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).
I agree, the fantasy world in the RPG is not the real world. And I don't have an issue even running games where I'm making normal guys who are just in the way and get crushed, it's my job to make Bob and Neal, the two security guards, who get shot to death by the Runners in Shadowrun. I don't agonize over what's going to happen to Bob's wife and 3 kids, or Neal's sick sister who needs an operation.
I might have some of Bob and Neal's relatives put out a hit on the runners, if they are rich enough, but that's another story. To me, it depends on the genre. In Shadowrun, racism and casual murder for hire are the norm, and I run the game that way.
In PF/D&D, the genre is, to me, high fantasy. To me, High Fantasy is not genocide based on type. It's about heroes who are larger than life, who do hard things because doing it the easy way leads to evil winning. So when I hear 'it's a <blah>, just kill it and move on' it's like saying "Why be good, it's easier to let the gods sort them out".
As someone pointed out above, there's the mentality of "OMG, if we make a mistake with this <blah>, it might kill an innocent, so we'll kill it." and no thought about how many innocents they themselves might have killed in the process of saving innocents. It's as if it's ok for the PCs to nuke a village to get one vampire, but if a vampire might kill one person a year, then it's worth killing 100 innocents to get that one evil vampire.
Far too much morality today is based on the subjective. Few people understand objective morality.
I like the way he describes the Circle of Life/Strife, but his division of lawful/chaotic along deontological/consequentialist lines doesn't work for me, particularly the consequentialist argument that I don't think fits very well. I prefer an external/internal division. Lawful characters are inclined to follow externalized codes of conduct - ones from community standards, organizational rules, societal laws and obligations and strive to obey all that apply. Chaotic characters, being more individualist, follow codes of conduct based on personal beliefs, incorporating external standards by individual choice and preference.
I think living in the 1400s wouldn't be so bad depending where you lived and what social status was. If you lived under an oppressive regimes and the bottom of the social ladder it would really suck. But if you lived in a tropical paradise among a tribe of close friends and family it wouldn't be as bad.
Personally in my games I use what I know today as good vs evil and chaotic vs lawful. It is easier that way. Though those dark age views were evil. They used religion to justify that evil. Like torture to save ones soul, that's just evil. It doesn't does matter that the church said it was for the greater good because it wasn't. It was about solidifying a power base. You can't have your people thinking for themselves after all. That's dangerous because they could figure out they don't need you at all and rise up against you. Being good wasn't allowed if being good got in the way of power hungry megalomaniacs.
I think living in the 1400s wouldn't be so bad depending where you lived and what social status was. If you lived under an oppressive regimes and the bottom of the social ladder it would really suck. But if you lived in a tropical paradise among a tribe of close friends and family it wouldn't be as bad.
You'd probably die of malaria or yellow fever or some other insect-borne tropical disease that couldn't be treated. Or possibly die from some food-borne ailment because of lack of good preservation. Sanitation problems. Violent youths armed with swords. Black plague flare-ups. Poorly treated injuries.
People really don't understand the full extent of how things are better, safer, and healthier now than they were in the 15th century.
|
I agree with the OP very much. A lot of fantasy worlds that we game in have a lot of modern ideals in them. For example if we played in a more traditional medieval society a lot of the gender equality that exists in settings such as Greyahwk, Forgoten Realms, Golarion, and the like would be drastically different. Different being almost non-existent. Yes, there were special cases but for the most part women weren't allowed to hold or use a weapon. Those female adventurers you have wouldn't have been able to leave the house and everyone would be playing a dude. There's a lot of modern concepts that aren't just morality that we apply to these fantasy settings, and this needs to be taken into account.
|
On the guy who referred to muslims being legal to rape. As far as I have ever read almost every army of every culture was perfectly acceptable to rape and pillage when you won.
And who here liked TITUS PULLO? He was a self admitted rapist yet I know I loved his character and would think of him as a tragic hero. Yet rape to me is an unforgiveable act yet I was able to forgive this character in a story....
|
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...
