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.