Quote from: MarcoI think it's wrong to intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone in a significant way simply because you find it fun--especially if this involves taking advantage of someone or taking advantage of someone's trust.

Okay.  How much of your concern there is vested in the idea that it is the hurting, itself, which is fun?

How about if I find it fun to win, and winning will hurt someone's feelings, but it's not the hurting that I find fun.  Is it still wrong?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIf he's deliberately closing his eyes to prevailing cultural assumptions against backstabbing, and he's simply assuming, without anything to support it, that these players probably don't hold to those assumptions, then the bulk of the blame lies with the backstabber.

Do you think that there is such a "prevailing cultural assumption"?  Is a competitive player obligated to check his asusmptions at the door, while a cooperative player is allowed to assume away?

Quote from: TonyLBDo you think that there is such a "prevailing cultural assumption"?

Actually, I think there is, but I don't feel very certain about that.

However, I don't know what your actual experiences have been, but if I found that I was often at odds with the assumptions of my fellow players, I'd take that as a sign that I should make a greater effort to communicate about those things when getting together with a group of people I don't know (and who don't know me). In other words, if a lot of people think you're a dick after you play with them, you probably are a dick.

(BTW, don't take any of this to mean that I, personally, prefer to assume cooperation. I like multiplayer boardgames like a maniac, and there's nothing finer than sticking it to the other guy. I'd like to be freer to do that in an RPG context; however, most RPG systems I've seen aren't very good at handling interplayer conflict. I think they're particularly bad at handling actual in-game betrayal. Whereas I can think of a few boardgames where calling someone a dick and cursing them would be a compliment.)

QuoteIs a competitive player obligated to check his asusmptions at the door, while a cooperative player is allowed to assume away?

I think I answered this above: it depends. Usually, if things go wrong, more than one party is at fault. (Though not necessarily to the same degree--and I can certainly see the possibility of the cooperative player being more in the wrong. For example if I was playing a game with you after being involved in this discussion, I think it'd be wrong for me to be upset if I willingly got in a game with you, didn't clarify expectations, didn't protect myself, and got screwed over. Of course protection might mean preempting at the first opportunity...)

But let me add: two wrongs don't make a right. While it might seem like they cancel each other out if you're trying to assign blame after the fact, I believe it's wrong to take someone else's failure of responsibility as carte blanche to do them wrong.

Edit: If we don't have a good idea of what we can assume, it's our responsibility to communicate.

Quote from: TonyLBHow about if I find it fun to win, and winning will hurt someone's feelings, but it's not the hurting that I find fun.  Is it still wrong?

If it's taking advantage of people: Yes, still wrong, IMO. The dating-guy isn't primarily interested in inflicting pain either--he's just after his own pleasure.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf it's taking advantage of people: Yes, still wrong, IMO.

I don't know quite what you mean by "taking advantage of people."  Certainly I know the phrase, but you could mean many things by it.

Suppose I want my character to ascend the throne, and Jenny wants her character to ascend the throne.  I create a whispering campaign that undermines several of her key allies.  Therefore, my guy ascends the throne.  Jenny didn't get what she wanted, and she's upset about that.  I knew that she would be upset if I succeeded in what I was trying, and I did it anyway.

Bang!  I've just intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone.  I have gained advantage thereby.  Is that taking advantage of Jenny?  Is doing that wrong?

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know quite what you mean by "taking advantage of people."  Certainly I know the phrase, but you could mean many things by it.

Suppose I want my character to ascend the throne, and Jenny wants her character to ascend the throne.  I create a whispering campaign that undermines several of her key allies.  Therefore, my guy ascends the throne.  Jenny didn't get what she wanted, and she's upset about that.  I knew that she would be upset if I succeeded in what I was trying, and I did it anyway.

Bang!  I've just intentionally and non-consensually hurt someone.  I have gained advantage thereby.  Is that taking advantage of Jenny?  Is doing that wrong?

Maybe. In hypotheticals there's all kinds of stuff we don't/can't know. If Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her, if you knew that (and of course you could claim you didn't or that there was some lack of clarity--but absent any rhetorical games) and you took advantage of that trust, then yes: Wrong.

In most RPGs I have *ever* played--with many, many people--that trust has been there.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoIf Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her,

If Jenny is part of this team of mutal trust with him, shouldn't she be the one supporting his claim the throne then?

