Unanimous Good

[KorvinStarmast]

That's because the DMG only tells them about rule 0, not rule -1 which is "don't be a **** about rule 0".

Thank you.

That's because deontological morality is not widely accepted any more. We know that the good guys winning will have good outcomes, and so the methods by which they achieve them are acceptable.

In Hollywood 'the ends justifies the means' often shows up. They are out to make a profit, not necessarily do anything moral.

... when people complain about the Rebels "breaking the rules" when they are functionally terrorists, against an Empire that regularly commits genocide.
Rules? Lol wut rules?

I've got about six rejoinders that are outside of forum rules, but you did get a laugh out of me.

The Geneva Conventions would like a word.

They are irrelevant to RPGs.

[icefractal]

For example: In the teen drama hour in the middle of Avatar 2 one of Sully’s kids starts a fight with the lighter blue kids who are bullying his adopted sister. He starts the fight with a sucker punch. I’m not sure where James Cameron grew up, but I grew up in a place and time where teen disputes where often resolved by rolling on the two fisted combat resolution table, and sucker punches were always considered a coward’s move. James Cameron presents it as a clever way to even the odds.

I think this is a YMMV thing, because personally? I don't consider the concept of a "fair fight" to have inherent moral value.

At the most basic level - being stronger doesn't mean you "deserve" to win, in an ethical sense. That would depend on various factors (importantly, why you're fighting) but having the person who's better at fighting win the fight is a bad outcome as often as a good one.

So with that in mind, the only case where a fight being fair has value is when it's a contest (like MMA) or a mutually-agreed duel. And the former of those has weight classes and leagues for a reason. The fight above, where you're talking about several people vs one smaller person? That's already not remotely "fair" - a sucker punch isn't going to make it any less so.

And that leads into the thing that a lot of "rules of fair combat" were created by the powerful, for the benefit of the powerful. Things that would let peasants defeat knights - dishonorable. Things that knights are good at - fine and honorable. And they change over time as who's in power does. Many of the tactics used by the American forces in the revolutionary war were considered dishonorable by the standards of the time, but we won (and wrote the history), and so now those tactics are not only acceptable but considered common sense.

[Pauly]

Nu-Wars complaints aside, it always amuses me when people complain about the Rebels "breaking the rules" when they are functionally terrorists, against an Empire that regularly commits genocide.

Rules? Lol wut rules?

The complaint is that something that is widely accepted as a bad faith act, not just on morality grounds but on the practical grounds of the consequences doing an act carries, is presented as good because it done by good people with good intentions.

For me that was the exact moment I noped out of Nu Wars. Not just the Rebels doing it and it being presented as good, but the what I infer was meant to be comedic response to it by the bad guys who look like the Empire but aren’t the Empire whose name I can’t remember.

[False God]

The complaint is that something that is widely accepted as a bad faith act, not just on morality grounds but on the practical grounds of the consequences doing an act carries, is presented as good because it done by good people with good intentions.

Again, the Empire's intentions were to kill them all anyway. "Oh no, the heroes did something that broke the rules in order to save their lives against enemies who plan to murder them wholesale!" is a pretty flat complaint in my book. Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war. There is no equitable conflict between the two. The "rules of war" quite flatly don't apply.

[Witty Username]

On the Star Wars stuff, I recommend the short story from the Halo franchise, The Impossible Life and Possible Death of Admiral Preston J. Cole.
As some of the why & why not is a direct topic of one of the chapters.
--
Also, in the Poe vs Hux thing, I don't recall the scene well, but I am pretty sure Poe and Hux were fully aware this wasn't a genuine surrender, and that Blake's 7 villan logic is fully in play, to quote:
"An enemy does not cease being an enemy simply by having surrendered"

[Pauly]

Again, the Empire's intentions were to kill them all anyway. "Oh no, the heroes did something that broke the rules in order to save their lives against enemies who plan to murder them wholesale!" is a pretty flat complaint in my book. Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war. There is no equitable conflict between the two. The "rules of war" quite flatly don't apply.

