[REGISTER] or [LOGIN] to browse without adverts

“Absolute Morality” that disfigured 7th Sea

“Absolute Morality” that disfigured 7th Sea

This article was prompted by the "ask-me-anything" discussion started by Mike Curry, the Systems Lead on 7th Sea. And of course, the continued attempts to reanimate the decaying corpse of Absolute Morality into game design, especially in the 21st century, a morality of a bygone age and one of misplaced innocence. 

 

THE IDEALISM OF IDEAS

Let us consider the game design principles behind 7th Sea with respect to morality and corruption and whether those mechanics are absolutely essential to make 7th Sea Second Edition a playable game.

The game designers of 7th Sea Second Edition may have been seduced by the idealism of “Absolute Morality” but unfortunately for them, even a casual reading of 7th Sea’s fictional and historic influences still reveal stark similarities to our real world. A recurrent problem with “Absolute Morality” in game design is hammering that square peg of moral mechanics into the many non-square holes that color the varied and diverse interpretations that real world players bring to the table.

7th Sea Second Edition may have been marketed as a game of classical “Swashbuckling” with the tried and tested trope of “Black and White” morality, but that alone does not immunize 7th Sea from modern criticism, especially over its desperate attempts to enforce Puritan morality upon hero characters? A detailed review of any of the old classics of the swashbuckling genre will uncover several moral inconsistencies within at least one of the varied cast of characters, even if the primary hero retains the ideal state of purity.

 

THE REALITY OF HISTORIC REFERENCES

Contrary to popular belief, games and fiction of the swashbuckling genre are already corrupted by their inheritance of real world historical references, especially cultures, societies, governments, and religions.

Let us look at my favourite novel “The Three Musketeers” by Alexander Dumas (circa 1840 A.D.). The historical reference is “Mémoires de M. d'Artagnan, capitaine lieutenant de la première compagnie des Mousquetaires du Roi”. And this itself pays homage to the historic novel written by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras titled Les mémoires de M. d'Artagnan.

Who were these French Musketeers of the Guard (Musketeers of the military household of the King of France)? They were formed as a military group in the 1600s by King Louis XIII and armed with the new fancy muskets of that era, hence, their colloquial name. And in the time period of their formation, France was marked by bitter religious wars and violent divisions.

Now let us consider some fictional heroes from 7th Sea’s nation of Montaigne modelled as some pseudo-France. If we argue that Montaigne is not real France, then why is it modelled around what we romanticize as renaissance France instead of a fictional culture of Neanderthals. Okay, the game designers can model a fictional country around anything, but they still chose to inherit lots of historic French elements of the 16th and 17th centuries of our real world instead of the early Neanderthal culture of that region.

So since the game designers chose to ignore the Neanderthal culture, we can also conveniently focus on two fictional heroes from 7th Sea’s Montainge modelled around pseudo-French society.

  • One will be a military commander, and our dashing hero, modeled after d'Artagnan.
  • The other will be a superb spy, and our femme fatale, modeled after Milady DeWinter.

So what actions could our fictional d’Artagnan take that would dent the idealism of Absolute Morality? As a military commander, it is quite reasonable for him to order assaults upon enemy positions. During such assaults, both wounded and unarmed soldiers may get shot to death, because in the fog of war, there is not enough time to kindly go round confirming the helplessness of all enemies to avoid “murdering” them as per 7th Sea game mechanics.

And what actions could our patriotic spy Milady DeWinter take against the enemies of Montaigne? She could be sent to assassinate an enemy commander who is a hero to his own Avalonian people but a villain to Montaigne. A successful assassination that ends a war quickly would be a heroic deed that saves many lives, except in 7th Sea where this is considered a villainous deed. Go figure how taking one life to save many is non-heroic.

These two heroes were chosen to compare and contracts moral conflicts that will not make either one any less of a hero in the real world, but will only affect their hero status in those fictional worlds that worship Absolute Morality as a fundamental aspect of the universe.

