Fantasy morality...

[Hedgemage]

I play a human CG 'barbarian' who sees races in terms of 'men' and 'not men'. Elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, humans, these races he thinks of as men, but everything else is 'not men' and therefore not really worthy of the kind of sympathy, charity, empathy, or morality worthy of 'men'.

He essentially views all non-PC races as animals. Acutally, he views them as less than animals, because in his animistic religious beliefs he sees animals as having a place in the natural order, where 'not men' have no place. So, since they are outside the natural order, he has no problems killing and robbing them.

 

[Umbran]

The human species has NEVER had a non-human source of competition for resources.

Which fails to be a strong argument. we compete withou ourselves just as violently as we would with people of another taxonomic species.

It was only very recently (in terms of human history) that we learned that the different races of homo sapiens were all one species. We find differences in skin color, culture, or religion sufficient enough excuse to call something "not us". Our history is built upon one group treating another group as if it were other (and less) than human.

So, in effect, we have had non-human competition. As soon as someone starts competing, we tend to decide they are not human, and can be killed with impunity.

The pont is that morality is not based upon the species you are in conflict with. Morality is based upon whether they are sentient or not.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Fantasy morality...

The pont is that morality is not based upon the species you are in conflict with. Morality is based upon whether they are sentient or not.

Balors have Int 20, Wis 20 and Cha 16, and yet most good-aligned characters don't have any compunctions about killing them out of hand. If they don't run away screaming at the sight of one, that is.

In a fantasy world, it's quite possible to have races that are sentient, and yet irredeemably evil. Demons are one example of such. Whether more "mundane" servitor races like orcs and kobolds count as such is where it becomes problematic, especially if these races have features in common with the good guys -- defenseless young, noncombatants, sophisticated cultures, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Re: Fantasy morality...

In a fantasy world, it's quite possible to have races that are sentient, and yet irredeemably evil. Demons are one example of such.

Fine, minor adjustment, then - the question isn't species. The question is whether the creature has a reasonable ability to choose. In the real world, sentience is generally sufficient. In a fantasy world, it would be necessary, but perhaps not sufficient.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

However, if one is a Non-Cognitivist, then the question that anything is "Right" or "Wrong" is irrelevant--to say for example, that marching in and gathering up all the young Hobgoblins and frying them with repeated Flame Strikes is "wrong" is meaningless. One hasn't said anything meaningful with such a statement. One cannot prove that such an action is "right" or "wrong". The best that one could do is prove that such an action happening, is either "true" or "false". Moral language can thus be shown to be absolutely meaningless.

So, there! One can deluge the little screaming beasts with a terrible fire, and have one's conscience untroubled! Hmmm...that's a different take on alignment...

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[rounser]

Moral language can thus be shown to be absolutely meaningless.

Heh - well, indeed, morality is meaningless if you ascribe it with none, or lack a framework to look at it through.

It seems to me that morality requires a framework in order to have meaning. For example, I believe that my theory on a good moral compass has a name called "utilitarianism", whereby that which promotes pleasure and life is good, and that which promotes pain and death is bad. No doubt I'll be corrected on this definition, but as far as I know that is the gist of it.

The devil is in the details though. Does one's right to pleasure and life outweigh another's right to avoid pain and death? Do the rights of the individual outweigh the needs of the many? These are the sort of moral questions that get asked within that simple framework.

Given that everyone has a slightly different framework (or completely different one) and perhaps a different take on every moral dilemma, I think that morals are widely agreed upon at best, but because they are subjective can never be absolute.

 

[Umbran]

Greetings!

However, if one is a Non-Cognitivist, then the question that anything is "Right" or "Wrong" is irrelevant
[...snip...]
Hmmm...that's a different take on alignment...

I don't see how it's very different.

Most folk who ditch alignment do so on the basis of moral judgement being relative - the statement "X is wrong" being subjective, and therefore too slippery to define.

In this case, the reason would be different - a non-cognitivist would claim that there is no truth to the statement "X is wrong", even subjectively. The moral terms "right" and "wrong" effectively have no semantic content to a non-cognitivist. However, the result is the same - no alignments.

For most intents and purposes, the subjecitvist and the non-cognitive approach are pretty much indistinguishible, insofar as they have the same game results.

 

[hong]

So, there! One can deluge the little screaming beasts with a terrible fire, and have one's conscience untroubled! Hmmm...that's a different take on alignment...

Shark is channeling Sartre!!! Run for the hills!!1!!11

Hm, I didn't know you had a taste for life on the Left Bank. You wouldn't happen to have a beret in the closet, would you?

Anyway, I don't see how non-cognitivism is incompatible with alignment. As I understand it, at its most basic, the non-cognitivist approach just says that moral judgements can't be made by using facts and logic alone; ie, there is more to morality than pure reason. However, that doesn't rule out a DM (arbitrarily) naming certain acts or beliefs as "evil", and people who consistently carry out these acts or hold these beliefs as the same. I may not be able to justify my preference for apples over oranges by means of factual argument, but that doesn't negate the preference itself.

Now some games don't make a big fuss over fighting the good fight, standing up to the forces of darkness and so on, and these games have no particular need for alignment. However, that's more a question of what tone a group wants for their game, as opposed to deep-and-meaningful philosophising.

 

[David Argall]

technical points

"The human species has NEVER had a non-human source of competition for resources."

Wrong in all definitions. Cats & dogs, wolves & rats are and were non-human competition, not to mention a great many others. Even if we limit this to non-human humans, we get the same. It can be argued how we rubbed out the other humanoid species, but not that we were innocent bystanders.


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

The point here does not cut along species lines. The fully human thug with a gun counts as vermin. The completely not human dog rarely does.

"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. "

Except at a rather detailed level, the morality of Greyhawk, ancient Rome, or the current US is the same and based on the same factors.

 

[Harlock]

slightly OT humor.

So, there! One can deluge the little screaming beasts with a terrible fire, and have one's conscience untroubled!

SHARK,

I find these remarks inflammatory.

Now for my real opinion. It just seems "easy" to me to make all evil creatures irrevocably evil. I'm sure it's fine for your campaign. I'm not implying SHARK is lazy and just made this generalization to gloss over a detail. SHARK's campaign (from what I can tell from these message boards) is highly detailed and doesn't show any sign of the glossing over of said details. He in fact mentioned an enclave of good humanoids in his game. I just think if your group likes more RP and less combat oriented adventure then greying the alignment issue with good humanoids occasionally, or setting up a chance for a good group to work with and evil group toward a common goal (though the means of achieving that goal would presumably be different,) is a fun way to make your group think. It's a challenge. Not that hack and slash-burn the humanoid children isn't a perfectly acceptable campaign for many. It's the DM who decides which way the moral compass in his campaign points. I do hope if you are a DM you take your players wants into consideration. I started D&D as hack and slash when I was 8. I still like a good "kill everything and take their stuff" campaign once in a while. But, I have grown to love more thoughtful challenges. Your tatses obviously will vary. Good luck gaming, all.