Friends, I have a question. Why is it that "MUH GRAY AND GRAY MORALITY" is being pushed so hard in RPGs as of recent...

I have a lot of fun getting into gray and gray morality games and playing people that are selfless, humble and dedicated to helping those in need.

I like watching a good guy bleed and suffer and work for it when his survival and victory aren't for sure (literally being a dice roll, in many cases). Failing can be as good a story as success.

But isn't authoritan fascism literally valiant heroes slaying evil?

>I like watching a good guy bleed and suffer and work for it when his survival and victory aren't for sure (literally being a dice roll, in many cases). Failing can be as good a story as success.
Yeah but uh...we can't have him lose. Losing isn't popular with our market, our audience likes characters who win against all odds. Can you put something like that in there instead?
actual quotes btw

No. Authoritarianism is always for people who are bitter and resentful that most people are just too fucking stupid to be allowed to be in charge of the government.

Or people who don't give a shit if the people control it or not, they just want power and money.

>implying a hero can't struggle without it being a tale of gray and grit

A hero needs to struggle in order for the victory to mean anything. But the victory doesn't mean anything if his actions don't actually make anything better.

One of the odds should be losing a couple times.

The bad guy should walk the walk, not just talk the talk. It creates a sense of danger, and it makes it that much sweeter when the hero wins. The low point is an essential part of the heroes journey.

The bigger change came with the upswell of people learning about moral relativity, social constructs and cultural narratives.

Stories of mighty heroes running roughshod over evil orcs become a lot less comfortable when you realise that no-one is actually pure evil in real life, that people's views of the world are constantly informed by stories, and that stories that imply the existence of pure evil Others that need to be purged are really fucking dangerous.

"Like anime".
Not "like all anime".

>moral relativity
Absolutely destructive and stupid.

They didn't say "like". They said "it would be". As in, a literal 1:1 representation of anime.

Don't move the goalposts.

Not that I agree with you, but arguing with someone who truly believes in relativism is like trying to stomp out a puddle. It's not gonna go anywhere, and you'll just end up worse off then before.

I agree, but the analysis obtains under most absolutist systems, too.

>Why is it that "MUH GRAY AND GRAY MORALITY" is being pushed so hard in RPGs as of recent?
That's a... statement. Can you give examples?

Why just black-and-white or grey-and-grey? Can't you have neutral stories, where instead of focusing on morality, you focus on other inspirations and ideals?

Don't be a pedantic fuckwit.

Yes, because being absolutely, blindly certain that everything you believe is true and just isn't destructive or stupid at all!

My stance isn't so much hatred of moral relativism as much as it is the line of thought it promotes.

Sure, Kilgore Bloodfist, I understand that it's fine to other minotaurs that you killed a hundred babies so that your lineage will live on. But that's not okay by my books, and so you shall be punished.

Morality usually comes into play regardless. Personally I prefer stories with heroes and misguided but well intentioned villains. But those don't come around often.

What hogwash. You think that not being a moral relativist is only possible by blindly and unfailingly following your current beliefs?

>Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

The only acceptable kind of moral relativism

Because nowadays nothing is evil except being a hero

You can run state endorsed child rape rings, rob houses, sneak across borders illegally, or even destroy the reputations of the innocent and receive congratulation from society, but protecting decency, rewarding hard work and defending private property is evil

I prefer gray-and-gray settings with morally decent player characters.

People struggling to do right in a rough world.

Don't make broad, sweeping generalisations about an entire country's approach to animation.

>What happened to classic stories of valiant heroes slaying evil?

>The stories about Evil that were popular when people still believed the Devil existed and could influence you are no longer popular now that people think Evil doesn't exist and upbringing/genetics cause behavior

I realize correlation != causation but it seems kind of obvious to me.

>stories that imply the existence of pure evil Others that need to be purged are really fucking dangerous
yeah I make sure to keep The Hobbit under lock and key

I don't want my kids thinking goblins are evil or that dragons exist. That's dangerous knowledge.

>It can't be all blamed on Watchmen, though. I blame Game of Thrones, personally.
>I rather blame what I don't like than what I like.

I don't like Watchman, though.

I don't think you understand what moral relativism is.

It doesn't mean LOL MORALITY DOESN@T EXIST LET ME KILL A HUNDRED BABIES XD! It means that both you and Kilgore believe you're in the right and that an objective moral truth doesn't exist outside your own personal morality.

>Don't make broad, sweeping generalisations about an entire country's approach to animation.

He didn't though. There is Anime made outside that country, and non-Anime animation made inside that country.

Perhaps it is you and not he who has preconceived notions about that country.

>Stories of mighty heroes running roughshod over evil orcs become a lot less comfortable when you realise that no-one is actually pure evil in real life, that people's views of the world are constantly informed by stories, and that stories that imply the existence of pure evil Others that need to be purged are really fucking dangerous.

Yeah, except we're talking about fiction here. If someone can't differentiate between fiction and reality, that someone has a much bigger problem.

>Because nowadays nothing is evil except being a hero

>Because nowadays nothing is evil except being the kind of liar who claims to do good while hurting others

Checks out dot jaypeg

>if you hurt your enemies, they win.tiff

Yes, and be that as it may I believe my morality is superior for a cohesive and functioning people, and for their happiness.

It's not that I don't see that we're both doing what we believe is right, I just know what I'm doing is better.

Basically it comes down to world view.

If you believe that the world has some kind of Creator, a supreme supernatural being who created the universe and all that, then morality isn't relative. there are things that are objectively evil.

If you believe that there is no creator, that the universe just exists on its own, that either it never was created and existed for all eternity, or that it somehow created itself, then morality is relative. Good and evil are just what humanity thinks is good or evil at that time.

Basically, fedorafag atheists are responsible for moral relativism, and fantasy stories will shift to represent that. People moved away from the idea of there being objective evil and there being objective good, because it didn't align with their own personal world view, so it didn't work for them and they couldn't relate to it.

A lot of people seem to miss the point of this.

It's literally just saying that ultimately the only difference between the two characters is the POV and who wins. Both of them are violently trying to express their views, and both think they are infallibly right.

Though, of course, one has to take in who the original and primary belligerent is.

The more analogous something is to reality, the easier it is to relate to. This is just something that keeps folks comfortable.

Not many people are alright with being uncomfortable and stepping into unfamiliar territory.

No, you believe it is.

Unless the other person also knows what they're doing is wrong/selfish.

>I believe my morality is superior

Well no shit.

>Things that were never said anywhere in the post

Listen broseph, I didn't say you couldn't win by killing people.

I'm just not going to be impressed when you claim that it means you're moral.

Cowboy Bebop is extremely hokey and corny.

And? Why wouldn't I?

There can only be one morality across a nation and culture. You can't have different subgroups of people abiding by different morality and laws in one nation and cultural group. That's extremely stupid.

I'd like to hear some examples too. I can't recall of any RPG that outright tell you anything along the lines of "not everything is black and white".
I think that's the kind of thing you could see in a White Wolf product, but I've only read Scion and Exalted 2e so I can't say. Plus WW is a product of the '90 if I recall correctly.
And if we take vydias in account: the last Witcher game came to my mind as something people could see as "grey and grey morality", but I immediately realised the game often gives you bigger or equal rewards for finding a peaceful way out of a situation.

actual gibberish

Not him, but it's a parody of a statement made by Canada's prime minister.

"If you kill your enemies, they win".

I'm not even making this up.

That's the most stupid and most bitter post I've seen in a while.

>There can only be one morality across a nation and culture

Why?

The dominant culture of a nation will inform the society of that culture which in term determines the baseline moral values. Butt each person will have their own personal morality that differs from the societal norm, some hardly deviating at all, others a lot.

