OSSR: Ravenloft Boxed Set (reviewed by Frank and K)

[Ted the Flayer]

I would imagine the whole "violating the tenets of another religion" would be enough to realize the rules weren't useful.

Doesn't Erythnul's tenets say that you should slaughter you enemies? Showing mercy violates that. Doesn't Hextor teach that extortion is the right way to go about conflict resolution because the strong should rightfully rule the weak? Showing mercy violates that.

I'm pretty sure that everything violates some religion. Eating a burger? Sorry, against Hinduism. You grow a prehensile bull dick and can only obtain nourishment through rape.

[Username17]

I would imagine the whole "violating the tenets of another religion" would be enough to realize the rules weren't useful.

Doesn't Erythnul's tenets say that you should slaughter you enemies? Showing mercy violates that. Doesn't Hextor teach that extortion is the right way to go about conflict resolution because the strong should rightfully rule the weak? Showing mercy violates that.

I'm pretty sure that everything violates some religion. Eating a burger? Sorry, against Hinduism. You grow a prehensile bull dick and can only obtain nourishment through rape.

You're covered on the "you don't have to follow Hextor's orders" deal. You get different powers check numbers for breaking tenets of religions depending on their alignment. If it's an Evil Faith, your base is zero, so you're actually fine unless you are ever "cruel" about breaking the tenets of Hextorism. But there's a base chance of 1% and 2% for each tenet of a Neutral or Good faith you break, and it pops up to 5% is it's actually your own faith.

So the issue there is that with the Great Wheel you actually have all the Oriental faiths based out of Acheron and all the Giant Frog religions, which of course you are violating the tenets of all the time. The Unholy Acts portion is independently impossible to adjudicate, although it does give you an out from having to follow Nerull's orders to go out and make undead. It just doesn't give you an out from Wee Jass' orders to go out and make undead and simultaneously doesn't give you an out from Pelor's orders to never ever make any undead.

But going after that section would have been too easy. Much more interesting and informative to talk about how the rest of it completely fails any possible test of moral coherence and playability. I really didn't expect a bunch of dumbasses to jump out of the woodwork to pull an Oberoni Fallacy on Normative Ethics. That was just... weird. I really thought that it was fairly uncontroversial that you couldn't have two answers to the "sacrifice one to save two" question.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

Well, the dark powers check is only required if you knowingly violate a tenet of a religion. So that's one place where ignorance works. So whenever someone talks about that the gods want, you plug your ears and sing loudly and you're totally fine. Otherwise, you can have a wizard with that memory-removal spell wipe all religious knowledge from your mind.

The Normative Ethics thing is a bit more problematic.

If, for example, you break into a vampire's lair during the day and stake him while he's asleep, you've committed a brutal premeditated murder even if the vampire had been killing young virgins. Brutal premeditated murder of Evil is still a 5% check. Murder also, by definition, includes attempted murder, so that's another 1%, for a total of 6%. For staking Dracula.

Really, Ravenloft would have been better off dropping the table and just declaring that the Dark Powers fuck with you when you do hubristic adventurer shit and letting the DM wing it.

[Ted the Flayer]

I remember being a depressed 14 year old and thinking the setting was awesome...

[wotmaniac]

<sigh>
What are we gonna do with you, Frank?

And before I get in to the meat of this, let me answer a question for you ....

But going after that section would have been too easy. Much more interesting and informative to talk about how the rest of it completely fails any possible test of moral coherence and playability. I really didn't expect a bunch of dumbasses to jump out of the woodwork to pull an Oberoni Fallacy on Normative Ethics. That was just... weird. I really thought that it was fairly uncontroversial that you couldn't have two answers to the "sacrifice one to save two" question.

At least for me, the issue was the level of vehemence with which you reacted to simple dissent. And to confound matters, you did so with your typical approach of "Frank's One True Way" diatribe (F'sOTW, for short) -- and that shit's beyond annoying.

