I agree. I think the greyness is just that people can do both good and evil, there is no one who does all evil or all good. There are different shades based on peoples aims, their integrity, and their actions and intentions. But right and wrong still exist. And there are sometimes still heros and villains
@@minutemansam3122 Morality is objective. An evil act is taking away some kind of agency without consent like killing or rape while a good act is selfless and altruistic. It's not perspective. All of these are conscious choices you make. You can justify anything but in the end it's your actions that really matter, but it's okay fail. We're only human.
Witcher games and books did a good job of grey morality. Geralt isn't always perfect, but we know his goals and beliefs are good and worth rooting for. The rest of the world is believably human too, even if it is a flawed and at times a very cruel place.
i had to nutshell this for someone.. "there is a thin line between misery porn and grimdark, the key element is hope... and its very nuanced. bitter sweet conclusions are you ally in this, clever retorts, sacrifice... dont just kill everyone and go "its dark"."
People always point to Game of Thrones as an example, but they forget the impact of characters like Eddard and Jon who stick to their principles and don't let themselves become corrupted by taking the easy way out.
Yeah people always point out how Ned died because he stuck to his principles and how being a good moral person isn’t a path for “success” in Westeros. Yet due to Ned’s being a strong and principled man, the North follows House Stark. Even in the usurpation of Winterfell and the deaths of many Starks, many Northmen are still loyal to the Starks and have planned to kill the Boltons and install a Stark back into Winterfell either as Lord of Winterfell or a Stark King of Winter.
People also miss that Ned's honor wasn't what actually got him killed. Cersei Lannister never intended Ned to die, since he was such a beloved/respected figure that his death would rip the kingdom apart (which it did) and possibly lead to the Lannisters' downfall (which it probably will). It was the immature whims of Joffrey Baratheon that got Ned killed, and well, we know how well that worked out for Joffrey in the end. If Ned had gone to the Night's Watch like Cersei had intended, the kingdom's peace would be maintained for at least a little while longer, the Lannisters' status would still be relatively secure, Robb's army would've returned north, and Ned would've met up with Jon Snow at the Wall. Westeros would've been significantly better prepared for the existential threat that the Others pose.
The creeping up of high fantasy in the background is George’s subconscious mind taking root it’s unfortunate he doesn’t realize it or maybe he did and decided to reject it. George took inspiration from Freud when he should’ve read Jung.
I just left a game where my attempts of being “Good” was “rewarded” by imprisoned foes escaping and killing more innocents. When the villains begged for mercy they used their last breathes to cast Lightning Bolt. DM seemed confused that my Life Cleric decided to stop taking prisoners and to mutilate spellcasters (cut off fingers and cut out tongue). “But you’re supposed to be good.” “If good means they escape later and kill the innocent, then my character isn’t good.”
You should have said that your character was good for letting them keep their lives and (assumably) dignity. Also you could say something cool like "When one breaks the rules of war, they void its protections."
I don't play, so I'm not sure I fully grasp the scenario. On the one hand I think it's probably reductive to define characters entirely by the consequences of their actions, regardless of their intentions. It also sounds like you took it for granted that because a thing happened, that is perhaps even plausible, then that thing is inevitable, which on its face doesn't seem reasonable. On the other hand this is exactly why I rage against people who hate Batman's no kill rule. Batman is only ever responsible for the actions of Batman. If the police or Arkham, or the federal government can't contain the Joker, that's not Batman's fault. It's not his job. It's not even his job to arrest him and he does that all the time. Essential to this point is behind the curtain; the hand of the author. The real reason no one can contain the Joker is because Batman's nemesis would be defeated, and DC wouldn't sell enough comics. I'm not sure what logic there could possibly be in acting like that reflects on Batman's moral conscience as a character
@@armorclasshero2103 No, the Cleric had a change in heart because the world acted a certain way to their actions, the Cleric learned from it, and acted accordingly.
The issue is, is it’s overplayed. By becoming vouce gritty fantasy supplanted high fantasy as the status quo and in turn its flaws are more apparent. Like Napoleon warned of, never wage was against your enemies or they will learn your ways, sane us said for this. Just as over exposure of high fantasy in the 60s to 2000s led to it being considered predictable, gritty fantasy has suffered the same issue where the more we consume the more we see the pattern. And what was once revolutionary becomes monotonous and predictable.
And right now we see the coming of the next trend - ironic fantasy. Created by the idea "Well, it seems cringe to enjoy any kind of fantasy nowadays, so let's try to enjoy it ironically", probably initially started by Critical Role and brought to a "well done" state by Hollywood.
I fee oversaturation of low effort copy cat is worse than seeing the pattern, a well done cliche can still be appreciated but once a genre caught on people, mostly company WILL try to chunk as many quick, low effort trash possible to get that slice of the profit. already mentioned above, Ironic storytelling, when it started the movie that used it know when to stop being ironic and do a sincere scene like Ironman but once it get popular it get surface level copied and churned leading to oversaturation and burned out.
@@HandOn-c40009 More of less a more detailed at what I am getting at. Good clichés can persist a lot longer than they should. You are correct though, in that these clichés are overplayed largely as a result of low effort, poor research and a lack of understanding of the reason it is popular.
finally someone said it, sick of the social worship of nihilism in media. there's a big difference between people with different convictions coming into conflict and disguising the outright corruption and sadism of some characters as "being morally grey"
It's fictional media not real life. Sometimes I just wanna watch/read something where the characters just aren't good people. A really good sign of a story teller however is being able to get you to still enjoy the character despite them not being good people. The First Law is probably the greatest example of this I can give
@@MrFredstt That's the bulls**t excuse every weirdo uses to try justifing their twisted nature. It's also the dumbest because it goes against the very idea of why fictional entertainment exists and works in the first place. The whole reason people enjoy fiction is because they are enjoying the idea of pretending it is real. The immersion of the fiction is what draws people in, allowing them to use their imagination to live vicariously through said fiction even if only temporarily. The idea that you find enjoyment in something you couldn't relate to or find yourself partaking in is the biggest lie people like you spout. And everyone knows it's a lie, which is why you would only ever say something like this online where you have a semblence of anonymity.
Why separate reality from fiction - whole point of "morally grey" is to be "realistic" remember? The true reason for its recent popularity is the sponsors - the rich corpos love to sell the idea of a morally grey world, cuz it helps them keep the masses obedient. The nihilism in media mentioned makes people think that it's perfectly fine to be a selfish egoist who only looks for himself, and that's why we've been drowning in "grey stories" last whole decade.
I have a player who has often said that he doesn't like heroic games where the players have to save something and would like to play in a morally grey campaign. When I had a campaign where my players were driven by personal goals and worked for a criminal organization (while trying to get out of said organization), he'd just have his character sit home alone and question why the others kept involving him in their quests.
I think there's a strong misconception on how to use these concepts in Tabletop unfortunately and because it's so prevalent it even affects how the players engage with it. Sounds like he wasn't sure what he wanted lol
@@TrillTheDM Honestly my fantasy story includes various factions of white to grey morality that needs to ally against a scheming faction that is trying to manipulate them into fighting each other so that he would conquer the entire realm and universe. There are kingdoms and city states which are heroic while empires are more grey-area but they all need to cooperate to fight against dark evil God of War
It's not even a bad thing to have characters acting more out of personal interest than externally affecting the world for good or ill, at least if the portrayal of that kind of story is adequate and explores what drives such characters and why. Such, a character can end up ultimately benefiting others in some way, but the focus being primarily on their personal interests, issues or goals can work if done correctly.
@@callmev3531 This player's characters are known for suffering from Hobbitism and he often calls characters who go out of their way to contribute or put themselves in danger "idiots". Quite often his character's goal is to just live a peaceful life away from all the hassle... or play a murder hobo who can't leave any witnesses since it's the smart thing to do.
@Eemi_Seppala sounds like a disconnect in expectations. This goes back to basic rules of ttrpgs. The social contract between gm and player is gm provides hook, player bites hook. I tell my players my job isn't to motivate their characters, only they have the power to do that. I can only provide a hook. If they lack the motivation to bite that is a failure on their part.
As a DM, I like to use morally grey characters sparsely, to contrast with other characters. The big bad is evil because of the backstory and whatever, but he is evil, he chooses evil and is undeniably the villain. The heroes and their allies choose to be just and fair and all those virtues. The morally grey fence on the fringe of a village hit by famine is somewhere in between. The contrast empowers the narrative and highlights the moral choices the players are making throughout the campaign. Similarly, gritty realism has its place. Its a fantasy world, not history, there's ways to worldbuild that don't make your whole world a game-of-thrones-esque DARK ages adventure, but you can have some parts have elements of that. The lands under the vampire counts feel a lot more grim than the elven forests. Contrast is king, it makes things, people and places more memorable to the players and encourages exploration.
@@eMercody I am well aware that the "dark ages" were hardly as "dark" as we think. The name is indicative of the loss of knowledge not the end of the world or anything. But there is specific cases where reality approached gritty realism at a fast rate. Wars. Famines. Plagues. Living in Europe through the Black Death must have been terrifying. That's why I believe in applying the "gritty realism" sparsely, to contrast other parts of a setting.
Yeah, the problem with absolute gray morality is that it assumes heroes and villains are also somehow gray. That is not the case - heroes and villains are usually exceptional individuals that often very much define what is right and wrong in the story, or even setting.
There is a saying which I like: "A hero is villain who won, and the villain is a hero who lost." The difference between the hero and the villain in a morally gray story is the POV. A well-though out villain has his own ideals and noble goals. They just happens to be on the loosing side. The "grayness" comes from the fact, they both right and understandable from their own perspective. You could very well switch the POV in the story and you would root for the villain just as much as you root for the hero. Not to mention you would probably see former hero as a villain. Well, that's how a good morally gray story works in my opinion. In a game settings it is kinda hard to pull off properly though. PS: Being evil for the sake of being evil is just a caricature of a "villain". It is nothing else, but a strawman argument.
@@Projolomoral relativism really isn’t recent. Just yesterday I’ve started reading an essay by Schopenhauer (so 19th century) which while not directly states or confirms moral relativism, strongly implies it by rejecting the existence of objective morals.
Thank you so much for this. I had a falling out with my friends becuase they always mock morally good characters by saying they're "naive and self-righteous", when they themselves tried to always justified their morally ambiguous characters. No matter how I tried to show that those good characters are indeed still (personaly) flawed human beings, they always equate 'morally good = trash'. It's so annoying.
The issue with "morally grey" storytelling in general is that it's a reactionary response to the perceived lack of believably in traditional tales. They add darkness, filth, and despair to their works in an attempt to make it more "real." Do that for long enough and "real" becomes equated with darkness, filth, and despair. The truest, most impactful examples of fiction I can think of are extremely bleak but having shining beacons of light in them that justify our hopes and struggles.
Honestly I view it as a reflection of post-modern nihilism. Nobody believes in goodness or takes it seriously in a story because everyone thinks of a person claiming morality as a grifter. When a politician claims to want to fix something, we just naturally assume that of course they’re grifting and just going to enrich themselves. Or when someone claims to be moral, we do much the same. Someone claims Christian ethics, we just assume they’re trying to lower our defenses again so we can be fleeced.
That's so true! In any case, I don't enjoy fantasy to see a reflection of reality but to see its potential. It is the ultimate genre to create possibilities. I want fantasy to immerse me in a world that could be, not to simply transport the grim here and now to another server and add fairies.
Exactly it can work if you can give the heroes and villians a threat that’s willing to destroy both of them, then they can compromise and start too face that existential threat together.
Gray morality should be less about having heroes and villains blurring the lines. It should be about heroes being good people, but human. I don't know how to describe it with words, but basically like Jack Sparrow and, as someone else said, Geralt
I think morally grey vs morally complex is an interesting dichotomy. I love this video because I didn’t agree with all of your opinions, but I in the end agree with your premise.
My one addendum, I think the best characters/worlds are the ones that have flawed character, striving for virtues, in a world of complex struggles. And that shit is far from easy to hit just right. (Ps, could we get a list of the films shown? There’s a ton here I want to see, and don’t know where to start!)
I agree, hopefully that came across in the video! Films used : Marketa Lazarova, Flesh + Blood, GoT clip, LOTR, The Northman, Watchmen, Conan the Barbarian, and a couple clips from The Punisher series.
The best example of grey morality for me is Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Everyone in both sides of the conflict feels correct and heroic. So when you have two main characters trying to kill each other in close quarters it'd be a huge loss and a huge win no matter who ends up on top. It's a more optimistic way of having a world without clear lines,
@@VimyGlideunironically a good point. Usually people/factions/whatever all pursue some reasonable, sensible goals. Not always of course, but I feel it’s more fun to have an array of factions with competing interests, where you can debate and decide who root for, instead a number of despicable factions
That's not morally gray. It's a case of each culture considering it justifiable murder against the other. Humans, universally, prefer not to kill each other especially those that are part of their same culture/tribe. Scarcity of resources for instance, will start getting people to pick sides and now they have to kill each other so one side has enough. Psychological it's okay because survival. However, it still bothers people even if they feel it was justified. The only people that aren't, are literal psychopaths.
The Dark Souls setting is actually a good example of the right way to do Grey Morality, because it isn't just Grey Morality, yes the lines between Good and Evil is sometimes unclear, but at other times they're far more well defined Take Gwyn for example, he has very clear motivations, he wants to prolong the Age of Fire for as long as possible, the reason why he wants to prolong the Age of Fire is entirely dependent on the Player's interpretation, some believe he's afraid of the Age of Dark because he thinks it will be the end of world, others believe he's desperately clinging to his power, or it might even be both. But regardless of whether Gwyn's motivations are sympathetic or not, he does a lot of terrible things to follow his goals, the Videogames very strongly portray him as a Villain in his actions, the very first thing we learn about Gwyn is that he orchestrated a Genocide against the Dragons, and after some lore-hunting Players can very easily conclude that he's responsible for the creation of the Undead Curse. Solaire is another good example, his motivations aren't well defined, because they're extremely abstract, he wants to "Find his own Sun" whatever that means. We can guess all we want about his motivations, but Dark Souls 1 portrays him as a Tragic Hero, he's a member of the Warriors of Sunlight, a Covenant dedicated to helping their fellow Undead in their own missions, and when you speak to him he's very amicable and friendly, throughout the game he's always pursuing his quest to find his Sun, and following his questline we find him just outside of Lost Izalith, where he's losing hope in his quest, here his story ends in one of two ways, if we continue onwards as normal we'll find Solaire with a Chaos Bug on his head, clearly having taken control over his body, Solaire attacks us, believing he's found his Sun, and we're forced to kill him, alternatively if we find a way to kill the Chaos Bug before Solaire finds it, we save him, and we can summon him one final time when we reach the Final Boss One more example is Patches, at first glance you might think he's motivated by simple greed, after all he does constantly trick people into falling for traps, or kicking them off ledges, and says he's going to loot their corpse, but the truth is actually far more interesting, Dark Souls 3's DLC shows us that he's made it his life's purpose to punish Greed (That's literally what Miyazaki created him for after all, punishing Greedy Players), and he blatantly tells us he's devoid of worldly desires. Yes he can end up killing us with his trickery, but more often than not his traps are survivable, yes he may be very Mischievous, but he isn't doing any of this out of Malice (Unless you're a Cleric, in DS1 he hates Clerics). DS3's DLC also introduces Lapp, Lapp is a Knight with Amnesia, he's portrayed as being very friendly, and even helpful, putting himself in harms way just to gift us a Titanite Slab, purely out of the kindness of his heart, which makes it all the sadder when he regains his memories and reveals he's actually Patches
To be completely honest, I never liked dark souls stories (games are good) because it made me feel pointless. It’s like, why do I do anything good if nothing will ever end good? There is no way for anything in that series to ever end happily. There might be exceptions I can’t think of off the top of my head, but that’s one of my big problems with dark fiction. There’s no tension. Like if you know everything Is going to end badly because that world is just so dark like that, it not only becomes predictable, but annoying, like everything is futile. Now, the kinds of stories I like are the ones where they show you great capacity for good, and beauty, and hope, and then when things end badly you’re left with a horrible, yet somehow satisfying feeling. Now this isn’t fantasy, but think about like interstellar. Great capacity for moral greatness and hope, but it has a really sad ending, good as a whole, but sad. There needs to be good in order for the bad to have impact. It can’t just always be hopeless like I feel with dark souls and elden ring.
