Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5752070" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yes.  And if you don't, that in my opinion is when you are in the risk of running an evil campaign.  IMO, exploration of a world in which there are no moral consquences is more likely to lead to deviant behavior by the players (in proxy) than one which has serious adult themes.  That's really up to the players.  Frankly, I consider this world to be one of chaos, danger, and innately evil creatures (namely, humans).  So the question becomes, to what extent is something like the standards of the Geneva Convention, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct, or the Laws of Land Warfare an absolute moral standard?  And if you consider an absolute standard, are you willing to accept the consequences of that?No.Yes.  I don't believe that there are many moral considerations that are unique to RPGs, but I do believe that this is one of them.  I don't believe that there are many things that are 'badwrongfun'.   But,  I honestly believe that running the game in such a way that it celebrates violence, sexual violence, murder, theft, greed, and so forth as consequence free, easy, completely rewarding choices, is immoral badwrong fun.  (I don't intend to debate that point, so if that stance outrages you, I probably won't respond to your venting so consider that before doing so.)I won't get in the face of a player that chooses to play in that way (intentionally or without thought), nor will I metagame against him, but I believe that a game should have natural consequences to actions.  If there is a conflict between a village of humans and a neighboring tribe of non-humans, you can bet that I'm not going to sugarcoat the acts that tribal warfare involves.  Tribal warfare is almost inherently genocidal in nature, and if you take it up as a cause, don't be surprised if you are drawn into that.  I don't believe and firmly reject that everything is a shade of gray, but just because I reject that doesn't mean that I believes its always easy to see your way amongst the moral morass of an injust world.As related to the above, I found it pretty much impossible to finish Assassin's Creed II (my first introduction to the series), because after a while I couldn't take the incescent murder that the game rewards you for engaging in and largely pushes you toward.   It's not merely that the protagonist is a typical murderer protagonist vaguely justified by the fact that he's been wronged and requires vengence, but I just couldn't take graphicly killing the endless mooks who set upon you at the slightest notice or the game play which rewards you with less tedium if you just kill anyone who gets in your way.  I started feeling really dirty after a while, and so far as I could tell, this wasn't an issue that the developers were actively trying to make you dwell on.  At some point, I lost track of whether the protagonist was really any better than the murderous thugs he was killing, lost empathy with the story line, and developed an aversion to the game play.  I guess to that extent, I could say it was morally successful, but I'm not sure my experience is typical.Suffice to say that if I was running an RPG and the PC was murdering scores or hundreds of innocent soldiers, beat cops, and rent-a-cops (I hate the phrase, "innocent civilians" when its used to imply soldiers are not), that those actions wouldn't be forgiven by the larger society just because you ripped down a few wanted posters.  This is true regardless of whether the PC wants to explore the world from the perspective of evil or good.  Evil and good in my game aren't merely hats the two teams wear to identify who they can murder freely and take their stuff.</blockquote>

Verification