How do you deal with immature little shits who try to shoehorn

>>44409614
Who plays with such faggots?

>>44409614
I let them do it and deal with the consequences.

>>44409614

Is it fantasy or historical fiction?

If it's historical fiction, then fine, you can be as grimdark medieval as you want.

If it's fantasy, you're under no obligation to do that. Fantasy with modern morals - social equality and individual freedoms, for instance - is still fantasy. You can also be as grimdark fascist as you like.

It's fantasy. Just because their fantasy isn't your fantasy doesn't make them immature little shits. It just means you like different sub-genres.

>>44409680

Pretty much the most reasonable reply

>>44409614
If they can adequately justify why their character believes what s/he believes via backstory and previous life experiences, then I let them "try", and tell them that the odds are stacked against them. Most often they can't justify it.

>>44409680
But anon, in fantasy we're under no obligation to follow any real-world morals.

Take cannibalism, for example. In the real world, cultures that practice cannibalism end up being weakened by horrible diseases like kuru and wiped out by stronger and healthier cultures that don't practice cannibalism. Cannibalism is evil because history is written by survivors.

But what if you live in a world of magic where you can cure diseases by casting spells?

>>44409614

Are the modern morals the morals of the setting, or a culture/religion therein?

If yes, then there's no problem.

If no, then there's still no problem because people have weird and different morals IRL, so why can't people think different things in that setting?

>>44409770
You will still be rolled by a culture that isn't forced to spend so many spell slots/mana/whatever curing diseases

>>44409614
Just call it whatever the trendy name for it is today. Modernist fallacy, chronological snobbery, there may be a few others.

>>44409770

Correct. Fantasy is under no obligation to follow real-world morals - save for those that the creator imposes. Goodkind, Martin, Tolkein and Pratchett all had very different moralities in their settings.

If OP is the GM who's upset that the players aren't playing his homebrew right, then he should just say "this is how most people think in my setting, and I don't think it fits with how you're playing" and start a conversation - instead of going onto an image board and bitching.

>>44409817
>get whiny OOC when they get told they can't?
Apparently he did talk to them and they still whine about it.

>>44409798
Unless of course the Remove Disease spell cures all diseases that the patient is suffering from and kills parasites.
If you are already casting that spell routinely, you may as well eat human brains while you are at it.

>>44409614
usually I kill their character

>>44409837

OP didn't establish if he was GM or another player in that post, but yeah, he's still a bitch no matter which chair he's sitting it at that table.

I think the lesson here is OP needs to be better at his role, whichever role that is.

to be honest i kind of enjoy being a race traitor beta cuck and all my fantasy worlds basically have modern morals because its easier

>>44409898
i particularly enjoy presenting miscegenation and the destruction of the white race as good things

i generally let them, because if it's my setting, it's interesting to see their character deal with different cultures where morals are... very different, and if it's their setting it's their setting- at which point the only thing i can do is make a character that holds different morals for the sake of interesting roleplay- either way it's possible to turn it into a positive, and if you can't you need to git gud.

>>44409614
I grow up.

>>44409614
I talk to them like an adult.

File: Shit.png (274KB, 460x483px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 460x483px

>>44410329

>>44409770
Isn't kuru endemic to Papua New Guinea? There were societies that practiced cannibalism in other continents

>>44409614
>immature little shits who try to shoehorn modern morals into fantasy and get whiny OOC when they get told they can't
I'm playing in a group that is currently 50/50 moralfags and shits and giggles edgelords. Honestly I prefer the edgelords if only because they don't make every moral dilemma a real-life fucking debate and attack IRL if you disagree with them in game

>>44411186
Edgelords get a bad rap, they're fun to play with if you can learn to laugh at their antics.

>>44409614
I know right? There is this faggot who keeps wanting to derail a campaign in a fantasy setting that's mostly unified under a single political entity ruled by a powerful warlord and his warlock adviser. The empire is quite stable and prosperous but for some reason this little bitch wants to challenge the sovereign because under imperial law women are treated as livestock and only used for sexual relief and breeding. He's bringing his silly modern morals into a country that is much happier now (like 100% approval ratings amongst actual citizens, virtually no tensions between various races like men, orcs, etc) than it was when the area was split among multiple warring kingdoms.
Horrible, innit?

