When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[gamerprinter]

Yet, the most successful dissenters of the status quo, worked within the system, and only bucked small pieces, that over the years helped changed the point of view. If they bucked it wholehearted, they were usually jailed/executed. If a campaign is based on defying the system, then doing so is positive. If the real goal is to go on adventures and progressing as PCs in dangerous environments then the goal is not to buck the system. Doing so only breaks immersion and is detrimental to the overal goal of the campaign.

 

[Janx]

My only real point of disagreement, Janx, is that I do believe that there have always been folk whose morality mirrors that of the general public today. It's how society moved to this morality...few people felt that way, eventually more felt that way...

There have also always been folk who bucked the system, but yes, the majority of those did not go on to continue with their status (or in some/many cases, their lives) intact.

If there weren't people who bucked the system (we often call them heroes, even in our own history), then we wouldn't have our modern viewpoint. I'm not saying that you should allow the PCs to abolish slavery in a setting that embraces it, but I don't think you should punish the player or character for finding it abhorrant.

I do think, though, that putting players at odds, let alone their characters, is something that needs to be handled properly.

These are great points.

But I think it's one thing from the character's perspective to be living a certain way in society, and then one day, when the player takes control, he snaps and starts acting stupid in front of the king because the player doesn't share the background of his PC, and doesn't see to evolve the character to reach the same conclusions the player has.

Even Mr. All-Men-Are-Created-Equal himself didn't go around acting like a righteous dufus. Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was probably nicer to them than others. And he obviously didn't mind over-throwing a government he disagreed with. But as a PC, he didn't just wake up and decide to go kill King George. He evolved from a loyal brittish subject to one who saw the inequity of the system and started to work to change it.

I think part of the disconnect like with the "I kneel before no man" players, is seeing how to execute that as a character without being a total moron.

A character who doesn't like the current social structure still knows that you don't go acting rebellious on your first meeting with the King where he had INVITED you to meet with him.

On eating dinner with the nicest slave owner in the world, you don't go killing him and freeing his slaves in the middle of the night because slavery is wrong and people who own slaves are evil.

On capturing "evil" clerics, once a PC offers them safety for good behavior, you don't go killing them because they are evil anyway.

On suspicion that the rude guards who don't respect their betters are really impostors, you don't go mind-bending them without an explanation of your suspicions to your fellow players.

If nothing else, as a GM, if you've got different social norms setup (slavery, strong hierarchical social structure, etc), don't just write that stuff down in the player's handout. Explain to the players that the campaign has different social norms than the players and that their PCs should act as though they are familiar with it. They should be wary of making knee jerk reactions over things as players they disagree with.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Yet, the most successful dissenters of the status quo, worked within the system, and only bucked small pieces, that over the years helped changed the point of view. If they bucked it wholehearted, they were usually jailed/executed. If a campaign is based on defying the system, then doing so is positive. If the real goal is to go on adventures and progressing as PCs in dangerous environments then the goal is not to buck the system. Doing so only breaks immersion and is detrimental to the overal goal of the campaign.

These are great points.

But I think it's one thing from the character's perspective to be living a certain way in society, and then one day, when the player takes control, he snaps and starts acting stupid in front of the king because the player doesn't share the background of his PC, and doesn't see to evolve the character to reach the same conclusions the player has.

Even Mr. All-Men-Are-Created-Equal himself didn't go around acting like a righteous dufus. Thomas Jefferson had slaves. He was probably nicer to them than others. And he obviously didn't mind over-throwing a government he disagreed with. But as a PC, he didn't just wake up and decide to go kill King George. He evolved from a loyal brittish subject to one who saw the inequity of the system and started to work to change it.

I think part of the disconnect like with the "I kneel before no man" players, is seeing how to execute that as a character without being a total moron.

A character who doesn't like the current social structure still knows that you don't go acting rebellious on your first meeting with the King where he had INVITED you to meet with him.

On eating dinner with the nicest slave owner in the world, you don't go killing him and freeing his slaves in the middle of the night because slavery is wrong and people who own slaves are evil.

