Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[Typewriter]

In one campaign the party was hired by a LG dwarven priest (not a Paladin) to clear out some mines. At the end of the mine only women and children remained. I refused to clear them out, and I couldn't convince them to leave.

When we returned to the dwarven priest he took over the slaughter for us. I tried to attack him (alone) and wound up getting arrested and sent to jail. The rest of the party was rewarded. Then I retired that character and created a new one who would fit in better.

In a campaign I ran a Paladin was working for a fallen Angel who was trying to rewrite existence. He didn't realize this part of that. He was lawful good in the extreme, so he had severe anxiety issues over some of the angels accomplices.

In one game a gnome who was living in solitude found a troll who had been knocked unconscious in a landslide and tied him up, then fed himself(and the troll) on regenerating troll meat for years.


I've never played in a game, or DMed a game, in which morality is sometimes questioned. When I play a good aligned creature I never - and I repeat, never - strike first unless we're battling mindless creatures.

[Rusty]

This isn't even close to a fuss, but do go on.

I don't know, the fact that you felt compelled to make a topic about this (and have continued the argument for this long) sort of gives the indication that it's at least a fuss (though likely no more).

Goblins aren't sentient beings. They're not beings at all. They're a fictional concept and they can have whatever qualities a writer likes. They can be pure evil, burst into flames in sunlight, have hearts that are baked potatoes, and die when someone throws a feather at them. And it would not be equivalent to "racism" to write them that way.

Regarding the OotS world, goblins ARE sentient beings. Obviously they're not real beings in the real world. No sane person believes goblins are real life beings or creatures. BECAUSE they are sentient beings in the OotS world, it IS prejudice to assume they're evil simply for being goblins. (Again, "racism" isn't the proper term here, so don't use it.)

Really? How do we judge what a monster is "likely" to be like, given that there are no monsters? As for relating to them better, if that's what the writer wants that's his prerogative. It is not, however, morally wrong or "racist" to write them in another manner.

Because the author defines the parameters. The author decides what the monster is. The author is the creator. Therefore, what the author says goes. Since The Giant wants goblins to be very much like humans in thought process and whatnot, that's how he writes them. No one's saying you CAN'T write goblins in another matter. But you also can't say The Giant is wrong for writing them in the way he sees them (even if he is using D&D as a basis).

Well, there's pre-judging and then there's just judging. Some characters in OOTS are indeed pre-judging, and that's how Mr. Burlew wants it, and it's his story. But Mr. Burlew's assertion that this is the norm in standard D&D, that the game encourages that, and that it's morally wrong and "racist" for the game to be structured as it is doesn't sit well with me or seem valid. Given that, I find his effort to scourge said phenomena via the comic misguided.

Well, D&D does supply a generally accepted setting with many creatures/beings forced into certain alignments (which typically doesn't make a lick of sense when the beings are sentient). While I agree it's no major threat to contributing to real racism, it does underscore humanity's aversions to things/people that are different, which in turn can contribute to make an already interesting story more intriguing.

Indeed. If Mr. Burlew's story were self-contained and his story alone, that would be one thing. But his story is indelibly chained to a wealth of outside material, and he's using his story to comment on that material, and I disagree with the comment he is making.

Well, it's not completely unusual for a DM to alter some aspects of the included D&D universe. D&D encourages this. Regardless of The Giant's intent, that's how I view these alterations - like The Giant is the DM, and we - the readers - are the PCs. He gives us the setting (writes), and we play along (read). If the setting bored or bothered us enough, we probably wouldn't play, yeah?

You could look at it this way, though. Artists often challenge the 'norms' (or assumed norms), and that's what Burlew's doing here. He's challenging D&D's universe.

[MReav]

You could look at it this way, though. Artists often challenge the 'norms' (or assumed norms), and that's what Burlew's doing here. He's challenging D&D's universe.

I'd say he's more challenging player's perception of the D&D universe. In D&D normal, the universe does not conspire against the fodder races nearly so blatantly.

