I don't imagine many moral quandaries will be plaguing any but the most invested RPers among us. The ethics of a video game are easy to neglect.

The only thing that comes to mind is something like betrayal -- trading in a lesser ally for a greater one. To the issue of loyalty, the more emergent qualities of honesty and reputation come to mind; it doesn't do to have a reputation on your server as an opportunist, as that will follow you beyond one character and into the next.

But again, at that point we've reduced it from a moral dilemma to a practical one: how to maximize the number of people willing to deal with you based on your reputation.

if this is just a simple question of "do the ends justify the means" then i must say no, the ends never justify the means. i do believe however, that it is incredibly common that we are presented with an array of horrible choices all of which will bring about evil, and in said situation having no option that produces no evil, the morally correct choice is to attempt to make the choice that brings about the least evil, and the most good.

as to vucar, maybe they do not tug at the conscience of many people, but that does not make them any less real or any less there.

i subscribe to the view of moral realism, that being that an act is morally wrong regardless of personal, cultural or popular views on the morality of said action.

A king should know his own laws better than his lackeys. There is no end that justifies the means. There may be eased circumstances, but a king is never above his own law. The context may justify a means, but in the end a king should be an example to the public. There are no exceptions.

My character will have a strict set of moral guidelines, however how can you act morally towards those that oppose your faith and being?

That's his reasoning.

What are morals but a set of behaviour that is agreed upon?

What is authority but the power that people lend their support to?

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. It is more important that the people of the Kingdom believes it to be right.

Does the end justifies the means? Well if you are a consequetialist then yes. But the end encompass the consequences that the means bring about, it therefore means that you have to be cautious of the means that you use to achieve that end.

I believe that regardless of whether you are an absolute monarch or a legalist monarch, it is more important that the nobles and aristocrats support your actions. This game follows a feudal system after all.

Posted By Idioticmaddog at 1:35 PM - Sat Oct 14 2017

What are morals but a set of behaviour that is agreed upon?

What is authority but the power that people lend their support to?

It doesn't matter what is right or wrong. It is more important that the people of the Kingdom believes it to be right.

Does the end justifies the means? Well if you are a consequetialist then yes. But the end encompass the consequences that the means bring about, it therefore means that you have to be cautious of the means that you use to achieve that end.

I believe that regardless of whether you are an absolute monarch or a legalist monarch, it is more important that the nobles and aristocrats support your actions. This game follows a feudal system after all.

Agreed entirely, many monarchs are acting as if they can impose what they want when they want when really they can only do what their counts and dukes allow them to.

Everyone has their own code that abides by, but in video game as Flashman mentioned above different rules apply. My opinion is that kings should not be limited by something not well defined as morality, but then again they should try to stick to some sort of moral guidelines, so it is a balance between morality and pragmatism.

Posted By Mythos Cardan at 10/14/2017 1:28:52 PM

Everyone has their own code that abides by, but in video game as Flashman mentioned above different rules apply. My opinion is that kings should not be limited by something not well defined as morality, but then again they should try to stick to some sort of moral guidelines, so it is a balance between morality and pragmatism.

I sense a secret TFQ follower, maybe you will need some spiritual guidance from me or the church 😉😉

Great question. I think it's situational and often you don't know if you made the "moral" choice until long after you made it. Relationships ebb and flow. What you would never consider doing at one point might be something you would never consider not doing at another. I tend to be loyal and protective until the other person/organization shows they are no longer loyal to me. So I am very reactionary. Things I would do to an enemy or someone I am just ok with may be things I won't do to a friend. I would describe myself as neutral or chaotic good. I try to do the right and fair thing but that dosn't mean I will follow a law or moral code I consider dumb blindly.

Everything I do is moral. Until it isn't. LOL. What may be moral to you, may not be to me. What is moral in Iran, may not be in the States. If what I do is popular with the masses or the powers that be, chances are it will be moral. Even then, if what I did dosn't work, what was once moral will become immoral very quickly.

I weigh the consequences of everything I do, to who I do them and what our current relationship is before I do them. Then, if I am willing to pay the price of doing wrong if caught, I do that thing. Morally or legally. By doing this, I never look back on decisions I have made for the bad or good. So am I being moral? In my mind, yes.

I was watching an episode of the "Last Kingdom" recently where one ruler had to decide to save his daughter or not from kidnappers and possibly destroy his kingdom in doing so. His moral question being, is his one daughter more important than the thousands of others that depend on him? As king he has a great responsibility to the thousands of people under him. As a father he has a responsibility to his daughter. It was made very clear to him that if he chose his daughter over the kingdom there would be sever repercussions. The money used to save her would be used to buy an army to conquer his land. Thus he would be paying for his own destruction. The Nobel's of his land might very well revolt. But could he live with himself and God if he didn't save his daughter.

I do not believe moral action to be tied to role-playing alone. Let us not forget, a character can die permanently. They can lose all their wealth and the product of their hard work. While the setting is a game, acting in accordance with moral principle or not is a real choice with real consequences.

On an individual basis these debates become easy to resolve. Is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against another player? No. NPCs, in-game legal structures, and players will all react in opposition to someone who commits unprovoked violence. This can be considered a Universal Law.

On the other side of the debate is context. For example, is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against another in order to preempt a perceived threat? Some may say yes, though this brings us into the realm of prediction. As it is impossible to know the future, can we be assured that an act of violence which is normally considered immoral is now permissible? This leads us down a path of justifying our acts with context. Justification that becomes easier to find the more assured one becomes of their predictions. We stop considering individual acts and begin collectivizing. The Hrothi say, "The Kypiq are short and tricky, and by their nature represent a threat to our tunnel homes." This becomes an excuse to give in to fear and to commit violence in order to protect against a threat.

Following that line of thought, does it then become permissible to retaliate against the members of a nearby nation because of the violent acts of a member of that nation? Do we grant ourselves the right to initiate violence on all Virtori because it was a Virtori extremist who burned our Faedin shrine? Do the ideological differences that separate us constitute an imminent threat?

Good discussion so far. What do you think?

IRL, it's the King's duty to uphold the standard of their nation's culture, as culture is what defines what is and isn't moral.

In CoE... well first the culture needs to be established.

Posted By Scheneighnay at 7:25 PM - Sat Oct 14 2017

IRL, it's the King's duty to uphold the standard of their nation's culture, as culture is what defines what is and isn't moral.

In CoE... well first the culture needs to be established.

The cultures already exist

Posted By Bombastus at 11:17 AM - Sat Oct 14 2017

I do not believe moral action to be tied to role-playing alone. Let us not forget, a character can die permanently. They can lose all their wealth and the product of their hard work. While the setting is a game, acting in accordance with moral principle or not is a real choice with real consequences.

On an individual basis these debates become easy to resolve. Is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against another player? No. NPCs, in-game legal structures, and players will all react in opposition to someone who commits unprovoked violence. This can be considered a Universal Law.

On the other side of the debate is context. For example, is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against another in order to preempt a perceived threat? Some may say yes, though this brings us into the realm of prediction. As it is impossible to know the future, can we be assured that an act of violence which is normally considered immoral is now permissible? This leads us down a path of justifying our acts with context. Justification that becomes easier to find the more assured one becomes of their predictions. We stop considering individual acts and begin collectivizing. The Hrothi say, "The Kypiq are short and tricky, and by their nature represent a threat to our tunnel homes." This becomes an excuse to give in to fear and to commit violence in order to protect against a threat.

Following that line of thought, does it then become permissible to retaliate against the members of a nearby nation because of the violent acts of a member of that nation? Do we grant ourselves the right to initiate violence on all Virtori because it was a Virtori extremist who burned our Faedin shrine? Do the ideological differences that separate us constitute an imminent threat?

Good discussion so far. What do you think?

There are no absolutes here. Context, as you point out, is the determining factor for issues like this.

When i roamed in Darkfall, and I came across an unrecognized player name out in the world, whether or not I felt it was morally acceptable to jump them came from context clues that told me how much of a newb he was. Things like what he was wearing, how he moved, how he fought, where i found him, if i knew his clan.

Killing newbs was bad for the health of the game, but on a personal level I didn't feel "good" about slaughtering people that had no chance against me and taking what meager scraps they had collected for themselves. Its a maliciousness I had no taste for.

In CoE i expect it to be much the same.

It is permissible, in my opinion, to hold an entire group accountable for the actions of its members.

I've hounded groups in past games for the actions of its members and given ultimatums of casting the offender out, reparations, or enduring my harassment.

The end results i've experienced have included deep apologies, and war.

I would consider this less an issue of morality and more an issue of diplomacy, however.

In many games the opportunism of the powerful is an expected mode of play. Aside from the idea that harassing the new players can alienate them, there is literally no other consequence to hostile actions.

In CoE you are forced to consider the impact of your actions to a greater degree. You may not call it "morality" but the behavior we exhibit in the face of these potential consequences will resemble moral decisions. Likewise, I believe the reaction to some behaviors will mirror the real-world reaction to "immoral" acts.

So the question returns: is a preemptive attack to a perceived threat moral? We know it is rational. We can understand the logic behind a move to guarantee safety. But can we excuse an immoral act designed to create the greatest possible good?

Posted By Bombastus at 9:06 PM - Sat Oct 14 2017

In many games the opportunism of the powerful is an expected mode of play. Aside from the idea that harassing the new players can alienate them, there is literally no other consequence to hostile actions.

In CoE you are forced to consider the impact of your actions to a greater degree. You may not call it "morality" but the behavior we exhibit in the face of these potential consequences will resemble moral decisions. Likewise, I believe the reaction to some behaviors will mirror the real-world reaction to "immoral" acts.

So the question returns: is a preemptive attack to a perceived threat moral? We know it is rational. We can understand the logic behind a move to guarantee safety. But can we excuse an immoral act designed to create the greatest possible good?

With the proper casus belli- not the odd game mechanic- but real casus belli to properly justify it to other players.

So everything will eventually boil down to "whether or not the rest of the community thinks you're a dick for doing what you do"

Which of course will be extremely important because you can't exactly kill off your enemies, so you want to make as few as possible.