Are lessons learned through D&D?

[Celebrim]

This is an extremely complex question and one that I've always been intensely interested in. I don't have any complete and wholly satisfactory answers to it, and most of my experience is nothing more than ancedotal evidence.

As best as I can tell, to a large extent what you learn from playing D&D depends very much on your own moral character to begin with. Some people are more deeply effected by it than others.

I've seen all sorts of people have all sorts of moral responces to the game. A very large percentage of the people I've met do not either do not feel comfortable playing or are mentally unable to play a character whose moral compass is very different than there own. I've known 'good' people who are too sensitive to play anything but good charactes, 'chaotic' people who are too rebelious to play anything but chaotic characters, 'lawful' people who are too honorable to play anything but lawful people, 'evil' people who are well too malicious to play anything but evil, and 'neutral' people whose characters never seem to have a moral compass.

I've even known DM's whose villians possessed moral greyness, or were complicatedly 'good guys' themselves, in a large part because I think that DM was too sensitive to play a truly vile character even as an NPC.

In general, exposure to the game does nothing in particular to change the beliefs of any of those people. A 'good' person doesn't turn into a monster by playing D&D, nor does an 'evil' person suddenly become compassionate and heroic. For one thing, they usually don't 'practice' anything else in game terms.

I've also seen exactly the opposite. I've seen intencely compassionate people experiment with a cruel and capracious character, and I've seen self-absorbed people play self-sacrificing heroes. Generally, this seems to be most what we would call 'fantasy' in the since of day dreaming. One of the most interesting role playing experiences I have ever had was when a very honor bound individual decided to well.... relax is I guess the best word... by playing a character who had no constrictions at all. In general, the player retained his preference for lawful characters (the player would have made a great Sturm Brightblade), but his experimental rouge became a very memorable character and one of I think his and the DM's favorite PC's.

So, one of my first observations about gamers is that they play a character who has an alignment very like thier own or else exactly the opposite. A person who is 'LG' (subjectively speaking and to whatever extent we can apply alignments to real people) or who considers themselves 'LG', generally experiments first with 'LG' or some closely aligned aligment, or 'CE' or some close equivalent. Players tend to keep these preferences for very long times.

However, there are some players I've met who did seem to have moral compasses that were in some way molded by the game that they played. Some people I've met I wouldn't have felt comfortable playing particularly 'vile' campaigns with (not that I myself feel comfortable running such a thing), because there seemed to be some submerged element which it would not be good to feed in that person. To a certain extent, I confess that I consider myself to be one of those people, and there are certain nameless subjects which I do not think it would be wise for me to indulge even in fantasy. For those of you that have seen 'A Beautiful Mind', perhaps you can understand a bit about what I'm talking about.

I do really believe that we can make monsters of ourselves by fantasizing about being monsters or some other unhealthy thing for too long. Stare into the abyss for too long, and the abyss will stare back at you.

So, I for one would be very hesistant about who I would allow to referee my children, for instance. Children as a group seem to be most impressionable, most likely to use play as practice for a real event, and the real danger I can see from roleplaying is repeatedly practicing behavior in a world whose moral compass points in directions very different from that of the real world. If moral behavior in that world is immoral behavior in this one, I fear that some people may forget what is moral and what is not, or may be taught badly how to act in moral situations. I generally depise campaigns in which thier are no repurcusions for immoral behavior, or which don't deal with the moral complexity of killing intelligent beings (say Orcs) because of this.

I'm not entirely sure RPG's are any more dangerous than any other kind of fantasy life in this regard. For instance, I feel more comfortable with someone learning how to engage in social interaction from playing an RPG than I do from them learning how to engage in social interaction by watching the average soap opera. However, since I've known a great many RPG players with Asperger's syndrome or borderline behavior, or who are intensely introverted, or who are otherwise unsocialized it is something I watch. On the whole though, I find RPG's to be extremely helpful therapy for such people.