Then the situation changes from “goods guys -v- bad guys” to “some guys -v- some other guys who are arguably worse”.

[hamishspence]

Rebels vs Imperials isn't a war.

To be fair, the intro to ANH does say "It is a time of civil war..."

[MetroAlien]

it's quite a futile exercise to apply the regimented "morals" of RPG-systems to a novice writer's failed attempt to communicate the real-world idea of "moral relativism".

For one, RPG systems with alignments specifically included in their mechanical rules usually do so for a reason.
In case of D&D, it's because certain spells/items/effects will affect you in different ways depending on how you acted.
At face value, that's an intriguing concept, imho, but it does make for a very specific kind of game.

If you want to play a game where "moral relativism" is actively explored, you should either discuss it with the table in advance or seek out a rules system with a corresponding mechanic.

In my experience, this rarely becomes an issue in more "rules-light" RPG systems, compared to D&D.
I'm inclined to say it's because in "rules-light" games with minimalist character sheets, players tend to imagine playing a "person" and try to think how that person would act.
Also, the idea of a "party" is usually less rigid, and PvP doesn't disrupt the gameplay as much as a result.

In D&D, inexperienced players more often see the character sheet as a template and fill in the blanks. This way of thinking about your character is more prone to pigeon-holing them into alignment stereotypes.
Coupled with the D&D-specific preconception of a dungeon-delving team of adventurers vying for the same goal, mismatched pigeon-holes are bound to create some uncomfortable friction.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, the intro to ANH does say "It is a time of civil war..."

Yeah, and there was an entire rebel fleet with military ranks and such.

If you want to play a game where "moral relativism" is actively explored, you should either discuss it with the table in advance or seek out a rules system with a corresponding mechanic.

In my experience, this rarely becomes an issue in more "rules-light" RPG systems, compared to D&D.
I'm inclined to say it's because in "rules-light" games with minimalist character sheets, players tend to imagine playing a "person" and try to think how that person would act. Also, the idea of a "party" is usually less rigid, and PvP doesn't disrupt the gameplay as much as a result.

That's a nice post, you are awarded one *golf clap*. I liked the whole post, but that bit really stuck out as good advice.

[Easy e]

I’m not sure I understand the “rioting incidents”… er, “rooting interests“ (Darn autocorrect) bit. What would you call the rooting interests for MCU Thor or Dr. Strange? For TNG Data or Riker or Troi? For Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or R2-D2? I think I can describe “personality” or “quirks” of characters, but I’m drawing a blank on rooting interests.

Just to be clear, a Rooting Interest is a reason to cheer for or support the character. So, for the examples you have I would say (but this is not an exact science) that they are:

Thor- Learns humility through adversity in the very first film, tries to be a hero in the first film, and is loyal to his friends and family in the first film.

Dr. Strange- Learns humility (a common theme in first outing films), masters a difficult task despite disadvantages in the first film, and has another person in his life who cares about them in the first film.

Data- Perhaps the easiest, his rooting interest is his search to be a human. He knows he is "flawed" and is seeking to understand and overcome it.

Riker- Grow a manly beard. No, he is a competent and capable officer, looks out for his crew, and cares about those around him.

Han Solo- Is a bad person surrounded by worse people, has a sense of humor. has an obvious skill at piloting, eventually makes the right decisions, and has another character who cares about him in the first movie.

Luke Skywalker- He is from a rural area (like many of the audience), is surrounded by folks who care for him, and treats the droids with care, he obviously has some skill with machines as well, in the first movie right out of the gate.


Those are all reasons an audience (or other people) might relate to or care for the character. Some are character arcs, some are personality traits, and others might even be quirks; but the Rooting Interest is something a bit different as it is usually action and dialogue based.

Note: It is also possible for villains to have a "Rooting Interest" and that often makes the best villains.

[Talakeal]

I am less concerned about the resistance using fake surrenders to trick the First Order in the ST than I am about Obi Wan doing it in The Clone Wars film, he doesn't really have so many excuses.

[kyoryu]

I think this is a YMMV thing, because personally? I don't consider the concept of a "fair fight" to have inherent moral value.

