Concealing K'varn, Keyleth's Crisis of Conscience - Vox Machina Ep. 9 | Critical Role Demystified 

That is a wonderful scene, and a great moment in storytelling. One that smart DM's will think of when representing the enemies in their games, if they want to present those kinds of questions to their players. Lord of the Rings isn't really sword and sorcery though, I mean you'd think given the swords and the sorcerers, but in general old school sword and sorcery predates LotR, or sort of exists around it. Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Elric, Corum (most of Moorcock's catalogue really), Kull, the Barsoom series (though that's more sci-fi). And the funny thing about them is while some of them literally have an alignment system (Elric's series in particular) few of them are really cut and dried. One of the through lines of the genre is actually moral ambiguity, usually of the protagonists, who are often like D&D characters in their wonton violence, high body count, heroic actions, and desire for wealth and glory (unlike the more noble heroes of classic fantasy like LotR, which is often more morally divided). Yeah the weird eldritch monsters are often "evil", but what they mainly are is alien. In those stories it's often unfathomable what this alien thing is thinking, and why exactly they do what they do, and when meaning can be gleaned the operations of their inhuman minds the motivations and desires are inimical and incompatible with human thought and morality, rendering them "evil" by way of a lack of better explanation and the sheer threat they represent. But usually the sword and sorcery character isn't out to slay evil, evil just is dangerous and hostile and in the way, or trying to kill them, and at times those characters will work with it to suit common aims (much like the party here and their Mindflayer ally). So when it comes to bioessentialism of the monsters and other races, what is often trying to reckoned with, is how close to human we can get, or failing similarity, how benevolent to human understanding of what "good" this or that creature is. Duergar are different enough in their make up, that on a measurement of human morality, they rate as evil. Of course this can be different in every setting, and Gygax had some funny ideas about Alignment and things as time went on (Alignment based languages were a thing for some reason lol) but the material he was taking the ideas from, often framed the morality of beings in this way. How alien are they? Do they ascribe to codes and laws that are opposed to us, or are they beings of strength and lawlessness? Do these beings regard humans as beneath them, or even food? I think when approached like that, the idea of a whole people being "evil" makes more sense, it's less of a statement of intent, and more of a descriptor of perspective. These beings are not like you, they do not think like you, and the differences are enough that in most circumstances you will likely be opposed to them. Where it often breaks down though is it is really hard to present nuanced characters with inhuman motivations, because behind the screen is y'know, a human of varying acting and writing ability.

oh man, so faramir's monologue in the film is actually narration from the book? that's really cool

I'd watch it.

Yes but, Marisha is understanding that but her character should normally act that way no? In reality she is always a more "Beau" acting character, in actions and some dialogues with others. Except when she needs to hammer home her alignment, being against killing, and having such and such plan.(Though sometimes the plans themselves include a fair deal of killing, just ask the Duregar Queen about what Marisha said about her brain) She is understanding that, but still acting a little out of character a lot of the time, and it gives this kind of forced nature to what happens in the interactions with her character when she is playing it upm

Thing is, you do get where she's coming from. But she's still overacting and executing her intentions in a clumsy way that makes this scene quite unenjoyable. Like you can respect what she was trying to do while still acknowledging that the outcome was not fun to watch.

Samesies :)

LLP you I'll look later

IMO that's part of why Keyleth was always going to be a great leader. Empathy and consideration of big-picture consequences.

Scanlan also cools down on his heavy heavy flirting with Pike at one point. I think it's because Sam realised while it was funny pre-stream...it's not a good look in front of an audience. It's just kinda cringe and uncomfortable for Pike to continually shut him down and him to continue to flirt kinda sexually AT her. So that was a welcome shift in his character, for me, anyway.