[Rusty]

Good point. :)

[MReav]

You know, something just hit me, we have this big moral discussions about the treatment of the fodder races, but in Dungeon Crawling Fools, one of the points of Zz'dtri was to poke fun at players who made rebellious spirit characters of what are supposed to be antagonist races. Given that Redcloak's beef is all about him being peeved at the treatment of such races, if I'm curious as to whether or not Redcloak's characterization is The Giant himself moving away from such attitudes.

Perhaps Order of the Stick becomes the Drizzt novels for goblins, inspiration for players to play goblins who refuse to conform to the goblin stereotypes and in turn become a cliche.

[Bastian]

Regarding the OotS world, goblins ARE sentient beings. Obviously they're not real beings in the real world. No sane person believes goblins are real life beings or creatures. BECAUSE they are sentient beings in the OotS world, it IS prejudice to assume they're evil simply for being goblins. (Again, "racism" isn't the proper term here, so don't use it.)

I beg to differ. My neighbor is a Goblin and I am pretty sure he is a real life being. No, it's not the proper term since 'Racism' applies to members of the same species but my neighbor seems to be comfortable with that:
http://www.goblinscomic.com/10142005/
He tends to be ethnocentric sometimes, but he is one hell of a chess player.

[Anarion]

You know, something just hit me, we have this big moral discussions about the treatment of the fodder races, but in Dungeon Crawling Fools, one of the points of Zz'dtri was to poke fun at players who made rebellious spirit characters of what are supposed to be antagonist races. Given that Redcloak's beef is all about him being peeved at the treatment of such races, if I'm curious as to whether or not Redcloak's characterization is The Giant himself moving away from such attitudes.

Perhaps Order of the Stick becomes the Drizzt novels for goblins, inspiration for players to play goblins who refuse to conform to the goblin stereotypes and in turn become a cliche.

I doubt it. The comedy with the Drizzt type characters is that there are too many of them. In the lore most Drow are pretty terrible people, which has been explained as arising from their upbringing and religious beliefs tracing back to when they split off from the surface elves. Drizzt proves that not all Drow are bad (strongly supporting the Giant's points in this thread), but it gets a bit ridiculous when the majority of Drow cast themselves as "the good-aligned outcast rebelling against my terrible culture." If the majority of them are good, one starts to wonder what they're rebelling against.

[Kalmegil]

it gets a bit ridiculous when the majority of Drow cast themselves as "the good-aligned outcast rebelling against my terrible culture."

I think this illustrates an important point: the number of characters of a given race that the readers (or players, in a campaign) see are not proportional to the makeup of the race. So even if most or all Drow PCs are good, it doesn't mean there's no terrible culture to rebel against. The characters (or PCs) visible to the reader/player are not, and should not be, representative.

In Tolkien, the only orcs and goblins we see are those attacking the good (or mostly good or somewhat good) characters. We should not assume from that that there are no orcs who don't try to kill and pillage. If there were such orcs, we wouldn't see them, just like we don't see the Entwives.

And there's little doubt that the killing of the orcs documented in LotR is just, or at least arguably just. Many of them occur in the course of a defensive war. The rest occur when the fellowship is attacked. There's no evidence of an attempt to surrender by any orc. Even when surrounded, the orcs don't try to surrender to Eomer.

We know the humans who surrender are amazed they are not cruelly put to death, because they had been told this would happen if they surrendered. Perhaps the orcs took such warnings more to heart.

[RickGriffin]

Not really an accurate summary, no, you've garbled several different points together. This is understandable, given the size of the thread and the many different fronts that the discussion is working on.

To whit, the argument is that Redcloak's story represents Mr. Burlew's take on what he feels are the morally repugnant qualities of fantasy gaming and D&D in particular; he feels that D&D is a racist game (or at least, contains a great degree of racist content), and that it is a "short jump" from depicting monsters as evil to employing hateful stereotypes against real people. I contend that that is not only not a short jump, that it's such a profound leap that you would need the diminished gravity of the moon to get it done.

APSKGH--THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT

You basically said nothing different from me except that you thought that dehumanizing a fantasy monster could never correlate to real world racism. That is merely the other side of my distillation of the argument, which is monsters cannot be humanized to any purposeful degree. You said nothing different.

