Limits of morality in the game?

[CruelSummerLord]

This is a thread about the differences in morals and norms between our real world and the game world. Namely, what should be done about differences between them. How should we as DMs and players handle these sorts of things?

Examples:

1) Paladin is part of an adventuring band clearing out a goblin hold. The adventurers win out and finally have the goblin women and children cornered, and the paladin persuades his companions to let them go.

The next morning, the paladin prays for his spells, and is refused them. He is informed that he has sinned by allowing the goblin women and children to live. They are not humans or halflings-goblins do not deserve the same considerations.

2) The mercenaries guild in town denies admittance to women, elves and halflings because of their perceived physical weakness. The mintworkers guild denies admittance to dwarves because of their supposed lust for precious metals. Dwarf-run taverns deny admittance to elves, humans and half-orcs. Other taverns only allow male humans on the premises. Women are not allowed to join the armed forces or hold positions in government.

3) The buying and trading of slaves in the kingdom of Nyrond is illegal, except when it comes to Aerdi. Aerdi soldiers taken prisoner in the Greyhawk Wars, and Aerdi civilians brought back by Nyrondese troops, have caused the slave markets to boom. Proud noble knights and wealthty young debutantes might now find themselves reduced to digging ditches or staffing brothels, with the appropriate treatment.

If you were to introduce these types of gray morality into your setting, how would you handle it if one of your players protested?

I will say that I rather resent the political correctness that seems to be creeping into game products lately, and in a way these changes would be my reaction against them, although of course I hope everyone realizes that these are not my own actual, real attitudes in such matters, and come mainly from my desire to make a more evocative and grimmer setting. Such things as racism, sexism and slavery are obviously disgusting and abhorrent in real life, but our real world is not as enlightened and forward-thinking as it should be, so why should a pseudo-medieval fantasy world be any different?

Thoughts?

 

[Tinner]

The only question that matters is "Do these features make the game more fun for everyone?"
If everyone is enjoying these grey moral issues, then great, keep them in the game.
If the group would rather not deal with such things in a game setting, then why keep them if they are disruptive?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I agree with Tinner.

I'm comfortable including elements such as unfair discrimination, racism, sexism, slavery, et cetera, but I don't see any virtue in including them for the sake of tone or mood if the players at your table don't care, won't appreciate it, or will find it unpleasant.

 

[Choon-Ma]

Tinner has a point. One of the people I play with is a complete Munchkiner. He plays the numbers and will spend hours or days coming up with the perfect advancement. He would probably enjoy one or two of these dilmeas in a campaign. I, on the other hand, am all about the character and could care less if I'm not fully optimized. It really depends on the hooks you're going for.

Also, I think of D&D as a way to examine and answer those questions within a realm that has (almost literally) no consequences. I dislike political correctness in reality and even more so in a realm that is supposed to be set in a very prejudiced time.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I generally include such things, including making them part of an overall setting. But if nobody cares, or people seem to actively dislike something it should be a clue to not dwell on it in favor of things that are fun for the players.

 

[STARP_Social_Officer]

It's a simple formula as far as I'm concerned: moral ambiguity + good role-playing = memorable adventure.

 

[WayneLigon]

It depends on the campaign. Most so-called political correctness is probably de riguer in some worlds; prejudice based on skin color or nationality might wane or never come up in the face of different actual species. Magic is a great equalizer; women might be treated better because, hey, anyone with the intelligence can become a powerful wizard.

For the situations:

1. The GM had best have described how my religion feels about that and other situations, or he and I will be continuing that discussion outside. If I pulled that silliness on someone at my table, they'd probably get up and walk out, and I wouldn't blame them.

2 & 3. My players would be OK with it, especially since I'd make mention of such attitudes and where they might be expected to apply in the pre-game handout. Right now in the Eberron campaign, they've already encountered some prejudice towards warforged and shifters (they have both in the party, plus more).

 

[Ibram]

I've made use of such elements in the past, though I dont make it central to the adventure.

 

[Blessed Kitten]

I agree with the above posters that if that sort of thing is not fun for your group, skip it.

That being said, I'm all about the moral ambiguity.

Although, for the first scenario you pose, that is something that should only be possible if the paladin has no ranks in Knowledge: Religion. Even then, the average paladin should have a pretty good idea what their church says about intelligent but "evil" humanoids.

A better moral conflict would have been where the official church policy is one of extermination of evil humanoids, but the paladin has a personal revelation that he should spare them. Orthodoxy versus revelation. For a much more interesting and brilliantly conceived version of this sort of thing check out Sepulchrave's story hour.

 

[the Jester]

I love me some shades of grey.