16 réponses à ce sujet

[PJ156]

A general question for players and modders.

Which is better in module story lines:

1. A black and white approach to morality - you're evil, I'm good. The evil person does very bad things and the good person beats them about the head with pointy sticks and fireballs until evil is defeated and good prevails.

2. A grey approach to morality - you're a bit evil but then I'm no angel. The evil person does bad things perhaps for good reason and the good person beats them about the head with pointy sticks and fireballs until evil is defeated and good prevails. However on the way the good person is given choices which might be considered evil but again may be justified.

I ask this because I am looking at the plot lines for my own mod. I realise this is a matter of choice, both ways of writing the story can give interesting play. However from a roleplay point of view are we looking for something outside our own existance where we see and deal with shades of grey all the time, something black and white and clear cut. Or is the story everything and the sense of achievment gained when the module is completed independant of the path we take to get there?  

I know Kamal_ has given us a chance to be evil in his mod but the choice to be bad is still a clear roleplay choice and (hopefully) outside of our normal experience.

So I guess my question is, when you play are you looking for clear cut moral boundaries, good and bad with a clear sense of "I did that" at the end of it. Or are you happy to be led into a story which does not always have distinct moral boundaries.

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 16 mai 2011 - 09:43 .

[Arkalezth]

Both ways are playable, but I prefer 2. It's more interesting usually, the pure good vs. pure evil is overdone. I don't like the villains to be evil for the sake of evil (typical drow, for example). They can be ruthless and all that, but no need to kill everyone who stares at them, or kick puppies and eat children without purpose (ok, I can't think of a purpose to eat children, but you get my meaning), that's just stupid.

It also depends on the module. There were both types in your module and I think both were well done.

[_Knightmare_]

Few things in life are black and white. Except for logical exceptions (ex. a Paladin) I like choice #2 more. To go a step beyond that, in my PnP games I like to make my players think about Law and Chaos as well. For example, why do these bandits attacking town turn out to be "good guys?" Well, they are chaotic and trying to revert "civilization" back to "nature/natural." They aren't evil, so they don't go around slaughtering the common folk - but they will burn the commoner's house down when nobody is home. How do you go about "fighting" people who are also "good?"

Modifié par _Knightmare_, 16 mai 2011 - 10:08 .

[kamal_]

In 1, if the bad guy is just evil and you never see any reasoning behind their actions, it's kind of hollow from a story perspective. It's fine for a sidequest, or just some monsters you find, to have this kind of enemy. Even if they are purely evil, the story works better if you can see why they are evil.

In PoE I tried to give players the option to be the bad guy but still have some kind of moral code if they wanted, and put in some reason for the pc being evil. So for a moral code thing, the player can refuse to help slavers, buy slaves and then free them, etc. I got a a number of comments of "this is disgusting, I can't believe you made me do x" where x was something that was optional. And the player viewed Neverwinter negatively because they blamed Nasher for neglecting the Beggar's Nest where the player lived in favor of other districts after the OC events.

If you want an example of 1, think Lord of the Rings, Sauron is purely evil. If you want two you can look at someone like Magneto in the X-Men, who is evil as a response to the persecution of mutants like himself, and thus arguably justified.

[M. Rieder]

_Knightmare_ wrote...

Few things in life are black and white...

Zebras.  Check-mate, Knightmare!

[M. Rieder]

I really enjoyed watching my pet dire wolves eat Tanith because Tanith was a huge bastard. I don't remember if rational for his bastardhood was given, but I don't think it was. I also enjoyed killing the pirate captain in LDoTR who was evil, but understandably and justifiably so.

Pretty much if I get to blow s*** up, I'm going to be happy.

On a more serious note, I say follow your instincts. They haven't let you down yet. The characters from your stories seem to run from evil just for the hell of it to evil with an explanation which is reasonable. For me that works. Sometimes I just need a bad guy to light up with lots of fire. Sometimes I want to be challenged morally. Sometimes I want to play a female hafling and dress up with pretty..... well.... I've said too much already....

[MasterChanger]

In a character- and story-driven adventure, you get a much more nuanced experience when stuff is ambiguous. This can be achieved through intentions differing from outcomes, from deceptions, from difficult choices, etc. In adventure games with combat involved, it often becomes interesting to ask, in which situations are violence and killing justified?

kamal_ wrote...
If you want an example of 1, think Lord of the Rings, Sauron is purely evil. If you want two you can look at someone like Magneto in the X-Men, who is evil as a response to the persecution of mutants like himself, and thus arguably justified.

Except that even in LotR there is a range of good and evil. Gollum, for example, is such an interesting character specifically because of the ambiguity involved. There are also good characters who succumb to greed and temptation.

[painofdungeoneternal]

The most black and white evils are generally the evils we know very little about. As you learn more about them it often gets much more complicated.

I personally played a pretty evil priest who spent all my time helping new player out, giving them gold, advice, and making sure they understood that those pesky knights were not very nice, and tended to kill good people like me on sight. Sometimes the epitomy of evil is when you are acting with generosity and kindness, by being kinder than the lackeys of the hosts of heaven, well it made those jerks seem quite cruel and gained my deity many new followers.

It is a foolish follower of darkness who dress in all black and paints a big red "slay me" on his shield for those holy roller paladins to chase. ( even though that actually is a good way to get rid of rivals come to think of it ).

[PJ156]

Thanks all for the comments, it gives me the confidence to push on with the plot line I was considering.

Regards,

PJ

[Quixal]

Moral dilemma is my favorite plot device. One I suspect my players have learned to hate me for. I favor option two. That said, go with what seems to flow best with the plot in your head. Don't force either due to popularity level. I trust your storytelling skills and am sure it will turn out well either way. Especially towards the end of your ongoing story, you have delved into the moral ambiguity quite nicely.

[The Fred]

Personally, I prefer 2. Very few "evil" people perceive themselves as actually evil, there is the "greater good" (kind of a cliche but still true) and so forth, and there are "bad guys" who might do evil, but perhaps from anger etc. Evil is a strong word - are these evil people? Could they be / have been redeemed? There are lots of not just shades of grey, but different hues of it too.

However, option 1 is often chosen, particularly in games, and not without reason. A big factor is often the audience - you don't want to present tough moral dilemmas to young kids, because you're trying to teach them the difference between good and evil, and that good is good, and that bad people always lose so don't be bad, etc. Another factor is probably that not being able to reason with the big bad guy means you can't have a whole alternative story arc which would take longer to build. There's also the fact, though, that "good vs evil" is a very classic (perhaps somewhat cliched) adventure story theme. Sometimes, you just want to beat up bad guys, not spend long sleepless nights worrying over who the bad guy is. See Lord of the Rings, The Wheel of Time etc. The orcs aren't just bad-tempered and unlucky, they're about as inherently evil as such as thing is possible, because that's how they were made.

I think option 2 definately adds more depth to things, but option 1 can work just fine so long as it's done well. For example, it's often said that NWN(2) and similar games offer good and evil options for the PC, but that the evil one is "I'm a jerk, I'm going to kill random people for no reason and insult everyone I meet even if I actually want to suck up to them." You can make the differences between good and evil very distinct without forcing that specific brand of evil on people. Equally you can still have bad guys who pretend to be good, etc, without the really deep questions.

Really it's not a question of 1 or 2, I don't think, it's how much of 2 to put in. As people have said, few things in life are black and white, even how much is black and white.

[MokahTGS]

Arkalezth wrote...

ok, I can't think of a purpose to eat children, but you get my meaning

Asside from the nutritional value?  No, I guess you're right...

[kamal_]

MokahTGS wrote...

Arkalezth wrote...

ok, I can't think of a purpose to eat children, but you get my meaning

Asside from the nutritional value?  No, I guess you're right...

You eat them in case they will overthrow you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son

[Arkalezth]

Actually, I was thinking about that painting when I wrote it.

[MartialDoctor]

The Fred wrote...
I think option 2 definately adds more depth to things, but option 1 can work just fine so long as it's done well. For example, it's often said that NWN(2) and similar games offer good and evil options for the PC, but that the evil one is "I'm a jerk, I'm going to kill random people for no reason and insult everyone I meet even if I actually want to suck up to them." You can make the differences between good and evil very distinct without forcing that specific brand of evil on people. Equally you can still have bad guys who pretend to be good, etc, without the really deep questions.

I think this is a good point.  The good and evil portrayed in the regular campaign is quite ridiculous sometimes.  I think the more important part is how you potray it rather than choosing #1 or #2... if done properly, either can turn out to be a great story.

I will also add that nothing makes a story more interesting than a surprise twist.  A "Holy crap, that guy's actually evil?!" (or vice versa) change can add a lot, imo.

[Kaldor Silverwand]

I think that any extreme actions require some kind of explanation. This is true for extreme good as well as extreme evil. Non-extreme actions don't have this requirement. For example, a storekeeper sells goods at inflated prices and buys them for a fraction of their worth. This is normal behavior for a shopkeeper and requires no explanation. Now if the shopkeeper then has hired thieves who pickpocket the customers as they leave the store and return the items to his inventory so he can sell them again, then that would require some explanation.

So characters who do evil should have some reason for doing so. That reason can be rational, like a desire for power or wealth or fame, or semi-rational, like an overly inflated ego or distrust of others, or irrational, like outright paranoia or desire to destroy or insanity (instead of killing the evil-doer my druid uses his ring of hypno-therapy and a potion of lithium and eliminates the evil threat ). Since evil creatures exist in the D&D world, it can also be a natural racial proclivity - such as for drow or orcs.

Even providing very simple reasons can do a lot to prevent a character from being too two-dimensional.

The nature of good and evil is the primary theme in the Gems of Power campaign I am currently working on.

Regards

Modifié par Kaldor Silverwand, 26 mai 2011 - 05:54 .

[PJ156]

Kaldor Silverwand wrote...

Even providing very simple reasons can do a lot to prevent a character from being too two-dimensional.

The nature of good and evil is the primary theme in the Gems of Power campaign I am currently working on.

Regards

I've still yet to play your kings and queens mods ...

I agree, it does not take too much to flesh out a character and the reasons for thier actions can be very shallow and still make them more vibrant. In fact given the medium of the conversation as we have it it is hard to portray too much complexity without making the poor player reads reams of on screen text.

I've taken confidence from this thread and I will play out my story in the way I envisaged it initially. Not so much about good and evil as about the lengths people may go to protect thier loved ones.

That and the pitfalls associated with trying to use centuries old relics that really should be put back in thier box and buried in a deep hole somewhere

PJ

Modifié par PJ156, 26 mai 2011 - 10:57 .