When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[Zelda Themelin]

This modern versus different time (universe, culture) problem rises head very often in my another group. Some people just can't reskin their own personal preferances how to live life (not just morals) for fantasy games. Said persons also tend to make adventure-avoiding turtling characters regardless of backgroud they themselves gave. You know the few words background when you tell about your character to other players.

Thus whenever he runs games even when "run away, I make you run away, if you don't you are playing chaotic neutral" wtf, certain subjects tend to go in land of eeeevil, like enslavement of children, even if that still happens in real word for "practical reasons". I can live with that those game are roleplaying-light where you have to be demon worshipping crazy cultist to do that or even get laid, for the matter.

He is also big in that good should win all the time, dulllll...

But I think many of those gaming differances (and personalitly) is that I can get into characters that are not like me at all, or npc:s that are utterly disgusting accirding my personal sensibles. Or just highly annoying from perspective I'd have to associate in real life.

This person's problem is not ignorance of history or how modern world works, he just prefers his roleplaying that vanilla+. Actually it's interesting we still play together (well, old friends) since half of group has pretty different standing what fun roleplaying is. Yet it's lovely to share, in small doses.

We argue always about paladins. We have recently agreed that minds will not be changed so we leave them alone.

Also star wars and jedis. He is really avid star wars fan. I don't like to play in universes based on fiction, especially long standing. Ah, then there are jedi powers and what gives dark side powers according to book. It's interesting we have argued about that, even if we sort of agree, even if, I don't even play jedis on those rare occasions I've been tricked to participate.

Age old argument concerning "killing kobold babies", since 1983.

I think I like arguing that's why we don't so often agree to disagree.

I must admit warhammer chaos corruption used to be difficult for me. I played lot of warhammer 40 000 as roleplaying game. I think fugly mutations bothered me more than actual "philosophy of chaos" (=often stupid evil). I got over it. Though admitingly I have my least favories like "transperent skin".

I don't often play in games simulating "medieval" worlds. They tend to be bit more fantastic. And often despite their origins adventurers are bit of social class of it's own. Unles characters are spending lot time supporting family, guild, their political/religious goals.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Cultural gender-roles are different animal. This tend to affect actual gaming lot. I refuse to play female in culture were females are dissed. I've gotten into argument about this, not for any more special reason, as some groups wanted to people to play characters with same gender. Really, who would want npc-role.

"Amazon" cultures were not problem. People never did those except as monster encounters and other "events".

These kinda characters are for games about nobles and peasants, where pc:s are peasants. Think dragon age origins, city elf storyline. That kinda games. Not really my thing.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

On one hand, I have no problem with this, as even in our own world people had "modern" morals and ethics throughout history (nobody threw the "modern morales and ethics" switch).

On the other hand, any time you have party members at odds, you have to be careful not to let it ruin other players' fun. So, if the players can handle the dichotomy, let some of them rebel against the status quo.

 

[aj3ai]

Not sure this fits well, but I had a hilarious moral dilemma in a recent game.
My players had burst into the home of a reclusive wizard and unceremoniously ransacked his house looking for proof of mis-deeds they thought he'd committed. After confronting him, it became obvious he wasn't evil, just under duress... but due to the circumstances they ended up having to kill him anyway.

The party wizard wasn't happy with it at all, bitching and moaning throughout the combat about how terrible what they were doing was. Until they looted the corpse and found a headband of intellect: "I'll have that!"

 

[Kaodi]

There were no 'medieval ethics' saying that rape, slavery, or the killing of lower-status persons were ok.

Good post overall, but I have two issues to address ( and they are not 1) It is too awesome; and 2) See 1 ) .

I think that you could argue that if certain behaviours were practiced widely enough, they would in fact constitute " ethics as practiced " even if they were not backed up, and perhaps even abhored, by formal doctrine.

As well, what exactly constitutes precise " medieval ethics " is kind of the secondary part of what what I was saying, which is that ethical standards change over time because we " discover " that old standards are in some way deficient (through developing arguments), but that gods that communicate with their followers regularly would lead to deficient standards being discarded very quickly. Thus, I do not think it would be unreasonable to assume that the fictional gods of " good " in D&D (or at least a couple among them) would have doctrines similar to the best modern ethics has to offer.

 

[Kaodi]

It seems this thread has gotten off-topic, and it is such an interesting one, I would like to see itget back on track.

I have to assume that this problem is not unique to my game. Since it continually rears its ugly head time and again I have decided to type up and distribute a handout, which I intend to review at the beginning of every session until all my players get it right. Topics I will cover in the handout will include structure of law, societal caste roles and interaction, and commomplace moral and ethical structures. Also intend to define the alignment structure of the world. Wish I had thought to do this in the beginning.

