Limits of morality in the game?

[Rothe]

On #1, the problem would not comeup as IMC goblins are not hard-wired from birth with alignment. I frankly find the idea that you need to directly kill in cold blood goblin babies to be "good" and "just" to go against every moral teaching since recorded history. Maybe what you desccribe is a LN act but not a LG act. It is just this type of situation that lends credance to the accusations that D&D has a negative influence on young people when you hold interpret the the game mechanics as encouraging infanticide. ANd alignmet is a pure game mechanic that gets abused this way and many others. One can say it is pretend all you want, but if you spend you time pretending your killing infants, or raping, or torturing, that is by definition a bad infuence.

The better dilema is you know these goblins are probably going to grow up evil and hating you, but since they are still infants/children you have to let them live and their mothers to care for them. The local LN authorities may be angered by this choice, maybe even considering it aiding the enemy or at least fine you for the offense.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

On #1, the problem would not comeup as IMC goblins are not hard-wired from birth with alignment. I frankly find the idea that you need to directly kill in cold blood goblin babies to be "good" and "just" to go against every moral teaching since recorded history. Maybe what you desccribe is a LN act but not a LG act. It is just this type of situation that lends credance to the accusations that D&D has a negative influence on young people when you hold interpret the the game mechanics as encouraging infanticide. ANd alignmet is a pure game mechanic that gets abused this way and many others. One can say it is pretend all you want, but if you spend you time pretending your killing infants, or raping, or torturing, that is by definition a bad infuence.

The better dilema is you know these goblins are probably going to grow up evil and hating you, but since they are still infants/children you have to let them live and their mothers to care for them. The local LN authorities may be angered by this choice, maybe even considering it aiding the enemy or at least fine you for the offense.

QFT.

I'll just add this, I already live in a morally grey world. I get to see people make morally questionable actions everyday in the news. When I play D&D I like the idea that there are things that are defined as "good" and "evil".

 

[hopeless]

This is a thread about the differences in morals and norms between our real world and the game world. Namely, what should be done about differences between them. How should we as DMs and players handle these sorts of things?

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.

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.

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.

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 will say that I rather resent the political correctness that seems to be creeping into game products lately, and in a way these changes would be my reaction against them, although of course I hope everyone realizes that these are not my own actual, real attitudes in such matters, and come mainly from my desire to make a more evocative and grimmer setting. 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?

Thoughts?

1) I agree that would only happen if the dm had actually told the Paladin's player previously that this was how he perceived paladins.
I played in a greyhawk campaign where the Paladin not only ordered two captives dangled over a cliff edge but had them chucked over after their comrades chucked rocks down at him. Later on he murdered a helpless prisoner who was willing to assist the group and the dm said he was right to do so because "all goblins are evil" I won't go into the rest of the stuff he did except the guy running that game decided to give it a rest for s few years as he had got everybody else riled up least of all me who was trying to get it through to them that LG didn't mean behaving like LE and I've always assumed Paladins were supposed to serve as symbols of the faith they represented NOT objects of disgust.

2) Sounds fine would work better if you added a more appropriate reason like halflings look too much like kids or the mercs are mostly recruited from folks who see womenfolk as people they should protect, dwarves well dwarves are dwarves LOTR showed a very little bit of animosity between the races even if it was very grudging

3) Unless Nyrond had conquered Aerdi I suspect they would still be at war and very likely with anyone else who despises slavery...

Closest I ever got was when I had planned to run a Kingdom of Kalamar campaign that would use a modified version of the Slave Lord series however never got to start the game as it became more a case of what the dm was going to pull and favour what players and I was often left trying to prevent another character's death only to have my acts either be ignored or countered at the dm's whim (I suppose that would be best described as a just say no dm...)

 

[edgewaters]

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 paladin is modelled on codes of chivalry (which has absolutely nothing at all to do with modern political correctness), which forbid attacking the unarmed and require the adherent to protect the weak and defenceless. A player of a paladin should never be penalized for acting in accord with those principles, at least, not in the manner you've described (there may be consequences to his actions, for which he might suffer some sort of misfortune - the goblin young mature and the females attract new males to the location, both groups intent on vengeance).

Only an evil deity would fault the Paladin for doing what he believed was right. It may be tactically unsound, it may not even be bringing the greatest good to the greatest number, but it is in accord with the principles of chivalry and the player's conscience. Paladins are not Nazi stormtroopers going around exterminating the untermenschen, at least, not in any standard conception of the archetype. If you want to invent some new sort of thing bearing the name and mechanics of the paladin, be sure to inform your players of the deviation or they're playing blind.

On the other hand, if the player wanted to slaughter the women and children, it is possible he could do so by various means. The goblins will eventually bring harm to the locals, and indeed will themselves live in suffering, so killing them would bring the greatest good to the greatest number. He might even convert them and then kill them, knowing he had (in addition) saved their souls.

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.

Entirely plausible, and well within the DMs prerogative. Does the current generation of players balk at this sort of thing? If they do, just tell them that you refuse to portray a medieval type of setting as some sort of modern egalitarian society. It is full of racism, sexism and so on. Call it a critique.

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.

See above.

 

[mmadsen]

On #1, the problem would not comeup as IMC goblins are not hard-wired from birth with alignment. I frankly find the idea that you need to directly kill in cold blood goblin babies to be "good" and "just" to go against every moral teaching since recorded history.

How about baby demons?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about baby demons?

IMC, Outsiders do not reproduce with each other, so this would never come up. YMMV.

 

[hong]

How about baby demons?

We gotta get that on a bumper sticker.

 

[Wombat]

My games are mostly about grey morality.

Moral dilemnas are my stock-in-trade for adventures.

This is why I rarely like having alignment built into a game and work very hard to dismantle it swiftly when it is there -- morality is related to action coupled with intent, not some vague words on a character sheet.

 

[mmadsen]

IMC, Outsiders do not reproduce with each other, so this would never come up. YMMV.

Let's broaden the question then: Is it good to kill young creatures that will grow up to kill good people? Is it good to kill young creatures that will very likely kill good people? Is it good to kill young creatures that will fairly likely kill good people?

 

[moritheil]

Paladins are often the source of alignment-based debates because not everyone agrees on what the archetype itself should be like. Should they be the furious avengers and enforcers of a religious organization, or quiet individuals called on a mission of grace and mercy?