File: CWKo0vDUsAABeIf.jpg (36KB, 480x469px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x469px

>>44412827
Bait

>>44409614
Calm down there, edgelord. Let me guess, you wanted to have slavery, rape parties, be shitty to women/blacks/children and someone was disgusted with you?

>>44409614
I somehow doubt you know much about "non modern morals" anyway, anon.
I sure don't.

File: Could_you_elaborate.jpg (57KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 638x479px

>>44409614

I think this would make more sense if you define what you mean by modern morals being shoe-horned and the kind of setting they are trying to shoe horn it into?

You cannot just voice a complaint without context and expect everyone to understand what the fuck happens at your table. Did they fight for gay rights in a renaissance setting? Were they standing up against slavery in an imperial Roman setting? What did they do that was so whiny you came here to whine about it yourself?

>>44409872
What are the odds that OP is complaining because he was saying racist shit or tried to rape an npc and someone called him on it.

>>44409614

I know I hate it when people bitch about it, or when cuckservatives try and create "christian" wankfests for themselves.

There is Modern and Classical morality. For much of christian history classical morality reigned, modern morality only taking precedence in the Rennisance and later, or briefly in the days before the Nicean council.

The truth of classical morality is , basically, that might makes right. The truth of modern morality is more about equality. So when we combine these two, we get a brutal yet open system where the hardest motherfuckers re at the top regardless of social prejudices. Also known as Exalted 2e.

File: Counquest_of_Jeusalem_(1099).jpg (494KB, 1254x720px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1254x720px

>>44409614
Are you one of those dipshits who thought the ancient world didn't realize rape and murder were wrong?

Just because they got away with being pieces of shit doesn't mean they didn't realize it was wrong. Genghis Khan had all kinds of excuses for what he did, from political excuses to religious ones. If he didn't know what he was doing was wrong, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT. If the Romans didn't know exterminating Carthage to a man was wrong, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT. If the Crusaders didn't know the Rape of Jerusalem was wrong, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT.

They debated right and wrong at the same length and with the same passion that we do, today. And just like today, those with the power to act without consequence are usually barbarous asshole shitheads who make up excuses to justify their behavior.

There is no "ancient morality", there's just morality. Deal with it.

>>44412827
"amongst actual citizens" Dohoho.

Figures, we achieve paradise and women try to ruin everything again. Well, if anyone needs me I'll be down at the market putting females up for auction. Good day to you, gentlemen!

>>44415224

Your argument falls apart when you come to things like homosexuality, slavery and the rights if women, but I do agree with you. Humans have some of morality genetically in coded into them. All cultures hate thieves and rapists.

However I'm going to assume you are one of those absolutely edgy image board evangelists that wants to talk about 'muh objective morality' and 'muh proof of the divine'. If this is the case then please fuck off.

If not, then keep being cool.

Last time I had a player like that he left after the first session. I warned him that he most likely won't like us. He insisted on joining. The party gang-raped and sold his character to slavery. I didn't intervene. Yes, we are douchebags.

>>44409770
>But anon, in fantasy we're under no obligation to follow any real-world morals.
They're also under no obligation not to

File: Genghis-Khan.jpg (23KB, 393x384px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 393x384px

>>44415349
There are different cultural norms, but people understand victimization inherently. Even in societies with prevalent and brutal slavery there were those who fought against it. The antebellum South, a VERY modern society, had possibly the most barbaric system of slavery ever! It makes Roman slavery look like paid internship.

Likewise when it comes to homosexuality, in some modern nations you will get your genitals mutilated for being a homosexual, and in other countries it makes you an interesting dinner guest. Likewise, the ancient world had differing views of homosexuality from place to place and era to ever.

But at no point is victimization ever seen as just peachy thankyouverymuch, every brutal society (including our own) had rationalizations for their behavior that were debated exhaustively. Religious excuses, social excuses, political excuses, you could look at the entire exercise of law and order in every society as an attempt to create a framework to exercise force and violence only where rationally acceptable.