Yeah, there was a solid period of time when I was first watching where scanlan/Sam was my least favourite presence at the table. I totally understand now that they were all legitimately comfortable with and trusted each other enough to make those kinds of jokes and for it to be taken in good humour, but yikes was it kind of jarring and uncomfortable just coming in to what appeared to be this guy sexually harassing NPCs *and* PCs

@@ceridwenaeradwr8105 yeah, it took a while,for me, to see that it was just Sam playing a character and not just him being inappropriate towards PCs and NPCs...but yeah, eventually, it is shown they trust him SO much and KNOW he is just playing a character. It part of the reason why Sam's jokes landed and weren't taken to heart and didn't offend anyone the majority of the time....and why Orion's jokes of a similar sexual vein were not taken the same way. Trust is so important in roleplay. Especially, things that's have a sexual tone, but anything of any nature that could be deemed inappropriate table behaviour.

LOL yeah! 😆 Early C1 Scanlan was a trip man.

Yeah, and that was reflected in Legend of Vox Machina, which is a great question as any D&D campaign progresses. Players become borderline murderhobos and spilling blood as they tear through creatures without asking why are they doing this. I like that question a lot. I like to play clerics, and their characters always asks that question a lot. Some of my favorite RP moments are when some of the other players take that question seriously.

The second one is way better though.

I’m glad! I never know if I’m making my points well lol, I’m glad this format is working well ☺️

@@SupergeekMike You've always explained well the lessons, but I prefer the new format, everything feels more instructive.

Ooh I’ve been meaning to watch this, I’m very interested to see how it relates to the monsters idea… :)

Yeah, that’s why there is definitely room for debate when it comes to folks like the duergar soldiers. Even if they’re “just following orders”… well, they’re obviously not absolved of their actions. But it’s certainly a worthy debate for both the players and the characters.

I think it’s a huge factor, for sure.

I believe it was a major factor, he touches on the topic during Talks Machina once or twice.

Wow I haven’t thought about the Evil Overlord list in a LONG time

😂😂😂

I believe Liam has confirmed that Tanis was a huge influence on the character - I don’t know if it was conscious of it at the time but if not, he realized it later. He and Laura sat down at a diner to figure out their backstory so I imagine his experience with Dragonlance led to a lot of similar/parallel details being included.

@@SupergeekMike real good stuff, been listening to the original full novel cassette tapes of all the books from back then that someone uploaded to youtube. Halfway done with Spring Dawning; the end of the first trilogy. Such a trip to be hearing it

Makes sense, since it was pretty much sidebars and alternate rules the setting. Then again, I know me and my group back in the late 90s playing 2e had done the exact same thing. for the demi-humans of it was wanting that nuance, the for the sapient beings, it was a simple matter of it really messes with expectations when the Green Dragon is Good or Neutral instead of Evil.

Yes, that’s true, the Pike situation was grim, but Vex and Vax had executed some prisoners earlier in the campaign with no thought to it. At some point I should address the cleric double standard/Matt’s approach to alignment, but we’ll get there another day.

Personally everytime I hear something along that line is Shale, Dragon Age, asking why you are suddenly worried about that now after walking over piles of corpses you have made yourself.

@@Surikoazimaet Exactly. Shale as a character was good for pointing out some of the disconnect between the player's perception, and what it would look like if one was actually present in the world. "These violent delights..." and all that. I don't think there's anything wrong with this kind of play violence on its own, but I do think people run into trouble when they don't adjust their perceptions to the world they're engaging in and try to compare the morality of that setting/experience to the paradigms of the real world. I think given the crowd of creatives that tend to be interested in D&D, a significant percentage of players would be pretty uncomfortable hanging out with most D&D characters, (their own, or Vox Machnia) once they realized a large percentage of people in the room have not only killed people and looted their still warm bodies, but do it on the regular to the point of joking about it. Big culture shock for many people, to say the least lol.

Bc it's a game, I don't think it's wrong for campaigns not to reconcile it. Especially with these live play games, it's NOT a show or movie that's trying to make a point. You can bring up these issues and not solve them and tbh, that might be the most realistic part of the discussion. Even now, people are having to justify their actions of participating in a society they may not actually agree with (you can only boycott so many companies for so many reasons, for example). I think moral hypocracy is a sliding scale.

