Quote from: daniel_ream;915985In all fairness, that's a performance issue.  Continuing to render all those bodies/blood splatters even though the player can't meaningfully interact with them takes up memory and processing power; these are extremely scarce resources in most high-pressure FPSes.

Granted, some games do have persistent bodies as a selling point, but it's rarely worth the tradeoff in development time.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the emergent impact on the players, but it's not intentional on the part of the designers.  They know blood sells.

Sometimes it is a performance issue, but not always. For example, in Bungie's pre-Microsoft Myth series, one of the more interesting and fun features was that it had persistent bodies, blood sprays & stains on the ground, body parts, and pieces of dropped equipment, even scorch marks and tracks made by moving units, and there could be hundreds on units in one battle. (The blood, tracks and scorches were achieved by painting on the battlefield texture, so it actually took zero memory or CPU, except it required using a full battlefield texture, not tiles). It particularly mattered if and explosion or magic force caused some of them to turn into projectiles. In that game series, there was a "for kids' sake" feature which probably rarely was ever used, where bodies would turn into stars or something, but to me that's the opposite of what I want to do if I really want to have a better effect on the audience. It's a "soften parental outrage" feature.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915994I frequently collect and use casualty miniatures in miniatures wargaming. The presence of little lead bodies on the tabletop certainly gives a different feel to the game than defeated units vanishing back to the storage shelf.

Yeah, I've always done this since it's part of the basic rules in TFT, and it makes a difference since bodies aren't exactly a smooth surface to fight on or even run across, and they may have grabable equipment on them. Though I use cardboard counters. It's much trickier with miniatures unless you have body minis of course (or just use counters for the bodies) since the standing ones tend to use so much space and get in the way.

Quote from: Skarg;916017(The blood, tracks and scorches were achieved by painting on the battlefield texture, so it actually took zero memory or CPU, except it required using a full battlefield texture, not tiles).

I want one of these magical computers you're using.

Quote from: Skarg;916016Oh, at Archie MacPhee you can get tiny plastic babies by the handful, so you can do those orphanages your players want to massacre...

The IDW D&D Comic. Zombie Children Orphanage Massacre.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915334I don't give a shit about "winning", but I'll be damned if I'll let you say I'm the one stonewalling.  

I didn't say you were stonewalling. I said you were asking and not answering questions. And you are still asking and you still are not answering. If you want to call that stonewalling, that's fine by me.

QuotePut up or shut up and we'll just move on.

My definition of absolute good or evil includes that the fact that good and evil is absolute in nature has some impact on the setting and on the character. Which is why, way back at the beginning of this portion of the thread I suggested that including absolute good or evil as choices in the setting, and where that good and evil were detectable and known, should and would simplify moral decision making by making it easier, even certain what the right decision was. I referenced the the greater simplicity of deciding the moral action when the choices were good and evil and the comparably greater difficulty that occurs when the choice is between two goods or two evils. I then pointed out that if the good is an absolute good, that GOOD would clearly trump any lesser, non-absolute good so adding in detectable, absolute good simplifies the calculus of determining what the moral choice is. But that's all stuff you and Ghost ignored.

The effect of detectable, absolute good and evil in the setting on moral decision making by agents in the setting is to me an incredibly obvious point. But it is a point that you and Ghost take issue with and with which you appear to disagree. But you either won't or can't explain how it could be the case that deciding which is the moral action could be as difficult or even more difficult when one of the choices is absolutely good or absolutely evil and, moreover, you are in a world where absolute good and evil are detectable via a spell or ability so it is not like you are in doubt as to which of the choices is the GOOD one as opposed to merely good or bad, nor which choice is the EVIL one as opposed to merely bad or good.

So how about explaining how it is that you, as your character, have a difficult time figuring out what the right thing to do actually is?

Is it, that good and evil aren't actually absolute for you or your character when making some choices? No, no. That couldn't be it, could it?

Now let's go back to your Lancelot example. In my version of a setting, Lancelot (let's call him Lancelot1) is torn between his duty to his liege and his friend and his desire for Guinevere. Lancelot1's amazing combat ability and his pride in his ability as the greatest knight makes it more likely that he will fall to temptation since he lacks the humility to ask for help dealing with his moral conflict and can't, in his pride, admit to anyone else that he has this base desire. In the end, after struggling to avoid temptation and absenting himself physically from the scene, Lancelot1 makes the ignoble choice and betrays his liege and commits the sin of adultery. Which he knows is wrong, it's against the law, it's a betrayal of friendship, it's a betrayal of his vows of knighthood, but he is unable to stop himself.

What is different in your absolute good and evil setting?

Does your Lancelot (let's call him Lancelot2) make a different choice because he dwells in a game world of absolute good and evil where he knows of a certainty that adultery is evil and not just relatively evil, but absolutely, detectably evil? You and Ghost, unlike Gronan, seem to be saying no Lancelot2 still has difficult choices. (Gronan says his Lancelot ain't sleeping with the Queen because it is bad, or evil, or EVIL.) You and Ghost seem to be saying that it is still just as difficult for Lancelot2 to decide on the moral action and in the end he still commits adultery despite knowing absolutely that it is the wrong thing to do.

In what sense is that evil absolute?

Perhaps it is more difficult for Lancelot2 to know that having sex with his friend the king's wife is wrong if evil and good are absolute? I don't see how. It seems to me that it would have to be at least as easy (easier I should think) for Lancelot2 to figure out that having sex with the Queen is wrong as it is for Lancelot1 to figure that out. After all, Lancelot2 knows, and his player knows, that the evil in that setting is absolute and they can even detect it (or ask someone else to detect if for him). So it seems to me that it should be easier for Lancelot2 to figure out which action is the moral action than it would be for the Lancelot1 who can't detect evil or have it detected and who doesn't know absolutely what is good and what is evil, and neither does the player of Lancelot1.

Is the difference that Lancelot2 feels worse than does Lancelot1 because he can detect the absolute evil of his choice? And if so how would we even measure that? Maybe that's what you two get out of the setting difference. If so, it would have been considerate if you had bothered to explain that and explain maybe how that works in practice.

Perhaps what is different is that Lancelot2 will burn in hell for eternity due to the absolute evil of his mortal sin? But do you actually play out Lancelot2's eternity in hell? I'm guessing probably not. So it isn't really a roleplaying effect, as it doesn't happen to the character or get played, it is a story effect. Like ending a fairy tale story with "and they lived happily ever after." We the players and the GM get a dramatic and moral closure since we know how Lancelot2's story ends in an absolute and unambiguous fashion, even though we don't ever play it out. OK. I can see how that might appeal to someone, but that doesn't seem like what you've both been talking about.

It doesn't seem to me that you are using good and evil that are in any meaningful way absolute. Which is why I said you seem to be using some other definition for absolute that me.

Near as I can tell, your version of "absolute" good and evil seems like the WEG Star Wars Dark Side Point rules where if a Jedi uses a Dark Side Force power then they gain a DSP and it doesn't matter when, why, or how they used the power. And similarly, if they use a non-Dark Side power like Telekinesis to kill a living being they get a DSP. And it doesn't matter whether they used Telekinesis to prevent Darth Evil from killing an innocent by crushing Darth Evil's heart or head to jelly first. Personally I think the decision making even in that situation is easier (if occasionally seeming to a lot of people's points of view stupider) than it would be if using telekinesis to harm a living being was not a black and white issue but depended on the situation, e.g. on the state of mind of the Jedi using the power, the circumstances where, when, why, and how the power was used, etc.

So if you find it impossible to answer any questions without an example of absolute good and evil, try the WEG Dark Side Point mechanic. Personally I don't see that as absolute but the difference comes back to the question is something evil because the Force (or midichlorians if you use the little buggers) says it is evil, or does the Force say don't do that because the action is already evil. Or is it a third choice of the Force says NO, but you, the PC, still have to decide for yourself whether to listen to the Force or to ignore it and possibly (or certainly) pay the price? If the latter, I don't see that evil as absolute.

T.H. White spent an entire book trying to understand Lancelot and Guinevire's actions.

Knowing something is absolute evil won't stop someone from doing it if they want it bad enough. People do things they know are wrong all the time.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;916201Knowing something is absolute evil won't stop someone from doing it if they want it bad enough. People do things they know are wrong all the time.

I agree that determining which act is the more moral choice to make is different from following through on or implementing that decision. I've been talking about the former.

I'm in the "don't give players the choice to murder kids, even fantasy ones" camp (assuming there is one). That's just our table; YMMV, of course.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;916263I'm in the "don't give players the choice to murder kids, even fantasy ones" camp (assuming there is one). That's just our table; YMMV, of course.

I can't say I would *hand* that choice to the players but it would be part of the world. Whether they took it or not is up to them. It would have consequences of course.

Quote from: Tetsubo;916265I can't say I would *hand* that choice to the players but it would be part of the world. Whether they took it or not is up to them. It would have consequences of course.

Well put, my friend.

Today was the first session of the Billmarillion, where Bill took his magic-user Aldo to the village of Dorim. A boy Tanner had gone missing while fishing by the stream, Aldo followed the tracks and found he had been kidnapped by a couple of goblins. He cast sleep on the lot, freed the boy and slew the sleeping goblins.

There was no existentialist angst nor moral dilemma nor even enquiry as to whether they had reached their majority or been legally emancipated from their parents as minors not yet even momentary hesitation. He simply butchered them horribly in their sleep.

And that is the way it should be!

Why can the choice between AG and AE be interesting?  It's been pointed out by three people already.  It adds an extra dimension and weight to the choice above and beyond the normal personal consequences.  You don't have to roleplay out an Eternity in Hell, to have a PC think about or experience the possibility of facing that Hell, and have that factored into their decision or roleplaying.   Also, depending on setting there may be other concrete effects of making an Evil choice.

