SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Good, evil, and fantasy cultures

Started by jhkim, September 17, 2021, 04:38:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Steven Mitchell

I've nearly always wanted a mix of history, reality, or at least something close to it with the more escapist, high fantasy bits.  Part of the reason is that one of the most interesting parts of the game is where those ideas collide.  And I don't want it to be ham-fisted, as in "21st century Seattle kids are transported into fantastical but otherwise realistic/historical 500 A.D. Gaul and then change the world to exactly what they want or die trying."  That's too much like a fan fiction creative writing assignment from a person that knows diddly-squat about how human nature works, then and now.

I like to think I can come up with a more interesting mix, with more nuance, while avoiding a handful of things we don't particularly want to deal with that campaign and still leaving in enough other things that it gives some feel of being in another world.

ThatChrisGuy

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PMI once had a discussion with Cessna about this, and he was of the opinion that the sacrifices were exaggerated and that Aztecs were in many ways quite humane, they apparently had schools for all the kids etc. But the funny thing is, I think this is NOT how the Aztecs themselves wanted to be seen. Look at their art. They were brutal, and they wanted everyone to know it.

https://ancient-archeology.com/a-500-year-old-aztec-tower-of-human-skulls-is-even-more-terrifyingly-humongous-than-previously-thought-archaeologists-find/

"Huey Tzompantli" isn't the nickname of the God of Being Nice to People.
I made a blog: Southern Style GURPS

Stephen Tannhauser

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PMI once had a discussion with Cessna about this, and he was of the opinion that the sacrifices were exaggerated and that Aztecs were in many ways quite humane, they apparently had schools for all the kids etc. But the funny thing is, I think this is NOT how the Aztecs themselves wanted to be seen. Look at their art. They were brutal, and they wanted everyone to know it.

Well, every culture in the world has an interest in having its citizens see it as more just and proper than its enemies would, and in having its enemies see it as more brutal and terrifying than its citizens would. And in practice a culture which didn't treat its own citizens and children any better than it treated its enemies -- or treated its enemies just as well as it treated its own citizens -- would be either too brutal to hold together through internal conflict, or too gentle to survive external conflict.

So one of the places you can look for conflict is not just how sincere a culture is in its justifications for its acts of brutality, but the degree of corruption to which a system can fall prone and make even a practice of atrocity yet more horrific.  It's not just the sacrifice of enemies, it's when the priesthood starts coming up with perfunctory justifications for scooping their own poor off the streets as sacrifices solely to increase their own temple's influence, or in response to bribes paid by wealthy families to keep their beloved daughters out of the lottery.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

tenbones

Quote from: jhkim on September 17, 2021, 04:38:41 PM
So I've been considering running D&D in an exotic-ish setting (ref), but I think there's a broad issue about this.

In D&D and other games with an absolute good and evil, it's usually true that good and evil are defined by modern standards. So, for example, D&D has always defined slavery as evil - even though slavery of various sorts was considered normal and even good in medieval times. I think this is usually considered a feature rather than a bug. In some games, you play grim-dark bastards who leave a trail of horror and destruction -- but some fantasy games you want to be genuine heroes who fight for truth and justice. There is simple good and evil and the heroes are good.

The latter is more what I want my upcoming D&D game to be. Real history was often grim and horrible, but if I'm playing a good-vs-evil fantasy, that's not what I'm looking for. I'm going for more escapist high fantasy.

The problem is that modern morality can be a disconnect with a setting even remotely based on history.

So I guess this is about - when have you had a problem with difference between what is good by modern morality and good in a fantasy RPG? What were ways that you dealt with it? I'll think if I can come up with some more examples.

This is a potentially great thread in the making. I plan on participating.

I do think you mischaracterize one point...

QuoteThe problem is that modern morality can be a disconnect with a setting even remotely based on history.

"Modern" players do not fundamentally understand "morality". It's a word without meaning to those that freak out about "slavery" as a topic. They associate anything that makes them feel "SQUEE" with "BAD" and therefore "EVIL" and anything they like as "GOOD" without a grain of moral reference.

This phenomenon is underscored by an insane level of ignorance of history. A childlike naivete about civilizational development and sustenance.

Slavery is a historical norm. Every "great" culture in history practiced it or was part of it. It remains true to this day - we just disguise it under other systems with cleverly re-worded blinds and convenient political covers that don't seem to be an issue to those that pretend they hold "slavery" as some kind of ultimate evil.

To the point of your question:

I have never had a problem at my table with people confusing reality and their personal morality with the things that happen in my game. I have had very devout religious players, pagans, atheists, Christians, agnostics, each with their specific beliefs of varying degrees of rigidity, and never had an "issue". I assume by issue you mean people being so repulsed by what has happened in the game it affronts their own actual morality? It's never happened because no one at my table is so stupid to believe what people's PC's do, and what elements I have in my games is based on how I or the other people feel and believe the world outside of the game should be.