 

ABSOLUTE MORALITY HANDICAPS 7th SEA FICTION

And finally, we have come to the crux of this brief discussion. Why are some game designers seduced by the need to mechanically construct rules for Absolute Morality into Role Playing Games? Why create mechanical straight-jackets to punish players who play their hero characters creatively and within historic precedents in the real world? Gary Gygax (God bless his soul) started us down this path of morality and alignment in games and the conflicted separation of good versus evil and law versus chaos. The most notorious child of this idealism is the fictional Paladin archetype:

Typical tenets of the Paladin code in Dungeons and Dragons require the following compliance:

  • A Paladin must be of Lawful Good alignment.
  • A Paladin may never willfully commit an Evil act.

We can see a similar mechanic corrupt 7th Sea’s great game design, with the implicit statement in the 7th Sea Second Edition Core Rulebook that heroes never commit murder.

EXCERPT: Page-296 of the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook:
In the 7th Sea game system, characters aren’t killed, they become Helpless. Even gunfire cannot kill a character without a deliberate act from a Hero or a Villain.

Okay, the above statement beggars belief. Gunfire would include canon-fire I presume. Even the inaccurate musket fire is surely prone to hit and kill an innocent bystander. And yet the creators of the game still tried to preach to us that death is never accidental but deliberate?

And then the convoluted statement with regards to in-game murder continues as follows…

EXCERPT: Page-296 of the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook:

For the most part, killing a Helpless person is an unjustified killing. A murder. An Evil Act, under nearly any and all circumstances. Heroes do not commit murder. Ever. But Heroes do kill when their hands are forced by Villains and their cronies.

EXCERPT: Page-296: It’s Your Call

In the end, as Game Master, you have the final say over all actions.

Where the game designers deliberately writing a fairy tale for five year olds? They included fiction about wars but then deliberately tried to create rules to hide murder under the table. After various contradictory statements, the designers ended with another escape clause by stating the GM is still the final arbiter anyway. So why did 7th Sea game designers waste so much time trying to justify Moral Purity that was never even needed in the first place.

Below is a list of other statements in the core rules that may stifle over moral conundrums.

EXCERPT: Page-27 of the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook:

Only the most unforgivable sins—the murder of a family member or the like—will force a family to use its most dreaded punishment: ostracism.

Read that key phrase “family member or the like” which any reasonable person would agree does not preclude murder of one’s enemies.

EXCERPT: Page-124

The War of the Cross was a three-decade-long mass murder.

Any reasonable leader would agree that military heroes were a thing in that era, and though we could assume the phrase “mass murder” is used figuratively, we can also assume that military leaders on opposing sides of that war could have been considered heroes of their respective nation. and as leaders the actions of their soldiers would reflect upon them, including actions such as collateral damage (killing non-combatants) that follows most artillery barrages ordered by military leaders against enemy ports and even cities.

EXCERPT: Page- 267

All that matters is that young soldiers are not forced to march out onto a field and murder one another by the hundreds.

Notice above that in mature fiction, the deaths of soldiers in war can still be referred to as “murder” whether as a figure of speech or statement of fact. Historical evidence of our own world showcases unarmed and wounded enemy soldiers killed by cannon shot, and the commanders who ordered such artillery fire can still be considered war heroes regardless.

Despite the designers of 7th Sea forcing Absolute Morality as a pre-requisite for heroism, they still included references to warfare within the game world and warfare brings forth military victories and military heroes who may have murdered innocents inadvertently through collateral damage. Yet, because of the rules of artificial morality deliberately baked into 7th Sea’s game design, modern GMs and players must twist and bend their characters around Puritan rules instead of being free to narrate authentic stories of military heroism.

Without the artificial “Absolute Morality” handicap, 7th Sea fiction is free to narrate stories of death and murder and heroism, including the stoyr of the heroic assassin who murdered the enemy commander with a well-placed arrow thus shortened the long war while preventing many more unnecessary casualties.