On capturing "evil" clerics, once a PC offers them safety for good behavior, you don't go killing them because they are evil anyway.

On suspicion that the rude guards who don't respect their betters are really impostors, you don't go mind-bending them without an explanation of your suspicions to your fellow players.

If nothing else, as a GM, if you've got different social norms setup (slavery, strong hierarchical social structure, etc), don't just write that stuff down in the player's handout. Explain to the players that the campaign has different social norms than the players and that their PCs should act as though they are familiar with it. They should be wary of making knee jerk reactions over things as players they disagree with.

I agree with both posters. My only point is that there is room for this. Some will depend on how the party functions within the setting. Often the party is just on the edge of society's structure, anyway...slipping in and out, so if a dufus dissenter has a place, it might be as a PC.

Now, if the party isn't run in a way that straddles the line between society and monster-slaying-treasure-seeker, then yes, more care should be taken.

 

[Janx]

along the lines of not antagonizing players into situations, is to not make extreme cultures (compared to modern society) be the norm and in the players face.

Killing in self-defense is OK. so when the bad guys attack you, you can kill them.

killing a prisoner is not OK. they surrendered and have to be treated according to their station.

treat others according to their station means being respectful to your superiors.

Punishment should not be severe, except for severe crimes and treatment should befit their station. Punishment must come from a lawful agent after review of the facts.

Basically, set up a social framework that has elements of "reality" and history but support adventuring and killing bad guys. But doesn't encourage cruelty and extreme justice by PCs that lead to arguments over "what made sense for my PC"

It's one thing to have some flavor, it's another to setup conditions that will lead to players arguing over morality of their actions because they believed they were acting within the setting's allowed trope.

 

[pemerton]

I think the problem with that is, to some people, that isn't role-playing.

If you are playing a historically accurate 12th century RPG, it's metagaming to bring in science and other modern concepts into the game.

I my game, my expectation is that you are protraying a fictional character who acts and believes as a person who lives in the game world, and not as yourself.

But all you're really doing here is restating the expectations that cause the conflict.

It's one thing to ask a person to pretend that s/he doesn't know that rotating coils in magnetic fields cause electrical currents. Part of playing in a fictional fantasy world is pretending that the world works differently from how it really does.

But asking someone to pretend that slavery is permissible is something different. For some (perhaps many) it may be more like asking them to pretend that a Euclidean triangle has only 150 degrees - ie asking them to pretend to believe the obviously incoherent.

There may be nothing wrong with asking, although I think everyone would acknowledge limits here. After all, the attraction of fantasy is often a romantic one - noble and honourable warriors, worthy causes, etc - and it undermines that romanticism to focus excessively on slavery, status-based poverty, etc (notice that in LotR, for example, none of these things figure very prominently). Take away the romaniticism and just leave the moral difference, and who is going to want to play (as per my purging of the Kulaks example upthread)?

Here's the classic example of this disconnect, that I bet every gamer has experienced:

New gamer has a PC of lowish level that is brought under good terms to meet the King (or some other high noble). He's told to kneel. he says "I kneel before no man." and promptly gets into a meta-game argument with the GM or his PC is executed/jailed.

If the player is running a PC that is a member of the society (not some wildling from beyond the king's realm), it is expected that he knows his place in society and the minimal expectations that one bows or kneels before the king.

Again, this seems just to be restating the problem. If the player wants to play a PC who kneels before no one, isn't that his/her prerogative?

And if the GM is setting up situations where that player's desire will cause arguments, execution and jailing, then I think the GM has probably failed. At a minimum, the GM obviously has failed to adequately accomodate the player's desire for protagonism in respect of his/her PC.

If nothing else, as a GM, if you've got different social norms setup (slavery, strong hierarchical social structure, etc), don't just write that stuff down in the player's handout. Explain to the players that the campaign has different social norms than the players and that their PCs should act as though they are familiar with it. They should be wary of making knee jerk reactions over things as players they disagree with.

I guess it's a GM's prerogative to ask his/her players to play along - and I agree that it might be helpful to do this via more than just a handout - but ultimately I don't think the players can be forced to accept as worth portraying an outlook that they strongly reject.