Maybe I'm lucky? I doubt it.

But at my table *everything* and *anything* is possible depending on the circumstances. I let things get as dark as they demand. And I've had some really dark moments (My Sabbat games are pretty grueling), but I'd also say I have some really ecstatic moments too where I'm always trying to elevate my players by making them realize the morality of their choices often have results that transcend their actual intentions - this has an intensely powerful effect that gets players to immerse themselves in the game.

The whole "Hey yeah, *I* did that?!?!?" effect. Of course it cuts both ways.

I think this is the big attractor I have with players that come to my table and they stick around for *decades*. I serve up gaming experiences that are equally morally challenging as they are rewarding from a gaming perspective. And I would like to emphasize - I generally don't aim for *dark* campaigns, and I Session Zero that upfront when I'm kicking off something, I want everyone to make sure they understand the basic tone of the game, but I'm also open to letting that shift based on the gameplay.


tenbones

Another reason I don't use Alignment (and if I do I rarely go beyond Good, Evil, Neutral) is because of the increasing level of Moral Relativism that infects people's minds.

I think it's always been there to some degree... but now it's pretty bad. I just let people play their characters and quietly keep track of their (mis)deeds and rationales behind them.

GriswaldTerrastone

In my game, it's a mix.

For example, in the good-aligned realms (e.g. The Seven Noble Realms or The Twin Realms of Magnificence) slavery is an absolute no-no. They do NOT have an egalitarian view of things but there are some rights all are entitled to.

In the evil realms (The Gloomlands, The Nine Caverns of Tyranny and Torment) slavery is a way of life. So far so good, what you'd expect.

But in the Alliance slavery was accepted and legal except in those places where it wasn't. If a slave could escape to such a place he was a slave no longer, but obviously this presented overall problems- until, in exchange for desperately-needed help against the Red Pirate Empire and raider-forces crippling trade from those good-aligned realms (azuralupins, lesser dragons, blue dragons and The Seven Noble Realms' air force and navy) it was legally abolished. But it still exists in the shadows, especially in Venesha. What's more, certain "independent" kingdoms outside the Alliance use slave labor, but the treaty does not apply to them, even though their rulers are merely puppets.

Because of this sort of thing conflicts often arise among realms and kingdoms. This makes the game much more complex because of clashing moralities.

In my game alignments exist and you must choose, thus accepting the benefits and consequences of that choice.
I'm 55. My profile won't record this. It's only right younger members know how old I am.

Rob Necronomicon

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on September 20, 2021, 07:38:36 PM
In my game alignments exist and you must choose, thus accepting the benefits and consequences of that choice.

This is pretty much how I do it to... I don't really say 'no' to the players per se. But whatever they do will have a knock on effect, and in some cases this could be good and in others bad.

But these are more actions based as opposed to alignment based. I mean, you could save the village and reap the benefits. Get the reward and have some new village contacts, etc. Although, you may now have earned yourself a recurring antagonist, who's pissed off for having his plans all messed up. The ball could be on the other foot if they were evil characters. But now, the villagers are after them...

BoxCrayonTales

Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.
If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.

Chris24601

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM
Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.
If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.
And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions instead of feeding their enemies into the machine for the good of the State and/or their blood gods.

How horrible were the Aztecs? So horrible that other tribes in the region (whom the Aztecs raided to supply their human sacrifices) gladly sided with the alien foreign invader Cortez in order to destroy them.

Even by local standards of the time, the Aztecs were Chaotic Evil.

oggsmash

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 21, 2021, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM
Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.
If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.
And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions instead of feeding their enemies into the machine for the good of the State and/or their blood gods.

How horrible were the Aztecs? So horrible that other tribes in the region (whom the Aztecs raided to supply their human sacrifices) gladly sided with the alien foreign invader Cortez in order to destroy them.

Even by local standards of the time, the Aztecs were Chaotic Evil.

  Dont know if I agree with chaotic evil.  By definition it seems chaotic evil would be terrible at empires.  Lawful evil seems a better fit.   

tenbones

I don't think you can *have* a civilization that writ-large is "chaotic evil" as a rule.

It might be for a time period where degeneration is clearly setting in, sure. But not for long term. So Aztecs might be lawful evil, with a particular emphasis on the evil part.


As for choosing alignment... again, I find it weird because what inevitably happens is other players reminding one another, or situationally justifying their own actions, of their alignment. I don't generally feel that's defining of what alignment means. It's what you do consistently in game that defines you. This is also why I think if your character is devout it's more important to follow the creed and dogmas of the deity rather than a specific alignment because it keeps it more grounded in the culture.

Plus it saves arguments where players start dickering around about the alignments of other players because of what it says on their paper vs. what they perceive another player does in game. Of course this is subjective in many cases.


Stephen Tannhauser

#41
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:14:32 PMSo Aztecs might be lawful evil, with a particular emphasis on the evil part.

