Why Does Veeky Forums get angry about a game that has a moral relativism in there setting?

Yes, I am. I'm just highly schizophrenic.

Why do you think we hate Kotor 2. Kreia and by extensions the jedi exile ruin it.

I'm not schizophrenic, only you and me are.

A good moral dilemma lets you flesh out your character by considering how they'd handle a scenario where the course of action isn't obvious. A bad moral dilemma just gives you two options where it doesn't really matter what you do, because everything's getting fucked either way.

I'm angry that you capitalized "Veeky Forums" and that you used "there" incorrectly.

I haven't even looked at your image yet.

>Do good DMs like exploring moral relativism by giving you moral dilemmas and trying to make you feel awesome no matter what you do?
Why did you do such a thing? Such kindnesses will mean nothing, his path is set. Giving him what he has not earned is like pouring sand into his hands. And would that be a kindness? What if by surviving another day, he brings a greater darkness upon another? Magic binds all things. The slightest push, the smallest touch, sends echoes throughout life. Even an act of kindness may have more severe repercussions than you know or can see. By giving him something he has not earned, perhaps all you have helped him become is a target. Seeing another elevated often brings the eyes of others who suffer. And perhaps in the end, all you have wrought is more pain. And that is my lesson to you. Be careful of charity and kindness, lest you do more harm with open hands than with a clenched fist.

Moral relativism is cancerous cultural marxism that is poisoning the west.

How did you get that

Moral relativism stems from the same root as cultural relativism, which is the Critical theory, that was developed by the (((Frankfurt School))) which was composed of marxist theorists, who wanted to bring down west from within via cultural warfare, so that communism could be established.

Modern leftist insanity, including moral relativism, that is rotting the western world today, draws it's roots from those subversive (((intellectuals))). That shit must be rooted out, and met with utmost intolerance and hate for it is a virus that destroys nations.

> A bad moral dilemma just gives you two options where it doesn't really matter what you do, because everything's getting fucked either way.

This right there. It's why the only right answer to the "orc baby" scenario is refusing to participate in the GM's little game.

A lot of inexperienced, incompetent, or even outright malevolent GMs who try to give the players a "moral dilemma" don't actually give you one. A real ethical crossroads has nuance. It has weight. But a poorly-executed one is just a choice between several no-win scenarios where no matter what you do something punishes you and everyone is worse-off for it.

But Moral Relativism has some grain of truth

all the best lies have a grain of truth

Maybe so, but it is a harmful ideology that can be used to justify moral decay and degeneracy that weakness nations from within, and thus it must be opposed.

t. neo-nazi

t. leftist

This is true, but you don't have to be a leftist to recognize that Frankfurt school cultural marxist conspiracy theory for the crackpot shit it is.

Maybe it'd be best to take a deep breath before this goes any further and look at a middle ground.

There are objectively incorrect things to do, that remain incorrect morally speaking regardless of the context.
But, the vast majority of situations are part of the glorious shades of grey that make up our world and you can't boil everything down to a boilerplate answer black and white situation.

There are reasons to kill that are justified, hell there are reasons beyond self defense even.
If I get two innocent pregnant women, put them in a gladiatorial arena together, throw a knife in and tell them I'm not letting either of them leave alive until I see someone eat a fetus, for shits an' giggles, that is objectively morally incorrect.

I was a nazi before it was popular you little shit don't go grouping me in with those fucking newfags you fucking newfag.

t. riggered

>There is objective morality
Funny how everyone who is against moral relativism can never actually state any objective moral standards.

Fucketh thee, good sir. Everyone on Veeky Forums loves Kotor 2 and Kreia

>A real ethical crossroads has nuance. It has weight. But a poorly-executed one is just a choice between several no-win scenarios where no matter what you do something punishes you and everyone is worse-off for it.
I find the best ones, are the ones that don't feel like a "Choice" at all, but rather just present you with a situation, and let your character tackle it how they would.

