Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915229Because if I'm playing a knight who is a Christian, I'm going to try to avoid that fate in character, even if it means "the character lives the rest of his life as a holy hermit praying his repentance."

Because the character cares about it, presumably.

Presumably so. Since he is, or is trying to be, a Christian knight. Rule #1 for being a Christian knight, has to be "try to be a Chrisitan." Note that if you are a Knight who just happens to have been born in a Christian country, you are likely to have a different rule #1.

 

Quote from: Headless;915238If there are gods and they can talk to you and smight you then goodness is obeying your god.  The will of the strongest to quote Thrymisicas.

If that isn't the case if it can be good to disobey your god.  Then there is Morality beyond the will of the gods.  But that isn't personified and so isn't real and absolute and knowable and known.

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

Quote from: CRKrueger;915086So in decades of your play and GMing, no player has ever had to roleplay a difficult moral choice that's risen organically from play?  Really? Fuck "Addressing Premise" and Theme nonsense, but a hard choice or Trolley Problem never popped up by itself due to emergent play?  I kinda find that hard to believe.

Here's why I view all this "moral choice" stuff as masturbation.

If I am playing a LG Fighter, he does LG stuff. If I'm playing a CN Cleric, he does CN stuff.

I find these "moral conundrums" more about testing the player than testing the character. AKA, is the player having their PC make choices that offend or please the moral compass of the DM?

That's been my experience. The DM puts the goblin babies in the game NOT for the PCs, but for the Players to see how we meet his expectations. Fuck that shit.

If I have tough choices in games, its more like Spiderman having to choose to save the bus full of innocents or save his girlfriend. Or the PCs have to decide to hang around the castle to hold off a horde or whether to chase the Lich before he gets to finish his dark ritual? FOR ME, I much prefer putting two bad choices before the PCs and letting them choose.

I really, really, really hate when DMs try any virtue signalling at the game table EVEN if those virtues are my own - then it just pandering bullshit masturbation.

BTW, WTF is "Addressing Premise"? Have you been smoking the story weed again?

Quote from: CRKrueger;915086It's the old wound, it has never healed.

If Modiphius somehow makes their Living Conan Campaign kick ass, I'll be bleeding and drinking too!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915168For instance, suppose the party comes up to the group of goblin children, then looks at me, the DM, and asks me if they're inherently Evil or not.

Would it be wrong if I just shrug in response and say, "Who knows"?

Yes.

Their PCs come from cultures with cultural outlooks and traditions. You, as the DM, are the arbiter of these cultural backgrounds. So its fine for players - who aren't the PCs, but are trying to represent them - to ask you for that kind of setting information.

In my OD&D setting, the Lawful goddess of the Empire is very clear on these issues - slay non-humans without mercy, but be wary of cutting down a fellow human. She will judge you. I don't expect brand new players to know all the ins and outs of their PC's religion and culture and its my job to inform them.

Not to control their behavior or choices, but to inform them.

I often play devout evangelistic clerics (super fun for me as I'm hardcore anti-religion) so if I am unsure WTF my god thinks of a particular moral situation, I will ask my DM.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915286Their PCs come from cultures with cultural outlooks and traditions. You, as the DM, are the arbiter of these cultural backgrounds. So its fine for players - who aren't the PCs, but are trying to represent them - to ask you for that kind of setting information.

In my OD&D setting, the Lawful goddess of the Empire is very clear on these issues - slay non-humans without mercy, but be wary of cutting down a fellow human. She will judge you. I don't expect brand new players to know all the ins and outs of their PC's religion and culture and its my job to inform them.

Not to control their behavior or choices, but to inform them.

I often play devout evangelistic clerics (super fun for me as I'm hardcore anti-religion) so if I am unsure WTF my god thinks of a particular moral situation, I will ask my DM.

At least the answer to this question will point out whether the GM is interested in in-world-simulation or screwing around with the players mind.

I sense little good will come from this thread...

Anyhoo, usual comment about setting context and clarifying with the GM about their setting value dials. Like all setting-tied tools, they will be "soft" (as in defined per table and GM judgment of setting) rather than "hard" (as defined by explicit system mechanics -- not tied to setting). Yup, that means talking to your GM more about what your PC understands about the world AND their thoughts and feelings in relation to that understanding.

