On Thu, 10 May 2007, Ben Finney wrote:
> What differences, significant to this thread, are you thinking of
> between GM and player character ****trayal?
Issues of time spent doing it, distance from the character, whether
decisions are made by thinking like the character or thinking about the
character, etc. There are some NPCs I think like and others that I think
about. The really nasty NPCs, I tend to think about, not as.
> The megalomaniacal mastermind, the manipulative schemer, the righteous
> holy man -- none of them are necessarily greedy or thuggish, and any
> of them can be ****trayed such that we perceive them as evil.
I don't see a any of those being necessarily evil if they are not also
casually murderous or cruel.
> In both cases, it was challenging and entertaining for all
> concerned. The players found depths of emotion and psychological
> dilemma they'd not explored before, and everyone agreed it was far
> more interesting than if it had not happened. We talked about the
> ramifications of decisions made by the characters for months
> afterward.
In either of the cases, did the evil character succeed or did they meet a
tragic end?
Remember, a key component of the Hays Code was not that movies couldn't
depict evil but that they couldn't show the bad guys winning. I mention
the Hays Code because, in many ways, I think it captures many of the
distinctions Brian was trying to make.
The Hays Code, or The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 can be found
here:
http://www.mutoworld.com/HaysCode.htm
Please note that I am not talking about nor endorsing every jot of the
Hays Code, at least some of which is a product of its time. For example,
I think the provision, "Miscegenation (*** relation****ps between the white
and black races) is forbidden," is pretty despicable and do not endorse it
in any way. I'm talking more about the general provisions and the idea
that movies should not sway the sympathies of the audience "to the side of
crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin."
John Morrow
|
