General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
If a Paladin killed a baby orc and the baby orc is not evil, then the paladin did an evil act, and his status as a paladin is in question. If the baby orc is in fact evil, the paladin's alignment is not in question. This discussion has been around for decades. In my games, orcs are not evil by birth. Therefore, if a paladin kills a baby orc, then I'm shooting his paladin-hood in the head.
My experience it depends on the dm, in a game I'm playing in the guy playing the paladin has committed cold blooded murder and been excused on the grounds goblinoids are born evil and then he stabbed someone who registered as slightly evil in the back after he was willing to help the party to spare his family's lives only to be killed for what was no provocation just the paladin using it as an excuse and the dm ignored the fact he had just murdered him in front of his family not exactly grounds for moral superiority...
In another game when I played the part of the paladin my character has been killed several times trying to do the right thing and been punished for it quite severely so I do believe it depends on the dm and when I ran it the person who ran the paladin was the closest I have ever seen to a truly good paladin instead of a fanatic or mercenary which is how I've seen other paladins played..
I don't want Scott's moral relativism injected into the GAME I play. And I don't play well with players that would rather spend three hours discussing the nature of evil after my paladin has dispatched the orc women and children.
Dude. I have never seen a debate of morals happen at the game table. Never. This isn't about turning Game Time into Talk Time. The lats time this came up at my table, the player asked me, "Is (this group we want ot attack) genetically evil, or culturally evil?" I replied, "Culturally." The response was, "Then we won't wipe out the children," and then proceeded to plan the assault.
That was the end of the discussion.
Quote:
When I play D&D i want to rack up GPs, XPs, and tell stories about how it all went down. Anything else and I begin to think the GAME and its players are taking it/themselves too seriously.
How about a little less "If you don't play my way you have a problem"? You're seriously dismissing and insulting people for "taking the game too seriously" because they don't play your way.
I take the GAME as seriously as I take any story that I write. It's a story. Gaming is a collaborative story with everyone at the table.
Or would you prefer that I insult your style by saying "I don't like playing a tabletop Video Game; all you seem to care about is racking up GP and XP, with no want or care or thought, and the GAME is merely numbers being racked up on your SCREEN? The orcs are just PIXELS, sacks of GP and XP and why take them SERIOUSLY, because we can't have you THINKING too hard? Clearly anyone who sees an RPG as a black and white VIDEO GAME has some emotional issues."
Do you see how that comes across? Because that's the attitude I'm reading. I get that you like black and white beer and pretzel gaming with no questions. Those types of games are fine and can be fun, no one is saying playing that way is wrong. But you're deriding anything that is not your way as "debating philosophy" and "needing therapy" and "taking the GAME too seriously".
Quote:
Not something I want in my game.
There is no one in this thread who doubts how you like things in your game. Because you have pretty much said it in every post you've made. It's obvious though that there are some people who like a style of play that is not your style.
But you go further than that:
Quote:
In my experience, morally relativistic DMs crowd their worlds with shades of grey and almost never have the ability to pull it off without them looking like sophomoric attempts at questioning the nature of evil. Those kinds of DMs are better suited to writing puerile fan-fics where they are easily ignored.
What is your problem? Where do you get off saying how Other people should play their games?
What is it about how other people like to play the game that offends you? Like you said "You don't want that in your game". What's wrong with me wanting that in MY game? Oh, right. Because those DMs are bad and they should just write ignorable fanfic. Unless they also have players that enjoy that style of game.
I think there is middle ground here. Obviously in discussions of morality, you are dealing with perspective. To the green tribe that lives in the moutnains slaughtering babies isn't evil, but to the red tribe living in the plains, slaughtering babies is most definitely evil. So there we have it, human moral systems are a product of individual cultures. But, I still think that doesn't mean all moral systems are equal, and therefore all morality just a matter of taste. There are consequences for the moral systems we embrace, and throwing your arms up in the air because there are so many, isn't a terribly good solution. I am not going to sit here and dictate what I think is good or bad to everyone; but I will say one way of life is better than another. There is some wiggle room: Situational Ethics. We may not be able to say, doing X is always wrong, because there may well be a situation where X is actually the best choice, but we can say that there are core principles we should use to guide our actions, and that some core princples are better than others.