I realize it is just a game. I too laugh at Jack Chick and his crowd of apocalyptic superstitious pyschos. But just because it is a game does not mean that it isn't also something more than 'mere' entertainment. By all means make the game fun, but I can't help but consider that prior to say 1980 if you looked in a dictionairy under 'role play' you would find a definition that had to do with a form of psychotherapy, and you would still find such behavoir practiced as therapy today. And I might add, some probably find it quite therapeutic and clinical. For my part, I'm inclined to laugh at pschotheraphists as misguided fools, and consider Freud to be the worst scientist since Aristotle, but I do think the RPG community would do good to consider every once in a while that it is quite possible to look at RPG's as a group of amateurs performing psychotherapy on each other.

 

[Celebrim]

mkletch: Even though I hear some disonnances in it that I think may have to do with you own inability to reconcile all the complex things you believe, your post carries a ring of truth in my ears. I think your post is well considered and appropriately complex, and I think I understand what you are saying - though I haven't yet figured out a way to answer or to say it better than you yourself did.

(In other words, excellent post).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Interesting reply Bendris, thanks. In-game I wouldn't make any distinction between the evilness of raping an NPC or a PC, out of game the latter is clearly less acceptable in the same way as intra-party killings are less acceptable than killing monsters. But both (raping NPCs, raping PCs) are equally evil from the campaign universe's POV when assigning Alignment, IMO.

I think you've mistaken my reply... None of the PCs have commited rape.

A few of the NPCs have, although I've kept it "behind the screen" for the most part since the commanders (one of whom is a PC) tend to punish for it. I simply note which NPC, which victim, and determine any possible outcomes (vendetta's, complaints to the officers, etc.).

 

[SemperJase]

mkletch:

(In other words, excellent post).

I disagree. His allusion to a Biblical verse is used as proof that a diverse moral view is wisdom, when in fact the specific verse he refers to actually claims that a narrow moral view is wisdom.

(Please, I'm not debating whether the verse itself is true. I am just pointing out he used it contrary to its purpose).

 

[Tsyr]

I disagree. His allusion to a Biblical verse is used as proof that a diverse moral view is wisdom, when in fact the specific verse he refers to actually claims that a narrow moral view is wisdom.

(Please, I'm not debating whether the verse itself is true. I am just pointing out he used it contrary to its purpose).

Or, possibly, you could look beyond three words used as a pithy quote at the end of an otherwise exelent post... Not choose to (evidently) discredit the entire post because of those formentioned three words.

 

[mkletch]

OK, so you are saying that people have built a house on sand (i.e. they are foolish) if they view the world only through western culture based on certain religious beliefs.

Western culture and certain western belief systems cannot fully explain the world we live in and the actions/desires/fears of those who live in that world. It may be reasonably successful with things/people in western culture, but it is by definition limited. If D&D is built from the same foundation, it will have the same limitations.

Do you realize that very saying comes from the religious belief that states it is wisdom to view the world that way? According to the reference it is actually foolish to view morals any other way than on those western religious beliefs.

The fact that the saying now means something different, or is applicable against that which it in former times it supported should be an uncomfortable revelation. I did not intend it that way and will attempt to sympathize.

I think what he's saying, SJ, is that DnD uses almost exclusivly a very simplified western outlook on things. There are things that are considered OK in western culture that are "bad" or "evil" in others, and vis versa. Thus, saying that (for example) playing a paladin is a "good" is sorta over-simplifiying the situation, when the definition of good and evil isn't even universal (Well, the concept more or less is. The actual details thereof, however, are not).

Bingo. Then again, Tsyr, we held a similar opinion before, so you were not my 'target audience'. Preaching to the choir, I am.

There is another discussion on these boards about lawful and chaotic societies. It very much parallels this one, except it is getting less traffic since 'evil' is apparently more interesting to talk about. In any case, we have the same situation here. How to compare good and evil when nobody can agree on what they mean. Philosophers have wrestled with it for millennia. Perhaps it is the fact that we discuss it that is important.

I had a discussion/argument with a gaming buddy for over a month via email concerning a particular female paladin in his camaign whose paladinhood he threatened to revoke because she flirted with some random NPC. He had his head so stuffed up into his medieval, western, JC position, and could not recognize that many of those belifes were suspended by the fact he was playing in a game where:

1) women are equal to men in most cultures, or even superior to men in some cultures,
2) good and evil are not virtues but tangible things (i.e. a holy or unholy sword), and
3) the characters lived in a polytheistic and polydeistic scenario of his own design.

