The "Good Society" in Fantasy Gaming

[Jack7]

This thread in particular: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/313880-we-dont-slaughter.html

had in it some rather interesting side-discussions. Such as discussion and debates on alignment, behavior of animals, monsters, and other creatures, and whether they should even have alignments, etc.

However in the thread prosfilaes made an observation on the nature of the cultures and societies of man, elves, and dwarves.

prosfilaes said:

And personally I find it hard to really justify the miners as good guys given that their response to people outside their clan, like the kobolds, is to kill them. If you don't start from the assumption that the elves, dwarves and humans are the good guys, it's hard to reach that conclusion in a lot of D&D worlds. (Seriously, xenophobia and killing border crossers on sight is not good behavior, elf-lovers.)

Regardless of whether I agree with the statement made in the particulars of that argument or not I did think it a very astute observation in general.

When I was young and first started playing D&D it was always assumed that Human, Elvin, and Dwarven cultures and societies were more civilized and good. (Personally I think that is the way they should be, unless the setting calls for some exception to the rule, and monsters and monster cultures should be evil - again unless there is some specific exception. This does not mean that specific monsters cannot become good, or that some by nature aren't good, and it doesn't mean specific men, elves, and dwarves can't be bad, or are bad or evil. Obviously individuals can be as they choose regardless of their culture. However for purpose of this discussion I am speaking of the cultural and societal "levels".)

To me human, elven and dwarven cultures, although imperfect of course, should naturally represent, most of the time, civilization and those values most naturally assume to be "good." Whereas monster and evil cultures should represent barbarism (not in the politically correct or sociological senses of outside ethnic groups or uncivilized peoples) but in the senses of overt violence, lawlessness, destructiveness, and outright evil. Of course a lot would be milieu dependent, but I'm speaking in very general terms. Humans and their allies are civilized and good, monsters and their ilk are barbaric and evil. From my perspective exception to this rule make for superbly interesting adventures and even campaigns, but generally speaking, my point of view is men are men and monsters are monsters. And their societies reflect their conflicting values.

I'm not sure this holds true anymore. I'm not even sure D&D holds valuable, or inherent within it, or necessary, or even natural the assumption that human, elven, and dwarven cultures should basically represent "the good." For a long time, like modern culture itself, it seemed very enamored and obsessed with basically decaying civilizations and dystopias, rather than well-regulated and functioning societies at war against those societies that were not. When I first started playing D&D it was Civilization at War with and/or on the frontiers of barbarism and evil. Civilization was on the ascent, but it was an extremely rough fight. Not guaranteed as to outcome, and that was one thing that the characters were there to help assure, that civilization and the good triumphed.

Then it became advanced D&D civilizations in a state of decay and moral corruption. Then self-obsessed civilizations at war with themselves more than anything else. Then settings in which societies could feel guilty or conflicted about their own success or behavior, and characters were not representatives of their society, but rebels from it, or self-absorbed self-promoters. Perhaps now it has changed yet again, or maybe it is about to. I don't know. Maybe these general D&D milieu views reflect our own general society at the time of their construction, or maybe they don't. That could be another interesting discussion.

Now all that being said, I ask you, in your opinion: "Should the civilizations of man, elves, dwarves, and other such allied peoples be civilized and should they represent those ideals and principles generally considered to be 'good'"?

If so why, if not, why not?

And what exactly should be the "Good Society" in D&D and fantasy role play/adventure games? How should it operate and what should it represent?

 

[Kaodi]

A truly good society is one that instills good values in its people, lives by those values, and where it is not acceptable nor ordinary practice for its leaders to act like psychopaths towards dissidents and outsiders behind their peoples backs, even if it is beneficial to that society. All other are merely pretenders to the " good " throne.

 

[Niccodaemus]

I think you are asking the question backwards. The "good" society is just simply "society". There are good, bad, and borderline within it. The real question is, what makes evil, evil? What makes something like kobolds, goblins, orcs, etc... evil?