At the risk of cynicism, most advocates of "fair fighting" define it in a way that gives advantages to whatever strengths they have.

That said, while I don't think there's a lot of value in any kind of defined standard of what a "fair fight" is, I do think there's moral value in (in some circumstances) sticking to the agreed upon parameters of a fight (even if implicit).

[King of Nowhere]

At the risk of cynicism, most advocates of "fair fighting" define it in a way that gives advantages to whatever strengths they have.

there is some truth in that, but not much.
My knowledge is that the general concept of fair fight has the purpose of limiting casualties. there are rules because if everyone respects those rules, we can probably wrap this up with the least amout of dead. and yes, there is no moral right to being the better fighter, but if you are the better fighter, then chances are you'll win anyway in a dirty fight too, so it's better for me to recognize it and give up and get to walk away from it on my legs.

some examples

- no fake surrenders: obvious. if you surrend and i let you live, nobody gets hurt. if you surrend and then you try to fight, the next time I'm not taking the risk and I'm just killing you. So you won't surrend but will fight to the death. in any case, a lot more people will die.
- no stabbing in the back, ambushing, or stuff. let's meet in the agreed place and have a pitched battle. Pitched battles are brutal, but they resolve the war in one day - with perhaps 10% casualties on the armies involved, maybe 20%; then everyone can go home. If the weaker party does guerrilla stuff and ambushes, the stronger party will have to answer by destroying food supplies - to draw the rebels out - and mass abuse on the population. the war will be protracted, with damage to the agricultural system.
- duel of the champions: ok, we have no reason to surrender just because we lost a 1 on 1. But if our champion lost to their champion, statistically it means they are probably better trained than we are, and better equipped. We are probably going to lose, so it's better to just accept the outcome.
- respect the prisoners: if the enemy does not surrender, it will be very costly for you to finish them off. if they know they can surrender and be treated well, they are more likely to surrender. and you will lose less men, while still neutralizing the enemy. And after the war ends, there will be more people who will get to go home.
- no poison: in d&d you poison your blade and it deals additional damage, but reality does not work that way. Poison is slow. If you poison your blade, it won't help you win the fight. It just means that the guy you wounded lightly is going to die tomorrow, instead of recovering. Or, you're poisoning food. In both cases, though, if you do it the enemy can do it too, and the result will be a lot more people dead.

I could go on for a while, but I think the point is made.
The code of honor is associated with the middle age knights, and they fought all the time - like, every year there was a "war" - but those were nearly bloodless. A few hundred knights would meet on each side, they would fight for a while, one side would surrender once things start to go poorly. A few dozen dead, maybe a few hundreds. A dispute settled. A war fought without rules is a lot more bloody. though they do happen when none of the sides want accept defeat and is willing to endure more dead.

[kyoryu]

there is some truth in that, but not much.
My knowledge is that the general concept of fair fight has the purpose of limiting casualties. there are rules because if everyone respects those rules, we can probably wrap this up with the least amout of dead. and yes, there is no moral right to being the better fighter, but if you are the better fighter, then chances are you'll win anyway in a dirty fight too, so it's better for me to recognize it and give up and get to walk away from it on my legs.

I was talking more "street fight" kinda stuff, rather than "war crimes" type stuff. War crime stuff generally exists to make war the least dirty and nasty as it can be. And that's why it's usually a two-directional agreement - if you don't use medical buildings for actual army stuff outside of healing, we won't bomb them. If you make sure all your troops are identifiable, we won't shoot civilians. That kind of stuff.

I was talking more stuff like "stand up fight only, just punches, no low blows" kind of stuff, which is usually argued for by big and strong people. Being a "better" fighter is probably true within a certain set of parameters.... as a simple example, if there's a "fair fight" rule of "don't kick people when they're down", then a style of fighting that, if you fail, is likely to leave you on the ground when they're not is going to have advantages that it wouldn't have without that rule.

