Peace and social cooperation in D&D.

[Hunter99]

In the west we see such harmony between individuals and in society as a whole, that compared with the D&D world it would appear miraculous or an act of God from their view. Of course it is no such thing. The peace and social cooperation that exists in the western, civilized world is not a miracle nor an act of God. It is a human recognition that men fare better in cooperation with one another for the improvement of their lives, in production, trade and the extension of the division of labor to cover the whole earth. Yet this insight has eluded the world of D&D. In D&D, men see the path to wealth and prosperity in killing and looting. Men live in constant fear of being killed by those who want to take their wealth. No peace or security exists. Only constant warfare.

This constant warfare is justified in the eyes of it’s practitioners by various reasons, although rationalization would be more appropriate. Those who consider themselves good say that they are doing it because these “monsters” are inherently evil because of their horns, tails and bat-like wings. Whereas they have feathery wings and no horns, making them the apostles of virtue and goodness. Those who are less inclined to such self-deception, openly acknowledge that they are motivated by base instincts and selfishness. Nevertheless, both sides along with their racism believe that life is a zero-sum game and that man can only prosper at the expense of others. Whether the killing and looting of these others is justified by appeal to their inherent evil due to various physical features or simply by acknowledgment of the base instincts at it’s root, both believe man’s self-interest to lie in killing and looting.

To us in the modern western world, if we have gained a proper understanding of how the west has achieved such prosperity, it might seem strange. In the west, people are not killing each other because of a belief in inherent goodness or evil. They are cooperating with one another, producing, trading, exchanging. Those who have gained a proper understanding of capitalism and the free market, such men as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises, attribute this to the fact that peace, social cooperation and the division of labor are in man’s self-interest. That man gains more by producing and trading with others than by killing and looting. So why does this insight elude the D&D world?

Partly it is because D&D is a game with certain built-in assumptions. It’s purpose has never been a simulation of reality. (To the extent that it is possible to do this in a fantasy world.) Nevertheless, such questions are interesting even if they do not aim at a reconstruction of the whole D&D world.

I’d love to hear your comments on this issue.

 

[Jimlock]

In the west we see such harmony between individuals and in society as a whole...

...The peace and social cooperation that exists in the western, civilized world is not a miracle nor an act of God...

To us in the modern western world, if we have gained a proper understanding of how the west has achieved such prosperity, it might seem strange...

....In the west, people are not killing each other because of a belief in inherent goodness or evil. They are cooperating with one another, producing, trading, exchanging...

Take it easy cowboy, the west isn't the west you think it is.

 

[Hunter99]

Why do you say that?

Also, I was comparing the social cooperation and peace in the west to the D&D world so comparatively, yes there is peace and social cooperation.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Actually most D&D campaign settings presuppose a very modern mindset, because that is what players find comfortable. Xenophobia, racism, sexism, slavery, exploitation of the weak by the strong, superstition and ignorance have been strong forces for all of history.

Most of the legal, political, religious and philosophical attempts to steer away from that history have been recent, certainly well after the medieval period in which we set our fantasies. (And not confined to the "West", whatever you define that as.) And their hold is still fragile and easily disrupted. Even today, free market capitalism sometimes finds the most profitable way to achieve cooperation and prosperity is to kill people and take their stuff.

 

[Krensky]

Why do you say that?

Also, I was comparing the social cooperation and peace in the west to the D&D world so comparatively, yes there is peace and social cooperation.

No, no there isn't except on a tiny, tiny scale.

Anything more then that statement though, runs into the no politics rule, or at the very least will devolve from a discussion of economics into politics. Scathing, grandma unfriendly comments about people will likely be involved.

 

[Tonguez]

First of all I, as a 'native' living in a country still under western colonial domination, would challenge your assesment that 'we' in the 'west' (south/west in my case) live in a harmonious society. BUT we wont go there!!!

Secondly according to reports of the time (eg Marco Polo) during the height of Ghenghis Khans empire it was possible for "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head to wander safely throughout the realm (China to Hungary)" ie there was an unprecendented period of harmony between individuals and in society as a whole.

