TheRPGSite

It was just my first session with a wholly new group on Thursday night. The party is going through the Caverns of Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands). My Lawful Neutral Fighter/M-U tells the other characters that killing the younglings after the death & destruction of their parents is a mercy. The good characters object, but they turn away to begin looting the dead I declare that I'm about to start doing it when the DM tells the good PCs that they are in violation of their alignments if they allow this. So I got stopped, politely, and told not to do it. I agree & we instead captured the little snots.

Is there a consensus even now?

 I acted as much to test my fellow players as anything else.

I think the killing of goblins is the killing of vermin & is ethically neutral.

Anyone want to rehash this? I feel like it's 1984 all over again.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942It was just my first session with a wholly new group on Thursday night. The party is going through the Caverns of Chaos (Keep on the Borderlands). My Lawful Neutral Fighter/M-U tells the other characters that killing the younglings after the death & destruction of their parents is a mercy. The good characters object, but they turn away to begin looting the dead I declare that I'm about to start doing it when the DM tells the good PCs that they are in violation of their alignments if they allow this. So I got stopped, politely, and told not to do it. I agree & we instead captured the little snots.

Is there a consensus even now?

 I acted as much to test my fellow players as anything else.

I think the killing of goblins is the killing of vermin & is ethically neutral.

Anyone want to rehash this? I feel like it's 1984 all over again.

Depends on the setting.
Are goblinoids Mongols, Vikings, Klingons with fangs and green skin, then slaughtering their young is evil.  Although giving them a clean death may be preferable to turning them over to the local populace.

If they are corruption incarnate or, here we go again...irredeemably evil...then killing them is preventing future evil.

In any case, players who refuse to kill them are responsible for them, one way or another.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942Is there a consensus even now?

I hope not. The point, to me, isn't to come to some universal consensus on morality and alignment, but to see how each player and their character deal wtih morality and alignment.

Goblins are obviously stand-ins for oppressed peoples in the real world and killing them is supporting white supremacy.  Now that line of BS is out of the way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;913946Depends on the setting.
Are goblinoids Mongols, Vikings, Klingons with fangs and green skin, then slaughtering their young is evil.  Although giving them a clean death may be preferable to turning them over to the local populace.

If they are corruption incarnate or, here we go again...irredeemably evil...then killing them is preventing future evil.

In any case, players who refuse to kill them are responsible for them, one way or another.

No, they're the genericest of generic goblins. I agree they are the the PC's problem (including my character since I didn't exit the group over the issue).

Funny, I *JUST* added this issue to Keep on the Borderlands' TV tropes page.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/KeepOnTheBorderlands

My take on the subject is that killing goblin children is evil as is killing noncombatants of all types. However, this kind of act happens in the D&D world because when you attack a goblin camp, they're likely to take up arms to defend the place just like child-soldiers get used in plenty of real-life conflicts. Also, I rule that the racism of your average D&D world means that most people won't see it as a crime.

It is an evil act karmically even if Lawful Good characters may do it.

In my LotFP/Magic World game goblins sprout from dead un-baptised children (including aborted fetuses) and so kinda look like malformed kiddies... they don't reproduce though, so no babies to kill

Eberron had it best.

Have orcs actually capable of being reasoned with and elves unreasonable.

Totally depends on the presentation. Are goblins little kill crazed vermin? Or are they just not very bright aliens?

In BX EVERYTHING could be friendly. So we treated every encounter based on how the creatures reacted. If they attacked us. So be it. If the damn kids attack us then theres nothing for it. If they left us alone. GREAT! If they want to negotiate or trade then even better. If they were raiding and killing families then all bets were off. But we still didnt like running into monster families at all.

In AD&D it was a much the same and we were back to trying to puzzle out who was who. One thing we ended up realizing was that several of these races had explosive population rates and if adventurers and armies didnt keep weeding them out then eventually they over-run and totally devastate an area. Its even worse in the Forgotten Realms where orcs have repeatedly swept out and devastated civilization. What the hell do you do when the other side is dedicated to wiping you out?

So in the end it really depends on the presentation of the race and just how much the PCs backs are or are not against the wall.

What alternative options do the PC´s have?

And for notes: are there the basic ressources to do the job, starting from shelter, food to probably some wet nurses.
Are they neglecting any other duties or miss avoiding other harm when they drop out of adventuring to take care of them?

Even if they have money or other abstracted wealth it is still unsure that the local ressources (near wildness pseudo mediaval settlements are not that overflowing with output usually) will be enough to feed them all.

An alignment decission I would hook on the right or not to attack (or defend from) the goblin tribe at the start:

If the killing of the parents was OK, it was their fault to put the children in this position to start with.
Any real effort beyond basics necessary to help them I would consider being outstanding GOOD, but not necessary to stay GOOD and any risk put on any unrelated other people I would count against being GOOD.
If the killing of the parents was not OK in the other hand, then the alignment violation and drop from GOOD was already present here.

We had a coyote snooping around our place years ago. Killed my wife's pup and spooked horses etc. A buddy told me he saw it hanging around a bridge down the road. I tracked it and baited it, it died. Then I found its litter. They are coyotes, can't be made pets. If the grow up the become predators and a nuisance if not a danger. I killed them. I'm not evil.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913974We had a coyote snooping around our place years ago. Killed my wife's pup and spooked horses etc. A buddy told me he saw it hanging around a bridge down the road. I tracked it and baited it, it died. Then I found its litter. They are coyotes, can't be made pets. If the grow up the become predators and a nuisance if not a danger. I killed them. I'm not evil.

Which is exactly how we goblins feel about elves.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942Is there a consensus even now?

 I acted as much to test my fellow players as anything else.

I think the killing of goblins is the killing of vermin & is ethically neutral.

Anyone want to rehash this? I feel like it's 1984 all over again.

The correct answer is

QuoteIt depends on the setting of the campaign.

Being a leisure activity most referees go with the default depiction. For D&D 5th edition it is this.

QuoteGoblins are small, black-hearted, selfish humanoids that lair in caves, abandoned mines, despoiled dungeons, and other dismal settings. Individually weak, goblins gather in large- sometimes overwhelming- numbers. They crave power and regularly abuse whatever authority they obtain.
Goblinoids. Goblins belong to a family of creatures called goblinoids. Their larger cousins, hobgoblins and bugbears, like to bully goblins into submission. Goblins are lazy and undisciplined, making them poor servants,
laborers, and guards.

Their alignment in 5e is listed as neutral evil.

In Pathfinder we get this

QuoteGoblins are a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised. Weak and cowardly, goblins are frequently manipulated or enslaved by stronger creatures that need destructive, disposable foot soldiers. Those goblins that rely on their own wits to survive live on the fringes of society and feed on refuse and the weaker members of more civilized races. Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate.

Goblins can eat nearly anything, but prefer a diet of meat and consider the flesh of humans and gnomes a rare and difficult-to-obtain delicacy. While they fear the bigger races, goblins' short memories and bottomless appetites mean they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges and fill their vast larders.

They are listed as being generally Neutral Evil.

From AD&D we get

QuoteGoblins have a tribal society, the strongest ruling the rest, allowing fealty to the goblin king. It is possible that goblins are distantly related to kobolds. Like the latter, goblins enjoy dwelling in dismal surroundings, although they tend to inhabit caves and similar underground places in preference to any habitation above ground. They too hate full daylight and attack at a -1 when in sunlight. Goblins have normal infravision (60’ range).

IN the above the alignment of Goblin is given as Lawful Evil

From the granddaddy of them all OD&D we get

QuoteThese small monsters are as described in CHAINMAIL. They see well in darkness or dim light, but when they are subjected to full daylight they subtract –1 from their attack and morale dice. They attack dwarves on sight. Their hit dice must always equal at least one pip.

Chainmail basically state the above. They are also listed as Chaotic.

It is my opinion that while all the descriptions above make out goblins as an evil race that are the enemy of humankind, there is not enough information to determine whether it is ethical to be killing goblin children. It makes a difference when ruling on this whether they are evil because of circumstances and culture or it is something magical or intrinsic to their race. Because all the editions are silent on this the answer still is "Depends on the setting." by default.

Now if you go beyond the books to the origins of the goblins (and orcs and the other humanoid races). Goblin are deformed creatures of folklore akin to brownies, leprechauns, and fairy tale dwarves.

Orc in constant were developed by Tolkien, and we know from his mythology that they are a corrupted race perverted by Morgoth. The other humanoids are variants of the basic goblin.

So if we were playing in the late 70s and early 80s, the default is likely to be that these were a magically bad race of humanoid and they are all should be treated like vermin.  There were some exceptions for example how Gloranthan Trolls were depicted in Runequest. There the Troll or Trollkin were depicted as a race with a unpleasant culture relative to the human norm.


But today, in 2016,  the standard D&D tropes have greatly influence how fantasy is present. And people have built on that to present compelling alternatives. One example are the honorable warlike orcs of Warhammer and World of Warcraft. They may be ugly and their dominant culture brutish, but orc, goblins and the lot are still people. In which case it would be unethical to slaughter their children.

Which is a convoluted way to going back to my original point that the correct answer is "It depends on the setting."

Quote from: rgrove0172;913974If the grow up the become predators and a nuisance if not a danger. I killed them. I'm not evil.

There is a ethical issue here but it revolves around the sanctity of life. The issue with killing goblin children is that it involve a sentient race, a very different issue than dealing with animals who are largely governed by instinct. Of course to some it doesn't matter whether it involves something that is sentient or not.

Another problem is that humanity has little experience in dealing with in between cases. Considering that the nearest relatives in intellect all died off 100,000 years ago the closest we have to deal with are the great apes. Those are located in limited geographical areas relative to the places on Earth that humanity expanded into. The best current example are the ethics in dealing with people with mental challenges.

On a side note, in one of his late essays on Orcs, Tolkien said that if they were rational beings, they had to be treated within the bounds of the rules of war--no torture, surrender had to be honored (although in practice, Morgoth and Sauron had so propagandized the Orcs that they never would surrender), etc.

Quote from: CTPhipps;913977Which is exactly how we goblins feel about elves.

And if I was the GM I wouldn't hold it against the member of a culture for a cultural perception. Its sort of like calling slave owners racists. They didn't know any better, it had been going on for generations and they were raised that way. You can call them all kinds of things based on today's ethical standards but if you were playing a game in that period, owning slaves wouldn't be an act of evil.

Same thing applies, its a matter of culture.

Where's that .gif of Michael Jackson eating popcorn...

The brilliant Old World Bestiary for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Second Edition has various rumours and false notions about the various monsters.  In one part it tells us that Snotlings are Orc children and Goblins are Orc females.  Which of course they aren't.

But it really does depend.  If orc children are slavering beasts that attack and eat anything that gets in front of them and only stop as they mature and learn to behave due to harsh disciple it's far from dealing with helpless infants.  I tend to think of goblins as more fae than orcs.  If you want a real nasty twist, after having killed goblin children let the PCs discover that the goblins steal human infants which become goblins over time by eating their food.

I think you also have to think such a decision through to the end.

If its reasonable not to slaughter the young of an animalistic foe then what do you do with them? Turn them in to the authorities? Do they have orphanages for Goblin/Orc/Kobold/Bugbear or whatever children awaiting adoption? Do they enslave them on work gangs or at the mine? If they are adoptable and can be made productive members of society, where are all the adults that have benefited this way? Does your world have Orc bartenders and Kobold smiths? If so, then yeah, why not? Keep one as a hireling to keep your armor clean and blade sharp. If these humanoid races are instead truly evil and taking one home would probably end up in murder, well you have no choice... my coyote again.

Dammit, I only have like, half a story for this.

We had a party going through a warren (which, come to think of it, could have been from keep) and at one point we came across a cul-de-sac where there was a goblin (tribe?) amongst them the next generation and the women caring for them.

I was party leader, lawful good elf. I'd been the one so hard-nosed about following the "correct" path and being morally upright.

I agonized over it, but ultimately I elected to throw a bomb into the campfire. I was following the "vermin/mercy killing" line of thought.

GM ruled that was justifiable given the lack of humane alternative and/or the inherent monstrousness of the goblins.

I still don't feel great about it though... Also, I don't remember why I had a bomb?

Like I said, half a story.

I swore I wasn't going to weigh in on this one. Anyway, I think it has everything to do with setting, group dynamics, and reasons for playing. If the setting portrays goblinoids as mere evil, or at best neutral (think zombie child) killing machines whose sole purpose is to attack other people then I find no moral objection to the ending of goblin children's lives. If your group dynamics are such that certain things are glossed over, such as: sex; graphic portrayals of violence (stuff more detailed than I roll to hit, I do 5 points of damage); and yes, issues of morality, then I see no reason to even present the goblin children in the first place, or to portray them as anything more than combatants. If your group is playing a game to explore moral boundaries, then kill them or don't and discover the consequences as that would be what that sort of game is for.

As for whether or not it really is evil - it's a game and goblins are not real. You having a fictional character kill a fictional creature of any kind is no more or less evil than Shakespeare for (spoiler alert) killing Romeo and Juliet.

I don't think it's fair for a DM the players that question if goblins have an evil nature.  

If they don't have an evil nature pre-determined by setting and the DMs choices, than go for it.  Tough moral delima could lead to some interesting gameplay (although please avoid Turing the players into great white hunters or out right slave owners.)

If they have a nature the DM should not present the players with that choice.  No children, or they all get away, or even they were killed in the battle, collateral damage.  We have no experience of ever meeting any thinking, or speaking being with a immutable nature.  The only people  who have ever said that were evil people who used that line if reason to oppress other human being for their personal benifit.

That said its fun to pretend to kill hordes of bad guys and not feel bad about it.  So by all means slaughter the goblins, just don't then ask moral questions about it.  It's changing genera 's after the battles over, not fair.

And definatly don't assert a premise untrue in our world which because of your position as the DM is unassilible.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;913992On a side note, in one of his late essays on Orcs, Tolkien said that if they were rational beings, they had to be treated within the bounds of the rules of war--no torture, surrender had to be honored (although in practice, Morgoth and Sauron had so propagandized the Orcs that they never would surrender), etc.

"I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood" - Faramir.

There were many things about D&D that always seemed ridiculous to me. Alignments and sharply defined Good/Evil with many Evil and Good creatures was one of them. In our games (TFT) goblins, orcs, and almost everything else were just different races with different traits.

Of course, in the 19th Century, the USA was exterminating Indian tribes, and in the good old World War Two of the 20th Century, we were fire-bombing and nuking cities. Now we're enlightened and just using our flying robot air corps to bomb people (and mostly killing random people we weren't aiming at). Children dying left & right. Though only in the 18th Century was it about exterminating pretty much all the women and children on purpose.

In games I've run, the moral dilemma that comes up most often is whether to kill prisoners or not, in various circumstances.

Quote from: Skarg;914023There were many things about D&D that always seemed ridiculous to me. Alignments and sharply defined Good/Evil with many Evil and Good creatures was one of them. In our games (TFT) goblins, orcs, and almost everything else were just different races with different traits.

On the other hand many Fantasy setting have True Evil^TM

My own personal take with the Majestic Wilderlands is a bit of both. Demons and their ilk are indeed True Evil however the mundane world has all nuances of our own world. Most thing that are considered irredeemably evil are that way because they been corrupted or tainted by demons. The situation with goblins and orcs is that they been modified by the demon during the Uttermost War at the beginning of time.

The issue with orcs is that they are hyper aggressive to the point where the low end slightly overlaps the high end of normal human aggression. They simply can't co-exist with other races although there are individual orcs who can. In addition orcs have been unable to form anything more complex than a tribal culture. Anything more complex falls apart unless there is a strong non-orc leader involved. Another modification to the orcs was they are more receptive to charismatic leaders than baseline humans.

The issue with goblins is that they exhibit an autistic like hyperfocus on specific activities. Unlike orcs, goblins can form civilizations and be part of a civilization. However away from civilization tribal or nomadic goblins tend to be fiercely aggressive due to their hyper focus manifesting as as sense that everything in their territory is their. Along with the fact they will do crazy stupid things if they want something that somebody else has.

Killing Orc and Goblin children in my Majestic Wilderlands is an complex ethical dilemma. The default attitude most of the surrounding culture have toward orcs and tribal goblins is just kill them all and be done with it. The most "liberal" attitude are the elves who will try to keep the surrounding orc and goblins confined into a specific territory and go no further.

One of the major empires of my setting has nearly 40% of the population as goblins. And even the civilized goblins despise their tribal counterparts.

The takeaway from my post is not that I have THE answer. But rather think it through and come with A answer that works for the setting you want to run.

"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

Another question would be what means "alignment infraction" here.
If it is just a meta description -> So what.

If it has in game/world effects, one would expect in world reactions and secondary effects.
Exspecially for paladins I would expect kind of "handbooks" aka holy books that detail what proper behaviour is.
(Can´t feed and train one for years just to see them not killed by unholy scum but fall from grace 20 minutes after leaving the temple for the first time ...)
And if the deity is in any way dependent on his ground personell or believers then what is best for them, will color its attidude.

Quote from: estar;914028On the other hand many Fantasy setting have True Evil^TM

Hmm, I suppose, and certainly I had and still have evil people and even types of creatures but it's lower-case and often semi-subjective evil.

It's not a game stat that has three distinct settings, explicit descriptions, and is listed for all creatures great and small. It's slightly charming to me in a quirky way but it always seemed kind of crazy and weird.

Quote from: Harlock;914019As for whether or not it really is evil - it's a game and goblins are not real. You having a fictional character kill a fictional creature of any kind is no more or less evil than Shakespeare for (spoiler alert) killing Romeo and Juliet.

Dammnit! I was going to go see that tonight. Now that I know how it ends, why bother? :D

Now to be slightly more on topic. I think I only ever ran one cleric in D&D. Lawful good, I believe. He wouldn't have killed the goblin kids. In fact he actually accepted surrenders from adult goblins, orcs, etc. And prevented (so far as possible) allowing the other party members to kill those who surrendered. (Accepting a surrender and then going back on it by killing your prisoners...that can't be lawful or particularly good, now can it?) After the goblinoids surrendered, he would lecture them for a time on the evil of their ways, exhort them to turn aside from the path of darkness, and then let them go...sans any weapons.

Since we were all at that time in a dungeon, things may not have ended up all that well for most of the goblinoids. But my cleric was a Deontological Ethicist, of a strict Kantian variety, so any unfortunate side effects of his goodly actions really weren't his problem.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

Trouble is, it comes up in the published modules. Little Keep on the Borderlands has basically every enclave of humanoids have "young uns" that must be dealt with. There are like 50 baby goblins, and like amounts of baby hobgoblins, orcs, kobolds, and even gnolls.

But, ultimately, the answer is "it depends." Every table has a different version of the game world. For me, a game where the afterlife is a certainty means the concepts of Good and Evil that we use on real Earth just don't perfectly carry over.

But it depends.

Quote from: Skarg;914023There were many things about D&D that always seemed ridiculous to me. Alignments and sharply defined Good/Evil with many Evil and Good creatures was one of them. In our games (TFT) goblins, orcs, and almost everything else were just different races with different traits.

Yeah, the whole 'evil race' thing never sat well in my mind. Less because of it feeling like some old colonial ideology than my own refusal to buy in on the concept of anything being objectively EVIL... a fantasy than holds no interest for me.
But I can accept the idea of devices and creatures created/bred/trained to be purely destructive... which is still not the same as 'evil'.

Quote from: Doom;914038Trouble is, it comes up in the published modules.

That sort of trouble has two really obvious solutions.

Does Keep on the Borderlands say what's likely to happen if the players spare the children?

In TFT, there's an interesting section on children that describes how they can be particularly tricky to deal with, but it's more about how parents and communities are likely to respond if people mess with children, and not about exterminating children.

This is partially why I don't use Alignment in D&D as part of their stat-blocs. Just play your character.

It's become it's own vehicle to justify PC's not actually playing their ostensible Alignment. Sure you're Lawful Good until you come across a creature in the MM that has the Evil Alignment descriptor - KILLLL IIIITTTT!!!

Of course I use "alignment" when it matters - whether someone/something is can detect some alignment element, but I see zero use in pretending that PC's need to play under the auspices of some category of behaviors that rarely go beyond Basic D&D's concept of their use.

Like Estar said - there are some things that inherently evil as a matter of Cosmic disposition. Goblins kids? Aren't. Does that means they're not evil by behavior? Maybe. Maybe not. Does that mean if you roll up on them and decide to murderize them on some political principle or some moral rationalization - that's on you. Most of the time it won't matter in my game other than if the story gets out - depending on the narrative of the circumstances, the social ramifications will be the only outcome.

Now the real question, in my game, is "Would it make *you* 'evil' to go kill a bunch of goblin children that aren't some immediate threat to you?"

And does it matter to YOU if it did?

Edit: as Skarg implies, it would be a pretty interesting situation to try an save the children and do something with them rather than kill them. I had this *exact* situation happen in my last Pathfinder game (cept it was Gnolls not Goblins). The solution was the players gave them to this half-illithid/elf Enchanter. She ended up farming them like cattle and made them more intelligent but would use selective breeding on them for sustenance. But overall their Gnoll tribe prospered... moral/ethical nightmare? You bet. Good gaming. Everyone felt good and creeped out with some guilt - others not so much.

Quote from: Bren;914041That sort of trouble has two really obvious solutions.

Absolutely, there are obvious solutions.

You could also simply not play the game in the first place. BUT, seeing as it does keep coming up in the game, it's fair to ask "what happens?"

And no, Little Keep doesn't offer any solutions, simply presents nurseries, even schoolrooms, filled with younglings.

It's a game, not real life. If you want to kill everything, do it. If you don't, then don't.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

Basically this.  Gary really shouldn't have put combat statistics for them in the Monster Manual.

This is why my dungeons are generally military outposts not homes.

Quote from: danbuter;914070It's a game, not real life. If you want to kill everything, do it. If you don't, then don't.

Ive heard this kind of response for a lot of gaming ethics questions and don't buy it. When roleplaying we are acting out a certain reality. It may be a really weird, funky, out there reality but to the characters involved its the real world. To ignore the ramifications of decisions and actions within those realities seems ..I don't know, lazy maybe. I think it takes something out of the game if they can kill the shopkeeper, whiz on the Grand Wizard's cloak or run naked through the King's thrown room without consequences.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914082Ive heard this kind of response for a lot of gaming ethics questions and don't buy it. When roleplaying we are acting out a certain reality. It may be a really weird, funky, out there reality but to the characters involved its the real world. To ignore the ramifications of decisions and actions within those realities seems ..I don't know, lazy maybe. I think it takes something out of the game if they can kill the shopkeeper, whiz on the Grand Wizard's cloak or run naked through the King's thrown room without consequences.

It isn't lazy, people just come to the game for different things. Some groups just want to blow off steam and have leeway to act out a bit, or be a little over the top. I think a lot of it depends on the feel and tone of the campaign. I've been in all kinds of groups, those where we take a granular look at local economies, those where there are real world-like consequences for actions, and those where players strut naked in front a king with little real consequence. I wouldn't describe any of them as lazy or inherently better than the other games. It was just about what we wanted, what we wanted to focus on, etc. In the king scenario, things were just playing more like Black Adder or something, but a good deal of effort went into other aspects of the campaign. It wasn't laziness, it was that adding in those kinds of real world consequences would have changed the feel of the campaign in a way we didn't want at the time.

Considering how much race matters in D&D, I'm surprised it's still a thing in this political climate.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942My Lawful Neutral Fighter/M-U tells the other characters that killing the younglings after the death & destruction of their parents is a mercy. The good characters object, but they turn away to begin looting the dead I declare that I'm about to start doing it when the DM tells the good PCs that they are in violation of their alignments if they allow this. So I got stopped, politely, and told not to do it. I agree & we instead captured the little snots.

And in doing so the DM made a moral decision for the players and the game about the younglings. Because now the focus is on figuring out what to do with them.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942I think the killing of goblins is the killing of vermin & is ethically neutral.

I guess that depends on your definition of vermin :)

On the other hand, killing fictional characters is always ethically neutral.

Quote from: rgrove0172;913974We had a coyote snooping around our place years ago. Killed my wife's pup and spooked horses etc. A buddy told me he saw it hanging around a bridge down the road. I tracked it and baited it, it died. Then I found its litter. They are coyotes, can't be made pets. If the grow up the become predators and a nuisance if not a danger. I killed them. I'm not evil.

A practical and even compassionate decision based on what you believe to be true.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914000Its sort of like calling slave owners racists. They didn't know any better, it had been going on for generations and they were raised that way. You can call them all kinds of things based on today's ethical standards but if you were playing a game in that period, owning slaves wouldn't be an act of evil.

I can't count an act of ignorance as evil, but I can an act of unnecessary cruelty and unwillingness to amend that ignorance. And American slaves were considered at worst (lower than) livestock and at best deeply inferior humans, which is the very definition of racism regardless.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914008If these humanoid races are instead truly evil and taking one home would probably end up in murder, well you have no choice... my coyote again.

But how can they make a moral choice based on information they don't have? If the goblins grow up only to murder children themselves, did the PCs do the 'right' thing?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

I'm of the opinion that these kinds of dilemmas make RPGs less accessible, and I've seen players leave games due to the presence of 'tough' choices like this.

That said, I prefer RPGs which challenge me on that level.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914085It isn't lazy, people just come to the game for different things. Some groups just want to blow off steam and have leeway to act out a bit, or be a little over the top. I think a lot of it depends on the feel and tone of the campaign. I've been in all kinds of groups, those where we take a granular look at local economies, those where there are real world-like consequences for actions, and those where players strut naked in front a king with little real consequence. I wouldn't describe any of them as lazy or inherently better than the other games. It was just about what we wanted, what we wanted to focus on, etc. In the king scenario, things were just playing more like Black Adder or something, but a good deal of effort went into other aspects of the campaign. It wasn't laziness, it was that adding in those kinds of real world consequences would have changed the feel of the campaign in a way we didn't want at the time.

It's not that I'm lazy, I just haven't felt like cutting the grass for the past two months, that's just not the weekend I wanted at the time.  

Nah, I was just working hard and wanted to kick the fuck back.  I was lazy, which was my right.  Lazy might be an incorrect term to apply to a person as a whole, and sure as hell is stupid when used to apply to a ethnicity of people, but as an adjective to a particular way of doing things, or a specific decision, especially when it describes "you just don't feel the need to put the work in", it's just fine, and doesn't have some kind of built-in value judgement.

The proper response to One-True-Wayism isn't to institute the PC Police. (Playstyle Correctness)

Quote from: CRKrueger;914087It's not that I'm lazy, I just haven't felt like cutting the grass for the past two months, that's just not the weekend I wanted at the time.  

Nah, I was just working hard and wanted to kick the fuck back.  I was lazy, which was my right.  Lazy might be an incorrect term to apply to a person as a whole, and sure as hell is stupid when used to apply to a ethnicity of people, but as an adjective to a particular way of doing things, or a specific decision, especially when it describes "you just don't feel the need to put the work in", it's just fine, and doesn't have some kind of built-in value judgement.

The proper response to One-True-Wayism isn't to institute the PC Police. (Playstyle Correctness)

Probably a pointless detour but I just don't agree with you on this. Laziness is a trait and arises from wanting to avoid work. There is a difference between not doing something because you don't feel like putting in the effort and not doing something because you don't care about it. If someone doesn't cut their grass because they are locked in their basement working on a novel, I wouldn't call it laziness. I'd just say they probably don't give a shit about lawns. Generally speaking I think 'lazy' is becoming a lame and overused criticism. And I don't think it particularly applies here. Whether people are talking about 'lazy' writing or 'lazy' gaming. If the issue is, someone wants more realism in a game, then I get that as a critique, to say its lazy....I can't really say I see the connection there. Unless it genuinely arises out of laziness.

Quote from: Bren;914041That sort of trouble has two really obvious solutions.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a while for new players and DMs to realize they can use those kinds of solutions (assuming you mean things like "change the module" or "don't use modules")--and until they did, this kind of scenario really does seem to have soured a few people on the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914088Probably a pointless detour but I just don't agree with you on this. Laziness is a trait and arises from wanting to avoid work. There is a difference between not doing something because you don't feel like putting in the effort and not doing something because you don't care about it. If someone doesn't cut their grass because they are locked in their basement working on a novel, I wouldn't call it laziness. I'd just say they probably don't give a shit about lawns. Generally speaking I think 'lazy' is becoming a lame and overused criticism. And I don't think it particularly applies here. Whether people are talking about 'lazy' writing or 'lazy' gaming. If the issue is, someone wants more realism in a game, then I get that as a critique, to say its lazy....I can't really say I see the connection there. Unless it genuinely arises out of laziness.

But if you are talking about english gardening and don´t cut the grass, then the focus jumps back to laziness.
In an adventure obviously designed as a military operation and tactical challenge the question "but what if there where babies" is off range. In the sandbox that the keep in the borderlands adventure they are already an established part of the setting and thus on the table of exploration.

Quote from: Doom;914068You could also simply not play the game in the first place.

Hint: the game is not the problem.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914089Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a while for new players and DMs to realize they can use those kinds of solutions (assuming you mean things like "change the module" or "don't use modules")--and until they did, this kind of scenario really does seem to have soured a few people on the game.

BINGO!


It certainly was easier if one was fortunate enough to have started playing and DMing without any modules.

Quote from: Maarzan;914094But if you are talking about english gardening and don´t cut the grass, then the focus jumps back to laziness.
In an adventure obviously designed as a military operation and tactical challenge the question "but what if there where babies" is off range. In the sandbox that the keep in the borderlands adventure they are already an established part of the setting and thus on the table of exploration.

like I said, this is probably a pointless detour but I really don't see it. Should say though the answer I was responding to wasn't really specific to the situation raised by the OP. I was speaking to his general points about being able to get away with stuff in a campaign and not have many consequences. It just seems like a cheap rhetorical way of getting someone to care about that stuff. Same thing happens all the time when people talk about stuff like rape as a plot device in TV shows (the go to criticism is its lazy writing because that is the one that will get under most writer's skin). It certainly could be laziness in some cases, but I think the reasons behind the decision to do or not do something matter if that is what you are trying to evaluate. Especially in something like gaming where there are going to be things you focus on and things you don't depending on what you want in the game.

I mean if the focus of that campaign has been on these kinds of things in the past, and the GM out of laziness doesn't address it, that is one thing, but if they the players are there specifically to blow of steam without having to deal with fallout. Labeling it laziness gets at the motivation of the GM and the group. If it is genuinely coming out of laziness, by all means it is fair criticism. But if the GM is putting those kinds of consequences off to the side, say handling them the way they might be treated in a sitcom rather than a drama, it isn't laziness, its just that isn't what their going for at all. Not really that important I suppose. If people find it lazy, they find it lazy. To me it is simply a matter of what kind of campaign I am running. Usually those consequences will be important. In some campaigns they won't be.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

I agree there. And I allways wanted to ask Gygax why he included kids in Keep on the Borderland.
The Lizardmen.
The Kobolds.
Both Orc factions.
The Goblins.
The Hobgoblins.
The Bugbears.
The Gnolls.

That module really puts the moral screws on the players. Of these only the bugbears have kids that join in in the combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914088Probably a pointless detour but I just don't agree with you on this. Laziness is a trait and arises from wanting to avoid work. There is a difference between not doing something because you don't feel like putting in the effort and not doing something because you don't care about it. If someone doesn't cut their grass because they are locked in their basement working on a novel, I wouldn't call it laziness. I'd just say they probably don't give a shit about lawns. Generally speaking I think 'lazy' is becoming a lame and overused criticism. And I don't think it particularly applies here. Whether people are talking about 'lazy' writing or 'lazy' gaming. If the issue is, someone wants more realism in a game, then I get that as a critique, to say its lazy....I can't really say I see the connection there. Unless it genuinely arises out of laziness.

I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out. Far easier to just yank the Goblin kids out of the module, let them all run away or whatever. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just the easier of the choices available.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914102I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out.

If that is why the person is not including extended consequences, I would agree it is lazy. But if it is simply because they don't want to include it, I wouldn't call it lazy. If they are there for a more Rambo-style of play. Or if the GM simply wants to make things easier for the players. I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

One reason for putting this sort of stuff in is it emphasizes that this is a world and not just a shooting gallery for the PCs to mindlessly go on killing sprees through. Just like the innkeeper has a wife and kids. World in motion.

And its a simmilar dilemma in more modern setting games like Vampire which can put even more severe moral screws on the PCs.

I just came home from a game of Keep on the Borderlands. We did not kill any goblin or hobgoblin cubs nor any females guarding them since they did not attack after we slaughtered the warriors attacking us. One player talked about killing them and take the remaining adult females as slaves. We other in the party just said flat no.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914104I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

Because they were worthless, lazy shitbags!

Ok, yeah I get your point, especially about lazy writing, lazy plotting, lazy worldbuilding, etc... it's practically a dog whistle now for "this person is a closet IST."  It's a lazy criticism. :D

But take the case of Gronan coming over for a game of Tractics.  I propose we play a game using only 25% of the Tractics rules, so we get something like this...
Gronan: Why are you throwing out the rest of the rules?
Me: I don't want to bother with them.
Gronan: Why not play Game-X, then, it has hardly any rules.
Me: I know Tractics, I don't want to bother with learning another game.
Gronan: You're a lazy fuck, you know that?
Me: and your point is?  Beer's in the fridge.

Note: I don't play Tractics or live in the same state as Gronan and we all know if there is beer in the fridge, that's all the conversation that would be needed, this is just an example.

Lazy isn't always a personal or racial slur.  Sometimes is just means you can't be arsed to do something to it's fullest extent, again, which is everyone's right to do sometimes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914102I wasn't referring to anyone in general, only the habit of ignoring extended consequences in a game setting because it takes time, consideration and forethought to sometimes work these thing out.

But sometimes people ignore things not because it takes time, consideration, and forethought, but because they don't want the that thing. The reason I don't quilt is not because I am too lazy to be a quilter. The reason I don't watch Nascar is not because I'm too lazy to sit on my sofa and watch Nascar. I don't do those things because I don't want those things. Even if doing those things took almost no time, consideration, or forethought I still wouldn't do those things. It's not laziness it is lack of interest or active dislike.

That, I think, is the distinction Brendan was pointing out.

Of course if you want to attribute my not doing those things to my being lazy, I'm not going to be offended. But if you say it other than in jest I am likely to think that you don't have quite enough sandwiches packed in your picnic basket.

Quote from: Bren;914110...I don't watch Nascar...

Well you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

:p

Quote from: Omega;914106One reason for putting this sort of stuff in is it emphasizes that this is a world and not just a shooting gallery for the PCs to mindlessly go on killing sprees through. Just like the innkeeper has a wife and kids. World in motion.

And its a simmilar dilemma in more modern setting games like Vampire which can put even more severe moral screws on the PCs.

This is how I see it. And this is how I run it. But I don't see it as "putting the moral screws on people". See, if you're *good* [Edit: If your PC IS GOOD that is], you probably have little desire or reason to go around killing things that aren't an actual threat to you. Now there are *always* circumstances that could change this generalization - like "well all the Goblin kids have knives and they've been taught to fight-fight-fight for survival purposes." but then that breaks the "threat to you clause". AND EVEN THEN - it might be trivial for the PC's to still not kill them. Being Good means you're Good. If you have to justify why you're killing things that aren't really threats to you or your own, in the immediacy of the present moment, well then you're probably not as "Good" as you think you are.

If you are playing a PC that *wants* to do that kinda stuff - go for it. Just don't pretend because you scrawled LG on your character sheet that you are, in fact Lawful and Good (depending on the circumstances). The moral screws are the fact that the Alignment system even exists as some finger-wagging indicator for the DM to go meta and tell someone how they should be playing because of two words written on their paper. For some Classes it matters - those who serve some entity that truly are agents of a given Ethical/Moral principle. But for most characters? The only effects that I need make happen are the social ramifications.

If there is a value at all to having alignment outside of some divine/infernal power's mandate - it's purely for ego-stroking. That's why I find it useless. Just play your fucking character. If you're a murderous asstard that believes they're really a pious Lawful Good adventurer, then a DM worth their salt will let you know in-game that this is what happens to murderous asstards that falsely believe that of themselves. And ONE of those options might be: Absolutely Nothing. Keep on with your murderous self (just don't let too many people catch on)

"Do Goblin children scream in the woods when they die?"

Depends how fast and clean you take their heads off.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;914111Well you've got that going for you.

Which is nice.

:p

Funny story. Not all that funny, but its an RPG forum not a comedy club.

So my wife and I just got back from vacation. We decided to take a road trip to go back to Eureka Springs, AR and ride the dinner train like we did on our honeymoon. That's not the funny part though.

So we're driving across the south and we get tired and end up stopping for the night in Oxford, Alabama. So the next morning, my wife checks her phone to see is there anything to see or do nearby. Turns out Oxford is right next to Talladega Speedway and the International Motorsports Hall of Fame. So we go to the museum and take the tour around the track and everything, despite the fact that neither one of us watches or follows car racing.

So here's the funny part. We both had a lot of fun....


...But I'm still not watching Nascar.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914109Because they were worthless, lazy shitbags!

Ok, yeah I get your point, especially about lazy writing, lazy plotting, lazy worldbuilding, etc... it's practically a dog whistle now for "this person is a closet IST."  It's a lazy criticism. :D

But take the case of Gronan coming over for a game of Tractics.  I propose we play a game using only 25% of the Tractics rules, so we get something like this...
Gronan: Why are you throwing out the rest of the rules?
Me: I don't want to bother with them.
Gronan: Why not play Game-X, then, it has hardly any rules.
Me: I know Tractics, I don't want to bother with learning another game.
Gronan: You're a lazy fuck, you know that?
Me: and your point is?  Beer's in the fridge.

Note: I don't play Tractics or live in the same state as Gronan and we all know if there is beer in the fridge, that's all the conversation that would be needed, this is just an example.

Lazy isn't always a personal or racial slur.  Sometimes is just means you can't be arsed to do something to it's fullest extent, again, which is everyone's right to do sometimes.

Note I haven't played Tractics, but I think there is a difference between that and ignoring potential consequences a roleplaying. But using a game I like, like Axis and Allies, I think I could still see someone junking 25% of the rules, not because they are lazy but because they find the game plays better without them. Not playing out consequences of players breaking the law or murdering people isn't taking out 25% of the rules of roleplaying. It is a different animal I think.  

But in your example, that is being lazy, because your saying to Gronan the whole reason you don't want to use the rules is you can't be bothered. So in that case, yeah it is laziness. Also in that case, Gronan's just busting your chops.

I am not saying laziness is never a factor, but with that particular claim, I think the motivation really does matter. But two friends calling each other lazy fucks, is different from calling a habit or approach in general lazy (which I would file under the 'lazy writing' criticism).

Just to be clear here, I am not saying lazy is being used as a slur or offensive. If someone wants to call me lazy, I don't care. But if I think it doesn't fit, I am going say so. It just seems like a really inaccurate assessment to me. And like I said before it also feels like a cheap way to get someone to agree with your way of doing things. Here I see nothing inherently lazy in an approach to play that avoids playing out consequences. For it to be lazy, it would need to be because the GM doesn't want to put the time and effort in. For me, if someone is investing 5-10 hours of prep time a week on other things, I have a hard time saying laziness is the reason they are not putting these kinds of consequences into their games.

Personally I love consequences in my games. I am a big fan of how much engaging developments that can produce in play. And I like worlds that feel concrete and consistent. So if a GM puts thought into that, I think it is good. I just wouldn't call it laziness if they didn't unless it was clearly a product of sloth because I've consciously chose not to include that stuff for plenty of other reasons.

Quote from: Bren;914119We decided to take a road trip to go back to Eureka Springs, AR and ride the dinner train like we did on our honeymoon. That's not the funny part though.

You sure about that? :D

Quote from: Bren;914110But sometimes people ignore things not because it takes time, consideration, and forethought, but because they don't want the that thing. The reason I don't quilt is not because I am too lazy to be a quilter. The reason I don't watch Nascar is not because I'm too lazy to sit on my sofa and watch Nascar. I don't do those things because I don't want those things. Even if doing those things took almost no time, consideration, or forethought I still wouldn't do those things. It's not laziness it is lack of interest or active dislike.

That, I think, is the distinction Brendan was pointing out.

Of course if you want to attribute my not doing those things to my being lazy, I'm not going to be offended. But if you say it other than in jest I am likely to think that you don't have quite enough sandwiches packed in your picnic basket.

I agree. I mentioned up-thread other areas groups might gloss over. Specifically I mentioned sex. Now, some people enjoy role-playing sex. Others simply might say, "The farmer's daughter takes you up to her room for the night. Next morning..." Is a group or DM lazy if they simply do a fade to black on sex instead of having vigorous rules with medical, emotional and moral consequences to it? Not at all. It means it's not something they are interested in. It might mean it's a game with a younger player and perhaps inappropriate. Laziness need not factor into such a decision.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;914104If that is why the person is not including extended consequences, I would agree it is lazy. But if it is simply because they don't want to include it, I wouldn't call it lazy. If they are there for a more Rambo-style of play. Or if the GM simply wants to make things easier for the players. I know I've been in situations where I've thought through a line of consequences for something but chose not to implement them in game because it didn't feel right for that particular group of players.

Sure, there are many reasons I imagine. I had planned for a princess to be.. well.. deflowered by some bad guys in one game long ago. It would serve to explain the "Kill them all!" order given by the king afterward towards the nation of the assailants. When at the last moment a guy asked to bring his girlfriend to play, I changed the idea - feeling it would in most likelihood offend her. You gotta be flexible. (point of fact the assailants were disguised agents of an evil Warlock, stirring up trouble between the two nations to cover his vile plans... buwaah ha ha ha ha ha ha)

Quote from: Harlock;914130I agree. I mentioned up-thread other areas groups might gloss over. Specifically I mentioned sex. Now, some people enjoy role-playing sex. Others simply might say, "The farmer's daughter takes you up to her room for the night. Next morning..." Is a group or DM lazy if they simply do a fade to black on sex instead of having vigorous rules with medical, emotional and moral consequences to it? Not at all. It means it's not something they are interested in. It might mean it's a game with a younger player and perhaps inappropriate. Laziness need not factor into such a decision.[/QUOTE

Yep, I agree. I do however remember a time (junior high I believe) when our "Mad Max" post apoc game included more than its share of R - well maybe RR but not quite X rated moments. To the point that every female NPC that appeared had an accompanying photo torn from the pages of one guys' older brothers collection of ..ahem..literature. Wow what the kids nowadays will never experience with a computer and the internet at hand. Real life missions of intrigue and danger to steal soft porn.

Quote from: Harlock;914130I agree. I mentioned up-thread other areas groups might gloss over. Specifically I mentioned sex. Now, some people enjoy role-playing sex. Others simply might say, "The farmer's daughter takes you up to her room for the night. Next morning..." Is a group or DM lazy if they simply do a fade to black on sex instead of having vigorous rules with medical, emotional and moral consequences to it? Not at all. It means it's not something they are interested in. It might mean it's a game with a younger player and perhaps inappropriate. Laziness need not factor into such a decision.

If you're not rolling for a Satisfaction Score, that PC is an awful lazy lover. ;)

My personal opinion is as follows:
First, it depends on the setting and whether orcs can change their nature. In the setting of YAFGC or a certain MMO, it's an evil thing. In the setting of WH40k, it might not be.
Generally, any PC I like wouldn't do that. Let me have one of those explain it in his IC voice.

There are countless people that deserve death, yet live. Countless people who deserved better have been murdered. I cannot change the latter...thus, I should be real careful when changing the former. But I have accepted that I'd probably make some mistakes, so it's not about this.
It's not about them. It's about me. It's about what it would mean to me to kill the defenceless. I'm responsible for what I do, not for what they do later if they live.
I'm an warrior. Killing people who can defend themselves is my job. I can do it even with surprise-they should be careful to avoid this, just like they should be careful to avoid a sword thrust. Sneaking is no different.
But if I come across my worst enemy, helpless, I wouldn't slay nor abuse him.
Because there are lines a man can't cross while calling himself a msn.
Now remember. My enemy is a trained fighter. These are kids.
Try touching them, and I'd cut off your hand.
I'm an warrior, not an executioner.
And I don't list executioners among my friends.

Quote from: Headless;914020I don't think it's fair for a DM the players that question if goblins have an evil nature.  

If they don't have an evil nature pre-determined by setting and the DMs choices, than go for it.  Tough moral delima could lead to some interesting gameplay (although please avoid Turing the players into great white hunters or out right slave owners.)

If they have a nature the DM should not present the players with that choice.  No children, or they all get away, or even they were killed in the battle, collateral damage.  We have no experience of ever meeting any thinking, or speaking being with a immutable nature.  The only people  who have ever said that were evil people who used that line if reason to oppress other human being for their personal benifit.

That said its fun to pretend to kill hordes of bad guys and not feel bad about it.  So by all means slaughter the goblins, just don't then ask moral questions about it.  It's changing genera 's after the battles over, not fair.

And definatly don't assert a premise untrue in our world which because of your position as the DM is unassilible.

What's the point of a fantasy setting that doesn't present conditions you can't encounter in history?

Quote from: Simlasa;914040Yeah, the whole 'evil race' thing never sat well in my mind. Less because of it feeling like some old colonial ideology than my own refusal to buy in on the concept of anything being objectively EVIL... a fantasy than holds no interest for me.
But I can accept the idea of devices and creatures created/bred/trained to be purely destructive... which is still not the same as 'evil'.

Ditto.

Quote from: Bren;914041That sort of trouble has two really obvious solutions.

Three.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914122You sure about that? :D

OK. Yeah it is kind of funny. So was staying a couple of nights at the big cat rescue. On the other hand hearing lions chuffing and roaring outside the canvas roof of your lodge at night is cool.

Quote from: Harlock;914130I agree. I mentioned up-thread other areas groups might gloss over. Specifically I mentioned sex. Now, some people enjoy role-playing sex.

Depends a lot on the game…and who I am playing it with. SFX (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI)>

Quote from: AsenRG;914150Three.

Unless I know that the third one is, I don’t think I can agree that it is actually obvious.

Quote from: AsenRG;914150Because there are lines a man can't cross while calling himself a msn.

So “msn” means real man in Bulgarian? :p

Quote from: danbuter;914070It's a game, not real life. If you want to kill everything, do it. If you don't, then don't.

Thread winner, right here. Read and heed, people.

Is it trying to kill me (my character that is)? If Yes then return sentiment.
Are its offspring going to grow up and do the same? If yes then put them down now else you are endangering civillians through inaction. If unsure then sit down and puzzle out what to do.

BX and Keep on the Borderlands was a great learning tool in the idea that not everything is evil and not every situation needs to be solved with violence. And that it doesnt matter if its human or some tentacly thingy from the depths.

Quote from: jeff37923;914161Thread winner, right here. Read and heed, people.

Yeah!!! FUCK roleplaying. Who cares about that?!?!? ... oh...

What's the point of a fantasy setting that doesn't present conditions you can't encounter in history?

Snip

What's the point of facing moral problems that can not exist?
Irredeemably evil people.  I say it is im possible for a being to be aware of its self and to have an immutable nature.  


Why would I want to pretend to play through moral dilemmas if I don't except the premise of the delima?   Why would I ever want to play though a moral delima only to try and find the one simple correct answer the DM  or modual designer picked for me?

Quote from: tenbones;914166Yeah!!! FUCK roleplaying. Who cares about that?!?!? ... oh...

I leave the handwringing and pearl clutching for shit that matters.

EDIT: It is very unlikely that I will be gaming with actual goblin parents whose whelp was killed by adventurers or a goblin whelp whose parents were killed during a dungeon crawl, so I am not concerned about that and leave what to do up to player personal choice in my games. I have in the past and likely will again game with players who have been sexually assaulted or raped in their past, so I tread very softly where and how those subjects are used in my games.

Quote from: Omega;914165Is it trying to kill me (my character that is)? If Yes then return sentiment.

Reasonably easy to determine if one restricts "trying to kill me" to "now" or at most sometime in the very near future.

QuoteAre its offspring going to grow up and do the same?

How would a PC know this with 100% (or even with 95%) certainty? What would that certainty, in game, be based on?

And is that certainty based on the fact that your (the PC's) parents, and their parents, and the other elders in your village have all told you since you were knee high to a shrub that the offspring of those weird looking strangers who live over there were all going to try to kill you one day if you gave them the chance?

I would kill them all.

If the DM has put goblin babies there, then he is trying to pull an "oooh MORAL QUANDRY!!!" on us. Don't pull that storygamer shit on us. The only response to such blatant attempts at putting thesp in our hack is to


only in this way will the DM learn from his mistakes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914030"Anybody up for discussing whether killing goblin children is evil?"

No.  Not now, not ever.

It's a shitass thing for a referee to put in the game, period.

Indeed.

It takes a real prick of a DM to turn a D&D adventure into Sophie's Choice. Screw that!

Quote from: David Johansen;914078Basically this.  Gary really shouldn't have put combat statistics for them in the Monster Manual.

This is why my dungeons are generally military outposts not homes.

Quote from: Omega;914101I agree there. And I allways wanted to ask Gygax why he included kids in Keep on the Borderland.
The Lizardmen.
The Kobolds.
Both Orc factions.
The Goblins.
The Hobgoblins.
The Bugbears.
The Gnolls.

That module really puts the moral screws on the players. Of these only the bugbears have kids that join in in the combat.

For most of them (goblins, orcs, hobgoblins) he didn't. They are mentioned for the same reason other little details (orcs prefer ugly colors, hobgoblins keep their weapons in good condition) are included: To help the DM embellish his description of the monster, its lair, its lifestyle and what makes them tick. In modules like KotB, the females and young are included whether they are capable of fighting or not because one would expect to find them in a goblin/orc/hobgoblin lair. Ditto for the food and drink and even the furnishings.

I do agree though, that the best way do avoid this nonsense (aside from simply refusing to be a prick of a DM) is to decide as DM that while orc wives and kids exist in your campaign, the orcs the PCs are going to meet will be marauders out to loot, rape, torture and kill, so the PCs face no moral dilemmas in killing them. I also don't include, as part of an evil wizard's lair, the wizard's 6-year-old nephew. I mean sure, even evil wizards have family but there is seldom if ever a good reason to include them in a scenario where they are likely to be killed.

Quote from: Bren;914194Reasonably easy to determine if one restricts "trying to kill me" to "now" or at most sometime in the very near future.

How would a PC know this with 100% (or even with 95%) certainty? What would that certainty, in game, be based on?

And is that certainty based on the fact that your (the PC's) parents, and their parents, and the other elders in your village have all told you since you were knee high to a shrub that the offspring of those weird looking strangers who live over there were all going to try to kill you one day if you gave them the chance?

1: Right. Personally due to BX D&D I restrict that to the "now" because while one set of orcs might try to kill you. The next might want to trade.

2: This was a tough one that rarely got resolved.

3: Usually through observation and experience. Never trust rumours! Are Goblins just weird people with a deep abiding grudge against  Dwarves? Or are they little dwarf seeking missiles on legs that are pre-programmed to kill on sight no matter what you say or do? We didnt even know goblins would flip out untill much later when we got a new player with a dwarf character in the party. This left us wondering if we'd done the right thing sparing and even trading with goblin tribes? Worse when later we visited a dwarven citadel and found they had been wiped out by goblins.

Quote from: Elfdart;914203For most of them (goblins, orcs, hobgoblins) he didn't. They are mentioned for the same reason other little details (orcs prefer ugly colors, hobgoblins keep their weapons in good condition) are included: To help the DM embellish his description of the monster, its lair, its lifestyle and what makes them tick. In modules like KotB, the females and young are included whether they are capable of fighting or not because one would expect to find them in a goblin/orc/hobgoblin lair. Ditto for the food and drink and even the furnishings.

Thats that I guessed was the reason. World in motion. And yeah. Very few monster young in D&D have been statted out.

Quote from: Omega;914211Worse when later we visited a dwarven citadel and found they had been wiped out by goblins.

On the other hand, you could have visited the dwarves, only to find that in the meantime, the goblin cave complex was wiped out by dwarves.

Hey this looks like those wooden flutes we traded to the goblins. I wonder what the dwarves gave them in exchange? Hey, since the dwarves seem to like our wooden flutes, maybe we can trade directly with them. :eek:

If soemone doesn´t like moral questions far enough.
But here you jhave soemone explicitly asking about this kind of question and what we now have is a kind "should someone even ask those questions" instead of discussing the question itself.

Similar kind of situation in game:
The children are in the game and thus now part of the problems the characters face. If you don´t like it, then it is the wrong game/adventure for your current tatse.
If the proposed theme of the game was not including moral questions the fitting question would probably not be "is killing children evil" but "why put children in a  hack and slash game at all".

Regarding storygamer/teller:
It is story gamer shit only if you can´t avoid the "dramatic" consequences for meta/ setting inapprobiate causes. (which some kind of alignement systems already are).

Quote from: Maarzan;914232IThe children are in the game and thus now part of the problems the characters face. If you don´t like it, then it is the wrong game/adventure for your current tatse.

Yes. And the way to let the DM know that is to


and the DM can adjust his adventure designs in future to avoid this commie thespy nonsense.

as sig says,

"the ultimate object of all this is for everyone to have fun, not to recreate some form of high dramatic art." - Dungeoneer

Quote from: Bren;914228On the other hand, you could have visited the dwarves, only to find that in the meantime, the goblin cave complex was wiped out by dwarves.

Hey this looks like those wooden flutes we traded to the goblins. I wonder what the dwarves gave them in exchange? Hey, since the dwarves seem to like our wooden flutes, maybe we can trade directly with them. :eek:

That would be the Gnomes who massacred a tribe of friendly Kobolds we'd worked out an agreeable trade with after a really bloody first encounter. Thus began the groups grudge against Gnomes who in that campaign were neither funny nor nice at all. They came across like the dwarven equivalent of drow.

Quote from: Omega;914241That would be the Gnomes who massacred a tribe of friendly Kobolds we'd worked out an agreeable trade with after a really bloody first encounter. Thus began the groups grudge against Gnomes who in that campaign were neither funny nor nice at all. They came across like the dwarven equivalent of drow.

Yeah, well, they are Gnomes. If there was ever a race to despise and heap bigotry upon, it was the Gnomes. Rotten little half-breed Dwarf  Halflings is what I say. Save the goblin whelps, but kill all Gnomes! The only good Gnome is a dead or enslaved Gnome!

So speaks the village idiot.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914202If the DM has put goblin babies there, then he is trying to pull an "oooh MORAL QUANDRY!!!" on us. Don't pull that storygamer shit on us.

When I've put noncombatant orc women/children in my games, it was nothing of the sort, for I give no fucks for moral quandaries nor "story".  They were there because, in a naturalistic world, they clearly must exist.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914235Yes. And the way to let the DM know that is to

kill them all

and the DM can adjust his adventure designs in future to avoid this commie thespy nonsense.

as sig says,

"the ultimate object of all this is for everyone to have fun, not to recreate some form of high dramatic art." - Dungeoneer

Sorry, have to disagree wth sig. Goals of each group vary. It's a personal thing. I can't even conceive your "kill them all" adversarial attitude.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914250Sorry, have to disagree wth sig. Goals of each group vary.

Yes, but those other people are wrong and stupid. This is gaming. It is not srs bznz.

QuoteI can't even conceive your "kill them all" adversarial attitude.

If the DM is offering moral quandries in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM has already set themselves up as the players' adversary. The DM started it. Tit for tat.

Right now an old Bond film is playing. I take moral quandries in D&D about as seriously as I take Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist. Both fine and good things, but they don't fit together.

Quote from: Omega;914245So speaks the village idiot.

Yes, because every time Dungeons & Dragons is played it can't just be a game, it has to be serious business.

These games are supposed to be social and fun. Sometimes people have crap days and don't want to get all thespian about something that is supposed to be fun, they just want to kill some monsters with their friends. There will be time for their characters to have gut-wrenching moral quandaries to mope over as well, but for those to have any meaning then there must also be the times when they just kill things and take their stuff.

If common sense makes me the village idiot, then you just need to put me on your ignore list.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914251Yes, but those other people are wrong and stupid. This is gaming. It is not srs bznz.


If the DM is offering moral quandries in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM has already set themselves up as the players' adversary. The DM started it. Tit for tat.

Right now an old Bond film is playing. I take moral quandries in D&D about as seriously as I take Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist. Both fine and good things, but they don't fit together.

It's about what game have you choose  to play?  Hack and slash or moral quandries?  That social contract stuff.  Either is fine but they can't go together.  

About the goblin children.  It is always wrong to kill them.  Either they are people, I which case they are in innocent  children and it is always wrong to kill innocents who don't want to die.  Or they are irredeemably evil which means they aren't people which means you are playing hack and slash and the DM  is wrong to ask you about them.

I also don't buy the "kill them for their own good" agrument.  They still have a chance to make a life.   Actually I think a pretty cool campaign should be to play the survivors of the KOTBL raid and make a life.

Sorry if I keep going on about it.  But this strawmans bad philosophy is triggering me.

"You're running a goblin kindergarten," sounds like a good premise for a silly game.

Quote from: Headless;914263Actually I think a pretty cool campaign should be to play the survivors of the KOTBL raid and make a life.

A tranny storygamer already made that game.  It sucks exactly as hard as you think it does.

Well, maybe not you. But everyone else.

QuoteSorry if I keep going on about it.  But this strawmans bad philosophy is triggering me.

As much as it shocks me to say this, I'm with Kyle Aaron (and danbuter) on this one.  They're not real; they're not even fictional humans.  Slaughter them all and make a palanquin out of their bones.  Whiz on the Grand Wizard's cloak and mouth off to the King in front of his court.  It's all made up.  It just doesn't matter. If this shit is "triggering" you, you've had an awfully sheltered life.

While I think alignment is pants on head stupid (and Always Chaotic Evil dumb by association), I think the answer is, as always, talk to your players, and players, talk to your GM.  Find out if the game is likely to be something you want to play.  If someone then hits you with a switcheroo, hit them with "fuck off, I'm outta here."  That said, my Saturday night (online) groups purpose is to give us a reason to bullshit with each other and remember when we gamed as teenagers thirty years ago.  Which has led to pretty much anyone who didn't game with us then having to be willing to tolerate a LOT of talk about the past while we incidentally, and occasionally, move the game forward, as each new game bit reminds us of something from the past.  So it's NOT a lot of fun for outsiders without similar stories or an interest in our past (my wife plays from time to time and though she didn't play with us, she did play back then with other people, so she understands and can join in).

Also, are we sure goblins have children?  Maybe those "children" are animals they raise for food that just look disturbing like them..  Orcs and goblins in the Warhammer settings don't have children and  aren't "Evil" either, they just like to fight and it's how they are biologically wired to organize themselves.  They are essentially alien to our views.

While I do like some moral depth to most games I run or play, I'm far from bothered if people just want to get together and slaughter some orcs.  GMs or players who insert morality into a game of kill-the-orc are playing the wrong game, and should either get with the program or fuck off until the others are done playing.  Ditto for the player or GM who tries to play kill-the-orc in the game of lets-explore-morality issues.

Hey look, a sandbox campaign setting. After adventurers clean out Keep on the Borderlands, only the child populations are left. The PCs start as some of the kids. ;)

One thing that gets left out of many dungeon settings is the survival drive and plan of the monsters. Ok so the goblins have their kids there... do they maybe have some escape routes and plans? At what point do even the male goblins realize they are likely going to lose, and therefore do something to escape rather than be all killed? Maybe they even thought of that possibility in advance, and so have some plans for that, chose where to be that made escape possible, and/or embellished the place they live with traps, door, rockfalls, escape paths, decoys, etc to facilitate escape? Maybe some of them have some ideas of things to say to buy time or negotiate something other than a total extermination?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914251Yes, but those other people are wrong and stupid. This is gaming. It is not srs bznz.

What if the group thinks moral quandries are fun (or at least interesting)? Should we stone them to death with Toon RPG books?

For me, I typically allow the players to act in whatever way they want, but there are ramifications to their actions. Since the majority of my gaming takes place on Tekumel there are certain societal norms that have to adhered to, if they want to be active members of society. For example, I once had a situation where a player sacrificed some prisoners to his god. As a follower of a war god this was a " normal " and proper thing to do. It raised no eyebrows amongst the rest of the party. However, the locals, who worshipped different gods and were culturally different from the players, didn't look too kindly on having their buddies burnt alive by some foreigners. They became insensed and started to move against the players. Ramifications.
I have always tried to keep internal game-world consistency and not play using modern morality in medieval or alien milieus where a different societal ethos may be the norm. If the "normal" reaction would be to slaughter the goblin children, well then what's the issue with doing so? You don't have to role-play every gorey detail after all.


Shemek.

I've been chewing on this one while everyone posts. Here's my thoughts so far.

It really depends on mileu. Playing beer and pretzles style, don't put monster kids in the game. The group is there to kill shit and take their stuff. Morality stuff just bogs that down. Note that except for rare situations, I really don't like beer and pretzles rpging. For something like that,I prefer a more board game kind of experience. Like Talisman or Descent.
Playing something like Dragonlance, monster kids should be rare, (probably never come up) and if it does, be a hairy dealio about alignment and morality when it comes up. Flat out slaughtering the monster brats is bad form for that kind of game.
Playing something gritty, killing the monster kids is more acceptable in that kind of campaign.

Puting monster kids in a scenario is like putting any other thing in a scenario. The players need things to interact with, and monster kids is another type of thing to interact with. I don't have a problem with it in general, but a GM should keep in mind why they're dropping anything into a scenario. If you don't want to deal with morality stuff, then don't put monster kids in the scenario.

But I do like putting that kind of stuff in a game. Because I'm not the boss of the characters. I'm the boss of how the concequences play out. A Paladin who only kills worthy foes, but only encounters worthy foes, is never going to be able to say "And soeth, I thusly spared the goblin children, in the hopes that they may be-eth redeemeth!"

Or maybe the paladin does kill them.

[video=youtube_share;pfevBIsVG1o]https://youtu.be/pfevBIsVG1o[/youtube]

And look what happened to Anakin...

Often I have seen players who mostly seem like they're good folks at first, start to get more and more amoral, often out of some sort of perverse humor.

E.g.
* "If the guide and mercenaries we hired don't survive, we don't have to pay them, and they might have good loot..."
* "Hey there's another adventuring party camping over there who haven't noticed us. Let's raid them at night and loot them."
* "Hmm my magic lets me get away with all sorts of robbery."
* "It's annoying to take prisoners, let's kill them."
* "If we let anyone live, they might do something against us."
* "If we let them live, we have to leave them something to survive with instead of keeping every scrap of loot."
* "I bet we're strong enough to loot that orc village."
* "Do I use the flat of my blade? No, that drunk attacked me with a beer mug!"
* "Look how funny it is to interrogate this peasant who survived the arrow wound by twisting the arrow! Haha! I think he knows something he's not telling us!"

Morality can be an interesting and/or disturbing issue in many ways. I think it's usually (in even a semi-serious game) worthwhile to at least consider the perspectives of all the characters in all violent situations. Otherwise it can be a bit of a slippery slope where you only notice too late that your heroes are essentially a bunch of egotistical greedy murdering backstabbing torturing two-faced merciless scumbags, about as bad as many of the villains they've killed, or even worse, if they were ever spared themselves.

I have indulged all of the scenarios above, and more, and don't really regret it, but I think it's more interesting when you actually include the natural reactions and effects, and don't get too deluded about how you can do all that stuff and still consider yourself a good guy, and have other people agree. The reactions of NPCs can go a long way to help keep things from becoming too depraved.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914251If the DM is offering moral quandries in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM has already set themselves up as the players' adversary.

Why does presenting moral quandries make the GM an adversary? As a Player I find such situations much more interesting than straight hack 'n slash. It's also one of those places where TTRPGs can shine vs. video game RPGs, which are still mostly just about fighting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]304[/ATTACH]
Which child is it?

Quote from: Skarg;914287One thing that gets left out of many dungeon settings is the survival drive and plan of the monsters. Ok so the goblins have their kids there... do they maybe have some escape routes and plans? At what point do even the male goblins realize they are likely going to lose, and therefore do something to escape rather than be all killed? Maybe they even thought of that possibility in advance, and so have some plans for that, chose where to be that made escape possible, and/or embellished the place they live with traps, door, rockfalls, escape paths, decoys, etc to facilitate escape? Maybe some of them have some ideas of things to say to buy time or negotiate something other than a total extermination?

Planning and preparation, not fighting to the death, escape routes. What kind of NPC crazy talk is that? :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;914109But take the case of Gronan coming over for a game of Tractics.  I propose we play a game using only 25% of the Tractics rules, so we get something like this...
Gronan: Why are you throwing out the rest of the rules?
Me: I don't want to bother with them.
Gronan: Why not play Game-X, then, it has hardly any rules.
Me: I know Tractics, I don't want to bother with learning another game.
Gronan: You're a lazy fuck, you know that?
Me: and your point is?  Beer's in the fridge.

Actually, I'd say "so what rules are you leaving out?"  We tried the "Vehicle Breakdown" rules exactly once, for instance.  I might kvetch if you messed with the weapon or armor stats or the vehicle speeds, but other than that, let's go.  We spent several years trying to streamline Tractics.

Quote from: nDervish;914248When I've put noncombatant orc women/children in my games, it was nothing of the sort, for I give no fucks for moral quandaries nor "story".  They were there because, in a naturalistic world, they clearly must exist.

Orcs are a semimagical life form that spring up out of the darkness, a result of the world's ambient magic interacting with humans' fear of the dark.  That's why there are no noncombatant Orcs.

Quote from: Skarg;914297Often I have seen players who mostly seem like they're good folks at first, start to get more and more amoral, often out of some sort of perverse humor.

E.g.
* "If the guide and mercenaries we hired don't survive, we don't have to pay them, and they might have good loot..."
* "Hey there's another adventuring party camping over there who haven't noticed us. Let's raid them at night and loot them."
* "Hmm my magic lets me get away with all sorts of robbery."
* "It's annoying to take prisoners, let's kill them."
* "If we let anyone live, they might do something against us."
* "If we let them live, we have to leave them something to survive with instead of keeping every scrap of loot."
* "I bet we're strong enough to loot that orc village."
* "Do I use the flat of my blade? No, that drunk attacked me with a beer mug!"
* "Look how funny it is to interrogate this peasant who survived the arrow wound by twisting the arrow! Haha! I think he knows something he's not telling us!"

I notice that often when players say this, they act like the conversation is occurring out of game rather than as PCs talking to each other in the same room. Treating those conversations as in game changes the dynamic in a couple of ways.

First, the PCs are going to be overheard either by the potential victims or by any NPCs in the area. And as you, yourself noted:
 

QuoteThe reactions of NPCs can go a long way to help keep things from becoming too depraved.

An actual conversation allows me to have any potential victims and any allied or neutral NPC react to the statements. Victims may take action to thwart the plan. NPC allies or neutrals may react or object to the actions. Both reactions often get the players to take their PC's actions a bit more seriously. Also: witnesses.

Second, by having it be an in character conversation I can draw out the silent players to get them to commit or comment. Often they will put the breaks on the action. And even if they don't, now that they have each committed to atrocity (or whatever) so they can't pretend ignorance or innocence or act.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914251Yes, but those other people are wrong and stupid. This is gaming. It is not srs bznz.


If the DM is offering moral quandries in Dungeons and Dragons, the DM has already set themselves up as the players' adversary. The DM started it. Tit for tat.

Right now an old Bond film is playing. I take moral quandries in D&D about as seriously as I take Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist. Both fine and good things, but they don't fit together.

Also, if I really WANT to wrestle with moral quandries, I'm already playing this game full of them.  It's called 'real life.'

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I remember in the old Hill Giant Steading module, there was a hill giant nursery room that treated the youthful hill giants as ogres stat-wise and it seemed expected that the PCs would kill them with-out moral quandary.

Personally I'd prefer to leave violence against children out of my escapist fantasy slugfests, but I can see it being a point in a game where moral issues were more fully considered.

In setting factions trying to enforce unfitting real world moralities on characters - this I would call heavy handed DM antagonism.
The settlers raided by the goblins will be the last to ask to many questions about what happened to those and even the church/god of plushy happiness will start to rethink some policies if their temples and worshippers in a region got anhilated AGAIN by the next generation of goblins - and probably there are no new worshippers to find beyond some pampered capital citizens.

Quote from: Maarzan;914319In setting factions trying to enforce unfitting real world moralities on characters

Therein lies my objection - these aren't moral quandaries, any more than "should I shoplift" is a moral quandary in the real world.  In the game setting, this has happened often enough that the society the characters come from will have evolved a moral stance on the matter, likely based on survival pragmatism.

Quote from: BrenUnless I know that the third one is, I don't think I can agree that it is actually obvious.

So "msn" means real man in Bulgarian? :p

The third one is talking to your players before the game, of course. That way everyone knows what is expected, and the moral dilemma is solved in advance. You can just decide whether to follow or take the social penalties.

And no, that's not Bulgarian, it's Autocorrectian!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914235Yes. And the way to let the DM know that is to

kill them all

and the DM can adjust his adventure designs in future to avoid this commie thespy nonsense.

as sig says,

"the ultimate object of all this is for everyone to have fun, not to recreate some form of high dramatic art." - Dungeoneer

And as a Referee, I'd just conclude our styles are incompatible and stop running for you and your group.
If your roleplaying sucks so much you can't threat the NPCs as sapient beings, what'sthe point? We'd both only gain from this.

Quote from: daniel_ream;914275A tranny storygamer already made that game.  It sucks exactly as hard as you think it does.

Well, maybe not you. But everyone else.



As much as it shocks me to say this, I'm with Kyle Aaron (and danbuter) on this one.  They're not real; they're not even fictional humans.  Slaughter them all and make a palanquin out of their bones.  Whiz on the Grand Wizard's cloak and mouth off to the King in front of his court.  It's all made up.  It just doesn't matter. If this shit is "triggering" you, you've had an awfully sheltered life.

It's not triggering in the least. But let me quote myself.
"If your roleplaying sucks so much you can't threat the NPCs as sapient beings, what's the point (in me running the game)?"
Not gaming is better than bad gaming.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914294I've been chewing on this one while everyone posts. Here's my thoughts so far.

It really depends on mileu. Playing beer and pretzles style, don't put monster kids in the game. The group is there to kill shit and take their stuff. Morality stuff just bogs that down. Note that except for rare situations, I really don't like beer and pretzles rpging. For something like that,I prefer a more board game kind of experience. Like Talisman or Descent.
Playing something like Dragonlance, monster kids should be rare, (probably never come up) and if it does, be a hairy dealio about alignment and morality when it comes up. Flat out slaughtering the monster brats is bad form for that kind of game.
Playing something gritty, killing the monster kids is more acceptable in that kind of campaign.

Puting monster kids in a scenario is like putting any other thing in a scenario. The players need things to interact with, and monster kids is another type of thing to interact with. I don't have a problem with it in general, but a GM should keep in mind why they're dropping anything into a scenario. If you don't want to deal with morality stuff, then don't put monster kids in the scenario.

But I do like putting that kind of stuff in a game. Because I'm not the boss of the characters. I'm the boss of how the concequences play out. A Paladin who only kills worthy foes, but only encounters worthy foes, is never going to be able to say "And soeth, I thusly spared the goblin children, in the hopes that they may be-eth redeemeth!"

Or maybe the paladin does kill them.

[video=youtube_share;pfevBIsVG1o]https://youtu.be/pfevBIsVG1o[/youtube]

Yeah, this. Except it's not any more acceptable in a gritty game. It's just more likely NPCs would resort to it if they were in your place.
Other than the minor nitpicking, this-up to and including the dislike for beer and pretzles style.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914312Orcs are a semimagical life form that spring up out of the darkness, a result of the world's ambient magic interacting with humans' fear of the dark.  That's why there are no noncombatant Orcs.

That's also an option.
But if you do this, do you really expect most players to negotiate with orcs?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914312Orcs are a semimagical life form that spring up out of the darkness, a result of the world's ambient magic interacting with humans' fear of the dark.  That's why there are no noncombatant Orcs.

No no no!



Elves grow from pods on trees. Also no females or kids. The ones you think are female - are just weird.
Orcs and goblins are a fungus that grows on the tree into an adult orc or goblin instantly! There are no females or young even. The ones you think are female - are just weird.
Dwarves and gnomes grow from the roots of the tree. Also no females or young. Really. Have you ever seen one without a beard? The ones you think are female - are just weird.
And nobody talks about humans or halflings. But if they did! The ones you think are female - are just weird.

Quote from: Bren;914313I notice that often when players say this, they act like the conversation is occurring out of game rather than as PCs talking to each other in the same room. Treating those conversations as in game changes the dynamic in a couple of ways.

First, the PCs are going to be overheard either by the potential victims or by any NPCs in the area. And as you, yourself noted:
 
An actual conversation allows me to have any potential victims and any allied or neutral NPC react to the statements. Victims may take action to thwart the plan. NPC allies or neutrals may react or object to the actions. Both reactions often get the players to take their PC’s actions a bit more seriously. Also: witnesses.

Second, by having it be an in character conversation I can draw out the silent players to get them to commit or comment. Often they will put the breaks on the action. And even if they don’t, now that they have each committed to atrocity (or whatever) so they can’t pretend ignorance or innocence or act.

Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep! Yep!

Making things real and detailed and requiring them to consider and face every detail usually has a big impact. Though I remember the "twist the arrow" group was entertained by me roleplaying the peasant's cries of agony when they twisted the arrow in him, and that led to them laughing and doing it more. They eventually relented, but I think the first consideration they had was starting to worry one of the real-life neighbors might call the police...

The peasant had no information to extract, by the way, and the peasants had only raised arms against the party from a misunderstanding, IIRC stemming from one of the PC's having messed with one of their daughters. Oh yeah, that PC was a character converted from D&D who was very amoral (coming from chaotic neutral IIRC) and egotistical.

Depends on your game but I think even pretending to massacre younglings or other noncombatants is just lame.  I wouldn't waste a minute on it as a player.  

Most players (in my experience) have an intuitive understanding that if the orcs/goblins/whatevers aren't hostile towards them right off the bat, it's not okay to go full murderhobo on them.  If they start shooting at you first, you are not a badguy for wiping them out.  Like Caesar said, never leave an unconquered foe in your rear.  Also I just don't like using goblins/kobolds/other small creatures as enemies because it's kind of.... pathetic?  Like your level 1 fighter emerging bloody but triumphant from a pile of massacred three-foot tall corpses is just not the kind of awesome heroic scenario I want to depict.

Quote from: Harime Nui;914331Also I just don't like using goblins/kobolds/other small creatures as enemies because it's kind of.... pathetic?  Like your level 1 fighter emerging bloody but triumphant from a pile of massacred three-foot tall corpses is just not the kind of awesome heroic scenario I want to depict.

Considering that those "pathetic" little guys can and will totally massacre even mid level parties if given a chance. And lets not even get into the whole. "He was killed by a cat" debacle. Small does not = harmless. Just ask that Sauron fellow. :cool:

Quote from: Omega;914333Considering that those "pathetic" little guys can and will totally massacre even mid level parties if given a chance. And lets not even get into the whole. "He was killed by a cat" debacle. Small does not = harmless. Just ask that Sauron fellow. :cool:

This.. I was just about to post but you beat me too it. I can imagine, terrifyingly, some really nasty ass little buggers that size. Sharp teeth, banded muscle and with a really bad attitude. Just because your warrior/wizard/cleric/rogue advance to the point they are only a nuisance doesn't diminish their ability to spread misery. Ask the farmers and other low level non fighters that fall like chaff when the damn things invade.

As to this whole moral dilemma, my opinion is that the GM provides every other bit of info and detail in his world (types of drinks they serve at the bar, the type of crops they grow in this area, the type of game available in the woods and on and on) why not just throw down what the general moral view is on the subject and let the players decide.

"Around here and where your from Goblins are seen as animals, their young a promise of more bloodshed in the future. No harm at all Mr. Lawful Good Knight to mercy kill these blasphemies of nature."

Or...

"They are hated sure, but seen as fellow beings and creations of nature. To torture one, slay it if undefended or slaughter its offspring would be considered act of evil, if you value your vows..youll lay off."

Easy enough, I don't see the problem. Perhaps a Knight of another culture might feel differently, its up to the GM and I suppose maybe the player, as to what ethical standards they follow.

It's not that goblins/kobolds are "weak" opponents, far from it I think I've taught my players over the years that if they see a Kobold it means ten more are taking aim at them from cover somewhere and it's Time To Run.  

With goblins though, there's generally three ways I put them into a game:
1) they are riding something that does most of the actual fighting (worgs, giant spiders).  Usually these mounts are intelligent and the goblin rider is really more like an extra appendage than an enemy in their own right.  Kill the Worg, the goblin is going to run off, he's not stupid enough to keep fighting dismounted.  
2) they are being bullied by some bigger monsters (Hobgoblins, Bugbears, a Barghest maybe) and need the PCs' help
3) they can be guides or give vital information if the PCs help them with X (usually refers back to item 2).  

As opponents in their own right goblins are little too.... I dunno.  JUH NAY SAY QWAH.  Maybe they are too deeply embedded in the 'cute' category for me to use them as villains.

Kobolds are always assholes though; fuck those guys.  I always imagine Kobold warrens are like these mini-North Koreas where the elderly are mulched into chow for the Dire Weasels and everyone grows up with a mining pick in their hand FOR THE GLORY OF THE DRAGON-QUEEN.  Must be something about lawful evil I always imagine it getting way insane.

I'm playing B2 right now.

All I'll say is that it seems every lair in Keep on the Borderlands (written by Gary Gygax) this dilemma crops up, because there's always that room with the "non-combatant females and helpless young."

This is in addition to the standard issue of what to do with victims of the Sleep spell once the fight is over.

If Gygax didn't intend Keep to be interpreted as a bunch of racists getting together in a bar to head across town to the projects and do some home invasion murder, I'd really like to know why his intro for the adventure basically says "You've heard stuff lives around this place, so you've come to kill it all, because people will think you're kewl if you do that."  And then he drops goblin babies into the picture.

If he didn't intend for this interpretation or situation to come up, he certainly had an odd way of showing it between the most useful low level MU spell and the published introductory module he wrote.  It pushes it into the forefront immediately, and becomes a mandatory question every group must immediately answer how they're going to roleplay around.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914317I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I remember in the old Hill Giant Steading module, there was a hill giant nursery room that treated the youthful hill giants as ogres stat-wise and it seemed expected that the PCs would kill them with-out moral quandary.

Gary seems to have loved putting monster children in modules for players to slaughter!

I dunno, if you consult the AD&D PHB there's a lot of tables and rules on how "Racial Animosities" influence the interaction of "non-human troops."  e.g. if you wanted to turn those giant babies into a platoon of elite shock troops the game totally had rules set for that

Quote from: Harime Nui;914340I dunno, if you consult the AD&D PHB there's a lot of tables and rules on how "Racial Animosities" influence the interaction of "non-human troops."  e.g. if you wanted to turn those giant babies into a platoon of elite shock troops the game totally had rules set for that

I'm not sure that turning captured goblin babies into NPC shock troopers is any better than slaughtering them. Though it does sound fun from a world building standpoint.

No no no, the giants are shock troopers.

The goblins are your infiltration/sapper unit.  Obviously.  :p

Quote from: Harime Nui;914342No no no, the giants are shock troopers.

The goblins are your infiltration/sapper unit.  Obviously.  :p

My bad. :D

Quote from: Headless;914263About the goblin children.  It is always wrong to kill them.  Either they are people, I which case they are in innocent  children and it is always wrong to kill innocents who don't want to die.  Or they are irredeemably evil which means they aren't people which means you are playing hack and slash and the DM  is wrong to ask you about them.

In the D&D alignment system if you change alignments you lose a level. So in most cases everything is the way it is, and nobody can be redeemed. And you obviously don't know the story of Gygax's game where a paladin made some captured prisoners convert, and then slew them "to prevent any backsliding" - and faced no DM sanction from Gygax.

You''re also imposing modern secular humanism on a fantasy medieval society. I'm a secular humanist, I donate each month to Amnesty International. But that's not the world of D&D.

In my game, I essentially ignore the alignments; they inform but do not determine choices. But "evil" behaviour will tend to come back to you - people just can't trust you or work with you long-term. And non-"lawful" behaviour will piss off the authorities. The players thus have more than enough moral rope to hang themselves. But I don't put in goblin babies. If I did, I might want to complain about the players' choice about what to do with them.

Humanism is for humans. If you want humanistic moral dilemmas, just have humans. The whole point of having goblins is so that you have someone to kill and not feel guilty about it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914312Orcs are a semimagical life form that spring up out of the darkness, a result of the world's ambient magic interacting with humans' fear of the dark.  That's why there are no noncombatant Orcs.

Heh.  I'd actually written up a bit about "...assuming you don't take the view that orcs are spontaneously generated in underground shadows", but then thought better of it, deleted that part, and instead settled for just specifying that I was talking about "a naturalistic world".

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914290What if the group thinks moral quandries are fun (or at least interesting)? Should we stone them to death with Toon RPG books?

No. But we should suggest to them that something like Dogs in the Vineyard would suit them a shitload better than D&D.

Quote from: AsenRG;914324And as a Referee, I'd just conclude our styles are incompatible and stop running for you and your group.

Thus, in your game there are no choices. You either do what the DM thinks is morally right, or the DM takes his book and dice and goes home.

Well, that sounds like fun.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914346You''re also imposing modern secular humanism on a fantasy medieval society. [...] But that's not the world of D&D.

I think part of the problem here is people getting confused over whether they're playing D&D or Dream Park.

Dream Park! I remember seeing that on the shelves of the FLGS back in the day. Was it any good?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914346You''re also imposing modern secular humanism on a fantasy medieval society. I'm a secular humanist, I donate each month to Amnesty International. But that's not the world of D&D.

The world of D&D is not even medieval except in technology. A world of Neutralist Symbiotic Henotheism, without Athens, Jerusalem, or Christ, is not going to resemble the real Middle Ages except in costuming.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914349Thus, in your game there are no choices. You either do what the DM thinks is morally right, or the DM takes his book and dice and goes home.

Well, that sounds like fun.

The usual bullshit, I see. I said it clearly that it's your attitude I dislike, not the one in game!
The actual decision only tells me stuff about the characters, but when you presume to teach the GM your way of adventure design, it's you that needs a new Referee!

No.

I'm being horrifically facetious here; the conceit of Dream Park was that you weren't playing actual inhabitants of a fantasy realm, but rather modern-day punters playing characters of their own in a massive holographic VR simulation of a fantasy realm.

In much the same way that people arguing this point seem to be playing themselves - with their modern mores and ethics - inserted into a fantasy realm, rather than actual inhabitants of such a realm whose views on such things would be rather different, I'd wager.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;914358A world of Neutralist Symbiotic Henotheism, without Athens, Jerusalem, or Christ, is not going to resemble the real Middle Ages except in costuming.

And yet Middle Earth seems to fake it all right.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914346In the D&D alignment system if you change alignments you lose a level. So in most cases everything is the way it is, and nobody can be redeemed. And you obviously don't know the story of Gygax's game where a paladin made some captured prisoners convert, and then slew them "to prevent any backsliding" - and faced no DM sanction from Gygax.

You''re also imposing modern secular humanism on a fantasy medieval society. I'm a secular humanist, I donate each month to Amnesty International. But that's not the world of D&D.

In my game, I essentially ignore the alignments; they inform but do not determine choices. But "evil" behaviour will tend to come back to you - people just can't trust you or work with you long-term. And non-"lawful" behaviour will piss off the authorities. The players thus have more than enough moral rope to hang themselves. But I don't put in goblin babies. If I did, I might want to complain about the players' choice about what to do with them.

Humanism is for humans. If you want humanistic moral dilemmas, just have humans. The whole point of having goblins is so that you have someone to kill and not feel guilty about it.

Right the whole point of goblins is for someone to kill and not feel guilty about it.   So don't ask me about the children to try and make me feel guilty about it.  

Or humanism is for Humans, and goblins are obvioulys short ugly humans jst like Dwarves are.  They think they feel, they speak, they are aware of them selves, humans.  So secular humanism applies.  I think the teachings if Christ Budda and Kant apply to.  

Are there any good published modules that flip the Heros?  Where you plays as orcs and goblins tring to push back encroaching human (so called) civilization?  Start by burning crops end by fighting against the Heros you played in the last campaign?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914348No. But we should suggest to them that something like Dogs in the Vineyard would suit them a shitload better than D&D.

Nonsense and poppycock. By that line of reasoning, Gary and crew should have stuck with Chainmail, instead of jamming all that Arr Pee junk in a wargame.

Quote from: Headless;914363Are there any good published modules that flip the Heros?  Where you plays as orcs and goblins tring to push back encroaching human (so called) civilization?  Start by burning crops end by fighting against the Heros you played in the last campaign?

Nearest thing I can think of is the Orcs of Thar for BD&D, but it was written in a more humorous angle.

(http://67.media.tumblr.com/8ac20cba8f4e87b4060eda83191afb5b/tumblr_o50kvzhoAQ1ro2bqto1_500.jpg)

Quote from: daniel_ream;914360No.

I'm being horrifically facetious here; the conceit of Dream Park was that you weren't playing actual inhabitants of a fantasy realm, but rather modern-day punters playing characters of their own in a massive holographic VR simulation of a fantasy realm.

In much the same way that people arguing this point seem to be playing themselves - with their modern mores and ethics - inserted into a fantasy realm, rather than actual inhabitants of such a realm whose views on such things would be rather different, I'd wager.

Are you suggesting that in fantasy role play moral delimas should be answered from the in charcter perspective of the charcter?  Ok sure.  But while social morals change, right and wrong, in the extream cases don't.  It is always wrong to kill innocent sentiants against their will.  Slavery is always wrong.  Historical context doesn't matter.   There is no context fantasy or other wise where they become right.   So if your are saying play the social up bringing of the charcter and quict mucking it up with this moral stuff.  Fine, great that's what you want and it sounds quite fun.  But don't say we are missing the point.  We see your point and are choosing a different one.

If you want play a charcter with different morality.  Again cool no one says you have to be the good guy all the time.  But if you pretend to kill innocents you can't also pretend to be good for doing so.

Quote from: daniel_ream;914361And yet Middle Earth seems to fake it all right.

Middle Earth is not quite medieval, and is fundamentally proto-Christian, if only implicitly so. A D&D world based on the rules and tropes that have evolved really should resemble the pulp sword & sorcery influences more, IMO.

Quote from: Headless;914363Are there any good published modules that flip the Heros?  Where you plays as orcs and goblins tring to push back encroaching human (so called) civilization?  Start by burning crops end by fighting against the Heros you played in the last campaign?

Reverse Dungeon was published in the waning days of 2E, but I can't speak to its quality.

Well we can allways go kill demons and devils. We KNOW those are horrible and irredeemable.

"PLANESCAPE"

awww Hell...

"9 of em. Now this devil, er, "Baatezu"... wants to show you the doilies its been knitting. Would you like one?"

noooooo!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914364Nonsense and poppycock. By that line of reasoning, Gary and crew should have stuck with Chainmail, instead of jamming all that Arr Pee junk in a wargame.

You know what word does not appear anywhere in these books? That's right, it's "roleplaying."

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l4jb15kBpW8/So9IItYyIAI/AAAAAAAAAm8/6pgRP8qgmX8/IMG_1443.png)

In fact "role" was used essentially interchangeably with "class." You were the Fighting-Man, or the Magic-User, much as a soldier is a scout or a machinegunner; being the radio guy does not imply anything about your personality or morals or worldview, you're just the guy who carries and knows how to use the radio. The "role" you played was simply someone with a certain set of abilities, anything you added to that was cosmetic. Put another way, roleplaying beyond "I hit him with my sword" or "with my magic missile" was an emergent property of the game session, not something inherent in the game design (unlike a storygame). Roleplaying as we now conceive of it - playing a person - was something that emerged in play over the years. So in fact they didn't design it into the thing.

Note that it's not until 3rd edition or so that any mention is given in the game books of developing a personality beyond the alignment system and any cosmetic stuff (ie not affecting gameplay) players may choose to do, eg "he has a large red beard and likes ale and playing tiddlywinks." So the roots of the hobby are not terribly thespy.

If you want a storygame, then there are many games which do that admirably. I've done it with fate and the like. D&D of any edition is ill-suited to it as its whole design shows its fantasy wargaming origins, for example in the alignment system, "you are on the side of X."

Quote from: Headless;914363Are there any good published modules that flip the Heros?  Where you plays as orcs and goblins tring to push back encroaching human (so called) civilization?  Start by burning crops end by fighting against the Heros you played in the last campaign?

Runequest Glorantha did a few back in the RQ2 and RQ3 days. I've got to think that somebody, somewhere did a version for D&D.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914398You know what word does not appear anywhere in these books? That's right, it's "roleplaying."

Obviously that gap can't have anything to do with the term "roleplaying" not actually being a term used in gaming until years after those booklets were published now could it? :rolleyes: And the activity necessarily preceded the need for a term to describe it.

Quote from: Bren;914410Obviously that gap can't have anything to do with the term "roleplaying" not actually being a term used in gaming until years after those booklets were published now could it? :rolleyes: And the activity necessarily preceded the need for a term to describe it.

And the term used was the first reasonable sounding one that somebody pulled out of his ass, not the result of years of exhaustive linguistic analysis.

Quote from: Bren;914410Obviously that gap can't have anything to do with the term "roleplaying" not actually being a term used in gaming until years after those booklets were published now could it? :rolleyes: And the activity necessarily preceded the need for a term to describe it.

Now now, he's technically correct. The best kind of correct.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914398In fact "role" was used essentially interchangeably with "class." You were the Fighting-Man, or the Magic-User, much as a soldier is a scout or a machinegunner; being the radio guy does not imply anything about your personality or morals or worldview, you're just the guy who carries and knows how to use the radio. The "role" you played was simply someone with a certain set of abilities, anything you added to that was cosmetic. Put another way, roleplaying beyond "I hit him with my sword" or "with my magic missile" was an emergent property of the game session, not something inherent in the game design (unlike a storygame). Roleplaying as we now conceive of it - playing a person - was something that emerged in play over the years. So in fact they didn't design it into the thing.

Note that it's not until 3rd edition or so that any mention is given in the game books of developing a personality beyond the alignment system and any cosmetic stuff (ie not affecting gameplay) players may choose to do, eg "he has a large red beard and likes ale and playing tiddlywinks." So the roots of the hobby are not terribly thespy.

No doubt. From the way Gronan has described things, I expect early D&D was a bunch of guys throwing dice at each other and making fart jokes.

QuoteIf you want a storygame, then there are many games which do that admirably. I've done it with fate and the like. D&D of any edition is ill-suited to it as its whole design shows its fantasy wargaming origins, for example in the alignment system, "you are on the side of X."

No thanks. I'll keep playing D&D and continue to do stuff with it that's not just killing monsters and taking their shit. And there's nothing you can do to stop me.

[video=youtube_share;4HAUzVJPM2g]https://youtu.be/4HAUzVJPM2g[/youtube]

Quote from: Headless;914366It is always wrong to kill innocent sentiants against their will.  Slavery is always wrong.  Historical context doesn't matter.  

If I get it right slavery was a small step up from the times where killing of all enemies was the way to go.

And history matters in that way, that is usually did not happen in a society of (at least supervicially) economic overflow and secured stability in vast, unpersonal societies.

What you did wasn´t just for moral aestetics but had hard consequences.
And these consequences did not just "happen" to some unpersonal anonymus guy you will perhaps never meet several hundered miles away, but to yourself, your familiy and other people you personally know and care for.

The blame of the goody two-shoes is that they satisfy their emotional/moral needs (or just their craving for recognition) and casually drop the (often dire) consequences on others.
(if there is enough food to bring either your mum or those goblin babies through the winter -> Off they go, perhaps together with the idiot that is indirectly threatening your mum, if he is not urgently necessary for something. )

If a character is sapient and of free will it is human enough (and I dislike games that have to many that aren´t)  that their fate should get considered against moral standards. But everything included the correct answer can still be: Kill them off.

Is killing goblin children evil? I'll go with CRKrueger and say that it largely depends on factors like Setting and even the character questioned. If I'm playing a Paladin in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms and they're defenseless then I'd say yep and then figure out a way to somehow care of them, even if it means taking them some place else. If I'm a warrior of Gondor in Middle Earth, probably not because they will undoubtedly age to become more of a pest and potential threat to my people.

We got really good at negotiating and wheeling and dealing. Especially after someone realized that we got MORE EXP for not killing everyone. After we got over a few TPKs to kobolds we started acting more like door-to-door diplomats. Which turned into a sort of chain quest. The kobolds would stop raiding travellers if we'd get the goblins to stop raiding THEM who wanted us to get the hobgoblins off their back. The orcs agreed if we'd deal with the bugbears and cultists while the gnolls were more than happy to help us deal with the bandits who were ruining their hunting grounds and camped out on a gnoll burial ground. And the lizardmen didnt want any pamphlets thank you go away now.

Initially we really didnt know what to do with the families. It was totally unexpected. This after a slow process of realizing this place was like a town instead of some bunch of raiders or warband. This was the start of us becoming very discerning of the attitudes of who we were encountering.

Ive been in groups since who are pretty much the diametric opposite due to their own experiences and what outlooks they developed.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914398You know what word does not appear anywhere in these books? That's right, it's "roleplaying."

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_l4jb15kBpW8/So9IItYyIAI/AAAAAAAAAm8/6pgRP8qgmX8/IMG_1443.png)

In fact "role" was used essentially interchangeably with "class." You were the Fighting-Man, or the Magic-User, much as a soldier is a scout or a machinegunner; being the radio guy does not imply anything about your personality or morals or worldview, you're just the guy who carries and knows how to use the radio. The "role" you played was simply someone with a certain set of abilities, anything you added to that was cosmetic. Put another way, roleplaying beyond "I hit him with my sword" or "with my magic missile" was an emergent property of the game session, not something inherent in the game design (unlike a storygame). Roleplaying as we now conceive of it - playing a person - was something that emerged in play over the years. So in fact they didn't design it into the thing.

Note that it's not until 3rd edition or so that any mention is given in the game books of developing a personality beyond the alignment system and any cosmetic stuff (ie not affecting gameplay) players may choose to do, eg "he has a large red beard and likes ale and playing tiddlywinks." So the roots of the hobby are not terribly thespy.

If you want a storygame, then there are many games which do that admirably. I've done it with fate and the like. D&D of any edition is ill-suited to it as its whole design shows its fantasy wargaming origins, for example in the alignment system, "you are on the side of X."

Nope. You need to read up more on the history of RPGs, specifically Arneson's role in bridging the gap between Braunstiens and what became proto-D&D. It was ALL ABOUT acting out a role from the beginning.

Fuck, an Arnesonian, that's all we need.

Quote from: Headless;914366Are you suggesting that in fantasy role play moral delimas should be answered from the in charcter perspective of the charcter?  Ok sure.  But while social morals change, right and wrong, in the extream cases don't.  It is always wrong to kill innocent sentiants against their will.  Slavery is always wrong.  Historical context doesn't matter.   There is no context fantasy or other wise where they become right.   So if your are saying play the social up bringing of the charcter and quict mucking it up with this moral stuff.  Fine, great that's what you want and it sounds quite fun.  But don't say we are missing the point.  We see your point and are choosing a different one.

If you want play a charcter with different morality.  Again cool no one says you have to be the good guy all the time.  But if you pretend to kill innocents you can't also pretend to be good for doing so.

Morality absolutely is dependent on culture. There are no universal laws. 9 year Olds get married in some cultures, suicide is honored. Eating pork a no no here, completely acceptable there. A fantasy world would no doubt have varying values as well. Cultures that embrace slavery or whatever. You can't force your own ethics on others.the knights decision would be based on his beliefs, not yours.

Quote from: rgrove0172;914444Morality absolutely is dependent on culture. There are no universal laws. 9 year Olds get married in some cultures, suicide is honored. Eating pork a no no here, completely acceptable there. A fantasy world would no doubt have varying values as well. Cultures that embrace slavery or whatever. You can't force your own ethics on others.the knights decision would be based on his beliefs, not yours.

And even if we assume universal morality and free willed sapient antagonists, you still have to take the whole picture and not just a small isolated situation and ignore all the implications that come from it.

There are few universal laws.  'Killing innocents that don't want to die' is always wrong.  'Inescapible herditary slavery' is another.   Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Is pretty close.  And if that one works we don't need any others, everything else can flow from that.  

This might be a different thread.

Quote from: Headless;914450There are few universal laws.  'Killing innocents that don't want to die' is always wrong.  'Inescapible herditary slavery' is another.   Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Is pretty close.  And if that one works we don't need any others, everything else can flow from that.  

This might be a different thread.

So the adventureres just let them where they are and put up a defence for the people outside i.e. removing all weapons and  collapsing the tunnel entrance. Good enough?

Frankly, while ethics may vary, I don't think morality does to anywhere near the same degree. I feel like "Don't victimize the weak" is the invariable heart of morality, with a function on an evolutionary level, not merely one of social mores. Hell, you can even see it in a lot of animals. I'd hesitate to classify a religious stricture against eating pork as a moral tenet, though one against eating animals at all may be.

The reason I say killing goblin children MAY not be evil? In a fantasy world, you can have races that are inherently evil without deviation.

But unless everyone is playing a VERY serious game, like art level serious, I really don't want to explore that territory.

There's a reason Tolkien doesn't include orc children in LotR.

Quote from: Headless;914450There are few universal laws.  'Killing innocents that don't want to die' is always wrong.  'Inescapible herditary slavery' is another.   Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Is pretty close.  And if that one works we don't need any others, everything else can flow from that.  

This might be a different thread.

Yeah, I guess so. The Aztecs rounded up innocents by the score and butchered them. They didn't think it was evil, nor did the innocents for that matter. They didn't want to die, probably terrified and wishing they weren't chosen but didn't hold a grudge, it was their way. Slavery is similar, in many societies throughout history the slavers had no conception that their treatment of their slaves was unfair in some way, they didn't view them as people in the same way they did themselves or others. The slaves probably hated being a slave but didn't think it was unfair or wrong to be one, its all they knew for generations etc.

We can, and perhaps should, look back on such practices with disdain but that's based on OUR morals. If we were Aztecs or Egyptians we would probably feel very differently. And that's my point. If Im playing the role of a character in one of these societies, Id have to adopt THEIR beliefs and leave mine behind. If my character was a Aztec warrior I wouldn't take issue with the killing of a hundred innocents while my village looked on. I would be glad it wasn't me possibly but I wouldn't look down on what the priests were doing.

We need to be careful when we pass judgment on people from different eras, different cultures. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, that didnt make him a racist. His views on blacks were shared by a huge part of the civilized world. Today if he still held those values he certainly would be but then? Not hardly.

With don´t treat others in a way you don´t want to be treated yourselve there ist probably a base for universal moral - as long as this works both ways.

But this is far away from what you should expect as reactions in a less enlighted (and prospering in overflow) society and is basically dishonest to take a small picture from the whole part to judge the treatment happening.

Why would we have to be careful about judging things like human sacrifice and slavery? Unless we think our judgement on these things is just a modern trend with no basis beyond our cultural bias.

Personally I feel confident in calling these things morally repugnant, and I feel fairly certain that many of the people who were enslaved or sacrificed would agree. I actually feel sure that even many members of the societies who practiced these institutions questioned their morality.

It isn't like, with slavery for instance, everybody in the world thought it was lovely, and then one day everybody simultaneously decided it was wrong.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914468Why would we have to be careful about judging things like human sacrifice and slavery? Unless we think our judgement on these things is just a modern trend with no basis beyond our cultural bias.

Personally I feel confident in calling these things morally repugnant, and I feel fairly certain that many of the people who were enslaved or sacrificed would agree. I actually feel sure that even many members of the societies who practiced these institutions questioned their morality.

It isn't like, with slavery for instance, everybody in the world thought it was lovely, and then one day everybody simultaneously decided it was wrong.

No but in some societies it took generations to make the transition. Its fair enough to assume that in the very beginning, before any issue started to elevate their moral convictions, TO THEM it wasn't evil. And that's all Im saying.

Was it evil? Sure, we can say it was with certainty but thats after hundreds of years of cultural maturing. If you had strapped a citizen of the confederacy down to a table and forced a polygraph they would answered absolutely in the negative, and been proven truthful, if asked if slavery was evil. To them, it wasn't! And it is that perception that a member of that society holds and is accounted for in the alignment question.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914454There's a reason Tolkien doesn't include orc children in LotR.

May not be that be just that reason though. Goblins (and Orcs) originated as a corruption of elves by Morgoth in the First Age. We don't see any elf children either. Under certain circumstances goblin kids may be pretty rare. Note that in the Hobbit, the Goblins recognized Orcrist and Glamdring calling them Beater and Biter. Those two swords were named before the fall of Gondolin in the First Age and were lost a long time ago (can't recall when, but probably before the fall of the Witch King of Angmar so 1000+ years.)

Quote from: Maarzan;914467With don´t treat others in a way you don´t want to be treated yourselve there ist probably a base for universal moral - as long as this works both ways.

Maybe one of the bible scholars can clarify, but I don't think the word "other" has the same meaning as it usually does in English today, i.e. all people fall into the category of "other people."  In many cultures strangers from another culture weren't necessarily considered to be "other people." For lots of cultures you had these categories: (1) family; (2) in-group (village, clan, tribe, polis, cultural grouping and later nation state); (3) out-group (people from another clan, tribe, village, polis, or cultural group). You were expected to show preference for people in your family, but rules against murder applied to everyone in the wider in-group. Guest obligation typically applied to people from your in-group, but often did not apply to people from the out-group. One thing we repeatedly see with the rise of larger and larger groups of people is the extension membership in the in-group. Until you get to what we have today where it is common to see the in-group as at least my country/culture and often as all humanity. In the 20th century we even see some people making extensions of the in-group to all sentient life, all primates, all cute and fuzzy animals, etc.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914468Why would we have to be careful about judging things like human sacrifice and slavery?

Being an unpaid devil’s advocate…seriously that bastard is cheap. Let me take a stab at a counter.

In appears that in some times and places the sacrifices may have been volunteers. We praise martyrs to a cause we believe in our people who give their life to save another person’s life. How is either different than a person who voluntary sacrifices their life as part of a cultural ritual thought to ensure that the sun rises, the rain falls, and the crops grow? Also in a number of cultures suicide is considered an acceptable action under certain circumstances. Isn’t that too a form of voluntary human sacrifice or martyrdom?

Slavery isn’t the same in all times and places. In some times and places, slavery was a status that one could enter or leave. In Rome for example, slaves could earn money, make investments, and many (but nowhere near most) slaves purchased their freedom. And in the ancient world slavery was not based on being from some place, culture, or race but was originally the outcome of capture in warfare or of selling oneself or family to pay for debt. Anyone could become a slave. All that was required was defeat in a military conflict or severe economic reversals. So slavery was an equal opportunity legal status. And if we look at combat, what is the alternative to enslaving one’s enemies? Slavery was sometimes the lesser of two evils. Kill them or capture and enslave them were two traditional alternatives. (A third alternative was maiming so they couldn’t take up arms again, see the supposed origin of the British V-for-Victory. Frequently this condemned the victim to a retched life of begging and poverty or placed them as a dependent and a burden on their family. And if resources were scared, forced the victim and family to a cruel choice of who to feed.) Nobody in the ancient world really saw being a slave as a good thing (often defeat in war and enslavement was deeply and profoundly humiliating, see also Roman views when one might fall on one’s sword.)

And if there are any really dim readers out there, I am not arguing for human sacrifice or slavery. I'm only putting forth arguments against a universal morality that makes human sacrifice and slavery universally and unutterably evil.

I think it merits mentioning, if only to dump a few gallons of gasoline on the fire, that in AD&D Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Trolls, Ogres, (evil) Giants, and just about each and every other evil intelligent being that anyone wants to drag into this Vietnam War quagmire of a thread, are all the creation of demons and devils.  Grummsh, Vaprak, Kurtulmak, Yeegnohu, Maglubiyet, etc.  Gary himself once stated that his intent was not to have individual gods for each humanoid race but rather appropriate evil demons and devils (I think in the same discussion he said Hextor was the creator of orcs, IIRC).

The point is: assuming you need an in-game rationale...they are all the creation of devils and demons.  OF COURSE YOU FUCKING KILL ALL OF THEM!

Quote from: thedungeondelver;914485I think it merits mentioning, if only to dump a few gallons of gasoline on the fire, that in AD&D Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Trolls, Ogres, (evil) Giants, and just about each and every other evil intelligent being that anyone wants to drag into this Vietnam War quagmire of a thread, are all the creation of demons and devils.

I don't remember that. Was it in the original Monster Manual for AD&D or did it come later, like in AD&D2?

Yep as Bren just mentioned, culture and even just time has a huge impact on what's considered moral, up to and including human sacrifice... although the human sacrifice part seems to be mainly different because most Christians and modern Westerners have no cultural context to understand what human sacrifice, or even death, mean and don't mean to an Aztec or even a pre-Christian Northern European. Christianity is peculiar amongst human religious cosmologies in that it thinks of death and armageddon as dead ends, and time as linear, and has the whole heaven/hell judgmental afterlife with eternal damnation a common end point. Aztecs and most others saw time or at least life and death and rebirth as eternal cycles and a natural thing. The firey afterlife that the Christians plagiarized and twisted into a sometimes perpetual torment, was in the previous religions a purifying process - burning off the crap that accumulated during life.

Back to the goblin children, it's interesting to me that people tend to shortcut the choices down to either killing them all, or finding happy safe homes for all of them. Huh? What about ignoring them? Or telling them the way to freedom and foster parents is forward and down, and following behind to see if they set off any traps (LOL)?

Quote from: Bren;914492I don't remember that. Was it in the original Monster Manual for AD&D or did it come later, like in AD&D2?

Roger Moore and Ed Greenwood wrote about various nonhuman deities, some were codified in Deities & Demigods and others were beings from Unearthed Arcana, but all are canonical.

Quote from: Skarg;914493Back to the goblin children, it's interesting to me that people tend to shortcut the choices down to either killing them all, or finding happy safe homes for all of them. Huh? What about ignoring them? Or telling them the way to freedom and foster parents is forward and down, and following behind to see if they set off any traps (LOL)?

Yes, the thread has been populated by LG/LN folks, it's about time we heard from the Chaotic Neutral camp!  I like the cut of your jib, son.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;914494Roger Moore and Ed Greenwood wrote about various nonhuman deities, some were codified in Deities & Demigods and others were beings from Unearthed Arcana, but all are canonical.

Thanks for the information. While I have Gods, Demi-gods & Heroes for the original D&D ruleset and I used to own the original AD&D DM book and Monster Manual, I never bought or used Deities & Demigods. I don't recall any DM ever using it when I was a player.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;914495Yes, the thread has been populated by LG/LN folks, it's about time we heard from the Chaotic Neutral camp!  I like the cut of your jib, son.

My LG character would have provided a very stern and hopefully inspiring sermon before letting the children go. I don't think he'd have considered following them to find another nest. Pretty clever that.

Whenever this type of situation becomes a problem, it's on the GM.  There may be general agreement in a thread like this about whether killing goblin kids is evil or necessary, but none of that really matters when it comes to the individual campaign.  In some settings orcs aren't evil, they're just a different-looking race, with a benevolent creator-god looking down disappointed every time a human being discriminates against them.  In other campaigns orcs are evil with a small e, prone to aggression, and generally malicious.  Sometimes, like in Tolkien, they are evil with a large E, created by evil for evil with no middle ground.  None of these variations is necessarily wrong or superior, they're just different.  The problem comes when the players don't know where the moral orientation is, or worse still when the GM doesn't know.  If the morality of the setting is black and white, then a GM who obscures the truth in an attempt to recreate the moral ambiguity of modern human conflicts is creating an unnecessary and unrealistic problem, and many times is only doing so to be difficult or to manufacture drama.  Whether or not killing orc villages is supposed to have the same moral implications as the slaughter of human refugee camps is sort of an important thing for the PCs to know, and barring some strange set of circumstances they certainly should know it.  Clerics would certainly know whether divine power is lost when orc villages are killed, or whether blue-bolts tend to fly as a result, because such a thing has almost certainly happened in the setting before. In our world it's only been 150 years since the massacres of native Americans on the plains and only 50 or so since countless such incidents in Korea and Vietnam. If it's that common in our world, it would certainly take quite a convoluted setting to explain clerics not knowing with certainty what their gods think of similar massacres of orcs and other types of beings.  I have my own preference just like any GM does. The fact that we don't agree in our preferences is not a problem. The problem arises when your player characters are suffering because you can't pick or because you are being intentionally opaque about the issue.

Quote from: Ghost;914512The fact that we don't agree in our preferences is not a problem. The problem arises when your player characters are suffering because you can't pick or because you are being intentionally opaque about the issue.
.

Agree with all of it well said especially this last part.

Two othe points that came up.  If you are playing with the alignment system you aren't playing a campagin that deals with moral quandries.  Sure play your alignment if you want but it's not a quandary if you can find the answer to what you should do written in two words at the top of your charcter sheet.   Also don't play with the alignment system, D&D is a fun game and doesn't need that steaming pile of severed horse genatilia, tacked on.


Second.  Slavery was always wrong.  And Jeferson owning slaves makes him a bad person (especially if he's the one that said he would free them I his will and then didn't) bad people can still do good things, great things, but the good doesn't wash out the bad.  The northern slaves the Azetecs captured to sacrifice, hated being sacrificed.  The warrior that takes them, and the priest who cuts their heart out maybe able to say 'I was just following orders' but that only passed the evil along (if that.).

 It may not be evil to sacrifice your self so others may live, but it is evil to convince someone else that they have to die so others may live.

Quote from: daniel_ream;914360No.

I'm being horrifically facetious here; the conceit of Dream Park was that you weren't playing actual inhabitants of a fantasy realm, but rather modern-day punters playing characters of their own in a massive holographic VR simulation of a fantasy realm.

In much the same way that people arguing this point seem to be playing themselves - with their modern mores and ethics - inserted into a fantasy realm, rather than actual inhabitants of such a realm whose views on such things would be rather different, I'd wager.

I think half of the reason this debate keeps happening is because of this. The actual societies in question would already have handled this question and the characters would know the answer. It would almost certainly be a brutal answer. ("Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.") The appropriate approach is for the DM to decide what the answer is in his setting, inform the PCs of that fact, and move on. Then...
If the PCs and GM all want contemporary morality, they'll all be happy.
If the PCs and GM all want classical or medieval values, they'll all be happy.
But...
If the PCs want contemporary morality and the GM has created a setting with classical or medieval values, it won't be fun.
If the PCs want classical or medieval values and the GM has created a setting with contemporary morality, it won't be fun.
And they should sort that out.

I think the other reason this debate keeps happening is because goblins look like us. I've never once heard a similar question arise as to whether Ripley was morally correct to kill the xenomorph eggs and facehuggers in ALIENS. Yet it's certain they were sentient, and plausibly sapient. Personally, in my own setting, baby goblins are treated pretty much the way xenomorph eggs and facehuggers are treated in Aliens. Heroes kill them on sight. Amoral or evil individuals might keep them alive to use them as bioweapons. There are no good goblins anymore than there are good xenomorphs. The end.

Its like the divide between players who kill merchants and citizens in a game. And those who dont. Some see the NPCs and everything else for that matter as just statistics. EXP for the next level up. Some treating the game as a board game rather than an RPG. Others see the NPCs as people and Im pretty sure a few of us here know, or are, a player whos gotten very attatched to an NPC.

No matter what the answer is, the players should definitely know how this would be viewed in their culture or sub-culture.
Also, no matter what they believe is the will of their god, they may not know the truth.  It depends on the god, or even a particular church of a god.

The PCs probably won't know what other cultures think.  Elves might be horrified and not allow the PCs to pass through their land after, knowing they killed the Goblin children, Dwarves might do the same if they let them live.

The way you handle this is really the way you handle everything else...
Start with the truth of the setting based on its Cosmology.
Determine what the PCs would know of that truth based on their background and the details of the setting itself.
Provide them with meaningful choice and deliver meaningful consequence, whether medal, jailtime, bounty or bluebolt.

I think that religious beliefs may act to obscure the morality of an action but don't really change it. Many Christians believe that good and innocent people go to heaven, yet this doesn't mean that killing good and innocent people is thus moral because you're sending them to a better place. Similary, you can believe, or claim to believe, in Nirvana or the wheel of time or whatever, but you still have the hardwired knowledge of pain and suffering as part of your fundamental structure.

That being said, I acknowledge that morality is a luxury that not all cultures could afford, especially when it came to extending your morality to how you treated potential enemies.

Nevertheless, I would still highly question the inclusion of goblin children and etc. in a typical RPG of violent escapism in which the concept of violence as heroism is largely accepted without examination.

Not many people would enjoy roleplaying child murder (even of demon children), and I would find those that do questionable.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914548Not many people would enjoy roleplaying child murder (even of demon children), and I would find those that do questionable.

What does this have to do with anything.

Quote from: Ghost;914582What does this have to do with anything.

It explains why I don't generally want to deal with this kind of thing in an RPG. It's not fun.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914584It explains why I don't generally want to deal with this kind of thing in an RPG. It's not fun.

Fair enough, but framing that discussion in terms of whether people "enjoy roleplaying child murder" or not is like framing this post as if you and I "enjoy talking about child murder." It's a bit bizarre.

What does "framing the discussion" mean?

Does it include a single mention of something at the end of a series of several posts?

Or is it that you are trying to "frame" my comments in a certain light?

And no, I do not agree that the enjoyability of roleplaying a child murderer in a game has any valid correspondence to the merit of discussing whether such a game would be enjoyable. Entirely different things on a categorical level.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914597What does "framing the discussion" mean?

Does it include a single mention of something at the end of a series of several posts?

Or is it that you are trying to "frame" my comments in a certain light?

And no, I do not agree that the enjoyability of roleplaying a child murderer in a game has any valid correspondence to the merit of discussing whether such a game would be enjoyable. Entirely different things on a categorical level.

Well, first of all, there's the question of Murder vs. Killing.  
Second there's the question of roleplaying a character in a situation where they have to kill a child vs. enjoying doing it.
Thirdly, if the whole idea is that a pre-adult demon, orc, goblin, whatever youngster, is irretrievably or irredeemably evil, then calling it a "child" for the purpose of drawing false equivalency to a human child (which carries with it the idea of innocence) is simply sophistry.

Yeah, someone who enjoys roleplaying a character at the moment they are murdering human children who are innocent might not be mentally stable.

Absolutely nothing in this thread so far even remotely fits that description prior to you bringing it up, which is probably where the "having to do with anything" part comes in.

So saying the killing of immature goblins, which may or may not grow up to do evil no matter what you do with them, has anything to do with the murder of children, is doing some deliberate framing to set up that false equivalency.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914548Nevertheless, I would still highly question the inclusion of goblin children and etc. in a typical RPG of violent escapism in which the concept of violence as heroism is largely accepted without examination.

I'll need a page reference on that one.  Don't think I've ever seen an RPG designed to simply be violent escapism or set up to consider the concept of violence as heroism, or that tells you accept this without examination.

That's a trifecta of complete and total made up bullshit.  Everything you're pointing to is the creation of the players and GM, which may be done with any RPG ever made....or you know, not.

D&D rules tell you what happens when you swing the sword.  They don't tell you why.

Edit: Oh, yeah there was that one stupid ultra-violent slaughter RPG made as a joke.  You know there are more, right?

Uh-oh, looks like we got a SJW storygamer.

Killing baby goblins is just like killing human children, eh? Next we'll hear about how going into a dungeon and killing orcs is just like a gang of white supremacists going through minority housing projects and murdering them all.

Begone, foul beast! Back to rpg.net Tangency with you!

One thing I really like about Internet forums[1] is how you will occasionally get to read a well reasoned post that makes you think - wow its great to read something that is logical, reasonable, on point, and sounds better than what I might have written myself if I spent a bunch of time analyzing and then choosing just the right words in the right order and then the very next post demonstrates such a colossal misunderstanding of the great post, the topic addressed in it, the prior post(s) that it was in response to that I just have to shake my head and wonder why Chimpanzees, Orangutanss, and Gorillas who also have opposable thumbs, don't rule the world like in Planet of the Apes.



[1] And when I say "really like" I mean "find incredibly tiresome and disappointing."

I'll just note that early on I said, 'In a fantasy world, there may be races that are inherently and unalterably evil." But even in such cases I would prefer not to roleplay killing the young of those races, feeling that it would very likely add nothing to the game in most cases.

Please note that throughout my statements, I have been very careful to use qualifying statements such as "in a typical RPG" and "generally speaking". And again, in an earlier post I said "I would prefer to avoid such subjects unless a game is as serious as art." I do take art seriously. I do take some RPGs seriously. The intersection is nowhere near 100%.

And Kyle Aaron? Satire or outright stupidity? Or don't even you know anymore?

Quote from: CRKrueger;914613I'll need a page reference on that one.  Don't think I've ever seen an RPG designed to simply be violent escapism or set up to consider the concept of violence as heroism, or that tells you accept this without examination.

How many bodies of sentient beings does a typical 10th level fighter have in his body trail?

I was speaking from experience. If your RPG experience has lead into a deep understanding of real world violence and its implications? Good on you. But most RPGs I have played involve killing a whole lot of shit without a whole lot of thought, other than tactical considerations (and the tactical considerations of killing shit do indeed tend to be where the focus of many games' rules lie).

Quote from: Manzanaro;914628How many bodies of sentient beings does a typical 10th level fighter have in his body trail?

I was speaking from experience. If your RPG experience has lead into a deep understanding of real world violence and its implications? Good on you. But most RPGs I have played involve killing a whole lot of shit without a whole lot of thought, other than tactical considerations (and the tactical considerations of killing shit do indeed tend to be where the focus of many games' rules lie).

Do RPGs have lots of rules of combat because the game is supposed to be about combat or do RPGs have detailed combat rules because Killing Shit has a flipside, namely Being Killed By Shit, potentially removing a PC from the game, so probably shouldn't be left to a coin toss or freeform narration?

Most games have way more pages devoted to magic, or classes, or skills then they do to combat.

That's one of the old canards that really needs to go.

No, I've never needed rules in a game to not act like a 2-color character.

Quote from: Bren;914622One thing I really like about Internet forums[1] is how you will occasionally get to read a well reasoned post that makes you think - wow its great to read something that is logical, reasonable, on point, and sounds better than what I might have written myself if I spent a bunch of time analyzing and then choosing just the right words in the right order and then the very next post demonstrates such a colossal misunderstanding of the great post, the topic addressed in it, the prior post(s) that it was in response to that I just have to shake my head and wonder why Chimpanzees, Orangutanss, and Gorillas who also have opposable thumbs, don't rule the world like in Planet of the Apes.



[1] And when I say "really like" I mean "find incredibly tiresome and disappointing."

What I like as in hate, is people talking shit and calling people out namelessly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914633Do RPGs have lots of rules of combat because the game is supposed to be about combat or do RPGs have detailed combat rules because Killing Shit has a flipside, namely Being Killed By Shit, potentially removing a PC from the game, so probably shouldn't be left to a coin toss or freeform narration?

I feel like this misses the point that I was making. To the extent that I have no idea what kind of response you are looking for from me. A defense of freeform narration?

QuoteMost games have way more pages devoted to magic, or classes, or skills then they do to combat.

And how many of those spells, skills, and class abilities are directly related to combat applications?

Anyway, this is a tangential issue and one I spoke from based on many years of personal experience with RPGs. If, in your experience, RPGs do not tend to focus on the violence of heroic figures, with largely unexamined implications, then that is your experience. You speak from your experience, and I speak from mine, and that makes for a conversation. There's no need to question each other's experiences, as far as I can see.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914634What I like as in hate, is people talking shit and calling people out namelessly.

Were you actually confused as to which posts I was talking about? If so, I'm happy to clarify.

This post was really well written.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914613Well, first of all, there's the question of Murder vs. Killing.  
Second...

This one was not.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914617Uh-oh, looks like we got a SJW storygamer.

Killing baby goblins is just like killing human children, eh? Next we'll hear about how going into a dungeon and killing orcs is just like a gang of white supremacists going through minority housing projects and murdering them all. [/qtueo]

Begone, foul beast! Back to rpg.net Tangency with you!

Even if they are people too, the essential difference between orcs and modern minorities is that the orcs really are genocidal maniacs.  It's not just a question of whether they have occasional bad leaders or extremists.  It's that they will be coming to kill you and they won't have qualms about eating your children live.

Sure you could envision Warcraft's noble warrior orcs.  You could envision cute and funny goblins or even Yrth's mercantile goblins.  But on the whole, when we're talking about evil we're talking about races with no capacity to live in peace with their neighbours.  It's all well and good to philosophize when the wolves are at someone else's door.

Can you save the children?  Perhaps, will you risk your life and the lives of your own children to find out?  Probably not.

Heck even attempts at reeducation have the nasty reflection of Canada's residential schools where native children were horribly abused, ostensibly to beat the "Indian" out of them.

It's an old question that goes well beyond gaming.  Ask a Christian how they feel about the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament.  You'll get a wide range of answers but you'll get a lot of people telling you that it was okay for the Children of Israel to massacre every man, woman, child, and beast of the field in Canaan because God told them to.

For the most part I agree that it is entirely reasonable to assume there are goblin children as part of a world system but that can be achieved without setting up adventures that require the players to face that choice.

I meant to mention this earlier. Assuming that the setting does not cast certain races as irrevocably and irredeemably evil (or perhaps even in such cases), I could actually imagine a game where the PCs come across a bunch of young kobolds (or whatever) after killing the parents, and feel terrible, and decide to take those kobolds and raise them, abandoning the "dungeon" or whatever adventure they had been on at the time. I could also imagine such a turn of events leading to a lot of fun and interesting roleplaying opportunities and situations.

However, I also have to wonder what portion of GMs would be totally unprepared for such a turn of events, and would see it as the players fundamentally derailing the adventure, or spoiling the game. And this is partly why I say that I think many GMs would be best served by simply not including such elements in the first place, especially if what they have in mind is a high violence tactical dungeon crawl, which is far more typical of RPGs in my experience than exploring the trials and tribulations of raising kobold babies would be (though I sure know which one I would find more potentially entertaining).

Quote from: David Johansen;914637Even if they are people too, the essential difference between orcs and modern minorities is that the orcs really are genocidal maniacs.

First, the question was not about orcs, it was about goblin children.

QuoteSure you could envision Warcraft's noble warrior orcs.  You could envision cute and funny goblins or even Yrth's mercantile goblins.  But on the whole, when we're talking about evil we're talking about races with no capacity to live in peace with their neighbours.

Second, the topic wasn’t about evil per se, it was about whether killing goblin children was evil.

QuoteIt's an old question that goes well beyond gaming.  Ask a Christian how they feel about the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament.  You'll get a wide range of answers but you'll get a lot of people telling you that it was okay for the Children of Israel to massacre every man, woman, child, and beast of the field in Canaan because God told them to.

I hope the Christians who believe that never think that God is telling them who to go out and massacre.

The thing about orcs and goblins is orcs and goblins are cool.  I would rather be friends with a bunch of axe-wielding pigmen or a bunch of bomb-toting gremlins than a bunch of scottish midgets.  So you ask me, would you exterminate their children I'm like shit dude, I think I'd recruit them for my followers.  Hell I'll pay for their kids to go to Orcaversity.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914639However, I also have to wonder what portion of GMs would be totally unprepared for such a turn of events, and would see it as the players fundamentally derailing the adventure, or spoiling the game. And this is partly why I say that I think many GMs would be best served by simply not including such elements in the first place, especially if what they have in mind is a high violence tactical dungeon crawl, which is far more typical of RPGs in my experience than exploring the trials and tribulations of raising kobold babies would be (though I sure know which one I would find more potentially entertaining).

The last Labyrinth Lord game I ran had the PCs encountering a group of goblins. Instead of killing them outright, they parleyed with them. The end result was a combined force of adventurers and goblins working together to loot the dungeon. Not what I expected and sounds like something you would not expect either.

If the GM is caught completely flat-footed by what the players do and cannot cope with that in a way that is fun, then you have a crappy GM who needs to learn their craft better.

Of course, the only way GMs learn is by doing.

Quote from: jeff37923;914652The last Labyrinth Lord game I ran had the PCs encountering a group of goblins. Instead of killing them outright, they parleyed with them. The end result was a combined force of adventurers and goblins working together to loot the dungeon. Not what I expected and sounds like something you would not expect either.

If the GM is caught completely flat-footed by what the players do and cannot cope with that in a way that is fun, then you have a crappy GM who needs to learn their craft better.

Of course, the only way GMs learn is by doing.

Well... While I agree that is a cool story, I will note that it also doesn't involve turning around and leaving the dungeon, so doesn't require quite the conceptual leap as "We're going to take these goblin babies we found and spend the next 4 years raising them on a farm".

Quote from: Bren;914650the topic wasn't about evil per se, it was about whether killing goblin children was evil

The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity. To think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.  To think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical. These lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

Of course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character. My uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.  Because a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players. Deal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

And parleying and taking the goblins with you will trigger the next alignment crisis when those goblins try to slaughter the orc children that used to play aginozing deadly tricks on any goblin they could catch or whoever else your goblins now meet backed by your firepower... .

So this also works best with evil characters that either don´t care or put a hard boot on such unprofessional behaviour. (After all those orcs could be useful too)

In the other hand a "good" character could also call himself tolerant and say that whatever his monster entourage is doing is their nature nobody is entitled to imperialistical mess with and part of their precious culture,  probably even just utilizing their freedom of religion (if they shout a prayer while killing their victims formally everything shout be OK)

In this case it is "good" behaviour to just slaughter whoever intolerantly raises organised arms (aka military etc) against those unorganized in this case goblinoid "civilists".
Double points, if the people that get mistreated by your monsters are people you don´t like to start with ... .

Quote from: Ghost;914655The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity. To think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.  To think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical. These lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

Of course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character. My uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.  Because a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players. Deal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

It's nothing to do with my limitations. I've run into players who enjoy torture, murder, rape, and etc. in games; nothing to do with exploring a character or anything like that, they were just twisted fucks. I've run into GMs who would throw in goblin babies simply because they find the idea of the PCs killing goblin babies to be amusing. I don't play role playing games to experience an empty depiction of violence, especially one against helpless targets. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't necessarily enjoy the same things as you, it is due to a "limitation" on my part.

Also, your whole conceptualization of good and evil seems very simplistic here. In reality, "good" people do not have a moral necessity to kill "evil" people; that's not how good and evil work. Admittedly though, there are game settings that do employ moral concepts in an equally simplistic way. Though I will say that it is a rare game or setting that says a particular race always is and always will be evil, unless that race is some sort of supernatural manifestation which is not generally the case with goblins.

It's issues like this that provide yet more reasons that I use Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic and ditched Good & Evil.

And yet even more reasons why I don't ascribe natural biology to supernatural creatures. Orcs / goblins / etc in my settings don't grow and procreate in terms akin to human biology. In my OD&D setting, orcs kill humans, bury their bodies in a ritual and from the dirt, one or more orcs rises from the decomposing human body.

No orc babies and its why orcs prey on humans - both to eat and to make more orcs. Goblins are crapped out of larvae sacks. Nobody feels bad when they ignite a goblin larva chamber.

I don't game to masturbate over moral conundrums. Real life has enough of that bullshit.

But hey, if that's fun for your group, party on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;914666I don't game to masturbate over moral conundrums. Real life has enough of that bullshit.

But hey, if that's fun for your group, party on.

This cannot be repeated enough.

Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

Gods forbid we actually roleplay while playing RPGs.


For me, it depends on a setting and it's assumptions. I'm okay with settings where goblins = evil, no matter what you do.

Well, masturbation involves having fun without being productive. Which is pretty much any rpg session. But masturbation has another element: you're the only who gets pleasure from it, others don't think what you're doing is wrong, but they don't want to stick around and watch.

Which, given that games like D&D sell much more widely than games like Dogs in the Vineyard, is more likely to be the case in a game session with moral quandries than in one without. It'll just be that one player, and he's probably the bastard who didn't bring any snacks.

Quote from: Ghost;914655The question about evil per se answers the question about whether killing goblin children is evil. If goblins are evil, then killing them isn't just not evil, it's a moral necessity.

And yet presumably you aren't killing evil people right and left in the real world. So the sort of evil you mean must be different than ordinary human evil.

QuoteTo think that goblins could be evil by nature and at the same time think that killing them is evil would be illogical.

Whether goblins are evil by nature and unable to change or be redeemed certainly is a legitimate question to raise. It's too bad you just dismissed it.

QuoteTo think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical.

And yet goblins (and creatures with different names but similar niches or roles) aren't unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature in all fantasy campaigns. Your experience with fantasy, both literary and as RPG settings must be really limited if you are entirely unaware of the existence of other alternatives. It seems like your experience of fantasy is limited to one or two D&D settings. But even D&D settings had that Drool Drizzler doh Whatsists name guy. In a setting where Drow are supposed to be EVIL, like goblins, somehow Drizzler is not evil. Is someone had killed Drizzler as a baby, Salvatore would have needed to go out and find another job to pay for that roof over his garage.

QuoteThese lamentations for poor goblin children and chidings of thoughtless players are only plausible in a setting where goblinoids are not evil by definition.

As I said, whether goblins are unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature is a legitimate question. Ironically, its a question you intentionally avoided with your erroneous assumptions about the logical nature of goblins in every fantasy campaign.

QuoteOf course, claiming that to roleplay brutal or neutral or evil characters who butcher innocents is somehow less thoughtful or meaningful rings hollow. There's every bit as much potential for roleplaying such a character under such conditions as there is for roleplaying any other type of character.

First, I never claimed that roleplaying brutal, unpleasant, or evil characters was necessarily less thoughtful. Obviously it can be. So can playing kindly, nice, or good characters. Second, pontificating about what is logical for all fantasy campaigns from a position of extreme ignorance about the scope of fantasy and RPG settings is a lot less than thoughtful. Or meaningful.

QuoteMy uncle Hank was with Patton. He did some killin. That doesn't mean he did so mindlessly. Roleplaying situations are there for the very purpose of making the character think about the experience that is happening to the character.

But your EVIL goblins remove the need for characters (or players) to think about the experience of killing goblins.

QuoteBecause a certain type of experience wouldn't make YOU think, or would make you too uncomfortable, doesn't mean that it has no value for other players.

You appear to be trying very hard NOT to think.

Which is fine. Playing RPGs is a leisure activity. It doesn't have to be any more meaningful than watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon. If you and your pals want your fantasy roleplay to be grand theft auto with goblins it doesn't bother me so long as you aren't at my table. And you clearly are not at my table.

QuoteDeal with your own limitations but don't make the mistake of projecting them on to other players.

This is by far the best line of your post. Total. Comedy. Gold.

I'm still amazed that there's so little mention of what the "need" is to massacre, or find safe caring foster homes for, the goblin kids. So there are some goblin kids. Why is ignoring them not an option? Am I missing something by not having read/played Keep on the Borderlands?

Seems to me like the moral onus for the fate of the kids would be on the goblin parents who decided to set up their nursery however they did and then have no family escape plan or whatever. The idea that Good(tm) PCs have a moral obligation to massacre the kids because otherwise they're liable to survive being orphaned in a dungeon and grow up to massacre farmers, is also far far from my first thought.

Quote from: Skarg;914715I'm still amazed that there's so little mention of what the "need" is to massacre, or find safe caring foster homes for, the goblin kids. So there are some goblin kids. Why is ignoring them not an option? Am I missing something by not having read/played Keep on the Borderlands?

Seems to me like the moral onus for the fate of the kids would be on the goblin parents who decided to set up their nursery however they did and then have no family escape plan or whatever. The idea that Good(tm) PCs have a moral obligation to massacre the kids because otherwise they're liable to survive being orphaned in a dungeon and grow up to massacre farmers, is also far far from my first thought.

Good points. I wonder if part of this is the way alignment can frame the situation.

If alignment is seen as a sort of team identifier.
   And everyone has an identifier.
And everyone wants to support their team and defeat the other team(s).

And if you can't actually change the alignment of the goblin children.

Then the goblin children will grow up to be supporters of the other team.
   And they will help defeat your team.
And that is bad.

So kill them. KILL THEM ALL!

Quote from: David Johansen;914637Ask a Christian how they feel about the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament.  You'll get a wide range of answers but you'll get a lot of people telling you that it was okay for the Children of Israel to massacre every man, woman, child, and beast of the field in Canaan because God told them to.

And you'll get way more people telling you that textual literalism is the greatest heresy of the 20th century, and that the vast majority of Christians reject the "it's OK to slaughter" mentality.

And if they're actually an educated Christian... rare, sadly... they'll point out that the book of Joshua was written centuries after the events depicted, while the Hebrews were captive in Babylon and that the priestly caste rewrote the events in Judges to give the Hebrew slaves a heroic myth, and that Joshua is essentially a Jewish Rambo.  (the later Rambo, that is)

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

I don't know what 'mastrubation' is, but I don't want to face moral dilemmas in a game of D&D because I game for escapism.  As I said before, I get plenty of moral dilemmas playing this game called "real life."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914724I don't know what 'mastrubation' is, but I don't want to face moral dilemmas in a game of D&D because I game for escapism.  As I said before, I get plenty of moral dilemmas playing this game called "real life."

And that's fine and dandy. But different people find different kinds of escapism entertaining. One might not think that rape, assault, torture and violence were entertaining, but (http://www.nbc.com/law-and-order-special-victims-unit) people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enough_(film)) watch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother,_May_I_Sleep_with_Danger%3F) that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Rocks_the_Cradle_(film)) stuff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(2004_film)).

Quote from: Spinachcat;914666I don't game to masturbate over moral conundrums. Real life has enough of that bullshit.

Real life is also full of murder and theft. But I don't see anyone complaining that killing things and taking their stuff isn't fun because it happens in real life.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914732And that's fine and dandy. But different people find different kinds of escapism entertaining. One might not think that rape, assault, torture and violence were entertaining, but (http://www.nbc.com/law-and-order-special-victims-unit) people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enough_(film)) watch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother,_May_I_Sleep_with_Danger%3F) that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Rocks_the_Cradle_(film)) stuff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saw_(2004_film)).

Wait, are we now saying Rebecca DeMornay is a goblin?  Because...I want to be on her team.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;914723And you'll get way more people telling you that textual literalism is the greatest heresy of the 20th century, and that the vast majority of Christians reject the "it's OK to slaughter" mentality.

And if they're actually an educated Christian... rare, sadly... they'll point out that the book of Joshua was written centuries after the events depicted, while the Hebrews were captive in Babylon and that the priestly caste rewrote the events in Judges to give the Hebrew slaves a heroic myth, and that Joshua is essentially a Jewish Rambo.  (the later Rambo, that is)

I guess it may depend where you are and which denominations are prevalent.  I'm largely in agreement with you.  People of any religion who are pro-genocide make me nervous.  I watched First Blood for the first time this spring.  Imagine my shock to discover that John Rambo didn't kill a single person.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914617Next we'll hear about how going into a dungeon and killing orcs is just like a gang of white supremacists going through minority housing projects and murdering them all.

Heh.  I have that game (http://johntynes.com/revland2000/rl_powerkill.html).

Ratman_tf makes a fair point: in games like D&D where wholesale slaughter and ruin is the norm, it's a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to be debating the murder of goblin children.

In the real world, people who kill other human beings up close with hand weapons repeatedly suffer profound psychological effects from the experience.  We're happy eliding those.  There's no reason we can't be happy to just torch the goblin nursery because none of this is real.

Quote from: Bren;914708And yet presumably you aren't killing evil people right and left in the real world. So the sort of evil you mean must be different than ordinary human evil.

Whether goblins are evil by nature and unable to change or be redeemed certainly is a legitimate question to raise. It's too bad you just dismissed it.

And yet goblins (and creatures with different names but similar niches or roles) aren't unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature in all fantasy campaigns. Your experience with fantasy, both literary and as RPG settings must be really limited if you are entirely unaware of the existence of other alternatives.

Not going to waste my time. You're not reading the posts you're "responding" to.  You're only looking to talk.

Quote from: daniel_ream;914745In the real world, people who kill other human beings up close with hand weapons repeatedly suffer profound psychological effects from the experience.  We're happy eliding those.  There's no reason we can't be happy to just torch the goblin nursery because none of this is real.

(http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/0046/0046_04.gif)

I had to go there. :)

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

So says village idiot #1 and #2.

I'm sorry that our fun does not look like your fun?

For me it depends on the game. If goblins are fundamentally EVIL by nature and cannot be redeemed then putting them down is not an evil act. This posits a world where actual quantifiable universal "good" and "evil" exist and are hardwired into the fabric of reality. I think many if not most D&D type games default to this even if they do not outright say it.

If your gaming group doesn't care to engage the question of the morality of killing goblin children, then kill them or don't and enjoy your game.

In my current campaign goblins are actually minor fae (there are no Orcs), as such they can appear to be any age. They are generally of the Unseelie Court which makes them wicked by human standards and Chaotic in alignment. The morality of slaughtering them depends on a character's personal code of ethics and morality. Some might say that chaotic, unseelie far should be killed whenever possible. Others might say that they are rational beings and should be given the option of surrender and reforming their ways.

My world has Law and Chaos as hardwired extremes, lthough most people are neutral. Law is not always Good and Chaos is not always Evil. Either left unchecked will lead ultimately to stagnation.

Quote from: Ghost;914754Not going to waste my time.

Why not? I wasted my time reading and responding to you?

Quote from: DavetheLost;914770They are generally of the Unseelie Court which makes them wicked by human standards and Chaotic in alignment. The morality of slaughtering them depends on a character's personal code of ethics and morality. Some might say that chaotic, unseelie far should be killed whenever possible. Others might say that they are rational beings and should be given the option of surrender and reforming their ways.

I'd say going out of your way to piss off the Unseelie Court by killing any of them you meet is behavior designed to quickly lead to your character having an interesting, but unpleasant series of encounters with chaotic, in-human, magical, bored beings. Given Unseelie behavior, they may decide to have a contest to figure out who can invent the most interesting and unpleasant fate to inflict on that PC.

QuoteMy world has Law and Chaos as hardwired extremes, lthough most people are neutral. Law is not always Good and Chaos is not always Evil. Either left unchecked will lead ultimately to stagnation.

Very true to the Moorcockian source material.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914661It's nothing to do with my limitations. I've run into players who enjoy torture, murder, rape, and etc. in games; nothing to do with exploring a character or anything like that, they were just twisted fucks. I've run into GMs who would throw in goblin babies simply because they find the idea of the PCs killing goblin babies to be amusing. I don't play role playing games to experience an empty depiction of violence, especially one against helpless targets. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I don't necessarily enjoy the same things as you, it is due to a "limitation" on my part.

You're limited in some part by your experiences, just like all of us.  In another thread here, we have people trying to have PCs rape young girls, we have guys masturbating at the table, we have people pissing on the floor.  Those might be among their experiences, but they're not trying to say those idiots have anything to do with roleplaying in general.  13 year old males tend to have a kickass247365 playstyle.  After that it's highly subjective.  Some people played Vampire: The Masquerade as a game of personal horror, some played Trenchcoats and Katanas.  A game that doesn't force playstyle...gets all kinds.  The fact that it gets one certain kind at one certain table says nothing about the game.  Do people tend to kick in the door and charge more in D&D than in RQ or RM?  Arguably yes, but I've seen careful D&D players and maniac RQ players.  The maniacs tend to die more, regardless of system, the way it should be.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914661Also, your whole conceptualization of good and evil seems very simplistic here. In reality, "good" people do not have a moral necessity to kill "evil" people; that's not how good and evil work. Admittedly though, there are game settings that do employ moral concepts in an equally simplistic way. Though I will say that it is a rare game or setting that says a particular race always is and always will be evil, unless that race is some sort of supernatural manifestation which is not generally the case with goblins.

How "good and evil work" doesn't apply, the difference is Culture.  Wasn't too long ago in California that it most definitely was the "way things worked" for good people to gather together to kill the evil-doers.  Vigilance Committees were nearly everywhere and took the law into their own hands.  When the posse was called and you were an able-bodied man, you went.

Now, that is against the law, but you still have people who think they have a moral imperative to take the law into their own hands to punish evil - they end up in jail.

BTW, Good vs. Evil can be just an interesting and nuanced as your supposedly less simplistic moralistic version, which really is just as detailed just on a different axis. Self vs. Others.

Man I'd love to talk about Good and Evil in a fictional setting once without all the responses being smeared with the gamer's typical smug superiority concerning religious thought.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914661Also, your whole conceptualization of good and evil seems very simplistic here. In reality, "good" people do not have a moral necessity to kill "evil" people; that's not how good and evil work.

You do understand that we are talking about a game and not reality, right? Pardue, are you listening?

Even if we're adhering to an age-old trope of RPGs ("ugly is evil"), I am of the opinion that killing Goblin children is a moral grey area. Real world issues aside - keeping within the spirit of the discussion - if those children had a predilection towards violence, I'd say it would be an act for the greater good. However, I'd still ding my players with Corruption points.

Most RPGs aren't equipped to punish/reward/guide players for morally grey acts. This is why Corruption is vital for character growth in ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/grimandperilous/zweihander-grim-and-perilous-rpg/description). It succinctly addresses what happens in situations where something may be done for the greater good, but the act in itself is reprehensible. Binary acts in RPGs of right or wrong/good vs evil are hard to judge, and ZWEIHÄNDER gives a GM tools to handle it.

Quote from: Bren;914708And yet presumably you aren't killing evil people right and left in the real world. So the sort of evil you mean must be different than ordinary human evil.

Isn't that kind of what this whole sub-thread was about?  If goblins are no different than humans then you don't treat them differently than any sapient race.

Quote from: Bren;914708Whether goblins are evil by nature and unable to change or be redeemed certainly is a legitimate question to raise. It's too bad you just dismissed it.

Uh, is that what he did?

Quote from: Ghost;914512In some settings orcs aren't evil, they're just a different-looking race, with a benevolent creator-god looking down disappointed every time a human being discriminates against them.  In other campaigns orcs are evil with a small e, prone to aggression, and generally malicious.  Sometimes, like in Tolkien, they are evil with a large E, created by evil for evil with no middle ground.  None of these variations is necessarily wrong or superior, they're just different.  

Where I come from directly stating that exact point is not dismissing it.  I'm guessing you just missed it because it was a bit back?

Quote from: Bren;914708And yet goblins (and creatures with different names but similar niches or roles) aren't unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature in all fantasy campaigns.

See above.

Quote from: Bren;914708Your experience with fantasy, both literary and as RPG settings must be really limited if you are entirely unaware of the existence of other alternatives. It seems like your experience of fantasy is limited to one or two D&D settings. But even D&D settings had that Drool Drizzler doh Whatsists name guy. In a setting where Drow are supposed to be EVIL, like goblins, somehow Drizzler is not evil. Is someone had killed Drizzler as a baby, Salvatore would have needed to go out and find another job to pay for that roof over his garage.

As I said, whether goblins are unalterably, irredeemably evil by nature is a legitimate question. Ironically, its a question you intentionally avoided with your erroneous assumptions about the logical nature of goblins in every fantasy campaign.

Quote from: ReaganThere you go again.

You're really beating the hell out of this "Your ignorant, simplistic view etc..." line of argument which is claiming he's ignoring something he stated in his very first post in the thread.

Quote from: Bren;914708But your EVIL goblins remove the need for characters (or players) to think about the experience of killing goblins.

You appear to be trying very hard NOT to think.

Coming from a guy who's goto game has “mechanics to support throwing bucket loads of opponents against the PCs with minimal threat to their survival.”  that's a bit thick with irony.  Mook rules means your H+I characters are chopping down hordes of HUMAN Pawns and Retainers.  Unless the game is an Alt-History where Cardinal Richelieu (or whoever) has a medevac chopper and a surgical unit, that's a metric assload of humans chopped down for King, Country, Honor, Fame, Glory, etc.

They going to court for all of those killings?  If not, what's simple again?

Quote from: Bren;914708Which is fine. Playing RPGs is a leisure activity. It doesn't have to be any more meaningful than watching a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Which is pretty much my opinion about any game with mook rules.

Quote from: Bren;914708If you and your pals want your fantasy roleplay to be grand theft auto with goblins it doesn't bother me so long as you aren't at my table. And you clearly are not at my table.

Yay, more mindless anti-religion masked as useless superiority bullshit.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;914783Even if we're adhering to an age-old trope of RPGs ("ugly is evil"), I am of the opinion that killing Goblin children is a moral grey area. Real world issues aside - keeping within the spirit of the discussion - if those children had a predilection towards violence, I'd say it would be an act for the greater good. However, I'd still ding my players with Corruption points.

Most RPGs aren't equipped to punish/reward/guide players for morally grey acts. This is why Corruption is vital for character growth in ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/grimandperilous/zweihander-grim-and-perilous-rpg/description). It succinctly addresses what happens in situations where something may be done for the greater good, but the act in itself is reprehensible. Binary acts in RPGs of right or wrong/good vs evil are hard to judge, and ZWEIHÄNDER gives a GM tools to handle it.

Marketing Combined with Actual Topicality: 8/10 Not bad.  You're getting better.

Yeah, I'm being aggro.  Pet peeve.  Talking about Good and Evil vs. good and evil, the word "simple" always starts coming from people who have a problem with killing Evil things.  It's always gets translated to me as "Catholicism/Christianity touched me in the Bad Place" like a large chunk of gamers, especially here on the West Coast who are rabidly but also mindlessly anti-Christian.

Without cosmic Good and Evil we have - oh good, self-interest and biological imperative, yeah that's real fucking interesting, like a blocked toilet is to a plumber. Shades of Grey as excuse to be a fucking piehole, WOW, What a stretch that is from the real world, we're roleplayin' now boy!  

Alignment: C/D - Cognitive Dissonance.

Yeah that felt better.

No, most of my humanoids aren't Capital E Evil.

Quote from: Bren;914410Obviously that gap can't have anything to do with the term "roleplaying" not actually being a term used in gaming until years after those booklets were published now could it? :rolleyes: And the activity necessarily preceded the need for a term to describe it.

I would not be surprised to learn that "roleplaying" as used to describe the wargames campaigns of our hobbies derived from "roleplaying" as a psychotheraputic term for the practice of having people act out roles and situations to help them address issues in their lives.

So someone took a pre-existing term and applied it to the peculiar sort of game we were playing because it kind of fit.

Quote from: DavetheLost;914795I would not be surprised to learn that "roleplaying" as used to describe the wargames campaigns of our hobbies derived from "roleplaying" as a psychotheraputic term for the practice of having people act out roles and situations to help them address issues in their lives.

So someone took a pre-existing term and applied it to the peculiar sort of game we were playing because it kind of fit.

Roleplaying wasnt used to describe wargaming because the term didnt exist until more or less after D&D.

Quote from: Bren;914776Why not? I wasted my time reading and responding to you?

Nope. You're just typing. Responding to my posts WOULD be a waste of your time, but you aren't making that mistake.  Reading what I'm saying is of no interest to you. Not sure why you're here, but conversation ain't it. You just need someone to give you some flimsy excuse for the particular message you have in your head and need to vocalize. For that purpose, this post should serve as well as any other. So go ahead and bounce another one off me. What do I care?

Quote from: Ghost;914798Nope. You're just typing. Responding to my posts WOULD be a waste of your time, but you aren't making that mistake.  Reading what I'm saying is of no interest to you. Not sure why you're here, but conversation ain't it. You just need someone to give you some flimsy excuse for the particular message you have in your head and need to vocalize. For that purpose, this post should serve as well as any other. So go ahead and bounce another one off me. What do I care?

Yeah, he accused you like 8 times of discounting the possibility of different settings when that's what you said when you came in, but people miss shit.  Unless it's an obvious troll, you don't disengage, you Cowboy Up.

Quote from: Omega;914797Roleplaying wasnt used to describe wargaming because the term didnt exist until more or less after D&D.

A little digging shows "role-play" to date to 1958 and usage as a verb by 1961. So more than a decade before D&D.

Quote from: DavetheLost;914801A little digging shows "role-play" to date to 1958 and usage as a verb by 1961. So more than a decade before D&D.

Before D&D it was used loosely to describe a few different things. None of them related to wargaming as of last check. Back in the late 60s "classroom simulation" was one term. "Social Experiment" was used once too for those sorts of proto LARPs There was no "game" but you did usually play a role. Sometimes that was just "you in a fictional town/community with a job." others were more defined. This was before D&D. Though in my case not by much.

How far back does "simulation" go for those sorts of things? Id guess there were alot of different terms used, and still used.

Oh. And we sure as heck had to face moral dilemmas in those too. I ended up a juror in a trial discussing the fate of the accused.

Yes, I don't think anyone thought to apply the term to one figure = one person wargaming until D&D had been established for a while.

I played out a "game"/simulation about whether or not to establish a new national park. We certainy didn't call it role-playing , although that's what it was. It was a class room exercise.

I wonder if goblin children play Houses & Humans? Is it good for a goblin to kill an evil aligned assassin?

Quote from: CRKrueger;914799Yeah, he accused you like 8 times of discounting the possibility of different settings when that's what you said when you came in, but people miss shit.  Unless it's an obvious troll, you don't disengage, you Cowboy Up.

Seemed pretty methodical to me. If not it still boils down to not being able to follow a linear train of thought. either way I aint got the interest or energy for it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914780You're limited in some part by your experiences, just like all of us.  In another thread here, we have people trying to have PCs rape young girls, we have guys masturbating at the table, we have people pissing on the floor.  Those might be among their experiences, but they're not trying to say those idiots have anything to do with roleplaying in general.  13 year old males tend to have a kickass247365 playstyle.  After that it's highly subjective.  Some people played Vampire: The Masquerade as a game of personal horror, some played Trenchcoats and Katanas.  A game that doesn't force playstyle...gets all kinds.  The fact that it gets one certain kind at one certain table says nothing about the game.  Do people tend to kick in the door and charge more in D&D than in RQ or RM?  Arguably yes, but I've seen careful D&D players and maniac RQ players.  The maniacs tend to die more, regardless of system, the way it should be.

That bolded part? I'm not doing that either. Nor am I saying a damn thing about particular rule sets. I feel like I am just a surrogate here for one side of a long term argument that you are having in your own head.

The reason I no longer have problems with people expressing their latent deviant fantasies though RPGs is that I now call people's bullshit in no uncertain terms.

QuoteHow "good and evil work" doesn't apply, the difference is Culture.  Wasn't too long ago in California that it most definitely was the "way things worked" for good people to gather together to kill the evil-doers.  Vigilance Committees were nearly everywhere and took the law into their own hands.  When the posse was called and you were an able-bodied man, you went.

Cultural relativism with a capital C no less. And here I thought that was a SJW thing. Me, I don't think culture has a thing to do with morality. The sex offender is not the good guy, but neither is the fella that looks up sex offenders addresses and throws molotov cocktails through their windows in the night (even if his neighbors quietly applaud him). Justice is not the same thing as morality. Cultural standards are not the same thing as morality. The good guy is not the person that kills the evil guy. A good person may kill an evil person, but it is not the killing that made them a good person.

QuoteMan I'd love to talk about Good and Evil in a fictional setting once without all the responses being smeared with the gamer's typical smug superiority concerning religious thought.

Who besides you is talking about religion?

Quote from: jeff37923;914781You do understand that we are talking about a game and not reality, right? Pardue, are you listening?

Yes I do. And when I see a film, I understand I am watching a film. When I read a book I understand I am reading a book. etc. Not sure what your point is.

Maybe it's that as a game, we shouldn't expect moral complexity because we are playing it as a form of escape from reality? Well, as it happens, I have no problem with RPGs as escapism. But if that is what kind of game you are running, I would suggest leaving out the goblin children. Because that kind of conflicts with your escapist goals.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914793Yeah, I'm being aggro.  Pet peeve.  Talking about Good and Evil vs. good and evil, the word "simple" always starts coming from people who have a problem with killing Evil things.  It's always gets translated to me as "Catholicism/Christianity touched me in the Bad Place" like a large chunk of gamers, especially here on the West Coast who are rabidly but also mindlessly anti-Christian.

That bolded part makes me think maybe the problem is with you, as opposed to with everyone else. Especially since no one you are arguing with has raised the topic of religion at all as far as I've seen.

QuoteWithout cosmic Good and Evil we have - oh good, self-interest and biological imperative, yeah that's real fucking interesting, like a blocked toilet is to a plumber. Shades of Grey as excuse to be a fucking piehole, WOW, What a stretch that is from the real world, we're roleplayin' now boy!

What nonsense. "Without cosmic Good and Evil all we have is self-interest and the biological imperative"? Please. So if your morality is not black and white, it must be bullshit?

The main issue I have with this is your dismissiveness of the biological imperative, as if nothing good could arise from it. The capacity for love is a survival trait. Morality, and the ability to extend the sense of self-interest beyond the self are also survival traits (not on the individual level, but on the social level, which is why we speak of morality as a luxury that tends to be over ridden if you are constantly fighting for your survival as an individual organism). Being survival traits doesn't devalue these traits.

Threads like these are a reason why goblins should be born of wet straw and dirt, like mice according to one of medieval Slavic beliefs. If you want to have an unsavable, corrupted race in your setting, make them truly inhuman spawn of evil whose children grow up from maggots dropping off from the corpse of their dead god, and let the murderhobos go to town on them without any moral quandries.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914793Yeah, I'm being aggro.  Pet peeve.  Talking about Good and Evil vs. good and evil, the word "simple" always starts coming from people who have a problem with killing Evil things.  It's always gets translated to me as "Catholicism/Christianity touched me in the Bad Place" like a large chunk of gamers, especially here on the West Coast who are rabidly but also mindlessly anti-Christian.

Without cosmic Good and Evil we have - oh good, self-interest and biological imperative, yeah that's real fucking interesting, like a blocked toilet is to a plumber. Shades of Grey as excuse to be a fucking piehole, WOW, What a stretch that is from the real world, we're roleplayin' now boy!  

Alignment: C/D - Cognitive Dissonance.

Yeah that felt better.

No, most of my humanoids aren't Capital E Evil.

What does anti - Christianity have to do with this? If anything, the notion that everyone can be saved if they possess capacity to think is more Christian than anything else.

And yes, Black & White, for the most part, bore me. What's the point of being Good when you are assured by The Absolute you ARE good?

Quote from: CRKrueger;914784Uh, is that what he did?

Seemed like it to me at the time.

QuoteWhere I come from directly stating that exact point is not dismissing it.  I'm guessing you just missed it because it was a bit back?

If by “a bit back” you mean, in a different post on a different page, then yeah I missed that. I don’t typically go back and reread threads. I read his statement in the one post and I responded to it.

Quote from: Ghost;914655To think that goblins could not be evil by nature in a fantasy campaign setting would also be illogical.

Which when I read it sounded to me like he said, “To think that a fantasy campaign setting could have goblins that were not unutterably evil would be illogical.”

Another interpretation would be that he meant, “To think that goblins could not possibly be unutterably evil in some fantasy campaign would be illogical.” That would be consistent with his other post. The one I did not go back and reread the thread to find.

Double negatives are a bitch. In hindsight I chose the wrong interpretation of Ghost’s somewhat confusing statement.

SORRY GHOST!

QuoteYou're really beating the hell out of this "Your ignorant, simplistic view etc..." line of argument which is claiming he's ignoring something he stated in his very first post in the thread.

The one some 200 odd posts ago. Yeah I missed it.

Now since you are so expert in reading back through posts, maybe you can explain why Ghost is responding to me to bitch about people who claim that roleplaying brutal or neutral or evil character is less thoughtful? Someone may have said that in this thread. But it wasn’t me.

QuoteComing from a guy who's goto game has “mechanics to support throwing bucket loads of opponents against the PCs with minimal threat to their survival.”  that's a bit thick with irony.  Mook rules means your H+I characters are chopping down hordes of HUMAN Pawns and Retainers.

It might be thick with irony if I actually ever said that playing brutal or evil characters was automatically shallow. Of course I didn’t say that. What I said was that if you eliminate the moral quandary of whether or not to kill by making your opponents unalterably evil, you remove the possibility of roleplaying questions about whether or not to kill in any thoughtful way.

QuoteThey going to court for all of those killings?  If not, what's simple again?

All of them? No. Some of them. Yes. Murder trial and everything.

QuoteWhich is pretty much my opinion about any game with mook rules.

Oh aren’t you special. Show us on the doll where the mook rule touched you in the bad place. :rolleyes:

QuoteYay, more mindless anti-religion masked as useless superiority bullshit.

So now Grand Theft Auto is a religion? What fucking shit are you on about here? I didn’t say anything about religion.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914793Talking about Good and Evil vs. good and evil, the word "simple" always starts coming from people who have a problem with killing Evil things.  It's always gets translated to me as "Catholicism/Christianity touched me in the Bad Place"

Then maybe you need to buy a better English  Kruger dictionary. Your knee jerk reaction has you seeing crazy anti-Christian conspiracy theory everywhere. You might want to dial the martyrdom back a couple of notches.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914793Yeah that felt better.

Not to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914799Yeah, he accused you like 8 times of discounting the possibility of different settings when that's what you said when you came in, but people miss shit.  Unless it's an obvious troll, you don't disengage, you Cowboy Up.

And go all crazy Hulk Smash Aggro. Apparently.

Quote from: Ghost;914820Seemed pretty methodical to me. If not it still boils down to not being able to follow a linear train of thought. either way I aint got the interest or energy for it.

It all follows from my misinterpreting your one statement about that nature of evil in a fantasy campaign.

Absolute Good and Evil (hereafter referred to with a capital) in a game setting where things can be Good or Evil is part of the Cosmology of a setting.  There may be a setting out there that deals with Good and Evil without Gods, Demons, etc... but I don't know what setting that is.  When you have supernatural beings of godly power engaged in eternal conflict as opposing forces...dunno what you'd call it, but when gods get involved, we're stepping into the realm of religion.

The concept of a human killing something that walks, talks, and thinks but is Evil, therefore the act of removing it from the world isn't Evil, but Good, is extremely uncomfortable.  One obvious reason why is our own history. Just one example, but one well known in the west, is the concept of the Crusader - a human being, who thinks he is killing in the Name of God, putting to death human beings of other faiths, thinking he's going to heaven for it - and around the world this thinking still persists in places.  Generally Western Civilization has put that behind us, or at least claim to.

There's a reason why "Crusader killing Muslim=Paladin killing Goblin" or "Humans exterminating orcs=Human race A exterminating Human Race B" are connections frequently drawn up when this topic is raised.

The descriptions we see - "simple, simplistic, black and white" these are the same terms Athiests use to dismiss people of faith.  You have PCs who exist in a setting where slaughtering EvilRaceX isn't an evil act, what are they? Murderhobos.  Again, dismissal with a slight sneer of the idea.

So, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the history of Christianity, Catholicism in particular, is filled with people doing the exact same thing as these theoretical PCs and all of us grew up in lands where this was a shared religious history?  Ok, if you say so.

Frequently when Absolute Good and Evil is brought up, the idea of Black and White morality is brought up also.  The problem is again, people are too mired in Earth history.  When someone says Black and White, that's usually shorthand for everything being Black and White, when that's not the idea at all.  The idea is that certain things are Absolute Good or Absolute Evil, not everything.  Some things are Absolute Right or Absolute Wrong, not everything.

That's why having some things be Black or White can add depth to a setting because it changes the type of conflict and allows for a different type of character involvement.  Manzanaro brought up survival, well frequently faced with Evil, survival is on the line.  When the army facing you are humans from the other side of the river, that's a different type of army from an army of EvilOrks bred to destroy all humanity.

I don't think a moralistic view, or a non-black and white view is bullshit or simplistic, but neither do I think a Black and White one in a fantasy setting is necessarily simplistic, because a Black and White view or choice in a world where Black and White provably exist is completely different than what we have on Earth.

Any game, any setting, any cosmology can have players be Murderhobos, mindless serial killers racking up experience and a pile of loot. ANY
Any game, any setting, any cosmology can have players deeply engage with the setting from an IC-POV and make meaningful, thoughtful choices and have to deal with the repercussions. ANY

Do the GM and players want that or not?  They're the ones that make it happen, not game designers or rules mechanics.

Why did Gary put women and children in the Caves of Chaos?
1. Humanoids can breed.
2. Therefore Humanoids will breed.
3. Therefore where Humanoids dwell, they will make little Humanoids.

Maybe he placed all those little-uns because he was pissed at one of his players and was setting a Paladin Alignment Trap, maybe he wanted to simply weigh characters down with a train of baggage, maybe he was friends with Zimbardo and was running an experiment...I kinda doubt it, and Geezer hasn't weighed in on Gary's Caves of Chaos motivations.  At that time, though, people hadn't been navel-gazing about RPGs for 40 years by shoving their heads up their own asses like we have, so I tend to go with Occam's Razor.  

Why are they there, because they probably should be there, logically, so they are.  Deal with it.  It's the GM's job to decide what those little spuds mean.

Things actually get more interesting I think when you posit specifically in D&D the Planar Wheel and the nature of Alignment, because then you can deal with the concepts of certain beings choosing their alignment, ie. literally aligning themselves over a lifetime of choices, vs. those with "hardwired" alignments.  That's another post (or thread).

Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that's irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself. I have nothing against an in - world idea that a race is evil, was evil, and will be evil, and nothing I can do will change that fact, but to try and make the discussion wrapped around some idea of atheism fighting Good Christian Gaming is ridiculous.

And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it. Even Christianity's absolute morality makes an assumption that the sphere of profanum is more complicated than the sacrum intended - that's why faith (as in an act of belief in something improvable ) is so important in Christian dogma, because you are expected to take God's teachings at face value, in an uncertain world, as a test of faith. Where is that Christian test of faith in a setting where you are reassured by your very god's existence that your cause is 100% Just? If anything, such absolute settings are more anti - Christian and pro - atheist, as they go against Christian message.

In other words, as usual, separation of (Real Life) Religion & Gaming is in order. Just because your setting assumes goblin kids can grow up to be normal people (as is the case with at least Forgotten Realms, where the existence of Drizzt and couple others proves that no race is beyond redemption) doesn't mean you want to go against Christianity.

As for Paladins vs Absolute Evil Children/Surrendered creatures - my own approach depends on the God. If it's a god of chivalry that obligates me to accept a surrendering foe, I let the henchmen/co - travellers/party members cut the throats.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that'd irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself.

To all Humans.  Give me a quote by Jesus about the Salvation of Legion or of Satan Himself...I'll wait...

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it.

The concept that some things that are Black and White makes for a "Black and White World" is the most simplistic idea so far posited in this thread.

Back on topic.

Is killing goblin kids evil? Answer. Yes, No. Maybee, Who cares? I care! Whatever. Depends on the table.

Just from the posts here we see all sorts of different approaches and outlooks from "No kids in my games ever!" to "Killing kids is kewl cause its a game and they arent real!" and all the myriad between those extremes. And mix in wether goblins are made of distilled evil on legs or they are people too and need lovin. ("Thats how you get hobgoblins you know...")

What are you comfortable with and whats your threshold for getting baulky to flat out saying "no"?

Personally I treat it the same as PCs wanting to kill NPCs that have surrendered. Do they have a valid reason for this or are they just being scum for scums sake? What is the situation and circumstance? No. Im usually not happy families are present. But if they are then we'll try an deal with it reasonably. I draw the line at sadistic choice scenarios where we have to kill civilians to proceed. Sorry. No.

To my current groups credit. When I was DMing the 3rd act of Hoard of the Dragon Queen. When they came across the dragon eggs they were tasked to destroy the James the Paladin asked me "Are dragons inherintly evil?" and I told him that as far as anyone knew. No. This because I'd moved the setting to Karameikos and there anything and everything might be friendly, or out to eat your face off. So they discussed it with themselves and came to a compromise. They could only carry one egg back. They couldnt leave the eggs as the cult would make off with them and certainly raise them to be evil. So they destroyed two and hauled the third back to town where they left it with the local temple of a friendly sect. Destroying the two egs was they reasoned a mercy and sending the last off to a good home was repayment for that deed.

Very well played I thought.

I have nooooo clue how they would handle Keep on the Borderlands.

Why isn´t it possible to discuss things in the range it belongs:

There is an adventure where there are children as a possible problem.
There is an alignement rule in the system the adventure is written for.
And now someone asks how these interact.

Possible answers:
1) We don´t play in a style that wants to put a focus in this kind of problem. ->
Answer: Do what you want, but not at our desk! End of discussion for group 1.

2) We assume that some creatures are irredeemly evil and a danger to everyone else. ->
Answer: Kill them off! End of discussion for group 2.

3) Monsters are people too (and often very nasty people)
Answer: Not that easy and probably what the theme starter wanted to discuss and thus what the long answers should be dealing with. (after clearing up that there are the short answers 1+2, so don´t believe this discussion will end with a fitting answer for everyone.)

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865Except again, core tenant of Christianity is redemption and salvation available to all. So an idea of a race that's irredeemably evil is actually more anti - Christian than saying that killing evil is an evil act in itself.

Legion or Satan himself have the option of redemption and salvation?  Your bible has appendices.  It's a stretch to extend that concept to Orc bred in the Pits of Morgoth, or even to the Orcs bred for fulfilling the wrath of Gruumsh.  Tolkien himself became uncomfortable over time with the notion of his own orcs.  He reasoned that despite the capability of being bred by a Maia or Vala, orcs could also breed themselves, they had to, there were just too many of them for this not to be so.  He struggled with the same concepts we're talking about and ended up deciding even his orcs could conceivably be redeemed.  How that would work exactly and what happens to the Orcish soul I've never read.  It's obvious Tolkien never finished thinking it through.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865I have nothing against an in - world idea that a race is evil, was evil, and will be evil, and nothing I can do will change that fact, but to try and make the discussion wrapped around some idea of atheism fighting Good Christian Gaming is ridiculous.

My actual criticism of course is that people's hangups and problems with our real world "Killing in the Name of God(falsely)" leads to the knee-jerk reaction that there can never be a valid thing as Killing in the Name of God, there is no Black, anywhere, ever, just ever-swirling shades of grey.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865And yes, Black & White worlds are simplistic. Get over it. Even Christianity's absolute morality makes an assumption that the sphere of profanum is more complicated than the sacrum intended - that's why faith (as in an act of belief in something improvable ) is so important in Christian dogma, because you are expected to take God's teachings at face value, in an uncertain world, as a test of faith.

The idea that in an entire world there is something Black and that there be a White choice makes it a "Black and White World" is the absolute simplest idea expressed so far in this entire thread.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914865As for Paladins vs Absolute Evil Children/Surrendered creatures - my own approach depends on the God. If it's a god of chivalry that obligates me to accept a surrendering foe, I let the henchmen/co - travellers/party members cut the throats.

This says much, actually.  So the God of Chivalry allows his Paladins to be a part of unchivalrous acts by abstention, getting them off on a technicality? Sounds like the God of Chivalry is an absentee landlord, ie.  kinda not even really existing except in abstract.

What does that sound like?

You're not exactly making a stunning case for your gaming cosmology getting beyond your personal religious baggage.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914871Legion or Satan himself have the option of redemption and salvation?  Your bible has appendices.  It's a stretch to extend that concept to Orc bred in the Pits of Morgoth, or even to the Orcs bred for fulfilling the wrath of Gruumsh.  Tolkien himself became uncomfortable over time with the notion of his own orcs.  He reasoned that despite the capability of being bred by a Maia or Vala, orcs could also breed themselves, they had to, there were just too many of them for this not to be so.  He struggled with the same concepts we're talking about and ended up deciding even his orcs could conceivably be redeemed.  How that would work exactly and what happens to the Orcish soul I've never read.  It's obvious Tolkien never finished thinking it through.

Actually in case of Satan it'd very much depend on the school of theological thought, but this is a special case - if you mean Satan as in Lucifer (because they are not necessarily same beings), then we have two options:

a) Yes, he is redeemable, although given the nature of his transgressions it'd be very unlikely he could do so (but possible)
b) Yes, but it won't happen, as the rebellion itself was part of divine plan, and Angels were given less free will than Man.

Same applies for all other rebelled angels.

QuoteMy actual criticism of course is that people's hangups and problems with our real world "Killing in the Name of God(falsely)" leads to the knee-jerk reaction that there can never be a valid thing as Killing in the Name of God, there is no Black, anywhere, ever, just ever-swirling shades of grey.

People have various hang - ups when it comes to gaming. Some can't discern between their and in - game world views, some can't accept any narrative mechanics. One'll call the other side unenlightened simpletons, others, indie Swine.

QuoteThe idea that in an entire world there is something Black and that there be a White choice makes it a "Black and White World" is the absolute simplest idea expressed so far in this entire thread.

Read your own posts then, they have a lot of Capital Letters. There are of course gradations, but the more Black & White elements = the more simplistic the world becomes. And yes, it is a very simple, even simplistic equation, which sometimes dodges over certain Black & White world's actual complications beneath the shell (but then, they are hardly B&W worlds anymore). But it's a good enough equation, as simple and even simplistic =/= Bad.

QuoteThis says much, actually.  So the God of Chivalry allows his Paladins to be a part of unchivalrous acts by abstention, getting them off on a technicality? Sounds like the God of Chivalry is an absentee landlord, ie.  kinda not even really existing except in abstract.

What does that sound like?

You're not exactly making a stunning case for your gaming cosmology getting beyond your personal religious baggage.

Ask Dungeon Delver, he accepts such an interpretation on my behalf (or at least did so a couple of weeks ago). Heironeous expects me to accept a surrender. He also expects me to suffer no evil. Obviously a lot of Paladins and their orders will have different approach to this dogma, I myself, playing a humble travelling Paladin, accept the necessity of situation and certainty of creature's nonredeemable evil. I may suffer not the evil to live, but if it has surrendered, I needn't dirty my own blade, when there's an option possible to save my own honour and act according to tenants of faith. An ideal option? No. But a workable one for my character. If my character has knowledge that Bugbears will just return to their evil deeds if I let them go, and I have no one else around to do the killing, I'll do it, but not with an easy heart, as they did surrender.

Quote from: Maarzan;914870Why isn´t it possible to discuss things in the range it belongs:

There is an adventure where there are children as a possible problem.
There is an alignement rule in the system the adventure is written for.
And now someone asks how these interact.

Possible answers:
1) We don´t play in a style that wants to put a focus in this kind of problem. ->
Answer: Do what you want, but not at our desk! End of discussion for group 1.

2) We assume that some creatures are irredeemly evil and a danger to everyone else. ->
Answer: Kill them off! End of discussion for group 2.

3) Monsters are people too (and often very nasty people)
Answer: Not that easy and probably what the theme starter wanted to discuss and thus what the long answers should be dealing with. (after clearing up that there are the short answers 1+2, so don´t believe this discussion will end with a fitting answer for everyone.)

Because when it comes to D&D, most Paladins' players want to eat their cookie and have their cookie.

The thing is, there has been almost uniform agreement that if goblins are basically demonic entities of pure evil, than yeah, clearly killing them is good. Although again, if this is the case, why do they have a childhood stage at all? Why aren't they just fully formed out of evil or whatever?

Anyway, this is generally not taken as the case in D&D. And thus we move on to the point that, well, if this is supposed to be a game of escapist fantasy, leave out the baby goblins. Forget the "realism" if the point is escapism.

On the other hand, if it's supposed to be a game about hard men making hard choices? So be it, but then don't get pissed as GM if the party abandons your painstakingly designed dungeon to spend the next 8 years raising up the baby goblins whose parents they slaughtered.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914874The thing is, there has been almost uniform agreement that if goblins are basically demonic entities of pure evil, than yeah, clearly killing them is good. Although again, if this is the case, why do they have a childhood stage at all? Why aren't they just fully formed out of evil or whatever?

Anyway, this is generally not taken as the case in D&D. And thus we move on to the point that, well, if this is supposed to be a game of escapist fantasy, leave out the baby goblins. Forget the "realism" if the point is escapism.

On the other hand, if it's supposed to be a game about hard men making hard choices? So be it, but then don't get pissed as GM if the party abandons your painstakingly designed dungeon to spend the next 8 years raising up the baby goblins whose parents they slaughtered.

OOCly, I'm okay with killing children in fictitious environments, even if they aren't 100% Sure Evil. I may not play characters who'd do so, but I am okay with it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873There are of course gradations, but the more Black & White elements = the more simplistic the world becomes.

If everything is either clearly Black or White, then yes, but no setting, world, cosmology, etc. even remotely comes close to this view.  If there is no Black and White, then everything in the end is "do what thou wilt" and the only real complexity is in not getting caught.  Sure there will be myriad laws, and philosophies in an attempt to control behavior, but there's a line between obfuscation and complexity.  Personally, I think the choice concerning something Black or White absolutely, can be even more powerful and complex than a choice between right and wrong morally or ethically.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873Ask Dungeon Delver, he accepts such an interpretation on my behalf (or at least did so a couple of weeks ago). Heironeous expects me to accept a surrender. He also expects me to suffer no evil. Obviously a lot of Paladins and their orders will have different approach to this dogma, I myself, playing a humble travelling Paladin, accept the necessity of situation and certainty of creature's nonredeemable evil. I may suffer not the evil to live, but if it has surrendered, I needn't dirty my own blade, when there's an option possible to save my own honour and act according to tenants of faith. An ideal option? No. But a workable one for my character. If my character has knowledge that Bugbears will just return to their evil deeds if I let them go, and I have no one else around to do the killing, I'll do it, but not with an easy heart, as they did surrender.

Hmmm.  Hieroneous is also a God of Justice.  Once they surrendered, you personally accepting surrender, but allowing your companions to not accept surrender is possibly Problematic I think.  The "Party Offload" of sinful acts is never a good idea for Paladins.   But, it does depend on the slaughtering.  

Yeah, they surrendered, but they can still be executed in the name of Justice, just like human criminals.  Did they just drop their swords and beg for mercy?  Did they parley and agree to cease hostilities if they were allowed to go their own way?  Are Bugbears a race with Hardwired Alignment or at they just the biggest of the gobbos?

Quote from: Rincewind1;914873Because when it comes to D&D, most Paladins' players want to eat their cookie and have their cookie.

Which is why in my campaigns, no one ever starts out a Paladin, they have to earn it through deeds.

Quote from: Rincewind1;914876OOCly, I'm okay with killing children in fictitious environments, even if they aren't 100% Sure Evil. I may not play characters who'd do so, but I am okay with it.

Sure, in a serious game I could see it as a possibility. Played for a chuckle in a less serious game? Not so much.

But the latter part of my point is, plenty of characters I have played, and have seen played by my friends, would indeed take it upon themselves to take care of those goblins for the long haul. And that I think there are many GMs who, while claiming to be open to whatever happens in their "organic" game world, would actually be very displeased by such a decision, as it would represent a significant departure from most GMs gameplay.

No matter what shenanigans the PCs get up to (like global genocide), in the Real World, the highest sin you're ever going to commit from playing a RPG is Being a Dick (unless you actually touch another player).

Quote from: CRKrueger;914878If everything is either clearly Black or White, then yes, but no setting, world, cosmology, etc. even remotely comes close to this view.  If there is no Black and White, then everything in the end is "do what thou wilt" and the only real complexity is in not getting caught.

Do you really think that all atheists are amoral? That the only thing keeping them in line is fear of getting caught?

Quote from: Manzanaro;914879Sure, in a serious game I could see it as a possibility. Played for a chuckle in a less serious game? Not so much.

But the latter part of my point is, plenty of characters I have played, and have seen played by my friends, would indeed take it upon themselves to take care of those goblins for the long haul. And that I think there are many GMs who, while claiming to be open to whatever happens in their "organic" game world, would actually be very displeased by such a decision, as it would represent a significant departure from most GMs gameplay.

You say this alot:  "Many GMs", "Many Players", "Many RPGs".  I don't know what possible relevance that has to anything.  Shit GMs, Shit Players, Shit Tables exist.  So?  That really says nothing about anything but them.  I write a module where the enemy has younguns you're free to deal with it anyway your table wants.  Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, but if your table does that, what could I or anybody else possibly care, because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or mine.

Your experiences have Zero to say about the hobby in general, games in general, or anything in general.  It only has anything to say about the specific people you've played with, who aren't the people I've played with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914882You say this alot:  "Many GMs", "Many Players", "Many RPGs".  I don't know what possible relevance that has to anything.  Shit GMs, Shit Players, Shit Tables exist.  So?  That really says nothing about anything but them.  I write a module where the enemy has younguns you're free to deal with it anyway your table wants.  Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, but if your table does that, what could I or anybody else possibly care, because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or mine.

Your experiences have Zero to say about the hobby in general, games in general, or anything in general.  It only has anything to say about the specific people you've played with, who aren't the people I've played with.

Phrases like "many GMs" are called "qualifiers". The only reason you don't use them, is you think when you speak about RPGs you are speaking universal truths. You aren't.

I would bet any fucking amount of money, that if your players' PCs decided to take those baby monsters and drop out of adventuring for years to raise them, it would not fly in YOUR game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914881Do you really think that all atheists are amoral? That the only thing keeping them in line is fear of getting caught?

No, I think that the reasons an atheist comes up with for not doing something that would benefit them and hurt another isn't 100 times more complex because they placed that limitation there themselves.  In fact, the idea that it is a Black choice, that it is a "Thou Shalt Not", that it is going to have repercussions outside human society, can make that choice even more complex - especially after you do it anyway.

I don't see personal morality or ethics any more interesting or deep than religious morality or ethics, because in our world, they're the same thing essentially.

When you get to someplace different, with real gods, real heavens and hells, real cosmology, then that's when religion becomes more interesting to me, not less, because then it's not just philosophy plus a retirement plan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914882... Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, ...

Which could be an indicator for a shitty GM ...!
I would assume that at least a real God would have clear instructions how to behave under premium considerations for their survival (if it is at stake, which we have to assume here with most probably low and endangered economic output and seemingly nothing between rampaging monsters and villages but a handfull of adventurers) . After all both the paladin and the people he protects are his wards or possible even his power base. If he doesn´t provide protection or even actively interferes without compensation chances are good they are going over to the next god guy. It isn´t a monopoly or closely limited oligopoly like in this world after all.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914883Phrases like "many GMs" are called "qualifiers". The only reason you don't use them, is you think when you speak about RPGs you are speaking universal truths. You aren't.

I would bet any fucking amount of money, that if your players' PCs decided to take those baby monsters and drop out of adventuring for years to raise them, it would not fly in YOUR game.

That is why you fail.  You think you know what other people's games are like.  You're wrong. Nearly all your posts here point to that same titanic arrogance.  You fail to comprehend that instead of garnering some wisdom about what gaming is really like, you've just been kind of unlucky.  Sorry.

Players want to spend the next 10 years of their lives raising goblins, how is that any different to me than spending the next 10 years of their lives raising humans?  They've essentially retired and now we're playing a different game.  If they have money and want to buy land, create a home for these goblins, etc, it's no different than any other campaign that drifts from adventuring to mercantilism, feudalism, whatever.  It happens.  If they want to shove the gobbos off on some good gentle people here somewhere, and just funnel money, well then they can do that too.  Player's make their choice, the world responds.  Slaughtering the goblin children will have effects, just like saving them.

My Warhammer campaigns are famous for "falling off the adventuring track" as I actually deal with the characters advancing through their careers and some players are content to just live interesting human lives in Nuln rather than go bash gobbos and beastmen for gold and giggles.  If the rest of the party wants to move on, however, and one character wants to settle down with that farmer's daughter, fine, that PC can retire, and the player rolls up a new one.  However, that old PC is still there, he's part of the campaign, if the player still wants to go back to him once in a while, sure.

The world still moves.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914891That is why you fail.  You think you know what other people's games are like.  You're wrong. Nearly all your posts here point to that same titanic arrogance.  You fail to comprehend that instead of garnering some wisdom about what gaming is really like, you've just been kind of unlucky.  Sorry.

Players want to spend the next 10 years of their lives raising goblins, how is that any different to me than spending the next 10 years of their lives raising humans?  They've essentially retired and now we're playing a different game.  If they have money and want to buy land, create a home for these goblins, etc, it's no different than any other campaign that drifts from adventuring to mercantilism, feudalism, whatever.  It happens.  If they want to shove the gobbos off on some good gentle people here somewhere, and just funnel money, well then they can do that too.  Player's make their choice, the world responds.  Slaughtering the goblin children will have effects, just like saving them.

My Warhammer campaigns are famous for "falling off the adventuring track" as I actually deal with the characters advancing through their careers and some players are content to just live interesting human lives in Nuln rather than go bash gobbos and beastmen for gold and giggles.  If the rest of the party wants to move on, however, and one character wants to settle down with that farmer's daughter, fine, that PC can retire, and the player rolls up a new one.  However, that old PC is still there, he's part of the campaign, if the player still wants to go back to him once in a while, sure.

The world still moves.

Like I said, it wouldn't fly in your game. It would in fact, end the game. Does that make you a shit GM? Your call, bro.

Me, I'm just happy to see my titanic arrogance prove me to be correct once again.

Quote from: Maarzan;914885Which could be an indicator for a shitty GM ...!
I would assume that at least a real God would have clear instructions how to behave under premium considerations for their survival (if it is at stake, which we have to assume here with most probably low and endangered economic output and seemingly nothing between rampaging monsters and villages but a handfull of adventurers) . After all both the paladin and the people he protects are his wards or possible even his power base. If he doesn´t provide protection or even actively interferes without compensation chances are good they are going over to the next god guy. It isn´t a monopoly or closely limited oligopoly like in this world after all.

Right, as was agreed to earlier, players should have knowledge of what their race, culture, god, accepts.  

The Paladin stringing entrails was just an example of "That Guy", the person who says he's a Paladin, but is really just a KoDT caricature.  I've never had one of those in my campaigns, although I have had a couple of guys who simply weren't cut out to be Paladins.  The problem is, with new players, you can't tell beforehand.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914892Like I said, it wouldn't fly in your game. It would in fact, end the game. Does that make you a shit GM? Your call, bro.

Me, I'm just happy to see my titanic arrogance prove me to be correct once again.

Wow, way to make yourself look like a disingenuous or ignorant prick.  You sure proved one of us right, you're too much of an arrogant ass though to realize it wasn't you.

"They've retired and now we're playing a different game." is the same thing that happens in higher level D&D when you want to get involved in the building phase, or in ACKS as you go from the Adventurer to Conqueror to King phase and start having different types of play.  Or when you get money or title in Harnmaster and so open up the Harnmanor rules to start dealing with the new situation.  The PCs are still there, the players are still playing them, but they're doing something completely different.

Manzanaro: You'd have a problem with PCs playing out saving and raising goblin kids.
Me: No, actually it's just another type of campaign change that happens, like (numerous examples)
Manzanaro: I knew it, you wouldn't let it happen.

Jesus, are you out of your fucking mind?  I feel like we've encountered a new SCP, a memetic virus that infects forumites making them see the exact opposite of what was written.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914878If everything is either clearly Black or White, then yes, but no setting, world, cosmology, etc. even remotely comes close to this view.  If there is no Black and White, then everything in the end is "do what thou wilt" and the only real complexity is in not getting caught.  Sure there will be myriad laws, and philosophies in an attempt to control behavior, but there's a line between obfuscation and complexity.  Personally, I think the choice concerning something Black or White absolutely, can be even more powerful and complex than a choice between right and wrong morally or ethically.

I actually differ from a philosophical standpoint, but from a more practical - maybe, but it worked for Vance, didn't it?

QuoteHmmm.  Hieroneous is also a God of Justice.  Once they surrendered, you personally accepting surrender, but allowing your companions to not accept surrender is possibly Problematic I think.  The "Party Offload" of sinful acts is never a good idea for Paladins.   But, it does depend on the slaughtering.  

Yeah, they surrendered, but they can still be executed in the name of Justice, just like human criminals.  Did they just drop their swords and beg for mercy?  Did they parley and agree to cease hostilities if they were allowed to go their own way?  Are Bugbears a race with Hardwired Alignment or at they just the biggest of the gobbos?

Different strokes for different Paladins. In the cases so far, they dropped the swords. Interestingly enough, in one case it provoked an argument on part of a halfing thief that my Paladin was being stupid, to which I actually explained it ICly that I am obliged to accept the surrender, but I am not obliged to prevent their execution, righteous after all as it is. Just a personal choice of interpretation, not a statement of condemnation IC. Ultimately, a Paladin is a class that will have various interpretations and IG orders that interpret their god's dogmas differently.

Actually CRKrueger, I was just reading between the lines, drawing inferences from the multiple references you made to retirement and rolling up new characters. But maybe I was being unfair. Hell, I'd love to hear more about this D&D Goblin Child Rearing Phase you're proposing. Does it involve a lot of wandering monster checks?

Quote from: Rincewind1;914902Different strokes for different Paladins. In the cases so far, they dropped the swords. Interestingly enough, in one case it provoked an argument on part of a halfing thief that my Paladin was being stupid, to which I actually explained it ICly that I am obliged to accept the surrender, but I am not obliged to prevent their execution, righteous after all as it is. Just a personal choice of interpretation, not a statement of condemnation IC. Ultimately, a Paladin is a class that will have various interpretations and IG orders that interpret their god's dogmas differently.

Depending on the situation it also could have just be called "short trial".

General and most often very theoretical philosophical/religious/political absoluta are similar often not very useful for real justice, especially in absence of details.

Most of my player group would gleefully slaughter the goblin children and not give it a second thought. They are goblins and they are in the Caves of Chaos. Ergo they are there to be killed.

One or two of my players might raise the question of whether or not it was ok to butcher goblin children without feeling guilty about it.

One player might seek out foster homes for the little brats.

As a GM I would be fine with shifting the campaign to raising goblin children if that is the game the players wanted. If they just wanted to retire their goblin-raising characters for a while and play new characters I would also be fine with that.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914906Actually CRKrueger, I was just reading between the lines, drawing inferences from the multiple references you made to retirement and rolling up new characters. But maybe I was being unfair. Hell, I'd love to hear more about this D&D Goblin Child Rearing Phase you're proposing. Does it involve a lot of wandering monster checks?

Whatever self-satisfaction you attempted to get from the smugness of your last question aside, the answer you should know if you weren't playing the simpleton: If they're passing through a dangerous area, then yes.

As far as how the players do it, that's up to them, not me.  They're the ones who propose it, they're the ones who are going to have to come up with a plan, same as if they wanted to start their own high-risk shadowrun taxi service (been there done that), fix a ship and delve into the world of maritime commerce (done that too), or develop their own fiefdom (done many times).  They play their characters, I just play the world in response.

This thread is so meta-as-fuck I almost put on my Powerslave t-shirt... oh wait, meta....

Despite all the armchair ethical talk, what happens at the table and what happens in the game are kinda different things. It's about the CHARACTER and what the character does. Does the character kill kids? Probably evil.

Is alignment absolute? Not unless it's magically part of their nature - which in D&D *is* a thing. So what's so fucking hard about figuring this out? Is it because players wanna cling to some ill-conceived idea their precious PC is a do-gooder whilst decapitating goblin children because their goblin parents raped the horses and road off on the women?

Why in the hell is this even a discussion at this point? It's another indicator of why "alignment" is a useless extra appendix to the D&D system

Quote from: CRKrueger;914884philosophy plus a retirement plan.

* snerk *

Quote from: CRKrueger;914925Whatever self-satisfaction you attempted to get from the smugness of your last question aside, the answer you should know if you weren't playing the simpleton: If they're passing through a dangerous area, then yes.

As far as how the players do it, that's up to them, not me.  They're the ones who propose it, they're the ones who are going to have to come up with a plan, same as if they wanted to start their own high-risk shadowrun taxi service (been there done that), fix a ship and delve into the world of maritime commerce (done that too), or develop their own fiefdom (done many times).  They play their characters, I just play the world in response.

And that folks is how it's done. Simple and to the point.
Like I tell my players: "Do what ever you want you are free agents, but remember that your actions will have reactions, both good and bad."

Shemek

QuoteAbsolute Good and Evil (hereafter referred to with a capital) in a game setting where things can be Good or Evil is part of the Cosmology of a setting. There may be a setting out there that deals with Good and Evil without Gods, Demons, etc... but I don't know what setting that is. When you have supernatural beings of godly power engaged in eternal conflict as opposing forces...dunno what you'd call it, but when gods get involved, we're stepping into the realm of religion.

We are not stepping into the realm actual religions, but of imaginary pretend religions. Because we are talking about a game world, not the real world.

QuoteSo, this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the history of Christianity, Catholicism in particular, is filled with people doing the exact same thing as these theoretical PCs and all of us grew up in lands where this was a shared religious history? Ok, if you say so.

You particularly seem intent on making the discussion about Christianity and Catholicism.

QuotePersonally, I think the choice concerning something Black or White absolutely, can be even more powerful and complex than a choice between right and wrong morally or ethically.

I don't.

Here's why. There is no ethical conflict involving Black or White. If Black and White are absolute EVIL and GOOD, then making choices involving EVIL or GOOD is simple. There is no conflict or difficulty in choosing between GOOD and EVIL, you choose GOOD. Of course that's always an easy choice. Even choosing between good and evil is easy. You pick good.

Ethical or moral conflict arises when you need to make a choice either between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. But any choice where either GOOD or EVIL is one of the choices, is a simple choice. You pick GOOD or you avoid picking EVIL.

There is no difficulty choosing between good and GOOD. You choose the thing that is absolutely and unconditionally good. What other choice is there? Similarly there is no difficulty or conflict choosing between bad and BAD. The choice is simple, you don't pick BAD.  

Which is, of course, why GOOD and EVIL and Black and White choices are simplistic.

Lots of people choose to do things they can be killed for in this life, not to mention things they believe might result in eternal damnation.

What Would Jesus Do, for example, seems to be ridiculously simple, but actually isn't.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914955What Would Jesus Do, for example, seems to be ridiculously simple, but actually isn't.

Well I fully believe if goblin babies were selling doves in the temple, He would drive their green buts out with a whip, no questions asked!

Quote from: Bren;914946Here’s why. There is no ethical conflict involving Black or White. If Black and White are absolute EVIL and GOOD, then making choices involving EVIL or GOOD is simple. There is no conflict or difficulty in choosing between GOOD and EVIL, you choose GOOD. Of course that’s always an easy choice. Even choosing between good and evil is easy. You pick good.

Ethical or moral conflict arises when you need to make a choice either between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. But any choice where either GOOD or EVIL is one of the choices, is a simple choice. You pick GOOD or you avoid picking EVIL.

There is no difficulty choosing between good and GOOD. You choose the thing that is absolutely and unconditionally good. What other choice is there? Similarly there is no difficulty or conflict choosing between bad and BAD. The choice is simple, you don’t pick BAD.  

Which is, of course, why GOOD and EVIL and Black and White choices are simplistic.

That's not only a problem with alignment choices though. If I offer you a sword that does 1d4 damage, or a sword that does 1d8 damage, but are identical in every other way (size, weight, cost, appearance, etc...), which sword will you "choose"? With the implication that your character is going to be using the sword to deplete some target's hit points, you'd choose the 1d8 sword every time.

This is where I think the D&D alignment system can actually do some good. Without conflict, there is no choice. So set up scenarios that put the two axis of alignment in conflict. Law versus Good. Evil versus Chaos, etc, etc.

Quote from: tenbones;914931Is alignment absolute? Not unless it's magically part of their nature - which in D&D *is* a thing. So what's so fucking hard about figuring this out? Is it because players wanna cling to some ill-conceived idea their precious PC is a do-gooder whilst decapitating goblin children because their goblin parents raped the horses and road off on the women?

Why in the hell is this even a discussion at this point? It's another indicator of why "alignment" is a useless extra appendix to the D&D system

1: In D&D though alignment is very mutable and depending on the edition theres shades of grey throughout and/or its a sliding scale/karma meter.

2: No. Just an indicator apparently you dont quite get alignment.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914961That's not only a problem with alignment choices though. If I offer you a sword that does 1d4 damage, or a sword that does 1d8 damage, but are identical in every other way (size, weight, cost, appearance, etc...), which sword will you "choose"? With the implication that your character is going to be using the sword to deplete some target's hit points, you'd choose the 1d8 sword every time.

A rare few will choose the lesser sword if it has a cool backstory. Another not-so-rare few will choose the lesser sword because the d8 for the same price is suspicious. :cool:

Quote from: Manzanaro;914906Actually CRKrueger, I was just reading between the lines, drawing inferences from the multiple references you made to retirement and rolling up new characters. But maybe I was being unfair.

No, you were just paying too much attention to the voices in your own head. You know, the ones that do not reflect what people are actually saying.

Quote from: Omega;9149681: In D&D though alignment is very mutable and depending on the edition theres shades of grey throughout and/or its a sliding scale/karma meter.

2: No. Just an indicator apparently you dont quite get alignment.

There is only the Omega Way and no possible others.

Quote from: CRKrueger;914955Lots of people choose to do things they can be killed for in this life, not to mention things they believe might result in eternal damnation.

Not sure where you are going with this other than, apparently, to try to move to a discussion about religion instead of RPGs.

If you actually have a game example where choosing amongst absolute GOOD and something else or choosing amongst absolute EVIL and something else is more interesting than a choice amongst goods and evils that are not known to be absolute then by all means trot it one out. If not, then I suggest you go argue Christian apologia with someone who wants to do that.

QuoteWhat Would Jesus Do, for example, seems to be ridiculously simple, but actually isn't.

I don’t know why you would think that. I think it isn’t at all simple. Parsing the parables, tales, and books of the bible to arrive at a simple and unambiguous understanding of WWJD in all instances is anything but “ridiculously simple.”

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914961That's not only a problem with alignment choices though. If I offer you a sword that does 1d4 damage, or a sword that does 1d8 damage, but are identical in every other way (size, weight, cost, appearance, etc...), which sword will you "choose"? With the implication that your character is going to be using the sword to deplete some target's hit points, you'd choose the 1d8 sword every time.

I'm really unsure what your example is supposed to be an example of. I've never seen two swords like that. Now if you were talking about two swords with different costs, weights, size, appearances, and/or stat requirements and those two swords did different amounts of damage...well I've seen a lot of RPGs that had two swords kind of like that.

QuoteThis is where I think the D&D alignment system can actually do some good.

I dislike the D&D alignment system. I'd much rather see different religions (like we see in virtually every fantasy RPG) track different things individually and vary those things along some sort of spectrum or scale based on individual religious values rather than try to reconcile individual, conflicting deities with a handful of overarching absolute qualities. YMMV.

Quote from: Omega;9149681: In D&D though alignment is very mutable and depending on the edition theres shades of grey throughout and/or its a sliding scale/karma meter.

2: No. Just an indicator apparently you dont quite get alignment.

Nonsense. I get Alignment. I think people don't use it consistently even when they pretend they do. Removing Alignment from play has freed players from using Alignment as this bullshit rational to do bad things.

Case in point - if you know what Lawful Good is - why do you need it on your paper to *roleplay* it? Why why why a thousand times why?

I'm not saying in the metaphysics of D&D's cosmology Alignment doesn't matter, of course it does, but it only matters insofar as your PC has some direct connection to those forces. You mostly don't. And when you do - you still do not need it on your paper to play it. Your very reasoning in #1 is exactly my point. There are plenty of ways to play Lawful Good, Neutral Evil etc. within context of the setting. You're making my point for me.

The whole point of Alignment in 1e/2e as applied to most native creatures to the Prime Material is the general disposition of their behavior. Unless you're trying to say there is Moral Relativism to the notion of alignment - then we'll clearly have a dispute.

Quote from: Bren;914982Parsing the parables, tales, and books of the bible to arrive at a simple and unambiguous understanding of WWJD in all instances is anything but “ridiculously simple.”

I don't know where I'd even find someone selling doves in a temple around here.

I think there's a Sikh one out in Milton?

Which is why by my standard - killing Goblin children is evil.

The real question is - WHY SHOULD IT MATTER TO YOUR PC?

Because you wanna pretend your PC is not evil for doing so? Or because you wanna really debate that Goblins are "genetically predisplosed towards evil" to justify your killing them despite whatever your Alignment on your paper says. Does your PC even know about alignment on some cosmic scale? Which if you wanna play it that way - have at it. It would just mean I'd treat them like demons and act accordingly. And hey look - I don't need alignment on my sheet to do it. Yay, I guess?

Quote from: daniel_ream;914989I don't know where I'd even find someone selling doves in a temple around here.

I think there's a Sikh one out in Milton?

There's a big Hindu Temple just off of Highway 427 between Finch and Albion;)

Shemek

Quote from: jeff37923;914972No, you were just paying too much attention to the voices in your own head. You know, the ones that do not reflect what people are actually saying.

Dude, you quote the guy in your signature block, of course you support him. After all, we've all seen him attack people if he has any doubt that they are not explicitly taking his side in a discussion, so yeah, best to keep that nose firmly planted in the brown zone.

And, to be fair, he does seem like an intellectual giant compared to you.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914998And, to be fair, he does seem like an intellectual giant compared to you.

*Yawn*

Quote from: Omega;914970A rare few will choose the lesser sword if it has a cool backstory. Another not-so-rare few will choose the lesser sword because the d8 for the same price is suspicious. :cool:

Quotebut are identical in every other way

Gotcha covered on the first part. :)

Quote from: CRKrueger;914891The world still moves.

In my little campaign world, in one area there three factions, each of which wanted the PCs to go and smack over the other two. When the PCs were captured by one faction in the last session, and that faction cast raise dead on two of the PCs and took them off to the lord, who then asked them to smack over another faction, one player said, "I don't get what this adventure is supposed to be about."

"That's up to you," I said.

Players can do and ask whatever they like in the game world. But each action has consequences. The PCs in my group have abused, threatened and ignored the orders of powerful people who wanted their help and to reward them, they've fought when they were asked to just scout around, they've scouted around when they were asked to fight, and so on. All this has consequences. All their actions, good or bad, smart or stupid, well-planned or spontaneous, they all have consequences.

It may be of note that the faction they currently work for is a white dragon who has as his minions... goblins. So now the human adventuring party works for goblins against humans. I haven't put any goblin babies in there, though. Nobody's asked where they are, if they did I'd simply say, "An interesting question, what will your character do to find out?" I would have much the same response if they expressed a wish to adopt some goblin babies. "Great, how will you go about it, cos you know, the human neighbours ain't gonna be happy."

Now, if I was Marzipan or whatever the fuck the commie's name is, I might as the white dragon say, "Since you have slain so many goblins, your next task is to adopt their orphan goblin babies." Wouldn't that be LOADS of fun?

But no. The players make their choices, and the world still moves.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915021Now, if I was Marzipan or whatever the fuck the commie's name is, I might as the white dragon say, "Since you have slain so many goblins, your next task is to adopt their orphan goblin babies." Wouldn't that be LOADS of fun?

But no. The players make their choices, and the world still moves.

I'm wondering if the whole "you must not kill goblin babies" crap of his applies to characters who are Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil. What about Chaotic Neutral? Do they get to save one group of goblin babies as long as they use them to kill other goblin babies?

Quote from: Bren;914982I'm really unsure what your example is supposed to be an example of. I've never seen two swords like that. Now if you were talking about two swords with different costs, weights, size, appearances, and/or stat requirements and those two swords did different amounts of damage...well I've seen a lot of RPGs that had two swords kind of like that.

Yeah, that was crap. Let me make another run at it.
Exceptions aside for just a moment, there's no choice between good and evil for a typical character. If I'm an evil orc, I'm not going to hesitate to do evil things that I want to do*. Putting a moral choice between good and evil in front of an evil character isn't much of a choice. Likewise for a good character.

*"That I want to do" is the key to that statement, of course. And that's where the exceptions come in.

Quote from: jeff37923;915028I'm wondering if the whole "you must not kill goblin babies" crap of his applies to characters who are Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil. What about Chaotic Neutral? Do they get to save one group of goblin babies as long as they use them to kill other goblin babies?

Jesus, you and Kyle Aaron are just incredible fuckheads, lacking basic comprehension of language. And here I had always doubted that people's brains could actually be damaged by playing D&D.

EDIT: Actually, that isn't entirely fair of me. The "fuckheads" part is fair and entirely valid for a couple little twat cowboys that want to start shit on an on-line forum. The "lacking basic comprehension of language" is the unfair part. You have that. What you don't have is the slightest grasp of nuance or subtlety.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;915033Exceptions aside for just a moment, there's no choice between good and evil for a typical character. If I'm an evil orc, I'm not going to hesitate to do evil things that I want to do*. Putting a moral choice between good and evil in front of an evil character isn't much of a choice. Likewise for a good character.

Yeah, that's not much of a choice. You get a more difficult choice if the choice is between two goods or between two evils.

Aaaaand this thread has become a perfect exemplar of why there are no goblin babies in my world.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915038Aaaaand this thread has become a perfect exemplar of why there are no goblin babies in my world.

No goblin babies? Then who eats all the Happy Meals in the dungeon McDonalds?

Quote from: Manzanaro;915035Jesus, you and Kyle Aaron are just incredible fuckheads, lacking basic comprehension of language. And here I had always doubted that people's brains could actually be damaged by playing D&D.

EDIT: Actually, that isn't entirely fair of me. The "fuckheads" part is fair and entirely valid for a couple little twat cowboys that want to start shit on an on-line forum. The "lacking basic comprehension of language" is the unfair part. You have that. What you don't have is the slightest grasp of nuance or subtlety.

Allow me to run that through the translator:

Quote from: Manzanaro TranslatedGoddamnit!! Between you and Kyle Aaron, my argument is being shredded!! Wahhhh!! Fuckheads!! Bastards!! How dare you advocate letting players choose and not bowing down to my pseudointellectual absolutes!!

I played in a MERP campaign for a few years a while back. My character was a healer, one who specifically attended to the horses at Minas Ithil. Though visually based on Nathan Explosion from Deathklok (random chargen gave him the stature of a WWF wrestler), I patterned his personality on the main character from All Creatures Great and Small.

In the course of the campaign, several times in an area of wilderness we encountered packs of Dire Wolves. We generally were able to drive them off without too much effort, they were hungry but reluctant to face an enemy that could bite back.

 Then one night they cornered us in a cave we'd holed up in and a ferocious battle ensued, fought to the bitter end, the wolves raging against us even as we hewn them down, and almost killing one of our group. It was only afterwards we discovered why: a small litter of pups had been stashed away at the back of the cave. My companion made ready to hew them down with his sword, an I immediately intercepted. It turned into a bit of an (in-character) argument amongst the group, with tensions getting higher an higher until almost coming to blows. I refused to step aside and allow an execution, and was willing to fight anyone who attempted. Some of the party saw it as a betrayal of the group, some thought I was just being ridiculous, but the situation resolved with me delivering a good ten minute long speech about what differentiates us, as men, from the orcs. And it convinced them, both the characters, and the players (at least to the extent that they saw the validity of my PoV even if they didnt share it). I rescued the pups and took them to a nearby village, where I paid a local man handsomely to raise and train the pups.

Roughly 3 months later I watched the Game of Thrones Premiere with one of the fellows in the game. It was an incredibly surreal experience.

Quote from: jeff37923;915043Allow me to run that through the translator:

You really want to do this, don't you? Okay.

I shouldn't be surprised at the faultiness of your mental translation. Let's see if I can walk you through the actuality of things though.

My first encounter with Kyle Aaron was him screaming wildly that I was an SJW and that I should go back to Tangency. Why? Because I made a passing comment that not many players would enjoy roleplaying the murder of children, even if they were goblins. Like I said, lack of nuance combined with the tendency of a certain crowd to see SJWs behind every tree. And for the record? I did used to post on RPG.net with some regularity, before parting ways over a matter in which I was decidedly not on the side of those nefarious SJWs that hound some of your dreams.

My second encounter with him was the post which you seem to view as such an intellectual triumph, which was actually just a warmed over rehash of the post Krueger had made on the same fucking page. He even stole Krueger's tag-line of "The world still moves!' while entirely missing any actual point that had been under discussion, and contriving to "forget" my SN, because he couldn't be bothered to glance up the page, though he would take the time to rewrite Krueger's post. Fucking genius.

Then there's you, who initially came at me with an anecdote that had very little bearing on anything, though I politely acknowledged it. Next thing I know, you are accusing me of not being able to differentiate between a game and reality and saying that I hear voices in my head. Who the fuck are you again? Oh yeah, some asshole.

You then pretend to quote me with the words "you must not kill goblin babies" though that is not anything I have said... But I should just shut up and be your straw man, right you fucking stooge?

And now you "translate" what I am saying  into not letting players choose? Not bowing down to my absolutes? What absolutes are you talking about? Where are you even getting this shit? Sheer stupidity.

Anyway bro, keep coming at me with your talent for "maximum offense". I'm a polite guy when treated politely, but I will admit to having a sadistic streak a mile wide when it comes to pompous, vacuous, internet tough guys.

Quote from: jeff37923;914973There is only the Omega Way and no possible others.

No. Theres reading the damn book. Or not and making some crackhead claim.

Try again please.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915038Aaaaand this thread has become a perfect exemplar of why there are no goblin babies in my world.

Theres pretty much no kids at all in mine.

These threads allways devolve into "my way of playing is the only way to play." arguments.

Quote from: Bren;914853It all follows from my misinterpreting your one statement about that nature of evil in a fantasy campaign.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Bren;914946There is no ethical conflict involving Black or White. If Black and White are absolute EVIL and GOOD, then making choices involving EVIL or GOOD is simple. There is no conflict or difficulty in choosing between GOOD and EVIL, you choose GOOD. Of course that's always an easy choice. Even choosing between good and evil is easy. You pick good.

Ethical or moral conflict arises when you need to make a choice either between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. But any choice where either GOOD or EVIL is one of the choices, is a simple choice. You pick GOOD or you avoid picking EVIL.

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.

If we can agree that this is how Christianity plays out on Earth, then what reason is there to think that any made-up "black and white" GOOD vs EVIL religion would be any different?

The God of Truth commands only that you shall never lie!  Well, shit. That's too easy. I'll just never lie.  

I suggest that few authentic human characters would find this "simple" - only a simplistic player would - and here let me insist that I am not trying to get a rise out of you by saying that, so bare with me please. It's sort of the inverse of what I think you have been suggesting

And here I am also NOT trying to put words in your mouth so I'm going to sum up what I believe you've been saying: that black and white morality is by definition simplistic and therefore uninteresting to roleplay, that if you know with absolute certainty that your god wants X, then to do X is very easy and therefore there's no real roleplaying to be done.

I reject this entire line of reasoning.  In fact I think that this very mindset is anathema to the concept of roleplaying itself.

An excellent roleplayer may feel the urge in certain circumstances to twist or defy the letter of the law, simple and clear as it may be, because that is the human condition, and if there is complex emotional content in the campaign, then situations will arise when a three dimensional character will be tempted to break his code.  Ironically enough, it is the simpleton who would never consider taking the role of a character in a BLACK and WHITE cosmology seriously enough to do so.

and I know you might be getting pissed but hang in there...

OR - the character you play could certainly be legitimately so simplistic as to be a flawless paragon (and here I am not using "simplistic" as a pejorative, but rather in the sense of "virtuous").  There is no reason that such a character in such a "BLACK and WHITE" campaign would be boring either, because of the situations it would put him in in regards to other players and NPCs.  Your 'simplistic' character who refuses to bend to the human tendencies and flaws of the rest of the world would have no more "boring" a time of it than Serpico or Detective Frank Lucas in American Gangster if the roleplaying is worth anything.

Another example: Lancelot. All he had to do was NOT touch Guenevere.  How hard is that?  Well, it turns out that in Lancelot's case, it was a little more complicated than reading a "rule" and then checking the box "I agree."

The meat and potatoes of roleplaying is playing the role of your character. This can become vastly more interesting especially in the case that the rules of the campaign setting do not match your own personal "philosophy" and so a so-called BLACK and WHITE cosmology can of course be much more interesting in many ways if you are open-minded and willing to accept something that is different from your own cosmological outlook.  If, for example, the GM's setting, killing goblins is GOOD and letting them live is EVIL, and the GM tells you that this is the case, then all of a sudden you might have a "complexity" moment in a black and white cosmology, if you are willing and able to take it on.

Instead of insisting that the GM is blind or stupid or simple-minded, accept that he is actually the GM and play the role instead of rejecting it.  Now, suddenly, you have a character who WANTS to be GOOD but might defy the will of his own god out of hubris, or craven weakness, or however you want to play it.  There are a millions ways to go with it.  You might have a character who goes through obediently killing the gob kids but then develops a resentment towards a GOOD god.  I see an antipaladin in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onbiOVpX0_w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onbiOVpX0_w)

Many times, dismissing a different cosmological structure, philosophical outlook, etc, is a big mistake.  From a roleplaying standpoint you are actually just cheating yourself of a rich roleplaying opportunity.

I have played in a whole lot of campaigns. I have GM'd a whole lot of them too.  Some of them were static alignment cosmologies, like D&D, and some of them were much more ambiguous or completely devoid of religion, like Shadowrun.  I do not agree with you if what you contend is that one type of campaign morality/ethics scheme is superior, or more complex, or more interesting.  I will agree that some campaigns are more interesting than others, but that is usually a reflection of two things:

1. the talents of the particular GM
2. the involvement of the particular players

You say above that there is no ethical conflict in a "BLACK and WHITE" campaign and I just plain disagree with that statement. I do find the assertion itself to be "simplistic" and I realize the kind of emotional reaction that might elicit which, while I find it an unproductive consequence and not what I want to happen, I think is worth risking in order to balance out the "simplistic" accusation which is constantly tossed in the other direction whenever this topic comes up.

I don't think that any general campaign cosmology I have ever encountered has been "simplistic" by definition.  It is only ever the treatment, by those involved, which ultimately determines a campaign's complexity. Saying that BLACK and WHITE campaigns are by nature less complex or inferior is simply one example of such treatment.

It's not a flame post. Take it at face value. I think I see where you are coming from but I just think you're missing out by categorically dismissing an entire cosmological scheme as uninteresting.  It's a value judgment. It might be uninteresting for you, and that may never change regardless of my clever posts, however if you're trying to demonstrate some kind of objective truth based on black/white vs moral relativism or any other philosophical breakdown, that's where you lose me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915038Aaaaand this thread has become a perfect exemplar of why there are no goblin babies in my world.

[video=youtube_share;dDkp7GysvbY]https://youtu.be/dDkp7GysvbY[/youtube]

Quote from: Manzanaro;915047My first encounter with Kyle Aaron was him screaming wildly that I was an SJW and that I should go back to Tangency. Why?

1. I wasn't screaming, I was typing.
2. Because you are.
3. Because you should.

QuoteMy second encounter with him was the post which you seem to view as such an intellectual triumph, which was actually just a warmed over rehash of the post Krueger had made on the same fucking page. He even stole Krueger's tag-line of "The world still moves!'

Well, this is what happens in discussions sometimes. It's not all Monty Python's "I'd like to have an argument" skit." Sometimes one person says something, and another person says, "yes, and -" builds on it. In fact that's what happens in many good rpg sessions, we each build on what the last person has contributed to make things happen - whether it be a hack or thesp game.

I followed with an example from play. I realise that, being a Bitter Non-Gamer, play examples may be alien to you, and that hypotheticals admit of more extreme weirdness and thus are more preferable for you to discuss, but there it is. I have been running a game where the players are (reluctantly) on the side of goblins. Consider it a case study.

For the record, I don't like it when people do the "fixed that for you" posts. It's a pain in the arse. So I don't appreciate his efforts there. Your posts are parody enough, we don't need to make shit up.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915021Now, if I was Marzipan or whatever the fuck the commie's name is, I might as the white dragon say, "Since you have slain so many goblins, your next task is to adopt their orphan goblin babies." Wouldn't that be LOADS of fun?

What, and expecially who, are you talking about?

I am talking about what has happened during a game I've run, and where I might take it from there.

I concede that the experience of playing in a game may be a novel one for you, and that you may not have ever had the chance to make such a decision, still I thought I could go on your posts thus far and judge that you would be likely to become distressed at the fate of goblin babies, and try to railroad your players into more compassionate behaviour.

 A long time ago S John Ross commented on the GURPS mailing list that he could tell the difference between questions that came up in play, and questions that came just from reading the book. Nowadays we get to add a third category: questions that come from people who have neither played nor read the book. It's all theory.

Interestingly, we get the same sort of thing in my professional area as my hobby: fitness. Questions people ask after having tried something in the gym, questions they ask after reading the book, and then a bunch of weird shit unrelated to anything that come from people who've never set foot in the gym nor read the book telling them what to do when they get there. And this last category is often quite antagonistic and tells everyone else "ur doin it wrong lolz".

All this would be much clearer to you if you just bought a set of dice, a pack of cheetos and sat down with 3-6 other people and rolled up a character and played. Where are you, Marzipan? Perhaps we could find you an AD&D group.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;9150581. I wasn't screaming, I was typing.
2. Because you are.
3. Because you should.

It's true that you were typing. I tend to associate the sort of nonsensical shrillness that you typed with screaming. You know, screaming like a little bitch? But yeah, you were typing. My bad.

As far as your other 2 points, I see that you believe in the "If I repeat something enough it must be true" school of rhetoric. I'm sure that wins you a lot of debates on the playground.

QuoteWell, this is what happens in discussions sometimes. It's not all Monty Python's "I'd like to have an argument" skit." Sometimes one person says something, and another person says, "yes, and -" builds on it. In fact that's what happens in many good rpg sessions, we each build on what the last person has contributed to make things happen - whether it be a hack or thesp game.

Yes, sometimes in discussions someone will parrot what someone else said and act like they are saying something new. Good stuff. Doesn't mean they're intellectually dead; they might just be pining for the fjords.

The funny thing? That tagline about "The world moves on" or whatever the fuck it was? Krueger knows I feel that same way. He has applauded my saying so. No idea why he was using it, as nowhere in this discussion have I stated that I don't think the world should move on. Even less idea why you parroted it. I guess some people are just stupid fucks.

QuoteI followed with an example from play. I realise that, being a Bitter Non-Gamer, play examples may be alien to you, and that hypotheticals admit of more extreme weirdness and thus are more preferable for you to discuss, but there it is. I have been running a game where the players are (reluctantly) on the side of goblins. Consider it a case study.

Are you under the impression that I have been arguing that players should be siding with goblins at every occasion? Or what exactly? How would you rate your reading comprehension? Realistically?

By the way, Kyle? Me and Maarzan are different people. Kind of answers my question on the reading comprehension thing anyway.

Quote from: Omega;915054Theres pretty much no kids at all in mine.

These threads allways devolve into "my way of playing is the only way to play." arguments.

Yeah. I'm playing catch-up here, but here's my take.

I disagree with Manzanaro that there's a problem on a player level with playing child-killing PCs. It's a game, and there's nothing wrong about playing genuinely evil PCs who engage in murder and torture. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, killing babies is icky even if it is fictional. There are people who don't like that in their games, and that's fine too. I think he's right that is very likely a reason why Tolkien didn't include orc babies - and why the films explicitly showed them being spawned from pits rather than born and raised.

In my game right now, the PCs have two goblin lackeys that they picked up. Having goblin children and other issues inherently makes for tricky ethical situations. Even if the GM declares "In my game it's good alignment to kill goblins of any age" - that doesn't eliminate the icky feeling when killing babies. That's part of who we are as real human beings, regardless of what the game rules or the background say. If you want to eliminate the moral dilemma, don't have goblin babies in your game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915063By the way, Kyle? Me and Maarzan are different people. Kind of answers my question on the reading comprehension thing anyway.

There's no confusion. Your positions are similar.

Quote from: jhkim;915066Yeah. I'm playing catch-up here, but here's my take.

I disagree with Manzanaro that there's a problem on a player level with playing child-killing PCs. It's a game, and there's nothing wrong about playing genuinely evil PCs who engage in murder and torture. That doesn't necessarily mean that the player is morally reprehensible.

On the other hand, killing babies is icky even if it is fictional. There are people who don't like that in their games, and that's fine too. I think he's right that is very likely a reason why Tolkien didn't include orc babies - and why the films explicitly showed them being spawned from pits rather than born and raised.

In my game right now, the PCs have two goblin lackeys that they picked up. Having goblin children and other issues inherently makes for tricky ethical situations. Even if the GM declares "In my game it's good alignment to kill goblins of any age" - that doesn't eliminate the icky feeling when killing babies. That's part of who we are as real human beings, regardless of what the game rules or the background say. If you want to eliminate the moral dilemma, don't have goblin babies in your game.

Just to clarify, I didn't say I had a problem with PCs killing goblin kids. I said I would rather avoid the subject unless it was a very serious game, for the reasons you note. I find that escapism and murder of children don't mix too well for me. And honestly, I could have a problem with it in a game of any sort if I felt the players (or the GM) were enjoying it a bit too much. Some people really do play RPGs for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915067There's no confusion. Your positions are similar.

Jesus dude. No they aren't. And yes there was confusion. You very clearly thought you were responding to me. I'm done wasting time talking to your dishonest ass.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915047fap fap fap

Quote from: Omega;915053fap fap fap

Work on it, guys.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915067There's no confusion. Your positions are similar.

+1 for severe comprehension deficiency.

I don´t habe a problem with people not wanting to deal with goblin children killing in their game.

I don´t think it tells much about the player at the desk unless taken to extrems.

