Universally Preferable Behavior in a Role Playing Game

[DavidFoxfire]

I hope that people will see this while my reputation is still Neutral.  This is the thread I wanted to post anyway.   I want to write an essay on how to apply UPB in a Role Playing Game, and I started this thread to focus on that topic.  It's my hope that I would be able to implement a mechanic that awards extra experience points when the players are more than just murder hobos in the game, as well as have them get interested in philosophy between sessions. (Much like how people got interested in Objectivism when Bioshock came out.) Of course, what is UPB in, say, Dungeons & Dragons would differ in some part to what's UPB in Real Life, which is what I'd like to figure out.

I'll start with what I've written down as a quick summary of what UPB is in just a few paragraphs, which I know I'm a little off.  Let me post it here to see what you think:

[Start]

For the uninitiated, and I'm sure that you're one of them since you got this at DriveThruRPG and have never even heard of its creator, Internet Philosopher Stefan Molyneux, allow me (with apologies to Stefan) to generalize Universally Preferable Behavior for the record:  A common problem with ethics is that a global consensus of what is moral among several groups, especially between different cultures and kingdoms.  All throughout real life human history, as well as in Æthercoil's realm up to the Dragons and Eladrin showing up, there was a belief that "it is impossible to define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical System…that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, enforced for merely pragmatic reasons, but forever lacking logical justification and clear definition…that virtue, our greatest joy, our deepest happiness, must be cast aside by secular grown-ups, and left in the dust to be pawed at, paraded and exploited by politicians and priests – and parents…that without the tirades of parents, the bullying of gods or the guns of governments, we cannot be both rational and good.  The cost to mankind has been enormous."  (Molyneux 7)

 

There are plenty of attempts to declare a set of ethics and morality that doesn't have this authoritarian source.  A child can get his brain around something like "You shouldn't hurt another person," and eventually, as he grows up, can understand a broader concept of respecting each other and live so that he'll be at peace with everyone around him…only to find a bunch of adults who should've known better declare a group of people deplorably evil and they should be hunted down to a man on sight.

 

What would circumvent the majority--if not all--of the strife, suffering, and whole rivers of blood spilling all over humanity at large is a system of ethical behavior that applies to everyone regardless of any differences.  A social contract that everyone agrees on what is moral, right, and good.  Two people from different religions, for example, might have differences behind what their representative holy prophet might be, and would debate it in earnest, but both of them would have a general consensus that, while they might have our differences, they both understand that it's flipping wrong to kill each other over it.

 

That last part of the above paragraph is an example of an objective form of ethics that applies all across humanity.  When Stefan made his attempt in explaining this needed 'common law,' he called it 'Universally Preferable Behavior' or UPB. He wrote a book about where he states his proof and does his work.  It's been debated thoroughly since it's publishing and some even found some flaws in Stefan's logic--even with my own flimsy hold on Critical Thinking, I can understand if anybody can only get so far in a 134 page PDF.  Shoot, what Player's Handbook I ever was complete and thorough in any RPG?  Nevertheless, UPB is an excellent concept to consider, and my pondering over the concept gave me the idea of incorporating a form of ethics into a RPG game, to teach ethics, philosophy, and even critical thinking, to the people playing the game.

 

Defining what UPB is in Dungeons & Dragons is a lot harder than implementing UPB from behind the DM's Screen.  In fact, I've already done something like this with the "Non-Violent Resolution:" If the party encounters a hostile party or event, and the party resolves the scene without resorting to Attacking, the Experience Points awarded in this scene is doubled.  Awarding additional XP for exhibiting UPB on the table makes for a prime encouragement for the party members to think outside the "Open Door-Kill Fodder-Loot Treasure-Lather-Rinse-Repeat" box and creates RPG adventures that are more than just a bunch of Murder Hobos killing things and blowing stuff up.

 

The hard part, of course, is defining what UPB is in an RPG setting.  Yeah, you say, it's wrong to Rape, Steal, Kill, and Destroy; but this is Dungeons & Dragons we're talking about.  Aren't you supposed to do that?

 

Ah, welcome to applied ethics, dear reader.