Normally assumed goblin attributes of sapiency, individuality, and free-will would tend to elevate this moral conundrum from the standard culling of 'animal pests and their brood'. But settings differ per table, so don't ask us, ask your GM...

Quote from: Ghost;915056Fair enough.



I know that bringing up Christianity/Catholicism will probably annoy you, but as far as the above assertion of yours goes, it really is the easiest real-world comparison.

Because the truth is that Christianity might as well be a "black and white" absolute EVIL vs GOOD choice, if you actually believe in it.  Christ (the guy who we're supposed to be following) gave a pretty short and simple list of unambiguous junk we're supposed to do if we're GOOD. Simple enough if you read the book. Somehow, though, it has ended up in disaster after fucking disaster on planet Earth, everything from crusades to inquisitions to organized pedophilia cover-ups.  

"Where the fuck did I say 'build a water-slide?'" -Bill Hicks.

We can agree so far, right?  Easy instructions. "Do unto others" and "Love one another" ftw.  Result: horrific catastrophic fail after fail in the hands of mortals.

HAHAHAHA. No.

Let's say one treats the Bible as a set of instructions from God that delineate, in black and white, what is Good and what is Evil.

For one, no cutting your beard ever. Or you're going to hell. Also, if you ever meet a woman whose committed adultery, you are required to stone her to death. But let's ignore the extremes of the Old Testament and just focus on Jesus.

What was the only sin that ever made Jesus actually, violently angry?

Usury.

And what is the entirety of modern Western society supported by?

Usury.

Every time you use a bank, buy something with a credit card, every time you use any cash money, you are supporting and engaging in the only sin to make Jesus flip his shit over.

Now consider a life without that, and then tell me no moral relativism exists within Christianity/Catholicism. "Easy instructions" as applied to Christianity only exists insofar as a person's willingness to pick and choose what they think the Bible really intended vs what it actually states.

Cash does not equal usury. Debt does not equal usury. Archaically interest is connected to usury. But predominantly usury is now tied to "loan sharking." However the best connection to Jesus flipping his shit in the temple is to rampant (read: uncontrolled) speculation, spilling into the temple itself, of which "loan sharking" could easily be a part.

Because Jesus said: suffer unto thee the little goblin children, for they inhehit the kingdom of heaven...

The question is not should PCs kill monstrous humanoid children, it is how much XP will be gained for each kill?

Quote from: TristramEvans;915292HAHAHAHA. No.

Let's say one treats the Bible as a set of instructions from God that delineate, in black and white, what is Good and what is Evil.

For one, no cutting your beard ever. Or you're going to hell. Also, if you ever meet a woman whose committed adultery, you are required to stone her to death. But let's ignore the extremes of the Old Testament and just focus on Jesus.

What was the only sin that ever made Jesus actually, violently angry?

Usury.

And what is the entirety of modern Western society supported by?

Usury.

Every time you use a bank, buy something with a credit card, every time you use any cash money, you are supporting and engaging in the only sin to make Jesus flip his shit over.

Now consider a life without that, and then tell me no moral relativism exists within Christianity/Catholicism. "Easy instructions" as applied to Christianity only exists insofar as a person's willingness to pick and choose what they think the Bible really intended vs what it actually states.

Plus as I mentioned, salvation is available to everyone. You just need to accept Ilmate- Jesus in your heart, and repent*. Because while there is absolute Evil and Good in Christianity (although Absolute Evil is actually considered an absence of God re: Absolute Good element of the universe), it is much more flux in applying it to those possessing free will, than the understanding of it via D&D Alignment and most DMs in practice, who forget the fluidity of alignments.

For the Bible itself, even New Testament is full of contradictions - I remember a discussion about whether it was considered Christian to support the death penalty. On one hand, you have "turn the other cheek", "render justice onto the Lord" from the horse's mouth, on the other, I remember there are a few paragraphs from I think Matthew's letter to Corinthians how you should not suffer evil idly.


*may not apply if you are a heretical Protestant, but you'll burn in hell any way for turning away from Mother Church.

Quote from: jeff37923;915299The question is not should PCs kill monstrous humanoid children, it is how much XP will be gained for each kill?

Here are your winnings, sir.

