Morality in PnP

[Calson]

I think I have misunderstood the term Moral Relativism. I was assuming that you were talking about peoples morals being relative to the situation they are in (e.g. Killing is bad in one instance, good in another). Now I think you are talking about people who accept morals opposed to their own in others.. Yes? No?

If that is the case, the world would stop functioning if everyone judged people based on how the other person's morals equated to theirs. It is a rare person who can live up to their own moral code, never mind judge others to see if they live up to it.

 

Edit: This is why playing a paladin properly is so hard. Everyone is judged by the Paladin's code, and the Paladin should never compromise that code, even for party members.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Calson

[213374U]

I think I have misunderstood the term Moral Relativism. I was assuming that you were talking about peoples morals being relative to the situation they are in (e.g. Killing is bad in one instance, good in another). Now I think you are talking about people who accept morals opposed to their own in others.. Yes? No?

Yep. While moral relativism is right that there are no universal, undisputable moral truths, this is completely useless from an utilitarian point of view.

 

 

If that is the case, the world would stop functioning if everyone judged people based on how the other person's morals equated to theirs. It is a rare person who can live up to their own moral code, never mind judge others to see if they live up to it.

That's how I see it, too.

 

 

Edit: This is why playing a paladin properly is so hard. Everyone is judged by the Paladin's code, and the Paladin should never compromise that code, even for party members.

Yeah. Playing a true "by-the-book" Paladin is leaving yourself wide open for "exploitation" from the DM...

[Blade of Mystra]

Very interesting topic.

 

I appreciated the "counter-point" comment. I created a Drow Paladin character that "reeks" of counter-point.

 

While playing multiple Paladins, I however, disagreed with a great deal of the conversation choices and results. There were numerous incidents where "Lawful" and "Good" did not seem justified in their results. Most often however, I was forced to choose a conversation selection that my PC (nor I) would have ever chosen.

 

In the OP's example, I also had difficulty:

 

1. The orcs were standing. They were not going to die any time soon if they had the energy/will to stand.

 

2. While a literal interpretation might have suggested Lawful smite Evil, I actually considered that if the conversation choices were correct, than it was actually evil to leave the orcs in that situation. No matter the alignment of the creature, a true paladin would have offered healing/assistance to a non-combative creature in such a situation. Mercy and Forgiveness are the bastions of Good.

 

3. Casavir had an amazing memory to recognize the orcs in the lower burial room as enemies. How then was there no reaction when he encountered the above orcs whom had probably killed some of his men.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

I personally felt the alingment/influence system in NWN2 probably should have been left out. Individuals have such differing opinions on simply what IS good and evil .

 

----

[metadigital]

I personally felt the alingment/influence system in NWN2 probably should have been left out. Individuals have such differing opinions on simply what IS good and evil .

It's difficult, so let's not touch it?

 

I disagree completely.