Dungeons & Dragons and the ethics of imaginary violence

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Much of this depends on the player. And the character, and character class. You mentioned this was a 1st Edition game. In the racial write ups in the players handbook it is very clear about how other races feel about one another. It uses some pretty strong language as well - hatred is a pretty powerful word to discuss how elves and dwarves feel about orcs/half-orcs. So let's just forget the whole alignment thing and look at it from a racial perspective. To an elf, a half orc, because of his orcish half, is just as filthy, evil and untrustworthy as his full orcish brothers. The elven mage hating and refusing to trust the half-orcs automatically really isn't much of a stretch. In fact, one of the things that elf might want to do right away is check for evil if he or she is capable of it. If the elf does determine one or both are evil on top of being any part of an orc, then whether or not "on a job", they are justified (in their mind) with either departing the job, demanding the half-orcs were no longer a part of the job, and depending on how extreme this player wants to take it - he is now justified in doing everything he can to kill these half-orcs.

In our great game of Dungeons and Dragons, in virtually all versions, it was never intended for Good and Evil to co-exist and get along. In my opinion the DM should have had everyone Good and Neutral, or Evil and Neutral. Mixing Good aligned characters and Evil aligned character in the same group, regardless of "the job", regardless of who the instigator was or is - was just a bad idea.

 

[Celebrim]

Short version: as long as you're talking imaginary violence, I don't think there are any ethical issues.

I think the longer version might be more complicated.

In general, I don't have a problem with imagined violence. Violence is a legitimate issue that people mentally need to be able to deal with, it is a topic worth exploring, it is an obvious way to dramatize a conflict, and it is a fact of life.

But I think it is possible to cross a line somewhere between imagining violence and romanticizing violence. And I think it is possible to then cross a further line from romanticizing violence to obsessing over it. And I think it is possible to then cross yet another line where you grow from obsessing over violence to fetishizing and mentally rehearsing it. And somewhere in that sequence, at some point I think that the imagined violence becomes unhealthy and enabling that becomes unethical.

It's something that I think we as DMs need to watch for, guard against, and beware of in our own actions.

Now, I'm not saying that D&D creates as psychopathic personality, which is the trivialized version of this argument. As with most anything, weaknesses and propensities usually precede the deprivation of something, and as with most things most people don't just flip a switch and descend into depravity. Playing out a depraved action in game doesn't mean you are going to get up from the table and do it.

What I am saying is that thinking about this only in terms of complete extremes is probably wrong.

 

[Celebrim]

And people think evil characters cause all the trouble.

I don't think it's evil characters that cause intra-party conflict. In my experience, most intraparty conflict has its origin in one of two things - a player who insists on his PC's getting the better of other PC's, and differences of opinion over how the player wants to relate to an NPC.

The first is stereotypically the "Chaotic Neutral" character that continually steals from the party, or the assassin that has as his goal killing or betraying the other party members, or that one Paladin in a group where everyone else is CE witches, warlocks, tieflings, assassins, and sadistic mercenaries. You can usually prevent this by some sort of table agreement regarding what sort of characters you are allowed to play, and a DM that insists any new characters have reasonably similar goals to the existing party if not necessarily the same motivations (see Order of the Stick).

But the second source of conflict has little or nothing to do with alignment, although obvious if there are greatly varying alignments those differences are likelier to be highlighted. Pretty much any time there is a difference of opinion regarding how to treat an NPC, there is a big potential for party conflict. The stereotypical case here would be a party that is discussing what to do with a captured NPC, and some player just decides to resolve the argument by slitting the characters throat right in front of the rest of the group. This sort of thing is effectively no different than attacking another PC, and no one should be surprised if it is treated as such. But the more invested players can get in the story, the more potential points of conflict you have. Whose side are we on? Do we play judge, jury, and executioner here or not? Do we repay an NPC for being kind to us, by helping them escape justice? Are we going to risk our lives to save an NPC?

In my opinion, intraparty conflict could be really cool, but rarely is cool precisely because the players are used to solving every problem they face by application of lethal violence, so whenever player's face any sort of disagreement with each other at all, they tend to respond with lethal violence. Moreover, at least half the time that this happens, the character's violent disagreement result in players having a very angry disagreement with each other. Tempers flare. Sometimes walls get punched and friendships get broken.