Alignments by region doesn't work in the system. There are things in the world that are directly effected by alignment (Spells, DR, abilities, classes). The GM must determine what is evil and what is good. One nations detect evil spells must work the same as another's. Certain acts must be defined as good or evil. The GM sets the moral compass for the world. Just because there is a law to do it does not make it right. That would be a Lawful Evil law. If a society in the game world condones rape, then the society as a whole is evil. It doesn't matter if it is normal practice or accepted.
One a note about "real world" good and evil, I would say most big corporations of the world fall into the Lawful Evil alignment, as described in the PRD. Even governments fall into this as well, with nearly all having committed evil acts in the guise of doing the right thing.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
I think living in the 1400s wouldn't be so bad depending where you lived and what social status was. If you lived under an oppressive regimes and the bottom of the social ladder it would really suck. But if you lived in a tropical paradise among a tribe of close friends and family it wouldn't be as bad.You'd probably die of malaria or yellow fever or some other insect-borne tropical disease that couldn't be treated. Or possibly die from some food-borne ailment because of lack of good preservation. Sanitation problems. Violent youths armed with swords. Black plague flare-ups. Poorly treated injuries.
People really don't understand the full extent of how things are better, safer, and healthier now than they were in the 15th century.
Yet, living in today's world, you still end up dead. Youths are armed with bourbon and sports cars (nod to Hitchcock), or automatics and SUVs. Food-borne ailments are reclassified to include inappropriate diet, and we still die from them. Overnutrition is as harmful to us as malnutrition was to them. And through it all, happiness is exactly as hard (or easy) to come by. If I was to be born in the 1400s, I would probably like life as much as I do now. I don't deny, however, that if I were to be transposed from now to then (or from then to now), I would probably be miserable. Sorry for that bit of derailment, but that's been sitting in my head for a while and just now chose to pop out.
Anyway, for the OP: I think a lot of what we look down upon in modern morality vs. 'historic' morality comes from our distance from the survival instinct. Many more things were fatal back then, and the success of each individual in a community was much more vital to the community at large, so you have an intense 'neighborhood' effect going on.
And as for in-game vs. 'historic' morality...I personally don't accept 'they're the wrong race' as a reason to kill someone. As GM, I'm always sure to portray the imminent need, or the dire consequence, as opposed to 'they're evil, go get'em.' A village who doesn't like orcs living nearby, and thus wants them dead, wouldn't even qualify as a gray area in my homebrews. A gray area would be more along the lines of: the village thinks the orc tribes are stealing livestock and killing outlying farmers...when the players investigate, violently, they discover halfway through that the orcs are not at all at fault. What to do with the rest?
So, in conclusion, I generally agree with you, but not for the exact same reasons.
|
People really don't understand the full extent of how things are better, safer, and healthier now than they were in the 15th century.
Heck, sometimes we forget how much better today is than yesterday.
In my lifetime it was legal in the United States for a husband to rape his wife, and some individual states didn't catch up and make spousal rape illegal until the 1990s.
I remember, living in Oklahoma at the time, preachers and politicians very seriously claiming that making spousal rape illegal was a sign of moral deterioration, as a married woman was expected to have signed away the right to say no to her husband, and that giving her that right would lead to a moral collapse of the rights and duties of marriage, of the 'headship' of a husband, etc. (whatever the hell that meant, they said it all the time)
I don't believe that it was ever about morals, I believe it was about power. Scared people like to have power over others, as it makes them less scared. Those who oppress others are only broadcasting their own insecurities. And, like a fear-maddened animal, they become a danger to themselves and others.
Gimme today, with food safety laws and paved roads and busted up monopolies and no child labor and no polio and the internet, any day.
The closest to medieval I want to get is AD&D (or, yanno, Pathfinder) and King Richard's Faire, both of which are about as 'medieval' as the collection of swords on my wall.
|
|
As someone pointed out above, there's the mentality of "OMG, if we make a mistake with this <blah>, it might kill an innocent, so we'll kill it." and no thought about how many innocents they themselves might have killed in the process of saving innocents. It's as if it's ok for the PCs to nuke a village to get one vampire, but if a vampire might kill one person a year, then it's worth killing 100 innocents to get that one evil vampire.