I mean, Genghis Khan is celebrated as a lawbringer! He might have been a bloodthirsty sociopath, but he didn't let everybody ELSE be bloodthirsty sociopaths, those guys had to obey the rules.

>>44416305
>Likewise when it comes to homosexuality, in some modern nations you will get your genitals mutilated for being a homosexual, and in other countries it makes you an interesting dinner guest. Likewise, the ancient world had differing views of homosexuality from place to place and era to ever.
Even in places where homosexuality was abhorred, they often had different views on what constituted actual homosexuality.

The Greeks defined it by eros, not by actual sex. Men were allowed to have sex with men, but it was socially disgusting to actually love them romantically. Sex with them was seen as an act of domination... the manlier you were, the more men you fucked, and the less you were fucked yourself.

Chinese culture saw it as a way to poison oneself. Avoiding homosexuality wasn't a sin, and it wasn't punishable by death, but those who did it were thought to have toxic levels of Yang energy.

In a couple mesoamerican cultures, husband and wife were mere roles and a person who adequately filled the role of husband (hunting, protecting the tribal lands) could marry any person who adequately filled the role of wife (foraging, taking care of the home, protecting the family).

So usually the claim that someone is trying to be "historically accurate" is muddled by two major issues:

1. We don't really fucking know the morals of ANY ancient society, beyond what we can discern from recorded information. We might know the larger aspects, but there is much that ancient society never wrote down (especially since only fractions of the culture ever knew how to read and write until fairly recently). Much of this includes passive cultural mores.

2. Our internal vision of past societies is colored by what we know and what we believe more than by what is actually true. The past we portray is rarely ever close to reality... even for those of us who try to aim for "historical accuracy".

>>44416588
>Chinese culture saw it as a way to poison oneself. Avoiding homosexuality wasn't a sin, and it wasn't punishable by death, but those who did it were thought to have toxic levels of Yang energy.
I thought there was no energy transfer in gay sex. Or maybe it is just the bottom receiving the energy?

>>44416588
>1. We don't really fucking know the morals of ANY ancient society, beyond what we can discern from recorded information. We might know the larger aspects, but there is much that ancient society never wrote down (especially since only fractions of the culture ever knew how to read and write until fairly recently). Much of this includes passive cultural mores.

But victimization isn't based solely on cultural mores, cultural mores that justify victimizing behaviors exist specifically because people can inherently recognize victimization.

Sure, you could say morals are different all over the world, but the cultural mores you're talking about are often more similar than they are different, because they are addressing human emotions and instincts that aren't limited by cultural boundaries.

The human animal is a hundred thousand years old. We don't know what they were thinking, but we know what they were feeling, whoever they were and however they lived.

>>44416821
>we know what they were feeling, whoever they were and however they lived.
I'm autistic and find this ableist

File: 1354240843783.jpg (141KB, 658x559px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 658x559px

>>44416305
For all the shit Genghis Khan gets, he was pretty sincere about wanting to let the people he ruled keep their cultures.

Within the Mongol Empire, you had open practitioners of Buddhist, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and whatever the hell else, and the rights of all of these people were explicitly protected under the laws they set. Old-world Mongolian shamanism, which Genghis himself practiced, was a tiny, tiny minority.

With regards to the thread, this means that people living under that banner had different moral outlooks on different things, but they were legally obligated to live and let live. There were differing views on homosexuality, on gender roles, on human rights, on basically everything that there still is today.

Moral debates are utterly nothing new. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

>>44416929
That actually wasn't uncommon among the great historic conquerors, it's a good way to get recently conquered people to pay their taxes. If you look at the spread of Christianity you can see pictures of Jesus from ancient Germany and Scandanavia holding spears and axes, a SUPER unChristlike image. Soft assimilation has material advantages.

But the whole "Genghis Khan brought ORDER and PEACE" is a little spurious. He depopulated areas, order and peace is alot easier when there's plenty of space between neighbors. Not many bandits in an area where the cities and towns are empty.

>>44416860
And I'm a cripple. Get the off the internet and go back to fucking your hugbox with that ableist bullshit.

