Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 4659856" data-attributes="member: 55271">It should also be noted that Cosmic Evil only provides moral absolutism right up to the point where fallible humans get involved.For example, in our current campaign we're fighting chaos cultists. The chaos cultists worship Cosmic Evil Deities. There is no question that these Cosmic Evil Deities are Absolute Evil.In this same campaign, however, we have an NPC friend who has joined a front organization for one of the cults. He's not a bad kid, but we're not sure how to deal with the situation. Like most teenagers he's given all sorts of indications that having the grown-ups tell him not to do something will only encourage him to do it. And if we do succeed in yanking him out (or convincing him to leave), the cultists might kill him as a deserter. OTOH, if we leave him involved in the organization he's likely to get pulled deeper and deeper into its evil.We haven't had any Socratic philosophy debates, but this moral quandary is more interesting than "kill him and take his stuff".Of course, some of the things being referred to as moral quandaries in this thread are hilarious. For example, when someone can assert with a perfectly straight face that any campaign in which the statement "we shouldn't kill the babies of the human bandits" can be uttered constitutes navel-gazing philosophizing, I have to seriously start questioning their sanity.I'm not sure how that's supposed to be relevant. What "new ground" are we covering when the PCs go into the nearest cave complex to kill some orcs?Treading new ground may occasionally happen in a D&D campaign, but it's hardly a common occurence. (And there's nothing wrong with that.)I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread argue that D&D is a good vehicle for delivering moral parables. So this just looks like a colossal strawman to me.In fact, the issue of including moral ambiguity and the issue of delivering a moral lesson via D&D seem like two almost completely separate issues. The delivery of most moral lessons require moral absolutism, not relativism.Imagine this game session:DM: The local lord wants to hire you to wipe out the Cult of the Lime.Players: Why is the Cult of the Lime so bad?DM: They wear the color green.Players: And that's bad?DM: Yup. In this campaign world it's unquestionably evil to wear green. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it.Players: Well, let's go get the Cult of the Lime.And then compare and contrast with this campaign:DM: The local lord wants to hire you to wipe out the Cult of the Lime.Players: Why is the Cult of the Lime so bad?DM: The local lord says it's because they wear green.Players: And that's bad?DM: The local lord tells you that the Green Brotherhood once ruled this entire area of the world. They were murderous fiends and the wearing of green has been outlawed ever since.The whole "Cult of the Lime" thing has been chosen to be deliberately silly, but I think it's clear that the campaign in which there is One Truth and All Must Accept It is going to be far more useful in conveying some sort of moral parable about the ethicality of wearing the color green than the campaign where the players are free to decide on their own how they (and/or their characters) feel about it.Your thesis seems to hinge on the premise that, "Who should we be killing?" isn't a moral question. That seems like a self-evidently weak premise to me.</blockquote>

Verification