Well this thread isn't for arguing what homicide is or isn't...
Working isn't murder because (most of the time) your work isn't (unsanctioned) killing. *Most of the time* your intent from working isn't to be the cause of another's death and *most of the time* where your work is to be the cause of another's death it's 'sanctioned' or 'licensed', thus exempting one from the 'legal' definition of murder (though not from the non modern non legal human only definition of murder.)
Not helping a starving person isn't murder because not feeding them could result in them being fed by others resulting in their survival. One cannot be (implicitly legally) responsible for an death that could be caused by the negligence of a population as a whole. Morally or ethically responsible on the other hand is another thread entirely.
A cannibal monster probably isn't going to eat the villagers he's chasing because he's a cannibal monster not a cannibal human. He might still intend to kill them but watching them be killed by another isn't the same as intending to kill them even in the real world. Again, one might have (or be held by others to have) a moral responsibility here, but it's not murder because you're not the one doing the killing. You're just stepping out of the way and letting the killing happen. Legally you have at best become a 'witness' or at worst become an 'accessory' if you took specific actions that made the killers job easier.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear to me that many people simply cannot accept or understand the notion of "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters."
Because the first thing that people say is "well, if you raise the babies right, you can redeem them. So killing them is murder."
This is a definitional problem. The DEFINITION in play is that the babies are irredeemable.
When you argue that those irredeemable babies can be redeemed, you are arguing that the concept of "unrepentant, irredeemable monster" is impossible.
It is not impossible. It is a game design decision. If someone wants to create a world with monsters who cannot be redeemed, then that's their prerogative. To then say, "well, it's still murder because there is some possibility that SOME of those monsters could be redeemed" is to essentially say "I know how your world works better than you do."
However, it is clear that the folks who have not understood this concept until now are not likely to do so in the future, so I'll just hope that the majority of lurkers reading this understand the concept of "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" and recognize that if someone wants to run their world that way, well, it's their world.
And yes, it is also fine to create a world and define certain races that way JUST TO ALLOW players to have targets they can kill without remorse or moral quandary. Because it's a GAME that is fundamentally designed to allow just that.
Good job on designing a game world where killing babies is a good act. None of us are worried that you intentionally set out to design a game world where it would be the right decision for you to kill babies.
I had once thought that a core principle of this hobby was that people could play it as they like without being accused of "badwrongfun" so long as everyone at the table is OK with it.
Except for this, I suppose.
For what it is worth, before you begin to heap piles of condescending moral judgment on me, I don't run games like that. Just because I defend a logical position doesn't mean I agree with it. I can just make the argument dispassionately without resorting to accusations of moral turpitude or badwrongfun.
I wonder how many people noticed in the LotR movies when the orcs were being "born" at Isengard, they were being born adult and already monsters? Did you realize as you were watching that scene that it was a deliberate means of avoiding the "what about killing baby orcs?" issue?
So Viv and Mik and the rest of you recoiling in abject moral disgust, what about a world where there are no helpless women or baby goblins or orcs? Is it OK then to have orcs or goblins be "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" because then you don't have to deal with the repugnant idea of cutting down cute little green babies?
Plenty of people understand that.
It's just that plenty of people also outright reject that.
Different strokes.
It is one thing to "outright reject that" in your own game design. It is quite another to assert that other people's worlds can't work that way. That's not "different strokes" that's "my way is the only way."
|
Are those beings sentient? I still reject it.
Hey, no one is saying you can't play that way. But when the OP asks a question, I'm going to give my opinion on the matter and not feel particularly beholden to a playstyle I want absolutely no part of.
If someone else wants to play that way, fine.
If there's a thread dedicated to that playstyle, I don't participate in it.
But when someone is openly asking for varied opinions, I'll give mine. You're the one that jumped in and started picking apart those of others.
Christ, between this and that other thread I'm having flashbacks to that damned medusa scenario thread.
|
|
It is one thing to "outright reject that" in your own game design. It is quite another to assert that other people's worlds can't work that way. That's not "different strokes" that's "my way is the only way."Plenty of people understand that.