>Moral relativism stems from the same root as cultural relativism, which is the Critical theory, that was developed by the (((Frankfurt School)))
What about all the philosophers before that, that didn't believe in moral absolutes? Or was Kant the only philosopher to exist before the Marxists?

>What about all the philosophers before that, that didn't believe in moral absolutes?
>moral absolutes
Only Edgy people deal in Absolutes

So, if Morality isn't relative, and it isn't absolute, then what is it?

>then what is it?
An illusion of Choice.

You're dealing with a conspiracy theory on the order of "the Illuminati were not just a small group of weirdos who came and went, but the nucleus of a secret power that infiltrated the world's governments and controls it to this day." It's just instead of government, it's academia that the Frankfurt School cultural marxists have infiltrated.

>Veeky Forums
Fuck off.

>Veeky Forums

I see people green txting about this sort of bad gm shit all the time, railroads, making the paladin fall, etc. But no one actually explains what happened, probably because Veeky Forums doens't play games. People just foam at the idea of a thing they saw that one time that might have been a bad no.

Shit's hilarious.

Isn't that our name

He used caps, it should be written Veeky Forums instead.

Jesus fuck, get off my case, lady.

The problem is people don't do moral reletavism afaict.

What actually gets done is shades of grey, and then "Why didn't you choose the right option?"

Fuck that, of course players loathe it.

Veeky Forums hated Kotor 2 because it contradicted everything about Star Wars

Literally wrong.

Fuck you. KotOR 2 was amazing. I will fight you.

How can you love something that butchered the Starwars Universe

KotOR 2 is the best star wars game I have ever played. It made it better than it ever was.

But you're right, I can't love TFA at all.

>Pic related

Friendly reminder that all of Veeky Forums has been determined to be one very drunk finn talking to himself.

>People who are against moral relativism can never actually state any objective moral standards.

That's a blatant perversion of facts that results from your autism and has nothing to do with the validity of morality. You, as an individual being incapable of conceptualizing morality does not mean it doesn't exist, it just means you're autistic.

Here's one basic moral standard that can be easily applied regardless of culture:

Any action which benefits one individual at the expense of harming another individual is immoral in the absence of an imminent threat to the survival of a greater number of individuals than the one who benefits directly from the action.

Also:
>Funny how everyone who is against moral relativism can never actually state any objective moral standards.
Funny how everyone who is for moral relativism can never actually disprove that any objective moral standard exists.

>shifting the burden of proof

>implying the burden of proof solely rests on those you disagree with because reasons.

No he's implying the burden of proof lies on you because you claimed something first. You then tried to shift the burden of proof to him, that's not how it works, Anonymous. We're on Veeky Forums not in bible school.

>Funny how everyone who is for moral relativism can never actually disprove that any objective moral standard exists.
Because everytime we try to say something we get shush into silence.

youtube.com/watch?v=ISQg6yzWJ2s

Moral relativism does not argue the case that morality does not exist. By nature it can't, because as a stance it has to acknowledge the concept of morality.

>Any action which benefits one individual at the expense of harming another individual is immoral in the absence of an imminent threat to the survival of a greater number of individuals than the one who benefits directly from the action.

So it's immoral for a fireman to get injured while trying to save someone from a disaster? That's what you're "easily applied" standard says. And dear Lord if TWO firemen get hurt in the act, they're really fiends for acting in a way that results in harm to benefit someone.

If you want to argue that something is "objective" then that thing should be readily apparent to most people. That's what is implied by objectivity.

By the way, I can't disprove the notion that invisible, incorporeal lizard faeries regulate the force of gravity either. Call the History Channel.

First, I just got here.

Second, one user stated "Moral relativism is cancerous" and then in another reply chain went on to explain their point, which is not centered on objective morality. And, in fact, the chain ends with the assertion that "Morality isn't relative, and it isn't absolute, it is an illusion of Choice."

Third, Some user replies that they believe that the other user was asserting "There is objective morality."
user asserts that "everyone who is against moral relativism can never actually state any objective moral standards."
This implies that the only way to disagree with moral relativism is to believe in objective morality.
This is untrue.

