Fantasy morality...

[Limper]

Just to make a point....

The human species has NEVER had a non-human source of competition for resources. We have no absolute manifestations of gods, of good or evil. Even given this we have frequntly found it absolutely fine to kill others. If we did have a competing species which was not human... I'd guess we eliminated them aeons ago.

Its most reasonable for Player's to kill the vermin species with impunity. It's not evil... knits make lice.

I know its hard to do but the morality of OUR century and religions... is NOT a guideline fo the morality of lets say... Greyhawk. Good and Evil as concepts have different meanings in other times in history, and we should all keep this in mind.

But for those who have a problem player.... this little commentary will have little use.

 

[Darraketh]

Neanderthal?

 

[Limper]

Neanderthal.... Doh! I would imagine they fell into the... eliminated category. Was it evil? No. Was it imperitive to the well fare of our species? Probably.

 

[Harlock]

Well as to your assumption that good and evil are viewed differently in Greyhawk, I point you to page 88 of the PHB. Greyhawk is the default setting so you can be reasonably safe to say good and evil are fairly similar to our morals in that regard. As to whether or not we had competing species I say that history is written by the victor. What little we know about species similar to our own is from fossil records mostly, especially since it was prehistoric. Who knows what may have roamed our earth once upon a time.

 

[hong]

Neanderthal.... Doh! I would imagine they fell into the... eliminated category. Was it evil? No. Was it imperitive to the well fare of our species? Probably.

Expedience has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Bonedagger]

Just to make a point....

The human species has NEVER had a non-human source of competition for resources. We have no absolute manifestations of gods, of good or evil. Even given this we have frequntly found it absolutely fine to kill others. If we did have a competing species which was not human... I'd guess we eliminated them aeons ago.

Its most reasonable for Player's to kill the vermin species with impunity. It's not evil... knits make lice.

I know its hard to do but the morality of OUR century and religions... is NOT a guideline fo the morality of lets say... Greyhawk. Good and Evil as concepts have different meanings in other times in history, and we should all keep this in mind.

But for those who have a problem player.... this little commentary will have little use.

Doesn't the research show that humans and neaderthals lived peacefully together. And that it probably was the neaderthals reluctance to seek new locations (And thereby lesser chance to mate and learn from others) that lead to their downfall?

 

[Limper]

Morality as many are defining it (Judo-Christian/21st Century) is not the way to define it in an alternate setting than our own.

All things are defined and created by the forces and events which influence them... In a fantasy game these factors would be drasticly different than our own experiences.

You cannot define an elf killing goblin children as evil, you have to analyze it from what factors went into forming the elven stance on dealing with the goblins, the mindset and morality of earth 2002, doesn't apply.

 

[Harlock]

All right. Page 88 of the PHB. I'll summarize. Good protects innocent life. Evil does whatever it wants, Neutral "has compunctions against killing the innocent..." I would suggest this: Intent doesn't make an action good or evil The action is either good or evil (neutral in some cases.) A character may intend to do good (not well in this case although it could be well and good...) by killing humanoids. Many people have performed unspeakable acts in the name of good. To name a few, The Crusades, The Halocaust, D&D 2nd Ed. If you murder someone in the name of good (say a hobgoblin child who is cowering or wimpering in a corner) because that someone is "usually" evil isn't it still murder?

 

[Lazybones]

But I think that you have to keep contemporary morality in mind when you play; after all, the players are contemporary people and one shouldn't forget that just because one is playing a RPG. It is too easy, in my view, to justify behavior that we (i.e. "society") would consider evil with the view that it is "just a game."

Of course, some people prefer a game that is darker or grittier (see the lengthy thread on the question of "killing children"... in that case, hobgoblins), but I don't like what it does to the people playing the game when they have their characters engage in that sort of behavior, even if it is "realistic" to the setting...

To give an analogy, I like playing video games where I run around with a laser sword chopping up enemies, or using sword and spells to defeat monsters, but if the game involved me (or my "character") burning villages, killing helpless people, or torture, it would make me queasy. I know some games today let you play evil roles, but that's just not for me.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Man is evil. We hate for any reason, kill without thought, pass the hungry, leave the poor, and ignore the darkness and sickness of the mind. We hate people because of religon, race, geographical orgin, dialect, social status, height, mental capacity, hygene, weight, the way people drive. The list can go on and on. We kill out of frustration and anger and ignore the needs of others because it might impact the way we live our lives. We don't need another race to focus our hate, our hate is multi-faceted.

Not being evil takes work and a lot of it. A character playing Lawful good has to make sacrifices that many party members do not want to make. I find playing evil characters easy, so easy infact that I get bored easily and may even be a little uncomfortable with it. Slaughter for reason of race is an evil act, but mankind has always come up with reasons justifying its actions.