is expected to be the guild and their >fellow members. Acting against your fellow members is grounds for expulsion >from the guild. The problem in the Guild has never been fanatical characters. It has, and probably always will be expedient characters and evil characters. It is those characters who abandon parties. It is those characters who betray parties. It is those characters who bring party members to harm. The only other single group of characters that do these things with any thing like the regularity of evil or expedient characters are stupid characters, and they will be with us, whatever warning you give. > >I think that this is a message that we need to make clear to everyone, >develop your character and characterisation as you see fit, but be sure that >it includes a reason to belong to the guild and not act against your fellow >guild members. > I think that the message you would be better off making was that a player should find ways of not being an expedient, self-serving little scrote, and find a way to engage with the available story. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:36:20 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA05508; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:30:07 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA05505 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:30:06 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p456-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.202]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA32480 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:22:29 +1300 Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:22:39 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf34a9$9808e3a0$cae86dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mark Simpson wrote: >However good a characters "reasons" for adopting that style I think that >these characters do detract from everyone elses enjoyment if they adopt the >attitude that their first reaction to any situation is to start hitting >people with large pieces of bladed metal. I don't really care if they have >rationalised why there character my have developed in this way - the fact >is that unless the GM is pandering to them (basically getting them out of >and actively steering them around trouble) they should end up killing >themselves quickly, along with a good number of their party. Who would >actually go out with these homacidal maniacs if they actually had the >choice? (rather than turning up to the first session and discovering they >are in the party). > I suggest more people would adventure with them than with characters of seriously limited courage. Granted, a character ought to have more to them than a blind willingness to roll dice and inflict harm against the enemy. That is very 2-dimensional. On the other hand, a willingness to engage the adventure that lies before the players, however 2-dimensional, is more attractive than the sulky refusal to do anything that might in the least put a character at risk. > I think the putting to >(permanent) death of Deadwood by the guild was very poorly handled by the >guild and was an example of the guild officiousness and the guild >attempting to enforce some GM's idea of what "good" is onto the guild and >its members. What Deadwood did and didn't do did not really have anything >to do with the guild in that it did not adversely effect any other member >of the guild nor the Duke. The man committed genocide. Admittedly not of a 'player' race, but nevertheless a race. There aren't many things worse than that. The Duke may not care about it, and the Guild may not care about it, but everyone that knows about it is going to have some level of response. The story demands it. In any case, he was not put to death because of the genocide, but because he betrayed the party, and this might have easily led to the destruction of one or more members of the party. That should warrant death, and pretty eternal, too. > >We should leave it to individual GM's to decide what to do in their own >games when confronted by either the "hit first and ask questions later" >character discussed above or equally the character "of questionable morels" >or "evil" character. As soon as the former kills/maims a town guard or the >later is caught is some evil and illegal act that character will have >violated the law of the land and should suffer the consquences. The guild >is within the lands of the Duke and subject to his laws. If a character >transgresses those laws and is caught then the primary sanction should be >whatever the Dukes' laws prescribe and not some substituted guild justice. >The guild should pretty much stand aside from such a process other than >cooperating with the duke as required. I think the Guild also has to consider what the impact of 'just standing by' has on the community. By and large, I think such a policy will be looked upon something more aggressively than askance. Enough agitated peasants, and the Duke will be wanting some guarantees from the Guild about the behaviour of Guild members. And so on. The Guild should not exist in a vaccuum. It should be part of the world, and subject to the same kinds of story pressures as anything else. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 22 18:51:06 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA05538; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:41:38 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA05534 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:41:37 +1300 Received: from dworkin (p50-max29.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.100.50]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA09245 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:34:00 +1300 Message-ID: <000c01bf34ac$9d586b20$4301a8c0@dworkin.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Good And Evil. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:44:15 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Dworkin" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Just a small campaign question, > >Do we have a codified scheme of good and Evil in DQ? > >It seems just lately that a large number of guild players are opting for the >"Im good, they are Evil, Lets hit them" principle of characterisation. Why >is this? It is getting to the point where over half the characters I can >name will fit neatly into the "Im Good" or "Im Bad" catagories. > >The points I am wondering are. > >1. Is it a response to the types of games being run at the moment? A large number of games in my experience are being run where the opposition is straight from the 'evil box'. This means that the opposition is evil and irredeemable to boot. This allows the PCs to butcher and commit other acts most civilisations would disprove of because the their actions are justified because the victims all have an Evil Badge. >2. Is it a good thing to encourage such simplified characterisations? No, if only for the confusion created when players used to a simple dichotomy or conflicting ideologies cross over into a game with the other emphasis. I myself was suprised when the reason for commiting an act of murder and kidnapping was 'they're evil'. OK, PCs are allowed to believe whatever they damn well like but since I don't run games of the good/evil persuasion it sounded odd. >3. Is it actually a really complex character thing disguised as a simple "I >wanna hit things excuse" or am I missing something here? I suspect so. It was the entire reason behind the ADD alignment system. You were allowed to break and enter, murder sientient beings, commit acts of terrorism upon other states, commit xenocide and lets not forget looting. All this because either you were evil and couldn't help yourself or you were good and all your victims were not. Read the modules if you don't believe me. > >4. Does DQ need a more codified Good/Evil thing? No, if only because very few people have any idea about good/evil beyond names for certain sides. William -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --