When modern ethics collide with medieval ethics

[gamerprinter]

I think that for a lot of people, morality is not an intellectual construct.

It's something deeper, something laid down in childhood and other formative experiences. But this means that it is really hard to exchange your moral construct for a different construct. Intellectually, maybe they think they can do it, but when push comes to shove, their personal beliefs reassert themselves.

If this is the case, I don't think there's really much you can do, aside from playing with different players. You'd be better off playing a campaign where the campaign morals match that of the players.

Or play with more open minded people, as I know my gaming group has no problems experimenting roleplaying different perspectives from their own. I'm certain that their base instincts tell them that certain aspects being played within a given setting is outside their normal comfort zone. Still they are willing to accept an opposite point of view, as long as it makes for fun roleplaying.

 

[GSHamster]

Or play with more open minded people, as I know my gaming group has no problems experimenting roleplaying different perspectives from their own. I'm certain that their base instincts tell them that certain aspects being played within a given setting is outside their normal comfort zone. Still they are willing to accept an opposite point of view, as long as it makes for fun roleplaying.

Eh, everybody has limits. Consider a world where the rape of enemy women is considered an acceptable and even expected practice. Would you have your character commit rape?

Of course, you might say that the above isn't "fun roleplaying". But it's only not fun because it crosses the lines of your personal morality. It goes farther than you are willing to go. Would you consider someone being less open-minded because they could not roleplay a rapist?

 

[Elf Witch]

What about gender relations? Has your dungeon master trodden in that dangerous path of mediaeval/classical culture?

Yes and no. In our Greyhawk woman are equal in power to men. The first born inherits the throne. Woman are the heads of some of the more powerful guilds.

There are woman in the army and guard. Most of those woman come from the lower class or the merchant class most noble woman would be looked down on if they went off to a life of adventuring.

There are societies in her game world where woman are kept in a subservient position. They are forced to wear veils and are bought and sold into marriage and their lives can be ended on the whim of their father, brother and husband.


Her drow society is very matriarchal with men having no power in society other than to be used as breeders and sacrifices to Lloth.

 

[gamerprinter]

Eh, everybody has limits. Consider a world where the rape of enemy women is considered an acceptable and even expected practice. Would you have your character commit rape?

Of course, you might say that the above isn't "fun roleplaying". But it's only not fun because it crosses the lines of your personal morality. It goes farther than you are willing to go. Would you consider someone being less open-minded because they could not roleplay a rapist?

I would not even allow the use of the word, in game. I've quit a game because the DM was setting up rape as the premise of an encounter.

Rape, as far as I know, has never been acceptable behavior in any historical period, in any country. All my posts in this thread relate to historical comparisons with ethics of times past. While some historic precedence suggest that some cultures were less punishing of the act, it was never acceptable behavior.

Being open minded, doesn't mean pick any atrocious behavior, and let's roleplay. This discussion has been about slavery, killing innocents, killing non-believers - not rape, not ever.

In fact, I consider it crossing the line, just talking about it.

 

[Tallifer]

I would not even allow the use of the word, in game. I've quit a game because the DM was setting up rape as the premise of an encounter.

Rape, as far as I know, has never been acceptable behavior in any historical period, in any country. All my posts in this thread relate to historical comparisons with ethics of times past. While some historic precedence suggest that some cultures were less punishing of the act, it was never acceptable behavior.

Being open minded, doesn't mean pick any atrocious behavior, and let's roleplay. This discussion has been about slavery, killing innocents, killing non-believers - not rape, not ever.

In fact, I consider it crossing the line, just talking about it.

Indeed. Rape might be a fact of life. But should not be an element of friendly storytelling. Mediaeval society evolved a whole code of chivalry for the gentle and noble treatment of women and the weak. This is also why I frown on evil player characters: evil knows no bounds, and the route to torture, perversion and degradation is wide open. Why I also avoid game worlds like Carcosa which seem to revel in degenerate behaviour. (Note that Call of Cthulhu on the other hand assumes that the player characters will be rightly horrified by evil and insanity.)

 

[fanboy2000]

What is this medieval ethics of which people speak? I've read a fair bit on ethics and the last time any ethicist argued "slavery was ok" in the West would have been in the pre-Christian Roman Empire.

How are you defining ethicist? I know for a fact that people argued that "slavery was ok" in the west since then, so I'm curious how you can simply exclude them from the discussion.