Alright, let's try this again. From the top:
First, it appears that we need to break out a dictionary (I'll be referencing these later in the post).

pain (p&#257;n)
n.
An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.

suffer (suhf-er)
v.
to undergo or be subjected to (pain, punishment, etc)

torture (&#712;to&#775;r-ch&#601;r)
n.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

extortion (ik-&#712;sto&#775;r-sh&#601;n)
n.
the act of securing money, favors, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail
a criminal offence of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.

coercion (koh-ur-shuhn)
n.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance
the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response. These actions can include, but are not limited to, extortion, blackmail, torture, and threats to induce favors.

But you probably already knew that -- but as far as I can tell, only on an intellectual level; and not in any sort of practical or contextual level.

Next, let's identify your various assorted fallacies:

Second is your mutilation of the English language.
Because a creature happens to feel pain that results from you trying to defend yourself is not torture -- not even anywhere in this book.
Negotiating parley is not extortion -- not by this, or any, standard.
Etc., etc.

Hurting people to get what you want is torture. Making demands with the threat of force is extortion.

See -- that's not what I fucking said. However, what I did say is indeed an accurate assessment of how you characterized things just a couple of pages ago.
So, what -- you can't actually defend what you previously said, so you have to put words in my mouth?

But for the question "is this extortion?", then if you are offering someone two options and one of those options involves you stabbing them with a sword, then yes it is fucking extortion you fucking imbecile!

Context, motherfucker! Do you understand it?!
Alright, extortion is a subset of coercion; and inherent in the meaning of coercion is the element of removing the subject's autonomy. Simple, right?
Okay then; so let's say that 2 parties both willingly engage in armed aggression against each other (or, hell, maybe it's a case of Party A attacks unwilling Party B), and at some point (presumably after some degree of violence has occurred) Party B offers quarter to Party A. Party B isn't coercing anything -- they're actually offering greater autonomy to Party A by giving them the opportunity to rethink their course of action -- the alternative being that Party B simply continues murder-stabbing Party A, irrespective of whether or not Party A would rather surrender/retreat/etc. There may be a pile of Powers Check triggers in this scenario, but extortion isn't one of them.
Furthermore, torture is a subset of both pain and suffering (based on specific usage); and, in their usage in this book, suffering exists within a particular context of pain .... Goddammit, do I need to start drawing Venn Diagrams for you? Do I? Would that help?

Now as it happens, there are many ways to determine whether a course of action is right and proper or not. There's actually a whole field of philosophy dedicated to just that seemingly simple question. And if you use different tests, you get different answers. Extremely different answers.
[...]
Whether they are crimes, whether they are immoral in any particular instance is deeply debatable.

I really thought that it was fairly uncontroversial that you couldn't have two answers to the "sacrifice one to save two" question.

Are you even paying attention to yourself at this point?

Stories of "I was made to roll a Dark Powers Check and I don't think that was fair" were ubiquitous.

While this may be true; however .....

I've never seen or heard of a Ravenloft game where the Dark Powers checks were made at all where people didn't at least occasionally feel that the Powers Checks were applied unfairly.

This is a failing of your bubble. Just because you haven't heard of any, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. How much more fallacious do you want to get?
Also, this.

I have no idea what you think "greedy reductionism" means. It actually refers to attempting to fit everything into a single unified theory without checking the individual pieces for soundness. So that thing you are doing right now, where you are claiming that the entire chapter has a "clear set" of instructions? That's actual greedy reductionism. It's a term coined by Dennet, you can look this shit up.

The thing I'm doing, where I point out that there is no consistent moral framework between entries on the same page, let alone for the entire chapter, that's not greedy reductionism. I'm analyzing this chapter without sky hooks, you persist in attempting to analyze this chapter without cranes.

Congratulations, you're proficient with Wikipedia. (of course, truth be told, I don't think I've ever even heard the name Dennet before your post. So .... )
What I really find funny here is that in your attempt to "explain" the term to me, you left out a vital element:

in their eagerness for a bargain, in their zeal to explain too much too fast, [...] underestimate the complexities, trying to skip whole layers or levels [...]

