When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[gamerprinter]

The most common admonishment is to kill the enemy men and take their possessions - including their women and children - obviously without the consent of the women.

Obviously. A good historic game does not have to capture every grisly detail from reality. We know It's there, but we don't have to play it and still keep the authentic feel and fun for all.

 

[malcolypse]

Amazing coincidence that I chose Deadlands as my example of a personally-revolting RPG setting in the very next post!! I hadn't read yours when I posted.

Coincidences happen. ( <- This statement was intended to accompany xp for you, but apparently I agree with you too often. So stop speaking rightly so often and this will no longer be an issue.)

I've never seen anything in the Deadlands book that indicated to me that racism disappeared with the end of slavery any more than it did in the real world. Everything I've gotten from the book just seems to imply that because of the circumstances around how slavery was abolished the Civil Rights Movement got a 75 year head start. Equality is still a long term goal, and while slavery has ended there are no laws in place to ensure equal treatment.

That's why so many of the newly freed slaves have headed west, where societal norms are challenged more easily by anyone, regardless of skin color, with valuable skills and the will to make something of themselves.

 

[Yora]

Well I've said it before I say it again.
I prefer my pseudo-medieval fantasy to be staunchly chauvinistic, murderously homophobic, gleefully pro-death penalty, fanatically anti-abortion, brutally prisoner-mistreating... and the age of consent is 12, at best.

For me, this is not about reveling in the dark side of humanity. This is merely about the fact that these things go with the spirit of medieval times. I'm not playing in the 21th century with swords. I understand that people only want nice things and ugly things are pretty depressing and so on, but everybody has their own comfort-zone. Some people draw the line in the imaginary hanging a 12-girl who had an abortion in secret and some people draw the line in modern western society with swords and magic.

No one is right, really. It's a matter of opinion.

These things go with out modern theme park perception of the spirit of medieval times. These things are more difficult to prove, but those things that are proovable pretty much always turn out to be fantasies made up in the 19th century.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I think I don't mind so much what kinda laws/habit/culture has in game, but big point for me is that I am not forced to play "victim"/"npc"-character when I don't choose to do so, while everyone else on table can play "normal" character. Some gamemaster liked girls to play girls, while at the same time make game unplayable normally for female characters.

It's bit same like forcing guy player make gay-character in world where it's crime, sin, super-bad and appears lot in game. Let's make it, some people get kicks out when they can victimize someone. Perhaps sometimes (in few cases) their somewhat hidden misogynism/gay-hete. "Historical accuracy" can easily create situations where pc:s get abused storywise.

And I don't mean even most extreame cases. It might be some belitting, stat-penalities, forced profession choices, stupid storylines, npc behavior, other players behaving similarly, jokes about those darker events that your character would make "good target".

I am not terrible sensetive myself. But I am very emphatic for needs of others. I've seen people who have quit roleplaying because of these asses. You should not make somewhat not good for everyone world and then use those not good for you elements to target specific players, because you like the way they squirm or something.

Sometimes victim characters are fun to play. But it should be a choice not mandotory.
And no you should not require your character to be the very special mayfly in the universe, so if it's highly rasistic/sexist culture don't play female, elf, halfling, whatever is not good for adventurer. Or prepare to play along with crap that's gonna hit you.

This might be reason why some people don't like "medieval ethics", because they were once having one of those gm's. Or for a long time. This is very common area of social conflict, as are why exactly your paladin lost his powers.

 

[El Mahdi]

...For me, this is not about reveling in the dark side of humanity. This is merely about the fact that these things go with the spirit of medieval times...

All I got was a so-so chicken dinner and a paper crown. You got a lot more out of Medieval_Times than I did...

 

[Jon_Dahl]

All I got was a so-so chicken dinner and a paper crown. You got a lot more out of Medieval_Times than I did...

Well at least in Wikipedia (which is not a reliable source) they mention Middle Ages as "Medieval Times". But I have now corrected this grammatical issue from my earlier post.

 

[NewJeffCT]

What historical precedent could possibly support the idea that the aristocracy is actually " excellent " in being just naturally better than everyone else? In fact, given the inbreeding in the royal houses, one could better argue that the average nobleman's DNA was actually inferior to the average commoners. Differences in ability mostly stemmed from differences in educations. In D&D terms, the peasants would have better stats, but they would be commoners, which have few skill points, while the educated nobles are aristocrats or experts, which have far more skill points, but they would in fact have worse stats.

The nobles are also the ones with often far greater access to better and healthier foods and drinks, far better medical care, and far better and cleaner living conditions. Peasants/serfs lived from day to day and often barely had enough food to scrape by with a meager existence.

Which baby is more likely to live to its first birthday - the peasant baby or the noble one? Which baby is going to be stronger at one year old? The peasant baby who has barely gotten enough food to live, sometimes going without food for a day or two, or the noble child who has been raised with the help of a wet nurse and has been able to supplement his diet with fresh fruits and vegetables on a daily basis? Now, repeat those diets and that upbringing for the next 12 years, and which child is now a healthier and more robust teenager? With very rare exceptions (i.e. PCs), it will be the noble child.

Which person is more likely to get infected from a wound - the peasant who lives in a filthy mud-ridden hovel, or the noble who lives in a clean and well maintained villa with servants to tend to his needs and a healer/doctor/nurse to look after him in sickness?

I would either give nobles bonuses to stats, or give peasants/serfs penalties. But, to each their own.

 

[Janx]

The liberal conception of equal worth should not be confused with a conception of equal ability.



What historical precedent could possibly support the idea that the aristocracy is actually " excellent " in being just naturally better than everyone else? In fact, given the inbreeding in the royal houses, one could better argue that the average nobleman's DNA was actually inferior to the average commoners. Differences in ability mostly stemmed from differences in educations. In D&D terms, the peasants would have better stats, but they would be commoners, which have few skill points, while the educated nobles are aristocrats or experts, which have far more skill points, but they would in fact have worse stats.

In D&D the only people that are guaranteed to be of better " blood " are the PCs.



As per above, if status were a matter of " stuff " and not of mere accident, the PCs would in fact be obligated to lord over the nobility.

You can argue that people in World X believe that the aristocracy is more excellent, but just as it the real world, it is not going to be true. Not without extra setting provisions to make it so that go far beyond historical simulation.

You're the GM. Nobles have better blood, stats, skills if you say so.

In real history, Kings believed they ruled because their deity said so. In D&D, their deity really did say so.

If the GM wants to use some ideas from history, it should be assumed he is automatically adjusting the game reality to make it true in more ways than just saying so.

The church worships Deity X. Ok then, this is D&D, Deity X must really exist and the clerics really are casting spells from Deity X.

Nobles rule by Divine Right. Ok, Deity X must have granted them that authority when he created them to lead the smallfolk.

Much of the non-D&D fantasy I read has this assumption built into societies that the OP describes. Game of Thrones for instance. That doesn't make any of the characters evil. What makes them evil has more to do with how they abuse other people, than the fact that nobles are "better" than smallfolk.

 

[wingsandsword]

There have been plenty of fantasy settings that have used the noble class has more rights then the commoners. In Katherine Kurtz Deryni novels an incident takes place where a noble of Deryni blood is found dead. It was common knowledge he raped young children. The King ordered 50 commoners from the area arrested and sentenced them to die for the crime. The Duke of the area tried to negotiate for his people's lives. He was allowed to save one the rest were hung.

Ugh, nonsense like that makes me glad I don't read fantasy novels. I doubt I could have restrained the urge to throw the book reading something like that. . .or if I saw it in a game to restrain the urge to shift the entire PC plot to assassinating the King in the name of justice and not care what the DM thought about derailing the campaign. If the book did not end with that tyrant king being deposed and preferably dead, I don't think I could read it.

One thing I have noticed about a lot of fantasy literature, including gaming settings, is that they exaggerate the powers of the nobility well beyond what they were in reality. Or more accurately, assume their de jure power was their de facto power and don't take into account that it's a big difference from granting somebody power on paper and them actually getting away with using that power and the common people accepting that they have that power.

One example I can think of is the Rokugan setting for the Legend of the Five Rings RPG & CCG. It's an Asian pastiche strongly based on feudal Japan with some elements of China and other Asian cultures thrown in.

In this setting, one right every Samurai (and most PCs are all samurai caste, if they aren't monks) has in that setting is to kill any commoner at their discretion, no trial or appeal, or even warning. A samurai legally can just be walking by, decide at a whim to kill a peasant, and pull out his sword and kill him and keep right on walking. It's been almost a decade since I've played, I think maybe they might have to pay a token sum to their lord if the peasant wasn't one of their own vassals.

The setting materials, and the GM I played under, played this as completely normal and accepted by the peasants and a right that Samurai were very willing to use if they felt even the slightest bit disrespected or bloodthirsty. Peasants were reverent and fearful of even the lowliest samurai because they knew that they could die in the blink of an eye if that samurai had even a whim to do so, and there was nothing they or anybody they knew could do to stop it.

The problem is, historically, it was nothing like that. Yeah, samurai had a similar right by law, on paper, but that law ran into all kinds of problems called human nature.

Samurai who just arbitrarily killed peasants tended to be mobbed by that peasants friends and family, and in a realistic setting one lone armored warrior versus a few dozen commoners with pitchforks and hammers, that samurai would probably lose (unlike D&D except for a very low level Samurai). . .and to prevent further retribution from the next samurai or Imperial representative that came by, their swords would be broken and melted down at a local forge and the body hidden and buried.

