Does hack-n-slashing desensitize us to violence?

[S'mon]

But its not obvious that imagining violence has no relationship at all to desiring violent things.

We imagine the fantasy violence because we like the fantasy violence. Normally it's cathartic for other problems than "I desire to ethnically cleanse ethnicity X, but the War Crimes Tribunal would prosecute me" - just the stresses & strains of everyday life as a student, employee, businessman etc, combined with normal human fight/flight reactions. Same reason we like fantasy violence in movies, books et al, and have done for thousands of years, judging by the Iliad.

I think violence in RPGs is a different question from inherently-evil-needs-killing-race in RPGs, though. And I do think Tolkienian Evil Races combined with (post) Gygaxian Naturalism can make me feel a bit icky sometimes. I'd tend to prefer enemies as truly inhuman fiends, like the things in The House on the Borderland or the enemies in 'Diablo', to Orcs who sometimes seem uncomfortably like Red Indian analogues in the D&D Western.

 

[Celebrim]

We imagine the fantasy violence because we like the fantasy violence. Normally it's cathartic for other problems than "I desire to ethnically cleanse ethnicity X, but the War Crimes Tribunal would prosecute me" - just the stresses & strains of everyday life as a student, employee, businessman etc, combined with normal human fight/flight reactions. Same reason we like fantasy violence in movies, books et al, and have done for thousands of years, judging by the Iliad.

Given humanities violent history, this isn't much of a defense against the assertion that there is a relationship between enjoying imagining violence and violence.

...to Orcs who sometimes seem uncomfortably like Red Indian analogues in the D&D Western.

It sounds to me that you actually accept the as yet uninidentified bloggers premise more strongly than I do. Why am I the only one entertaining his side of the argument then?

 

[S'mon]

It sounds to me that you actually accept the as yet uninidentified bloggers premise more strongly than I do. Why am I the only one entertaining his side of the argument then?

Going by the OP's post, the blogger's assertion was not "People will think Orcs are Native Americans" but more "People will want to Kill Native Americans and Take Their Stuff".

I guess I think that if the roleplayers already have hostility to a RL group X, and the game involves imaginary killing of actual RL group X, and this is presented as A Good Thing by the game, then yes the game could desensitise the players to violence against RL group X. I don't think D&D does this though. Games involving real-world conflicts and violent crime might be iffier. I tend to feel the same about movies and video games. OTOH this guy has suggested that lots of potential RL criminals playing Grand Theft Auto may result in *less* actual crime on the streets!

 

[Relique du Madde]

stuff

The problem is that argument in the blog is that it is in itself a strawman argument which is only propped up by people's insistence on not looking at the real source of what causes humans to be desensitize to violence as a result of their ignorance or their fear of accountability.

What causes people to be desensitized to violence is and interplay of CULTURE, SOCIETY, NATURE AND NURTURE.

When cultures and societies teach that violence is accepted in ANY form, then yes, people will become desensitize to it.
Societies and cultures that practice violence will become desensitized to it.
Societies and cultures that believe that only their beliefs matter and teach that those who follow a different ideology (be it political, philosophical, theological, etc) are inherently wrong and that they own believes must defend and spread those through words, action, and violence will become desensitized to violence.
More importantly those cultures and societies which awards violence (in any form) will become desensitized to violence especially if those rewards are through merit, honor, and promises of spiritual/monetary/material gain.
Lastly, those who are involved in violent actions and discover that they love the adrenalin rush or the sense of power (over another) involved with their violent actions will become desensitized to violence.

To believe that desensitization to violence is caused by only games, media, stories, imagination, sports, and play is to be ignorant of the workings of society and culture and how they affect humans intellectually, physiologically and psychologically. Sadly rather then studying how certain behaviors/traits come about as a result of a combination of multiple types of stimuli most people only one of the sources of stimuli then place a moralistic spin on it.

 

[Alzrius]

I guess common courtesy would be to ask the blog owner?

I presume that blogs, by their very nature, are open to all for linking, without needing to be asked.

My worry wasn't that it was rude to link to the blog without permission. Rather, I didn't want it to seem like I was making a personal attack, since I clearly disagreed with the assertion that was being made. Bringing it up as being more about the issue itself seemed like the more gracious thing to do.

My " spider sense" was telling me there is more to the picture than meets the eye (i.e. than your translation of the blog) which is why I ask. "All orcs are evil encourages prejudice against minority ethnicities and religions" seems pretty far fetched. However, "Some orcs are good made a player confront and question his real life prejudices" no longer seems quite so bizarre.

Its all about context and perspective. Such seemingly ridiculous assertions often have a certain logic of their own, so I try not to dismiss them out of hand.

You make a good point here, however. In translating the blog post here, it's certainly possible that I've done a disservice to the author's original position. Given that, I'll reverse my earlier decision and go ahead and post a link to the aforementioned blog here (as a note, the author explains his stance further in the comments section):

Geek Related - Your PCs Are Murderous Cretins

Mxyzplk, no hard feelings. I disagree with your position on this particular issue, but with that said I still enjoy reading your blog.

I should also mention that I like the idea of running a campaign with a more nuanced sense of morality and legality than is usually portrayed, which is what the majority of this blog post deals with. I just don't agree with the assertion that fantasy violence at all shapes the mindset of the players.

