The literary merits of Alien Intelligence

[Reddish Mage]

Order of the Stick has seemingly chosen to portray all of its sentient creatures in highly personified, anthropomorphic (and anachronistic) ways. From Mama black dragon, who explicitly leaves her teenage son alone expecting him to do typical contemporary American teenage home-alone things to Sabine a succubus who appears to actually love and show true loyalty to Nale. Even Xykon misses his bad cup of joe and prefers to remain stylishly crowned rather than wear the tatters of his former clothing without regard to the decay (as a Lich is supposed to do according to the Monster Manual).

This treatment has naturally led to a number of situations that have lead to deeper ethical thinking than a typical dungeon crawl usually induces. This has also led numerous people to think, however, that personification of fantasy monsters is the only proper way to portray them. Encouraging that behavior is a number of statements by the Giant, who has suggested the standard D&D treatment of goblins is racist, and that killing a single dragon because it is a dragon is wrong.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by The Giant (Don't Split the Party commentary);
Vaarsuvius finds him/herself at the dragon's mercy because he/she never thinks to take precautions against her, despite knowing that the dragon he/she killed shared a home with another. Vaarsuvius then repeats and amplifies this misconception when he/she casts the custom-made familicide spell, essentially speaking for all players who say, "All monsters are evil and exist only for us to kill." But hopefully when the reader sees the scale on which Vaarsuvius carries out the devastation, the error of this thinking is more obvious. If it is wrong to kill a thousand dragons simply because they are dragons, then it is wrong to kill a single dragon for the same reasons.
Also, I'm not sure what it says about fantasy roleplaying that I felt the need to make the argument against genocide. Probably best that I not think about it too much.

I tend to think that this sort of thinking, taken to an extreme, is a campaign against much of fantasy and science fiction in general, and leads to highly moralistic, straightjacketed D&D play. After all Tolkien, quite a bit of classical mythology, not to mention an endless supply of robot, alien, and monster media tend towards an "other" characterizations of at least certain nonhuman intelligences. This "otherness" ranges from the thin treatment I interpret the Giant as railing against (the notion that certain intelligences are "monsters" can be killed for no other reason, even if the label hasn't even backed up by anything except the fact that the monsters look ugly) to points where the creatures alienness is backed up merely by deeds and lack of personification (arguably raptors in Jurassic Park; most aliens); to (relatively few) treatments where alien lifeforms are given a rich but inhuman treatment that allows for complex human interaction (Orson Scott Card's Speaker of the Dead sequels to Ender's Game; Arguably at least some of Asimov's robots).

While many works of fiction are not very ethically deep (in more ways than just how they depict their non-humans), the ultimate in not allowing for the otherness at all in non-humans (and rejecting any categorical expectations of treatment of them) is the opposite of being ethically and ethnically inclusive, it is in fact, IMO narrow-minded bigotry in reverse.

Sometimes, monsters are meant to be just that, monsters. They are made to be that way because they are personifications of our fear, have radically different physiology, drives, and brains (if they even have brains) or because they come from their own cultural-framework which simply doesn't value human life (if it even values life). Monsters are this way and they can be appropriately killed (though perhaps not made to suffer needlessly) because that is their role in the story.

One can raise the issue that such non-personalized treatments of monsters is pure escapism and Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world. However, let us look at the other intelligences (if different and perhaps simpler than us) we find in the animal world. Duck imprint on their mother or occasionally, a random object, and follow whatever around till adulthood, dogs will kill another dog's pups. Even so, there is the claim that any inhuman treatment of creatures that are as intelligent of us encourage bigotry. In contrast, the fiction that inhuman creatures exist that do think in inhuman ways can make quite the opposite point. Should we imagine inhuman creatures existing possessing very alien and evil intelligence that must be dealt with categorically, the differences between human beings become so superficial that it is immediately obvious how petty those difference are when there is a point of view for comparison.

[Poppatomus]

Monsters are this way and they can be appropriately killed (though perhaps not made to suffer needlessly) because that is their roll in the story.

An interesting perspective, particularly your point about forcing all other intelligences to be "human" as a way of narrowing perspective, rather than broadening them.

