When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Elf Witch]

I think there's a few different issues here that need to be picked apart:

Player ignorance: in modern America mouthing off to a cop is dumb, but in Medieval times an important noble could mouth off to some watchmen with impunity. Often the best way to model this ignorance is to have the character be just as ignorant as the player by making sure that players who aren't going to bother reading up on the local culture are RPing foreigners.

Alignment issues: saying "the church of X says you should kill members of the church of Y" is one thing, saying that you can kill unarmed members of the church of Y and be Lawful Good is another since it appears that the DM is approving aspects of in-setting morality. The DM needs to clearly explain what alignment means in the setting or not use it (or at least not use it for normal PCs).

Differences in morality in the party: if some players buy into the local morality and others find it repellent that's an issue and should be handled like any other kind of disagreement in the party, the DM shouldn't be seen to take one side or the other in play, but could make some ground rules before play starts.

Once those different streams get crossed, things can get messy.

The first is part player ignorance bringing modern day things like mouthing off to a cop today gets you in nothing but trouble and add metagaming from 30 years of playing the game. A lot of DM use a more modern feel to the game so mouthing off to the local guard is bad.

It is hard sometimes to overcome 30 years of game experience no matter how much you try you will never be the same as when you fist started and your first level character has all the benefits of your table experience.

I think the DM needs to very clear on all of this and be consistent and be willing to stop the game if needed and explain things. On thd other hand the players need to trust the DM and listen and more importantly accept even if they don't agree this is how this works in this world. When you run your game you can do it your way.

I think that ground rules are important. One way I try and avoid stuff like this in my games is right up front I tell people that I don't tolerate anyone jumping on or telling someone else how to play or design their character.

I try and remind people to keep it in the game and keep it in character. The difference between myself and Broken Druid is she is more of a peacekeeper and she hates confrontation. So she tries to avoid it and she will keep trying to fix things.

If this was happening in my game I would have already put an end to this by basically saying you played your characters she played hers I have no issue with how she played it. Get over it and move on or we can just not play.

It is very simple your DM controls the world and the NPCs and how things work you control your character and how your character reacts to the world and the other players. It is one thing to ask a question but once the DM has made a ruling sit down shut up and play the game.

 

[S'mon]

What historical precedent could possibly support the idea that the aristocracy is actually " excellent " in being just naturally better than everyone else?

Pretty obvious: The medieval nobles' Dark Age ancestors came to power by being better than anyone else at Killing People and Taking Their Stuff. In a typically violent medieval society the nobles probably are still routinely killing each other & taking each others' stuff, ergo the ones that aren't very good at that routinely get winnowed out. Ergo the survivors will on average have much better stats, classes, and levels than the serfs - who mostly count as 'stuff'.

Of course many FRPG 'medieval' settings seem to have much lower levels of inter-nobility violent conflict than was the medieval norm. A setting like Greyhawk more closely resembles late-16th or 17th century Europe, with powerful (albeit sparsely populated) and centralised States under firm Royal control. In such societies the Kill/Get Stuff abilities of the nobility may indeed atrophy.

 

[Elf Witch]

You guys really should not be playing together. It seems to me that your incompatible playstyles are harming your friendship. The male players you describe come across as real jerks - whether they are or not, it's clear that you and your DM should be playing with people a lot more sympathetic to your play style and her DMing style.

I am not going to throw away 16 years of fun times over this. Like I said we have been playing a long time this one campaign is three years old our Shadowrun campaign is over ten years old.

We are pretty intense about gaming for must of us it is not just a casual hobby so sometimes we can get pretty passionate.

The best case scenario is that this blows over once we are at the table again. The worse case we take a break from this campaign and play something else.

In the end we are still friends and the good times have far outweighed the bad times.

 

[S'mon]

I am not going to throw away 16 years of fun times over this.

I didn't say that. It seems like you can handle those men with DMing, but your female friend can't. It seems to me that their behaviour is consistently atrocious (not just here, all those other threads you've started about them!) and you should be doing something different together. Boardgames maybe.

 

[Elf Witch]

Pretty obvious: The medieval nobles' Dark Age ancestors came to power by being better than anyone else at Killing People and Taking Their Stuff. In a typically violent medieval society the nobles probably are still routinely killing each other & taking each others' stuff, ergo the ones that aren't very good at that routinely get winnowed out. Ergo the survivors will on average have much better stats, classes, and levels than the serfs - who mostly count as 'stuff'.

Of course many FRPG 'medieval' settings seem to have much lower levels of inter-nobility violent conflict than was the medieval norm. A setting like Greyhawk more closely resembles late-16th or 17th century Europe, with powerful (albeit sparsely populated) and centralised States under firm Royal control. In such societies the Kill/Get Stuff abilities of the nobility may indeed atrophy.

In a fantasy setting like this one there are always threats lurking out there. Hungry dragons. evil cults with the power to unleash real demons and devils on the world. It is very hard to compare those threats with what went on in our past.

Nobles who are to weak to hold on to their lands in the face of these dangers get taken out and replaced with someone who can.

