Alignment in perspective of medieval moralism?

[Jon_Dahl]

When you think about alignments, how much do you try to view them from the perspective of the game-world and how does your own morality influence it?

This came to my mind when I was thinking about a Lawful Good city guard captain (an important and re-occurring NPC) and treatment of criminals. He's a good guy through and through, but he fully accepts that criminals are treated in a bonified medieval way. This brutal treatment of criminals has slightly disturbed my players and confused them not only about the alignment of the city guard captain but also of the alignment of the entire society. This is something I don't want; this doesn't help me to emerge the players as a part a society and the campaign-world.

IMO even if the society was LG it would seriously break verisimilitude if they somehow treated criminals and unwanted elements humanely compared to modern penal systems of the European or North-American countries.

I'm my view a pseudomedieval fantasy world has to be pro-death penalty, extremely homophobic, anti-abortion, divided by huge gaps between classes and the age of consent is 14 at maximum, usually 12. And IMO 99% of good creatures embrace this society! However I do avoid these things in my games, because they are touchy things and hardly enhance the game. But it's always possible that these things come up sooner or later. And when they do, is it better to adjust things accordingly to modern morality to make players feel more at ease or do pseudomedieval settings have their moralities and it's quite simple for anyone to see that there is no confusion with the real world?

Morals are hard. No big news there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This came to my mind when I was thinking about a Lawful Good city guard captain (an important and re-occurring NPC) and treatment of criminals. He's a good guy through and through, but he fully accepts that criminals are treated in a bonified medieval way.

Even in the medieval era, you were starting to see a growing dichotomy between what I call Old Testament type morality- the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality of talion law- and New Testament morality, with it's emphasis on mercy and forgiveness.

Both of which could be considered "Lawful Good".

And you can even see this in the various stories of the paladins of legend- in them, you'll find holy knights who threaten peasants with death if they don't follow the warrior's orders, and others who spare the lives of their foes in hope that they will see the error of their ways. You'll find ones who act as judge, jury and executioners, while others act as a buffer between captured foes and the harshest punishments of their would-be jailers or vengeful mobs.

 

[Empirate]

Morals are hard, true enough.

I think there's no right or wrong way to go about in-game morality. However, it is very necessary to reach a group consensus. If you want verisimilitude, but the players feel uncomfortable about delving into the ethics of an entirely different society, you're at odds, and that's something that needs resolution. I think you could either just talk to them out of game and explain how you see the game society's morality. Or, you could just adopt a pseudo-medieval version of today's moral system to make your players comfortable. Common ground between the two might be hard to find.

It seems to me as if you're aiming for immersion first and foremost, which is one of the most important parts of DMing. Immersion can stem from identifying with your character, and that can derive from two roots: you either accept the game world (and your character, who functions within it) as a system totally divided from your own experience, and delve into it fully - or you want your character and the game world to be close enough to your own experience that you can identify from that side. Both are powerful tools of DMing, and neither is inherently superior to the other.

After a while, playing in a different society gives you a feel for the way that society works, and that can be exhilarating - bit by bit you feel more and more at home in a world with its own inner logic, you feel you can make meaningful decisions, and you really feel as if the rules of the game world apply to you, as well, while you're gaming. That's fantasy roleplaying in its best sense.

However, being able to connect with an in-game character's and society's workings and problems quickly, since they're rather close to what you know from your real-world experience, lets you 'become' your role much more easily.


For example, if you're aiming for a medieval feel, you should probably also take into account that love simply didn't function in the romantic way we're used to; figures of authority were much more readily accepted even if they overstepped their legitimation; the average person had probably seen lots of relatives, including parents, siblings, or offspring, die, and their death was accepted (if lamented) as just the way things are; the temporal was considered less important than the afterlife; almost nobody was ever without afflictions, constant harassment by some disease or other, parasites, etc.; far from good-natured fun was made of disabled people, of the poor and luckless; public executions were considered good sport (and the executed was expected to give a good showing); etc.
It's hard to buy into a fantasy that would really detract from your overall enjoyment of life...

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm my view a pseudomedieval fantasy world has to be pro-death penalty, extremely homophobic, anti-abortion, divided by huge gaps between classes and the age of consent is 14 at maximum, usually 12.

You're actually still projecting quite a lot of modern moral values on your medieval society-- they're just modern conservative moral values, some of which are only a few decades old in the West. My own system of moral values is more or less rooted in the 10th century, and I may be biased toward my own cultural heritage, but I've done my fair share of research in my time.

Nothing in this post is to be taken as an argument for or against anything-- just pointing out a few historical facts. I'm keeping my own views to myself here because I'm really not a very nice person and I don't want to scandalize Granny.

