Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 12:44 AM	First, I want to say that I don't want this post to be a debate on the objective truth of my beliefs or even on how they're relevant to d&d's definitions of good and evil. The latter is irrelevant, and the former is not something I want to debate here (although a PM debate or separate thread are welcome). The nature of this issue might make the crossing of that line unavoidable, but I'd still like to try not to. It seems possible to avoid that line, though- this is an issue that can be applied to anything that seems morally iffy to a DM- the alignment req for assassins, the prisoner dilemma, the no lying/cheating aspect of the pally code, the 'always evil' alignment restriction for many creatures, etc. The difference is that this issue can't be houseruled away without a really significant impact. In my case, it's about violence. In RL, I'm something very close to a pacifist. I think of violence the same way I think of slavery. I can see how it can work for good or at least be morally neutral, but it's a practice that's so easy to corrupt and causes damage that's so difficult (if not impossible) to reverse that I don't see it as practical. I'm okay with self-defense, but I see it as the lesser of two evils; glorifying violence in any context is an incredibly dangerous practice, imo. That said, DMing is a form of self-expression for me. On one level, I do run games for the sake of the players and let them do/play/think/feel what they want. Still, while I try to avoid controversial morals or outright preachiness, I still practice a kind of subtle, demonstrative preachiness. My villains exemplify evils that are met with apathy, complacency and/or misguided fanaticism in RL; for example, I won't do the evil orc barbarian warlord cliché, but I'll do a human warlord running for political office on the platform of a monstrous humanoid genocide (including local half-orc/drow/ogre citizens, even when they’re good/neutral aligned). And when they stop the genocide and the orc tavern owner can build an orphanage and his teenage half-orc daughter lives to become a paladin, the PCs can feel all fuzzy inside. So while I don't try to impose my morality on players, I still feel weird glorifying unnecessary violence and can't do it with a clear conscience. The problem is that my standard of 'necessary violence' is pretty damn high. Killing hasn't been a problem thus far given that the enemies that most of my DMs have run are either constructs, extraplanar creatures that are never technically killed, always-evil creatures or BBEGs who are so much of a threat to life and society that it isn't really practical not to kill them. I'd have no problem running such creatures for the PCs to slaughter and have no problem with them venting their frustrations on fictional opponents. The problem is that restricting myself to those categories of villains would be a) difficult, b) restrictive, c) glorifying violence in its own subtle way by omitting the horror and suffering that killing causes even in ‘good’ wars and d) inauthentic on my behalf as an artist. (I feel weird using the term ‘artist’ in this context, but writing is the love of my life and my campaigns don’t fall too far from the tree.) I can reconcile the violence in video games. They're meant for escapism, they railroad and the violent ones usually have a sense of exaggerated fantasy about them- gunning someone down in Halo is not the same, is not as powerful and is not as significant as the murder of the Arab in The Stranger or of the landlady in Crime and Punishment. Tabletop RP is more analogous to the latter given the way I DM- while the moral choices are often clear cut (Is genocide a good thing or a bad thing? Hmmm...) they are nevertheless choices. People play video games for the fun of action, and even console RPGs are more for story and immersion than for true role-play. True RP, though, is an experience, and making my players feel like heroes for killing soldiers who could be fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters is not something I can advocate with a clear conscience. I have an unfortunate choice to make here between my morals or my art. Then there's the very dangerous third option. Should it be evil to kill the soldiers who are working for the dictatorship but are just following orders? Should the paladin soldier who goes to war with a neighboring kingdom lose his powers if he doesn't deal subdual damage against enemy soldiers and take them prisoner? Should good PCs be restricted to damaging enemies to no more than -10 HP unless there's no conceivable alternative, which there usually is? The answer that comes immediately to mind is no. As a DM, I have no right to impose my ideals on the players. The choice then still remains between my art and my morals. Should the conflicts my players face be reduced to fairy tales of irredeemable evil and lives with no value, rather than playing campaigns that deal with real, relevant good or evils that matter? Or should I allow good-aligned characters to commit what I perceive to be an evil? Neither seems really appealing. The example of the monstrous humanoid genocide comes back to mind- if the PCs pull it off by killing half the watch and the ruler of the city, the heroism of turning back evil would be diminished by the fact (imho) that they’re fueling a fictional version of the cyclical, futile and violent search for utopia that’s inspired so many real-life revolutions that culminate in equally violent dictatorships. What’s the point of portraying relevant evils if you (again, imho) are just fueling the attitudes that cause them in real life? Something is still tugging at me about the third option. Maybe there's a way I can have my cake and eat it too. Just to be clear, I'm not looking for validation of the third option. I find it reprehensible as a DM to force my opinions on my players through my games, and I don't see that changing. But some part of me can’t help but wonder if there are compromises that can be made. Is it possible to DM and both allow violence and refuse to advocate it, while still writing morally meaningful campaigns? Maybe I could let good-aligned characters commit violence but also have them witness the repercussions of said violence? The problem with this solution is that it could end up being even more of a preachy imposition of my morality than actually making killing evil. If that’s not possible, can I realistically limit my villainous NPCs to extraplanars, undead, etc.? Thoughts would be appreciated. Sorry for the really long post.
Thomar_of_Uointer 10-16-06, 12:58 AM	Well, depending on the setting, combat encounters can range from gruesome to tame. Consider the way Pokemon handles combat. Also, note that not all encounters have to be combat-oriented. As the DM, you get to do whatever you want. Just make sure the players have fun and you're fine. It's not unethical to make hard-and-fast choices as a DM.
RetiredThief 10-16-06, 01:07 AM	First: the Game is fantasy. You can make of it what you want. You can portray a world of mixed good and evil, of gray variations in between, which perplex and test the morality of the players and, perhaps, your self. Or, you can portray evil as a distint blight, with no middle ground. The evil, being evil, IS out to kill you, so either you must kill in defense, or be very, VERY clever. Second: Seeing that you, as DM, can make your world what you wish, you could potentially try to create an environment where a pacifist approach could be effective. The players could find that when they use violence to meet their ends, it only breeds an escalation in violence. That only by outwitting evil, by outcompeteing it, by making it irrelevant, can it be defeated once and for all. If your players want hack'n'slash they'll be dissapointed. But if they are into role playing, and you are good and clever, I can see it being fun. However, I'd guess 80-90% of D&D players would rather be fighting. Good luck. I'm curious if such a thing could be made to work.
skelmar 10-16-06, 01:19 AM	warning, I think of myself as a good evil dm. if my players kill something that was either not supposed to be killed or didnt possess a challenge i simply tell them no xp..no treasure..and a passerby may have seen or heard it. If they keep commiting evil acts as good pc's I simply change their alignment and tell them they can no longer wear gear of their alignment or god..a good warning for them to think and roleplay now and then
Dreamstryder 10-16-06, 01:37 AM	I've had a habit of rolling diplomacy d20s before combat d20s, so I think I can identify a little with what you're doing (BtW, the group had varying ideas of what they wanted to do in the campaign, so there was conflict over that). I'd say it would be ideal to run a shades of gray campaign in which the "good guys" may do bad things unwittingly and at times face the consequences. Perhaps they'll meet and even befriend unknowingly the orphan they've made in the war. Perhaps the PCs'll refuse to duel that same befriended son or daughter, who now declares themselves their enemy. If they'd like to roleplay something more carefree, nothing says dropped enemies have to die or reach -10 hp. I think PCs would only kill if they thought the enemies would come back to haunt them (or wouldn't kill them, depending on what "haunt" you consider). Unless you people are frequently frustrated by different play expectations grating together like nails on a chalkboard, things should be fine. You don't have to avoid all those moral conflicts, but show the consequences crop up (or hint that there can be consequences by introducing a friendly enemy soldier who's separated from their patrol and neither the PCs nor the soldier recognize each other as opposing sides) so the players know they exist in your game.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 01:41 AM	The fighting itself is not an issue- I could easily houserule that the players instinctively know when the enemy is nearing -10 HP and give them the option to restrain their attacks so that they're not lethal. The fights would be just as action packed. What I'm wondering is whether or not it would be unethical to say "you can go to war, but you can't kill anyone. Otherwise, you lose your pally powers". What I'm worried about is that I'm treading the line between being fair and forcing my beliefs on others. I may or may not be on the verge of crossing the line to being the DM who's so opposed to the death penalty that he makes the village sheriff NE simply because he's willing to deal the death penalty to the most atrocious criminals, even if he's an absolutely amazing guy in every other respect. Or the DM who makes the charitable, fair-minded and compassionate noblewoman LE because she had an abortion.
Solik 10-16-06, 01:49 AM	This whole thing can be solved with one very simple question. What do your players want? Some players would really enjoy using D&D as a vehicle to discuss -- and play out -- philosophy and morality. Others -- and I daresay most -- would be frustrated and bored to tears. People rarely play games to be preached to, and they even more rarely get anywhere near the genre of fantasy if they want to play pacifist. While there are strong concepts built around that (mostly in the Book of Exalted Deeds), by far the most common desire by fantasy fans is to take up the sword and staff and go slaughter evil. It's escapism just like video games. The real world is full of annoying things like shades of grey and moral ambiguity. Venting in a world of black and white is fun. Your players might be like you, and be different from the stereotypical fantasy fan. But if your players are like most players, they don't want to put up with anything resembling pacifism in a game of D&D (at least, as the norm; exceptions are fine and fun). They don't want their inhuman monstrous opponents to have shades of grey all over, and they don't want to have to solve everything by rolling Diplomacy checks instead of getting into combat. And they certainly don't want their DM trying to teach them lessons and preach to them through the game. That's really rude if the PCs haven't specifically signed up for that, knowing exactly what they're getting into. Now, that's not to say that everything has to be two-dimensional and full of caricatures. D&D is full of things like races that are "usually" evil, but with very specific exceptions. And nobody says you have to use the generic creatures as-written, either; plenty of worlds have orcs as a more neutral-type race, even playable (see: Elder Scrolls). But that really just means that you replace orcs with some other nemesis. Your players need opponents to fight, and they need them to really be bad / evil. And they definitely don't want the DM trying to "trick" them by throwing good orcs that seem like evil orcs, then punishing them when they kill them. It can be a fun challenge to try to figure out how to take out an evil overlord without harming the more innocent / neutral soldiers that he has working for him (due to mind control, force, threats, etc). But not over and over again, unless you want your players to always be monks and enchantment-casters. Understand that, in D&D, there is no moral relativism. It doesn't matter whether there is or isn't in real life; there is not in D&D. The system isn't built to handle it. At all. Anyways, talk to your players, see what they want, then come back here. Without hearing from them, it's hard for us to even tell if you actually have a problem. What I'm wondering is whether or not it would be unethical to say "you can go to war, but you can't kill anyone. Otherwise, you lose your pally powers". What I'm worried about is that I'm treading the line between being fair and forcing my beliefs on others. I may or may not be on the verge of crossing the line to being the DM who's so opposed to the death penalty that he makes the village sheriff NE simply because he's willing to deal the death penalty to the most atrocious criminals, even if he's an absolutely amazing guy in every other respect. Or the DM who makes the charitable, fair-minded and compassionate noblewoman LE because she had an abortion. All of these examples, however, are crossing the line. Not just a small step over, either. You left it waaaay behind.
MaximumPain 10-16-06, 01:52 AM	As a DM it is important to be able to step out of your own views and step into the point of view of your NPCs. I have a lot of trouble running games where the characters are allowed to be evil because when one does a despicable act like killing a child or something it makes me want to punish them directly (I have made this mistake). This of course is unrealistic the DM is not a god but just some one who represents how a world or people would react now it would be ok as the DM to have the law or vengeful relatives pursue the evil doer and even to have them imprisoned or executed it is just hard to stay neutral in that situation and let the game play out to its natural conclusion. I believe that it is our job as DMs to stay neutral the free space we have is in the design of our world that is where we can define how the gods react and what they expect from those whom they have granted power. It takes far more courage to be nonviolent then it does to be violent. I’m not sure I have the courage to stand and take it myself but I admire those who have stuck with it long enough to make it work for them (like Gandhi). In a world like D&D there are less of the protections that give us the ability to be nonviolent like effective police and justice and a general attitude that harming others is wrong. Imagine if Gandhi were oppressed by slave keeping Orcs they would have just cut him down and been done with it. With some of the savage man eating things that are in the D&D world there is little other choice but to take up arms and try to face them. Of course if you are up to the task maybe you could make a Lich that wants to have peace or have the party stop the ancient war between the Orcs and the Dwarves. I often try to blur the lines in my game so my players can make the choice between combat and negotiations but they usually just go to combat. Also don’t forget that D&D is just as escapist as any video game and some people want the thrill of facing danger that they could never imagine in real life. Good luck happy gaming and of course PEACE.
RoninFrosty 10-16-06, 01:53 AM	While I admire your attempt to make the best of a situation, I can tell you now that you're going to end up running around the issue of violence so much that it's going to be unenjoyable in the long run. At least with D&D, as a goooood portion of D&D was meant to be spent in dungeons with swords and monsters. However, that's not to say you should give up RPing at all. While I dunno the ramifications of posting this on a WotC board, you could always try different systems, such as the White Wolf systems (which are violent, yes, but I'm just trying to express the difference in systems) or perhaps Exalted...one of these, which (WW, espescially) tend to be more role-play intensive, could possibly be easier to manage. You've also got Star Wars D20, which, while obviously featuring death, portrays it in a different light. The death of 1000 Stormtroopers doesn't weigh much on anyone's mind. And there's also Riddle of Steel, which is insanity in book form. The thing is ridiculously complicated, but everytime combat is initiated, it's damn near guaranteed to be fatal, which is certainly motivation to avoid it. Just a few suggestions. Also, remember, while you're trying to have fun, you have to consider the people you're DMing for. If they're not into RP, then you may need to find a new hobby, or a new group.
Cornbread 10-16-06, 01:59 AM	I don't know about "unethical" but it certainly isn't fair - especially if this restriction on never killing anything is only applied to Paladins (or Divine characters in general). If you don't want your players to kill anything that isn't evil then you probably shouldn'g throw anything at them that isn't evil because chances are they want to kill the bad guys regardless of their alignment. Judging simply from what has been said in your two posts I definately would feel like I was being preached at by playing in a game featuring any of these solutions to your problem that you have mentioned. Especially if all PCs and NPCs have to change their alignments to something that matches your viewpoint (NE just due to enforcing capital punishment, for example). If my DM were unable to reconcile his personal issues with a, for lack of a better term, "standard" D&D game then I wouldn't be playing in that game.
