I feel like there should maybe be a fourth category listed where instead of tailoring to player morality one tailors or is forced to tailor either to GM morality or to cultural trends within modern morality more generally. Maybe that would be two separate categories, IDK.

I prefer a vacation in my RPG playing, so I want to experience something new I cannot normally experience in my regular life. So according to that Historicist / Presentist / Bespoke framework, I would say I dislike playing and running Presentist the most. Both Historicist and Bespoke can be so alien and fantastic that I love the play like a tourist in a strange land. 

I dislike IRL politics/morality in games as a general rule, but it inevitably comes up from time to time. I've found the best way to handle it is just to gently redirect everyone's focus back to the game. You really have to be lacking in social skills after the nudge to not understand that we're not talking about that anymore. I think I've had 2 total awkward moments which happened even after the nudge in my 20 years as a GM. Combo this with fade to black for stuff like sex or whatever and it's not much of an issue. The biggest problem I think are issues like torture or interrogation, because even if you fade to black on the interrogation (as I do), you still have the question of what to do with the captive afterwards. I've seen parties come into serious conflict over this issue more than virtually any other moral issue. I don't see a clean solution to this kind of issue though. I just try to never have the captive come back to bite the party in the ass after they let them live, so long as they take reasonable precautions to prevent issues like escape or making too much noise or alerting their buddies that the party is coming, whatever.

Personally, as a player I'll either pick an interesting perspective (religion, faction, whatever) in a setting and try to fulfill it (I guess "historicism"). If I'm not drawn to anything specific, I'll usually invent my own weird philosophy or cult religion and work that out with the GM to make it fit (still I feel like it's "historicism" since it's adapted to the setting). If the setting isn't super well-defined or I'm unfamiliar with it or the GM isn't revealing much until we experience it first-hand in the campaign, then I'll usually just carry my own morality into the game and try to figure out how to integrate it into the setting or develop/deviate once I figure out how the world works. Again, feels to me like historicism.

As a GM, the only thing I ask of players is that they are always justifying, discussing, and thinking about issues from the perspective of their characters. I think it's potentially totally fine for somebody to drag in their modern morality as long as it's justifiable from the perspective of their character within the setting, without making reference to the real world (hard, then, to argue for enlightenment-era political revolution, but easier to make arguments for a lot of moral issues people care for). I think it's a little ridiculous and overly modern to say something like "what is good, what is evil?" in a setting where good and evil are literally manifested physically and you have personally seen their magic at work. You could imagine a similar or more-or-less-equivalent perspective rephrased a little that still communicates a sort of relativism.

If a player wants to play some kind of extremist or something, I'm going to expect that their form of extremism is amenable to the group as a whole. I don't want a pro-slavery character tossed into a party with a bunch of lawful good characters who hate slavery. I similarly don't want an anti-slavery character in a party of slavers (though that's way less common). I want to ensure that whatever morality a player is coming to the table with, it's appropriate for the setting and won't be disruptive to the game by either driving the party to start squabbling, or break the party apart. I care more about the long-term longevity of a campaign and its overall health than I care about a particular player's desire to roleplay something outside of the norm of the group. If I trust a player because they have a good track record, I'll let them deviate from the party as a spy or a character with mixed loyalties or whatever, but I also expect that to be relatively rare. "evil campaigns" virtually never last, and neither do edgelord/evil characters played by anyone without a lot of experience roleplaying.

Even though I no longer play with the classic alignments, I think this is probably the key strength of the alignment system. It clearly communicates where people stand on core issues and ensures the party is compatible with one another. It just ends up with a lot of people debating the exact boundaries of the alignments though, so I'm not sure it's a super great solution. Nowadays I just let people figure out how they feel about things without attaching a label, but I ensure that if there's some major theme in the setting or campaign that it's part of the premise of the campaign to build characters to work with the theme rather than spawn intra-party conflict.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
In general, I feel like many posters are disparaging "Modernist" in favor of "Historical" -- but overwhelmingly, my experience is that RPGs set in historical or pseudo-historical eras almost always use much closer to modern morals than historical morals. That's been true ever since I started gaming in the 1970s - it's not a new woke thing. Actual medieval morals for almost all societies come across as extremely callous to modern players, and simply aren't fun to most players.

