When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Elf Witch]

I was wondering if any other people have had this issue where our modern ethics on things like slavery, treatment of prisoners, all people created equal come into conflict with a game set using a more medieval culture?

In the game I play in this has caused a little conflict between players and the DM. Some of the players have no issue getting into this mindset others can't seem to do it as easily.

The DM made it clear when she started her game that it was medieval style world. That nobles and royalty had more rights then the merchant and peasant classes. That there were two sets of laws and punishments, For example a noble killing a peasant most likely would only have to pay out some kind of payment to the family but if a peasant killed a noble they were executed. A peasant or merchant attacking a noble or royalty would face execution.

If you were rude to a noble you could well find yourself getting a beat down or be thrown in the stocks.

As for clerics people treat them with a lot of respect because the heal the sick do miracles like raise the dead and speak to gods which everyone knows are real.

Clerics of evil gods carry a heavy taint of evil because they willing serve and further an evil god plans. That good churches are always at war with evil churches and clerics of good gods have every right to summarily execute clerics of evil gods.

Most ordinary people can't distinguish a wizard from a sorcerer or a warlock and they are afraid of in awe of these magical folk and treat them with deference either out of fear or respect. Ordinary people just don't go mouthing off or insulting a magic user.

Even knowing all of that there have been several incidents that have stopped game play while something was argued.

Here are a few examples.

The party was in an abandon mine investigating the disappearance of several clerics of Herineous. We found an active temple of Hextra and all the clerics were dead but one. We freed him and when we gave him a weapon he turned it on himself the party cleric healed him and found that they had all been tortured over and over until they recanted their belief in Herineous. They were broken in body, mind and spirit.

We took his weapons away and continued on the cleric eventually got away from us and jumped into a chasm to his death. Our cleric who serves Herineous was very upset.

We got into a battle with the clerics of Hextra and all but two were slain. The other two were taken prisoner. Before we could discuss what to do as a party one of the players gave his word that if they cooperated they would be spared.

This of course caused a huge out cry form the player playing the cleric as well as from a few of us who felt that he didn't have the right to speak for all of us. While we argued what to do the cleric went over to them and asked they why they served an evil god were they coerced into it. He offered them the chance to come back into the light.

They refused they were very proud of the god they serve so the party cleric killed them.

The DM supported the player saying in no way did he violated his lawful good alignment. That as a good character he stopped an evil and as a cleric of a good god he followed his code and the law that allows him to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Some of the players disagreed and called it murder and dishonorable. It has changed the way the cleric gets treated by some of them.

Just this last Sunday another issue like this raised its head. We were in the poorer area near the docks. We robbed by a bunch of hoodlum kids. My sorcerer cast web on the little miscreants to stop them from fleeing. Two city guard came up and start asking questions. One of them was quite rude and nasty to my sorcerer who was wearing the emblem of one of the most powerful magical guilds in the city. I am also of noble blood. Quite put out over this treatment I cast dominate on the one guard and when the other guard tried to flee I cast baleful polymorph turning him into a dog.

I was with two of the other party members and instead of staying with me while I questioned the dominated guard they took off saying that they didn't want to be involved.

It turned out that they were not city guard but impersonating them they were part of a criminal ring. Which was something I had suspected because otherwise they would never have talked to my sorcerers in the fashion that they did.

I retrieved all of our stolen goods and turned the two into the guards received a nice bonus which I didn't share because after all they left and didn't earn it.

I was really pissed that they left me and I said so thanking rather sarcastically for watching my back. They in turn got angry saying that what did I expect them to do that I had attacked and cast spells on the city guard for no other reason then the fact that I was arrogant. That I put them in danger of being arrested and that I endangered the party with my reckless behavior.

I argued back that it made perfect role playing sense that my character would not allow herself to be talked to that way and that I had every reason to be suspicious of them and that following the rules as the DM laid down at the start as a noble I would not have been censored for what I did.

At this point the DM backed me up saying that she had the guards mouth off to me as a clue that something was hinky and that I had acted totally in character and I was right that even if they had been city guards because of the way they talked to me they would have been in trouble.

