Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6218662" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree, but I think that this then puts some limits around scenario design that aren't always respected. For instance, if you give the PCs the technical capacity to cure large-scale suffering, and then frame situations where large scale suffering could be averted but only via boring non-adventuring stuff (eg digging wells, innoculating against measles) you put that sort of moral code under pressure that it can't really bear.Gygax made a mistake along these lines in his DMG by framing &quot;good&quot; in terms of human rights - a notion that already is at odds with ancient morality, for instance because of its claims about universality of dignity and denial of the moral significance of status - and then giving us a game which purports to somewhat realistically model kings, serfs and the like.I think Tolkien does a better job in LotR - we have the romantic trappings of kings and peasants, but no slave markets, no economy to speak of, and hence a canvass on which we can engage with situations in terms of ancient morality without too much jarring against the expectations of contemporary morality. (Contrast REH's Conan, which is clearly written from a modernist perspective and doesn't particularly embrace ancient morality. An RPG that really approached scenarios REH style could be expected to give rise to serious moral discussion and potential disagreement among participants.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6218662, member: 42582"] I agree, but I think that this then puts some limits around scenario design that aren't always respected. For instance, if you give the PCs the technical capacity to cure large-scale suffering, and then frame situations where large scale suffering could be averted but only via boring non-adventuring stuff (eg digging wells, innoculating against measles) you put that sort of moral code under pressure that it can't really bear. Gygax made a mistake along these lines in his DMG by framing "good" in terms of human rights - a notion that already is at odds with ancient morality, for instance because of its claims about universality of dignity and denial of the moral significance of status - and then giving us a game which purports to somewhat realistically model kings, serfs and the like. I think Tolkien does a better job in LotR - we have the romantic trappings of kings and peasants, but no slave markets, no economy to speak of, and hence a canvass on which we can engage with situations in terms of ancient morality without too much jarring against the expectations of contemporary morality. (Contrast REH's Conan, which is clearly written from a modernist perspective and doesn't particularly embrace ancient morality. An RPG that really approached scenarios REH style could be expected to give rise to serious moral discussion and potential disagreement among participants.) [/QUOTE]

Verification