World Building - Is there a "Moral Order" in your Setting?

[Clavis]

In my campaigns Good and Evil aren't the same as right and wrong. Rather, the Alignments are the different factions that wage a perpetual war for the character of the Multiverse. By virtue of their Alignment, PCs are agents in this war, either knowingly or unknowingly. A character such as a Paladin might be extending the borders of Heaven onto Earth. Likewise, Evil PCs ultimately help to make Earth a little more like Hell, even if they are personally rather charming and often generous. All of the Planer armies of the Alignments, however, are quite willing to slaughter the vast majority of the Multiverse's inhabitants in order for their vision of right to triumph. Being Lawful Good can really just mean that you destroy "evildoers" in the cause of Heaven (like a historical Paladin actually would!). In situation like that, it's the active kind of True Neutrality that is objectively "right", because its the side that is trying to stop ALL of the other factions before they get EVERYBODY killed. The Good guys need to be thwarted almost as often as the forces of Evil, because while Heaven on Earth sound like a good deal, you won't like it so much when Heaven decides there's no place for an unrighteous soul like you.

 

[shadow]

　Not trying to be difficult here. I really don't uinderstand why 'it is important that the setting establish some type of implicit moral order', if all that is desired is 'high heroism in a dark world'. . .

This really opens a can of worms. We can really debate about the nature of heroism and morality, but let me explain where I'm coming from...

I've been working on a homebrew on and off for several years. It started as another "generic fantasy world" with little to distinguish it from Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk (except a lower magic level). At that point I began to wonder to myself, "What's the point? Why not just save myself the time and do Forgotten Realms?"

About that point I read C.S. Lewis' essay Abolition of Man. Essentially Lewis argues that by thoroughly "debunking" objective moral values, there is a danger of the majority being controlled by a small group of technocrats who are to mold people to their whims via social engineering and psychology. Lewis' novel That Hideous Strength takes this argument and uses it as the basis of a sci-fi/fantasy story.

This got me thinking - why should the evil darklord dress in black, laugh maniacally, and kill peasant for the mere sake of killing peasants? Instead I started postulating a fantasy police state. My "darklord" is a wizard (in a low magic setting) who has a cult of personality. While no less evil than other darklords - he is very charismatic and well liked. Instead of undead legions that terrorize the populace, he rules through propaganda and constant magical surveillance. People who rebel or don't toe the party line simply "disappear", never to be seen again. (No need to let the public see or know about the unpleasant realities of death camps and a secret police force.)

This is where you start really getting into a question of morality. Since the said darklord rules through propaganda and a personality cult, he is really admired by many people in the setting. He did, after all, bring peace to a war torn area (at the price of complete control). Are you still a hero if most people of the setting oppose you? Is heroism not doing what is right when no one else will support you? If morality is simply subjective, what is to say going along with the status-quo is not the best thing to do? After all, from a pure Darwinian standpoint, standing up for what right at the cost of your own life is foolish.

If you are interested in further debate, I would suggest that you read C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man for further insight. Lewis is coming from a conservative and Christian viewpoint (although he admits that the natural law - or Tao - is found in all cultures), but I find it a very fascinating, if not slightly scary read.

With all that said, this is an area where one needs to be careful when running a game. Although I have a definite morality in my games, I have to be careful to keep it a game and not preach. As I mentioned in a previous post, most players come to hang out for a few hours, not to participate in morality plays.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'll give my own answers to some of these, even if they happen to be rhetorical, or what have you.

Are you still a hero if most people of the setting oppose you?

Of course. Heh, well, depending. . .

Is heroism not doing what is right when no one else will support you?

There are instances to be found in that context, sure. Likewise, in others.

If morality is simply subjective, what is to say going along with the status-quo is not the best thing to do?

Sure. It might as readily point towards going against the status quo.

After all, from a pure Darwinian standpoint, standing up for what right at the cost of your own life is foolish.

I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall that even for Darwin, risk/reward, sacrifice and the greater good were no strangers to the bigger picture. I mean, if robots can (apparently) 'evolve' [some] such notions, I'm sure humans in a 'pure science' universe can too. . .

If you are interested in further debate, I would suggest that you read C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man for further insight. Lewis is coming from a conservative and Christian viewpoint (although he admits that the natural law - or Tao - is found in all cultures), but I find it a very fascinating, if not slightly scary read.

Alas, all I own of Lewis is Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet / Perelandra / That Hideous Strength, and The Screwtape Letters. But I'll see if anyone I know has a copy of that one, or failing that, head to the local (or uni) library.