Im my campaign it is simple. They feast on the flesh of humans and other "Simians" (Demi-humans) I refer to them as "The Monstrous Races: Eaters of the Flesh of Men".

Anyone who aligns themselves with them against their own race is committing a traitorous, despicable act.

The "good" society is not good in deed... it is good because it is in a growth curve... improving on itself generation by generation. It can be elevated by the ideals of a single individual, which can counter countless real world acts of corruption.

To put it another way... Orcs aren't a just a minority indigenous culture. They are corruption personified. The evil things societies imagine their enemies to be, Orcs and the other monstrous races... "are".

Rangers in my campaign have no interest in the politics of men. They know all political quarrels are transitory. They twist and fade from one generation to the next. But the feeders of human flesh... they are eternal.

 

[RangerWickett]

I personally am not entertained by stories with black-and-white depictions of good and evil.

Scratch that. I am not interested in stories that posit that good and evil are actual 'things.' They're concepts people use to describe actions, but no real person is 'evil.' At most, a person might be a horrible individual who does evil things, but there is a reason for how that person acts. Sometimes it's a history of trauma. Sometimes it's an actual mental disease. But it's never the case that something is born evil.

What would intrigue me is a culture founded on wildly different morals, or even a creature whose biology mandates that it acts in ways we think of evil.

One game I play in has an alien NPC who is psychic, and needs a variety of psychic nutrients to stay healthy. Due to the nature of her species' evolution, her consciousness is reliant on nibbling on the thoughts of other creatures. She can't just eat 'happy.' It's like sugar. She needs confusion, anger, and even suffering, or else she'll die.

Normally she'd have herd animals to be cruel to, but since we don't have anything like that on our ship, and because she has valuable skills, we've started a voluntary "suffering program." Basically crewmembers can get paid extra if they let us do really bad things to them.

Most members of her species are our enemies, because they enslave humans. But there's backstory for why they do it. Indeed, no matter how hard we could try to use negotiation, the two anatomies aren't particularly compatible.

That's way more interesting to me than "those nasty-looking people? they hate your freedoms."

 

[Umbran]

Now all that being said, I ask you, in your opinion: "Should the civilizations of man, elves, dwarves, and other such allied peoples be civilized and should they represent those ideals and principles generally considered to be 'good'"?

There are interesting stories to be told if those civilizations are good, and excellent stories to be told if they aren't good. I don't think there's some mandate either way. Societies should have alignment that makes them interesting to play in.

As a GM, if I'm exploring the issues of alignment, I'm best off doing it by focusing on the PCs - they are the protagonists, after all. The society is good or evil basically as a support or counterpoint to the PCs.

And what exactly should be the "Good Society" in D&D and fantasy role play/adventure games? How should it operate and what should it represent?

Go look at the definition of "good" in the PHB. Look at how you as a GM adjudicate that alignment. Those are the morals the society should uphold, if it is to be good in game terms. I know that seems like a non-answer, but each GM handles alignment differently, so there isn't a blanket answer.

 

[The Shaman]

Humans and their allies are civilized and good, monsters and their ilk are barbaric and evil. From my perspective exception to this rule make for superbly interesting adventures and even campaigns, but generally speaking, my point of view is men are men and monsters are monsters. And their societies reflect their conflicting values.

I'm not sure this holds true anymore.

Did it ever hold true?

It certainly wasn't the case for me.

The first settings I read, and on which I based my earliest efforts t homebrewing, were Blackmoor and the Wilderlands, where civilization is sometimes cruel and frequently venal and everything else is worse. The same was true of my most important literary influence, Thieves' World.

I didn't run games for or about heroes. Adventurers aspired to power and influence gained by sword and spell. Some might choose to use this power for good, but it wasn't expected or particularly desired.