 

 

[Donnadogsoth]

You might also have psychology and lore skills giving the players insight into the nature of the monsters they encounter, so that they will know if it is merely defending its territory, or is incorrigibly malevolent, or follows a strange religious code.

[DavidFoxfire]

D&D does have Lore Skills, Donnadogsoth

[Drew.]

17 hours ago, DavidFoxfire said:

The hard part, of course, is defining what UPB is in an RPG setting.  Yeah, you say, it's wrong to Rape, Steal, Kill, and Destroy; but this is Dungeons & Dragons we're talking about.  Aren't you supposed to do that?

 

As a player who has tried to follow the NAP in game at times, it is really, really difficult. So, the non-aggression principle and rights would not just apply to human beings, but it all races, species, etc that would qualify. So, going into the cave where the minotaur is "homesteading" would be trespassing and potentially followed by murder. The conflict between the goblins and the villagers? Who started it? Is it that the humans are trying to seize goblin lands and resources, or is it that the goblins started it?

[barn]

Double sorry for bringing this up, it's a question I have...

Wouldn't the more UPB being implemented in D&D, the more 'Mickey' s being taken out'?

i.e. Doom (vid. game) with peaceful conflict resolution,

full UPB mode (?) : not one bullet fired, not once the knife being drawn, no 'stampy-stamp' on heads...

Edited February 18, 2018 by barn
accuracy

[DavidFoxfire]

That's a good question, which I've addressed for quite some time:  I try to design some encounters where it is possible to resolve it without attacking.  If the party can pull that off, the XP awarded is doubled.  I call it the Non-Violent Resolution, an in-game implementation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

However, as we all can agree on, we can't do that for every encounter. in some cases, attacking is UPB.  Such as when you're in a village about to be accosted by a bunch of Orcs about to rape, pillage, and burn everything that isn't nailed down.  What's the Preferrable Behavior is in that scenario?  You can't go completely pacificist here, of course. But then again, it wouldn't be Preferable to repay the Orc Village they come from in kind.

Wouldn't it be UPB to only be violent enough to stop the attackers and ensure that they do not repeat the action, and then stop?  (Or at the very least, get the Orcs to pick on some other village?)  Would the "Peace through Strength" approach be UPB in this area?

Also to be mentioned is the possible Game of Thrones-style politics that an RPG sometimes go into.  Where a party stumbles into some scheme from one monarch to get over on another monarch.  (Like a peace treaty meeting where someone's plans to massacre everyone involved or a Wedding with someone with an ulterior motive.  Or even someone going, I'll drop all charges on your party from that bar fight if you do such and such.)  There's plenty of scenes where things aren't as they seen and what's good or bad is a bit fuzzy.   If the players don't know what is the right thing to do in a position, would they instead go for what they think is the most Preferable?

This is something like what Drew Davis talked about.  The party would be expecting one thing when they're going into something like Goblins raiding a village, only to find out that it is the villagers that are in the wrong.  Or a scenario I thought up earlier, where a Dragon kidnaps a princess who is actually protecting her from a nefarious group of suitors who only wishes to take over the kingdom.

The right thing to do would start off one time and end up changing in mid-adventure.  

Another point of interest:  I wanted to start off with UPB as a way to have a general consensus among the civilized groups, villages, cultures, and peoples on what is moral and proper if there is no written law governing the whole region; a form of common law-style social contract that is a bulwark keeping a tenuous civilization from breaking apart.

[Drew.]

1 hour ago, DavidFoxfire said:

That's a good question, which I've addressed for quite some time:  I try to design some encounters where it is possible to resolve it without attacking.  If the party can pull that off, the XP awarded is doubled.  I call it the Non-Violent Resolution, an in-game implementation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

However, as we all can agree on, we can't do that for every encounter. in some cases, attacking is UPB.  Such as when you're in a village about to be accosted by a bunch of Orcs about to rape, pillage, and burn everything that isn't nailed down.  What's the Preferrable Behavior is in that scenario?  You can't go completely pacificist here, of course. But then again, it wouldn't be Preferable to repay the Orc Village they come from in kind.

Wouldn't it be UPB to only be violent enough to stop the attackers and ensure that they do not repeat the action, and then stop?  (Or at the very least, get the Orcs to pick on some other village?)  Would the "Peace through Strength" approach be UPB in this area?