However, in this story---as you note in your quote above---they aren't alien intelligences. At least not all of them (For a joking example of some alien intelligences, see Elan's early attempt to get other moral perspectives aside from good and evil). Part of the thing that makes OoTS the story that it is is that it challenges the idea that you can, in a shallow way, create whole societies of "aliens", make those societies similar in many ways to humanity, but then remove any concern for killing them by adding a line in a stat block. Maybe the Giant will deal with truly alien intelligences more seriously in the future, but up to this point he has chosen not to.

Also, I think that you over-interpret the Giant's comment on genocide. His point was, as I took it, was that if you want to go off and kill the dragon, you do it because its a murderer, or an invader, or a danger, (or because it's food, or because it's in your way, ad infinitum) not simply because it IS a black dragon.

The difference for a character between killing something because of what it is, rather than for what it has done or for some other instrumental purpose, whether it's an alien intelligence or not, is one of the things the story is trying to bring out. (note how easily the otherness of the dragon can be used to coat a revenge killing with a gloss of self-protection.) The inclusion of alien intelligences may somewhat alter specifics of that analysis, but it doesn't alter the fundamental question.

Ender's game spoiler

Spoiler

Show

(for instance, if V were a Bugger queen, it might not occur to him that the killing of many black dragons would matter any more than killing one, or it might leave V unable to understand why the "mother" might seek revenge for the killing of one individual. However, though interesting to consider in how it changes the units by which one measures killing, it still wouldn't really impact the Giant's genocide point, in that the question would still come down to whether killing a being you recognize as possessing ill-defined sentience is justified based on reasons other than what it is. )

[ti'esar]

So... do you want "alien lifeforms [that] are given a rich but inhuman treatment that allows for complex human interaction" or "monsters [that] are meant to be just that, monsters"?

[Reddish Mage]

So... do you want "alien lifeforms [that] are given a rich but inhuman treatment that allows for complex human interaction" or "monsters [that] are meant to be just that, monsters"?

Both actually (and the one does not necessarily preclude the other simultaneously or separately), I see these depictions as legitimate literature that should not raise moral hackles because of its mere existence.

[Forikroder]

Sometimes, monsters are meant to be just that, monsters. They are made to be that way because they are personifications of our fear, have radically different physiology, drives, and brains (if they even have brains) or because they come from their own cultural-framework which simply doesn't value human life (if it even values life). Monsters are this way and they can be appropriately killed (though perhaps not made to suffer needlessly) because that is their roll in the story.

im going to focus entirely on this since it seems to pretty much be the point of your whole rant

the Giant is not saying taht "monsters" should never exist in story, hes not saying that having "monsters" in a story is a terrible thing that should be shunned

hes rebelling against the idea that anything that is a "monster" is okay to just kill, the idea that every single "monster" is the same, that there all evil terrible creatures who will kill you first chance they get and deserve no mercy or attempt to reason with it taht every "Monster" you meet should be immediately killed regardless of what its doing, has done or will do

so yes, sometimes monsters are meant to be jsut that, monsters but to think every monster is a monster is a monsterous way to think ;)

[SowZ]

I'm reminded of the novel "I Am Legend" where

Spoiler

Show

many people got mad learning that the main character was a villain all along. He went around killing vampires for being vampires and the reader never questions the morality or it even when Robert drags a screaming pleading woman from her bed into the daylight to experience a painful death when she did nothing wrong. Only after the ending does the reader go 'huh, that was wrong.'

That book pisses people off because it proves to the readers how easy it is for anyone, especially them, to dehumanize and view people as worthy of death. Militaries have known for a long time how easy it is to dehumanize races to totally normal folks. It is brilliant. We don't know it for the most part, but we have to be on constant guard against dehumanization or we will end up rooting for the Robert Neville's of the world.

If combatting the idea that certain sentient groups can be justifiably killed just because of what they are is a campaign against fantasy and sci-fi literature, it is a campaign that needs to be waged. Humans are too vulnerable to racism to open ourselves up to racist modes of thinking, even in fiction. Read up on Pascal's numbers. Prejudice is wired into other primates, it's likely wired into us too. We can't be complacent.

