The nature of evil in early 1E

[T. Foster]

Is it possible that the original 3-alignment system was an effort to discourage players from taking on the roles of "evil" characters? Is it possible that the game's creators foresaw the potential issues with evil PC's (or perhaps experienced this at their own tables)? Perhaps Gary et. al. were aware that producing a game that included the ability for players to assume the mantle of an "Evil" character would be detrimental to the game's acceptance, if not just outright "enabling". Choosing to adapt a Lawful/Chaotic alignment system instead of a Good/Evil one may have been an avoidance strategy. The later decision to include the good/evil axis may have been targeting what was perceived as a more "mature" player base.

Or maybe I'm just over-thinking it.

I think you're likely right, but with the timing backwards. Originally Lawful/Chaotic was just a by-word for good/evil (e.g. "evil high priests" are chaotic) and later they were split apart when Steve Marsh convinced Gary that law/chaos wasn't really synonymous with good/evil. So later OD&D material, the Holmes-edit Basic Set, and AD&D all had both law/chaos and good/evil. But when Tom Moldvay was re-editing the Basic Set into something more mass-market and kid-friendly than prior iterations of D&D the good/evil axis from the Holmes set goes away and it's back to 3 alignments only with "chaotic" synonymous with "bad" but not necessarily evil (and particularly for chaotic-aligned PCs it seems to be spun more as "selfish" -- see, for instance, the way the chaotic characters in The Shady Dragon Inn are described). It could have just been a coincidence of Moldvay's choosing to simplify (and/or build in more obvious differentiation from AD&D), but it seems likely the thought process you describe was part of the consideration (along the same lines as demons being removed from the game, and the commentary in the Mentzer edition that defining which "gods" are worshipped by cleric characters is generally a bad idea and should be avoided).

[geneweigel]

The importance of rape and children SHOULD be downplayed because there are no rules for far-ranging "S&S irrelevant" subjects as "sexual potency" or "juvenile morale" included in a game so why cover the details of modern evils totally out of context like that?

One of the most important "Gary-isms" that I learned is that he altered the medieval considerations of Behemoth and Leviathan as apex dragons to become Bahamut and Tiamat because in his words it was "bad taste". And thats just in regards to religion ( NOTE: The religions of GDH and DDG were altered to not match up exactly on purpose because of this creative view from Gary. This difference is seen clearly in Ward's third "god outing" in LEGENDS & LORE 2E where they no longer cared about taste but just being PC.)

[geneweigel]

But when Tom Moldvay was re-editing the Basic Set into something more mass-market and kid-friendly than prior iterations of D&D the good/evil axis from the Holmes set goes away and it's back to 3 alignments only with "chaotic" synonymous with "bad" but not necessarily evil (and particularly for chaotic-aligned PCs it seems to be spun more as "selfish" .

The 1981 Cook/Marsh EXPERT set makes the slight adjustment for bigger kids gravitating towards (EDIT: ADVANCED) D&D with a pinch of more.

My 1981 Moldvay BASIC book is a shambles of "beer-soaked ruin" but over alignment it is scrawled in my block writing in ball point pen over "Lawful", "Neutral" and "Chaotic" this:



That was prior to exposure to AD&D a few months after as I was grasping it.

[Wheggi]

Fuck I'm getting a migrane looking at that pic. Focus Gene, focus!

- Wheggi

[Geoffrey]

Geoffrey, it's different. You're sounding like an idiot trying to convince people it's not.

I appreciate all the comments and insights here. Others ask questions. I provide my answers. I ask questions. Others provide their answers. Etc. I see no idiocy involved. We're all talking about our opinions about a game.

In this case, a supplement to a game.

Actually, not even that. For the most part we're talking about three sentences in a 96-page book. Three sentences (one sentence each in 3 different rituals--out of a total of 96 rituals) that mention the ritualistic rape of a person under the age of 18.

To me, it's all only an imaginary game. None of it comes within 100 miles of good and evil. Some others look at it differently. We have different opinions. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make anyone an idiot. I genuinely like my fellow old-school D&Ders, even those who have stridently criticized Carcosa. I gain insights from reading about their experiences and perceptions of D&D game play. The amount of friendliness and sharing here completely overwhelms for me any criticism of Carcosa, even when some of it might in the past have occasionally approached the ad hominem. Recently I mentioned on a thread here in the Alehouse that I neglected to download the PDF of the pre-GREYHAWK thief. Shortly thereafter a prominent member of the Alehouse (who has been very critical of Carcosa) sent me the PDF of the 1974 thief.

