Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

I do realize some roleplayers like kill them all as a solution either because it simplifies the game for them or because they are used to it from CRPGs and video games and just don't know any better. You seem like you fall in the former group but just aren't willing to admit your preference, so you hide it behind your erroneous assumptions about lack of resources mandating a take no prisoners attitude.

History can inform your decision but unless you are playing a historical RPG you shouldn't allow it to dictate everything (lets be honest any D&D game with magic especailly cantrip type magic has no relationship to history anyway). What plays best and what is internally consistent with the world is all that matters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838641History can inform your decision but unless you are playing a historical RPG you shouldn't allow it to dictate everything (lets be honest any D&D game with magic especailly cantrip type magic has no relationship to history anyway). What plays best and what is internally consistent with the world is all that matters.

Sure. I don't think I've said otherwise. If I did, that wasn't my intent.

Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

I do realize some roleplayers like kill them all as a solution either because it simplifies the game for them or because they are used to it from CRPGs and video games and just don't know any better. You seem like you fall in the former group but just aren't willing to admit your preference, so you hide it behind your erroneous assumptions about lack of resources mandating a take no prisoners attitude.

Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever).  I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838519Some of them.  At least one priest went on trial in London for going about dressed as a nobleman, getting in an argument with somebody's squire, and killing him with a sword.

He got off by pleading clergy.

I think I remember this one, or a pretty similar one. Wasn't the dispute over their mistresses, or am I mixing it with another occasion of a fighting priest:D?
(I don't see how this relates to Good people. Killing a man over a dispute wasn't the expected, default option in any age I've studied. Resolving the dispute was.
Killing a man over a dispute still happens today, cue biker bars. Just like before, we don't label those people as Capital G Good. Maybe people had a more relaxed attitude towards it if it was a matter of honour, but killing still wasn't the default reaction, just a more likely one.
After all the clergyman in your example was judged, too, if he had to plead anything. Someone in his situation who wasn't a clergyman couldn't plead clergy. Stands to reason the same someone might have been successfully prosecuted).

Quote from: Bren;838425No you still aren't reading me right. The PCs have demonstrated how dangerous they are. As I already said the villagers would try to placate the murderous strangers who throat slit the pleading bandits who foolishly surrender to the PCs now known as The Black Death.

Of course they will offer the PCs whatever they can. Food, drink, lodging, maybe even bed partners. The PCs have already demonstrated they are way more dangerous and at least as ruthless as the bandits that have been plaguing the villagers. Of course the sheriff would thank the PCs to their face because he doesn't want to die and, if he is a good sheriff, he doesn't want any of his people to die and these PCs are as deadly as the plague. The rescued women were witnesses to what the PCs did to every last one of the bandits. Depending on the NPC villagers personalities, moralities, and experiences with the bandits many villagers may be truly grateful to the PCs. Nearly all of them will fear the PCs. And they will all tell stories about how deadly the PCs are. And those stories will grow in the telling.

Quote from: Bren;838638Mostly out of history books. Since fantasy RPGs aren't usually fantasy England, I read about more than just England. Real societies have been finding different solutions for what to do about opponents who surrender and prisoners long before Britain was invaded by those smelly Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Kill them all is a by no means a universal historical solution.

None of these contradicts a "period" attitude on the part of the NPCs. In fact, it would be the "period" attitude for many if not most places:).
Of course, different periods and different lands would differ;).

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

(snipped)

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

Ahem, the Swedish foreign affairs minister recently used "Medieval punishment" as a derogatory term towards another country's judicial system. Something being lawful doesn't make it necessarily a Good thing.
As CBrady stated, things back then were dictated by resource scarcity more than anything. I wouldn't use them as an example of Good system, though. A Neutral one at best, I'd say.
And yes, the same distinction might be lost on your 14th century knight.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever).  I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

Speaking only for myself, I hate "Ren Faire with Magicke" settings. Fun fact, this is is exactly why I had to mostly avoid D&D and D&D-alike systems for the first decade of my playing and running games.
(Most people around here had come to associate the system with a setting where people seem to be our contemporaries in a pseudo medieval fantasy world, at least where attitudes were concerned.
In the last several years, I no longer needed to do that - but then the GMs I play with lately wouldn't touch D&D with a 10-foot pole. So my research whether the mechanics are really tied to the implied setting remains inconclusive).
Still, I'm prone to assume it wasn't the system's fault so much as the fault of popular examples of it (like some CRPGs, which probably just wanted to avoid being too gritty).

