RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[rytrasmi]

You cannot escape moral problems no matter how you dress it up.

The party gets attacked by feral dogs. As we all know, dogs are normally intelligent and loving. Does the party slay the dogs or capture them and reform them? I've never seen a party do anything other than kill or flee the dogs. One PC found the lair once and took a puppy to raise as a war dog. This runs complete counter to modern morality, but it's accepted in game.

Rats! Rats are highly intelligent and social animals, but they are the clichéd bread and butter source of XP for level 1 PCs. Go kill the rats in my cellar! It's implied that you kill any baby rats, too. Again, a moral dilemma if slaying intelligent and social creatures minding their own business is evil.

How are orcs different? They look vaguely human? They have language? Maybe they're easier to empathize with because of that. I don't think that makes the moral question any different from killing a dog.

If you're playing a game with combat and killing, I think you just have to accept that the characters are going to do some sketchy shit that would be totally unacceptable today. Dressing stuff up to make the killing more palatable is just fooling yourself.

[Bruwulf]

Considering that originally there was only Law/Chaos axis in D&D, I'd say for Gygax law/chaos was more important of two.
And of course Paladins are not Good incarnate - they are Good mixed with Law - class that would be Good incarnate would have to be NG.

But by the time of Paladins in 1E, it was clearly not. Case in point: Violating the law/chaos restriction was redeemable, violating the good/evil axis wasn't.

If they ever
knowingly perform an act which is chaotic in nature, they must seek a high
level (7th or above) cleric of lawful good alignment, confess their sin, and do
penance as prescribed by the cleric. If a paladin should ever knowingly and
willingly perform an evil act, he or she loses the status of paladinhood
immediately and irrevocably. All benefits are then lost, and no deed or
magic can restore the character to paladinhood; he or she is everafter a
fighter.

And that's the only mention of the law/chaos axis, mechanically, for the Paladin outside of the alignment requirement itself. All the other powers and abilities relate to the good/evil axis.

And why you assume Cosmic Force of Good in D&D Multiverse will agree with your moral stances about what's Good and what's Evil. What if GOOD, cosmic GOOD that's above even Good deities is perfectly fine with violent eradication of Evil?

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon.

The book is written by and for 20th century western humans, using 20th century English. If you want to write a book that has a "lawful good" god behaving in ways that don't align with a common understanding of the word "good", you better be damned clear on that, right up front, in the core text.

[wmarshal]

Remember, we'd all be banned as super Nazis for even engaging in this conversation at TBP.

[Brad]

So now the conversation has devolved into a semantics debate about trying to shoehorn a fictional Law-Chaos/Good-Evil system into real-world morality...just for reference, I remember reading this stuff when I first went to college on Usenet, so I guess some stupid ass crap just never does truly die.

Also, the irony of people calling for the literal death of "white male Nazis" while lamenting about the fictional death of creatures designed to be killed because they're objectively evil is like, I dunno, overwhelming or something.

[Bruwulf]

So now the conversation has devolved into a semantics debate about trying to shoehorn a fictional Law-Chaos/Good-Evil system into real-world morality...just for reference, I remember reading this stuff when I first went to college on Usenet, so I guess some stupid ass crap just never does truly die.

I'd make some joke about "Hi, are you new to this hobby?", but it's trite. So instead I'll be even more groan-worthy and go all meta about making the joke.

At any given point in time, somewhere, someone is arguing about alignment in D&D. It's just one of those things.

Also, the irony of people calling for the literal death of "white male Nazis" while lamenting about the fictional death of creatures designed to be killed because they're objectively evil is like, I dunno, overwhelming or something.

But orcs are black people. For... reasons. Except when they're mongolians, or mexicans, or native americans. And elves are native americans, except when they're Japanese or Chinese or Celtic.

Surprisingly, hobbits  are not fair game to kill, despite being the one race in D&D that actually is pretty much explicitly modeled after a real-world people, that being rural white brits.

[Armchair Gamer]

An insight I had reading the racism thread on TBP: Based on their criteria, Tolkienian orcs are white people--helpless victims of a diabolical system ("white supremacy") that forces them into evil, which they cannot be extracted from, and which makes them both pitiable and dangerous.

[BoxCrayonTales]

You cannot escape moral problems no matter how you dress it up.

The party gets attacked by feral dogs. As we all know, dogs are normally intelligent and loving. Does the party slay the dogs or capture them and reform them? I've never seen a party do anything other than kill or flee the dogs. One PC found the lair once and took a puppy to raise as a war dog. This runs complete counter to modern morality, but it's accepted in game.

Rats! Rats are highly intelligent and social animals, but they are the clichéd bread and butter source of XP for level 1 PCs. Go kill the rats in my cellar! It's implied that you kill any baby rats, too. Again, a moral dilemma if slaying intelligent and social creatures minding their own business is evil.