I do think, though, that putting players at odds, let alone their characters, is something that needs to be handled properly.

Completely agreed.

The easiest solution is not to put these moral questions at the front and centre of the game if you don't think the group can handle it, or will handle it in a different way from what you would prefer.

along the lines of not antagonizing players into situations, is to not make extreme cultures (compared to modern society) be the norm and in the players face.

<snip>

It's one thing to have some flavor, it's another to setup conditions that will lead to players arguing over morality of their actions because they believed they were acting within the setting's allowed trope.

Exactly.

 

[pemerton]

Yet, the most successful dissenters of the status quo, worked within the system, and only bucked small pieces, that over the years helped changed the point of view. If they bucked it wholehearted, they were usually jailed/executed.

This is controversial as a proposition about history, and about the success of revolutionary endeavours.

If a campaign is based on defying the system, then doing so is positive. If the real goal is to go on adventures and progressing as PCs in dangerous environments then the goal is not to buck the system. Doing so only breaks immersion and is detrimental to the overal goal of the campaign.

But the cause of the OP's issue seems to be that there is no agreement between the GM and the various players as to what the goal of the campaign is.

A GM who wants to run a "go on adventures" campaign and then puts slavery and extrajudicial execution at the centre of her game is asking for trouble. And a GM who wants a game that deals with those issues front and centre, but also wants to dictate to the players how they should have their PCs respond to them is likewise asking for trouble.

 

[gamerprinter]

This is controversial as a proposition about history, and about the success of revolutionary endeavours.

But the cause of the OP's issue seems to be that there is no agreement between the GM and the various players as to what the goal of the campaign is.

A GM who wants to run a "go on adventures" campaign and then puts slavery and extrajudicial execution at the centre of her game is asking for trouble. And a GM who wants a game that deals with those issues front and centre, but also wants to dictate to the players how they should have their PCs respond to them is likewise asking for trouble.

You're right, and if the setting/adventure is about revolution, then hey, that's the thing to do. Since the premise of the OP is not revolution, then it would be counter to a normal, kill things and take their stuff game. Slavery is in Golarian, yet most Golarian adventures aren't about revolution. So is Paizo asking for trouble, or is Golarian much more swords and sorcery, where slavery is a common trope?

Revolutions all tend to be limited short term events. History is not riddled with revolutionary events, in fact quite the opposite. It's really only late in history that it has been so.

I think a game about revolution would be incredibly fun, however, if that's not the premise of the game, acting revolutionary might just kill the campaign - it seems to be working against the OP in their game, for example.

Besides the premise of the OP's game was spelled out at the start of their campaign. There seems to be a problem, but it isn't that the problematic players don't know the goal, it's their goal seems more important than the premise set forth by the GM. They are deliberately breaking the premise. It's not that they don't know the goal, it's that they don't want to pursue the goal, following their own goals instead...

 

[pemerton]

the premise of the OP's game was spelled out at the start of their campaign. There seems to be a problem, but it isn't that the problematic players don't know the goal, it's their goal seems more important than the premise set forth by the GM. They are deliberately breaking the premise. It's not that they don't know the goal, it's that they don't want to pursue the goal, following their own goals instead...

Doesn't this just reinforce the point that the premise of a game is not the sole property of the GM? I mean, if the GM has suggested one premise, and at least some of the players have rejected that suggestion, and the game then goes ahead, in what sense is the GM's suggestion the premise for the game?

 

[Elf Witch]

If a player agrees from the start to play in a DM setting as it is described then they should make an effort to play in that setting. There is a big difference between having a character who sees the world as wrong and sets out to change it and one who refuses to even acknowledge this is how things work in the game.

Lets take the issue of slavery there is no reason why a player can't be one of the people who want to stop the practice but it is how you go about doing it in the setting. If you just go around killing slave owners and freeing salves without any kind of reasonable plan then you should expect bad things to happen to your PC.

I have played in a Kalamar game where we are members of the group the Broken Chain our goal was to stop the slave traders. Since slavery is legal in Kalamar we had to do this very carefully and very secretly. We attacked the slave traders not the slave owners.

As for killing evil clerics or any prisoner I think it really depends on the situation. If dealing with prisoners who you can trust to keep your word or if you are in a position to turn them over to a higher ranking authority then killing them is wrong.

But if you are in the wilderness a long way from a higher authority and you have a mission that requires stealth things change. In an Eberron campaign we were sneaking through occupied territory to stop some evil cultist from opening a gate. We knew that they outnumbered us and that the only chance we had was not stealth not brute force. Unfortunately a small patrol discovered us and we had to take them out quickly.

We ended up with a prisoner. We tried to convince him that the cultist he served were evil and determined to let an unspeakable evil lose on the world. We showed him our evidence but he didn't believe it. So now we were faced what to do with him let him live and try and drag him with us and hope he didn't give us away. leave him tied up which left him at the mercy of dangerous predators and again hope he didn't escape or kill him.

Of course the never kill a prisoner for any reason part of the party prevailed for a little while until the prisoner did what all prisoners should do which is to try and escape or make or screw up the plans of the enemy which was us. He tried to give us away so my character slit his throat.

I have to say that this attitude of never killing prisoners makes absolutely no sense from a tactical point of view. There are times you will be forced to do things for the greater good. I do not understand how letting evil lose to destroy the world is better than killing an evil cleric because you don't have the time to turn them into the higher authority and you can't trust them not to try and escape and stop you.

Do you really believe a dedicated cleric of Hextra is going to sit back and let you stop his god's plan? Even if he gives you his word he won't try and escape or stop your mission how can you trust it? If the situation was reversed would you as a servant to good just sit by and let the evil plan unfold or would you do everything in your power to sabotage it?

I don't believe in just killing prisoners willy nilly and I hate that kind of play but I also hate what I see as lawful stupid kind of payers. It is situational. In my roommates game the church of Hextra is an outlawed religion any one caught practicing it is put to death that is the law. The cleric of Herineous is also a Knight of the Rose they and other Knights of the Rose are tasked with dispensing the King's justice. The cleric had not only his god's wrath on his side but the King justice, he acted totally by the law of the land.

If he had turned these clerics over to say the courts they would have been executed as soon as their holy symbols were shown and they were tested by a detect evil. In her game detect evil only works on strong taint and she has ruled that if you willing serve an evil god and get your powers from that service you get tainted with the god's evil.

It is the same with person who kneels to no man. If you want to play your character like that go ahead but also realize that their might be consequences from being thrown in the stocks to the King refusing to help you and having you removed from his sight.

There is also a way to handle this with more finesse. In game I played we were brought before these powerful keepers of a human city everyone was expected to prostrate themselves in front of them. Now our I refuse to kneel before any man player was so rude about it he was thrown in the stocks in that position. The rest of us did not prostrate ourselves but we did bow our heads and go to one knee in a sign of respect.


What gets me pissy is players who are told these are the social mores of the area and they choose not to follow them but then get angry with the DM when the DM has the NPCs react to it. It is like they expect special treatment based solely on their PC status.

 

[gamerprinter]

Doesn't this just reinforce the point that the premise of a game is not the sole property of the GM? I mean, if the GM has suggested one premise, and at least some of the players have rejected that suggestion, and the game then goes ahead, in what sense is the GM's suggestion the premise for the game?

Who said it was?

If the GM so stated without agreement by the players, perhaps. I don't know the circumstances. The OP suggests that the world was described, and as far as I know agreed upon by the players involved. You're suggesting the GM just stated how the world worked without player interjection. The point is we don't know, so should we be assuming anything?

I would think, under the nature of the given premise of the OP, if the players had not agreed, they wouldn't be playing in the campaign. Apparently the campaign was going before the nature of the problem reared it's head.

This is what I gathered from reading it, but I'm not in this group, so I don't know. Had it been my campaign, had my players wanted to approach things differently, it would been made known so we can deal with it, and come to some agreement as to how to play, simple.

But in this case, only the OP knows.