Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

Gradine · Jun 12, 2019

Bagpuss said:
Yeah didn't end well for the last GM that tried that... (too soon?).

Well I mean, not both at the same time. Or if it is, then make sure it's consensual, at the very least. Safe words are key.

(not to dig up a recently closed thread again but while we're talking about misconceptions, rape is about violence and not sex)

Jonathan Tweet · Jun 12, 2019

Indeed Gradine is right, and I typed too quickly. I would say that violence is generally more suitable than sex, rather than either/or, one being suitable and the other not.

Derren · Jun 12, 2019

Flexor the Mighty! said:
So in D&D games do people actually encounter and slaughter humanoid tribes that were just living a peaceful existence? I think every orc group I've ran into in D&D over the years was actively raiding the human civilizations around them, pillaging, marauding, or started things off by attacking the party. That's why we went to pacify them. Granted as a DM I've never included a peaceful tribe of hobgoblins, they don't really exist in the game world and I'm not really aiming to examine moral quandaries. Though maybe in a way I am without trying to.

While all the species are fairly expansionist outside of hobbits and gnomes, the orcs and such are quite aggressively and violently so, unwilling to live in co-existence and driven by a will to dominate all life around them.

Despite playing D&D since the early 80's never played B2 for some reason. I probably missed out.

(removed the color to make it actually readable)
More often than you think. Basically every time you delve into a dungeon.
And why only limit it to humanoids? D&D is full of nonhumanoid sapient creatures. Yet I doubt many players had a second thought about killing a dragon for just existing and having loot.

Imo, how monsters a treated in an RPG is a interesting example of how "dehumanization" works.
When Players fight a tribe of evil human barbarians they will often try to spare some of them or seek means to drive them off. Make them orc barbarians and they are a lot more willing to kill everyone. And when you instead have a pack of winter wolves or other sapient nonhumans than imo most players never even consider anything else than killing them all.

Umbran · Jun 12, 2019

Gradine said:
2. Simulated violence desensitizes us to real violence.

...
My point is, I think it's far more common for us to become sensitized to violence (not necessarily through media so much as our life experiences) than it is for us to become de-sensitized to it.

Um, be careful there. You started with simulated violence, but then use *real* physical conflicts (minor ones, as toddlers) as your example. Apples and oranges.

De-sensitization to violence *does* happen. If you are 11 years old, and you regularly see real violence in your home, in your school, and in your community, yes, you get de-sensitized (meaning - you have a decreased emotional response to it). And yes, it seems that de-sensitization correlates with violent behavior as a young adult. But this isn't about kids pulling hair when they are two. This is about seeing people getting threatened, beaten, or shot.

What is much less clear is whether realistically simulated violence in a specific context (like videogames, or movies) has anything like the the same impact on a person's behavior as the multi-context exposure to real people getting hurt around you I described above. And, to be clear - the current rollback on the idea of video games having an impact is based mostly on noting how early studies were seriously flawed, not on further studies that show the effect isn't present. In effect, while lots of folks have opinions, the science-jury is still out on that one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539292/

Satyrn · Jun 12, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
If we were all Americans, here, I could just say "because we're a violent society."

Instead, for my flip, sarcastic, cynical answere I'm going to have to go all ST:tNG, and say " because we are an egregiously violent species."

(And, you don't get to complain about flip, joking answered to serious questions.)

Excellent! Since [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] doesn't get to complain, that lets me go to the front of the line with my complaint.

My Complaint: you're stealing my schtick! Please Schtop.

Gradine · Jun 12, 2019

Umbran said:
Um, be careful there. You started with simulated violence, but then use *real* physical conflicts (minor ones, as toddlers) as your example. Apples and oranges.

De-sensitization to violence *does* happen. If you are 11 years old, and you regularly see real violence in your home, in your school, and in your community, yes, you get de-sensitized (meaning - you have a decreased emotional response to it). And yes, it seems that de-sensitization correlates with violent behavior as a young adult. But this isn't about kids pulling hair when they are two. This is about seeing people getting threatened, beaten, or shot.

What is much less clear is whether realistically simulated violence in a specific context (like videogames, or movies) has anything like the the same impact on a person's behavior as the multi-context exposure to real people getting hurt around you I described above. And, to be clear - the current rollback on the idea of video games having an impact is based mostly on noting how early studies were seriously flawed, not on further studies that show the effect isn't present. In effect, while lots of folks have opinions, the science-jury is still out on that one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4539292/

I wasn't pretending towards any claims of scientific accuracy. You do make a good point about the prevalence of real-life violence in one's life versus simulated violence. I want to be clear; I agree fully that presence of real-life violence in someone's life will naturally impact their personal inclinations towards violence. I am speaking specifically of simulations of violence and how they, by and large, do not desensitize us to violence, and in fact are much more likely than not to sensitize us away from our natural predilections towards violence than the opposite.

I have zero evidence to back this up beyond my own personal experiences, for what it's worth. As long as the science-jury is out that's about all I've got to rely on.

lowkey13 · Jun 12, 2019

*Deleted by user*

billd91 · Jun 12, 2019

Gradine said:
Real life anecdote number one: I have a daughter. She's older now, but like all humans of a certain age she was once a toddler. Have you seen a group of toddlers interact with each other? They punch, they kick, they bite, they pull hair, for really no god damned reason whatsoever. Kids start violent. It's, in many ways, one of our most natural instincts. Kids don't stop getting violent until you really drill into them the negative consequences of their behavior.

You don't even have to drill negative consequences into them. Kids bite, for example, because they don't yet have the means to express themselves in any other way. As they develop communication skills, toddler violence goes way down.

Guest 6801328 · Jun 12, 2019

Bagpuss said:
How, are you not roleplaying your character? I present you with the trolley car problem is that not an ethical dilemma for you despite the fact there is no real trolley or real people getting hurt?

You have a point: an ethical dilemma is an ethical dilemma even if it is entirely imaginary. But when you discuss the trolley car problem in freshman philosophy you are, I assume, trying to imagine that there are real lives at stake, and that it would be a tragedy for them to be lost. In other words, you are analyzing the problem as if it were real. I don't think you would answer the trolley car problem with, "Can I kill them all, and take their stuff?"

Is that right?

If so, that seems to conflict with the sentiments you express about RPG violence: that since it is make-believe violence it doesn't really matter.

(As an aside, a version of the trolley car problem is now appearing in real life in autonomous car design, in the sense of balancing the life of the occupants of the car versus the lives of others. One company...I think it was Mercedes...got in some hot water for publicly stating how its algorithms would make those decisions.)

Yes, but it is still a moral dilemma. How would your good character react to the hobgoblin women and children encounter?

Honestly, I haven't seen that adventure since the early 80's so I don't remember the specifics. Is it like the trolley car, in that there is no answer that avoids killing innocents? Or can you choose to put your character at risk to save the innocents? If the latter, that's usually what I'd do. To a much greater extent than I fear I would in real life.

I take it you never DM then?

...wtf?

As a regular DM I frequently have to put myself in evil characters shoes. Although like you I don't like playing evil characters as a player, and even in gritty dark settings like Cyberpunk will be the one guy still trying to me good. Even as a GM my evil characters tend to have understandable motives even if there methods are somewhat questionable. Although throwing in the odd Hannibal Lector character or actual demon occasionally is fun.

Again, a fair question to ask. As DM, though, I don't feel that my NPCs "are me" in the sense that a PC is. I have no more trouble portraying evil NPCs (to be slaughtered by the heroes) than I would putting an evil villain in a story I might write. But I can't imagine writing a story in which the protagonist/hero is evil. Struggling with inner conflict, and as a consequence doing not nice things or making unwise decisions? Sure. But slaughtering innocents, no.

So I find your question "are you not roleplaying your character?" odd. It's precisely because I am roleplaying my character that I find in-game violence disturbing.

Guest 6801328 · Jun 12, 2019

billd91 said:
You don't even have to drill negative consequences into them. Kids bite, for example, because they don't yet have the means to express themselves in any other way. As they develop communication skills, toddler violence goes way down.

Faulkner's "The Unvanquished" is really about exactly this question.