DrMorganes 10-16-06, 02:06 AM	hm. There are more than enough purely nasty creatures in the D&D catalogs of adversaries to meet your criteria. Literature is chock-full of similar things: Lord of the Rings pretty much pits the Fellowship against irredeemable evil, servants of the Dark Itself. Somehow I doubt Aragorn missed much sleep after whacking a few dozen orcs... Should the conflicts my players face be reduced to fairy tales of irredeemable evil and lives with no value, rather than playing campaigns that deal with real, relevant good or evils that matter? Or should I allow good-aligned characters to commit what I perceive to be an evil? Neither seems really appealing. The example of the monstrous humanoid genocide comes back to mind- if the PCs pull it off by killing half the watch and the ruler of the city Fairy tales of irredeemable evil and lives of no value? Campaigns dealing with real, relevant good or evils that matter? Honestly I find the two are rather inseperable, but as you said this topic is not for debate. Suffice to say that the game is what you choose to make it. I've played short, disconnected adventures that were little more than "Halo" with swords and spells. I've played games via forum full of mystery and intrigue where the only physical violence was the murder that set the stage. I've played (and run) world-spanning adventures in the Black-and-White of Pure Good against Ultimate Evil, and morally relativistic games where every PC action could be described as a choice between two evils. (There's nothing quite like a well-run Vampire: The Masquerade Chronicle!) If you have no taste for violence, don't include it in your games. The DMG2 has guidelines for running non-combat encounters and determining the XP awards for such. In a largely non-combat game (which work very well in low-magic worlds), any physical encounter is potentially fatal. They generally are not random, are powerful events, and always have lasting effects on the PCs. Obviously the class choices will be somewhat limited; rogues, bards, and specialist wizards like Diviners and Enchanters tend to be common choices in these games. or example, I won't do the evil orc barbarian warlord cliché, but I'll do a human warlord running for political office on the platform of a monstrous humanoid genocide A perfect example! Trying to deal with such a Cult of Personality with cold steel and lethal magic will simply get the PCs branded as lunatics, cast into irons, and executed. the heroism of turning back evil would be diminished by the fact (imho) that they’re fueling a fictional version of the cyclical, futile and violent search for utopia that’s inspired so many real-life revolutions that culminate in equally violent dictatorships. What’s the point of portraying relevant evils if you (again, imho) are just fueling the attitudes that cause them in real life? I think you're missing the point. This is NOT the real world, and the search for Utopia does not have to be cyclical, futile, or violent! If you want to preach, preach! Don't pussyfoot around the issues you hold passionaltely dear to your heart. (It's hypocrytical, and your players will see it for what it is.) Show your players that violence is not an answer, that violent action in the face of such evil will merely result in their swift (and grotesquely violet) demise. Give them the tools they need to not only choose the opposite path, but follow it through to the end and actually craft a lasting Utopia with their heroics.
JulesCARV 10-16-06, 02:11 AM	I think that adventurers in your world will generally be evil or evil-leaning-neutral people. Not a big deal: if most good clerics would be unsuitable for PCs because they work in temples healing or helping estranged couples save their relationship and don't go around adventuring and killing, and most good bards serve as diplomats and activists and don't inspire people to violence or go around killing people, that's fine for your world: just let your PCs play neutral or evil characters, like neutral or evil clerics and bards. Paladins, however, are a bit of an issue. I don't think that paladins stand much chance of being good as adventurers in your world, but the Unearthed Arcana alternative of the Paladin of Tyranny doesn't really seem suited: here is someone who doesn't merely fail to meet the standards for goodness because he's too violent, but is actually devoted to evil as an ideal, rather than the "evil violent guy who wants to stop more evil, more violent guys," which seems like a more likely PC. One simple approach is just to allow paladins to be of any alignment, or any lawful alignment, or whatever. If you don't like the idea of running an evil game (even if it's evil trying to stop greater evil), then you could try to encourage avoiding combat. Maybe break out BoED (for the non-violence oriented feats and PrC, not for the moral "philosophy"). Personally, I think that many overestimate how much players like combat. Players like experience and gold, certainly, but combat? Eh... I don't like it so much. I find combat to be one of the more boring parts of D&D, because it just takes so long often, and a lot of it is waiting around while other people do boring (to you) things when it's not your turn.
a_psh 10-16-06, 02:28 AM	Reading your posts, it seems like you have a problem saying that something you see as a terrible and heinous act is "Good". So don't. Just toss out alignment. Make the PCs judge their own actions in-character and the players judge their actions out-of-character. Don't label them yourself. Let the paladin keep his powers and make it clear that it's okay for players to step back and judge their characters and find them morally wanting without those characters immediately turning into in-game Evil. If you actually want to explore right and wrong, you need at least that little bit of detachment: PCs have to be able to do wrong sometimes and players have to be able to point to it and say "that's wrong" from a semi-detached perspective. This may seem counter to the idea of "immersive" roleplaying, since you are building in a bit of a separation between player and character, but this *is* a good way to do thematic roleplaying. Of course, the larger issue is that D&D is not a good system for thematic roleplaying. You kind of end up doing all this stuff on top of the system rather than actually within the system, which can get annoying when system and storytelling/roleplaying goals collide. Still, it's hardly impossible to "drift" the game in this direciton just a bit. I'm not a pacifist myself, but here is the outlook I favor in my games... A sword is a tool of suffering. It's wrong to forget that. In a "serious" or "dramatic" or philosophically-charged game, life and death should never be taken lightly. But it's okay for Indiana Jones to kill 20 Nazi because that's a light-hearted, escapist kind of fantasy -- and that's the "pulp" or "high fantasy" style that D&D caters to.
ArcTan 10-16-06, 02:43 AM	Honestly? Don't play D&D. D&D is an RPG, sure, but it's also a wargame, and it probably always will be. It's an RPG where most of your characters' self-expression occurs in the form of violence. Which doesn't make it less of an RPG, any more than an action movie is any less of a movie or really has that much less potential for story, drama and characterization than any other kind of movie -- it just means that for people for whom the "poetry of violence" does not resonate, most of that story will be invisible or at least frustrating to get at. Seriously, in a game where 90% of the actual rules deal with fight scenes, you're not going to get away with a pacifist game very easily. BoED tries to give you ideas, but it's honestly full of crap. It's a recipe for frustration trying to run a D&D game and avoid violent conflict -- the vast majority of rules and details given in the books become useless. There are lots of other game systems out there, some of which explicitly aim to give a nonviolent, non-war-focused alternative to D&D. Check them out.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 04:08 AM	Just to clarify so that nobody has this misconception: Violent conflict is not what I have issues with, atleast as far as d&d. What I have issues with are death, and to a lesser extent, permanent injury.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 04:46 AM	Reading your posts, it seems like you have a problem saying that something you see as a terrible and heinous act is "Good". So don't. Just toss out alignment. Make the PCs judge their own actions in-character and the players judge their actions out-of-character. Don't label them yourself. Let the paladin keep his powers and make it clear that it's okay for players to step back and judge their characters and find them morally wanting without those characters immediately turning into in-game Evil. I'm a little wary of this approach simply because it's failed in the past... I remember running a semi-humorous campaign involving gnomish organized crime, and one of the obstacles to overcome was the 'gnoming missile launcher', which launched gnome guards at the PCs. The fringe benefit was that once they fought their way up to the launcher, they could get one-hit-kills by bullrushing gnomes into the launcher and shooting them into the canyon below. The first couple times, as you can imagine, were funny. I progressively made the descriptions more and more gory, though ("you see the gnome's skull splattering in the distance at the bottom of the canyon, and blood trailing down the stream at the bottom...") but the PCs didn't seem to lose momentum. Then, once they ran out of gnomes to bullrush into the launcher, they started chasing down and grabbing the gnomes who were fleeing. I had to tell them that killing those gnomes would turn them evil since the gnomes were just foot soldiers, presented no direct threat and could have been killed humanely with much less effort than was necessary to drag them to the launcher and shoot them into the canyon. Once what they were doing sunk in a little bit, two of them got really defensive, one of whom started freaking out... all in all, it was a very 'Apocalypse Now' moment. I don't want to leave them to their own definitions of what a paladin's behaviour can acceptably be outside the definitions of good set up by the RAW, simply because I'm a little frightened of what they'd come up with.
Reversefigure4 10-16-06, 04:48 AM	Well, here's a simple option: Everyone in your world, PCs and NPCs alike, recieves the ability to deal non-lethal damage at no penalty, just like monks can. Everyone proficient with a weapon also has the basic training necessary to pull the blow and not make it a killer. Now you can have PCs going around KOing and capturing people, instead of a scenario where if they take the -4 penalty they'll probably be worse off for it. Set up a good jailing system (or the PCs could just nick off with all their gear, I suppose), and voila. PCs will still be left in some situations where they HAVE to kill - there's no real way to contain that Evil Dragon of Rampage and Death, so it's going to have to go, but it won't be a regular thing. As a second option, you might consider changing up the campaign (even starting a new one) entirely. Set the PCs as something that doesn't require combat, or at least only non-lethal combat. Having them set up as a police force in a large city is good for this. They can investigate murders, pursue suspects, catch them, and contain them.
Hydryh 10-16-06, 05:04 AM	True RP, though, is an experience, and making my players feel like heroes for killing soldiers who could be fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters is not something I can advocate with a clear conscience. I have an unfortunate choice to make here between my morals or my art. First, go watch Mobile Suit Gundam: the 08th MS Team or barring that, Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. Go on, go. Back? Okay. As the writers of that show point out, you don't have to make the players or the pcs feel like heroes for killing the rank-and-file of the enemy. Do everything in your power to illustrate to the players that these are not faceless grunts but real people in your game world. Show the pcs that the troops aren't evil; they're just trying to feed their families. If you want to drive home the fact that they're real, have the pcs interact with them whenever possible. For example: A) Sent on a reconnisance mission, the pcs have infiltrated an enemy war camp. Rather than debauchery and madness, they find that the only difference between this camp and the friendly one they just left is the color of the uniforms. This works especially well if the pcs orders are for long-term recon; they'd work, eat, and sleep next to these "evil soldiers of darkness," only to be faced with the very real possibility that they will kill them when open conflict breaks out. B) During or after the war/whatever, when the pcs need to stop for food and supplies, they find a small farmhouse, poorly maintained. A woman with a young child comes out when they call. P-May we stop for a time? W-Certainly. P-If we may ask, what's with your field? W-Oh, my husband has not been able to tend the crops; he's off in the army. *party enters the home, sees a helmet/commendation/sword from the "evil" army over the mantle* P-Your, uh, husband's in the "evil" army? W-Yep. We needed money for Suzie's medicine. He should be back from <site of last battle> any day now. (Keep in mind, peasants would have almost no communication with the outside world; letters at most.) P-(whispering) Didn't we coup-de-grace every last trooper there? Aw, jeez... These techniques, I find, encourage players to think about their actions, and redefine what it means to be "Good." Heck, use them both with the same NPC (Hank was in the camp they infiltrated, considered the pcs his new pals, wife mentions that her husband's name is Hank) and the pcs may be begging for more undead and constructs to fight.
qzujak49 10-16-06, 05:51 AM	Some general things you can do for a less violent game: Free Merciful enchantment on all weapons. Cantrips that keep people stable when in negative hit point range. Use of saps, bolas, sleeping poisoned shuriken, and other non-lethal, non-magical weapons. Advise the players of your outlooks and that at least one caster with Enchantment/Illusion emphasis would be a good idea. You could try an 'Invasion of the Body-Snatchers' scenario. Have a race of sentient body-snatchers that is utterly evil (must eat the insides of their victims while the victim is still alive or some such process in order to reproduce, and sometimes just does that for fun anyway). Now the PCs have a foe that you don't have to have qualms about killing and the foe can borrow whatever racial or class characteristics you want. Paladins might actually be expected to constantly use their Detect Evil under such conditions instead of it being considered insulting/distrustful to use on everyone.
freedeath 10-16-06, 09:14 AM	I'm rather confused about your issues with violence in D&D; it's an inherently violent game (as are the vast majority of fantasy games), and killing in a game is not the same as actually killing or maiming. I've killed thousands over the last 25+ years, and lose no sleep over killing imaginary living beings, nor should I. It's a game; even chess is about the elimiation (read: killing) of opposing pieces. You either enjoy the game, or you don't; guilt about imaginary violence and death should not even be an issue. Nobody I've ever killed (read: gamed) with has ever been violent with real people without provocation, nor do they espouse it. If your pacifism conflicts with your desire to game, then pick games that aren't violent, not D&D. Or at least play with people that enjoy playing D&D without violence, if you can find them.
Morka 10-16-06, 10:43 AM	D&D is about escapism. Today, I have some problems. My dog is suffering of the ears, and I have to go to the vet tonight. I'm trying to buy my first house, but they are desperately expensive. My job sucks because every week, my boss change his mind about what I should do. What can I do for this? Just be patient, courageous, and smart, and things might fix themselves... OTOH, when the only thing you have to do to solve your problems is grabbing your sword and stabbing the vile orc, life become more easy. But that's Roleplay, not true life. The more you will want to put similar to real life situations in your game, the less the game will be a game. D&D is a game set in a pseudo-medieval setting, when conquering your neighbor was bringing you respect, not horror. In a game, you can commit evil acts, you can even play an evil character. Otherwise, you will never be able to play Chess again, for fear of eating your opponent's pieces!
Solik 10-16-06, 10:43 AM	There's something else that's important to remember in D&D. Regardless of what you may feel about the issue in real life, in D&D, there is a tangible afterlife that can even be explored. Quite frankly, death in the D&D world is no big deal at all. A dead person goes to whichever realm suits their alignment / philosophy and probably lives forever there. A good person would be happy for the most part, while an evil person gets integrated into demon armies or whatnot. Death is the ultimate fate of everybody (well, okay, almost everybody), but it's nothing more than a plane shift spell that requires raise dead, resurrect, or a similar spell to reverse. Seriously, that's it. Plane shift. On that note, regarding the hypotheticals you posted above -- you've got three choices. One, you can inform your players how you're going to be adjucating alignment -- and you might as well go ahead and let them play evil, because nobody in the D&D world is going to be able to live up to the standards you posted (nor, for that matter, would very many people in the real world). Two, you can toss alignment out the door entirely and play moral relativism D&D. You're going to have to create a slew of house rules due to how deeply ingrained alignment is in the game, but that's just the way it goes. Or three, you could put aside your personal opinions and make judgment calls by RAW. That is, somebody doesn't generally obtain the alignment of evil merely because of a single abortion, or because they think horrific criminals have chosen to give up their right to life. There needs to be a lot more to it than that. Note that, by RAW, actual pacifism is an Exalted trait. Not generic good. Exalted. And it's only one flavor of Exalted -- the paladin-like holy crusader that quests to kill evil is also Exalted. A lot of people say a lot of bad things about the BoED, but really, there's some good stuff in there if you dig around. If your players like the idea of playing Exalted, then you can now hold them to the standards you'd like to, because now they'll actually be able to get abilities focused on meeting those standards. There's rules in there for redeeming demons. The very idea is nonsense in D&D without including that book, but with it included, I guess what you're going for is quite possible. Again, ultimately, it depends on what your players want. If they don't want to do this kind of thing, and you don't want to DM games that make you uncomfortable, then don't include situations of such dire moral quandary. Don't use armies of normal people who are just trying to feed their families as the "bad guys." Don't make your orcs "usually neutral." And if you throw your PCs up against an actual bad guy who just happens to be a misguided fool instead of someone with real evil intent, don't punish them when they kill him.