As for choosing alignment... It's what you do consistently in game that defines you. This is also why I think if your character is devout it's more important to follow the creed and dogmas of the deity rather than a specific alignment because it keeps it more grounded in the culture.

This goes back to the point I suggested above about assessing evil not just by what a culture or individual values, but by how consistently they uphold those values, even to their own disadvantage. The Aztec religious conscience openly espoused the belief that blood sacrifice was necessary to keep the universe intact and alive, and it's arguable that they couldn't possibly have maintained their power structure for the centuries they did if enough ordinary citizens hadn't sincerely believed that doctrine and willingly accepted it.

However, when that conviction gets fatally entangled with a convenient political power structure that helps the Aztec Empire (or any fictional analogue or similar tyranny) maintain military dominance over other peoples, that sincerity becomes a lot harder to believe in. One of the biggest hallmarks of real evil, both culturally and individually, is the degree to which hypocrisy is used to conceal corruption; the mark of the true barbarian, as Chesterton points out, is that he laughs when he's beating you but howls when you beat him -- there is no conception of ethics that applies outside his in-group, and even his definition of who constitutes his "in-group" can be conveniently fluid if it suits him.  (Non-fantasy example: Jimmy Conway, from GoodFellas.)
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

jhkim

Quote from: tenbones on September 20, 2021, 03:35:33 PM
To the point of your question:

I have never had a problem at my table with people confusing reality and their personal morality with the things that happen in my game. I have had very devout religious players, pagans, atheists, Christians, agnostics, each with their specific beliefs of varying degrees of rigidity, and never had an "issue". I assume by issue you mean people being so repulsed by what has happened in the game it affronts their own actual morality? It's never happened because no one at my table is so stupid to believe what people's PC's do, and what elements I have in my games is based on how I or the other people feel and believe the world outside of the game should be.

I feel like there's a disconnect here. I've never had anyone who confused reality and the game. However, I have seen players who expressed that they didn't have fun when the gameplay got too dark for what they wanted in entertainment - like slaughtering helpless prisoners, torture, taking slaves, or the like.

For example, in one of my early games in grad school, I played in a GURPS game in a post-magical-apocalypse setting inspired by Earthdawn and Shadowrun where elves and dwarves mixed with a newly-reborn Roman Empire and other anachronisms (including medieval knights and feudalism). Initially, I connected to the historicity of the setting and created an elven merchant (Antonius Publius Eldarus) who was an enthusiastic convert to Roman culture. Meanwhile, though, the other players created fantasy characters more like modern high fantasy - an honorable dwarven knight, an empathic elven psychic, and a few others.

Since the world explicitly had societies from different times jumbled together, the contrast was technically intended. But the other players weren't into it when my character suggested things like decimating and/or enslaving enemies.

Ratman_tf

#43
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:12:57 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 21, 2021, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 21, 2021, 01:36:02 PM
Quote from: Trond on September 20, 2021, 02:32:10 PM
If we talk about what is "humane" and what is not, then I'd say that there is virtually nothing more depraved and further from humane behavior than human sacrifice.
If given a choice between fascists, communists, witch-hunters, a Balkan warzone, and Aztecs, then I'd pick Aztecs every single time.
And I'd take the witch-hunters who are at least nominally Christian and are trying to save souls with their actions instead of feeding their enemies into the machine for the good of the State and/or their blood gods.

How horrible were the Aztecs? So horrible that other tribes in the region (whom the Aztecs raided to supply their human sacrifices) gladly sided with the alien foreign invader Cortez in order to destroy them.

Even by local standards of the time, the Aztecs were Chaotic Evil.

  Dont know if I agree with chaotic evil.  By definition it seems chaotic evil would be terrible at empires.  Lawful evil seems a better fit.

Well, part of the problem of assessing alignment is the tend towards absolutism.
Does Chaotic always mean completely without order? Are the people amorphous blobs with no discernable anatomy? Does the sun randomly rise and set, and wheel around the sky over a Chaotic city? Do they build homes with all randomly placed walls?

Some order and some chaos is a part of every mortal thing. Cities and people and rules. Only on the Planes do you get examples of extreme alignment, and even then, it's because the planes are strange and mythical.

I like the concept of "Might makes right" to define Chaotic Evil, and I'd put the Aztecs in that category.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Marchand

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all ideal approach to alignment. It can be a useful tool to establish setting and reinforce assumptions.

Lamentations has what I think is a cool take, with the idea that every real person who has ever lived has been Neutral, and Law and Chaos represent incredibly dangerous supernatural forces that you probably do not want to mess with if you can help it.

I also like the classic D&D implied setting assumption of a frontier zone where law is the force of human (and maybe demihuman) civilisation, while chaos is monsters and other forces actively opposed to civilisation's advance.

So straight-up Law/Neutral/Chaos assumptions tend to appeal to me most. I haven't seen Good and Evil done well in a game setting.
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk