Limits of morality in the game?

[robberbaron]

1. I wouldn't have it work like that (I would have punished the paladin if he had slaughtered the gobbos) but the other two are 'reasonable' examples of fantasy/medieval discrimination.

I see nothing wrong with morally grey ideas, I AM running a game for an evil party, after all, but not at the cost of enjoyment. Fine, add stuff like that for flavour, or to provoke a reaction in the party (elf characters not allowed into a bar, starting a fight) but I wouldn't make it central to the game. Unless the whole premise of the game is rebellion against an oppressive regime, of course.

 

[S'mon]

If you were to introduce these types of gray morality into your setting, how would you handle it if one of your players protested?

I wouldn't be very happy. OTOH, having a game with GOOD and EVIL as absolutes really discourages grey morality - in fact I find it unworkable, because our own society's concept of good and evil is changing all the time. Eg since the mid '80s, cultural-Marxist dialectic derived from the Frankfurt School theorists (esp Marcuse) has institutionalised what's often called Political Correctness as mainstream morality in the USA and UK, so game products & literature published before about 1985 clearly have a different take on good & evil from those published after about 1990.
I solved this to my satisfaction by going back to OD&D Law, Neutrality and Chaos as the only three in-game Alignments, and leaving Good & Evil up to the hearts of the players & their PCs.

 

[boredgremlin]

I love grey morality. I never use anything else. If the players dont like the society and their views.... then change them. Now you have a whole campaign. Not just a simple background. How prevalent you make it is if iffy...
But most of my best games have been with friends where one person was just SOL. And evero ne else tried to save him.


Politically itz the same. My best game ever was when the the lawful evil god took out the lawful good god. But rather then playing it up he answered all the prayers of lawful good guys, The PC's had to figure out the game when they became targets of witch hunters.... I dont believe in hunters being good guys.

So ultimately realism and a little fotthought and planning make my players able to go wheever and wherever he wants.... to never ownring significant property.

good charity.


S hit me up whty our questings.

 

[S'mon]

3) The buying and trading of slaves in the kingdom of Nyrond is illegal, except when it comes to Aerdi. Aerdi soldiers taken prisoner in the Greyhawk Wars, and Aerdi civilians brought back by Nyrondese troops, have caused the slave markets to boom. Proud noble knights and wealthty young debutantes might now find themselves reduced to digging ditches or staffing brothels, with the appropriate treatment.

This seems a bit unlikely to me btw in a standard Greyhawk game, since Nyrondese and Aerdians are from the same roots, with Nyrond breaking free in a civil war. It'd be like "slavery in America is illegal - except for English slaves". The fact that there's bad blood & a grudge between 'cousin' nations doesn't change that there is still a kinship feeling. The way real people think it'd be far more likely that it was illegal to hold Oeridian slaves, but 'barbarians' - the Suel Frost/Ice/Snow barbarians, the Rovers, maybe even the Tenha - could be held as slaves.

 

[mmadsen]

This is a thread about the differences in morals and norms between our real world and the game world.

More specifically, differences in norms between (sub)urban 21st-century America (and Europe) and the quasi-medieval game world. Most of the real world wouldn't bat an eye at exterminating enemies or seeing groups of people as different in important ways. Even slavery wouldn't be an issue in much of the world.

 

[KenSeg]

Once a barbarian character of mine broke the hands of a wizard and cut out his tongue to prevent his casting spells to escape while transporting him back to face justice as the LGs wanted. Perfectly reasonable for his background. Couple of other players objected both in game and outside, saying that was extreme and such.

Now in the real world I would never do such a thing. But given the background and such of that character, it made sense.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[Raven Crowking]

Moral ambiguity is the spice of RPGs. If that's what you want to do, you should do it. However, you should do it in a way that isn't designed to screw over the players (although you can screw over the player characters). I.e., don't make women second-class citizens because there is a woman at the table, but don't hesitate to make that Kewl Powerz combo a social outcast.