That's stronger than I would put it, but the actual morality of most people in most time periods is often so alien as to be hard to comprehend. An actual medieval worldview with the centrality of religion and questions of salvation is hard for moderns to grok, so we tend to get highly simplified forms like Game of Thrones that drop/downplay the odder-to-us stuff.  Re what counts as callous; I recall a Richmal Crompton 'Just William' story for children from the mid 20th century where William enters his dog in a rat-killing competition, slaughtering rats in a pen. In the 1980s the callousness to the rats felt a bit odd. In the 21st century the idea of a 12 year old out alone doing adult stuff at all seems strange!

I do think some time periods are less strange than others - reading Virgil & Ovid & Cicero in Latin, they feel far more familiar & modern to me than much more recent writers from the Dark Ages & Middle Ages. Even Justinian's Digest of Laws from the 6th century has a fairly modern outlook. The line about slavery being ius gentium not ius natura - law of the peoples/nations, but against natural law - stuck with me.

Quote from: S'mon on June 07, 2023, 03:13:28 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
In general, I feel like many posters are disparaging "Modernist" in favor of "Historical" -- but overwhelmingly, my experience is that RPGs set in historical or pseudo-historical eras almost always use much closer to modern morals than historical morals. That's been true ever since I started gaming in the 1970s - it's not a new woke thing. Actual medieval morals for almost all societies come across as extremely callous to modern players, and simply aren't fun to most players.

That's stronger than I would put it, but the actual morality of most people in most time periods is often so alien as to be hard to comprehend. An actual medieval worldview with the centrality of religion and questions of salvation is hard for moderns to grok, so we tend to get highly simplified forms like Game of Thrones that drop/downplay the odder-to-us stuff.  Re what counts as callous; I recall a Richmal Crompton 'Just William' story for children from the mid 20th century where William enters his dog in a rat-killing competition, slaughtering rats in a pen. In the 1980s the callousness to the rats felt a bit odd. In the 21st century the idea of a 12 year old out alone doing adult stuff at all seems strange!

I do think some time periods are less strange than others - reading Virgil & Ovid & Cicero in Latin, they feel far more familiar & modern to me than much more recent writers from the Dark Ages & Middle Ages. Even Justinian's Digest of Laws from the 6th century has a fairly modern outlook. The line about slavery being ius gentium not ius natura - law of the peoples/nations, but against natural law - stuck with me.

Greetings!

Oh yeah, S'mon! I love that. "The Code of Justinian." I've always been fascinated by how, for example, in the Scriptures, Solomon talks about "There being nothing new under the sun." Throughout the ancient world, while it I true that they largely embraced a world view very different from the modern age, there re still examples of very modern thinking and philosophies popping up here and there, in ancient Greece, in Rome, in the Persian Empire, as well as with Emperor Ashoka, of the Chandragupta Empire in India, and also over in South-East Asia, and up in China.

Emperor Ashoka declared that animals have rights, and dictated in official laws how animals were to be treated, killed, and eaten. The world's first veterinary hospitals were instituted in India, for example, back in the 2nd or 3rd centuries A.D.

At my university, I remember discussing ancient India with my mentor and professor, Dr. Kaminsky. He talked about how for centuries in ancient India--lie back to 1,000 B.C. and such, all the way through history, there were all kinds of scholars and monks in India, promoting and writing about different philosophies, morals, and how mankind should live, think, and behave, how we relate to the divine heavens, how we relate to animals, sexual morals, political morals, rights and duties, all of this kind of stuff. He said anything and everything going on with philosophers in ancient Greece and Rome, was also being discussed passionately throughout ancient India. (Understandably, he, Dr. Kaminsky, had something of a friendly rivalry with my other mentor, and professor, Dr. Hood. Dr. Hood was my professor of Ancient Greece and Rome, while Dr. Kaminsky was professor of Ancient India and East Asian Studies. Their respective debates and arguments were always amusing! Each would argue through me, back and forth, with "What did Dr. Hood say again? No, no. This is what was really going on. Tell him I said that, too!" And so on. They largely agreed on the bigger picture of history, but, you now, "The Devil is in the details!" Dr. Kaminsky routinely charged Dr. Hood with being a Romanophile, while Dr. Hood smirked and would state that Dr. Kaminsky was an Indiaphile! *Laughing*

I of course think that modern morality and sensibilities have *some* role in our gaming, after all, embracing ancient world thinking for everything can also become kind of alien and disconcerting. I like Historical based culture, not merely for immersion, but also as a narrative thingy for Players to leave modern thinking behind, and put on some ancient thinking, as a way for fun, and also learning a few things about ancient history along the way!