It's just that plenty of people also outright reject that.
Different strokes.
Asserted for my worlds and the worlds I choose to play in, you mean?
For what it is worth, before you begin to heap piles of condescending moral judgment on me, I don't run games like that.
Fair enough. My earlier comment doesn't apply to you then. However, anyone who makes a game world with infant unrepentant, irredeemable monsters is making a game world where it is sometimes the right decision to kill babies. It suggests something about the person making the game world. As an analogy, if someone makes a game world where women all take a -4 penalty to strength, I'm going to think they are a misogynist. Sure, it's a fact in their game world that women are inferior to men. However, they set out to create a game world where that is true. They cannot displace blame to the game world they created.
So Viv and Mik and the rest of you recoiling in abject moral disgust, what about a world where there are no helpless women or baby goblins or orcs?
As an aside, by throwing women in with infants like this you're being a bit of a misogynist.
Is it OK then to have orcs or goblins be "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" because then you don't have to deal with the repugnant idea of cutting down cute little green babies?
In that case, replace "killing babies" in my comment above with "genocide". If you set out to make a game world where genocide is the morally correct decision, then, yes, that does reflect upon you.
Mikaze, so it's OK for you to present your opinion, but if I rebut it, that's beyond the pale?
This sort of thing happens to me a lot. I can't help but try to get to the core of an issue and get it exposed so it can be addressed.
That's why on the "murderhobo" thread I'm pretty much arguing the exact opposite position that I'm taking here. On that thread I am pointing out that the vast majority of gamers don't go around slaughtering babies because they are green. On this thread I am pointing out that a logical world could be constructed where doing so is actually plausible.
I don't tend to play that way, but I've played with perfectly normal, morally upright people who have played that way. They view monsters as monsters and it is just a different level of game abstraction to play that way.
Again, what if you create worlds where the unrepentant, irredeemable monsters erupt out of pods fully adult? Is that a world that would be acceptable to kill the monsters on sight?
So Viv and Mik and the rest of you recoiling in abject moral disgust, what about a world where there are no helpless women or baby goblins or orcs?As an aside, by throwing women in with infants like this you're being a bit of a misogynist.
Only for those who look for misogynists under every rock Viv.
Perhaps I should have described the monsters as asexual, the point of including women was that women are usually the ones having babies, and sometimes they tend to be pregnant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it OK then to have orcs or goblins be "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" because then you don't have to deal with the repugnant idea of cutting down cute little green babies?In that case, replace "killing babies" in my comment above with "genocide". If you set out to make a game world where genocide is the morally correct decision, then, yes, that does reflect upon you.
Ah, so now you come right out and say it. So don't pretend anymore that you aren't judging people who play differently Viv, you just judged them all as morally bankrupt.
Just my own personal opinion, but if someone wants to run a game where the players can confidently expect that every monster they run into is a legitimate target just because that group enjoys the concept of battle tactics, I'm not going to call them morally bankrupt because they just don't want to turn this game into a morality simulation. They just want to have some fun killing monsters.
|
|
This sort of thing happens to me a lot.
Getting antagonistic at the drop of a hat will do that.
Again, what if you create worlds where the unrepentant, irredeemable monsters erupt out of pods fully adult? Is that a world that would be acceptable to kill the monsters on sight?
Maybe. That's why I reject those sorts of settings. I don't enjoy games where genocide is justified.
And even then? If I'm forced to play that kind of game, I'm going to focus less on murdering poor symptoms and taking out whatever crap is causing an entire race of sentient beings to be born irrevocably evil.
Because @#$% the Always Chaotic Evil trope.
Mikaze, with all due respect, YOU have been the one getting antagonistic. Not me. I've simply been calmly and rationally presenting a logical rebuttal to your point.
Disagreeing with you is not being antagonistic unless I start getting personal.
Perhaps I should have described the monsters as asexual, the point of including women was that women are usually the ones having babies, and sometimes they tend to be pregnant.