Giving players something for their PCs to be pissed off about is, IMHO, a good thing. It can make for a great game....so long as it is clear that the campaign world's inhabitants and not the DM. This requires that the PCs not be the only people to find the practice abhorent. It's also good to have some people find things the PCs like to be abhorent -- gotta love the D&D Prohibition movement! Or the priest who waits for people coming out of taverns to set them on the right path. Fun stuff, that.

Of course, I agree with those who say that the paladin should know what his faith requires in so common a situation. When the player was making the decision, the DM should have told him the likely consequences.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Examples:

1) Paladin is part of an adventuring band clearing out a goblin hold. The adventurers win out and finally have the goblin women and children cornered, and the paladin persuades his companions to let them go.

The next morning, the paladin prays for his spells, and is refused them. He is informed that he has sinned by allowing the goblin women and children to live. They are not humans or halflings-goblins do not deserve the same considerations.

The player should immediately hand over his character sheet to the DM and go about rolling up a nice barbarian as a replacement. Losing paladin powers should never be a surprise to the player, and the only way to win that game is not to play. It's not a trap for the DM to spring. The issue isn't the moral status of goblins, but that the player is being punished for daring to run his own character his own way.

2) The mercenaries guild in town denies admittance to women, elves and halflings because of their perceived physical weakness. The mintworkers guild denies admittance to dwarves because of their supposed lust for precious metals. Dwarf-run taverns deny admittance to elves, humans and half-orcs. Other taverns only allow male humans on the premises. Women are not allowed to join the armed forces or hold positions in government.

If the town is going to be a major part of the campaign setting, rather than a situation the PCs are just passing through, then the players should be informed of all this before character creation.

If the town is an extraordinary circumstance the PCs are passing through (and the rest of the world isn't like that) then it makes a nice surprise and unusual difficulty for the PCs to deal with.

3) The buying and trading of slaves in the kingdom of Nyrond is illegal, except when it comes to Aerdi. Aerdi soldiers taken prisoner in the Greyhawk Wars, and Aerdi civilians brought back by Nyrondese troops, have caused the slave markets to boom. Proud noble knights and wealthty young debutantes might now find themselves reduced to digging ditches or staffing brothels, with the appropriate treatment.

I think the fact that slavery is otherwise illegal indicates that folks know it's wrong, and if the PCs choose to protest the exception of slavery for Aerdi they're not going to be viewed as totally insane. Confronting or not confronting this issue could make for some good character-defining moments.

If you were to introduce these types of gray morality into your setting, how would you handle it if one of your players protested?

Try to reach a reasonable accomodation and talk things out, of course.

Such things as racism, sexism and slavery are obviously disgusting and abhorrent in real life, but our real world is not as enlightened and forward-thinking as it should be, so why should a pseudo-medieval fantasy world be any different?

Why shouldn't it be different? It's all about what makes the more fun and interesting game.

 

[mmadsen]

I think the fact that slavery is otherwise illegal indicates that folks know it's wrong, and if the PCs choose to protest the exception of slavery for Aerdi they're not going to be viewed as totally insane.

I don't think that ordinary people in a slave-holding culture would agree. They weren't indoctrinated from birth with the universalist notion that all people are equal -- just the opposite probably. "Of course it's fine to enslave and castrate infidels, savages, etc. -- they're not like us."

 

[Wolfwood2]

I don't think that ordinary people in a slave-holding culture would agree. They weren't indoctrinated from birth with the universalist notion that all people are equal -- just the opposite probably. "Of course it's fine to enslave and castrate infidels, savages, etc. -- they're not like us."

But this isn't a "slave-holding culture". Slavery is something that has been instituted as a result of a specific conflict, and it doesn't sound like it has a long held tradition behind it.

Sure you'll get some 'ordinary people' voicing the above sentiment, but that's the opening line of an argument, not an unanswerable cultural tradition.