And my argument against such is still from the literary perspective. The reason that stand-ins are used in all kinds of literature for anything is to talk about issues without poking at them directly. What if Redcloak and all his goblin bretheren were human? What if they were a specific race of humans?! It would certainly be a lot harder to praise a comic in which an entire race of villains were all from a very specific region of our world and cast them as evil despite them having nuance. The reason that the Sapphire Guard could even partially reflect an asian culture was because they were portrayed otherwise good. And what in the current setup makes them any different, other than they are a step removed?

By what standard do you determine what a human is?

[rbetieh]

You know, I have enjoyed this thread as an observer. I just wanted to say that I doubt highly that Gygax and the other designers of D&D ever intended the game as racist per se.

The problem is, D&D left the concepts of Good/Evil fairly open, allowing their game to be fairly portable to other current and future IRL cultures. It seems to me that it is up to the DM to describe "how" Goblins are evil in D&D. That isn't the case in other fantasy RPGs where they will tell you things like culture of monster species X is that they worship devils, practice in ritualistic sacrifices, eat other sentient races, and particularly consider smaller, weaker, species X a delicacy.

I don't know what was reprised in SoD (although this thread does make me think a lot was) but the comic only gives glimpses of goblin society here. Note, the teenager is rebelling against their parents not because of a moral objection, but because he is a teenager. It has to be assumed that when he was a young child, he did not rebel and was in fact drinking the blood of the innocent because it was "good for him". It's up to each of us to decide the evilness of the childs action, just as its up to the "DM" (aka the Author) to decide how goblins are Evil.

This is actually kind of different from other worlds and game systems, actually. I highly doubt that the Straw Races in DS9, the Cardassians and the Ferenghi, are listed in the latest Star Trek RPGs as 'Evil'. They probably have their entire culture defined, and it is up to the GM in that case to decide whether to use them as antagonists and whether to consider them 'Evil'.

Moral Relativism vs Moral Absolutism...the battle continues on to eternity....ok back to watcher mode for me.

[RickGriffin]

Now hold on, that the game tends to create a standard that would not pass in the real world does not mean that everyone on one side of the debate thinks that every player in particular is a racist for failing to legitimize this concern.

The concern arises when there are large swaths of players who do not examine this trend critically, ever. It is not just with monsters, it's a problem with players who play the game like sociopaths despite labeling themselves as good; monsters are just one facet. How many paladins have stabbed through human NPCs who only pinged evil? Does that player understand the morality that's being portrayed? If he doesn't care what the "evil" ping means, why? How does a character end up pinging evil? Why should it matter enough to be a part of the game at all? And how many DMs let their players get away with it?

[veti]

I still don't see how D&D has ever been a game about racist Paladins skewering helpless goblin children. Have you played that game? I've never played that game.

Actually, I have played that game, and it was a lot of fun.

It was DMd by a historian, who drummed into us at every turn that the morality of this medieval-like world was really entirely unlike anything we might think of as "moral". "Lawful Good" in his context had nothing whatever to do with "respecting the lives and rights of sentient beings", and nobody had ever even dreamt of thinking about the mere possibility of coining a word like "racism", that was taken for granted.

I believe the D&D material as recently as 3.5e describes "LG" as "the crusader alignment". Check out what the crusaders actually did - and not just the ones in the Holy Land, but the teutonic knights in Poland, or the first crusades against the Albigensians

But the key point here is: we, his players, were shocked at these things. The world was a confusing and scary place, until we started to get our heads into the 13th century mindset and it began to swim into focus. We certainly didn't need telling that these things were "wrong" by any standard we'd accept in real life.

It's a kind of roleplaying that, in my opinion, more people should try.

[hamishspence]

The concern arises when there are large swaths of players who do not examine this trend critically, ever. It is not just with monsters, it's a problem with players who play the game like sociopaths despite labeling themselves as good; monsters are just one facet. How many paladins have stabbed through human NPCs who only pinged evil? Does that player understand the morality that's being portrayed? If he doesn't care what the "evil" ping means, why? How does a character end up pinging evil? Why should it matter enough to be a part of the game at all? And how many DMs let their players get away with it?

