Ruin Explorer
Legend
Fascinating, I didn't know about that.(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.)
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 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 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