Ok, now lets assume that the vampire will kill one person a week. Does killing 100 innocents to make sure the evil is destroyed viable?
What about if he kills 1 person a day.
What if he kills 10 a day.
Is it better to go in and destroy the vampire and only the vampire? Absolutely
But what if for whatever reasons you can't.
Vampires live for thousands of years inflicting death and misery upon the world. There comes a point when IF it is your only means of destroying the vampire, innocents may die in the process. Should needless death be avoided? Absolutely no good person would needlessly kill the innocent as a means of destroying the evil. But sometimes sadly there are no options, these are not fairy tales.
Here is an example:
You are a Paldin of Pelor (or fill in some other anti-undead good god). There is an EXTREMELY powerful Vampire Lord who rules the region. The only way this virtual godling can be slain is for a Paladon of Pelor to perform a ritual and Channel all his LoH at an old shrine during High Noon of the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th decade of the 7th centry of the 7th millenium... You are the only one who can do this and end the evil. The day of the ceremony a farmer brings his innocent son begging for you to heal him. One lay of hands (wuth the associated mercy) will heal the child, but if you do that you condemn this world to 10,000 years of the Vampire Lord.
Do you save the child? or Destroy the Vampire Lord?
Destroy the vampire lord and have your cleric buddy do the healing. ;)
As someone pointed out above, there's the mentality of "OMG, if we make a mistake with this <blah>, it might kill an innocent, so we'll kill it." and no thought about how many innocents they themselves might have killed in the process of saving innocents. It's as if it's ok for the PCs to nuke a village to get one vampire, but if a vampire might kill one person a year, then it's worth killing 100 innocents to get that one evil vampire.
Ok, now lets assume that the vampire will kill one person a week. Does killing 100 innocents to make sure the evil is destroyed viable?
What about if he kills 1 person a day.
What if he kills 10 a day.
Is it better to go in and destroy the vampire and only the vampire? Absolutely
But what if for whatever reasons you can't.
Vampires live for thousands of years inflicting death and misery upon the world. There comes a point when IF it is your only means of destroying the vampire, innocents may die in the process. Should needless death be avoided? Absolutely no good person would needlessly kill the innocent as a means of destroying the evil. But sometimes sadly there are no options, these are not fairy tales.
Here is an example:
You are a Paldin of Pelor (or fill in some other anti-undead good god). There is an EXTREMELY powerful Vampire Lord who rules the region. The only way this virtual godling can be slain is for a Paladon of Pelor to perform a ritual and Channel all his LoH at an old shrine during High Noon of the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th decade of the 7th centry of the 7th millenium... You are the only one who can do this and end the evil. The day of the ceremony a farmer brings his innocent son begging for you to heal him. One lay of hands (wuth the associated mercy) will heal the child, but if you do that you condemn this world to 10,000 years of the Vampire Lord.
Do you save the child? or Destroy the Vampire Lord?
"I am previously engaged. Here is 300 goldpieces. It will cover the expenses for a curative spell. Good day sir."
As someone pointed out above, there's the mentality of "OMG, if we make a mistake with this <blah>, it might kill an innocent, so we'll kill it." and no thought about how many innocents they themselves might have killed in the process of saving innocents. It's as if it's ok for the PCs to nuke a village to get one vampire, but if a vampire might kill one person a year, then it's worth killing 100 innocents to get that one evil vampire.
Ok, now lets assume that the vampire will kill one person a week. Does killing 100 innocents to make sure the evil is destroyed viable?
What about if he kills 1 person a day.
What if he kills 10 a day.
Is it better to go in and destroy the vampire and only the vampire? Absolutely
But what if for whatever reasons you can't.
Vampires live for thousands of years inflicting death and misery upon the world. There comes a point when IF it is your only means of destroying the vampire, innocents may die in the process. Should needless death be avoided? Absolutely no good person would needlessly kill the innocent as a means of destroying the evil. But sometimes sadly there are no options, these are not fairy tales.
