What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Ruin Explorer]

(Yes, I also agree there is totally a reckoning coming for Star Wars and droids. I think they already know it, too: there was some kids book on the side that commented that the view of droids was influenced by the events we see in the Prequels and wasn't the traditional view. A retcon, but maybe it's something. Thanks to A More Civilized Age for finding that tidbit.)

Fascinating, I didn't know about that.

I don't think we are as far apart as we come off, but I think you're a little too dismissive of the importance of justifications of violence (and other things) in our society. I think justifications, even if somewhat contradictory, are incredibly important to how these sorts of violence can continue to be accepted.

I don't mean to short-circuit a well-written and sensible post, but let me make my position a bit clearer.

I don't think D&D or indeed quite a lot of RPGs do actually "justify" their violence in the way many movies/books do*, I don't think much of an effort is really made to make the violence, aggression, and theft "okay". I don't think even that light level of analysis is usually reached. I think instead what happens is people simply look away morally. They just don't examine or consider the issue. The enemies are designated "enemy combatants" in one way or another (often merely by dint of existing) and no more is said or thought about it. Whenever it is suggested that we examine it, D&D's own designs and certainly the way their adventures are written and so on seem to want us to pull away, to simply not think about it.

This would be a lot less problematic, ironically, if D&D was still a game of looting and pillaging in a more acknowledged way. If the PCs regard themselves as a bunch of dodgy mercenary-types, then the violence and theft and so on being questionable/amoral, just kind of works.

But at some point, and it's been a trend throughout D&D and really came to the fore in 2E, I think, PCs became "heroes", not merely mercenary adventures. But their behaviour didn't change one iota. And it still hasn't. It's just that they got told they were heroes. And maybe that's the justification you mean? But it's a very superficial and circular justification. The PCs are good guys therefore breaking into places, killing everyone you find, and taking everything that is nailed down is good. But again, I don't think D&D even gets all the way there. D&D just sort of takes it for granted in an even lighter way.

I will say I think the rot started here the moment someone stuck "Good" on their character's alignment and then continued to act like any other D&D character.

* = I've been reading a sort of hard-boiled detective series with light supernatural elements - the "Charlie Parker" books by John Connolly - and Charlie drops a lot of bodies. A lot. And even watches when his friends kill unarmed/defenseless people, too. But justifications there are a serious part of the narrative, a thing that gets actual consideration, a thing that Charlie agonizes over. And there are RPGs like that - Vampire quite easily can be - indeed "how do you justify preying on these people?" is a major question for any Vampire character who wants to retain any Humanity. But D&D is just like "Yeah you burst into a room and basically murdered 10 hobgoblins with the same justification any amoral/heinous/fascist group uses 'they were armed and seemed dangerous'". It doesn't think about it any further. That you can take their stuff is a given, too, despite the fact that doing that IRL, even in like, 1200 AD, was considered somewhat messed-up and requiring an actual justification beyond "lol they ded". D&D is notable, particularly in all editions except 4E, because the game design really strongly promotes ambushes and surprise attacks

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think outside New England the line between pure blood Yankees and newer immigrant groups isn’t as well known a thing (thankfully in New England now it seems to be fading). But growing up here, it was still relevant to a degree, and a lot of his racism appears to form on that line.

Yeah coming from the UK it was definitely unfamiliar. There'd been English racism against the Scots, but that had sort of gradually been failing as more and more Scots came to be in the heart of power, particularly from the late 1800s onwards, ands whilst English racism against the Irish persisted in the 20th century, at least in London it didn't tend to be of the "they're subhuman" kind that was directed against non-white people, more a "they're thieves" kind of thing and even that wasn't common by the 1980s. Once I realized what he was on about, I was like "Wow, this guy would consider me some kind of unfortunate half-breed at absolute best!" (my father is Scottish, my mum is Northern English).

I think it was actually kind of perversely accidentally helpful in understanding the ridiculousness and arbitrary-ness of racism.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

they basically operate on a kind of mobile castle doctrine where it is perfectly find to kill things and take their stuff if they appear to have even any disposition at all of defending themselves against predation by you with lethal force

"mobile castle doctrine" is exactly right!

