When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[NewJeffCT]

Your setting sounds very interesting.

She researched several period of time and the world is a mix of ancient Rome , medieval and some other game settings like Kingdoms of Kalamar and Pendragon thrown in.

Interesting thread - thanks for starting it.

I remember maybe 13 years ago, after we finished up a fantastic 2E campaign (set in The Kingdoms of Kalamar, by the way), we moved on to another setting (forgot what it was), but the DM made clear up front that slavery was common and most nobles had slaves, etc.

However, most of the group just couldn't get a handle on that idea, even though we were all veteran players. Just because of how everybody was raised and taught history, we tend to think anybody that owns slaves as evil. We're in Connecticut as well, so that mindset is doubly enforced since we were on the Union side in the Civil War. (Heck, abolitionist John Brown was born 2 towns over from where I live now...)

Needless to say, that campaign did *not* get off to a good start, and soon tanked (we had a lot of trouble starting anew after such a great campaign before - but, that's another issue.)

However, I recently finished a long-running 3.5E campaign that was set in Kalamar as well. I made it clear up front that slavery was pretty commonplace and that one couldn't go about freeing every slave they met - one player was a Paladin of Freedom dedicated to The Guardian, and even he didn't cross the line in that regards, even though The Guardian is dedicated to wiping out slavery. However, the focal point of the campaign was defeating the followers of The Overlord, whose priests were the focal point of the slave trade in Kalamar, so he at least had the long-term satisfaction of doing more to free the slaves that way than going about freeing every single slave they met.

(On a side note, racism and xenophobia was prevalent in the campaign at times as well - in the very first session, the group got pelted with rotten fruit and tossed in the clink for a night because of them was an elf. "Watch out for rotten tomatoes" was a running joke for the next two years...)

So, I do think it's tough to overcome modern day morals at times.

 

[Yora]

d20 modern has a neat little tool called Allegiance, but it really works completely independent from any rules.

With the Allegiance system, you pick about one to three groups, organizations, religions, or ideologies with which he particularly identifies himself and to whose teachings he is highly commited and loyal. If two people meet and know that they share an alegiance, they have a more positive attitude towards each other, and if they subscribe to opposing views and are aware of it, they have a more negative attitude.
Now the mechanical impact of allegiance is minimal to none. However, much more than alignments of good, evil, chaos, and order, allegiance is a great help for players to get into their characters mindset. If my character is good, I want him to behave in a good way, which I judge by my own modern standards of what good is. But if my character has allegiance towards the Sun God and the city guard, and I know about the religion and the city authorities in the setting, than I have a quite good point of reference towards how my character would think from his own perspective. If the priests of the Sun God preach about the extermination of all snakes on earth, then I have a much better idea how my character will react to a band of naga lurking in the river near the village. If my character is just lawful good, I would probably have him talk to them first and then find out what they want, and after that solve their problem for them so they can go home peacefully.
But sometimes we want to play characters who don't fully follow modern assumptions of right and wrong, which in practice means characters who also have severe faults and do awful things. And I think allegiance actually does a very great job at assisting at that.

Just have your players write down two or three ideologies and loyalties by which their characters determine what it's right or wrong.

 

[Andor]

However, most of the group just couldn't get a handle on that idea, even though we were all veteran players. Just because of how everybody was raised and taught history, we tend to think anybody that owns slaves as evil. We're in Connecticut as well, so that mindset is doubly enforced since we were on the Union side in the Civil War. (Heck, abolitionist John Brown was born 2 towns over from where I live now...)

Needless to say, that campaign did *not* get off to a good start, and soon tanked (we had a lot of trouble starting anew after such a great campaign before - but, that's another issue.)

I think Americans in particular have an issue with slavery, not only becuase of our own history but because slavery as practiced in America was one of the worst forms of slavery, ever. Ironically this was because given the enshrined principles of liberty and human rights in the American mindset, and law, in order to justify holding someone as a slave you had to define them as subhuman.