Here is an example:
You are a Paldin of Pelor (or fill in some other anti-undead good god). There is an EXTREMELY powerful Vampire Lord who rules the region. The only way this virtual godling can be slain is for a Paladon of Pelor to perform a ritual and Channel all his LoH at an old shrine during High Noon of the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th decade of the 7th centry of the 7th millenium... You are the only one who can do this and end the evil. The day of the ceremony a farmer brings his innocent son begging for you to heal him. One lay of hands (wuth the associated mercy) will heal the child, but if you do that you condemn this world to 10,000 years of the Vampire Lord.
Do you save the child? or Destroy the Vampire Lord?
(c) punch the person who made me play a paladin
Do you save the child? or Destroy the Vampire Lord?Always choose C) step off of the railroad tracks.
False dilemnas are boring.
Sure but railroad tracks are a fine solution to strawmen arguments which were proferred. It was a refernce to the people will go in and nuke a city to kill the vampire and slay 100 while the vampire would only kill 1 a year that a previous poster made.
And to another poster The paladin has made it his life work to free the people from the Vampire Lord. He has researched in forgotten temples and libraries the one means to defeat him. When the child is brough forth spewing blood obviously needing immediate healing to live he makes a choice.
Yes I admit fully this is a complete railroad job....
Perhaps the Vampire (who can not directly go to the consecrated holy place where this must happen) has infected the innocent child with viral disease/poison to tempt the paladin to save the child rather then destroy him.
Were it my paladin, he'd frown at the outrageous fortune and swear to the father that he will take it upon himself to see the child raised and restored fully, as even the smallest victory of evil should be undone if possible.
Or ask the party cleric to cast a remove disease and some cures and restoration.
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?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.
Well to be fair the greek heroes were not just "heroes" or even role models in the modern sense of the words either. These were "great people with clay feet" so to speak on purpose.
It showed why they were still less than gods, and where even an average man can manage to be better than them. Greeks were huge in the personality flaw areas as can easily be shown with their Hubris cycle fixation.
***************************************************
Also the whole basis of "well that's your modern outlook -- but the ancients saw it differently" argument really doesn't hold much traction.
These are not simply 'modern' ideas -- many of the points and developments of supposed 'modern' morals are exactly what the Greek philosophers themselves were discussing and thinking on already. These are rational that you will learn in a basic philosophy class that covers nothing but the beginnings of philosophy -- and continue through the middle ages straight to the modern age.
It isn't "you new and modern morals" any more than it was in the greek era -- simply because they didn't abide in life by the same rules that were set out in debate, or didn't fully understand them doesn't mean these things are 'new' -- after all we still don't apply these morals, behaviors, and thoughts to our own actions today.
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".
I think you are quite wrong. You are argueing from a standpoint which doesn't seem to take into account that in Pathfinder-world gods and alignments are real, tangible things. There are completely different stakes in PF-world, since you know that your god, who asks for you to do good deeds, is real.
|
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.
That even further illistrates my point in its own way. Statutory rape between married concenting individuals, sodomy (and other nonordinary sex) in some areas is concidered nonconcentual automatically in some states, and i dont concider them evil.
That even further illistrates my point in its own way. Statutory rape between married concenting individuals, sodomy (and other nonordinary sex) in some areas is concidered nonconcentual automatically in some states, and i dont concider them evil.
Then don't obfuscate the issue. There are plenty of people who don't consider statutory rape or other statutorally defined ways consent cannot be given (even if it is given freely by the individual) to really be the same as rape in the general term. I think when the term rape is used, most people really do mean non-consensual sexual contact in the sense that one of the partners really didn't want to experience it.
You saying you and others dont concider a form of rape does.
What?
|
|
I didnt confuse or obfuscate anything. I said i think that not all rape is evil. You saying you and others dont concider a form of rape does.
Dude. Rape is the forcing of sexual acts on an unwilling individual. This is evil. The fact that you think statutory rape between two consenting individuals is not evil IS confusing the issue. Say what you mean. Not that 'I think there are times when rape is not evil'.
|
|
I think there are times when rape is not evil,What the G!***&n f@$+ is wrong with you?
Here's a FYI. THere are people on these boards that have suffered that experience. Take a good damn long look in the mirror and ask yourself if you want to be throwing that s&@! in their faces.