I think, however, that I would disagree that offing you know who was outside of justice. There is a reason the word is "extra-judicial" and not "extra-justicial" or somesuch.

I mean whether the central target "deserved it" is sort of irrelevant, because certainly the events around it were both unjust and illegal in virtually every way, as Zero Dark Thirty actually shows pretty well, despite not exactly being a documentary. The "mobile castle doctrine" approach seems to apply to a lot of "black ops"-type forces, and an awful lot of games seem to lionize that kind of behaviour without interrogating it at all. Worse some interrogate it incredibly lightly with a handful of softball questions and let it off with a pat on the back (c.f. numerous Call of Duty games).

 

[Cadence]

Fascinating, I didn't know about that.

I don't mean to short-circuit a well-written and sensible post, but let me make my position a bit clearer.

I don't think D&D or indeed quite a lot of RPGs do actually "justify" their violence in the way many movies/books do*, I don't think much of an effort is really made to make the violence, aggression, and theft "okay". I don't think even that light level of analysis is usually reached. I think instead what happens is people simply look away morally. They just don't examine or consider the issue. The enemies are designated "enemy combatants" in one way or another (often merely by dint of existing) and no more is said or thought about it. Whenever it is suggested that we examine it, D&D's own designs and certainly the way their adventures are written and so on seem to want us to pull away, to simply not think about it.

This would be a lot less problematic, ironically, if D&D was still a game of looting and pillaging in a more acknowledged way. If the PCs regard themselves as a bunch of dodgy mercenary-types, then the violence and theft and so on being questionable/amoral, just kind of works.

But at some point, and it's been a trend throughout D&D and really came to the fore in 2E, I think, PCs became "heroes", not merely mercenary adventures. But their behaviour didn't change one iota. And it still hasn't. It's just that they got told they were heroes. And maybe that's the justification you mean? But it's a very superficial and circular justification. The PCs are good guys therefore breaking into places, killing everyone you find, and taking everything that is nailed down is good. But again, I don't think D&D even gets all the way there. D&D just sort of takes it for granted in an even lighter way.

I will say I think the rot started here the moment someone stuck "Good" on their character's alignment and then continued to act like any other D&D character.

* = I've been reading a sort of hard-boiled detective series with light supernatural elements - the "Charlie Parker" books by John Connolly - and Charlie drops a lot of bodies. A lot. And even watches when his friends kill unarmed/defenseless people, too. But justifications there are a serious part of the narrative, a thing that gets actual consideration, a thing that Charlie agonizes over. And there are RPGs like that - Vampire quite easily can be - indeed "how do you justify preying on these people?" is a major question for any Vampire character who wants to retain any Humanity. But D&D is just like "Yeah you burst into a room and basically murdered 10 hobgoblins with the same justification any amoral/heinous/fascist group uses 'they were armed and seemed dangerous'". It doesn't think about it any further. That you can take their stuff is a given, too, despite the fact that doing that IRL, even in like, 1200 AD, was considered somewhat messed-up and requiring an actual justification beyond "lol they ded". D&D is notable, particularly in all editions except 4E, because the game design really strongly promotes ambushes and surprise attacks

Thinking about the game I'm running for my 13yo, In wonder if PC alignment is more useful than I thought before. A few of the characters have gone off to rob people and the like (one sought out stories of magic swords in town... and the tried to go steal it) - but they generally have the alignment written down to match and I'm pretty sure the player doesn't think they're being a hero in the classic sense (a star or main character, sure).

On the other hand, it feels like I kind of set up the plots for the good aligned party members so that there are some clear bad guys to deal with (the circus of crime who mind controls villages out of their money and has some kidnapped princesses, the temple of chaos that draws creatures in and makes them act evilly and creates undead, etc...).

 

[Maxperson]

Not familiar with either of those. Will check into, at some point.

Uzumaki

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Violence in RPGs (especially games where there are attempts to balance combat) is between people on mostly equal footing

Absolutely not in D&D.