Cultures without this hangup often had much less rigid attitudes about slavery, treating it as a temporary or reversible condition without the stigma of subhuman status. For example it wasn't uncommon for Romans to sell themselves into slavery in order to pay off a debt. Likewise is was not rare for a slave to buy his own freedom. Or at least, not impossible. Islam forbid the slavery of Islamics, but not infidels. So of course all the captured slaves converted and study to qualify as an Islamic man. Once they passed a test by an Imam they were set free. Then there were forms like the Jannisaries or Mamluks who while technically slaves could become quite powerful.

It's an interesting study, but yeah. As an American the word gives me instinctive heebie-jeebies.

 

[El Mahdi]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]

I'm really glad you brought this topic up. I'm going to be running a campaign set in 12th Century England during the Anarchy. The environment will be like what you've described about the campaign you're playing in. It's highlighted for me that I definitely need to take into consideration how the players are going to respond to the environment, definitely need to talk about the environment before the game (a little more in-depth than "this is a medieval world with everything that goes with that"), and definitely do my best to gently keep highlighting the environment to the players throughout the game (to avoid the problems your DM and you have run into). I may also downplay certain aspects in the spirit of keeping the game running smoothly.

So, a timely and interesting thread. Thank You.

 

[Elf Witch]

There problem I see here is a lot of "I" in these statements. Being able to seperate yourself from your character when actions that adversely affect your character arise is important. In my opinion the biggest problem I see here is that YOU were personally upset when their characters reacted equally in character to yours, but did not fall in line with your ideas.

Your character acted in character(in your opinion), their characters reacted in character(in their opinion) and part of that reaction was not approving of your in-character actions. You then became upset that they disagreed with you, which is fine IN CHARACTER, but from reading this it feels like you became upset with the PLAYERS as a fellow player.

So yes, while the setting may be whatever, I think the issue here is that players(yourself and them) are not separating themselves from their characters while role-playing.

I have don't have a problem with another PC being angry with my character. I do have an issue when a player gets angry over something I have done as a player and won't let it go even when the DM calls him on it.

I was angry over number 1 being told that I was playing recklessly and not in character and that made it okay for them to abandon my character to face a threat by myself. And 2 this is the big one to get in an argument with the DM after the DM reminded them how the game world worked. And to get the DM so mad that we broke early because she needed a break.



The DM had planned a huge encounter with this situation one where would we had won we would have gotten some nice treasure that would come in handy down the road plus some vital information on the BBEG.

But because they walked away she scaled the encounter down because there was no way I could face a mindflayer by myself as well as his minions.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yep, I mean we're getting one guy's opinion who thinks they were in the right, it's a very obviously biased argument. Getting the other players to speak up might help, but it's unlikely. In all reality both of our arguments are probably applicable, there's just too little we're hearing.

I am a girl and the DM thinks I was right too.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am a girl and the DM thinks I was right too.

Okay, guy/girl doesn't matter...this really still strikes me as "I'm right and they're wrong!"...It'd been said over and over again in RPGs, "you're playing it wrong" generally isn't a good way to go about things.

I still stand by my statement that I see a lot of "I" this and that. You seem very centered on the idea that someone has to be wrong in this situation and that that justifies being mad at the players for the actions of their characters.

I have don't have a problem with another PC being angry with my character. I do have an issue when a player gets angry over something I have done as a player and won't let it go even when the DM calls him on it.

I was angry over number 1 being told that I was playing recklessly and not in character and that made it okay for them to abandon my character to face a threat by myself. And 2 this is the big one to get in an argument with the DM after the DM reminded them how the game world worked. And to get the DM so mad that we broke early because she needed a break.



The DM had planned a huge encounter with this situation one where would we had won we would have gotten some nice treasure that would come in handy down the road plus some vital information on the BBEG.

But because they walked away she scaled the encounter down because there was no way I could face a mindflayer by myself as well as his minions.