Also to be mentioned is the possible Game of Thrones-style politics that an RPG sometimes go into.  Where a party stumbles into some scheme from one monarch to get over on another monarch.  (Like a peace treaty meeting where someone's plans to massacre everyone involved or a Wedding with someone with an ulterior motive.  Or even someone going, I'll drop all charges on your party from that bar fight if you do such and such.)  There's plenty of scenes where things aren't as they seen and what's good or bad is a bit fuzzy.   If the players don't know what is the right thing to do in a position, would they instead go for what they think is the most Preferable?

This is something like what Drew Davis talked about.  The party would be expecting one thing when they're going into something like Goblins raiding a village, only to find out that it is the villagers that are in the wrong.  Or a scenario I thought up earlier, where a Dragon kidnaps a princess who is actually protecting her from a nefarious group of suitors who only wishes to take over the kingdom.

The right thing to do would start off one time and end up changing in mid-adventure.  

Another point of interest:  I wanted to start off with UPB as a way to have a general consensus among the civilized groups, villages, cultures, and peoples on what is moral and proper if there is no written law governing the whole region; a form of common law-style social contract that is a bulwark keeping a tenuous civilization from breaking apart.

Personally, as a player, I have always preferred gold rewards over experience. Better to be a decked-out low-level than a broke superhero. But, I've played 3.5 where that really, really matters.

So, the non-aggression principle is about using proportionate force. In general, it would be that you use enough force to get the orcs to stop. It definitely would not suit to pay the orc village in kind, because rape is not something that could really ever be justified as proportionate force, I think. Additionally, while you retaliate, some peaceful orcs might defend their village, and so some individuals who could have been peaceful might get killed because they view the party as the aggressors. THat is what you have pointed out, use enough force to stop it. That might involve killing some orcs.

I think that you could use elements of UPB and the NAP to form a common law justice system. I think that just about every legal system has prohibitions on rape, murder, theft, and assault, it is just that there are inappropriate prohibitions or exceptions. Like, it's not theft if it is a tax collector. It is not murder if it's an elf.

My experience with individualists is that it is like herding cats. Someone who is an individualist might be less inclined to join a group or collective. So, something organized with a lot of power and influence does not really seem like a fitting option.

I think the way to go is to give the party options to engage in more preferable behavior. Always try to figure out a few ways that a problem can be solved, and be open to the party coming up with their own. It might be, for example, that to solve it perfectly-wrapped-up-neat-in-a-bow that the option is no longer on the table because of the party's prior actions/inactions, but it would be nice if it was there.

I know that also a player, the quest for gold has always been a prime factor in killing everything in sight. A kobold has a magical banner? Well, if we don't kill them, then we're losing out on wealth. Much needed wealth.

[barn]

Oh, sure. I'm among the first who enjoys a good DM twisting the plot, really allowing for the players to put to the ultimate test their grasp on what their character stands for in the given world, aiming to overgo the perceived boundaries for the unknown, in many cases directly inviting the risky and memorable... de-fi-ni-te-lly.

I genuinely like the idea of a philosophical contemplation incorporated into risk-reward systems (if I'm properly grasping your proposed route), allowing for a deeper understanding of the lore, encouraging for a greater responsibility taking, more pronounced consequences (... I guess, that's where it'll lead to, ultimately. UPB in my perception tends to bring about something similar to the effects of Karma), less rinse-repeat, more 'what that'd mean, perhaps...' elements. Fantastic.

I haven't said, should've... I like what you are (again, if I'm properly grasping it) setting out to work towards, here, in this thread specifically. (which is just my opinion, not an argument... hahaha)

I guess, where I was coming from, was:

a. inertia is of an essence in action (in-game), really important to facilitate immersion with a good flow (doesn't mean action heavy per se, instead a balanced story telling, players doing their thing 'enough' with sufficient 'time' for both. )

Therefore, a non-strangling adaptation of morals, somewhat streamlined assessment approach is more preferable to avoid getting bogged down in the menial. General rule of thumb, as I'm sure you'd agree, you'll always have people impatiently/in excitement waiting for 'their say'. So what, 'part-and-parcel', that's on the wayside. It's the long term where the system has to blend in, not adding +hrs into an already long game (some stories can last for months... and I'm being conservative )

b. You'll absolutely and for certain will need players who are more open minded to better able to implement morals, in general.

