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

[Pedantic]

I've argued before that the primary fantasy of D&D is that violence is both generally effective, and generally sanctified. It presents a plane where you really can make the world better by applying a sword to it. Moreover, it specifically celebrates individuals wielding power, violent and otherwise.

The appeal of the genre is the directness and simplicity of how problems are solved.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not every pillar requires the same amount of mechanics

no they don't, but they could at least try to pretend they're presenting them as somewhat equal.

 

[soviet]

Combat in D&D is a heavily defined way of resolving conflicts with finality. Noncombat in D&D is often very loosely defined and subject to GM whim and so cannot be relied on. I've definitely been there where a GM has ruled that a particular NPC simply cannot be intimidated, even though we all see very clearly that I will win that fight every time. 'A fight to the death it is then, sorry for wasting everyone's time by trying a different way'.

 

[Scribe]

I've argued before that the primary fantasy of D&D is that violence is both generally effective, and generally sanctified. It presents a plane where you really can make the world better by applying a sword to it. Moreover, it specifically celebrates individuals wielding power, violent and otherwise.

The appeal of the genre is the directness and simplicity of how problems are solved.

Exactly.

If I couldnt play a Paladin judging evil and smiting the wicked, what is the point?
If I couldnt play a Barbarian kicking in doors, and smashing face, what is the point?

I can be an adult and have to deal with nuanced idiocy all day, indeed, I must.

Where can I got to take a big axe to my 'problems'? D&D.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've argued before that the primary fantasy of D&D is that violence is both generally effective, and generally sanctified. It presents a plane where you really can make the world better by applying a sword to it. Moreover, it specifically celebrates individuals wielding power, violent and otherwise.

The appeal of the genre is the directness and simplicity of how problems are solved.

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.

 

[Clint_L]

I may have previously mentioned that I run games for beginners at my school's D&D Club.

The reason I endlessly bring it up, is because playing D&D with students constantly forces me to reckon, in a professional capacity, with many aspects of the game that...eh, I didn't think too hard about when playing with my friends. Certainly not when I was a teenager myself, but even as an adult. Like, I was aware of the issues Snarff raises, and found them abstractly interesting, but I didn't sweat them.

But now I don't have that luxury. I am governed by the School Act of British Columbia, which includes a raft of ethical obligations with professional and potentially legal consequences attached. I can get fired for getting it wrong. So I have to think long and hard about what will be included in games I run at school, just as I do about the content I will teach or whether it's a good idea to bootleg for a student who saw me going into a liquor store (this actually happened; he thought it would be really cool of me).

So, violence in D&D. Sexy stuff can happen in D&D, but that is easy to handle: in my school games, it basically doesn't exist. I tell my students "PG rating" and they have no trouble understanding that this means. No bewbs.

But, as Snarff points out, we have a HIGH tolerance for violence in entertainment. Particularly in North America (incidentally, we just got back from Europe and they think we are really weird about this. People go topless at the drop of a, well, top, and don't sweat sexy content much at all.*** But they regulate violent content much more strictly than we do, especially for children. I am pretty sure that they have it right).

So we have to set out what that PG rating means in the context of violence as depicted in a Victoria, BC High School D&D game where students are roleplaying violent people. What we've settled on is that killing people in the context of the game is okay, but the descriptions can't be too gory, and we're not roleplaying sadistic violence. This is kinda lame, TBH. When my kid played in home games in his earlier teens, he delighted in describing finishing blows in the most cartoonishly exaggerated ways imaginable, and it was hilarious. But, yeah, school. We can't do that.

So, professionally, I have ruled that solving conflict through murderous violence is totally acceptable in the context of a D&D game, as long as you don't get too visual, and everyone seems pretty cool with it. No complaints. And believe you me, if you screw up and parents hear about it, you get complaints.

However, we don't use alignment as part of the game. And that is partially because I want students to at least have to consider whether any particular act of violence is justified.**** And this very much does change how the game is played. When a group of orcs might include some children and furthermore have a pretty good reason to have turned to raiding because they have been pushed to the margins of an expanding nation state, then just killing the orcs to get the treasure is problematic. Our last campaign wound up with the party allying with a group of pirates that they were initially hired to hunt, and then helping them take down a much more wicked group of pirates.

TLDR: Violence in entertainment is pretty universal, and I don't think it's automatically a problem. I mean, I'm a lifelong pro wrestling fan. People can distinguish between reality and fiction. But there have to be lines, and those lines depend on context. I do think getting rid of alignment makes decisions about violence a lot more interesting.

***Like, we were at Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, which is the theme park that Disney copied and supersized, and there is a poster of a cartoon topless woman enticing you to go to a bar right next to the play area for tots. I could post a photo, but forum rules. Note that if it was a poster of a cartoon decapitated body, I'm pretty sure I could post it. See, we are weird about these things.

