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

[LostSoul]

I would say no, not even in D&D. The gods may judge you wanting, but you may still judge the gods. Who's Corellon to say that what he does is good? (Except, you know, might makes right.)

More importantly, I don't think it's my job as DM to judge the morality of a PC's actions - not as a DM, at any rate. I guess you could change their alignments (something I've never done) but alignments are game concepts and don't necessarily map.

I think it's fine as players (including the DM) to say, "That was a cold-hearted move, your guy is a real bastard," and still agree that the PC is Lawful Good.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't typically take an active position on "the ultimate truth of reality" in my games, because it's not as interesting to me as what people in the setting believe.

I don't use alignments as metaphysical forces of morality, though, so I guess I am taking a position against that.

Ultimately I imagine my games would reflect my personal philosophy: people don't have an essential nature, they are defined by their actions. Whether this applies to non-mortal creatures is an interesting question - perhaps an angel is defined by an essential nature and that's what separates it from "natural" beings.

 

[Dykstrav]

In my games, there's definitely an absolute, clear-cut good and an absolute, clear-cut evil. There's plenty of room for shades of gray, but good and evil aren't just ideas in a D&D setting--they are forces that strive against one another and shape the cosmos.

In previous versions of the game, characters could literally detect the presence of good or evil creatures, magic, artifacts and the like with spells. You can also detect traps, treasure, secret doors, certain creatures and the like with spells. On this basis, I posit that good and evil exist in some literal, concrete form in the assumed D&D setting, at least in 3.5 and previous versions.

One of the things I actually don't like about 4E is the move away from implied moral absolutes. Radiant and necrotic damage have replaced effects that would have affected creatures based on their alignment. To me, this has removed flavor and mystique from divine characters. Instead of being warriors empowered to smite the wicked, they are warriors that are good at dealing radiant damage. As a DM, it's easy enough for me to refluff this to my taste, but I still prefer the idea that characters are fighting against a grand cosmic force.

All that being said, I also think that it's an issue for individual DMs and their groups to decide for themselves. I personally think that you can have moral and ethical absolutes without coming across as didactic. I also think that shades of gray are far more interesting when used with strong doses of black and white for contrast. For example, a clear-cut villain could become sympathetic, or a trusted ally doubted. Conversely, characters might think that someone harboring a complex agenda is really much simpler than he seems to be. Either way, you can make an interesting story by mixing these perspectives. I think it's a false dichotomy to say that you must have either a black-and-white morality or only shades of gray.

It's also incumbent upon the DM to determine moral absolutes for his game. I think that this is why many players prefer shades of gray--they don't agree with a particular DM, and would rather have the narrative license to do as they please rather than frame their actions in a manner consistent with the ethics and morals of the milieu. I believe that the alignment system is purposefully vague to allow individual DMs the leeway to frame situations as they see fit and arbitrate character actions accordingly.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Not really. Who sets the definitions that the spell uses? The deity who grats the spell? The Archmage who created it?

In my Unconquered Sun campaign, the Bafomites also have a Detect Evil spell, and it registers followers of the Unconquered Sun as Evil.

In CS Lewis' Narnia books, if Tash granted a Detect Evil spell to his priests, you can be darn sure it'd be registering the followers of Aslan as Evil, likewise.

Edit: Because this setting actually does attempt to deal with questions of Truth, there are some pretty grey areas. For instance the Church of the Unconquered Sun preaches that the Unconquered Sun is the child of the moon goddess Astarte by the Creator, El. The Bafomites meanwhile claim that the Horned Moon ravaged the Moon Goddess Astarte and that their offspring is the Unconquered Sun.

Who's right? Could they both be right? No way for the PCs to know.

 

[Pig Champion]

I tend to think, regardless of a static world morality, that the morality is in the narrative and not the world.

 

[Coldwyn]

Not really. Who sets the definitions that the spell uses? The deity who grats the spell? The Archmage who created it?