How are orcs different? They look vaguely human? They have language? Maybe they're easier to empathize with because of that. I don't think that makes the moral question any different from killing a dog.

If you're playing a game with combat and killing, I think you just have to accept that the characters are going to do some sketchy shit that would be totally unacceptable today. Dressing stuff up to make the killing more palatable is just fooling yourself.

Okay. Then why make orcs inherently evil in the first place? Why not make a joke about how the nameless henchmen have families waiting at home when the hero kills them? Why not play murderhobos?

The reason why orcs exist and humans aren't used instead is because 1) D&D is founded on cargo culting fantasy authors like Tolkien and 2) players delusionally want to be able to kill fictional people guilt-free because moral dilemmas aren't fun. Oh, human bandits exist and the players scalp them with impunity? That doesn't invalidate my point, it just shows that players are irrational and hypocritical.

Ultimately, these are elfgames created to be played for entertainment. All other considerations are trivial.

An insight I had reading the racism thread on TBP: Based on their criteria, Tolkienian orcs are white people--helpless victims of a diabolical system ("white supremacy") that forces them into evil, which they cannot be extracted from, and which makes them both pitiable and dangerous.

Yup. Indeed, you can say this about any evil humanoid race.

[jhkim]

I've run games where the orcs have no more sense of morality than a xenomorph. Other tables play them thousands of different ways. Each table should be able to play what's right for their table without getting judged as morally reprobate just because the morality of the setting at their table doesn't align with current morality.

I won't say it's impossible for a table to be immoral. The NuTSR Star Frontiers is just a white supremacist sci-fi "game" made by awful people, for awful people. But for me to get morally outraged there has to be more "there" there than "what about the orc babies?" In a Shadowrun setting, killing the orc babies would be an evil act. In a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting where the orcs are monsters - maybe not an evil act to kill any orc you find.

I would agree about not judging the morality of people who play D&D, unless one is playing with them. RPGs are highly personalized.

But then, the same applies to the morality of people playing Coyote & Crow. These are just games, after all.

It's possible to judge the content of the game itself, by looking at what the author wrote and their intent. People playing the game aren't identical to the game's author, though.

[rytrasmi]

Okay. Then why make orcs inherently evil in the first place? Why not make a joke about how the nameless henchmen have families waiting at home when the hero kills them? Why not play murderhobos?

The reason why orcs exist and humans aren't used instead is because 1) D&D is founded on cargo culting fantasy authors like Tolkien and 2) players delusionally want to be able to kill fictional people guilt-free because moral dilemmas aren't fun. Oh, human bandits exist and the players scalp them with impunity? That doesn't invalidate my point, it just shows that players are irrational and hypocritical.

Ultimately, these are elfgames created to be played for entertainment. All other considerations are trivial.

Yeah, these are good questions and it gets to the heart of why play these games in the first place.

At one end of the spectrum, we have irredeemably evil foes, like evil orcs and zombies, and players can slaughter them without guilt. This is "fun" mode, like playing a bullet hell shooter.

At the other end, we have moral issues popping up all over the place with bandit camps with starving wives and kids, orcs that can be good and have culture, song, and art, and beholders that enjoy Shakespeare, I dunno. Going into a dungeon is like committing a home invasion.

If you want fun instead of moral dilemmas, then evil monsters are important. The reason they are evil doesn't matter. Spawn pits, minions of an evil god, all work.

I have no problems with moral dilemmas coming up, though I don't structure campaigns around that. I think they are unavoidable unless you stick to mowing down a horde of zombies. Have your PCs ever taken a prisoner? Even if it's a totally 100% irredeemable evil monster, most tables will have a 10 minute argument about what to do with the guy.

The further you go towards adventures that raise moral issues, the further you need to get into the mindset of the character. "It's what my character would do" is only a dick thing to say if the table has different expectations.

DCC deals with this by sticking to PG-13. I heard one of their authors talk about revising an NPC to make her not pregnant because of the potential for evil shit to happen. It's like the A-Team where bad guys fly back when shot and there's no blood and the heroes only ever get knocked out and tied up. Then you have LotFP where 666 animated corpses of children attack you before breakfast. These are both fun in their own way. You gotta treat the latter as horror movie fun.

[Grognard GM]

That doesn't invalidate my point, it just shows that players are irrational and hypocritical.

I made a massive post laying out step by step the flaws in your logic, but frankly if you're not having them pointed out regularly by others you must be humoured by the community, so I deleted it.

Suffice to say I find you extremely emotion driven, and you ascribe flaws to others that you yourself often project.

The two types of Orcs idea addresses a problem that doesn't exist, and utterly fails to solve that non-existing problem. You seem to fundamentally confuse personal opinion with objective fact.

