When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Elf Witch]

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?

I cannot tell you how much I disagree with this. As a DM I make a world and I decide how things work in the that world. I can and do accept suggestions from the players but in the end as DM I have finally authority on how the laws, customs and NPCs work.

Players who agree to play in the DMs game should at least be willing to accept that this how things work. They don't have to have a character who agrees that this is how things should be, but they shouldn't challenge and tell the DM no you are wrong a cleric and Knight of the Rose would not do this especially if you are not the one playing the cleric Knight of the Rose. Basically you are trying to tell the DM how to run their world and the other player how to play their character that is such hubris.

To take a real world example you may feel that paying taxes is wrong that the federal government has no constitutional right to take those taxes. Now you can do several things you can try and change the law. You can refuse to pay your taxes. You can cheat and try and keep as much of your taxes from the government as possible. The last two can carry some heavy duty consequences. Maybe going to jail is something you are willing to do for your beliefs. But to expect the federal government not to punish you just because you don't like a law is just silly.

It is the same in a game setting the DM sets up how things work and the players make character who choose how to react to that setting. If your character does not agree on how something should be then he needs to decide how he is going to play it. Is he going to try and be a force for change or is he going to be sneaky and find away around it.

In game there are consequences to a PCs actions both good and bad that is part of playing the game. The game may revolve around the PCs but they should get special status just because they are PCs.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

At the start of the game the DM gave handouts on how things worked. She talked about how nobility worked, how the King of the land rules by divine right. She talked about how in her game if you serve an evil god you can't be one step removed on the evil axis to neutral. That by using the god's fell power you are tainting your soul with evil.

The evil churches are not tolerated and do not practice in the open and that the law is very harsh with followers of evil gods that getting caught in the service of one is a death sentence. The Knights of the Rose were crated to stomp out these evil churches and had a full authority to act as judge, jury and executioner. They act in the King's name and have a lot of leeway on that. If they can they are encouraged to bring the evil doers to the city for public execution to reinforce the seriousness of the crime but they are to use their best judgement and if that judgement is that it is better to deal with the evil clerics right then and there they have the support of the King and all the good churches.

Everyone agreed to this at the table. Now when it came up at the table it was obvious some didn't agree. The DM told them look if you want to play your characters differently and you feel that the Knights have to much power that is fine I am not going to tell you that you are playing your character wrong. But don't tell me that I am DMing my game wrong by not penalizing the cleric and making him have to atone.

There is a big difference between characters disagreeing and players disagreeing with the DM. It is one thing for Airn to say to Tristran I think what you did was cold blooded murder. I don't know if I can respect you your god or your king. It is another for Sean to say to Linda ,Mark broke his alignment and he needs to be penalized. And then when Linda pulls out the hand out and shows Sean the part about evil clerics and Knights of the Rose and he still says well I don't agree.

 

[Elf Witch]

T
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.

That is not true. We all agreed to play in this campaign and the DM has not once done anything different than what she said she was going to do from the start of the campaign.

We all agreed we wanted to play in game that was more than just dungeon crawls and looting for the sake of looting. We wanted a meaty campaign with an epic feel.

And the DM has never once dictated how we should play our characters.

 

[GSHamster]

Players who agree to play in the DMs game should at least be willing to accept that this how things work.

As the great American philosopher Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra once said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

In theory, you're right. The players agreed to the DM's world, and the DM's rules, and they should abide by that.

But in practice, it's hard to get a lot of people to act outside their own traditional morality or preconceptions. A DM that fails to recognize this is heading for a broken game.

 

[Elf Witch]

As the great American philosopher Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra once said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

In theory, you're right. The players agreed to the DM's world, and the DM's rules, and they should abide by that.

But in practice, it's hard to get a lot of people to act outside their own traditional morality or preconceptions. A DM that fails to recognize this is heading for a broken game.

And players who refuse to give the DM a break are heading to a game with no DM.

So many players treat the DM like they are some kind of freaking servant and they are not they deserve to enjoy the game too.

To me this is the issue if you as a player agree to play in a DMs game then you should be willing to accept how the DM runs it if you don't like it you can talk to the DM and if you still don't like you can either accept it or leave or offer to run a game.

Again here is what I think some of you are not getting. The DM is not telling these people how to play their characters if they want to play a character with modern ethics fine. But that does not mean that society as a whole are going to agree with you and you are going to have to accept that or try role playing to change their minds.

Say Airn really hates what Tristran did with the evil clerics he has a choice he can have it out with the other character, he can try and kick that character out of the party or he can choose to leave the party. He can try and complain to the King or the church authority, but if he does that and expects to have any kind of change he better have more going into it than killing prisoners is wrong.

He needs to have a compelling reason for the church and the King to see what Tristran did as wrong.

It could be an actually cool role playing moment for Sean's character Airn. Of course Tristran can get up there and defend his actions.

Stuff like this can be role playing gold.

But what is not fun is a player taking it out of game and demanding that the DM change how the setting works because he does not agree that a good society would be run this way.

Player disagreeing with DM over ethics in campaign world is bad.

Characters disagreeing with other characters both PCs and NPCs over ethics in campaign world good.

 

[malcolypse]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]: I'm starting to get the feeling that most of the dissenters are trolling you, or are too stubborn to accept that you're making all the sense in the world.

If the players read the handout, and they agreed to the setting at the beginning (which is implicit in their partaking of the game), then they need to either accept the setting or find a new game.

It shouldn't be about risking friendship to get them out, but if they're not mature enough to participate as previously agreed or back out amiably then you may need to show them the door.

It sounds like even though she's new to DMing, your friend is running a well developed world very well, and the only problem is that not everyone is grownup enough to take part in a friendly and meaningful way. If your friend is as non-confrontational as you say, it may fall on your head to shoo the offending players off. Don't let them ruin her experience, she sounds like she could easily be a great DM.

Also, I want to set a troll trap. Place your bets now as to what idiot will start screaming that taxes and slavery are completely incomparable instead of just recognizing the analogy for what it is.

 

[Daztur]

But what is not fun is a player taking it out of game and demanding that the DM change how the setting works because he does not agree that a good society would be run this way.

I think that this is the real crux of it. If it's a fantasy setting then the player can't really argue with the DM about what's in the world without looking like idiots (unless there are internal inconsistencies) but "this society works like this" comes across quite differently than "this society works like this and it is good" since what is "good" and is something that a lot of people don't see the DM having authority over since what is good is good no matter what the society is from their point of view (hence ten gazillion alignment arguments).

What the DM should do is make it clearer what "good" means in the context of the campaign or nix it from character sheets and replace it with "worshiper of X god" or whatnot.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

A PC should not just offer a prisoner a deal especially if they are evil clerics who just murdered a half dozen clerics of your party member's god. Way to support the party member who heals your injuries and has your back. I would at least think that you would discuss it with him first.

Why should the rest of the party be held to that agreement if the party member offering the deal does not have the legal authority of the land to offer it or even had party consensus.

If you choose to do things like this in character fine but you have to be willing to accept that the other characters may not agree and get angry over it. And as long as it stays in character that is fine. When it spreads out of game then it is not fine.

As for mind bending the guards it depends are you in initiative and are a lot of other things going on at the same time, and the DM is pretty strict on how much you can say as a free action on your turn. You have a choice as the player cast a spell and say some thing like 'there is something wrong about this" or take your turn to talk and explain it and not take an action. Maybe I chose the wrong course of action. But at the time I was worried because the ruffians had stolen my pack which held most of my magic items, my wands and my scrolls as well as sensitive information that could cost me my life, and they were getting away.

The other side of this is how about the other party members who are confused ask hey why did you do that instead of just throwing up their arms and saying they walk away.

I absolutely agree that the DM needs to explain how things work and help the players design characters that fit into the world.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think that this is the real crux of it. If it's a fantasy setting then the player can't really argue with the DM about what's in the world without looking like idiots (unless there are internal inconsistencies) but "this society works like this" comes across quite differently than "this society works like this and it is good" since what is "good" and is something that a lot of people don't see the DM having authority over since what is good is good no matter what the society is from their point of view (hence ten gazillion alignment arguments).

What the DM should do is make it clearer what "good" means in the context of the campaign or nix it from character sheets and replace it with "worshiper of X god" or whatnot.

Here is the thing about alignments unless the DM is going crazy and saying killing children to use their blood to summon demons is a good society then I do think how alignment works in the game is up to the DM. That they can define how lawful good or evil works in their setting.

For example say a tribe has the practice of putting sickly and deformed newborns out in the cold over night. If they live through it they are taken into the tribe as a sign that this baby is touched by the gods. Now to modern ideas that is repellent we use every medical procedure we have to save sick and handicapped newborns in our society. So we as modern people might say this is an evil society.

But in the fantasy world the DM says this is a good society that the members on the whole are honorable and trustworthy. There could be a lot of reasons they do this one being they don't have the resources to care for a sickly or deformed baby who may not survive. Or may they feel it is kinder to the mother to have it over and done with but still want to give the baby a chance.

There are a lot of issues that our modern beliefs tell us are evil but that might not be true for a fantasy setting with different resources. The idea of slavery or indentured servants is viewed as evil now a days but in a society that does not have the resources to lock up and keep criminals it might be the solution for handling crime.

In modern views killing believers of other faiths is consider being intolerant and evil but to a fantasy society who have lived through Luz opening a gate with his fellow evil clerics and unleashing demons and hordes of undead that nearly brought the society to their knees outlawing and killing these powerful clerics on sight may be a good and responsible thing to do.

 

[Daztur]

Here is the thing about alignments unless the DM is going crazy and saying killing children to use their blood to summon demons is a good society then I do think how alignment works in the game is up to the DM. That they can define how lawful good or evil works in their setting.

For example say a tribe has the practice of putting sickly and deformed newborns out in the cold over night. If they live through it they are taken into the tribe as a sign that this baby is touched by the gods. Now to modern ideas that is repellent we use every medical procedure we have to save sick and handicapped newborns in our society. So we as modern people might say this is an evil society.

But in the fantasy world the DM says this is a good society that the members on the whole are honorable and trustworthy. There could be a lot of reasons they do this one being they don't have the resources to care for a sickly or deformed baby who may not survive. Or may they feel it is kinder to the mother to have it over and done with but still want to give the baby a chance.

There are a lot of issues that our modern beliefs tell us are evil but that might not be true for a fantasy setting with different resources. The idea of slavery or indentured servants is viewed as evil now a days but in a society that does not have the resources to lock up and keep criminals it might be the solution for handling crime.

In modern views killing believers of other faiths is consider being intolerant and evil but to a fantasy society who have lived through Luz opening a gate with his fellow evil clerics and unleashing demons and hordes of undead that nearly brought the society to their knees outlawing and killing these powerful clerics on sight may be a good and responsible thing to do.

Oh, I agree, but it just puts a hurdle in front of the players since the DM can define "the Teachings of the Great God Poobah" as anything they want, but it's harder for the DM to define "good" as anything they want without getting some player push back. I'd have no problem with what the DM is doing personally, but I think that saying "in this society X is good" is a harder sell than "in this society people usually do X" since a lot of people have a hard time accepting "good" having a different meaning in different times and places.