File: 1451075316785.jpg (366KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 707x1000px

>>44416305
>>44416929
Oh yeah, and for all the raping that the Mongols are (not incorrectly) vilified for, they actually had a relatively progressive view on the rights of women.

One of Genghis Khan's greatest advisors was a woman: His own mother, who raised him and multiple siblings on her own in the inhospitable steppe. His female relatives served right alongside his male ones as political envoys, his own daughter was named a hero for foiling an assassination attempt (nepotism, but still!), and to the best of my knowledge they were even permitted to serve in the military.

Funnily enough, another purportedly rape-happy culture was also progressive for their time: The Norse. Women had specific roles, but in a separate-but-equal capacity, and tended to have the run of things around businesses and households, particularly if men were out being vikings.

Visitors from other cultures, Muslim countries in particular, were astounded that not only were mens' wives perfectly permitted to associate with them one-to-one without reservation, but that they were just as cultured, clever, and insightful as anyone they'd met, including their scholarly peers.

>>44417106
I didn't know being a cripple made you unable to recognize joking.

>>44417139
You're not just talking about any woman, though, you're talking about female members of a family.

You were treated very differently if you were some nobody chick found on the road.

>>44417067
>>But the whole "Genghis Khan brought ORDER and PEACE" is a little spurious. He depopulated areas, order and peace is alot easier when there's plenty of space between neighbors. Not many bandits in an area where the cities and towns are empty.

True this. And it was considered reprehensible, but then we go right back to another point brought up in this thread: Self-justification. The Mongols didn't slaughter populations for laughs. Or if they did, they had their story straight. The victims were rebels, or insurgents, or otherwise guilty of some other capital crime. Or worst of all, they shot Genghis Khan's messenger.

You do not shoot Genghis Khan's messenger.

>>44409614
Translation:
>I tried to insert hilarious racial overtones into a social game with actual other people, but someone got rightfully offended and wouldn't leave me alone when I said "b-b-buh muh feudalism..."

>>44412827
TROLOLOLOLOLOL

Take the same setting, and invert it. Women are citizens, men are the livestock. It's also a true democracy, where everyone has to gather and cast a vote---no representatives here. 100% of the actual citizens like it because it works---it's slow to decide, slow to go to war, and incredibly stable.

Would you support it, or want to overturn it? I ask you, anon, are you a true roleplayer, or are you a chickenshit faggot?

File: Secret_history.jpg (79KB, 607x900px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 607x900px

>>44417236
Well now you're talking about intent. Do you REALLY want to get into the mind of a mongol, find out why they did what they did?

Well the best source is the Secret History of the Mongols, written for the Mongol royal family during the brief height of the Empire. There's a part in that book where it describes the moment Temujin's generals exhort him to become the Khan, and I'm paraphrasing but it goes something like

"Listen Temujin, we're gonna get you ALL the money. ALL the bitches. ALL the gold and silks and ALL the nice shit from EVERYBODY we knock over. We're gonna put it at your feet, and let you decide who gets what. It's all for you, Temujin! YOU'RE OUR BOY, TEMUJIN!"

The Mongol royal family, a generation after Genghis's death, didn't sugar coat Genghis's intentions.

He was out to get money and fuck bitches. The law and order, the social reform, the peaceful roads, those are unintentional side effects.

File: 1252557913258.jpg (66KB, 568x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 568x800px

>>44417201
And you're talking about something else entirely: Minorities. Lone individuals who aren't part of a family. Whether you're a man or woman, there is positively no difference here; being in this situation generally indicated that you were an outlaw, or destitute.

You could be killed, or you could be enslaved, but the view on enslavement here meant you might've actually just stepped up in the world, because you have a roof over your head and potentially a legal path towards actual citizenship.

Now, if you're talking about the context of a roleplaying game: PCs are the exceptions to rules. The circumstances of their exception is always different. Furthermore, they invite trouble, and typically have their own means of dealing with trouble, be it talking it out or fighting it out. In the circumstances where they even NEED to, because someone as typically outrageous as an adventurer is one that most people going about their own lives avoids.