Not to mention other cultures within the nation will have different cultural values and therefore different morals.

How is that supposed to work? There are no two adult human beings in this word that have the exact same morality

"Anime" is literally just the Japanese word for animation. It has fuck-all to do with style or themes. Any animation that comes from Japan = anime. Any animation from outside Japan = not anime.

Doraemon, The Wind Rises and Gurren Lagann are all anime, and they couldn't be more different if they tried.

Because we started to ask ourselves things like;

>Why is the evil doofus like that?
>Could he have been like us and us like him if we lived each others lives?
>So what happened to all the orcs? Were they all killed at the end? Even the little orc children who knew nothing of war?
>Did that dude just turn to banditry to feed his much loved family and hated hwat he had to do?
>That Dragon was sentient and sapient and was doing nothing but sleeping on a heap of gold. I just broke into his house and killed him for a heap of bling. Why did I feel that this wasn't a murder and robbery?
>Is trespass, theft, ecological vandalism and murder really excusable just because the other dude was a Giant? Also can we have a different whiteness account other than Jack's please?

Because of laws, user. It's the reason we should never see both legal and sharia courts in a western country.

Because conflicts are inevitable.

Laws are based on ethics, not morality. It's not about what's right, it's about what's best.

One story saying something shitty isn't a problem.

When every fucking story is saying the same shitty thing, then it's a fucking problem.

That is how culture works. It's never just one shitty thing. It's the cumulative, systemic effect of lots of shitty things, taken as a whole.

>I believe my morality is superior

Of course you do.

No-one ever thinks they're a bad guy.

Of course, most of those are either clear misrepresentations of (fictional) reality, or have very simple answers that would most likely not satisfy the person asking the questions.
But I suppose ignoring reality or simple solutions to simple problems is simply what we do in this day and age.

that depends. they arent exactly separable in every account

Leviticus and Quran for example will tell you whats best AND right, acting both as ethic/moral guidelines and legislation

Absolutely. Just look at the SJW crowd who thrive off of doing exactly that.

Why it's popular is because it tends to create more complex and interesting stories, and appeals more to an adult audience, which is who tabletop games largely are marketed to these days, as opposed to children, who used to be a larger share of the audience, and who prefer simple and binary perspectives of morality.

I think the better question is, why do you care? You can run whatever the fuck kind of game you want. Even if every rpg out there was promoting total ethical ambiguity, which isn't the case anyway, you could still do the most morally absolutist game imaginable if that's what you want.

That's sort of the whole point of this hobby.

Watchman hasn't been relevant for years user.

GoT is the new hotness and it constantly pushes the idea of gray vs. gray morality.

>There can only be one morality across a nation and culture
Bullcrap. There can only be one morality across a nation or culture if one of the morality encompassed in that nation or culture think there can be only one.
And even in that broad group of people who adhere to the same moral rules there is gonna be minor differences, which will grow with time and produce sometimes totally opposed moralities. It may take months, years or centuries but it will happen, because each individual is different and hold a different set of beliefs, even if these difference are minor.

>You think that not being a moral relativist is only possible by blindly and unfailingly following your current beliefs?

Not that guy, but if you don't believe that morality is either objective or subjective, what DO you believe?

>most grey morality stories were hacky garbage
Let's be honest, friend. Most genre fiction in general is garbage. How it seems the world hardly matters.

Isn't Doraemon korean?

That morality should be determined by what works best and produces the best results for people.

*Tipping intensifies*

How do you determine what's best? And who are the people?

How do I determine what's best? Look at when things worked the best and people were happiest.

Lord almighty no. Shit is a Japanese cultural icon.

Haha holy shit, any decent lawyer would laugh their asses off at that statement.

Laws are mutable constructs, invented and enforced by fallible human beings. The number of laws that have been passed and enforced at some point or another based on totally erroneous premises and beliefs is staggering. Shit, if what you say is true, then why do people ever contest their country's laws? By your logic, their moral values should already align with the law (or vice versa), so there should be no conflict in the first place.