Under no circumstances do I let modern sensitivities and thinking become the dominant or default position though. I exercise a strong hand definitely towards keeping most modern politic and such out, definitely. Politics *IN WORlD* though, is very much a source of discussion and debate.

I remember watching frequent outbursts amongst my payers about the human empire, the Vallorean Empire, encroaching upon and muscling in on lands belonging to the Elves of Rhaethillien. The Elven players and the Vallorean players--OMG, right? Their debates were furious! They were not typically directly involved, but their cultures, and their governments were definitely engaged in some kind of friction. The Elves of Rhaethillien resented being politically side-lined by the Valloreans, who viewed themselves as the "Guardians of the West"--and so all the little kingdoms needed to get with the "Vallorean program". Oh, the *Howling* involved!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

For the vast majority of my campaigns there is no one morality standard. What is considered morally acceptable varies depending on regional culture. A typical fantasy city ruled by humans that promotes law & order would have different moral standards compared to a faraway land inhabited by savage warring tribes. It is these kinds of clashes in moral values that provide great roleplaying opportunities. If the entire game world followed a set of identical values, then conflict and opportunities for interesting roleplay would be diminished.

Shark:

"Vallorean" Guardians of the West vs the Belgariad's "Mallorean?" 

I've often contemplated using the nations of the Belgariad. The national stereotypes are so much fun!

Quote from: Baron on June 07, 2023, 10:50:48 AM
Shark:

"Vallorean" Guardians of the West vs the Belgariad's "Mallorean?" 

I've often contemplated using the nations of the Belgariad. The national stereotypes are so much fun!

Greetings!

Hah, my friend! Sure! I suppose the Valloreans view themselves as such from being ruling a vast domain that backs up to the great sea in the west, so their "it" so to speak. They are definitely a stand-in for a Roman Empire. They act very much like Romans. *Laughing* They offer many nations status as being "Friends of Vallorea." Being friends with Vallorea has many, many benefits!

The perhaps ironic thing is that the Valloreans do not view such political relationships as being weak, empty diplomacy and "Useless Talk and Promises"--They actually have become somewhat infamous for backing it up in full. They bring in a Vallorean military administration, huge merchant caravans bring vast quantities of Vallorean trade goods into the country, a fully sponsored diplomatic embassy, and a large, ferocious Vallorean army.

Of course, as that kind of presence naturally requires spiritual and religious support, right? RIGHT! So, the Valloreans also sponsor the establishment of numerous Vallorean temples, as well as Vallorean priests and missionaries.

Gradually, sooner rather than later, it becomes expedient and reasonable to honorably retire whatever native, indigenous political leadership that might exist, and install a fully-fledged Vallorean political structure and administration. Or, by then, the indigenous political leadership fully embraces the Vallorean culture, and becomes a client state. They are thus on the road to becoming an official province of the Vallorean Empire. Yes, the Vallorean Peace.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
Historical Hebrews in Egypt might have been treated better than Africans in the Old South, but that doesn't mean they were beloved pseudo-family members like fictional Uncle Remus (especially the Disney version that doesn't even mention slavery).

Uncle Remus wasn't a slave in the stories or film. They're set in the Reconstruction.

I generally see one of three broad domains.  Either the player has buy-in to explore a character with a foreign morality, or you make exceptions for bespoke morality, or you get used to players embracing the Fundamental Moral Value.

In one campaign I'm in, I'm playing a World of Darkness Changeling.  My morality is specific not just to the specific world, but my specific character.  My character is (and needed to be, in order to escape his Keeper) utterly opposed to slavery, confinement, bondage, and all of that, and would never ever inflict that on another sentient being and even gets tetchy around leashed dogs...and also is, by human standards, extremely murderous, because if you can't use imprisonment and you can't involve the police in any disputes, and you know that if a dispute gets escalated it is very likely that the police get involved and someone gets locked up, then you either stick with polite requests or you shoot, shovel, and shut up, and his fey magic makes him very good at both.

In another superhero game I'm running, I had a player who had connections to the Yakuza as part of their backstory, and as an ongoing game element.  So I introduced a faction of the Yakuza called the Kaze that splintered off in the 80s and had been feuding with them ever since, and pushed off all the human-trafficky and similar misdeeds onto them, leaving the Yakuza-proper weaker, poorer, and with cleaner (albeit not actually clean) hands, which made them appropriate for PC involvement without the need for a "Fuck it, burn it all down." from the players.

