Player Hubris

[genshou]

I stand corrected. The moral/ethical framework is apparently consistent throughout times, cultures and belief systems!

No need to change your opinion–I'm just pointing out that it is merely that, an opinion. If we could prove that one belief on ethics was the correct one, then philosophers wouldn't be concerning themselves with it anymore.

The real question is this: Was slavery morally wrong before the Civil War? Was it wrong during the age of Rome?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I stand corrected. The moral/ethical framework is apparently consistent throughout times, cultures and belief systems!

It is, if you believe in moral objectivism. In other words, what's really, truly Good is really, truly Good, regardless of what you, America, Rome, or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri think.

Just because we haven't gotten it right yet doesn't mean we won't, in other words. (And, for some, we've already gotten it right, it's just that not everyone believes them when they say, "Here it is, and it is right.")

 

[genshou]

It is, if you believe in moral objectivism. In other words, what's really, truly Good is really, truly Good, regardless of what you, America, Rome, or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri think.

Just because we haven't gotten it right yet doesn't mean we won't, in other words. (And, for some, we've already gotten it right, it's just that not everyone believes them when they say, "Here it is, and it is right.")

Well spoken, Patryn of Elvenshae. I am an Absolutist myself, so while I don't agree with moral relativism, I don't debunk it as absolutely and without a doubt false, either. It just doesn't make any sense in my mind, which is why I am not a moral relativist.

 

[genshou]

Goblins were common trap fodder in our games, until the party got a paladin and a NG druid. Bah... them and their "you can't do this, it's wrong" statements... taking all the fun out of trap detection!

Yes, even I play morally bankrupt characters from time to time. It is a game, after all, and it's a good way to remind myself of why I'm not that way in the real world. Despite what some "D&D is evil" fanatics might believe, playing characters of lower standards than my own actually increases my spiritual strength. I suppose it's up to the players whether or not hubris occurs as a result.

 

[S'mon]

The second question is more philosophical.... Does this kind of activity, all in the name of GOOD, shine a stark light on a decaying or completely dead moral/ethical framework on those players who indulge in it?

Assuming you're using the standard D&D Alignment system it sounds like a GM not shifting PC alignments when necessary. Although arguably players shouldn't even know if their PCs shift Alignment, except for Paladins. FWIW I'd say torturing kobold for info was Neutral (would shift Paladin to Neutral) while torturing kobold for fun is Evil. Likewise using drow to set off traps (N)/laughing about it (E).

 

[BigAlzBub]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
and many, many bad one too for that matter

Actions have consequences, if a thief steals from a poor innkeeper, next time the players return to the inn they find it closed and boarded up, if they ask the discover that the innkeeper has had to place himself into indentured servitude to pay his debts.

If PCs start thinking they can do anything in the name of the "greater good", then groups will start to hunt the PCs down as evil doers. Ultimately this is how most Paladin fall from grace, they become convinced that if only they can finish their "good" works everything will be fine. Example there is a village at the mouth of a mountain pass, Orcs regularly come through the pass and raid the south lands, the village is neutral with the Orcs, they give them a tithe (food, drink, etc) to leave them alone and give them free passage, your PCs decide that this is unacceptable and must be stopped, the locals are not going to let a bunch of self-righteous jerks come and get them all killed. How to the villagers react when the PCs start ordering them about, maybe they insult them and throw rotten fruit/vegetables at them, maybe they try and run the PCs out of town, or maybe they turn to the Orcs and ask for there help...

Some PCs really need to learn the meaning of "proportionate response", and if they don't they will find themselves the villains of the story, hunted by the very people they are supposed to be helping.

I wouldn't show your players the door, but you can't let players blackmail you either, ultimately if they walk out on you, then so be.

 

[Mercule]

The first is practical... What do you do as DM's to deal with this kind of behavior?

The in-game actions you listed, I'd deal with my informing them their alignment had shifted. This may have an impact on their class abilities.

The threats, I'd let them leave. Seriously. (First, make sure you didn't royally -- not slightly, we all make mistakes, but big time -- screw something up as a DM.) It's nothing more than a pathetic temper-tantrum. I don't accept that behavior in my five-year-old. Why would I put up with it from a supposed adult?

I've had a few players, over the years, threaten similar things. I used to cave. That'll tank a game. It kills whatever plans you had, and it rewards the players for bad behavior. As I've gotten older, I've stopped going with it.

The key was realizing my priorities and that a player of that nature would suck the enjoyment from the game, at least for me. Yes, the games can be great fun, but not every instance of them is. Don't waste your time with something that is non-value-added to your life.

Oh, and I noticed that when I stopped caring if the players left, they stopped threatening to do so.

 

[francisca]

I wouldn't show your players the door, but you can't let players blackmail you either, ultimately if they walk out on you, then so be.

Quoted for truth.

As I pointed out in another thread, blackmail is met with a swift kick to the rump at my table.

It's a game. Games should be fun. Being blackmailed by players is no fun. Ergo: ditch them.