[ti'esar]

Both actually (and the one does not necessarily preclude the other simultaneously or separately), I see these depictions as legitimate literature that should not raise moral hackles because of its mere existence.

Well, then we're not going to get anywhere here, because I quite simply don't see the latter that way.

[SavageWombat]

I interpret this proposal as "if you want a game where the PCs slaughter monsters in dungeons, don't give them human-like characterization."

Which has a point. If you don't want the players to consider the moral ramifications of their actions - because it's supposed to be a fun wargame - don't compare the orcs to Chicagoans. Don't create conflict in your players unless that's what they want from a game.

[Geordnet]

im going to focus entirely on this since it seems to pretty much be the point of your whole rant

Doesn't seem as much of a rant to me as it does a thesis. (Note the formal structure and lack of direct address to Rich.)

And I, for one, agree that it's better to have anything labeled a "monster" be different from humanity in ways which are more than skin deep. It seems to me to be the entire point of having "monsters" in the first place: it's the fact that they're alien and exotic that's interesting.


This actually reflects a synthesis of two different objectives: on the one hand, you have people whom are interested in using fantasy as a stand-in for real life; on the other you have those whom enjoy fantasy for the sake of fantasy. What people in this latter group are after is what Rich collectively labels "Escapism".

And that's where the difference is. Where the more practical-minded see "Escapism" as a pointless distraction, others see it as a goal in and of itself. And that's where having truly (or as close as possible) alien intelligences really helps a lot.

[Sir_Leorik]

I interpret this proposal as "if you want a game where the PCs slaughter monsters in dungeons, don't give them human-like characterization."

Which has a point. If you don't want the players to consider the moral ramifications of their actions - because it's supposed to be a fun wargame - don't compare the orcs to Chicagoans. Don't create conflict in your players unless that's what they want from a game.

But doing that cheapens the experience you and your players will get out of the game. It is possible to have a D&D monster who is still monstrous, while still being able to empathize with that monster. Vampires like Count Strahd von Zarovich (who is cursed to eternally yearn for Tatyana Federovna, the fiance of his brother Sergei, the brother Strahd murdered in order to become a Vampire); dragons like Skie, Dragon Highlord Kitiara Uth Matar's Blue Dragon mount (who formed a friendship with Kitiara and mourned her death); fiends like Shemeska the Marauder, the Arcanoloth "King of the Cross-Trade" (who is the undisputed ruler of Sigil's criminal underworld, while still acting like a mother to Kylie the Tout); and many more examples. Strahd is still a monster, because he terrorizes the Barovian people, drinking the blood of virgins, and oppressing the Gundarakites. Skie is a monster because she steals livestock, kills innocent travelers, and served at the vanguard of Takhisis' Dragonarmy during the War of the Lance, and in Kitiara and Lord Soth's assault on Palanthas. Shemeska is a hardened criminal, who refrains from ordering too many murders in order to avoid the attention of the Lady of Pain. But Strahd, Skie and Shemeska are also characters, with backstories, motivations, and depth.

There are very good reasons for PCs to oppose Strahd, to fight Kitiara and Skie in an aerial battle over Palanthas, or to match wits with Shemeska, other than "He's a Vampire!", "She's a Blue Dragon" or "She's a Yugoloth!" In fact I can think of several scenarios where PCs would need to ally themselves with Strahd or Shemeska, and might be inclined to let Skie flee a battle. You can't reach that complexity if you view Strahd as "just another vampire".

[Forikroder]

But doing that cheapens the experience you and your players will get out of the game. It is possible to have a D&D monster who is still monstrous, while still being able to empathize with that monster. Vampires like Count Strahd von Zarovich (who is cursed to eternally yearn for Tatyana Federovna, the fiance of his brother Sergei, the brother Strahd murdered in order to become a Vampire); dragons like Skie, Dragon Highlord Kitiara Uth Matar's Blue Dragon mount (who formed a friendship with Kitiara and mourned her death); fiends like Shemeska the Marauder, the Arcanoloth "King of the Cross-Trade" (who is the undisputed ruler of Sigil's criminal underworld, while still acting like a mother to Kylie the Tout); and many more examples. Strahd is still a monster, because he terrorizes the Barovian people, drinking the blood of virgins, and oppressing the Gundarakites. Skie is a monster because she steals livestock, kills innocent travelers, and served at the vanguard of Takhisis' Dragonarmy during the War of the Lance, and in Kitiara and Lord Soth's assault on Palanthas. Shemeska is a hardened criminal, who refrains from ordering too many murders in order to avoid the attention of the Lady of Pain. But Strahd, Skie and Shemeska are also characters, with backstories, motivations, and depth.