I also don´t have a problem with goblin children killing in my games.

I DO like to explore game worlds in detail and situations like these are an interesting part of it and thus I really don´t like people trying to shoot down discussion about this here.

Apologies if this is rambling. I kind of reads that way to me too.

Quote from: Ghost;915056I 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.

It annoyed me when out of fucking nowhere Kruger had a flailing Hulk Smash meltdown by accusing me of bringing up religion so as to denigrate it. It doesn't seem particularly pertinent to the goblins question to me, but let's see what you do with it.

QuoteBecause 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.

Or perhaps the black and white isn't.

QuoteWe can agree so far, right?  Easy instructions. "Do unto others" and "Love one another" ftw.

I would categorize both of those as small g good. Not capital letter GOOD.

QuoteThe God of Truth commands only that you shall never lie! Well, shit. That's too easy. I'll just never lie.

To me that sounds like the God of Not Lying, not the God of Truth. I wonder if that is part of the difference of opinion or lack of agreement (I'm honestly not sure which it is) that we seem to be having.

QuoteI suggest that few authentic human characters would find this "simple" - only a simplistic player would - and here let me insist that I am not trying to get a rise out of you by saying that, so bare with me please. It's sort of the inverse of what I think you have been suggesting

Well one reason never lie doesn’t work out is because a choice between telling the truth (or pointedly saying nothing) doesn't seem to be always and unalterably a GOOD thing to do or not do if I’m choosing not to talk. I'm hoping we don't have to go into a long analysis of Immanual Kant and deontological ethics to find instances where telling the truth or remaining mute is not good with a capital G and maybe not even good with a little g.

QuoteAnd here I am also NOT trying to put words in your mouth so I'm going to sum up what I believe you've been saying: that black and white morality is by definition simplistic and therefore uninteresting to roleplay, that if you know with absolute certainty that your god wants X, then to do X is very easy and therefore there's no real roleplaying to be done.

What I am saying is that I do not see adding in absolute and detectable GOOD and EVIL adds anything to the roleplaying. I’m still waiting for someone to explain how having those absolutes as concrete objects in the game world makes the moral choices of the PCs more interesting than they would already be without those choices as absolute, concrete, detectable objects.

QuoteAnother example: Lancelot. All he had to do was NOT touch Guenevere.  How hard is that?  Well, it turns out that in Lancelot's case, it was a little more complicated than reading a "rule" and then checking the box "I agree."

Still not seeing the need or advantage for GOOD and EVIL rather than good and evil. Lancelot is torn between love and loyalty to his liege. He doesn’t need either one of those to be absolute to have a difficult morale choice. He just needs to care a lot about both of them. How does making one of those an absolute and detectable object meaningfully change that situation?

QuoteThe meat and potatoes of roleplaying is playing the role of your character. This can become vastly more interesting especially in the case that the rules of the campaign setting do not match your own personal "philosophy" and so a so-called BLACK and WHITE cosmology can of course be much more interesting in many ways if you are open-minded and willing to accept something that is different from your own cosmological outlook.  If, for example, the GM's setting, killing goblins is GOOD and letting them live is EVIL, and the GM tells you that this is the case, then all of a sudden you might have a "complexity" moment in a black and white cosmology, if you are willing and able to take it on.

I’m just not seeing what you think you are getting. It sounds like you think this cosmology is providing some meaningfully different game experience or you have had some meaningful moment of complexity based on killing or not killing EVIL goblins (or something similar). I’m still not seeing the need, advantage, or desire for the GOOD and EVIL. I don’t’ need the game world to have absolutes to play characters who believe in absolutes.

QuoteInstead of insisting that the GM is blind or stupid or simple-minded, accept that he is actually the GM and play the role instead of rejecting it.  Now, suddenly, you have a character who WANTS to be GOOD but might defy the will of his own god out of hubris, or craven weakness, or however you want to play it.  There are a millions ways to go with it.  You might have a character who goes through obediently killing the gob kids but then develops a resentment towards a GOOD god.  I see an antipaladin in the future.

I had all that before you wanted to add in GOOD with capital letters. What here requires the capital letters to have hubris, cowardice, or however you want to play it? Those things are right there in Greek drama and it is anything but a setting with clear, absolute, and detectable capital letter GOOD and EVIL.

The Dracula clip didn’t help me to understand. But that may be more about me. Vampire angst never did resonate with me.

QuoteMany times, dismissing a different cosmological structure, philosophical outlook, etc, is a big mistake.  From a roleplaying standpoint you are actually just cheating yourself of a rich roleplaying opportunity.

I don’t see it that way.

QuoteIt's not a flame post. Take it at face value. I think I see where you are coming from

I don’t think you do.

It’s not that I can’t play in a game world with absolutes. I just don’t see any particular reason to put absolutes in the game world. Maybe you can explain what you think is added by upping the pretend game stakes in the game world to absolute good and evil. I don’t need the game world to have absolutes to play a character who believes in absolutes. So what do I get by making the game world have objective, detectable, and measurable answers to these questions? I’m getting the impression that you think that you do need the world to have the absolutes for your character to believe. That might not be the right impression. Or maybe you see some element of drama or something that I am missing. I freely confess I’m not understanding your enthusiasm for gaming with GOOD and EVIL any more than I get the rage Kruger vented over people who don’t want all caps in their game world.

Quote…but I just think you're missing out by categorically dismissing an entire cosmological scheme as uninteresting.  It's a value judgment. It might be uninteresting for you, and that may never change regardless of my clever posts, however if you're trying to demonstrate some kind of objective truth based on black/white vs moral relativism or any other philosophical breakdown, that's where you lose me.

I don’t think I am missing out by avoiding campaigns with clear, detectable absolutes. If I’m wrong, I can live with that.

It’s not that I can’t play in a game world with absolutes. I just don’t see any particular reason to put absolutes in the game world. The only things I’ve ever seen these absolutes of the capital letter, detectable type add to a game is frustration and annoyance as people argue about what the absolutes should be in the game world. And people seldom seem to agree. I don’t find that sort of argument particularly interesting in a game. And framing the game world in absolutes causes some people to become very personally invested in the outcome. Which has the risk of having the argument become about a lot more than a game world.

Quote from: Omega;914672Because facing moral dilemmas in a game = mastrubation.

Absolutely. Pure sausage stroking, and often used as virtue signalling.

But if that's what creates fun for a particular group, they should keep doing it.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;914735Wait, are we now saying Rebecca DeMornay is a goblin?  Because...I want to be on her team.

!!!

Quote from: CRKrueger;914785Marketing Combined with Actual Topicality: 8/10 Not bad.  You're getting better.

I find Zweihander dude amusing. However, considering his KS hit $50k and his price points are really high ($25 PDF and $50 softcover), all that marketing must be working out for him.

Quote from: Bren;915080when out of fucking nowhere Kruger had a flailing Hulk Smash meltdown

That was wildly random! But I blame Conan 2D20.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915038Aaaaand this thread has become a perfect exemplar of why there are no goblin babies in my world.

Bingo.

Quote from: Bren;915041No goblin babies? Then who eats all the Happy Meals in the dungeon McDonalds?

Shoggoths. They really love the little toys in the box.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915061"The world moves on" or whatever the fuck it was? Krueger knows I feel that same way. He has applauded my saying so. No idea why he was using it, as nowhere in this discussion have I stated that I don't think the world should move on.

You didn't say you didn't think the world should move on, you accused me of not letting the world move on, specifically, that if the players wanted to do something different than I had planned (like deal with goblin children in a way besides death), that I would shut the game down, and then went further in being a smug ass about asking me how that would work with plenty of snark.  

You asked, therefore you got the answer.  If you're now mad that my answer makes it look like you don't know the obvious, why did you ask me the question you already knew the answer to?  Because you were pissed and being aggro, of course.  So own it and don't pretend you're an aggrieved party.

Point for the Nick Cave quote, though.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915082Absolutely. Pure sausage stroking, and often used as virtue signalling.

But if that's what creates fun for a particular group, they should keep doing it.

So 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915082That was wildly random! But I blame Conan 2D20.

It's the old wound, it has never healed. :D  
But really, "simplistic", with regards to RPG cosmology, 99% of the time means subjective preference disguised as sneering objective superiority, in my experience, usually based on the tendency of gamers to be anti-religious.  Easy to forget a lot of people on this site are 1 percenters.
I was triggered.  Mea Culpa.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915084You didn't say you didn't think the world should move on, you accused me of not letting the world move on, specifically, that if the players wanted to do something different than I had planned (like deal with goblin children in a way besides death), that I would shut the game down, and then went further in being a smug ass about asking me how that would work with plenty of snark.  

You asked, therefore you got the answer.  If you're now mad that my answer makes it look like you don't know the obvious, why did you ask me the question you already knew the answer to?  Because you were pissed and being aggro, of course.  So own it and don't pretend you're an aggrieved party.

Point for the Nick Cave quote, though.

Yeah, that's fair enough.

The thing is I don't buy it.

Oh, I believe that you would let the PCs take the goblins back to their farm and then run the whole child rearing thing as an economic simulator type deal. But I don't buy that you would try to make it compelling, because that isn't how you work. You think the "compelling" thing needs to arise "naturally". Sitting in a static environment and raising kids (even goblin kids) isn't an area where sandbox style play shows its strengths.

When players run into situations, they are always thinking on some level, "What does the GM expect or want us to do here?" Now maybe there is no answer in your case. Maybe you put the goblin kids in the dungeon because you felt that they should logically be there and that's as far as your thinking went. But the players are still going to consider their choices in terms of how they would work in your style. even if they flash on the idea of raising the goblins themselves, they have a pretty good idea of how that would play out in your game. Doing dry household budget allocations while getting reminded that, "If this is boring you could always make new characters, or dump the goblins off at the church and get back to adventuring in the sandbox." And meanwhile they're thinking, "Christ, we should have just killed the fuckers and kept on with the game".

Now, maybe I'm still being unfair, but the fact that when I pressed you on how you would handle it, you started talking about financial simulations rather than ways that you could make the situation interesting is something I suspected to be revealing.

Was my response curt and snarky? Probably so. Nobody's perfect and sometimes I don't have time to write as fully as I am thinking. And, you know, when you lead off with "That is why you fail," you really don't think you are going to get snark back? And when just a few posts earlier you had gone on about how nothing I said had any application outside of my own circle of shitty players and GMs? Give me a break.

Anyway, I'll give you a point back because of Nick Cave.

Quote from: jeff37923;915070Work on it, guys.

Stay classy, RPGsite.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;914678Well, masturbation involves having fun without being productive. Which is pretty much any rpg session. But masturbation has another element: you're the only who gets pleasure from it, others don't think what you're doing is wrong, but they don't want to stick around and watch.

Which, given that games like D&D sell much more widely than games like Dogs in the Vineyard, is more likely to be the case in a game session with moral quandries than in one without. It'll just be that one player, and he's probably the bastard who didn't bring any snacks.

Funny, that's what I think when people treat monsters as XP machines, but to each their own wank.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915087Oh, I believe that you would let the PCs take the goblins back to their farm and then run the whole child rearing thing as an economic simulator type deal. But I don't buy that you would try to make it compelling, because that isn't how you work. You think the "compelling" thing needs to arise "naturally". Sitting in a static environment and raising kids (even goblin kids) isn't an area where sandbox style play shows its strengths.

When players run into situations, they are always thinking on some level, "What does the GM expect or want us to do here?" Now maybe there is no answer in your case. Maybe you put the goblin kids in the dungeon because you felt that they should logically be there and that's as far as your thinking went. But the players are still going to consider their choices in terms of how they would work in your style. even if they flash on the idea of raising the goblins themselves, they have a pretty good idea of how that would play out in your game. Doing dry household budget allocations while getting reminded that, "If this is boring you could always make new characters, or dump the goblins off at the church and get back to adventuring in the sandbox." And meanwhile they're thinking, "Christ, we should have just killed the fuckers and kept on with the game".

Now, maybe I'm still being unfair, but the fact that when I pressed you on how you would handle it, you started talking about financial simulations rather than ways that you could make the situation interesting is something I suspected to be revealing.

Was my response curt and snarky? Probably so. Nobody's perfect and sometimes I don't have time to write as fully as I am thinking. And, you know, when you lead off with "That is why you fail," you really don't think you are going to get snark back? And when just a few posts earlier you had gone on about how nothing I said had any application outside of my own circle of shitty players and GMs? Give me a break.

Doing things like that is very sandboxy I think. And I also think it will be everything but static - double points if you are evil and have use for some devious agressive and now well trained youngsters... .  
(OK, we didn´t deal big with goblins - they usually didn´t survive the first contact but for times we had a venerable zoo and in other times we posed as a circus because we couldn´t cover all out "pets". (and keeping them fed was a first rank problem sometimes)

And thinking  "What does the GM expect or want us to do here?"  too much is exactly what you don´t want to to in a sandbox. Either the theme is well known from the beginning or not and everything after that is free game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915087Now, maybe I'm still being unfair, but the fact that when I pressed you on how you would handle it, you started talking about financial simulations rather than ways that you could make the situation interesting is something I suspected to be revealing.

The financial aspects were examples because a lot of the time that's the type of "non-adventuring" behavior that arises.  Many issues with Goblins are, finances aside, going to be diplomatic and social in scope, as the tolerant PCs might have a lot of problem with their neighbors, prompting them to seek allies, probably with good or pacifistic churches, more tolerant races or cultures, etc.  Possessing such children might prompt raids to steal them back.  If this whole thing makes the PCs famous, then now they get dragged into other's political machinations, for good or ill.  Of course there's always dealing with the gobbos themselves.

It just depends on what setting, what location, what type of humanoid, etc.

If the players choose to do something, then by definition it is what they are interested in, otherwise, why do it?  If they weren't interested in dealing with the goblin children, then they should have pawned them off on someone with a bag of gold, or left them to fend for themselves.

I don't have to force things being interesting any more than I do when they're out adventuring, they'll keep themselves, and me, plenty busy.

"I would categorize both of those as small g good. Not capital letter GOOD."

I get that.  But to a Catholic or Christian (or anyone who is truly religious), it is not a small g, it is a cap GOOD, so there is no difference between Christ or Heironeus or whatever for the purpose of the comparison.  To you personally there might be a difference. I'm pretty sure there is just from the fact that we're still talking about this, but to one of your characters, who is a Catholic, or a follower of any god, there is not, even if you as a player believe that the Christian character, playing in a morally relativistic reality, is in fact deluded. This does not matter to you, I suspect.  I'm mentioning it in reference to a point below.




"To me that sounds like the God of Not Lying, not the God of Truth. I wonder if that is part of the difference of opinion or lack of agreement"

It doesn't matter. The "God of Not Lying" could have been anything BLACK and WHITE.  The God of Chastity.  Whatever it is, it is defined by the setting and the GM as being absolute GOOD.  You seem to be claiming that I somehow prefer this kind of god though I have gone to great pains to make clear I do not prefer any type of cosmological/philosophical scheme.  I am explicitly responding to what I believe is your assertion that BLACK and WHITE or GOOD vs EVIL cosmology is somehow less "complex."  I do not agree with that.

The God of Truth, Lancelot, and all the rest of it deal with that, the idea that the BLACK and WHITE is less complex because it is easy to know the correct thing to do in order to satisfy your god.  What I am saying is that very outlook by its very nature is a simplistic way of viewing roleplaying itself.  It may be less interesting for you, and that may never change, but that is because you are deciding not to roleplay a character in a BLACK and WHITE cosmology, not because that senario is less complex.  It's just different, and you don't like it.  You don't want to roleplay that character or engage under that set of conditions because you aren't interested in doing so.  That's all that's going on. There's nothing superior or more complex about one or the other.  They're different sets of rules, both of which offer as much to the player and GM as they are willing to put into them.




"What I am saying is that I do not see adding in absolute and detectable GOOD and EVIL adds anything to the roleplaying."

I never claimed it added anything. It's different and is not by definition either more or less interesting, complex, or valuable.  It's a different set of conditions and one that apparently makes you uncomfortable (I think...I'm still not sure).



"I'm still waiting for someone to explain how having those absolutes as concrete objects in the game world makes the moral choices of the PCs more interesting than they would already be without those choices as absolute, concrete, detectable objects."

Again, I'm only disagreeing that one is by its very nature more complex or objectively superior.  In the hands of a talented GM and engaged players, this material could be very interesting, and so to the extent that you dismiss one moral paradigm without including them, they could have made the moral choices of the PCs more interesting had they been included, but they were not so they didn't.  Your ability to incorporate them or refusal to do so is self-determinative in this respect.  Some people do find the value in such options and do derive dimensions of roleplaying from them that you do not access or experience for whatever reason.




"Still not seeing the need or advantage for GOOD and EVIL rather than good and evil. Lancelot is torn between love and loyalty to his liege. He doesn't need either one of those to be absolute to have a difficult morale choice. He just needs to care a lot about both of them. How does making one of those an absolute and detectable object meaningfully change that situation?"

Not the point of that example as I explained above but since you bring it up, the interpersonal dilemma and emotional issues can stand alone. The moral dilemma is separate and does add a separate and very distinct roleplaying element to the crisis. If you cannot see that, then that is where the conversation comes to a close.





"I'm just not seeing what you think you are getting. It sounds like you think this cosmology is providing some meaningfully different game experience or you have had some meaningful moment of complexity based on killing or not killing EVIL goblins (or something similar). I'm still not seeing the need, advantage, or desire for the GOOD and EVIL. I don't' need the game world to have absolutes to play characters who believe in absolutes."

Correct.  Every character you ever play or GM that ever believed in or believes in an absolute, could certainly do so in the absence of actual absolutes and I am pretty sure that is what will in fact happen.  What I am getting is a variety of experiences, some with absolute truths, which I find interesting, and some with moral relativism, which I also find interesting.  

What are you getting by never having one of them? It seems that you are satisfying some need by only doing the one and never the other, I'm not quite sure what it is.  I don't think it's anything other than that you just don't like the idea of moral absolutes.  Whatever the reason, I think you have decided that it has to do with complexity.  It doesn't.  There's nothing more complex or superior about moral relativism.  It's just different.




"I had all that before you wanted to add in GOOD with capital letters."

I inherited the GOOD vs EVIL from the thread. I didn't add it in.




"The Dracula clip didn't help me to understand. But that may be more about me. Vampire angst never did resonate with me."

Dracula is about as far from angst as literature can go.  It's not like you're gonna find him brooding in the corner with his Immanuel Kant or something.



 

"So what do I get by making the game world have objective, detectable, and measurable answers to these questions?"

I'm sure you would get nothing from it.  You can only get out what you put in and I'm pretty sure we can at least agree that that will never happen.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The reason you prefer non-absolute to absolute is because of something in you, not because of something innate to any given philosophy/cosmology.




"I don't think I am missing out by avoiding campaigns with clear, detectable absolutes. If I'm wrong, I can live with that."

I'm absolutely certain that you're missing out, but you're doing what you're into so, what does it matter?  You're simply opting out of the absolute morality thing.  It's all good.  Just enough with the idea that it's because other people are dumb.  It's your own roleplaying limitations that determine that you only rp a certain way. Nothing else is happening.




"The only things I've ever seen these absolutes of the capital letter, detectable type add to a game is frustration and annoyance as people argue about what the absolutes should be in the game world. And people seldom seem to agree. I don't find that sort of argument particularly interesting in a game. And framing the game world in absolutes causes some people to become very personally invested in the outcome. Which has the risk of having the argument become about a lot more than a game world."

This I completely get.  With some people, this shit just isn't worth dealing with.  However, with other people it can really great.  Different strokes.

I find that adding hard wired, baked in Good and Evil to a setting, allong with Law and Chaos to a lesser extent, actually makes moral questions less interesting.

The answers would be known to everyone. "Is killing goblin childeren evil?" Well, let's look at the list of Evil acts.

To me what makes moral questions interesting is that they are questions. People can have different answers.

The nested quotes are getting a bit awkward. I'm going to try bolding the stuff I said to try to make it clear which parts of the quotes are me and which are you. Maybe that will help.

Quote from: Ghost;915093"I would categorize both of those as small g good. Not capital letter g GOOD."

I get that.  But to a Catholic or Christian (or anyone who is truly religious), it is not a small g, it is a cap GOOD, so there is no difference between Christ or Heironeus or whatever for the purpose of the comparison.

Yes I am starting to think that you have a very different notion of what it means for something to be absolutely and unequivocally good than do I.

QuoteI'm pretty sure there is just from the fact that we're still talking about this, but to one of your characters, who is a Catholic, or a follower of any god, there is not, even if you as a player believe that the Christian character, playing in a morally relativistic reality, is in fact deluded. This does not matter to you, I suspect.  I'm mentioning it in reference to a point below.

Quote from: Ghost;915093I get that.  But to a Catholic or Christian (or anyone who is truly religious), it is not a small g, it is a cap GOOD, so there is no difference between Christ or Heironeus or whatever for the purpose of the comparison.

Yes I am starting to think that you have a very different notion of what it means for something to be absolutely and unequivocally good than do I.

QuoteI'm pretty sure there is just from the fact that we're still talking about this, but to one of your characters, who is a Catholic, or a follower of any god, there is not, even if you as a player believe that the Christian character, playing in a morally relativistic reality, is in fact deluded. This does not matter to you, I suspect.  I'm mentioning it in reference to a point below.

Whether 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?

QuoteIt doesn't matter. The "God of Not Lying" could have been anything BLACK and WHITE.

Could it actually be anything though? Are you saying that good and evil in the RPG setting don’t need to have any connection to concepts that we as humans in this world recognize as good and evil? So black could be WHITE and white could be BLACK in the game world. If so, I guess I can imagine that you would end up with a different sort of RPG experience, though depending on what arbitrary values you picked for BLACK and WHITE I’m not sure I’d want to play that game. More roleplaying limitations I guess.

QuoteI am explicitly responding to what I believe is your assertion that BLACK and WHITE or GOOD vs EVIL cosmology is somehow less "complex."  I do not agree with that.

You don’t have to agree. And I’m still not certain we mean the same thing by absolute good or evil.

I 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.

What is certainly more difficult than choosing the most moral action between good and evil, is knowing which action is the most moral between one good and another good, weighing the two, as it were to pick the best choice among two or more good choices. Similarly when there are no strictly good choices, only bad ones, then weighing up the bad to choose which action is the most morale by virtue of being the lesser of the evils is certainly more difficult than simply choosing good over bad. Presumably you agree. If not, they we probably do not share a similar enough view of morality to have a productive conversation.

By adding in absolute GOOD and absolute EVIL, you have simplified the decision as to which action is most morale anytime either GOOD or EVIL appears in the list of possible actions. Since GOOD is absolutely good, one should always choose that over any lesser, possibly contingent goods. And similarly, since EVIL is absolutely and uncontingently evil, one should never pick that action. The calculus of weighing moral choices is simpler with absolutes than it is without them. Which would be why I said, adding in absolutes simplifies moral choice. One now knows which action is the right action.

QuoteThe God of Truth, Lancelot, and all the rest of it deal with that, the idea that the BLACK and WHITE is less complex because it is easy to know the correct thing to do in order to satisfy your god.  What I am saying is that very outlook by its very nature is a simplistic way of viewing roleplaying itself.

You know, for a person who seems very uncomfortable when people suggest that your roleplaying might lack complexity, you make that accusation about others with some frequency.

Quote"What I am saying is that I do not see adding in absolute and detectable GOOD and EVIL adds anything to the roleplaying."

I never claimed it added anything. It's different and is not by definition either more or less interesting, complex, or valuable.  It's a different set of conditions and one that apparently makes you uncomfortable (I think...I'm still not sure).

Uncomfortable? I don’t know that uncomfortable is the right term. But "uncomfortable" is a term that, when discussing choices, sometimes is used dismissively. As in "Try it you might like it." or  “Why don’t you let yourself get out of your comfort zone for once?” or to make the speaker feel better, "Well yeah, I guess I am more comfortable with that then you are."

If including it doesn’t appear to add anything for me, then adding it seems rather pointless. I have, sitting on my shelf or saved on my computer far more RPG games, adventures, scenarios, and ideas that I can possibly hope to run or hope to play in seven lifetimes. I can’t play all of them. And neither can you.

QuoteNot the point of that example as I explained above but since you bring it up, the interpersonal dilemma and emotional issues can stand alone. The moral dilemma is separate and does add a separate and very distinct roleplaying element to the crisis. If you cannot see that, then that is where the conversation comes to a close.

The moral dilemma doesn’t require a measurable, detectable objective absolute GOOD and EVIL. I mention that, because we keep coming back to your assertion that having absolutes clearly known makes a difference to you in play. But a difference in what? It doesn’t seem to make any difference in what Lancelot’s chooses. The only thing I can figure is you feel different when you play Lancelot with measurable, detectable, absolute good and evil and without measurable, detectable, absolute good and evil .

QuoteCorrect.  Every character you ever play or GM that ever believed in or believes in an absolute, could certainly do so in the absence of actual absolutes and I am pretty sure that is what will in fact happen.  What I am getting is a variety of experiences, some with absolute truths, which I find interesting, and some with moral relativism, which I also find interesting.

Is your enjoyment that having GOOD and EVIL, even arbitrary good and evil, provides a different emotional response when you play your character?

So when you as Lancelot choose evil in a world where you know, because the setting established and the GM told you, that what Lance just did was, without question certainly, totally, and absolutely EVIL then what you get some play experience or emotional thrill that you would not get in a world where you don’t know if Lancelot’s choice is absolutely EVIL or just merely contingently evil?  So playing Lancelot in BLACK and WHITE world feels different or provides a different emotional reaction, kick, or feeling than when you are playing Bertram du Guscelin who lives in world where you the player don’t actually know if maybe Bertram killing that peasant woman was totally BLACK, or maybe it’s just black, or maybe it’s gray or, horrors, a slightly white?

And similarly if Lancelot chooses to actually do GOOD when GOOD is obvious in a world with the ame BLACK and WHITE assumptions and choice that feels different to you than when Bertram de Guscelin chooses GOOD in a world where you don’t know if he was RIGHT to do that, or merely right, or maybe even just a teensy bit wrong?

QuoteWhat are you getting by never having one of them? It seems that you are satisfying some need by only doing the one and never the other, I'm not quite sure what it is.  

Playing RPGs is a leisure activity. I wouldn’t use the word “need” to label what I choose or don’t choose in an RPG. As I said, there are way more things to play than there is time to play them.

Quote"The Dracula clip didn’t help me to understand. But that may be more about me. Vampire angst never did resonate with me." Dracula is about as far from angst as literature can go.  It's not like you're gonna find him brooding in the corner with his Immanuel Kant or something.

He, Dracula, seemed pretty angsty in the film, which was what I was responding to. And I wouldn’t expect a 15th century Transylvanian blood drinker to be all brooding about his duty and pondering whether or not blood drinking can be universalized as a categorical imperative. I’d expect Dracula to be more angsty in that “why me, woe is me” kind of narcissim that many young teens go through.

QuoteI'm absolutely certain that you're missing out, but you're doing what you're into so, what does it matter?  You're simply opting out of the absolute morality thing.  It's all good.  Just enough with the idea that it's because other people are dumb.  It's your own roleplaying limitations that determine that you only rp a certain way. Nothing else is happening.

Well I guess I will just have to soldier on bravely despite my roleplaying limitations.

Quote from: Bren;915113Well I guess I will just have to soldier on bravely despite my roleplaying limitations.

It's the same situation we're all in.

Since you guys are talking about Lancelot, if you're speaking about the Mallory version, then Lancelot dishonors himself, betray's Arthur's trust, brings discord to the Knights of the Round Table, ruins Arthur and Guinevere's marriage, basically destroys Camelot...and damns his eternal soul.  So for Lancelot the character, as well as the audience, adding that component of a Mortal Sin makes that a much more serious and powerful choice, because it has more consequences.  As far as consequences go, World < World+All Eternity.

Now, I'm guessing what's coming is that a Mortal Sin to a Catholic or violating one of the ten Commandments to a Christian is not something you would consider an Absolute.

Why don't you give an example of a couple Absolute Goods and Absolute Evils since you admit there's probably a definitional issue.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915123Since you guys are talking about Lancelot, if you're speaking about the Mallory version, then Lancelot dishonors himself, betray's Arthur's trust, brings discord to the Knights of the Round Table, ruins Arthur and Guinevere's marriage, basically destroys Camelot...and damns his eternal soul.  So for Lancelot the character, as well as the audience, adding that component of a Mortal Sin makes that a much more serious and powerful choice, because it has more consequences.  As far as consequences go, World < World+All Eternity.

Amen. I don't get the difficulty on Lancelot any more than I get not seeing the difference between Twilight and Dracula but it's not really something you can explain through elaborate layers of nested quotes either. Bleh.

Note that you don't need to have a baked-in mechanical alignment system in order to have black-and-white morality in your game. For those who don't like moral dilemmas in their gaming, it's pretty easy to accomplish this by *not having goblin babies* - and more generally by having clearly categorized characters and situations. i.e. Bad guys are clearly bad, and good guys are clearly good.

Trying to avoid moral dilemmas by having an alignment system where killing goblin babies is defined as Good is a big can of worms to open.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915068Just to clarify, I didn't say I had a problem with PCs killing goblin kids. I said I would rather avoid the subject unless it was a very serious game, for the reasons you note. I find that escapism and murder of children don't mix too well for me. And honestly, I could have a problem with it in a game of any sort if I felt the players (or the GM) were enjoying it a bit too much. Some people really do play RPGs for the wrong reasons.

So are you saying that it's not to your taste if people enjoy their dark role-playing? Or that there is something objectively wrong with it?

To my mind, it's perfectly possible for good people to enjoy role-playing evil acts.

People role-playing evil acts might be twisted or wrong in real life, but their enjoyment of the role-playing isn't proof of that.

Quote from: Bren;915041No goblin babies? Then who eats all the Happy Meals in the dungeon McDonalds?

That McDonald's is from before the age of Happy Meals.

(Also, I could TOTALLY see doing the entire "goblin dad getting Happy Meals for goblin kids" thing like the old Warner Brothers' cartoons with Sam the Sheepdog and Ralph the Coyote.  "Mornin' Sam."  "Mornin' Ralph.")

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915155That McDonald's is from before the age of Happy Meals.

I think that's true on all levels--Happy Meals were introduced in June 1979.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;915161I think that's true on all levels--Happy Meals were introduced in June 1979.

OSR Big Macs FTW!!!!!

I have to quibble with everyone saying that the cosmology of the world should be made obvious to the players.

It's not like we know in real life if God is real or if absolute morality exists. Why would the PCs.

So even if goblins are inherently evil, that doesn't mean the PCs would know that; it makes more sense that they should all act and decide it themselves amongst each other, just like morality in real life.

For 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"?

Actually, this exact situation came up in one of my games, except it was with a goblin that surrendered.

The party had killed all the other goblins, and wanted to kill this last one too. But one member, the party Fighter, argued to spare him, and basically took in the Goblin as a pet.

The party was baying for the goblin's blood, but the Fighter turned him into his butler. He'd defend the goblin when the party wanted to kick it out; when the goblin stole from other party members, he'd argue for mercy, etc. This led to many jokes and poking fun at the expense of the Fighter.

Later on, the same Fighter, who'd cared for and clothed and fed this Goblin, unceremoniously cut off the Goblin's head without warning and fed it to a monster so the monster would be distracted long enough for the party to pass. The rest of the party balked at this; even though they wanted the goblin dead originally, the Fighter basically had taken him in like a son, and so heartlessly betrayed him.

Now THAT, I would consider evil. Not because of the goblin's inherent evilness itself, but because the Fighter acknowledged the Goblin's "humanity" in his own eyes first and then betrayed him. It was all relative; it was the Fighter's actions that bestowed a moral value to it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915123Since you guys are talking about Lancelot, if you're speaking about the Mallory version, then Lancelot dishonors himself, betray's Arthur's trust, brings discord to the Knights of the Round Table, ruins Arthur and Guinevere's marriage, basically destroys Camelot...and damns his eternal soul.

Actually he went into a monastery and presumably repented, confessed, and was forgiven and was not eternally damned. But he totally broke his knightly vows as well as the the Round Table, and he can't fix that. King's getting excommunicated almost every other Tuesday back then (then being Mallory's time, in case that wasn't clear) only to provide a big fat donation and a public show of repentance and presto, sins forgiven. But the Round Table is like Humpty Dumpty. He's not putting that back together again.

QuoteSo for Lancelot the character, as well as the audience, adding that component of a Mortal Sin makes that a much more serious and powerful choice, because it has more consequences.  As far as consequences go, World < World+All Eternity.

Given the threat of damnation for an imaginary character is very imaginary, how does that eternal damnation consequence play out at the table?

QuoteNow, I'm guessing what's coming is that a Mortal Sin to a Catholic or violating one of the ten Commandments to a Christian is not something you would consider an Absolute.

Repentance. Confession. Forgiveness.

QuoteWhy don't you give an example of a couple Absolute Goods and Absolute Evils since you admit there's probably a definitional issue.

Because I'm not the one who feels there is a difference at the table playing Lancelot when the GM says, "Well Lance, you've broken your vows, dishonored yourself, screwed you best friend and his wife, destroyed the Round Table, killed your fellow knights whom you were sworn to treat as brothers. Off you go a madman in the forest, roll up another character."

Player: "Oh, man that sucks."

And the GM tacking on ""Oh and your character, when he dies in the forest, he's going to spend eternity in hell" to all that other stuff.

Can you explain what else happens for you that adds to the roleplaying experience when the GM tacks on the damnation of your imaginary character to all that other stuff?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915167I have to quibble with everyone saying that the cosmology of the world should be made obvious to the players.

That "everyone" isnt me.

As the DM. If the players ask me I'll tell them what the characters know and/or believe.

But if its ok for kobolds to eat your babies... Why is it not ok for adventurers? :confused:

Quote from: Omega;915180But if its ok for kobolds to eat your babies... Why is it not ok for adventures? :confused:

I don't care if you are some sort of hot shot adventurers. I'm still not letting you chow down on my babies. Or am I mistaken about which noun you intended that pronoun to represent?

Quote from: Bren;915177Can you explain what else happens for you that adds to the roleplaying experience when the GM tacks on the damnation of your imaginary character to all that other stuff?

Roleplaying a more difficult decision is roleplaying a more difficult decision.  Is roleplaying an alternate belief system that hard to understand?

Not going to give an example of Absolute Good or Evil in your view, huh?  Just flag all examples as not Absolute.  You're incapable of even engaging the premise, then, which explains much.  Got it. Moving on.

Quote from: jhkim;915150For those who don't like moral dilemmas in their gaming, it's pretty easy to accomplish this by *not having goblin babies* - and more generally by having clearly categorized characters and situations. i.e. Bad guys are clearly bad, and good guys are clearly good.

Or you could just treat a game like a fucking game and keep killing them thar goblin babies.

Quote from: Bren;915182I don't care if you are some sort of hot shot adventurers. I'm still not letting you chow down on my babies. Or am I mistaken about which noun you intended that pronoun to represent?

Wait... its not an adjective? :confused:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915167I have to quibble with everyone saying that the cosmology of the world should be made obvious to the players.

It's not like we know in real life if God is real or if absolute morality exists. Why would the PCs.

So even if goblins are inherently evil, that doesn't mean the PCs would know that; it makes more sense that they should all act and decide it themselves amongst each other, just like morality in real life.

I think the idea was that PCs will probably have an existing opinion based on race/culture/religion/etc...  They haven't led their whole lives up to now in a goblinless vacuum, so what have they been exposed to.  Whether it's True or not is another matter.  A Tilean Templar of Sigmar might have a different opinion then a Kislevite Priestess of Shallya, but they will probably have one.

For me the interesting question is not whether killing goblin children is per se an evil act, but what the characters believe about it and how they act on that belief.

A character might well believe that slaughtering helpless children is always an evil act, even if tey are goblins, but that allowing the goblins to grow to maturity would be a greater evil. This in character belief does not depend on the metaphysical nature of goblins or evil in the campaign world. Goblins could be little knots of "Pure Evil" walking about the world and a character could still believe that killing goblin children was an evil act.

It is easy enough to leave the gobo kiddies out of the adventure if the group would rather not deal with them. My group would most likely slaughter them without batting an eye, unless I really went for the heartstrings.

I'm murdering some goblin-kids this week in protest. I'll make sure my character worships Isis, then it'll feel more simulationist.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915167I have to quibble with everyone saying that the cosmology of the world should be made obvious to the players.

It's not like we know in real life if God is real or if absolute morality exists. Why would the PCs.

So even if goblins are inherently evil, that doesn't mean the PCs would know that; it makes more sense that they should all act and decide it themselves amongst each other, just like morality in real life.

In a D&D campaign, the gods can show up and do stuff.* Forgotten Realms, Time of Troubles, for one instance.
Not to mention Planescape.

*I suppose God showed up in the old testament, but then we'd be off on a theology tangent.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;915161I think that's true on all levels--Happy Meals were introduced in June 1979.

Well, yeah; the McDonald's on my seventh level is from 1975 or 1976.  75, I think.

Quote from: Bren;915177Can you explain what else happens for you that adds to the roleplaying experience when the GM tacks on the damnation of your imaginary character to all that other stuff?

Because 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.

Quote from: Bren;915177Because I'm not the one who feels there is a difference at the table playing Lancelot when the GM says, "Well Lance, you've broken your vows, dishonored yourself, screwed you best friend and his wife, destroyed the Round Table, killed your fellow knights whom you were sworn to treat as brothers. Off you go a madman in the forest, roll up another character."

Player: "Oh, man that sucks."

And the GM tacking on ""Oh and your character, when he dies in the forest, he's going to spend eternity in hell" to all that other stuff.

Can you explain what else happens for you that adds to the roleplaying experience when the GM tacks on the damnation of your imaginary character to all that other stuff?

This is exactly what I was getting at. You will not or can not put yourself in the role of a character who considers eternal salvation a valid concern. The difference in character outlook between one to whom this matters are profound, however there is no way to explain why to you because you are not able to understand that character's point of view.

Quote from: Kyussopeth;913942killing goblin children is evil?

In my games, evil monsters create miniature evil monsters - not "children." The miniature evil monsters are about as childish as that small-sized alien that burst from what's his name's chest in Alien and then quickly grew into a full-sized, acid-blooded killing machine. Of course, you know, some people prefer "monsters" that are basically just humans with funny features and different colored skin. If those people want to navel gaze over their "monsters," it's no concern of mine.

cool.  Enjoying the thread.  Not the shouting and telling people they are stupid so much, but its cool any way. Time for the welcome to to the internet you must be new here"

About 10 pages ago we came to an answer on killing goblin babies.

1, Nope but its no fun so they aren't there.
2. Nope but it is fun so they are there. (or even yep but its fun so we do it anyway)

3. Yep but it maybe a lesser evil so we will do it or not and deal with the consequences.  

I think everyone agreed that the players should know which game they are in.

Now ghost and Gronan are agruing about playing in a game with Absolute knowible and know Evil and Good.  

I have a quandry.  I don't actually know what EVIL is.  I know evil acts, I know, evil regiems.  But EVIL don't make sense to me.  Nihilism could be evil, but I don't think its, EVIL.  Suffering?  I dont' think so.  Sadism?  Uncontorlible Sadism? that seams like a sickness.  Cuthulu old ones and outsiders seem close, but they are just alien.    The concept of Evil is alien to me I can not wrap my head around it.  



Second the guy with the Absolute knowable evil, in the world seems to be playing an interesting (your mileage may vary) thought experiment where morality actually is absolutely culturally relative.  Or if he's not he could be.  If 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.

As I recall, atheists on the Disc world are likely to get a brick through their window.

But just because a god says they are good doesn't mean that they are.  Even if they help you out they might well oppress someone else.

What is ultimate good?  More food?  More babies?  More money?  Less work?

We all like these but all of them can be had at the expense of others.

Quote from: Headless;915238Second the guy with the Absolute knowable evil, in the world seems to be playing an interesting (your mileage may vary) thought experiment where morality actually is absolutely culturally relative.  Or if he's not he could be.  If 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.

A corollary of this (which is how I usually play it) is the Gods themselves are the personifications as part of their divine nature of those moralities and that makes it beyond them yet part of their very nature.

How that translates to how they deal with their worshipers depends on the conceits of your view of the D&D cosmology. I generally go with Primal Order - since it's fun as hell, as set of mechanics that I find useful.

It changes nothing about the act of killing Goblin, Gnoll, Nazi children. That's why my Paladins carry bags of demon-blood with them. They just spray the kids with them, rendering them cosmically evil. Then, you know... HUH-HACK!

White Wolf seems to love these sort of situations. Some of the Cryptic alliances in their d20 Gamma World were such that you could all too easily end up having to genocide whole villages or risk them spreading their faction ideal/pattern by force to other towns. Either that or risk losing your character trying to over-write them one by one.

There are times when Im up for that sort of hell. And theres lots of times Im very not.

Quote from: Manzanaro;914454Frankly, while ethics may vary, I don't think morality does to anywhere near the same degree. I feel like "Don't victimize the weak" is the invariable heart of morality, with a function on an evolutionary level, not merely one of social mores. Hell, you can even see it in a lot of animals. I'd hesitate to classify a religious stricture against eating pork as a moral tenet, though one against eating animals at all may be.

The reason I say killing goblin children MAY not be evil? In a fantasy world, you can have races that are inherently evil without deviation.

But unless everyone is playing a VERY serious game, like art level serious, I really don't want to explore that territory.

There's a reason Tolkien doesn't include orc children in LotR.

He did include them in The Hobbit, mentioning that Gollum killed one of them. This was an example of what a monster Gollum was meant to be.

Quote from: Bren;914492I don't remember that. Was it in the original Monster Manual for AD&D or did it come later, like in AD&D2?

No, he's bullshitting -as usual.

Quote from: jhkim;915150So are you saying that it's not to your taste if people enjoy their dark role-playing? Or that there is something objectively wrong with it?

To my mind, it's perfectly possible for good people to enjoy role-playing evil acts.

People role-playing evil acts might be twisted or wrong in real life, but their enjoyment of the role-playing isn't proof of that.

Okay. To me this is like asking, "So you think something is objectively wrong with punching people?" The answer is that it depends on the circumstances. Not everything in life is as clear cut as we would like it to be.

If one of my players says to me, "Hey! I think it would be cool to play a game where we are all supervillains like Suicide Squad, or Secret Six, or the Secret Society of Supervillains!" I'm not going to respond by jumping up and screaming at him for being a sick fuck. I might wonder what is up with all the "S"s in supervillain group names, but I would agree it could be fun.

On the other hand, if we are playing D&D and I mention how the innkeeper's 14 year old daughter comes out and starts clearing the plates and a player informs me that he is going to try and get the girl alone, and then rape her and murder the entire family? I am not only done gaming with that dude, but he would be well advised to stay clear of me, period.

So it's a matter of degree and circumstance. I'm not going to try and precisely define these personal boundaries for you, but I know when they get crossed.

I'm going to try and illustrate my point further with a couple hypothetical conversations, because that is how I roll.

Conversation 1

Me: Hey Bill, did you know there's a game called FATAL which seems to have some degree of focus on rape scenarios? Like, you roll up stuff like penis size and the circumference of various body orifices and there's formulas for taking damage if an object is inserted into an orifice that is too small and shit like that?

Bill: Holy fuck! That is some twisted shit! Who the fuck wants to play an RPG designed for rape simulation?

Conversation 2

Me: Hey Bill, I was running an RPG the other day, and a player had his character try to rape an NPC just out of the blue.

Bill: Oh yeah? What happened?

Me: Well, I stopped the game and kicked the guy out of the group.

Bill: That seems a little extreme, man. It's just a game. It isn't like anyone was really raped.

