Re: Lethality of events

In message <46445159$0$9880$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "gleichman"
<Fox1_217NoSpam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" <rmarsh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:aa9843d0amvmnb8g56alq8a93l7lj1noau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> A roleplaying game is not (usually) performed for an audience - it is
>> experienced only by the players (including the GM), and thus need only
>> be suitable for those involved, not for any outsider0
>
>Indulging in evil shouldn't be considered suitable for anyone

I don't consider roleplaying evil, in and of itself, any more
"indulging in evil" than roleplaying combat is assault.

>> Would you also
>> consider actors improvising evil characters as an exercise for class
>> somehow wrong?
>
>Most actors I've known are already warped people :)

No argument there, at least. :-P

>More seriously, if one Improv player out of the blue (i.e. without
direction 
>or outside clue) suddenly turned his performance onto the path of raping
the 
>other players... I would have serious questions about what the hell he
was 
>doing and would be highly unlikely to return to another showing.

You've twisted the situation in two dimensions here.  First, the evil
character is an exercise - perhaps a group decision, perhaps an offer
by the "evil" player, not rejected by the rest of the class, but
certainly not an ambush.  Second, this is a class exercise, without an
audience, so you would not be attending a "showing" if you were to
experience this - you would be a member of the class, and therefore
have a veto on it happening at all.

So, given a mutually agreed class exercise, is it wrong of actors to
improvise evil characters?