D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Deset Gled]

Ignoring a lot of the discussion and just throwing in my own random thoughts about the TTRPG community:

In recent times, I often see references to slavery in RPGs as if it's the pinnacle of evil acts. Lots of games/modules, particularly from WotC, have been heavily criticized about the subject. I have always found this odd, considering the murderous nature of the game. Clearly, my moral relativism compass is not matching a lot of the internet.

Lots of people seem to think "self defense" is a good justification for murderous actions in RPGs. But I also think this opinion is based off the most Hollywood courtroom ever. Such claims often have little to do with what "self defense" means in the real world

GTA6 is expected to be released in fall 2025.

 

[Pedantic]

In recent times, I often see references to slavery in RPGs as if it's the pinnacle of evil acts. Lots of games/modules, particularly from WotC, have been heavily criticized about the subject. I have always found this odd, considering the murderous nature of the game. Clearly, my moral relativism compass is not matching a lot of the internet.

That's a weird side effect of sanctifying violence. You're more likely to find players with moral objections to mind control magic than to threats of death/bodily harm.

 

[Deset Gled]

That's a weird side effect of sanctifying violence. You're more likely to find players with moral objections to mind control magic than to threats of death/bodily harm.

Which, in turn, is even weirder if you consider the modern forms of mind control we interact with on a daily basis in the form of constant high-tech marketing (and the old adages about the differences between sci-fi and fantasy).

 

[Clint_L]

In the table top war gaming community we'd call it a skirmish level war game. It's an adventure game, sure. An adventure game with a strong focus on kicking down doors, killing absolutely everything in the room, and looting their bodies.

Well, it can be.

You could also be describing Munchkin.

 

[MGibster]

You could also be describing Munchkin.

Sure. Munckin being a parody of the type of fantasy gaming pioneered by D&D.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure. Munckin being a parody of the type of fantasy gaming pioneered by D&D.

So what you were describing was a parody of D&D? Because you literally described the core mechanics of Munchkin.

If the parody is the same, is it still a parody?

 

[MarkB]

So what you were describing was a parody of D&D? Because you literally described the core mechanics of Munchkin.

If the parody is the same, is it still a parody?

Pretty much, yeah. A parody is basically just taking the original and heightening certain aspects as commentary and/or comedy. If those aspects weren't already strongly present in the original, it wouldn't be a parody.

 

[Staffan]

At least for as long as I've been playing D&D, we weren't attacking bandits, goblins, orcs, or any other creature because we wanted to take their stuff. We were attacking them because those bandits, goblins, and orcs were attacking people. i.e. They were a threat to surrounding communities and our characters were tasked with taking care of the problem. We were supposed to be the good guys.

But why are the bandits/goblins/orcs attacking people? Just doing it for the evulz? Or is it because the expansion of so-called civilization has pushed them away from their traditional lands into lands of less abundance, and they both want their original lands back and need to raid to feed their families?

And as for bandits... one of the neatest storylines in World of Warcraft is about bandits. In the starting human zones, you'll find the Defias bandit band, who are extorting and robbing folks right and left (and for some reason the authorities are kind of leaving it up to the affected people to solve it, for reasons that will be made clear later). But it turns out that these bandits started out as the Stonemason's Guild of Stormwind, and turned to banditry after having rebuilt large portions of Stormwind after the big war, and then being told by the House of Nobles that they weren't getting paid for it because they should have done it out of civic pride or some such BS. Does that justify them turning to banditry, and stealing from commoners? No, but they definitely have a heck of a legit grievance against the powers that be.

 

[Malmuria]

Kinda like ... oh, what is that genre that was really popular when the creators of D&D were growing up?

Classic D&D (and I use the term loosely) is an American mythic western transposed into a vaguely pan-European historical setting that never existed, but largely mirroring a time period of roughly 500 A.D. through 1760 A.D., but inclusive of other elements.

Further Snarf sayeth naught.

This context is probably what makes me most uncomfortable about dnd violence. It's not necessarily the violence as such, since violence in games is often just a metaphor for conflict in general, a way of concretizing overcoming an obstacle (think violence in even a cartoonish video games, like Mario).

But the specific context for a lot of dnd implied worldbuilding is the American frontier, which is, not to put too fine a point on it, a landscape of genocide. It's all fun and games until you realize you are playing fantasy Blood Meridian. But Gygax and co. were very transparently modeling their fantasy worlds on this context, and it shows in the presumptions of their adventure modules (B2 being the textbook example of this). If you take playing a role in a role playing game seriously, even a little bit, it becomes a very uncomfortable thing to confront.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Which, in turn, is even weirder if you consider the modern forms of mind control we interact with on a daily basis in the form of constant high-tech marketing (and the old adages about the differences between sci-fi and fantasy).

I agree with everything you say. But I won't write anything about it myself, since the last time I discussed the slavery vs murder morality I got banned