Fourth, I mocked this ignorance of the truth by pointing out that the proof user demands from others, he himself cannot provide.
If he is certain his position is fact, he should be able to not only prove it, but disprove other opposed theories.

Fifth, user comes along and argues "Nuh-uh, I asked you first!"

Sixth, Another user white knights him, asserting "that's not how it works" even though they don't understand that theories are proven by trying to disprove them, not by providing examples like "It is not impossible that forcing all life in existence to experience only horrifying, torturous pain for countless eons with no possibility of escape, simply because you're bored is an inherently evil act."

Shush.

>that thing should be readily apparent to most people. That's what is implied by objectivity.
Not really. Objective just means unbiased, as in true from every perspective. Popular perception is not a factor.

>I can't disprove the notion that invisible, incorporeal lizard faeries regulate the force of gravity either.
Nobody can, they call them "gravitons".

>Objective just means unbiased, as in true from every perspective. Popular perception is not a factor.
My point here was that "most people" might not be smart or knowledgeable enough to understand what they're looking at for it to be apparent, but that doesn't affect objectivity.

Wasn't white-knighting, I assumed you were the same user who claimed there's objective morality, I was wrong. In fact I do know theories are only proved by someone attempting to disprove them. I apologize for the confusion, friend.

I've understand your point about objectivity and popular perception, but I don't see how it helps your case. Much like it's possible for the majority of people to lack the knowledge or intelligence to understand something, having the knowledge and intelligence does not remove bias. I'm curious how you propose to demonstrate that someone, or some group for that matter, is free from any bias.

>theories are proven by trying to disprove them
Theories are never proven, they can only be disproven. And a theory that does not allow the possibility to be disproven (like unobservable lizard faeries) is fantasy. Remember that before you use "but you can't disprove it" as an argument.

No worries. I did start my post with "Also".
For the record, I believe objective morality exists.
But I acknowledge that it is a belief, that my example of an inherently evil act is effectively impossible to verify, and that a middle ground position like "morality is an illusion of choice" is a more logically sound position.

But I know that people that adhere to moral relativism as proven truth are wrong and need to be spoken against for reason said above.

>A real ethical crossroads has nuance
Players don't do nuance. You place the blame squarely on the GM, but most players are also terrible. Anything that is even a little bit subtle usually goes over their head.

A player doing "what the character would do" usually ends up being some exaggerated caricature and doing "what feels right" usually ends up taking the course that provide the more immediate reward.

In fact, if a player is placed in a situation where he must choose between "doing what the character would feel is right" and choosing to obtain some reward (+1 sword of slaying or whatever), they'll usually go for the reward.

GMs who try for subtlety are punished, and subtlety is actively discouraged by most people who write advice on GMing and by most experienced GMs.

GMs are usually left with two options, either play it straight good guys vs bad guys and present no dilemmas, or present a ham-fisted "orc-baby" dilemma.

>I'm curious how you propose to demonstrate that someone, or some group for that matter, is free from any bias.
A fact can be objective.
A person can approach objectivity.

>Theories are never proven, they can only be disproven.
Not certain that is the case. At the very least, theories can be "effectively proven".

kek

Why Does you a fucking retarded?

> It's why the only right answer to the "orc baby" scenario is refusing to participate in the GM's little game.

You take the orc babby colony, bring them to safe shelter and then dedicate the rest of your life to making sure they are raised in a virtous manner, completely derailing any plan the DM had for your character.
You shut his protests with some bullshit like "before chasing a far-off good I have to do all the good I possibly can in front of me"
Campaign gets derailed by orc babbys and the DM learns to never again put hamfisted paladin-fall traps in his game about killing shit for loot.

How the fuck is TFA where you draw the line for Star Wars?

>theories can be "effectively proven".
Theories can be proven in the sense that if other things we hold to be true are true then the theory is true.
Remove the foundation and the proof topples.

Because Veeky Forums must always get angry about something, otherwise it's the end.

