D&D General Some thoughts on Moral Philosophies in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

In my home setting there is a religion based on the idea that there was one true god, but he’s dead. I know that isn’t what Niczsche meant, but I liked the idea of exploring a belief system that took it literally.

Weirdly, the bolded part is also what Zack Snyder said before filming Batman v. Superman.

 

[Charlaquin]

Weirdly, the bolded part is also what Zack Snyder said before filming Batman v. Superman.

Yeah but that movie sucked

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm intentionally posting before reading the rest of the thread, so sorry if these are already covered. I'll catch up in a bit.

Objectivism
Though I'm loathe to label this a philosophy, that label is often misapplied by its adherents, and it seems to be the dominant philosophy in most D&D games in my experience. The characters tend to only care about themselves, don't care about anything in the world around them unless it can be somehow turned to their own personal benefit, and there's a strong current of that old time might makes right, social darwinism, and fascism. The justness of a cause is determined by who wins any given fight, strength is its own reward, and anyone not strong enough to maintain whatever it is they have doesn't deserve to keep it. To me, this is where murderhobos live. Even the troupes who try to do good are still mostly engaged in selfish adventuring, seeking rewards rather than doing what's right for its own sake. You can see this seep into the community at large with arguments about alignment, a push for moral relativism (as mentioned in the OP), and tropes like good is stupid, the lawful stupid paladin, and the cleric who charges for healing.

I think this quote is relevant: “Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”

Stoicism
Though likely the philosophy itself is never name dropped or used, or even known about by most, it seems to be one of the dominant philosophies at gaming tables. This is seen in the adamant refusal to react in anything approaching a realistic way to anything that happens in the game, i.e. the player who refuses to roleplay their character. The player who treats their character as a game piece to be moved from one combat encounter to the next, who speaks of their character in the third person, and will only ever describe what the character does, and avoid ever speaking in character or otherwise engaging in the roleplay.

Taoism
Though it's really a Chinese religion vastly more complicated than most Westerners will ever realize, Taoism is treated as a kind of pop philosophy in the West. I think we see this most often with druids, monks, and other characters playing true neutral. With its flow state and balance of nature, it's a great fit for that let it go, don't grasp, go with the flow attitude. Admittedly, quite a few druids don't play that way, they go full ecowarrior (I've done it myself because it's fun). Taoism influenced Buddhism and so became Chan Buddhism, and when it migrated into Japan was called Zen Buddhism. I see a lot of monks going for a Zen philosophy.

Absurdism and Pessimism are two I'd like to see make an appearance. A Pessimistic cleric. "Hello, fellow-sufferer."

I -love- that you brought these three forward. And you're right. Or, at least, mostly right.

I would say that there are plenty of actual Stoics at the table outside of the ones who don't react/roleplay. That's less a matter of character philosophy and more a matter of their own viewing of the game as just a math exercise... Which lends itself to Murderhoboery as well.

But there are absolutely players who will -refuse- to have their character emote, even while they, themselves, gesture wildly and lament loudly their poor dice rolls not out of any form of disdain for RP. But because they're trying to roleplay "Action Hero Man"

Gritty "Action Hero Man" is a Man's Man who don't take no guff! He never cries! His only emotions are banging chicks and killin' bad dudes. Often back to back!

This is the player trying to emulate their favorite monosyllabic movie character being the absolute unstoppable badass that they don't get to be in life.

Not at all. Spirits (and Souls) can be reincarnated, which actually works better for DemoMonkey's hypothesis.

Ahhh hah!

Good thing, too. I couldn't afford the diamonds.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah but that movie sucked

That's only because he needs another $70 million to turn it into a four-hour miniseries that will only kind of suck!

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have considered such things before but I suck at writing so I am glad steampunkette made this thread.

That's only because he needs another $70 million to turn it into a four-hour miniseries that will only kind of suck!

that is because he is an objectivist thus not note for decently working works of fiction.

consider nation if the original post is correct what would the upper planes be like?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But there are absolutely players who will -refuse- to have their character emote, even while they, themselves, gesture wildly and lament loudly their poor dice rolls not out of any form of disdain for RP. But because they're trying to roleplay "Action Hero Man"

Gritty "Action Hero Man" is a Man's Man who don't take no guff! He never cries! His only emotions are banging chicks and killin' bad dudes. Often back to back!

This is the player trying to emulate their favorite monosyllabic movie character being the absolute unstoppable badass that they don't get to be in life.

I feel, somehow, like you're making fun of the greatest PC ever.
Arnold Dwarfenegger.
"What is best in life is to crush the Bards, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the Elves."

 

[Steampunkette]

I feel, somehow, like you're making fun of the greatest PC ever.
Arnold Dwarfenegger.
"What is best in life is to crush the Bards, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the Elves."

Lamentation is -four- syllables.

He passes the ACTION HERO MAN minimum threshhold...

But just -barely-.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Lamentation is -four- syllables.

He passes the ACTION HERO MAN minimum threshhold...

But just -barely-.

In fairness, he pronounces it very badly.

 

[D1Tremere]

Moral Relativism
This is a rough one. Moral Relativism seeks to undermine Deontology, Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics, and all other moral systems by creating a relativistic approach. Which is to say: A Deontological Society is only good in the context of their own ideals, and would be considered Evil by the standpoint of another social group with an inverse position on what is or isn't "Good" and "Evil".