@@gooseguyfilms4460 Dark Souls stories aren’t completely devoid of hope, the reason everything goes to shit in the Souls Universe is simply because one man disrupted the natural order of the world in order to artificially prolong the Age of Fire, Dark Souls 3 has a hopeful ending if we decide to let the Age of Fire end, because we finally allow the natural order to resume it’s course The Dark Souls 3 DLC also has a hopeful ending, we give the Blood of the Dark Soul to the unnamed Painter Girl in Ariandel, with the hope that the world she paints will never Rot, we won’t know for certain if this will work, but it’s worth trying It’s mainly NPC Questlines that are devoid of hope, such as Siegmeyer’s questline in DS1, where his ultimate fate is death, either as a Human on his own terms, or at the hands of his own Daughter as a Hollow
@@jaydenlobbe7911 yeah that’s kind of what I meant. I guess I should clarify I do like the stories of souls games, I just don’t like them as much as some other things. What I meant was that the world itself feels hopeless. Not necessarily the story itself, just the vibe is “everything sucks” and I don’t feel like anything sad that happens has any impact on me (personally I know this isn’t the case with everyone else). I’m just kind of like, “yup, that’s about what I expected”. No tension. Nothing really to sacrifice for. Just bleak depression.
There is something profoundly rotten about the obsession of fantasy in recent years of being "Gritty, Dark, Morally Grey" and my least favorite "Realistic" As you said in my experience "Realism" tends to just means cynicism it's one thing too have stakes where the good guys don't always win and you have to make hard choices. But when that's all their is then thats not "realistic". People in real life do good thing out of the kindness of their heart, they do honor sacrifice and virtue. It's just not a given, sometimes and too often the opposite is true. But everything being bleak and shitty all the time is not Realistic its just pessimistic, its not anymore realistic then a fantasy setting where good always triumphs it's just more miserable. And at the end of the day ITS FUCKING FANTASY IT CAN LITERALLY BE HOWEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE!!! It's suppose to be a fascinating escape from reality not a shittier imitation of it.
I left a campaign earlier this year because after 1 year of playing we've yet to fully experience a full win from our accomplishments. everything we did something good, a literal god decided to come and belittle us. And then we got denied downtime with the dm only saying he wanted to keep the story going...
Yeah, I was thinking while watching this that these things tend to happen in games where the dm is constantly moving the goalpost. It's not necessarily the fault of the genre, just bad dms who don't understand that not every event needs to be connected to the next one.
@@HaughtyToast I'm not too familiar with D&D, but I have to wonder if some DMs take their roles so seriously that they treat their campaigns like they are making a movie! lol :D
@@Alienrun They 100% do. It's one of the major causes of railroading. You can find a good number of stories about this exact phenomenon floating around the internet. It's not helped by the fact that 5e has started a subculture of players expecting the game to be a ride that they don't have to contribute to beyond making a backstory, so from both sides there's at least some expectation that the dm is responsible for most of, if not all, the story beats.
Realism for me means less magic to just cover up problems. No "resurrecion spells", healing meaning you need a little more time and effort (more than just a night's good sleep). Falling from a mountain means death, not xd6 points of damage. No create food and water spells. It means planning, accepting limits and trying to do the right thing. It means alsoo accepting that the powers that be don't alwys like you upsetting the balance of power for some idealistic quest. Game of Thrones was too much of that for my taste but the general idea behind it is really good.
Thank you for this insightful video. We wholeheartedly agree! It’s been a while since our last campaign, so we didn’t know this was an issue in tabletop roleplay nowadays too. We’ve often discussed the topic in the context of fantasy novels, series and movies. I loved how you said that “A morally grey world is not a complex world. It is a single shade and that shade sucks!” I totally agree. It’s one of the main reasons why I don’t seem to be able to enjoy modern fantasy. What is called ‘morally grey’ is often just an excuse to write inconsistent characters. There is no foreshadowing anymore. It’s become a form of cynicism often found in nihilistic deconstructions of the stories that were timeless, inspiring and wholesome. It creates a sense of distrust and fear. E.g. How in Frozen, they dedicate a whole song on the love interest showing how they are soulmates, before they reveal him as the villain, after lots of virtuous acts that made no sense anymore from that perspective. They were just written as a ‘sleight of hand’. It just says: “Ha! Surprise! Guess you didn’t see that coming, huh?!” They market it as original and unexpected, while actually, it is just lazy and flawed. So often, in morally grey characters, there is no foreshadowing whatsoever, no logic to the (development of) their motivations. It creates robots, void of consistent personalities… And people eat it up. It’s frustrating. I agree that clear antagonism creates stronger conflict! Heroic virtue has gotten the mistaken reputation of being dumb and one-sighted. In fact, I think it tells us something about our own morality, or lack thereof. I’m afraid only a handful of people still want to cheer for those heroes making the tough but right decision, because they believe, deep down, they too could be that person. I think people have given up on becoming heroes, even in the smallest ways, and have settled for unstable, selfish characters. It’s easier to meet or even transcend low expectations.
While I like gritty realism in my fantasy books, when it comes to games I would much rather play a game that's more fun and where I can be full on chaotic good.
@@sam7559 Except for the fact that "gritty realism" is often just an excuse to punish fun and being chaotic good. "Gritty realism" is often much more limiting and miserable than actual reality.
@TheStephaneAdam fun is subjective, your gonzo world can also be unfun to someone else. For punishing being chaotic good, if I'm in a gritty realism setting and I'm playing good, I want to be punished for it. I want there to be trials and tribulations for my character upholding their morals instead of taking the easy way out.
@@sam7559 Facing trials and challenges does not mean being systematically being punished for it. Believe it or not quite often doing the right thing is also the smart thing to do, even if it's a bit more expensive in the short term. There's a world of difference between "realistic" and "edgy". And you get what you reward in RPG's. If NPC's never show any gratitude and any demonstration of kindness is mocked players will start acting as murderhobos real quick. You probably interpret this as the PC'S being "gritty".
I like gritty and or grimdark settings where the characters are heroic in spite of the “times” they live in. I love the old heroic ideals in books like lotr, and older Star Wars (not 7, 8, or 9). But I also love the imperial guard of warhammer because they strive for heroic ideals while being in the worst of times.
Gritty and grimdark settings in my opinion suck the worst Things IS they think they are so smart and so realistic by Putting a Gray Filter over everything making all of IT boring. Especially aestetics sucks with only beige,Grey ,Brown and black when reality was way more colorfull
I'd argue that the imperial guard doesn't have "heroic ideals" with the only exception of the Salamanders, not all are murder hobos (Black Guard) but they mostly don't end up fighting for being good in itself, heck, the Emperor's inhumanity and lack of empathy led him to his crippled state in a way (it's an over simplification, but I think it gets the point across)
You’re mixing up the Space Marines with the Imperial Guard. The Imperial Guard are the regular humans with Lasguns and hordes of infantry, tanks, and artillery holding the line desperately against all the enemies of the Imperium.
"Grey morality" and "gritty realism" are usually just code for nihilism. Nihilism is a universal acid. It dissolves everything it touches, because that's what it is supposed to do. What's endlessly fascinating is how people always think that _their_ nihilism is different and will somehow lead to something good despite nihilism's denial of the Good as a meaningful concept. They get frustrated when players lose interest, despite constant reiteration of the message that everything is meaningless, nothing matters, and all accomplishments hollow.
Not to adopt to much of a tinfoil hat (or maybe I am) but it also seems like the oversaturation of gray morality is like a way to infuse society with a dissolution of conviction, to make certain actions more palatable to people.
So you mean that people are making morals more questionable so they don’t have to feel bad that they don’t have the strength to be as morally upstanding as they want to be?
@@gooseguyfilms4460 in my opinion it’s more of a excuse for certain people to get away with being a dick or trying to justify shitty behavior, in my experience dms that push the moral grey in all there characters and campaigns can be toxic people who don’t like being called out on there toxic or just harmful behavior so they use moral grey as a excuse to justify their actions, had one dm running a campaign that had my character go to prison for not taking advantage of a drunk noble woman, apparently she felt offended when I refused to take her to bed knowing she was drunk that situation tells you something about the person in control of the campaign, that in his world taking advantage of drunk women or men is okay because they knowingly drink that much, but I’ve had plenty of other dms use moral grey as a tool for certain circumstances or characters that made the story more interesting and fun to play in, it’s just that sometimes you get a awful person using moral grey writing as a way to deflect there own personal behavior and use it justify why it’s either not a big deal or okay to others.
That's an interesting idea. However, if we discard the video's theory that everyone just jumped the hype train for money, fame or something like that, the creators might be feeling like that themselves and more or less honestly express this... nihilism, I guess. Or they genuinely believe that this is what most people think and, once again, are trying to sell a product, just in a more thoughtful way. Or it's a mix of both.
Hear me out: I built a morally grey tabletop RPG fairy tale setting where the idea of absolute good and absolute evil exists, where mothers tell their children about the legendary virtuous King Victor and his twelve heroic Paladin Knights defeated the nine evil hag sorceresses and thus saved the world from their cruelty, thus inspiring children growing up--including the player characters--to be like King Victor and his Paladins. However, as these "nine evil sorceresses" returned with a vengeance and the player characters have to step up and be the new heroes of their age, they learn that in reality it's not as black and white as they were taught. As they dig deeper into the past, they discover that Victor and his Paladins weren't as virtuous as the stories claim they were, and the "evil" sorceresses aren't actually all that evil, they have in fact very legitimate grievances. However, what I hope to achieve here is not to demoralize the players and make them feel like nothing matters. Instead, I want them to rise above the moral greyness and actually be the heroes they thought Victor and his Paladins were. King Victor and his twelve Paladins made mistakes, and its up to the player characters to make sure those mistakes aren't repeated. Edit: in case it wasn't obvious, I loosely based King Victor and his twelve Paladin Knights on our world's King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and I based my story on what I experienced when I believed King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table to be heroes of epic virtue, only the then later actually read the Lancelot-Grail Cycle and discover that the Knights of the Round Table were actually rather flawed characters with sometimes dubious morality.
I believe that the whole grey mortality shtick is bad when misused. Just like in real life, heroes have existed, and they're all the more impressive bc they were able to achieve things in a world that is not simple and clear-cut. Even in GoT, which was the big influence for gritty realism, has actual heroes. Jon Snow, Brienne of Tarth, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand. All of them have strong ideals in spite of a world that doesn't share it. I think a grey world works when it accentuates either the strength of will of the character or the level of evil of the threat/villain, something so evil that rises above anything people might do.
When it comes to grey morality where every friendly NPC is going to betray the party or are unlikeable jerks. Don’t be surprised if the party starts turning into a bunch of murderhobos. This may sound weird but betrayals work a lot better in white vs black morality. Because the players are fully expecting betrayals in grey morality game.
This is actually a really good point. I read this online choose your own adventure game a while back. Very basic but also very well written, used cave of time format which means it branched from the beginning quite a lot giving you quite a lot of endings that felt believable. It was all very morally straightforward, your character had a struggle to overcome, obviously, but it was never grimdark about it, generally speaking it made sense when you got a good or bad ending or sometimes one that was in between. Anyways the important point is that one route has you try to trust someone way later in the story who your suspicious about but feel like its good to trust them...then it links to a plot point set up at the very beginning of the story and he ends up betraying you! It works because its unexpected but also believable. Most of the other characters make their intentions known well when you meet them, so when you come across someone who has good reason to trick you, it actually hits emotionally... Compare that to another choose your own adventure game I played where I had to go left or right and then died for going left despite doing fairly well up to that point. Instant turn off and made me question wtf the author was thinking when they wrote that! That's the difference I think. Make what happens to you be purposeful and it'll be more engaging as a result. Bonus points if you can stick to your themes throughout the entire story while making it engaging on a moment to moment basis, but that's easier said than done! :D
In poland we have (or had) culture and style of playing warhammer fantasy with gritty realism. It was popular with older players born in 80's and some from 90's. For some reason it was ONLY real way to play, and everyone who wanted something less realistic in their fantasy game was ridiculed. I think it was caused by the experience of communism and life immediately after it. The cynicism and pessimism of the gray life of the 1990s affected everyone and still does, although to a lesser extent.
*correction: it is just called warhammer. Without the fantasy suffix. That title was droped in 1987 in order to make a distinction between warhammer as the original setting and 40.000 as a sister setting.
To me, grey morality of the world is not about everyone being an basically a villain, but about everyone looking toward their own self interest first, with genuine selfless people being rare exceptions. The difference from dark is that they do in fact still have morals, and will not turn around and stab you in the back at the first opportunity (unless they are that kind of character).
Me: This is a survival game where holy magic has been broken (and is an end goal to win the campaign, to recontact the gods), and I expect you to track arrows and rations and how you're carrying things. The Players: Ah, yes gritty realism where we will all suffer! Me: That's... not what I said. I just expect you to track resources.... The Players: I expect to die of cholera or dysentery. Me: .....
Hhuh. Well if that's what they sincerely want out of the experience then I suppose that's valid. Sounds like you guys might not be a good match for eachother tho. 🤔
You know, I got immediately interested in this video by the thumbnail. I thought it's going to be a small video essay about why we should being back heroic virtue IN REAL LIFE. Ended up being about tabletop rpgs, still valid, just... I suppose I got kinda disappointed that it wasn't about real life. Well, a good video nonetheless, have a new subscriber friend!
There's no such thing as gray morality. The idea only came about because some things that are allowed in 1 culture, is not allowed in another creating a "gray" area when the two parties meet. However, there are universal morals the humanity as a whole follow. Murderers for instance, aren't tolerated anywhere, however what determines if it was truly a murder is often the culture which determines exceptions to this. This is where this "gray" area comes in. This is the part where we bring up legality of what is considered justifiable murder. Notice the part where you have to have a good reason to kill someone, to justify it? It's still considered wrong to kill others but sometimes you don't have a choice like in self-defense.
I've talked with a few people before about this kind of topic, and the response I got was honestly depressing. "That's just how the real world is," they said. Apparently, according to them, everyone being a villain out for themselves, undermining and manipulating each other and especially more morally sound individuals because "HA! They're idiots!", was just how the real world worked, and these TV shows were simply a reflection of that. Being good is just an invitation for trouble, trust should be avoided at all costs, and caution should be exercised around crowds, because while you are trying to undermine everyone else, someone is likely trying to undermine you. And hope is a fallacy, because the world will never change, so it should be embraced instead. I have no idea where people like them get this idea, but for them, this is reality.