But then again, that's part of the problem isn't it? Modern ethics isn't very modern when you realize that throughout history Moral Guardians have condemned almost any sort of behavior or institution imaginable. There seem to have been various degrees of compliance among the general populous and the people who govern them. But a lot of the ethics we cling to today have their roots in ancient documents and treatises.

Here's an example: back in undergrad, a book came out basically saying that not only was it wrong to eat animals, but that such arguments had been made since antiquity. He predicted the people in the future will look back on out carnivorous ways and condemn us the same we condemn things like slavery. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding it right now.

These contradictions between different definitions of ethical behavior are part of what makes crafting a campaign setting fun. The DM can pick and choose between the different ideas and create a game that reflects the anachronism stew we all love about fantasy.

Here's another example: it's easy to find prohibitions against adultery. It is equally easy to find people clearly engaging in the practice. Consider King Edward VIII. People honestly suggested that Edward marry someone else and keep Simpson on as a mistress. Adultery is bad, but somehow not as bad as marrying a divorcee.

 

[Elf Witch]

What is this medieval ethics of which people speak? I've read a fair bit on ethics and the last time any ethicist argued "slavery was ok" in the West would have been in the pre-Christian Roman Empire. By the 6th century AD the Codex of Justinian, the basis of both Byzantine law and medieval European Law describes slavery as "against the Law of Nature" (Ius Naturae) though, regrettedly, part of the Ius Gentium, the "Law of Nations", ie man-made Law.

Likewise the idea that a noble can kill a commoner but not vice versa is decidedly pre-Christian and pre-Medieval, if it existed at all it'd be a way of looking at the Germanic weregild system, which set a variable value on your head that your murderer had to pay for killing you. But the weregild system was designed to regulate and reduce conflict in a situation where no strong central authority existed, it simply recognised that the poor man lacked the wherewithal to exact vengeance on the noble who killed his brother, but honour could be satisfied by a payment. Whereas as a practical matter if you killed the noble's brother, of course the noble is going to kill you. Ethics as such barely enters into it.

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

If Hextorism is equivalent to Satanism then the medieval-ethical approach to the Hextorists in the first post would be, as Gygax once pointed out:

a) If possible, convert them to the LG religion to save their immortal souls, then
b) Kill them to prevent backsliding.

With (b) being optional - if you're certain they won't backslide, then ok to let them live. But it's the souls that matter. If you were unable to convert them then you or a duly appointed authority would certainly need to kill them to prevent them from corrupting and damning the souls of others.

If Hextor is regarded as a legitimate deity, like a saint in Christianity, then according to 'medieval ethics' you should not be killing the prisoners just as you shouldn't kill them in 'modern ethics', there is no significant difference.

Edit: In Europe it has often been 'normal' to kill prisoners of war, except for high status noble prisoners, but it has not been regarded as 'ethical' for nearly two thousand years.

I used the term medieval ethics when I should have used the term fantasy ethics.

The point I was trying to make was not using earth 21 century morality and ethics.

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.

In Jim Butcher's Codex Alera citizens of the realm and high lords have way more right then commoners and slavery is legal.

In DnD the gods are real it it not about faith not like here on Earth. Real miracles happen like raising people from the dead , healing bodies that have been gutted with swords. Real magic happens you really can't find anything like this on Earth so you have to extrapolate how people in a setting where divine magic is real would really look at things.

The middle ages is full of religious killing. There was the inquisition where they claim to kill followers of Satan and they killed Jews for being heretics and Muslims for being infidels. Religious wars and killing followers of other religions is very much a part of the middle ages.

The point is not all of us want to play in a vanilla setting that is basically modern Earth with magic and swords.

One of the fun things about doing a fantasy setting as a DM is to pick and choose how things work either from other settings, novels . history and your imagination.

The issue comes in on how to make this work in a way that it is fun for all your players at the table.

 

[Elf Witch]

Thank you [MENTION=9037]

I don't know... Maybe the bottom line is that really you shouldn't try to have a settings ethics to redefine Good vs Evil, because it's always going to be subjective to characters as well as players, and just restricts to the laws.

I think there is a middle ground here. The DM presents the world and the players make characters that react to it.

If everyone agrees to handle things in a mature fashion then this should not be an issue. Take the slaying of the clerics. In the DMs world the law would have no issue with what the cleric did. his god had no issue. Does that mean other characters have to be same? No other characters may have a very different world view.