QuoteIn most RPGs I have *ever* played--with many, many people--that trust has been there.

If two players have mutally exclusive goals (like in the example above) for their characters how is it resolved in your games then?

Is it simply a case of "first dibbs"?

See in the games I've played the only trust is that events that happen in character at the table, are resolved in character and players are adult enough not to let in character disagreements spill over in real life fights or grudges.

So in the case above if both players wanted the throne then everything up to and including assassination plots are fair game, it just depends on how far they want to take it. In D&D that sort of thing can be controlled my the DM to some level by insisting on all GOOD alignments, but in other game systems and with wider alignment restrictions, then Player on Player is more likely to happen, if such mutally exclusive goals can't be resolved by peaceful in character negociation.

Quote from: MarcoMaybe. In hypotheticals there's all kinds of stuff we don't/can't know. If Jenny trusted you to be part of a team with her, if you knew that (and of course you could claim you didn't or that there was some lack of clarity--but absent any rhetorical games) and you took advantage of that trust, then yes: Wrong.

Yes, in hypotheticals there are lots of unknowns.  We don't know, for instance, what Jenny's hair color is.  We also don't care, because it's not relevant to the moral issue involved.  You can decide whether I've acted morally, without reference to whether she's blond or brunette.

But maybe you can't decide whether I've acted morally without reference to whether I deliberately abused her trust.  That makes me think that maybe the question of abuse of trust is tied up in this moral issue a bit more tightly than the "it's especially immoral if it's an abuse of trust" rider that you had originally.

So:  Do you believe that intentionally, non-consensually hurting someone is always wrong, without reference to whether there's been an abuse of trust?

Do you believe that abusing someone's trust is always wrong, without reference to whether it hurts them?

Are you sure that you draw your moral lines in practice where you've claimed they are in theory?

Quote from: BagpussIf Jenny is part of this team of mutal trust with him, shouldn't she be the one supporting his claim the throne then?

It's a hypothetical. Given all kinds of possible conditions it can go all kinds of possible ways.

QuoteIf two players have mutally exclusive goals (like in the example above) for their characters how is it resolved in your games then?

Is it simply a case of "first dibbs"?

The agreement to compete is made OOC first and then IC so everyone is on the same page--not via ambush. If Jenny starts setting things up and I want the same thing, I don't sabotage her after a lengthy period of cooperative play, I say: "My character (and I) want the same position--we're having an election--maybe even a dirty one!"

If we can't resolve things after that, cool--we shouldn't play together. But as soon as I move from a cooperative condition to a competitive one, I'll announce it (instead of, for example, passing notes to the GM--or simply ambushing Jenny in the middle of a scene with sabotage).

-Marco

Quote from: BagpussSee in the games I've played the only trust is that events that happen in character at the table, are resolved in character and players are adult enough not to let in character disagreements spill over in real life fights or grudges.

I also wanted to comment on this: I don't know you or your group--but I expect there are levels this agreement cannot and will not reach. If you were ever emotionally attached to an NPC and a player decided to have his character torture, rape, and kill the NPC in a graphic fashion, knowing full well (perhaps counting on?) that attachment to hurt you, I doubt you would consider it 'just a game.' Not if it were ugly and pointed enough.

I think there's an illusion in this thread that the position I'm taking is Competition==bad. Cooperation==good. That's not the case. The case is that competiton, when the other person does not expect it is a violation of trust that is, essentially, OOC.

The game rules may *not* prohibit the act--but, like the girl on the date who trusts in a certain standard of human decency *in addition* to the rules--violating that trust is, IMO, a wrong.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBYes, in hypotheticals there are lots of unknowns.  We don't know, for instance, what Jenny's hair color is.  We also don't care, because it's not relevant to the moral issue involved.  You can decide whether I've acted morally, without reference to whether she's blond or brunette.

But maybe you can't decide whether I've acted morally without reference to whether I deliberately abused her trust.  That makes me think that maybe the question of abuse of trust is tied up in this moral issue a bit more tightly than the "it's especially immoral if it's an abuse of trust" rider that you had originally.

I think intentional sadism with a non-conesensual partner is wrong.

QuoteSo:  Do you believe that intentionally, non-consensually hurting someone is always wrong, without reference to whether there's been an abuse of trust?