It's possible to have players who don't give a dam about things like... um... what's right?... consequences?... (a certain Barbarian cast floats to mind...) what about those people? How will they be able to blend in with the more philosophical minded? Will they have to be sheperd, are they going to be a risk factor such as a posessed priest enacting its heiress's will? How's extra experience going to present a greater incentive than let's say a liquid magical armor for a thief, or following the path the guild expects the character to thread, if not risking exile?

Xp isn't enough of an incentive imho.

c. Isn't UPB already present in RPG, just as unexpected alternatives characters decide to contemplate as they get to know their limitations? Also, being in a party requires you to be considerate of the others, unless you have a death wish or don't mind your companions forgetting about your unique vulnerability before allocating their mps deploying defense barriers (ops, you just got revealed as the cloaking field isn't strong enough, extending out far enough and your companions chose to run, rather than take up the fight with the horde... I guess, karma's a b&tch for you today... would that be an appropriate way to pay-off absent mindedness in regards to UPB? I think so, but perhaps I'm too harsh... dunno)

[DavidFoxfire]

To Drew Davis

Paragraph 1

That’s something I haven’t thought about, although it’s part of the murder hobo drill {Open Door, Kill Fodder, get treasure, wash, rinse, repeat.}   Awarding gold and/or treasure for a team’s behavior is trickier than awarding XP, however.

I think I might have a vehicle to do this, however.  In my campaign setting, it is possible for the Dungeon Master to have their own PC, a being known as a Dragonjin who can assume a Fairy Godmother/Father role for the party.  Maybe the DM’s character appears in one form or another saying that he noticed the parties actions and offers a magic item to help them along their way, or something similar from a villager.

Paragraph 2

Once I really get my campaign creating chops down, I’m definitely implementing the NAP more in my adventures.  It comes with my desire to include exploration and interaction with the combat, which is already in my preferred style.

Paragraph 3

A Common Law code will be formulated in the quick rules, and as I mentioned earlier, there would be a series of halls to deal with disputes and criminal cases.  Either we could discuss it here or open a new thread.

The Common Law Code will no doubt be created with UPB in mind.  And parts of this Code will be addressing some rulings that would run counter with the principle.  (Little Truth:  Do not Kill.  Big Truth:  Respect all Sentient beings.  Middle ‘Truth’: “I just killed five elves.”  “No People?” “No, just elves.” “WHAT TH-- Hey!  That 9^th level Fireball is not an argument!”  “No, but neither is your face!”)

Paragraph 4

I already have several factions formulated in the campaign setting, with an option for the players themselves to create factions of their own.  Herding Cats!  That’s a familiar complaint.

Paragraph 5

Having multiple ways to do things will be part and parcal of how I’ll design an encounter or puzzle.  Some would work, some not so well, and at least one option that will produce a quite embarrassing result.  (“So, you failed to pick that lock and just kicked the door out.  Make a DEX save to avoid that bucket of water heading down on your head.”)

Paragraph 6

The implementation of this Common Law Code will also imply that actions will have consequences.  Killing that kobold with that magical banner would definitely have every kobold, or even worse the Adult Dragon who considered that kobold a beloved servant, gunning after the party.

 

To Barn

Item A

Getting this philosophical convention to blend well with an RPG is why I’ve started this conversation, not to mention finding a way to do that doesn’t bog down the game play.  I doubt everyone would mind if an encounter gets paused because someone has no clue who Stefan is.  Writing it into a Common Law Code blended into the setting seems the way to go.

Item B

Of course, part of the quirks of being a Dungeon Master is to have the player’s tastes in mind with the campaign setting.  A bunch of barbarians whose Modus Operandi involves “I would like to Rage” at turn 1 would need a different approach than, say, a group of young ladies with uniform outfits, colorful flairs with their spells and attacks, and a desire to ensure that the world around them don’t fall under the boot of an overlord.

