Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D1Tremere" data-source="post: 8270642" data-attributes="member: 61148">I'm not so sure this should be dismissed as irrelevant at the gaming table, especially in light of newer takes on race as lineage and seeing monsters who have distinct cultures as something other than monsters. The argument about eating babies is an extreme one (though still a possible scenario), so it is true that something to that level may not come up at the table (though with my players you never know). That said, there are more common examples where this is important. For example, there is growing discussion about when it is acceptable to kill a creature normally seen as a monster in D&D. Should a Paladin be considered good aligned (ugh, alignments) after killing a village full of Orcs? Orcs have complex societies, self-awareness, and are increasingly staple PC options, but have been depicted throughout the history of D&D as Evil. This is usually because they have shorter life cycles that are governed by a might makes right style that clashes with the more bureaucratic style of problem solving that the more traditional (read western culture inspired) races such as humans and elves prefer. Thus a border dispute between the indigenous orcs and the colonizing folk of the dale may see a delegation sent to negotiate become combatants in a gladiatorial arena that orcs use to resolve disputes. Surely the fair folk of the dale will see orcs as evil when they receive the heads of their loved ones who lost in their arena, but what about the orcs who see the unrelenting encroachment by people who have no respect for their customs or way of life as evil?Should the players be encouraged to take the modernist view that technological refinement and strong government control are the evolutionary peak, and all others are less evolved? This would appear to be the default position from which the moral philosophies in D&D are often oriented, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain such views in light of real world struggles that call attention to the flaws in this position. I would then argue that moral relativism is increasingly important at the gaming table, as players find themselves confronting situations where the western archetype paladin in the group is considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, while the tribal orc paladin in the group is also considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, even though both paladins see the other's evil as their good.I think a really good example of this is the TV show Supernatural. It started out as a monster of the week action drama about 2 brothers who were protecting the good people from the evil monsters (many of which happened to be gods or spirits of earlier tribal people), and it gradually started exploring deeper issues about who has the right to exist and why, as well as responsibility for the lives of others (paternalism), and ultimately how far one can go in defense of their morals before they become monsters themselves. It also did a good job of reflecting the very real phenomena of moral beliefs versus actual behavior. What philosophical path one claims to adhere to often fails to become actualized when loss is involved. Humans are generally loss averse, and will often violate their beliefs to avoid a painful loss (though they usually manage to justify it to themselves).</blockquote>

Verification