Well, I mean, it kinda looks like you tried; but you failed miserably. You know what -- in the interest of avoiding yet another separate semantics argument, I can use "overly-reductionist" (and grammatically-appropriate variations), if that would please you; just let me know which you prefer.
Anyways .... your single unified theory, in the case of this review at large, appears to be that everything about this publication is a hopelessly-irredeemable pile of hippo shit. Another, more specific example would be that you have actually posited that any/all instances of pain fall under the umbrella of torture. I don't even
Oh, and what you are really trying to accuse me of in this instance is Distinction Bias (a point that I'm not entirely ready to concede) -- terminology is just not your strong suit in this thread, is it? Are you sure this isn't a Drunken Review?

your moral compass is broken

Based on what?

You know, I was gonna just leave it at that; but I just can't. ...
I get it -- I get that there is a difference between "heroic morality" and "civilian morality", and I understand that difference. And I appreciate your effort to emphasis that point by presenting an image of a RL dystopia. However, since your "point" was predicated on your complete obliviousness to the "nuanced" differences between a whole host of other words, your "point" was actually a complete non-point.
Which really just means that all we're actually left with is simply a completely gratuitous image of naked children on fire. Class.Fucking.Act.

Bravo, you reprehensible fuck. How long has that been sitting in your bookmarks, just waiting for the "opportunity" to post. I don't need you to lecture me about jack fucking shit; because while you sat comfortably within the confines of a classroom, I was actually living that kind of shit. I don't need a picture attached to a snarky comment to make me aware of the horrors of certain realities -- but evidently you do. There's "something badly wrong" with me? Don't you fucking dare wag your finger and look over your glasses at me -- not over this -- you pampered, pretentious, pompous, ivory-tower-living motherfucker. The day you muster up the courage to actually do something, to actually experience, in person, the horrors that live outside your four walls, then, and only then you can come talk to me. Until such time, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

And at this point, I don't even care about the rest.

(NSFW)

[Count Arioch the 28th]

We can see that, bro. And you need to stop because you ard embarassing yourself. And get some therapy because you are mentally unwell.

[Username17]

Wotmanic: get help. I can't help you from here, I don't even know where you are in the real world. You are wearing your psychological problems on the outside and they are disturbing.

-Username17

P.S.: I don't think this board has a "whisper" command. Also, considering that I've actually helped treat gunshot wounds in Africa, drove an ambulance, and did on-site relief for several hurricanes and floods with the Red Cross, your tirade about how I never experienced things outside an ivory tower is just as wrong as everything else you've said. You're so far into wrongness here that I'm not even mad at you any more. Just: get psychological help. Your damage is beyond our capacity to help you with camaraderie and generalized human contact.

[wotmaniac]

We can see that, bro. And you need to stop because you ard embarassing yourself. And get some therapy because you are mentally unwell.

There's no shame here. I was just having a little Colonel Jessup moment.
what, wait a minute .... really, Count? Count?

I don't think this board has a "whisper" command.

huh ... the post editor thinks there is -- I always wondered if it actually worked. Oh well.

Also, considering that I've actually helped treat gunshot wounds in Africa, drove an ambulance, and did on-site relief for several hurricanes and floods with the Red Cross, your tirade about how I never experienced things outside an ivory tower is just as wrong as everything else you've said.

Apparently I've misjudged you.
Funny thing about the internet, all you ever know about somebody is just this small snapshot of a particular facet of an individual. Everything else, you have to cobble together from the body of work they've chosen to share, and even then you're still left with being able to only infer even much of that.

is beyond our capacity to help you with camaraderie and generalized human contact.

Meh -- this is just something I do during commercials when nobody else happens to be home.


'preciate it, though.

[nockermensch]

It just seems to work fine for what it is.

No. It never did. Stories of "I was made to roll a Dark Powers Check and I don't think that was fair" were ubiquitous. I've never seen or heard of a Ravenloft game where the Dark Powers checks were made at all where people didn't at least occasionally feel that the Powers Checks were applied unfairly. And it's no wonder, because the rambling and contradictory description about what moral structure to judge them by made applying them fairly literally impossible.