Also to be mentioned is what is obvious now, I need to have more incentives to follow the Code. I mentioned it in the other thread and will consider ways to implement it in the campaigns.

Item C

Some form of UPB is already in place in the game, you’re right about that.  It is preferred for the players of the game to work as a team, after all.  What I want to see is have it implemented in the campaign setting.

[Drew.]

1 hour ago, DavidFoxfire said:

That’s something I haven’t thought about, although it’s part of the murder hobo drill {Open Door, Kill Fodder, get treasure, wash, rinse, repeat.}   Awarding gold and/or treasure for a team’s behavior is trickier than awarding XP, however.

I think I might have a vehicle to do this, however.  In my campaign setting, it is possible for the Dungeon Master to have their own PC, a being known as a Dragonjin who can assume a Fairy Godmother/Father role for the party.  Maybe the DM’s character appears in one form or another saying that he noticed the parties actions and offers a magic item to help them along their way, or something similar from a villager.

Yeah, I hear that. Well, it could be a bit more indirect. Like, they build a reputation of being fair, which offers them greater contracts or a steeper fee for contracts. Or perhaps, there will be a bonus offered for a peaceful solution. Perhaps someone sees the tact and delicacy the party engages in and tells them about a secret treasure that is too dangerous for that NPC to chase after.

Oh, and you can start out small. Like, if the PCs are starting out at level one, give them perhaps a couple of coppers or silver pieces extra, perhaps some tools, rations, a natural herb/berry/whatever that acts as a cure light, bulls strength, etc.

Or have the reward come later. Like, the party receives a letter from the town mayor after peacefully resolving a conflict between the villagers and goblin tribe, where the two societies are trading and there is more wealth in the region. The letter would be about wanting to share that wealth with the party, because without them, it would never have been possible. Then, insert appropriate reward.

[barn]

Hi @DavidFoxfire

 

7 hours ago, DavidFoxfire said:

Writing it into a Common Law Code blended into the setting seems the way to go.

The practical (?) :

° Could/would a 'rule of thumb' amount of time indicated, be helpful as to foretell in what duration an ideal choice should be made within (+/- upon negotiation, but no DM final say)

° Additionally, a simplified framework be drawn up as part of the familiarisation, where players are introduced to such scenarios, initiators should always take into consideration the probable effects on (no hand-holding)

- the self

- the target

- cumulative/one off

- physical/magical

7 hours ago, DavidFoxfire said:

Of course, part of the quirks of being a Dungeon Master is to have the player’s tastes in mind with the campaign setting. 

Very true. I remember, once or twice there were short campaigns to get a feel for, cut off dead weight from characters before 'THE' campaign. (people have a hard time describing their actual taste, unless they're seasoned players)

7 hours ago, DavidFoxfire said:

What I want to see is have it implemented in the campaign setting.

Biblical stories?... Jordan B Peterson? Moral conundrums?

[DavidFoxfire]

On 2/22/2018 at 11:41 PM, Drew Davis said:

Yeah, I hear that. Well, it could be a bit more indirect. Like, they build a reputation of being fair, which offers them greater contracts or a steeper fee for contracts. Or perhaps, there will be a bonus offered for a peaceful solution. Perhaps someone sees the tact and delicacy the party engages in and tells them about a secret treasure that is too dangerous for that NPC to chase after.

Or have the reward come later. Like, the party receives a letter from the town mayor after peacefully resolving a conflict between the villagers and goblin tribe, where the two societies are trading and there is more wealth in the region. The letter would be about wanting to share that wealth with the party, because without them, it would never have been possible. Then, insert appropriate reward.

2

That would be one way to go.  I was thinking that some NPCs would have heard or witnessed a preferred behavior or a peaceful solution and responds to the party more amiably than how they'd react to a Murder Hobo.  A reputation system can be easily implemented in any Table Top RPG; you just need to keep copious notes.

On 2/22/2018 at 11:41 PM, Drew Davis said:

Oh, and you can start out small. Like, if the PCs are starting out at level one, give them perhaps a couple of coppers or silver pieces extra, perhaps some tools, rations, a natural herb/berry/whatever that acts as a cure light, bulls strength, etc.