Netaria 10-16-06, 10:50 AM	Staying away from the issues of playing violent games as a pacifist. The best thing i can see is a touch of realism. Such as if they kill soldiers and search the bodies they find holy symbols, a set of dice, a deck of playing cards, an adventure novel, a letter home or one from home, a pendant with initals on the back. Now if they find the letter, its up to them if they read it. And it could spawn a sidequest where they determine to deliver it. Also letters _from_ family/friends/loved ones, poetry(even bad stuff!), doodles, etc. Maybe once have a brother or sister hunt the party down for killing their sibling. I wouldn't do anything crazy or go on overkill, but a few touches here or there could be good. Like happening upon the Nursery in a monster village they're sacking. It's realistic and will make them take pause. I intend to try using these little touches(to see how they go over) mainly because my group is all GTA players...haha...so as that world exists with almost no consequences I'll have to see how they take it. *shrugs*:twocents:
pres_man 10-16-06, 10:50 AM	I only scanned most of the comments so what I have to say may have already been said, then that has never stopped me before. When dealing with RL moral issues in game, things like the death penalty and such, it is often better to just assume these things are neutrally aligned. This way for the player who doesn't think it is evil to put down the totally wicked, murdering thief that the party has no chance keeping captured, except by beating on him night and day with non-lethal damage, he is correct, it is not evil, it is neutral to put the bad guy down. And for the player that thinks that it is not good to kill people when there might be a chance, no matter how remote, to redeem them, that is also correct because it is neutral thus not good. Thus it should not be the first thing good characters go to, but it is not unthinkable either. For most of your issues, it might come down to the definitions of good and evil in the game. Good has several things it values: life, protecting the innocent, etc. the problem is it does not give any way to judge which of these is higher morally than another. For you, it seems that life is the highest, thus this is something you should inform your players about. For paladins they should avoid taking lives if they can, this does not mean they can only do non-lethal (though a merciful weapon might be a good investment), but that in their training for war they should have been directed to try to avoid conflicts, ask for surrender, request surrender, offer quarter, etc. In the end, you should only run games that you feel comfortable with. For myself, if my players wanted to start having their characters rape, pillage, murder, etc. I would tell, "Sounds great, so who'll be DMing for that, since it won't be me." For myself, the games in the end should be reinforcing the idea that good can overcome evil. Any group of players that doesn't believe that isn't really a group I want to game with. EDIT: I might also point out that you as the DM lead by example. If the party is fighting a group of neutrally aligned foes and those foes are trying to kill the party, you are basically telling the party this is standard behaviour, neither good nor bad. If instead they are trying to capture the party, sunder their weapons, do non-lethal damage, trip, stun, etc., then you are indicating that these neutral foes have problems killing others. Likewise, you have to look at what kind of support system you have installed in the system to help redeem foes. If you say a paladin should redeem them but give no help to the paladin (good religious orders, good aligned countries, etc) then you are basically holding the paladin to a standard that they can not fulfill. For my own games, I tell my players the following with respect to good and evil: - all intelligent creatures (including dragons, devils, demons, angels, etc.) are capable of being converted. Thus the killing of a creature based solely on its alignment is a prejudiced action and therefore evil. Intelligent creatures who are not capable of making moral decisions (due to youth, mental disease/defect, etc.) will be considered neutral. - The struggle between good and evil are universal concepts where each good act, no matter how small, enforces the powers of Good. Likewise, any evil act enforces the powers of Evil. Therefore, the concept of achieving a good end with evil means is self-conflicting. Evil means cannot be used to get good ends. All ends are tainted by the means used to achieve them. The greatest achievement is to convert someone from an opposing faith. In this fashion you empower your side and at the same time weaken the other side. Merely killing an evil creature doesn’t weaken the forces of evil since their soul goes to one of the infernal planes and continues to do evil (except in the case of certain outsiders).
Sereno 10-16-06, 11:11 AM	While I can respect your position, I do tend to side with the general consensus that DnD is simply the wrong game for you. Most of the rules are about combat ... that's just what it is. However, something for you to consider. The Eberron setting is more awash in "greys" than "black and white" morality, to the point of relaxing the "Always" for alignment. Orcs are not just faceless "monsters" ... in fact, at one time, they saved the entire world from an extra-planar invasion. Running a city-based adventure in a world like Eberron is defninitely a possibility. The PCs are members of and elite unit of the City Watch (kind of like a combination of SWAT and CSI). They're keeping the peace in a large city ... finding murders, stopping riots, helping citizens with difficult situations. You can't just barge into a "domestic violence" situation and kill the abusive husband. You can't stop a gang of youthful vandals and petty thieves with a hail of arrows and a fireball. International diplomacy, politics, espionage ... are all possible with a minimum of actual killing. Then, there's still the ability to put the "irrevocably evil" creature in for contrast to the moral complexity. A vampire that's completely given into it's evil nature and sees humans as nothing but food ... killing it is necessary and the only way to save the city. A big, evil dragon wants a virgin every Friday ... killing it is the only option. Remove the moral quandaries, every so often, to at least leave the slightest nod to the possibility that sometimes violence IS the only solution. Certainly the LAST one, but not an option that's in-and-of-itself, irrevocably evil.
revnk 10-16-06, 11:30 AM	I suspect that I agree with you philosophically, Demonwolf, I simply have an easier time pushing the violence in D&D to the escapist side of the equation. I also think that you've had some good advice from posters like DrMorganes, Hydryh and others. I don't think you need to give up DMing. I think you have several options, including running a game where violence has heft and consequence such that it's rarely used. Another option is recalibrating your own views about DMing to lean towards the more escapist. Besides expressing some sense of solidarity--you're not the only DM who is a pacifist in the meat world--I did want to point one other thing out, for whatever help or hope it proffers. If anyone can be credited as the father of modern fantasy (and a prime influence on D&D from day one), it would almost certainly have to be Tolkien. That's obvious; what's less obvious (such that Peter Jackson seems to have missed it) is that many of Tolkien's formative experiences occurred during the First World War, in which he served--Tolkien was of a generation that was slaughtered, and he lost many friends on the bloody fields of Europe. (If memory serves, he even alluded to this in his introduction to the official American LOTR paperbacks.) As a result, Tolkien was not a fan of violence. Although his most famous work is set during an epic war, it's worth noting that the consequences of that war are harrowing, the survivors traumatized and fatigued (many, like Frodo and Faramir, are wounded for life), and the supreme act that makes the war winnable is not a great battle but rather a simple act of pity and mercy (Frodo refuses to kill Smeagol, who guides the hobbits to Mordor and its Smeagol who destroys the Ring, albeit in an act of betrayal). The point being that you can do exciting epic fantasy in a world where heroes are weary of battle, violence is a last resort, evil is defined by its aggressive nature, and acts of mercy and charity are the defining events that allow Good to triumph over Evil. The epitome of epic fantasy is exactly that kind of world--violence occurs, but is not loved; adventurers long to rest in an idyllic, peaceful land once they can set their labors aside. Anyway, hope that helps inspire and fortify confidence. Good luck, and good gaming.
Dragon Snack 10-16-06, 12:13 PM	I'll add one more comment that you are in the wrong game. You almost had me until this:The first couple times, as you can imagine, were funny. I progressively made the descriptions more and more gory, though ("you see the gnome's skull splattering in the distance at the bottom of the canyon, and blood trailing down the stream at the bottom...") but the PCs didn't seem to lose momentum. <snip> Once what they were doing sunk in a little bit, two of them got really defensive, one of whom started freaking out... all in all, it was a very 'Apocalypse Now' moment. I don't want to leave them to their own definitions of what a paladin's behaviour can acceptably be outside the definitions of good set up by the RAW, simply because I'm a little frightened of what they'd come up with. It looks to me like you reinforced their behavior, then smacked them up side the head with their debauchery. I think it also directly contradicts your earlier statement that you don't want to be preachy. I also find it odd that you are fine with video game violence, which is visually 'acted' out for you. If anything I would think you would be more horrified at something that often whitewashes violence by having the dead person/creature disappear. I've put non-combat encounters with evil NPCs (and "combat" encounters with good NPCs) in my game. It's can make for an interesting encounter, but endless politico frustrations isn't what D&D is at it's core.
angryman 10-16-06, 12:16 PM	Honestly, I think you should perhaps think of D&D more as a game than a story, if you see what I mean. As a story, you're tempted to impose your ethical beliefs onto the players, which can be very frustrating. For example, you're in an evil overlord's keep and you see a pair of guards. The paladin says, "I charge a guard." (and hit, and kill him) Well here's the problem. You could say that's an evil act, he's killing someone who's quite possibly not evil, not corrupt and maybe even doesn't want to be there, but he's poor & uneducated and this is the only way he can put bread on the table. So you say, "Sorry, that's an evil act. You lose your paladinhood." The paladin says, "No, he's complicit in an evil plot. He's defending evil, and -whether willingly or not- serving evil. If I don't strike him down, he will bring others and my friends will die. We don't have time to redeem every single guard in this complex, as ideal as that would be." Then you say, "Violence is not justified unless you have proof that he's evil." And 3 hours later you're still arguing about the ethical ramifications about killing the guard, you're both ******, the other players are bored and the game has just tanked...
terrainmonkey 10-16-06, 12:34 PM	okay, i'll bite. first off, d&d is about escapist entertainment. it's about the fighte between Good and Evil. it is fiction, plain and simple. injecting real world morals into the game is asking for disaster. when i belly up to the table, as a player or as a DM, i'm forgetting the real world because i want to slay some monsters, kick in doors, and take the treasure. i don't want to be preached at, i don't want to preach to my players because it isn't that kind of game. it's about conflict, rising action, more conflict, and adventure. i like to think of myself as a pacifist. i haven't gotten into a fight in over 13 years. it would be great to run a game without any violence but that would be a boring game. D&D is all about conflict. the forces of evil are always wanting to take over the world, or enslave the good peoples of the earth and it is up to the forces of good, in the form of the adventurers, to fight against that evil. If i were playing in a game where i had to only do non lethal damage, even against enemy soldiers, i'm sorry i wouldn't play. I run a brutal world, full of moral absolutes. evil is Evil, good is Good, and the secondary descriptors of alignment for monsters is thrown out. the "seldom, always, often" modifiers are done away with. orcs are Evil, period. so when the paladin goes into a tribe, it's okay for him to slaughter everything, even women and children. why? because if he doesn't, then there is no other alternative because the government he takes them all back to will do the job anyway. now, i'm not telling you how to run your games, but the last thing you need to do is enforce your players to do what you want them to in regards to alignment or conflict. it's part of the game. to take it out would lead to massive player boredom. 90% of the game is about destroying your enemies with swords and spells. taking that out based on your own personal real life code of moral superiority would be selfish. people want to hack and slash, lighten up, release some stress. they play the game to do that. you may as well ask them not to breathe.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 01:01 PM	It looks to me like you reinforced their behavior, then smacked them up side the head with their debauchery. I think it also directly contradicts your earlier statement that you don't want to be preachy. I also find it odd that you are fine with video game violence, which is visually 'acted' out for you. If anything I would think you would be more horrified at something that often whitewashes violence by having the dead person/creature disappear. To be honest, you're probably right, although I'd say it was more the mistake of an amateur DM than preachiness. In my experience, d&d violence usually takes on a very realistic dimension by itself, without effort. I was expecting something Worms- or Smash Melee-esque in the kind of violence portrayed, but d&d is immersive by nature, I think. There are games like Worms or Smash Melee where the violence is so comical, so exaggerated that it doesn't really have a semblance of realism, but on the other hand, if I were a good-aligned/light-side character in NwN or KotOR, I'd almost never resort to violence if I didn't have to, since the games make the repercussions and effects of violence very evident and prominent factors in the storylines. D&D is, in my experience, almost invariably more like KotOR; barring magic and magical creatures, the RaW attempt a mathematical representation of reality itself. The gnome mafia game ended up being more realistic than I expected it to, and more disturbing as a result (which, admittedly, is a mistake in my behalf). At that point, I didn't know whether my players still percieved it as smash/worms etc. or whether they were fully aware of the violence they were committing, but I didn't want to take the risk. Either way, my point was that the moral standards of d&d don't hold up unless they're 'regulated' somehow, atleast in my experience. Unless the group was fairly experienced or really committed to RP, the paladin wouldn't refuse to slaughter everyone in the local tavern for fun unless he/she was somehow prevented from doing it. Although now you've got me thinking about the whitewashing of the violence in games like Smash, Worms, etc. I'm actually starting to wonder if I should be horrified.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 01:13 PM	first off, d&d is about escapist entertainment. I agree. The thing is that the kind of escapism varies from person to person. If a player adopts an evil or even CN character, I take the hint and let them be bada--es and let them kill things for fun. For my neutral players who make complex characters who are driven by interpersonal and internal conflicts, I focus on those and avoid moralizing since what they play for is to express thoughts and feelings that are suppressed in real life. I don't have an innate opposition to escapist violence, as long as the fictional, escapist quality is clear. The thing is, it's not always. The issue comes with good players- while they're still escapist, it's a different kind of escapism. They play to have importance and power that they don't have in real life to do good things that they can't always do in real life. They want to feel like they're doing good and that their actions matter, and if their good actions matter, so does the violence they inflict. It's with them that I worry about the whole 'sanctity of life' issue. It's with them that I have to make the choice between being a hypocrite, being a tyrant or simply not running the kind of game that they (and quite frankly, I) like, where you can experience the satisfaction of the good guys winning.
Solik 10-16-06, 02:04 PM	You're not a hypocrit for ruling on good and evil according to the outlines provided by D&D. It's not real life, and it's not real-life morality. You can choose to make it real-life morality, but only with your players' consent as to exactly what that entails. "Good" in D&D is not all about the sanctity of life. Only good & innocent life is sacred. It's more about protection of the good & innocent, and refrain from going over-the-top (unnecessary violence and killing, for instance). Sanctity of all life, and a strong belief in redeeming evil, is Exalted. Exalted is to Good what Good is to Neutral.
Goon_for_Hire 10-16-06, 02:22 PM	I'm not particularly interested in the violence as inherent in D&D argument or not. There have been some thoroughly intelligent posts here on the subjects on both sides of the debate. Instead I'll just make some recommendations on how to tone down the violence as I've done in my campaigns because it has been requested of me before. In other words: I'm just here for "monkeywrench" suggestions. First, war makes a poor setting for a low-violence campaign. There are a lot of themes and story-structures that can minimize the need for violent conflict. I'd avoid it. City environments can greatly reduce the violence: especially if you are building up on courtly intrigue. Collecting blackmail material, revealing hidden documents, uncovering dirty secrets, and revealing plots to the authorites are all tricky. PCs can face not only goons, but constructs (for bloodless battles,) traps, poison, and magic. Any time a PC accomplishes a goal in this setting I offer them a story bonus equal to the experience gained from the toughest obstacle. (This is also a sneaky way of giving out plenty of experience for taking down one villain: you break down how to bring the enemy down in five steps: discover their real motives, collect evidence, avoid the obligatory attempt to bring you down, ensure your safety, present the evidence. A goal for each plus the esperience for dealing with the villain turns into six encounters plus traps and cronies.) Another route is to give the plot a dose of classic Scandanavian and Celtic folklore (rather than mythology) Heroes in these stories often beat their enemies by tricking them, beating them at riddle contests, or taking advantages of geasa the enemy is bound by. A few good examples I would suggest checking is the old folktale of "The Soldier who Caught Death," the modern children's story "Fearnot," the fantasy novel The Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin, even J.R.R. Tolkein's The Hobbit for its treatment of the goblins, Gollum, the skin-changer, and the tools. For that matter hunt down the story of "Utgard-Loki" from Norse Myth, where Thor and Loki take on the Jotunn in competitions rather than battle. It helps if you go heavy on the folklore ad add some weaknesses to monsters your PC's can exploit: True names that let PCs Command and place Geasa on fey and outsiders (think "Rumplestilskin") Make your evil fey unable to cross water, and your demosn unable to harm the innocent or enter hallowed ground. The deathof Cu Cuhlainn is another great example of a place were the duties and geasea are more effective than violence in eliminating a character. Introduce creatures with a lot of folkloric weaknesses and bring back some others. Lycanthropes really can be repelled with aconite, vampires really must untie knots and count oats, Giants really can't tell lies. With that involved in encourages your PCs to do a lot of research, seek out sages and oracles, and more importantly make use of divinations and careful word-play. I've also found it helps to create in-depth rules for hazards, and make it hard for players to get around them. Placing a proper CR on surviving a blizaard, navigating a dangerous swamp, finding a hidden pass, etc. can be very useful indeed. heck, if you actually develop encounter tables for your wildernesses and cities you have a pre-made CR for survivng traversing a perilous area. Putting a strong emphasis on oaths, promises, and troths might also help. Create a Deity that presides over these things, and anyone who vows wilingly in His name is actually bound by a voluntary geas (upping that spell's power is a great tool.) Villains can be forced to make binding oaths at sword-point without the need for a spell. Remember, those can be inhibitory, too you can forever geas someone NOT to harm human beings. Maybe said deity perversely binds people to casual oaths once in awhile, senidng them a little omen as their ony warning. You can rule that a geas willingly made cannot be removed with break enchantment or similar spells. in AD&D there was a very powerful "Ancient Curse' spell that was very open... it could cause immense and debilitating effects, simulate geas and bestow curse, or have time-limits before something terrible happened, but had to include a condition for breaking the curse. It was so powerful that most standard methods of weaseling out of those spells didn't work. Once again you have a goal that you can stamp a CR on: characters get experience for finding a true name, discovering the conditions for breaking a curse, etc, a reduced experience for the wise old being that told them, and a high-CR story goal to break the curse. If you offer treasures for immaterial story goals it helps. PCs might find that their "mount doom" has a pretty nice stash of other magical jewellery in there as well... just sitting around waiting to be plucked. In AD&D2E's Arabian adventures they had a rule for the "evil eye." If PCs did something to offend spirits around there was a chance that they would be afflicted by penalties until they appeased the same spirits somehow. It was a little vague, but one could, for example, create different rules for the "spirits" of various areas, about what might offend them, etc. Divinations, spells to talk to or understand the local spirits, or some extra flavour for the Spirit Shaman or Druid could reveal these. It doesn't even need to be bloodhsed the spirits abhor: it might be threats, ill manners, desecrating the tombs by stepping on them. Whe you do have the big battles, it can help to make them hazardous. Holy ground you may not step, cliffs with waterfalls, etc. Fights become dangerous affairs where hubris and foolishness (or just the swamp gas) will finish the combatants off before they kill one another: it hastens the surrender. In an intrigue, it often pays to leave the minion alive for questioning; PCs can miss their goal if their enemy takes a valuable secret to the grave. There are other ways to encourage PCs to take prisoners that are so painfully obvious they get overlooked: The bandits are wanted ALIVE, the local theive's guild doesn't protect murderers, the symbol of the order is a red leather sap, The cool new magic item the players get is a +3 humanbane returning bola of seeking that is moderately intelligent and grants them cool special-purpose powers only if they bring their victims in using it. (Heh, let's seem them fence THAT in your average small city.) The code od chivalry is obsessive about capture and ransom and how these situations are to be carried out. PCs can have more to gain after a proper challenge has been issued in taking a foe alive than dead: alive they can demand some of his land or business (or the hand of his only daughter, thus his title,) dead they can just take his armour, weapon, or horse. The opinion of others might matter, too. I once regulated thieving in my campaign by introducing a romance theme, where the object of the rogue PCs desire deplored anyone who hurt peasants, thus isolating the thief's depredation to the local crooked merchant and the corrupt aristocracy. Heck, reward players with a reputation for treating prisoners well by having otherwise tough enemies surrender early because they know that they will be well treated. Nobody fights to the death if there is an acceptable option, after all. And let's not forget the meme approach. If the hero of the land's signature fighting style is the dual sap, and the PCs are saved by the coolest illusionist ever to escape your imagination, they might choose to imitate the toughera adventurer.