Quote from: AsenRG;838671Speaking only for myself, I hate "Ren Faire with Magicke" settings. Fun fact, this is is exactly why I had to mostly avoid D&D and D&D-alike systems for the first decade of my playing and running games.
(Most people around here had come to associate the system with a setting where people seem to be our contemporaries in a pseudo medieval fantasy world, at least where attitudes were concerned.
In the last several years, I no longer needed to do that - but then the GMs I play with lately wouldn't touch D&D with a 10-foot pole. So my research whether the mechanics are really tied to the implied setting remains inconclusive).
Still, I'm prone to assume it wasn't the system's fault so much as the fault of popular examples of it (like some CRPGs, which probably just wanted to avoid being too gritty).

First off D&D isn't a historic role-playing game its a fantasy role-playing game. Its origins are at least as much Jack Vance as they are the siege of Vienna. Thus modern 21st century morality might be entirely appropriate or might not be depending on the DM's whim. The same is true of any fantasy game.
The key is it has to be internally consistent. Now obviously that is easier to do through simply copying the laws and mores of a particular time or culture because even the inconsistencies in a "real" system tend to be consistent.
However, if everyone did that we would never have had Lord of Light, Amber, Discworld, let alone Cudgel the Clever and The Dying Earth....

Whitebox FATAL

Seriously though, maybe a OSR-based Indiana Jones/Pulp Adventure type game.

or a Top Secret clone.

Quote from: Old Geezer;838658Speaking only for myself, most of my studies of the medieval period have concentrated on England and France so that's my strongest influence.

My point is twofold; first, medieval justice was pretty fuckin' brutal by our standards, and secondly, people back then thought differently.

I am frankly mostly trying to get people to think about how maybe their D&D characters wouldn't think like early 21st Century Americans (or whatever). I have always been annoyed by what I call "Renaissace Faire with Magicke" fantasy; people have thoroughly modern attitudes, speech, and mannerisms in a pseudo medieval fantasy world.  Turning the "City Watch" into a modern police force is a prime example.

I expect my 14th century French D&D Paladin to act differently from my Green Lantern.

I have no issue with wanting players to play their character as if he or she lived in the setting.

Now it's possible you are not reading all the thread of the conversation, but are like that guy in the bar who responds to one snippet of conversation that catches his ear. That's fine, but it makes for a frustrating back and forth if you continue to reply to me while ignoring most of what I am actually saying so you can respond to unnamed people who aren't me.

My original point was, depending on the setting, 21st century Morality may or may not fit, and if it does not, then what we classify as 'Good' may change depending.

At the same time, the DM has (assuming he's the only one building the setting, some players prefer it that way, some do not) the 'right' (I suppose you could call it) to dictate what Alignment (assuming you use it, in 5e it really is less mandatory than in earlier editions due to the lack of Detect X Alignment spells now) means in what context.

But in MY personal opinion, certain things are still 'evil' actions, like torture or outright genocide and those inform the way I run my Fantasy games.

For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838690For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Thing is, Lawful Good can have lot's of variations, in my opinion.  Not all Paladins can or will agree on certain aspects, but underneath it all (again, my view here) as long as it's vaguely lawful (in terms of a moral code, whether it's societal or personal) and generally good, I don't see the issue.

Part of the issue with Alignment is that some people feel that to have the same alignment, means the characters who share that alignment has to react the same way.  I do not believe this, and so I make sure that my players know that they can be different, but still have the same alignment.

