Moral Qualms on the Richter scale – the need for cooperative subject limits
A couple of years ago, I was approached by a player who was considering getting back into roleplaying after an extended hiatus from the activity. It transpired that he had dropped out because he found himself objecting to the concept of magic on religious grounds – the idea itself was blasphemous to him, and he had been wrestling with his moral objections for an extremely long time following a particular bad experience that had left deep psychological and moral/ethical scars. He didn’t give any details about the incident, just its effects on him.
I don’t intend to discuss the rightness or wrongness of his beliefs or his attitude. I respect that HE believes in his faith, and neither saw nor see any need to debate it. He was an extremely intelligent and creative, and we had a long discussion about philosophy and ethics and morality and religion. He made a number of contributions to the campaign in question that will shape it for years to come. I was really looking forward to his participation.
Ultimately, he decided that his faith would make him too uncomfortable if he were to play, to the point of hindering his potential enjoyment of the game. And that’s what this particular blog is all about.
For all its depth, its capacity to inspire and to motivate people to educate themselves on a vast array of subjects, its capability to examine deep issues of morality and philosophy, ultimately an RPG is a GAME first and foremost, and the reason you play a game is for enjoyment. If you happen to find such debates and explorations entertaining, that’s fine; but you always have to afford people the right to believe what THEY believe, regardless of your own opinion on the subject.
That means that some subjects should always be taboo within your game, and that these restrictions will change with every player that comes and goes. The minute that you transgress against one of them, at least one person at your table will stop having fun. And if they stop having fun for too long, they will find something else to do that is more satisfying to them, which damages not only your game, but every game that the affected player might have participated in for decades to come.
I’m not angry or upset that this particular person chose not to play; while it’s my personal belief that we would both have benefitted from his participation, the choice was his, and it was his right to make it as he saw fit. What’s more, I believe that if one person at the table is not having fun, the ‘wet blanket’ factor drags down everyone else just a little. Sometimes, that’s necessary in order to keep others satisfied, but it’s still something to avoid when possible.
No, my ire is for a person whose identity I don’t know – the person who so transgressed apon this player’s personal beliefs that they drove him out of gaming for a decade. Whenever I think of this subject, even tangentally, I mourn the lost contributions that this player could have made. So think about that the next time you decide that it would be fun to push the your player’s boundaries, and make sure that you aren’t pushing too far or too hard.
Oh, as a postscript: It’s my understanding that the player in question has found himself a game elsewhere and is enjoying himself greatly, having made his peace with the moral qualms that prevented him from joining my campaign at the time. More power to him!
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Interesting story! I would wager that its not that all an uncommon one though. I think the 1980’s era of RPGs vs. Religion, whether remembered or not, damaged the very notion of this type of entertainment and gaming for many many people of faith – whether they realize it or not. I remember a co-worker of mine who, when he discovered I was a RPG gamer, commented “Oh, you’re one of ‘those’ types”. I knew he was a person of faith, but it didn’t occur to me that had anything to do with his comment. Some months later (after we had become better friends, than coworkers) he made another comment, more an inquiry, that was (i don’t remember his exact words) effectively “are you still struggling with playing RPGs?” … struggling? as in… having a hard time finding the inspiration for DM’ing? I had no idea what he meant… at first. Then after talking it through I discovered he had a general malaise for RPGs – he thought it was immoral. When pressed though, he couldn’t ever produce a solid reason why. Of course, I never asked him to give it a try … i’ve never been a fan of pushing RPGs on people. But once I explained the game to him, I think I may have honestly made a difference in his viewpoint. The key here (as I think is echoed in your post) is that judging people a priori about their dislike for gaming is a bad thing. It’s important to remember its a game, and people should have fun with it. It’s also equally important, I think, that people’s possible misconceptions about the hobby be addressed in a mature, non confrontational way.
nice blog post. Sorry for the comment block. -D
jonathan’s last blog post..Existere – A Map of RPG Blogs & Gaming Cons
January 9th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Dead right on most points, Jonathon. Things were even worse in the mid-80s. What made this story different from most was that it was clear that something had occcurred within the game to cause this ex-player’s problems and not something occurring outside of it.
RPGs have come a long way in terms of public recognition since then; I know of one group whose DM is the parish priest!
Don’t worry about the comment block – I appreciate the feedback and discussion. Welcome aboard – hopefully there’ll be plenty of interesting posts worth commenting on!