Sorry, just had to get that out of the way.
On the subject of orcs. Their evil. I don't think they are genetically predisposed to evil though, as there have been cases of orcs (and half orcs) raised by human parents who went on to become Lawful Good Paladins. But I think there culture is evil, and most deserving of our contempt. I mean they view killing as an end, not a means. And they worship Grumsh (an evil god). How can their culture not be evil?
I'm not talking about human moralism here; I'm talking about GAME moralism. There are better places to discuss human moralism like philosophy class. Absolutes in game morality will generally work better. In my opinion there is little gained if the DM questions if his orcs are evil or not.
When my definition of evil does not follow the morally relativistic DM's definition, we have no common ground and his vision of the campaign world cannot match mine. Often times they do not have the ability to make a final judgment about what is evil or not. When I can define evil and the DM cannot, we generally cannot play together.
In my experience, morally relativistic DMs crowd their worlds with shades of grey and almost never have the ability to pull it off without them looking like sophomoric attempts at questioning the nature of evil. Those kinds of DMs are better suited to writing puerile fan-fics where they are easily ignored.
BTW, does anyone know what the alignment of the orc in Cook's Orc With Pie adventure is?
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
And what about in cases where the PCs are the aggressors, like invading a dragon's lair in order to score its loot, dragon be damned?
Unless monsters are Out There Being Evil, then invading their dungeon for loots and xp is being the aggressive robber kicking in the door and killing the thing in their house.
This is why moral relativism doesn't belong in the game. If the dragon is EVIL there is not problem. If the dragon may or may not be evil then the game would grind to a stand still while discussing if the characters are justified in invading. Not something I want in my game.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Dude. I have never seen a debate of morals happen at the game table. Never. This isn't about turning Game Time into Talk Time. The lats time this came up at my table, the player asked me, "Is (this group we want ot attack) genetically evil, or culturally evil?" I replied, "Culturally." The response was, "Then we won't wipe out the children," and then proceeded to plan the assault.
That was the end of the discussion.
Your mileage has varied. Hours have been taken up with these kinds of discussions in my games. One group broke up.
Quote:
How about a little less "If you don't play my way you have a problem"? You're seriously dismissing and insulting people for "taking the game too seriously" because they don't play your way.
I take the GAME as seriously as I take any story that I write. It's a story. Gaming is a collaborative story.
I can see how what I have said may be taken that way, but it is not necessarily my intention. I have a big problem with DMs that want to explore their feelings about their poor orcs that only raid because they have been kicked out of their homeland.
What actually pissed me off in the past was an idiot DM that wanted to explore the Israel-Palestinian Conflict using Elves and Dwarves. He had no bloody clue about evil nor about geo-political issues. This was about four years ago; both of us were in our late-twenties. This guy had a problem with paladins killing babies. He feels sorry for serial killers because they "don't have a choice."
I do not play D&D or any other RPG so some one can work through their issues. If they want to have a conversation about politics, religion, or the meaning of life, fine lets go to the bar. But keep that crap out of the GAME. I do not play so I can feel bad about slaughtering orcs and taking their pie.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
I'm not talking about human moralism here; I'm talking about GAME moralism. There are better places to discuss human moralism like philosophy class. Absolutes in game morality will generally work better. In my opinion there is little gained if the DM questions if his orcs are evil or not.
When my definition of evil does not follow the morally relativistic DM's definition, we have no common ground and his vision of the campaign world cannot match mine. Often times they do not have the ability to make a final judgment about what is evil or not. When I can define evil and the DM cannot, we generally cannot play together.
In my experience, morally relativistic DMs crowd their worlds with shades of grey and almost never have the ability to pull it off without them looking like sophomoric attempts at questioning the nature of evil. Those kinds of DMs are better suited to writing puerile fan-fics where they are easily ignored.
BTW, does anyone know what the alignment of the orc in Cook's Orc With Pie adventure is?
Oh, I agree almost completely. The first part of my post really had to do with statements some had made early on in the discussion here. Personally I don't mind a little grey; but there needs to be a moral persptive. You can't just say, hey all alignments are equally valid. At the same time, even evil NPCs need to be more than mindless killing machines. They need to be humanized, so that they are believable. That doesn't excuse their evil actions; but without an explanation for why they behave the way they do, the game falls flat for me.