Ok, this thought process isn't 100% wrong ( which is likely why it continues to rear it's head every so often. ) But it's ( somewhat ) exaggerating how just bad things can get. You see this thought process is most likely a manifestation of the frustration, of seeing others "who don't deserve their success" easily rub out people who "do." ( It's also likely why you see people attack the idea of Superman. While romanticizing heroes like the Punisher, it's all coming from a place of embitterment. ) Also, this is heavily dependent on where on the planet you live. Some places makes this mindset not just correct but necessary to stay alive.
Some people say optimism and idealism are naive... But I have known some people who had a cynism/pessimism that made them some of the most naive people I've ever met.
@@thereseemstobeenanerror1219 Usually they contrast, but when cynism is extreme, they don't. In Spanish, naive is translated as "inocente" and "ingenuo", I think, and this mean "not knowing how things work, how the world is". I apologize in advance because English is not my native language, and I mostly use it only for UA-cam. The truth is, world is quite more complex than we think. Sure, in real world there is hardship, it's common, but it isn't ALWAYS the case. Sure, there are places on Earth that seem like hell, but it's not all the planet that is like that. Benevolence do exist, there are kind people, some people have made changes, some treasons are punished, there are people who never betray and that gladly are hardly betrayed, there are beautiful places... If someone is such a cynist that thinks that ALL people ALWAYS betray and don't think EVER about others, well... these people can expect to have actually a harder and sadder life, and struggle most (if not all) of the time, because world doesn't work like that. If you expect anyone being ready to betray you, well... don't expect that people being at your side, because they will never be enough for you, but they will be enough for many others. So a cynist going to that extreme is as naive as an optimist that expect all is going to be alright always without moving a finger (which is also a extreme). I'm an optimist, but a... realistic one, can I say?, and that's based on my 34 years of experience, having met many people of all classes around the world, having overcome obstacles with I could, having failed espectacularly at things and having succeeded at other stuff; having upset friends and in most cases repairing what I broke, and in other cases having being what actually friends needed. Some bad things have happened to me, some good things also have happened to me. I expect good things of people, but also I'm prepared if nothing good come out of them, so when I experience dissappointment, it doesn't last enough, and sometimes even those people who failed me just ONCE, happen to impress me the next time. Because all of this, I find people who think like what the comment that started this section said as incredibly naive, and I feel some sorrow for them. Again, all of what I said is about EXTREME cynism, and not moderated cynism.
Right. Violence used to be something that was depicted as a consequence for the characters actions and a factor of the harsh world. These days "Gritty Media" loves to embellish the violence, make it center stage. It's almost like they want us to be aroused with how many lingering shots we see of people getting tortured.
This argument should not simply pertain to d&d but so to in our media as a whole. Stories that are morally grey often lead to an ending that is unsatisfying and careless. Without the grounding of morality at the least (even were it evil winning in the end) there seems to be no point in the exploration as a whole. However, this is of course all due to the departure of “rational thought” from meaning.
I like to consider my campaign setting “gritty, gory, and realistic” but I also understand that life in a medieval world is not just suffering, that people are not all evil and heartless, and that good people can actually be capable and intelligent. I also personally think realism is an excellent tool to make the fantastical more fantastical and immersive.
Bottom line is story telling is a powerful tool and if all we ever see are “naive” good guys getting killed off for being good or righteous then what does that lead us to believe about doing the right thing or being the good guy? All im saying is we need more stories like The Lord of The Rings
Gritty Realism and Grey Morality can be done well, but it's not easy. Gritty Realism doesn't necessarily mean harsh and granular; simply leaning towards a grounded and believable tone, rather than a fantastical one, is usually enough to qualify realism. Grey Morality doesn't have to mean "no one is right, there are no good outcomes". Contrast is important. For every grey cloud, a silver lining. For every rainbow, a touch of grey. Heroes can have flaws and make tough choices, and villains can be sympathetic and have moments of relatability. But when everything is the same murky shade, we as the audience don't know who to root for, and the narrative loses meaning. Too often, writers and DMs will use Realism and Moral Ambiguity sadistically, as an excuse to punish their players and undercut their achievements, or they truly believe that for something to be "Realistic" is has to be miserable and depressing, and that all people must be morally grey because "no one could be truly good and heroic". It's a disheartening sentiment I see too often.
While I share your hate-boner for GOT (I believe fantasy should be fantastic, and the news should be gritty and realistic), I also have to lay some of fantasy heroic morality dying at tabletops blame on people who have misread Jack Vance. At most tables, Vance is either A. the guy who limited magic use, or B. another author of gritty dark fantasy (Dying Earth). But Vances' stories SUPPORT morality by asking a player tough moral questions. For instance, what will be the cost to my soul if I summon a demon to cast a healing spell? Or the case of Dying Earth, which one of these casting of magic missile is going to cause the heat death of the universe?
I think the main issue is looking at your worldbuilding through the prism of morality, when you should be looking it thought the prism of motivation. People misunderstand GoT for being about grey morality - it's not. There was nothing grey about Joffrey. It just emphasized that everyone has their own motivation and are willing to go to various lengths to achieve their goals. That was kinda the idea behind the good-evil axis on the alignment chart - what methods you're using to achieve your goals. If your whole world is grey, that means you've populated your entire world with neutral characters which is exactly as boring as it sounds. I do generally agree with your point though - when the campaign is entirely "grey morality and gritty realism", that's just code word for torture porn. I find it particularly funny when people are trying to implement this in DnD where after a day of adventuring I can start blowing up houses in 6 seconds. Such gritty. Much realism.
We gotta evolve. We have old, pure morality style stories, that nowadays feel a little too clean and unvelibable. Then we have velibable but pessimistic. gritty realism style stories. i think we have to update our stories to acomodate our current fears, problems and knowledge. Make a gritty, realistic, depressing setting were goodness truly wins in the end in a way that makes you go ''god damn that could work, ill do this in real life''
It's really only in "Prestige Television" and RPGs. In the case of Television I'd argue it goes all the way back to the success of the Sopranos. For years "Morally Grey" was basically synonymous with "good television" (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones etc...). Basically virtually everything that HBO and FX were putting out. RPG wise I feel like it's a reflection of both the popularity of Witcher, Game of Thrones, and Dragon Age coupled with a core audience that's "grown up" and feels like the older stories and settings don't reflect their own maturity levels (whether they're right about that is another question entirely). Like all things, there's a balance point where "morally grey" works well. And even "Grimdark" has its' place, but it's easy to go too far into straight up nihilism and reach a point of dystopia that goes from "realistic" to "ridiculous" (unless it's intentionally ridiculous like 40K).
I find the best grey morality is have good natured villain with solution vs good natured hero without one. they both want good for the world but the villain is willing to sacrifice lives and people to accomplish while the hero doesn't. the conflict is on trying the find the better way to the solution.
This... Really reminds me of a short campaign I played. Though the DM was still pretty new to being the DM at the time of this campaign. My character pretty much had to suffer because the world was way too gritty. I pretty much played a character who had a heart of gold. Spending all of his starting money just to save a poor girl that was enslaved. Spent so much time taking care of her. Yet the NPCs seems to be so against at the idea of my character adopting the girl and freeing her from her 'slave magic' that I wasn't even aware till I got punished for buying her clothes! I even went and waited for a way to remove that slave magic of hers. Yet when I got her to a magic researcher who knows how to remove it. ANOTHER PUNISHMENT! The researcher just simply took off one of her eyeball where the slave crest was located! Had to chase her down to calm her down. Even coming up with clever ways to lure her or make her remember didn't even worked because it won't work! I had to reset the entire timeline just to save a single character. But it is even more punishment because everyone in that timeline would of course die. Yeah... Me and another DM had to lecture em a lot on how to properly DM characters... Good thing they learning from that now.
I think these are some good observations in a trivial matter. Many Authors and GMs tend to overdo grey morality. Then it becomes edgy and grey is more like an euphemism. When I watched S1 of GoT I instantly perceived it as the sensational and pretentious show that it is. It was so simplistic, cringy and boring (although it had good parts, too but these were burried).
I have watched a few of your videos, and it seems your position is typically "here's something that is being done poorly, and here's why that matters." I really appreciate that. Not everyone has clued into that yet, either. It's excellent for discussion, and I think you are right to just present your take. I don't always agree, but I do like that you are engaging some interesting Role-Playing topics and I respect putting yourself out there for the shark infested waters of the Comments section.
Appreciate that! Ultimately I'm not trying to be prescriptive, I don't want to tell anybody exactly what to do or how to do it. There's a lot of stuff lacking in the hobby and I'm just making commentary and hoping that at least the questions inspire others to come up with their own interesting answers to the questions.
That point about moral grayness and complexity being different rocks. Well done! I find that epic fantasy settings tend to have a throughline morality, with factions and individuals with moral complexity. So many good points. Having a religion thats generally aiming to be good but has a few corrupt priests is more interesting than a faction of priests whose goal is to screw over the party every way they can. Or whose actions occasionally result in one or two factions that are harmed in some way or whose goals tend to run counter to them (but not every action). Once you have a few factions like that, a smaller faction which a specific goal that does not incorporate morality can be interesting. Its really only interesting if done in moderation, which you said multiple times… so well done!
Great vid. There are some nuanced terms here, but I can just quickly point to David Gemmell, arguably the father of "Gritty Realistic Fantasy" and say that his trick (contra GRRM, etc.) is to have his main characters be wholly dedicated to a moral position in scenarios where (largely, just) the bad guys are preaching moral relativism (-> nihilism). But the protagonists are not simpletons or blind religious zealots. They chose a moral ground and risked everything (& sometimes dying) for it.
I think that sometimes we forget that in our own real world, there are countless examples of people doing heroic things and that yes, there are times when virtue or even "naivety" have concrete positive results. Not always, as in other situations they are taken advantage of or can even worsen the situation, but despite all odds, it still works in some context. Gritty realism should definitely get rid of the "everyone is a wolf" thing. Because it's not real. The great tragedy and what makes the setting much more interesting is that, yes, some are wolves, some are not, some are other predators, some doesn't care, some don't even fit in this, some switch sides etc. Sometime you can trust and have hope and it's rewarding, sometimes the same thing is your doom, other times violence and brutality can help you righting the wrongs, but it can also destroy everything. Moraly grey should not only results in relativism, but also in showing how, despite the blur of such world, people can still forge and hold their beliefs and still continue to go on.
Superman vs The Elite is a gritty story and it works because it's portrayed in a nuanced manner with a Superman that knows he might be corny compared to Manchester Black but he holds firm on his dreams and ultimately overcomes the dilemma by acting out what they do in his style to show unpleasant violence really is when you strip it of any glamour. A story that's gritty because of how it grounds the central conflict in a real debate about what is Superman's place in the current era and why he's outlasted his gritty contemporaries like the 90's. Genesis of the Daleks is a dark gritty story because it's an upclose look into Skaro's brutal past and the Daleks ultimately a consequence of the long fight. The Doctor questions if he has the right before realising that with the Daleks, alliences and unity of other species are made because of them. Gojira or Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1954). The whole thing is a gritty and serious drama with a monster that's only seen as a threat because of his rage and being radioactive. A monster who's death is played up as tragic rather than triumphant.
"Grey morality" is just the default, especially if your players are new and murder hobo-y. Not me though, my Arms Dealer PC was Morally Silver. Basically Han Solo in New Hope.
@TrillTheDM You're right, though. It's cool if untrustworthiness is the point. Like a Social Navigation Game (NPCs have specific motivations and, for these, will betray others at a whim); A Crime mystery thriller (every suspect is plausibly suspicious and has reason to lie); Or some kind of no man's wasteland - be it wartorn, apocalyptic or untamed (where tragedy is common, allies are necessary but betrayal is expected). Otherwise or when poorly executed, it's just unrewarding. If every situation has no right answers, then all decisions are arbitrary. If a moral dilemma has an obvious answer, then you've wasted your Grey morality. If you're doing Grey for its own sake, you're creating a world apathetic to the players and which they can't attach themselves to.
Just make both sides have a point, but dont punish the players for what they pick. In my setting the elven forrests dimished because of a curse. In the 500 years the land was free humans have settled there. The elves want to stop the curse and reclaim their lands, and the humans had to put a lot of work into making the land livable and have lived there for generations. Technically the humans took advantage of the elves weakenes state, but they were just trying to make a better land for themselves. Also the land next door is ran by a red dragon, so theres a pretty good example of an good/evil straigjt forawrd thing they could do instead.
I used three important NPC's to have what thought was the best of both worlds. They were the three children of the King, the eldest was morally grey and was the spymaster, the second oldest was a morally good (very lawful paladin), and the youngest was a chaotic crack addled demon worshiper that had an electric guitar from hell. There were various shades of good and evil in the world with the various regions being run by better or worse people with extremes at both ends but the three siblings stood as a good standard upon which to judge the world and for the players to judge themselves.
I totally agree with this! Several years ago, I started playing black-and-white characters and it has been an absolute blast! It's not that my characters always live up to their codes perfectly but when they failed to live up to it, they repent (not necessarily in the religious sense) from the behavior and trying to better. I mean, it comes with a story hook just built right into the narrative! Great video!
I’ve had this idea for a campaign I hope to run someday, where the players are tasked by the good guys to help a king quash a rebellion. The king in question is kind of a rich asshole who basically does whatever he wants, but likes the good guys enough that he’s willing to let them do whatever they want. The rebels, on the other hand, hate the king because he’s an asshole and want to overthrow him, and because the good guy support him the rebels want them out too. Now here’s where it gets interesting: the players will eventually find out that a key figure in the rebellion is in service of the BBEG and is helping the rebellion so he can establish a foothold for the BBEG. The rebels are blind to this however and view the key figure as a great help to them. This will set up an interesting dilemma for the players: do they help the asshole king quash the rebels because of the BBEG’s servant? Do they overthrow the asshole king even though it means the BBEG is that much closer to winning? Do they try and find a middle ground for the rebels and king? I’d be interested in how the players will tackle this
I only like gritty realism and dark stories as long as the character(s) still are righteously good. When they win and the world is shown being better/healing, all the while seeing how bad it is throughout the story, oh it’s so good. Normally that doesn’t happen, good characters die and you get made fun of for liking them…
This kind of reminds me of a group RP environment where this one player just refused to let his character ever be happy in any way. He was always suffering, always depressed, everything always going wrong, and it just started getting exhausting since one of my characters was actively trying to help his character by being a good friend. Got to the point where I had to start distancing myself from him for my own sanity.
Liked, subbed, and subscribed. You've given me something that I thought I had lost forever: hope. Through your verbose criticisms of roleplaying games, I no longer want to kill myself. You see, I walked in on my wife a few years ago getting drilled by a neighbor called Mastadon. He was a retired NFL linebacker, Google tells the full tale. Anyway, after drowning in the bottom of a bottle for the last thousand days, I found your channel. I am saved. Thank YOU, brother.