There are very good reasons for PCs to oppose Strahd, to fight Kitiara and Skie in an aerial battle over Palanthas, or to match wits with Shemeska, other than "He's a Vampire!", "She's a Blue Dragon" or "She's a Yugoloth!" In fact I can think of several scenarios where PCs would need to ally themselves with Strahd or Shemeska, and might be inclined to let Skie flee a battle. You can't reach that complexity if you view Strahd as "just another vampire".

theres nothing wrong with enjoying a game of DnD and getting to turn your brain off and just enjoy the experience

[Reddish Mage]

This actually reflects a synthesis of two different objectives: on the one hand, you have people whom are interested in using fantasy as a stand-in for real life; on the other you have those whom enjoy fantasy for the sake of fantasy. What people in this latter group are after is what Rich collectively labels "Escapism".

And that's where the difference is. Where the more practical-minded see "Escapism" as a pointless distraction, others see it as a goal in and of itself. And that's where having truly (or as close as possible) alien intelligences really helps a lot.

Fantasy by its nature always includes certain elements that are not "real world." One can find real world meaning and relevance to 21st century living in fantasy within the remaining parts of the story. Real world metaphors do not need to be imposed everywhere and certainly not specific metaphors such as "monsters as simply people with a different skin"

[rbetieh]

You know, I have a hard time conceptualizing a true "alien" intelligence. Reason being is that any animal that procreates - as far as we know all but the Mule do - have certain characteristics in common. They protect their young (each in their own way, some like turtles in a very ineffective way for certain) and tend to choose providing resources for themself and their young over sharing them with others (see dogs killing other dogs pups, lions and cats do the same). Fact is, we have too much in common with these creatures possesing brains. We, in fact, do the same thing. Thats why it is easy to go fight a resource war with people who are not "like-us".

In order for a creatre to be possesed of an alien intelligence it must have its primal drives re-worked. Perhaps a plant intelligence or something that need not procreate. The undead would have made the best sense for delving into this territory, up until Malack. A vampire that has a drive to create more like himself.

[LadyEowyn]

I greatly enjoy science fiction and fantasy stories that try to examine interactions with other sapient beings whose moral values are extremely different from our own (such as Speaker for the Dead). But these are very far from not having relevance for out own world - they teach us to move outside of our own perspectives and understand worldviews that are far different. That's an intellectually healthy thing for anyone to be able to do.

If a person does want "shallow escapism" with the heroes killing monsters that are straightforwardly monstrous, then there's a fairly easy solution - make the monsters tough but non-sapient. It's having sapient monsters that the heroes define as universally evil, and that the heroes thus kill thoughtlessly, that creates damaging parallels with real life, and damaging thought patterns.

[Forikroder]

I greatly enjoy science fiction and fantasy stories that try to examine interactions with other sapient beings whose moral values are extremely different from our own (such as Speaker for the Dead). But these are very far from not having relevance for out own world - they teach us to move outside of our own perspectives and understand worldviews that are far different. That's an intellectually healthy thing for anyone to be able to do.

If a person does want "shallow escapism" with the heroes killing monsters that are straightforwardly monstrous, then there's a fairly easy solution - make the monsters tough but non-sapient. It's having sapient monsters that the heroes define as universally evil, and that the heroes thus kill thoughtlessly, that creates damaging parallels with real life, and damaging thought patterns.

i imagine your one of those people who try to use violent video games as the catch all blame of anything bad happening

the problem isnt having sapient monsters that get blanketted as evil the problem is when people fail to draw the line between real life and fiction

nothing that happens in fiction can be a reflection of real life, just because something can/does happen in fiction doesnt mean it can/does happen in real life, thats the whole point of fiction to see/do things that are impossible

[SowZ]

i imagine your one of those people who try to use violent video games as the catch all blame of anything bad happening

the problem isnt having sapient monsters that get blanketted as evil the problem is when people fail to draw the line between real life and fiction

nothing that happens in fiction can be a reflection of real life, just because something can/does happen in fiction doesnt mean it can/does happen in real life, thats the whole point of fiction to see/do things that are impossible

You lost a credibility in this debate to me with the "I'm guessing you're..." aside.