 

EXCERPT: Page-296 (the icing on the cake)

Characters aren’t killed by accident in 7th Sea. Even gunfire cannot kill a character without a deliberate act from a Hero or a Villain.

Now this particular phrase crossed the boundary from simple incredulity to outright implausibility. 7th Sea is a game that speaks of the War of the Cross in its fictional history and yet, the game designers are trying hard to spin the narrative that every single character killed in that war was killed deliberately and knowingly, with heroic commanders who ordered cannon fire and musket shots monitoring their troops to ensure their targets were not shot dead when already down? Really? Was that the War of the Cross for 4 year olds?

Finally, acknowledging the ridiculousness of the “Absolute Morality” mechanic the designers added one line in the published version as a sliver of hope with the phrase “for the most part” to allow the GM an excuse not to punish every single hero who lives life on the edge.
 

PAGE:-296

For the most part, killing a Helpless person is an unjustified killing.

 

COMMONSENSE MORALITY RULES FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS

If we accept that games are a form of entertainment with at least some intention of making real world players happy, then the most reasonable solution of handling heroism and villainy of player characters is to refrain from deliberately punishing player characters and, instead, offer flexible interpretations of heroic morality.

Because different players who come together to play may come from diverse backgrounds and represent different cultural outlooks, it is best to read the 7th Sea Second Edition Core Rulebook as a guide instead of the Absolute Puritan template for every single hero character.

So in closing, at my table, your heroes will not be punished if you narrate a justification for controversial in-game actions, and if agreeable to other players at my game table, your hero remains a hero unless you chose to fall. So enjoy 7th Sea Second Edition and create some memorable stories with your hero characters.

 

Blood will flow and the sun will shine. 

Arrgh!

1 vote
+
Vote up!
-
Vote down!
>

Comments

Star West's picture

So...I still don't see where you're getting that the morality of 7th Sea is black and white.

When it comes to death, book is explicit about when corruption applies: murder and torture. That's it. Period. It DOES NOT apply to enemy combatants that you face on the battle field. It DOES NOT apply to enemy crew exchanging cannon shot. Now if you were a general who ordered your men to raid a town or a captain who insisted on blowing an enemy ship to smithereens after they've surrendered...well now you're dipping into unecessarily cruel territory. If your opponent isn't putting up a fight and you're just wailing on them instead, you're being a bully, not engaging in "fair play."

Yes, it DOES apply to assassinating someone, because if you're sneaking into someone's bedroom at night and poisioning them; Milady DeWinter IS A VILLAIN, more so than Rochefort or Reichlue who eventually become respected colleagues and even friends of d'Artagnan.

The morality of 7th Sea can be summed up as follows: Don't kick the dog when it's down.

Now, I will note that there is some fair criticism to lob:

  • The "Inaction" bit raises some concerns for me, but there's a LOT of grey in there. The intention is clearly to emphasize the idea of swashbuckling heroes standing up for the innocent. Would Errol Flynn butt in if some guards were needlessly antagonizing some poor innocent shmuck? Yes, yes he would, but you could easily argue that the heroes don't need to stop the villain from being executed, because while it would be extra heroic to do so, it's not cruel or evil to not risk pissing off your king/queen to save the evil villain.
     
  • There are a few scenarios that the dev team will need to address at some point in time, particularly around punishment - are executions something that happen in Theah? Isn't that murder? Does that mean all monarchs are villains? Do only some (i.e. villain) monarchs use execution as a punishment? How about the Montaigne peasantry? Are ALL of the montaigne nobility basically villains through Inaction if they don't actively work to alleviate the pain on the peasantry? If not...we need an explanation for why not. If so...yikes, that makes Montaigne a very not fun place. How about an invasion force?

I will also that it's kind of silly no-one ever dies...I don't think there's a single swashbuckling movie where no one ever dies by the heroe's hand. They key here to me is "in cold blood." MURDER is unacceptable. And I get that maybe you think killing someone in revenge is acceptable, I disagree - no, it's wrong. PERIOD. Killing another armed opponent in combat on equal ground? Eh...that doesn't fall into the category of cruel and unusual to me...nor does it for pretty much any swashbuckling movie or book.

