Ok,
This has been bothering me for awhile, and I usually don't bother since there are people who get as nutty as cuckoos over this, but I'm in a bad mood so figure it's as good a time as any to rant about it and see what people think.
I'm fed up to my eyeballs in the BS that gets spewed out on the forums about people being denegrated for using 'modern notions of right and wrong' in their games. Be it good vs evil or lawful vs chaotic.
What makes it more fun to use a 2000 yo system of 'justice' that usually devolved down to the guy with the most soldiers being right as the basis for good vs evil and law vs chaos?
People spout out about how you have to keep the setting in mind for GvE and LvC. Why? There's nothing in the rules that say you have to interpret the GvEvLvC codes by archaic standards.
This game is made for people who grew up in the modern world. If I wanted to do historical reenactments, I'd join a history club. This is supposed to be a game for modern people to enjoy.
I think a lot of these alignment arguments come down to someone saying 'Well that's how dark ages people thought so it's ok and you're using modern notions'. Well, what's wrong with that? There's a lot fewer arguments over what is good vs evil vs lawful vs chatoic using modern notions. Not that what we have is necessarily more correct, but we all grew up with it. So we all have built in moral compasses for modern ideas of such.
Especially us geeks who tend to watch modern sci fi and fantasy. We base our notions off the 'romantic ideal' espoused in movies film and novels. Why is that a bad thing? Why am I supposed to devolve myself to primitive values where if you weren't one of the group you were evil and it was ok to torture people to save their souls? I'd rather play in a romanticized world where torture is evil and wrong, no matter what your reasons for doing it. Where killing babies is always evil, where rape is always evil, where there is no argument of 'well, it's a <insert race here> so it's ok to slaughter them by the thousands in the name of good'.
I want a game where the only absolute evil is planar evil beings, and I want ballads in that world of the Archangels who fell to evil over jealousy of a mortal woman's looks and the Succubus who ascended to good for the love of an honorable man. But those who want to drag us into the dark ages don't want that. They want all goblins to be evil, from birth, just things to be cut down and loot to be counted. All medusa's are evil, slaughter them, never treat them like living beings, that way lie madness they say.
My response? What's so good about the darkage mentality? I swear not one person alive today would really want to be alive in 1400. They might think they would, but they wouldn't.
*slow clap* These threads make me sad I'm not in your gaming group right now, because we agree on so much.
LOL, Thanks.
Like I said, when you get back drop me an e-mail. I'll see if I can squeeze you in, but it's a long drive.
In total agreement with you.
Yeah, the inclusion of alignments is a whole can worms. Good and evil as well as law and chaos are very subjective and mutable things; even in whatever time period that is being discussed certain actions to some may have been viewed as morally abhorrent while perfectly reasonable to another. It is a flawed train of thought to say that something was generally accepted as part of life in earth's history so in a fantasy role playing game it must be considered to be a good act.
My group had disagreements on what action was within the bounds of which alignments nearly every session for a while before it was solved with a simple houserule. As far as gameplay is concerned in our groups (both 3.5 and PFRPG) nobody lists an alignment on their character - they act whatever fashion their character sees fit at any given time. Paladins still follow a code of conduct, and Clerics still must remain within their ethos, but without a hard alignment system the arguments about it have all but disapeared. As far as spells and effects are concerned creatures with an aligned subtype are still considered to be that alignment, undead are always considered evil, clerics count as the same alignment as their diety, and paladins count as lawful and good. Other than that there is no alignment. Honestly I'd prefer it if alignment was pretty much written out of the system.
|
For some of us, we are aware that depending on who you were in some societies, your rights were very limited. Some of this was based on social class, and some was based on religion. Usually, the deciding factor was who had the might to control a territory and impose
In medieval Europe, Jews and other non-Christians were often targets of violence sanctioned by secular and religious authorities and faced legalized discrimination. In Islamic societies of the time, there was sanctioned discrimination and some violent incidents. Indeed, a rationale that was used by the leading groups in several countries was that other groups were inferior and perhaps inherently evil. So, as a Jew, I dislike the mortal creatures as inherently evil line ... as I know where it has lead when used by human beings about other human beings.