Quote from: jeff37923;915299The question is not should PCs kill monstrous humanoid children, it is how much XP will be gained for each kill?

If it's not a threat there's no XP.  So the real question is how much you can get for them on the open market as GP = XP.  Like cattle, children of a certain age can carry themselves.  You didn't think the Babylonians carried off the children of Israel because they were cute did you?

Quote from: Bren;915278As I said, you don't appear to mean the same thing by the word "absolute" nor do you appear to mean the same thing by the word "difficult" as I do. When deciding which is the moral act, according to you, you have difficulty in choosing which is the moral action when the two choices at hand are (1) an absolute good and (2) something bad. :eek:

Since you don't answer questions, I don't see any way to agree on a common definition of the words and phrases being used in the discussion. Words and phrases like "Absolute Good," "Absolute Evil," and "difficulty in deciding which is the moral course of action" seem to mean something completely different to you than they do to me. Moreover, since you ask but do not answer questions, a style of forum "discussion" I've seen before, I don't have any interest in singing and dancing in the private mystery play inside your head.

So by all means toddle on off and vent your bile on someone else. No doubt you will feel like you "won" the discussion since I'm not engaging your premise and that will perhaps make you a little less angry.

You're the one who started stating many times that we were operating under different definitions.
You're the first one who was asked then, what your definitions of Absolute were.
You're the one who again, is pointing to obvious differences in definition and still provides no definition yourself, only saying to anything discussed "That's not what I would call an Absolute, we have different definitions."

I don't give a shit about "winning", but I'll be damned if I'll let you say I'm the one stonewalling.  Put up or shut up and we'll just move on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915286Here's why I view all this "moral choice" stuff as masturbation.

If I am playing a LG Fighter, he does LG stuff. If I'm playing a CN Cleric, he does CN stuff.

I find these "moral conundrums" more about testing the player than testing the character. AKA, is the player having their PC make choices that offend or please the moral compass of the DM?

That's been my experience. The DM puts the goblin babies in the game NOT for the PCs, but for the Players to see how we meet his expectations. Fuck that shit.

If I have tough choices in games, its more like Spiderman having to choose to save the bus full of innocents or save his girlfriend. Or the PCs have to decide to hang around the castle to hold off a horde or whether to chase the Lich before he gets to finish his dark ritual? FOR ME, I much prefer putting two bad choices before the PCs and letting them choose.

This is where I actually think the D&D alignment system can come in handy. Not that it's the only way to do this, but I think it's a pretty easy and intuitive way to set up moral dilemmas.
In the 9 alignment system, there are two "parts" to an alignment. Usually good-evil, and law-chaos. A paladin isn't going to choose between just good or evil, or just law and chaos. Those are too "easy". But instead imagine a scenario where the paladin chooses between law and good. Does he uphold the law that creates an injustice, or does he do the right thing even if it's against the law?  That kinda thing.
Nowadays, I tend to see the alignment system as a declaration of intent. Most alignment systems aknowledge that no one is 100% good or 100% lawful all the time.
Note that in the paladin example, the character, if he makes any decision at all, is going to "violate" one axis of his alignment. Which is why I came up with another pithy statement on the topic of paladins. "I, as a GM, will never take away your powers, but your god might." but really, I'd let a lot of those kinds of situations slide, since there's no "right" answer.

Quote from: Elfdart;915263Yes.

I also think part of it is caused by players' resentment of DM bullfuckery. I've found that while little goblins in the goblins' lair, or the camp followers of a gang of brigands can add a nifty bit of detail, I also realize that if I make a habit of including these sorts of non-combatants, there's a good chance the PCs will kill them, whether they're caught in the crossfire or massacred on purpose. If I make a habit of putting PCs into moral no-win scenarios, they might just decide "Fuck this!" and just slaughter the bystanders. It's like that annoying, wanked-out DMPC. Any DM who includes that kind of chickenshit in his game has no business whining if the PCs decide that playing second fiddle to Elminster sucks mule cock, so why not just kill him?

And this is why I don't use Alignment. Because it just gets in the way. I fully acknowledge everything you just said and I've seen it with my own eyes *many* times. I just let the world react to their actions. It makes it so much more easier than waffling on and on about the meta-game you see in this thread.