Basically, he wanted this paladin to be played like the stereotypical, cartoonish "stupidpaladin" of 1st and 2nd edition, medieval chivalry and everything. OK, how much sense does it make for this female paladin to be laying down her cloak so that a lady can cross a puddle over it? One visible crack, and you should probably check the whole mold. The mold was in bad shape, but it was his mold, and he refused to consider any other. For that and a couple dozen other reasons, the campaign fell apart and my wife started a new one.

Even the slightest touch of a real world example would not sway him: the crusades. Christian and Muslim, both considered themselves 'good' (though both positions are dubious from their behavior from our 20th century perspective). Both sides have paladins. Both sides have paladins hacking at each other with holy swords because of cultural and very minor religious differences. This should make it pretty clear that the western way is not correct by default, and that culture plays a major part in any discussion of good, chaos, evil or law, or even in the definition of neutrality.

Back to the topic, what have I leaned from playing D&D? Only this:

That without a precisely defined frame of reference, no question, or answer to that question is valid in any way.

OK, a degree in physics with tons of math helped to set that perspective as well, but it was not translated beyond the theoretical until gaming after college. Though I've gamed since 4th grade, I never considered the weighty, philosophical issues we discuss today until I had to get a job and earn a living.

-Fletch!

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Even the slightest touch of a real world example would not sway him: the crusades. Christian and Muslim, both considered themselves 'good' (though both positions are dubious from their behavior from our 20th century perspective). Both sides have paladins. Both sides have paladins hacking at each other with holy swords because of cultural and very minor religious differences. This should make it pretty clear that the western way is not correct by default, and that culture plays a major part in any discussion of good, chaos, evil or law, or even in the definition of neutrality.

Whatever else the crusades may be, they are not "the slightest touch of a real-world example." They're more like a sledgehammer regularly used to bludgeon whoever people don't agree with.

The characterization of both sides as having paladins is certainly open to debate as well. The Knights Templar might be considered paladins by some but I'm not aware of any similar semi-monastic tradition among muslim countries. The closest thing I can think of is the Assassins and they certainly aren't obvious examples of paladins.

The characterization of the religious differences between Christianity and Islam as minor is something that only someone who believes in neither could say. Despite the obvious similarities between the belief systems, the differences go to the core of both religions--the nature of God, the content of scripture, the role and nature of Jesus, and the means of salvation. To categorize such things as minor is like saying that the difference between geocentric and Copernican astronomy is minor. (Only if astronomy is irrelevant to you).

Cultural differences, of course also played a significant part in the crusades--as did national defense. In no way, however, would that prove your thesis: that the nature of good and evil are relative. Your example is ultimately circular: it only supports your case if you assume the truth of your case to begin with. After all, someone who does not accept your thesis that good and evil exist only relative to culture could very well say that there was clearly evil on both sides of the wars--whether or not they saw it as good. Believing yourself to be good doesn't make you good. Otherwise, we'd probably have to canonize some National Socialists and Stalinists.

A lot of how D&D developed represents only a western philosophy of good, evil, order and chaos. D&D actually puts way too much stress on alignment in general and the good-evil axis in particular. "Hey, that's evil. I blast it." Yeah, that is a moral compass. If you consider the definition of evil in the PHB to be the extreme, it gives a little more room. Evil should even include supporting or not opposing 'really evil' stuff, not just the act itself. There are whole societies and cultures on our very own earth that could then be classified as evil.

This is probably a fair criticism of a simple-minded reading of the PH's alignment descriptions. That this could classify whole societies and cultures as evil in a game world is not a problem. (Most fantasy worlds do include evil societies). Like many others, I don't really have a problem with applying good and evil to real life either--which is the reason for the previous discussion. If that means that some cultures and societies are largely shaped by evil then they're largely shaped by evil.

 

[S'mon]

I think you've mistaken my reply... None of the PCs have commited rape.

