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.  
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.