With all that said, this is an area where one needs to be careful when running a game. Although I have a definite morality in my games, I have to be careful to keep it a game and not preach. As I mentioned in a previous post, most players come to hang out for a few hours, not to participate in morality plays.

Well, I certainly agree here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I mean, if robots can (apparently) 'evolve' [some] such notions, I'm sure humans in a 'pure science' universe can too. . .

Careful about equating behaviour with notions.

As a side note, robots are the perfect example of created/designed beings; therefore this probably doesn't evidence what you think it does.


RC

 

[Nyeshet]

Not exactly ...

There is Sanct and there is Taint.

Sanct is the element of purest, truest existence - in a sense the 'glue' that holds the laws of nature together, working together as they should.

Taint is the opposite, sometimes compared to non-existence, sometimes compared to ultimate disorder. In truth it is more of an anti-existence, something that so warps the nature of existence that it comes undone. Within existence itself Taint can never utterly destroy existence; rather, it is most destructive at the edges of existence - like the sea slowly eroding a coastline or the dark at the edge of light.

Deities are beings of Sanct, whilst fiends are creatures of Taint. Kindness or Cruelty makes no difference to either, but Sanct and Taint are 2 of many elements that make of the world. From a certain point of view, fiends are elementals of taint while deities are elementals of sanct, although it is not quite as simple as that. For one, although deities might be kind or cruel, fiends by definition are ever seeking to corrupt or destroy and have no particular interest in humanoids - unlike deities, which in enlightened self-interest realized that worship from humanoids notably increased their power and so actively seek to maintain that worship (generally via kindness [worship and I'll look after you] or cruelty [worship or face my wrath]).

 

[Glade Riven]

In the homebrew I'm playing in: Yes, there is inherant morality built into the universe. This hasn't caused issue due to everyone in the group having a fairly strong Christian background, and most of us are either going to or have graduated from a Liberal Arts Christian School. That doesn't mean that players sometimes don't do henous things, though.

In the homebrew I'm DMing: Sort of. Good and Evil are established in general, but there are plenty of people who think they have a lock on Truth to the exclusivity of others. It hasn't really come up, yet.

 

[The Shaman]

Speaking specifically for D&D, at least 3e on down, I would have to say that yes, there is an absolute moral order in a D&D setting.

Good and Evil are reified forces in D&D. Being Good or Evil has physical consequences. How can it then be subjective? To me, that would be like saying Gravity is subjective - if I believe I can fly, then I can throw myself at the ground and miss.

I really have a problem, at least in versions of D&D where alignment has real, physical consequences, with the idea that morality is somehow in the eye of the beholder.

Now, if you remove those consequences, then morality is up for grabs. But, when I can objectively measure morality - detect evil spells do exactly that - then morality becomes an objective force.

That's my take on it as well.

 

[Cyronax]

IMC I tend to view moral order as subjective in the eyes of the individual, BUT powerful entities -- gods -- can still try to impose or inspire their own ethos on the multiverse.

Again, IMC the gods and the primordials are bound up in a multiversal order that is generally hidden to mortals until they reach the Epic Destiny time, or for certain characters during their Paragon times. It is entirely based on old BECMI/Mystra information I gleaned from the Vault of Pandius (official Mystra archive/fansite).

The campaign world is Norse themed, with only a few gods surviving 'Ragnarokk' -- a battle between the gods of creation vs. the god of entropy (Tharizdun). The surviving gods are Erathis, Sehanine, the Raven Queen, an imprisoned Tharzidun, Lolth, The Traveler/The Mockery (combined Eberron god -- essentially Loki), and Mephistopheles and his Infernal Remnant.

The Five Spheres of Power – ancient and abstract proemial forces whose interaction created the current state of the multiverse and the Seven Worlds. Gods and exarches of wildly different character and moral outlook can serve the same sphere, and within each sphere different outlooks and philosophies abound. The state of multiversal balance in the Third Age is precarious at best. A level of balance currently exists thanks only to the sacrifice of most of the Aesir within the heart of the Abyss to counter Tharizdun from annihilating the multiverse and for the finality of Entropy. In the wake of their sacrifice, the sphere of Matter is resolutely maintained by the quintessence of their vestigial power. The last true Aesir – Erathis, Sehanine, and the Raven Queen became the highest embodiments of Thought, Energy, and Time, respectively.

Energy – the balance through disorder (Sehanine (U), The Traveler (E); some elementals, some giants, some norns (eladrin archfey), and some titans).
Exemplar Epic Destinies: avatar of freedom [DP], avatar of storm [DP], chosen [DP], demigod [Phb], exalted angel [DP], immanence [AP], saint [DP].