Between pages 43 and 49, they manage to advocate:

• Ethical Relativism
• Ethical Solipsism
• Ethical Absolutism
• Divine Command Ethics (bonus points: multiple conflicting divinities!)
• Secularism
• Consequential Ethics
• Deontological Ethics
• Justice
• Mercy

The "system" is that you make a "moral choice". Then the MC spins the wheel of morality to determine whether your choice is judged by Kant or Mills, Jesus or Hammurabi. Then if your choice is judged wanting by whichever judge you get, you get WMD-grade foot odor and a warning slip that if you "screw up" a few more times, you have your character taken away permanently.

When you put it this way, I can envision people playing Ravenloft and having pretty much the same kind of fun you get from playing Paranoia.

[Avoraciopoctules]

It just seems to work fine for what it is.

No. It never did. Stories of "I was made to roll a Dark Powers Check and I don't think that was fair" were ubiquitous. I've never seen or heard of a Ravenloft game where the Dark Powers checks were made at all where people didn't at least occasionally feel that the Powers Checks were applied unfairly. And it's no wonder, because the rambling and contradictory description about what moral structure to judge them by made applying them fairly literally impossible.

Between pages 43 and 49, they manage to advocate:

• Ethical Relativism
• Ethical Solipsism
• Ethical Absolutism
• Divine Command Ethics (bonus points: multiple conflicting divinities!)
• Secularism
• Consequential Ethics
• Deontological Ethics
• Justice
• Mercy

The "system" is that you make a "moral choice". Then the MC spins the wheel of morality to determine whether your choice is judged by Kant or Mills, Jesus or Hammurabi. Then if your choice is judged wanting by whichever judge you get, you get WMD-grade foot odor and a warning slip that if you "screw up" a few more times, you have your character taken away permanently.

When you put it this way, I can envision people playing Ravenloft and having pretty much the same kind of fun you get from playing Paranoia.

"Wheel of Morality, turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson we should learn!"

"Okay, so the morality of your decision is being judged by the Hive Lord of Formia. By offering hospitality to an anonymous stranger instead of melting him into goo and feeding him to your children, you have placed the wellbeing of a random outsider over that of your Colony. It would have been a morally neutral to mildly virtuous act if you forced him to work for his food and shelter, but as things stand, you must pay for your sins. +1 Curse Points. For the good the Colony."

[virgil]

"Wheel of Morality, turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson we should learn!"

"Okay, so the morality of your decision is being judged by the Hive Lord of Formia. By offering hospitality to an anonymous stranger instead of melting him into goo and feeding him to your children, you have placed the wellbeing of a random outsider over that of your Colony. It would have been a morally neutral to mildly virtuous act if you forced him to work for his food and shelter, but as things stand, you must pay for your sins. +1 Curse Points. For the good the Colony."

I guess the curse will be to turn into a pillar of salt, for the good of the Colony?

[nockermensch]

"Wheel of Morality, turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson we should learn!"

"Okay, so the morality of your decision is being judged by the Hive Lord of Formia. By offering hospitality to an anonymous stranger instead of melting him into goo and feeding him to your children, you have placed the wellbeing of a random outsider over that of your Colony. It would have been a morally neutral to mildly virtuous act if you forced him to work for his food and shelter, but as things stand, you must pay for your sins. +1 Curse Points. For the good the Colony."

I guess the curse will be to turn into a pillar of salt, for the good of the Colony?

A sac of honey, for the good of the Colony.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Depends on whether you want curses to be instantly incapacitating, a single track of progressively worse stuff that fits a given theme, or a mess of sometimes contradictory annoyances.

You might be able to fit both the latter 2 styles together if you contorted things a bit. Maybe the Hive Lord does a background check and curses you to bleed honey, noting that the Lorax already punished you for chopping down trees in order to save a friend from frostbite, setting up a monthly attack by bears. So now the bears still show up, but they can smell the delicious honey running through your veins and will follow you anywhere to get it.

[Ant]

I guess the curse will be to turn into a pillar of salt, for the good of the Colony?

A sac of honey, for the good of the Colony.

Either is acceptable.