albinomonkeyking 10-16-06, 02:25 PM	This is gonna be long, so bear with me. Also, if you are one of my players, buzz off, this has story elements. I agree with a lot of things you say, and you are obviously thinking on it quite hard. I would call myself a pacifist as well, last time I was hit in the face it didn't phase me, I didn't hit back, and I forgave the person who did it that very night, but, I have a line. I used to have a terrible temper, and it is still there, but I control it, however, should someone cross my line, not through violence, but through actions, through words, through something so jarring to me or a loved one that it will haunt us, I will react, and it will be terrible, but I consider myself a good person. Violence and death will always be there, and all of us deal with them in different ways. Here is an example: My last game was clear cut black and white. A devil lord was attempting to be ressurected and the heroes had to stop this. (one of the characters is exalted, vow of nonviolence) The demons and devils were treated as being pure evil, one in all, no exceptions (unless they were half, quarter, whatever) so even the character with vow of nonviolence could allow devils to be killed. In my current game, it is not black and white, it is all grey. Three armies are set to clash, one for religious purposes (think crusades) the other for power (they want to remove the religios group because their leaders are liars), the third is out for vengence (they want to remove both groups because they are the same, and will lie and control the same.) The people in these armies, are good, they are fighting for something they believe in, but not understand. The leaders are the unique characters, the soldiers are all misguided. One of my players was lost at first, playing an exalted character and thinking it was like the first game. He would attack without thinking and act rashly, but he quickly realized he couldn't because he was fighting against people no different than him, they were all just lost looking for a direction. Was he evil for fighting them? No, he was falling from exalted because he had become too judgemental, but he was certainly not evil, he was misguided and unaware of his actions. His character has found his path, and now he walks it. He will kill if he must, he knocks out most, he runs if he sees no other way, but he knows sometimes violence is all that works. He is exalted. This world is not based upon my beliefs, developing a system off of that would be far too complex, so I use the books. D&D has an alignment system, and it has how it should be used. You can impose your beliefs on the game and the players but it would be wrong, because this isn't your world, just like earth isn't just yours, it is theirs and everyone elses. I painted a world of grey, and I took the boundaries from what I read in the books. Some of it is interpretation, but it is your job as a DM to try to interprete fairly, from everyones view, not just yours. So I do not force my exalted player into a niche, I watch which one he finds in my world, he will define his actions by what is defined in his world, but it has to be a loose definition, one open to interpretation. Is his character good? Yes, amazingly so. He thinks of others, he gives to charities, he tries to talk his way out of things, and most of all, he does his best. Does he kill? Yes. Do you agree that that is good? Do I? Does he? It doesn't matter, it is based off of the books and a combination of all. You can have your world and you fluff it with all the morals you want, but they cannot be yours, they can be NPC's who think like you, kings who think like you, lovers, villains, it doesn't matter. The world will be your creation, but it is limited by the D&D guidelines, to break them is to redefine the system and that is hard. Also, from the players perspective: A friend of mine recently started playing a washed up sports star. He was a vagrant, mean, and filthy. Even now he sleeps around, (he has terribly high charisma) treats people like dirt, and generally has a terrible outlook on the world. Do I like him? God no, if I knew him in real life I would have him arrested. Does the player like him? Yes, he loves him. Why? Because it is different from the good he always plays, it is flawed and weird and fun. If I want to play a samurai who lives by his code and his master he will have no qualms with killing, he will even kill himself because of dishonor. Morally you can argue all you want, but, is it fun to play? To me it would be, I want different, I want to pretend I have that mentality, and ya know what else? I want to be LG and have that outlook. Can I do that? Will my concept work? Yep, it sure will. Will it work by your standards? It should. My final advise: You cannot have the world you would love and that would follow your ideals, unless you players are committed to it, and they don't sound like they are. You can set up moral quandaries but you must look to the book for the solution, not yourself. Is a paladin evil for killing? No, not even close. Can a character with the vow of non-violence hurt someone? Yes, quite terribly in fact, just not kill. It is how the game works. If you cannot put your morals aside and enjoy perhaps you should take the seat of a Player and pass on the DM seat to someone else. Good luck I look forward to seeing how it develops.
Goon_for_Hire 10-16-06, 02:26 PM	Oh, and let's not forget that most humanoid enemies lose the moment they are without their weapon: disarm and trip attacks in a battle can win it far faster than hammering away hit points. Especially if they moves are accompanied by good role-playing.
rmccowen 10-16-06, 02:41 PM	Demonwolf, I have a couple of suggestions to add to those that have been made so far. First, there's no reason to abandon D&D or RPGs in general. One of the vital elements of any RPG--even a wargame like D&D-- is immersive storytelling, and if the kind of story you want to tell involves philosophical issues of the nature of good and evil, feel free. What you must do, though, is make sure that the players understand what kind of game it's going to be. As I think most replies here demonstrate, many players are in it for the escapism, and have no problem with hack-and-slash. Forcing those people to carefully consider the consequences of their actions is a sure way to end up with bored, disruptive players. Second, encourage the players as much as possible to find non-deadly ways to defeat their foes. Start tracking whether your players kill an NPC, or merely render him or her unconscious; reward the latter behavior by having the NPC reveal information the party would not otherwise have had access to. Have the PCs encounter badguys that are more interested in subduing them than killing them, and let the players take their cue from that. Bring some of those seldom-used monsters out into the light: celestials and metallic dragons of an interfering bent might take offense to a group of adventurers that goes around wrecking the landscape and leaving defeated foes in pieces. Someone upthread mentioned looking into Eberron, and I wholeheartedly agree. Eberron has a strong influence from mystery and noir fiction, complete with wheels-within-wheels plotlines, and your players will have a hard time unraveling a mystery if they keep killing all the suspects. Another appropriate plotline for the setting might see the PCs acquire a mysterious benefactor who sends them on missions that reward the sort of behavior you deplore--but they'll come to regret those actions when they find that they've unwittingly been doing the bidding of a powerful, imprisoned fiend. Basically... use your imagination. If your players are behind you, you'll have a great time! If your players aren't behind you, you might consider finding a different group, or stepping down as DM--and leading by example as a paladin or cleric. Hope I've helped...
Myrddin Wyllt 10-16-06, 03:49 PM	I'm having a hard time reconciling a name like Demonwolf with a near-pacifist, which leads me to suspect this is just elaborate trolling, but I'm going to take the bait anyways, because I want to see where this leads. In 1941, a lot of people were struggling between isolationism and support for the allies of WWII. A movie that came out mere months before the attack on Pearl Harbor addressed your dilemma. It was called Seargent York (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034167/). York was a born-again christian who had renounced violence, but found a way to reconcile this against his duty to country (in WWI) via the plot device of finding a single passage of the Bible that appeared to address his problem: Therefore render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. This appears to clear up your third solution problem. ...it's based on a true story, too, by the way. To be more blunt though, I think you should consider this: As others have noted, D&D is a war game, first and foremost. Players seeking a DM will expect a certain amount of violence, and lacking that, will probably seek a different DM if you can't or won't deliver. The game is, ultimately, make-believe. Anyone who realistically believes that anything done in the game will influence their real-world behavior should quit gaming at once, and seek professional psychological intervention, before he's gunned down in the street by cops, while wearing a silver-spray-painted cable knit sweater (read: fake chainmail) and wielding a renaissance faire broadsword at passing cars, while screaming "Get thee behind me, demon!" If you can't resolve this dilemma internally, it will influence and degrade the performance of your responsibility as a DM to bring an interesting and playable game to the table for players to interact with. Players will leave. Many strongly Christian players have discussed this issue elsewhere on the internet. The general consensus is that while real world violence is reprehensible, we don't have real world monsters, or true embodiments of evil (unless you believe everything in various Christian texts about such creatures). Li Po (Ed Friedlander) has some fine thoughts you should consider: Why Adventure Gaming? One Christian's Explanation. (http://www.pathguy.com/whyrpg.htm) Whatever you decide, discuss it with your players before starting a campaign. They deserve the right to reject your core gaming attitude and seek fun elsewhere, if they disagree with you. When recruiting players, make sure your particular adventure flavor is up-front and directly explained. Railroading players with an unwanted story slant or strictly non-violent plot will only alienate them (especially players that like to play fighters and evocation wizards), and they will not be willing to sit with you for anything once alienated.
revnk 10-16-06, 04:47 PM	As others have noted, D&D is a war game, first and foremost. Players seeking a DM will expect a certain amount of violence, and lacking that, will probably seek a different DM if you can't or won't deliver. I'd respectfully beg to differ on this point and on its relevance, because it keeps coming up in this thread. First, I don't think that the fact that the D&D rules extensively cover combat and the current incarnation pushes miniatures rules necessarily means D&D is or isn't a wargame. The beauty of an RPG is that it can be any kind of game the participants want it to be. The rules cover combat at great length because combat is inherently involves a lot of complicated determinations about relative position, accuracy, health, etc.--determinations that require rules, as opposed to (for instance) a conversation between an NPC and a PC over the release of hostages, which requires a ruling from the DM as to how the NPC reacts to things like the player's actual roleplaying, the needs of the adventure, dice rolls for Diplomacy and Sense Motive and so forth--things which don't lend themselves to mechanics. (The emphasis on minis in 3.5 largely represents a business decision by WOTC.) But you can just as easily play a game with little or no combat using the D&D rules. The flexibility of the system is that you can run a combat-heavy game one day and a combat-nil game the next. The rules are flexible enough for a DM to run a Call Of Cthulhu-ish game where the PCs must run or hide from weapons-immune monsters without changing a single rule or adopting a single variant or house rule. I've been playing D&D and other RPGs since the early 1980s: I have played senseless hack-and-slashes and I've played cerebral games where a weapon was never drawn. Indeed, I've played and run games where getting into a fight, any fight, was suicide. This shouldn't be a radical concept. The key thing, already mentioned by others and worth repeating, is that you make sure your players understand and consent to play the game you want to run, be it a hack-and-slash game or a no-weapons-drawn game. I'll repeat the point because I'm afraid someone will try to turn this into an argument: D&D is a sufficiently flexible game system that can be whatever you want it to be, wargame or peacegame. Secondly, even if one were to agree that D&D is a wargame (and obviously I don't, but...), so what? Read The Red Badge Of Courage. Read Tolkien, a man who hated war and then invented a big one to write about. You can still create a world where violence is horrifying and shocking, where people strive to avoid it, where it isn't glorified when it does occur. You can make combat brutal, ugly, and vicious, something that the players avoid like a pestilence. I will close by quoting DrMorganes, because I think he made essentially this point very eloquently: I think you're missing the point. This is NOT the real world, and the search for Utopia does not have to be cyclical, futile, or violent! If you want to preach, preach! Don't pussyfoot around the issues you hold passionaltely dear to your heart. (It's hypocrytical, and your players will see it for what it is.) Show your players that violence is not an answer, that violent action in the face of such evil will merely result in their swift (and grotesquely violet) demise. Give them the tools they need to not only choose the opposite path, but follow it through to the end and actually craft a lasting Utopia with their heroics. The beauty of creating a world--the special privilege of a DM--is that it can be as terrible or glorious as you want it to be. The special privilege of being a player is to occupy that world--to solve its problems with the tools made available, to be a hero or villain on the terms of the imagination.
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 05:38 PM	As others have noted, D&D is a war game, first and foremost. Players seeking a DM will expect a certain amount of violence, and lacking that, will probably seek a different DM if you can't or won't deliver. I'd like to make the point again that my issue doesn't deal with violence per se but with killing. I could decide by the end of this thread to houserule that any PC who so much as eats a fruit fly stuck in his strawberry gelato will be irreversibly plane-shifted to the 6.02 x 10^23rd layer of the abyss while simultaneously polymorphed into a chicken who is so tasty that he tastes not only like chicken, but also pork, teriyaki sauce and ketchup. Even if I did, there'd be just as much fighting. The only difference is that nobody would go below -10. I'm having a hard time reconciling a name like Demonwolf with a near-pacifist ...I had kind of a hetero crush on Koga from Inuyasha when I joined three years ago. :blush: I'm in a different place now.
Thubby 10-16-06, 05:46 PM	well, most encounters are about self defense, i mean realy. how often do the players hunt down the beholder in the middle of the woods? good (as in good guy) campaigns are almost always initiated out of a desire to a)save planet/realm b)help someone in nead since few (in all honesty) if any turbo evil creature will be converted, "violence" (which can mean subduing someone) is the only option. dnd only gets as violent as you let it, i've dm'ed groups that have tried to convert everyone they met with open arms, it worked plenty, and when it didn't, they subdued and encarserated their foes (pocket dementions make good temp. prisons) and helped them later. for more real world peace of mind, many pacifistic monks in asia learn devastating martial arts, and even spar (simulated fighting), with no qualms. all dnd is, is simulated everything, from the violence, to the people. i'd go on, but my post is gettign kinda huge :D
Solik 10-16-06, 06:20 PM	I'd also like to point out that such harsh ruling regarding killing would render a large number of spells completely useless -- save-or-die spells that are actually die as opposed to rendering helpless, anything that deals large amounts of damage (a lucky roll would actually work against you because you suddenly become evil), and other such nonsense. You'd need to either scrap half the spells in the game or change them all. And I repeat -- death in D&D worlds is NOT a big deal. It's a plane shift spell that's slightly more expensive to reverse.
