On Wed, 9 May 2007, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Then let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is one
> acceptable reason.
Again, I think that assumption is pretty central to the whole debate,
isn't it?
> The point is, that it's not the activity itself
> that's immoral, imo. It's the motivation for partaking in it.
I would qualify my acceptance of that statement by saying that I think the
activity, itself, can be immoral, at least in some cases.
> 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.
The problem with personal twisted fantasies is that reinforcement and
encouragement can not only strengthen them but make them more twisted. It
turns the feedback a person whould be getting for engaging in fantasies
about immoral behavior upside-down when it's not frustrated by a GM who
provides sufficient disincentives and negative feedback, either
intentionaly by loading the deck or unintentially by presenting a world
that reacts badly to evil behavior.
> Then why allow anyone to drink in the first place?
Because it's so deeply embedded in our society that it's not practical to
stop right now. It was tried with Prohibition (my church has an old
stained glass window donated by the Women's Temperence League) and the
cost and social disruption was high enough that it was abandoned. But
please note that I'm not calling for the banning of alcohol nor the
banning of playing Evil characters. Saying that something should be
frowned upon or disapproved of is not the same thing as saying that it
shouldn't be allowed.
> 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.
There have been various anecdotal examples here where playing an Evil
character either failed to be a sustainable activity or did cause problems
inside and/or outside of the game. Do you have any anectodal examples of
people playing sustained games with evil characters that had no problems?
> 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.
It's no big deal. Never liked the taste of alcohol, don't like the way
people behave when drunk, have no reason to drink, and don't.
> 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.
The anecdotes vary by degree, but I've also seen it myself. Role-playing
is a hobby that deals with fulfilling fantasies. As such, it can be a
sort of poor man's Fantasy Island where they can be anything and do
anything. And people can and do use it to escape from real life, just as
they use video games, television, internet chat rooms, etc. to do so. You
seem to want to blame the person's desire for escape for the problem, but
I think that temptations deserve at least some of the credit.
See the article I posted on the Columbine killings from Slate. It says:
"Klebold, they agree, would never have pulled off Columbine without
Harris. He might have gotten caught for some petty crime, gotten help in
the process, and conceivably could have gone on to live a normal life."
So, do we put any blame on the probable psychopath Harris for encouraging
his friend Klebold toward mass murder or put the blame fully on Klebold
and assume he always had that murderer hiding inside of him? And if we
do that, doesn't that ignore the point that if it weren't for the
influence of Harris, Klebold might have had a very normal life and never
murdered anyone? In your eyes, is anyone or anything ever responsible
for leading people astray, even in part?
> So would I. I would also have the same answer for someone who asked
> me if they should play a vicious baby-eating rapist. That doesn't
> mean that I don't think some people can drink without having a
> problem, nor does it mean that some people couldn't play a vicious
> baby-eating rapist without having a problem.
I think that a person can try to play a baby-eating rapist without having
a problem. But I think once that person really enjoys it or wants to come
back for more, there is most likely a problem. Brian has tried playing an
evil character and I've run a few of them. The result was that the
players didn't enjoy the taste of real evil and that was that.
Experiment over. I think I'd say that's not BadWrongFun because, frankly,
it's not a lot of fun. Where it becomes BadWrongFun is when the players
do think it's fun and want more.
John Morrow
|
