-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Different mannerism and morality in your campaign worlds
- Thread starter Derren
- Start date
Compassionate release of criminals is an element in many legal systems, for the US to China. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_release
It's so common in detective fiction, there's a trope for it:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetOffByTheDetective
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 examples of the "compassionate leave" I saw recently in cop shows:
1) Foyle's War. Foyle does this is often, and poignantly. I've been watching some Foyle re-runs, so these are old but good. A young fisherman is in jail as a "person of interest" in a homicide. His father says he needs him to operate his small boat. For Dunkirk. He promises he will bring him back. Foyle lets him go. The father returns with the body of the young fisherman -- killed by strafing while helping troops onto the little boat, but, as the father says, "I promised to bring him back, and bring him back I did."
2) Foyle's War. Foyle discovers that his son's wingman in the RAF is gay, and killed, possibly accidentally, possibly not so much, his girlfriend who discovered his secret and threatened to tell. The call comes in for an air raid. Foyle lets him go up in his Spitfire. He takes on German fighters head on and downs a few in a daring action, but is killed. Suicide by heroism we and Foyle know, but his son and the RAF are none the wiser.
3) Sleepy Hollow (a new show). Second episode it's revealed that the main cop was arrested for breaking into a pharmacy to steal drugs as a teen. The sheriff told her she had to choose if she wanted to be a bad person or a good person from that moment on. She said "good", so he let go with no charges. She cleaned up and grew up to become a deputy.
4) Hawaii 5-0 (current incarnation). There's a recurring gangster they've let out for various reasons. If I remember correctly, once it was to see his ex and kid, on the stipulation that he return for testify. I think he actually did so, honorably, but I may be remembering wrong.
It's so common in detective fiction, there's a trope for it:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetOffByTheDetective
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 examples of the "compassionate leave" I saw recently in cop shows:
1) Foyle's War. Foyle does this is often, and poignantly. I've been watching some Foyle re-runs, so these are old but good. A young fisherman is in jail as a "person of interest" in a homicide. His father says he needs him to operate his small boat. For Dunkirk. He promises he will bring him back. Foyle lets him go. The father returns with the body of the young fisherman -- killed by strafing while helping troops onto the little boat, but, as the father says, "I promised to bring him back, and bring him back I did."
2) Foyle's War. Foyle discovers that his son's wingman in the RAF is gay, and killed, possibly accidentally, possibly not so much, his girlfriend who discovered his secret and threatened to tell. The call comes in for an air raid. Foyle lets him go up in his Spitfire. He takes on German fighters head on and downs a few in a daring action, but is killed. Suicide by heroism we and Foyle know, but his son and the RAF are none the wiser.
3) Sleepy Hollow (a new show). Second episode it's revealed that the main cop was arrested for breaking into a pharmacy to steal drugs as a teen. The sheriff told her she had to choose if she wanted to be a bad person or a good person from that moment on. She said "good", so he let go with no charges. She cleaned up and grew up to become a deputy.
4) Hawaii 5-0 (current incarnation). There's a recurring gangster they've let out for various reasons. If I remember correctly, once it was to see his ex and kid, on the stipulation that he return for testify. I think he actually did so, honorably, but I may be remembering wrong.
Last edited:
I just don't, in most of games I run, arbitrarily decide what is good and what is evil. I determine what my NPCs think about it, players are free to decide what they think. There are consequences of choices, but no external, absolute judgement on who's right and who's wrong. Because of that, players' moral choices can matter - they are not forced to follow someone else's values.
On the other hand, if I run a game with absolute morality, I don't make it modern morality. Why should I? If we decide to play something with alignments, we want to feel they are there - so the value system of the setting should be different enough from our own.
It's even more important because moral views of particular players may differ. If setting's morality is too close, some will fit and some won't and it may easily be perceived as offensive. If setting's morality is far enough from our own, it's obvious that it's fictional and not a judgement on players.
delericho
Legend
Yep. The first thing that leapt to mind on reading this thread was the "prominent example" that Wikipedia page lists for my native Scotland. But since that is political, and still somewhat controversial, I didn't want to mention it...
Derren, he's right. Real-world politics are not generally allowed on these boards. I know you may feel it is the best recent example, but that doesn't make it something that should be used here.
So, no, he wasn't weaseling. He was playing by the local rules, and to chide him for that isn't appropriate.
Ah, a relativist argument that morality is relative in real life, and therefore must be relative in game so as not to offend the real life subjective morality of the players.
I'd argue the opposite -- morality is absolute. We're social pack animals. Every sane human being, for example, knows that killing children in a shopping mall shooting rampage is an evil act, whereas rescuing the victims of such a situation at risk to your own life is a good act. There's nothing "relative" about morality in extreme cases like that . . . I'd argue, indeed, that since morality is a constant on big issues like this, it probably is on smaller issues too.
It's what's socially acceptable is what varies -- just because a terrorist thinks killing kids in a shopping mall is OK, doesn't in any way change the fact that it's blatantly, repulsively evil to its core.
And just because somebody thinks two people of the same gender being in love is "evil", or thought slavery was OK, doesn't make either of those once upon a time "socially acceptable" views correct. Some people, perhaps most, think "seems useful to my goals" means "acceptable" and "seems icky" mean "not acceptable". But actually good people try to recognize the difference, which I'd say was always there.
Getting too close to religion and politics, I suspect, though I see more a philosophical question. But I'm pretty sure the Ancient Greeks -- who had many views that are quite different from mine, and obviously different politics and religion -- had the same view that absolutes exist. It's only post-WWII French dudes that seem to have a problem with it. But my philosophy education isn't deep, so I might be wrong.
What the heck were we talking about again? I think I got WAY off topic.
Last edited:
[MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION]: You see, I also believe that real-world morality is absolute. And I don't agree with something you listed as obvious.
I think it shows perfectly why bringing real-world morality into a game is not a good idea. If one of us ran a game and based the in-setting absolute morality on their own beliefs, the other one would probably be offended.
It's not about real-world morality being subjective. It's about not trying to force a moral system on other players.
I think it shows perfectly why bringing real-world morality into a game is not a good idea. If one of us ran a game and based the in-setting absolute morality on their own beliefs, the other one would probably be offended.
It's not about real-world morality being subjective. It's about not trying to force a moral system on other players.
Last edited:
But thats exactly what you do, even when you base the morality of the setting on "generic fantasy black & white".
delericho
Legend
Agreed. If the game is going to feature alignment at all, then there needs to be some baseline for it, whether that's the PHB, the DM's own definitions, or even something the group has thrashed out amongst themselves.
But, given that we've had millennia of trying and never managed it, it's unlikely an RPG group is going to come up with definitive and comprehensive answers. So there will always be some sort of grey areas.
Of course, the other solution is to drop alignment entirely. That rather neatly bypasses the whole issue.
Of course, the other solution is to drop alignment entirely. That rather neatly bypasses the whole issue.
Actually it does not.
Something does not need the "evil" tag to be considered evil by society, even a fictional one. And of course there will be some acts which some people (players) will consider evil and some not. Having extreme black/white situations reduces the chance that something like that comes up as for example everyone agrees that ritually sacrificing evil to summon a vampire god is evil, but you can't run such extremes forever.
Similar Threads