Eela6 10-16-06, 06:25 PM	First off, I'd like to congragulate you for realizing where the 'preach pit' is, and stepping away from it. I'm going to approach this from an entirely different tack - that is, why we *should* condone killing in D+D. This has little do with real life morality, but with the practical concerns of D+D. Not murder, but killing. There's a two-and-a-half-fold reasoning for this. The first - is that killing someone is not a 'bad' thing in Dungeons and Dragons, as Solik mentioned. Sure, it's ethically reprehensible (and straightfoward murder is NEVER acceptable). But you're not destroying their soul, and they will continue on to a (possibly) happy existence as a petitioner. Now, while it should be avoided and all, there's often no alternative. Why? Because the average nutso serial killer or evil dictator who promotes genocide, in the real world, doesn't have magic. In fact, I'd say 100% of them don't. Even if it's possible that D+D societies *could* deal with that, most of them haven't progressed to a level where they could. If every jail had antimagic cells made of admantium, and high-level Rogues to guard the jails, who happened to keep their keys *not* on a jangling ring on their belt but in a sealed, admantium, antimagic box locked by *another* key, cleverly concealed from the well-trained Klatchian Spider Monkey, sure. Not that it's all that much of a life - no reading material to speak of, sitting in a dank cell with no real prospect of freedom to look forward to until you die. Or you could bind and gag them. For the rest of their life, able to do nothing, say nothing - unless they took silent/still and are a sorcerer or cleric, that is. Then you probably wouldn't need the antimagic and all that - just a good enough guard so that when their wizard buddy tries to bust them out of jail, he can do somethign. But they don't, and something like a 10th-level sorcerer is a big deal - and one who can afford a contingency, as well - something like, say... "When I say 'You Fools! You'll never stop me!' - Teleport me to my hidden, well-stocked Cave o' Doom." It's a Player Character's *responsibility* to deal with these kind of threats, even if they can be redeemed - because most of the time, I'm afraid, they won't want to be. It's possible they could, at high levels, afford At low levels, it's certainly a possibility, of course. But a difficult one. How do you make sure a Drow serves 200 to life? You can't simply let them go, after all. The simplest option is killing them - and remember, in D+D, even death isn't permanament. It's simply that given enough time, they'll eventually merge with their plane of where they're going, passing on to an existence where they can no longer actively harm the material plane. In an odd way, Death can be the most humane option. The Second - There's far worse things you can do in D+D than kill someone. Dominate. Programmed Amnesia. Mindrape. Geas/Quest - "Accept my Atonement". Forcing them to change alignment, change their memories, change who they are - that's as bad, in many ways, as killing them and raising their corpse to work for you. Only it's worse, because when they finally die, their soul and memories in their (insert cosmology) afterlife won't be the same. So kill. For great justice - just remember where the line in D+D between killing and murder is. The two-and-a-half reasoning is the mechanically concerns Solik raised.
kelvinaw273 10-16-06, 07:00 PM	I have only skimmed a few of the answers here, because I want to respond to your post directly ... 1) I think you're extremely brave making a stand on moral grounds, and playing a character in your campaigns must be both challenging and stimulating. 2) Dealing with the killing issue there are a number of options: (A) Fight monsters - not people. If your players enjoy a good hackfest now and then, give them something that needs exerminating to kill. (B) Allow them options when facing humans - options to avoid fighting them, options to deal non-lethal damage etc. (C) Run adventures when depend upon the character's skills and abilities other than combat - like the political office campaign. (D) Bite the bullet, and require them to justify every time that they draw blood. Demand contrition for every life taken. (E) Remember that the pseudo-medieval society of standard D&D holds life in low regard - the death sentence was applied for most crimes, and generally speaking might made right. Just judge them in this regard. Of course you can use a measure of all of these. If somebody wants to kill you, you are entitled to defend yourself, or defend another you know to be innocent of wrongdoing.
Limousine_Liberal 10-16-06, 07:11 PM	I respect your personal conviction. Please be sure to update us to let us know how it goes. As for advice, mine would me that you should feel free to try to enforce the sorts of consequences you deem appropriate for the players actions. You shouldn't railroad your players into "only" fighting monsters or in self-defense, but when they choose to lash out, they will have to deal with the consequences of their decision. If their only answer is "but he was evil!" then they may well find that between developing a bad reputation, others seeking revenge, the wrath of the law and other consequences you deem approriate that murder was *not* their best option. That should help them to adjust their actions in the future as they get a better sense of "how the world works." Some players may not like that, as they may find that indiscriminate (or nearly so) killing to be cathartic, and it might be a big draw of the game for them. They may expect that killing the evil to be viewed by the world as heroic rather than murderous, but many games (especially eberron) frown upon killing without a more realistic reason than "Detect Evil told me to." :)
Silverblade The Enchanter 10-16-06, 09:12 PM	1) It's set in an entirely different universe...folk walk right by that HUGE implication whenever they play D&D... Thus morality may not apply exactly as we have it here. For instance, with devils and angels around, Good and Evil can be stark. Cuttign a demons head off isn't evil, it's like killing a rabid wolf...the dmeon though would like you to enjoy the killing...and thus corrupt you...especially if it's really a polymorphed innocent victim in its stead... When faced with aggression, there's three possibilities: avoid/deflect it in some way; fight back; accept death, harm etc as a pacifist. The latter can take great courage, but it won't stop horror being committed on others either...rarely will it have the moral impact to stop folk, but it can. Veyy VERY few folk have the guts for that. One of the best ways to stop an army is to demoralize it, but if you fail you're gone and there's nto exaclty a lot of gutsy folk around :/ 2)I like it when players actually talk to enemies or other troublesome but not threatening NPCs! Big campaign I wrote, a dwarf dukedom had recently been set up in a gap between three hostile nations: gnoll, hogboblin and orc. The three evil races hated each other MORE than they hated the dwarves...the heroes met with several times a devious and deadly hobgoblin spymater and strategist...and ended up workign with him against the more evil orcs and extremely depraved gnolls. Case of better the honourable evil, than the necromantic gnolls, and the elder evil orcs who'd been taken over and mutated!
Demonwolf 10-16-06, 10:50 PM	he first - is that killing someone is not a 'bad' thing in Dungeons and Dragons, as Solik mentioned. Sure, it's ethically reprehensible (and straightfoward murder is NEVER acceptable). But you're not destroying their soul, and they will continue on to a (possibly) happy existence as a petitioner. I'm just quoting this one example of this point, but I'm addressing all who've made it. The problem with this outlook is that it feels like something of a cop-out. It's the same issue that I have with the fact that the wealth of a level 2 PC could feed at least ten peasants for life, much more if you account for the short lifespans of medieval people. A party of ECL 20 PCs could alleviate the poverty of an entire nation. Technically, it makes sense; if the good people don't keep up with the immense wealth that evil people attain, they won't be able to fight them effectively, so it isn't really decadence. Still, it's so dangerously close to rationalizing away an issue that's problematic in real life that it's almost morally offensive. In real life, decadence and a neglect of poverty are a real problem, but since the d&d world wants to deal with demons and dragons instead, it finds a way to write off the problem of social neglect. Likewise, while the value of life and whether or not it's okay to destroy it is an iffy issue in real life, it's mythologized away in the d&d universe to make way for entertaining action and the initiative roll. The problem is that both are dangerously close to things that inspire the evils in question in real life as well. The justifications people often use to neglect poverty in RL are that it's not their fault but the system's and the culture's, that the developed world has a right to decadence, and that the alternative isn't feasible; it's easy to make the connection to d&d, where it's either VoP or letting peasants starve. Ditto violence- while you could use the objective truth of the afterlife to justify violence in the d&d world, there are a ton of people in RL who do just that as a result of their unwavering belief in their religion. I'd honestly rather do something I feel is wrong than rationalize it away with d&d physics; it seems more honorable.
Solik 10-16-06, 11:12 PM	Oi. Okay, first, it's not a cop-out, it's the way the D&D world works. It's not a simple excuse we're using to justify actions. It's straight out of the RAW. No, you can't compare this with real-world religion, because there aren't competing religions; the various gods do exist, and even those in competing faiths recognize that their opponent's deity is, in fact, real. Second, 2nd level characters could not feed an entire nation except in the greatest of monty haul campaigns. But even if you ignore that, and assume that they do have that kind of cash, how are they going to use it to feed the nation? Does distributing a bunch of metal chunks to people automatically remove poverty and make the world a better place? No, it just causes inflation. Everything stays the same; people just either use new currency, or the price of everything goes way up to match the influx of cash. Level 20 characters could feed a nation, but not through their wealth. Their wealth is in magic items that almost nobody in the world could afford to buy any of. They could do it through their magical prowess. In fact, they may be doing exactly that. Third, D&D worlds are not "medieval earth with magic." The idea is nonsense -- it's just not possible. If you add magic, and all these other things, you're changing everything. In all but the lowest-power / lowest-magic campaigns, people in D&D worlds should at least be as well off as, say, prosperous Renaissance nations, or perhaps the heart of the Roman empire. The exception to this is in times of warfare -- and that warfare is usually the result of a psychotic evil mage / crazy evil barbarian horde / insert other source of great evil here. Even remote villages and barbarian tribes have adepts and wandering druids and rangers. None of this is mere rationalization or sidestepping. It's simply taking the powers and abilities of these imaginary worlds to their logical conclusions. If you want to play a nitty-gritty medieval game without all this stuff, you're going to have to remove magic past second or third level spells, all non-minor magic items, and levels 7+.
Eela6 10-16-06, 11:18 PM	Sure, Demonwolf. But that's not really my point. The point is that killing someone, in D+D, is really the *best alternative*. If there were jails that could hold your enemies in a humane fashion, sure - and at low levels there are, I suppose - you really have little excuse at that point except that of social relativity. The question here is not social neglect - it's one of practicality. There's But when you're dealing with the sort of people who can Teleport across the world in six seconds and destroy entire nations, you have a bigger problem - and those are the sort of enemies you fight starting at ninth level. Earlier, really, if you count Dimension Door, Fly, etc. At sixth level, a Sorcerer can kill every non-prepared person within a 20 foot radius (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) - in other words, within an area of 1256 square feet. In modern terms, that's plastic explosives. He could go nuts at any time. From my point of view, and (likely) that of those in a Dungeons and Dragons society, it's both ethically and morally correct to kill these sort of people, rather than have the possibility they could go free. In the real world, an individual is (luckily), not that big of a threat if we remove tools. Even Jet Li can be dealt with by reinforced bars and a well-trained guard [but not Chuck Norris. Never Chuck Norris.] You're imposing the ethical constraints that our society is lucky enough to have to a society that will never be lucky enough to have them - as long as Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids exist. As for the subject of relative wealth, high-level characters need their cash - but that doesn't preclude them from helping people out, either. A 18th-level Sorcerer can cast Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magesMagnificentMansion.htm), at least fourteen times per day -giving enough food for - [assuming that three courses of said banquet are a decent meal] - 3024 people. In one day. Not to mention shelter for just as many. So if he's about to go to sleep and hasn't been mauled by a Balor, this is what he does - and everybody in town goes 'yay!' But if he gives away all his cash, and has no magic items, and the Balor comes into town and mauls him in said sleep... well, I've got to say everybody goes... 'Aaaaragagagagodogodogodwhyaaaaaahaghahg ahghgahghagh!' Not to mention that I have no idea how he'd liquidate all those magic items, and the inflation bit would probably be a headache. _ On a different tack, I'd have to say my best advice to reconcile your want to DM and your moral thoughts is NOT to play D+D. It's not a good system for things where you don't attack and kill someone at least once in a while. Try freeform, or, as much as I loathe it, White Wolf. It may be more your style. Alternatively, try setting a game on the Planes. Planescape (http://planewalker.com/index.php) has a lot of interesting stuff, and it tends to be a campaign that focuses more on belief, outlook, and moral concerns than attacking things wildly. Of course, Planescape is still a morally neutral universe - just like other D+D campaign settings. Things don't favor good in the end, they favor nobody - and it's not our world. Different concerns of practicality have to take priority. In any case, I hope you find a game that suits you well.
HamHam 10-16-06, 11:33 PM	These sorts of things are why I don't use alignment. Without alignment, you can throw all the moralistic stuff you want into a campaign. Have NPCs that exemplify you're idea of good, and of evil. Have people judge the PCs however you want. But they can still just tell everyone else go to hell and do whatever they think is right (or not right). That's what real world morality is like.
Demonwolf 10-17-06, 12:12 AM	Oi. Okay, first, it's not a cop-out, it's the way the D&D world works. It's not a simple excuse we're using to justify actions. It's straight out of the RAW. No, you can't compare this with real-world religion, because there aren't competing religions; the various gods do exist, and even those in competing faiths recognize that their opponent's deity is, in fact, real. Sorry, didn't mean to sound accusatory. I want to make sure I tread lightly here- the suggestion that someone else made that I was elaborately trolling was not lightly taken, and I knew from the get-go how incendiary this post would have been if I was more in-your-face about it. Anyway, the medium of the fantasy genre isn't really about escapism to me, although I do my best to accomodate players who look for it. I tend to run my games, even including FR games, in a very Eberron-esque way. I gloss over the Time of Troubles (which is okay with my players since they don't know too much about the setting) and run it as though atheism is still a credible outlook. The thing is, changing the fundamental nature of death and the afterlife in d&d by removing their ambiguity makes it much more difficult to make meaningful statements about them, imo (although given the interactive nature of d&d, you're more leading a discussion than making a statement). The fanatical Kossuth cultists won't be as relevant if they're not misguided but simply obeying the objectively true dictates of their deity.
Demonwolf 10-17-06, 12:45 AM	Sure, Demonwolf. But that's not really my point. The point is that killing someone, in D+D, is really the *best alternative*. If there were jails that could hold your enemies in a humane fashion, sure - and at low levels there are, I suppose - you really have little excuse at that point except that of social relativity. The question here is not social neglect - it's one of practicality. There's But when you're dealing with the sort of people who can Teleport across the world in six seconds and destroy entire nations, you have a bigger problem - and those are the sort of enemies you fight starting at ninth level. Earlier, really, if you count Dimension Door, Fly, etc. At sixth level, a Sorcerer can kill every non-prepared person within a 20 foot radius - in other words, within an area of 1256 square feet. In modern terms, that's plastic explosives. He could go nuts at any time. These are actually the beginnings of the compromises I'm looking for. In the OP, I included along with constructs, demons, nonsentient enemies etc, BBEGs who were too huge of a threat to life to be left alive and constrained in any practical way. The thing is, I'd rather create a d&d world where that isn't the case and where violence isn't the only feasible option. To do otherwise is to encourage violence in a way, and in any case, it certainly isn't discouraging it. My issue lies in a setting where there are vaguely feasible alternatives to violence, and where the goal of a game isn't so much the decimation of the enemy but the achievement of an end. In the original example of the genocidal warlord, it's relatively feasible to refrain from damaging past -10 HP. The time it would take those soldiers to heal independently or even heal as a result of divine magic would be more than enough time to capture the enemy general, destroy their barracks, free the prisoners, etc. etc. Granted, the need to compensate for dead soldiers would make it much more expensive and inconvenient for the enemy if those soldiers were killed, but you wouldn't even need to go that far, you could just cut off their sword-hand, drain their str/con, imprison/contract/exile them or something similar. In any case, the nonviolent (or nonlethal) revolution is still fairly feasible, atleast in the context of d&d mechanics where divine healing magic can heal negative HP soldiers who would be doomed to death in a low/no magic medieval or renaissance setting. The question is, in a situation where the nonlethal revolution is as relatively feasible as that, would it be wrong to prohibit PCs from killing even if killing the enemy soldiers is favorable to their cause? Edit: to be more clear as to why I don't want to create a world where violence is the only option; I don't want my players to necessarily be the doers of the dirty work unless that's the kind of character they want to play. I personally believe that there are a lot of works of fiction that are social commentary on the flaws in society, but not enough that are social commentary on what we should be rather than what we are. It's important that heroes (who are heroes for their moral fiber and not just how interesting they are as characters) have a presence, imo, and it's important enough that I don't want to compromise it, regardless of the dramatic opportunities accorded by games where the heroes are the lesser of evils, and violence is necessary. Basically, I want it to be possible to run games where the players are Superman and not the Punisher.
pres_man 10-17-06, 12:46 AM	These sorts of things are why I don't use alignment. Without alignment, you can throw all the moralistic stuff you want into a campaign. Have NPCs that exemplify you're idea of good, and of evil. Have people judge the PCs however you want. But they can still just tell everyone else go to hell and do whatever they think is right (or not right). That's what real world morality is like. And why exactly can't you do that with alignments in the game?