January 9th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Heh – I have a Presbyterian minister in my group here in MD. She calls me a pagan (jokingly), but then proceeds to waste the infidels with her warlock’s curses.
jonathan’s last blog post..Existere – A Map of RPG Blogs & Gaming Cons
January 12th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I’ve brushed against these issues once or twice, though for me the biggest way around it is to not even go near it. There are other genres to play that don’t involve magic. Good old Sci-Fi comes first to my mind. :)
Agreed though, first and foremost RPG’s are GAMES, and hence we need to focus on the fun and not cause undo conflict between players instead of characters.
Gozer the Carpathian’s last blog post..Happy Birthday Bella!
January 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I do not agree. Sometimes it is important to bring such an issue up for the sake of education. I can fight with my friends over politics, game-balance or anything else, but as soon as the magic word “Religion” is on the table, I’m supposed to shut up and just “accept their beliefs”, no matter how crazy they are? I would definitely comment on it if someone was in a cult or sect (IRL) and thought it funny to for example kill all black NPCs, because that’s what his cult in real life would want to do too.
Therefore I will not just stand there and look at him weird out over things like made up magic or made up gods, just because he already believes in another made up god. And I am guessing you were so nice to him, because you share his belief (eg. christianity). Imagine him to belief in the Viking Gods Odin/Thor and him being distressed because in game, these Gods existed too. Our society is way too friendly towards (christian) fundamentalists.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Your comments miss several points, K, and raise others that are worth clarifying. There is a big difference between debating a sensitive subject – be it politics, religion, or whatever – and doing so with a casual acquantance you have only just met. And there is a big difference between accepting someone’s beliefs and REspecting them – the one means that you agree, the other that you agree only to keep your opinions to yourself! You then use an example of in-game behaviour as being indicative of real-life beliefs; this is exactly the same mistake made by the countless number of religious critics of RPGs in general. Nor did I just stand there and watch this acquantance ‘freak out’ (he didn’t) – we had a serious, hours-long discussion over the situation and its ramifications. And finally, your guess is wrong – I don’t have to be a Hindu to make allowances for a Hindu’s beliefs, and I don’t have to be a Christian to be respectful of a Christian’s beleifs. Finally, you make the mistake of associating the individual in question with a subgroup of Christians with no foundation. He wasn’t, and neither am I. As it happens, I think that society is far too tolerant of ALL religious extremists, Christian, Jew, Moslem, or whatever. My personal credo is “Believe whatever you want, but don’t try and force it onto me – allow ME to believe whatever I want!”.
If anything, the only person who would seem to be both offensive and fundamentalist is whoever messed with this guy’s head. And, as I said at the end of the post, THAT’S the person I have a problem with.
My games treat anything and everything with an especially cynical perspective. Nothing is perfect, everything is flawed; any organisation with people involved is corruptable and contains corrupt elements. Extremist beliefs always fly in the face of provable facts, sooner or later. Dogma is always inadequate to a complex and changing situation. At the same time, there are always those who believe, for good or ill; sometimes, that brings out the best in them, sometimes the worst. It doesn’t matter whether that’s a Drow worshipping the Spider-Queen or a Christian Bishop.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify these points. Hope you keep reading and provoking more thoughts on different subjects.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
A very interesting question, and one I’ve struggled with myself over the years–never to the point of dropping out of gaming, but often to the point of dropping out of individual games.
My own circle of friends has people from a wide variety of beliefs and varying degrees of skepticism. I am a man of faith; many of my friends are not. I’ve found that I don’t much care for certain games that try to use elements of real occultic systems for verisimilitude, but that mythological-based fantasy doesn’t generally bother me. You can thank J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis for that.
However, I’ve also found that there’s a distinction in what I feel comfortable in playing vs. what I feel comfortable in running. My best friend is currently running a Scarred Lands campaign. I’m frankly enjoying it, but I wouldn’t want to run the campaign myself due to the underpinnings of the universe. I’m working on a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign to run in the future; the world acknowledges a single Creator, though it has an interesting explanation for why the Creator isn’t overtly active. It lets me play with a standard, polytheistic setting while still having an element that is integral to my worldview. My homebrew campaigns tend to have similar set-ups, and I recently ran an essentially monotheistic campaign for the teens in our synagogue. I try to keep it as a background element, as Tolkien did, but it’s still a constant that I prefer.