In these discussions/arguments one things seems to be the cause of it all and that is the players who have the most issue seems not to be able to let go of their modern ethics. Killing unarmed prisoners is murder under any set of rules. Casting dominate on anyone is an evil act. Getting thrown in the stocks for calling a noble a greedy bloodsucker even if its true was wrong.

I am not saying we are not having fun and that we want the game to end or those players to quit. Sure it would be nice if they got on board with the rest of us so we could avoid these arguments when they come up. But for the most part we enjoy the game.

I am just curious if other groups have had this kind of issue. Also how you handle modern ethics VS more medieval ethics in your games?

 

[Alzrius]

This was a sentiment I wanted to express in a thread that dealt with similar themes, but it was closed before I could, so I'll say it here instead.

I see this as an issue of simulationism ("the game world must be as nuanced as we can make it!") versus gamism ("the game must be fun and comfortable for everyone playing it"). People have different takes on how to balance these two concerns against each other during game-play, and it can cause friction between players.

I've seen plenty of these situations become emotionally charged (usually just from discussing them hypothetically) because people tend to view these disagreements as commenting on their personal value system rather than as a difference in play-styles.

 

[Andor]

Yes, this is a perennial problem with RPGs.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." - L.P.Hartly

This is usually due to ignorance on the part of the players. Point them at some historical novels, or fantasy books set in a really different world like Glorantha.

This biggest problem with this sort of thing, in my experience, is that it is really hard to tell someone "You are wrong, and you are wrong because you are ignorant." without them getting very, very upset and insulted.

Mind you, the dichotemy between modern morals and D&D world morals can be an interesting thing to explore. Joel Rosenburgs "Guardians of the Flame" series is centered on this. A group of players suddenly find themselves magically pulled into the bodies of their characters and react with horrified shock to the slavery prevelant in that world.

But yeah, getting people who are not widely travelled or read to understand foreign or archaic mindsets is hard. Maybe try some of the good historical adventure movies or series like Lawrence of Arabia or Shogun or In the name of the Rose.

 

[Andor]

As an addendum to my last post, let me say this: Ignorance is not the only reason people can have trouble with this.

You might have a perfect and complete understanding of a medieval mindset and be uncomfortable or unwilling to assume one while in character because it may be simply repugnat and evil to your sensabilities. C.S.Lewis said he found writing The Screwtape Letters to be a deeply unpleasant experience because it required getting into a demonic mindset.

Similarly I've been having trouble coming up with characters for games of The Black Crusade. Because chaos is so deeply and stupidly evil in the 40k universe I find it hard to sympathise with the aims of a chaos cultist/marine.

I find it best, in circumstances like that, to find a sympathetic goal for or facet to such a charatcer that will let me ease into thier shoes without vomitting.

 

[Kaodi]

I do not think the problem is modern ethics per se. I think the problem is the alignment system. The alignment system and modern ethics are about what is good and evil. Medieval ethics were, for the most part, about power and position.

 

[Elf Witch]

This was a sentiment I wanted to express in a thread that dealt with similar themes, but it was closed before I could, so I'll say it here instead.

I see this as an issue of simulationism ("the game world must be as nuanced as we can make it!") versus gamism ("the game must be fun and comfortable for everyone playing it"). People have different takes on how to balance these two concerns against each other during game-play, and it can cause friction between players.

I've seen plenty of these situations become emotionally charged (usually just from discussing them hypothetically) because people tend to view these disagreements as commenting on their personal value system rather than as a difference in play-styles.

I think you may be right about this. The issue comes in with trying to reconcile it at the table. It sides needs to bend a little either that or not play together.

I am all for making the game fun and not having things in the game that make people uncomfortable. For example even though it's realistic that rape was common in wartime I would rather not deal with the subject at the table. Especially with a PC.

And while I do like the more gender equality in most setting which is not very realistic to most medieval settings I don't want a game made up totally of modern ethics. I like Kings who rule from absolute power and powerful clerics who fight and war with evil temples.

And while I don't enjoy the idea of killing prisoners willy nilly I don't think PCs should be hampered by the Geneva Convictions.

 

[Elf Witch]

I do not think the problem is modern ethics per se. I think the problem is the alignment system. The alignment system and modern ethics are about what is good and evil. Medieval ethics were, for the most part, about power and position.