OOOOH How i WISH i saw this video BEFORE i left mid campaign. The DM was exactly how you describe it here: a prick that made a world just to tell his own story, regardless of what our characters stood for. I kid you not, everytown we went had always some sort of secret intelligence that spied on us, or an impossibly powerful bartender, and every choice in dialogue resoulted in us fighting or feeling absolutely bad for ourself because apperently "tHe wOrLd iS gRaY aNd tHerE aRe nO wInNeRs". Absolute fool
I've not had much experience with gritty realism, I am however somebody who tends to use what you define as grey morality (Tho i've never explicitely called a campaing that since i didn't know that was the term people used) I use it because... Well, I like it I guess. I don't like just "The good guys VS the bad guys", i like verisimilitude, i like webs of differing perpesctives and allegiances being at play. Gangs fighting over control of the magical black market with all the satellite factions that implies or 2 feuding noble houses fighting over cynical reasons has always been more intersting to me than one side wants to burn everything and the other wants to save everyone. Tho I do agree that some people say "Grey Morality" and in fact mean "everyone's an asshole". What I mean by "Grey morality" is "Every character is an individual trying to live their lives and reacting to the actions of those around them." That always felt more impactful to me. That a bunch of different people, some good some bad, will react to what you do. Now maybe that means you wouldn't like me as a DM... And that's fine. Different styles and preferences and all that. Anyway, paragraph over, have a good day!
You hit a lot of points right on the head and you should have many more subs. I've added mine, to be sure. Something that you touched on very well was the idea of hope. Sure, the world might be going to shit, but the players have to have SOME hope, or else why are they even there? It can be a delicate road to walk, between gritty and hopeless, but if the DM and the players can pull it off it can make for some of the best RP moments ever.
My personal preference is to explore the full spectrum in my campaigns. Leaving room for good, bad, and the morally grey to exist and interact. Makes the setting feel more alive to me to have that kind of variety. My players like it, too. They like getting my more morally grey villains to see their side and compromise occasionally.
As someone who basically built the conflict of my campaign on grey morality, I definitely see the issue with leaning into it too hard. The story I have set up is all about how a well organized religion can cause rational people to do horrible things. To this end I just wanted an opposing force that the party could justify empathizing with. Of course the early game was full of doubt and turmoil, but the end game is where it paid off big time. All these "good people made bad" are replaced with the root of the evil. And when the snake rears its ugly head, its very well known at the table. And when the real bad guys go down, it feels that much better that now all that trouble and stuggle and doubt is resolved. I don't want to make it sound like a "here's how it's done right" type of statement but if you dig into ot from the right angle it can be a damn good story...
I think Nier games are a great example of grey morality. Also, I kinda disagree that everything about grey morality needs to be high stake, in Nier Replicant there are lines of sidequests which ends with the characters having to make a moral choice, which will have no consequence on the overall world and gameplay, but it will still make you think a little
I am currently playing a CoS campaign as a displaced professional monster hunter (think a cross between a Witcher and a cop) who is lawful good and plays it to the core. I butt heads a lot with the group's thief and warlock. The thing is, if the party wants to do something illegal, he pushes back. It leads to entertaining discourse on our actions instead of 'okay, he's dead, what do I get?'. So yes, morality should matter, if not, what's the point?
I very much prefer a lighter gameplay, with fun and chaotic energy into the world. I feel that in a lighter gameplay I am actually freer to create a more complex character infused with more humor and with interesting traits, whereas in a gritty / grim setting there's more falling back on cliché edgy characters.
I tried to pitch games like LOTFP but nobody wants to play that. In VTM it was just easier to play because I would just react to the situation. Because the players more want to be terrible people. I see that more at tables more often are players who want to play these gritty characters but don't want to be called out on it. They want the immersion without the consequences of actions.
@@jayteepodcast Yeah that's definitely something I've seen as well. Realpolitik without any of the consequences that naturally come from playing that way. I agree that most people don't want harsh gritty realistic experiences, that's more of a DM issue I believe.
Dude that's unfortunate, LOTFP is great, it's the best b/x d&d, the group I run games with loved it, you just feel things running or playing in that game that most d&d type games don't give, mix in "homebrew " sessions/scenarios with the modules/adventures they print and potentially you get gold, I'd say that for me the ", weird/horror/mythical evokes more emotion if it's dabbled in here and there opposed to every session.... Just play the setting your running and depending on what happens and what the player characters choose to pursue drop in the LOTFP modules sometimes and you might hit gold man
part of it is 5e rules are not gritty, and 5e culture is antithetical to gritty games. you cant have your perfect deviant art oc actually be challenged
I personally find the lawful good cleric/paladin archetype that's always giving money to the poor and so on, simply because, very difficult to work with. I've played with someone who did that, and I simply couldn't understand what motivated that character, or what that character wanted, what he was after. It seemed like he just wanted to slay the next monster, and give another food ration to a poor person, or doing the next noble deed. Someone who'd risk his life saving the princess from the dragon and move on to save the next princess from the next dragon, without ever actually asking for a reward, or why all those princesses are in those towers guarded by dragons in the first place...
Sheer number of times, the ice and fire books and Game of Thrones show would have ended if not for somebody just being a complete prick for no reason is beyond count. Joffrey and Baelish exist as walking scumbag plot devices to just make things worse for no reason. And let’s just be totally honest, the story kind of needs it because the highborn jerks part needs to be kept long enough running for the dragon girl to show up and then the ice demons to show up. So any time it looks like things could finally be winding down to some sort of end, Don’t worry some jerk is going to kick it all back up because otherwise, it would be boring waiting for the real plot to show up..
Honestly this hasn't been my experience, but the people I play with are a relatively close-knit group. Seems like playing unambiguous good guys vs. bad guys is kindof the norm. Which makes it really odd when like... *one person* is playing a morally grey or morally complex character and people act like they're playing a cliche.
Let’s be honest if it wasn’t gray morality it would’ve been some other fantasy trope that’s been beaten into the dirt. These would be the same dungeon Masters, who would go hey paladin you killed a bandit who just raped the 13-year-old girl? Well guess what you lose your powers. Hey Druid, did you do something that wasn’t neutral? Guess what you lose your powers. Hey cleric did you just criticize a higher ranked priest in your church? Well guess what you lose your powers. A bad dungeon master is a bad dungeon master no matter what trope they use. You do a better job than most, but it really bothers me when most people will criticize a genre when it’s not the genre that’s the issue. It’s the dungeon Master, who is on a power trip and has no empathy for the players.
I don't disagree, I do think there are certainly some bad apples in the mix that are very purposeful in their intent with using this stuff. At the same time though I think there are a lot of newer DM's who might fall into these traps thinking they're providing a more engaging or immersive experience but unknowingly being a bad DM. I hope to reach those people because I know the others are too far gone, I think I say it in the video even that for some it's not for them. Appreciate the thoughts.
I appreciate the video, but I don't think I agree with your overall assessment on each end of your overall thesis. And I don't mean in the tone, but more in the overall idea. For some settings, to have a compelling narrative, immersive tone and overall enjoyable game, you have to employ exactly what you say (World of Darkness comes to mind.) for the necessary effect to feel like what people imagine the world to be. That's not to say you can't have characters with absolute values, but it's going to be a gradient and not a checkerboard. For the realism, I understand what you're implying, but having characters count every ration, every coin, and really think about putting their lives in risky situations can often activate the necessary pre-conditions of some alignments and gameplay elements. It for instance makes some characters more mercenary and pragmatic, good characters will still want to do good things, but it has a cost to constantly sacrifice especially in light of an apathetic population, it makes sense to sometimes steal, or intimidate, if the setting doesn't have these elements it puts the players in a morally dubious position even if their alignment is good.
@@josephmarch7142 I think you misunderstand to what extent I mean extremes when talking about these concepts. I'm not talking about gritty realism as in just tracking your resources which is more simulationist than gritty realism. I'm talking about the DMs that justify all kinds of insane shit happening to your character and covering for it using "it's gritty and realistic". There's nothing wrong if these elements are built into the system itself but largely it's DMs using ultra punishing shit of their own creation that doesn't make sense whatsoever with the system. Either way, appreciate the comment.
If I get pitched another setting “inspired by Game if Thrones” I’m probably gonna ask if the game will also have a dissatisfying ending that makes everyone angry.
Certainly agree with practically the whole video, the one comment that I would contest at the end is that a world of absolute Evil is similarly tensionless to a world of absolute Good. characters have goals. Some may contradict other characters goals. And while a good character will try to work out differences diplomatically, Evil characters don't necessarily care who gets hurt to achieve thier goals.
Having been a part of some grey games ya do need both good and evil. It grounds things. Ya need good to have evil, and ya need both to have the gray. The good doesn't have to be some Optimus Prime figure, it could be someone as a lowly washerwoman, housewife, priest, or a hunter. Show that there is good and that there is something to protect and cherish.
I agree with you overall, I do feel that there are also players who want grim-dark-gritty-morale-grey all the time too, not just GMs. When you get the right players and gm together though, heroic can and will thrive. Some of the best campaigns I've run are the heroes bringing the world from the darkness to the light, but it is never easy. Great video, thanks for it.
Amazing video! I always thought of Grey Morality in any media was some kind of scapegoat for the author to say that "Well my work is REALIST, so there's no absolute good and bad" only to excuse them being horrible people in real life as well.
This might be the most impactful video of my gamemaster career. You opend my eyes :D i dont think i am a problematic case but i never thought this way about that. As i listend to you i felt the dread my players must have felt sometimes when it was to muddy to make clear decisions. Thank you i will do better by them now :)
I agree with this, I like morally grey characters, but it means nothing if there is no good or evil characters. A Grey character implies there is a good and evil. And I also hate the worlds where anyone who is Good, is naïve and killed quickly or is crushed out of a character. And I also hate when the Evil is seen as the default, as well as being done with no reason. A good person is generally someone who wants to do right, or is someone who wants something, but does it the way that is usually hard due to not be cruel to others or something. While an evil person goes for the easy but weak willed option, or simply cause they enjoy the suffering they put upon others. Example: Two people want a Loaf a Bread but don't have any money, Good person offers to help in some way to earn the bread. While Evil just steals it. Grey in this case would be if the person with the bread will only accept money and you are dying of hunger, so you steal it not because you want to, but because you have no other choice Overall, good video.
I think a lot of people don’t get that acting “morally good” is usually the rational and productive thing to do and is the default. Like… we developed morality because it helped our societies survive.
@@petrorlov2599 I wouldn't say by default, Like, people benefit more with cooperation then people just robbing each other for short term gain, yes. But good is more or less seeing that despite how easy the rob/kill or whatever option is, for your own benefit, and choosing to take the long road because even if its harder, it benefits yourself without having to rob others of their hard work. But yes, Morality does help societies survive,
I love gritty realism because I love survival scenarios that really lean on the exploration pillar of the game. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to play in a game like this…
“Why does the third of the three brothers, who shares his food with the old woman in the wood, go on to become king of the country? Why does James Bond manage to disarm the nuclear bomb a few seconds before it goes off rather than, as it were, a few seconds afterwards? Because a universe where that did not happen would be a dark and hostile place. Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain.” Let your cyberpunkers have some Chinese food with their friends while living another day on the edge, let some refugees sing and dance at their camp after the party saved them from the guards, let your player known that if their are fighting for something that something has a value in this world.
I think your right and wrong on this. To me it is more about having a dynamic campaign rather than a purely heroic, dark, or morally grey campaign. To me the best campaigns can move between these themes when appropriate. The heroes set out to kill the dragon terrorizing the town. However, some townsfolk beg them not to go for fear of the dragons retribution if they fail. Getting to the dragons lair to discover a clutch of eggs that could be used as a bargining tool. Coming home to the town as heroes but how did they choose to do it? Kill the dragon and her brood? Steal the eggs to bargian for the safty of the town? Kill the dragon and keep the eggs for themselves? As for the gritty realism. I find most players are unwilling to do it because it slows the pace of the game. Even if going from near death to full health in a day makes no logical sense. Tension is lost when all you need is a hour and you're up to fighting status again. Characters going from lvl 1 to 12 in 6 months of a characters lifespan That beging said I agree with many of your point. You can't have every villian be grey. Having a clearly evil villian helps players purpose and direction.
I always wanted to make a game with heroic and virtues characters between good and evil but in the end my players murdered everyone around. Yeah we played Warhammer fantasy which is gray af but still they always gravited towards chaos.
Thank you so much for this video. Saved to show people what I mean. Can you do one on sympathetic villains who have a point? Would love to hear your opinion on that.
Grey Morality cannot exist without Morality. If you dont know what is right and wrong then there is nothing grey about anything you do.
I agree. I think the greyness is just that people can do both good and evil, there is no one who does all evil or all good. There are different shades based on peoples aims, their integrity, and their actions and intentions. But right and wrong still exist. And there are sometimes still heros and villains
@@Dartagnan4012 i always say bounty hunters are the grey because they follow the money and themselves.
What's right and wrong tend to change over time, and will change depending on context.
@@minutemansam3122 not true, rape is always wrong even if the whole world declares it to be otherwise. What a soy take.
@@minutemansam3122 Morality is objective. An evil act is taking away some kind of agency without consent like killing or rape while a good act is selfless and altruistic. It's not perspective. All of these are conscious choices you make. You can justify anything but in the end it's your actions that really matter, but it's okay fail. We're only human.
Witcher games and books did a good job of grey morality. Geralt isn't always perfect, but we know his goals and beliefs are good and worth rooting for. The rest of the world is believably human too, even if it is a flawed and at times a very cruel place.
Geralt is a great example of a truly heroic, "good" character who still fits in his gritty and dark world
Witcher is a foul ripoff. Not only Of Elric Of Melniboné the true OG witcher is Solomon Kane.
@@davidfrancisco3502Both are great characters with very different stories, only their character designs happen to look similar
@@davidfrancisco3502learn the difference between inspiration and rip off
"There needs to be light in the shadow otherwise all you have is darkness." - Some clever author probably.
i had to nutshell this for someone..
"there is a thin line between misery porn and grimdark, the key element is hope... and its very nuanced. bitter sweet conclusions are you ally in this, clever retorts, sacrifice... dont just kill everyone and go "its dark"."
Berserk not only is misery porn it is very gay.
@@davidfrancisco3502Crearly you haven’t read nor watched Berserk.
@@teyrncousland7152 I played Elden Ring and the final boss Of the DLC smells like a Berserk gay slashfiction.
@@davidfrancisco3502 you can be gay and miserable... i have a friend who says its a "pain in his arse"
If you believe that there is no hope in Berserk you did not ready it.
People always point to Game of Thrones as an example, but they forget the impact of characters like Eddard and Jon who stick to their principles and don't let themselves become corrupted by taking the easy way out.
I agree. People take the wrong lessons from GoT.
Yeah people always point out how Ned died because he stuck to his principles and how being a good moral person isn’t a path for “success” in Westeros. Yet due to Ned’s being a strong and principled man, the North follows House Stark. Even in the usurpation of Winterfell and the deaths of many Starks, many Northmen are still loyal to the Starks and have planned to kill the Boltons and install a Stark back into Winterfell either as Lord of Winterfell or a Stark King of Winter.
People also miss that Ned's honor wasn't what actually got him killed. Cersei Lannister never intended Ned to die, since he was such a beloved/respected figure that his death would rip the kingdom apart (which it did) and possibly lead to the Lannisters' downfall (which it probably will). It was the immature whims of Joffrey Baratheon that got Ned killed, and well, we know how well that worked out for Joffrey in the end.