Also, the control of the people wasn't as absolute as fantasy materials would make you think. Using the Japanese/Rokugan example, in Rokugan the Emperor's will is absolute and rebellion would be utterly unthinkable and the forces of the six great clans would be so strong that no peasant revolt could possibly end in anything but bloody failure.

In the real world, for 78 years, from 1488 to 1564 the Kaga province, as well as a portion of Okawa, Ise and Mikawa provinces were in open rebellion against the Shogunate as an alliance of peasants who were fed up with abusive behavior and monks who championed the idea of all humans being equal (and thus opposed special rights for the Samurai and nobility). You'd never see anything like that in a fantasy RPG, except maybe portrayed as ignorant and insolent peasants who would be quickly and brutally crushed.

 

[gamerprinter]

One example I can think of is the Rokugan setting for the Legend of the Five Rings RPG & CCG. It's an Asian pastiche strongly based on feudal Japan with some elements of China and other Asian cultures thrown in.

In this setting, one right every Samurai (and most PCs are all samurai caste, if they aren't monks) has in that setting is to kill any commoner at their discretion, no trial or appeal, or even warning. A samurai legally can just be walking by, decide at a whim to kill a peasant, and pull out his sword and kill him and keep right on walking. It's been almost a decade since I've played, I think maybe they might have to pay a token sum to their lord if the peasant wasn't one of their own vassals.

The setting materials, and the GM I played under, played this as completely normal and accepted by the peasants and a right that Samurai were very willing to use if they felt even the slightest bit disrespected or bloodthirsty. Peasants were reverent and fearful of even the lowliest samurai because they knew that they could die in the blink of an eye if that samurai had even a whim to do so, and there was nothing they or anybody they knew could do to stop it.

The problem is, historically, it was nothing like that. Yeah, samurai had a similar right by law, on paper, but that law ran into all kinds of problems called human nature.

Samurai who just arbitrarily killed peasants tended to be mobbed by that peasants friends and family, and in a realistic setting one lone armored warrior versus a few dozen commoners with pitchforks and hammers, that samurai would probably lose (unlike D&D except for a very low level Samurai). . .and to prevent further retribution from the next samurai or Imperial representative that came by, their swords would be broken and melted down at a local forge and the body hidden and buried.

Also, the control of the people wasn't as absolute as fantasy materials would make you think. Using the Japanese/Rokugan example, in Rokugan the Emperor's will is absolute and rebellion would be utterly unthinkable and the forces of the six great clans would be so strong that no peasant revolt could possibly end in anything but bloody failure.

In the real world, for 78 years, from 1488 to 1564 the Kaga province, as well as a portion of Okawa, Ise and Mikawa provinces were in open rebellion against the Shogunate as an alliance of peasants who were fed up with abusive behavior and monks who championed the idea of all humans being equal (and thus opposed special rights for the Samurai and nobility). You'd never see anything like that in a fantasy RPG, except maybe portrayed as ignorant and insolent peasants who would be quickly and brutally crushed.

In Kaidan, unlike L5R, you can play a samurai, a commoner, a hinin caste member (probably a member of the yakuza). So not only does a samurai have to worry about a mob killing him for over-reacting or just tyranizing the commoner caste, because that commoner opponent might just be a 15th level bushi fighter, and not some lowly NPC.

The truth was, historically, samurai did kill commoners for showing disrespect to samurai, but it wasn't all that common. Most commoners knew better and if they showed disrespect, they expected to lose their heads, but perhaps the moment of rebellion was worth the sacrafice.

As an aside, I hate to use the word 'peasant' when describing the Japanese commoner caste, as they weren't peasants really. In Europe a peasant works the land and pays rents to his lord, because the lord owns the land. In Japan, the commoner farmer owned the land that he worked. Life was harsh for a commoner, true, as rice taxes were very high so life is tough, but at least the commoner was a land owner and not a peasant. Even the Hinin caste member owns the property he works generally, unless he worked for the Hinin member who owns it.

There was no peasant class in Japan.

Also in Kaidan, there are commoner caste revolts and we have intentions of developing an adventure based on that premise. In fact there is currently a province in a state of rebellion without an active daimyo in charge (slain by the rebels) at the start of the campaign. The idea that an RPG on feudal Japan would not include such a thing is a silly statement. Perhaps not in L5R which is basically a samurai game with everyone else except shugenja as NPCs - L5R is not the only Asian game in town. (Also shugenja is the wrong word for priest monk, shugenja is a follower of Shugendo. A 'follower' meaning a simple adherent, not a priest. A priest of shugendo is called a yamabushi. Shugenja to Shugendo is the same as Christian is to Christianity. It describes worshippers, not priests).