This sums it up pretty well.

[OrzhvoPatriarch]

Just finished reading the thread so it’s time to throw my hat into the ring.

I’m going to start by talking goblins from the perspective of game design. This first bit here is purely a mechanical discussion. Goblins were made by the real life developers of Dnd for the same reason Red cloak claims the gods made them: They are supposed to be easily defeated ways to move the characters up to higher levels. They were made small creatures and outfitted poorly so that players would feel a sense of power over them, so from the get go your human fighter feels strong and like an adventurer. They were made usually, but not always, evil so that a DM could easily find ways to make them opposed to the PCs. They were also made ugly and wicked looking so that they could be killed en masse with no guilt. So, to a certain extent the OP is correct. Goblins right out of the book are made to be killed guilt free because they are goblins. But, and this is a but in serious need of a new diet plan, dnd is meant to be a game were the DM and the players pick and choice what they like about it and use those parts while ignoring the others. Saying that dnd only works in black and white is false, saying it works best in black and white is an opinion that is quite far from the majority. If that’s how the OP feels about this particular issue then there is nothing left for us to do but shake hands and agree to disagree.

Now I’m going to move on to how goblins are used in the comic. I am actually going to ignore start of darkness, because I just want to focus on what we see of goblins in the main story.

At the start we see a band of adventures going on the most basic and simple kind of adventure you can have in Dnd. There is a villain in a dungeon full of monsters, go kill him so he can no longer terrorize the surrounding areas and get his stuff. In this first part, goblins are exactly what the word goblin conjures up in the mind: Small, easily disposable fodder that is evil for what was at the time is no given reason. It continues like this for quite a while, but then we get to see our first change in the goblins: the goblin teenagers. The goblin teenagers prove that it isn’t impossible for a goblin to be good while reinforcing the fact that goblin society is evil, though still no reason for why the society being evil is given. The next time we see something new of goblins is when we see hobgoblins. We see them to have military discipline equal to that of humans, and are capable of building and maintaining forts and an army. This shows us that goblins are naturally dumber or more savage then humans. As an aside, they aren’t in dnd either; they are physically weaker and less charismatic in terms of goblins, and actually physically superior with no mental handicaps in the case of hobgoblins. The next big thing in how the audience is supposed to view goblins comes when one of the hobgoblins general sacrifices himself to save his superior, an action that would be considered incredible noble by the very city they are at the time assaulting. Now we see that goblins are capable of loyalty to their superiors, and that they are willing to die for causes they see as greater than themselves. We also see that goblins value the lives of other goblins when redcloak comes to his senses, sees that he was wrong about he was in his judgment of hobgoblins, and changes his tactics to ensure victory with the fewest amount of additional casualties. He then even puts himself at great risk battling another high priest to prevent more goblins from being killed. At this point the goblins take over the city, and we are reminded that they are in fact an evil society. They enslave, imprison, and execute the remaining humans. We see that goblins are willing to deal with other, none goblin societies in the way they create treaties. There new nations motto “Screw you guys, it’s OUR turn now” revels there motivation. The goblins feel that they have not been given a proper piece of the pie, and are fighting to try to get it. And very recently in comic, Redcloak’s plan has been revealed, to given control of the Snarl to the Dark One.


The point I am getting at is that goblins started out in the comic as being depicted as the OP wishes them to be, as they usually are in fantasy works: evil because we need something to oppose the heroes. A good DM takes the raw material from the books and makes changes so the material better suits his style, his story, and his players. The Giant did this while also letting us see the evolution happening. We come in seeing goblins as just being evil, but then we learn a little more about them, and then a little more, and then a little more. And then we see why they do what they do. They are still, by and large, evil. But now they have a reason for it.

If that evolution and the way goblins are depicted is distasteful to the OP, well then once again there is nothing left for us to do but shake hands and agree to disagree, because I do not think I will ever be able to understand why the above could be considered poor writing or bad dnd.

[AutomatedTeller]

I don't honestly have a problem with playing the game like a sociopath - "if you ping as evil, a paladin can kill you on spec"

There's a type of world where that's ok. it's not a Rich Burlew world and it certainly isn't the world of the Order of the Stick and it's not even close to the real world... but that's why it's a game, not real world.