- no stabbing in the back, ambushing, or stuff. let's meet in the agreed place and have a pitched battle. Pitched battles are brutal, but they resolve the war in one day - with perhaps 10% casualties on the armies involved, maybe 20%; then everyone can go home. If the weaker party does guerrilla stuff and ambushes, the stronger party will have to answer by destroying food supplies - to draw the rebels out - and mass abuse on the population. the war will be protracted, with damage to the agricultural system.

It's kinda funny, because a lot of European countries had more or less standardized on that, and it's now considered "dumb". We won the Revolutionary War by not doing that.... and now all wars are guerilla wars and really suck.

[Batcathat]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

[Talakeal]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

[KorvinStarmast]

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

I had to chuckle at that, given the most recent comic strip.

[Batcathat]

I had to chuckle at that, given the most recent comic strip.

Yeah, it was rather topical, wasn't it? I suppose I'm more of a Julia(?) than a Roy, though I will admit that not wanting to potentially sacrifice children is quite a bit better than the typical not wanting to act dishonorably, as far as reasons go.

[King of Nowhere]

I was talking more stuff like "stand up fight only, just punches, no low blows" kind of stuff, which is usually argued for by big and strong people. Being a "better" fighter is probably true within a certain set of parameters.... as a simple example, if there's a "fair fight" rule of "don't kick people when they're down", then a style of fighting that, if you fail, is likely to leave you on the ground when they're not is going to have advantages that it wouldn't have without that rule.

even in that case, fair fighting is likely to result in less dire injuries.
so yes, it's still a case of "we both agree to limit violence"

It's kinda funny, because a lot of European countries had more or less standardized on that, and it's now considered "dumb". We won the Revolutionary War by not doing that.... and now all wars are guerilla wars and really suck.

the thing is, rules are all fine when you're fighting to conquer, or for treasure. it's not really important. you lose, so you'll have a different face printed on a coin, but one emperor or another isn't really going to change much. you have to reason to fight to the bitter end.
but when there are involved ideals that we consider worth dieing for - nationalism, freedom, maybe religion - then you have much less reasons to hold back.

I almost get annoyed at the mere mention of "fair fight", but that's probably because one of my pet peeves is heroes insisting on fighting the villain fairly, even if that means giving the villain a decent chance of succeeding in whatever horrifying, potentially world-ending, plan they have cooking. (Risking the lives of everyone to preserve your personal honor doesn't quite fit my definition of "good" or "heroic", at least).

yes, I agree this is a very, very idiotic time to call in a fair fight.
like many traditions, it has some pretty good reasons to exhist, but it becomes dumb to try and keep applying it once those reasons are no longer

[Batcathat]

even in that case, fair fighting is likely to result in less dire injuries.
so yes, it's still a case of "we both agree to limit violence"

That seems like it would depend a lot on the circumstances. One person immediately knocking the other one out with a cheap shot arguably leads to less injuries than two people beating each other half to death in a fair fight. Sometimes fighting fair will lead to less injuries, sometimes it will lead to more, I think it's hard to generalize.

[MetroAlien]

leaving aside whether fighting dirty is a "decent" thing to do or not, I often (not always) dislike stories where the protagonists are portrayed as fighting dirty.
Specifically in the case of a "fake surrender", the supposed "hero" is taking advantage of the supposed villain's mercy and trust - two traits that I (by default) consider "heroic".

Of course, a good story can feature a villain who displays heroic traits, but in that case it must be a developing or establishing moment, i.e. we learn that this villain is merciful and trusting, etc...

If it just happens casually, then either
A) the plot will seem childish, like it's friends playing pretend on a schoolyard
or
B) the heroes' gains will feel cheap because they haven't "narratively" earned them
or
C) in the worst case, give me "moral whiplash" because the heroes will come off as scumbags and the writers as tone-deaf

The Star Wars sequels example isn't "bad" because of the above two points.
I'd even say that, in theory, the scene could work... in a comedy.
But Star Wars movies aren't meant to be comedic. A scene like that simply doesn't fit the expected tone.

Yes, there are funny moments in original and prequel Star Wars. But it's rarely because a character purposely tells jokes or quips. It's almost always circumstantial comedy, often happens in the background and - most importantly - never influences the plot.

