Morality Question: To Kill Or Not to Kill - A Wyrmling Red Dragon

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wrong.

You get a negative cookie for getting the entire spirit of my post backwards and drawing exactly the opposite conclusion I wanted you to draw.

Because my actual point was, as the lead-up concerning military war games should've hinted, that once you have a serious pedagogic angle in a game, it's no longer leisure activity, it's not escapism, and it's no longer about "having fun". Basically, the train of thought your post exemplifies should be shoved in its entirety, because it no longer applies.

I'm sorry but taking a P&P RPG that seriously is insane. Like, that old chic-tract where the girl kills herself because her thief character got killed in the game insane.

Military war-games only ever were games in a technical sense. They are, first and foremost, a training exercise for the military personnel involved. Tabletop gaming is not that. It was never intended to be that.

If you're taking your gaming that seriously, as in; you think lives may hinge on you picking up and proving the skills the game "teaches" at some point in the future, then you don't need better roleplaying or DM-ing tips. You need a trained psychologist and maybe some psychoactive drugs.

If you think it's your duty to teach the people at the table with you then you deserve a swift kick in the ass to unseat you from your high-horse.

Gaming is not, and should not be, a philosophical excersize. It's not intended for nor suited to being that.

[Alcore]

I'm sorry, I don't think I was talking to you, and didn't know you where here until now? It doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who do that. Murderhobos and Grand Theft Auto playstyle gameplay is a cliche for a reason. You may not do it, and some other people may not do it, but its still a thing that is done.

Oh, i've been here for awhile. Most of my posts are ignored. I think you'll see me in the first 5 pages but it's been awhile. Its an open discussion; if you don't like seemingly random people replying to a discussion of morality, of all things, might want to pack up and go elsewhere.


I haven't had so much fun listening in awhile.


Edit: my page three, near the top.

[Spellbreaker26]

There's another problem with trying to treat games as a morality play - it becomes a game not of roleplay but "guess the DM's point of view".

If you're in the underdark and a distressed Drow comes to you for help, by helping her what will happen? Is she innocent or will she lead you into a trap? It's not a question of what your character would do, or even what you would do, it's a question of "Does the DM believe in the Farmer and the Viper or Androcles and the Lion?"

You can't prove that a philosophy is right in the pages of a novel, neither can you do so in a game. You can show what the DM believes, but that isn't the same as making a case for it.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm sorry but taking a P&P RPG that seriously is insane.

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?

Military war-games only ever were games in a technical sense. They are, first and foremost, a training exercise for the military personnel involved. Tabletop gaming is not that. It was never intended to be that.

As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.

If you're taking your gaming that seriously, as in; you think lives may hinge on you picking up and proving the skills the game "teaches" at some point in the future, then you don't need better roleplaying or DM-ing tips. You need a trained psychologist and maybe some psychoactive drugs.

It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.

If you think it's your duty to teach the people at the table with you then you deserve a swift kick in the ass to unseat you from your high-horse.

I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?

Gaming is not, and should not be, a philosophical excersize. It's not intended for nor suited to being that.

This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

[icefractal]

The issue with "RPGs should be used as a serious morality-instruction tool" is that - no offense - there are very few GMs who I would consider a superior moral/philosophical authority. The "teaching" angle only makes sense if you consider the GM to be more knowledgeable/correct about morality than the players are, and why exactly would you expect that?

[Talakeal]

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?



As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.



It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.



I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?


This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

I have to say, I agree with Frozen_feet.

I remember playing a western RPG in school in fifth grade to teach us about American history.

And while I think that the DM would be on a high horse if they were trying to "teach" people morality (I don't really know if anyone, even a Dr. of philosophy or Theology or a Nobel Peace Prize winner necessarily has a superior understanding of morality to the common man or the authority / ability to teach it), but I have certainly played in RPGs that have raised complex moral questions as part of the narrative and in exploring the concept I have come away with a greater personal understanding of the issues at hand.

[Tzonarin]

This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

Respectfully, this one is what I would call post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy which says, "after this, therefore because of this".

In my RL, I am an educator in post-secondary education, and have been teaching, formally, in the collegiate classroom since 2007. In that time, I have used gaming to achieve educational objectives; in fact, gamification is an excellent way to promote learning. But, education is not built on gamification. There are plenty of instances where gaming is very much not appropriate to use in the classroom. So, the apparatus works in one direction, but not the other.

I would also submit that if RPG's are being leveraged to teach people ethics and morality, that the RPG is just one means to the end, but should not be thought of in the reverse. After all, it is just a game, right?

Unless this has happened, or something:



The original intent of my query, while utilizing the word "morality" was to get more of the community's take on the ethics of the overall situation, itself. Maybe utilizing the word "morality" was an error, since so many people, even out here in this forum, will have many different ideas of what morality is, and what is considered "moral" or not. As the game is now playing out, I'm already rolling up a new character, since the character may just refuse to travel with the party over their reaction and the party may not want the dwarf.

But the conversation, thus far, has been very interesting, so thank you everyone for weighing in! I really had no idea that my inaugural post to this forum would take off like this.

Not saying we should bring it to a close, but I do want to weigh back in, myself, and provide my gratitude for everyone's input!

Tzo

[Kelb_Panthera]

There is nothing insane in about using tabletop RPGs as a teaching tool. You're just building a strawman in your head because you can't think how it's done. How about you google "roleplaying games as teaching tools" and realize how limited your view on the subject is?

Let me make my position perfectly clear, since we seem to be talking past each other.

Normal P&P RPG's being used as they were intended by normal users do not represent a platform for teaching anything. Trying to force that square peg into this round hole is not appropriate.

In the more general sense, elements of gaming can be used in a teaching environment to improve student engagement but that's not what this discussion is about.

As I already noted, you got it backwards. Hobby RPGs and wargames evolved from a serious teaching tool. Playing wargames for "fun" is as much "unintended" usage as using RPGs as a teaching tool. It does not actually follow that the "unintended" usage is either morally or practically unsound. It turned out RPGs have pedagogic utility, so there's no reason to not use them for that.

I think the problem we're having is that you and I are using the same words to discuss different ideas.

When I say "wargames" I'm not talking about games, in a general sense, that involve thematic elements of warfare. I'm talking about the specific event wherein actual soldiers engage with one another using blank ammunition in a simulation of actual combat.

Tabletop wargames, such as those D&D evolved from, are obsolete as an actual military training tool. War simply isn't conducted that way anymore. This becomes ever more true as you insert fantasy elements.

The only thing you can actually objectively "teach" through P&P RPG's is critical thinking and even that isn't so much teaching as offering opportunity to practice.

In any case, the line in the sand you're drawing is stupid. Training exercise is a motive for doing something; games are a method, a tool for achieving it. No-one involved with military wargames nor any ludologist would argue they're not games because they are played with serious intent.

Accuse me of a logica fallacy (strawman) then use the rhetorical tactic of broadening the scope of the discussion to make it look true. Clever but not clever enough. Let's stick to the game in question instead of getting off into the academic weeds, shall we?

It is trivial to state that tabletop games can be used to teach math, and trivial to state lifes may hinge on whether a person knows math or not. When an elementary school teacher makes kids play a game to teach them math, do you honestly think they need psychological help?

TTRPG's provide the opportunity to practice elementary level math. Unless you're gaming with small children and already in a position to be teaching them (parent or teacher or the like) your example is entirely moot. If you're not -already- in a teaching position, trying to force it into leisure activity is wholly inappropriate.

Seriously, bro. Not just RPGs, there are countless computer games dedicated to this kind of stuff.

And they were -designed- to be teaching tools. D&D and its ilk were not. You can't turn a bolt with a hammer.

I have, in fact, been in a situation where it is my duty to teach the people at my table. You think I should be kicked for being a scout leader, huh?