A few of the NPCs have, although I've kept it "behind the screen" for the most part since the commanders (one of whom is a PC) tend to punish for it. I simply note which NPC, which victim, and determine any possible outcomes (vendetta's, complaints to the officers, etc.).

OK - I get the impression your PCs lie somewhere between N and LE on my compass; I've seen PCs do these things while claiming to be LN!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Lawful Neutral would fit the bill, as well. The important thing to consider is where such things fit on the Great Wheel. The justification of such acts by necessity and duty is a distinct quality of Acheron more than any other plane. The deciding factor, then, between the character being Lawful Evil and Lawful Neutral would be whether or not the character actually enjoys such tasks.

In the case of this party, it's a 2-to-1 split, favoring Lawful Evil.

 

[mkletch]

The characterization of both sides as having paladins is certainly open to debate as well. The Knights Templar might be considered paladins by some but I'm not aware of any similar semi-monastic tradition among muslim countries. The closest thing I can think of is the Assassins and they certainly aren't obvious examples of paladins.

You are implying that:
1) the only pious (again, a relative term) warriors that could be referred to as Paladins, in the 3E sense of a holy warrior, were on the western side 2) Paladins in 3E have to be part of some order or organization with a monastic tradition. The former is arrogant and misguided, and the latter is clearly wrong according to the PHB. In any case, a similar argument could apply to the Arabs fighting the Persians, the Chinese fighting the Mongols, the Spanish fighting the Moors, the Mayans fighting each other, or the English fighting the French. The role of the Paladin is in no way defined to exclude religions outside the JC tradition. In FR, you can paladins of the effectively Egyptian gods. In any case, a paladin or cleric in 3E goes against the JC tradition by serving some other god.

The characterization of the religious differences between Christianity and Islam as minor is something that only someone who believes in neither could say.

You have nothing to base that on except perhaps your own narrow definitions and perceptions. There are are some variants of Christianity that deny any shred of Thruth in the others. We must have a similar wall between us...

Despite the obvious similarities between the belief systems, the differences go to the core of both religions--the nature of God, the content of scripture, the role and nature of Jesus, and the means of salvation.

You're getting into the qualities of particular religion, and that will get the whole thread bashed. Let's just say that C looks at J as a cousin religion, and I looks at C and J as cousin religions. They come from the same 'root', and are obviously similar in a great many respects. But, as a rule, each as a religion (not individuals) despises the one(s) that came after, for whatever reason. If you disagree with that, you are choosing to see what you will, not the way it is.

Cultural differences, of course also played a significant part in the crusades--as did national defense. In no way, however, would that prove your thesis: that the nature of good and evil are relative. Your example is ultimately circular: it only supports your case if you assume the truth of your case to begin with. After all, someone who does not accept your thesis that good and evil exist only relative to culture could very well say that there was clearly evil on both sides of the wars--whether or not they saw it as good.

National defense was in no way involved. It's not like the Musilms were banging on the gates of London, Paris or Rome, or had threatened to do so. Arab-Muslim expansion was largely at an end.

My thesis is that you cannot come up with a definition of absolute good or evil. Show me that definition, and I will certainly consider it. I will go so far as to accept that, if you define one, the the other is everything not in the other. Different cultures approach this question from different angles, and arrive at different results. If you get different answers that are exclusive of each other, none of them is 'right'

Believing yourself to be good doesn't make you good. Otherwise, we'd probably have to canonize some National Socialists and Stalinists.

What exactly does that mean? If you can't define good for me, there is no way to evaluate if someone is or is not good. That's not being morally ambiguous; it's being realistic.

This is probably a fair criticism of a simple-minded reading of the PH's alignment descriptions. That this could classify whole societies and cultures as evil in a game world is not a problem. (Most fantasy worlds do include evil societies). Like many others, I don't really have a problem with applying good and evil to real life either--which is the reason for the previous discussion. If that means that some cultures and societies are largely shaped by evil then they're largely shaped by evil.

Who determines what is evil or good? Any answer you give sets a relative state, based on the culture of the individual.

-Fletch!