I guess what I'm getting at is that people can strongly disagree and still be friendly.

[Wheggi]

.) Geoffrey - through his game Carcosa - encourages players to pretend they are raping and killing children.

2.) Geoffrey sees nothing wrong with such a system being in-place in his game and is unapologetic.

3.) Buying Carcosa means you support people pretending they rape and kill children for the advancement of power.

Hey, only three sentances. No harm there, right?

Sorry Geoffrey. You may be a real nice guy and most of your game may be a unique and brilliant take on the OD&D system, but your inability to recognize how irresponsible (not to mention morally reprehensible) making child rape a game mechanic is forces me to distance myself from it and any company or website that actively promotes it. Some lines can simply not be crossed.

- Wheggi

[Geoffrey]

Wheggi, I have no problem with you expressing your opinions. Distancing yourself from Carcosa is certainly your right.

One of the things that baffles me is this: What is relatively rare on Carcosa is systematized, socially-expected, and common on the world of Tekumel. Prof. M. A. R. Barker wrote Empire of the Petal Throne in 1974, it was published by TSR in 1975, and the Book of Ebon Bindings was published in 1978. The rituals in Carcosa were intended to be very abbreviated versions of the same sort of thing that is in the Book of Ebon Bindings. A person who has been an associate of Prof. Barker for decades told me that he strongly doubted that Prof. Barker would object to Carcosa's content.

Look at the list of common elements in Hrihayal's Temple rituals known as the Thirty-Two Unspeakable Acts:

bestiality
compulsion (i. e., rape)
coprophagy
flaying
incest and pedophilia
masturbation and fetishism
necrophilia and cannibalism
piercing
xenophilia

(found in Mitlanyal, on page 224 of the one-volume edition)

Virtually all the inhabitants of the Five Empires of Tekumel recognize all the things in the above list as being essential and normal elements of society. Hrihayal is one of the 20 officially recognized gods. While not everybody is an adherent of her, pretty much everybody recognizes the legitimacy of her cult. On Tekumel, only the "freaks" and "weirdos" on the fringes of society would question the above things. Ritualistic rape and sacrifice is much, much rarer on Carcosa than on Tekumel, probably on the order of about 1,000 times rarer.

I can understand someone thinking that playing in Barker's Tekumel would not be fun. But when I see the suggestion that ritualistic rape places a game outside the pale of old school gaming, I can only note that such a suggestion is factually incorrect. Prof. Barker has been playing since 1974, and he's never stopped. As far as I know, he has the longest-running RPG group in the world. Any definition of old-school that does not make room for Tekumel and things following in the tradition of Tekumel is incoherent.

[PatW]

The Book of Ebon Bindings is not the foundation of our hobby, and I had never heard of the thing until you brought it up. If, in an alternate history, it was a core supplement for D&D, most likely I would have never ended up playing D&D, because the game would rightfully have been criticized into oblivion for its content. It was a niche product for a niche setting in the 70's. It's not an argument that holds much water to me.

Just wondering: are you leaving the objectionable rituals in for the LotFP re-release of Carcosa, and are James's distributors OK with the content?

[Wheggi]

I have never read a Tekumel product and am indifferent to Barker's campaign so I cannot comment on what he's doing, but if he requires players to role-play child rape in order to gain magic then I look upon it the same way I look upon it in Carcosa. To say that your placement of such a mechanic in your game is acceptable because similar stuff was done in Tekumel is a strawman and a shrugging of responsibility.

What I really don't understand is this: why would anyone be so dead set on keeping it in their game, knowing how offensive it is to many people as well as the questions it raises about their own personal character? Do you really not see what this does to your reputation?

I'm going to stand far back now.