[RickGriffin]

I don't honestly have a problem with playing the game like a sociopath - "if you ping as evil, a paladin can kill you on spec"

There's a type of world where that's ok. it's not a Rich Burlew world and it certainly isn't the world of the Order of the Stick and it's not even close to the real world... but that's why it's a game, not real world.

The problem is that it then assumes morality is solely dualistic; that is, that the side of good is no different than the side of evil if the only goal and purpose on both sides is to slaughter the enemies on the opposing side. Sure, you CAN play a game like that, but then you have people like me who will try force a real kind of morality out of it, because good and evil are more interesting than side A and side B.

I wouldn't mind myself so long as it was stated outright form the start that we're simulating a war and not telling my preferred kind of story . . .

[Niesra]

I too have enjoyed this thread as an observer. One of my favorite things about OOTS is that every (well most) characters that appear have a distinct personality (or at least they appear to have one, even if for humorous purposes). I would not say goblins or any other "evil" creatures are labeled as such randomly. The same goes for those aligned "good" or "neutral." In the aggregate or in general we would expect them to conform to things that are typically (or stereotypically) considered good, neutral, evil, lawful, or chaotic (and any combination thereof). That makes for tension (good tension) and drives games and plots and such, right? In the real world nothing is like that but in a fantasy world this makes complete sense.

Yet, there is a very important difference when you talk about races, nations, peoples, societies, etc. than when you talk about individuals. This is obvious, but I think it is a major theme of the comic. Of course, the former can and typically are just as complex---in fact, they are even more so than individuals, which is why understanding their intricacies and the nuances of how they actually function is very involved and a whole story in itself. With "real world" mechanics and notions (and such stories) understanding the context of the individual and the complexities of said context is essential and makes for a compelling narrative. In a fantasy world where aggregates tend to be black and white or conform to a set of norms, then parodying and questioning the aggregates at the individual level, or at a micro level, has become a major theme in OOTS, and an excellent source of humor and character development and complexity.

Let's assume goblins are evil not because they are labeled as such but because their race conforms to evildoing, like attacking and killing the innocent, worshiping "evil" deities in a morbid fashion, and so on. Assume Paladins are sponsors of justice and all that is good and right. Their beliefs do not need to define their personality or who they are individually. Their beliefs are in intrinsic part of that, of course, and indeed they are the motive behind many of their actions and goals, yet a good person can be a self-involved jackass (Miko would be an example) and an evil person can be caring (like Redcloak is for the goblins). Redcloak can still be incredibly heartless and capable of truly appalling acts (as we were just reminded of a few strips ago when he murdered Tsukiko) while Miko believed that what she was doing would ultimately bring justice and good to the world (misguided as she was).

To them, at the individual or micro level, alignments define the motives and justifications for their actions, but their actions do not need to conform to their alignment, much like in the real world an act born from the kindness of your heart can be catastrophic and an evil act can bring about good things. Being good or evil, having good or evil motives, or doing good or evil things also says little about what we are willing to do for things we care about more than our beliefs and our belief system (which, again, can very easily happen in the real world). Elan's parents did marry and got divorced, and the comic made a joke about how their alignments were opposites. In other words, they had fundamental differences about their fundamental beliefs, their life goals, what they thought was acceptable, and so on. I would think of someone extremely conservative marrying someone extremely liberal, or something like that, with the promise of change in the middle. Yet in the end the fact their core belief systems and motives are so different and perhaps ingrained in them can very well prove to be stronger than whatever it was that attracted them in the first place. Conflict becomes the struggle between those core beliefs and all the other things you care about that do not fit within that philosophy.

So after this very involved rant, I will say this again: I like the fact OOTS seemingly careless jokes and parodies about stereotypes and alignments resolve into very complex and unique characters struggling to find their personality amid the preset norms of the world around them and the rigidity of the beliefs that seemingly define them and their races. I like that monsters have personalities, taste, goals, friends, boyfriends and girlfriends, wives and husbands, grandparents and grandchildren, jobs, and everything we would not necessarily expect them to have. I like that adventurers can be heartless when it comes to mining XP and that Paladins can be thoughtless crusaders. I do not think that makes for inconsistency, but I think that creates a very involved world that merges several perspectives of reality through humor and satire---hence its brilliance.