No. But I think the concept covers a pretty broad spectrum of interactions that are carried out with even a moderate amount of human decency.

QuoteDo you believe that abusing someone's trust is always wrong, without reference to whether it hurts them?

No. But I think the concept covers a pretty broad spectrum of interactions that are carried out with even a moderate amount of human decency.

QuoteAre you sure that you draw your moral lines in practice where you've claimed they are in theory?

I'm not 100% sure my position is 100% consistent across all possibilities, no. However I'm not basing my morality on some set of rules in a book. I'm basing them on the idea that I don't like having my trust violated and I don't like being hurt/ambushed.

I'm not trying to justify behavior of mine that involves having fun at the expense of others.

Btw: complaining about this thread on story games isn't, IMO, especially classy.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think there's an illusion in this thread that the position I'm taking is Competition==bad. Cooperation==good. That's not the case. The case is that competiton, when the other person does not expect it is a violation of trust that is, essentially, OOC.

My point would be that it being a game and that disagreements occur in character that competition should be expected, and is the norm so it should never be unexpect or need to be announced.

Announcing you are plotting against a fellow player, relies on them not acting on that OOC information, something many players find tricky. If you hand your plots over to the DM then he can leak what he wants to the other player IC, and so it can keep the game play in character.

QuoteThe game rules may *not* prohibit the act--but, like the girl on the date who trusts in a certain standard of human decency *in addition* to the rules--violating that trust is, IMO, a wrong.

It's not fair comparison, after all that situation is real life and your talking about real harm to a real person.

In a game I'm talking about harm to a character, it is just a game after all, there are plenty of things that can harm or kill your character, you don't get is a fit if an NPC plots against you why should you get upset is a PC does?

Quote from: BagpussMy point would be that it being a game and that disagreements occur in character that competition should be expected, and is the norm so it should never be unexpect or need to be announced.

Announcing you are plotting against a fellow player, relies on them not acting on that OOC information, something many players find tricky. If you hand your plots over to the DM then he can leak what he wants to the other player IC, and so it can keep the game play in character.

I don't think that's an honest assessment. in fact I'm pretty sure that's not true. Many books suggest that PCs are a team in ways not codified by actual rules. Games like Paranoia distinguish themselves by a PvP focus. Etc.

I don't believe it's especially credible to say that there is an expectation of finding Player vs Player in RPGs the same way there is in chess.

QuoteIt's not fair comparison, after all that situation is real life and your talking about real harm to a real person.

In a game I'm talking about harm to a character, it is just a game after all, there are plenty of things that can harm or kill your character, you don't get is a fit if an NPC plots against you why should you get upset is a PC does?

In the dating example:
(a) The forum is a game (the dating-game is, as I've said, a cliche).
(b) There's no violence. There is deception (doubling drinks) but no force.
(c) The amount of harm is indeterminate. The victim might regret it a few days later--she might just be pissed off. She might be traumatized. If this behavior is wrong, it's wrong regardless of the harm.

I'll also note that lots of people have spoken up about how there can be emotional harm (even trauma ... even brain damage) from RPGs. Ask Chris Chinn. Ask Ben Leyman.

The amount of harm done is not the relevant factor.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI'm not 100% sure my position is 100% consistent across all possibilities, no. However I'm not basing my morality on some set of rules in a book. I'm basing them on the idea that I don't like having my trust violated and I don't like being hurt/ambushed.

Well, I don't grant you that a morality based on what you like and don't like is either consistent or sensible.

The fact that you don't like traffic does not mean that other people are immoral for using the roads.  The fact that you want money does not mean that people are morally obliged to give it to you.

So, you're saying that you don't like it when people play RPGs in a way that puts their fun above yours?  That makes sense.  I can see why you wouldn't like that.  But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

There may well be a solid, cogent argument for why it is, in fact, wrong ... but "I don't like it" isn't that argument.

Quote from: TonyLBThere may well be a solid, cogent argument for why it is, in fact, wrong ... but "I don't like it" isn't that argument.

Sorry--I should clarify that I also believe it is wrong. I don't like people taking advantage of other's trusts in a predatory fashion and I also believe it is wrong. Since we are, in fact, drawing that distinction, I'll be clear about it.

-Marco