Some of those characters may in their view define what the cleric did as an evil act and they should have their characters react to that belief. But as players they need to accept that the DM does not agree that it was evil and that the character is not going to be punished in game for it.

No one is trying to tell these players how to play their characters they can choose to think that the cleric is evil and his god Herineous is evil as well.

What makes interesting role playing is characters not being a hive mind and having different POVs.

It needs to be kept in character and you also need to be willing to accept how the DM runs her world. It is really very simple if you can't do that if you can't accept your DM saying while it is okay for your character to hold the opinion that this was an evil dishonorable act the law and the church and the god do not agree, then you need to bow out of this game instead of trying to force the DM to change things more to your view.

 

[Elf Witch]

V
The cleric acts as judge, jury and executioner, and the other players take exception to this. But, again, it's a character issue - do the other PCs agree with the action, and if not how do they respond.

And, again, you play the "arrogant nobleman", and the other players take exception. They then have their characters run off, and you take exception. But these are all character issues - shouldn't it be the rogue who confronts your noble over the arrogance, rather than Bob confronting you?

In the cleric situation it was mostly handled in character with the exception of one player who still brings it up three years later. He uses it to say things like okay so let me get this straight in the cause of good I can kill innocents or torture them now that I have become a lawful good knight.

It drives the DM crazy. First of all the clerics were not innocent nor where they tortured.

She is going nuts trying to work out a code for him to follow because of this.


The second issue is a player issue. I would like to say that I have not had the opportunity to role play it out with them in character. All of this is happening out of game between the DM and them.

They want the DM to take away any XP I got and the reward I got because they don't think it is fair that I got rewarded for as they put it acting out at the table. They don't think it is fair because I had inside knowledge they didn't. That inside knowledge being I remembered how things are supposed to work in the setting and I remembered all our other encounters with the guards.

Now maybe the DM should have handled it better at the table she could have called for a check from them to remember how things work. But I don't feel like it is fair to penalize me because I remembered and acted on that memory.

The reason I am being pissy over the walking away is this I have played with the one guy for 16 years and one of the things he does is do as I say not as I do. He would trow a huge hissy fit and refuse to continue adventuring with someone who walked away like that. I know this because he has done it in another game. Most of the time I just let things roll of my back. We are good friends out of game and I accept that sometimes friends do things things that annoy you .

If the upshot of the last encounter had just been the game ended and we played out the consequences in character next session I would have just shrugged his walking off as another case of do as I say not as I do and moved forward. After 16 years I accept that he does this I can't change him and as long as it does not come up all the time then I can deal with it.

But that is not what has happened they are both angry and feel as if they were screwed over and I am not sure everything they want. The DM has asked well what would fix this and other then to strip me of any rewards they can't answer other than they want the DM to admit that both she and I were wrong on how we interpreted what was happening at the encounter.

Which she can't they were not real city guards she was playing them mouthing off to my character as clue that something was wrong. She has apologized and said that in the future she will make an effort to remind them how things work that she is sorry she didn't run the encounter better and is sorry for the miscommunication. But that is not good enough they want me to also admit I did something wrong in my choice of actions as a player.

I am not going to do that because I didn't. I played my 500 year old noble elf sorcerer in character I played the setting as it has been presented to us and I picked up on the clues the DM was putting out.

I am willing to move forward and just let things go but I refuse to apologize when I did not do anything wrong.

 

[Elf Witch]

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).

I know slavery can be an emotional subject for a lot of people but like you said there is a way to presented it in a way that is not Simon Legree the evil overseer way.

If you study ancient societies most had some form of slavery ,in the middle ages they had serfs, they also had indentured servants who technically were slaves until their indenture was up.

In my one campaign there are slaves but there is a code on how they are treated. To become a slave one either sells himself into it for a set period of time to pay off debts or his sentenced to slavery because of non violent crimes.

Owners who buy them cannot beat them deny them proper food, clothing, shelter. If a slave misbehaves the owner can turn them into the courts for punishment.

Now some owners do bad things because they try and get away with things but if they are caught they could find themselves in a slave collar.

The PCs in that game were slaves owned by a magical guild who sent them on adventures to find lost lore. The players had a good time coming up with reasons why they had been enslaved.

I remember one conversation with an NPC elf who asked them why didn't they just run away since they had all this freedom to go exploring and the answer was well if we did that we would be running for the rest of our lives.