If Ned had gone to the Night's Watch like Cersei had intended, the kingdom's peace would be maintained for at least a little while longer, the Lannisters' status would still be relatively secure, Robb's army would've returned north, and Ned would've met up with Jon Snow at the Wall. Westeros would've been significantly better prepared for the existential threat that the Others pose.
Hell George's own writing bit him in the ass because he said he's run into a problem writing the latest book that made him regret killing Ned
The creeping up of high fantasy in the background is George’s subconscious mind taking root it’s unfortunate he doesn’t realize it or maybe he did and decided to reject it. George took inspiration from Freud when he should’ve read Jung.
I just left a game where my attempts of being “Good” was “rewarded” by imprisoned foes escaping and killing more innocents. When the villains begged for mercy they used their last breathes to cast Lightning Bolt. DM seemed confused that my Life Cleric decided to stop taking prisoners and to mutilate spellcasters (cut off fingers and cut out tongue). “But you’re supposed to be good.” “If good means they escape later and kill the innocent, then my character isn’t good.”
Anti-Batman
You should have said that your character was good for letting them keep their lives and (assumably) dignity.
Also you could say something cool like "When one breaks the rules of war, they void its protections."
I don't play, so I'm not sure I fully grasp the scenario. On the one hand I think it's probably reductive to define characters entirely by the consequences of their actions, regardless of their intentions. It also sounds like you took it for granted that because a thing happened, that is perhaps even plausible, then that thing is inevitable, which on its face doesn't seem reasonable. On the other hand this is exactly why I rage against people who hate Batman's no kill rule. Batman is only ever responsible for the actions of Batman. If the police or Arkham, or the federal government can't contain the Joker, that's not Batman's fault. It's not his job. It's not even his job to arrest him and he does that all the time. Essential to this point is behind the curtain; the hand of the author. The real reason no one can contain the Joker is because Batman's nemesis would be defeated, and DC wouldn't sell enough comics. I'm not sure what logic there could possibly be in acting like that reflects on Batman's moral conscience as a character
So you're evil because the world didn't go exactly the way you wanted? Childish.
@@armorclasshero2103 No, the Cleric had a change in heart because the world acted a certain way to their actions, the Cleric learned from it, and acted accordingly.
The issue is, is it’s overplayed. By becoming vouce gritty fantasy supplanted high fantasy as the status quo and in turn its flaws are more apparent.
Like Napoleon warned of, never wage was against your enemies or they will learn your ways, sane us said for this. Just as over exposure of high fantasy in the 60s to 2000s led to it being considered predictable, gritty fantasy has suffered the same issue where the more we consume the more we see the pattern. And what was once revolutionary becomes monotonous and predictable.
And right now we see the coming of the next trend - ironic fantasy. Created by the idea "Well, it seems cringe to enjoy any kind of fantasy nowadays, so let's try to enjoy it ironically", probably initially started by Critical Role and brought to a "well done" state by Hollywood.
@@Miraihi That is actually a very good prediction
I fee oversaturation of low effort copy cat is worse than seeing the pattern, a well done cliche can still be appreciated but once a genre caught on people, mostly company WILL try to chunk as many quick, low effort trash possible to get that slice of the profit. already mentioned above, Ironic storytelling, when it started the movie that used it know when to stop being ironic and do a sincere scene like Ironman but once it get popular it get surface level copied and churned leading to oversaturation and burned out.
@@HandOn-c40009 More of less a more detailed at what I am getting at. Good clichés can persist a lot longer than they should. You are correct though, in that these clichés are overplayed largely as a result of low effort, poor research and a lack of understanding of the reason it is popular.
I hope some day a "pre-Tolkien" fantasy will come back. I see nothing like it these days.
finally someone said it, sick of the social worship of nihilism in media. there's a big difference between people with different convictions coming into conflict and disguising the outright corruption and sadism of some characters as "being morally grey"
It's fictional media not real life. Sometimes I just wanna watch/read something where the characters just aren't good people. A really good sign of a story teller however is being able to get you to still enjoy the character despite them not being good people. The First Law is probably the greatest example of this I can give
@@MrFredstt If you enjoy watching terrible people, that says more about you than anything else.
@@jonathanoriley8260 Only if you're incapable of separating reality from fiction
@@MrFredstt That's the bulls**t excuse every weirdo uses to try justifing their twisted nature. It's also the dumbest because it goes against the very idea of why fictional entertainment exists and works in the first place.
The whole reason people enjoy fiction is because they are enjoying the idea of pretending it is real. The immersion of the fiction is what draws people in, allowing them to use their imagination to live vicariously through said fiction even if only temporarily.
The idea that you find enjoyment in something you couldn't relate to or find yourself partaking in is the biggest lie people like you spout. And everyone knows it's a lie, which is why you would only ever say something like this online where you have a semblence of anonymity.
Why separate reality from fiction - whole point of "morally grey" is to be "realistic" remember? The true reason for its recent popularity is the sponsors - the rich corpos love to sell the idea of a morally grey world, cuz it helps them keep the masses obedient. The nihilism in media mentioned makes people think that it's perfectly fine to be a selfish egoist who only looks for himself, and that's why we've been drowning in "grey stories" last whole decade.
I have a player who has often said that he doesn't like heroic games where the players have to save something and would like to play in a morally grey campaign.
When I had a campaign where my players were driven by personal goals and worked for a criminal organization (while trying to get out of said organization), he'd just have his character sit home alone and question why the others kept involving him in their quests.
I think there's a strong misconception on how to use these concepts in Tabletop unfortunately and because it's so prevalent it even affects how the players engage with it. Sounds like he wasn't sure what he wanted lol
@@TrillTheDM Honestly my fantasy story includes various factions of white to grey morality that needs to ally against a scheming faction that is trying to manipulate them into fighting each other so that he would conquer the entire realm and universe. There are kingdoms and city states which are heroic while empires are more grey-area but they all need to cooperate to fight against dark evil God of War
It's not even a bad thing to have characters acting more out of personal interest than externally affecting the world for good or ill, at least if the portrayal of that kind of story is adequate and explores what drives such characters and why. Such, a character can end up ultimately benefiting others in some way, but the focus being primarily on their personal interests, issues or goals can work if done correctly.
@@callmev3531 This player's characters are known for suffering from Hobbitism and he often calls characters who go out of their way to contribute or put themselves in danger "idiots".
Quite often his character's goal is to just live a peaceful life away from all the hassle... or play a murder hobo who can't leave any witnesses since it's the smart thing to do.
@Eemi_Seppala sounds like a disconnect in expectations. This goes back to basic rules of ttrpgs. The social contract between gm and player is gm provides hook, player bites hook. I tell my players my job isn't to motivate their characters, only they have the power to do that. I can only provide a hook. If they lack the motivation to bite that is a failure on their part.
"Reclaim moral virtue." Based. 100% agree.
As a DM, I like to use morally grey characters sparsely, to contrast with other characters. The big bad is evil because of the backstory and whatever, but he is evil, he chooses evil and is undeniably the villain. The heroes and their allies choose to be just and fair and all those virtues. The morally grey fence on the fringe of a village hit by famine is somewhere in between. The contrast empowers the narrative and highlights the moral choices the players are making throughout the campaign.
Similarly, gritty realism has its place. Its a fantasy world, not history, there's ways to worldbuild that don't make your whole world a game-of-thrones-esque DARK ages adventure, but you can have some parts have elements of that. The lands under the vampire counts feel a lot more grim than the elven forests. Contrast is king, it makes things, people and places more memorable to the players and encourages exploration.
What if I told you “gritty realism” is unrealistic and ahistorical? Do people think that everyone were dumbasses who intentionally lived in misery?
@@eMercody I am well aware that the "dark ages" were hardly as "dark" as we think. The name is indicative of the loss of knowledge not the end of the world or anything. But there is specific cases where reality approached gritty realism at a fast rate. Wars. Famines. Plagues. Living in Europe through the Black Death must have been terrifying. That's why I believe in applying the "gritty realism" sparsely, to contrast other parts of a setting.
Yeah, the problem with absolute gray morality is that it assumes heroes and villains are also somehow gray. That is not the case - heroes and villains are usually exceptional individuals that often very much define what is right and wrong in the story, or even setting.
There is a saying which I like: "A hero is villain who won, and the villain is a hero who lost."
The difference between the hero and the villain in a morally gray story is the POV. A well-though out villain has his own ideals and noble goals. They just happens to be on the loosing side.
The "grayness" comes from the fact, they both right and understandable from their own perspective. You could very well switch the POV in the story and you would root for the villain just as much as you root for the hero. Not to mention you would probably see former hero as a villain. Well, that's how a good morally gray story works in my opinion.
In a game settings it is kinda hard to pull off properly though.
PS: Being evil for the sake of being evil is just a caricature of a "villain". It is nothing else, but a strawman argument.
Heroes are the good guys and Villains are the bad guys, stop with the morally gray crap it stopped being unique after 2016 and onwards.
@@eyeamthei1801 Saying needs to be old to be saying probably you invented it recently.
Moral relativism is very recent and doesn't make sense
@@Projolomoral relativism really isn’t recent. Just yesterday I’ve started reading an essay by Schopenhauer (so 19th century) which while not directly states or confirms moral relativism, strongly implies it by rejecting the existence of objective morals.
@@ProjoloBruh. Even Goethe wrote about this in his masterpiece, 'Faust', over 200 years ago.
You do not know what you are talking about!
Gritty Realism is like alcohol, best when used in moderation.
Thank you so much for this. I had a falling out with my friends becuase they always mock morally good characters by saying they're "naive and self-righteous", when they themselves tried to always justified their morally ambiguous characters.
No matter how I tried to show that those good characters are indeed still (personaly) flawed human beings, they always equate 'morally good = trash'. It's so annoying.
The issue with "morally grey" storytelling in general is that it's a reactionary response to the perceived lack of believably in traditional tales. They add darkness, filth, and despair to their works in an attempt to make it more "real." Do that for long enough and "real" becomes equated with darkness, filth, and despair. The truest, most impactful examples of fiction I can think of are extremely bleak but having shining beacons of light in them that justify our hopes and struggles.
This is why Berserk is still one of my favorite manga of all time.
That's why I love Invincible so much.
Honestly I view it as a reflection of post-modern nihilism. Nobody believes in goodness or takes it seriously in a story because everyone thinks of a person claiming morality as a grifter. When a politician claims to want to fix something, we just naturally assume that of course they’re grifting and just going to enrich themselves. Or when someone claims to be moral, we do much the same. Someone claims Christian ethics, we just assume they’re trying to lower our defenses again so we can be fleeced.
Why The Last of Us was so great while Last of Us 2 was just misery p*rn.
That's so true! In any case, I don't enjoy fantasy to see a reflection of reality but to see its potential. It is the ultimate genre to create possibilities. I want fantasy to immerse me in a world that could be, not to simply transport the grim here and now to another server and add fairies.
Gritty realism is only good when it's used as a backdrop for true villainy and true heroism.
This one gets it.
Exactly it can work if you can give the heroes and villians a threat that’s willing to destroy both of them, then they can compromise and start too face that existential threat together.
May I quote you for my gritty and unforgiven OSR I'm creating, good fella?
You nailed it.
Gray morality should be less about having heroes and villains blurring the lines. It should be about heroes being good people, but human. I don't know how to describe it with words, but basically like Jack Sparrow and, as someone else said, Geralt
I think morally grey vs morally complex is an interesting dichotomy. I love this video because I didn’t agree with all of your opinions, but I in the end agree with your premise.
My one addendum, I think the best characters/worlds are the ones that have flawed character, striving for virtues, in a world of complex struggles. And that shit is far from easy to hit just right.
(Ps, could we get a list of the films shown? There’s a ton here I want to see, and don’t know where to start!)
I agree, hopefully that came across in the video!
Films used : Marketa Lazarova, Flesh + Blood, GoT clip, LOTR, The Northman, Watchmen, Conan the Barbarian, and a couple clips from The Punisher series.
The best example of grey morality for me is Legend of the Galactic Heroes. Everyone in both sides of the conflict feels correct and heroic. So when you have two main characters trying to kill each other in close quarters it'd be a huge loss and a huge win no matter who ends up on top.
It's a more optimistic way of having a world without clear lines,
the virgin dark grey "everyone is a villain" vs the chad blindingly bright grey "everyone is a hero"
@@VimyGlideunironically a good point. Usually people/factions/whatever all pursue some reasonable, sensible goals.
Not always of course, but I feel it’s more fun to have an array of factions with competing interests, where you can debate and decide who root for, instead a number of despicable factions
That's not morally gray. It's a case of each culture considering it justifiable murder against the other. Humans, universally, prefer not to kill each other especially those that are part of their same culture/tribe. Scarcity of resources for instance, will start getting people to pick sides and now they have to kill each other so one side has enough. Psychological it's okay because survival. However, it still bothers people even if they feel it was justified. The only people that aren't, are literal psychopaths.
@@petrorlov2599this. This is what I personally believe to be the true grey morality.
The Dark Souls setting is actually a good example of the right way to do Grey Morality, because it isn't just Grey Morality, yes the lines between Good and Evil is sometimes unclear, but at other times they're far more well defined
Take Gwyn for example, he has very clear motivations, he wants to prolong the Age of Fire for as long as possible, the reason why he wants to prolong the Age of Fire is entirely dependent on the Player's interpretation, some believe he's afraid of the Age of Dark because he thinks it will be the end of world, others believe he's desperately clinging to his power, or it might even be both. But regardless of whether Gwyn's motivations are sympathetic or not, he does a lot of terrible things to follow his goals, the Videogames very strongly portray him as a Villain in his actions, the very first thing we learn about Gwyn is that he orchestrated a Genocide against the Dragons, and after some lore-hunting Players can very easily conclude that he's responsible for the creation of the Undead Curse.
Solaire is another good example, his motivations aren't well defined, because they're extremely abstract, he wants to "Find his own Sun" whatever that means. We can guess all we want about his motivations, but Dark Souls 1 portrays him as a Tragic Hero, he's a member of the Warriors of Sunlight, a Covenant dedicated to helping their fellow Undead in their own missions, and when you speak to him he's very amicable and friendly, throughout the game he's always pursuing his quest to find his Sun, and following his questline we find him just outside of Lost Izalith, where he's losing hope in his quest, here his story ends in one of two ways, if we continue onwards as normal we'll find Solaire with a Chaos Bug on his head, clearly having taken control over his body, Solaire attacks us, believing he's found his Sun, and we're forced to kill him, alternatively if we find a way to kill the Chaos Bug before Solaire finds it, we save him, and we can summon him one final time when we reach the Final Boss
One more example is Patches, at first glance you might think he's motivated by simple greed, after all he does constantly trick people into falling for traps, or kicking them off ledges, and says he's going to loot their corpse, but the truth is actually far more interesting, Dark Souls 3's DLC shows us that he's made it his life's purpose to punish Greed (That's literally what Miyazaki created him for after all, punishing Greedy Players), and he blatantly tells us he's devoid of worldly desires. Yes he can end up killing us with his trickery, but more often than not his traps are survivable, yes he may be very Mischievous, but he isn't doing any of this out of Malice (Unless you're a Cleric, in DS1 he hates Clerics). DS3's DLC also introduces Lapp, Lapp is a Knight with Amnesia, he's portrayed as being very friendly, and even helpful, putting himself in harms way just to gift us a Titanite Slab, purely out of the kindness of his heart, which makes it all the sadder when he regains his memories and reveals he's actually Patches
To be completely honest, I never liked dark souls stories (games are good) because it made me feel pointless. It’s like, why do I do anything good if nothing will ever end good? There is no way for anything in that series to ever end happily. There might be exceptions I can’t think of off the top of my head, but that’s one of my big problems with dark fiction. There’s no tension. Like if you know everything Is going to end badly because that world is just so dark like that, it not only becomes predictable, but annoying, like everything is futile. Now, the kinds of stories I like are the ones where they show you great capacity for good, and beauty, and hope, and then when things end badly you’re left with a horrible, yet somehow satisfying feeling. Now this isn’t fantasy, but think about like interstellar. Great capacity for moral greatness and hope, but it has a really sad ending, good as a whole, but sad. There needs to be good in order for the bad to have impact. It can’t just always be hopeless like I feel with dark souls and elden ring.