Dude. I have never seen a debate of morals happen at the game table. Never. This isn't about turning Game Time into Talk Time. The lats time this came up at my table, the player asked me, "Is (this group we want ot attack) genetically evil, or culturally evil?" I replied, "Culturally." The response was, "Then we won't wipe out the children," and then proceeded to plan the assault.
.
i have seen tons of debates over morality at the gaming table. Tons.
D&D was actually smart by basically saying, yah in the real world morality is complicated, but this is Dungeons and Dragons, and morality is absolute.
I have a big problem with DMs that want to explore their feelings about their poor orcs that only raid because they have been kicked out of their homeland.
Here's the thing. You might have encountered DMs who obviously love their little world. And let's face it, many people play D&D to get through their issues (or exercise them). I'm sure you have met a DM or two who has serious control issues, who wants you to march to their tune OR ELSE. Or a DM who makes the game all about his NPCs instead of the players characters. Or a DM who is all about punishing the characters no matter what.
And there are Players with issues. The guy who will only ever play a certain race, ever, and secretly things HE's that race. Or the guy whose definition of reality and fantasy are a bit... blurred. Or the guy whose sole motivation for gaming is screwing up the game for everyone else.
No style of play = person with issues. There's all kinds.
Meanwhile, this style of play also is for Players who want to explore how their character feels. And want to have some drama where the characters' morals conflict. To them, the GAME isn't "What level my character is and what I've killed" but "Who my character is and what he does". It's a game of pretending to be another different complex person.
D&D is played by many different types of people. I've met players who have wanted to play pacifist characters; when combat happens, the character hides. When combat is over, they come out and play their character. And they have fun doing it.
Some like to play Nation-Building games. An example of that is my campaign; the PCs are running a colony on a jungle continent, and so wiping out all the natives isn't useful to them. Those natives are resources to be used, allies for other battles, sources of information, etc. And if a group of natives are "Evil", it doesn't matter to the PCs as long as the Evil Natives aren't being a problem. Some of the game is simply politics of trading favors and deals, to build up the colony. And the players love being able to draw up their own maps of the colony and make its laws, and I love the supernatural politics. And the PCs don't want to shoot from the hip, because it might destabelize their relationship with their other allies.
I think it's fine for a DM to deliberately inject a theme of moral relativism into a campaign, assuming that his players are the type to enjoy that.
What I disagree with strongly with, however , is the idea that moral relativism should exist in the basic 'Default Campaign' assumed by WoTC publications. I don't want to see misunderstood kobolds or reformist orcs.
It's funny...I played RuneQuest for years -- RuneQuest/Glorantha is a world with a lot of moral ambiguity and it works quite well. D&D, on the other hand, is well suited by a world that can be fairly strictly separated into Us and Them.
Here's the thing. You might have encountered DMs who obviously love their little world. And let's face it, many people play D&D to get through their issues (or exercise them). I'm sure you have met a DM or two who has serious control issues, who wants you to march to their tune OR ELSE.
Meanwhile, this style of play also is for Players who want to explore how their character feels. And want to have some drama where the characters' morals conflict. To them, the GAME isn't "What level my character is and what I've killed" but "Who my character is and what he does". It's a game of pretending to be another different complex person.
D&D is played by many different types of people. I've met players who have wanted to play pacifist characters; when combat happens, the character hides. When combat is over, they come out and play their character. And they have fun doing it.
Some like to play Nation-Building games. An example of that is my campaign; the PCs are running a colony on a jungle continent, and so wiping out all the natives isn't useful to them. Those natives are resources to be used, allies for other battles, sources of information, etc. And if a group of natives are "Evil", it doesn't matter to the PCs as long as the Evil Natives aren't being a problem. Some of the game is simply politics of trading favors and deals, to build up the colony. And the players love being able to draw up their own maps of the colony and make its laws, and I love the supernatural politics. And the PCs don't want to shoot from the hip, because it might destabelize their relationship with their other allies.
I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign.
This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong.