In a GTA game I know that I am playing a bad guy. If I thought it was sometimes okay to shoot someone and steal their car then video games could desensitize me. I can write or play fantasy where sapient creatures are killed as long as I acknowledge it is wrong.

[Forikroder]

You lost a credibility in this debate to me with the "I'm guessing you're..." aside.

im trying to parse your statement and having trouble, did i lose credibility for using "im guessing you" or did i lose credibility even putting that aside?

and why is using such a phraze such a nale in a coffin?

[SowZ]

i imagine your one of those people who try to use violent video games as the catch all blame of anything bad happening

the problem isnt having sapient monsters that get blanketted as evil the problem is when people fail to draw the line between real life and fiction

nothing that happens in fiction can be a reflection of real life, just because something can/does happen in fiction doesnt mean it can/does happen in real life, thats the whole point of fiction to see/do things that are impossible

im trying to parse your statement and having trouble, did i lose credibility for using "im guessing you" or did i lose credibility even putting that aside?

and why is using such a phraze such a nale in a coffin?

It's just kind of patronizing. You should have said, "You are using a similar argument too..." Generalizing ones opponent or making it personal is something that I think sacrifices credibility.

[Forikroder]

It's just kind of patronizing. You should have said, "You are using a similar argument too..." Generalizing ones opponent or making it personal is something that I think sacrifices credibility.

if i have any flaw in these internet debates its making it all too personal :P

[SowZ]

if i have any flaw in these internet debates its making it all too personal :P

Hehe, sure. I'm not trying to attack you by the way. Just recommending against assuming what people think one issue B because of their opinion on issue A.

[Liliet]

The point of fiction can't be to create things separate from reality, because that's not how human brain works. Readers treat book settings as separate independent realities, use words like "world" and "universe", because human brain is wired to percieve everything it emotionally responds to as "real". What we see in fiction has real impact on our real lifes, that's why books are such a powerful ideological tool. You write a book implying some statement, and if enough people from the same group like the book, they will be much more inclined to agree with the statement as applied to real life. That's how it works.

Our moral compass is defined by stories we hear in the childhood and later; we can't always tell whether these stories are true or not (look in your history books - are you sure you can fully trust them? I know I can't trust mine), but they have an impact regardless of this. We learn that a hero who goes off to save the princess from a villain is a good guy, and that a greedy merchant who tries to rob him on the way is a bad guy; that we should follow in the steps of a hero and try to not be like that merchant. What we learn our morality from can be a true story about WW2 or our neighbours, or it can be a fairy tale. It works the same way for our brain.


Of course, there is value in creating just "monsters" to be killed for a story. They are an obstacle to be overcome, something that teaches heroes to protect themselves and their loved ones.

But the key word here is "protect". You kill those monsters, and define them as monsters, because they threaten. And not in a sense "they are here and can eventually decide to do some harm", but in a sense "they are attacking, either they die or someone dear to me does". There's a reason why heroes are reactive.

If someone goes around just attacking people unprovoked (or provoked by something not viewed as provocation by said people, although this is already a borderline case), it's normal to view them as a monster (even if they are a PC or a protagonist of the story). It is not normal, however, to view their family as monsters too despite them never having done such things merely because they look the same way.

Big problem with DnD alignment labels taken too literally is that they allow (and are often used in such a way) to portray monsters in their natural environment, without any relation to people, and label them as monsters just because some of their kind, probably even in the other setting, really were monsters. This is just so wrong. They live there, they don't threaten anyone, why are they monsters? Because they have green skin and fangs? You need to provide a base for statements like "they are monsters" or you come off as a monster yourself.