And conversely, in an Eberron campaign, I once tossed my PC group of elite mercenaries into the goblin nation of Darguun, which was basically Fantasy Fucking Afganistan.  The players spent some time making a deep effort to understand the cultures of the various goblin troops, and once they'd gotten what they felt was a fair understanding, and then spent their time kicking over the nation and setting it up for it to be conquered by Droaam or worse before skedaddling.

The fundamental rule of morality is power.  Genghis Khan has the power to conquer nations and slaughter hundreds of thousands, and did just that.  But individual PCs have the power to find out which parts of the Mongol empire are most crucial to their rule, go there, dress up as partisans of that nation, slaughter a Mongol messenger, then skedaddle and watch as the Mongols cleanse a crucial part of their imperial infrastructure, and then repeat, until a critical mass of nations in the Empire are at the "Well, the penalty for having one of my co-ethnics commit a crime against the Khan is genocide, the penalty for rebellion is also genocide, and someone's already gotten the Mongols genociding four other areas at the moment, so..." stage.

I guess the point is that you need to consider not just morality, but engagement.  When it's established as a setting rule that in City X, women are subservient to men and this is enforced with strictures A, B, and C, then you don't need players to accept the morality of City X, but you do need them to be prepared to deal with A, B, and C if they want to make a point of it.  But once you've done that, then you get "Oh, please, come quickly! An assassin has stabbed my beloved father and run off! Alas, I, as a weak, foolish woman, could do nothing to stop him and was frozen in fear the entire time!"  And, in so doing, you are respecting the actual morality of the time, by engaging with the public morals of the time instead of insisting that your character can do anything without consequence.

I prefer my fantasy setting(s) have the same "morality system" as the real world and 99.9% of all fictional settings everywhere:

Might Makes Right.

What did Michael Corleone say? "Power wears out those who do not have it." 

Good vid.

With fantasy morals, it's all relative to the type of game you want to play. Hopefully, you play with people who can easily separate fact from fiction and realize that it is not in any way representative of ones 'real-life' morals - Unless you're some kind of retard or schizo who can't.

Fact is any moral ideology can be justified in fiction, and the problem isn't that everything is political, but that some people believe everything is endorsement/advocacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:25:16 PM
By luck at first and then by design (gatekeeping my table) I've never run with any issue regarding the morality of the game world, I'm on the fade to black lot's of stuff camp, or just plain don't say it happens:

Rape, it does happen but it's never explicitly said so much less described.
Torture, it happens but it's always fade to black, never described.
Slavery, it happens, it's described as a bad thing or as something normal for a culture of the game world,
Sex, it happens (of course) but it's always fade to black.

Those are my rules due to MY sensibilities, I don't subject others to stuff and in return I don't play in tables where those rules aren't followed, I'm at the table to game not to help someone get his rocks off.

Likewise, I sit at the table to get away from the real world, if ANYONE wants to inject current day issues, morals, etc in the game someone is leaving the table (It could be me if it's not MY table).

I see you endorse safety tools like lines and veils.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM
I haven't seen the video yet,

Doesn't take much effort to do so before commenting you know.

You don't have to endorse X-cards to not want to roleplay a torture scene. Not everyone thinks the Saw franchise is the pinnacle of cinema.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 09, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
Fact is any moral ideology can be justified in fiction, and the problem isn't that everything is political, but that some people believe everything is endorsement/advocacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:25:16 PM
By luck at first and then by design (gatekeeping my table) I've never run with any issue regarding the morality of the game world, I'm on the fade to black lot's of stuff camp, or just plain don't say it happens:

Rape, it does happen but it's never explicitly said so much less described.
Torture, it happens but it's always fade to black, never described.
Slavery, it happens, it's described as a bad thing or as something normal for a culture of the game world,
Sex, it happens (of course) but it's always fade to black.

Those are my rules due to MY sensibilities, I don't subject others to stuff and in return I don't play in tables where those rules aren't followed, I'm at the table to game not to help someone get his rocks off.

Likewise, I sit at the table to get away from the real world, if ANYONE wants to inject current day issues, morals, etc in the game someone is leaving the table (It could be me if it's not MY table).

I see you endorse safety tools like lines and veils.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM
I haven't seen the video yet,

Doesn't take much effort to do so before commenting you know.

I see you like to lie about other people.

My assertion about you is true, yours about me isn't:

It's not about "safety" it's about shit I don't want to see/hear/imagine in my entertainment, the same reason I don't watch gore movies.