Moral ambiguity can work in D&D, I've seen it though it works for some games more than others. Paranoia comes to mind. I have always had the most fun with D&D when it was a simple diversion from life. Moral questions were black and white when I started playing in the mid 80's, though the way we played shifted slowly towards dealing with more difficult questions. I stopped having fun when I realized some of the people I played with were clueless and couldn't put 2+2 together about the meaning of life. D&D became fun again when we started playing it as a GAME instead of as a proxy for the real world.
I understand what you are saying about character feelings though. There was a time that I did enjoy play like that, but eventually i found that the majority of the character remained inside my head. It was around then that I realized I would be better off writing those stories instead of trying to act in character. I don't know if I am a better writer than roleplayer, but I do get more enjoyment from expressing and developing a character through writing than acting.
I have seen enough people try to work through their issues playing D&D that I don't think it needs to be actively encouraged by Scott and the design team, and that's what I think would be more likely to happen if his vision of evil was the default assumption.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/haffrung-helleyes.html"
Haffrung Helleyes[/url]]What I disagree with strongly with, however , is the idea that moral relativism should exist in the basic 'Default Campaign' assumed by WoTC publications. I don't want to see misunderstood kobolds or reformist orcs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasperak
I agree with everything you said. I would probably enjoy your nation-building campaign.
This question about moral relativism though is a matter of degrees. Characters not being sure of who is good and evil is fine and healthy for role-playing, but there are certain sacred cows that in my opinion must be maintained. Orcs are evil. Changing default assumptions about evil in the game in the manner Scott questions would only add complexity where IMHO it doesn't really belong.
I don't think Scott was suggesting that it would make its way into WotC publishing. I honestly think he was just starting a discussion in the "What IF" line of thinking.
Besides. WotC all ready has a game world with moral ambiguity: Eberron. Moral ambiguity is everywhere because the setting is inspired in part by Film Noir. And the setting intentionally monkeys with Default Assumptions: in Eberron, orcs are the nature-protecting druidic force that saved the world from Madness-Incarnate planar invading armies. Goblins and Hobgoblins are the remnants of a Roman-style empire, with lots of delusions of granduer and a system of Honor (albeit a bit corrupted).
Not to mention other published settings that play with assumptions. Scarred Lands had a city of Good Necromancers, where necromancy was used for medicinal purposes and to discover the secrets of the body (much like science is today).
And, the DM playing with default assumptions for his campaign is a time honored traditions when it comes to making homebrews. I've heard of games where Elves are plants, dragons aren't color coded, and halflings are cannibals.
Part of the incentive of Changing Default Assumptions = having those assumptions too long gets stale. If you've been fighting the same orcs for the same reasons for 15 years, a little change goes a long way. You might find it a comfort of consistency, I find it boring because I've been there and done that. I, for one, am so sick and tired of Tolkien I want to run a game with no elves, dwarves or halflings, where humanity is either just starting out, or waning and outnumbered (like Babylon 5).
In D&D, settlers actually are taking back lands from inhuman and subhuman monsters
Yes, never in human history have people waged wars of territorial expansion against those they consider subhuman.
When I'm DMing I do give my players a world with shades of gray and I have NPCs react in the manner in which they would based on their personality and their moral views.
I don't contrive things to make the PCs heroes, cosmic evil doesn't lurk around every corner, good doesn't always win in the end, it's easy to be a hero when that's the case, it means a lot more to be a hero when people are human and when the universe doesn't seem to care what happens. And that's why I run my games that way. Theoretically I'd also let them go around murdering babies if they really wanted to, but they always like playing the good guys.
As for normal societies not desiring war; no, people often clamour for war. In primitive societies warfare is usually endemic. Nation-states get war fever. People like war, as long as they're winning.
Is the kid throwing snowballs at yer window "evil" ?
Big variance in folk, very very few folk are truly evil, lot more though, are messed in the head or do stupid things when circumstances are bad, that leads to terrible results
The deeds they may do are "evil", but they are not "evil" themselves. Doesn't mean I like WTH they have done, just I know it's not so simple from knowing them or knowing the full circumstances. Really evil scuzzballs though, you can weld in a jail cell far as I'm concerned! )
Folk don't usually clamour for war. They clamour for war when they percieve a threat, which is often a bogus one made up by some git of a politician out for gain (that's not a "current issue" point, it's a general and damn factual one).