So, back on topic, I'm not completely convinced that all this imagined violence we do isn't training us in some fashion.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Agreed. Inter-party conflict is almost always the result of the player, not the character. The player can try to fall back on “I’m just playing my character” but the root of it is the player’s decisions. Heck, I can make an evil character that can get along with a paladin, or vice versa. But there are plenty of players that enjoy causing trouble for the rest of the group, probably because it puts them in control/the spotlight. If say, they disagree with the rest of the party about treating a prisoner mercifully and slit their throat anyway, suddenly the game is all about them and the repercussions of their actions.

I don't think it's evil characters that cause intra-party conflict. In my experience, most intraparty conflict has its origin in one of two things - a player who insists on his PC's getting the better of other PC's, and differences of opinion over how the player wants to relate to an NPC.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Considering the increased scrutiny of violent events these days. All it will take is the wrong person to find out the perpetrator played or owns D&D (or other RPGs) and here comes the next Pat Pulling.
If it caused problems in the 80s, imagine how things could go off the rails in today's world of online outrage stemming from third hand hearsay.

What increased scrutiny of violent events these days? When has there not been scrutiny of violent events? There's a 24 hour news cycle, but that's not new. Columbine happened 16 years ago. 16 years of "are your children safe?" and "does X cause violence in children?" Yeah, there is nothing new under the sun.

There are interesting discussions to be had regarding the choice to play an evil individual (and how one plays and evil individual)... and also in what makes a good gaming group. Fear that we're going to have a real world violent incident plastered on our hobby of choice doesn't seem like the reason to play or not to play a certain way.

 

[melichor]

There are interesting discussions to be had regarding the choice to play an evil individual (and how one plays and evil individual)... and also in what makes a good gaming group. Fear that we're going to have a real world violent incident plastered on our hobby of choice doesn't seem like the reason to play or not to play a certain way.

There are actually two discussions going on here, both raised by the same article.
But actually I just realized that it doesn't matter.

The linking of nonrelated data points is nothing to be concerned about. That happened 30 years ago and never happens today.

Players playing evil characters is a decision that each group must decide for themselves. In my games I like heroes and so evil characters are discouraged.
As a DM I always adjudicate a character by their actions and not their stated alignment. If those match all well and good. If a character acts evilly and then decides to handle a holy relic - consequences.
And before the Viking hat DM trapping the players talk starts.... I always make sure that the players and I are on the same page as to what is considered good and evil.

 

[psychophipps]

100% agreement on it being a player issue. Some people just have this pathological need to make a character that doesn't play well with others.

 

[steenan]

More often than not, it's not even a player problem, but communication problem. When players have widely divergent expectations towards the game (which happens often when they are not clearly discussed beforehand), things happen that ruin fun for some or all of the people at the table. It doesn't require anybody to be an ass - just to believe they know better how the game should be played.

It is possible to play with heavy PvP, scheming, manipulating and killing each other's characters, but with no hurt feelings. If everybody is on the same page and everybody wants to play this kind of a game, it can be very fun.

It is possible to play an evil character in a good party (or vice versa), as long as one has a reasonably mature view on evil and is willing to prioritize playing well with others over strict adherence to initial character concept.

It is possible to play a valuable game with a lot of brutality, if there is a clear player goal in it, a theme the table want to address.

 

[delericho]

More often than not, it's not even a player problem, but communication problem. When players have widely divergent expectations towards the game (which happens often when they are not clearly discussed beforehand)

Yep, and that's the key. Different people have different things that they're comfortable with. And it's not even a question of 'wrong' or 'right' - some people might prefer to stick to a PG-13 game, while others are entirely happy with an "anything goes" approach. Indeed, some might have particular exceptions to a general rule, such as "no clowns" or "no spiders". And, of course, some people may apply different rules in different groups or different campaigns - I might prefer a PG-13 D&D campaign while also enjoying an R-rated Vampire game (or whatever).

So, yeah, ideally the group should discuss those expectations ahead of time, and then stick to them. And if a player just can't abide by the group's restrictions then that player should probably look for another game elsewhere. But that applies just as surely to the guy who simply must play a clown in that "no clowns" game as to the guy who simply must engage in ultra-violence in that PG-13 game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, there is also this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Dragons-and-the-ethics-of-imaginary-violence

It's fair to say I was unimpressed with the article. Short version: as long as you're talking imaginary violence, I don't think there are any ethical issues.

I agree with your conclusion on violence (with a small caveat) but enjoyed the article. In my view the only ethical concern with violence in games is how it affects the other players at the table. If everyone is on board for what you are doing, its fine. If what you are doing is disrupting the other players enjoyment or disturbing them, then I think it is potentially a problem.

The article prompted me to write a post: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/evil-party-evil-players.html