Let's put this in the context of an RPG set in actual medieval Europe.

Like if you're a farmer or artisan on the road, and you see some lady alone (huh) on a horse (huh) carrying a weapon (what) fully armored (oh shit), and no visible indication that they're associated with local law (oh shit oh shit). This utter fucking weirdo you've just run into is probably going to rob you or something, better just keep moving.

If you're actually a local authority, like town guards, constables, whatever, it's basically the same story, and unless you're pointlessly belligerent (and probably incompetent and a discredit to your lord), you're going to handle a situation with this weird warrior lady with caution. If you're patrolling the countryside, you're bound to see some unusual things, and your actual prerogative is ensuring that these things aren't presenting a danger to your lord's holdings.

Anyway, spun that off the cuff, but you get the general idea.

>>44417365
>He was out to get money and fuck bitches. The law and order, the social reform, the peaceful roads, those are unintentional side effects.
...Well, uh.
I guess he succeeded?
I mean, shit, we got stuff like civilization because enough dudes wanted to make more beer that they were willing to settle and farm for it.

>>44412827
magical realm detected

>>44416821
>cultural mores that justify victimizing behaviors exist specifically because people can inherently recognize victimization.
Exactly. But the logic behind those justifications is unique to that time period.

And don't think we're immune. Look at society's ideas on justifiable homicide, or the death penalty. The distinction between a wrong and a right is the social justification. The idea that ALL ethics should be based on whether someone is victimized is a fairly recent one (even if you take into account Eastern tradition, certain acts without human victims were considered "crimes against heaven"; victimless crimes have always been).

>>44415177
this

>>44417365
Actually, thank you for the reminder. That's a thing I've been meaning to read for a while.

For all the broad strokes history gets painted in, there's a lot of nuance to what actually happened, and how goals change as things develop.

Having NOT read it, I can still probably safely say that Genghis Khan and his people, while in it for the money, bitches, etc., had a good idea of how to keep said money, bitches, etc. in line to make a functioning society. And that's probably where a lot of the story comes in.

>>44417679
It may be a recent idea insofar as legal codification, but it's the basis of all moral law. Justifications don't exist in a vaccum, they're reactions to accusations of wrongdoing. The cultural mores that codify what you consider right and wrong come from an inherent sense of right and wrong that transcends cultures, that's why different cultures can have similar values.

>>44418468
>The cultural mores that codify what you consider right and wrong come from an inherent sense of right and wrong that transcends cultures, that's why different cultures can have similar values.
That's a convenient explanation, considering it completely ignores the fact that different cultures can also have different values.

>>44418697
Pretty much every culture that has existed long enough to make any sort of historical impression has considered murder, rape, and theft to be wrongdoing to some degree.

The major cases of these acts occurring on a notable scale within a group have almost without exception had the victims as other groups considered separate, or otherwise, individuals who specifically had no legal protection. A very simplistic example are invaders/invadees and outlaws.

What actually constitutes murder, rape, and theft has varied to some degree or another, and actually still does. These things are still being debated to this day, and probably always will be.

>>44409770
Speaking of cannibalism, scientists wound out that some (ex)cannibal-tribes were immune to certain diseases that eating human flesh could cause.
Evolution in play.

>>44418697
Yet there isn't a culture that says murder and theft and other broadly victimizing behaviors are okay. They create contexts to justify these behaviors, like military action and religious agendas, but if there was no resistance to these actions, there would be no justification in the first place.

A lord who kills his subject is an evil and a social detriment, this is a sentiment that transcends all societies. But, as sure as that sentiment exists, so too do justifications exist to let the powerful exercise their power.

You read the justifications and you think "oh these people thought killing peasants was hunky dory", but you don't realize that you're only reading this because people at the time thought killing peasants WASN'T hunky dory.

>>44419057
>Pretty much every culture that has existed long enough to make any sort of historical impression has considered murder, rape, and theft to be wrongdoing to some degree.
Of course, but that's not inherently ingrained in us. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that people don't want to die, lose their shit, or have their asshole damaged. I wouldn't consider that proof of universal ethics so much as I would consider it proof that sex with people you don't want to have sex with is, along with having your shit taken or being stabbed to death, one of the most unpleasant experiences anyone can go through.