Most folk just want to get on with thier lives, and enjoy a grumble about something, but not wanting an actual war.
But people who are fearful are eager to stirke out, because of that fear, as thwy wish to avoid harm, hence they can be easily manipulated. People who are driven by fear, don't think very rationally and lash out.
Besides. WotC all ready has a game world with moral ambiguity: Eberron. Moral ambiguity is everywhere because the setting is inspired in part by Film Noir. And the setting intentionally monkeys with Default Assumptions: in Eberron, orcs are the nature-protecting druidic force that saved the world from Madness-Incarnate planar invading armies. Goblins and Hobgoblins are the remnants of a Roman-style empire, with lots of delusions of granduer and a system of Honor (albeit a bit corrupted).
That may be why I don't like what I have heard about Eberron.
Quote:
Part of the incentive of Changing Default Assumptions = having those assumptions too long gets stale. If you've been fighting the same orcs for the same reasons for 15 years, a little change goes a long way. You might find it a comfort of consistency, I find it boring because I've been there and done that. I, for one, am so sick and tired of Tolkien I want to run a game with no elves, dwarves or halflings, where humanity is either just starting out, or waning and outnumbered (like Babylon 5).
That is why I bought the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Similar style game to what I prefer although it has different assumptions about the nature of magic and other things. Evil is EVIL though. I don't think you can play in Warhammer and not kill baby orcs given the chance.
(Psst, skaven do exist.)
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
D&D is not a game you play alone. The biggest part of the D&D experience is not the game and its mechanics or assumptions but rather the personalities of the people in your table and the way the DM handles his campaigns. If someone likes black and white morality while another person likes moral dilemmas a game or DM that enforces either type of play will inevitably frustrate one of the players and likely delight the other. A gaming group with heavily conflicting tastes is not going to work unless people are very passive about their preferences or the DM has godlike skills. Trying to allocate blame to the game for the inevitability of interpersonal conflict is irrational.
That is why I bought the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Game.
Although that the assumption of WHFRPG is that you aren't heroes. The point of the game is to suffer. As it's been said by many people here on these boards, if you're not worse off at the end of the adventure than you were at the beginning, you're not playing WHFRPG.
Quote:
(Psst, skaven do exist.)
I love skaven. Or at least, the Scarred Lands version, Slitheren. Nasty, nasty rat bastards.
There are lots of systems out there that explore moral relativism.
D&D has always been, at its heart, a game of heroic fantasy. One of the big, basic tenets of heroic fantasy is that the bad guys are unredeemably evil. Good might not be lily white and perfect (look at Tolkien for example) but evil is just evil and needs killing. Conan lends itself to this as well. There is nothing redeemable about Thoth Amon. He's evil and he needs killing.
Going more modern, you have movies like Indiana Jones and all the pulps - again, irredeemable evil in need of killing/defeating. Nazis make perfect characatures for this. Green Martians have no redeeming qualities - they love torture and only laugh at other's pain. Example after example can be found in the genre.
So, when I play D&D, I want to buckly my swash. I don't want to worry about morally grey issues. I certainly wouldn't want that to be the default in D&D. Not that you can't do it in D&D, but, I'd rather it not be the base standard. To be honest, D&D revolves too much around killing things for moral relativism. You would be absolutely paralyzed if you had to work out actual motives for killing all the things you've likely killed by the end of a D&D campaign.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
That may be why I don't like what I have heard about Eberron.
Eberron is a refreshing twist if you've grown bored with CE red dragons and spider-worshipping drow. I love Eberron, but every once and a while I want to go back to no-qualms EVIL orcs that slaughter the countryside without remorse.
I love Eberron, but every once and a while I want to go back to no-qualms EVIL orcs that slaughter the countryside without remorse.
To be fair, Eberron also has the irredeemable evil types you don't have to worry when you put them to the sword. The Emerald Claw is to Eberron what the Nazis are to Indiana Jones. If the Quori, Daelkyr or Lords of Dust are involved, there's no question of their evil. The Aurum literally are Bond Villains.
![The Problem of Evil [Forked From Ampersand: Wizards & Worlds]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/iconimages/general-rpg-discussion/problem-evil-forked-ampersand-wizards-worlds_ltr.gif)
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