Many works of fiction create "irredeemably evil monsters" without complicating things with moral dilemmas and deep characterisation. However, to establish them as monsters they still use individual characterisation tools: villains kick puppies, murder loved ones, bring Apocalypse, engage in mind control; try to conquer Earth, use humans as slaves, engage in dehumanization themselves; just plain attack and kill people, use them for food... There are many ways to establish a monster as a monster, thing is, to have a good story you have to use these tools. It is necessary.


And portraying "designated bad guys" as not-really-that-bad and presenting moral dilemmas creates better, not worse experience even in the game. I speak from experience, as I've already tried myself as a DM, and I know that had I portrayed definitely evil cannibal kobolds, goblins and hobgoblins as not-truly-sentient existing-purely-to-be-killed creatures (rather than a "local political force" to negotiate with and try to use for completing the quest), our sessions would be much, much less fun. I'm telling ya. Perhaps such portrayal needs too much enthusiasm and imagination from a DM/storyteller, more than they are willing to provide; there are lots of shortcuts "they do this horrible thing -> they are monsters and should be killed", but they still should be taken. "They look like this -> they are monsters and should be killed" is not valid and does not work for people who like giving fiction at least some thought.

Of course for some people pure suspension of disbelief is enough to conclude "if we are told that they are Evil and should be attacked on sight, they must have been doing something really Evil and are already established as monsters, no need to go in details", they will just trust the DM. But this sort of logic leads to danger, danger of forgetting that the villain characterisation was supposed to be there first, and it is the job of other fiction to remind us of that. When you start getting irritated by complex characterisations and prefer simply "they are enemies - kill them", it might be a sign that something's wrong with your moral compass.

[theNater]

Should we imagine inhuman creatures existing possessing very alien and evil intelligence that must be dealt with categorically, the differences between human beings become so superficial that it is immediately obvious how petty those difference are when there is a point of view for comparison.

While intelligence is hard to define, almost all definitions include the ability to learn. Any intelligent creature can learn, and therefore can learn to respect human life.

Of course, physiology or pre-existing culture can make teaching a non-human intelligence to respect human life impractically difficult. So if you want a story where humans are in the midst of an effectively unresolvable conflict with an species of non-human intelligences, such a story is certainly reasonable. But suggesting that an intelligence is unalterably evil, rather than that we lack the ability to alter it, fails to recognize a key element of intelligence.

[Forikroder]

The point of fiction can't be to create things separate from reality, because that's not how human brain works. Readers treat book settings as separate independent realities, use words like "world" and "universe", because human brain is wired to percieve everything it emotionally responds to as "real". What we see in fiction has real impact on our real lifes, that's why books are such a powerful ideological tool. You write a book implying some statement, and if enough people from the same group like the book, they will be much more inclined agree with the statement as applied to real life. That's how it works.

and quite unforunate too far too many people cant (or perhaps wont) see the big thick line seperating reality from fiction

Our moral compass is defined by stories we hear in the childhood and later; we can't always tell whether these stories are true or not (look in your history books - are you sure you can fully trust them? I know I can't trust mine), but they have an impact regardless of this. We learn that a hero who goes off to save the princess from a villain is a good guy, and that a greedy merchant who tries to rob him on the way is a bad guy; that we should follow in the steps of a hero and try to not be like that merchant. What we learn our morality from can be a true story about WW2 or our neighbours, or it can be a fairy tale. It works the same way for our brain.

if someone bases there moral compass on made up storys they hear in childhood instead of basing it actual real world happenings its a problem

also heres to biggest problem, noone should aspire to be the Hero

the man who goes off alone following only his moral compass, who magically has the strength of 10 men where everything always works out for him

people see the Hero and think "i want to be like that" and cant realise that its simply impossible for anyone to be a hero in the real world

too many problems arise from people with swelled heads thinking they know best and run off half-informed thinking themselves a hero

When you start getting irritated by complex characterisations and prefer simply "they are enemies - kill them", it might be a sign that something's wrong with your moral compass.