5E is a superb example. The default encounter is "normal". That's a one-sided stomp for the PCs. Anything below high Deadly is not a "mostly equal footing".

And that's true of most editions of D&D. Occasionally the PCs will come up against a foe who is their equal, but that's usually like, at least the final boss of the adventure.

In other RPGs that aren't D&D or its many relatives, that's more true. But slavery is really only being "excised" from D&D and a couple of close relatives, and just being elided entirely. Whereas other perhaps more-progressive games do include forced labour, sometimes even slavery, just usually not chattel slavery.

I don't think most people are going to say "yay, let's be slavers." I think people are going to end up with captives and, while figuring out what to do with them, realize that there's a slave market next town over and decide to get some coin for their trouble. Or they're going to need someone to carry their stuff and a slave turns out to be cheaper than a henchman. And if you have a setting where slavery is an accepted cultural norm, then yes, there will be people who decide to play slavers because it's a realistic option or them.

Nope lol. Big miss.

This is ironically incredibly naive and I would suggest a very sheltered and silly view that doesn't reflect how D&D is actually played. I've been playing D&D since 1989, and many other RPGs, with an awful lot of different people, and the vast majority of D&D settings included slavery (even if not as a common element, it was out there). Has anyone ever suggested taking prisoners, and selling them as slaves in those 34 years? No, they haven't. Not even in Dark Sun. And buying a slave? Are you kidding me? We, the players and DMs from a society that hates slavery and slavers. That sees them as the scum of scum. No normal person goes "Oh I will just buy a slave!". It just doesn't happen. Not even in a game.

Also it doesn't even make sense, since when have PCs taken prisoners and dragged them around with them lol? I mean what? We've just been discussing murderhobos and how virtually no PC groups ever take prisoners, they just kill everyone! Absolutely laughable.

This is a fantasy on-par with WotC's "at any moment the OGL will be used to Nazi propaganda!".

Actually, let me revise that - there was one person who did think we should take slaves - but he got kicked out of the group when he started attempting to tell us a story about how "funny" it was the PCs in his previous D&D campaign raped one of the NPCs. He was literally kicked out the door. Later we heard he became a Neo-nazi. And that's entirely representative of the sort of people who think it's cool to have slaves and sell slaves and stuff, I would suggest.

 

[Maxperson]

But at some point, and it's been a trend throughout D&D and really came to the fore in 2E, I think, PCs became "heroes", not merely mercenary adventures. But their behaviour didn't change one iota. And it still hasn't. It's just that they got told they were heroes. And maybe that's the justification you mean? But it's a very superficial and circular justification. The PCs are good guys therefore breaking into places, killing everyone you find, and taking everything that is nailed down is good. But again, I don't think D&D even gets all the way there. D&D just sort of takes it for granted in an even lighter way.

This is true.

That said, everyone knows that heroes are morally bankrupt murderers out for their own gain.

 

[Umbran]

This is ironically incredibly naive and I would suggest a very sheltered and silly view

Mod Note:
Please don't make this personal - do not speculate on the speaker. You don't have to call them naïve, or infer that they are sheltered. Just address what they say, please.

 

[Blue Orange]

When I run a horror game I ask the players to tell me, during session zero or privately, what I should avoid entirely and what can be mentioned but not played out. And I start out by telling them we will never role play a scene where a sexual assault takes place. Vampire 5th edition talks about making sure the players are okay with subjects and I think even Call of Cthulhu 7th edition does as well.

Yup, seems to be more common in horror games, which makes sense. Frankly reading some of the sample fiction in there I was starting to get grossed out.

They also added a 'stoplight system' where everyone could say 'green' (go ahead), 'yellow' (slow down), or 'red' (scene ends), and you go by the most restrictive color (a yellow and a red means red). I thought this was a nice innovation as it lets the GM know when things might be going in a bad direction before actually freaking someone out. (I think I know where they got that from, but it's NSFW.)

 

[Faolyn]

Not familiar with either of those. Will check into, at some point.

The Magnus Archives is a completed podcast put out by Rusty Quill. Uzumaki is a manga by Itou Junji. They're coming out with an animated version "soon" that looks really beautiful.