Demonwolf 10-17-06, 12:50 AM	Quote: Originally Posted by HamHam These sorts of things are why I don't use alignment. Without alignment, you can throw all the moralistic stuff you want into a campaign. Have NPCs that exemplify you're idea of good, and of evil. Have people judge the PCs however you want. But they can still just tell everyone else go to hell and do whatever they think is right (or not right). That's what real world morality is like. And why exactly can't you do that with alignments in the game? If you respond, please start up a different thread.
Gedrin 10-17-06, 12:50 AM	If you believe it is wrong to portray violence, or to encourage the portrayal of violence, you probably shouldn't play D&D at all. At least, you shouldn't play anything one might recognize as "traditional" D&D. However... I agree. The thing is that the kind of escapism varies from person to person. If a player adopts an evil or even CN character, I take the hint and let them be bada--es and let them kill things for fun. For my neutral players who make complex characters who are driven by interpersonal and internal conflicts, I focus on those and avoid moralizing since what they play for is to express thoughts and feelings that are suppressed in real life. I don't have an innate opposition to escapist violence, as long as the fictional, escapist quality is clear. The thing is, it's not always. The issue comes with good players- while they're still escapist, it's a different kind of escapism. They play to have importance and power that they don't have in real life to do good things that they can't always do in real life. They want to feel like they're doing good and that their actions matter, and if their good actions matter, so does the violence they inflict. It's with them that I worry about the whole 'sanctity of life' issue. It's with them that I have to make the choice between being a hypocrite, being a tyrant or simply not running the kind of game that they (and quite frankly, I) like, where you can experience the satisfaction of the good guys winning. It seems you have no problem with people playing brazen murderers. You appear to have little difficulty portraying the victims of their slaughters or the targets of the abuse of evil or CN character power. In fact, it seems you've got no problem letting running a game where people "kill things for fun". You appear quite comfortable allowing people to fantasize and act out acts of mindless and/or unjust violence. It seems you're fine with letting them act out evil and violent "thoughts and feelings that are suppressed in real life". On the other hand, it seems you do have a problem with people playing village defenders, princess rescuers, or demon banishers. It makes you uncomfortable that they might act out the physical conflicts to further their aims, such as killing a local illithid that has been eating the brains of smart children. You seem to think that these players make characters "to do good things that they can't always do in real life", and because of that are uncomfortable. SO... Acting out mindless violence that would be suppressed in RL...no problem. Acting out reasoned violence with a good aim that the player would be unable to do RL...problem. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem confused. I think it is likely that you tend to view all violence as meaningless and senseless. It may be easier for you to accept mindless violence, or the violence of evil characters. After all, violence = mindless and bad. That sort of violence makes sense. It probably does not feel comfortable when, even in the story, a good aim (saving lives) is acomplished through violence (killing illithid baby eaters). Violence is supposed to be mindless and bad, but this example has violence that is reasoned out and acomplishes a good aim. This does not appear to harmonize with your stated view. I think it is likely that you are uncomfortable with this inherent conflict of a pacificst view, and that is the root of your concern.
HamHam 10-17-06, 12:59 AM	The question is, in a situation where the nonlethal revolution is as relatively feasible as that, would it be wrong to prohibit PCs from killing even if killing the enemy soldiers is favorable to their cause? I don't really understand what "prohibit" means in this case. Is the booming voice of the DM going to come out of the clouds and command them not to kill? Is killing people going to cause 20 HD outsiders to spontantiously appear around them and beat them up? This only applies to characters that give a frack about alignment, like Paladins, and in that case it's a purely a matter of what their god thinks. And why exactly can't you do that with alignments in the game? You can't do it using alignment because that's the point where it becomes the DM playing god and placing his moral views as objectively true. (The fact that DnD alignment is inherently objective doesn't help, which is why I just get rid of it in that role.) That's when players get ****** off and leave the game (usually, it's when I would anyway).
pres_man 10-17-06, 01:02 AM	Edit: to be more clear as to why I don't want to create a world where violence is the only option; I don't want my players to necessarily be the doers of the dirty work unless that's the kind of character they want to play. I personally believe that there are a lot of works of fiction that are social commentary on the flaws in society, but not enough that are social commentary on what we should be rather than what we are. It's important that heroes (who are heroes for their moral fiber and not just how interesting they are as characters) have a presence, imo, and it's important enough that I don't want to compromise it, regardless of the dramatic opportunities accorded by games where the heroes are the lesser of evils, and violence is necessary. Basically, I want it to be possible to run games where the players are Superman and not the Punisher. Again, I will say, this is a goal where you should lead by example. The PCs should not be the only "heroes" in the world, if they are even heroes to begin with. Let some NPCs show them how to be "good". Also it seems like it is not that you don't want violence to be the only option, it is more that you don't want violence to be an option for good PCs at all.
Solik 10-17-06, 01:35 AM	Actually, I think Gedrin probably hit the nail on the head. But I'm not sure it's quite on-topic, so to respond to your latest posts... I simply repeat what I said before. What do your players want? Do they want to play Superman instead of the Punisher, or is that desire yours alone? This entire thing is an exercise in futility if your players are not an interested party. If your players do want that, you have two options. One is to throw creatures that are at least 10 CRs under them. Hey, that's Superman scenarios for you. That's why he can always resort to rather pacifistic measures -- the difference in power is so obscene, he can force anyone to bend to his will just with a display of ability. Your second option is, again, to use the Book of Exalted Deeds, and similar house-rules, which grant players abilities that don't result in death, including increased capability to do nonlethal damage and total redemption of any creature type. The majority opinion is that those rules aren't particularly playable, but then, they were probably designed more for you rather than for the majority.
Eela6 10-17-06, 01:45 AM	Gedrin/Solik, absolutely correct. I have to say, however, that the nonlethal damage option really isn't an option if you're dealing with spellcasters or monsters with innate casting or SLAs, unless you play to keep them pummeled into submission for the next year or so. Why? Because nonlethal damage is no big deal. You tie them up for the villagers to find, they wake up in a couple hours and D-Door out. Then they cast Leomund's Secret Chest, retrieve their wand of CLW, heal up fully, and Teleport to catch up the next day. Now, there's a couple ways you can deal with this. Firstly, you can have all casters be Wizards or Archivists [Heroes of Horror, there's a web preview on the site that has the complete text of the class]. Why? Because losing a spellbook is a big deal, and it effectively shuts down the caster for... well, a LONG time. So you can effectively beat the living daylights out of them, strip them of their spellbook and material components, and leave them for the castle to deal with. This doesn't deal with casters with SLAs, however. Alternatively, you can run it like Superman or City of Heroes - they're defeated and tied up - it's assumed that *somebody* deals with them - possibly the Church of "Handing people over to the Bleakers." Alternatively - Redemption. But Redemption is a long and trying thing, especially when you're dealing with a Hardened Criminal type who realizes that there's nothing stopping him from taking over a small barony - except you. In a game like D+D, where there's ten to twelve of these guys at any time? Priorities can get difficult. Of course, you can simply rule 'one thing at a time' - but no D+D mechanics are really sufficently flexible to deal with redemption. "Okay, it's time to talk about morality. Sovellis, roll a Redemption check. Remember, you took the 'wise words' feat and have a +2 redeeming scimitar, add your wisdom modifier." I dunno how to deal with it, really.
albinomonkeyking 10-17-06, 02:10 AM	Still, it's so dangerously close to rationalizing away an issue that's problematic in real life that it's almost morally offensive. In real life, decadence and a neglect of poverty are a real problem, but since the d&d world wants to deal with demons and dragons instead, it finds a way to write off the problem of social neglect. Likewise, while the value of life and whether or not it's okay to destroy it is an iffy issue in real life, it's mythologized away in the d&d universe to make way for entertaining action and the initiative roll. Okay, you seem to have missed something that has been pointed out, so I will try this again. This is a game, you seem to be attempting to use it as a medium for testing scenarios and beliefs when that is not (usually) what it is. I play D&D to play a game, I don't play it to test my theories on life or on man. You say you enjoy writing, so do I, I am sure a lot of DM's do, but this isn't a book, it is a game. D&D isn't your views on life, unless the people you play with are ready to wax philosophical using D&D as a means to express and explore their own humanity and feelings about the strife and short-comings of the world, then you are climbing up the wrong tree. I am not trying to be offensive but you came here for answers and I will give the best ones I have. You want something deeper from D&D than most people have. D&D is D&D because it has virtually nothing to do with real life. I don't watch an action movie and think, 'Those poor people in that restaurant that that rather large H2 just crashed into', only because that isn't the point of them. Just like other forms of entertainment D&D is not social commentary unless you want to transform it into one. As you said about books that often have deeper meanings of social commentary, keep in mind F. Scott Fitzgerald was quoted as discussing how people read into and saw more in his books than he ever wrote into them, and they are pretty chalked full of enough social commentary as is. You can continue to look for your answers in all forms of life, but you fail to see that looking for them in D&D is not so different than looking for them in an RPG, most of the people I play with just want to be a hero, or just want to hack things up. I suggest, again, that you find another medium to vent your views and watch them blossom, what you want is a more confined world for your PC's, and usually, this comes off poorly. Also, you seem to be (sorry if you are not) getting into an almost too far left (or right) policy. D&D is a game and nothing that goes in it translates in real life. I am mature enough to play some sick SOB's and it won't affect my real life behavior whatsoever. As a DM I have even played an NPC rapist and other truly horrifying characters, but it doesn't do a thing to me because at the end of the day I am still ruled by my morals, not my characters or the confines of the D&D world. You seem to think that if you allow certain things in your fake world it will affect anything in the real world, but that just isn't how it works. I could talk all day about using fireballs to blow up innocents, even people I know, but it still doesn't mean a damn thing come Real Life time. If you don't have the mental fortitude to deal with a world where things that would be traumatic social events in the real world are nothing but a wave of the hand in faerun then you may want to step down from D&D or review what the game is to you. Good luck
HamHam 10-17-06, 02:20 AM	This is a game, you seem to be attempting to use it as a medium for testing scenarios and beliefs when that is not (usually) what it is. This wouldn't be a bad thing to do. But the answers can't already be there.
Demonwolf 10-17-06, 11:06 AM	It seems you're fine with letting them act out evil and violent "thoughts and feelings that are suppressed in real life". First, this is taken out of context- when I said those words, it was referring to neutral characters who RP for internal and interpersonal drama as opposed to leading crusades/killing tavern patrons. Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem confused. I think it is likely that you tend to view all violence as meaningless and senseless. It may be easier for you to accept mindless violence, or the violence of evil characters. After all, violence = mindless and bad. That sort of violence makes sense. It probably does not feel comfortable when, even in the story, a good aim (saving lives) is acomplished through violence (killing illithid baby eaters). Violence is supposed to be mindless and bad, but this example has violence that is reasoned out and acomplishes a good aim. This does not appear to harmonize with your stated view. I think it is likely that you are uncomfortable with this inherent conflict of a pacificst view, and that is the root of your concern. First, I'm not an absolute pacifist, as I've mentioned in the OP and for that matter, the title of the thread. Like I've said, I don't think that violence is invariably mindless or even innately evil, I just that it's so iffy and irreversible that it's just not practical with the exceptions of BBEGs or always-evils whose very existence essentially means more killing. Next, I think it's pretty presumptuous to say what effectively amounts to 'I think the reason you're having an issue is because pacifism is wrong'. SO... Acting out mindless violence that would be suppressed in RL...no problem. Acting out reasoned violence with a good aim that the player would be unable to do RL...problem. Yeah. Basically. To reiterate my earlier point, the problem is in the kind of escapism the player's looking for. I see no problem with escapist violence because I know the player wouldn't do this in real life. This is what they can do but won't. On the other hand, the escapism of players who play good-aligned characters is what they would do but can't. In the former example, it doesn't really matter whether I encourage them or not, since this is something we both know is wrong and unfeasible in real life, which is why we're fictionalizing it in the first place (although other posters have got me thinking about the merits of this as well). But for the latter, I have the dilemma between being a tyrant and a hypocrite. It's something along the lines of a pro-life DM stuck in the situation of a paladin PC getting an abortion. He knows that she has every right to her opinions, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to encourage the practice. If he lets a character who represents moral perfection get an abortion without any consequences, he's basically conceding that he's wrong. Hence, hypocrite. On the other hand, if he says that she can't, he's being a tyrant. Third option is to turn back time so she didn't become pregnant (for the sake of the argument, let's not think of the kind of campaign that would lead into this turn of events). This is where the analogy varies; it's easy to imagine d&d without abortions (in my group, anyway). It's more difficult to imagine it without killing. This only applies to characters that give a frack about alignment, like Paladins, and in that case it's a purely a matter of what their god thinks. My problem is with characters who give a frack about alignment. And that's actually the beginning of a fairly reasonable solution... Okay, you seem to have missed something that has been pointed out, so I will try this again. This is a game, you seem to be attempting to use it as a medium for testing scenarios and beliefs when that is not (usually) what it is. I play D&D to play a game, I don't play it to test my theories on life or on man. Thing is, I don't exactly have an option. As mentioned, violence is an integral part of d&d and my two options are to either allow killing or not, to go against my beliefs or to compromise them. (To those who've suggested that d&d isn't the game for me; I'll consider it. No need to reiterate.) If your players do want that, you have two options. One is to throw creatures that are at least 10 CRs under them. Hey, that's Superman scenarios for you. The Superman vs. Punisher analogy wasn't really about power, it was more about killing vs. no killing... Batman vs. Punisher might actually be a more fitting analogy.
Solik 10-17-06, 11:20 AM	Batman is 10 CRs above most of the criminals he fights, too (BBEGs alone excluded). He just doesn't have silly templates. At any rate, you're still missing the point that you wouldn't be a hypocrit because you are not judging real-life morality with in-game applications of alignment. You are not making statements about real life when you make alignment judgments as a DM. D&D morality is not real-world morality. You can change the definitions of the alignments in D&D if you wish, but you and your entire group must agree on the changing of those definitions. That means, all of you better have the exact same philosophies, or you're going to start arguing, and it's not going to be pretty. I know I'd be pretty angry if you took away my paladinhood and made me evil because I killed soldiers of the evil army who were actively trying to kill me, only because they were just poor people trying to feed their families. That's because you and I don't agree on the definitions of alignment. When DM and players starkly disagree on definitions of good and evil, the solution is to abstract away all those details that you disagree on. Don't put abortion into a D&D game unless everyone in your group feels exactly the same about it. Don't put your paladins up against neutral or good humanoid soldiers who are working by choice for an evil army. Don't create situations where you and your players are going to start arguing about morality. You still haven't revealed anything about what your players want here.
Sarella Starshine 10-17-06, 11:42 AM	I am a DM. I consider myself a full pacifist. I do not like the idea of even hurting other people. Yet, when I DM a D&D game, my players get to have all the fun of killing things right and left, and I am not bothered by it at all. I know my players are responsible and sane enough to realize that violence in a game situation, is not real, and that its not cool to do that stuff in real life. That does not mean that every situation I put them up against will be a mindless slaughter fest. In fact, I am working on a few adventures where killing is the worst way to deal with the situation, which will be fun to see how they will deal with it.