Do you?
I didnt throw anything in anyones face, but i am on of those people, so thank you very much for that high-horse indignation.
Wish i hadnt gone back and read all the trash people assum about a fairly simple point of view that may not have been concidered.
I am not trolling, and frankly am getting tired of people trying to use that to make themselves seem better or more accepted.
|
|
I didnt confuse or obfuscate anything. I said i think that not all rape is evil. You saying you and others dont concider <it> a form of rape does.Dude. Rape is the forcing of sexual acts on an unwilling individual. This is evil. The fact that you think statutory rape between two consenting individuals is not evil IS confusing the issue. Say what you mean. Not that 'I think there are times when rape is not evil'.
And im saying that stat. rape is a form of rape, and some people pretending it doesnt count is what confusses the issue. I dont think forced nonconcentual sex is anythomg nut wrong.
|
|
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.
A lot of people would love to live in the dark ages* if they were guaranteed to be the top guy.
There is really too much people trying to reproduce the worst aspects of that mentality now to hope that it has been eradicated.BTW:
- 1400 is not dark ages.
- dark ages/1400 in Europe. At the time most Muslim countries were more tolerant and enlightened that European countries.
*barring the level of medicine of the time
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.A lot of people would love to live in the dark ages* if they were guaranteed to be the top guy.
There is really too much people trying to reproduce the worst aspects of that mentality now to hope that it has been eradicated.BTW:
- 1400 is not dark ages.
- dark ages/1400 in Europe. At the time most Muslim countries were more tolerant and enlightened that European countries.*barring the level of medicine of the time
*Lice, lack of air conditioning/heating, Church sponsored inquisitions, lack of hygiene, deadly diseases, lack of refrigeration (for keeping food), lack of understanding about properly cooking food, social standards, lack of internet, living conditions...
Ugh. Moral relativism is a failure of imagination and understanding.
The concept of Good (capitalized due to being objective) is about how we deal with others and what we're prepared to do to them.
Now, different cultures DO differ (slightly) in how we're supposed to act toward others, but these differences are almost always in the formalities, things like which hand you shake, what colour of clothes is respectful at a funeral, and other things we do not typically associate with Good or Evil. Regarding how different cultures deal with others in issues of Good and Evil, it's pretty simple. It is Evil to hurt, kill, steal from, rape, threaten, lie, or force them to do things they don't want to do. Some of these things have been accepted as standard practice by the state in specific situations, such as execution, imprisonment and the like, which is a good reason why we rarely see the state as a Good entity.
Some cultures do try to match up to this, and those are usually respected. Other cultures do not, and, yes, they are Evil. A culture where slavery is widespread and the slaves are not at least treated well IS an Evil culture. So is one where women are seen as basically worthless and the men spend their time proving to one another that they're not women. So is one where it's standard practice to apply torture, shrugging about "collateral damage" and the police routinely murder people just to keep themselves safe.
It's just that those who live in an Evil culture find it a tough pill to swallow that they are. Evil people will always try to justify their atrocities, that is nothing new.
|
|
*Lice, lack of air conditioning/heating, Church sponsored inquisitions, lack of hygiene, deadly diseases, lack of refrigeration (for keeping food), lack of understanding about properly cooking food, social standards, lack of internet, living conditions...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.A lot of people would love to live in the dark ages* if they were guaranteed to be the top guy.
There is really too much people trying to reproduce the worst aspects of that mentality now to hope that it has been eradicated.BTW:
- 1400 is not dark ages.
- dark ages/1400 in Europe. At the time most Muslim countries were more tolerant and enlightened that European countries.*barring the level of medicine of the time
If you are the top guy most of those problems can be removed or ameliorated and you get the "perks" of being the top guy in a world where it allow you to do a lot of things freely that you can't do in a modern culture.
- Lice/lack of hygiene: how widespread that was depend on the period and culture. Romans and Greeks were fairly clean people. Same thing for most of Italy in the XII-XIV century and so on (some of early Christian [like the Stylites] were against baths as they were a Roman custom and so Pagan);
- lack of air conditioning/heating: tick walls and well constructed houses instead of tiny plaster and wood walls remove most of the need for air conditioning, the house of the wealthy Romans had floor heating with hot hair running in passages under the floor to heat the room.