Makes it more fun too.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915286Here's why I view all this "moral choice" stuff as masturbation.

If I am playing a LG Fighter, he does LG stuff. If I'm playing a CN Cleric, he does CN stuff.

I find these "moral conundrums" more about testing the player than testing the character. AKA, is the player having their PC make choices that offend or please the moral compass of the DM?

That's been my experience. The DM puts the goblin babies in the game NOT for the PCs, but for the Players to see how we meet his expectations. Fuck that shit.

If I have tough choices in games, its more like Spiderman having to choose to save the bus full of innocents or save his girlfriend. Or the PCs have to decide to hang around the castle to hold off a horde or whether to chase the Lich before he gets to finish his dark ritual? FOR ME, I much prefer putting two bad choices before the PCs and letting them choose.

I really, really, really hate when DMs try any virtue signalling at the game table EVEN if those virtues are my own - then it just pandering bullshit masturbation.

BTW, WTF is "Addressing Premise"? Have you been smoking the story weed again?

Addressing premise is the type of stroking you're talking about "The game is about X, so I'm putting X in so we can roleplay about it."  Remember I said fuck that.

But, if you're going to a place where there are Orcs, Giants, whatever in sufficient numbers to have a breeding population, and those races actually breed, then you can either let the setting be consistent, or paper stuff over.

Papering stuff over is to me just as false as putting in front and center.  Stuff coming up organically, means just that.  If that ends up being a moral choice, then it does.   In most cases, these choices are going to be relative.  Killing goblin non-combatants might not be a moral choice for a dwarf.  It might.

Take a Conan campaign.  In most of the countries, slavery is a norm.  Hell, slave women might even be payment or loot.  Free them, sell them, let them choose, whatever you do, that's not a situation artificially placed there, it's a situation because you signed on to raid a Turanian caravan, or an Argossean Galley, or whatever.

The world is the world.  Sometimes it makes you think. Sometimes it makes you choose.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915267Do I think it could be interesting to play in a game in which questions of Good and Evil were central to events of the game? Sure. But the problem is that the game isn't really about Good and Evil. It's about the GMs beliefs about good and evil, which may not match up to my own. If the GM wants me to believe his game is about ultimate GOOD and EVIL, he is going to first need to convince me that he understands exactly what these things are.

This is one of the reasons paladins often create problems in games. The GM decides that the paladin did an act of evil, so now he is just a fighter. Meanwhile, the player has a different conception of what is evil, and decides the GM is full of shit. Premarital sex is evil? WTF? Killing an orc that surrendered is evil? Dude! Opinions will vary.

So you avoid this by simply avoiding the pretense that your gods and devils are manifestations of ultimate GOOD and EVIL. Seeing as many fantasy world religions revolve around a pantheon of deities rather than an all-knowing monotheistic creator, it isn't that hard to do. Instead of saying "Your god Avar is the god of goodness and you will lose his sponsorship if you do evil (as judged by me)" you say "Your god Avar is the god of battle. Here's his code of conduct. If you don't follow it you will lose your powers."

Problem solved.

You can still have moral issues and questions of good and evil in your games, but you avoid taking the role of the ultimate arbiter of morality as part of your GMing duties.

If I'm playing Avar and deciding whether a Paladin loses his powers, then there's no difference than playing Eru or Yahwe or Shiva or whoever or whatever.  If you're the ultimate arbiter of what the One God's opinion is, then there's very little difference between that and being the ultimate Arbiter of the nameless force of Ultimate Good.  In any case, my determination as to how Allah operates in Quasi-Historical Game X has as much do with anything real world as my determination as to how Khorne and Slaanesh operate.  Even if I did determine that I was the Ultimate Arbiter of Morality, it would be for my campaign only.  If I join your campaign, whether I agree with your definition of Absolute anything is immaterial.  All that matters is your definition, and that I know what it is, or at least what my character should be expected to think it is.

If there is an Ultimate Good and Ultimate Evil in a campaign, that doesn't mean the campaign is going to be about Ultimate Good vs. Ultimate Evil, and what either of our beliefs or understandings of real world philosophies or religions are is completely immaterial to the campaign.

There's information that characters are capable of possessing, there's information that characters are not capable of possessing and whether PC's possess the truth, or not, is just highly dependent on the nature of the campaign.