****But mostly because I think the alignment system is strange and weird and does nothing for the story in general.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Further Snarf sayeth naught.

Snarf lies.

Spoiler

B2 (Keep on the Borderlands) is a classic of D&D history, and a well-known module. I am reasonably certain that Gygax had no political intent in writing the module. I am reasonably certain that most of the people who went through the module (especially at the time) didn't think that there was anything political about it. And yet ... it is intensely political, in the way that it reflect a particular ideology of the time (blah blah semiotics blah blah Barthes' Mythologies etc.).

To start with, the very concept of D&D at that time was rooted in American exceptionalism and myths of the Old West; yes, it had the additional trappings of fantasy, but fundamentally it was borne from the Western, and from a generation of adults that grew up on that genre. The saloon becomes the inn. The adventurers are the gunslingers. Authority is weak or absent. Power is achieved through violence and can only be countered with violence; both good and evil are simply manifestations of that violent impulse. Every problem has a simple, easy-to-understand solution; and that solution is to kill the problem.

B2 makes this more explicit- while some liken it to generic "colonialism," it is actually much closer to a fantasy re-imagining of the old Western trope- you have a stockade in the wilderness, and there are "savages" (ugh) that threaten the march of civilization. Again, this isn't just an adventure, this is the assumption that there is a worldview that is reflected in the adventure. Civilization is good. Violence is appropriate and necessary against others that keep you from expansion. If you look at the Gygax quote that started this thread, you know that while there was no intent to put this in, he obviously reflected the influences that he had.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes that cigar is a pe... um, something else.

 

[Clint_L]

Its a game. It shaped me. It did not make me devalue humans or animals after decades of play. There is no literature suggesting that D&D contributes any unique variance to violent behavior or psychopathology.

I love your whole post. But, hooo boy as I'm sure you know, there are OPINIONS about the relationship between violent media and violent behaviour. And research. Soooo much research. Which remains extremely difficult to interpret, at least in terms of coming to strong conclusions about specific violent acts. Certainly it has long been known that watching and engaging in violent entertainment does strongly correlate with more aggressive behaviour in the immediate aftermath, though typically this is tested against inanimate objects in lab experiments (c.f. bobo doll et al). There is some statistical evidence similarly suggesting a short term behavioural tendency towards aggressive behaviour after experiencing violent entertainment, including some types of sporting events, and especially with younger males operating in large groups.

I am not aware of any research suggesting such a correlation between D&D and violence, specifically, and I'd be surprised if there was such a correlation as violence in D&D is highly abstract by comparison to, say, a movie. I also note that violent games, including hyper violent video games, are extremely popular in some cultures that have extremely low rates of violent crime (i.e. Japan).

While I agree with the conclusion that there not likely a link between playing D&D and violent behaviour, I can guarantee that there is plenty of research that could be interpreted to imply such a link, especially if someone has an agenda.

 

[MGibster]

This is exactly what I feel is going to happen over the next 25 years or so. Over time each 'bad guy' activity/motivation has become more and more unacceptable to include, because if you do include it (even as something specifically evil for the heroes to fight against and prevent) it's taken as supporting that evil.

I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happen yet. There are many things a lot of people don't want in D&D because it can't be treated with the gravity it deserves or it might inflict trauma on players, but somehow violence isn't one of those things. And that really seems wild to me. The argument I've heard is that it's unlikely a player ever had to deal with orcs attacking their village, which is fair, but here in the United States how many people have been affected by violence one way or another? Something like 95% of all schools here in the US have active shooter drills. If you've graduated from high school in the last decade there's a good chance you remember active shooter drills like I remember tornado or fire drills.

 

[bloodtide]

Humans need metal action: stimulating mental activity that enables the person to work towards a direct goal. Most of the average humans before the 20th century got this from life: just staying alive. This really started to change in the West about 1950 with modern progressive civilization and it has been snowballing on and on.

As civilization took over, with it's One Way of life...there was less and less action for people to do. Some turned to the Approved by the Establishment things like puzzles(crosswords), stratagem games(like chess) and the big one: Sports.

Of course....not everyone can play sports. You need a level of physical fitness. You need people to play with and/or a team, and there simply are not enough people. And not enough people that want too. and worst of all, many sports are gate-kept by high expensive costs.

So this leaves a huge bunch of non-sports people, with no outlet for stimulating mental activity. Until, into the Void, came a new sort of game. A game overflowing with, at least the idea, of stimulating mental activity. And it was a hit.

Of course, video games came along a couple years later...and really, really, really hit the X. And still do....

And for RPGs it's not really "violence or killing": it's Action. You are reducing 'stats' to zero and doing a goal. Very game like. Sure you can add lost of simulated reality to the game, but that does not change the game play.

(and human society is built and maintained on violence/killing, so of course it is in our games)