In my Unconquered Sun campaign, the Bafomites also have a Detect Evil spell, and it registers followers of the Unconquered Sun as Evil.

In CS Lewis' Narnia books, if Tash granted a Detect Evil spell to his priests, you can be darn sure it'd be registering the followers of Aslan as Evil, likewise.

Edit: Because this setting actually does attempt to deal with questions of Truth, there are some pretty grey areas. For instance the Church of the Unconquered Sun preaches that the Unconquered Sun is the child of the moon goddess Astarte by the Creator, El. The Bafomites meanwhile claim that the Horned Moon ravaged the Moon Goddess Astarte and that their offspring is the Unconquered Sun.

Who's right? Could they both be right? No way for the PCs to know.

Well, this happens if you mix an outside with an inside view. From the very neutral outside point of view, the Bafonites just use renamed detect good spells.
This only proves the coexistence of obejective morality, where on side is clearly right and the other wrong, and a subjective morality, where eah side sees itself in the right.

Leading this back to original topic, an objective moraility can be a nice crutch while creating a setting, in my experience it starts to crumbly when the players bring their subjective view on morality to the table.

 

[Starfox]

I like morality as an emergent quality. Morality is not inherent to physics, but fundamentally affects the world as we move on to biology and especially sapience. I am something of a Teilhardist.

In my game worlds, the "big pattern" tend to be lacking in morality. (Immoral? Amoral? This is where my English fails me.) The "old gods" are amoral being à la Lovecraft. Morality is a concept born from sapience, and the "young gods" that humans worship. Of course, with (meta)humanity evil also came into existence. Demons, evils and other "young evils" are fruits of sapience as well. In the end, the world of moral meaning and potential goodness is a small spark in a huge bleak universe of uncaring indifference.

If there is a deeper pattern, it is a Darwinian one. Over time (one hopes) good is more successful than evil, and will become more and more prevalent. At the same time it will become better understood. At the current point of the world, this is of course just a desperate hope.

 

[S'mon]

Well, this happens if you mix an outside with an inside view. From the very neutral outside point of view, the Bafonites just use renamed detect good spells.
This only proves the coexistence of obejective morality, where on side is clearly right and the other wrong, and a subjective morality, where eah side sees itself in the right.

Well, the church of the Unconquered Sun would say they were Objectively right while the Bafomites were only subjectively right, yup. But I'm using BX/BECMI D&D Alignment, not default 3e Alignment, as the objective system - though I let players put 3e alignments on their characer sheets as it fits Unconquered Sun teachings. BECMI Detect Evil only detects 'hostile intent'.

So Law and Chaos are potentially 'more objective' IMC than Good/Evil. Law & Chaos are clearly discernable, with a few grey areas around more orderly chaos (Nazis, D&D Devils, Trotskyites). Good/Evil are not so clear.

 

[shadow]

When it comes to morality in game I doubt many players really care. Most players I have played with are just looking for an excuse to hang out on Saturday nights. Why do I think of such things when designing a setting then? Part of it comes from my interest in religion and mythology. Also designing a setting is kind of a labor of love for me. It would be easier to pick up a published setting like Forgotten Realms. But, I want to see a cohesive mythos in my world - not the piecemeal legends or metagame considerations that most published settings make use of.


In the setting I'm designing there is a very definite moral order that springs forth from "the Creator". I'm going for a high fantasy approach, so I want a setting where the characters are fighting for something more than their own desires or survival.

Essentially, my setting is very dark - the bad guys definitely have the upper hand. It's much easier for characters to embrace the status-quo; to be a hero requires sacrifice and is by no means an easy task. However, the characters are expected to be heroic and fight for what right, not what is easy and feels good (or other subjective terms).

Since I'm going for high heroism in a dark world, it is important that the setting establish some type of implicit moral order.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Since I'm going for high heroism in a dark world, it is important that the setting establish some type of implicit moral order.

I see A, I see B. I don't see how A implies B.

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'. . .