In the XIV century the fireplace with a functional chimney was used by the weaklty.
- deadly diseases: yes, but still we have historical documentation showing that some people lived till 90 years and in good conditions (generally between the wealthy). The largest problem with deadly diseases was the high mortality of the children and young.
- lack of refrigeration (for keeping food), lack of understanding about properly cooking food,: more fresh food, a largest variety of cereals and fruits. Risks were higher (again especially for children) but to a incredible level.
- social standard: not a valid argument. The people that want to get the "advantage" of being top guy in the XIV century want the XIV century social standards.
- lack of internet: welcome to 20 years ago.
|
|
I've got one player who never writes an alignment onto his sheet. I've told him this doesn't bother me because I'll just gauge his alignment based on his actions and he'll be affected by alignment-based effects accordingly. This player also likes to claim every one of his actions is Good and for the benefit of the party. Any time he performs an action he can't BS as Good, he uses the excuse that another PC told him he should do it so it must be a Good act. Basically, he flies a big middle finger to the alignment system so, based on the way he typically acts, I usually decide his characters are evil, chaotic neutral at best.
Case in point (and more appropriate to the thread,) yesterday he told me there was nothing evil about his half-orc beating women unconscious and having his way with them because he was raised to believe it was acceptable behavior. He then said cavemen used to rape women all the time so that was all the proof he needed that rape isn't evil. I'm considering asking him to never show up to my table again.
Anyway, here's a spoiler-tagged example of play from my campaign that might apply to the topic of this thread if anyone is interested...
My game occasionally includes some mature themes and, currently, the party is dealing with a sado-masochistic group of Zon-Kuthon worsipping harpies. I've implied the harpies kidnap, torture and rape men in order to breed before either murdering and eating the men or setting them loose in a maddened, confused and broken state with no equipment. The harpies are all clearly evil, but they only target men who come into their territory and even have a truce with their closest neighbors, a community of minotaurs, so they aren't just mindless killers.
The party arrived to the harpy lair looking for information on a missing dwarf. The player I mentioned above decided his wizard was going to start a fight with the harpies in the middle of talks with one of the harpy leaders because he was bored. After things went very poorly for the party, the NG NPC encouraged the remaining party members to attempt to negotiate their way out of the harpy lair, citing the party had only come to talk and the now-dead wizard was responsible for the fight. The harpies allowed the party to leave after paying tribute and agreeing to let the monsters keep the dead party members and their gear. On the way out of the lair, the party spotted a man bound into one of the harpy nests. They all wanted to rescue the guy, but were too weak to start a new fight and decided to come back later with reinforcements.
The party returned to the harpy lair a day later with backup. In an effort to preserve life on both sides, the NPC suggested half the party cause a distraction while the other half snuck in invisibly to rescue the captured human. The plan fell apart when the distraction led the harpies to begin singing and the invisible bard immediately used his countersong thereby tipping off the harpies to the plot. The human was quickly cut free but, by then, the distraction party was in the nest chamber being chased by harpies. We ended the session with the party backed into a corner and with only one clear escape route and roughly a dozen harpies enroute from three directions. The party voted to stay and fight until every harpy is dead so I ruled that their NPC leader said he regretted that they'd suddenly become invaders but he knew in his heart the harpies had to be put down because they would only continue to kidnap and harm innocent people if the party fled.
I hope that was clear enough to understand, and I wonder if anyone has opinions on the actions taken by the party or their NPC leader.
|
|
More to the point:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"
(or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is attributed to Jesus, so it has 2.000 years of history. That rule existed even before Christ and it is a good meter to measure good vs non-good.
Today we don't get the main meaning of parable of the good Samaritan as we don't have trouble with Samaritans.
Try substituting the word Samaritans with gipsy, biker (or orc for our kind of setting) and the name of the other people passing by and not caring for the wounded with things like minister, bishop (or elf for our setting) and you will see again how it give a clear indication of what is good and non-good and that it is not linked to race/gender/social group.