@@gooseguyfilms4460 Dark Souls stories aren’t completely devoid of hope, the reason everything goes to shit in the Souls Universe is simply because one man disrupted the natural order of the world in order to artificially prolong the Age of Fire, Dark Souls 3 has a hopeful ending if we decide to let the Age of Fire end, because we finally allow the natural order to resume it’s course
The Dark Souls 3 DLC also has a hopeful ending, we give the Blood of the Dark Soul to the unnamed Painter Girl in Ariandel, with the hope that the world she paints will never Rot, we won’t know for certain if this will work, but it’s worth trying
It’s mainly NPC Questlines that are devoid of hope, such as Siegmeyer’s questline in DS1, where his ultimate fate is death, either as a Human on his own terms, or at the hands of his own Daughter as a Hollow
@@jaydenlobbe7911 yeah that’s kind of what I meant. I guess I should clarify I do like the stories of souls games, I just don’t like them as much as some other things. What I meant was that the world itself feels hopeless. Not necessarily the story itself, just the vibe is “everything sucks” and I don’t feel like anything sad that happens has any impact on me (personally I know this isn’t the case with everyone else). I’m just kind of like, “yup, that’s about what I expected”. No tension. Nothing really to sacrifice for. Just bleak depression.
@@jaydenlobbe7911 Every Dark Souls game feels like a fantasy post-apocalypse more than anything else.
@@gooseguyfilms4460 yeah usually you try to fill in the hope despite how everything sucks to move forward.
There is something profoundly rotten about the obsession of fantasy in recent years of being "Gritty, Dark, Morally Grey" and my least favorite "Realistic"
As you said in my experience "Realism" tends to just means cynicism it's one thing too have stakes where the good guys don't always win and you have to make hard choices. But when that's all their is then thats not "realistic". People in real life do good thing out of the kindness of their heart, they do honor sacrifice and virtue.
It's just not a given, sometimes and too often the opposite is true. But everything being bleak and shitty all the time is not Realistic its just pessimistic, its not anymore realistic then a fantasy setting where good always triumphs it's just more miserable.
And at the end of the day ITS FUCKING FANTASY IT CAN LITERALLY BE HOWEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE!!!
It's suppose to be a fascinating escape from reality not a shittier imitation of it.
I left a campaign earlier this year because after 1 year of playing we've yet to fully experience a full win from our accomplishments. everything we did something good, a literal god decided to come and belittle us. And then we got denied downtime with the dm only saying he wanted to keep the story going...
Downtime is important and any DM who'd deny that deserves to be berated.
Yeah, I was thinking while watching this that these things tend to happen in games where the dm is constantly moving the goalpost. It's not necessarily the fault of the genre, just bad dms who don't understand that not every event needs to be connected to the next one.
@@HaughtyToast I'm not too familiar with D&D, but I have to wonder if some DMs take their roles so seriously that they treat their campaigns like they are making a movie! lol :D
@@Alienrun They 100% do. It's one of the major causes of railroading. You can find a good number of stories about this exact phenomenon floating around the internet. It's not helped by the fact that 5e has started a subculture of players expecting the game to be a ride that they don't have to contribute to beyond making a backstory, so from both sides there's at least some expectation that the dm is responsible for most of, if not all, the story beats.
If "Gritty realism" is a crutch, then "Irony" is a wheelchair.
THIS
"Isn't it ironic that you were betrayed by THE HIGHER POWER by doing what they asked of you?!" :O
That feels like an insult to wheelchairs, which are a very useful tool that helps a great many people every single day.
Realism for me means less magic to just cover up problems. No "resurrecion spells", healing meaning you need a little more time and effort (more than just a night's good sleep). Falling from a mountain means death, not xd6 points of damage. No create food and water spells. It means planning, accepting limits and trying to do the right thing. It means alsoo accepting that the powers that be don't alwys like you upsetting the balance of power for some idealistic quest.
Game of Thrones was too much of that for my taste but the general idea behind it is really good.
Thank you for this insightful video. We wholeheartedly agree! It’s been a while since our last campaign, so we didn’t know this was an issue in tabletop roleplay nowadays too. We’ve often discussed the topic in the context of fantasy novels, series and movies. I loved how you said that “A morally grey world is not a complex world. It is a single shade and that shade sucks!” I totally agree. It’s one of the main reasons why I don’t seem to be able to enjoy modern fantasy.
What is called ‘morally grey’ is often just an excuse to write inconsistent characters. There is no foreshadowing anymore. It’s become a form of cynicism often found in nihilistic deconstructions of the stories that were timeless, inspiring and wholesome. It creates a sense of distrust and fear. E.g. How in Frozen, they dedicate a whole song on the love interest showing how they are soulmates, before they reveal him as the villain, after lots of virtuous acts that made no sense anymore from that perspective. They were just written as a ‘sleight of hand’. It just says: “Ha! Surprise! Guess you didn’t see that coming, huh?!” They market it as original and unexpected, while actually, it is just lazy and flawed.
So often, in morally grey characters, there is no foreshadowing whatsoever, no logic to the (development of) their motivations. It creates robots, void of consistent personalities… And people eat it up. It’s frustrating. I agree that clear antagonism creates stronger conflict! Heroic virtue has gotten the mistaken reputation of being dumb and one-sighted. In fact, I think it tells us something about our own morality, or lack thereof. I’m afraid only a handful of people still want to cheer for those heroes making the tough but right decision, because they believe, deep down, they too could be that person. I think people have given up on becoming heroes, even in the smallest ways, and have settled for unstable, selfish characters. It’s easier to meet or even transcend low expectations.
While I like gritty realism in my fantasy books, when it comes to games I would much rather play a game that's more fun and where I can be full on chaotic good.
Nothing about gritty realism is inherently "anti-fun" or prevents you from being chaotic good
@@sam7559 Except for the fact that "gritty realism" is often just an excuse to punish fun and being chaotic good.
"Gritty realism" is often much more limiting and miserable than actual reality.
@TheStephaneAdam fun is subjective, your gonzo world can also be unfun to someone else. For punishing being chaotic good, if I'm in a gritty realism setting and I'm playing good, I want to be punished for it. I want there to be trials and tribulations for my character upholding their morals instead of taking the easy way out.
@@sam7559 Facing trials and challenges does not mean being systematically being punished for it. Believe it or not quite often doing the right thing is also the smart thing to do, even if it's a bit more expensive in the short term.
There's a world of difference between "realistic" and "edgy".
And you get what you reward in RPG's. If NPC's never show any gratitude and any demonstration of kindness is mocked players will start acting as murderhobos real quick.
You probably interpret this as the PC'S being "gritty".
I like gritty and or grimdark settings where the characters are heroic in spite of the “times” they live in. I love the old heroic ideals in books like lotr, and older Star Wars (not 7, 8, or 9). But I also love the imperial guard of warhammer because they strive for heroic ideals while being in the worst of times.
I like both too, but the problem happens when all you get is one of them.
Gritty and grimdark settings in my opinion suck the worst Things IS they think they are so smart and so realistic by Putting a Gray Filter over everything making all of IT boring. Especially aestetics sucks with only beige,Grey ,Brown and black when reality was way more colorfull
I'd argue that the imperial guard doesn't have "heroic ideals" with the only exception of the Salamanders, not all are murder hobos (Black Guard) but they mostly don't end up fighting for being good in itself, heck, the Emperor's inhumanity and lack of empathy led him to his crippled state in a way (it's an over simplification, but I think it gets the point across)
You’re mixing up the Space Marines with the Imperial Guard. The Imperial Guard are the regular humans with Lasguns and hordes of infantry, tanks, and artillery holding the line desperately against all the enemies of the Imperium.
"Grey morality" and "gritty realism" are usually just code for nihilism. Nihilism is a universal acid. It dissolves everything it touches, because that's what it is supposed to do. What's endlessly fascinating is how people always think that _their_ nihilism is different and will somehow lead to something good despite nihilism's denial of the Good as a meaningful concept. They get frustrated when players lose interest, despite constant reiteration of the message that everything is meaningless, nothing matters, and all accomplishments hollow.
Not to adopt to much of a tinfoil hat (or maybe I am) but it also seems like the oversaturation of gray morality is like a way to infuse society with a dissolution of conviction, to make certain actions more palatable to people.
Thats exactly what it is.
So you mean that people are making morals more questionable so they don’t have to feel bad that they don’t have the strength to be as morally upstanding as they want to be?
@@gooseguyfilms4460 partially, but also to get everyone on board with doing it too
@@gooseguyfilms4460 in my opinion it’s more of a excuse for certain people to get away with being a dick or trying to justify shitty behavior, in my experience dms that push the moral grey in all there characters and campaigns can be toxic people who don’t like being called out on there toxic or just harmful behavior so they use moral grey as a excuse to justify their actions, had one dm running a campaign that had my character go to prison for not taking advantage of a drunk noble woman, apparently she felt offended when I refused to take her to bed knowing she was drunk that situation tells you something about the person in control of the campaign, that in his world taking advantage of drunk women or men is okay because they knowingly drink that much, but I’ve had plenty of other dms use moral grey as a tool for certain circumstances or characters that made the story more interesting and fun to play in, it’s just that sometimes you get a awful person using moral grey writing as a way to deflect there own personal behavior and use it justify why it’s either not a big deal or okay to others.
That's an interesting idea. However, if we discard the video's theory that everyone just jumped the hype train for money, fame or something like that, the creators might be feeling like that themselves and more or less honestly express this... nihilism, I guess. Or they genuinely believe that this is what most people think and, once again, are trying to sell a product, just in a more thoughtful way. Or it's a mix of both.
I agree. Whenever I see an article or a video that says a system or adventure or film is good because it is “dark and gritty”, I avoid it.
Hear me out: I built a morally grey tabletop RPG fairy tale setting where the idea of absolute good and absolute evil exists, where mothers tell their children about the legendary virtuous King Victor and his twelve heroic Paladin Knights defeated the nine evil hag sorceresses and thus saved the world from their cruelty, thus inspiring children growing up--including the player characters--to be like King Victor and his Paladins.
However, as these "nine evil sorceresses" returned with a vengeance and the player characters have to step up and be the new heroes of their age, they learn that in reality it's not as black and white as they were taught. As they dig deeper into the past, they discover that Victor and his Paladins weren't as virtuous as the stories claim they were, and the "evil" sorceresses aren't actually all that evil, they have in fact very legitimate grievances.
However, what I hope to achieve here is not to demoralize the players and make them feel like nothing matters. Instead, I want them to rise above the moral greyness and actually be the heroes they thought Victor and his Paladins were.
King Victor and his twelve Paladins made mistakes, and its up to the player characters to make sure those mistakes aren't repeated.
Edit: in case it wasn't obvious, I loosely based King Victor and his twelve Paladin Knights on our world's King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and I based my story on what I experienced when I believed King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table to be heroes of epic virtue, only the then later actually read the Lancelot-Grail Cycle and discover that the Knights of the Round Table were actually rather flawed characters with sometimes dubious morality.
If I wanted gritty realism and morally grey I’d go to the dive bar down the street.
I want to feel heroic in my roleplaying.
I believe that the whole grey mortality shtick is bad when misused.
Just like in real life, heroes have existed, and they're all the more impressive bc they were able to achieve things in a world that is not simple and clear-cut.
Even in GoT, which was the big influence for gritty realism, has actual heroes. Jon Snow, Brienne of Tarth, Jeor Mormont, Qhorin Halfhand. All of them have strong ideals in spite of a world that doesn't share it.
I think a grey world works when it accentuates either the strength of will of the character or the level of evil of the threat/villain, something so evil that rises above anything people might do.
When it comes to grey morality where every friendly NPC is going to betray the party or are unlikeable jerks. Don’t be surprised if the party starts turning into a bunch of murderhobos.
This may sound weird but betrayals work a lot better in white vs black morality. Because the players are fully expecting betrayals in grey morality game.
This is actually a really good point. I read this online choose your own adventure game a while back. Very basic but also very well written, used cave of time format which means it branched from the beginning quite a lot giving you quite a lot of endings that felt believable. It was all very morally straightforward, your character had a struggle to overcome, obviously, but it was never grimdark about it, generally speaking it made sense when you got a good or bad ending or sometimes one that was in between. Anyways the important point is that one route has you try to trust someone way later in the story who your suspicious about but feel like its good to trust them...then it links to a plot point set up at the very beginning of the story and he ends up betraying you! It works because its unexpected but also believable. Most of the other characters make their intentions known well when you meet them, so when you come across someone who has good reason to trick you, it actually hits emotionally...
Compare that to another choose your own adventure game I played where I had to go left or right and then died for going left despite doing fairly well up to that point. Instant turn off and made me question wtf the author was thinking when they wrote that!
That's the difference I think. Make what happens to you be purposeful and it'll be more engaging as a result. Bonus points if you can stick to your themes throughout the entire story while making it engaging on a moment to moment basis, but that's easier said than done! :D
@@Alienrunmay I know the name of that game? I'm actually a fan of CYOA games and have consumed a lot of them
Reclaim the fairy tale.
@@DuelingDragonAdventures Damn straight
I miss good old fashioned fairy tales.
@@MaggieCandy999 Most old fairy tales were dark.
In poland we have (or had) culture and style of playing warhammer fantasy with gritty realism. It was popular with older players born in 80's and some from 90's. For some reason it was ONLY real way to play, and everyone who wanted something less realistic in their fantasy game was ridiculed. I think it was caused by the experience of communism and life immediately after it. The cynicism and pessimism of the gray life of the 1990s affected everyone and still does, although to a lesser extent.
*correction: it is just called warhammer. Without the fantasy suffix. That title was droped in 1987 in order to make a distinction between warhammer as the original setting and 40.000 as a sister setting.
@@RealCodreX Yes, but its easier to point this
To me, grey morality of the world is not about everyone being an basically a villain, but about everyone looking toward their own self interest first, with genuine selfless people being rare exceptions. The difference from dark is that they do in fact still have morals, and will not turn around and stab you in the back at the first opportunity (unless they are that kind of character).
Me: This is a survival game where holy magic has been broken (and is an end goal to win the campaign, to recontact the gods), and I expect you to track arrows and rations and how you're carrying things.
The Players: Ah, yes gritty realism where we will all suffer!
Me: That's... not what I said. I just expect you to track resources....
The Players: I expect to die of cholera or dysentery.
Me: .....
"Tracking resources" can easily turn into, "Spend the whole session in town making sure your shopping list is complete."