My first DM, who introduced me to the game back when I was ten (over twenty years ago, sheesh), was a very sensitive young man who was willing to discuss my initial discomfort with the polytheistic setting and even to make allowances to make me more comfortable. If not for his sensitivity, tolerance, and gentle encouragement, I might never have gotten into gaming at all.
In the end, I see as much or more damage done to gaming by the intolerance of some of its atheistic and pagan members ragging on the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who would otherwise enjoy rolling the dice as by the Jack Chicks of the world. This doesn’t just come out in the game settings, but in the relationships between the players: Too many forget that tolerance and not forcing one’s views on another (however one defines “forcing”) are two-way streets.
Shalom.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I can’t complain about religion and gaming. It scored me my first five hard back books for $20.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:19 am
@ Michael: I agree completely – and not just in gaming, either. Nothing wrong with pushing the boundaries and many players are easily able to distinguish between the fiction within a game and the reality of their own beliefs – but everyone will have lines of morality and ethics and faith and philosophy that they will not want to breach. Sounds like you had a great GM when you got started!
@ Jason: Glad to have a comment adding to the positive side of the ledger. I must say that I was a little concerned about posting this blog entry in the first place, as it seemed to be an open invitation to flame wars with intolerant people. I rewrote the blog three times before I was satisfied that my points were being made as objectively as possible, and then trusted the gaming community to respond thoughtfully and with integrity. I have to say that I have been proven absolutely right to do so by the insightful discussion that’s ensued. Well done, folks!
January 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Any time… It is all about boundaries. When I run games for my younger nephew I don’t play “grim and gritty”. I try to focus more on the “action hero” style. You have to cater to your audience… whoever they are.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I have to admit, I find it very hard indeed to put myself in the position of that particular gamer. I can see objecting morally to styles of play or specific portrayals of content – if, for example, a character is made to blatantly look and behave like Stalin, and this character is portrayed sympathetically, for example, I’d have qualms about it. My problem is this: That character wouldn’t be offensive if it was portrayed negatively, or even in shades of grey. I can’t really see how content itself can be offensive in this manner. Surely, the D&D-style magic system is just a magic system? Playing with it surely says nothing about one’s disposition towards real-life magic, if such a thing had existed, any more than playing a killer or thief means that one condones theft and murder in reality? And, surely, if one objects to magic – or theft, or murder, or Stalin – one can simply start one’s own campaign in which it is portrayed as evil? Or even where there is no such thing at all?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Actually, it would have been offensive to him even if the character was portrayed even as an arch-fiend and butcher on the order of hannibal lector. The reason is that his religion puts the fundamental into fundamentalism – you have to practice their moral and religious code in every thought, word, and action, or you place your soul at risk. It doesn’t matter how many hours you spend helping the poor or how much you donate to charity or what you are like the other 6½ days a week, ANY deviation is a sin and a blasphemy.
For magic to work, even in the hands of a villain, even conceptually, implies that something not of God has power over mortals beyond what power they voluntarily give him (as I understand it), and is therefore banned. Your position rests on distinguishing between a pretence and real life, and that is incompatable with a requirement to be faithful in “thought, word, and deed”. To the followers of such religion, playing a killer or a thief in a game is just as big a black mark as actually committing such acts, and protestations to the contrary are on a par with “I smoked marijouna but did not inhale”.
I don’t personally agree with such a strict interpretation. But your last point is spot on the money; if there was not only no magic, but no seeming of magic, it was fine. It’s worth remembering that he was struggling because he didn’t agree with what he had been taught, but still believed in the faith; he was struggling to reconcile his personal beliefs with what he had been told he had to believe by people he trusted absolutely.
Sooner or later, we all discover something that runs counter to what we’ve been taught to believe. It starts with the realisation that there’s no santa claus. From that point on, we experience a perpetual struggle to reconcile our own observations and opinions with superior authority. He just had a sharper case of it to deal with than most people, is all.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
“For magic to work, even in the hands of a villain, even conceptually, implies that something not of God has power over mortals beyond what power they voluntarily give him (as I understand it), and is therefore banned.”
Oi vey. Has this man not read the Bible, the book of Revelation in particular? The Bible makes no bones about the fact that we live in a world of angels and demons and, ergo, supernatural interference, aka magic.
