This chapter examines traditionalists’ arguments why Dungeons Dragons (DD) is good for us first, and then discusses the cases where it could be bad for us. The irony for Christian critics of DD, such as Schnoebelen, is that the philosophical and theological arguments of Christian traditionalists, such as Thomas Aquinas and J.R.R. Tolkien, provide some of the strongest arguments in favor of DD role‐playing. However, to be fair, these same arguments can be used to argue that a particular (...) DD game, under certain circumstances, can be bad. “Postmodernists” refers loosely to a group of philosophers and thinkers who question, if not outright reject, the core tenets of the traditionalists. If the traditionalists have the correct metaphysics about the real world, then it follows that DD is good, but that care must be taken to make sure the game does not become morally objectionable. (shrink)

The deeply imaginative structure of Dungeons Dragons (DD) can allow for players to explore the intricacies of gender and sexuality in creative and potentially radical ways. One would be hard pressed to argue that cartoonishly large breasts and skin‐tight leather skirts really allow for dexterous swordplay or quick getaways. DD liberates us from the limitations of our sex by making male and female characters equal in terms of abilities. The shyest of men can be the most outspoken of (...) wizards, the most honest girl can play the most unscrupulous rogue, and the pacifist woman can don full armor and fly into a berserker rage on a group of bugbears ambushing her adventuring party because, after all, bugbears are her species enemy and she just can't help herself when they are around. (shrink)

For some Dungeons Dragons (DD) players, the death of a beloved character, especially if that death isn't heroic, is like losing a dear friend. That might make some people squirm and worry about gamers. In DD, unlike video games, it typically takes years and years to advance a character to levels of significance. According to Socrates, the life of philosophy is a life of the mind. Or as he would likely put it, a life of the soul. Death, (...) according to Socrates, is “separation of the soul from the body”. This chapter talks about how the death of a PC can be an invitation to think about passion and detachment, and how the creation of a new PC can be an invitation to think about fairness and justice. Does playing DD really lend itself to thinking about such things? Of course! (shrink)

Dungeons Dragons is full of great heroes and villains. The many worlds of the DD multiverse are overflowing with them – from heroes such as the twin‐scimitar‐wielding drow Drizzt Do'Urden and the self‐sacrificing knight Sturm Brightblade to villains such as the lord of Barovia, the vampire Count Strahd Von Zorovich, Vecna, the lich who rose to demi‐godhood, and countless others. However, there is one that stands above all others. It is the Master of Past and Present, Raistlin Majere. (...) This chapter is concerned with a seemingly simple question: who is Raistlin Majere? Of course, he is the brother of Caramon Majere. He is the wizard with golden skin and hourglass pupils. He is the Master of Past and Present. The chapter answers the question of what makes it true that it was a single person that accomplished all of the extraordinary feats that Raistlin did. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on the archetypal image of the necromancer: the black‐robed creator and master of the undead. The necromancer is often depicted as a mere cackling villain, using her power over death to forward her evil agenda. In this way, necromancy has been philosophically maligned. Although necromancers were traditionally considered to be evil in Dungeons Dragons (DD), the game came to accommodate the idea that necromancers, in theory, could be neutral, or even good‐aligned, with their powers used (...) for the greater good. The distaste for necromancy and its mindless minions is instead a relic of “pre‐theoretical intuition” a common‐sense belief that may not hold up to philosophical scrutiny. Films and TV series depict the walking dead as ravenous, brain‐eating monstrosities. Next to such depictions, the relatively harmless nature of Dungeons Dragons’ mindless undead is easy to overlook. (shrink)

This chapter clarifies important component of alignment in character creation and development. It demonstrates an application of moral philosophy and introduces ethical dilemmas that allow players to make meaningful moral choices leads to a more rewarding gaming experience. The chapter highlights philosophy's most enduring and frustrating questions. According to Dungeons Dragons (DD), the alignment is an element of the player's character sheet that clarifies their worldview and moral outlook. It is also a category that can limit character class (...) and an aura that allows spells or abilities to detect a character's moral outlook – and if necessary “smite” that evil (or good) into oblivion. The DD attracts imaginative players. A party is likely be filled with virtuous paragons, nefarious knaves, and pragmatists. (shrink)

The skill of calling animals to fight brings up unique ethical questions. Mages usually interact with animals in two ways: First, the author can summon animals by using animal‐summoning or monster‐summoning spells. Second, a mage can summon animals to be familiar. A familiar was once a normal animal that has been transformed into magical beast with unique powers and abilities. Bats, cats, hawks, and rats are examples of common familiar companions. The rights ethicist Tom Regan argues that animals have particular (...) rights because they are subjects of a life, meaning that they seek to satisfy specific preferences and interests. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It appears that this also holds in Dungeons Dragons (DD). Thus, when playing a character who can summon nonhuman animals, it may be wise to take the ethics into account when deciding what actions are best. (shrink)

The fundamental conflict underlying the worlds of Dungeons Dragons is that between good and evil. Many philosophers have denied that there is any incompatibility between having free will and our actions being determined. Thorin Axebeard is nothing but a puppet controlled by Dwarven Culture and Psychology tables, dancing along to the dice. What makes the evil monsters of DD philosophically interesting is how obvious the connection often is between their evil behavior and factors entirely outside of their control.

This chapter talks about to my other self reflection and existentialism in dungeons dragons. The 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide II sourcebook discusses player motivations such as these, recognizing that, for many, they are one of the main reasons to play DD. The actor plays a character that someone else has envisioned and written: a figment of someone else's imagination. The author's task looks at the other side of this coin: an author conceives of a world and characters, and (...) then sees how those characters will react to their circumstances. The very chapter owes its existence to one from whom the author learned that he had the capacity for courage and faith, to Lady Yui – to my other self. (shrink)

This chapter begins with narration of episode 31 of Dungeons Dragons Part 2, where the player Chris Lovasz, or Sips, decides he is going to passive‐aggressively grief the rest of his party. In frustration, they methodically kill, threaten, and chase away any quest‐givers that approach them. The chapter looks at early adventure games based on DD, asking why they avoid many aspects of the game, especially those that involve role‐playing and moral decisions by players. It then discusses how (...) gamers now discover DD, and why this is important in changing their understanding of the game. The chapter addresses the question: why Pierre Levy's ideas about the digital age, virtual communities, and collective intelligence are so important for understanding how, and why this has happened. It concludes with discussion of the effects that this has on DD players. (shrink)

As it turns out, accounting for the mechanics of willful wrongdoing has been a major problem for ethics from the beginning, and it has led to some very strange theories. Socrates and Plato simply deny the possibility. What does this mean for DungeonsDragons (DD)? First of all, it means that nobody chooses evil for the sake of evil, what some people call diabolic evil. The primary sources of evil are indifference and self‐deception. Both lead me to a life of convention, (...) simply living up to the code of conduct given by society. It is much more comfortable to think of evil as something done by villains in movies. There is something rather disturbing about the thought that one can become evil gradually. Because of the influence of bad habits, much about the moral life feels grey and fuzzy. (shrink)