@@blkgardner There's a town? *implements field crafting*
sounds similar to Blasphemous but not really
still interesting
Hhuh. Well if that's what they sincerely want out of the experience then I suppose that's valid. Sounds like you guys might not be a good match for eachother tho. 🤔
You know, I got immediately interested in this video by the thumbnail.
I thought it's going to be a small video essay about why we should being back heroic virtue IN REAL LIFE.
Ended up being about tabletop rpgs, still valid, just... I suppose I got kinda disappointed that it wasn't about real life.
Well, a good video nonetheless, have a new subscriber friend!
Lol a bit too deep of a topic for a 12 minute video but ultimately I agree. In gaming and life one should strive for heroic virtue. Appreciate it!
@@TrillTheDM well you gave me things to think about and appreciate it, maybe one of these days I'll make a video essay about this topic
There's no such thing as gray morality. The idea only came about because some things that are allowed in 1 culture, is not allowed in another creating a "gray" area when the two parties meet. However, there are universal morals the humanity as a whole follow. Murderers for instance, aren't tolerated anywhere, however what determines if it was truly a murder is often the culture which determines exceptions to this. This is where this "gray" area comes in. This is the part where we bring up legality of what is considered justifiable murder. Notice the part where you have to have a good reason to kill someone, to justify it? It's still considered wrong to kill others but sometimes you don't have a choice like in self-defense.
I've talked with a few people before about this kind of topic, and the response I got was honestly depressing.
"That's just how the real world is," they said. Apparently, according to them, everyone being a villain out for themselves, undermining and manipulating each other and especially more morally sound individuals because "HA! They're idiots!", was just how the real world worked, and these TV shows were simply a reflection of that. Being good is just an invitation for trouble, trust should be avoided at all costs, and caution should be exercised around crowds, because while you are trying to undermine everyone else, someone is likely trying to undermine you. And hope is a fallacy, because the world will never change, so it should be embraced instead.
I have no idea where people like them get this idea, but for them, this is reality.
Ok, this thought process isn't 100% wrong ( which is likely why it continues to rear it's head every so often. ) But it's ( somewhat ) exaggerating how just bad things can get.
You see this thought process is most likely a manifestation of the frustration, of seeing others "who don't deserve their success" easily rub out people who "do."
( It's also likely why you see people attack the idea of Superman. While romanticizing heroes like the Punisher, it's all coming from a place of embitterment. )
Also, this is heavily dependent on where on the planet you live. Some places makes this mindset not just correct but necessary to stay alive.
Yep, totally sheltered
Some people say optimism and idealism are naive... But I have known some people who had a cynism/pessimism that made them some of the most naive people I've ever met.
@@azarishiba2559
How can someone be both cynical and naive? Those terms tend to contrast each other quite sharply.
@@thereseemstobeenanerror1219 Usually they contrast, but when cynism is extreme, they don't. In Spanish, naive is translated as "inocente" and "ingenuo", I think, and this mean "not knowing how things work, how the world is". I apologize in advance because English is not my native language, and I mostly use it only for UA-cam.
The truth is, world is quite more complex than we think. Sure, in real world there is hardship, it's common, but it isn't ALWAYS the case. Sure, there are places on Earth that seem like hell, but it's not all the planet that is like that. Benevolence do exist, there are kind people, some people have made changes, some treasons are punished, there are people who never betray and that gladly are hardly betrayed, there are beautiful places...
If someone is such a cynist that thinks that ALL people ALWAYS betray and don't think EVER about others, well... these people can expect to have actually a harder and sadder life, and struggle most (if not all) of the time, because world doesn't work like that. If you expect anyone being ready to betray you, well... don't expect that people being at your side, because they will never be enough for you, but they will be enough for many others.
So a cynist going to that extreme is as naive as an optimist that expect all is going to be alright always without moving a finger (which is also a extreme).
I'm an optimist, but a... realistic one, can I say?, and that's based on my 34 years of experience, having met many people of all classes around the world, having overcome obstacles with I could, having failed espectacularly at things and having succeeded at other stuff; having upset friends and in most cases repairing what I broke, and in other cases having being what actually friends needed. Some bad things have happened to me, some good things also have happened to me. I expect good things of people, but also I'm prepared if nothing good come out of them, so when I experience dissappointment, it doesn't last enough, and sometimes even those people who failed me just ONCE, happen to impress me the next time.
Because all of this, I find people who think like what the comment that started this section said as incredibly naive, and I feel some sorrow for them.
Again, all of what I said is about EXTREME cynism, and not moderated cynism.
Right. Violence used to be something that was depicted as a consequence for the characters actions and a factor of the harsh world. These days "Gritty Media" loves to embellish the violence, make it center stage. It's almost like they want us to be aroused with how many lingering shots we see of people getting tortured.
This argument should not simply pertain to d&d but so to in our media as a whole. Stories that are morally grey often lead to an ending that is unsatisfying and careless. Without the grounding of morality at the least (even were it evil winning in the end) there seems to be no point in the exploration as a whole. However, this is of course all due to the departure of “rational thought” from meaning.
I like to consider my campaign setting “gritty, gory, and realistic” but I also understand that life in a medieval world is not just suffering, that people are not all evil and heartless, and that good people can actually be capable and intelligent. I also personally think realism is an excellent tool to make the fantastical more fantastical and immersive.
Bottom line is story telling is a powerful tool and if all we ever see are “naive” good guys getting killed off for being good or righteous then what does that lead us to believe about doing the right thing or being the good guy?
All im saying is we need more stories like The Lord of The Rings
Gritty Realism and Grey Morality can be done well, but it's not easy.
Gritty Realism doesn't necessarily mean harsh and granular; simply leaning towards a grounded and believable tone, rather than a fantastical one, is usually enough to qualify realism.
Grey Morality doesn't have to mean "no one is right, there are no good outcomes". Contrast is important. For every grey cloud, a silver lining. For every rainbow, a touch of grey. Heroes can have flaws and make tough choices, and villains can be sympathetic and have moments of relatability. But when everything is the same murky shade, we as the audience don't know who to root for, and the narrative loses meaning.
Too often, writers and DMs will use Realism and Moral Ambiguity sadistically, as an excuse to punish their players and undercut their achievements, or they truly believe that for something to be "Realistic" is has to be miserable and depressing, and that all people must be morally grey because "no one could be truly good and heroic". It's a disheartening sentiment I see too often.
too many people are trying to be great and too few are trying to be good
While I share your hate-boner for GOT (I believe fantasy should be fantastic, and the news should be gritty and realistic), I also have to lay some of fantasy heroic morality dying at tabletops blame on people who have misread Jack Vance.
At most tables, Vance is either A. the guy who limited magic use, or B. another author of gritty dark fantasy (Dying Earth). But Vances' stories SUPPORT morality by asking a player tough moral questions. For instance, what will be the cost to my soul if I summon a demon to cast a healing spell? Or the case of Dying Earth, which one of these casting of magic missile is going to cause the heat death of the universe?
I think the main issue is looking at your worldbuilding through the prism of morality, when you should be looking it thought the prism of motivation.
People misunderstand GoT for being about grey morality - it's not. There was nothing grey about Joffrey. It just emphasized that everyone has their own motivation and are willing to go to various lengths to achieve their goals. That was kinda the idea behind the good-evil axis on the alignment chart - what methods you're using to achieve your goals.
If your whole world is grey, that means you've populated your entire world with neutral characters which is exactly as boring as it sounds.
I do generally agree with your point though - when the campaign is entirely "grey morality and gritty realism", that's just code word for torture porn. I find it particularly funny when people are trying to implement this in DnD where after a day of adventuring I can start blowing up houses in 6 seconds. Such gritty. Much realism.
We gotta evolve.
We have old, pure morality style stories, that nowadays feel a little too clean and unvelibable.
Then we have velibable but pessimistic. gritty realism style stories.
i think we have to update our stories to acomodate our current fears, problems and knowledge.
Make a gritty, realistic, depressing setting were goodness truly wins in the end in a way that makes you go ''god damn that could work, ill do this in real life''
i also feel that grey morality is taking over too much, mostly after the success of Game of Thrones.
It's really only in "Prestige Television" and RPGs. In the case of Television I'd argue it goes all the way back to the success of the Sopranos. For years "Morally Grey" was basically synonymous with "good television" (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones etc...). Basically virtually everything that HBO and FX were putting out. RPG wise I feel like it's a reflection of both the popularity of Witcher, Game of Thrones, and Dragon Age coupled with a core audience that's "grown up" and feels like the older stories and settings don't reflect their own maturity levels (whether they're right about that is another question entirely).
Like all things, there's a balance point where "morally grey" works well. And even "Grimdark" has its' place, but it's easy to go too far into straight up nihilism and reach a point of dystopia that goes from "realistic" to "ridiculous" (unless it's intentionally ridiculous like 40K).
I find the best grey morality is have good natured villain with solution vs good natured hero without one.
they both want good for the world but the villain is willing to sacrifice lives and people to accomplish while the hero doesn't. the conflict is on trying the find the better way to the solution.
This... Really reminds me of a short campaign I played. Though the DM was still pretty new to being the DM at the time of this campaign.
My character pretty much had to suffer because the world was way too gritty. I pretty much played a character who had a heart of gold. Spending all of his starting money just to save a poor girl that was enslaved. Spent so much time taking care of her. Yet the NPCs seems to be so against at the idea of my character adopting the girl and freeing her from her 'slave magic' that I wasn't even aware till I got punished for buying her clothes! I even went and waited for a way to remove that slave magic of hers. Yet when I got her to a magic researcher who knows how to remove it. ANOTHER PUNISHMENT! The researcher just simply took off one of her eyeball where the slave crest was located! Had to chase her down to calm her down. Even coming up with clever ways to lure her or make her remember didn't even worked because it won't work! I had to reset the entire timeline just to save a single character. But it is even more punishment because everyone in that timeline would of course die.
Yeah... Me and another DM had to lecture em a lot on how to properly DM characters...
Good thing they learning from that now.
I think these are some good observations in a trivial matter. Many Authors and GMs tend to overdo grey morality. Then it becomes edgy and grey is more like an euphemism.
When I watched S1 of GoT I instantly perceived it as the sensational and pretentious show that it is. It was so simplistic, cringy and boring (although it had good parts, too but these were burried).
I have watched a few of your videos, and it seems your position is typically "here's something that is being done poorly, and here's why that matters." I really appreciate that. Not everyone has clued into that yet, either. It's excellent for discussion, and I think you are right to just present your take.
I don't always agree, but I do like that you are engaging some interesting Role-Playing topics and I respect putting yourself out there for the shark infested waters of the Comments section.
Appreciate that!
Ultimately I'm not trying to be prescriptive, I don't want to tell anybody exactly what to do or how to do it. There's a lot of stuff lacking in the hobby and I'm just making commentary and hoping that at least the questions inspire others to come up with their own interesting answers to the questions.
That point about moral grayness and complexity being different rocks. Well done!
I find that epic fantasy settings tend to have a throughline morality, with factions and individuals with moral complexity.
So many good points. Having a religion thats generally aiming to be good but has a few corrupt priests is more interesting than a faction of priests whose goal is to screw over the party every way they can. Or whose actions occasionally result in one or two factions that are harmed in some way or whose goals tend to run counter to them (but not every action).
Once you have a few factions like that, a smaller faction which a specific goal that does not incorporate morality can be interesting.
Its really only interesting if done in moderation, which you said multiple times… so well done!
Great vid. There are some nuanced terms here, but I can just quickly point to David Gemmell, arguably the father of "Gritty Realistic Fantasy" and say that his trick (contra GRRM, etc.) is to have his main characters be wholly dedicated to a moral position in scenarios where (largely, just) the bad guys are preaching moral relativism (-> nihilism). But the protagonists are not simpletons or blind religious zealots. They chose a moral ground and risked everything (& sometimes dying) for it.
I think that sometimes we forget that in our own real world, there are countless examples of people doing heroic things and that yes, there are times when virtue or even "naivety" have concrete positive results. Not always, as in other situations they are taken advantage of or can even worsen the situation, but despite all odds, it still works in some context. Gritty realism should definitely get rid of the "everyone is a wolf" thing. Because it's not real. The great tragedy and what makes the setting much more interesting is that, yes, some are wolves, some are not, some are other predators, some doesn't care, some don't even fit in this, some switch sides etc. Sometime you can trust and have hope and it's rewarding, sometimes the same thing is your doom, other times violence and brutality can help you righting the wrongs, but it can also destroy everything. Moraly grey should not only results in relativism, but also in showing how, despite the blur of such world, people can still forge and hold their beliefs and still continue to go on.
You get it!
Superman vs The Elite is a gritty story and it works because it's portrayed in a nuanced manner with a Superman that knows he might be corny compared to Manchester Black but he holds firm on his dreams and ultimately overcomes the dilemma by acting out what they do in his style to show unpleasant violence really is when you strip it of any glamour. A story that's gritty because of how it grounds the central conflict in a real debate about what is Superman's place in the current era and why he's outlasted his gritty contemporaries like the 90's.
Genesis of the Daleks is a dark gritty story because it's an upclose look into Skaro's brutal past and the Daleks ultimately a consequence of the long fight. The Doctor questions if he has the right before realising that with the Daleks, alliences and unity of other species are made because of them.
Gojira or Godzilla: King of the Monsters (1954). The whole thing is a gritty and serious drama with a monster that's only seen as a threat because of his rage and being radioactive. A monster who's death is played up as tragic rather than triumphant.
"Grey morality" is just the default, especially if your players are new and murder hobo-y.
Not me though, my Arms Dealer PC was Morally Silver. Basically Han Solo in New Hope.
Yeah, I'm more so critiquing the usage by DMs than anything.
@TrillTheDM You're right, though. It's cool if untrustworthiness is the point.
Like a Social Navigation Game (NPCs have specific motivations and, for these, will betray others at a whim);
A Crime mystery thriller (every suspect is plausibly suspicious and has reason to lie);
Or some kind of no man's wasteland - be it wartorn, apocalyptic or untamed (where tragedy is common, allies are necessary but betrayal is expected).
Otherwise or when poorly executed, it's just unrewarding. If every situation has no right answers, then all decisions are arbitrary. If a moral dilemma has an obvious answer, then you've wasted your Grey morality. If you're doing Grey for its own sake, you're creating a world apathetic to the players and which they can't attach themselves to.
Just make both sides have a point, but dont punish the players for what they pick.
In my setting the elven forrests dimished because of a curse. In the 500 years the land was free humans have settled there. The elves want to stop the curse and reclaim their lands, and the humans had to put a lot of work into making the land livable and have lived there for generations.
Technically the humans took advantage of the elves weakenes state, but they were just trying to make a better land for themselves.
Also the land next door is ran by a red dragon, so theres a pretty good example of an good/evil straigjt forawrd thing they could do instead.
I used three important NPC's to have what thought was the best of both worlds. They were the three children of the King, the eldest was morally grey and was the spymaster, the second oldest was a morally good (very lawful paladin), and the youngest was a chaotic crack addled demon worshiper that had an electric guitar from hell. There were various shades of good and evil in the world with the various regions being run by better or worse people with extremes at both ends but the three siblings stood as a good standard upon which to judge the world and for the players to judge themselves.
I totally agree with this! Several years ago, I started playing black-and-white characters and it has been an absolute blast! It's not that my characters always live up to their codes perfectly but when they failed to live up to it, they repent (not necessarily in the religious sense) from the behavior and trying to better. I mean, it comes with a story hook just built right into the narrative! Great video!
