Morality in your D&D - b&w or gray?

[barsoomcore]

I'm not sure I actually like playing D&D -- but if Barsoom and the other deviant homebrews that I tend to run count in this poll, then I'd say "100%" grey is pretty much where I fall.

As I see it, two personal qualities make people really dangerous -- righteousness (the belief that you have the right to dictate lifestyles etc to others) and cowardice (the belief that any action is worth taking if it reduces the risk you are exposed to). The former encourages people to go out and force others to behave in approved ways, while the latter justifies any sort of atrocity if it makes the actor feel more secure.

Obviously not everyone who possesses these traits is dangerous and in need of smiting -- but if you happen to be on the wrong side of their particular decisions, they'll seem mighty dangerous to YOU. But they still might seem justified.

Currently on Barsoom, an insane goddess is awakening from a millenia-long slumber, determined to consume the world in a firey apocalypse. But she's got a good reason -- terrible inhuman monsters are coming to enslave the entire Material Plane, and the only way she can see to stop them is to destroy it entirely (with the terrible inhuman monsters inside), and then create another plane of existence where she can rebuild humanity.

Small comfort to such of humanity as currently exists, of course, but she's NOT evil. She's just desperate, frightened and convinced of her own power. And she might be right, insane and ego-maniacal as she is.

I don't know what the right answer is for the party. I don't know what they should do -- if they should look for a better solution or help her in her struggle to create a future for humanity. But the whole thing is interesting to me mainly because it's not about Good vs Evil.

 

[diaglo]

Other. I like playing a game where Good/Evil/Law/Chaos are black and white, but it leads to a world full of shades of gray. Not a difficult combo to have at all.

ditto.

but no Good/Evil.

just Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But when playing D&D I prefer black and white. Evil is Evil, Good is Good, and most people know which is which. The Paladin crusades for the Right, and if the Gods say (via Detect Evil) that someone is smite-worthy, then you damn well smite them.

I play other systems for my shades of grey.

I agree completely.

 

[vulcan_idic]

Both systems can be fun... but in general I prefer there to be shades of gray... makes for a more interesting game.

 

[swrushing]

I mix it up and each cmpaign tends to have some very polarized casea as well as some shades of grey.

One i particularly enjoyed last game was a religious sect devoted to fighting and eliminating evil. They devoted their life to it. They were lawful neutral because while they were slavishly devoted to the fighting of evil, the extremes they would allow their methods to go kept them from being counted as "good." They could and would literally destroy a village to get their man, so to speak. (One of those means and ends sort of things.)

Now, this meant that at times they were people the PCs could drawn on for support, but it was always a risk to do so since they might go further than the PCs wanted. At other times, the PCs were drawn into conflict with them, as the PCs tried to save innocents caught in the path of the zealot juggernaut.

 

[Mystery Man]

Gray is a cop out.

Stand for something. At least in my campaigns you do.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Bit of both.

I tend to run more grey orientated, morally ambiguous type games.

But on the other hand, it's quite fun to play the ol kick in the door and slay the dragon sort of game. And running them IMHO is easier. Grey games take more effort from players as well - which is good, but can fall flat if people are tired or what not.

 

[vulcan_idic]

Gray is a cop out.

Stand for something. At least in my campaigns you do.

You can stand for something and still have grey - particularly if you stand for two things (maybe "truth" and "justice" to borrow the old "truth, justice, and the american way" bit by way of example) which 99% percent of the time complement each other perfectly... what is interesting though, is that 1% when they don't - you stand for both, but have to pick one or the other - which do you choose?

I think that's a lot more interesting than always having one obviously right thing to do and doing (or trying to do) that - "They're robbing the bank!!" "Oh, NO!! They shouldn't be doing that!!! Stop Evil-Doers!!!" That sort of thing is OK sometimes, but for me it's more interesting to have paradoxes, and times where I'm forced to choose - say between stopping the bank robbery and something exactly equal in badness when I can only do one of them. That is what forces me to think and evaluate and weigh the options... and enables me to let my character choose differently than I would... Anyway, just my thought.

 

[John Morrow]

Gray is a cop out.

Stand for something. At least in my campaigns you do.

You can get a certain amount of gray, even in a campaign with an objective black and white, due to situations that require a trade-off or contain elements of the unknown.

Allow the Evil warlord to kill one villager so that you have a better chance of saving the rest of them later? Surrender to a hostage taker so he won't kill a hostage? Allow the Evil goblin to escape in exchange for him providing you information that will help you find the captives that you've been sent in to save? Simply shoot the dark shadow lurking in the corner because you are almost certain that it's the assassin you are looking for or call out for it to identify itself and give the assassin a chance to escape? And so on.

All are gray moral areas, not because there isn't any black and white but because either each white has a black attached or there is uncertainty involved and the characters need to decide which outcome or possible outcomes are more acceptable. That leaves plenty of open room for debate and disagreement, even when the morality is pretty black and white. Black and white can get very interesting in the transition from theory to specific case.

In some ways, the second axis of Law and Chaos in D&D can tell you a bit about the trade-offs that a character will make. A Lawful character will play it by the book while a Chaotic character will make it up as they go and probably be willing to take the most risks. A Neutral character might simply use utilitarian calculus, looking at the odds for the best possible outcome. And in that, there is plenty of room for tension and debate.

That's why I'm not really seeing "black and white" or "gray" as mutally exclusive options. I think that both can co-exist side-by-side.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I generally set up worlds where there is an objective good (the natural traditional feudal familial pseudo-Confucian order, of course!), but in which the PCs and NPCs are defined not by whether they're good or bad but by what side they're fighting for.

Good (and evil) PCs and NPCs can end up fighting for the ancient kingdoms of men and orcs, the fascistic democratic dwarven empire or the constitutionally monarchial dwarven empire. They can end up standing for the ancient and decadent elvish republics, the long-forgotten empire of the giants, or the tribes of brutal, degenerated dragon-descended lizardfolk.

On a scale of good to ill, the human and orcish kingdoms and the dwarven constitutional monarchy would be the most "good," the dwarven democracy or the barbaric lizards the most "evil" - but individual champions of both sides can fall into either category. An orcish paladin and a human robber baron may clash in peacetime, even to the death, but in the face of their common foes they unite beneath a high king's banner. An elven patrician may despise the immorality and weakness of his race, but he'll still stand beside the basest blackguard to keep a draconian raid from destroying the glories of the elves of old.