While history can be a great place to draw some ideas from it cannot really mirror a world where magic is real.

You can argue real world stuff like why there should be gender caps because here on Earth the strongest woman will never be as strong as the strongest man. But who is to say that in the fantasy world that the god who created humans didn't make them equally able to be strong.

I have a Ancient Greek setting I am working on basically a Xena meets DnD. More fantasy them historical the amazons in my game have been goddess touched and they are stronger than the average woman and are equal to the strongest man.

 

[Elf Witch]

I didn't say that. It seems like you can handle those men with DMing, but your female friend can't. It seems to me that their behaviour is consistently atrocious (not just here, all those other threads you've started about them!) and you should be doing something different together. Boardgames maybe.

I do think part of the problem is the DM this is only her second time DMing and the other times was for my son and his friends and it was basically just running them through some modules.

She is being very creative but she has trouble I think dealing with issues when people start coming on to strong with her. She tends to shut down. Also she hates to ever hurt anyone feelings so she has trouble telling them look you are out of line here.

Part of me does not want to see this campaign end I would like to finish playing it also since the one guy can't DM to save his life and the other is to busy it means I don't get to play and I am to busy with my other game to run two games.

Our gaming group has had a lot of people leaving in the last few years. The economy is really bad here in South Florida and so five of our group have moved elsewhere and it is hard to find players.

I am also kind of picky I don't want to play in a game with seven or more players or one that is basically nothing more than a beer and pretzel style game. I also do not want to play with a group who gets bored easily and starts a new campaign every few months.

 

[S'mon]

I do think part of the problem is the DM this is only her second time DMing and the other times was for my son and his friends and it was basically just running them through some modules.

She is being very creative but she has trouble I think dealing with issues when people start coming on to strong with her. She tends to shut down. Also she hates to ever hurt anyone feelings so she has trouble telling them look you are out of line here.

Part of me does not want to see this campaign end I would like to finish playing it also since the one guy can't DM to save his life and the other is to busy it means I don't get to play and I am to busy with my other game to run two games.

Our gaming group has had a lot of people leaving in the last few years. The economy is really bad here in South Florida and so five of our group have moved elsewhere and it is hard to find players.

I am also kind of picky I don't want to play in a game with seven or more players or one that is basically nothing more than a beer and pretzel style game. I also do not want to play with a group who gets bored easily and starts a new campaign every few months.

I think your GM should continue to GM, but she needs to be GMing for people who appreciate her style and aren't constantly trying to undermine her. It's easier to GM if you have an assertive personality, but that's not necessary as long as your players are supportive. Several of hers clearly are not.

Personally, I have GM'd solo campaigns before and they have gone very well. If there are no other compatible players available, then I'd suggest that she GM just for you.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Well I've said it before I say it again.
I prefer my pseudo-medieval fantasy to be staunchly chauvinistic, murderously homophobic, gleefully pro-death penalty, fanatically anti-abortion, brutally prisoner-mistreating... and the age of consent is 12, at best.

For me, this is not about reveling in the dark side of humanity. This is merely about the fact that these things go with the spirit of Middle Ages. I'm not playing in the 21th century with swords. I understand that people only want nice things and ugly things are pretty depressing and so on, but everybody has their own comfort-zone. Some people draw the line in the imaginary hanging a 12-girl who had an abortion in secret and some people draw the line in modern western society with swords and magic.

No one is right, really. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think your GM should continue to GM, but she needs to be GMing for people who appreciate her style and aren't constantly trying to undermine her. It's easier to GM if you have an assertive personality, but that's not necessary as long as your players are supportive. Several of hers clearly are not.

Personally, I have GM'd solo campaigns before and they have gone very well. If there are no other compatible players available, then I'd suggest that she GM just for you.

She was joking last night that she wanted to trade my table for hers. But then she said I wouldn't be able to play in your game and that would suck and I think the others would lynch me.

I will bring up the idea of a solo game I have never played in one. We do live together so maybe it is an avenue worth exploring. I don't think we could finish the adventure path easily Age of Worms is a tough one. But maybe a more urban setting one might work.

I feel kind of bad for the other two players if this happens. They can't play in my game because of scheduling conflicts and since they both have weird schedules it is hard for them to find another game. Which is why we have not looked for more players because we don't have set schedules.

 

[S'mon]

I will bring up the idea of a solo game I have never played in one. We do live together so maybe it is an avenue worth exploring. I don't think we could finish the adventure path easily Age of Worms is a tough one. But maybe a more urban setting one might work.

I'd recommend an urban, character-heavy game with lots of intrigue and setting-exploration, yup. Definitely not a typical meatgrinder Adventure Path, though Paizo's Council of Thieves has some elements that might be useable, if you started solo PC at 5th level instead of 1st. In general I'd recommend using homebrewed material and a very open style - GM creates NPCs with plots and motivations, PC interacts with them and you find out what happens together.

Anyway I think it's definitely at least worth trying out, even as a side campaign or mini-campaign. Experience GMing in a more supportive environment should greatly enhance your DM's confidence and may even help her to deal more effectively with those less-supportive players.