Of course, in such a long-running comic where I have a very hard time believing every single detail or joke was planned, perhaps we can find one or two very obvious "contradictions." Still, it should be just as obvious that people often do things that are very out of character for no apparent reason, and sometimes random unexplainable things do happen. However, when talking about in a broader sense, I stand by everything I said above.

[SaintRidley]

Two cents here.

Your character being prejudiced and feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? Not a problem. Go right ahead.

You, the player, feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? That's something of a problem. You're taking something that should stay within the game world (the outlook that monsters should be killed regardless), something which should not be a constant or universal axiom of the game world in the first place but merely a choice among many for possible characterization, and you are bringing it out into the real world.

Sure, you're only applying it to in game constructs. But that's the problem. YOU are applying it. Not your character, but you.

[veti]

I have. My best friend played a ranger in our previous campaign who did not want to kill any of the kobolds we fought. He was forced to kill two of them when the party accidentally fell into a mine and a powerful group of kobolds threatened his character's life. However, the party then incapacitated two others, his wizard friend shapeshifted into a kobold to make negotiations possible, they healed the unconscious kobolds and then negotiated a settlement between the nearby mining town and the kobolds.

In your eagerness to contradict N_P, you've just told an anecdote that perfectly illustrates his point. You've given us another data point where the players don't feel it's okay to kill things just because they've got scaly skin.

And you're not the only one - there are a whole bunch of such anecdotes in this thread. Which tends to reinforce N_P's point, that Rich's caricature is not really how the game is commonly played.

You mean, it's implausible that an organization would continue performing wrong actions despite clear evidence of bad outcomes? I find that entirely plausible. The fallen paladins may not understand or accept the idea that those particular actions caused their fall (just look at Miko again). The Sapphire Guard may not be aware of their fellows' falls--as noted by the Giant, Miko's fall was exceptionally visible and should not be taken as the norm. The Sapphire Guard may not accept the explanation offered by the fallen paladins, out of racism or devotion to Soon's directive or lack of corroborating evidence (after all, most OotS paladins who kill evil goblins probably do not fall). At every step there is a possible or likely explanation for how this deleterious practice could have persisted--for generations, even--despite the existence of hard evidence that it was a BAD IDEA.

This is far-fetched. The Twelve Gods don't put on a complete son et lumiere for every paladin that falls, but it's still fairly evident - per Miko, all their special holy paladin equipment stops working, as well as their special paladin powers. It's highly implausible that they wouldn't notice, and fairly quickly too. And surely the SG would institute a pretty thorough inquiry into such events, and they would use magical aid to divine what happened. It would take monumental levels of incompetence on their part to fail to realise what was happening.

And even if you assume that the SG really was that stupid, you'd have to attribute the same levels of indifference or incompetence to the Twelve Gods themselves. What kind of employer fires someone for breaking the rules and then doesn't tell anyone, including the individual concerned, what rule they broke?

[hamishspence]

What kind of employer fires someone for breaking the rules and then doesn't tell anyone, including the individual concerned, what rule they broke?

The "cosmic forces of law and good" in games where paladins don't have to get the powers from deities, or don't have any deity input as to whether they Fall or not, would fit.

When a paladin Falls, it's possible that they don't know which specific act cause the fall,

or whether the Fall was due to Evil Act, Alignment Change, or Gross Violation of Code (different paladins may have different opinions as to what constitutes a Gross Violation and what doesn't).

[Jan Mattys]

Two cents here.

Your character being prejudiced and feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? Not a problem. Go right ahead.

You, the player, feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? That's something of a problem. You're taking something that should stay within the game world (the outlook that monsters should be killed regardless), something which should not be a constant or universal axiom of the game world in the first place but merely a choice among many for possible characterization, and you are bringing it out into the real world.

Sure, you're only applying it to in game constructs. But that's the problem. YOU are applying it. Not your character, but you.

