Does D&D provide a decent moral compass?

[Sanackranib]

moral compass

Not only does D&D not provide a moral compass the basic concept of the game involves killing people and taking their stuff.
If you want to teach the kids the game I think that's great but I would have to encourage you to teach the morality lessons apart from the game.

 

[Inez Hull]

Originally posted by Celebrim

The one that is good is the one that holds the correct opinion.

Did you really think about that before you posted it?

I hope not, the last thing the world needs is another person who believes they have a unique insight to 'truth and right' that other's are incapable of seeing.

 

[Celebrim]

"Did you really think about that before you posted it?"

Oh dear. Someone accussing me of shallowness of thought. Oh woe is me. As if such accussation is going to send me scurring for cover. Please, if you are going to try to insult me, at least attack one of my many real flaws so that you will at least get something that bites or sticks. It is pathetic to see people struggling to be insulting because they lack any real command of the English language. Of all the derision you could have composed with this noble tongue, was that the best you could do? If you want to belittle my thoughts, do a real job of it next time, OK?

And you probably won't even need to misrepresent me, which is the thing that has really got me peevish.

"I hope not, the last thing the world needs is another person who believes they have a unique insight to 'truth and right' that other's are incapable of seeing."

Ahhh... While we are on the subject, did you really think about that before you posted it?

First, I did not claim that I had particular insight in the statement you quoted. In fact, quite the contrary, if you will look at it in context you will find I expressed the opinion that I could not draw a conclusion because didn't have enough insight.

Secondly, I did not claim that such insight as I did have or might eventually gain was unique. In fact, quite the contrary. I was argueing for such things as Thomas Jefferson's 'self-evident truths' - life, liberty, and freedom to pursue ones own happiness where it does not unduly infringe upon others life and liberty. Self-evident or not, those are certainly not unique opinions, and the key to my arguement is commonality not uniqueness.

Thirdly, I did not claim special powers of perception above and beyond ordinary individuals. In fact, it should be clear that the belief that special powers of perception are required to know truth and right, then my whole arguement goes up in smoke. While it is not essential to my arguement that everyone be able to descern right from wrong (that is, the existance of sociopaths is not fatal to my line of reasoning), if everyone's sense of right and wrong were in fact wholy unique it would be impossible to argue that such notions in fact exist. But, in fact, when I wrong you, you generally hold the opinion _that that was something that I ought not to have done_. I'm simply expressing the opinion that the notion of 'ought' and 'fairness' are enherent in human thought and social behavior, and from that we may conclude that common belief in good and evil is not nearly so rare as some would have us believe.

So, having failed to grasp even the slightest part of my thought, and having responded in such a snipping, terse, unreflective, and reflexive manner, I deduce that whatever depth of thought may have been lacking in my post, that you are the proverable man with a plank in his eye trying to fish a bit of sawdust out of mine.

Normally, little snide comments like yours don't bother me much, but I really detest when the substance of my posts is misrepresented. Your post amounts to 'Either you are stupid, or else this follows...', when in point of fact, neither am I stupid (which I do hold to be a self-evident truth), nor do I hold the opinion you attribute to me (which ought to be evident to anyone who bothered to read my post).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Good lawd, I'm being pointed at !! Through text! ...for the first time in my life.

I will head over to Celebrim and ask him what he's saying since I heard Thomas Aquinas mentioned and am not certain in what context or tone, the thread is loud and there appear to be a lot of conversations going on.

I will also comment on how much I will miss the Thomas Jefferson quote. One less quoter of Thomases in the world is a sad loss, particularly one who quotes Jefferson on economy. Pursuit of Happiness being a phrase of both thinkers, I see the the passing of an era of happy justification passing away into the mist of histories that have never been.

Any, I'm a grad student in a specialty of English Studies in the United States who did undergrad in a great books program, so please recognize and forgive my bias, but...

...I think that one of the important aspects of gaining moral lessons from DnD is that it is a game, and obviously so. In my experience on both sides of a classroom and gaming table, kids who play FRPGs, and particularly DND, have a much finer sense of the differences between the dynamics of morality in a fictional universe and in a non-fictional context. Very few people are aware of both as individually and distinctly valuable. Players and DMs are also both very cognizant of the idea of narrative necessity and suspicious of how necessary obvious narrative neatness is.

The very fact that many children and young adults have 'played' with good and evil seems to make more them more aware of the complications of applying those two categories to actual behaviour. Though I do wonder how willing RPGers are willing to abandon the idea of Good and Evil as categories all together.

I certainly don' t think it is the only didactic benefit of playing RPGs, but I do find it an interesting benefit. As much because of how general it is, as how important it may or may not be.

I do believe, however, that the didactic benefits of playing DnD as written largely stem from the didactic benefits of playing out these issues as a game and a particular narrative genre.

In line with that I found D20 Modern really disturbing in how it kept much of the play of the game despite how changed the context was. Alignment is almost the least of the things that needs adjusting when bringing the genre to the modern world. I liked the effort in the end, but it really disturbed me for a while and I can't say I'm entirely comfortable yet.

That's all I got for now. Fun thread. Important to revisit and rejustify what's good and evil about your hobby. Not to mention your own character's behaviour.

 

[tleilaxu]

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

No

 

[Fred Delles]

Me no talk pretty today.

I'm not sure if those last replies are subliminal trolls attempting to insult our intelligence. Heck, I'm a college grad and I can barely understand what Dr. Strangemonkey and Celebrim stated.

In an obscrurantist deluge of extraneous verbiage as an outgrowth of an apparent excessive effort to manifest extraordinary intellectual attainment... aw, heck, let's just say nobody cares.

I'm open to close this thread. How about you, mmadsen?

 

[Inez Hull]

My apologies Celebrim. My previous post was made after finishing a quick scan through of the thread after a day of bashing heads with people who really did believe that they are superior moral beings and possessors of secret insights into the sacred truth. My flippant response was more grounded in frustrating real life experiences still perched on my shoulder than your posts.

BTW I wasn't actually trying to insult you. The comment I quoted seemed at odds with the general thread of your other posts and I was genuinely wondering if it was a throwaway remark. The fact that I then commented based on my IRL experiences of the day and didn't take the time to thoroughly reread your posts didn't help either.

So then, my apologies if I caused offence. I took no offence to your counter remarks as I believe I certainly laid out an invitation for such.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I was born incomprehensible and I'll die incomprehensible.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Me no talk pretty today.

I'm open to close this thread. How about you, mmadsen?

Well, Fred, I'd happily end the alignment debate, but I'd also appreciate any thoughtful comments on the original question. Again: What moral lessons will a typical group of young kids learn from playing D&D -- as its typically played, following the examples set by the rulebooks and adventure modules?

 

[Rel]

Re: Re: Me no talk pretty today.

Well, Fred, I'd happily end the alignment debate, but I'd also appreciate any thoughtful comments on the original question. Again: What moral lessons will a typical group of young kids learn from playing D&D -- as its typically played, following the examples set by the rulebooks and adventure modules?

I haven't played through all the adventure path modules, but I have experienced (as a DM) Sunless Citidel and Forge of Fury. Since those are the first two in the path, I suppose that they would tend to set the "moral tone" of the game.

Without offering much in the way of spoilers, I will say that the adventure hooks offered for Sunless Citidel are mostly a search and rescue mission and Forge of Fury is all about protecting innocent travelers from the ravages of those who inhabit the Forge. Those seem like pretty good moral lessons at the start.

Furthermore, there are elements in Sunless Citidel which encourage a certain level of cooperation with those who may have different moral values but have common goals. Another good lesson if you asked me. I won't say more than that for fear of spoiling the modules.