Death penalty? Yeah, you're going to see a lot of that. My biggest pet peeve in all of these goddamned alignment threads is people arguing against the Lawfulness of PCs killing criminals and enemy combatants-- rather than taking them back for a trial-- when one, they're just going to be hanged anyway and two, the PCs would have had the lawful authority to dispense field justice in the first place. That means they're legally entitled to be judge, jury, and executioner by the laws of man and god alike.

Not only did the government have broad authority to kill people it didn't like, but in most cultures the standards of "justifiable homicide" by private citizens were incredibly broad. Nobles were often allowed to cut down commoners whenever it suited them, killing a man in a fair fight was considered an acceptable way to end a conflict, and some cultures would hold a full scale battle-- with eager volunteers-- just to kill an old warlord so that he didn't have to die of old age in his bed. This was considered a great honor for the old man and for any of the young, healthy soldiers that died in a war most modern people would consider pointless.

Maybe it's my own biases speaking here, but this is the issue I wouldn't budge on. Look at all the Good aligned deities that have some variety of sword for their favored weapon; a sword isn't a tool or a hunting implement. Swords are one of the "perfect weapons", and implement whose sole purpose is homicide.

Likewise, levels of homophobia are incredibly variable across ancient pagan cultures, ranging from outright condemnation to "it's only bad if you're on bottom" to cultures that had to shave the bride's head and dress her up in a military uniform to get the groom to sleep with her. Given the prominent role of priestesses and female deities in most D&D settings, and the existence of elves, I'd say the level of homophobia shouldn't be much worse than it is in modern Western civilization keeping in mind that large segments of modern Western civilization still have profound moral prejudice against homosexuality. In some standard D&D cultures, it should even be considerably more tolerated than it is today.

As far as abortion goes? Plenty of ancient cultures practiced it, even in the second, third, or thirty-sixth trimester. The Catholic Church didn't officially condemn it until the beginning of the 17th century and didn't start actively opposing it-- trying to get laws changed-- until the 19th. Islamic tradition has varied, and argued, the permissibility of abortion for over a thousand years. This issue has been going back and forth in human civilization since the invention of medical techniques dating from prehistory.

You could go either way on this one so easily it isn't funny.

Class divides also varied considerably, even keeping in mind the broader privileges enjoyed by the nobility. Many cultures have prohibited slavery or imposed strict regulations upon it even in antiquity, while other cultures have enjoyed very flat social hierarchies and less division between kings and mere peasants. The existence of divine-empowered priesthoods is a pretty big equalizer here; your LG deities may have some nice theories about the divine right of kings, but your CGs are going to politely dissent. With fire.

As far as the age of consent goes... keeping in mind that puberty occurred on average three or four years later in the Middle Ages than it does now, attitudes on this one typically ranged from "consent? what's that?" to "big enough is old enough". So in societies that don't keep temples to Pedobear, you're probably looking at the same 14-16 range you'll find in most Western societies with a few societies that simply aren't nearly that picky.

If there's any historical difference in moral values that I'd want to avoid in my fantasy roleplaying, it's that one.

 

[frankthedm]

My biggest pet peeve in all of these goddamned alignment threads is people arguing against the Lawfulness of PCs killing criminals and enemy combatants-- rather than taking them back for a trial-- when one, they're just going to be hanged anyway and two, the PCs would have had the lawful authority to dispense field justice in the first place. That means they're legally entitled to be judge, jury, and executioner by the laws of man and god alike.

Some folks forget the paladin ability is called Smite Evil, not Subdue Evil and want to see Paladins ...

So in societies that don't keep temples to Pedobear,

Related Thread...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/archiv...ster-now-my-dm-wants-take-away-my-powers.html

 

[Niccodaemus]

I would say that since the setting is fantasy, any "moral code" you come up with should be fine, as long as there is some consistency for the players to be able to figure out. There might be a small kingdom with an Alice in Wonderland sense of morality as a constantly moving target, which can be fun, but overall, it should be predictable.

I also prefer a moral culture that players can relate to. This is a game after all, and supposed to be fun.

It is also a world with issues quite different from our own. The very nature of magic and treasure hunting opens up "moral issues" that can be treated quite differently in each game world. Animate Dead, tomb robbing, and even charm can all be looked at through different lenses.

I've never liked the alignment descriptions in D&D, and tend to hand wave it away. In my book, the D&D alignment of "Neutral" is actually "Evil". "Evil" in D&D is sociopathy.
This actually fits with the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins., particularly from a medieval perspective.

The entire subject touches on the concept of the Banality of Evil. Basically, that when living in an evil society, that people will accept evil as "normal".

In the campaign world I'm designing, all magic is accomplished through the summoning of spirits (either spirits of the dead, or elemental and demon/devil types). The very act of magic is fraught with the potential for evil.

An interesting approach might be to have demons that thrive on the misfortune of others show up from time to time, in various guises, and goad the PCs into actions which are ok by societal norms. This would be a sort of Faustian type of scenario, where the gloating of the demon could highlight the context of an action.