So, Bill now thinks that I am confused and unable to differentiate between a game and reality, despite the attitude he displayed in our first conversation.

Meanwhile, I feel very much like it's Bill who is the confused one. And I sometimes find myself amazed by the number of people who seem to think like Bill thinks (especially in conversation about RPGs in on-line forums).

Quote from: tenbones;914931This thread is so meta-as-fuck I almost put on my Powerslave t-shirt... oh wait, meta....

Despite all the armchair ethical talk, what happens at the table and what happens in the game are kinda different things. It's about the CHARACTER and what the character does. Does the character kill kids? Probably evil.

Is alignment absolute? Not unless it's magically part of their nature - which in D&D *is* a thing. So what's so fucking hard about figuring this out? Is it because players wanna cling to some ill-conceived idea their precious PC is a do-gooder whilst decapitating goblin children because their goblin parents raped the horses and road off on the women?

Why in the hell is this even a discussion at this point? It's another indicator of why "alignment" is a useless extra appendix to the D&D system

Yes.

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?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;915224In a D&D campaign, the gods can show up and do stuff.* Forgotten Realms, Time of Troubles, for one instance.
Not to mention Planescape.

*I suppose God showed up in the old testament, but then we'd be off on a theology tangent.

The D&D gods aren't like the Biblical god though. They're more like the Greek gods. In other words, not absolute arbiters of morality but just basically humans on a larger scale. So just because God #94854984 believes something doesn't mean it's objective.

Sure, the followers of that god might just go along with what that god believes and wants, but that's different than the players asking for an absolute answer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915091The financial aspects were examples because a lot of the time that's the type of "non-adventuring" behavior that arises.  Many issues with Goblins are, finances aside, going to be diplomatic and social in scope, as the tolerant PCs might have a lot of problem with their neighbors, prompting them to seek allies, probably with good or pacifistic churches, more tolerant races or cultures, etc.  Possessing such children might prompt raids to steal them back.  If this whole thing makes the PCs famous, then now they get dragged into other's political machinations, for good or ill.  Of course there's always dealing with the gobbos themselves.

It just depends on what setting, what location, what type of humanoid, etc.

If the players choose to do something, then by definition it is what they are interested in, otherwise, why do it?  If they weren't interested in dealing with the goblin children, then they should have pawned them off on someone with a bag of gold, or left them to fend for themselves.

I don't have to force things being interesting any more than I do when they're out adventuring, they'll keep themselves, and me, plenty busy.

Okay, both you and Maarzan gave answers here that are much closer to the possibilities that I would see myself. However I still stand by my contention that many GMs would not be willing or able to focus a game on this kind of thing and make it interesting. If you want to chalk that up to these GM's being shitty GMs, so be it, but they DO exist, and for evidence you can look to elsewhere in this very thread where my proposed goblin raising scenario was labeled as some bizarre hypothetical that could never conceivably arise in the course of a real game (which is kind of funny, considering that I've actually been talking to players about wanting to run this exact scenario just because of all the possibilities I think it has).

Anyway, I wanted to specifically address the part of your response that I bolded, because I think it has application to a lot of what is being discussed in this thread.

I may think that raising goblin children could make for an extremely interesting scenario. But that doesn't mean I think it could be interesting with any given GM. You see where I'm going with this?

Let's try another one. I may think it could be very interesting to be an entomologist who studies bugs in a fantasy world. But that doesn't mean I think it would be interesting in your game. And it wouldn't be fair for me to think it would be. I can't expect you to have hundreds of fascinating pages detailing the bugs of your magical D&D world. I know that you want your players to treat your game world as a real place, and you do your best to make this illusion believable but it isn't a real place. It is not fully delineated. If I were to spring upon you that I wanted my character to be an entomologist, the best I could expect would be for you to just start making up bugs on the fly, or more commonly, to use my character's interest in etomology as a background detail to draw him into more conventional sandbox adventures. And that's fine.

We are not engaging with a real world, we are engaging with a GM's partially delineated construction of a world. That's an unavoidable truth. The play experience is often best if we consciously make an effort to stick to the parts of the world that are more fully delineated (like dungeons for instance) although there are certainly GMs who are very good at delineating things on the fly.

Let's take what I am saying here and apply it to the level of Good and Evil.

Do 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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915264The D&D gods aren't like the Biblical god though. They're more like the Greek gods. In other words, not absolute arbiters of morality

The Greek gods were absolutely absolute arbiters of morality.  It's just that to the Greeks, "morality" was defined as "what makes the gods happy".

The same is true of Judeo-Christianity.

Wow, proving simultaneously that you know fuck-diddly-doo-dah about BOTH Greek mythology AND Judeo-Christian mythology.

I thought I was the only one scratching my head there...

Quote from: CRKrueger;915185Not going to give an example of Absolute Good or Evil in your view, huh?  Just flag all examples as not Absolute.  You're incapable of even engaging the premise, then, which explains much.  Got it. Moving on.

As 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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915275I thought I was the only one scratching my head there...

Merge this thread with the one about Paladins killing surrendered enemies and the whole "my interpretation of Paladins and Alignment is the only one!" standard end to these.

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. :D

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...
:D

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... :p

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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915167I have to quibble with everyone saying that the cosmology of the world should be made obvious to the players.

It's not like we know in real life if God is real or if absolute morality exists. Why would the PCs.

The effect of the world cosmology is what would be obvious to the players. You are right in that they may not know all the gritty details but they sure will see the consequences of those details.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, I am not sure what people thinking what they are trying to do. Our own history and current times has wrestled with every one of these issues that people bring up. And there are just as many answers.

For the purpose of a leisure activity what is helpful is understand that if I pick X assumptions are the consequences for my setting.

So if I have a form of absolute good and evil as part of my cosmology what are the form in which it can take. What worked for suspension of disbelief and what hasn't worked. The same with the other alternative bandied about in this thread.

Just realize that whatever is picked is an arbitrary choice by the referee for purposes of entertainment. And that choices matter only in the parts that will translate into what the players see and can interact with. Specifically the behavior of how various NPC characters. Beyond that it is just for the referee own enjoyment and has little piratical impact on the campaign.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;915264The D&D gods aren't like the Biblical god though. They're more like the Greek gods. In other words, not absolute arbiters of morality but just basically humans on a larger scale. So just because God #94854984 believes something doesn't mean it's objective.

This depends entirely upon the setting you're talking about and the GM. Campaigns and their cosmologies vary greatly.  There are monotheistic campaigns, and there are also campaigns where polytheistic gods ARE supposed to represent absolutes to the characters as defined by the setting or GM.  That doesnt mean those definitions will match what the players or GM thinks, but within the game setting they can represent absolutes of good, evil, concepts, etc...whatever the particular case.

An absolute Good vs Evil question does not always stem from a GM's "opinion" and is not doomed to be a misguided misinterpretation, substandard, stupid, or any of the other various labels being thrown around, no matter what the absolute we're talking about may be.  A setting's absolute can just be that setting's absolute.  Killing goblins could be an absolute good or an absolute evil, depending on the setting, the god, the GM...and the campaign in which either of these conditions existed could be really interesting or really lame, again depending on the circumstances. An absolute is simply a condition.  The collective ability of the players to set aside their own biases and embrace the conditions of the campaign world is just as much of a potential impediment to the success of such a campaign as the GM's. A GM's "policing" of absolutes can be tedious and even ridiculous, but some GMs are insane geniuses and sometimes campaign absolutes can be surprisingly interesting. I'd be a lot more interested in hearing about what works and doesnt work where absolutes are concerned.

Note: I dont notice anyone arguing that absolutes are always superior or that relativism is always a problem, but I notice an ironic amount of opinion amounting to "absolutism is always inferior."

Quote from: estar;915388Specifically the behavior of how various NPC characters. Beyond that it is just for the referee own enjoyment and has little piratical impact on the campaign.

Not if you worship the God of Pirates. :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;915293Cash does not equal usury.

So you have no idea how the monetary system in the modern world works or came about. Fun.

If you (general you) aren't actually claiming that the decrees of your gameworld gods have anything to do with real world good and evil, why are we having this discussion of absolute GOOD and EVIL?

In my experience (there I go with those qualifiers again) when a GM takes the role of a god of good and punishes a character, it is an impromptu judgement that the PC has transgressed against the GM's own standards. If that's not the case, why not codify what is allowable and avoid the case by case judgement calls?

"The god of righteous battle condemns back attacks, even if it is to save an innocent." Stuff like that is where you get interesting moral questions much more than, "Can you guess what the GM thinks is GOOD?"

Quote from: Manzanaro;915402If you (general you) aren't actually claiming that the decrees of your gameworld gods have anything to do with real world good and evil, why are we having this discussion of absolute GOOD and EVIL?

In my experience (there I go with those qualifiers again) when a GM takes the role of a god of good and punishes a character, it is an impromptu judgement that the PC has transgressed against the GM's own standards. If that's not the case, why not codify what is allowable and avoid the case by case judgement calls?

"The god of righteous battle condemns back attacks, even if it is to save an innocent." Stuff like that is where you get interesting moral questions much more than, "Can you guess what the GM thinks is GOOD?"

LOL this is some open-ended stuff right here. My mind! My miiiiiind!

Good Lord, if you guys thought all this time Absolute Good = Absolute Good in...
1. Our Earth
2. Middle Earth
3. The Culture
4. Westeros
5. Greyhawk
6. Every possible reality ever known...

No wonder we couldn't get anywhere, because basically you think I'm saying that my own personal interpretation of what's going on in Our Earth is what's the reality that should be imposed on Every Setting?

Ishtar/Hieroneous/The Lord of Light and even Mighty Crom on His Mountain Wept, but that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Every setting is unique unto itself.  There may not even be an Absolute Good in Setting A, but there might be in Setting B.

To be honest though, this does kinda bring us back to my idea that you have had some experiences with some dramatically shitty GMs in your day.

Quote from: David Johansen;915333If 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?

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

Quote from: David Johansen;915333If 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: jeff37923;915413I like the cut of your jib, sir.

Since in D&D you get more XP for Gold then you do for killing, then I guess D&D isn't supposed to be all about combat, it's all about Slavery, because you'll get more XP for capturing everything you see and selling it on the open market.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915402If you (general you) aren't actually claiming that the decrees of your gameworld gods have anything to do with real world good and evil, why are we having this discussion of absolute GOOD and EVIL?

Why would you be more interested in having this discussion if you thought that GMs were actually claiming that the decrees of their gameworld gods had anything to do with real world good and evil?

And it brings to mind to me, Krueger, that you're being inauthentic. You're the one who started bringing in discussion of real world religions and their application to D&D.

Now suddenly it's, "I was talking about CROM you fools."

And really, how many game settings have the premise that, "Good and evil aren't the same in this setting as they are in reality"?

Silliness.

What is different isn't the nature of good and evil. It's their application.

So you might say, "You know how in reality killing people is viewed as wrong or at least morally questionable? Well in this world, there are beings who are inalterably evil, and it is completely GOOD to kill such beings. It's like killing demons or zombies".

Just to append to this? Game of Thrones isn't powerful because Good and Evil are different there than in our world. It's powerful because they're NOT different.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915415Since in D&D you get more XP for Gold then you do for killing, then I guess D&D isn't supposed to be all about combat, it's all about Slavery, because you'll get more XP for capturing everything you see and selling it on the open market.

You can also get EXP for NOT killing people. Such as sparing someones life, sneaking past them, negotiating, etc.

Quote from: TristramEvans;915401So you have no idea how the monetary system in the modern world works or came about. Fun.

Just a quibble, the Temple was turned into a market with vendors selling wares, Doves for sacrifices (basically buying your favor for god from the priests), money changers, etc... but the parable if you were, I always learned, was that it was turning a temple into an Open Market, a place of commerce, haggling, and profit instead of worship is what caused him to flip his shit, not specifically the economics of tacking a surcharge onto moneychanging or having Wimpy pay the priests double on Tuesday for a Dove today.

Jesus had two commandments, the first one was "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."  Turning a temple of worship into a garage sale pretty much takes a gigantic dump all over that one.  Actually pretty darn simple to see why he was pissed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915415Since in D&D you get more XP for Gold then you do for killing, then I guess D&D isn't supposed to be all about combat, it's all about Slavery, because you'll get more XP for capturing everything you see and selling it on the open market.

And by taking these whelps out of that hideously dangerous dungeon environment and away from their obviously incompetent parents who put them there, the characters are doing a Good Deed.....

Quote from: Manzanaro;915420And it brings to mind to me, Krueger, that you're being inauthentic. You're the one who started bringing in discussion of real world religions and their application to D&D.

Now suddenly it's, "I was talking about CROM you fools."

And really, how many game settings have the premise that, "Good and evil aren't the same in this setting as they are in reality"?

Silliness.

What is different isn't the nature of good and evil. It's their application.

So you might say, "You know how in reality killing people is viewed as wrong or at least morally questionable? Well in this world, there are beings who are inalterably evil, and it is completely GOOD to kill such beings. It's like killing demons or zombies".

You may have been discussing application to D&D, I'm discussing application to D&D and many different settings and games which are going to have different cosmologies.  I brought up the link to real world religion because it was fairly obvious to me that to you, Bren, etc... the concept of an Absolute Good in a setting that was not our world, was unthinkable to you because of how little you think of the idea of Absolute Good or Absolute Evil used by Religion in our world.

The past few of your posts have done nothing but reinforce that idea.  Somehow to you it is more interesting to be faced with a choice to do "X" if my god Avar says "Don't do X", then being faced with a choice to do "X" if the One God of All says "Don't do "X".

If I tell players "Avar's Church says if you murder you hang for all eternity from Vulture Rock" - interesting setting to you.
If I tell players "Murder is an Absolute Evil and everyone knows you go to Hell." - I'm imposing my own personal view of Good and Evil upon the players.
Umm, ok, whatever.

Hell, man. You got it precisely twisted.

It's the idea of an ABSOLUTE GOOD in THIS world that I find wildly unfeasible.

There's nothing at all unfeasible about an ABSOLUTE GOOD in an imaginary setting. And what that would MEAN is it would be an imaginary representation of it's creator's views on what ABSOLUTE GOOD is, which as you admit, has little to no bearing on 'goodness' in reality.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915420And really, how many game settings have the premise that, "Good and evil aren't the same in this setting as they are in reality"?

Blue Rose is one.

BTW, just because the Good and Evil in Westeros aren't different from ours doesn't mean there's an absolute good, in fact the world of Westeros is pretty different from ours in that no one believes even in their own absolute good.
'

Quote from: CRKrueger;915430Blue Rose is one.

BTW, just because the Good and Evil in Westeros aren't different from ours doesn't mean there's an absolute good, in fact the world of Westeros is pretty different from ours in that no one believes even in their own absolute good.
'

Not familiar with Blue Rose, but i would assume these differences are codified, as I have suggested is ideal for gaming purposes involving following a given code of conduct. Pretty damn hard to follow a rigorous but uncodified code of conduct.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915429Hell, man. You got it precisely twisted.

It's the idea of an ABSOLUTE GOOD in THIS world that I find wildly unfeasible.

There's nothing at all unfeasible about an ABSOLUTE GOOD in an imaginary setting. And what that would MEAN is it would be an imaginary representation of it's creator's views on what ABSOLUTE GOOD is, which as you admit, has little to no bearing on 'goodness' in reality.

You just restated what I just said.  You find the concept unbelievable in our world due to how you view Religion in our world.

As a result, you think that to have such a thing in a setting is to basically be a creation of the author.  In that you would be correct.

Where your bias fails you is that it leads you to the conclusion that my creation of the Church of Avar is somehow going to be objectively more interesting and believable than my creation of an Absolute Good, One God, Dualist Cosmology, whatever.

The second failure is believing that my creation of an Absolute Good is going to be somehow affected by my personal beliefs in a way that Avar is not.

The third failure is thinking that my made up Avar will be codified fairly and my made up Absolute Good, One God, Dualist Cosmology etc, is going to require some kind of "playing the GM" to find out.

Let's put it this way. I want to make a holy knight that serves a diety. Maybe the god of light and knowledge, maybe the god of the sea and trade, maybe the goddess of healing and kindness. All of these sound like different and fun experiences to me. And so now, ideally, I can look at the basic precepts and tenets of these religions and know what I am getting into beforehand. The idea of whether you laid these tenets out "fairly" doesn't even enter my mind. If I don't like a set of tenets, I won't choose that god.

Compare that to you telling me, "To be a holy knight you must always be GOOD". Well unless you can tell me precisely what you mean by that, this becomes a campaign long guessing game where any given action on my part may be forbidden or penalised based purely on how well our notions of GOODNESS match up. And yeah, fuck that.

"To be a holy knight you must always be GOOD"

A GM doing that is just a Shit GM.  That isn't a given assuming you have a setting cosmology where there is Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, a GM can make you play pull-my-finger with the Church of Avar too.

Well, it's how paladins work in AD&D1e if memory serves. Guess there were a lot of shit GMs in those days?

And wasn't it you talking about how in your game a paladin would face repercussions if he strewed goblin entrails about in order to scare off other goblins?

How come? And where is this codified? Desecration of a corpse is EVIL even if it prevents the need for further killing?

Sounds like what you would call "shit GMing" to me.

Or just further evidence of your propensity for double standards and shifting goalposts.

Glad you like the name "Avar" though. It does have a certain ring to it.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915402If you (general you) aren't actually claiming that the decrees of your gameworld gods have anything to do with real world good and evil, why are we having this discussion of absolute GOOD and EVIL?

Because someone brought it up? (shrug). And because its impossible to have a conversation about morality or ethics that doesn't in some way involve the issue of moral absolutes, in the real world or the imaginary I suppose.

Some people think there are absolute concepts of Good an Evil in the real world, but in fantasy all bets are off.
Some people think there are absolute concepts of Good an Evil in the real world, and thus apply equally to situations in fantasy worlds.
Some people think absolute concepts of Good and Evil only exist in the imaginary world.

I seriously have no issue with any of these points of view.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915415Since in D&D you get more XP for Gold then you do for killing, then I guess D&D isn't supposed to be all about combat, it's all about Slavery, because you'll get more XP for capturing everything you see and selling it on the open market.

As an aside: in my house rules, if reduced to below 0HP by a sharp weapon, you bleed out unless someone stops you; if a blunt weapon, you just stay on -2HP or whatever.

This then explains why clerics use blunt weapons. The good clerics would rather not kill you, or do it as an execution, and the evil clerics would rather not kill you, but would like to enslave you or keep you aside for sacrifice later.

A GM could, in theory, compile the absolute, complete list of all possible acts which are Good and all possible acts which are Evil for his campaign world. We have people who try to do this for our world, they are called theologians and philosophers. I am sure we all know about how well they agree in our world...

In theory an Alignment system makes it easy to define the morality of actions. These are Good, those are Evil, these Chaotic and those Lawful. In practice it leads to many arguments and much splitting of hairs. "Killing an intelligent being is evil, but killing an evil being is good, so if I kill an Orc is that evil or good? What if the Orc murdered a family?"

Quote from: Manzanaro;915446Well, it's how paladins work in AD&D1e if memory serves. Guess there were a lot of shit GMs in those days?

And wasn't it you talking about how in your game a paladin would face repercussions if he strewed goblin entrails about in order to scare off other goblins?

How come? And where is this codified? Desecration of a corpse is EVIL even if it prevents the need for further killing?

Sounds like what you would call "shit GMing" to me.

Or just further evidence of your propensity for double standards and shifting goalposts.

Glad you like the name "Avar" though. It does have a certain ring to it.

As a side note, Paladins as a class, have to follow the alignment restrictions of Lawful/Good, not just “Good” and they also have several specific dictates they must follow.  Also, BTW, Shit GMs screwing Paladins with a pixelbitching approach to alignment is kind of an infamous cliche.  I kind of assumed that's what happened to you at some point.  That’s just a misdirection though, so let’s go back on point.

Simple Example of the point.
Q: What’s being a Priest of the God of the Sea like?
Good GM Answer: Detailed Descriptions and Codified behavior
Shit GM Answer: “Just do Sea Type Stuff”.

Q: What’s being a Priest of the Goddess of Light like?
Good GM Answer: Detailed Descriptions and Codified behavior
Shit GM Answer: “Just do Light Stuff, and hate Darkness.”

Q: What’s being a Priest of the God of Nature like?
Good GM Answer: Detailed Descriptions and Codified behavior
Shit GM Answer: “Be a Earth Guy.”

Q: What’s being a Priest of the God of Absolute Good like?
Good GM Answer: Detailed Descriptions and Codified behavior
Shit GM Answer: “Be Good.”

If that’s not obvious, not sure where to go from there.

As far as entrail stringing, let’s look at what actually was said:

Quote from: CRKrueger;914882I write a module where the enemy has younguns you're free to deal with it anyway your table wants.  Stringing the children's entrails from the battlements as a warning to others wasn't what I had in mind, and in my campaign, a Paladin who did that might be in for a bit of a shock, but if your table does that, what could I or anybody else possibly care, because it has absolutely nothing to do with me or mine.

Note: I said “enemy”, not specifically goblins.  What I had in mind by entrail stringing was more along the lines of a Silence of the Lambs display, just something crazy as an example of something that no matter what I thought of it, didn’t matter to your table. (as my explanation I thought made pretty clear.)

I then further explained it:

Quote from: CRKrueger;914893The Paladin stringing entrails was just an example of "That Guy", the person who says he's a Paladin, but is really just a KoDT caricature.

Me sanctioning a Paladin using gory tactics specifically with the intent to save lives, is an invented scenario you created from whole cloth as a distraction from the fact that you basically said the completely indefensible, namely that the Grade School Logic problem I placed up above isn’t true, and that somehow inherent to the idea of an Absolute Good/Evil in a setting is a nebulous “Mother May I”, “Playing the GM” approach to PC behavior which is obviously wrong.

A GM can give clear and fair expectations of any PC's religion.
A GM can play "Guess the way to behave" with any PC's religion.

What I said is that codification of a code of religious conduct was vastly preferable to generalities like "Follow the path of ABSOLUTE GOOD." You seem to be agreeing, so to that extent we're on the same page.

Now, where we disagree is that you seem to feel that ABSOLUTE GOODNESS could be codified in this same way, whereas I feel that goodness largely defies precise codification, as context is extremely variable, and indeed, 2 people could handle a situation entirely differently and yet both be motivated by goodnness. One man smites the enemy of the weak, the other turns his other cheek to the enemy.

Regardless, if you want to lay out a specific code and say, "This is the code of ABSOLUTE GOOD in my setting? That's fine. I may not agree with your premise, but it's workable for gaming.

As far as the goblin entrail thing? Chalk it up to faulty memory and laziness rather than a willful misreading inspired by malice.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915467What I said is that codification of a code of religious conduct was vastly preferable to generalities like "Follow the path of ABSOLUTE GOOD." You seem to be agreeing, so to that extent we're on the same page.

Yep

Quote from: Manzanaro;915467Now, where we disagree is that you seem to feel that ABSOLUTE GOODNESS could be codified in this same way, whereas I feel that goodness largely defies precise codification, as context is extremely variable, and indeed, 2 people could handle a situation entirely differently and yet both be motivated by goodnness. One man smites the enemy of the weak, the other turns his other cheek to the enemy.

Regardless, if you want to lay out a specific code and say, "This is the code of ABSOLUTE GOOD in my setting? That's fine. I may not agree with your premise, but it's workable for gaming.

I'll give you that it's more difficult than Avar and that Absolute Evil is probably way easier to define, but I don't have players grasping the dark waiting to hit them with the Gotcha hammer.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915467As far as the goblin entrail thing? Chalk it up to faulty memory and laziness rather than a willful misreading inspired by malice.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915450As an aside: in my house rules, if reduced to below 0HP by a sharp weapon, you bleed out unless someone stops you; if a blunt weapon, you just stay on -2HP or whatever.

This then explains why clerics use blunt weapons. The good clerics would rather not kill you, or do it as an execution, and the evil clerics would rather not kill you, but would like to enslave you or keep you aside for sacrifice later.

er... A blunt weapon can do alot of harm and/or kill.

Yes. But,

1. anyone who hits the negative of their Con is dead either way, and thus,
2. the foe is free to keep whacking you with the club until your head is pulp
3. the only difference between sharps and blunts is, as I said, bleeding out while unattended, and
4. it's a game

And of course then we get into, "do you really want to talk about realism in a game with ascending hit points, magic missiles and so on?" but really that's just a restatement of #4.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915415Since in D&D you get more XP for Gold then you do for killing, then I guess D&D isn't supposed to be all about combat, it's all about Slavery, because you'll get more XP for capturing everything you see and selling it on the open market.

Well, in OD&D there are rules for subduing and selling dragons, so, yeah.  And given average dice rolls, the dragon is worth approximately 75% of the total value of its hoard.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915446Well, it's how paladins work in AD&D1e if memory serves. Guess there were a lot of shit GMs in those days?

Well, there were and are.  Read any fucking thread in any fucking forum about Paladins.  Shit referees seem to take particular pleasure in doing a "sneak attack" on a Paladin's status.  My favorite was the woman who, first time she played, played a Paladin and the ref declared she was magically charmed by an NPC and had sex with the NPC and then lost her Paladin status because she was no longer pure.

There are a lot of shit referees out there.

Now, I will clearly and explicitly tell a Paladin's player if the course of action they are contemplating would endanger their status.  The only rational reaction to a referee "tricking" you into losing Paladin status is to punch him in the fucking face so hard he shits his own liver.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915423Just a quibble, the Temple was turned into a market with vendors selling wares, Doves for sacrifices (basically buying your favor for god from the priests), money changers, etc... but the parable if you were, I always learned, was that it was turning a temple into an Open Market, a place of commerce, haggling, and profit instead of worship is what caused him to flip his shit, not specifically the economics of tacking a surcharge onto moneychanging or having Wimpy pay the priests double on Tuesday for a Dove today.

Jesus had two commandments, the first one was "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."  Turning a temple of worship into a garage sale pretty much takes a gigantic dump all over that one.  Actually pretty darn simple to see why he was pissed.

Thatès a perfectly fair and well-reasoned interpretation, though Ill note that my interpretation was shared by the Christian world for the better part of a thousand years, which I think again just goes to show how little help the Bible is in providing a black and white moral outlook when its open to any number of interpretations based on what the reader wants it to say more often than not.

Quote from: TristramEvans;915485Thatès a perfectly fair and well-reasoned interpretation, though Ill note that my interpretation was shared by the Christian world for the better part of a thousand years, which I think again just goes to show how little help the Bible is in providing a black and white moral outlook when its open to any number of interpretations based on what the reader wants it to say more often than not.

Oh there's no doubt that Usury was anathema for over a thousand years.  I'm just not clear on The Clearing of the Temple Courts being the primary impetus behind that decision, but then again I've never dug into Nicea to a historical academic depth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915487Oh there's no doubt that Usury was anathema for over a thousand years.  I'm just not clear on The Clearing of the Temple Courts being the primary impetus behind that decision, but then again I've never dug into Nicea to a historical academic depth.

The prohibition against usury is based on Deut 23:19, not charging another Israelite interest, and Jesus' injuction to "love one another as I have loved you."

Who would Jesus kill?

Goblin babies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915352Take 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.

If I am playing a PC from a slave-owning culture, then my PC will be thrilled about the booty loot. If my PC is from an anti-slave culture, then freeing the slaves would be reaction. The "choice" would have been decided during chargen when I choose the PC's background and decided upon their personality.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915496If I am playing a PC from a slave-owning culture, then my PC will be thrilled about the booty loot. If my PC is from an anti-slave culture, then freeing the slaves would be reaction. The "choice" would have been decided during chargen when I choose the PC's background and decided upon their personality.

A Shemite might not think anything of it, might even have slaves of their own...but due to roleplaying interaction with some specific slaves, decide to free them.  Not because the player had in mind some great Moral Passion Play, but because they felt like it.  Then again an Aquilonian follower of Mitra might be against slavery, but the slaves are Stygian, and the money can be put to good use.  The group might be Free Companions hired to kill a rival claimant of a throne of some small eastern kingdom, see that the rival would make a better ruler and put them on the throne instead.  Players make choices and change their minds for different reasons, morals or ethics are just one of the possible factors.  No one has to be patting themselves on the back, virtue signaling from the rooftops or rubbing one out, they just have to be roleplaying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915352... 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.

Yes. My morality in gaming is not so much about requiring certain acts to be immoral in my games, but that I want my games to make sense, so much that they fail as something I want to do, when they don't. Morality issues become important for me mostly because of the inconsistency they create if ignored or not treated seriously enough. The logic either breaks down or the morality of the group erodes until the heroes are a bunch of murdering merciless greedbags whom no decent person would ever like, and who should have a blood feud with a thousand families, etc.

There's also noise on the issue of goblins because apparently many D&D worlds are full of monsters whose children may as well be mosquito larvae or giant killer wasp eggs, which sure kill them with fire, but goblins have never been that in my games (which have almost all been not D&D - in TFT, Goblins are actually pretty interesting schemer types who never tell lies but who are quite clever and try to fool you even without lying, and the orcs are basically just humans with pointy teeth/ears and a little too much testosterone).

If goblins aren't irredeemable monsters and the players aren't all in agreement they should be butchered (say, because they are all from a village which was butchered to the last child by goblins), then it seems to me that butchering their children is almost surely a crime against intelligence, because it's probably completely unnecessary, and is probably ignoring details such as them trying to escape or hide, and the details of the actual experience of trying to kill them and every party PC/NPC's reactions to the horror of that, etc.

It's a bit how I am about actual morality issues in real life, though. That is, I would be an environmentalist even if I were also an arch-capitalist multi-billionaire wanting to own the world, because I understand that if you destroy the planet as much as we have been, that the planet I want to own is going to suck and possibly not support life for my children. Ignoring that to pretend short-sighted profiteering makes sense is just stupid, even if morality didn't enter into it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;915483...punch him in the fucking face so hard he shits his own liver.

I'm going to be giggling all day thinking about the visuals for this, thanks!

"Ha, ha!  You're just a fighter now!  Your magic horse kicks you and..." *SMACK*  *SPLURGHHT*

"Holy shit, is that his...call 999 Karl is bleeding out!"

Quote from: Manzanaro;915420Game of Thrones isn't powerful because Good and Evil are different there than in our world. It's powerful because they're NOT different.

It's powerful because people interact with all that moral grey passively, like a nosy neighbor.  But when people choose active recreation (I'm directing activities) instead of passive recreation (I'm watching something as a bystander), they overwhelmingly choose activities that don't require them to make moral choices frequently, or possibly punish them for making a choice the referee sees differently.

I try to DM games for casual people who don't play RPGs as a primary hobby, but are willing to play AD&D (1E) occasionally.  I'm just looking to have fun, and play a game.  I don't care about a lot of things that many capital "G" gamers seem to care about.

As far as the intersection between alignment and killing goblin babies, this is how I look at things at my table

1. As an overarching backdrop, 1E AD&D has more in common with cinematic westerns than it does with King Arthur.  The players are exploring the wilderness, pushing the frontiers back, and making things safe for commoners to settle the newly claimed or re-claimed land.  

2. There is a cosmic conflict in AD&D, the use of the word "cosmic" appearing multiple times in the DMG alignment section.  Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, expressed through a combination of deities, and planar beings of ideal and fixed alignments, fight the battle through human proxies.  Whatever choice humanity chooses to make for itself will either tip the balance to a victor, or, preserve the status quo in a balance between all (a cosmic choice of neutrality as opposed to an existing predilection towards neutrality).  Until such an event occurs, humanity is the sole species with total freedom of alignment.  Some other races (e.g., the demis) have individuals that are variant, but as far as race/species, they are largely fixed cosmically to one side or another.  Non-playable monsters have no individual variance, and are instruments of the various alignments.  

3. "In co-operation men bring ruin upon monsterdom, for they have no upper limits as to level or acquired power from spells or items." (DMG pg. 21)  Monsters are also the opponents of humanity.  The local question for humanity is if they will get their shit together in order to eradicate monsterdom and take full and total dominion over the land.

This is all much more simplistic than real life, but it makes for a very effective game - one that casual players can immediately grasp and operate.  It also allows for a contrast between simple and complex morality.  The shallow end of the pool, where the bulk of the game is played, is against the monsters.  A goblin will always be evil.  As Chainsaw said:

Quote from: Chainsaw;915233In my games, evil monsters create miniature evil monsters - not "children." The miniature evil monsters are about as childish as that small-sized alien that burst from what's his name's chest in Alien and then quickly grew into a full-sized, acid-blooded killing machine. Of course, you know, some people prefer "monsters" that are basically just humans with funny features and different colored skin. If those people want to navel gaze over their "monsters," it's no concern of mine.

"Children" isn't an appropriate term for monsters' offspring because it is pre-loaded with suggestions of blank slate and innocence, instead of simple physical immaturity.  Monsters have immature monsters that are still monsterous and can never be anything other than monsterous.  I have no concern for what players do to physically immature monsters.  There is no moral obligation to treat them differently for their physical immaturity, because even if not the threat to an adult fighter that it's parent goblin is, it certainly is a threat to children of humans and other species that are innocent and uncomprehending.  It is both physically superior to immature humans and also fully (un)ethically functioning from the moment of its birth.  An immature goblin might tempt a human child, using its natural curiosity against it, to play out of sight of its mother into the nearby woods, where it would turn on the human child and kill it.  

While casual gaming doesn't focus on the immature monsters, once they are framed in this manner the matter takes care of itself.  And there really isn't any need to roll the dice and play it out should it be relevant.  If all the adults are killed, the rest is abstracted.  But the framing cuts off at the root most of these sorts of issues that ruin games.  

However the DM can still contrast between simple and complex reality, and make a superior game that way.  AD&D adventures where other humans or demis, instead of monsters, are the other side offer all the steamy moral greyness one could hope for.  If you want the moral quandaries, adventure in the cities.  If you want the straightforward my team/other team, head to the wilderness.  

This allows casual players to have as much or as little of either sort of game, or the perfect mix of them for that group, without ever getting moral decision fatigue that becomes un-fun and makes them want to go bowling over beers instead

Goblin children were put in the Caves of Chaos because Gary wanted to screw the paladins!

Quote from: DavetheLost;915604Goblin children were put in the Caves of Chaos because Gary wanted to screw the paladins!

Boy did he! Why theres No Paladins In BX D&D At All! Man did he have it in for paladins that they arent even in the game!

Quote from: TristramEvans;915401So you have no idea how the monetary system in the modern world works or came about. Fun.

You are conflating your modern concepts as the entirety of the modern world. Go look up Islamic "banking" as a start and how cash can be very divorced from your assumed modern concepts. Your ignorance shows. I lived that reality.

Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

I mentioned that early on but it got lost in the outrage.

But like killing. Depends on the setting. Leaving them to menace the land later could be seen as an act of evil through inaction. Or could be seen as an act of good, or even neutrality. That might cause a slight or even large alignment nudge. Or nothing at all.

As noted. In BX alignment was so fluid that pretty much anything could be friendly, or deadly hostile. You had to approach each on a case by case basis and sort it out if the DM was allowing that sort of reaction roll every encounter. Otherwise its back to the "are they attacking us?" question. If not then decide what to do. Leaving them is indeed an option. Especially if you are stumped what to do or just dont want to deal with it. Goblin kids? Give em a warning not to grow up bad like their parents or you'll come back and finish the job. Or just sweep through like the goblin equivalent of a natural disaster. Now you are the boogyman for generations of goblins. "Now dear you know if you dont eat your broccoli Skarg will appear in the night and eat you!"

There's a good reason most of us were Neutral in the original Greyhawk.  Goblins are cheap hirelings.

"Hell, yeah, of course I'll build a daycare."

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

And that's fine.  I honestly don't have any problem with that.  But when I'm playing  a good character, there are always moral issues.

So what do I do with the goblin babies?  This situation comes about after slaughtering all of, if not nearly all the other goblins.  Let's assume I've killed all the adult goblins, because that kind of thing tends to happen, and did happen in this playthrough.  What do I do about the "helpless young"?

What does "helpless young" mean?  Does it mean small children like 4 year olds?  Does it mean babies?

So, is leaving them there to fend for themselves an option?  Yes, it certainly is.  However, that doesn't exactly strike me as a good act.  I haven't really done anything to spare the goblin children.  I've merely said I'm too lazy to kill them myself.  What chance do they really have with no caregivers?  Will the orcs adopt them and care for them?  Will the minotaur turn his maze into a nursery?  Maybe.  However, I think it's more likely that the child goblins will become slaves for the other humanoids (meaning I'll have to make the decision again when I slaughter all those others), or the other humanoids will simply kill them.  Or the wilderness will be the death of them.

If some orcs have killed a merchant family, I kill the orcs, and then a human toddler is left behind.  Is it a good act to just leave it by the side of the deserted road where I found it?  Have I really given it a chance, or have I left it to die?

Do I take the leftover goblin kids with me?  Where do I take a bunch of goblin kids?  Do I take them back to the Keep?  What do I do with them once I'm there?  Will the Keep even let me bring them in?  This also goes for any adult captives.  Do they become slaves?   Does something worse happen?  I don't think the people of the Keep are going to take kindly to these kittens I've brought back.  So, once again, I've simply delayed slavery, torture, and/or death for these captives.

Do I take them as my followers and just live out in the wilderness?  IIRC, there are some bandits watching the Keep.  Do I go join them at their camp and start raising goblin children in the shadow of the Keep?  Do I find my own hill somewhere?  My options are very limited as soon as I take these things in tow.  Getting rid of them is like trying to sell old RPG stuff.  No one wants it.

In all honesty, I don't know what to do when the situation comes up.  My GM and I have talked about it, and we've agreed we don't like it, and we don't like the shadow it casts on what we're doing.  He has agreed to remove the situation from the module so we can have an enjoyable exploration and hack.  Because it's already bad enough when I cast sleep and start killing helpless targets, but at least they're intended to be combatants.

And this stuff is coming up because I'm trying to play my character in some small part like an actual person, someone who sees these things as living beings instead of obstacles in the challenge box.

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

I have simply been addressing the question asked bt the thread title. I can think of plenty of solutions to the problem that don't involve killing anybody. Goblins could make pretty good stand-ins for Oompa-Loompas...

Quote from: Gabriel2;915624As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

From the original module.

QuoteBACKGROUND
The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them. Yet, there are always certain exceptional and brave members of humanity, as well as similar individuals among its allies - dwarves, elves, and halflings - who rise above the common level and join battle to stave off the darkness which would otherwise overwhelm the land. Bold adventurers from the Realm set off for the Borderlands to seek their fortune. It is these adventurers who, provided they survive the challenge, carry the battle to the enemy.

and

QuoteSomewhere nearby, amidst the dark forests and tangled fens, are the Caves of Chaos where fell creatures lie in wait. All this you know,

So going in the adventurers have the base assumption that the place is infested with monsters that are raiding the lands around. After that you have to sort out who's who and whats what. The Lizardmen for example will leave the party alone as long as they dont bug them. But how the DM interprets and runs it is going to really be the telling factor.

The NEXT version "Caves of Chaos gives a few possible options for reasons since they removed the keep. These include the cult gathering monsters to the caves to make war, and another that has the monsters as unwilling slaves under the thrall of the cult. Or even the PCs are there to negotiate peace with the monsters. Theres mention in the text here and there of raiding. Though not who is being raided. So pretty open to approaches.

Quote from: Opaopajr;915611You are conflating your modern concepts as the entirety of the modern world. Go look up Islamic "banking" as a start and how cash can be very divorced from your assumed modern concepts. Your ignorance shows. I lived that reality.

lol, what part of "modern western society" (yes that's a direct quote from my post) uses Islamic banking?

Your argument is disingenuous, sir.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915497Players make choices and change their minds for different reasons, morals or ethics are just one of the possible factors.  No one has to be patting themselves on the back, virtue signaling from the rooftops or rubbing one out, they just have to be roleplaying.

Whose morals and ethics? The player or the PC?

If its the PC's morals and ethics deciding the actions, then its roleplaying.

Otherwise, its spank and wank. But again, if a happy group of gamers want to have a feel good session of rub & tug around the table, so be it.

Quote from: Skarg;915618Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

"Butchery & Babysitting" is gonna be the hot new OSR retroclone.

Just $200 on Kickstarter next month.

For me it comes down to how alignment and a species interact. Two models I have encountered within D&D campaigns.

1) A species listed alignment is hardwired into them. If it says all members of a species are Chaotic Evil, *all* members of a species are Chaotic Evil. Under that model killing members of that species saves the lives of innocents regardless of the age or condition (wounded for example) of that individual.

2) The alignment listed for a species is a *tendency*, the society's 'norm'. It is *not* hardwired in and many individuals will vary in their alignment. Additionally those tendencies are learned behaviors gained during the specie members upbringing. In that case, a blanket slaughter is an evil act and immoral.

I run that mortal beings have no hardwired alignments. No more than all humans or elves or dwarves are one alignment, neither are orcs or goblins or bugbears. Extraplanar beings are often hardwired and alignment variations are far more rare but not impossible. Just my two coppers.

This just illustrates why I really bloody hate "alignment" for anything besides vehicle tires and Planescape.

Quote from: Omega;915620... Leaving them to menace the land later could be seen as an act of evil through inaction.

Am I the only one who sees this line of thought as more evil than being a goblin? I feel a righteous intuition that we should kill the people who think this way. It seems like killing the righteous adult killers is far more likely to reduce the overall body count than snuffing the goblin kids.

What's the chance of orphaned goblin kids surviving in a dungeon environment and the local wilderness long enough to grow up and "menace the land"?

Quote from: Gabriel2;915624As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

And that's fine.  I honestly don't have any problem with that.  But when I'm playing  a good character, there are always moral issues.

So what do I do with the goblin babies?  This situation comes about after slaughtering all of, if not nearly all the other goblins.  Let's assume I've killed all the adult goblins, because that kind of thing tends to happen, and did happen in this playthrough.  What do I do about the "helpless young"?

What does "helpless young" mean?  Does it mean small children like 4 year olds?  Does it mean babies?

So, is leaving them there to fend for themselves an option?  Yes, it certainly is.  However, that doesn't exactly strike me as a good act.  I haven't really done anything to spare the goblin children.  I've merely said I'm too lazy to kill them myself.  What chance do they really have with no caregivers?  Will the orcs adopt them and care for them?  Will the minotaur turn his maze into a nursery?  Maybe.  However, I think it's more likely that the child goblins will become slaves for the other humanoids (meaning I'll have to make the decision again when I slaughter all those others), or the other humanoids will simply kill them.  Or the wilderness will be the death of them.

If some orcs have killed a merchant family, I kill the orcs, and then a human toddler is left behind.  Is it a good act to just leave it by the side of the deserted road where I found it?  Have I really given it a chance, or have I left it to die?

Do I take the leftover goblin kids with me?  Where do I take a bunch of goblin kids?  Do I take them back to the Keep?  What do I do with them once I'm there?  Will the Keep even let me bring them in?  This also goes for any adult captives.  Do they become slaves?   Does something worse happen?  I don't think the people of the Keep are going to take kindly to these kittens I've brought back.  So, once again, I've simply delayed slavery, torture, and/or death for these captives.

Do I take them as my followers and just live out in the wilderness?  IIRC, there are some bandits watching the Keep.  Do I go join them at their camp and start raising goblin children in the shadow of the Keep?  Do I find my own hill somewhere?  My options are very limited as soon as I take these things in tow.  Getting rid of them is like trying to sell old RPG stuff.  No one wants it.

In all honesty, I don't know what to do when the situation comes up.  My GM and I have talked about it, and we've agreed we don't like it, and we don't like the shadow it casts on what we're doing.  He has agreed to remove the situation from the module so we can have an enjoyable exploration and hack.  Because it's already bad enough when I cast sleep and start killing helpless targets, but at least they're intended to be combatants.