Case in point (and more appropriate to the thread,) yesterday he told me there was nothing evil about his half-orc beating women unconscious and having his way with them because he was raised to believe it was acceptable behavior. He then said cavemen used to rape women all the time so that was all the proof he needed that rape isn't evil. I'm considering asking him to never show up to my table again.
And where he has got that "so accurate" information?
It is very hard to know what were the customs of people that lived before writing and from which we have only some wall picture, a few tools and a few bones to judge.Probably there was the whole range of behaviours from courtship to rape as in later times.
I will agree with the OPer that trying to hold a fantasy setting to a historical viewpoint is often silly. Unless you are playing "The Dark Ages" or "Medieval Period" and don't have any actual fantasy elements in the game, then you are not actually playing in those time periods. Does the fantasy setting have some features that overlap (technology level for example), sure, but once you start introducing other fantasy races, real monsters, and actual magic, including magic that can be used to contact the actual deities, or even visit them face to face, then there isn't really any rational way you could argue that things would develop in exactly the same way.
Does that mean that you could have a morality system in the game that was similar to espoused ethics and morals of those times. Sure, but don't claim you are doing it because you are playing that time period, you are not.
Alignment is defined subjectively but applied objectively. What I mean by that is that each group has to subjectively determine where the actual lines are drawn for their group. Where does an action go from being neutral to good or evil or lawful or chaotic. And those lines are going to be in different places for different groups. Yet once those lines are determined, then they should be applied objectively. It doesn't matter how a character feels they are acting, it matters how their reality views it. They can think that putting an innocent child on a pike is a good act, but if their reality views that as evil, then it is an evil act and their alignment would be impacted by it.
Think of it this way, in US football, why is a touch down worth 6 points? Because someone choose that to be the point value, they made a subjective choice. Does that make when someone crossing the goal line a subjective decision, not at all. The subjective choice is applied objectively (theoretically, obviously judges are human and some subjectivity does enter in play).
solid points
I guess so -- especially on the social standard one, I guess I hadn't fully considered what you were implying with 'top guy'.
Honestly I'm quite happy with my current time period -- I think I might like to move forward more, but I'm not sure on that.
|
|
And where he has got that "so accurate" information?
From cartoons like this (maybe NSFW) I suspect.
That's really beside the point. He constantly uses the "'X' says it's okay" excuse or otherwise attempts to evade accountability for his characters' actions.
Let the medievalists have their game and you can run your game the way you want.
That's just it though - it's not the medievalists. I've never - never - seen the claim of "the setting isn't meant for modern morality" in a way that was actually looking to embrace a historical moral understanding. Instead, it's always used to provide intellectually bankrupt rationalizations to steer clear of any potential uncomfortable thoughts.
And where he has got that "so accurate" information?From cartoons like this (maybe NSFW) I suspect.
That's really beside the point. He constantly uses the "'X' says it's okay" excuse or otherwise attempts to evade accountability for his characters' actions.
Ummm... that's kind of a disturbing player you have there. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't stay at a table with someone who says 'rape is ok, because it's how I was raised...'
Perhaps point out that Orc societies are themselves considered 'evil' for JUST that reason!!
Raping, looting and pillaging are considered evil actions and disowned by any modern army. In the past, they were a form of compensation to the mercenaries and poor soldiers who made up an army, buying loyalty at the expense of the conquered.
It was a necessary evil, not a good, in the minds of the commanders who didn't have enough gold.
Muslims classifying someone as 'subhuman' so they could do anything they want to them is a classic example of Lawful Evil philosophy. Put in an artificial distinction, and now you are absolved of all guilt in what you do to someone. Classic, classic Lawful Evil mindset at work. The Nazis did the same exact thing. Catholics and Christians routinely played that card in the past as well.
It STILL doesn't make the action good. The universe decides good, not mortal man.
==Aelryinth
|
Case in point (and more appropriate to the thread,)
Kick him out before he has the chance to fester within the group. I can only speak for myself and if this sounds judgmental, well it is, but I would not want to be in a group with such a person, and I would not want such a person inflicted upon any of my players.