You do know that pregnancy doesn't make one helpless, right?
So don't pretend anymore that you aren't judging people who play differently Viv, you just judged them all as morally bankrupt.
Where do you get this idea that I claimed to not be judging anyone? I've been quite open about it.
Anyway, you can have games with "battle tactics" while avoiding the pitfalls of irredeemable, unrepentant monsters. You don't need dwarves to be uniformly evil for the PCs to get into combat with some dwarves.
|
|
Mikaze, with all due respect, YOU have been the one getting antagonistic. Not me. I've simply been calmly and rationally presenting a logical rebuttal to your point.
Disagreeing with you is not being antagonistic unless I start getting personal.
On the contrary, you jumped in after my post suggesting I was asserting how everyone everywhere played their games.
My apologies for not tagging every single statement with IMO.
Bear in mind that you are the one asserting that the rest of just incapable of understanding something when we very well can. We simply have negative desire to have it involved in our games.
Perhaps I should have described the monsters as asexual, the point of including women was that women are usually the ones having babies, and sometimes they tend to be pregnant.You do know that pregnancy doesn't make one helpless, right?
So don't pretend anymore that you aren't judging people who play differently Viv, you just judged them all as morally bankrupt.Where do you get this idea that I claimed to not be judging anyone? I've been quite open about it.
Heh, the pregnant woman thing is relevant because most people would consider killing a pregnant woman to be similar to killing a newborn baby Viv. In fact our own legal system can charge you with TWO murders if you kill a pregnant woman.
Mikaze, with all due respect, YOU have been the one getting antagonistic. Not me. I've simply been calmly and rationally presenting a logical rebuttal to your point.
Disagreeing with you is not being antagonistic unless I start getting personal.
On the contrary, you jumped in after my post suggesting I was asserting how everyone everywhere played their games.
My apologies for not tagging every single statement with IMO.
Bear in mind that you are the one asserting that the rest of just incapable of understanding something when we very well can. We simply have negative desire to have it involved in our games.
Mikaze, you SAY that you understand the concept, but your arguments prove otherwise. You have said that you CANNOT ACCEPT that such a condition could exist in ANYONE's games.
Are those beings sentient? I still reject it.
|
|
Mikaze, with all due respect, YOU have been the one getting antagonistic. Not me. I've simply been calmly and rationally presenting a logical rebuttal to your point.
Disagreeing with you is not being antagonistic unless I start getting personal.
On the contrary, you jumped in after my post suggesting I was asserting how everyone everywhere played their games.
My apologies for not tagging every single statement with IMO.
Bear in mind that you are the one asserting that the rest of just incapable of understanding something when we very well can. We simply have negative desire to have it involved in our games.
Mikaze, you SAY that you understand the concept, but your arguments prove otherwise. You have said that you CANNOT ACCEPT that such a condition could exist in ANYONE's games.
Are those beings sentient? I still reject it.
Read the words I am typing.
I can accept that that's how things are in other people's games.
I will NOT accept it in my games nor will I play in games where it is accepted.
Mikaze, your words stand on their own, and people can judge what you meant by them for themselves. If you are now saying that you are fine with people who play that way, so long as it is clear that the monsters truly are irredeemable, then great. That's progress.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I should have described the monsters as asexual, the point of including women was that women are usually the ones having babies, and sometimes they tend to be pregnant.You do know that pregnancy doesn't make one helpless, right?
So don't pretend anymore that you aren't judging people who play differently Viv, you just judged them all as morally bankrupt.Where do you get this idea that I claimed to not be judging anyone? I've been quite open about it.
Anyway, you can have games with "battle tactics" while avoiding the pitfalls of irredeemable, unrepentant monsters. You don't need dwarves to be uniformly evil for the PCs to get into combat with some dwarves.
Is it really necesary to insert an 'ism' into every argument? Pregnant women are generally regarded as illegiimate targets. Generally if you take a significantly pregnant woman she is going to be more inhibited than an equivalantly fit nonmpregnant woman. Why does everything have to be a soapbox crusade?