Lets take that Lawful Good Guard. If the PCs try to interfere with his dispensation of Justice, the demon could appear as an old beggar or some such character, who radiates an unnatural aura. He might then provide a perfectly rational argument for the Guard's behavior, but suddenly the PCs might start to question their acceptance of everything they see.

I do think an OOC conversation about "what is evil?" would be appropriate in the early stages of any campaign.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

...And when they do, is it better to adjust things accordingly to modern morality to make players feel more at ease or do pseudomedieval settings have their moralities and it's quite simple for anyone to see that there is no confusion with the real world?

Morals are hard. No big news there.

Morals are hard, true enough.

I think there's no right or wrong way to go about in-game morality. However, it is very necessary to reach a group consensus.

This. Since D&D is a game, and therefore played for the enjoyment of all, group consensus is necissary for that enjoyment. No one should have to play within a style that violates their own personal code of morality, even if it's fictional roleplay.
Now, if your objective is to use the game of D&D as a teaching tool, to present historical points of view, to present fictional scinarios to roleplay real world life lessons, etc, etc... than you might be in a different position. For example, I can imagine a situation where a parent might DM a game with preteen children and their friends & might want to use D&D as an object lesson for real world situations. In this case, teaching a different code of morality would easily have a place.

Is the DM running entertainment, or teaching lessons? or a mix of both? If a mix, where's the balance?

 

[Ragmon]

Easy answer, remover the alignment system from you campaign, and roleplay acording to your character's personalaty and not the one that you choose from the PHB.
I could link you a nice blog where there is a nice walkthrough about what can be done/removed/changed.
Imo the D&D alignment system isn't flexible enough to handle these kinds of moralities.

 

[Water Bob]

When you think about alignments, how much do you try to view them from the perspective of the game-world and how does your own morality influence it?

This is something I constantly have to watch out for in my Conan game. The Conan RPG doesn't have alignments, but I do find myself using my 21st century morality among barbarians that have to fight for survival every day.

Racism, especially, is something that I struggle with. My own heart tells me that all people are created equal while, in Conan's Hyborian Age, there is strong evidence of racism. (In Howard's story "Red Nails", for example, Conan clearly states that he will not sleep with black women--but it is implied that women from all other races are fair game.)

I remember seeing a scene in that excellent HBO series called ROME, where the main character went down to the market to check on his slaves--the spoils he had obtained during his tour with the Legion.

He gets there and finds all of them dead from sickness, all except for one young boy, who was dying, clinging to his dead mother. And, the main character was disgusted--not that all these people died a horrible death, but that he'd lost his entire inventory!

We're used to seeing that type of sentiment (or non-sentiment) from the bad guy, but this is the good guy we're watching!

It shows you that people thought a different way back then. Culture affects one's world view.

Conan is no different. Many think of him as a good guy, but he's not. Not really. He lead pirate bands that sacked cities along the western coast. He was a cutthroat in charge of a band of criminals and bandits when he led the Zuagir and the Kozaks. He made his living as a thief in Zamora. And, as a mercenary captain in charge of his own Free Company, he allowed his men to pillage the spoils of war from conquered cities.

If Conan walks into a city and sees a beautiful woman trussed up as a slave, he's not automatically going to try to save her. In fact, he probably doesn't even see her. Slaves are slaves. It's a fact of life in his universe--a universe where life is very tough.

From my comfy American gaming table in 2012, it's sometimes hard to change my moral outlook to fit what is appropriate during the Hyborian Age.

 

[bloodtide]

I totally immerse myself in the game world, and my own morals are easy as in real life I'm quite Chaotic Evil. So my Lawful Good empire has no problem putting a person on trial one day after they are arrested and killing them if they are found guilty on the spot in the coutroom.

There is no Universal Alignment in my game, that is there is no single action you have to take or can not take that would effect your alignment. Everything matters in context. And it's possbile for two people of the same alignment to disagree on things.

The problem a lot of players have is that they are stuck in the Western ideas of alignment, and of a society that forces this upon them. Players don't like to ''pretend'' that they are wrong in real life, or worse feel like it ''violates'' there morality to pretend to play another alignment in a game. And one of the big problems is that the average player is living in a very, very safe place and time. And when your in that type of setting it's easy to say stuff like ''when they found that illithid with a sword in the school the guards should have politely asked the illithid what he was doing and if he resisted just cast sleep on him''. That sounds perfectly reasonable to someone in a very safe world. But for people in an unsafe world, the reasonable thing to do would be to kill the illithid on sight, as there could be almost no good reason why an illithiid would be roaming around a human school.

But all that aside, your game simply has to be more extreme and unreality to have fun. You simply can't have fun in the modern view of morality. It would be a boring adventure to ''go capture all the orc bandits alive and bring them in for a trial''.