Abnormal play situation is abnormal. How much did you have to twist the game to make it work? More importantly, the gaming wasn't the point in you being there. The teaching was. You could've chosen any of a number of activities; various sports, camping, simple lecture (good luck with engagement).

This is wrong not just about RPGs, but gaming in general. Games are part of actual school curriculums worldwide because they have pedagogic value.

Games as a concept, sure. Every specific, individual game; hell no.

This discussion was about one particular game from a subset of games that are not intended as teaching tools. We're clearly not having the same discussion anymore.

[Spellbreaker26]

I think that there's a middle ground here. Games not suited to being teaching tools can still be edifying experiences.

[Malimar]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool or a tool for exploring complex problems, especially moral problems.

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

[Spellbreaker26]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool or a tool for exploring complex problems, especially moral problems.

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

Most importantly, a DM using it as a teaching tool needs to make that clear to his players; otherwise it is an exercise in frustration.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as a teaching tool

If it's explicit that you're doing so from the beginning, maybe. I suppose you can drive a nail with a wrench if you insist.

or a tool for exploring complex problems,

Such as? I rather doubt you could come up with an example that isn't entirely a constuct within that game or that doesn't rely on the DM being an authority on the matter and the game just a vehicle to explain what could be explained just as well in a lecture, such as basic economics.

especially moral problems.

Proselytizing your own moral outlook from a position of authority unrelated to moral philosophy is not "exploring" moral problems. At best it's grand-standing, at worst it's a feeble attempt at brain-washing. The fact of the matter is that a DM has final say and getting into the minutiae of morality will, inevitably, either grind the game to a deadly halt or force the DM to exercise his authority in a way that is -very- likely to leave lingering bad-blood.

It's a land-mine unless you stick -hard- to a rules construct or you're certain your group are all on the same philosophical page. The latter makes "exploration" a pointless excersize.

It's fine and good to use a TTRPG as nothing more complex than mindless escapism.

Escapism needn't be mindless but it's -very- important to remember that it's just a game at the end of the day. Trying to make it more than that is where trouble starts.

It's not fine or good to take one side and insist the other side is Doing It Wrong.

I'm sorry but not all positions are equally valid. If you're trying to make a game into something it's not, that's a problem. If you're supposed to be teaching anyway, using some sort of game as a tool to facilitate engagement of the material is one thing but there's -no- indication that this was the case in the OP and it's an atypical position for common users of the -category- of game in question. Educational games are typically labeled as such.

[Hawkstar]

Have you heard the story about the guy playing D&D in prison? The dude was just trying to play the game (Though he and his players use cards since dice are contraband), but apparently it's been having a positive effect on the other inmates playing the game. The DM's not trying to teach them anything (He's a prisoner himself), but his players (And he) are still learning.

Tabletops are very much learning tools. Teaching tools? Not so much.

But this is all a complete side discussion to the main point.

[Keltest]

Have you heard the story about the guy playing D&D in prison? The dude was just trying to play the game (Though he and his players use cards since dice are contraband), but apparently it's been having a positive effect on the other inmates playing the game. The DM's not trying to teach them anything (He's a prisoner himself), but his players (And he) are still learning.

Tabletops are very much learning tools. Teaching tools? Not so much.

But this is all a complete side discussion to the main point.

Erm... learning what, exactly? There may well be a correlation between their behavior and their game playing, but I would wager its because theyre having fun, not because theyre learning anything.

[Slayn82]

I think the Dwarf acted very Lawfully, to the view of his own people and his Lord. Those are the people he had sworn loyalty, and his compromise should be to safeguard their safety and well being. The Dragon could be harmless to him and the party, but I understand his view that it should be contained for the safety of those people. It's a being with a lot of power, and demonstrated it was too willing to use it on creatures weaker than him.

Personally, I would argue for live and let live. Would take his demands back to the Lord, unless the Dragon had surpassed the stipulated maximum price and under instruction to bring the ore at any cost. But, once someone started fighting the Dragon, it's knock out the monster first, second it's fate later.