It's exactly the kind of reasoning I find myself at odds with.
Reading too much into people's motives for not caring is exactly the kind of mistake Rich did previously in his posts.
Goblins, Orcs, Illithids and Beholders do NOT activate my moral alarm. They are artificial constructs.. It is painful to state the obvious, but really... it looks like someone here has problems with reality, so I'll state it plain: they-do-not-exist.

Evaluating people's values according to their actions / reactions to things that do-not-exist is just plain silly.

[Bastian]

Two cents here.

Your character being prejudiced and feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? Not a problem. Go right ahead.

You, the player, feeling it is okay to kill goblins (man, woman, or child) for pinging evil? That's something of a problem. You're taking something that should stay within the game world (the outlook that monsters should be killed regardless), something which should not be a constant or universal axiom of the game world in the first place but merely a choice among many for possible characterization, and you are bringing it out into the real world.

Sure, you're only applying it to in game constructs. But that's the problem. YOU are applying it. Not your character, but you.

Your two cents have proven to be enlightening is summing up the thorny issue of in-game and out-of-game 'racism' (as the term has been used).

But if a player has unresolved issues (crusader complex, racism-related, yoyu name it ) and inevitably projects them in the game?
Overall, the problem lies with a lack of empathy.
The more we lower our empathy, the more ready we are to objectifying the sentient beings around us.

Is the player bringing out in the real world his outlook, or bringing it in the role-playing game?

[RickGriffin]

Evaluating people's values according to their actions / reactions to things that do-not-exist is just plain silly.

So then you find there is no problem with playing a game where you can slaughter arabs and blacks and jews and whoever indiscriminately simply because within the game they are fictional constructs (or "It's just a parody" as some designers have defended themselves saying) and do not exist for really real?

And don't try to tell me it's a completely different situation; the only difference is whether the words used to describe their physical characteristics make you feel bad for killing them or not.

[Jan Mattys]

So then you find there is no problem with playing a game where you can slaughter arabs and blacks and jews and whoever indiscriminately simply because within the game they are fictional constructs and do not exist for really real?

And don't try to tell me it's a completely different situation; the only difference is whether the words used to describe their physical characteristics make you feel bad for killing them or not.

First, it is a completely different situation. The sillier and the farthest away from reality the setting, the less I am expected to blend in and take my morals with me along the road.

Second: I never forget, while playing, that I am playing in an imaginary world. If I am playing a Tzimisce in a Sabbat raid, I would enjoy and take delight in doing things that would make me puke in the real world. Thats required in the Masquerade settings.

The point is that I strongly disagree with the notion that if I play a ruthless Tzimisce in a Masquerade game, I have inside me the potential for being a real world children-eater and a complete monster.

[Bastian]

So then you find there is no problem with playing a game where you can slaughter arabs and blacks and jews and whoever indiscriminately simply because within the game they are fictional constructs (or "It's just a parody" as some designers have defended themselves saying) and do not exist for really real?

And don't try to tell me it's a completely different situation; the only difference is whether the words used to describe their physical characteristics make you feel bad for killing them or not.

The ethnic groups you mentioned exist in real life. The creatures in the Book of Vile Darkness, they do not. They are created because the Heroes are only as good as their Villains. A part of the necessary role they play in the game dynamics, they are not meant to represent any group.

Is there a single Devil or Demon or whatever in the layers of Hell who is not evil, for example? They are sentient creatures. They are also the embodiment of Evil. But hey, try and storm the Gates of Hell and find it empty. That would be a boring, huh?

[RickGriffin]

First, it is a completely different situation. The sillier and the farthest away from reality the setting, the less I am expected to blend in and take my morals with me along the road.

Second: I never forget, while playing, that I am playing in an imaginary world. If I am playing a Tzimisce in a Sabbat raid, I would enjoy and take delight in doing things that would make me puke in the real world. Thats required in the Masquerade settings.

The point is that I strongly disagree with the notion that if I play a ruthless Tzimisce in a Masquerade game, I have inside me the potential for being a real world children-eater and a complete monster.

But just because your method for living-vicariously-through-the-game grounds you within the game's story does not mean that all people make the same consideration.