 

I already have such an item that I offer to low-level characters:  A Renaissance version of Red Bull. Drink it during a Short Rest to gain the Benefits of a long rest. (Full Hit Points and Spell Points, Features that recharge each day get recharged, and all that)  However, the drinker must make a Constitution save or take one level of Exhaustion which gives a disadvantage.  Almost vital at the start, although there is the drawback to contend with, so it's up to the party to try to stretch those 15-minute work days where every resource gets used in one encounter.

On 2/23/2018 at 6:21 AM, barn said:

Very true. I remember, once or twice there were short campaigns to get a feel for, cut off dead weight from characters before 'THE' campaign. (people have a hard time describing their actual taste, unless they're seasoned players)

That's what I usually do.  Have a small jump-on adventure or a simple encounter known as "The Tarantino" that the party finds themselves in to ensure their character build's work.  ("And now, for the most famous words in all of Role Playing Games: Gentlemen (or Players), Roll for Initiative!")  I find out more about what the character's personal goals and tastes are, and will adjust the real campaign appropriately.

Oh, and Jordon Peterson?  (Or as I call him, "Professor Kermit."  It's his voice.  Imagine the Frog going off at an SJW during some of those Free Speech Rallies or going, "Don't you tell me what to say, you....."   .....Okay, I bite, what would Kermit use as an insult?) Looks like I'm going to have to get Jordon's "Twelve Rules for Life" to go with Stephan's "The Art of the Argument"  My just-downloaded Kindle app awaits.

[barn]

1 hour ago, DavidFoxfire said:

That's what I usually do.

Class.

1 hour ago, DavidFoxfire said:

It's his voice. 

At first it annoyed me, however as soon as I listened to the things he said in his lectures, interviews... never occurred anymore, won't if he 'stays on course' (principles)... I guess.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, DavidFoxfire said:

Oh, and Jordon Peterson?  (Or as I call him, "Professor Kermit."  It's his voice.  Imagine the Frog going off at an SJW during some of those Free Speech Rallies or going, "Don't you tell me what to say, you....."   .....Okay, I bite, what would Kermit use as an insult?) Looks like I'm going to have to get Jordon's "Twelve Rules for Life" to go with Stephan's "The Art of the Argument"  My just-downloaded Kindle app awaits.

Audible is fairly good for "12 rules for life" get obivously the tone in Jordan's speech, plus if it's 15 hours or so to read can be easier to listen in the background. Interestingly he is doing a speech in London on the 13th May (also my Birthday). Does seem a bit like a caricature, in the book he mentions that he used to be refered to as "Howdy Dudey after some bloody puppet". Art of the Argument you can get for "free" on a free trial kindle unlimted. Can scan over it fairly quickly.

[DavidFoxfire]

Please forgive the necro-post, but I found some brainstorms to extend this topic some more.  I'm writing in my brainstorming notebook all about this code we discussed earlier on.  Both the code itself and how to encourage the party to keep in it.

Right now, I have the need to brainstorm the details of this Adventuring Code, the list of rules for the party to run by that keeps them in the hero's side (and out of Murder Hobo territory).  I already have some ideas, although they aren't in any necessary order, and I'm also open to suggestions.

1) Whenever two adventuring parties have a conflict in the field, they must settle their differences through a non-violent means of their choice.  This can include a game of skill or chance.

This will not only involve a mini-game to add more flavor, which can be of any game, as long as it's short, can be played quick, and can take place in either a camp or a setting.  This can involve a card game (A Magic: The Gathering Cube format anyone?) or a variant of chess, checkers, Yahtzee, or any other game that the player character could have.  There can also be game rooms in the taverns where such games are played, both casually and for more serious purposes such as settling a quarrel.

Of course, that doesn't mean that The Argument(™) cannot be used in the game.  Have a practical change to practice critical thinking.

2) Use Minimum Necessary Force, only do just enough violence to resolve any conflict and no farther.

 

I got this from "Twelve Rules of Life" while looking under Rule 6 (in the child-rearing section) but there's a more visual rendition of this rule in Rule 1, with the lobsters.  The Lobsters go through several stages of conflict resolution before they go ripping off limbs.  The same should be used for weapons and spells.   

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

3) All weapons and spells must be used with the utmost respect.