>Yet there isn't a culture that says murder and theft and other broadly victimizing behaviors are okay.
Sure there is. Circumcision of both sexes is still completely acceptable to multiple social groups TO THIS DAY, despite the fact that it's very obvious that it's an act of mutilation. The very idea that a husband could rape his wife (as in she has the right to refuse consent) is rather new, perhaps less than a hundred years old.

>A lord who kills his subject is an evil and a social detriment, this is a sentiment that transcends all societies.
Vlad the Impaler was beloved by his subjects, and is considered a hero in his region to this day.

He murdered the fuck out of them Muslim motherfuckers. They gave no shits.

>You read the justifications and you think "oh these people thought killing peasants was hunky dory", but you don't realize that you're only reading this because people at the time thought killing peasants WASN'T hunky dory.
It was more nuanced than that. It's neither as simple as "death is always acceptable" or "it's never acceptable". Quit trying to make this a false dichotomy.

I'm glad that I play with a group of loli-fucking weebs who refuse to give a shit about real life politics.

>>44409614
>when they get told they can't
How about think outside of your shitty this-is-my-setting box and let them decide what morals they want to bring.

>>44410400
well memed friend

File: 83e.jpg (168KB, 523x720px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 523x720px

Tell them to either deal with it or fuck off.

>>44409614
I DM in a setting undergoing moral crisis and reform. All is good.

File: 1351148578492.jpg (90KB, 400x579px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 400x579px

>>44412827
>mfw nobody caught the reference and if they did they were smart enough to not advertise it
there is yet hope left for man
>mfw people actually took it for bait or at face value rather than sarcasm
although I suppose there's not a lot to work with.

>>44419372
>Of course, but that's not inherently ingrained in us. It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that people don't want to die, lose their shit, or have their asshole damaged.

That's exactly why it IS inherently ingrained in us. The guy who has a nail driven through his hand is worse off than the guy who doesn't, so there is NO culture on earth tho thinks it's just hunky dory to start shovin nails into people's hands.

Your idea that there is no common thread of morality means that different moral systems across the globe should look alien and incomprehensible. Instead they're broadly similar. "Don't kill this guy. Don't touch my wife. That's my bike."

Vlad the Impaler was considered a hero to his subjects because he was repelling invaders, he wasn't just picking people out on the street to impale. Genghis Khan was beloved too, by the guys he WASN'T slaughtering wholesale.

>>44409614
You kick them out and/or don't invite them to games to begin with. The kind of people you're describing usually WANT to be offended because it makes them feel special or they enjoy making others walk on egg shells in fear of upsetting the special snowflake. Or both. These people suck the fun out of everything, the only solution is not to game with them.

>>44416588
>The Greeks defined it by eros, not by actual sex. Men were allowed to have sex with men, but it was socially disgusting to actually love them romantically. Sex with them was seen as an act of domination... the manlier you were, the more men you fucked, and the less you were fucked yourself.
The greek stance on homosexuality was much MUCH more complex than that.

>>44417139
>Visitors from other cultures, Muslim countries in particular, were astounded that not only were mens' wives perfectly permitted to associate with them one-to-one without reservation, but that they were just as cultured, clever, and insightful as anyone they'd met, including their scholarly peers.
History really didn't progress that much for the nordern countries did it.

>>44409614
I trigger them as hard as possible.

>>44427227
Well sure. The people who became influential across Europe and Mediterranean countries to an unparalleled degree, practically ruling the British Isles and parts of France, indelibly leaving it's mark on our language, culture, and customs, to the point where we're STILL using the names of their gods as days of the week, sure vanished into utter oblivion.

>>44416588
>In a couple mesoamerican cultures, husband and wife were mere roles and a person who adequately filled the role of husband (hunting, protecting the tribal lands) could marry any person who adequately filled the role of wife (foraging, taking care of the home, protecting the family).
>Muh fetish

D-did they have to dress for the role, too?

>>44409614
>how do you deal with X trying to force modern morality

Burn 'em at the stake. Next.