Should D&D Morality be Less PC?

[foolish_mortals]

I think it'd be funny if they'd do a campaign setting where the females had revoted against the males of their society and took over. And through their arcane magic had turned them into weak dwarf men. Occasionally they let the males become normal again to handle exterior threats like Orcs, Giants and Bears.

foolish_mortals

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Citation needed

Courtesy of [MENTION=1164]frankthedm[/MENTION]: My Paladin killed a child molester (and now my DM wants to take away my powers!)

Probably the worst example I can think of, but this is pretty much what all Paladin alignment threads look like to me and why I will never, ever play the class without my order's Code of Conduct in writing from the DM-- because I don't need any of the legal or medical problems having that argument in real life would cause me.

 

[frankthedm]

I don't need any of the legal or medical problems having that argument in real life would cause me.

Would it ease your mind 26% of poll respondents wanted the paladin to loose his powers over that incident?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Would it ease your mind 26% of poll respondents wanted the paladin to loose his powers over that incident?

It would have eased my mind a lot more if the poll hadn't been anonymous.

 

[mmadsen]

An interesting twist on morality is culpability. Imagine you have someone who is Good otherwise, but has a limited vision of what constitutes "people" that's been handed down to him by others? Do characters become Good because they realize the person-hood of the oppressed, or is do people realize that reality because they are Good?

Or, in a non-modern setting, is that even Good?

 

[Alzrius]

And as to social status charts, sure you could add them (I think UA had them? Dragon did anyway)

Can you list where these are? I'd like to glance at them.

 

[delericho]

IMO, the 'default' morality of D&D should stay as it is. That is, maintain the "Battlestar Galactica" model where women can adopt any role without issue, all races are equal, and everything is nice and egalitarian.

The maturity level of the game is really an issue to be handled at the table. Different groups will always have different standards, where one group may be fine with lots of racism and sexism in the setting, another might prefer "no holds barred" with slavery and rape common occurrences, while a third is very touchy about one or more of these subjects.

That's absolutely fine, and not even remotely surprising.

Given that the subjects under question are extremely emotive, this really is an area where the default game (and setting) should play it safe - present an egalitarian world, and let groups deviate from that if they wish.

That said, this doesn't apply to specific settings or optional expansions to the game. Indeed, I would love to see WotC do a real "Book of Vile Darkness", a set of adventures with 'mature' themes, and even an entire setting aimed at adults. I have no problem with any of these things, and would like to see what they come up with. But not in the default.

 

[mlund]

Or, in a non-modern setting, is that even Good?

Objectively? It depends on the metaphysical nature of the universe. According to the typical D&D setting, yes, it is Good whether society recognizes it or not. If you're going to have "Good" and "Evil" be anything more than Red vs. Blue there needs to be an internal consistency to what separates the two. It has to be more than the opinion of one or more gods in a pantheon too.

If there are mechanics dependent upon alignment of characters and monsters (Smite Evil, Paladin's Code, Blasphemy, etc.) then subjective definitions of Good and Evil are way too dysfunctional to be worthwhile.

If you take targeting restrictions out of play, however, you can have a field day with moral and ethical philosophies beyond Good and Evil. Honorable and Dishonorable according to Bushido is a fun one. "What makes my patron god happy," vs. "What everybody else wants," is another. While characters may still talk about these in things in terms of "good" and "evil," they don't carry the kind of absolute metaphysical weight that a universal Good and Evil would normally carry.

- Marty Lund

 

[mmadsen]

Objectively? It depends on the metaphysical nature of the universe.

Exactly. And should the metaphysical nature of a quasi-medieval universe share progressive 21st-century values with the modern college kids playing it? Maybe, maybe not.

If you're going to have "Good" and "Evil" be anything more than Red vs. Blue there needs to be an internal consistency to what separates the two. It has to be more than the opinion of one or more gods in a pantheon too.

I think it would make for an excellent campaign to have each side call itself Good and its enemies Evil, and to have alignment actually be just that: which side you're line up with.

I wouldn't make that the default D&D setting, but I would suggest it for a change of pace.

[Y]ou can have a field day with moral and ethical philosophies beyond Good and Evil. Honorable and Dishonorable according to Bushido is a fun one. "What makes my patron god happy," vs. "What everybody else wants," is another. While characters may still talk about these in things in terms of "good" and "evil," they don't carry the kind of absolute metaphysical weight that a universal Good and Evil would normally carry.

As I said earlier, I think most modern players would have a really, really hard time embracing a pre-modern, non-universalist morality. On the other hand, they have no trouble accepting that killing "monsters" and taking their stuff is Good...

 

[DonTadow]

Yes and no. I think D&D should acknowledge the existence of slavery. I think D&D should acknowledge that there is prejudice in the world, based on race, tribe, gender, and class.

But I don't think the system should endorse these things. That is to say, I don't think women should have different stat bonuses than men.

I think Good-aligned characters should not be allowed to own slaves.

I don't think the game is as fun when it railroads the PCs by bossing them around, based on who the characters are, their gender, their race, their tribe, their religion, or their class. I prefer a setting that's more free, because then the players can feel like they have a say in their destiny.

There's something to be said for having to work for your freedom. But I just don't want to see a campaign setting so oppressive and ignorant that, socially, it's impossible for the PCs to advance no matter what great deeds they do.

I think there is some room to play with these kinds of ideas when you talk about evil-aligned realms. Maybe the PCs can go to bad places once in a while, but just like they can't always be dungeon-crawling, I think it would be tiring to keep them on their guard in a hostile land 24-7. They need a refuge.

Campaign guides can have whatever they wish but the type of detail you speak of is something left to either that or that guide. The core rules don't need to concern themselves with devisive subjects.