@@roibenr I don't either. It is a game, it is an imagined secondary world, and you can portray it however you want. There isn't a moral right or wrong here. But, if you start acting like the morality of the actions in the game has to echo the morality of the world the players inhabit, because doing otherwise is somehow unethical, it brings the entire premise into question in a way that can grind play to a halt. I think the narrative of a game, or of a show or book for that matter, is never under any obligation to resolve these points. It just needs to have *a* perspective, not define if it is the correct one in a larger context, or even really justify itself (that's kind of the audience's job). I do think your table and your players need to resolve how *they* actually feel about the game they are playing (and that game's perspective). Or you won't have a good time. If players bring their own morality to it, or bring up this kind of moral question, and it goes unanswered, it can leave the entire enterprise feeling hollow, and cause conflict unless they either adjust the game to meet their expectations (we are going to actually change how the game works, we don't use racial mods and we took out mind control, or whatever) or adjust their expectations to meet the game (we are portraying characters from a world immersed in violence, we may strive towards making a better world, but this is the one we play in. My character might have hang ups about what goes on, but *I* understand the context of how this world and game operate.). If you try to keep playing a bunch of heroes in a frankly disastrous and terrifyingly violent fantasy world, and use the morality of *our* world to determine what is good or bad, you are going to run into major disconnect. How much of a problem this is varies from table to table. But as a part of the larger discourse, I think this misalignment of thinking has an effect on perceptions of the game, and what is or is not acceptable when playing it (and as part of its rules) in ways that quickly become laughable when two very misaligned things that were never meant to be joined are trying to be made to fit together. The players need to decide what moral standard they are applying to the fiction, and adjust accordingly, or soon their actions will become absurd and incongruous, and they will end up arguing with their friends about whether they are good people or not, and then trying to justify gameplay through an ethical lens that just doesn't make sense in the context. All of this is amplified when the game is part of a performance with an audience, as opposed to a private experience shared among friends.

I've taken the same tack, with one exception. Gnolls in my homebrew, down the the tiniest newborn, are irredeemably cruel to anyone not a gnoll, and pretty much anybody not of their specific pack.

I mean that's what alignment is meant to be in 5E. Everything in the books is just an example of the dominant culture of that species. They've never said "If you play a Drow you have to be evil."

Very well-put!

Not all jokes are created equal just because of the subject matter. Context is important. Sam has certainly had some stinkers, they all have over the course of the past 8 years of gameplay, but it’s not because of the subject matter. Two jokes can be about the same topic, that doesn’t make them equal in quality.

So if your players are fighting orcs, for example, what do your orcs want? Do they all want the same thing? What about the mothers and children and elderly, is killing them acceptable? What would they do if they got power? Is this true for all orcs everywhere? If a soldier orc and an orc cleric of Gruumsh both got betrayed by their ruler, how would they react, the same or differently? How does orc leadership come to power, is it hereditary or by virtue of their own qualifications? These are relevant questions to an adventure, and they’re a question of morality, are these questions laughable or reasonable?

@@SupergeekMike the orcs my players would be fighting don't have wants. They are mindless bloodthirsty monsters.

@@drsatanrx So, unlike all creatures in the history of creation, they want for nothing? They have no desires? In that case, why do they do anything? Are they a mindless horde, like zombies? Are they directed by a higher intelligence, like intellect devourers? Are they creatures of pure chaos designed to challenge mortals, like demons and devils? If they are mindless monsters, what is their society like? Do they have one? If not, why not? Where do they go when they aren’t fighting adventurers? What might they be doing if the adventurers stumbled upon them outside of combat? What do they think of death, do they grieve their dead or consider it honorable to die in battle? If they’re mindless monsters, do they mate recreationally or only to produce offspring? Do they have names? If not, how do they tell the difference between others? Do they wear clothes? If so, why? Do they make their own weapons and tools, or are they less intelligent than apes?

Yeah, punching Nazis is good