Limits of morality in the game?

[Blessed Kitten]

Okay, some systems do have mechanics for moral dilemmas. V:tM (haven't played the latest version) with Humanity and virtues as stats, for example. While I can see how that might help focus the game more on those sorts of things, I don't know that they add much more than what you can do with good roleplaying.

I guess I haven't spent enough time playing other systems, and my time with V:tM was some of the worst gaming I have experienced (mostly due to players/GM).

I still think that you can have lots of cool moral conflict without any morality mechanics built into the system, but by the same token you can have lots of cool negotiations without a diplomacy skill.

Now I'm curious as to what other peoples' experiences are with systems that actually have more codified mechanics for moral conflicts. Do such mechanics really add to the level, fun or coolness factor of moral dilemmas? Or, do they make potentially interesting and tricky situations into a mere die roll?

 

[William Ronald]

Moral dilemmas can make a game more interesting, but I think it is only fair for DMs to give players an idea of the world that they will be in. For example, servants of a deity or an ethos should have a good idea of what is right or wrong in their ethos. This can create dilemmas when people following similar deities or ethos come into conflict. For example, the paladin of a war god might be able to slaughter defenseless humanoids in some circumstances while the paladin of a god of peace might not be able to do so. (In this case, the DM should determine if the humanoids have free will and define the tenets of faiths.)

Sexism, racism, and other ills can exist in societies, even good societies. So, these can be things that players have to overcome, perhaps working to change attitudes through their words and deeds.

The key guideline should be whether the players will enjoy moral ambiguity in their games. So, communication is key -- as it is in so many other areas of running a game.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Moral dilemmas can make a game more interesting, but I think it is only fair for DMs to give players an idea of the world that they will be in. For example, servants of a deity or an ethos should have a good idea of what is right or wrong in their ethos. This can create dilemmas when people following similar deities or ethos come into conflict. For example, the paladin of a war god might be able to slaughter defenseless humanoids in some circumstances while the paladin of a god of peace might not be able to do so. (In this case, the DM should determine if the humanoids have free will and define the tenets of faiths.)

I would prefer that the paladin of a war god might choose to slaughter defenseless humanoids in some circumstances and another paladin of the same war god might choose not to slaughter defenseless humanoids in near-identical circumstances. And neither paladin would lose his powers over his decision because both could justify it.

Even in D&D's objective morality, there should not be one right answer for every question. Good and Law are made up of multiple characteristics, which may sometime conflict. It's good to show mercy, it's good to protect the innocent, and it's up to each individual how they choose to balance these traits.

Two individuals of the same alignment can potentially come to vastly different decisions when confronted with the same moral dilemma, with neither one being objectively wrong by their alignment. Interesting in-game moral dilemmas come about when DMs let players make a decision and then show them the consequences of that decision without trying to have a specific right answer in mind.

 

[Wik]

See, I love Dark Sun. One of the major themes in the game, slavery, forces every player to make a choice: how do I react to the slave trade? Unfortunately, due to the mania of Political Correctness in the 90s, TSR had to toe the line with Athas: all books referred to Slavery as evil.

All books were written with the idea that PCs would oppose the slave trade. PCs would not own slaves. If a trading dynasty was Good in alignment, they probably didn't own slaves. And so on.

Now, in our DS games, that never happened. We've had PCs buy slaves (they once bought a couple dozen slaves fated for the arenas, trained them, and made them into a nice little guard unit to discourage mass attacks from Gith). The only time the PCs ever tried to free a slave was when one of their own was enslaved, due to his excessive thefts (and even then, they just purchased him from the taskmaster... and kept the Player Character as their own private "slave"!).

When it comes to things like Slavery in a game, I'm all for using it. I expect people to act in culturally-appropriate ways, although that doesn't necessarily pigeon-hole the PCs as being wholly supportive of the slave movement.

Other social ills can show up in my game - I had a woman player that really wanted an element of sexism in the game, so that she could fight against it. I had no problem doing that. I also played in a D&D game (I think it was PLANESCAPE) that was based off Shadowrun, where there was a strong element of racism going on... loved it.

However, as both a player and a GM, I hate seeing elements related to "bad sex": Rape, especially.

We were once playing a game where our group came across some bandits raping a village woman (what was sick to me about it was the fact that the GM almost intended this to be a humorous encounter). While the rest of the group jumped in on the fight, my spellthief laid back and tried to put out the fire on one of the nearby buildings - I refused to participate (as a player) in a role-playing situation that made me highly uncomfortable. I even left the room, hoping to subtly suggest to the GM that he avoid future situations.

