Are moral absolutes good for your game?
Picture by Todd Huffman
Fictional Characters vs. The Real World
Your average D&D character will face orcs, dragons, the ravenous forces of the undead, impostor kings and many other problems, most of which can be solved by bashing the creature’s face/snout/gelatinous cubic body in. All of which the character is well equipped to deal with. Other challenges come in the form of deadly traps and vexing brain teasers. Still, adventurers are constantly dealing with problems that are easy for them to overcome and are fixed moral absolutes. How often in your ordinary life do you encounter problems like that? True to life problems are very tricky situations when applied to your D&D games.
A note of caution about this one, this path is not for every group. It works best with a roleplay heavy group. Even then, some people play Dungeons & Dragons specifically to get away from problems like this. They want to play a world of heroics and moral absolutes. There is nothing wrong with that and they will be very grumpy if you take that away from them. However if it is right for you group you can get some amazing roleplaying moments. Here are a few examples of the types of big, real world problems that your players can face.
Unsolvable
Many of the biggest problems in our world have no solution and continue to not have one even with magic added to the mix. Most D&D parties have a character who can spontaneously create food and water from nothing. But what if they were faced with a natural famine or drought? With all their resources the adventurers might be able to keep one town fed if they stayed there and dedicated themselves to it. If faced with a natural plague the players may be able to save a few people with their disease curing abilities but more than likely it will prove to simply be too big for them.
Against Society
Lets say for example that a group of adventurer’s is confronted by a situation of domestic abuse. The first instinct of the players will likely be to solve it how they solve all their other problems, bash the villain’s face in. Sadly, in a historical setting that sort of vigilante justice is illegal but some scumbag harming his wife and children is well within his rights. If the players tried to convince the wife to leave her abusive husband she would likely be confused. It is fairly normal behavior for the time. Even if she wanted to leave she’s likely to be completely dependent on the husband for survival. It is a case of our (correct) modern sensibilities creating difficult situations in a historical setting.
The Solution is Worse than the Problem
Fantasy characters regularly depose tyrants, it is one of the staples of the genre. In those cases there is usually a hero of the revolution ready to step up and be a benevolent rulers. Other times the rightful heir, who was robbed is his throne by the scheming of the tyrant, is conveniently waiting in the wings to take over and restore justice to the land. But what if those figures aren’t available? Dethroning a tyrant can lead to a bloody civil war for control of the crown. For a time it could be far worse than his rule ever was. Even after all that is over with there is no guarantee the replacement will be any better. Is that a choice the party is willing to make?
Have you thrown the tricky situations and moral grey areas of real life into your games?
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.
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.