Demonwolf 10-17-06, 11:48 AM	You still haven't revealed anything about what your players want here. Mainly 'cause I'm dealing in hypotheticals. The games I've run thus far have involved demons, chromatic dragons, orcs, goblins etc. and I haven't really gotten into games of a more political bent, although I've been dying to. My upcoming game is going to be in Waterdeep's Dock Ward, which is why I've posted on this subject now despite playing d&d for three or four years. Anyway, I've linked my players to this thread, and I'm waiting to hear how they feel about it. When DM and players starkly disagree on definitions of good and evil, the solution is to abstract away all those details that you disagree on. Don't put abortion into a D&D game unless everyone in your group feels exactly the same about it. Don't put your paladins up against neutral or good humanoid soldiers who are working by choice for an evil army. Don't create situations where you and your players are going to start arguing about morality. For one thing, soldiers who work by choice for an evil army are evil by my rulings, if a more sympathetic evil. But that's a digression. And the solution of simply excluding conflicts with sympathetic villains occured to me. The problem is that that wouldn't be interesting. :D
Solik 10-17-06, 11:52 AM	Now that's not true. There's lots of other things that would be interesting. Moral quandaries aren't the only things that are interesting. And you can enjoy those other interesting things without getting into a verbal fight with your players about right and wrong :p You can also have sympathetic villains without having alignment arguments. Just make the sympathy somewhat obvious, don't punish your players if they kill him, and provide a means that everyone can jive with for redemption or whatever if you want. But, since they're linked, let's see what they have to say on the issue. You might not have a problem at all.
Koji 10-17-06, 12:51 PM	I'm a pacifist myself (I don't even eat meat), but I don't feel any sort of similar problem within the game--the reason being because it's a game. I think killing is never justifiable, but my characters might not. I don't eat meat, my characters do (usually). I am a male and like it that way, but I've played a female character or two. Delving into viewpoints and worlds that clash wildly with your own can be an excellent way to explore and define your real-world moral boundaries in much the same way that an actor can grow by portraying characters he has little in common with. The easiest way would be to let the entire party work with you in a non-game setting to define what their universe might consider evil. As the DM, you control everything, even the absolute or relative nature of morality. If using violence becomes a more evil act, maybe your fighter will switch to neutral instead of good. If it's acceptable to use violence to end violence (which is often the only course of action in D&D), then maybe the cleric will choose to be a paladin instead. You define the game, but you shouldn't leave your players out of this process. The game is more fun when everyone has their say in the rules.
DarknessEternal 10-17-06, 01:08 PM	Should it be evil to kill the soldiers who are working for the dictatorship but are just following orders? "I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg. It doesn't work anywhere. Anyone who is "following orders" has agreed that said orders are something he is morally in support of, elsewise, he would not be following them.
revnk 10-17-06, 01:15 PM	Thing is, I don't exactly have an option. As mentioned, violence is an integral part of d&d and my two options are to either allow killing or not, to go against my beliefs or to compromise them. (To those who've suggested that d&d isn't the game for me; I'll consider it. No need to reiterate.) Your players can do what they want to in any RPG. Even one in which violence is discouraged. There's no way you can "disallow" killing in an RPG, but you can present it in a way that reflects your attitudes about violence. Killing can be brutal, bloody, not-fun, dangerous, and can carry dire consequences for its participants. But even in a game like Call Of Cthulhu, where most monsters are immune to violence, players can have their characters storm R'lyeh with blazing guns (they'll get eaten, of course). Even in a game like Blue Planet or Cyberpunk, where the game mechanics attempt to reflect "realistic" interpretations of police and medical reports, so that a single shot or blow can eliminate an unlucky victim, players can sneer at danger. That's the players' call, not yours. I've said previously that I don't think you need to find another game, unless you are so discomfitted by the possibility that a player will resort to murder that you should be playing something like Uno (even Sorry would be too violent, what with the little pawns assaulting each other and sending their foes to the sick-rooms of "Home"). Reconciling your beliefs with an RPG, including D&D, should be possible. And I agree with DrMorganes that embracing your beliefs and incorporating them can be a Very Good Thing--you can run a D&D game where violence is a terrible last resort and avoidance of violence or killing is rewarded. This brings us at last to your issue of "tyrant or hypocrite." It's a false dilemma because you should be neither as a DM: you are an impartial judge, albeit one whose opinions inform the world. Your players--and their characters--have free will. You can only follow through with the logical and appropriate consequences following from their actions. A PC kills someone--it's his choice, although he may be hounded by the gods, despised by society, and reviled by the world, a classic scenario from ancient drama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eumenides#The_Eumenides), folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cain#Summary) and epic fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric). You don't have to compromise a single belief, but you do have to allow your players to play the game. You should be able to do that--if not, well... if not, I can't help you, nor can anyone else here. I still wish you luck.
HamHam 10-17-06, 02:12 PM	"I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg. It doesn't work anywhere. Anyone who is "following orders" has agreed that said orders are something he is morally in support of, elsewise, he would not be following them. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think there were any random grunts being tried at Nuremburg. They were at least officers, if not actual command level types. Are you really going to say that every random soldier fighting for the South in the Civil War was a racist slave-owner? Simirally, every random grunt in the German army who got drafted and was too stupid to realize what it was they were really fighting for is not going to be evil just because of that. My problem is with characters who give a frack about alignment. And that's actually the beginning of a fairly reasonable solution... So, in the case of Paladins, Clerics, and the like: What matters is their god's precepts. They don't have to be perfect, but if they do enough (in either quantity or quality) things against their god's teachings they lose their powers. What this means in terms of world construction is that you need to develop what each god believes to a greater extent. And you need to explain all of this to any players who want to be devoted to a certain god ahead of time. Furthermore, you need to have a diverse panthion that runs the gauntlet of possible moral views: You need a "love and peace and turn the other cheek" type god or gods. You need a "Destroy evil whenever you see it without mercy" type god and gods. You need a "Cause as much chaos and destruction as possible!" type god or gods. You need a "It's okay not to really give a damn about anyone but yourself... but we don't really do human sacrifice either" type god or gods. And so forth. Beyond that, you should probably re-define all the "works on evil/good/lawful/chaotic" type spells to be based primarily on the user's perception of the target. Then, and only then, can you have a meaningful exploration of moral problems in your D&D game. Players, and characters, will disagree, and this disagreement will hopefully create good roleplaying. But, hopefully, no one will storm away from the table.
pres_man 10-17-06, 02:19 PM	It's something along the lines of a pro-life DM stuck in the situation of a paladin PC getting an abortion. He knows that she has every right to her opinions, but on the other hand, he doesn't want to encourage the practice. If he lets a character who represents moral perfection get an abortion without any consequences, he's basically conceding that he's wrong. Hence, hypocrite. On the other hand, if he says that she can't, he's being a tyrant. Third option is to turn back time so she didn't become pregnant (for the sake of the argument, let's not think of the kind of campaign that would lead into this turn of events). This is where the analogy varies; it's easy to imagine d&d without abortions (in my group, anyway). It's more difficult to imagine it without killing. This is why I suggest that things that are "politically charged" in RL should usually be treated as neutral in game. That way a DM that does not feel a good character should, using your example, get an abortion, that DM is correct, that is because it is a neutral act and good characters should try to do good acts. Sometimes there are no reasonable good acts to choose from so a neutral act may be reasonable. This extends to "killing" many feel that killing is wrong in RL It is nice that they can feel that way while being protected by others, much like the hobbits in the Shire being protected by Gondor and the rangers in that case just say killing is neutral (standard belief for most gamers). If your good characters only ever use killing to solve problems, then perhaps they should be shifted to neutral, as that is where the natural tendencies lie. On the other hand, if they want to do good but there are no reasonable good choices (I mean what are you going to do with a beholder?), then there should be no shift for making neutral choices. You as the DM have to give them other options that they might not know exist. And demonstrat them, don't just say, "Well you could take them to jail." Have an NPC take the foes to jail, show the players that it can be done differently.
robertliguori 10-17-06, 04:32 PM	Demonwolf: A thought: In my campaign, there were periodic invasions of the kingdom by the orcish hordes of the savage northlands. Every 20 or 25 years or so, another unstoppable orcish warlord would assemble a vast horde of orcs, and fall upon the south. There would be much death, slaughter, carnage, and scattered parties of deep-striking raiding orcs for years to come. Then, my PCs started to investigate this in detail. I revealed that with the orcish multiple-birth tendency and becoming sexually mature at eight years, the orcs simply could not sustain themselves in their barren homelands unless they could both periodically bring in an influx of goods and foods and simultaneously drastically reduce their population. So, what did they do? They invaded the North right back, but instead of bringing an army, they brought civilization. They found the most adaptable, least-brutal orcs they could find, and helped them build a city. They distributed birthbane (an abortifacient herb), and they (in a massive diplomatic coup) made the kingdom to the south realize that for a fraction of their current military defense budget, they could both feed and arm their own horde of orcs. The 'civilized' orcs were still by and large dumb, aggressive brutes. They also picked up on the worst sides of civilization very quickly (organized crime, etc.) But it worked, because the players made it work, and slowly, the civilized orcs managed to become a buffer. Now, the leadership of the other orcs are running scared, because the civilization has taken everything they could throw at it, and it's still growing and still expanding. If I'm understanding you, this is the kind of solution that you'd like to see your players embrace. However, the players could have simply made a special effort to kill off orcish women and children, let the greed and envy of the orcs whip them into a frenzy over claiming the few remaining females, and solved the problem of orcish invasion by good old-fashioned genocide. Most DMs throw in monsters with no expectation that the players will wonder any more about them then how to most quickly defeat them and take their stuff. If you show your players that the denizens of your world have enough depth to be capable of negotiation, compromise, and want something besides violence themselves, then your players may surprise you. However, just a warning: sometimes the players do go the genocide route. Some players will respond to urban campaigns by cheerfully gutting the abusive husband in front of his wife, fireballing the trouble-making youth gang, and just as cheerfully end up killing half the watch and burning down the city as the situation escalates. You can always solve problems with violence, if you're willing to use enough and don't mind making other problems for yourself. As has been said, talk with your players. It helps, it truly does.
DarknessEternal 10-17-06, 05:32 PM	Are you really going to say that every random soldier fighting for the South in the Civil War was a racist slave-owner? I'd say that if slavery were the primary point of conflect in the Civil War in America. Since it was pretty far down the list, though, I won't. Simirally, every random grunt in the German army who got drafted and was too stupid to realize what it was they were really fighting for is not going to be evil just because of that. The level of ignorance was pretty high in WW2 Germany, but that doesn't excuse the soldiers who did know what was going on. There were those that didn't want to participate. They were not evil. There were those that knew what was going on and said nothing about it. They were evil. You can do evil by inaction as well as action.
Eela6 10-17-06, 05:58 PM	I was reading over one of your earlier posts, Demonwolf, in order to make a constructive response, and I came across this. (I'm on the verge of crossing the line to becoming) the DM who makes the charitable, fair-minded and compassionate noblewoman LE because she had an abortion. This indicates that your moral beliefs seem to indicate that an Abortion is a Very Bad Thing (TM). Since you are one to consider the moral implications of actions in D+D, I'd like you to note this. In Dungeons and Dragons, killing a Golem, Animal, or unintelligent Undead is an act similar to an abortion. What? Of course not, right? But an Abortion is the act of killing a being that could, given time and effort, become an intelligent, thinking, and possibly moral being. With Awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm), so can Animals - and really, 250 XP is a pittance compared to the experience you get for dealing with one or two clans of mangy ogres. With Awaken Undead and Awaken Construct [Spell Compendium], the same can be said of Constructs and the like. In fact, certain spells that apply templates (I believe Axiomatic Creature is one) can apply this to almost everything. Of course, we can take this to ridiculous extremes - "No! Don't kill that broom! If I cast Animate Objects, Permanency, and Awaken Construct on it, it would be a living and thinking creature, just like you!" But it's something you might want to consider, and it's not always ridiculous. After all, Awakening the dreaded Dire Bear and explaining to it the moral implications of it's actions may be better than simply killing it. Of course, if it decides that rules need not apply to it and flies off using newly discovered powers of sorcerer, that's a problem. But that's not all that likely. At all. _
Matthew77 10-17-06, 06:04 PM	This has been said before, but it bears repeating: Make darn sure that your players want the same type of game as the DM. Personally, I deal with complex, shades-of-grey moral issues in my real life, and I need a couple hours each week when good guys are clearly bright shining good, and evil guys are clearly low-down dirty scum. If you want to run a D&D game as a tool for exploring morality, that's fine as long as you can find players that want the same thing. If I show up for a game with my paladin ready to smite some evil orcs, and discover that the DM is hosting a forum for investigating empathy and moral ambiguity, I'm going to go find myself a new DM. Otherwise, if everyone is on board with the idea, it sounds like you could craft a very enjoyable and possibly enlightening game.
HamHam 10-17-06, 06:20 PM	I'd say that if slavery were the primary point of conflect in the Civil War in America. Since it was pretty far down the list, though, I won't. So was the Holocaust. The actually causes for WWII had far more to do with national pride, economic conditions, and a host of other things. That the Nazi's could turn this drive into fuel for a personal agenda of genocide is the crazy part.
revnk 10-17-06, 07:17 PM	I'd say that if slavery were the primary point of conflect in the Civil War in America. Since it was pretty far down the list, though, I won't. We're getting way off topic here, but the pre-eminence of slavery as a cause of the American Civil War is hotly debated--as I'm sure you know--with many historians taking just that position (that slavery was a primary point of conflict in the American Civil War). Even considering it as a secondary or tertiary issue, it's worth pointing out (as one of my undergraduate professors did in a class on antebellum America) that brothers typically don't shoot each other over tariffs or railroad gauges. In that same context, it might be worth noting that historians like James Loewen have described alternative explanations for the cause of the Civil War as "a form of Southern apologetics," noting that school textbook publishers in the decades from around 1920 to 1960 were obligated to de-emphasize slavery in order to sell Southern school districts textbooks that complied with statutes in Florida and other states that required a "True and Correct History of the Confederacy" (Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me, 134-135). Loewen may go too far in completely dismissing other causes of the War--the economic interests that compelled Southern elites to were varied and included matters related to the cotton trade, taxation and infrastructure--but the importance of slavery to the South's economy and political clout in the House Of Representatives (slaves representing a non-voting bloc of "support" for Southern states under the 3/5 compromise) put slavery high on the list (if not a primary and necessary cause) not "pretty far down." It is probably fair to say that many Southerners who were manipulated into fighting the American Civil War were not more racist than common attitudes of the time, although most probably were racists by contemporary standards (some abolitionists, although certainly not all, were racists by contemporary standards). It's also fair to say that the majority of men serving the Confederate army did not own slaves (and it's doubtful many of them would have had any hope of ever affording a slave). It is a tragic irony that many of those who served in the Southern armies had far more in common with the rank-and-file they fired upon than they did with their own leaders or the men in Richmond or Charleston who instigated Secession. Thus, the correct answer to HamHam's question is "no," but not for the reason DarknessEternal gives. As for WWII: Nazi anti-Semitism was not a cause for war--the cause of the war being Axis invasion and/or attack on their neighbors or rivals (German expansion in Europe and Japanese occupation of East Asia, culminating in the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor in an attempt to cripple America's ability to exert military influence in the Pacific long enough for the Japanese to secure the Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere). The culpability of those who willingly participated in genocide should be beyond question. Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread, which I believe was actually about the OP's concerns about the violence or killing in D&D being inconsistent with his moral views concerning violence and killing.