[NichG]

leaving aside whether fighting dirty is a "decent" thing to do or not, I often (not always) dislike stories where the protagonists are portrayed as fighting dirty.
Specifically in the case of a "fake surrender", the supposed "hero" is taking advantage of the supposed villain's mercy and trust - two traits that I (by default) consider "heroic".

For me, you can have a story where the protagonist never fights dirty, but that's only satisfying if there really was never any need for the protagonist to fight dirty and no negative consequences for choosing not to do it. An OP protagonist who releases enemies back into the ecosystem because they really have the power to guarantee their future behavior, who turns their back on a downed enemy because they outclass them so much it doesn't matter, etc, that's fine.

But if anyone ever dies or comes to grievous harm because of the protagonist's sense of fairness, the protagonist goes under a microscope for me. If that sense of fairness was ever applied inconsistently (hello using really lethal stuff against nameless mooks who probably die offscreen but suddenly being squeamish about using lethal force against the named antagonist) and/or if the protagonist at any point forcefully took authority or responsibility over deciding how things would be handled (e.g. stopping a companion from using lethal force themselves, or stepping forward and saying 'I'll deal with it!' so others do not or things like that), then to me that reads as being almost as bad as if the protagonist had willfully chosen to intentionally cause that outcome themselves.

So if the rest of the story is clean and bright, a clean and bright protagonist is fine to me. But if the story is dark, if bad stuff happens that could have been prevented by the people who made it their responsibility to prevent it by them doing something dirty, then failing to follow through means that when they stood up and said 'I can be responsible for this', that was not 'heroic' in the positive sense.

[MetroAlien]

your explanation makes a lot of sense.

I should clarify that I was talking about "heroic" protagonists specifically. Anti-heroes play by different rules (that's why they're "anti")

But maybe my definition of "fighting dirty" is more narrow than other people imply in their comments.
To me, it's specifically using the villain's positive traits against them.

In my mind there are two kinds of trickery/deception:
1. by misinformation only
2. emotional/moral gaslighting

I don't consider the 1st case as "fighting dirty".
Gaslighting includes stuff like "fake surrender", "fake forgiveness", "fake love/friendship", etc...
The trojan horse is a classic example. Although by modern standards Odysseus may fall on the anti-hero side, if not outright "villain-protagonist" (according to some critics).

(ngl, I went through a phase as a teenager after first learning the differences between the "E-rated Iliad" and "R18-rated")

An antagonist who's liable to being gaslit doesn't seem like a worthy "final boss" in the first place. Arguably, it's realistic, idk... but such a trait decisively reduces the character's threat level and lowers the stakes of the story, imho.

[NichG]

your explanation makes a lot of sense.

I should clarify that I was talking about "heroic" protagonists specifically. Anti-heroes play by different rules (that's why they're "anti")

But maybe my definition of "fighting dirty" is more narrow than other people imply in their comments.
To me, it's specifically using the villain's positive traits against them.

In my mind there are two kinds of trickery/deception:
1. by misinformation only
2. emotional/moral gaslighting

I don't consider the 1st case as "fighting dirty".
Gaslighting includes stuff like "fake surrender", "fake forgiveness", "fake love/friendship", etc...
The trojan horse is a classic example. Although by modern standards Odysseus may fall on the anti-hero side, if not outright "villain-protagonist" (according to some critics).

(ngl, I went through a phase as a teenager after first learning the differences between the "E-rated Iliad" and "R18-rated")

An antagonist who's liable to being gaslit doesn't seem like a worthy "final boss" in the first place. Arguably, it's realistic, idk... but such a trait decisively reduces the character's threat level and lowers the stakes of the story, imho.

For me something like the trojan horse wouldn't even rate. But something like faking being in love with the villain or becoming their confidant in order to later betray and thereby unmake them could go either way for me. There's fighting dirty and there's unnecessary cruelty and those are not the same thing. I guess maybe a way I'd put it is, just as for me a hero has to justify not killing someone when the stakes have already proven to be life and death, if they're using cruel methods then they also do need to justify the necessity of that cruelty. It won't necessarily make me cheer - definitely can take stories in a bittersweet direction - but a well-constructed cruelty of conscience is something I can accept. I can also accept at some degree of not strictly necessary cruelty against a foe who has demonstrated equal or worse cruelty in their own behavior, though that becomes very much down to the details of exactly how things are written.