Quote from: jibbajibba;838679First off D&D isn't a historic role-playing game its a fantasy role-playing game. Its origins are at least as much Jack Vance as they are the siege of Vienna. Thus modern 21st century morality might be entirely appropriate or might not be depending on the DM's whim. The same is true of any fantasy game.
The key is it has to be internally consistent. Now obviously that is easier to do through simply copying the laws and mores of a particular time or culture because even the inconsistencies in a "real" system tend to be consistent.
However, if everyone did that we would never have had Lord of Light, Amber, Discworld, let alone Cudgel the Clever and The Dying Earth....

Well, sure, when did I say D&D requires a historical setting? For that matter, where did anyone say that?
What OG said, and I concurred, was that a D&D setting* where people live in pseudofantasyland and still adhere to 21st century morality, makes him less interested in playing. My point was just "me too, but I see it most often when the system is D&D".

Surely you don't mean to say that D&D requires 21st century morality, do you? Well, if it doesn't, it's a choice. My choice is to disregard games where it's fantasyland with knights and barons, but we've got NPCs that keep to a moral code fully understandable to our contemporary compatriotes.
(If you do intend to say that, that would fit with my experience, but Old Geezer's 14th century D&D Paladin might disagree).

*Or rather, a GM's interpretation of it. You can run Dark Sun as full of NPCs with 21st century morality - though it might well be an exercise in frustration - but that's on the GM.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838689My original point was, depending on the setting, 21st century Morality may or may not fit, and if it does not, then what we classify as 'Good' may change depending.

Here's a major difference between us. My point is that what we classify as capital g Good wouldn't change. What might change is whether the law prescribes Good solutions, and whether they're socially expected.

Quote from: AsenRG;838703Surely you don't mean to say that D&D requires 21st century morality, do you? Well, if it doesn't, it's a choice. My choice is to disregard games where it's fantasyland with knights and barons, but we've got NPCs that keep to a moral code fully understandable to our contemporary compatriotes.

Nitpick

The moral code of the NPCs in the game has to be understandable to our contemporaries. We or they may not agree with the moral code, but to play the NPCs it has to be possible for the players to (eventually) understand the moral code.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;838691Thing is, Lawful Good can have lot's of variations, in my opinion.  Not all Paladins can or will agree on certain aspects, but underneath it all (again, my view here) as long as it's vaguely lawful (in terms of a moral code, whether it's societal or personal) and generally good, I don't see the issue.

Part of the issue with Alignment is that some people feel that to have the same alignment, means the characters who share that alignment has to react the same way.  I do not believe this, and so I make sure that my players know that they can be different, but still have the same alignment.

Sure, if the GM wants a more elastic interpretation of lawful good, I am cool with that. The issue for me is just consistency, because the alignments are presented as objective forces in the world and the gods are real. So if my paladin angers his god and loses his powers, I'd hope that that GM has a firm sense of what the god's expectations around good and law are and plays them consistently. If the god is flexible or takes things on a case by case basis, I am fine with that. Like I said, I pretty much leave it to the GM.

Quote from: Bren;838704Nitpick

The moral code of the NPCs in the game has to be understandable to our contemporaries. We or they may not agree with the moral code, but to play the NPCs it has to be possible for the players to (eventually) understand the moral code.

I agree, "understandable" is the wrong word here. After all, I can understand moral codes I'm proud I can't relate to, emotionally.
What I meant is that the moral code of the NPCs is one any of our contemporary compatriotes can relate to without too much issues.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;838690For me the key thing is consistency. I've never met anyone who solidly agrees on what Lawful Good should be when you start getting into specific things that come up in play. There may be some general agreement, but there is a good deal of subjectivity (how far do you take respect for life for example when it comes up against the need to enforce laws). My attitude is leave the interoperation in the court of the GM. If the GM is consistent (and in my experience most are on this matter) then that creates a sense that the moral forces behind the alignment system are real. I may judge a paladin differently than him in my own campaign and that is totally fine.

Even when it has been more defined people still will re-interpret it to read whatever they want. Lawful Evil for example. Slaver, killer, noble, renegade, viking, lawyer, whatever.