I sympathize with those who struggle to understand how the game interacts with their religious convictions in the real life, but I cringe at your friend’s interpretation of the Bible. (Wrong forum, I know.)
Shalom.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
While I agree with your thoughts overall, at the same time, I think the reverse is sometimes true: sometimes, a person should be willing to drive a player off over a topic that player considers taboo.
I think I can better explain what I mean through two examples.
Example Firstus: It was a new group’s first game, a spy campaign, and we were playing out the PCs’ first introduction to each other. One of the players was playing an African-American tech expert. When she described her PC’s appearance, one of the players blurted out, “Why are you playing a — ” and then he used a racist term for an African-American. We all took a deep breath and asked him very politely, “Is that your character saying that?” He looked confused and told us, “No. But she’s White; why’s she gotta be playing a — ” and then he used that racist term again. At that point, I informed him coldly that such terms were not going to be used in my home, not unless a PC or NPC used them for characterization and maybe not even then. His only response was to ask me whether he had to expect any Black NPCs among the good guys in the game. Yes, he did, and I tried to be courteous and positive when I told him in effect that I refused to excise all Black PCs and NPCs from my campaign merely to make him comfortable in his racism. He apologized to the player of the African-American tech expert, refused to look at her for the rest of the game, and twitched a lot. None of us were upset when he decided not to show up for the next gaming session.
Example Secondus: This time, the new player was the roommate of another player. His first game, he discovered that two male PCs were lovers. He stopped the play by complaining that he didn’t come to a game to see “sick things like that”. While the player who’d brought him flushed red with embarrassment, we informed the new player that the two male players playing the gay PCs were lovers in real life. We also pointed out that another male player was bisexual and one of the two women players was a lesbian. He stared at us like we were Deep Ones at Innsmouth, then demanded we admit we were just making this up to tease him. He said to us, “I thought this was a Christian game.” Well, games have no religion, we pointed out, but most of us attended the same Christian church — a gay-friendly Christian church. “I don’t mind playing with you as long as they play normal people not gay people,” he said. At that point, we thanked him for his time and suggested he game elsewhere.
I agree with you that we should be considerate about other people’s beliefs and creeds. The purpose of an RPG is fun, not enlightenment and not a civics lesson.
However, there are times when we should draw that line in the sand and say, “No, I will not accommodate you in your racism or your homophobia or your hatreds.” There aren’t many, but they are there.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Excellant points, Matt, and I agree with your assessment of those situations, and the way they were handled, completely. Which only really shows how complex these issues are. The problems that were insuperable in the cases you cite is not that the players held those prejudices, but that they projected them onto their characters and the campaign.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Actually, Mike, it was also that the players held such prejudices. They were not merely projecting them onto the campaign — they were poisoning the communal space of the players themselves with their petty bigotries. Call me unreasonable if you want, but I really have no interest in being in the same room as anyone with those kinds of unflinching prejudices. I have no problem with ousting such people from any games I run, parties I host, or any other private event.
Now, if I have to be around someone like that at a public event, such as a tournament game session I’m running, I will grit my teeth and deal with it — it’s not my place to oust such people in those situations. However, even then, I refuse to accommodate such prejudices in my game-mastering.
Too many people want to play heroes in their RPGs but refuse to stand up for what’s right in real life. I can not honestly claim I am not a bigot if I make my gaming group into a sanctuary for bigots to openly enjoy their bigotry without consequence or rebuttal.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I don’t think it matters too much what a player’s private opinions are if they keep them to themselves, accept that the game is a fictional setting and that the characters they will interact with are fictional characters that may have different moral and ethical standards. Clearly, in the cases you cite, the players in question had problems doing so (though at least one made the attempt), and that is where I perceive the heart of the problem to lie. The circumstances would have been very different if the players in question knew they had the prejudices in question and knew that they were unreasonable and were trying to change their attitudes, to bring the subject of the conversation back to the situation described in the blog post.
Challenging your prejudices is an attempt to make yourself a better person, something that I consider laudable and to be encouraged and supported.
I agree completely with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Well said.
February 7th, 2014 at 1:00 am
[…] or inability to distance the game from his personal opinions on another, related, subject: Moral Qualms on the Richter scale – the need for cooperative subject limits. As that article explained, the conflict between his theology and the assumptions within the game […]