D&D General D&D Assumptions Ain't What They Used To Be

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say it wasn't possible to stop PCs from doing awful things. The DM and the players can stop them easily. But if the DM and the players choose not to, there's no way to create a setting which will do it instead.

...I mean, I guess you could have a setting in which some immensely powerful psionic entity simply halted all such actions before they could be committed. Whether the presence of such an entity is more or less horrific than the absence of one is an interesting question.

Nothing exists in a fictional world unless the author puts it there. If the DM says that no NPC takes a certain action... then that action is not taken. It doesn't matter if you find that illogical, that is why fictional worlds are not the real world.

I can choose to create a world where child abuse is a thing that doesn't happen, without needing to create some entity that prevents if from happening, because I get to decide everything that happens in that world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing exists in a fictional world unless the author puts it there. If the DM says that no NPC takes a certain action... then that action is not taken. It doesn't matter if you find that illogical, that is why fictional worlds are not the real world.

I can choose to create a world where child abuse is a thing that doesn't happen, without needing to create some entity that prevents if from happening, because I get to decide everything that happens in that world.

You should say rather that it doesn't matter if you think it is illogical. That matters rather a lot to some people.

 

[MGibster]

"For the next 30 years, I will torture and belittle you, then if you have children I will spend 50 years torturing and belittling them, and then if they have children, my children will spend 50 years torturing and belittling them, and then..."

versus

"In three days we will slit your throat, rip out your heart and burn it."

Seems pretty obvious to me.

I don't find it all that useful to get into contests of which evil is more evil. I will note that in this particular case one person has a future, no matter if it's rife with hardship, while the other person has no future. If presented with a choice I'd go with slavery. There's always a chance I or my children might be free one day. There's no chance if I'm dead.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You should say rather that it doesn't matter if you think it is illogical. That matters rather a lot to some people.

You not liking it doesn't change the fact that the author of the world has decided to add or not add something. I was reading a series some years back where a corporation discovered True AI, and was using it in the stupidest way I could think of, all for the sake of the plot. I found it staggeringly dumb... and yet, I'm pretty sure that despite my finding it staggeringly dumb, if I go and get the first few books of the series again, nothing will have changed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't find it all that useful to get into contests of which evil is more evil. I will note that in this particular case one person has a future, no matter if it's rife with hardship, while the other person has no future. If presented with a choice I'd go with slavery. There's always a chance I or my children might be free one day. There's no chance if I'm dead.

I also don't tend to find it useful, but here we are with people saying "isn't this alternative more evil?!"

And while, I appreciate your optimism, I'm reminded of stories of people taking their own lives, and the lives of their children, seeing it as the only way out of slavery. You are free to make your choice to what you believe gives you more hope. We know that many people made that same choice. And that others did not.

Also, it may bear keeping in mind that usually human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism are misrepresented in media. For example, the Aztecs famously had human sacrifices, but if you look into the records we have it seems like their religion stated that the blood of sacrificed fueled their god to allow him to battle 24/7 against the moon and her sisters, to protect the earth from total annihilation. A sentiment like:

could very easily have been at play within their culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You not liking it doesn't change the fact that the author of the world has decided to add or not add something. I was reading a series some years back where a corporation discovered True AI, and was using it in the stupidest way I could think of, all for the sake of the plot. I found it staggeringly dumb... and yet, I'm pretty sure that despite my finding it staggeringly dumb, if I go and get the first few books of the series again, nothing will have changed.

I don't understand what you're getting at. The books are still the books?

All I'm saying is, IMO bad things like slavery, murder, etc are sad but logical outcomes of societies built by humans and psychologically human-like beings, and would likely exists in such worlds, even if I'm not throwing them in my player's faces in play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I also don't tend to find it useful, but here we are with people saying "isn't this alternative more evil?!"

And while, I appreciate your optimism, I'm reminded of stories of people taking their own lives, and the lives of their children, seeing it as the only way out of slavery. You are free to make your choice to what you believe gives you more hope. We know that many people made that same choice. And that others did not.

Also, it may bear keeping in mind that usually human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism are misrepresented in media. For example, the Aztecs famously had human sacrifices, but if you look into the records we have it seems like their religion stated that the blood of sacrificed fueled their god to allow him to battle 24/7 against the moon and her sisters, to protect the earth from total annihilation. A sentiment like:
View attachment 370335

could very easily have been at play within their culture.

That doesn't necessarily mean that those sacrificed were ok with it.

 

[MGibster]

Also, it may bear keeping in mind that usually human sacrifice and ritualistic cannibalism are misrepresented in media. For example, the Aztecs famously had human sacrifices, but if you look into the records we have it seems like their religion stated that the blood of sacrificed fueled their god to allow him to battle 24/7 against the moon and her sisters, to protect the earth from total annihilation. A sentiment like:

This is the first time I've seen someone offer a defense for the cultural practice of forcing neighbors to send them human sacrificial victims to be cannibalized. Those poor, misunderstood Aztecs. I look forward to hearing similar defenses for the witch-hunts in early modern Europe. Europeans were simply afraid of the harmful magic from a cadre of devil worshipers bent on destroying Christendom. It was just part of their culture.

Did anyone else have a defense of murderous cannibalism on their bingo card today?

 

[TwoSix]

You should say rather that it doesn't matter if you think it is illogical. That matters rather a lot to some people.

Yea, I have to agree. Like, I’m not going to add “Child abuser” to a random NPC personality chart. Or even do an encounter predicated on that issue.

But I wouldn’t say “child abuse never happens in this world” without some worldbuilding rationalization. Whether that be a godly edict or simply a strong cultural taboo, but there needs to be something.

 

[Dausuul]

Nothing exists in a fictional world unless the author puts it there. If the DM says that no NPC takes a certain action... then that action is not taken. It doesn't matter if you find that illogical, that is why fictional worlds are not the real world.

What does this have to do with what I posted? I'm not talking about what NPCs do, and I already agreed that the DM can shut such things down.

This whole tangent started when somebody asked what if, in a world where slavery exists, the PCs decide to become slavers? My response was: The same thing that happens if, in a world where slavery doesn't exist, the PCs decide to become slavers. Either the DM and the players choose to go down that road, or they don't. The content of the published setting doesn't dictate their choices either way.