I guess the point of all this is, that some groups have no problem playing with certain moral ambiguities, but hate having to look at others. As a GM, we can throw these things at our players, but the second we see a player (even if it's just one) become uncomfortable with a situation, it's time to put that particular theme away.

 

[Ceresco]

I love me some shades of grey.

Then you would love Arcanis: the World of Shattered Empires.


Respectfully,

Edward Kopp: Arcaniac at Large

 

[Ceresco]

More specifically, differences in norms between (sub)urban 21st-century America (and Europe) and the quasi-medieval game world. Most of the real world wouldn't bat an eye at exterminating enemies or seeing groups of people as different in important ways. Even slavery wouldn't be an issue in much of the world.

QFT

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

While some activities are indisputably evil (such as torturing people just for kicks), others are less clear - such as killing baby orcs. Is it the right thing to do or not?

That's a question that I will leave for the PCs to answer. I wouldn't punish a paladin for letting them live, but neither would I for killing them - as long as he did not show undue pleasure in that task. Ultimately, the PCs have to decide what the "good" course of action is - though I will try to incorporate NPCs who will see it either way.

I find genuine soul-searching and struggling for answers on the part of the PCs much more interesting than commandments laid down from high from the GM.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That DM sounds like a jerk. If goblinbabies are to be smote, the gods (and the DM) need to let that be known. The paladin would've known it. The player was operating under the assumptions in the SRD (where goblins do have some free choice), the DM changed the rules without telling him (goblins are made of evil!) and boned him for it. Bah!

The rest of 'em don't seem too bad.

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

Some don't like the gray morality. I'd stress that it didn't matter which side they chose, so much as *that* they chose a side. I don't have a problem with the occasional evil PC that can get along with the rest of the party.

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?

Basically, because it's not fun for *players* to feel discriminated against at the table. And it's only fun to have the *characters* discriminated against if they can be exceptions to the rule or prove themselves or whatnot.

I mean, how many heroes exist as part of the status quo? Screw that, my 6 STR halfling needs to prove that he's worthy to be in the mercenary company despite his low strength (for instance).

 

[Quartz]

As others have noted, the thing to do is to talk about it with everyone well beforehand. If you're wanting to run a campaign in Augustan Rome, then you need to be happy that slavery is a fact of life. If you're adventuring on Tekumel in Tsolyanu, not only is slavery a fact of life, but even the 'Good' religions practice human sacrifice.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

When it comes to things like Slavery in a game, I'm all for using it. I expect people to act in culturally-appropriate ways, although that doesn't necessarily pigeon-hole the PCs as being wholly supportive of the slave movement.

Other social ills can show up in my game - I had a woman player that really wanted an element of sexism in the game, so that she could fight against it. I had no problem doing that. I also played in a D&D game (I think it was PLANESCAPE) that was based off Shadowrun, where there was a strong element of racism going on... loved it.

However, as both a player and a GM, I hate seeing elements related to "bad sex": Rape, especially.

We were once playing a game where our group came across some bandits raping a village woman (what was sick to me about it was the fact that the GM almost intended this to be a humorous encounter). While the rest of the group jumped in on the fight, my spellthief laid back and tried to put out the fire on one of the nearby buildings - I refused to participate (as a player) in a role-playing situation that made me highly uncomfortable. I even left the room, hoping to subtly suggest to the GM that he avoid future situations.

I guess the point of all this is, that some groups have no problem playing with certain moral ambiguities, but hate having to look at others. As a GM, we can throw these things at our players, but the second we see a player (even if it's just one) become uncomfortable with a situation, it's time to put that particular theme away.

Excellent points one and all. If a female player wanted to play a Joan of Arc-type, she would be more than welcome to-in fact, it would probably make for some great role-playing. And, as I've said, while there may be many places that discriminate against women and demihumans, there are just as many places that do not.

One thing I wholeheartedly agree on is that things like rape and other types of abuse and violation should NEVER be exploited for anything like shock value. As a DM or author, I would be very uncomfortable writing or playing such scenes anyway. Such things, when they do occur, are only implied or hinted at. And the scum-sucking you-know-whats that do it almost always, if not every single time, get a very horrific comeuppance for it.

In the scene where the bandits were violating the woman, a paladin would suffer absolutely no penalty for gutting the bastards then and there-there's no excuse for crap like that. Hell, in many places, they'd be lucky if they were killed on the spot...