The Death of Belkar

[Errorname]

Sure it is. Check the alignment section: each of the good and neutral alignments ends with, "[this] is the best alignment you can be because [X]," each of the evil alignments ends with "[this] is the most dangerous alignment there is because [X]." Even if they didn't spell out that three of those alignments are meant for NPC antagonists, that'd be pretty clear. And they do, in fact, spell it out. I've played and run evil games (at least briefly; games collapse so often on these boards), but there's no point in acting like that's not a variant of the expected default.

To be clear, my main objection was "D&D is about serving the cause of Good", because it really isn't, not intrinsically.

I do agree that 'good' is the expected default, but you can expect forms of play without expecting them to be the default or even particularly common, and at this point "evil PC" is an extremely well precedented mode of play.

[Mordar]

To be clear, my main objection was "D&D is about serving the cause of Good", because it really isn't, not intrinsically.

I do agree that 'good' is the expected default, but you can expect forms of play without expecting them to be the default or even particularly common, and at this point "evil PC" is an extremely well precedented mode of play.

Plus there are 3 non-Good non-Evil options, including two that are (a little disappointingly) among the more common in some swathes of players.

- M

[Jason]

How about this quote?

Evil and darkness pervade the world of the D&D game, combating the forces of good (as epitomized by the PCs).

The Forces of Good are epitomized by the PCs.

Or this one?

While nonstandard, it is not uncommon for a group of players to want to turn the tables for a time and play evil characters.

Playing an all-Evil party is considered "nonstandard".

The bit about playing evil characters is in the appendix of the book (in other words, the rest of the book is really intended for use by evil NPCs), and it goes on to describe how an all-Evil campaign is different from a standard campaign "Is running an evil campaign completely different from running a normal campaign?" The answer to that question is "the largest difference is motivation."

[Errorname]

The Forces of Good are epitomized by the PCs.

I do not think this is an accurate description of how most D&D games, even ones with good or neutral PCs are actually played.

Playing an all-Evil party is considered "nonstandard".

Agreed but my argument is not that it is standard but rather that it still falls within the bounds of expected play.

it goes on to describe how an all-Evil campaign is different from a standard campaign "Is running an evil campaign completely different from running a normal campaign?" The answer to that question is "the largest difference is motivation."

Also agreed. An Evil party is going to work much the same as not-Evil parties, they will still play a recognizable D&D campaign, they will just have different justifications for why they're doing the same gameplay.

[Jason]

I do not think this is an accurate description of how most D&D games, even ones with good or neutral PCs are actually played.

I do. I've been playing the game since the early '80s and yes, the assumption throughout has been that the PCs are the good guys and will want (as a group) to help the hapless dirt farmers or save the world from the evil lich sorcerer.

They aren't the "epitome of good" in the sense of being all soaring paragons of virtue, Superman style; but they are at least heroes on the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Conan level.

[Mordar]

How about this quote?

The Forces of Good are epitomized by the PCs.

Or this one?

Playing an all-Evil party is considered "nonstandard".

The bit about playing evil characters is in the appendix of the book (in other words, the rest of the book is really intended for use by evil NPCs), and it goes on to describe how an all-Evil campaign is different from a standard campaign "Is running an evil campaign completely different from running a normal campaign?" The answer to that question is "the largest difference is motivation."

Nonstandard...but not uncommon. So (in honor of the Super Bowl) that's like running on 3rd-and-7, or passing on 4th-and-1. Happens nearly every game, but most of the time the standard pass/run option is chosen.

I do not think this is an accurate description of how most D&D games, even ones with good or neutral PCs are actually played.

I do. I've been playing the game since the early '80s and yes, the assumption throughout has been that the PCs are the good guys and will want (as a group) to help the hapless dirt farmers or save the world from the evil lich sorcerer.

They aren't the "epitome of good" in the sense of being all soaring paragons of virtue, Superman style; but they are at least heroes on the Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Conan level.

I do think "epitome" is pretty loaded, and implies a paragon game. With a similar play span, I think the PCs are pretty much always the non-Evil guys that increase the net Good even if as a by-product of their gold-hungry ways. And sometimes they are plain Good.

- M

[gbaji]

Whoops, you are right -- "is", not "isn't"! I'll fix it. The fixed version is what I took myself to be talking about, though. I wasn't misunderstanding what you said (at least, not in that particular way).

I still believe there's significant value in distinguishing between someone choosing to not do something that benefits you versus choosinng to do something that harms you. And also value in distinquishing between a "baseline" (what happens if I take no action at all?) versus "outcome". If your friend takes no action with regard to you at all, they are not hanging out with you and being your friend, thus that is the baseline. Removing positive actions for you is not actually taking anything from you, it's merely restoring that baseline that would exist naturally.

But... from the perspective of a third party, if your friend is your friend and is spending time being your friend, then *that* is the baseline. In the absence of a third party intervening in some way, your friend will be your friend (with all the positives that may entail). If said third party takes an action to kill your friend, then yes, the removal of that friendship is now a "negative effect" (ie: harm). This is why, when a third party acts to prevent someone from helping you, that is "harm", but if that someone merely chooses on their own not to help you, it's not harm.

Eh.... Moving on though.

Oppression in the real world is always seen as unjust or cruel. It is not a morally-neutral term. Justice plays a part in that when people say "oppression" they mean that an injustice is being done. Otherwise they would not call it "oppression".

Not sure how complete this may be, but a good definition for oppression is that it is a variety of negative effects (which absolutely may include a lot of coerson), but where the acting party is *also* some sort of authority.

If someone is doing something bad to you, but you have legal recourse (a "higher authority" you can go to), then we don't normally apply the term "oppression". If the highest authority you can go to (whatever that is) is actually what is causing the <whatever it is that's causing harm> then that is probably what we would label oppression.

So... Yeah. It's maybe not just about it being unjust, but that there is little or no hope of achieving justice as well. If it's the government that is rounding you up and putting you in camps, that's oppression. If you are a human living in a land controlled by Orcs, and thus relegated to second class or slave status, that's oppression. You have no legal recourse, but can only fight against whomever is in power/control/authority to relieve whatever is causing the harm to you.

It's a powerful word, and should be used to reflect the most extreme cases where there is such an absence of non-violent responses available to deal with it. It's also, sadly, often terribly overused or misapplied. Not necessarily for nefarious purposes, but we all have a tendency to want to exagerrate whatever things we don't like (whther in-game or not), which can lead to the absurdity of a thief claiiming "help help! I'm being oppressed", because the legitimate law is arresting him for legitimate crimes. Of course, this can get really interesting when considering actual in-game cultural differences in which maybe in said orc controlled lands, what is legal and illegal may radically differ from what elves or humans might find acceptable.

My general approach is to avoid using a very broad and powerful term like oppression, when a narrower and more specific one may work better.