i disagree entirely, every time i play DnD its exactly like that, and in every other game i played

i play games for entertainment i turn my brain off and enjoy it without worying about it why on earth should i care if i slaughter a hundred goblins when those goblins exist simply as a figment of my imagination? they dont exist i could jsut as easily bring all of them back to life or make them 100 feet tall

they are not real so it doesnt matter

as long as your able to see the line between reality and fiction

[SowZ]

and quite unforunate too far too many people cant (or perhaps wont) see the big thick line seperating reality from fiction


if someone bases there moral compass on made up storys they hear in childhood instead of basing it actual real world happenings its a problem

also heres to biggest problem, noone should aspire to be the Hero

the man who goes off alone following only his moral compass, who magically has the strength of 10 men where everything always works out for him

people see the Hero and think "i want to be like that" and cant realise that its simply impossible for anyone to be a hero in the real world

too many problems arise from people with swelled heads thinking they know best and run off half-informed thinking themselves a hero



i disagree entirely, every time i play DnD its exactly like that, and in every other game i played

i play games for entertainment i turn my brain off and enjoy it without worying about it why on earth should i care if i slaughter a hundred goblins when those goblins exist simply as a figment of my imagination? they dont exist i could jsut as easily bring all of them back to life or make them 100 feet tall

they are not real so it doesnt matter

as long as your able to see the line between reality and fiction

But you should be able to acknowledge that what your character is doing is wrong. Just like when you play Hitman or GTA. If someone asked, "Are those right to do?" You should say something like, "Yeah, I guess not but I don't really care right now."

[Forikroder]

But you should be able to acknowledge that what your character is doing is wrong. Just like when you play Hitman or GTA. If someone asked, "Are those right to do?" You should say something like, "Yeah, I guess not but I don't really care right now."

if they asked "are those the right things to do if you were in that scenario in real life" id say "obviously not"

[SowZ]

if they asked "are those the right things to do if you were in that scenario in real life" id say "obviously not"

Same in DnD, then. It is wrong to wantonly slaughter goblins by real moral standards.

[Forikroder]

Same in DnD, then. It is wrong to wantonly slaughter goblins by real moral standards.

but DnD isnt real world so who cares? its jsut a game its like saying that its wrong to play monopoly because it teachs you to take money from people until there forced to declare bankrupcy

as long as you can understand the line between reality and fiction it doesnt matter what happens in the fiction because it cant cross the line into reality

im not saying its wrong for the Giant to be delivering his message, it certainly is a good message that people need to learn, but im saying that in an ideal world there would be no need to deliver the message because people wouldnt be using something someone made up to decide whats right and whats wrong

fiction is only for entertainment, nothing more (at least it should be)

[SowZ]

but DnD isnt real world so who cares? its jsut a game its like saying that its wrong to play monopoly because it teachs you to take money from people until there forced to declare bankrupcy

as long as you can understand the line between reality and fiction it doesnt matter what happens in the fiction because it cant cross the line into reality

im not saying its wrong for the Giant to be delivering his message, it certainly is a good message that people need to learn, but im saying that in an ideal world there would be no need to deliver the message because people wouldnt be using something someone made up to decide whats right and whats wrong

fiction is only for entertainment, nothing more (at least it should be)

You are massively underestimating the importance of fiction, I think. Any psychologist would tell you stories can impact our psyche. Any anthropologist would tell you how central shared stories are to a culture. Any philosopher or preacher would say how good stories or parables are at communicating messages.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I suspect that in Rich's case, he does not believe that alien intelligence absolves the mindless slaughter of fantasy monsters. So he presents his monsters with human intelligence because people would otherwise not notice this point. A monster that acts like a monster does not raise any eyebrows, a monster that acts like a human reminds people that these are living, thinking creatures and may cause them to re-examine their views on the more monstrous monsters. The Black Dragon family in OotS is a pretty good example of this, with the child being monstrous (at first blush, at least) and the mother hammering home the point later on in the story.

tl;dr, alien intelligence does not excuse killing monsters because of what they are, but it does conceal the ethical question from most people.

[Forikroder]

You are massively underestimating the importance of fiction, I think. Any psychologist would tell you stories can impact our psyche. Any anthropologist would tell you how central shared stories are to a culture. Any philosopher or preacher would say how good stories or parables are at communicating messages.

im sure in the past when those storys were basically there version of a history book

in the modern world though we have actual history books and actual events we can show our children and explain why some things should or shouldnt be done