- Wheggi

[AxeMental]

Besides the general idea of redefining the assumptions of the original game via recent and future publications, there is a certain moral question, how much evil is too evil and who are we to say? The issue here isn't really should players play "evil" or publishers creating settings where players are expected to do evil acts (even very evil like burning a village down etc.) we all have our puke level and can just pass on stuff thats beyond or tolerance (Raiders 2 might be one guys limit, Re animator anothers) yet we can all agree some things are too sick to publish, and since there is no one licenser to police itself (like the original TSR) the community is likely to get burned periodically. We are concerned not so much about "evil" as about those particular acts that spill over into reality (child rape, molestation, real murder etc.) the ones we have to deal with in real life and see nightly on our local news, its too close to home perhaps. I've never subscribed to the notion that watching horrible things in a movie (like a slasher film) increases the chance a sicko will do those things. However, I'm not so sure about a game where the player is encouraged by the DM to "be" that rapist and actually imagine committing the rape of a kid in their own creative way. This seems like the kind of thing that might make a border line sicko go to the next step.
I think in 1E fantasy evil is fine (its make believe, harmless), like watching a movie. Real life evil (as noted above)? Your no longer in the game, it drags you out...and thats whats so disturbing.

[Geoffrey]

The Book of Ebon Bindings is not the foundation of our hobby, and I had never heard of the thing until you brought it up. If, in an alternate history, it was a core supplement for D&D, most likely I would have never ended up playing D&D, because the game would rightfully have been criticized into oblivion for its content. It was a niche product for a niche setting in the 70's. It's not an argument that holds much water to me.

Just wondering: are you leaving the objectionable rituals in for the LotFP re-release of Carcosa, and are James's distributors OK with the content?

My Carcosa book is even more of a niche product than is the Book of Ebon Bindings, which is an unequalled classic of the genre. I'm also sure that it sold a lot more than Carcosa:

1st Edition print (released Oct. 8, 2008) sold 156 copies
1st Edition PDF (released Oct. 29, 2008) sold 156 copies
Expurgated Edition print (released Nov. 3, 2008) sold 17 copies
Expurgated Edition PDF (released Nov. 3, 2008) sold 36 copies
Total: 365 sold

All the rituals will be in their original form for the LotFP re-publication of Carcosa. This is the clear choice since a little over 85% of the copies of CARCOSA that sold were the 1st Edition. I'm afraid I know pretty much nothing about James's distributors. That part is James's job.

[geneweigel]

I can say in a clear tone that I've never raped anything in an rpg.

Well except for the kobolds in B2...

WAIT! That was consensual!!!

Seriously, I've never raped or seen raped anything in an RPG. Whats the point? What are you going to do? Slap the DM?

"MAKE HER SLEEP WITH ME, DAMMIT!!!!"



In regards to the children suffering thats way too "today's religion" and weird. I mean if you were an evil demon wouldn't you want the suffering to be done to someone who could appreciate it? Someone with experience? Geez, the game is built on it. "Innocence" power, my ass! 0 level and 30 g.p. will get you a 30 g.p. thieves' picks & tools in AD&D land!

[Juju EyeBall]

I can say in a clear tone that I've never raped anything in an rpg.

Well except for the kobolds in B2...

WAIT! That was consensual!!!

Seriously, I've never raped or seen raped anything in an RPG. Whats the point? What are you going to do? Slap the DM?

"MAKE HER SLEEP WITH ME, DAMMIT!!!!"



In regards to the children suffering thats way too "today's religion" and weird. I mean if you were an evil demon wouldn't you want the suffering to be done to someone who could appreciate it? Someone with experience? Geez, the game is built on it. "Innocence" power, my ass! 0 level and 30 g.p. will get you a 30 g.p. thieves' picks & tools in AD&D land!

But it's OK for Satan to cornhole Miss America because she is of age.

[T. Foster]

