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

[overgeeked]

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.

That's the difference between how stoicism is used in mainstream culture vs Stoicism the ancient Greek philosophy of life.

Mainstream culture sees and uses stoicism to mean the taciturn, non-emotive tough guy stereotype that patriarchal society pushes on men. But that's a far cry from philosophical Stoicism. The mainstream is a watered down caricature of the philosophy. The philosophy is about virtue, reason, the dichotomy of control (knowing the difference between what you can control and what you cannot), and coming to terms with the ramifications of those, i.e. letting go of trying to control things that are beyond your control. Stoicism the philosophy isn't about not expressing emotions, it's (at least in part) about not letting emotions control you. It may be too subtle of a distinction for some, but it's a distinction that makes a difference.

To quote Massimo Pigliucci, a modern stoic philosopher, as he describes Stoic philosophy: "Briefly, their notion of morality is stern, involving a life in accordance with nature and controlled by virtue. It is an ascetic system, teaching perfect indifference (apathea) to everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant."

 

[Steampunkette]

That's the difference between how stoicism is used in mainstream culture vs Stoicism the ancient Greek philosophy of life.

Mainstream culture sees and uses stoicism to mean the taciturn, non-emotive tough guy stereotype that patriarchal society pushes on men. But that's a far cry from philosophical Stoicism. The mainstream is a watered down caricature of the philosophy. The philosophy is about virtue, reason, the dichotomy of control (knowing the difference between what you can control and what you cannot), and coming to terms with the ramifications of those, i.e. letting go of trying to control things that are beyond your control. Stoicism the philosophy isn't about not expressing emotions, it's (at least in part) about not letting emotions control you. It may be too subtle of a distinction for some, but it's a distinction that makes a difference.

To quote Massimo Pigliucci, a modern stoic philosopher, as he describes Stoic philosophy: "Briefly, their notion of morality is stern, involving a life in accordance with nature and controlled by virtue. It is an ascetic system, teaching perfect indifference (apathea) to everything external, for nothing external could be either good or evil. Hence to the Stoics both pain and pleasure, poverty and riches, sickness and health, were supposed to be equally unimportant."

Well sure.

But you're not liable to meet a character in your D&D game who is a classical stoicist. And if you did?

Woe betide to any attempt at motivation. While ostensibly guided by Virtues, the stoicist will give you no hint of their intentions until their decision is made.

 

[Voadam]

That said, D&D and other TTRPGs can offer a great instance of revealed preferences. In other words, people often say that they might act a certain way, but (perhaps either "in character" or as a thinly-veiled version of themselves) you can see how people would handle situations that would not normally occur in real life.

There can be an aspect of this, but D&D can also be conscious roleplaying explorations of non-self. Roleplay can be a deliberate choice to go against your preferences for how you would react in real life. A good person who would help others in real life can roleplay a bad guy who would not in the imaginative space of the game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There can be an aspect of this, but D&D can also be conscious roleplaying explorations of non-self. Roleplay can be a deliberate choice to go against your preferences for how you would react in real life. A good person who would help others in real life can roleplay a bad guy who would not in the imaginative space of the game.

Next paragraph:

Arguably, you can discount some of it, given that the stakes are not real, people might be roleplaying, and people might be reacting to in-game incentives rather than thinking through the issue. But even so, it is often interesting to see how people treat certain problems within the TTRPG context.

I think that there is a separate, and also interesting, discussion as to how most people choose to imagine "the other" and what their depiction of "the other" really is saying about them, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"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."

I think that is a very recent- and still very debatably true - assertion

 

[Mind of tempest]

Next paragraph:

Arguably, you can discount some of it, given that the stakes are not real, people might be roleplaying, and people might be reacting to in-game incentives rather than thinking through the issue. But even so, it is often interesting to see how people treat certain problems within the TTRPG context.

I think that there is a separate, and also interesting, discussion as to how most people choose to imagine "the other" and what their depiction of "the other" really is saying about them, but that's neither here nor there.

can you elaborate on this other point?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

can you elaborate on this other point?

There are those that can truly inhabit the "role" of another (think of great actors). There are those with uncanny powers of empathy.

But the majority of people that are roleplaying (assuming that they are, in fact, truly engaging in roleplaying) are not fully inhabiting a character other than themselves (the "other"), but are, instead, acting as what they imagine the other to be. Which often says more about the person roleplaying than it does about the imagined "other."

If that's too abstract, I will put it more concretely. We are all stuck within ourselves, and it is certainly beneficial to imagine the inner lives of others. That said, we do not live those inner lives. Therefore, when roleplaying, we are acting out in ways that we think that "the other" of our imagination would act. More simply, the way a person acts out "evil," or "selfish," will often say more about what the individual roleplaying views as "evil" or "selfish" than it does about what some actual other person would really do.

 

[Mind of tempest]

There are those that can truly inhabit the "role" of another (think of great actors). There are those with uncanny powers of empathy.

But the majority of people that are roleplaying (assuming that they are, in fact, truly engaging in roleplaying) are not fully inhabiting a character other than themselves (the "other"), but are, instead, acting as what they imagine the other to be. Which often says more about the person roleplaying than it does about the imagined "other."

If that's too abstract, I will put it more concretely. We are all stuck within ourselves, and it is certainly beneficial to imagine the inner lives of others. That said, we do not live those inner lives. Therefore, when roleplaying, we are acting out in ways that we think that "the other" of our imagination would act. More simply, the way a person acts out "evil," or "selfish," will often say more about what the individual roleplaying views as "evil" or "selfish" than it does about what some actual other person would really do.

ah, I get you, this would explain why I am terrible at RP as I see my self, not as a person but as a function.

 

[Steampunkette]

"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."

I think that is a very recent- and still very debatably true - assertion

I dunno... The bar was set VERY LOW in the start.

I think the earliest purchasers of the Blue Box and such were more progressive than Gygax, Arnesen, and TSR as a whole. Simply because they were younger than their forebearers.

Same thing when AD&D came around. People were already complaining about how "All Drow are Evil", for example. Same thing with Orcs. S'why we wound up with Half-Orcs as a playable race real fast in '78, before I was even born.

And when WotC bought out D&D and started in on 3e, they were marketing the game to teenagers, who were even younger than they were.

Same with 4e, and now 5e.

Granted, some of the Grognards and Elder Players are still waaaaay less progressive than current WotC, which is way less progressive than the younger generation...

But there are more D&D players, now, than there have ever been. And most of them are much younger and much more progressive than their elders.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Same thing when AD&D came around. People were already complaining about how "All Drow are Evil", for example. Same thing with Orcs. S'why we wound up with Half-Orcs as a playable race real fast in '78, before I was even born.

Half-orcs came from Tolkien.

If you look back into the Monster Manual and PHB, you will see that the origin story of the original half-orc is better left ... unstated.