There is no requirement for a player or their character to back up your every move. If they don't like the way you are playing both in and out of character, perhaps instead of looking for your own personal army on the internet to white-knight you, you should talk it over calmly with them instead of just insisting you were right and they were wrong.

 

[billd91]

I do not think the problem is modern ethics per se. I think the problem is the alignment system. The alignment system and modern ethics are about what is good and evil. Medieval ethics were, for the most part, about power and position.

I think you're at least partly right. The alignment system is a bit anachronistic, concerning itself mostly with more modern ethical and moral content than one properly medieval.
But I'm not sure it has to do with medieval ethics being just about power and position, rather it's about not picking the right D&D alignments for a medieval world where life is pretty mean. Most medieval mindsets, I think, don't rise above neutrality. Some do, but not nearly to the degree people choose to play good alignments. Some redefinition needs to be done somewhere to reconcile.

 

[Elf Witch]

Out of curiousity, Elf Witch, if in this game the noble character dominated a commoner and forced that commoner to kill a noble, and this domination was discovered, what would be the punishments for the commoner and the noble character be for the murder of the noble?

I asked the DM this over dinner tonight. She said that in that case if a noble did this to murder another noble and it was found out the noble would be the one facing the headman's axe. The commoner would not be blamed because he was not in control of his actions.

 

[Elf Witch]

Interesting thread - thanks for starting it.

I remember maybe 13 years ago, after we finished up a fantastic 2E campaign (set in The Kingdoms of Kalamar, by the way), we moved on to another setting (forgot what it was), but the DM made clear up front that slavery was common and most nobles had slaves, etc.

However, most of the group just couldn't get a handle on that idea, even though we were all veteran players. Just because of how everybody was raised and taught history, we tend to think anybody that owns slaves as evil. We're in Connecticut as well, so that mindset is doubly enforced since we were on the Union side in the Civil War. (Heck, abolitionist John Brown was born 2 towns over from where I live now...)

Needless to say, that campaign did *not* get off to a good start, and soon tanked (we had a lot of trouble starting anew after such a great campaign before - but, that's another issue.)

However, I recently finished a long-running 3.5E campaign that was set in Kalamar as well. I made it clear up front that slavery was pretty commonplace and that one couldn't go about freeing every slave they met - one player was a Paladin of Freedom dedicated to The Guardian, and even he didn't cross the line in that regards, even though The Guardian is dedicated to wiping out slavery. However, the focal point of the campaign was defeating the followers of The Overlord, whose priests were the focal point of the slave trade in Kalamar, so he at least had the long-term satisfaction of doing more to free the slaves that way than going about freeing every single slave they met.

(On a side note, racism and xenophobia was prevalent in the campaign at times as well - in the very first session, the group got pelted with rotten fruit and tossed in the clink for a night because of them was an elf. "Watch out for rotten tomatoes" was a running joke for the next two years...)

So, I do think it's tough to overcome modern day morals at times.

Back in the days of 3.0 we had a long running Kalamar game. It is my favorite published setting.

I remember the paladin of our party wondering how to deal with the slave situation luckily he had studied roman history and was able to use that as a guide instead of the looking at the way slaves were treated in her America.

Though there was an issue that arouse at the table between my character and funnily enough with one of the guys I had an issue with Sunday.

I was playing a knight and retired legion commander loyal to Kabori his sister was my mother. The party was sent to rescue the young heir to the throne of Basir. In the fighting a fire broke out and I chose to save this young heir over saving some commoner children . The commoner children were in immediate danger but there was no guarantee that I could get back in time to save the heir. And I didn't trust the rest of the party who were a bunch of hired adventurers and commoners themselves to put the young heir's life first.

I was playing my character with the medieval mindset that royalty are more important than commoners that basically their lives are worth more. This is not how I feel in real life but it is how it is written in many fantasy stories.

The one player kept arguing that I had committed an evil act by letting the commoner children die to save one child. My character was very remorseful and sad over their deaths but she felt that she had done the right thing.

We argued about it in character for weeks. And he never trusted me and made no bones about it. It was some interesting times.