As an example, currently reading a HP fic where the protagonist knows what's up with the Riddle Diary and is basically pretending vulnerability to it to extract information about Voldemort. A schemer protagonist gaslighting teenage Voldemort who is simultaneously trying to gaslight them is completely fine by me.

[Satinavian]

For me, fake surrenders are generally a step to far for a protagonist who is portrayed as on the good side. It is roughly on the level as capturing the villains family and slowly torturing his children to death until he gives up.

There is a lot of edgy behavior that can be rationalized as "the ends justify the means" but that is not heroic at all.


If stories do include such things, i want the stories to treat them as the immoral transgressions they are. Some anguish, some allies moving away in disgust, retaliation in kind etc.
The hero doing a fake surrender and it being treated just as a clever ploy ? I really really hate this.

[Batcathat]

For me, fake surrenders are generally a step to far for a protagonist who is portrayed as on the good side. It is roughly on the level as capturing the villains family and slowly torturing his children to death until he gives up.

While a fake surrender obviously won't win any morality awards, I'm curious as to why you'd put it at that level. (And yes, doing it in reality is illegal, but so is dressing up like the enemy which roughly every hero ever has done).

[Satinavian]

While a fake surrender obviously won't win any morality awards, I'm curious as to why you'd put it at that level. (And yes, doing it in reality is illegal, but so is dressing up like the enemy which roughly every hero ever has done).

Because fake surrender is not just a warcrime.

It is an action that punishes people for taking prisoners instead of killing everyone. It is also an action that will remove "taking prisoners" as an option because too risky. It will lead to many additional casualities and both sides and in future conflicts. And then there is direct retaliation it just invites.

Using fake uniforms is not something i am too happy about, but find far more forgivable. The consequences are mostly people being more careful in the future and possibly the enemy using the same tactics. I would not object to people being found out doing so being treated as spies not proper combatants afterwards though.

But an action i put as equally bad as a fake surrender is abusing Parlimentaires to launch an attack. Because if negotiation becomes impossible through distrust, only the fight to the death remains.

[NichG]

If I think about it, I can't really think of many situations in which a protagonist doing a fake surrender would bother me. It would pretty much require an extremely reasonable villain or a 'technical' villain whose only problem is just being on the other side of something.

[Batcathat]

Because fake surrender is not just a warcrime.

It is an action that punishes people for taking prisoners instead of killing everyone. It is also an action that will remove "taking prisoners" as an option because too risky. It will lead to many additional casualities and both sides and in future conflicts. And then there is direct retaliation it just invites.

Using fake uniforms is not something i am too happy about, but find far more forgivable. The consequences are mostly people being more careful in the future and possibly the enemy using the same tactics. I would not object to people being found out doing so being treated as spies not proper combatants afterwards though.

But an action i put as equally bad as a fake surrender is abusing Parlimentaires to launch an attack. Because if negotiation becomes impossible through distrust, only the fight to the death remains.

Sure, there are absolutely plenty of situations where it's counter-productive in the long run, for the same reasons that it could be counter-productive to use something like nukes or chemical weapons, since it'd likely just lead to your opponent doing the same thing.

But if it's used to, say, defeat the Evil Empire who commits ten war crimes before breakfast, I wouldn't find it inherently horrible. (Not good certainly, but not horrible).

[Satinavian]

Sure, there is always escalation logic and if the other side doesn't follow the rules, why should the own side do so ?

But in this case, wouldn't it be justified as well to torture the emperors children to death (if he had any known or cared about them or could make him give up instead of fueling his rage) ?

You can do that. Tell a story about en escalated ruthless conflict without boundaries and no quarter given. But you can't do that while having one side being evil and the other not. That is grey, dark and gritty storytelling.