This only makes sense, very few people would be considered habitually evil unless they are actually insane or "demonically" influenced.
The majority of people are in fact situationally evil, yes they might mug someone or steal a loaf of bread but they still love their kids and mother. Even Hitler loved Blondie and was vegetarian despite his body count.
With perhaps the possible exception of the unmeasurable Karmic repercussions of BAD acts (for those so inclined to believe such things,), moral behavior should be dealt with by societal reaction not some cosmic balance that weighs your behavior
"evil" or "good" acts are subjective cultural values not absolute ones. Mayan sacrifices from their perspective vs. those of Europeans, and yet could justify burning witches in the next breath.
In Cirdastan we've had heated discussions on zombies, slaves, zombie slaves, with each player taking a view based on their own personal interpretation of the of good/evil, the value of doing good with evil, the belief that ends justify the means etc. rather than a sound understanding of the worlds norms.
example
Are all men (more of less) equal? Gender equality?
is slavery culturally wrong?
is slavery only wrong if you're enslaving your own species?
Are peasants really all freemen or are they a mixture of freemen, serfs, indentured or full slaves?
Isn't charming someone akin to slavery?
Is mind reading or domination akin to rape?
and yet we label commanding zombies (we didn't make) as evil
For role playing purposes I think a strong set of cultural norms need to be established for worlds, kingdoms ect rather than simply transpose our 21century ideals over a medieval setting. I think most campaigns have always been weak in this respect, If one is going to build a fantasy roleplaying world why not challenge the players with cultural norms that challenge them? Or at least be more historically accurate.
Steve mentions who'll get mad if you kill a peasant, but how does this society deal with such things, If the proposed Leader Knight did the killing he might well be within his rights no questions asked or provided he pays the death price (geld). However if one of his lower caste retinue did the killing it might be different.
As mere peasants in a Knights company would we be allowed to raise arms against a noble. In some era's you could defend yourself once attacked but were not supposed to initiate an attack on a noble on the battle field
Ever noticed we usually get asked if we want to take a mission, There should be no ask, we would most likely have obligations to obey our sworn lord. It would also be unlikely we'd be able to form an armed company without sponsorship, What if Rild had hired and trained all those guys for a coup? Even our own group would be seen as a political threat.
Yes alignments need to go but I'd like to see more cultural guidelines so we know when our behavior is over the line.
Subject: Teaser: no moral alignment 
Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:13 pm