 

[Elf Witch]

By itself I don't think it can. But add it to violent movies, TV shows, video games and real life TV news then I think it might be part of a bigger issue. How big a part who knows.

I have read a lot of studies showing that over the last 15 years or so college age kids are showing a measurable decrease in empathy.

They don't know what the cause of this is. Some theories blame the internet and its anonymity allowing people to behave badly. Society itself is undergoing changes kids today know that they world is a dangerous place and realize that there is no guarantee about how hard you study and work that you will find gainful employment.

 

[Quickleaf]

Geek Related - Your PCs Are Murderous Cretins

Ok, that makes it easier. He lives near Austin, TX. Nah, I'm just kidding

He's coming from an immersive play style which didn't always mesh well with a hack n' slash play style.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the blog (whose owner is identified only as Mxyzplk):

My problem with how we treat violence casually in games is that gaming is a repeated exercise that shapes our view of the world. If we are training ourselves that murder is OK, and not just in extreme circumstances, it does become part of our mindset. The excuse that it’s just a game is reasonably weak; the more we get used to mentally separating and saying “Oh, that race or people group is evil or soulless and we can victimize them freely” – it’s not like that doesn’t happen nowadays and here in our country, most recently with Abu Ghraib.

I guess when you're a parent you become much more sensitive to the impact violence has on a growing child. I've been on different sides on the argument at different points in my life, though I tend to be more permissive of sex and violence these days. It depends on the person, the gaming group, etc. Too many variables to make a blanket statement IMO.

Off topic.... that D6 video by Connor Anderson over at Fear of a Geek Planet rocked my socks off!

 

[Ariosto]

I am not up on the scientific research, but here are some preliminary observations from what I have encountered in life:

Someone with a deep revulsion toward violence will not in the first place find depiction of violence in any form entertaining. That level of sensitivity does not contain within it the motive for what purportedly leads to desensitization.

People in their late 20s or older tend to be pretty well set in their ways. It's much easier to confirm their views and reinforce existing tendencies than to challenge them into change.

Indoctrination of an adult is chiefly self-indoctrination. One chooses to associate with a given Us and be surrounded by the echoes of Our views, rather than to confront the views (already dismissed as wrong) of any Them. Just what one is really like behind closed doors, or when push comes to shove, might not be identical with one's public face, but taking into account the whole is likely to be informative.

"Taking into account the whole" is key. There is a lot of room between someone who assiduously cultivates a warlike frame of mind and someone who cultivates a pacifistic one! Most people fall somewhere in between.

Most people, indeed, seem to find it pretty easy to turn away from violence done to others by others, to nurture the conviction that it's none of their business. When they or theirs are the victims, suddenly the sensitivity ramps up! This is such a commonplace that any further 'desensitization' in the former case would seem but a little thing.

If an adult spends many hours on fetishisation of violence, or on racist or sexist propaganda, then it is most probably an expression of views already entrenched. It's a nurturing of a chosen frame of mind.

Very young children, on the other hand, are supercharged learning machines guzzling information across a vast spectrum. Their codes of conduct are malleable because all they have at first is tension between mercy and justice, altruism and self-protection, and so on. They do not come into the world fearing all that we know they ought to fear, and yet they may fear things we know better than to fear.

If all that is presented to a child is Lesson X, then it is unlikely to conceive of opposing View Y on its own and embrace it. More often, the balance of the arguments is telling. What "everyone knows" is typically really just what everyone who really matters says.

 

[Ariosto]

As to the notion that dealing fictional death to evil vampires, trolls, demons, dragons, etc., is all by itself going to create bigotry toward human beings, I have never seen any evidence to suggest that.

Now, one certainly can make propaganda in which fantastic monsters stand in for practitioners of a business or religion or such. In that case, it is the association -- ideally the repeated association -- of Those Rotten So and Sos with villainy that associates the class of people with villainy in the minds of susceptible viewers.

That is the demonization that counts. Someone can turn right around and depict a lovable vampire -- because, after all, vampires are not really anything but imaginary -- but it may be a harder sell to override the portrayal of (say) nuclear power entrepreneurs as vile monsters !

 

[Celebrim]

The problem is that argument in the blog is that it is in itself a strawman argument which is only propped up by people's insistence on not looking at the real source of what causes humans to be desensitize to violence...

Oh please tell us.

Nevermind, and just don't. Without critiquing that response - because I can't on this forum - I'll just say that you've just offered a new common sense account of the origin of violence which is offered without any sort of proof and with an inherent assumption that this is all self-evidently true that doesn't differ from that of the blogger's account by all that much.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you two actually talked, you'd probably be in agreement. Your account and his account read a lot alike.

To believe that desensitization to violence is caused by only games, media, stories, imagination, sports, and play is to be ignorant of the workings of society and culture and how they affect humans intellectually, physiologically and psychologically.

First of all, I find no indication that the blogger believes it is caused only by games, media, stories, play, and imagination. He seems in fact to believe that these are rather minor components of society and culture. The only way he differs from you account is that he includes games, media, stories, play, and imagination in his accounting of culture and assumes that as part of that cultural consumption, games, media, stories, play, and imagination can affect humans intellectually, physiologically, and psychologically.

Sadly rather then studying how certain behaviors/traits come about as a result of a combination of multiple types of stimuli most people only one of the sources of stimuli then place a moralistic spin on it.

And by excluding games, media, stories, play and imagination from your accounting, you differ in this how?