For any conflict within the setting the players enjoy it in one of three ways:

1) it is a game and they are your enemy (tactical simulation approach)
2) you are seeing through the eyes of your character, who perceives them as his enemy (roleplaying approach)
3) they are fictional beings and who cares let's kill stuff (escapist approach)

While most people assume they play from 1, you absolutely must decide between 2 or 3 any time you are forced to make a decision about whether the group you are fighting is really your enemy or not.

If you are always making the consideration from 2 it probably means you have a good DM who makes the world real and gives you interesting situations to consider, but within that situation you would also have a character who may choose to not kill indiscriminately for any number of reasons.

But most DMs don't go that deep; they are there to provide a setting in which the players are given little bloodbags of XP to pop. If it can remain in 1, maybe, but if the game is going to be any more than a shallow consideration of battlefield tactics, if it's going to have a story, then 2 and 3 must be taken into account.

[hamishspence]

Is there a single Devil or Demon or whatever in the layers of Hell who is not evil, for example? They are sentient creatures. They are also the embodiment of Evil.

There's a succubus paladin statted on the WotC site.

On the other side of the coin, there are celestials in some splatbooks that have gained an evil alignment, yet are still celestials- they retain their Good subtype, and other subtypes like Angel.

Elder Evils has one, the servant of Sertruous, one of the Eldar Evils.

[Jan Mattys]

Also (just to expand my answer):

In a game set in something similar to the real world, I would probably play characters who apply a "real" or "realistic" set of moral guidelines.

In a setting where almost everybody knows that Evil and Good are not philosophical or cultural categories, but powerful forces that helped shape the very Existence, and where entities of Pure Good and Pure Evil are like, TOTALLY real... well, in that setting I would find a "Shoot first, ask later" attitude far less disturbing than in a "realistic setting".

A "shoot first, ask later" attitude in a realistic setting is dangerous, unmotivated, and probably psychotic. In a setting like D&d... you can agree or disagree with it, but it does make a LOT more sense, because zealots would have a point. I mean, it wouldn't be "just all in their heads"...

In the real world, the notion that very little is black and very little is white is probably the first, biggest and most important lesson you can ever learn.
In a fantasy setting where Chaos, Law, Evil and Good DO shape reality, and it's proven, and everybody knows it... seriously, if you still see the world in shades of grey, more power to you, but you can't honestly say that fundamentalists do not have a point. Because they do.

That's why expecting people to be consistent when they transport themselves through imagination to a world of magic, danger, monsters and glory is silly.

That's my take on it, at least. :-(

[RickGriffin]

Is there a single Devil or Demon or whatever in the layers of Hell who is not evil, for example? They are sentient creatures. They are also the embodiment of Evil. But hey, try and storm the Gates of Hell and find it empty. That would be a boring, huh?

And Demons are creatures who have a very specific environment and backstory: Hell. Goblins do not have this; they are mortals on the mortal plain and basically have the same biological functions as humans.

And even then, uplifting/falling does exist among outsiders. Why yes, it would be very interesting to play a game where you were unsure whether a Demon who asks for your aid really switched to the side of good as he claims, thank you for pointing that out.

[Bastian]

First, it is a completely different situation. The sillier and the farthest away from reality the setting, the less I am expected to blend in and take my morals with me along the road.

Second: I never forget, while playing, that I am playing in an imaginary world. If I am playing a Tzimisce in a Sabbat raid, I would enjoy and take delight in doing things that would make me puke in the real world. Thats required in the Masquerade settings.

The point is that I strongly disagree with the notion that if I play a ruthless Tzimisce in a Masquerade game, I have inside me the potential for being a real world children-eater and a complete monster.

This.

Plus, every human being has somewhere the potential (that 99.9% never comes to light) to become a 'monster'. And that's not a personal opinion but the outlook of most mental health pratictioners. Will be glad to discuss details via PM.

Theatre, Role-Playing Games, Masquerades, etc. gives people the possibility to explore other polarities when made in full awareness and acceptance. So Jan, if you play a ruthless Tzimisce and you play it well, you are actually showing the opposite about yourself.