Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3578847" data-attributes="member: 30001">Well then what is the point?&nbsp; Because as far as I can tell, it's not a matter of simply asking whether DnD's main activity is killing creatures - it seems to be for the vast majority of campaigns (though I've played in games where we went the whole night without a battle).&nbsp; This is most about taking a value-ladened word like &quot;murder&quot; and trying to apply it to people's hobby.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's a bit of the &quot;no offense, but...&quot;, which is almost a guarantee of causing offense.&nbsp; IME a rational discussion would have started with the definition of &quot;murder&quot;.&nbsp; Instead, I think you're yanking some people's chains with the following...I'm not trying to start a flame war but I find these statements to be a little funky.&nbsp; I don't know why you are singling out &quot;Western society&quot; - seems like an unecessary, and somewhat misleading, thing to say.&nbsp; &quot;Extreme violence&quot; and &quot;widespread crime&quot; is also very subjective and I think really deserves to be established rather than assumed.Then there's this whole thing about Hollywood - a large proportion of the stories of Hollywood movies are based on legends, comic books, novels or whatever.&nbsp; Hollywood reflects our culture and doesn't &quot;tell us&quot; anything we don't already think we know.&nbsp; So I'm not really sure how mentioning Hollywood really clarifies anything but perhaps it's a stock phrase used in morality-based rants.Finally, what is &quot;essentially murder&quot; really depends on your definition.&nbsp; It's a bit of &quot;bait and switch&quot; to use a word with heavily laden moral overtones and then try to define it as a synonym for &quot;killing&quot;.&nbsp; The word has certain connotations and I think you're being overly (or not so) dense to try to use it for something else.&nbsp; If I call eating steak for dinner &quot;essentially murder&quot;, I have an agenda and I'm not being honest if I claim that I don't.The adversary is a &quot;monster&quot; - which is really just a characture of the basic human adversary.&nbsp; Making the opponent a monster is supposed to alleviate the moral issues regarding killing because a monster, by definition, is irredemably evil.&nbsp; Of course much of sci-fi/fantasy has evolved the &quot;monster&quot; to be a much more human character in disguise.&nbsp; I don't think many people ever asked these issues of &quot;Grendel&quot; and his kin in the olde days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3578847, member: 30001"] Well then what is the point? Because as far as I can tell, it's not a matter of simply asking whether DnD's main activity is killing creatures - it seems to be for the vast majority of campaigns (though I've played in games where we went the whole night without a battle). This is most about taking a value-ladened word like "murder" and trying to apply it to people's hobby. It's a bit of the "no offense, but...", which is almost a guarantee of causing offense. IME a rational discussion would have started with the definition of "murder". Instead, I think you're yanking some people's chains with the following... I'm not trying to start a flame war but I find these statements to be a little funky. I don't know why you are singling out "Western society" - seems like an unecessary, and somewhat misleading, thing to say. "Extreme violence" and "widespread crime" is also very subjective and I think really deserves to be established rather than assumed. Then there's this whole thing about Hollywood - a large proportion of the stories of Hollywood movies are based on legends, comic books, novels or whatever. Hollywood reflects our culture and doesn't "tell us" anything we don't already think we know. So I'm not really sure how mentioning Hollywood really clarifies anything but perhaps it's a stock phrase used in morality-based rants. Finally, what is "essentially murder" really depends on your definition. It's a bit of "bait and switch" to use a word with heavily laden moral overtones and then try to define it as a synonym for "killing". The word has certain connotations and I think you're being overly (or not so) dense to try to use it for something else. If I call eating steak for dinner "essentially murder", I have an agenda and I'm not being honest if I claim that I don't. The adversary is a "monster" - which is really just a characture of the basic human adversary. Making the opponent a monster is supposed to alleviate the moral issues regarding killing because a monster, by definition, is irredemably evil. Of course much of sci-fi/fantasy has evolved the "monster" to be a much more human character in disguise. I don't think many people ever asked these issues of "Grendel" and his kin in the olde days. [/QUOTE]

Verification