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.