Anyone have any other advice?

All I would suggest is that when you define the alignment structure of the world, you take care to give it theistic support. Nothing says " do not do this " quite like " none of the gods approve of this " ( or conversely " do this " , " all of the gods approve of this " ) .

 

[Alzrius]

My suggestion is to write out a summary of how law works, how the social classes are structured and how they interact, what the commonly-held view is of magic-users, clerics and adventurers.

At the risk of being shamelessly self-promoting, you can find a framework for developing such a system of laws over on my blog:

Law of the Land, Part 1 - Lexicon of Legal Loquacity

Law of the Land, Part 2 - Compendium of Crime

Law of the Land, Part 3 - Suspicious Spellcasting

 

[Janx]

I am not sure I can continue discussing the subject of medieval ethics at all without reference at least to elements of alignment.

I mean, if discussing alignments can only lead to madness, and if alignments deals with good and evil, and if ethics is the study of good and evil, then to discuss ethics just is to discuss alignment, and thus discussing ethics can only lead to madness, .

I'm going to approach this by trying to support slavery and the D&D alignment system working together. So bear with me.

In America, we consider slavery to be wrong. We also have the concept that all men are created equal.

In some D&D worlds, that's not true. Not only are some races born "evil", but people in the good races are born into various levels of superiority over others. Someone born to a peasant family is "less" than someone born to a noble family. It's not just a matter of being born to the wrong parents and how much money they have, their actual DNA and game stats says they are not as good as a noble borrn.

Therefore, within the "good" society of humans, a hierarchical structure of governance and social norms can be established by station of birth.
It is "wrong" to disrespect, disobey or assault your betters.
People in superior positions have the responsibility to care for their lessors and to punish wrong doing.

Within that framework, that means a good noble PC can have a slave that keeps his house clean, serfs that tend his fields.
The PC should decide disputes for them and come to their aid during famine or attack.
the PC should expect nor accept any disrespect or trouble from his lessors.

An evil PC in that same situation will treat his vassals poorly, decide cases cruely, and justify being cruel and harsh to them.

When the GM tells you he has such a "traditional" medieval society, the point is to NOT fling poo at it, but figure out how the framework works WITHIN the rules (alignment system).

 

[wingsandsword]

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?

I ran across this once. That was enough to learn this lesson.

12 years ago I tried to run a quasi-historic D&D game set during the 3rd Crusade. I was in college for a history degree at the time and had researched the 12th century in pretty good detail.

The game was low-magic, basically just enough magic that the PC's could have a little and benefit from it, but it was still strange any mysterious to most NPCs and definitely not enough to really impact the world.

Well, after the hurdles of getting the players to understand this was supposed to be at least somewhat historic (so no Halflings, no character backgrounds involving spelljamming, being a refugee from Athas or escapee from Ravenloft. . .) we got underway.

The first big crash happened about 1 hour into the game. The person playing the party Paladin was Catholic IRL. He decided to pay a visit to a local church and speak with the priest about the immoral and heretical things he was seeing done.

So, a player going in with early 21st century American morals and ethics and a Post Vatican II outlook on Catholicism, trying to talk about the morality of war with an NPC who was a late 12th century priest and well-researched in his views.

The player accused me of just making up nonsense and insulting his religious beliefs and his morality with the way this game was going, and it was only a couple hours into the first session.

I ended up having to pull out history and theology books I had to show him that I really wasn't making things up, and that NPC had said nothing that was heresy or that you couldn't find 12th century clergy professing.

He just couldn't handle it and quit the game on the spot, it made him way too uncomfortable. The remaining players stuck with it, but the culture clashes were pretty big.

Eventually, as the game wore on, gradually we began to ease from stricter historic accuracy into more fantastic history and make it more like a "conventional" D&D game set in what was more-or-less the real world, as the players all had difficulty immersing themselves into the mindset of the time.

It was interesting that a game set 810 years earlier in the real world would be harder for the players to depict than strange, fantastic settings.

 

[gamerprinter]

However the polytheistic Romans were outraged by what they considered the barbaric and bloodthirsty religion of the druids. They endeavoured to wipe out every last druid, even pursuing them to the ends of Wales to the isle of Anglesey. Much hypocrisy in all this, but it certainly shows that the ancients were capable of as much intolerance and narrowness in their definitions of good and evil as were mediaeval Christians.

I think lots of this has to do with the fact that in Rome women were considered inferior to men, yet in Celtic society, women could be rulers, priestesses and hold other elements of power - counter to Roman thinking.

The argument that druids practiced human sacrafice was an excuse. Though the coleseum wasn't a religious event. In Rome, human sacrafice was practiced in its own way.

So, yes, the Romans were very much hypocritical.