Long time reader, I think it's been a while since I last posted, but I have a good question here.

Over at another board related to Internet Philosopher Stefan Molyneux, I started a thread to see if I can implement his theory of Universally Preferred Behavior in an RPG setting.  For those who don't know, it's a theory about a set list of ethical behavior that is valid across all civilizations and cultures.  In the RPG setting, it would be a Code on what a proper Heroic Adventurer would be (as opposed to being a Murder Hobo).  In the end, I decided that adventuring parties who abided by this Code would be awarded with more gold and magic items, and maybe comped rooms and meals.

The hard part, which is why I'm posting here, is what to put into this Code.

I have three rules so far, which I want to further haggle with you all, but I wanted to have about five to seven more to have a present list:

1:  Whenever two adventuring parties have a conflict in the field, they must settle their differences through a non-violent means of their choice.  This can include a game of skill or chance.

2:  Use Minimum Necessary Force, only do just enough violence to resolve any conflict and no farther.

3:  All weapons and spells must be used with the utmost respect.

Any and all thoughts on these and other newer items to put in there will be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

What is the goal?

Universal ethical behavior doesn't make sense when we are dealing with fantasy realms. The gods of a culture will define its "ethics". The fact monsters exist, and many monsters are intelligent alters ethics even further.

But overall, it seems what you want was achieved with the D&D alignment chart in the 70s. AKA, the DM can tell the players that everyone has to be Lawful Good as that's the underlying concept of the campaign.

Quote from: DavidFoxfire;1033483Long time reader, I think it's been a while since I last posted, but I have a good question here.

Over at another board related to Internet Philosopher Stefan Molyneux, I started a thread to see if I can implement his theory of Universally Preferred Behavior in an RPG setting.  For those who don't know, it's a theory about a set list of ethical behavior that is valid across all civilizations and cultures.

"Philosophy" might come up with the idea of such list of behaviours. Anthropology says that the idea is mistaken, at least when you're relying that a given rule has the same connotations;). Like, "do not kill" might pertain to everyone, just to members of your own ethnicity, of your own religion, of both, or just your relatives. And in some cases, there will be "exceptions" where it's permitted.
And in some cases, the "exceptions" would include "because I can".
When in doubt, always listen to anthropology:p!

Of course, that's nitpicking. There might easily exist such a list that pertains to your whole setting, so in what concerns us, nothing prevents you from doing that for your own games:)!

Quote1:  Whenever two adventuring parties have a conflict in the field, they must settle their differences through a non-violent means of their choice.  This can include a game of skill or chance.

2:  Use Minimum Necessary Force, only do just enough violence to resolve any conflict and no farther.

3:  All weapons and spells must be used with the utmost respect.

OK, I see the first.
The second item on the list, not so much... not without a clear idea what "resolving" a conflict means. If a group of bandits ambushes them, and the adventurers turn them to a run, do they shoot the survivors in the backs? Do they leave them to regroup and try their luck on a "softer" target, another day?
The third just requires explanation. What is "proper respect"?

Personally, I'd make it more general, and judge them for obeying the spirit, not the letter of the Code. Yes, they're going to hate that:D!

• Show humanity to everyone but the undeserving. Do not knowingly harm the undeserving.


• Be sincere. Lie is the first step towards corruption.
• Show courage when it's the right moment.
• Respect and obey your superiors.
• Keep your honour.
• Be loyal to your associates.
• Respect the elders.
• Strive to be wise.

Of course, that's just me!

Quote from: DavidFoxfire;1033483Long time reader, I think it's been a while since I last posted, but I have a good question here.

Over at another board related to Internet Philosopher Stefan Molyneux, I started a thread to see if I can implement his theory of Universally Preferred Behavior in an RPG setting.  For those who don't know, it's a theory about a set list of ethical behavior that is valid across all civilizations and cultures.  In the RPG setting, it would be a Code on what a proper Heroic Adventurer would be (as opposed to being a Murder Hobo).  In the end, I decided that adventuring parties who abided by this Code would be awarded with more gold and magic items, and maybe comped rooms and meals.

The hard part, which is why I'm posting here, is what to put into this Code.

I have three rules so far, which I want to further haggle with you all, but I wanted to have about five to seven more to have a present list:

1:  Whenever two adventuring parties have a conflict in the field, they must settle their differences through a non-violent means of their choice.  This can include a game of skill or chance.

2:  Use Minimum Necessary Force, only do just enough violence to resolve any conflict and no farther.

3:  All weapons and spells must be used with the utmost respect.

Any and all thoughts on these and other newer items to put in there will be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

All honourable and with the best of intentions, I am sure.

What would probably happen is that one group will break the code, kill all the people in another group, take their stuff and blame bandits.

Personally, I am all in favour of having a Contract for a group of Adventurers.

If you have an Adventurers' Guild, then they would also have a Contract. Any groups of Adventurers that belong to the Guild must include the Guild's codes in their Contracts.

That way, Adventurers know what is expected of them and have a legal means of resolving differences and a way of being punished if they break the agreements.