I mean, hey, maybe I just don't enjoy playing a murderhobo.
Heh, and we can at least agree on that. Neither do I.
Relevant thread is relevant. (it starts out more about OOTS but turns into a discussion about D&D in general).
Good thread! Thanks for the link.
I like what Rich Burlew says here, in response to another poster:
Dragons are made-up. We made them up. Every detail that you just wrote was made up by a writer working for TSR or Wizards. Saying, "It's OK to fight baby dragons because they're intelligent right out of the egg," is like saying, "It's OK to fight baby dragons because they made it OK to fight baby dragons." Maybe that's true but it doesn't really address whether or not they should have made it OK.
I agree with theJeff above, and think that most of the time if the party encounters baby goblins, it is usually an attempt to force some sort of moral quandary on the party.
To me the game can be played on different levels, with different goals. I see nothing wrong with playing the game as a pure problem-solving and battle tactics simulator if that's what the group wants to do that day. In those situations throwing a moral conundrum at the party is sort of a jerk move. Giving the players a supply of legitimate targets to fight is just a way to let them blow off steam.
Another level of the game is to introduce concepts that are important in the real world, concepts like diversity, moral quandaries, etc. In those situations the RPG world is a wonderful opportunity to introduce people to concepts that they may not have really encountered in life, and that can produce some really useful life lessons.
And there are more levels than that. The game works on all of them. The trick as the GM is to figure out what level is appropriate for the players right now at this time in these circumstances. I can tell when my players are just exhausted from work, fed up with something at home, or otherwise just want to whack some monsters to blow off steam.
I am pretty careful about introducing the more complex themes to the game, but I do introduce them. I find that a little of that goes a long way though.
For the most part the best way to avoid this whole problem is to not throw a party that is in a "blow off steam" mode into a room full of baby goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my world probably the closest thing to a truly irredeemable sentient species is my version of the ilithids. They eat living sentient brains to survive. I've never yet put a baby ilithid in my game, but if I did and a PC killed it, I wouldn't turn that into an alignment threatening activity. Killing something that has to eat living sentient brains to live seems to me to be a pretty defensible action.
Jaelithe, a couple of points.
1. Whether YOU have "free will" is still an open debate among philosophers and scientists, so building a world where sentient creatures lack free will is no problem at all.
2. You are asserting things as absolute facts that are nothing but your opinion.
3. Even if there is "free will" it is still possible for a world builder to create creatures that always use their will to choose evil.
4. If you want to try to pull "facts" into the discusion, the fact of the game is that the GM controls the choices of every single NPC or monster. There is no "free will" involved.
5. Whether you would find such a game to be fun or not is not the question. The question is whether it is "murder" to kill monsters. Again, "monsters", not differently colored human being analogs.
I really think that the fundamental problem some people have is the possibility of the existence of "monsters" in the first place. Every argument I see boils down to "they aren't monsters, they are just misguided."
While the species may be known for monstrous activity, you cannot judge any individual you are putting the sword to by their entire species.
While the species may be known for monstrous activity, you cannot judge any individual you are putting the sword to by their entire species.
If that is how that world works, BNW, yes, you absolutely can. This is yet another example of "they aren't monsters, they are misguided."
The whole argument boils down to "there's no such thing as sentient monsters."
While the species may be known for monstrous activity, you cannot judge any individual you are putting the sword to by their entire species.
If that is how that world works, BNW, yes, you absolutely can. This is yet another example of "they aren't monsters, they are misguided."
The whole argument boils down to "there's no such thing as sentient monsters."
That is how it works in the default setting. Many monsters: kobolds, dragons, and orcs, etc are in fact evil but its by no means universal. (Golarion drow may be about thiiiis close to evil outsiders). The trend/stereotype is definitely based in reality but not with such certainty that you can use it as an excuse to kill without thought.
137ben, I have not once suggested it was the default. In fact I have come right out and said I HOPE it's an uncommon, or even rare way to play.