It's ironic that in a game designed with the idea of asking "what would Errol Flynn do?" mechanically makes it impossible to do some of the most climactic things that Errol Flynn would do. Errol Flynn would engage a villain to a final duel to the death, and if one of them dies in combat on equal ground, so be it. This isn't just an issue with 2nd Ed though, it's also the case in 1st Ed, and I get the intention of the mechanics: they want people to do all the crazy stupid cool things that Errol Flynn would do without worry about dying by an arbitrary roll of the dice. I also think there is a way to make this sort of experience (the reckless swashbuckling abandon with the dramatic final duel) work mechanically without making major changes to the rules or just having to disregard the rules when you feel like it in favor of narrative (which is basically what you had to do for 1st Ed.)

At the end of the day though, I get why the designers made their decision, and I agree that needless cold-blooded murder is unheroic. FULL STOP. Swashbuckling HEROES don't go around murdering innocents and assassinating enemies. I don't necessarily agree that  we need to pretend that  go around pretending that every brute that gets stabbed by a sword walks away to tend their wounds another day (we can recognize a difference between two people fighting with dangerous weapons on equal footing from a bully beating up on someone weaker than themselves,) but that's really nitpicking and easily ignored and easily thrown away and forgotten about.

What I do find intriguing is how design decision change the types of narrative opportunities available. If no one dies without a concious decision from the heroes, there's no way to have a moment in my game where the heroes face a villain that's been antagonizing, only to discover that she's a brute the hero has faced before, a brute who watched her brother - another brute - get killed months ago because the hero was reckless with their blade (not evil, just reckless) and didn't stop and think "How can I incapacitate this brute without killing them?"

Ragnar The Red's picture

Look, game design is a complicated thing alright? I can understand someone not immediately understanding the reason for why various mechanics were put into a game. I can even understanding arguing the merits of mechanics. But that’s not what this is about. The author is offended over the choice of words and the assumption of values. But instead of ignoring anything contrary to his sensibilities, or choosing not to play, he is bullishly misrepresenting the game. The arguments are so asinine it's hardly worth commenting, but here are a few clarifications for the sake or anyone who hasn't read the rules and accepts this blathering at face value.

 

“Only the most unforgivable sins—the murder of a family member or the like—will force a family to use its most dreaded punishment: ostracism.

Read that key phrase “family member or the like” which any reasonable person would agree does not preclude murder of one’s enemies."

Excuse me, but that was talking about Castillian culture. It has nothing to do with one's enemies. It's not even about murder. It's about a description of a culture that IN GENERAL (and like all culture its general and not 100% for every single person in that culture) will always be their for family. Murder of family members was not brought up as a game mechanic. It wasn't even brought up as a moral treaties on how murdering your family is bad, although even if it was why the hell would you take issue with that? It was brought up as an example showing how culturally strong Castillian familial ties are. That nothing short of the murder of your own family, could break your ties with them. It’s flavor text. It helps distinguish Castillian culture from other cultures. How do you go from that to a presumption that it is preaching a moral on how killing one’s enemies is absolutely and always morally bad? Dishonesty, that’s how.

 

"And yet the creators of the game still tried to preach to us that death is never accidental but deliberate?"

Nope. No. Not at all. Not even implied. The creators of the game are not preaching a damn thing. They designed a game mechanic that makes a hero's or villain’s death a deliberate action. Players who's characters are not very likely to die are thus encouraged to take greater risks, allowing the tension to come from the story instead of fear of a bad dice roll. On the flip side, instead of the villain having to die when he is out of health there is a pause where the players can decide and role play it how they want. You can debate the merits and cons of this as a GAME mechanic, but to interpret the mechanic as a personal sermon from the designers trying to tell the player that people in real life never die by accident is not sane.