I disagree even if we did not use alignment which in this game is really hand waved away there would still be an issue. For example detect evil in the game only really works if you are dealing with an evil cleric, mass murderer or someone making pacts with demons.

Most people even if they do bad things don't detect as evil.

The issue comes in with people not liking prisoners to be killed or for wizards to get to cast spells like dominate or baleful polymorph on people who annoy them and get away with it as long as those people are not high rankings member of society.

Take the issue of slavery it exists in this world and it is legal. Criminals are sold into slavery for a set period of time. Prisoners of war become slaves and often serve in the coliseum. The PCs don't have to like it and they can join secret groups to help slaves escape. On the other hand so called lawful good PCs can own slaves.

 

[was]

I guess it depends on one's perspective. You could argue that a slave, regardless of the time era, believed slavery to be unethical.

 

[kitsune9]

It's very challenging to enforce a "cultural viewpoint" onto players who 1. don't understand it, or 2. don't want to understand it, or 3. think they understand it, but differ with the DM's understanding of it. It's actually hard to get players to remember anything that is "fluffy" in a campaign unless it's in their face in every game session.

Unless we grew up in that culture, had it help shaped our own moral compass, it's hard to play from a different point of view each time. The exception would be to play something diametrically opposed to our experiences and attitudes. Our own experiences and what we think is right and wrong is what really determines our reactions.

Also, unless each game session reinforces the cultural aspect as part of the game, this is something that's easily forgotten. Players will remember their hp, AC, attack rolls, how to flank, but if the DM gives a whole bunch of history, cultural mores, and so on, it's going to be in one ear and out the other. Even if the DM writes it down and gives it out as a handout, the players are still likely not going to remember it, let alone reference it.

For example, I wrote a short primer in Carrion Crown campaign. I wrote that magic items can only be bought and sold in certain locations; otherwise, if you went to your local village and asked about buying magic items, you'll be accused of witchcraft and dealt with accordingly. Already my players are forgetting this aspect. I have six players. I think one of them only read the character generation part and didn't bother with the rest, four of them read it but they certainly didn't print it out nor do they reference it, and one of them did print it out, but he doesn't reference it either.

In my Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign, one of the players was a noble and threw away thousands of years of cultural upbringing and social acceptance to do things like "power to the little people" and so on. Essentially, the player was playing their character with a modernist vision when in reality such envisionment didn't exist.

As a GM, I like to have players remember campaign fluff and I reward them for it (players get a free drawing of the Harrow Deck through certain actions that others would do in the culture they are in), but I don't punish them for making choices that would only come from a 21st Century American.

 

[El Mahdi]

When it comes down to it, we all have ethics, ideas, and attitudes that can (and do) conflict with the setting. None of us are perfect at setting immersion. Even in a game such as the one described in the OP, I'm sure there are things that could come up, that even the players who are more immeresed than the rest of the group would still have objections too. We all pick and choose (whether consciously or subconsciously) what is acceptable or not.

One person may not have a problem with a medieval presentation of slavery, and yet have a problem with a medieval presentation of women (and the resultant restrictions). Yet another person may enjoy the idea and immersion of rank and social sturcture, yet still maintain modern views of morality and justice (a dichotomy for sure, but one that does happen). It's common to one extent or another with every gamer and game group.

So, the only thing that really matters then is the OP's question: "...how (do) you handle modern ethics VS more medieval ethics in your games?"

I think the only thing that works is that the group be up front about talking about this, whether before the game begins or during. The DM being the final arbiter of the campaign world should say to the group whether a PC's actions (or even an NPC's/Monster's actions) are consistent with the game world (as this DM apparently did). And then make it clear (not a demand, but a very firm statement), that the players try to put aside their own feeling on what may have happened, and have their characters treat the other PC (NPC/Monster) in a way consistent with the DM's adjudication. The DM is not telling the players how to roleplay their character, but asking them to not fall into the trap of metagaming their character based on outside-of-game information (in this case, modern ethics - which don't exist yet in the game world). To an extent, they are "meta-gaming" their characters (even though it is impossible for us to completely seperate our own experiences from those of our characters).

In other words, everyone just needs to remember to keep in-game things in-game, and out-of-game things out-of-game...and abide by the DM's adjudication. If the DM's adjudication says a characters actions were okay, then the Players need to play their characters accordingly. End of story.