As for torture, I have known some people who have been through some horrific abuse. Technically not torture, but the abusers sought to have power over them. Why should I in game like something that I know has happened to people I have known and respected.
As for torture being an effective tactic, there are several studies to have shown that it is effective in getting people to say whatever they believe will stop the torture. If we are to believe that torture produces true results, then we can only conclude that several hundreds of people a few centuries back were flying through the air and having orgies with the Prince of Darkness.
If I want a historic reenactment, I can find one. However, most fantasy RPGs differ in many ways from our world several centuries ago. Divine and demonic powers are not just believed to be real but are real ... and can empower individuals. Magic works. So, it might not be surprising that worlds like Oerth, Faerun and Golarion may have somewhat different moral standards than much of Earth in the year 1300 Common Era.
Many of the ideas commonly espoused as 'good' today were seen as signs of weakness in the past. "Law" was the way to go, and good or bad was a matter of following rules and orders, not having moral high ground (i.e. ethos more important then morality).
I'd like to say that the idea of the 'good guy' is considerably more evolved in the modern age then in the past, and our understanding of such is thus considerably more developed then our ancestors.
Thus, we understand that 'Good' and 'right' are two very different things.
Just because someone believes something is the RIGHT thing to do does not make it a GOOD thing.
The alignment system is NOT subject to personal interpretation. That's the whole thing. Anyone can think an action is 'right', but the universe itself decides if an action is Good, Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil...the character does not get to say that.
It's a common fallacy that characters can justify anything from their own perspective. But it's not their perspective which is the Measure...the universe has its own measure, and the characters can't do a damn thing about it. If a character takes an action he thinks is Right and Good, and the universe says it is Evil...the character loses.
Every single time. And these kind of rationalizations are what the road to Hell is paved with.
==Aelryinth
+1
I agree in that the alignment axis has almost nothing to do with historical comparisons. All of these should be either based on the setting or modern views.
In most cases things should really just depend on the setting and the players' consensus. Obviously law vs chaos will definitely be more reflected in your setting, but good vs evil? I don't think that's changed too much... if ever :p
Far too much morality today is based on the subjective. Few people understand objective morality.
Here's the best article I've ever read on Alignment.
It deals with what is Law and Chaos, as well as what is Good and Evil. However, the article also deals with what someone of an Evil alignment may think of the situation (since very few people actually think of themselves as evil). LE was masterful/slavish, for instance.
This problem is compounded by the fact that the people who write the games are writing them from a (likely) Good position, so their biases creep in.
Law vs Chaos: If you have a rulebook (moral code) that says what to do in a given situation, that's Law. A Lawful person doesn't steal, ever, because the Bible says its wrong (or the rules of the country, or whatever). Not when their family is starving, not for any reason. Meanwhile, a Chaotic person would have situational morality. The more Chaotic, the more likely that person will find a loophole. Most people, I find, tend to fall somewhere in the middle. If my family is starving, and the only way I can get food is to steal it, I will. I'll feel bad, and I will probably make reparations later.
Evil vs Good involves how far out your "circle of morality" extends. Good people have a wide, flat cone, whereas Evil people have a narrow spiky cone. The farther down the cone you go, the more likely it is you don't treat someone with the same morality as people very close to you. Good people think it's bad to treat someone you've never met any different than your best friend. Evil people have no problem treating even close friends with disregard. Again, most people fall somewhere in between. I certainly care about my family far more than your family; there's nothing wrong with that, it's just the way it is.
Note that circle of morality stuff comes from Peter Singer, who I dislike intently for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Still, if people would use that objective standard, pretty much all alignment arguments disappear. I might as well wish for gold bullion to fall from the sky.
Totally agree.
Of course, I'm of the opinion that it's possible for a culture to be evil, and that some societies in the past were evil.
One interesting point: as far as I know, moral relativism is relatively modern concept. So, most historic societies wouldn't understand the argument "it's ok for them, because their society says it's ok". They would simply be appalled at the "wrong thinking" of the "barbarian".
Totally agree.
Of course, I'm of the opinion that it's possible for a culture to be evil, and that some societies in the past were evil.
One interesting point: as far as I know, moral relativism is relatively modern concept. So, most historic societies wouldn't understand the argument "it's ok for them, because their society says it's ok". They would simply be appalled at the "wrong thinking" of the "barbarian".
I'm perfectly ok with the idea that a country could be LE, or NE, or CE (My personal take on it would be ritual sacrifice would be a LE act that would make the entire country LE). Now, does that mean the country has to be a bad neighbor? No, it's entirely possible that they are perfectly nice neighbors, so long as you don't visit during a religious festival that occurs one week a year. In fact, I could easily see such a nation in one of my games. A bit of moral gray area.
What I would have a problem with is a PC saying 'Hey, they're all evil let's go kill that village before they kill someone else'.
Perspective. I have an altered view of the morality taught to me in my youth. I am a sailor, i have spent the last 15 years visiting varying country's and observing first hand the moral impentus of other coultures morality and i have to say honestly that the morality of century's past is bouth alive and well and far diffrent than the venier "modern morals" has given many of us.
To say that i was disillusioned is probably the greatist understatement of the centuary. The value placed on moral the imparitives of my youth was vastly over inflated in every sense.
This realization saden's me the most when i see the contrast between the morals of the modern world and the morals instilled in my children.
=[
|
Im going to disagree strongly with this. And this time not as the devil's advocate. I think there are times when rape is not evil, that modern morality is not better than past moralities, and that though the "universe" does decide above the player, it decides far above the DM as well, and neither are in a position to really understand it's specifics.
While I am not sure I can argue torture, the threat of torture can and has been used for many good things, and still is. I can also think of more than one occasion of individuals going against the established morality/law and being in the right. Joan of Arc, with or without the miracles, Jesus with or without the miracles, various military personel who have ignored orders and saved many lives, EMTs who nearly died and broke the law and went to jail for cutting out and saving a baby from a dead mother, and can never practice medicine again for it.
I think it is kind of dumb to use modern morality for a a fantasy game that takes place in a time frame that isn't at all modern. (Not calling you dumb). Just like if the game where in ancient Egypt, the "wild west", or Victorian Europe, saying that utilizing slave labor for the good of the empire, being part of the devistation that the settlers and natives braught to each other, or pioneering unknowable expeditions, industry, and science are part of that periods morality. Modern ideals, or lack of them, not only destroys the mood, but also shows bad form in the lack of respect for the period and cultures. You don't have to like or agree with them.
I do wish alignment would just go away though.
I don't think the real issue at work here is "modern moral standards", which most people at least nominally subscribe to, it is the application of modern standards of race relations to a fictional setting in which the assumptions those moral standards are based on aren't true. Most of these arguments arise from accusations of "fantastic racism" on the part of players who treat NPCs of "monstrous races" as monsters.
And, frankly, most of us really aren't half as Good as we think we are. Put real people in the worlds our Player Characters live in and you'll be heartbroken to find out just how quick they start acting like real people in our world, despite our so-called "modern moral standards".
If you're going to complain about your PCs not acting like the heroes the game is supposed to be about, you need to remind yourself that the purpose of the game is for the heroes to kill the monsters.
To address the OP, I don't have a problem with using modern moral standards in game. I have a problem with using moral standards that contradict the setting of the game.
|
|
I don't know, when i play, the only three monsters i kill on sight as a general standard are mindless undead (who will almost attack to kill anything living once they are aware of it), Drow, and Tieflings. Im sure there are not evil ones out there, sure. In theory.
Everything else, even demons and devils, undead. I don't (circumstancually) mind speaking to rather than killing. But im also very used to nonDrow and nonTiefling monsters breaking the alignment guidelines somewhat commonly.
Im going to disagree strongly with this. And this time not as the devil's advocate. I think there are times when rape is not evil, that modern morality is not better than past moralities, and that though the "universe" does decide above the player, it decides far above the DM as well, and neither are in a position to really understand it's specifics.
Wow... just.. wow. I just can't even fathom the mind that would ever consider rape not evil. I won't even bother responding to anything else in the post, as this mindset is just so alien to me that I can't even comprehend of a common ground to meet on.
If you're going to complain about your PCs not acting like the heroes the game is supposed to be about, you need to remind yourself that the purpose of the game is for the heroes to kill the monsters.
I thought the purpose of the game was for the PCs to be heroes, not monster exterminators. If this were a shadowrun or cyberpunk game, where the players are expected to murder, cheat and steal for a living, I wouldn't bat an eye (I ran Shadowrun for about 15 years, and had people do things I would find horrific in real life and never batted an eye or gave anyone grief over it). However, for D&D and PF, it's based on High Fantasy. In High Fantasy, the heroes of the books are supposed to be heroes. Vanquishing great evils, doing good deeds, saving the world and generally being larger than life. It's not just 'slaughter everything'.
David Eddings's Belgariad for example is a great series. Even in it, the worshippers of the evil one-eyed god are specifically spared, not because they are not evil, but because they had no way of knowing better. Only those who are evil priests, actively abetting the god are punished. And even then, it's usually the people they oppressed that kill them, not the heroes of the stories.
To address the OP, I don't have a problem with using modern moral standards in game. I have a problem with using moral standards that contradict the setting of the game.
If the setting says all <blah> are evil, then that's fine. I have an issue with people who say 'Rules say all <blah> are evil' when the rules don't state that. The only creatures in the bestiary that are evil inhrently specifically have [evil] tag applied. Anything else is merely a general alignment for the race.
If you are playing in Golarian, then yes, All Goblins = Evil, because the world book says that. The Golarian setting. The core rules do not say 'All Goblins = Evil', the core rules state 'All Goblins mostly evil, usually, but not always, GM should adjust as needed in his campaign'.
However, even when people specifically state on the forums "I'm not running in Golarion, in my world...." there are people who post "Then you're a bad GM, Goblins = Evil, says so in the Bestiary, fail as DM, boo you! You are imposing modern logic on a mideival realm and the rules say Goblin = Evil always idiot!"
@mdt:
/sign /sign /sign
that's what I always tell my DM :)
+10d6 to OP.
I am sick and tired of "that is what they did in the real world" arguments in a damn FANTASY game. Next time someone pulls that, I am gonna ask "How did they cast fireballs at ice-trolls from the backs of griffins in the real world? Did they lean back in the saddle and make circular motions, or forward and stabbing motions?"
And it is always subjectively to get an otherwise inane argument across. If I have an NPC slap a female PC across the face for speaking out of term, I am pretty sure they would not go "Oh, that's cool. Women were things in the real world."
People spout out about how you have to keep the setting in mind for GvE and LvC. Why? There's nothing in the rules that say you have to interpret the GvEvLvC codes by archaic standards.
You can do whatever you want in your home game. So can everyone else. This is what makes alignment discussions so pointless.
There isn't any RAW that tells you what moral outlook you have to use in your game, so it's not like any of us have any common ground to argue from.
It all comes down to IMHO, which is notoriously silly to argue against. :)
As an aside, I'm in the completely opposite camp. I'm sick and tired of the movie cliché of bad-guys having 'realistic' medieval outlooks and the good guys being 'enlightened freedom loving democrats'. The main appeal of the fantasy genre, to me, is the non-modernized sense of morality. If I wanted to angst over modern moral outlooks I'd be playing one of the WoD games (which, incidentally, I do).
I hate it when people think that doing something bad for a good reason some how makes the bad act not bad.
It doesn't matter if you save the damn universe by raping and killing innocent people. Raping and killing innocent people is still bad.
That's really all i hate about alignment is players who try to make loopholes for their characters by making up s+$*.
If the setting says all <blah> are evil, then that's fine. I have an issue with people who say 'Rules say all <blah> are evil' when the rules don't state that.
That's fair enough. I'm certainly no stranger to playing monsters against type, myself, having played Planescape for years. I don't have a problem with saying that not all <blah> are Evil, or playing games where Good and Evil aren't so cut-and-dried. That's my preference.
What I have a problem with is DMs who deliberately blur these lines, deliberately engineer situations in which the players won't know the "right" thing to do, and then act outraged when the players don't make the same choices they would. If they're going to introduce a little grey into their monsters, they need to accept that there's going to be a little grey in their heroes. That's the price of playing in a grey world.
And when the DM wants to punish the characters for their "misdeeds", that's crossing the line from unreasonable into downright abusive. Players shouldn't have to put up with being berated by the DM or losing their class abilities for failing to read the DM's mind.
