On May 9, 7:38 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <edcf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Mere moments before death, John Morrow <mor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> hastily
> scrawled:
>
> >On Wed, 9 May 2007, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> I don't know. I don't care. But, let's just assume that they have a
> >> reason. I'm sure that if you accept that the players in question are
> >> mature and rational that you'd concede the reasons they would want to
> >> are not contemptible.
>
> >I do know some of the reasons and, in part because of that, do care and
> >don't assume that it is not contempable, even when the person is
otherwise
> >fairly mature and rational.
>
> Then let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is one
> acceptable reason. The point is, that it's not the activity itself
> that's immoral, imo. It's the motivation for partaking in it. If it
> is, as Brian says, merely an outlet for personal twisted fantasies,
> then I don't think it's a good idea. I still don't necessarily think
> it then becomes a morality problem, though it could certainly be one
> and in most cir***stances probably would be.
That's an interesting point. It is possible, I suppose, to play an
evil character in order to help tell a good story. After all, that is
what GMs often do and it is what I do when I play a character "in the
service of the plot" in one of the LARPS where the GM asks me to do
so. I have never seen anyone play an _evil_ PC for that purpose but we
did have a long campaign where one of the characters was working
against the interests of the rest of the group and eventually died
while trying to betray them. To call him evil, one would have had to
use the word to mean "opponent in a rather ordinary war for territory"
and not a policy-maker at that. However, he _could_ have been playing
an evil character in that situation, to the same effect.
> >> So you *can* tell when someone is going to have a problem. You do
> >> realize that you can't have this both ways, right?
>
> >No, you can't always tell when they are going to have a problem. You
can
> >tell when they do have a problem. Yes, you can make an educated guess
> >based on various traits, but you can never know for certain.
>
> Then why allow anyone to drink in the first place? This is the same
> reasoning being used to describe playing Evil characters as
> BadWrongFun. If it's OK to drink, but not OK to become an alcoholic,
> why isn't it OK to play an Evil character without causing problems
> outside the game? Assuming, of course, that that's even possible.
Never seen it done, though. The people I know who have played evil
characters have done so because they liked playing people who rob,
murder and rape. But I will accept it as a hypothetical. Still, I
don't see it as workable for a whole gaming group or over a very long
time.
> >And please bear in mind that you are exchanging messages with a person
who
> >does not drink because alcoholism runs in my family. I don't know if
I'd
> >become an alcoholic or not and don't want to know.
>
> Good luck, and congratulations on making a brave decision. I know
> personally just how difficult it can be to break the cycle of
> addiction when it runs in a family.
>
> >> Maybe you need to stop believing everything you read on the
interwebs.
>
> >Ah, the fallacy of the excluded middle.
>
> No, that's not what I mean. If you rely on internet anecdotes of
> "creepy messed up gamers" you will almost certainly find that the
> author thinks the game is the cause of, and not merely a correlation
> to the creepy messed up behavior. Sometimes this is because the
> author has an axe to grind, but usually it's just because they simply
> aren't aware of all the facts.
>
I know that I was creepy and messed up long before I did any gaming.
<snipped the rest of the interesting discussion>
Will in New Haven
--
"Do you have tiger
Nature? Strike without anger;
Kill without feeling."
Feather in <Poker for Cats>
> modifier G @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11.
>
> "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
> --Terry Austin
|
