Does D&D provide a decent moral compass?

[mmadsen]

More than a few people seem to feel that D&D is morally neutral, presenting no particular set of moral beliefs, but D&D as normally played and as presented in the books and adventure modules isn't quite so gray, is it? You're expected to work as a team (of specialists) to kill "evil" things and take their stuff -- presumably for the greater good. Violence definitely works -- at least for the PCs -- and it's the easiest way to solve most problems, often with no downside.

What does this teach?

 

[avatar of blood]

i dont think there should be any

they restrict to much
like all paladins have to be LG what if u want to be a paladin of an evil god, u have to be 6th level

 

[Desdichado]

More than a few people seem to feel that D&D is morally neutral, presenting no particular set of moral beliefs, but D&D as normally played and as presented in the books and adventure modules isn't quite so gray, is it? You're expected to work as a team (of specialists) to kill "evil" things and take their stuff -- presumably for the greater good. Violence definitely works -- at least for the PCs -- and it's the easiest way to solve most problems, often with no downside.

What does this teach?

I don't see how that is really true. D&D is too open-ended, not to mention campaign neutral, to have a "clear moral compass." Besides, isn't the whole point of D&D that killing "monsters", taking their stuff and then levelling up because of your murderous prowess? Regardless of what D&D says about morality, which isn't very much at all, the facts remain that any given game will only have the moral guidelines that the DM and players inject into it, and the mechanics themselves actually encourages ruthless bloodthirstiness.

 

[mirzabah]

Do you think D&D provides a decent moral compass?

No. The alignment system is absolutist which simply doesn't reflect reality - half of the world's ills come from people who can't (or won't) grasp this basic fact.

Of course, much depends on the individual group's interpretation of the rules, but, as written, D&D does not provide a healthy moral framework.

On the other hand, I think parents give their children way too little credit for being able to work out the difference between real life and fiction

 

[Gez]

Absolutely not.

D&D's moral is totally distinct from the Real World, by the way. Alignments are set in stone and physical law of the universe (that's said in the PH) in D&D. Good-Aligned Heroes(tm) in D&D typically slaughter whole tribes of weak creatures, steal their meager treasure, and then sell everything they've looted, from gems to kobold armor to goblin loincloth, to cash in more GPs, so as to have more to spend in weaponry, ale, and whores.

That's not what I would call a decent moral compass.

 

[Celebrim]

Gez: I take it you are not of the Socratic school.

I agree with you about the fact that 'typical' D&D doesn't provide much of a moral compass, but that is I think typically the fault of writers, DM's, and players and not an enherent flaw of fantasy roleplaying in general.

I also find it amusing to state that the reason D&D is quite distinct from the real world, is that in D&D, alignments are part of the law of the universe. Many believe, I think rightly, that concepts like 'good' and 'evil' are as real and concrete of things as any physical object. Half the worlds ills come from people who fail to realize that basic fact.

One man may say of Architecture: 'It is relative. See the great diversity of buildings? No two need be alike, and who can judge which is the finest?' Another man may say of Architecture: 'It is absolute. Either the building stands or it falls. The principals by which they stand or fall are the same for all buildings.' Neither man has to be wrong.

It is the same way with 'alignment'.

 

[Rel]

One man may say of Architecture: 'It is relative. See the great diversity of buildings? No two need be alike, and who can judge which is the finest?' Another man may say of Architecture: 'It is absolute. Either the building stands or it falls. The principals by which they stand or fall are the same for all buildings.' Neither man has to be wrong.

It is the same way with 'alignment'.

My turn to say, "thoughtful post", Celebrim. (Thanks for the earlier compliment, by the way.)

 

[Pielorinho]

In my time I've 1st and 2nd hand experience with mixed age groups that were pretty vile. This experience includes groups that really did attempt some of the things Jack Chick thought were ubiqitious to D&D, such as attempt to cast real spells, use books of Witchcraft and/or the Satanic Bible as source books, engage in consumption of drugs, and engage in LARP which resulted in violence or vandalism.

Well, okay, vandalism/violence in the name of gaming is pretty doubleplusunhunkydory. And a couple of ill-advised adventures in my college days leave me convinced that drugs and gaming don't mix (with the exception of moderate caffeine and alcohol, natch).

But the attempt to cast real spells?

When I was in junior high, my gaming friends and I made up a fantastic world of which we were the rulers, and I was the spellcaster. I spent many afternoons writing spells for this world, complete with verbal and somatic components based on Latin, movie-spells, and my basic understanding of real-world thaumaturgical practices. Other junior-high kids thought I was a freaky dork for it, but I didn't come out worse for the wear.

And so many folks have become interested in druidism through D&D that Ar nDraiocht Fain, a national druidic-studies society, includes on their membership application a checkbox for "Dungeons and Dragons" under the "How did you become interested in druidism?" question. (or at least they did when I joined them back in 1989).

I don't see this kind of teenage exploration as particularly harmful.

I do think RPGs can help folks develop a morality, but I don't know that it's good for teaching morality. Games are often at their best when players get to experiment with a different morality altogether -- the unswerving certainty of a paladin, the loose property concepts of a thief, the deemphasis on humanity of a druid.

When I ran games as a teenager, I loved playing with this stuff, loved setting up societies around different moral concepts. It was a way for me to think about issues, to conduct thought experiments, to speculate. I didn't try to teach my players anything, but I hope that they got a chance to think about these different issues even as I did.

Daniel

 

[Greybar]

To be flip: "Does a #2 pencil provide a decent moral compass?"

the thread-opening post quoted a fellow as saying: "If I ever have kids, I'll probably teach them to role-play before I let them use a computer."

Neither the pencil nor the computer have any moral value, good or ill. The words they write and the websites they visit may well have a moral value.

I would argue that roleplaying, led well by the parent, could indeed be a very strong instructive guide. But it is the leadership of the parent/GM that makes it so. It could also teach that life is cheap and things we don't understand are to be destroyed. Many stories can be told.

John

 

[bardolph]

Roleplaying can enhance critical thinking, imaginative, and social skills as well as any game or sport can. In fact, more, since roleplaying requires more creativity and spontanaety than most games.

Morality, on the other hand, is a different topic entirely. D&D has a mechanic called "alignment," which at best can be described as a morality "simulation," or a morality "model." In the context of the D&D universe, alignment is a fun psychological experiment, but falls very short of providing any kind of moral compass for real life.

Let me ask a question: do you think that true goodness, godliness, or moral righteousness can be measured in terms of game mechanics?