Seriously, it's like people post in here without reading the prophecy.

Ah yes, the good word of the prophet from ages past, when Veeky Forums was but a fledgling, undivided amalgamation of raw and unshaped matter, a concept in all but name...

Every proof requires givens.
Many given are necessarily assumptions.
Not all assumptions are able to be proven.

It is what it is.

Be certain that it is the case. A theorem can be proven, a theory can not. The best a theory can hope for is to be commonly accepted based on the weight of evidence and/or arguments for it.

This is wrong. More accurately, you have given the definition of a syllogism, not a theory.

Ah. Well...
Potato, Potatem.

Gravity doesn't exist

Oh no!
Who killed the invisible, incorporeal lizard faeries?!

>orc baby scenario
>one player wants to save it, becausr it's an innocent baby
>other wants to kill it, because all orcs are inherently evil and it will grow up to be a menace
>third one casts polymorph spell on it, turning it into a small animal that scurries away, sidestepping the dilemma

Which one was the most right?

If it's inherently evil, and that's a setting property (like D&D having all undead have negative energy and thus be objectively evil), then there's no moral dilemma.

Also, 2 and 3 are functionally equivalent, 3 is just 2 with extra steps.

>Standard Orc Baby Dilemma Answer:
Assume orcs are serious enemies of the PC in some way or the question is pointless:

Is the PC edgy or a murderhobo?
If yes, you know what to do.
If not, is it physically possible for an orc to safely coexist among some members of the PC’s race, or a race at peace with PC’s, allowing for racism, being an outsider, and occasional inappropriately orcish behavior?
If so, take every reasonable measure to save the baby and secure it in a healthy home.
If not, is it unreasonably dangerous to return the baby to other orcs?
If so, kill the baby humanely.
If not, is it acceptable to the PC to allow one more of their enemy to be raised to threaten them and theirs in the future?
If yes, return the baby as safely as possible.
If not, kill the baby humanely.

What I'm getting at is 'is refusal to engage with the dilemma' cheating?

I got more of a "turning a baby into a small animal and letting scurry away is functionally equivalent to killing it." vibe from that post.

We need to make a distinction between objective and intersubjective.
Objective means it's physical reality and even if you don't believe it it's still true.
Inter-subjective means that while it's not a matter of opinion it still only exists in the minds of people, it's just that everybody agrees on it.

Morality comes from unchanging universal principles which can be known through rational thought

Good point.

Question though:
If literally everyone everywhere, everywhen, throughout existence, agrees on an idea, is that idea objective?

Negative energy has nothing to do with good and evil. It's just another force in the universe.

I haven't read anything D&D since 3e, but IIRC, undead are considered inherently evil because they bring in more negative energy and upset the balance/cause some form of damage to reality.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

>Morality comes from unchanging universal principles which can be known through rational thought
Morality changes, Nothing you say will change that

From my point of view, the non edgy people are evil!

They're evil because they're "unatural perversions of life" despite life and nature being neutral.

Really, they're evil because 9/10 your going to be smashing the Zombies face in and it gives the paladin and cleric a chance to feel special. There's nothing thematic about it.

Though I guess you could argue that because Zombies, Skeletons, and the like typically attack ANYTHING in sight without a master, that's why. "Sapient" Undead have their minds warped through coming back.

I've heard it both ways.

Morality doesn't change, just your perspective of it does.
Like North and South, things may vary in relation to you based on your position, but where you fall on the spectrum doesn't change the spectrum.

So?

>Like North and South
what is geomagnetic reversal

>what is geomagnetic reversal
Don't ruin my facts you shit.

North, not Magnetic North.

North is entirely based on the Northern Magnetic Pole, you idiot, it will change when the earth's poles switch provided we're still alive and survive the upheaval it causes.

How do I make a compelling LG vs. CG conflict?

What kind of conflict are you looking for?

Buddy Cop movie

I would say no because there's still the possibility of someone not agreeing. If not agreeing was literally impossible, then it would be objective. At least that's how I see it.