It wasn't until I played 3e beginning around 2002 that I designed a setting where the arc of history offered the potential for ushering in a 'golden age,' and frankly I didn't really care for it all that much.

 

[Hand of Evil]

There is no good and evil, just beautiful and ugly, where evil equals ugly.

Okay, maybe ugly is the wrong word but it is what most good societies find distasteful and repulsive. That subject matter is villianized and viewed as wicked and vile. This is why I have a soapbox about define evil in your games, this is what your campign setting finds distasteful, vile and and ugly.

Examples:

• Slavery
• Smoking
• Cannibalism
• Worship of God X, Y & Z
• Orcs
• Cold Blooded Murder
• Rape
• Equal rights for X, Y & Z
• Snakes and the worship of snakes
• etc

These become cultral taboos. They don't have to logical, it is what a cultrual and campign setting system.

 

[S'mon]

""Should the civilizations of man, elves, dwarves, and other such allied peoples be civilized and should they represent those ideals and principles generally considered to be 'good'"?"

If I'm running Tolkienesque High Fantasy then the protagonists' side is Good, and the enemy is Evil. If I'm running Swords & Sorcery then the protagonists' culture may be pretty Bad, but any enemy culture is still probably more Evil.

I don't think there's any general answer to the question. Variety is the spice of life. And it may well be up to the players to decide who the good guys are. One reason I find S&S is generally easier to run than Tolkienesque high fantasy - in high fantasy if the PCs decide the elves are bad, the orcs are good, and they start killing elves, that just makes the PCs the villains. In S&S it's typically a valid choice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Now all that being said, I ask you, in your opinion: "Should the civilizations of man, elves, dwarves, and other such allied peoples be civilized and should they represent those ideals and principles generally considered to be 'good'"?

If so why, if not, why not?

And what exactly should be the "Good Society" in D&D and fantasy role play/adventure games? How should it operate and what should it represent?

No. Societies are rarely so simple, and I certainly don't want them to be in my game.

I think Star Trek is a great example of why. At one point, humans were considered good, Klingons bad, and Kirk gifted primitive people with the wisdom of the American flag. Modern Star Trek (and all the other scifi it inspired) acknowledges humans as flawed, Klingons as noble allies, and shows the fallacies of imposing one's moral values on others. In this way, I suspect fiction is a highly relevant representation of the time in which it was created.

I similarly take a 'realistic' approach to humans/elves/dwarves/orcs/goblins etc. Everyone's out for their own interests. Humans are a mixed bunch. They join together in friendship, they soak up knowledge from their surroundings, and build great civilizations. They're also xenophobic, short-lived, and ignorant. Orcs, conversely, are selfish, violent, and hateful, but they respect the natural world, they're strong warriors when you need one, and their competitiveness can lead to great accomplishments. Same idea for all the other races. To me, this is modern morality (and I believe in applying my values to all my fiction regardless of setting).

As to the other question: to me, since most societies are a mixed bag, a 'good society' is quite extreme. When I imagine a 'lawful good' society, I imagine an authoritarian regime of religious persecution, sexual repression, and close-mindedness. Basically I imagine Puritans. When I imagine a lawful evil society, I imagine something that is aesthetically quite different but fundamentally similar. Humans are neither good nor evil, and attempting to impose morality on them (or their like, in fantasy) is a futile endeavor.

You can tell I'm not big on the 'Detect Alignment' spells.

 

[LurkAway]

I think many people assumed that elves, dwarves, etc were good (or at least neutral, but not evil), because of:
- fans growing up on Tolkein tales of elves and dwarves that were civilized
- anthropomorphism implies that human-like beings are more likely to be on "our side" whereas non-human-like beings are ugly and bad

Since D&D characters are only human, and the world is a very, very dangerous place, I would expect them to have the same prejudices and err on the side of caution so to speak and stereotype that those who look less human are more alien and hostile, whereas elves and dwarves are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt of being cautiously neutral if not friendly.