Anyway back to DnD. On earth we've only had to deal with Homo Sapeins and yet we continue to apply xenophobic, sexist and racist prejudices. In DnD these same prejudices are hyper reinforced by the biological fact that the plethora of humanoid species are obviously unrelated. It is distinct that those races considered good in most settings either look essentially human (Dwarf, halfling, elf, gnome) or meet human standards of attractiveness (fey, angels)

Anyway just another insight from the history of my nations. After the first acquistion of guns here there was a period of mass conflict until such time as everyone got guns and a stalemate was reached. It was also determined by the leaders of the time that 'we' as peoples needed to cease our traditional conflicts as the new weapon technology had taken them to a point wherein warfare was unsustainable. We also had the new pressure of dealing with the new-comers and their demand for land.

Anyway since that time to this we have also observed that all the worlds major conflicts have involved the westerners

Anyway I'm interested to know what you will be doing with this discussion

 

[Croesus]

I'm going to assume by "west" you are referring primarily to Western Europe, and specifically to Western Europe since 1945.

If so, there has been a marked shift in the amount and intensity of armed conflict. While wars did not cease entirely, they tended to happen on the periphery (Africa, Asia, Mideast) and - at least until the breakup of Yugoslavia - did not threaten the existence on any European nation. The contrast between the past 65 years (1945-2010) and the previous 75 years (1870-1945) is remarkable.

The reasons for the change are subject to dispute, but some elements do seem critical. One is atomic weapons - a major war such as WW2 becomes too dangerous, so political leaders in the various nations work to limit conflicts. Add in the bipolar nature of the post-WW2 world, which worked to limit conflict due to fear that any war would rapidly escalate into a nuclear conflict between the two major powers.

Another is the shield provided by American power (including the nuclear umbrella), which allowed most Western European countries to spend relatively small amounts on their militaries, instead investing their resources on economic and social institutions.

Lastly, there was a strong revulsion to the destruction caused by WW2. Using war as a means of settling conflicts became less acceptable, and pacifist sentiment came to seem more moral. Such a strain of thought has existed in Europe for a long time, but it seemed to become ascendant only in the aftermath of WW2.

However, as we've seen in the past 20 years or so, human beings are still human beings. The breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the terrible suffering of the former Yugoslav people is the most obvious example. We also have the situations in Georgia and Chechnya.

Any of this could be modeled in a D&D campaign. I don't agree that there is automatically a conflict between macro-level Western Europe and any core assumptions of the D&D rules. D&D is primarily a rules set for fighting at the personal level. Other than the problem with "killing things and taking their stuff", which is generally a violation of civilized laws, one could design a D&D campaign with a basically peaceful set of kingdoms, but with oppotunities for mercenaries and free agents who engage in violence.

As has been pointed out, most D&D campaigns begin with a pseudo-medieval core, which is clearly different than current Western Europe. However, nothing in the rules requires it.

And of course, it's just a game. D&D has as little to do with the real world as World of Warcraft - thank goodness.

 

[Croesus]

BTW, a good book on this subject is Where Have All the Old Soldiers Gone by James J. Sheehan. Sheehan asks the question of why Western Europe, long a place of constant war, changed so fundamentally in the years following the second world war. An interesting read.

 

[anest1s]

....Those who consider themselves good say that they are doing it because these “monsters” are inherently evil because of their horns, tails and bat-like wings. Whereas they have feathery wings and no horns, making them the apostles of virtue and goodness. ...



....


That man gains more by producing and trading with others than by killing and looting. So why does this insight elude the D&D world?

....

I’d love to hear your comments on this issue.

My comment is, that if you think devils are considered bad just because of their looks, and you think it is a good idea to trade with them instead of killing them, you will end up with one soul less.

And you have only one.

 

[Umbran]

So why does this insight elude the D&D world?

The insight eludes the real world most of the time, too. The peace you speak of is recent in the 10,000 year history of civilization, and even now is not nearly so complete as you make it sound. But, as others have noted, I think going farther on that line steps over the "no politics" line.

Partly it is because D&D is a game with certain built-in assumptions. It’s purpose has never been a simulation of reality.

It is important to note that in the D&D world, folks fail to trade with monsters not because of their physical form, but because of one of the basic assumptions of the game world - that Evil exists. Pre-4e, it was a palpable force of the universe, akin to gravity. And many monsters were steeped in it, some actually made from it., In the long term, those who actively wish you pain, suffering, and an ill-end are not viable trading partners.