Entropy – the end of balance through annihilation (Tharizdun (CE), Lolth (CE); some elementals, some giants, nagas, slaadi, undead, and some titans).
Exemplar Epic Destinies: archlich [AP], demigod [Phb], chosen [DP], harbinger of doom [Phb2], saint [DP].

Matter – the balance through immutability (The Fallen Aesir, Jormugand, the World Dragon (U), and some norns (eladrin archfey)).
Exemplar Epic Destinies: chosen [DP], demigod [Phb], exalted angel [DP], fatespinner [Phb2], any specifically primal epic destiny [Varies], saint [DP].

Thought – the balance through reason (Erathis (G), Mephistopheles and the Fallen Vanir (E); devils, and some norns).
Exemplar Epic Destinies: archmage [Phb], archspell [AP], avatar of hope [DP], avatar of justice [DP], avatar of war [DP], chosen [DP], demigod [Phb], exalted angel [DP], feyliege [AP], lorekeeper [Phb2], parable [AP], revered one [Phb2], saint [DP].

Time – the balance through cycle (The Raven Queen (U); inevitables, sorrowsworn and some norns (eladrin archfey)).
Exemplar Epic Destinies: avatar of death [DP], avatar of life [DP], chosen [DP], demigod [Phb], exalted angel [DP], lord of fate [AP], sage of the ages [AP], saint [DP].

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think that in the vast majority of FRPGs -- and in all D&D versions in any of its various forms -- the idea that there is an underlying objective "morality" is unavoidable, because it is made an explicit part of the Rules of the game system, if not the setting.

After all, this is a fantasy game where there are undead that despise all life "just because" and demons and devils who seek to expand misery, death, pestilence, slavery and the ruin of all because -- hey -- spreading that kind of woe is "evil" and that's what they do and it says so on page "xxx" of the Monster Manual.

That is as explicit as it gets folks.

To my way of thinking, there is a vast difference between 1) rationalizing on a metaphysical basis that "X" is sin and logically bad and spiritually "evil" and 2) the "objective truth" that there is a plane of existence called the Abyss or Hell - and the denizens of that realm are "real" in game terms which follow a certain moral code and grant powers to their followers and communicate with them in clear and certain terms.

The game rules don't suppose that such evil may exist; to the contrary, the game rules mandate that they do, in fact, exist and explicitly set out how that "evil" physically mainfests, works and interacts with individuals and monsters in the game world.

When the game rules and setting make those features a part of the rules, an objective morality -- a dividing line between good and evil -- becomes explicit and unavoidable. That is both one of the attractions and one of the inherent problems with D&D, in my opinion. For the most part, most players consider it a "feature" and not a "bug". YMMV.

In non-D&D game settings, I have drawn a distinction between "bad guys" and True Evil™. The bad guys may be homicidal maniacs, slavers and merciless thugs. They may be termed as "evil" by the societies of the setting, but that does not necessarily make them True Evil™. True Evil™ is reserved for those rare individuals who have communicated with and allied with infernal dark powers on an objective basis.

Thus, there is a difference between someone who does an evil act, and someone who has sold his immortal soul to some dark god or demon in exchange for the granting of magical temporal power. A "detect evil" will work on the one but not the other.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that in the vast majority of FRPGs -- and in all D&D versions in any of its various forms -- the idea that there is an underlying objective "morality" is unavoidable, because it is made an explicit part of the Rules of the game system, if not the setting.

While I lourve playing with this in D&D, I gotta say it's not ALWAYS applicable.

For instance, FFZ doesn't worry too much about morality. I mean, there is usually someone trying to be a mass murderer of some stripe, and the PC's stand in their way, but villains are frequently sympathetic, and certainly have reasons for going axe crazy at the end. Questions of the afterlife and morality and a cosmic judge aren't dealt with as much as living the lives the characters have at the moment as constructively as possible. Part of this is the JRPG influence, and, by extension, a bit of Japanese cultural influence. It's not bad to steal because you'll go to hell or go to jail, it's bad to steal because it makes life worse for everyone when you do -- you have a socialist responsibility to everyone else in the world. Destroying the world is pretty bad because there's a lot of people who don't want you to do that, not because it is Evil and that is What Evil Does.

So without an explicit morality, you can STILL have the wanton destruction. FFZ is a bit unique in that most of the villains at least begin as normal mortal beings, however, before their "pact with Otherworldly Impersonal Forces" causes them to go all one-winged angel on the party. Most villains have a fall-from-grace arc that parallels the PC's "gain power and help people" arc.