When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Zelda Themelin]

My Yggsburgh game has a slightly Swiftian, 18th-19th century rather satirical take on social mores, which plays through into its depiction of Alignment and Morality. The Clerics are out of Trollope, the whores from Moll Flanders, the gentlemen are like Flashman or maybe Dickensian, and so on. There have been no Alignment arguments, the players seemed to enjoy the public hanging of the highwaymen they captured, complete with their leader Lord Ollie's Last Words - "I'd just like to say... F*** you all."

Can't exp you now, but I just say I I like that. Sounds very fun.

 

[S'mon]

I'd just like to know if you forced her to play female character, because she was female in real life.

No, of course not. I hate those DMs! Though they're usually banning male players from playing female PCs.

The player I'm thinking of did actually have a shortlived male PC prior to her druid-witch.

Edit: This was 8 years ago now. I've not had any trouble since then with female players objecting to my campaign settings, including some who've played in that same campaign world (Ea). Currently I'm running a Forgotten Realms Loudwater game which has a majority of female players, I'm running it with more or less full gender equality, the way it's depicted in the official materials.

In that FR setting, sexism tends to be a sign of Evil Alignment - whereas in the Yggsburgh setting it's 'normal' to be sexist by modern standards. That gets to something I was trying to say to pemerton earlier - the exact definitions of Alignment will vary by campaign setting, players shouldn't expect them to be universal.

 

[Desdichado]

My understanding from previous posts is that you take 4e D&D, already the least world-simulationist version of D&D, then you drift it very heavily in a dramatist/narrativist direction, so that it no longer much resembles D&D. Elf Witch's DM is running a more traditionally world-simulationist style, much closer to core D&D IME - indeed it was the dominant mode in the 2e era and well represented in both 1e and 3e.

I don't know that I'd ever have called it the dominant mode (although most of my experience with the 2e era was second-hand, since I didn't play much during that era.) Certainly I'd say that a more dramatist/narrativst direction was common enough and well-represented from the very beginning of the game all the way through to now.

Claims of "this is the right way to play D&D" aren't likely to get you very far, nor are they likely to stand up to very intense scrutiny. There's plenty of circmustantial evidence to suggest that the preferred playstyles of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax already differed quite a bit, and it only "multifurcated" into a variety of playstyles from there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know that I'd ever have called it the dominant mode (although most of my experience with the 2e era was second-hand, since I didn't play much during that era.) Certainly I'd say that a more dramatist/narrativst direction was common enough and well-represented from the very beginning of the game all the way through to now.

Claims of "this is the right way to play D&D" aren't likely to get you very far, nor are they likely to stand up to very intense scrutiny. There's plenty of circmustantial evidence to suggest that the preferred playstyles of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax already differed quite a bit, and it only "multifurcated" into a variety of playstyles from there.

I played a lot of 2E, for the entire run. 2e was a bit quirky in that the mechanics and much of the aesthetics were a bit naturlistic and had plenty of nods to realism (particularly the green book line). But there was a mentality in many of the modules and setting books that put story in the forefront. However the way we played it in my group was a lot of focus on characters and role play.

 

[S'mon]

I don't know that I'd ever have called it the dominant mode (although most of my experience with the 2e era was second-hand, since I didn't play much during that era.) Certainly I'd say that a more dramatist/narrativst direction was common enough and well-represented from the very beginning of the game all the way through to now.

Claims of "this is the right way to play D&D" aren't likely to get you very far, nor are they likely to stand up to very intense scrutiny. There's plenty of circmustantial evidence to suggest that the preferred playstyles of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax already differed quite a bit, and it only "multifurcated" into a variety of playstyles from there.

D&D certainly supports a wide range of play styles - gamist,exploratory, and silly, for instance. Just not, traditionally, pemerton's one.

 

[S'mon]

I played a lot of 2E, for the entire run. 2e was a bit quirky in that the mechanics and much of the aesthetics were a bit naturlistic and had plenty of nods to realism (particularly the green book line). But there was a mentality in many of the modules and setting books that put story in the forefront. However the way we played it in my group was a lot of focus on characters and role play.

