Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5577393" data-attributes="member: 22779">JamesonCourage - I agree, they don't have to be equal.  They do, however, have to have some level of equivalency, if you see what I mean.  If option X is 100% rewarded and Option Y is 100% punished, then no one is going to choose Y.  At least, no rational actor will.I will also totally agree that this is not for everyone.  I think I said that earlier.But, if you don't have equivalent outcomes, then there is no debate.  Why would there be?  If doing X means you win and doing Y means you lose, then, well, there's not a whole lot of discussion to be had.Take another possible example.  I want to explore the topic of terrorism in my game.  I make sure that the players are groovy with this theme beforehand because, well, I don't want to start any fights.Now, I set the game in the 1970's in Northern Ireland and the PC's are members of the IRA.  Of course, not every decision point will be a moral quandary - the example you give of "when to go to sleep, who's on watch..." is a bit of a red herring.  It's completely outside of the theme we want to examine.But, during play, the question will come up - what is acceptable?  Are civilian casualties acceptable?  To what degree?  What about escalation?  How does this all fit within the context of a modern society?  Etc, etc.If the DM simply states, "terrorism is evil" then there is no more exploration of the theme.  We know the answer, insofar as this campaign is concerned.  It's no different than a physical exploration DM handing the PC's a fully detailed map of the area to be explored including all answers.  It removes the primary motivation of play.I don't think anyone proposed "very light consequences for every decision" since that would be pointless.  The decisions that are based around the concept being explored should carry important consequences, regardless of what is decided.  But, you cannot play this style of game if the DM simply labels things beforehand.Is necromancy evil?  Nope, not in this setting.  Ok, conversation is finished.Which is a perfectly fine way to play.  There's nothing saying that you have to have moral introspection in the game.  Heck, the alignment system is pretty much designed from the ground up to prevent this kind of philosophical discussion from grinding the game to a halt.  Ten billion paladin debates show that.  Why are we killing orcs?  Because orcs are evil and they need killing.If you take a moral position that killing evil is not self-justifying, then a great deal of D&D play gets really sticky.</blockquote>

Verification