Lancelot1 suffers consequences1.
Lancelot2 suffers consequences1 and consequences2.  
Therefore, the choice may in fact be more difficult to make and live with.

For you, it seems at least, the term Absolute carries with it the notion that something that violates a moral or ethical system is awash in rich and deep possibilities, but faced with a Good/Evil choice, any personal failings, self-interest, or whatever else creates that conflict that is so deep and meaningful in the moral quandary is just cast aside and forgotten about when faced with choosing an Absolute Evil.  Somehow the notion of Absolute turns people into Spock or Data and they can easily tick the box "No" and be about their day.

In other words, in the entirety of human existence, no one has made a decision you can see as possibly being an Absolute Evil, if it was Absolute, they obviously wouldn't have made it because the choice is so easy and obvious.  Fair enough, but there's no point in moving forward with this then.  Examples and reasons have been given, they simply aren't accepted.  There is no mutual premise that we can meaningfully engage.

The one thing I think is worth talking about further is this idea:

Quote from: BrenSo it isn’t really a roleplaying effect, as it doesn’t happen to the character or get played, it is a story effect.

So if there's no mechanical effect or outward effect in the game world it isn't roleplaying?(Well leave aside the idea above that there may indeed be mechanical effects other than Eternity in Hell, because there doesn't need to be)  
Roleplaying a character takes place inside the mind of the player.  You're essentially saying if a PC can commit any act without witnesses and there is no discernable downside, then there is no roleplaying involved in choosing how to do it?  In other words, there must always be immediate consequence to give meaning to the choice?  Really?  Don't you have a self-described Deontological Kantian PC?

The truth is, internal conflict and the difficulty of a decision a PC makes is roleplaying even if there is no outward game mechanic effect, or even if any of the other players or GM even know it.  That's doesn't make it a story effect, that makes it roleplaying.  If we decide to go OOC either as players or through game mechanics to then address the effects or whatever other meta-stuff people do, then it becomes part of story, because they're specifically addressing it as such.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;916336And that is the way it should be!

Or not.

Quote from: CRKrueger;916342Lancelot1 suffers consequences1.
Lancelot2 suffers consequences1 and consequences2.  

What consequence does Lancelot2 suffer during the game that is not suffered by Lancelot1? You have provided none.

Both believe they have sinned. The only difference in game is that in the case of Lancelot2, the player of Lancelot2 knows that what Lancelot1 believes to be true is in fact true. It’s a metagame difference involving player knowledge of the setting. It’s like the player reading the GM’s setting notes. And as I said before, I don’t need to read the GM’s notes to play in the setting.

Quote from: Bren;915113Whether or not my pretend Christian or my pretend Humakti is or is not deluded about the nature of the pretend reality that they inhabit indeed does not matter to me. Why would it? The reality is a pretend one. Are you saying that it matters to you whether or not your PC is right or wrong in their understanding of their pretend world?

Quote from: CRKrueger;916342For you, it seems at least, the term Absolute carries with it the notion that something that violates a moral or ethical system is awash in rich and deep possibilities, but faced with a Good/Evil choice, any personal failings, self-interest, or whatever else creates that conflict that is so deep and meaningful in the moral quandary is just cast aside and forgotten about when faced with choosing an Absolute Evil.  Somehow the notion of Absolute turns people into Spock or Data and they can easily tick the box "No" and be about their day.

You are combining two different things into one thing: (1) figuring out which action is the right action and (2) performing the right action (or not doing performing the wrong action). Absolutes affect the ability to figure out which is the right action. I think I said previously that doing the right thing is different.

Why yes, yes I did say that.

Quote from: Bren;915113I think that knowing what the moral action is when the choice is between something good and something bad is not very difficult. Nor am I alone in that position. Making the choice and sticking to it might be difficult (but following through on doing the right thing is a different issue that knowing which action is the right action). So in the case of choosing between good and evil, knowing which choice is the moral one, is not difficult. And again to be clear, sticking to the right action, following through on it, living with it, are different issues than is determining what the right action should be.

Figuring out which is the right thing to do (a) help the cultists torture an innocent baby to death or (b) snatch it up and save it from such a horrible fate doesn’t become a more difficult ethical decision if you make (a) and/or (b) an absolutely good or evil act. Are you actually suggesting that making one or the other of those actions absolutes makes deciding which action is the right thing is a more difficult decision?

Now having figured out the right action, your character might have a difficult time saving the child, for example, since doing the right thing in that situation might be very dangerous and might have almost no chance of success (lots of deadly cultists hanging about or something).

QuoteExamples and reasons have been given, they simply aren't accepted.  There is no mutual premise that we can meaningfully engage.

Your examples are vague or they don’t relate to the point at issue. I think the problem is that you are engaged with something you imagine or assume that I think and not engaged with what I said. I suspect your imagination/assumption is incorrect, but that's a different issue.

QuoteThe one thing I think is worth talking about further is this idea:
So if there's no mechanical effect or outward effect in the game world it isn't roleplaying?

I don’t think this is worth talking about, though I can see why you might prefer that to be the topic.