Community

Boulis wrote:

Unfortunately, no matter what, it seems impossible to avoid moral systems even in fictional worlds. Honestly, I would rather go with Tectorman's approach in most cases and just deal with things situationally but I wonder if it's possible?

If you're referring to my idea of the "gentleman's agreement" to avoid the topic in conversation, just like avoiding politics or abortion or whatever else is touchy, then I have another personal anecdote.

We were playing a session in the Star Trek RPG by Decipher and I was a Regulan Helmsman/Second Officer on an away mission to pick up a stranded Starfleet officer who had crashlanded on a pre-warp civilization planet, and had ended up giving Federation technology to the village he had taken up residence in (according to the Prime Directive, this is a no-no).

Leading the group was the Mission Commander, a Human Security Officer who had served in the Federation Marines during the Dominion War (this was set after the end of DS9 but before Voyager ended). As a result, she was a bit war-traumatized.

When we confronted the errant officer, we received word that a rival village had sent out its warriors to exterminate this village out of fear of the "magic weapons" the village had suddenly acquired.

Two choices: take the advanced technology back, leave, and let the two villages duke it out (a lost cause for the defending village), or let the defending village keep the technology long enough to assuredly wipe out the invading force.

(Additional choices that were ultimately deemed bad ideas: set the two tribes down and impose a talk between the two to come to a nonviolent solution (shot down because the capacity to negotiate in such a fashion was in and of itself a technology that would've been introduced prematurely); give the invading force the same weapons as the defenders (shot down because we're trying to limit the contamination of advanced technology).)

We decided to retrieve the technology and the errant officer and beam back up. The Mission Commander wanted to stay behind, with only a knife, to try and offer a balancing factor that wouldn't introduce further contamination but would still give the defenders a fighting chance. Everyone else decided to disallow this (by stunning her) because even her Fed Marine training, the end result of the combined military knowledge of hundreds of worlds, would've significantly altered the outcome and spread advanced knowledge before its time.

At no point in all of this was did anyone question the outlooks and motives of anyone else there. Maybe other people thought my character's outlook mirrored my own (in which case, they would've been right), but whether they thought so or not, the surface is that the Regulan Helmsman's opinions are her own and may or may not be indicative of the player playing her (me). Even if I had taken the time to try and figure out whether the guy playing the Mission Commander agreed with his character or not, I never asked; I simply accepted the Mission Commander's motives as being the Mission Commander's motives, which may or may not have been the player's.

Furthermore, if I had somehow been playing my rendition of Blossom Utonium from our Mutants and Masterminds game in this scenario, I would've had her do the opposite (help the defenders, actively aid them, possibly contaminate their culture more), actions which I personally would've disagreed with, and that no one at the table would ask me, the player, about.

So, possible? Yes, it is, though I will add in the caveat that this is a personal anecdote and may not carry over to other groups. However, a line or two in the PHB or DMG (of any edition) to say something to the effect of making sure everyone realizes that in-game actions and outlooks should not be taken as indicative of the player's outlooks would not go amiss.

Just out of curiosity, Boulis, what are all of the RPGs that you play (and if they're not any that I've heard of, do they have similar systems to alignments)?

--------

Concerning the Jedi-vs-Sith conversation and the Jedi Order's take on any kind of emotion, what they're doing is basically a variation of the Pre-Trans Fallacy, I would say.

If you have emotions (positive and negative) and they can lead to undesirable results, then what do you do? The Pre- answer (what the Jedi Order does) is to downplay all emotions and avoid the problem in the first place. The Trans- answer would rather be to have the emotions, face the problem with the potential undesirable outcome, and work to achieve another outcome. The Pre- avoids growth (societal growth, personal growth, etc.) and in fact regresses, while the Trans- is growth.

Haldrik wrote:

Talking about D&D Paladin codes for a Paladin who chooses Good ...

Any other class chooses good. A paladin becomes a slave once he hits first level paladin. At that point, he's held hostage to his alignment and code or he loses everything and becomes weaker than a monk.

A Paladin code doesnt need to avoid evil entirely. The Paladin just needs to optimize as much good as possible, given whatever context.

Not entirely, but just one willing evil act, no matter minor causes him to become a ex-paladin and weaker than a monk.

williamhm75 wrote:

That and whats good in one situation might not be good in another. There really arent any moral absolutes. Other than rape, and torture. Those are the only two things which I cant even think of a justification for.

Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.

Torture is even easier to justify.

williamhm75 wrote:

True, but why cant they just wait till the child is old enough to make its own choices? In that case it is bad because the parent is deciding on what the child will do for the rest of its life. Dont you think someone needs to make that sort of life altering descision for themselves? After all Jedi are dedicated to upholding the Council and the republic. No child is going to be able to understand the significance of that. To my mind the old Jedi are more like a cult that brain washes children into their beliefs. After Luke takes over the new order is quite different. In fact Luke even gets married. But the original Jedi were incredibly exclusive, and cold yet totally dedicated to their view of the universe to the point where they cannot accept any view other than their own.

To my mind that makes them a cult.

My guess? They take children so as to foster maximum possible growth in force use. A 20 year old who has been trained in force use for two years is far less capable than a 20 year old who has been trained in force use since he was two... and they are the same age. In my previous example, the Greeks acknowledged that people had lifespans of about 40 years, and that starting young was the best way to ensure long-lasting scholars. In the case of the force, I assume that mastery of the force takes an extremely long time, so it seems more logical to start them very young and hopefully get them to full mastery by adulthood rather than waiting until adolescence and working them into late adulthood.

That said, "cult" is generally a catchall term for "any small religion I don't like" when used by modern media. It carries a very vague definition, unlike its counterpart "destructive cult", which the Jedi isn't.

Maxperson wrote:

Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.

Torture is even easier to justify.

Actually, that doesn't justify the act of rape at all. This actually makes both the man and woman victims of rape, as he is having sex with her against his will just as she is. The one committing the act? The guy holding the gun, and he's accountable for all of it (and is one sick ****ing bastard).