Most feedback in this thread seem to fall into the themes I've mentioned above, which is:Jimsolo wrote:Are you just wanting feedback on this theoretical idea? [...] Have you already decided to do it, and are merely trying to get help predicting any possible hiccups in implementation?
a) Good and Evil exist objectively in human behavior so posters feel that they would include it in the game, and/or
b) regardless of the truth or falsehood of point A., Good and Evil are portrayed to exist in Gothic horror and so posters feel they are inseparable from it, and/or
c) regardless of the truth or falsehood of point B., Good and Evil are portrayed to exist in Ravenloft and so others feel they is inseparable from it.
I respectfully disagree with each point above, and I have explained my reasoning in a prior post. I'm aware that I hold a minority opinion, and that's perfectly acceptable to me. On its own, being the holder of a numerically unpopular opinion does not affect my plan for my campaign.
I would consider making changes to my campaign if an objective, systemic flaw were identified in my design. However, so far every critique in this thread has been an expression of the poster's taste or preference. If this thread were describing a play-by-post campaign and the posters were future participants in this campaign, then I would take the feedback extremely seriously and would consider changing the game structure based on player preference. But in this case, the posters are essentially unrelated parties whom I asked for their feedback, and so feedback based on personal playing preferences is purely advisory rather than controlling.
And there's nothing wrong with that. I'd expect the exact same treatment if it were my opinion in somebody else's thread under identical circumstances.
There is one statement, however, that I'd like to comment on - purely as an observation of discourse. I'll try to be diplomatic. I might fail. But it struck me as very important because I've seen so many discussions break down with exactly this type of assumption.
My most succinct and diplomatic answer to this is: true, but no moreso than your proposed alternative.Jimsolo wrote:It seems like you are trying to bring your real-world views on morality into your game.
Consider this: if I happened to agree with you, and I instituted a "moral absolute" structure of Good and Evil, then that would somehow not be "bringing my real-world views on morality into the game"? I posit to you that the existence of Good and Evil as objective traits in a DnD game are the implementation of the DnD designers' "real-world views on morality" which they've codified in rules for use "in your game".
There's probably a more accurate term for this phenomenon in standard theory of logic, but for the time being I'll just call it "norming" as a clumsy shorthand. Essentially, one person is assuming their familiar viewpoint is normal, and therefore any unfamiliar viewpoint is a willful deviation from normalcy. This goes even if the person is speaking from a position that requires the prior adoption of a set of assumptions: after sufficient norming, the assumptions become so ingrained that they go unquestioned.
This is perfectly natural and human, but it generates problems in debate when somebody else points it out, because the first response is usually made with some tenor of "why would anybody even question that?"
Here's an example: Much like when a pre-Newtonian observer sees an apple fall from a tree and wonders "what causes it to fall from the tree?" The predominant wisdom has been: "All objects move down; why are you overcomplicating things? It just does. Everybody knows that!" Isaac Newton probably wasn't the first person to voice that inquiry, either - there were probably numerous people in the centuries before him who asked it and then dismissed the question because everybody else thought they were posing an idle or aberrant question.
Here's another, shorter, example: A British college friend saw me studying Chinese characters, and said "That's so hard! Why don't the Chinese just write normally?" I was too young to even know how to respond to such a statement, containing as it did so many massive assumptions of viewpoint-as-fact.
My understanding is this: There is no scientific theory to measure Good or Evil. There is no universal metric by which an observer can quantify Good and Evil, or by which they can accurately judge an individual or an action as Good or Evil. To me, this raises serious questions about whether it exists as an objective absolute, and also whether it's even worth including in a game system. GURPS' core rules have no hard mechanics of alignment.
I have no doubt that people carry subjective outlooks of Good or Evil - hence, GURPS defines categories of actions which each person is willing (or unwilling) to do. I've explained this above.
Working moral relativism into a DnD Ravenloft campaign may well seem like an artificial or unnatural endeavor of "bringing my real-world views on morality into the game". Consider that working moral objectivity into GURPS would be an opposite case of the same, just in the opposite direction. (GURPS is robust enough, however, that you actually can do it without rehauling the system, unlike DnD. I put this down more to the flexibility of the system design rather than the validity or invalidity of any one moral outlook, however.)
One more point, which several posters have made, but which Jimsolo made most recently and thus I quote from him:
This is an extremely tenuous argument. Essentially, you are substituting your own speculation for my first-hand knowledge of my players - you "think"; but I "know".Jimsolo wrote:For most other social dynamics, I think that your players will have views on morality that are too far different from your own to make this fun for them.
You posted a similar sentiment in herkles' thread, predicting how his players would react to his proposed campaign setting changes. While I understand your goodwill and concern, please beware of reducing this to a simple "appeal to the players". When it comes down to it, this logical appeal is extremely fragile - after all, most GMs will know their own players much better than their message board colleagues will. Such an argument (i.e. a prediction of players' responses) could conceivably apply in limited circumstances when you're speaking with a new GM from a position of great experience, or especially if the thread was a discussion thread for an upcoming campaign soliciting player input.
But obviously this thread is not that scenario...
Most of all, the one takeaway I hope you get from my lengthy post is: Thank you for your input - all of you. I have considered the points you've raised, and I'm offering my responses specifically because they're all worthwhile points. Everybody in this thread has responded with a clear "your mileage may vary", which shows a strong level of respect for the possibility that other people's gaming experiences may not match your own. No side is "right" or "wrong" here - I've asked for your feedback and you have given me your opinions on how you would run it. And I've made my decision.
With all the feedback gathered, as described above, I intend to keep on with my planned campaign. This is not an argumentative "defeat" for you or any sort of "victory" for me - it's just how I've decided to run this world after taking your thoughts into account. The first few sessions have been posted at the (increasingly-inaccurately-named) thread Beginner campaign in Darkon (possibly one-shot) and I invite you all to follow along. My players are clearly loving the game already and my strong feeling is they're going to love it even more as it develops.
And in the event that it does go off the rails for whatever reason, at least I shall have the honor of serving as an example of what to avoid. Even the sacrificial robot probe feels a joy at being the first to run out of fuel on an alien moonscape!
on phone more to come later