Comments on: Are moral absolutes good for your game?

By: NeonElf

NeonElf — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:03:31 +0000

The problem I see with the “disconnect” between modern sensibilities and a historically actuate game is that most fantasy settings include the ability to play a female character. However, to do that you’re basically breaking down a major section of the historical part. I play my D20 with a more modern feel to the society since there has already been a woman’s suffrage enabling them to be considered equals to men. That means your domestic violence case would NOT be average, nor would she be completely dependent on her husband (no more say than a modern day wife might be).

The problem with your “unsolvable” situation is that you’re forgetting the fact that there are a plethora of NPCs who also know the “cure disease” spell. If there are enough clerics (perhaps even others sent in from far away branches) they could turn the tide of a disease.

Of course there are plenty of points that are valid re: the poverty, certain spells begin reserved for those who can afford them. Plenty of social injustice to create moral situations.

I too have thrown out the “race” alignment in favor of a more realistic individual alignment system. I had the players cooperate with kobolds to fight off an orcish invasion, and some centaurs who just really didn’t want anything to do with the PCs an treated them hostilely (even though their goals were the same, they didn’t take the time to even find anything out about the PCs).

Good point, one I wish more people would recognize in the RPG world.

By: Kurits

Kurits — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:47:20 +0000

In one Campaign I ran I had the PC’s run in to a situation where a young lady claimed she had been beaten and raped by one of the town folks, (here is where the problem of questions come into play). First she was a jilted lover who wanted revenge on her X-boyfriend for dumping her. Second how did the feelings of the PC translate into their actions? well the X-boyfriend was lucky that one of the PC’s in this instance had sense enough not to outright kill him. However it does bring into play the question of perception as well. Do the PC have the same perception of the situation as each other, or could there be some one in the party who perceves a threat/scenario as something completly different? This is where John has a great idea of the surveys. If worded right this will help you to gain a better understanding of how they feel about certain situations and how better to icorperate or word situations of morality.

Also when dealing with real world issues in an RPG you can bring an element to the game that the PC’s are not used to dealing with and have a higher sense of challenge. However you may want to be carefull of anyone in your group who has been through a rape, assault, incest or like issues as this will not be a pleasant situation for them or for you.

By: ScottM

ScottM — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:43:08 +0000

Against society is reliable fun– Dogs in the Vineyard is a game that regularly leverages modern vs. historical sensibilities to good effect.

By: mrk

mrk — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 05:15:30 +0000

I like to add a bit of realism to my games such as critical hits and the like. It gives a bit more spice to the game sessions and doesn’t make the Players think their totally invincible. I also have limitations on healing spells and so far no one has been able to get any form of resurrection. After all, part of being a god is obtaining the souls of the living one way or another.

By: The_Gun_Nut

The_Gun_Nut — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 05:37:10 +0000

One thing I have done is run a 4th edition campaign using the Birth of the Wolfen Empire storyline. For those who don’t know the wolfen, they are the large canine people from the Palladium RPG. While the game system itself is a bit problematic (to put it diplomatically), much of the fluff and backstory makes interesting reading.

Basically, the 12 wolfen tribes lived through a particularly harsh winter in which they slaughtered their 13th tribe. After the winter passed, they realized what they had done, genocide, and decided to prevent such horrors from ever happening again. Thus, the million + wolfen living in the wilderness banded together and forged a grand Wolfen Republic. Out they went conquring their neighbors for resources, but instead of enslaving them they invited their conqurered to join their growing nation. The first separate state they ran into actually ASKED to join, thus putting the Republic on the path of Empire building.

How does this relate to moral dilemmas? Well, in 4th edition the assumption is that civilization exists as “points of light” in the wilderness. With a large empire, however, bandits and monster attacks are dramatically reduced as the empire sends out patrols to deal with these menaces. Thus, the roads are safer, the small towns and villages have a chance to grow without the constant threat of being wiped out, and many enjoy prosperity as the empire protects trade and fosters a sense of community.

Now, while this all sounds grand, many people will NOT want to be dominated, however beneficiently, by a race that just a century ago were considered backwards and barbaric, not to mention monsters. Most will work very hard to resist being conquered, but without another large civilization to provide the strength to resist, it is unlikely that a small town or even a single city can repulse them.

And here is where I thrust my players: smack dab in the middle. I think they are going against the wolfen through sheer habit right now. But I have seen them thinking about what they are facing. The fast pace has kept them from dwelling too much on the details, however. I may slow things down a bit so they can hash that out.