To AsernRG
For the uninitiated, "Anthropology" is defined as "the study of humans and human behaviour and societies in the past and present."  That's something I will be doing in the future, and I'll be chronicling my progress with a "Public Brainstorming Notebook" that I publish on and off in DriveThruRPG.  Issue 6 of this book are in the works now.
So you like the first, and have problems understanding the other two.  That's understandable for now, since I'm still working on this part.  The part about "Minimum Necessary Force" is to curtail against escalating violence. (Read, dealing with a single Zombie with a 5th Level Fireball.) And "Proper Respect for Weapons" is there because, in this campaign world, there are guns present.  You'd won't mess around with something that could kill you if you found it in real life, would you?
Having the party follow the spirit and not the letter is the reason being me creating this code in the first place, and it'll be how I'd DM. (Your Mileage may Very)
I'll take the eight points you gave and work with them a bit more, and repost my developments on a later post.

To Soltakss
Yeah, I know that some group would probably pull off a dick move or another.  In a typical campaign, I'd have the PCs be a party in a guild and have this Code be written in their contract.

Quote from: DavidFoxfire;1034288To AsernRG
For the uninitiated, "Anthropology" is defined as "the study of humans and human behaviour and societies in the past and present."

Yes, I know. I've studied it a bit:).
And my point was that studying humans in the past and present quickly shows that no "universal ethics" exist, unless you make them so vague as to be worthless. But that's actually irrelevant (and not worth arguing about) because you can easily have universal ethic rules that apply to the whole of your setting!
AFAICT, that's exactly what you are trying to do, right?

QuoteSo you like the first, and have problems understanding the other two.  That's understandable for now, since I'm still working on this part.

Actually, that was me saying politely "I don't see that working, unless you have player buy-in".
And that's actually my best advice. Get the players to like the idea. And I mean like, not accept grudgingly! Then ask them to play a game where they're following the spirit of said rules - and if the like them enough, maybe they're even preserving them (by ensuring other people follow them).
Then you don't need to formulate them in legalese;).

QuoteThe part about "Minimum Necessary Force" is to curtail against escalating violence. (Read, dealing with a single Zombie with a 5th Level Fireball.)

Still sounds like a too modern idea.
"Use overwhelming force but avoid property damage" is more along the lines of what I can see working in a medieval or early modern society.

QuoteAnd "Proper Respect for Weapons" is there because, in this campaign world, there are guns present.  You'd won't mess around with something that could kill you if you found it in real life, would you?

I mess around with such items pretty much regularly, actually:D! And I've had people trying to cut my head off (as it turned out, a reenactment sword someone else was using was actually sharper than it was allowed by the event's rules).
And guns are no different from a machete. It can kill you, too, and just as quickly (though it's marginally easier to dodge).

QuoteI'll take the eight points you gave and work with them a bit more, and repost my developments on a later post.

OK, I'm likely to be around here.

FWIW, I came up with those by adapting a real-world warrior code for the goals of your campaign. You have three guesses which one;).

Quote from: DavidFoxfire;1033483Any and all thoughts on these and other newer items to put in there will be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

I will tell you exactly what will happen. Unless there is a higher authority to enforce the peace. The moment one adventuring party feel that the another adventuring party fucked them over or one of their friend it devolves into free fire zone.

The best historical model for the D&D adventuring party are the 4th and 5th century Germanic warbands and the later Viking warbands. Vendetta and blood feuds will be rampant until a strong central authority emerges.

Played boffer LARPS for ten years most of it with NERO who doesn't restrict PvP conflict. I seen the "you screwed us now we will screw you over" played out in countless variations. It can even afflict the relationships within the group. One foundation of the issue is that greed and the acquisition of stuff is the primary motivator. The other that the group of adventurers has a shared experience of overcoming difficult challenges. These makes tight knit bonds the norm and heightened sensitivity to events that causes loss of wealth.

Ethics are universal... within the "people."

It's all about who counts as "people."  "That's not one of the people, that's a talking walking snake!"(Sioux)  If you want your players to all be Lawful Good, you'd be better off simply saying so.

Quote from: DavidFoxfire;1034288You'd won't mess around with something that could kill you if you found it in real life, would you?

You've obviously never seen how 90% of the people out there handle sharp swords, or how a significant minority of gun owners fuck around with their guns, have you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035734Ethics are universal... within the "people."

It's all about who counts as "people."  "That's not one of the people, that's a talking walking snake!"(Sioux)  If you want your players to all be Lawful Good, you'd be better off simply saying so.

Not quite universal, no:). The main points are, yes, but there's almost always, shall we say, exceptions!
And then we run the gamut from "the people" being your own family, through "the people" being your own clan, tribe, village or ethnicity, to "the people" being all those of your religion.
And those look rather different depending on whether the society is limited to and includes "the people", or contains other elements that aren't people, properly speaking;). Thuggee stranglers are different from Northerners going a-viking, though they're both predating on "not-people"!

And then we get to the rules that apply to "not-people". And those might actually vary rather wildly:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1035758And then we run the gamut from "the people" being your own family, through "the people" being your own clan, tribe, village or ethnicity, to "the people" being all those of your religion.

I think that's exactly what was meant.

Quote from: AsenRG;1035758And then we get to the rules that apply to "not-people". And those might actually vary rather wildly:D!

That was also implied.

My People, Your People, Their People, all have different social mores and morals, some might overlap, some might be completely different.