When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Elf Witch]

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.

I see what you are saying. The DM really didn't say this society is good what she said was for the most part this society does tend to be lawful and the King tries to be a good and fair ruler.

The argument came up that if a King allows evil clerics to be killed then the society is an evil one or the fact that criminals are made into indentured servants and that indenture is sold then that is a form of slavery and the society is evil for allowing it.

It was very black and white thinking.

 

[gamerprinter]

Stuff.

I was defending you, however, I didn't want to say "this is what happened" to Pemerton since I wasn't there. Though I was sure that you meant what you just said. I couldn't confirm that for sure. So, thanks for more specifics.

 

[kitsune9]

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.

Oh, definitely. I had players who didn't want to give up their weapons before entering a village, attacked the constables who attempted to confiscate their weapons, then had a mob form after they killed the village constables, chase off the adventuring party out of the village, and then get mad at me that the adventure went nowhere.

I've had more than one encounter where the adventurers mouth off to every baron, duke, prince, or whatever person of authority as if they have absolute rights and freedom of speech.

 

[Elf Witch]

I was defending you, however, I didn't want to say "this is what happened" to Pemerton since I wasn't there. Though I was sure that you meant what you just said. I couldn't confirm that for sure. So, thanks for more specifics.

It is hard on the internet to really make a judgement call on something in someone else game.

I am not really trying to get as someone said white knighting here on the internet.

I brought up examples that happened in my game to try and illustrate what the topic was.

 

[Elf Witch]

Oh, definitely. I had players who didn't want to give up their weapons before entering a village, attacked the constables who attempted to confiscate their weapons, then had a mob form after they killed the village constables, chase off the adventuring party out of the village, and then get mad at me that the adventure went nowhere.

I've had more than one encounter where the adventurers mouth off to every baron, duke, prince, or whatever person of authority as if they have absolute rights and freedom of speech.

I have seen this too and it always shocks me that the player act surprised when it bites them in the butt.

What also shocks me is when they mouth off to people who they want to help them. I don't care if you think all men are created equal tell me in what world does mouthing off get you want you want. Try being rude to your boss and see if you get that raise.

In one game we had asked for an audience with the king we were told that we couldn't bring weapons in. All our research and gather info had told us that the King was viewed as an honest man who cared deeply about his people.

Some of the party refused to give up their weapons it was a disaster. They refused to let us in with weapons, we were not known and some of us were not even the same race. Then the barbarian raged and tried to force his way in. Which of course was met with resistance. The upshot was we had one dead barbarian and the some of the rest of the party on trail for trying to assassinate the King because they pulled weapons. The ones of us who had surrendered our weapons and didn't participate were arrested then escorted out of the kingdom with a death sentence on our heads if we ever came back.

The thing that I found ludicrous was the angry emails directed at the DM for allowing this to happen. They actually felt that since we were PCs we should have been treated differently and the DM should have known that asking us to give up our weapons was a bad idea.

The DM was like guys you knew this a head of time that strangers are not allowed an audience with weapons on them. Why did you think the guards were going to say it was different when you showed up. The answer was well we are the PCs we really didn't think you would make us.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think those are all player entitlement issues.

I've seen it too. Player X decides he doesn't want to 'bend the knee', 'surrender his weapon', whatever - is really a personal challenge to the GM. Will the GM dare to say no to my wants in game? If so, then the GM must be a control freak, etc., etc. This is player vs. GM thinking, having nothing really to do with the encounter at hand.

Luckily, this is fairly rare for our games, but when it happens, the players can walk out the door, as their entitlement will not be served.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think those are all player entitlement issues.

I've seen it too. Player X decides he doesn't want to 'bend the knee', 'surrender his weapon', whatever - is really a personal challenge to the GM. Will the GM dare to say no to my wants in game? If so, then the GM must be a control freak, etc., etc. This is player vs. GM thinking, having nothing really to do with the encounter at hand.

Luckily, this is fairly rare for our games, but when it happens, the players can walk out the door, as their entitlement will not be served.

I think it is a big part of it. There are players like that and then there are the players who don't get the concept that though the game revolves around the PCs the world does not.


But I also think that some players have been conditioned to think of the DM as an adversary, and that by giving into things like giving up your weapon is some kind of trap that the DM is going to spring on you.

I have played with some adversarial DMs and I don't enjoy it.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Ah remains me of this one player (great dm, very bad control issues as pc) who always started some spree of stupid evil that started about showing respect to authority (he had real life issues about that) or asked to give weapons to guards.

I kinda understand that however. If we are under-dogs in real life, it's nice to feel we are free heroes in the games. And often, might not be your experience, gm tends to play these nobles/guards as some a-holes that have chip on shoulder for pc:s. So in thoe cases conflict is really between real persons playing the game, rather than real immersion.

People tend to have image in their head how their characters are like, and they sort of want normal npc:s in game react similar way. Somehow I don't feel guards would ask arms off similar ways from dangerous looking heroes than some peasant lads having some knifes on them.

Maybe you guys who have common problem with numerous players (rather than just that one guy with over sensetive auhtorirty issues) should pay more attention how you say it. Take into account how pc:s look like and how they generally act.


And no those are not all player entitlement issues. They are great deal gm entitlement issues, where gm has decided to make some social situations hard to play for some sense of "realism" or whatever.

And sometimes those gm:s are the control freaks. I am not speaking of elf witch:s cause, but people I knew in RL certainly represented that area as well.


I think player entitlement and gm entitlement should be both served. Not always equally but so that game is fun. Because roleplaying is entertaiment hobby. We are supposed to feel good about it. It's not about historical recreating/some other such metagoal, or it can surely be if that's what people there are for.

Some people are just not meant to roleplay together. Or maybe some type of games, but some "no way": It's nothing new I've had punch of relativies no-one plays monopoly or any competetive games like that, since these people get enraged if they loose.

And then there are social mannerisms that some people just can't stand. And it's not about being negative or rude, the little things, how you speak, how you say things, how long you take to come to actual subject, facial expressions etc.

Sometimes those issues are not about game at all, but synergy between people playing.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Strongly agree. I once had a female player complain about the sexism in my medievalesque campaign world - of which there was rather little, less than in 21st century Britain I'd say, and it didn't really affect the PCs that I could see. Her own PC was a hugely powerful Witch (16th level Druid in 3e) from a female Witch-ruled society, but the local city state in the immediate campaign area was more patriarchal. All the PCs were a lot more personally powerful than almost any non-enemy NPCs, who tended to top out around 9th level. But she roped in the other female player to demand I change the setting to have complete gender equality, and was angry when I refused. I definitely felt disrespected as a GM.

 

[Elf Witch]

Strongly agree. I once had a female player complain about the sexism in my medievalesque campaign world - of which there was rather little, less than in 21st century Britain I'd say, and it didn't really affect the PCs that I could see. Her own PC was a hugely powerful Witch (16th level Druid in 3e) from a female Witch-ruled society, but the local city state in the immediate campaign area was more patriarchal. All the PCs were a lot more personally powerful than almost any non-enemy NPCs, who tended to top out around 9th level. But she roped in the other female player to demand I change the setting to have complete gender equality, and was angry when I refused. I definitely felt disrespected as a GM.

I would feel the same way. I am a pretty fair DM I try and make the game fun for my players and I will entertain reasonable requests.

But I think it would get my back up if something like that happened in my game. I am pretty angry over some of the stuff that has been said to my roommate because I feel that this has been very disrespectful to her as the DM.

There are some players out there who really feel that they have the right to make the DM present the world they want ,it is like they view the DM as some kind of servant.

DMing is a lot of work and one of the reasons I do it is because I love world building if the players want to take that away from me then I have to wonder why am I doing it.