Also, I'm pretty sure there are many western countries with large muslim populations where sharia courts are allowed and respected, if all parties involved consent to their judgement. So I guess conflict isn't inevitable.

Why is happiness the ultimate goal? What about happiness makes it better than not happiness? What about technological progress? Or industrial domination of the whole planet? Or you having all the money?

What makes it better than that? Other than your opinion?

But works best has changed throughout history meaning your morality must change meaning your morality is subjective.

You don't seem to know what's going on the world, friend, if you think muslim morality and western morality can remotely coexist.

Those courts exist hush hush, with the government too afraid to arrest them. They're taking advantage of the good faith of their host country, and they should be punished for the inhumanity they cultivate.

>That morality should be determined by what works best and produces the best results for people.

Not how it works. You come closer to something that makes sense if you say:

>Actions should be moral and
>morality is what works best and produces the best results for people.

>It's not about what's right, it's about what's best
What you think is right will most likely coincide with what you think is best, For example, none who's morality prioritizes freedom will pass a law that allows people to be put into jail without a trial.

But that's subjective morality you clot.

The way we write reveals the way we think.

>about technological progress? Or industrial domination of the whole planet? Or you having all the money?

all these things make you happy user

>what is divine law
theres a reason Shariah courts are so attractive to some, they dont apply to your post 1:1

But he's right you know...

That goodness and justice are worth striving for, while acknowledging that the things I'm striving for aren't as concrete as I'd like them to be.

If I met a man who did evil things, but regretted them, or never wanted to do them in the first place but had no other choice, I would be inclined to forgive him, and help him back to the light. Because I know I likely would have done no better in his place.

Remorse is rarer than gold. It should be cherished whenever it is found.

What if they don't, but someone presents them as a better objective for what we want to achieve with our systems of morality?

Are they objectively wrong? Says what?

>Actions should be moral
But why?

>Those courts exist hush hush
Ah yes, super hush
matribunal.com/

>too afraid to arrest them
Afraid of being shitcanned immediately for arresting somebody following the law, that is. This law, specifically:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Act_1996

I'm curious, user, what exactly is it you think that's going on that is immoral or illegal here?

dude real life lmao

10 bucks he says something about "degeneracy"

Have you read Friedman's draft to Legal Systems Very Different From Ours? Amazing campaign fodder.

>I'm curious, user, what exactly is it you think that's going on that is immoral or illegal here?
First of all, what "here" are you referring to? England? US? Canada?

Because I can safely say that polygamy, child marriages and condoned martial rape are not legal or moral.

>But why?

Listen IDGAF, I'm just telling that other user that his post conflated too many concepts into one sentence.

>If it were otherwise, it would be anime.
That's a stupid comparisson and sounds like "I don't like anime so everything bad is anime"

>Because I can safely say that polygamy, child marriages and condoned martial rape are not legal or moral.

Not legal in your country maybe. Not moral to you sure. Doesn't make those actions immoral or illegal though.

That doesn't mean western morality doesn't exist out of dozens of sub-moralities that manage to co-exist.

>what exactly is it you think that's going on that is immoral or illegal here?

look up separation of church and state then try and explain why letting a bronze age savage murder cult enforce the law is moral

people so retarded they still have imaginary friends as an adult should stay the fuck out of law

Anyone who tolerates mudslimes is a fucking moron.
Their barbaric values are directly opposed to the values of most western countries.
Thank the old gods that their ilk are hated in my homeland, and last year saw dozens of firebomb attacks against the "refugee" centers.
The sooner every single one of them is kicked out, the better.

>where

UK - for easy access to internet resources

>Because I can safely say that polygamy, child marriages and condoned martial rape are not legal or moral.

And no Shariah court in the UK can legally exonerate those, so... again what's the problem?

Nietzsche. Specifically thus spake Zarathustra,