 

"EXCERPT: Page-296 of the 2nd Edition Core Rulebook:

For the most part, killing a Helpless person is an unjustified killing. A murder. An Evil Act, under nearly any and all circumstances. Heroes do not commit murder. Ever. But Heroes do kill when their hands are forced by Villains and their cronies.

EXCERPT: Page-296: It’s Your Call

In the end, as Game Master, you have the final say over all actions.

Where the game designers deliberately writing a fairy tale for five year olds? They included fiction about wars but then deliberately tried to create rules to hide murder under the table. After various contradictory statements, the designers ended with another escape clause by stating the GM is still the final arbiter anyway. So why did 7th Sea game designers waste so much time trying to justify Moral Purity that was never even needed in the first place."

What I want to know is this: was the author of the previous quote deliberately writing a fairy tale for five year olds? Starting from the end and working my way up.

First: I can't even think of an RPG where the GM isn't the final arbitrator of the rules, it's kind of the definition of what a GM is and why you need one. So why write rules, suggestions or background for any RPG if the GM can do whatever he wants? If that's truly his argument, then it is against RPGs in general, not the 7th sea.

Secondly: Is making murder a deliberate decision hiding it under the table? The game defines murder as an unjustified killing. This is a more liberal definition than the dictionary. The true definition is an unlawful killing. Under the law of every first world country it is illegal to kill a helpless person, thus making it murder. The game implys that their might be a just reason to kill someone who is helpless and therefore it isn’t excluded as an immoral act absolutely. But if you try that in real life it *is* murder because civilized society has judged killing a helpless person as immoral. Why do go into so much detail? Because apparently passing a moral judgment that “killing helpless people is *probably* wrong” is too absolute for the desires of the author.

 

So we see that despite being irrelevant because this is a game and not real, the argument about absolute morality aren't even accurate. Lets look at absolute morality in perspective.

 

Absolute Morality: Killing is always wrong, can never be justified. There is only black and white.

Circumstantial Morality: Killing is bad, unless the circumstances justify. There are shades of grey.

Amoral: Killing isn't good or bad, do what benefits you. Everything is white.

 

So which model fits 7th Sea? lets look at the quote again

"For the most part, killing a Helpless person is an unjustified killing."

 

It seems clear to me that morality in 7th sea is circumstantial. It is even more Amoral leaning than the laws that, anyone living in a country with the leisure to play games, would live under.

 

So this isn't good enough? Someone is upset because this game presumes that you shouldn't kill helpless people without a justifying reason? Because there are mechanics to allow killing to be a choice instead of a random roll? It is disfigured for having the audacity to presume that there is a moral difference between a hero and villain? Then you’re going to love me new Amoral RPG system where you play as the hero Hitler who fights against a team of villains trying to protect babies from your rampage of murder and rape.

Cthulhu Netobvious's picture
  • by Cthulhu Netobvious
  • Sep 11, 2016

Okay, we have been watching RagnarTheRed for two weeks since the first reply, to see if anything beyond the single vehement response above was forthcoming. RagnarTheRed never reported back, because maybe, just maybe RagnarTheRed is a sock-puppet. 

RagnarTheRed replies to Absolute Morality

Anyway, RagnarTheRed has not really addressed the key problem with the "Absolute Morality" in 7th Sea quoted on Page-296. 

In the 7th Sea game system, characters aren’t killed, they become Helpless. Even gunfire cannot kill a character
without a deliberate act from a Hero or a Villain. That act is called murder. Murder is always an Evil
Act, under any and all circumstances. 

Heroes do not commit murder. Ever.

The single word "ever" seem very absolute to me. So, with the above absolute definition of murder in the 7th Sea 2e Core Rulebook, we return to some of the contradictory text within this same book.

EXCERPT Page-291: Now, a quick note about being friendly. Remember: nobody likes a tyrant and if you turn this little procedure into an opportunity to make their Heroes look incompetent, the players will hate you forever.