[Bruwulf]

But then, the same applies to the morality of people playing Coyote & Crow. These are just games, after all.

I don't think anyone is judging the morality of anyone playing Coyote & Crow, exactly. I don't think people who read and write Mary Sue self-insert fanfics are evil, either, I just don't see the fun in it.

[Armchair Gamer]

PS- Bonus points for where the lore states they have 99% effective birth control, but also trumpets they have abortions for all.

    I'm reading the thread now, and I just hit the point where the reader drops that "children are not considered fully fledged humans until after they finish breastfeeding."

     

    Can you say "casual infanticide," ladies and gentlemen?

[Grognard GM]

PS- Bonus points for where the lore states they have 99% effective birth control, but also trumpets they have abortions for all.

    I'm reading the thread now, and I just hit the point where the reader drops that "children are not considered fully fledged humans until after they finish breastfeeding."

     

    Can you say "casual infanticide," ladies and gentlemen?

"dOn'T cUlTuRaLlY cOlOnIzE tHe InDiGiNoUs, BiGoT!1! tHeY hAvE a NaTuRaL gOoDnEsS, lIkE hOw AfRiCaN aMeRiCaNs HaVe NaTuRaL rYtHm!1!"

[Grognard GM]

But then, the same applies to the morality of people playing Coyote & Crow. These are just games, after all.

I don't think anyone is judging the morality of anyone playing Coyote & Crow, exactly. I don't think people who read and write Mary Sue self-insert fanfics are evil, either, I just don't see the fun in it.

I'll damn well judge the author though.

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

[Wrath of God]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a wagon.

The book is written by and for 20th century western humans, using 20th century English. If you want to write a book that has a "lawful good" god behaving in ways that don't align with a common understanding of the word "good", you better be damned clear on that, right up front, in the core text.

Plot twist: there is no clear coherent common understanding of the word "good" even in modern Western world. All that's common is wishy washy feel that fall apart when examined closely.

Also, the irony of people calling for the literal death of "white male Nazis" while lamenting about the fictional death of creatures designed to be killed because they're objectively evil is like, I dunno, overwhelming or something.

Nah, it's simply matter of dunno realism within setting, versimilitude. It's not lamenting, it's dealing with cognitive disonance - and as it's not boardgame but RPG - well it's harder to just push certain things under rug. For many folk.

Surprisingly, hobbits  are not fair game to kill, despite being the one race in D&D that actually is pretty much explicitly modeled after a real-world people, that being rural white brits.

that was matter in LOTR. in Forgotten Realms hobbits hail from southern land and they seems to be modeled by Italian, Greek and maybe even West Asian peasants.

An insight I had reading the racism thread on TBP: Based on their criteria, Tolkienian orcs are white people--helpless victims of a diabolical system ("white supremacy") that forces them into evil, which they cannot be extracted from, and which makes them both pitiable and dangerous.

Satan was especially pleased with Manchester.

If you want fun instead of moral dilemmas, then evil monsters are important. The reason they are evil doesn't matter. Spawn pits, minions of an evil god, all work.

Primo, moral dilemmas are fun, and I will beat anyone claiming otherwise with a heavy oaken staff of power. Secundo, but culture shows clearly you can have absolutely normal human minions in contemporary setting you can dispatch with impunity. See: James Bond. So it's more about presentation and immediate threat. When someone is hostile you are not obliged to care about their redeemability.

DCC deals with this by sticking to PG-13. I heard one of their authors talk about revising an NPC to make her not pregnant because of the potential for evil shit to happen. It's like the A-Team where bad guys fly back when shot and there's no blood and the heroes only ever get knocked out and tied up.

I thought DCC is very brutal with eldritch magic that can fuck everything up in immense way.

I'm reading the thread now, and I just hit the point where the reader drops that "children are not considered fully fledged humans until after they finish breastfeeding."

     

    Can you say "casual infanticide," ladies and gentlemen?

Even in TBP someone was nitpicking it's terrible attitude for society that survived almost complete climatic genocide few centuries ago.

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

I'm not sure if it's presented right as utopia - for instance Council of this Megalopolis is described as corrupt politicians, and while they are advanced in some areas they are primitive in others (not that it's coherent.)

But tbh I have no beef with general alt-hist from folk who as community were conquered and reduced to small sad remnants about how it all would be better if they were not conquered.
It's not about race per se - there is plenty alt-hist stories in Poland when Poland is superpower because it managed to stop threat from Russia and Germany either before WW2 or even avoid partitions and now everything is better. That's not racism - that's natural impulse of conquered people to believe that everything would be way better if they were not conquered. Not to mention depopulated by very viral smallpox from Europe.

For all specific dumbness in this setting - general gist is fine.