I was just looking yesterday at the late 1e/early 2e AD&D "Dungeon Master's Design Kit", by Aaron Allston, and I was taken aback by how little it had to offer me for my current campaigns - it seemed to be all about 'story creation' in the sense of the DM's pre-written story, and I absolutely don't do that. Other stuff from that era does remain useful - Creative Campaigning, Complete Book of Villains, and the Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide (which reprints much of 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) don't assume the DM's function to be story-writing, AFAICR.

 

[Elf Witch]

Why? If I wouldn't kneel to a king, why should my character, Badass McAsskicker, kneel? It's not really one of my issues, but I can sympathize with people who want to play characters who come to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and didn't put gum on their equipment list.

At a certain point, I can see this as being a sign of a GM entitlement issue. If the GM is pushing the players around using the king as proxy, then that's a problem. A mutual understanding of where the PCs fit in the social order is important, and I think it's as important the GM be flexible as the players.

I agree that DMs should be flexible. But so should players. Again if you as a player agree to play in a game where the DM has put certain social aspects like noble expecting to be treated with a certain respect then as aplayer you should not act like a huge asshat over it when it comes up.

Its like people who are in the SCA we bow to the royalty even their empty thrones. We use the correct titles when addressing higher ups. Not doing so and being a dick about can get you kicked out of the event.

No one forces you to join the SCA and no one forces you to play at a DMs table.

 

[Desdichado]

D&D certainly supports a wide range of play styles - gamist,exploratory, and silly, for instance. Just not, traditionally, pemerton's one.

How long does something have to be done in order for it to be considered "traditional?" Unless I'm vastly misunderstanding what you mean by pemerton's playstyle, I'd say that folks have been hankering for a more narrative/dramatic take on the game that more closely resembles the fiction that brought a lot of fans to the game in the first place from the very early years.

Granted; you could argue that D&D never really supported that, which maybe is your point.

 

[Elf Witch]

If the GM builds certain sorts of moral evaluations into the gameworld - such as that extrajudicial killing is in some circumstances morally permissible - and then has players who arc up against that, I think the GM has run into a problem that was entirely forseeable. If the GM isn't prepared to feel this stuff out gently and see how it plays, and instead wants simply to run roughshod over the moral sensibilities of other participants in the game, then I don't have much sympathy if conflicts at the table are the consequence.

In this sort of game, if I started a series of violent attacks upon the slave owners, and the GM started hosing my PC as a consequence, I would be irritiated to say the least. (There are framing issues here, like compromise among players in the interests of party play and the like. I'm assuming that that sort of stuff is under control). I expect a GM to accomodate my conception of my PC and his/her exploits, and as a GM I do the same for my players. Doubly so when it comes to the moral and evaluative dimension.

I don't really feel the force of this analogy. The GM is nothing like the national government of the US or any other state. Even if I don't like the norms that the government institutionalises by way of law, I will be obliged to comply by the apparatus of enforcement and administration that the government has established. At least in a country like the US, for most people their lives are intimately enmeshed in that apparatus.

Whereas the GM is just another person sitting at the table. If I object to the norms she is trying to operationalise in the game, I can say so. And not unreasonably - I'm here to play a game. Why should I have to subordinate my moral sense to hers in order to do that?

No. I'm suggesting that, in the course of play, it has turned out that some (one?) player(s) don't like the moral situation the GM has set up in her world.



This isn't an issue of GM authority in the abstract. Nor is it, as far as I can see, about the fact that the players promised to play in the game that the GM pitched to them. As you yourself say, in the course of play it has turned out that some players don't like at least some part of that game. And not, as far as I can tell, for some frivolous reason, but for some sort of at least moderately deep evaluative reason.

Any sort of promise to enjoy the GM's game strikes me as largely non-binding, given that we're talking about a leisure activity. And doubly so when it turns out that the player can't keep the promise because of a sincere moral viewpoint.

Sure there's a difference. But any game which includes alignment mechanics is asking for this problem to arise (it's why I think alignment mechanics are, in general, unnecessary and a recipe for conflict among participants in the game). I mean, Linda is saying that she and Mark know better than Sean what is good or bad. And Sean, not unreasonably, doesn't agree. Telling Sean that he promised to obey Linda on this point two or ten or twenty weeks ago is neither here nor there - he promised to let her GM the game, but not to be an authoritative determiner of right and wrong (it's not even clear that such a promise would make sense).

Unless I'm misundertanding, though, the GM is setting parameters on how you may play your PC if you want to be counted as good. Which seems to be the issue.

It seems to me that they want the play of the game to reflect, at least in part or to some extent, their own moral conception of their PCs' actions and circumstances. It strikes me as a concern not about the status of their PCs, but about their status as participants in the game.

Yes. But that the problem might arise strikes me as highly predictable. And a GM who assumes that the problem can be resolved by pointing out to the players that they agreed to play in the game strikes me as not really understanding the core of the problem - which is that you can invite someone to entertain the idea that what they think is wrong is really right, but in the end it is hard to make them stomach it.

I think there is a fairly obvious path to a possible solution - stop making the controversial stuff the focus of play, and to the extent that the players bring it up themselves, let them sort it out while remaining neutral as GM and doing your best to steer play towards other matters. Whereas rubbing one or more players' noses in the fact that they don't like the moral set up strikes me as just a recipe for more conflict.

Sigh and I am getting a little annoyed over this. in BIG LETTERS EVERY PLAYER KNEW THIS GOING INTO THE GAME. The DM is not running roughshod over anyone. Only one player out of the six at the table had an issue that day the player who offered the clerics the deal did not it have an issue outside of the game over it. He role played out his anger with the cleric in game and it was some pretty cool role playing.

The other player who took it out of game and still brings it up three years latter is just being a dick because he enjoys debating and wants to win the debate.

I totally agree that a DM needs to be sensitive to their players moral sensibilities and if they are going to add something that might offend a player they need to let the player know ahead of time. But once they have done that the burden is on the player not the DM. If the player finds the theme of the game to morally repugnant to play in then they should leave the game not expect the DM and other players to change it just for them.

But the DM should not have to accommodate you if you do it in a stupid way. Just like the DM should not have to accommodate you if you are third level characters and decide to fight an ancient red dragon.

If you want to fight powerful slavers and you are only first level then you need to start small and be very secret. It would not make much sense that a small group of first level characters could go toe to toe with a powerful organization and expect to win if they take them on face to face.

As a player I don't want to win just because I am the PC and as a GM I won't let PCs have automatic wins like this just because they are the PCs. If you want that kind of game go play a computer game where you set the level at what you want and buy cheat codes.

I disagree with you on your idea of the GM is just another player he isn't. And if you don't like thst kind of style of play then don't play in it. We disagree on a lot for example I can't stand forge style playing or DMing.

I feel the GM has the right to set up a world and run it like she sees fit. Players have a choice of either playing or not playing. If no one wants to play the DMs game then the DM has a choice too either change the game or simply not run it. But the DM is not obligated to change their setting if they don't want to and players are not obligated to play in a game they don't like.

If I want to run a game based on King Arthur and I want all the trappings of that and the players agree hey that sounds cool we want to play and then as we get into a the game one player starts playing his character like it belongs in a Conan game. He then expects the DM to adjust how the world and NPCs react based on that not the setting that everyone agreed to is just the perfect example of player entitlement and think the DMs only purpose is to serve him what he wants.

That does not even make the DM and equal at the table it makes them a waiter.

 

[Elf Witch]

How often are these sorts of things happening in yours (and others') games?

If this sort of thing happened in my game I would regard it as a disaster.

It used to happen a lot back when we played 2E but then we were playing with younger people and still bought the myth that hack and slashers and role players can play at the same table myth. That all it takes is a DM who knows how to give all his players what they want out of a game.