I'm just saying it's a perfectly legitimate way to play and if people want to take a few hours from their week and whale away on "monsters" to blow off steam and ignore the moral implications for an afternoon...
I'm fine with that. I've done it myself. "Hey, goblins, get ready to fight!"
Nothing "wrong" with it. Sure I generally appreciate a more nuanced form of role playing, but I normally DO a more nuanced form of role playing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what's the problem with people wanting to play the game a certain way. If they wanna play a game where monstrous races are all a bunch of irredeemable monstrous killers, it's their prerogative. And nobody can judge them because of that.
Actually, people judging someone over the way they play the game is beyond ridiculous.
I tend to sometimes put babies in a game, and when i do it, i do it with a LOT of foreshadowing. Just to see what my players would do. They pretty much never dissapoint. IMHO, babies are a fact of life. Where there are males and females of species which can mate and have offspring, there can and sometimes will be young.
Not putting babies where they legitimately should be is illogical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear to me that many people simply cannot accept or understand the notion of "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters."
Because the first thing that people say is "well, if you raise the babies right, you can redeem them. So killing them is murder."
This is a definitional problem. The DEFINITION in play is that the babies are irredeemable.
When you argue that those irredeemable babies can be redeemed, you are arguing that the concept of "unrepentant, irredeemable monster" is impossible.
It is not impossible. It is a game design decision. If someone wants to create a world with monsters who cannot be redeemed, then that's their prerogative. To then say, "well, it's still murder because there is some possibility that SOME of those monsters could be redeemed" is to essentially say "I know how your world works better than you do."
However, it is clear that the folks who have not understood this concept until now are not likely to do so in the future, so I'll just hope that the majority of lurkers reading this understand the concept of "unrepentant, irredeemable monsters" and recognize that if someone wants to run their world that way, well, it's their world.
And yes, it is also fine to create a world and define certain races that way JUST TO ALLOW players to have targets they can kill without remorse or moral quandary. Because it's a GAME that is fundamentally designed to allow just that.
Take for instance Xenomorphs (Aliens from the movies). They are pretty darn unrepentant from birth to death. Is Ellen Ripley a genocidal maniac for exterminating the Queen and all the eggs? Should she and the party pause and determine if there is one brave egg that they can nurture and teach the ways of Man and it won't try to eat their heads?
There is no right or wrong way in playing your game. One can reject or dislike someone else's ideas and styles -- I daresay there are a number of styles of play and thought on play that I dislike greatly -- but that doesn't mean that someone else is playing wrong. They are playing in a manner you do not like, nothing more.
As a side note -- how many parties out there are taking young back and raising them "right". Not pawning them off on the local church or someone else, actually doing the deed? I've had a few times, over the years, where the party decided to try to raise various young beings with varying degrees of success.
I will just once again point out that if you want to, you can take the Peter Jackson dodge and have your irredeemable monstrous sentient species grown in pods and "birthed" fully grown and ready to fight. Then the whole "baby problem" can be totally avoided.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, people judging someone over the way they play the game is beyond ridiculous.
There are ways to play the game that I'm sure pretty much everyone would judge for. For example, playing Pathfinder like it's FATAL. If you play Pathfinder to live out your misogynistic, sexist, fantasies centered around sexual violence, I'm going to judge you for what it reveals about you. I hope most others would as well.
I'll concede that's a rather extreme example. But even if you're not playing FATALly, that doesn't mean the sort of roleplaying you engage in has nothing to do with the real world. It doesn't mean you are beyond reproach. Tabletop roleplaying games are like other media: their content is in part determined by larger societal memes. They aren't magically disconnected from the world in which they were created. The view that it is categorically wrong to judge how one roleplays is the view that we ought pretend what one believes about the real world doesn't affect what kind of roleplaying one does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite judgmental. It sets you up to be judge and jury of people based on your own prejudices and biases. Based on an innocent statement I made about women and children being flagged as 'misogynistic' I'm pretty sure your reaction to other things is just as questionable and will result in other accusations against other innocents.
But hey, it makes you feel superior, and that's what counts.