Dowjin 10-17-06, 09:04 PM	My ideas; This isn't a reply on history lessons. Or being for/against pacifism; its a set of values one is entitled to, and they must be respected. So don't think my suggestions are meant to antagonize, I mean it honestly. Desensatize yourself. Watch dramatic unjustifiable violence, in stunning detail. Watch/read scenarios where people have so sadly died (in sometimes painful and messy ways) needlessly. Perhaps moral quandries are involved, perhaps not. Familiarize yourself with ALL of it. Then I'd reflect on how I, as a DM, am playing NPCs. These fictional little creations are for the pleasure of the game, your players, and your self. They collaborate with the plot I have in mind, equally devised merely for fun; whether its riddled with holes, or is contraversial. They're actions are in no way linked to your own, they're own ideals don't need to mirror your own. Because they aren't you. An even broader spectrum of shades of grey can be revealed, and you can note the gradients where one (read:NPC) is -pressed- into doing something terrible. They might think they are justified, or lament, but either way, you needn't make your NPCs think like you; to make yourself feel better about playing them. To black and white the contrasts, means that there is no force -prohibiting- a PCs conscious to attack somebody; because the person being attacked is always clearly labeled as worthy of death. You can put critical stress upon your own viewpoints in-game, create NPCs to that effect, but also create NPCs of every other viewpoint as well. Not only will this create a funner, more versatile world, but in playing a concept you don't agree with, you might understand it better; or hold your own more dearly. Because again, NPCs are not you, they cannot be traced to you in any fashion, and while they are facets of your creativity; you MUST separate yourself, and your feelings, from them. Mind you, still give it heart, but make it THEIR (Read:NPC) heart. Play and sympathize THEIR beliefs. Because (assuming that your campign is-) in a world full of people, lots of them should be commiting reprehensible acts, and the PCs -should- be tempted to commit their own. The PCs -should- be taxed morally and ethically, because the people that stay true to their alignments value said alignment, and treasure that character in the end. So test them! Test them often, test them hard! Make them think, make them question they're own morals; but in the end don't try to preach to them; be fine with the fact that they might have "messed up" or so-and-so died, don't punsih them -too- hard that they started a fight that they didn't need to. Just make the consequences fit the bill of their transgressions. Don't let your personal qualms interfere with what fictional characters are doing, because there is no harm, and there is no sin. It is only imagination, this is the playground where you can take back any real-life inhibitions and PLAY! -a fun game. Because its just that, a game. OP: Though I'll take your word for it and call it a gripping in-depth game with tons of story. ;) Of course, and as standard, if you -can't- have fun doing it, don't. And anything the players enjoy is always fair to have fun with.
Gedrin 10-17-06, 11:01 PM	Next, I think it's pretty presumptuous to say what effectively amounts to 'I think the reason you're having an issue is because pacifism is wrong'. I'm sorry you took it that way. I only meant to say that it appears you are uncomfortable with one of the fundamental delimas of your point of view. The lethal evil that can only be contained by violence is one of the fundamental, clasical, delimas of pacifism, and one that you have made compromises to accomodate. I didn't mean to imply that simply because such a delima appears to exist, that your view is wrong. To reiterate my earlier point, the problem is in the kind of escapism the player's looking for. I see no problem with escapist violence because I know the player wouldn't do this in real life. This is what they can do but won't. On the other hand, the escapism of players who play good-aligned characters is what they would do but can't. In the end, it appears I was wrong. The problem you really seem to be having is that your PLAYERS have a divergent view from your own, and you have difficulty with running a game that would promote their fantasies. While you, RL, have difficulty with violence in the cause of good, you are uncomfortable with the idea that your players would be willing to act in such a way if they could. You seem comfortable with your brand of pacifism. The problem isn't that you have an internal conflict about violence in the cause of good, but rather that your players (the RL people) have a divergent oppinion on the matter that you do not wish to promote or indulge. It's not that you dislike their characters, or the play of the game, but rather that you dislike their view on the morality of the use of force. You appear uncomfortable with the fact that your players do not share your view, and thus consider their motives for playing morally questionable. It appears, because you feel they would be willing to do violence in the cause of good (what they would do but can't), and you object to that, you are uncomfortable indulging their fantasies of such. If you do feel that a certain type of play encourages something you find morally objectionable, I would encourage you to avoid that type of play.
Demonwolf 10-18-06, 12:24 PM	The problem isn't that you have an internal conflict about violence in the cause of good, but rather that your players (the RL people) have a divergent oppinion on the matter that you do not wish to promote or indulge. It's not that you dislike their characters, or the play of the game, but rather that you dislike their view on the morality of the use of force. You appear uncomfortable with the fact that your players do not share your view, and thus consider their motives for playing morally questionable. It appears, because you feel they would be willing to do violence in the cause of good (what they would do but can't), and you object to that, you are uncomfortable indulging their fantasies of such. Right. Although I'm okay with indulging their opinions, not as much with promoting them. Where the line between the two lies, though, so does my issue. This indicates that your moral beliefs seem to indicate that an Abortion is a Very Bad Thing (TM). Since you are one to consider the moral implications of actions in D+D, I'd like you to note this. I'm pro-choice for first trimester, actually. I was just using an example. So, what did they do? They invaded the North right back, but instead of bringing an army, they brought civilization. They found the most adaptable, least-brutal orcs they could find, and helped them build a city. (Snip) If I'm understanding you, this is the kind of solution that you'd like to see your players embrace. That is freaking awesome, I applaud you for running that game and I applaud your players for playing it the way they did. Still, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I should have just put this in the OP, but what I had in mind was houseruling that characters can "restrain damage", ie when they see their enemy falling unconscious from reaching 0 HP, they can automatically make the result of every following die of damage 1 and restrain the attack/spell so that the wounds don't continue dealing damage, thus making sure they don't go past -10 HP. Anyway, I think this thread has reached the point where we can't really discuss this any further without delving into the issue of violence itself. As far as I can tell, the opinions that have been given are as follows or are variations of what follows: 1. D&D is just a game. It's not a good idea to include moral ambiguity to the extent it hampers gaming. If you need to limit the villains to chromatic dragons, extraplanar fiends, constructs, BBEGs, irredeemable cultists and oozes, do so. 2. D&D is an inherently violent game. If you can't reconcile that, you probably shouldn't be playing. (Although I still maintain that there'll be just as much fighting no matter which direction I go on this issue). 3. You should portray violence in the game objectively and accurately, allowing it to speak for itself. If the heroes kill, then show the consequences of the killing. If they don't, show the consequences of their mercy. 4. Discuss with players. Of these options, 3 and 4 are personally the most appealing. Especially 4, given that the weight of the responsibility implied by 3 is still a little bit beyond my abilities as a DM. I think I can safely say we've thoroughly explored the ethics of the issue of compromising your own beliefs vs. encouraging conflicting beliefs vs. avoiding moral ambiguity. It's probably time now to explore the issue of violence itself and where the line is between justifiable killing and murder, but since alignment threads have a reputation, lemme first ask: does anyone know of a link to a (reasonable) discussion of violence in d&d, assuming it's already happened before?
Kimokeo 10-18-06, 12:55 PM	The world the DM creates is where all this flows. I think of Tolkien's Sam and Frodo going through Mordor. The Orcs would kill each other and fighter each other infinitum. The moment they would discover the hobbits, they'd forget their issues and attack the hobbits. When all is said and done, they'd go back to fighting and killing each other. The point of Orcs was that they were twisted and cruel creatures and there appeared to be none that could be 'saved'. It is inherent in their nature. When Drizzt came on the scene, it was a really, strange phenonenon. That's my main point. If the evil in the world can be converted, then an effort could be made. But, if there is no conversion to even consider, than evil will either kill or be killed itself. The world wars ended because one side finally beat the other into submission. In all reality, the soldiers for either side weren't evil. There are evil in the ranks, but generally, most would not have been considered evil - despite killing perhaps hundreds if not thousands of people. D&D to me is a warzone. If I played the game on politics, the PHB & DMG would have to be re-written and there wouldn't be a MM. There's be no need. I could see my brother and I sitting down for a game of Panzerblitz. We'd set up all the pieces in a couple hours, play 15 turns, but not a shot fired. We'd change the rules of the game and make it a game of diplomacy. Doesn't work. That's not the design of the game. It would require a major re-write. D&D is like that. When the posts throughout the boards are 95% 'defeat thy enemy' with 'anything can be a weapon', diplomacy is not a main focus nor an option to most players.
Solik 10-18-06, 01:11 PM	Your restrain damage house-rule is fine in and of itself. However, if you couple that with the requirement that your good players use that on intelligent enemies and try to reason with them / redeem them all the time (or turn them into authorities), you're going to have other problems you'll have to deal with, and probably though additional house rules. A poster already mentioned the grave danger posted by any spellcaster of even moderately-decent level. Toss in magic items, many of which can be hidden, and feats and class abilities that allow non-spellcasters to use SLA's, and you've really got a tough time. It's simply not easy to restrain people in D&D. The most obvious fix would be a set of Magic Manicles that function as a personal antimagic field of sorts (or at least one that prevents the wearer from using any kind of magic, but not necessarily prevents receiving it, so that you can't use it as an immunity to magic device). But then you have to deal with the implications of adding that. How much should they cost? How many can players carry around? What if your PCs start using them in combat as a weapon against enemy mages (with, say, a grapple check)? Why can't such powerful tools be made in a form other than manicles that's easier to use (think of a mancatcher enchanted with this stuff, or a net)? Barring that, you could just grant your PCs some SLA geared specifically towards restraining captives (especially magic ones). But that seems like something of a cop-out. It's also something that would normally require a PrC, or at least a feat chain of moderate level or higher. And you still have implications with that -- for instance, surely spellcasters have come up with a way to fight such an obvious and overwhelming danger. It gets worse if you concede that it's okay to kill casters, or people known to possess magical abilities that could harm people or guarantee their escape, but it's not okay to kill people without that. Now you need magic-reading abilities -- and reliable ones -- just to follow alignment. It's also not very fair / just, which seems a bit counter to what you want. And that's before you get into magical disguises, bluffing, etc. So even before you get into the alignment discussion itself, there's all these gameplay issues you have to deal with somehow. Anyways, I have no link for you. But I'm not sure why you really need one -- the only opinions that matter, in terms of alignment, should be those of you and your players. It's your group's consensus that determines the lines for alignment. The books just offer a very bare-bones guideline, which -- like everything else -- is optional itself.
Eela6 10-18-06, 06:00 PM	I see that my earlier post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10386220&postcount=73) didn't really apply. I apologize for the tangent. Thanks for posting more specifics, Demonwolf. Let's take a look. Still, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I should have just put this in the OP, but what I had in mind was houseruling that characters can "restrain damage", ie when they see their enemy falling unconscious from reaching 0 HP, they can automatically make the result of every following die of damage 1 and restrain the attack/spell so that the wounds don't continue dealing damage, thus making sure they don't go past -10 HP. The problem with this attempt is that it really doesn't resolve the problem of moral responsibility. Let's just say we take a sterotypical D+D quest. The village of Quaz'magat is being terrorized by an Ogre Mage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogreMage.htm) and his loyal Ogre (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ogre.htm) minions. The party comes through for the villages, offering to get rid of the Ogres and free the villagers. The affair eventually comes to violence. The party manages to knock out the Ogres - but the Ogre Mage is a bigger problem - their attacks happen to be nonlethal damage due to Regeneration; it keeps coming back up. A dilemma occurs. What to do about the Ogre Mage? They knock it out and use measured amounts of Acid to keep it under, of course, being careful not to murder the thing. While it IS evil, it's not inevitably so - it's no Color-Coded Dragon or Demon, after all - and plenty of Ogre Magi have ended up good. They attempt to drag the thing back to town, confident that without their leader, the Ogres will no longer be a threat. They even tie it up, hand and foot, to make sure it can't use any attempt to cast spells. Problem - as soon as it awakes, it uses it's Gaseous Form Spell-Like ability [No Components], then Invisibility [Ditto] to fly away. Once safely away, it uses it's Change Shape ability to take the form of a humanoid traveler. It is now, once again, a danger to the surrounding populace - one which the party has failed in it's moral responsibility to deal with. What are the PCs to do? There is, of course, the 'magic shackles' option, as Solik mentioned. But I don't think it quite works. Killing is neccessary, here. In the real world, we are lucky enough it is not - there are other options that can deal with dangerous people. But in a world where large amounts of creatures can DO things like that, well, it's difficult. Or heck, let's take into account fighting a Troll. The entire purpose of the encounter is this - first, that the party knocks it out, then they drown it or stick it's head in a puddle of acid. You can rule that, well, 'it's an evil creature, no biggy' - but Trolls are not hide-bound by their alignment. It's a dilemma. _ As for the link, I'm afraid I can't think of a thread that specifically speaks of violence. Sorry.
Gedrin 10-18-06, 07:10 PM	Right. Although I'm okay with indulging their opinions, not as much with promoting them. Where the line between the two lies, though, so does my issue. I don't see why running a typical adventure, where the good guy PC's wack a bad guy, save the innocents and score treasure, would be promoting a view divergent from your own. The player's point of view has little to do with how the game world is constructed or acts. If your game world has people in it that will pay PC's to kill the mind flayers who've been eating their children...then that's what your world has. If the people in your game world would be uneasy with PC's killing mind flayer child-eaters, then they'd be uneasy about it. Establish the ground rules of your world. Tell your players what they are. One of those rules might be,"Exalted characters don't use violence in the cause of good." Presumably the players will want to continue to play. From there on out, just run the world. Some times the PC's will do things you don't agree with, and the game world will still reward them, such as robbing someone and getting away with cash. Other times, the PC's will do things you do agree with, and the game world will punish them, such as a jailed mind flayer dominating the small town authorities from the safety of his cell. Remember, it's not appropriate for a DM to judge what happens in game based on what he thinks is going on inside a players head. Judge based on PC actions, after all...that's all the game world sees. If you feel the need to judge rewards and success of PC's based on what you feel the Player's motivations for action are, you might want to take a step back.
qzujak49 10-19-06, 02:43 AM	It's probably time now to explore the issue of violence itself and where the line is between justifiable killing and murder, but since alignment threads have a reputation, lemme first ask: does anyone know of a link to a (reasonable) discussion of violence in d&d, assuming it's already happened before? I don't know of any such link, but since you asked for a discussion of violence, I'll try and start one off. First, violence probably isn't the best term(I prefer 'use of force'), since violence is used in this case to get one's way, and it's just one option. There are at least three ways to get one's way in DnD 1) force or threat of force, 2) magical mind control, and 3) non-magical persuasion that does not include threats of force. You seem to be having an issue with reconciling which of these are acceptable in the real world in a given situation vs. which of these are acceptable in a DnD world in a given situation. People's opinions about these courses of action in the real world are significantly based on how reversible they are in the real world. When you get into a DnD world however, all of the above are reversible. I'll even cite Gandalf the Grey lecturing Frodo about how he shouldn't be so eager to kill Smeagol when he can't revive him(I think this lecture took place while they were in the Mines of Moria). Before I go any further into this, I'd like to ask you something. Would you be okay as a DM with the players using magical mind control to solve every problem they could possibly use it to solve? It's not violent, but it sure does force their will onto others. If you want a setting where there's a nonviolent solution for lots of stuff, go with Star Wars. Have one player be a Jedi so he can wave his hand at the drunk ruffian and say 'You want to go home and rethink your life.' and have him repeat 'I want to go home and rethink my life.' Then have them get into that fight with that irredeemably evil Sith. When is he irredeemable? As a (not very Light Side) Jedi I wouldn't be that concerned about the answer really. What I'd be concerned with is when I'd have to risk my neck to find out. If I had to start risking my own neck to find out, I'd just say it's too much of a risk and go to lethal force. Even in KotOR they didn't risk their own necks to convert Revan in the middle of a to the death fight. They wiped his memory and then put Bastilla in charge of brainwashing him back to the Light Side.