A few points about Tekumel: 1) despite its pedigree of having originally been published by TSR and having existed at the fringes of the hobby ever since, it has always been extremely obscure and I doubt it's ever been actually played by more than a couple hundred people, or even seen by more than a couple thousand, and the books you're mentioning are even more obscure and have very possibly only been seen by a few dozen ultra-hardcore fans -- note that none of the TSR, Gamescience, or Guardians of Order versions of Tekumel (i.e. the closest brushes that world has ever had with the "mainstream" of the rpg hobby) ever had anything like any of that stuff your describing -- at least not spelled out in explicit detail or in any way suggestive that PCs would be involved in it; 2) Prof. Barker knows his audience -- he's literally been playing with the same small group of people for 35+ years, all of them at least college-age at the time they started, who share his college-level maturity and knowledge and interest in anthropology and linguistics and world religion, particularly of non-western varieties -- these are not your run-of-the-mill rpg fans and should not be taken as representative or reflective of the larger rpg culture -- it's very possible that something could be non-eyebrow-raising to these folks (especially presented in context with 6 decades of established background and 3 decades of play) that everyone else would find horrifying; and 3) last but not least, let's not just immediately dismiss out of hand the possibility that Prof. Barker may well be a deviant or creep himself. I mean, take someone like John Norman: he's written tons of books some of which were bestsellers in the 60s and 70s and even had movies made out of them (I think) and there are people on the internet who treat his books as their real-life religion -- much more "mainstream" and respectable than Prof. Barker -- and yet I have no problem declaring that I think he's a deviant and a creep and that I find his worldview completely illegitimate and disgusting and that I have utter contempt for the people who take it as their religion and try to base their lives around it. I'm not going to say that Prof. Barker belongs in that category -- I'm not familiar enough with his work or how he treats it in play -- whether he actually expects his players to act out and describe the sorts of rituals described in his books at the table or if it's just that much more background color -- but if upon learning more about him I learned that he does then, well, rather than excusing or legitimizing that approach it just means that I don't think much of him, no matter how smart he is, how many decades he's devoted to his imaginary world, and how long he's been involved with the rpg hobby.

So, at least IMO, throwing up the "Tekumel did it first, and worse" excuse doesn't really carry much (any) weight. Both because you're not Prof. Barker, with his decades of context-building based on college-level studies of real-life cultures and religions, and because you and he aren't aiming at the anywhere near same audience -- he's doing this stuff for himself first, for a couple dozen players he's known for 30+ years second, and for a couple hundred other Tekumel rpg fans a distanr third, whereas you're aiming your product squarely into the heart of the D&D (at least the old-school D&D) "mainstream" (to the extent of exactly copying TSR's trade dress and labeling it "Supplement V" as if it were a de-facto or spiritual continuation of what TSR was doing c. 1974-76 when in fact it's anything but). And even if you could convince us that there's no difference between you and Prof. Barker and that his stuff and his attitude towards it is exactly like yours, that still doesn't negate the criticisms directed towards you, it just means that perhaps they should be directed at him too, and that the reason they haven't isn't because he's above criticism or nobody found this material objectionable, but because nobody noticed because it's so obscure and because Prof. Barker isn't out there promoting it and stirring up controversy with an agenda to "make a point" and try to steer the hobby in a particular stylistic and philosophical direction like all too many of your supporters (and, in one case, now business partners) have been doing.

[Geoffrey]

I have never read a Tekumel product and am indifferent to Barker's campaign so I cannot comment on what he's doing, but if he requires players to role-play child rape in order to gain magic then I look upon it the same way I look upon it in Carcosa. To say that your placement of such a mechanic in your game is acceptable because similar stuff was done in Tekumel is a strawman and a shrugging of responsibility.

What I really don't understand is this: why would anyone be so dead set on keeping it in their game, knowing how offensive it is to many people as well as the questions it raises about their own personal character? Do you really not see what this does to your reputation?

I'm going to stand far back now.

- Wheggi

Let me try to answer your questions:

1. Less than 15% of the people who bought Carcosa chose the Expurgated Edition, and several of those who did almost apologized to me for doing so. One guy who's been playing since 1975 bought the Expurgated Edition, then months later asked if I would give him the 1st Edition for free. I did so, and he wrote back something like, "That's it? You're kidding me, right? This is what has some people so upset? It's so...tame." In short, not many people seemed to prefer the Expurgated Edition.

2. If you are asking about my reputation as a human being, then I answer that I try to be a Christian, and my theology is basically that of George MacDonald and of St. Gregory of Nyssa. As such, I am taught to regard my reputation amongst my fellow men as worthless. We are called to be, not to seem. By God's grace I struggle to recognize my worldly reputation as of less value than a penny.

3. If you are asking about my reputation as a writer of RPG books, then I answer that I simply write the sort of RPG book that I would like to buy. I did that with Carcosa, I'm doing that with Isle of the Unknown, and I intend to do that with other ideas in the future. Other people will buy my stuff or not according to their tastes. I can write only what I like. I am so lazy that I can barely get myself to go to the effort to prepare for publication stuff that I like. There is no way I could ever find the energy to write things that I don't like. The only thing I can promise about everything I write for publication is that I think it is cool.