D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Maybe not. Of course, with magic involved to calm things down, who knows!

Whether there's a chance to talk beforehand depends on what the (potential) enemy is doing, so if they're actively engaged in evil acts, then the party probably doesn't want to give them a chance to continue that evil.


You inferred that; I didn't imply anything.

Then my point still stands and it was simply something I stated because you mentioned murder hobo games. I don't care for them but I also think there's a spectrum between "Violence is an absolute last resort" and "If it moves, kill it."

Many games, including D&D, makes violent confrontation pretty central to the game. Unless it's an ambush or a known enemy that will always attack, there are typically chances to talk before initiative is rolled.

But at this point I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than to be argumentative. Because this all started with my statement that killing NPCs is also SOP in video games. That's related to the fact that many studies have been done that show there's no harmful effects from that violence. If I could in theory talk to them to me doesn't make a difference.

 

[Faolyn]

Then my point still stands and it was simply something I stated because you mentioned murder hobo games. I don't care for them but I also think there's a spectrum between "Violence is an absolute last resort" and "If it moves, kill it."

Many games, including D&D, makes violent confrontation pretty central to the game. Unless it's an ambush or a known enemy that will always attack, there are typically chances to talk before initiative is rolled.

But at this point I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than to be argumentative. Because this all started with my statement that killing NPCs is also SOP in video games. That's related to the fact that many studies have been done that show there's no harmful effects from that violence. If I could in theory talk to them to me doesn't make a difference.

Wow. Literally all I said is that you can talk to NPCs in TTRPGs that you can't talk to in video games. If that idea upsets you so much, that's on you, not me.

 

[AlViking]

Wow. Literally all I said is that you can talk to NPCs in TTRPGs that you can't talk to in video games. If that idea upsets you so much, that's on you, not me.

That's not what ... you know what? Never mind.

 

[Lanefan]

I would think it immoral of you to engage in or promote mass slaughter in the real world, but I do not think it would be necessarily immoral for you to pretend do so in play. If you read back up the thread you will see that it is others who assumed that conclusion.

Which makes me ask, then, if it's not necessarily immoral in play why bring it up in the first place?

Most (nearly all?) D&D-like game settings bake in highly different and often more-or-less faux-historical morals than those we have or would like to have in today's reality. TSR-era D&D even hard-coded this right into the rules with the way it did alignments; and I posit many of the alignment arguments over the decades stem from people trying to apply real-world moralities to a system designed to reflect and rules-ify in-setting morals.

Basing one's play of the game on the in-setting morals rather than meta-morals would seem to be a basic element of immersion in the setting. Mass slaughter of one's foes is immoral in reality, sure, but if it's not seen as immoral in the setting then kill away and pile the bodies high.

 

[Lanefan]

Whether there's a chance to talk beforehand depends on what the (potential) enemy is doing, so if they're actively engaged in evil acts, then the party probably doesn't want to give them a chance to continue that evil.

This makes a big underlying assumption that IMO and IME needn't always be true: that the PCs are the good guys.

Yes it's marketed that way, but so what? I always figured both TSR and WotC marketed the game as featuring heroic good-guy PCs just to keep the real-world moralizers off their backs; and who listens to marketing-speak anyway?

 

[cranberry]

I don't care if the players choose to be bad-guys.

I just make sure that they're relentlessly pursued by law enforcement.

 

[Faolyn]

That's not what ... you know what? Never mind.

To be fair, in many video games, you can't actually have conversations with the NPCs the way you can in a TTRPG.

 

[Faolyn]

This makes a big underlying assumption that IMO and IME needn't always be true: that the PCs are the good guys.

Yes it's marketed that way, but so what? I always figured both TSR and WotC marketed the game as featuring heroic good-guy PCs just to keep the real-world moralizers off their backs; and who listens to marketing-speak anyway?

OK then, you stop the good guys when they're in the middle of doing good guy stuff. Whatever.

 

[clearstream]

Which makes me ask, then, if it's not necessarily immoral in play why bring it up in the first place?

Most (nearly all?) D&D-like game settings bake in highly different and often more-or-less faux-historical morals than those we have or would like to have in today's reality. TSR-era D&D even hard-coded this right into the rules with the way it did alignments; and I posit many of the alignment arguments over the decades stem from people trying to apply real-world moralities to a system designed to reflect and rules-ify in-setting morals.

Basing one's play of the game on the in-setting morals rather than meta-morals would seem to be a basic element of immersion in the setting. Mass slaughter of one's foes is immoral in reality, sure, but if it's not seen as immoral in the setting then kill away and pile the bodies high.

You raise an interesting point. Supposing some thoughts up thread were roughly right, then for an imaginary world to be realistic is for it to be like the real world in all respects not altered by the fiction. As you say, that could imply that morality in the imagined world should be the same as morality in the real world. But you propose that D&D actually alters that in the fiction. Arguendo, let's suppose that you are right.

That is a different explanation than the one I and perhaps others entertained upthread, which was that whether or not D&D altered morality in the imagined worlds of its players, there is a separateness between real life and play that makes it so that things that would be immoral in real life aren't immoral in play.

One notion I have about that is that altering morality in the fiction is diegetic: it's about what we will pretend our characters believe is moral. Whilst the separateness of play is non-diegetic: it's about how we ourselves view what we pretend in play.

That helps reveal how my distaste is non-judgemental. I accept the separateness of play, while disliking the alteration to morality. I dont want to imagine worlds in which my characters do not find mass slaughter immoral; unless, as @Umbran highlighted, it were for instance investigative. And @Umbran's Paradox Realm example seems to show that others can experience moments of similar compunction.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I dont want to imagine worlds in which my characters do not find mass slaughter immoral;

The very fantasy settings in D&D and other RPGs reflect a different morality than modern 21st century US/Western World.
You cannot have deities (including evil ones) serving as known patrons of peoples and monsters (including supernatural creatures) with magic etc and think that moralities remain the same between these different universes.

It is called roleplaying for a reason.