There's a difference between upholding a Code of Conduct and playing "gotcha", and damned near all of these alignment threads revolve around the latter.
What I have a problem with is DMs who deliberately blur these lines, deliberately engineer situations in which the players won't know the "right" thing to do, and then act outraged when the players don't make the same choices they would. If they're going to introduce a little grey into their monsters, they need to accept that there's going to be a little grey in their heroes. That's the price of playing in a grey world.
Urgh. I had a DM who did this. Everything we encountered was a moral dilemma. All the options presented to us were a pick between 'horrible' and 'terrible'. And then he got angry when we spend too much time discussing which option was least terribad.
And then he made snarky passive-aggressive cutscenes about the parents/lovers/friends/colleagues/whatever of the people that our paladin had 'murdered'. When a small army of hooded figures charge you in a dark alley, you don't really pause to find out of these are professional assassins or college students who have been force-fed crack (obviously they were the latter and the paladin never stopped hearing for it).
I think there are times when rape is not evil,What the G$###+n f#+~ is wrong with you?
+1.
I'm pretty sure murder, rape, etc. has never been acceptable in any form of historic civilization. I don't see how statements like this is adding anything to the OPs topic.
|
Either he is trolling, or he is a childish moron who doesn't understand what being raped meant...my sister was raped...i don't want that experience to happen to anybody...
Childish trolling moron?
Incidentally, if anyone tries to defend that statement with reference to The Rape of the Sabine Women then they need to study more as they have misunderstood, quite profoundly.
Eh, he might be thinking of statutory rape or whatever the term is when the sex is consensual rather than forced, but one of the parties is legally deemed unable to give consent. Today this usually because the person is a minor, but in a game this could also be an issue for slaves, persons of a different caste, certain forms of clergy etc. This certainly can be evil, but since it deals with legally defined consent is more of a chaos/law issue.
If the age of consent in your country is 21 years, and in another it is 16, does that mean that everyone there who has sex with a 17-year old is a rapist?
Stepping back after that rage-inducing tangent:
I agree with the OP.
That is the game I want as well. One where heroism and genocide don't go hand in hand.
I also agree, but it can be important to differentiate between evil, chaotic, and offensive. Being a hero (as we understand it today - Greek heroes can be quite the *******s) is about more than just keeping a certain alignment. Or is it?
"Why can't we all just... get along!?"
Let the medievalists have their game and you can run your game the way you want. That's just it: it's a game. Since it's a game and not reality, it is malleable. There is no right/ wrong answer, only different play styles.
That is the game I want as well. One where heroism and genocide don't go hand in hand.
Uhm, I certainly hope it's possible to disagree with the OP without wanting to advocate 'heroic genocide'.
Im going to disagree strongly with this. And this time not as the devil's advocate. I think there are times when rape is not evil, that modern morality is not better than past moralities, and that though the "universe" does decide above the player, it decides far above the DM as well, and neither are in a position to really understand it's specifics.Wow... just.. wow. I just can't even fathom the mind that would ever consider rape not evil. I won't even bother responding to anything else in the post, as this mindset is just so alien to me that I can't even comprehend of a common ground to meet on.
Well here is an example of when Rape was legal...
Islamic society, the warriors could rape non islamic women (usually slaves) because they were less then human. It wasn't rape, they were just satisfying their needs on subhumans.
A better example is central american indians with a culture of Human Sacrafice. This was DEFINTELY lawful... was it evil? I would say yes though if they thought they were preparing for a better harvest to help the people to them it may not have been.
Rape is only evil if it occurs in a society that unanimously accepts that it is. Obviously, everybody here including myself was born and raised in a society where that is the case. Yet in my bad attempt to validate Beckett's statement as the Devil's advocate, there have been civilizations in which rape was acknowledged as both legal and non-evil, whether we like it or not. Pointing the finger and claiming that our morals are any better than such a civilization's is the direct consequence of our own perception of what defines good and evil, so from where do our own beliefs originate?
If that wasn't remotely close to what Beckett was trying to convey, then skip the idealistic, philosophical crap. Some points of view aren't worth acknowledging, especially ones you find outright offensive.
