Party Conflicts and Different Moral Agendas

[LairdRuari]

Laird Ruari ruthless???

Ruthless indeed!! Shark, Rhiannon, and I have been close friends for over fifteen years, mmadsen my friend. It is only my Vallorean characters who are ruthless and even they pale in comparison to some of Shark's NPC's!!! My Halfling Garrett Highhill and a few others are quite tolerant and quick to let bygones go. Garrett, for example, is quite the 'happy go lucky' type. Judging by your statement concerning knowing Shark personally, I am sorry I missed you and your wife when you were out here in California from back east. I only hope we can get together for a few adventures in Sharky's World next time you are out this way.

Gothmog, Valloreans are the way they are because, as Shark explains, "They have a mandate and oath to the Pantheon that they would serve them only and purge the world of all that is unholy in exchange for divine blessing and enhancement." This explains why Tethorna Valloreans are a bit more 'stout' than the rest of the humans. Shark's admitted inspiration for the Valloreans would include Tolkien's Numanoreans or the men of Gondor, the Romans, and the Norsemen of legend. Whether you view it as hippocritical or not, the Valloreans view all who do not bow or bend knee to the gods of Vallorea as lesser species...heathens, barbarians, savages. Their zeal could be akin to that of the Crusaders of our world, or the Missionaries/ Conquistadors of the Catholic expansion. Their stated mission is to bring the 'Pax Vallorea', if you will, to all of Thandor. By doing so they would be in fullfilment of their oath, and bring Civilization to the barbarous tribes of Thandor. Oh, and yes, this attitude extends to the Elves as well. In the mind of a Vallorean, if the Elves are as high and mighty as they think they are then they would be in the position of Vallorea receiving Divine blessing as the greatest of the races/ civilizations of Thandor!! Even so, most Valloreans would readily admit that the Elves are the closest among the barbarous tribes to attaining the refinement of Vallorea. This would explain the intermarraige of the two races by some of Vallorea's highest ranking nobility...to the raised eybrows of some of the more staunchly conservative!! Until next time...



Ruari

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Laird Ruari ruthless???

Shark's admitted inspiration for the Valloreans would include Tolkien's Numanoreans or the men of Gondor, the Romans, and the Norsemen of legend.

We'll leave Hitler's Aryans off the list...

Whether you view it as hippocritical or not, the Valloreans view all who do not bow or bend knee to the gods of Vallorea as lesser species...heathens, barbarians, savages. Their zeal could be akin to that of the Crusaders of our world, or the Missionaries/ Conquistadors of the Catholic expansion. Their stated mission is to bring the 'Pax Vallorea', if you will, to all of Thandor. By doing so they would be in fullfilment of their oath, and bring Civilization to the barbarous tribes of Thandor.

While far from politically correct and not at all modern, it certainly makes for an interesting fantasy world. What happens when one group really is Good and Blessed and tasked with driving out Evil?

Oh, and yes, this attitude extends to the Elves as well. In the mind of a Vallorean, if the Elves are as high and mighty as they think they are then they would be in the position of Vallorea receiving Divine blessing as the greatest of the races/ civilizations of Thandor!! Even so, most Valloreans would readily admit that the Elves are the closest among the barbarous tribes to attaining the refinement of Vallorea.

That's not unlike the Roman view of the Greeks.

 

[LairdRuari]

Quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the "evil" creatures are in fact Evil -- think of them as baby demons -- then killing them is not sharing their outlook at all; it's eradicating Evil. They don't have the potential for good.

If the "evil" creatures aren't quite Evil, but they're largely destructive toward humans -- think of them as plague-bearing rats -- then killing them is ending a threat from something that is far more likely to cause harm than to bring some boon. Even if they may have some small potential for good, killing them is a much smarter bet for improving the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would tend to agree with you mmadsen! Rhiannon just threw a monkey wrench in that the other night with her Paladin Bronwyn though. Bronwyn is an Elven Paladin in another near epic level campaign...the same one that contains my character Garrett I mentioned in my last post. We were in a horrific battle that included Evil Cloud Giants. At the final blow, the last Cloud Giant lay bleeding mortally by Bronwyn's hand, and his Ogre squire was prostrated atop his master weeping uncontrolably. This promted Bronwyn's pity, so in exchange for his life the Giant is now in the service of Bronwyn for a year's time and he must turn from his Evil ways permanently by then or face judgement by Bronwyn. This caught Shark completely off-guard...whoda thunk it??


Ruari

 

[Pielorinho]

Interesting! I'm seeing a problem with Z's roleplaying, too -- but in the opposite direction.

If I were playing a PC who believed in the possibilty for salvation for anyone, and my travelling companion starting killing babies because they'd grow up to be evil, I would not keep travelling with him. I might try to kill him in order to save the babies, but I definitely would not fight alongside him in the future.

Intra-party conflicts are interesting and can spice up gaming. But I'd see this conflict as so divisive that I'd have trouble maintaining the party after it occurred.

It's hard to think of a more divisive issue, really, than whether to kill the babies of one's enemies.

Not that I'm condemning the Vallorean player's actions: that's good stuff, RPwise, even if I'd find the attitude odious in real life. But I wouldn't want that level of conflict IMC: I believe that characters with such a fundamental moral disagreement are unlikely to cooperate with one another, absent major metagaming.

Do y'all feel like you're metagaming when you have your characters work together, despite disagreeing over whether to slaughter the children of your enemies?

Daniel

 

[Umbran]

Do y'all feel like you're metagaming when you have your characters work together, despite disagreeing over whether to slaughter the children of your enemies?

Or, perhaps more importantly, if it is metagaming, is this an exception to the "metagaming is bad" mantra?

Everyone always says that metagame thinking is bad. But, when my buddies and I sit down to play, there is a bit of an understanding that we are all getting together to have fun. I'm not sure that an occasional compromise in character behavior to enhance fun for all is a horrible thing.

I mean, if you look at the situation - you are right in that this should be unresolvable. One thinks killing babies is wrong, the other doesn't. I don't think the first person is going to work with the second for long, unless forced to do so. I mean, would you work with a baby killer?

So, you're a bit stuck. Someone here is probably not going to have fun, in that they're going to have to lose a character. Unless, for the good of fun (your own or the other guy's) you flex what your character chooses to believe. If it's more fun to keep the slightly altered character than to lose it, or force the other guy to lose his character, then how is it bad?

 

[Pielorinho]

So, you're a bit stuck. Someone here is probably not going to have fun, in that they're going to have to lose a character. Unless, for the good of fun (your own or the other guy's) you flex what your character chooses to believe. If it's more fun to keep the slightly altered character than to lose it, or force the other guy to lose his character, then how is it bad?

Oh, I agree entirely. That's sort of my point. As I said in the overlong thread about the Chicken Druid, I think folks coming up with characters have two responsibilities:

1) Come up with a character who wants to hang out with everyone else, and who everyone else will want to hang out with; and
2) Give other people the benefit of the doubt when conflicts occur, focusing on group integrity.

Unless I knew about it beforehand, I'd consider the creation of a babykilling PC to be a violation of #1. OTOH, if I played in Shark's campaigns, I have to think I'd know about it beforehand . In which case, I'd consider the creation of a violently anti-babymonsterkilling PC to be a violation of #1.

Although the benefit of the doubt is important, I just don't see a lot of room for doubt in this area. I think the only alternative to poor roleplaying ("Well, I just saw you kill a whole bunch of children, but I'll still hang out with you, even though I consider it barbarous murder.") is to change the philosophy of one PC or the other, such that they're no longer in such fundamental opposition.

Daniel

 

[Tiefling]

You know, I was sure that Axel was played by SHARK until he said he was the DM. The black & white morality, incredible conviction, self-righteousness, desire to slay/convert heathens, and annoyingly melodramatic way of speaking all seem like concentrated essence-of-SHARK.

(Although, to be fair, all of the characters have the annoyingly melodramatic way of speaking. Perhaps the quotes aren't verbatim and SHARK's just lending them his own style as he paraphrases them.)

To echo what's been said, moral conflict is great for developing characters and lending that extra dimension of versimilitude to one's world. Although in this case, Axel's actions weren't so much good or evil as they were stupid. He should have captured the gnolls and sold them as slaves. A healty, young gnoll would fetch a good price, as gnolls are especially strong (average STR 15 by the MM). Extra cash, safety for the people the gnolls threatened, and they might even be converted to the Vallorean faith if Axel shipped them home to his native land. Of course, he may not have had the proper slaving equipment with him, in which case he can be excused this time. Chains, collars, manacles and extra rations are all essential for safe transportation of slaves, and it helps to hire a lackey to transport them back to your home base so that you can continue adventuring. Be sure to contact a professional slave auctioneer to sell the merchandise once you it gets home. Usually he'll sell it for a percentage of the profits, which he'll work out with you. If you're planning on slaving often, try to get a discount for frequent business or large shipments.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Indeed, Teifling, I may have made some of the statements by various characters somewhat more melodramatic in my paraphrase, but the gist remains accurate to what they said. After all, on occasion, characters do say some things that I simply cannot repeat *verbatim* here, as I'm sure you can imagine!

Pielorinho, Umbran, Gothmog, et. al.;

In discussions of various characters "killing babies" it can easily be inferred that such "babies" in this case, Gnoll babies--are somehow the moral equivalent of *human babies*. Indeed, some feel that there is no moral distinction whatesoever. Then again, there are many who would argue that there is a vast gulf between the two. As mmadsen pointed out, many Valloreans view such creatures as Evil--and therefore it is their moral duty to exterminate them whenever and wherever they are found.

In Vallorea, there are many, if not the majority that would subscribe to such a view, that such humanoids are not "free moral agents"--that is, truly capable of genuine moral choice and consciousness. By way of example, I will describe the following:

In the Vallorean Empire, the High Magisterium determines who and what qualify as "Free Moral Agents"--beings that are deemed capable of moral consciousness. Beings and races that are deemed as such "Free Moral Agents" are considered to qualify for whatever Laws of War that are appropriate, as well as any considerations of chivalry and other such civilized conventions.

In general, Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Urrgan, Harthak, Ogres, Treants, Sylvan creatures, all qualify and are considered moral races. In some areas of the Vallorean Empire, some Dragons, some Giants, and some Minotaurs are considered moral creatures. Everything else is generally considered evil and unnatural, and opposed to the natural order of things, and can be exterminated at will.

Of course, as Valloreans encounter some unusual races and creatures, like half-elementals for example, then in such a local area, they would be considered moral creatures as well. In such highly unusual races, it is deemed an unusual circumstance, and a specific dispensation of blessing is given for them, as an individual, or as a specific community. It depends, and can vary significantly.

With the more traditional barbaric humanoid races--specifically Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Hags, Hobgoblins, Harpies, Medusa, Giants, Dragons, Minotaurs, other monsters, and Beastmen, such creatures are not generally considered to be moral creatures, and are thus incapable of being "Free Moral Agents." The vast majority of the common population and of the leadership of the Vallorean Empire believes that these evil races are incapable of redemption, and are a blasphemy upon the earth. They are a grevious insult to the holiness of the gods, and are to be expunged at every opportunity.

In addition, historically, the Vallorean Empire has existed for some 2500 years, and for all of this time, and for the previous several thousand years as the Vallorean tribes--at that time, there were seven tribes, and all of them were barbarians then, living as hunter-gatherers and organized by Chieftains--they have been fighting huge wars against the forces of Darkness--generally the evil races mentioned above, especially Beastmen. Gnolls are considered a sub-race of Beastmen, and have opposed the Valloreans as well, for all of this time. The Valloreans have been involved in a life-and-death struggle with these hordes of evil humanoids that lurk on the frontiers, and there has been no peaceful contact or relationships, certainly not in the broader consciousness. That doesn't mean that an individual Beastman, Orc, or Troll, or even a family or two--haven't been peaceful, and they have been recieved peacefully by an individual Vallorean who has encountered them. On the whole, however, such occurances are unheard of, and unknown. The incidence of such occuring is very rare, and even when it does occur, it doesn't mean that all of Vallorea has heard of it. Even if they did, it is unlikely that anyone would believe such is possible, and would reject the notion out of hand. It wouldn't be believed. To persuade the average Vallorean of its truth would take quite some time, and lots of evidence before they would in their own minds, allow for such an unusual exception.

The Valloreans have been a people, and an empire, at war for survival, both physically and spiritually, and their world-views reflect this harsh reality.

The Elves, on the other hand, though they have certainly been involved in great wars, maintain a different world-view. The Elves have a different pantheon, a different moral world-view, and different spiritual and philosophical experiences. The Elves in general, have embraced a world-view that seeks compromise, reconciliation, and peaceful relationships, in large part due to the fact that Elves simply cannot afford the loss and casualties to always fighting wars. Thus, the Elves seek to make friends where they can, and avoid confrontation where possible. There are Lawful Elves, however, that are more in line with the Valloreans, and have their share of disagreements with Elves who hold to the aforementioned philosophy. The Elves have also had to change their ancient ways of thinking, as reality made demands upon them that could not be denied. The humans alone are a force that the Elves simply could not defeat militarily, and thus they had to learn to give way and back down whether they really liked it or not. Elves have not had the power to enforce their will entirely, and have had to seek security by other ways. These developments of over a 5000 year period have brought changes to the Elves' world-view.

Thus, it can be seen that between the two very different political, military, religious, and economic histories of the two cultures, that different moral philosophies and world-views have developed over time, and become embraced by the larger population in question.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Umbran]

Thus, it can be seen that between the two very different political, military, religious, and economic histories of the two cultures, that different moral philosophies and world-views have developed over time, and become embraced by the larger population in question.

I don't find the general existance of differing viewpoints problematic. I can easily see two different populations coming to these two different positions, and managing to work together.

It's even plausible for two individuals espousing these viewpoints to work together, so long as the matter remains theoretical. However, once the act is done, we come to a problem. One of those characters gets up every morning, comes to the campfire and sees what they think of as an unrepentant baby-killer over morning coffee. You simply won't get me to think it plausible that this person is going to be able to say, "Well, okay, he was raised different."

If it were about economics, or many forms of sexual mores, I could understand working with him. Not over murdering children. That's just not plausible. So, somebody's gotta give, there.

 

[Pielorinho]

If it were about economics, or many forms of sexual mores, I could understand working with him. Not over murdering children. That's just not plausible. So, somebody's gotta give, there.

Exactly. As I said, SHARK, I find the two different cultures interesting and plausible, and I'm sure they could make for good gaming.

But when I talk about babykilling, I'm talking about the perspective of the non-Vallorean.

It's hard to come up with a real-world analogy, so I'll skirt around that. Imagine you were in a military unit, and you killed a bunch of combatants. On entering the next cottage, you found a nursery -- and one of your comrades started putting a bullet in the children's heads, one at a time.

You might yell to stop, and your military companion might sneer and say, "These guys aren't human. They'll just grow up to be more killers. I'm saving them and us a lot of trouble." He continued, one by one, to kill these children.

Now, he might genuinely believe that they're not human. But you genuinely believe that they are human.

What do you do? Do you watch him commit an act that you sincerely believes amounts to murder? Do you stand by passively?

And what do you do the next day? Are you going to travel around with the man whom (you believe) you saw murder a roomful of children?

Not me. Babykilling is pretty much the quintessential act of the Bad Guy. When I meet someone that I believe is a babykiller, we're not going be allies.

This is different from, say, meeting someone who steals from merchants, or someone who won't help out villagers unless they scrape together a prohibitive fee-for-services. It's different from meeting someone who happily assassinates enemy leaders, or someone who refuses to accept the surrender of enemy combatants even.

I can imagine playing a character who disagrees with all these acts but believes the greater good outweighs the specific evil, and therefore will ally with a perceived unethical character.

I cannot imagine playing a character who cooperates long-term with what he perceives to be a mass-murderer of children.

Once more, I'm not judging the Vallorean's actions: I know in his society and with his beliefs, he's well-justified in his actions. I'm just speaking from the viewpoint of the elf.

Daniel