So let us say a purist GM invited a group of strangers at a Friendly Local Game Store, and these new players were so excited by 7th Sea 2e, they actually thought they could play out some "Assassin's Creed: Black Flag" scenarios. Suddenly, the GM behaves like a tyrant, forgets that 7th Sea is just a game, and threatens the Players with the "whip of absolute morality" quoted on Page-296. How dare Players chose an action to sneak into the enemy camp and assassinate the enemy commander? Are those Players so bereft of morality? Such a close-minded  GM could even conceivably launch a verbal tirade berating the players for daring to bring a diverse storyline inspired by a popular computer game of pirates and ships, just because that game breaches the "Absolute Morality" the cripples 7th Sea Heroes. The question is this? Does Absolute Morality trump entertainment at a game table?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE VARIED PLAY STYLES ON PAGE-278?

...You want horror? Go to Eisen...

...Still, even if the War of the Cross was Théah’s last religious war, it was certainly not the last time
Nations will throw armies at each other...

..Feuding Families...Gangs of New York...Game of Thrones

Do you see all those examples above, especially Game of Thrones (with its gruesome murders by its heroes)? 7th Sea seems to encourage diverse play styles, but then cripples creativity with the "Absolute Morality" clause of Page-296 which states unequivocally, that "In the 7th Sea game system, characters aren’t killed, they become Helpless. Even gunfire cannot kill a character"

Unless you are a 5 year old child, you surely know that people die gruesome deaths on the battlefield. You do not have Heroes riding around the battlefield like referees ensuring all "Helpless" enemies are given medical treatment, and arresting all soldiers who dare shoot a "Helpless" enemy. Really?

 

 

To use our favorite Dungeons and Dragons analogy, 7th Sea first encourages us to tell great stories, but then threatens us to only do so if we all agree to play "Lawful Good Paladins" as the only acceptable Hero Class. Sure, the core rules offer diverse careers, but with the morality restriction, it is like multi-classing a Lawful Good Paladin with another class, rather than a truly different class free from the shackles of some idealistic 5-year old fantasy hero. 

Shedrick Pittman-Hassett's picture
  • by Shedrick Pittma...
  • Sep 11, 2016

I think that a game with the following as one of its through-lines can hardly be said to be dealing in absolutes:

"RULINGS VS. RULES
We created the rules in this book to help players and GMs tell stories. We want you to think about the rules in this book as elastic, flexible and adaptable rather than final. In other words, don’t use this book as an authority, but as a guide. Every rule is an example of the way we would do things, but not necessarily as the way you should do things. We’ll give the GM lots of examples of how to use the rules in her own chapter."

I think it's pretty clear that when were talking about "characters" only becoming helpless, the point is to keep PCs from arbitrarily dying. It must be a narrative choice. That gives it impact, gravitas, and meaning. It's not that people don't die--it's that PC deaths should mean something. Villain deaths should mean something. Characters you encounter are no longer bags of XP to collect. As far as the bodies on the battlefield--a Hero actually considers them before making their decisions. They must make a moral choice. The rule forces that choice. Is it perfect--no, but what game mechanic can be? That's what GM rulings are for.

As far as imposing a Lawful Good morality on the players, this is a game of HEROIC swashbuckling--not Murder Hobos of the 17th Century.  Reading the rules, I see plenty of room for some gray, but no, you're not going to play an anti-hero. I don't think that's a bad thing. Play a roguish character with a heart of gold. Play Han Solo after he becomes a Hero at the Battle of Yavin, not when he's a scumbag smuggler. There are plenty of diverse stories to be told within this framework. It's hardly handicapped or disfigured--it's simply a different framework. If one didn't sign up to play a Hero (capital-H) then they're playing the wrong game. But it doesn't handicap the game at all. It IS the game. It's a feature, not a bug. 

"Always remember that we tell the stories of tales of heroes to remind ourselves that we too can be great." -- John Wick (Play Dirty 2)

http://velvetsteel.obsidianportal.com

share buttons