At any rate, roleplay can only go so far before one's real life morals get offended. I'd hate to see the GM insane enough to run a nation where rape and murder are universally accepted aspects of society; I suspect his players, if he ever managed to even get any, would be utterly disgusted.
I'm in conditional agreement with OP. However, I do believe, that to an extent, the GM defines the moral compass of the campaign setting, which would essentially determine what is right and wrong in that world. Now, the players' moral compasses may be operating under modern conceptions - I don't see too much wrong with this. Except that it would be really damn annoying.
In that case, it's more of a matter of what is socially acceptable as "good/evil" versus what is defined as such as per the Pathfinder RPG alignment guidelines. Just decide which one you are running by in advance.
What is the problem of playing a non-good character who thinks s/he is good, anyway - Deity X may be offended by their behavior and smite them with a spell? That can happen to any character of a different alignment.
Maybe he was talking about the crazy women who sleeps with someone, and then regrets it, and goes ahead and calls the cops, claiming she was raped (yeah, they exist, world is messed up). Then it is not "rape" IMHO, but one might find oneself convicted as one if the psycho's lawyer is good enough.
And yes, statutory rape is not inherently evil either. If someone has sex with a 17 year old girl where the age of consent is 18, and she looks, acts, talks and claims to be legal, heck even has a fake ID that she shows him just to be safe... it is not the "rapist" that is at fault. At least he should have a solid counter claim of fraud, slander and other legal nonsense.
I think that one falls under "rape by deception". It could apply to someone lying about their age and other means.
There was one case where a woman unknowingly slept with her boyfriend's twin brother. Fell under the same classification.
Ugh, I really dislike the "rape by X" terms. I don't think it's fair to equate cases of consensual sex, where partner A might not have agreed to had s/he known something, to rape cases where someone experienced a major psychological and/or physical trauma. It may still be immoral and possibly (in RP terms) evil, but it just feels wrong.
I wouldn't be surprised if all these an exploitative terms got introduced by lawyers to make cases seem more drastic. If anything, cases like the above would be more akin to adultery.
I cannot help finding these discussions somewhat strange.
Ethics aren't an easy subject. Many of the statements made on these boards in the last days just mirror the eternal struggle of teleological vs. deontological ethical systems. There's no winner yet in philosophy, I doubt there ever will be.
But we're talking about a RPG here an RP GAME. There's no real reason to decide whether some acts will always be evil in themselves or the consequences constitute the moral value of actions. There are just good reasons to take care of the following:
1. As in Pathfinder it's part of the game mechanics it has to be made clear how ethics work (which can be quite simplified) inside the system.
2. All the gamers have to be able to accept these moral guidelines for their in game characters and roleplaying them without feeling uncomfortable.
As an example, personally I'm an avid opponent of capital punishment irl, but have less gripes with it in an RPG world. Torture I already find harder to bear (even for "good" reasons), and I get really uncomfortable when killing NPCs is ok just because of their race or whatever. For similar reasons I don't want to play "evil" campaigns, I generally play to have fun, and roleplaying a moron is just not my idea of fun. On the other hand, I don't want to transfer my real world ethics into the game world, playing (!) a little tougher is fun for me.
Many posters appear to convolute these two interdependent, but quite different points. Some even seem to be talking about Real life ethics, which seems kind of moot (at least to do it in a RPG's general discussion forum).
Im going to disagree strongly with this. And this time not as the devil's advocate. I think there are times when rape is not evil, that modern morality is not better than past moralities, and that though the "universe" does decide above the player, it decides far above the DM as well, and neither are in a position to really understand it's specifics.
<snip>
I think it is kind of dumb to use modern morality for a a fantasy game that takes place in a time frame that isn't at all modern. (Not calling you dumb). Just like if the game where in ancient Egypt, the "wild west", or Victorian Europe, saying that utilizing slave labor for the good of the empire, being part of the devistation that the settlers and natives braught to each other, or pioneering unknowable expeditions, industry, and science are part of that periods morality. Modern ideals, or lack of them, not only destroys the mood, but also shows bad form in the lack of respect for the period and cultures. You don't have to like or agree with them.
I do wish alignment would just go away though.
You know, playing with a historical moral outlook can be fun. But your first paragraph is so appalling that I frankly can't believe you outright said it.