On your spoilered situation, he certainly seems like the catalyst for everything going south early on. As for the rest of it, it was an ugly situation after that, though an understandable one.
Case in point (and more appropriate to the thread,)Kick him out before he has the chance to fester within the group. I can only speak for myself and if this sounds judgmental, well it is, but I would not want to be in a group with such a person, and I would not want such a person inflicted upon any of my players.
Moreover, the longer you tolerate this behaviour, the longer you are tainted by association. There is a good chance that you will lose other players, because they don't want to be associated with a group where such behaviour is considered acceptable.
On the guy who referred to muslims being legal to rape. As far as I have ever read almost every army of every culture was perfectly acceptable to rape and pillage when you won.
And who here liked TITUS PULLO? He was a self admitted rapist yet I know I loved his character and would think of him as a tragic hero. Yet rape to me is an unforgiveable act yet I was able to forgive this character in a story...
I missed this one until now. When did Titus Pullo rape anyone? Me and my wife have watched Rome back to back five times between us, and we can't think of any time he raped anyone, or even mentioned it. He had his way with whores and whatnot, sure, and some of the scenes were a little rough and graphic, but rape? But then again, Rome is not exactly all about Pullo.
However, I have always wondered though, what people using "historical standards" are really talking about.
Using the Technology and General "European" Culture displayed in the game:
One good way of getting a grasp of the world at this time would be to read the "Cadfael Mysteries."
But looking at the whole, using "historical" standards isn't as cool as it might sound.
|
|
but i am on of those people,Then I sincerely apologize.
However like TOZ said, you made your statement in the worst possible manner. It drew such a strong response because that is what most of us think when we see the word.
Forgiven, and let me apologize as well.
But i dont see how that was at the worst time? The entire point was to get absolutes out in a discussion about modern vs historical fantasy morals and the "universe" judging it as all of "A" = evil.
I was not and never have been a troll, and was not just saying something to shock, either.
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.
.....
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.
It's quite possible that people might find the simplistic black and white / good and evil approach to be a refreshing change of pace from the "modern" approach to right and wrong....
-----
Ahh yes, the modern approach to right and wrong:
-Politicians who vie to limit the financial freedom over my own money while the other side similarly vies to limit my social freedoms.
-Companies who ruthlessly slash domestic jobs, putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work in order to prop up their bottom lines, which in turn makes their goods cheaper for those said people to purchase.
-Police departments who vigorously enforce traffic laws... out of concern for public safety or simply as an added revenue stream for a cash strapped local government.
-Employers who wring more productivity out of their employees or reduce their benefits while simultaneously withholding raises or promotions due to "global economic conditions" which benefits their shareholders.
-Where representative government listens to all "persons" - be they human or corporate - proportionally to the amount of money they spend on lobbying.
-Multinational corporations who can borrow money to finance their operations at interest rates inversely proportional to the interest rates the average citizen has to pay for his credit cards and personal loans.
-When my freedoms and liberties are curtailed to promote safety and security.
-When a government enacts cuts to a social program to "protect life" while concurrently approving funds to bomb a foreign country to pieces.
-HR departments who go to extra lengths to promote diversity, tolerance, and understanding while simultaneously shielding those employees who have long stopped caring about doing a good job merely because of the threat of litigation.
-Politicians who govern by the precepts of a religion or ideology not everyone follows or believes in.
-Where the rights of those who are willing to take a calculated risk are curtailed to "protect" those who might not object to the act in the first place.
-A legal system which, at times, seems to go the extra mile to defend the perpetrators rather than the victims.
-Homeowners who overstated their annual income and net worth numbers to close on that million dollar house a few years ago who can now have their loans modified to something more "fair and reasonable."
-Outlawing a woman to have an abortion because it's "evil" even when the child's father was her rapist.
-----
Ahh, the joys of the modern world.... with all it's shades of gray.
Some people want to play a game where there is clear evil versus good, law versus chaos as an escape and as an antithesis to the modern world with it's endlessly debatable moral ambiguity. To play something they are not - nor could ever be in our "modern world." A game where you can play a good and true hero slaying the forces of evil.