Which is... true..? But also utterly bat-smackingly irrelevant at the gaming table.

I'm not so sure this should be dismissed as irrelevant at the gaming table, especially in light of newer takes on race as lineage and seeing monsters who have distinct cultures as something other than monsters. The argument about eating babies is an extreme one (though still a possible scenario), so it is true that something to that level may not come up at the table (though with my players you never know). That said, there are more common examples where this is important.
For example, there is growing discussion about when it is acceptable to kill a creature normally seen as a monster in D&D. Should a Paladin be considered good aligned (ugh, alignments) after killing a village full of Orcs? Orcs have complex societies, self-awareness, and are increasingly staple PC options, but have been depicted throughout the history of D&D as Evil. This is usually because they have shorter life cycles that are governed by a might makes right style that clashes with the more bureaucratic style of problem solving that the more traditional (read western culture inspired) races such as humans and elves prefer. Thus a border dispute between the indigenous orcs and the colonizing folk of the dale may see a delegation sent to negotiate become combatants in a gladiatorial arena that orcs use to resolve disputes. Surely the fair folk of the dale will see orcs as evil when they receive the heads of their loved ones who lost in their arena, but what about the orcs who see the unrelenting encroachment by people who have no respect for their customs or way of life as evil?
Should the players be encouraged to take the modernist view that technological refinement and strong government control are the evolutionary peak, and all others are less evolved? This would appear to be the default position from which the moral philosophies in D&D are often oriented, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain such views in light of real world struggles that call attention to the flaws in this position.
I would then argue that moral relativism is increasingly important at the gaming table, as players find themselves confronting situations where the western archetype paladin in the group is considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, while the tribal orc paladin in the group is also considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, even though both paladins see the other's evil as their good.
I think a really good example of this is the TV show Supernatural. It started out as a monster of the week action drama about 2 brothers who were protecting the good people from the evil monsters (many of which happened to be gods or spirits of earlier tribal people), and it gradually started exploring deeper issues about who has the right to exist and why, as well as responsibility for the lives of others (paternalism), and ultimately how far one can go in defense of their morals before they become monsters themselves. It also did a good job of reflecting the very real phenomena of moral beliefs versus actual behavior. What philosophical path one claims to adhere to often fails to become actualized when loss is involved. Humans are generally loss averse, and will often violate their beliefs to avoid a painful loss (though they usually manage to justify it to themselves).

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm not so sure this should be dismissed as irrelevant at the gaming table, especially in light of newer takes on race as lineage and seeing monsters who have distinct cultures as something other than monsters. The argument about eating babies is an extreme one (though still a possible scenario), so it is true that something to that level may not come up at the table (though with my players you never know). That said, there are more common examples where this is important.
For example, there is growing discussion about when it is acceptable to kill a creature normally seen as a monster in D&D. Should a Paladin be considered good aligned (ugh, alignments) after killing a village full of Orcs? Orcs have complex societies, self-awareness, and are increasingly staple PC options, but have been depicted throughout the history of D&D as Evil. This is usually because they have shorter life cycles that are governed by a might makes right style that clashes with the more bureaucratic style of problem solving that the more traditional (read western culture inspired) races such as humans and elves prefer. Thus a border dispute between the indigenous orcs and the colonizing folk of the dale may see a delegation sent to negotiate become combatants in a gladiatorial arena that orcs use to resolve disputes. Surely the fair folk of the dale will see orcs as evil when they receive the heads of their loved ones who lost in their arena, but what about the orcs who see the unrelenting encroachment by people who have no respect for their customs or way of life as evil?
Should the players be encouraged to take the modernist view that technological refinement and strong government control are the evolutionary peak, and all others are less evolved? This would appear to be the default position from which the moral philosophies in D&D are often oriented, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain such views in light of real world struggles that call attention to the flaws in this position.
I would then argue that moral relativism is increasingly important at the gaming table, as players find themselves confronting situations where the western archetype paladin in the group is considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, while the tribal orc paladin in the group is also considered good for killing those deemed evil by the powers that be, even though both paladins see the other's evil as their good.
I think a really good example of this is the TV show Supernatural. It started out as a monster of the week action drama about 2 brothers who were protecting the good people from the evil monsters (many of which happened to be gods or spirits of earlier tribal people), and it gradually started exploring deeper issues about who has the right to exist and why, as well as responsibility for the lives of others (paternalism), and ultimately how far one can go in defense of their morals before they become monsters themselves. It also did a good job of reflecting the very real phenomena of moral beliefs versus actual behavior. What philosophical path one claims to adhere to often fails to become actualized when loss is involved. Humans are generally loss averse, and will often violate their beliefs to avoid a painful loss (though they usually manage to justify it to themselves).

It is, absolutely, a significant moral quandry that I briefly alluded to in the OP. But much less likely to come up at the gaming table for three core reasons.

1) Players are generally speaking more progressive than D&D itself and it's owners, and thus have been moving away from "All X are Evil" as an "Appropriate" position.
2) Players at a table are going to have an idea of where their comfort is as regards the cultural differences between societies and where their ultimate personal morality sits on the more extreme instances.
3) Players can be given the information required to question their beliefs without the need of moral relativism as an explicit viewpoint.

In short: A Deontologist does not need a Moral Relativist to show them how a culture bonds or supports each other in a different way is just as valid as the method that they bond with their own culture. And must decide for themself just how far they're willing to accept cultural differences.