I’ve had this idea for a campaign I hope to run someday, where the players are tasked by the good guys to help a king quash a rebellion. The king in question is kind of a rich asshole who basically does whatever he wants, but likes the good guys enough that he’s willing to let them do whatever they want. The rebels, on the other hand, hate the king because he’s an asshole and want to overthrow him, and because the good guy support him the rebels want them out too.
Now here’s where it gets interesting: the players will eventually find out that a key figure in the rebellion is in service of the BBEG and is helping the rebellion so he can establish a foothold for the BBEG. The rebels are blind to this however and view the key figure as a great help to them.
This will set up an interesting dilemma for the players: do they help the asshole king quash the rebels because of the BBEG’s servant? Do they overthrow the asshole king even though it means the BBEG is that much closer to winning? Do they try and find a middle ground for the rebels and king? I’d be interested in how the players will tackle this
Mustache twirling evil is the best
Honestly my firm belief is that pretty much any trope and storytelling tool is good as long as it is used appropriately
Look I'm just gonna throw this out there. Berserk nuff said.
I only like gritty realism and dark stories as long as the character(s) still are righteously good. When they win and the world is shown being better/healing, all the while seeing how bad it is throughout the story, oh it’s so good.
Normally that doesn’t happen, good characters die and you get made fun of for liking them…
This kind of reminds me of a group RP environment where this one player just refused to let his character ever be happy in any way. He was always suffering, always depressed, everything always going wrong, and it just started getting exhausting since one of my characters was actively trying to help his character by being a good friend. Got to the point where I had to start distancing myself from him for my own sanity.
Liked, subbed, and subscribed. You've given me something that I thought I had lost forever: hope. Through your verbose criticisms of roleplaying games, I no longer want to kill myself. You see, I walked in on my wife a few years ago getting drilled by a neighbor called Mastadon. He was a retired NFL linebacker, Google tells the full tale. Anyway, after drowning in the bottom of a bottle for the last thousand days, I found your channel. I am saved. Thank YOU, brother.
OOOOH How i WISH i saw this video BEFORE i left mid campaign.
The DM was exactly how you describe it here: a prick that made a world just to tell his own story, regardless of what our characters stood for.
I kid you not, everytown we went had always some sort of secret intelligence that spied on us, or an impossibly powerful bartender, and every choice in dialogue resoulted in us fighting or feeling absolutely bad for ourself because apperently "tHe wOrLd iS gRaY aNd tHerE aRe nO wInNeRs". Absolute fool
I've not had much experience with gritty realism, I am however somebody who tends to use what you define as grey morality (Tho i've never explicitely called a campaing that since i didn't know that was the term people used)
I use it because... Well, I like it I guess.
I don't like just "The good guys VS the bad guys", i like verisimilitude, i like webs of differing perpesctives and allegiances being at play. Gangs fighting over control of the magical black market with all the satellite factions that implies or 2 feuding noble houses fighting over cynical reasons has always been more intersting to me than one side wants to burn everything and the other wants to save everyone.
Tho I do agree that some people say "Grey Morality" and in fact mean "everyone's an asshole". What I mean by "Grey morality" is "Every character is an individual trying to live their lives and reacting to the actions of those around them." That always felt more impactful to me. That a bunch of different people, some good some bad, will react to what you do.
Now maybe that means you wouldn't like me as a DM... And that's fine. Different styles and preferences and all that.
Anyway, paragraph over, have a good day!
You hit a lot of points right on the head and you should have many more subs. I've added mine, to be sure.
Something that you touched on very well was the idea of hope. Sure, the world might be going to shit, but the players have to have SOME hope, or else why are they even there? It can be a delicate road to walk, between gritty and hopeless, but if the DM and the players can pull it off it can make for some of the best RP moments ever.
My personal preference is to explore the full spectrum in my campaigns. Leaving room for good, bad, and the morally grey to exist and interact. Makes the setting feel more alive to me to have that kind of variety. My players like it, too. They like getting my more morally grey villains to see their side and compromise occasionally.
This is such a wonderful video and I very much agree.
Thank you for taking the time to make this and present these facts so well.
As someone who basically built the conflict of my campaign on grey morality, I definitely see the issue with leaning into it too hard. The story I have set up is all about how a well organized religion can cause rational people to do horrible things. To this end I just wanted an opposing force that the party could justify empathizing with. Of course the early game was full of doubt and turmoil, but the end game is where it paid off big time. All these "good people made bad" are replaced with the root of the evil. And when the snake rears its ugly head, its very well known at the table. And when the real bad guys go down, it feels that much better that now all that trouble and stuggle and doubt is resolved. I don't want to make it sound like a "here's how it's done right" type of statement but if you dig into ot from the right angle it can be a damn good story...
I think Nier games are a great example of grey morality. Also, I kinda disagree that everything about grey morality needs to be high stake, in Nier Replicant there are lines of sidequests which ends with the characters having to make a moral choice, which will have no consequence on the overall world and gameplay, but it will still make you think a little
I am currently playing a CoS campaign as a displaced professional monster hunter (think a cross between a Witcher and a cop) who is lawful good and plays it to the core. I butt heads a lot with the group's thief and warlock. The thing is, if the party wants to do something illegal, he pushes back. It leads to entertaining discourse on our actions instead of 'okay, he's dead, what do I get?'. So yes, morality should matter, if not, what's the point?
I very much prefer a lighter gameplay, with fun and chaotic energy into the world. I feel that in a lighter gameplay I am actually freer to create a more complex character infused with more humor and with interesting traits, whereas in a gritty / grim setting there's more falling back on cliché edgy characters.
I tried to pitch games like LOTFP but nobody wants to play that. In VTM it was just easier to play because I would just react to the situation. Because the players more want to be terrible people. I see that more at tables more often are players who want to play these gritty characters but don't want to be called out on it. They want the immersion without the consequences of actions.
@@jayteepodcast Yeah that's definitely something I've seen as well. Realpolitik without any of the consequences that naturally come from playing that way. I agree that most people don't want harsh gritty realistic experiences, that's more of a DM issue I believe.
Dude that's unfortunate, LOTFP is great, it's the best b/x d&d, the group I run games with loved it, you just feel things running or playing in that game that most d&d type games don't give, mix in "homebrew " sessions/scenarios with the modules/adventures they print and potentially you get gold,
I'd say that for me the ", weird/horror/mythical evokes more emotion if it's dabbled in here and there opposed to every session.... Just play the setting your running and depending on what happens and what the player characters choose to pursue drop in the LOTFP modules sometimes and you might hit gold man
part of it is 5e rules are not gritty, and 5e culture is antithetical to gritty games. you cant have your perfect deviant art oc actually be challenged
I personally find the lawful good cleric/paladin archetype that's always giving money to the poor and so on, simply because, very difficult to work with. I've played with someone who did that, and I simply couldn't understand what motivated that character, or what that character wanted, what he was after. It seemed like he just wanted to slay the next monster, and give another food ration to a poor person, or doing the next noble deed. Someone who'd risk his life saving the princess from the dragon and move on to save the next princess from the next dragon, without ever actually asking for a reward, or why all those princesses are in those towers guarded by dragons in the first place...
Game of Thrones and The Witcher are so annoyingly tragic that it dessencitized me to tragedy. Thus it was just a "things always go wrong" fetish game.
Sheer number of times, the ice and fire books and Game of Thrones show would have ended if not for somebody just being a complete prick for no reason is beyond count. Joffrey and Baelish exist as walking scumbag plot devices to just make things worse for no reason. And let’s just be totally honest, the story kind of needs it because the highborn jerks part needs to be kept long enough running for the dragon girl to show up and then the ice demons to show up. So any time it looks like things could finally be winding down to some sort of end, Don’t worry some jerk is going to kick it all back up because otherwise, it would be boring waiting for the real plot to show up..
Honestly this hasn't been my experience, but the people I play with are a relatively close-knit group. Seems like playing unambiguous good guys vs. bad guys is kindof the norm.
Which makes it really odd when like... *one person* is playing a morally grey or morally complex character and people act like they're playing a cliche.
Let’s be honest if it wasn’t gray morality it would’ve been some other fantasy trope that’s been beaten into the dirt. These would be the same dungeon Masters, who would go hey paladin you killed a bandit who just raped the 13-year-old girl? Well guess what you lose your powers. Hey Druid, did you do something that wasn’t neutral? Guess what you lose your powers. Hey cleric did you just criticize a higher ranked priest in your church? Well guess what you lose your powers. A bad dungeon master is a bad dungeon master no matter what trope they use. You do a better job than most, but it really bothers me when most people will criticize a genre when it’s not the genre that’s the issue. It’s the dungeon Master, who is on a power trip and has no empathy for the players.
I don't disagree, I do think there are certainly some bad apples in the mix that are very purposeful in their intent with using this stuff. At the same time though I think there are a lot of newer DM's who might fall into these traps thinking they're providing a more engaging or immersive experience but unknowingly being a bad DM. I hope to reach those people because I know the others are too far gone, I think I say it in the video even that for some it's not for them. Appreciate the thoughts.
I appreciate the video, but I don't think I agree with your overall assessment on each end of your overall thesis. And I don't mean in the tone, but more in the overall idea. For some settings, to have a compelling narrative, immersive tone and overall enjoyable game, you have to employ exactly what you say (World of Darkness comes to mind.) for the necessary effect to feel like what people imagine the world to be. That's not to say you can't have characters with absolute values, but it's going to be a gradient and not a checkerboard. For the realism, I understand what you're implying, but having characters count every ration, every coin, and really think about putting their lives in risky situations can often activate the necessary pre-conditions of some alignments and gameplay elements. It for instance makes some characters more mercenary and pragmatic, good characters will still want to do good things, but it has a cost to constantly sacrifice especially in light of an apathetic population, it makes sense to sometimes steal, or intimidate, if the setting doesn't have these elements it puts the players in a morally dubious position even if their alignment is good.
@@josephmarch7142 I think you misunderstand to what extent I mean extremes when talking about these concepts.
I'm not talking about gritty realism as in just tracking your resources which is more simulationist than gritty realism. I'm talking about the DMs that justify all kinds of insane shit happening to your character and covering for it using "it's gritty and realistic". There's nothing wrong if these elements are built into the system itself but largely it's DMs using ultra punishing shit of their own creation that doesn't make sense whatsoever with the system.
Either way, appreciate the comment.
If I get pitched another setting “inspired by Game if Thrones” I’m probably gonna ask if the game will also have a dissatisfying ending that makes everyone angry.
Certainly agree with practically the whole video, the one comment that I would contest at the end is that a world of absolute Evil is similarly tensionless to a world of absolute Good.
characters have goals. Some may contradict other characters goals. And while a good character will try to work out differences diplomatically, Evil characters don't necessarily care who gets hurt to achieve thier goals.
Having been a part of some grey games ya do need both good and evil. It grounds things. Ya need good to have evil, and ya need both to have the gray.
The good doesn't have to be some Optimus Prime figure, it could be someone as a lowly washerwoman, housewife, priest, or a hunter. Show that there is good and that there is something to protect and cherish.
Keep doing what you're doing, and thanks for taking the time to have that conversation with Runeslinger.
I agree with you overall, I do feel that there are also players who want grim-dark-gritty-morale-grey all the time too, not just GMs. When you get the right players and gm together though, heroic can and will thrive. Some of the best campaigns I've run are the heroes bringing the world from the darkness to the light, but it is never easy. Great video, thanks for it.
Amazing video! I always thought of Grey Morality in any media was some kind of scapegoat for the author to say that "Well my work is REALIST, so there's no absolute good and bad" only to excuse them being horrible people in real life as well.
Grey morality 9 times out of 10 is the player being a coward or breaking a promise.
This might be the most impactful video of my gamemaster career. You opend my eyes :D i dont think i am a problematic case but i never thought this way about that. As i listend to you i felt the dread my players must have felt sometimes when it was to muddy to make clear decisions. Thank you i will do better by them now :)
I have been playing for 30 years now often in gritty realism game with gray morality and I’ve come to the same conclusions. Good work.
I agree with this, I like morally grey characters, but it means nothing if there is no good or evil characters. A Grey character implies there is a good and evil. And I also hate the worlds where anyone who is Good, is naïve and killed quickly or is crushed out of a character. And I also hate when the Evil is seen as the default, as well as being done with no reason.
A good person is generally someone who wants to do right, or is someone who wants something, but does it the way that is usually hard due to not be cruel to others or something.
While an evil person goes for the easy but weak willed option, or simply cause they enjoy the suffering they put upon others.
Example: Two people want a Loaf a Bread but don't have any money, Good person offers to help in some way to earn the bread. While Evil just steals it. Grey in this case would be if the person with the bread will only accept money and you are dying of hunger, so you steal it not because you want to, but because you have no other choice
Overall, good video.
I think a lot of people don’t get that acting “morally good” is usually the rational and productive thing to do and is the default.
Like… we developed morality because it helped our societies survive.
@@petrorlov2599 I wouldn't say by default, Like, people benefit more with cooperation then people just robbing each other for short term gain, yes. But good is more or less seeing that despite how easy the rob/kill or whatever option is, for your own benefit, and choosing to take the long road because even if its harder, it benefits yourself without having to rob others of their hard work.
But yes, Morality does help societies survive,
"There is no good or evil, only weight and those too weak to lift it"
- Swoledemort
I love gritty realism because I love survival scenarios that really lean on the exploration pillar of the game. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to play in a game like this…
“Why does the third of the three brothers, who shares his food with the old woman in the wood, go on to become king of the country? Why does James Bond manage to disarm the nuclear bomb a few seconds before it goes off rather than, as it were, a few seconds afterwards? Because a universe where that did not happen would be a dark and hostile place. Let there be goblin hordes, let there be terrible environmental threats, let there be giant mutated slugs if you really must, but let there also be hope. It may be a grim, thin hope, an Arthurian sword at sunset, but let us know that we do not live in vain.”
Let your cyberpunkers have some Chinese food with their friends while living another day on the edge, let some refugees sing and dance at their camp after the party saved them from the guards, let your player known that if their are fighting for something that something has a value in this world.
I think your right and wrong on this. To me it is more about having a dynamic campaign rather than a purely heroic, dark, or morally grey campaign. To me the best campaigns can move between these themes when appropriate. The heroes set out to kill the dragon terrorizing the town. However, some townsfolk beg them not to go for fear of the dragons retribution if they fail. Getting to the dragons lair to discover a clutch of eggs that could be used as a bargining tool. Coming home to the town as heroes but how did they choose to do it? Kill the dragon and her brood? Steal the eggs to bargian for the safty of the town? Kill the dragon and keep the eggs for themselves?
As for the gritty realism. I find most players are unwilling to do it because it slows the pace of the game. Even if going from near death to full health in a day makes no logical sense. Tension is lost when all you need is a hour and you're up to fighting status again. Characters going from lvl 1 to 12 in 6 months of a characters lifespan
That beging said I agree with many of your point. You can't have every villian be grey. Having a clearly evil villian helps players purpose and direction.
I always wanted to make a game with heroic and virtues characters between good and evil but in the end my players murdered everyone around. Yeah we played Warhammer fantasy which is gray af but still they always gravited towards chaos.
Thank you so much for this video. Saved to show people what I mean. Can you do one on sympathetic villains who have a point? Would love to hear your opinion on that.