And this stuff is coming up because I'm trying to play my character in some small part like an actual person, someone who sees these things as living beings instead of obstacles in the challenge box.

Thanks. This adds a lot of context. I wrote a huge thoughtful reply to this, and then stupidly hit "Reply With Quote" on some other post rather than "Post Quick Reply", with the result that the browser tossed out my text with no chance to recover it. ARGH.

Um.

So, yeah. Seems like it's basically a "same page" thing, with many ways to go, and can lead to upsets if/when people aren't on the same page, which can either be interesting or not depending on the players and how it's handled.

I think it gets messy mainly when some or all of the players & GM try to ignore the situation. For example, if the players learn late that their heroic mission involves killing children that aren't clearly evil, and some players want to "just" kill them, while others aren't at all comfortable with it, and the GM doesn't handle it well. Personally I think even that situation can be interesting - sometimes I think a party breaking up and fighting each other over the game situation can be some of the more interesting parts of a game, if done well and if the players don't balk at that because it's really not the type of game they want to play.

In my games, generally the habitations and children aren't the same as the combat locations, and when they are, the children and non-combatants are generally allowed to run away and hide... people who hunt down the non-combatants are of a different moral orientation from others, as are people who feel like finding homes for orphans or not, and often they don't get along very well in adventuring (or military) parties, and that's just what it is. But even when I've had say a dwarf party sack an orc village, the orcs don't get every adult killed, and the dwarves generally don't try to chase down the non-combatants (or if they were cornered underground, probably wouldn't butcher them, unless it was revenge for that sort of act). Except in the cases where behaviour IS that bad, in which case that's that, too, but I treat it seriously. What I don't want to do is "just let" players have their PCs commit atrocities and pretend like that's normal and sort of didn't happen or isn't weird, because when I have let that slide, it seems to lead to a kind of psycopathy for the PCs, which I'm not willing to not call out for what it is.

Quote from: Tetsubo;915669For me it comes down to how alignment and a species interact. Two models I have encountered within D&D campaigns.

1) A species listed alignment is hardwired into them. If it says all members of a species are Chaotic Evil, *all* members of a species are Chaotic Evil. Under that model killing members of that species saves the lives of innocents regardless of the age or condition (wounded for example) of that individual.

2) The alignment listed for a species is a *tendency*, the society's 'norm'. It is *not* hardwired in and many individuals will vary in their alignment. Additionally those tendencies are learned behaviors gained during the specie members upbringing. In that case, a blanket slaughter is an evil act and immoral.

I run that mortal beings have no hardwired alignments. No more than all humans or elves or dwarves are one alignment, neither are orcs or goblins or bugbears. Extraplanar beings are often hardwired and alignment variations are far more rare but not impossible. Just my two coppers.

Those distinctions are pretty key in these discussions, as it feels like some people are talking about 1 and people are responding to 2 and vice versa.

Personally I take the number 2 approach in D&D, which would generally make it not good to slaughter goblin children.

Alignments and world in these kinds of situations are a bit like thought experiments. You are not being asked whether you think it is right or not in this world, but given the alignment and cosmology of the setting whether it is right. If someone goes with assumption number 1, and kills orc babies on the weekend, I don't think that reflects their personal morality in the real world. I can also buy into and run with the assumptions of a setting where there is a source of objective morality, and that source advances principles I don't agree with in real life. What matters to me more than anything is the consistency in the setting. As long as the cosmology doesn't get too wonky I can buy into it and play a lawful good paladin whose idea of goodness is quite different from my own.

Quote from: TristramEvans;915712This just illustrates why I really bloody hate "alignment" for anything besides vehicle tires and Planescape.

Planescape has alignment? When?

Planescape blurred alignment even more. Now you have nice demons and wicked angels and all that. Alignment was chucked for Factions which were all also shades of grey. That was one of the early complaints and praises of Planescape. "It turned the outer planes into Victorian London"

Quote from: Skarg;915717Am I the only one who sees this line of thought as more evil than being a goblin? I feel a righteous intuition that we should kill the people who think this way. It seems like killing the righteous adult killers is far more likely to reduce the overall body count than snuffing the goblin kids.

What's the chance of orphaned goblin kids surviving in a dungeon environment and the local wilderness long enough to grow up and "menace the land"?

In a fantasy setting? Who knows? One table may see it that way. Another wont. Thats the point.

I love all the philosophy, theosophy and deep thoughts. Genius!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;915722Those distinctions are pretty key in these discussions, as it feels like some people are talking about 1 and people are responding to 2 and vice versa.

Personally I take the number 2 approach in D&D, which would generally make it not good to slaughter goblin children.

Alignments and world in these kinds of situations are a bit like thought experiments. You are not being asked whether you think it is right or not in this world, but given the alignment and cosmology of the setting whether it is right. If someone goes with assumption number 1, and kills orc babies on the weekend, I don't think that reflects their personal morality in the real world. I can also buy into and run with the assumptions of a setting where there is a source of objective morality, and that source advances principles I don't agree with in real life. What matters to me more than anything is the consistency in the setting. As long as the cosmology doesn't get too wonky I can buy into it and play a lawful good paladin whose idea of goodness is quite different from my own.

Personally I refuse to play an evil character. Nor would I play with a character that would slaughter kids. Of any mortal race. I wouldn't make a fuss about it.  I just wouldn't play in that game again. I will play a Chaotic Neutral selfish character. I just wouldn't cross that moral line into murder. My real world morality is never far from my characters.

Quote from: Spinachcat;915657Whose morals and ethics? The player or the PC?

If its the PC's morals and ethics deciding the actions, then its roleplaying.

Otherwise, its spank and wank. But again, if a happy group of gamers want to have a feel good session of rub & tug around the table, so be it.

Yeah...people can play Yahtzee, too.

Something like this...
GM: "AHA, here I will place a Moral Dilemma."
Player1: "OHO, here is a Moral Dilemma, what fun for our PCs, eh?"
Player2: "I know my PC shall make the correct choice."
Player3: "Indeed, so shall they all."
{Everyone basks in the afterglow}
...not really what I'm talking about.

Obviously I'm talking about roleplaying.

Quote from: tenbones;915341And 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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't use it. It's like any other stat in the game, a short-hand way to describe a creature whether you're figuring out how it fights, how fast it moves, how smart it is or in this case, its morals and ethics.

Anyone making more of it than that is a tool.

Quote from: Elfdart;915757I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't use it. It's like any other stat in the game, a short-hand way to describe a creature whether you're figuring out how it fights, how fast it moves, how smart it is or in this case, its morals and ethics.

Anyone making more of it than that is a tool.

Who is more One True Wayist, the One True Wayist or the one who declares his way The False Path?

Seriously though, alignment can be quite useful in that regard, a shortcut label to describe in general overall belief, as useful as Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Pacifist, Law-Abiding or a host of other adjectives that can give you a gist.

I have never liked those GMs who use Alignment as a Gotcha! trap.  It is very easy to set up situations that almost force characters to act "out of alignment" no matter what their alignment is. But for most of us that isn't fun. It is even less fun using alignment to force a player into having their character act in ways the player doesn't find fun.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915760Who is more One True Wayist, the One True Wayist or the one who declares his way The False Path?

Seriously though, alignment can be quite useful in that regard, a shortcut label to describe in general overall belief, as useful as Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Pacifist, Law-Abiding or a host of other adjectives that can give you a gist.

It all comes down to the dichotomy between alignment as absolute or subjective. D&D can run it either way. When I play I want to run a game for heroes, I want to play a hero and I want to play with other heroes. There are lots and *lots* of morally ambiguous systems and setting and games out there if I want to play them. When I want moral ambiguity I will run a post-apocalyptic game. But I still don't want to game with those that slaughter the innocent and if I am GMing there are social and legal repercussions for being a murderer. Pay out the rope and let the players hang their own characters. No 'gotcha' moments required.

In the OP's scenario, if I were GMing it, killing goblin kids is evil. And even if there are no mortal witnesses, the gods are watching.

Quote from: Omega;915733Planescape has alignment? When?

Planescape blurred alignment even more. Now you have nice demons and wicked angels and all that. Alignment was chucked for Factions which were all also shades of grey. That was one of the early complaints and praises of Planescape. "It turned the outer planes into Victorian London"

Planescape turned Alignment from whatever arbitrary inherent code of morality its supposed to represent in D&D into philosophically-based political factions.

And yeah, I liked that the most advanced fantasy civilization in counterpart to a multiverse full of pseudo-medieval worlds had a proto-Steampunk Victorianesque culture.

Quote from: Elfdart;915757I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't use it. It's like any other stat in the game, a short-hand way to describe a creature whether you're figuring out how it fights, how fast it moves, how smart it is or in this case, its morals and ethics.

Anyone making more of it than that is a tool.

*Looks at the rules for Paladins again...*

Not that I'm against calling Gygax "a tool"

Quote from: Tetsubo;915802It all comes down to the dichotomy between alignment as absolute or subjective. D&D can run it either way. When I play I want to run a game for heroes, I want to play a hero and I want to play with other heroes. There are lots and *lots* of morally ambiguous systems and setting and games out there if I want to play them. When I want moral ambiguity I will run a post-apocalyptic game. But I still don't want to game with those that slaughter the innocent and if I am GMing there are social and legal repercussions for being a murderer. Pay out the rope and let the players hang their own characters. No 'gotcha' moments required.

In the OP's scenario, if I were GMing it, killing goblin kids is evil. And even if there are no mortal witnesses, the gods are watching.

That's generally where I stand.  But I tend to believe that one can address moral issues in a game without being exploitive or grotesque.  Really I think ignoring them or refusing to engage with the realities of violence seems more grotesque than the alternative.  At one point some of my players wanted to play Recon but one Chinese kid didn't want to play a game about killing Asian people.  I wish he'd gone for it.  I've always wanted to run Recon.  My plan was to have them run afoul a psychotic CIA spook and his hand picked platoon and have the game shift to trying to protect fleeing civilians while bringing back proof that the guy was committing atrocities.  It's Vietnam, and at some point you and a squad of VC are going to be fighting the same enemy with stupid grins on your faces.

Quote from: David Johansen;915823That's generally where I stand.  But I tend to believe that one can address moral issues in a game without being exploitive or grotesque.  Really I think ignoring them or refusing to engage with the realities of violence seems more grotesque than the alternative.  At one point some of my players wanted to play Recon but one Chinese kid didn't want to play a game about killing Asian people.  I wish he'd gone for it.  I've always wanted to run Recon.  My plan was to have them run afoul a psychotic CIA spook and his hand picked platoon and have the game shift to trying to protect fleeing civilians while bringing back proof that the guy was committing atrocities.  It's Vietnam, and at some point you and a squad of VC are going to be fighting the same enemy with stupid grins on your faces.

This is where I get to show my squeamish side. I can't imagine myself enjoying that kind of scenario. (Personally, I'm not the boss of other people's fun, etc...)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;915824This is where I get to show my squeamish side. I can't imagine myself enjoying that kind of scenario. (Personally, I'm not the boss of other people's fun, etc...)

Of course, running an open group at my store like that there's always a chance that some of the players will side with the baby killers and there will be some PVP, so it's more than a bit loaded.  My store's a bit of an odd thing and the kids that come in are often messed up or disadvantaged in some way or another so there's a really high risk of table flipping and flameouts.  As such I tend to soft ball things a fair bit.  One thing I learned from GURPS first edition, players rarely like a game where the GM keeps kicking their asses with in game tactical tricks.

Even so, Vietnam's moral ambiguity and its place in the American psyche fascinate me.  Though I'll agree that Palladium's Recon chickened out a bit when it rebuilt the game with its Hollywood fantasy world.

But when the VC show up just when all hope is lost and shot, "We've got this!  Run!"  I just think that the moment when, the PCs discover they've won over their enemies would be one of those awesome moments.

It's sad but there's games you'll never get to run because you'll never have players who can handle it.

Paladin casts Detect Evil on the goblin kids. Problem solved!

"But Omega? There are no Paladins in BX?"

aww hell. Ok could you goblin kids like hold still while we call in a Cleric to see if you are evil or not?

"But Omega? Detect evil in BX only detects evil intentions. The Goblin kids read as "kid"?"

Ok. Screw it. We are retiring and opening the Geezer Gronan Goblin Day Care!

(note: goblins reach maturity in 1 month due to their brief life spans.)

"Well that was a short retirement..."

EOTB, since you're addressing me here, I'll respond, even though I feel like much of this ground has been covered by myself and others. It's a long thread, so I can understand not catching every little tangent.

Quote from: EOTB;915585It's powerful because people interact with all that moral grey passively, like a nosy neighbor.  But when people choose active recreation (I'm directing activities) instead of passive recreation (I'm watching something as a bystander), they overwhelmingly choose activities that don't require them to make moral choices frequently, or possibly punish them for making a choice the referee sees differently.

This seems weird to me. I'm not a nosy person. Maybe that's more of a suburban trait. I think my interest in GoT (and other dramas) has nothing to do with nosiness. I identify with many of the characters, or at least see them as excellent depictions of recognizably human characters who I can sympathize with. I actually want them to succeed. Just like I want my players' characters to succeed. But I know this is not guaranteed in either case. And the characters also usually know this. And I find this to be compelling. I really can't see the whole "liking drama = being nosy" connection, and I have discussed the books and show with a significant number of people.

Also in my experience, I do not agree that people don't like entertainment about making moral choices. Do THEY THEMSELVES want to make REAL moral choices? Probably not especially. But many people like games where you make PRETEND moral choices just fine. It adds a greater sense of stakes and involvement for many people than just trying to get lots of XP and GP. Note that I am NOT talking about a GM playing moral "gotcha" with his players. Nobody likes that crap.

QuoteI try to DM games for casual people who don't play RPGs as a primary hobby, but are willing to play AD&D (1E) occasionally.  I'm just looking to have fun, and play a game.  I don't care about a lot of things that many capital "G" gamers seem to care about.

Everybody I game with these days is pretty casual. I have and still do GM for plenty of people who have never played an RPG before. We are, like you, looking to have fun, and 9 times out of 10 we do. I run everything from fantasy heart breakers, to superhero games, to Call of Cthulhu and other horror games, to stuff like Prime Time Adventures and Fiasco. There is almost always a component of moral choice, even if it is just "You guys are the good guys. How much are you willing to risk to do good?"

From here I am only going to respond in summary to a couple key points.

QuoteA goblin will always be evil.

In 1st ed AD&D, which is where the vast bulk of my D&D experience lies, this is not true by default. Goblin alignment is given as usually Neutral Evil, so it isn't a matter of evil as genetic destiny for goblins given that word: "usually". If it is different for your games, so be it. I, and many others, have agreed that it would not be evil to kill something that is inherently evil.

Quote"Children" isn't an appropriate term for monsters' offspring because it is pre-loaded with suggestions of blank slate and innocence, instead of simple physical immaturity.  Monsters have immature monsters that are still monsterous and can never be anything other than monsterous.  I have no concern for what players do to physically immature monsters.  There is no moral obligation to treat them differently for their physical immaturity, because even if not the threat to an adult fighter that it's parent goblin is, it certainly is a threat to children of humans and other species that are innocent and uncomprehending.  It is both physically superior to immature humans and also fully (un)ethically functioning from the moment of its birth.  An immature goblin might tempt a human child, using its natural curiosity against it, to play out of sight of its mother into the nearby woods, where it would turn on the human child and kill it.

Is "babies" a more appropriate and less loaded term? I don't think anyone is saying "children" because it's loaded; it's just what you naturally tend to call humanoid, uh... children. And yes, it carries connotations of innocence: a lack of moral and mental development to match the lack of physical development. That's kind of how it works. Unless they are, like, demonic entities where we might call them "spawn" or some similar term rather than children. If that is how it works in your particular version of D&D then see my comments above.

Anyway, please don't take this as me trying to give you shit, but just to answer parts of your post.

Quote from: David Johansen;915823That's generally where I stand.  But I tend to believe that one can address moral issues in a game without being exploitive or grotesque.  Really I think ignoring them or refusing to engage with the realities of violence seems more grotesque than the alternative.  At one point some of my players wanted to play Recon but one Chinese kid didn't want to play a game about killing Asian people.  I wish he'd gone for it.  I've always wanted to run Recon.  My plan was to have them run afoul a psychotic CIA spook and his hand picked platoon and have the game shift to trying to protect fleeing civilians while bringing back proof that the guy was committing atrocities.  It's Vietnam, and at some point you and a squad of VC are going to be fighting the same enemy with stupid grins on your faces.

Asking an Asian person to play in a game based on a war with Asian countries seems to me to be rather tone deaf. I'm not surprised that he wasn't interested. Any more that I would be surprised if a black person wouldn't want to play a white cop during the Watts riots. Some times things are a role-playing challenge that some players find invigorating. And sometimes they are just in poor taste. The best we can do when tackling complex moral issues is float them past our players for review. Which you did. Kudos.

Quote from: Omega;915835Paladin casts Detect Evil on the goblin kids. Problem solved!

"But Omega? There are no Paladins in BX?"

aww hell. Ok could you goblin kids like hold still while we call in a Cleric to see if you are evil or not?

"But Omega? Detect evil in BX only detects evil intentions. The Goblin kids read as "kid"?"

Ok. Screw it. We are retiring and opening the Geezer Gronan Goblin Day Care!

(note: goblins reach maturity in 1 month due to their brief life spans.)

"Well that was a short retirement..."

The Dragonstar setting had an answer for this. Detect Evil could not be used as justification for killing a sapient mortal being. It would be murder. OK, they detect as evil. But what have they *done*? It was evidence based law enforcement. Want to kill a goblin? Show that they have committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. Play in a game without the death penalty? Catch them in the act so a self-defense or defense of the innocent justification will stand up in court. Just like the real world. Killing a sapient mortal being based on a Detect Evil spell amounts to a thought pre-crime.

Quote from: Tetsubo;915843Asking an Asian person to play in a game based on a war with Asian countries seems to me to be rather tone deaf. I'm not surprised that he wasn't interested. Any more that I would be surprised if a black person wouldn't want to play a white cop during the Watts riots. Some times things are a role-playing challenge that some players find invigorating. And sometimes they are just in poor taste. The best we can do when tackling complex moral issues is float them past our players for review. Which you did. Kudos.

My last name is German, should I consider someone "tone deaf" if they ask me to play in a WWI or WWII game? Rincewind is Polish, should we abstain from inviting him to play Grey Ranks, or are those poor minorities not able to handle things the way we strong Europeans can? Asian Americans of all nationalities served in the military in the Pacific Theater of WWII, in Korea and in Vietnam.  Americans of Middle-Eastern descent, including Muslims, are serving in the military right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Asian is way too broad a brush to assume you have any idea what the player will think.  Why would a Korean player necessarily care?  Hell, if the player was Hmong, they might want to play even more.  Even if the player was Vietnamese, why would he automatically be against playing in the Vietnam War?  "Tone deaf" would be me not bringing it up because Whitey knows best.

The proposed Recon game reminds me of the plot of Apocalypse Now, which was of course the plot of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, mixed with a large helping of the Odyssey, the latter especially clear if you watch the Redux version. Not bad company to be in.

I'm a white boy and I'm not sure I would be into Viet Nam. Reskin the game somewhere/when else and I would be on it in a heartbeat.

We all have different "nope"s. For some goblin babies are not really babies, they're little monsters. I do think it's kind of a dick move to put them in an introductory module.

Quote from: DavetheLost;915849The proposed Recon game reminds me of the plot of Apocalypse Now, which was of course the plot of Conrad's Heart of Darkness, mixed with a large helping of the Odyssey, the latter especially clear if you watch the Redux version. Not bad company to be in.

I'm a white boy and I'm not sure I would be into Viet Nam. Reskin the game somewhere/when else and I would be on it in a heartbeat.

We all have different "nope"s. For some goblin babies are not really babies, they're little monsters. I do think it's kind of a dick move to put them in an introductory module.

Well it might be an indicator to the players what the tone of the campaign could be. This could be viewed as interesting or a warning.

Quote from: David Johansen;915823... Really I think ignoring them or refusing to engage with the realities of violence seems more grotesque than the alternative.

Yes, I quite agree.

I think computer games that have you "defeat" flocks of enemy humanoids with weapons such as swords or guns and shows them turn into gold stars, or even just have their bodies disappear into thin air, are worse than games that show blood and leave a pile of bodies where they fell after a battle.

I also think combat games with little or no way to die or lose or have your comrades die in combat also nerf and avoid a major part of what combat is.

Having certified pure evil humanoid races to exterminate feels a bit that way to me too, for the most part.

I have found in many games that if I don't keep some attention on the "details" of the realities of violence, especially outside of the heat of combat, and if I don't keep the NPCs being detailed personalities that really want to live, then players can slide their characters into being villains without really meaning to. I think part of it is that there is a natural tendency to cope with terrible things by laughing about it and not taking it seriously - I have that quite strongly myself, but I think there's an important line where it goes from laughing at the horror, to pretending the horror isn't horrible.

I.e. I think Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a good film for many young kids, but I am much less comfortable with them watching 1980's G.I. Joe cartoons or the A-Team, where modern gun violence almost never hurts anything but vehicles.


I agree that "baiting paladins" with gotcha code violations seems nonsense. I tend to do sort of the opposite, questioning when players try to have their PCs do things that would contradict their characters' values or nature.

(BTW it's funny to read some people invoking Christians and crusaders as examples of clear morality, considering how much of medieval Christian violence was directed at other Christians, including crusades such as the one that decided to sack Christian Constantinople on the way to holy land for loot, or the crusade against "heretic" Christians who were making the clergy look bad, or the inquisitions against other groups of heretic Christians over theological differences of opinion - the list goes on and on and on.)

The possible fate of the goblin children reminds me of what we did to the Village of Hommlet back in high school. As adolescent boys are wont to do we ransacked the place, leaving everyone dead, often butchered in creative ways. Thankfully our gaming has matured since then.  This was long before computer games. I was a new player to the group and wondered at the bloodbath. I thought maybe that was the way D&D was supposed to be.

I think RPG combat and D&D combat especially can often be too "clean". If all there is for consequences is lost Hit Points, which are easilly restored the impact of actual wounds is lost. Dead monsters seem almost to vanish like soap bubbles. I have been trying to develop ways of making combat more the last option than the first.

It is very heartening to me that people here are actually taking a deeper look at the goblin babies problem and not just seeing them as walking XP.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915840Is "babies" a more appropriate and less loaded term?

Are you a fucking retard? Jesus. /shake head at poor mental formation

Edit - I apologize; everyone should express an opinion regardless of mental deformity.

Quote from: Chainsaw;915880Are you a fucking retard? Jesus. /shake head at poor mental formation

Edit - I apologize; everyone should express an opinion regardless of mental deformity.

One of us may be. Me, when I'm trying to figure out who the fucking retard is, I put my money on the guy who says stuff like, "Are you a fucking retard??" without actually making any kind of point.

Still, I'll admit, the last one to know who the fucking retard is is often the fucking retard himself.

Quote from: Skarg;915866(BTW it's funny to read some people invoking Christians and crusaders as examples of clear morality, considering how much of medieval Christian violence was directed at other Christians, including crusades such as the one that decided to sack Christian Constantinople on the way to holy land for loot, or the crusade against "heretic" Christians who were making the clergy look bad, or the inquisitions against other groups of heretic Christians over theological differences of opinion - the list goes on and on and on.)

The point was it's exactly because of the Crusades and other real world atrocities, terrible things done falsely in the name of god, that many people can't or won't imagine the possibility of an Evil race and a Good that opposes it.  They were invoked as a false morality.

Quote from: Skarg;915866I also think combat games with little or no way to die or lose or have your comrades die in combat also nerf and avoid a major part of what combat is.

Yeah, totally agree with this. This reminds me of some years back, when I had a couple young nephews who were playing the video game Half Life. To me, young kids playing a game where you fight and kill monsters is not really a concerning issue; there's nothing bad going on there even if monsters aren't real.

But then my youngest nephew, who was having a hard time with the game, found the cheat for "god mode" where he couldn't be hurt, and he started just going around and killing monsters and soldiers and scientists and everything else. And that did rub me the wrong way. And after thinking about it a while, I realized that what had happened was that the game had changed from a combat simulation, to a murder simulation where you were killing stuff that had no defense against you.

This is pretty much the same way I feel about games that are rigged so that the "protagonists" can never die, and just go around killing other entities.

But some players just want to adventure and not delve into the aftermath of the adventure or any moral or ethical quandries. Others love that stuff. And of course others like both.

And you can get moral dilemmas without the DM even trying. "Is staking vampires and silvering weres the right thing to do if they are just normal people under a curse? A curse that can be cured?"

Much like how some players dont want to deal with the logistics of adventuring. Ammo counts, food stocks, who brought the ten foot pole, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;915866I think computer games that have you "defeat" flocks of enemy humanoids with weapons such as swords or guns and shows them turn into gold stars, or even just have their bodies disappear into thin air, are worse than games that show blood and leave a pile of bodies where they fell after a battle.

In 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.

I 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915939The point was it's exactly because of the Crusades and other real world atrocities, terrible things done falsely in the name of god, that many people can't or won't imagine the possibility of an Evil race and a Good that opposes it.  They were invoked as a false morality.

Ok. I don't think everyone was posting that way, though. Never mind, it was pages and pages ago.

Quote from: Manzanaro;915952...
But then my youngest nephew, who was having a hard time with the game, found the cheat for "god mode" where he couldn't be hurt, and he started just going around and killing monsters and soldiers and scientists and everything else. And that did rub me the wrong way. And after thinking about it a while, I realized that what had happened was that the game had changed from a combat simulation, to a murder simulation where you were killing stuff that had no defense against you.

This is pretty much the same way I feel about games that are rigged so that the "protagonists" can never die, and just go around killing other entities.

Yep, I agree. I also think that the standard mode of most computer games (the "savescum" ones, where if you die you're expected to just restore a recent saved game and keep playing like it didn't happen, until you win - it typically doesn't even record how many times on your path to victory, and generally has no effect other than that it takes you more time, breaks immersion, and makes you re-try the same thing you just did) are only one level better than that.

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

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.

Quote from: daniel_ream;916031I want one of these magical computers you're using.

Read the rest of the sentence, after the part you bolded, and it makes sense. You may need to insert the word "additional" after "zero" to make it clear what I was saying. That is, if your battleground texture is already loaded into memory, then you can have as much blood stains, scorch marks and footprints, goblin baby guts, poop, etc on your battlefield as you want, and it doesn't increase the amount of memory or CPU needed to track and display them, because they just change the data in the texture - they don't add any data or CPU work - they just change the values in the data already being used.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;916336Today 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!

That's the way is should be...
and I'd like to see-ee-ee...
the whole world,
slaughterin' goblins with me.

Have a choke and a smile.
Have a choke, and a ... smi - i - i - iiile.

:-)

Quote from: Skarg;916403Read the rest of the sentence, after the part you bolded, and it makes sense. You may need to insert the word "additional" after "zero" to make it clear what I was saying. That is, if your battleground texture is already loaded into memory, then you can have as much blood stains, scorch marks and footprints, goblin baby guts, poop, etc on your battlefield as you want, and it doesn't increase the amount of memory or CPU needed to track and display them, because they just change the data in the texture - they don't add any data or CPU work - they just change the values in the data already being used.

If you're not capable of understanding how that's going to take more memory and CPU (changing memory registers and conditionals based on game state is free in this magical computer, I see) then I can't help you.

I got so inspired by this thread that I made a blog post (similar to how I got so inspired by a burrito I ate that I made a bowel movement). I share it now with all of you so that the killing of goblin children may be enjoyed on the front page of our fabulous forums for just a little while longer.

Goblins as nasty maggot monsters

Inspired by the dilemma of this thread (and also by this rant by the spoony one (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-the-prisoner-dilemma/)) I have opted to provide a workable and disgusting solution.

(Also, I always hated that goblins had like, two clearly distinct species which were carbon-copies of each other ((I dare you to give me a concrete difference between and goblin and hobgoblin)). So I took a swing at that one too.)

The life cycle and habitat of goblins

Goblins settlements never occupy the lowest level of their environment, and with good reason: that is where both their filth and their children inhabit.

The liquid and solid refuse of a goblin infestation filters down to caverns and tunnels below them, forming a sort of sewer. When goblins breed, the females (who are indistinguishable from the males, as they are not mammals) will journey to this labyrinth to lay their eggs.

Goblin eggs are soft and slimy and laid in massive clutches, similar to frog eggs. Goblin "children" more closely resemble a hideous cross between a tadpole and a gulper eel.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]331[/ATTACH]

When goblin larva sprout limbs and venture out of their filthy spawning catacombs they are swiftly caught by the Spawn Wardens. These are goblin adults that are equal part slaver, trainer and drill sergeant. They train the spawnlings like dogs, teach them to fight and recruit them into their home clan for the glory of their leaders.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]332[/ATTACH]

Goblins who survive their harsh early years as cannon fodder grow stouter and more cunning, becoming what humans call hobgoblins.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]333[/ATTACH]

Those that live and succeed beyond this eventually grow to massive size, what men call bugbears.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]334[/ATTACH]

The goblin king (whomever that may be) is generally the eldest goblin, swollen to tremendous size from a lifetime of wickedness and excess.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]335[/ATTACH]

Why I like this

I like it because it makes you not feel bad about killing goblin babies or women. It makes women just the same as men (nasty, evil monsters) so its fine to slay them. It makes babies into gross vermin, far removed from doe-eyed, redeemable goblin babies (I think I would use the rot grub stats to represent "children").

It also makes the question of nature vs nurture academic. Goblin society harnesses the life cycle of their species into an engine creating endless cannon fodder, where the strong naturally rise to the top of the command hierarchy. Separating a goblin spawnling form this cycle would be very similar to taking a wolf from its pack. You wouldn't redeem it: you would stunt it, warp it into a thing useful for humans. I do like that it opens up "domesticated goblin" as a thing, sort of like a powerless Darby.
Maybe if the players are really torn on killing "young" goblins they can just sell them to a goblin domesticator, with methods of training them that are only dubiously ethical.

I like that goblins get bigger and nastier and rarer as they age. That fits in with the CR paradigm really well and explains why goblins get along so well with bugbears and hobgoblins and the like. It also explains why their leaders are always big gross blobs.

I like the relationship wrinkle it puts in to goblin wolf riders. They have more of a lamprey/shark thing going on now.

I like that this makes goblin cities a sort of organic outgrowth of goblin nature. It makes a species like this make sense while giving them numbers to explain their ubiquity.

So there you go. A way to make both goblins and maggots worse. Enjoy!

Quote from: Azraele;916910I got so inspired by this thread that I made a blog post (similar to how I got so inspired by a burrito I ate that I made a bowel movement). I share it now with all of you so that the killing of goblin children may be enjoyed on the front page of our fabulous forums for just a little while longer.

Goblins as nasty maggot monsters

Inspired by the dilemma of this thread (and also by this rant by the spoony one (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-the-prisoner-dilemma/)) I have opted to provide a workable and disgusting solution.

(Also, I always hated that goblins had like, two clearly distinct species which were carbon-copies of each other ((I dare you to give me a concrete difference between and goblin and hobgoblin)). So I took a swing at that one too.)

The life cycle and habitat of goblins

Goblins settlements never occupy the lowest level of their environment, and with good reason: that is where both their filth and their children inhabit.

The liquid and solid refuse of a goblin infestation filters down to caverns and tunnels below them, forming a sort of sewer. When goblins breed, the females (who are indistinguishable from the males, as they are not mammals) will journey to this labyrinth to lay their eggs.

Goblin eggs are soft and slimy and laid in massive clutches, similar to frog eggs. Goblin “children” more closely resemble a hideous cross between a tadpole and a gulper eel.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]331[/ATTACH]

When goblin larva sprout limbs and venture out of their filthy spawning catacombs they are swiftly caught by the Spawn Wardens. These are goblin adults that are equal part slaver, trainer and drill sergeant. They train the spawnlings like dogs, teach them to fight and recruit them into their home clan for the glory of their leaders.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]332[/ATTACH]

Goblins who survive their harsh early years as cannon fodder grow stouter and more cunning, becoming what humans call hobgoblins.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]333[/ATTACH]

Those that live and succeed beyond this eventually grow to massive size, what men call bugbears.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]334[/ATTACH]

The goblin king (whomever that may be) is generally the eldest goblin, swollen to tremendous size from a lifetime of wickedness and excess.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]335[/ATTACH]

Why I like this

I like it because it makes you not feel bad about killing goblin babies or women. It makes women just the same as men (nasty, evil monsters) so its fine to slay them. It makes babies into gross vermin, far removed from doe-eyed, redeemable goblin babies (I think I would use the rot grub stats to represent "children").

It also makes the question of nature vs nurture academic. Goblin society harnesses the life cycle of their species into an engine creating endless cannon fodder, where the strong naturally rise to the top of the command hierarchy. Separating a goblin spawnling form this cycle would be very similar to taking a wolf from its pack. You wouldn’t redeem it: you would stunt it, warp it into a thing useful for humans. I do like that it opens up “domesticated goblin” as a thing, sort of like a powerless Darby.
Maybe if the players are really torn on killing “young” goblins they can just sell them to a goblin domesticator, with methods of training them that are only dubiously ethical.

I like that goblins get bigger and nastier and rarer as they age. That fits in with the CR paradigm really well and explains why goblins get along so well with bugbears and hobgoblins and the like. It also explains why their leaders are always big gross blobs.

I like the relationship wrinkle it puts in to goblin wolf riders. They have more of a lamprey/shark thing going on now.

I like that this makes goblin cities a sort of organic outgrowth of goblin nature. It makes a species like this make sense while giving them numbers to explain their ubiquity.

So there you go. A way to make both goblins and maggots worse. Enjoy!

This post wins the thread.

There was one setting way back and one of the reveals was that the reason you never saw any goblin children was because they are all human children turned into these little monsters. Think it was based off some odd take on Lovecrafts Zoogs. Almost a moot point there though as they arent then goblin kids. They are adult goblins. Or whatever passes for.

Pretty sure theres a module in Dungeon that had a similar theme. Except turning them into some sort of new creature I believe. Been decades so could be wrong.

Quote from: jeff37923;916912This post wins the thread.

I agree.

This is all I really ask for, some kind of context for "goblin young."

Why even have females?  Just toss any dead gobbo into the maggot pit, as it decomposes, the maggot eggs are released and start the cycle over again.

Would make for great Warhammer Fantasy gobbos, kind of like 40k orcs, but larval instead of fungal.  Also the imagery of a gigantic, fat Great Goblin oozing maggots for the Maggot Pit brings to mind Great Unclean Ones of Nurgle, which could be apprpriate if the Gobbo Maggots act like Rot Grub.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;914365Nearest thing I can think of is the Orcs of Thar for BD&D, but it was written in a more humorous angle.

Yes, humorous, but still freaking awesome!

Quote from: David Johansen;915333If 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?

I would never ever make any goblin child who could crawl 'not a threat'.  They would be vicious little monsters.

Also, "Children of Israel" didn't mean that. They took a lot of adults captive.

Also lets not forget that the PCs may be effectively kids themselves with ages as low as 16 for a human Fighter and 14 for a half orc Fighter.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922763I would never ever make any goblin child who could crawl 'not a threat'.  They would be vicious little monsters.

Also, "Children of Israel" didn't mean that. They took a lot of adults captive.

Pundit, do you keep re-reaing this thread every week or so:)?

I wonder how much less vitriolic the discussion on the subject'd be, if it wasn't for most of us knowing That One DM who used goblin kids as a trap to make Paladin a shitty Fighter.

And good post, Azraele - I agree wholeheartedly. Ultimately, if you want there to be a Generic Monster Race THat's Always Monster, it's best to make them as monstrous as possible. Warhammer's fungi, cockney - speaking, football hooligans orcs (which I actually do not like, that is, the fungi part, but it's another subject) are one of the most recognizable orcs in tabletop gaming nowadays

Quote from: RPGPundit;922763Also, "Children of Israel" didn't mean that. They took a lot of adults captive.

Sure, but did the joke work?  Apparently not :D

Quote from: David Johansen;922835Sure, but did the joke work?  Apparently not :D

It worked for me. :)

Quote from: Rincewind1;922834I wonder how much less vitriolic the discussion on the subject'd be, if it wasn't for most of us knowing That One DM who used goblin kids as a trap to make Paladin a shitty Fighter.

Maybe I'm lucky but I can't remember, in 37 years of gaming, ever running across that kind of DM. I hear about them all the time, but I'm starting to wonder if this isn't some kind of urban legend -or just good old-fashioned bullshit.

Quote from: Elfdart;923027Maybe I'm lucky but I can't remember, in 37 years of gaming, ever running across that kind of DM. I hear about them all the time, but I'm starting to wonder if this isn't some kind of urban legend -or just good old-fashioned bullshit.

I think that the opposite is true. In about 35 years of gaming, I have only met one person who played a paladin that was not Lawful Stupid. Most Lawful Stupid paladins I have seen lost their paladinhood without any morality traps or help from the DMs.

Quote from: Elfdart;923027Maybe I'm lucky but I can't remember, in 37 years of gaming, ever running across that kind of DM. I hear about them all the time, but I'm starting to wonder if this isn't some kind of urban legend -or just good old-fashioned bullshit.

Quote from: jeff37923;923029I think that the opposite is true. In about 35 years of gaming, I have only met one person who played a paladin that was not Lawful Stupid. Most Lawful Stupid paladins I have seen lost their paladinhood without any morality traps or help from the DMs.

I suspect both of you might be right at the same time:).

In 17 years of gaming, I've seen both players getting into a GM trap* and players acting Lawful Stupid without any baiting. Some, though not all, of the latter kind then claimed it has been a GM trap all along;).
The problem is, we have no way of knowing whether it was really a GM trap, since we usually only know one side of the debate.


*Not related to paladins, but some kind of priests, since it wasn't D&D, but a Bulgarian system. It was still behaviour-based, though, but I don't remember the exact details.

Quote from: Elfdart;923027Maybe I'm lucky but I can't remember, in 37 years of gaming, ever running across that kind of DM. I hear about them all the time, but I'm starting to wonder if this isn't some kind of urban legend -or just good old-fashioned bullshit.

Never seen it myself but some of the players I've picked up from bad DMs have. In one case it was a trap meant to fuck the Paladin no matter. The other sounded from the description as a moral test gone catastropically badly. Like the DM had a pre-determined outcome in mind and when the players didnt follow that route it all imploded somehow.

Quote from: AsenRG;923032*Not related to paladins, but some kind of priests, since it wasn't D&D, but a Bulgarian system. It was still behaviour-based, though, but I don't remember the exact details.

I've heard of similar tests for clerics and even druids. But never seen myself. Im pretty sure theres been articles in Dragon way back on the idea. How to set up interesting challenges of faith or character?

Quote from: Omega;923041I've heard of similar tests for clerics and even druids. But never seen myself. Im pretty sure theres been articles in Dragon way back on the idea. How to set up interesting challenges of faith or character?

No idea whether the GM in question has read said article, so I can neither deny nor confirm a link, if that's what you were asking. To me, it seemed like a trap option put there specifically for the PC, whatever god it was following.
I suspect it was a dark god, but can't even confirm, since he got offed in a fight before we could learn his secret IC, so all I know about the matter is from restricted OOC info.

My players just killed two human toddlers to appease their evil master. If I am okay without that, I am okay with them killing goblin children too.

Quote from: AsenRG;923032I suspect both of you might be right at the same time:).

In 17 years of gaming, I've seen both players getting into a GM trap* and players acting Lawful Stupid without any baiting. Some, though not all, of the latter kind then claimed it has been a GM trap all along;).
The problem is, we have no way of knowing whether it was really a GM trap, since we usually only know one side of the debate.


*Not related to paladins, but some kind of priests, since it wasn't D&D, but a Bulgarian system. It was still behaviour-based, though, but I don't remember the exact details.

The rules can't fix stupid.
The rules can't fix asshole.

Most anecdotes about "lawful stupid Paladins" say nothing about paladins but a lot about the players.  Ditto "gotcha alignment traps."

So there's this recent story of a couple of childcare workers setting up a toddler fight club. This naturally made me think of D&D. So we could say that it's wrong to kill goblin babies, but it's not wrong to start a fight club. I mean it's how goblin babies grow up anyway. That's why there are all those 10ft pits in the dungeon, Goblin Baby Fight Club. "Two goblin babies enter, one goblin baby leaves!"

It's the only moral choice.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;923123So there's this recent story of a couple of childcare workers setting up a toddler fight club. This naturally made me think of D&D. So we could say that it's wrong to kill goblin babies, but it's not wrong to start a fight club. I mean it's how goblin babies grow up anyway. That's why there are all those 10ft pits in the dungeon, Goblin Baby Fight Club. "Two goblin babies enter, one goblin baby leaves!"

It's the only moral choice.

After you've weeded all of them out, the lone survivor, you adopt and keep on as a hireling.  Clearly that one wanted it more!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;923086The rules can't fix stupid.
The rules can't fix asshole.

Most anecdotes about "lawful stupid Paladins" say nothing about paladins but a lot about the players.  Ditto "gotcha alignment traps."

I don't disagree with any of that, actually. But how is it relevant to a post about "what probably happens in the wild areas known as 'other people's groups'":)?

If you'd notice, I never said whether it's the fault of the rules or not, and in fact, I specified the incident with the DM trap was witnessed under a system that wasn't D&D to begin with. My point wasn't related to that at all.
It was simply that both things that other posters suggested have probably happened in some groups, and that some people might be whining about it even if it was their fault;).

Now, if you'd posted "the rules can't cure stupid, asshole and whiner, but unclear behaviour-based restrictions never help, either", then it would have been relevant:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;923228Now, if you'd posted "the rules can't cure stupid, asshole and whiner, but unclear behaviour-based restrictions never help, either", then it would have been relevant:D!

DMs are players, too. I think the point is that "people are fallible creatures. We often make poor decisions, irrespective of the setting."

Quote from: darthfozzywig;923236DMs are players, too. I think the point is that "people are fallible creatures. We often make poor decisions, irrespective of the setting."

That and, as usual, what amounts to "world in motion" at one table is going to be decried as "DM fuckery!" at another and as "hmm, interesting moral dilemma" at another and as "who cares! they attacked us!" at another and as "why cant we all just get along?" at another and at another as "EVIL! Smash it!" and so on and so on.

All spawned from a simple background "This world is alive" element. It doesnt matter if its goblin kids, the village dock worker, the princess in the tower, some dragon eggs, or whatever.

Quote from: AsenRG;923228I don't disagree with any of that, actually. But how is it relevant to a post about "what probably happens in the wild areas known as 'other people's groups'":)?

If you'd notice, I never said whether it's the fault of the rules or not, and in fact, I specified the incident with the DM trap was witnessed under a system that wasn't D&D to begin with. My point wasn't related to that at all.
It was simply that both things that other posters suggested have probably happened in some groups, and that some people might be whining about it even if it was their fault;).

Now, if you'd posted "the rules can't cure stupid, asshole and whiner, but unclear behaviour-based restrictions never help, either", then it would have been relevant:D!

This is why Gronan's "Rule Zero" is "Thoroughly discuss expectations BEFORE the game even starts."

Nonsense, Gronan. It's the DM's job to impose their own expectations on the group. When in doubt, Moochava told us, bend them over the table and hump their hams (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290600#post290600).

Quote from: AsenRG;922801Pundit, do you keep re-reaing this thread every week or so:)?

Ever since I started working at Break.com, my schedule for keeping up with the threads has fallen behind somewhat.