The article critiques the arguments made by Wizards of the Coast regarding diversity in Dungeons & Dragons, particularly focusing on the morality of violence and looting within the game. Using philosophical frameworks from Plato and Kant, the author posits that both fictional violence and theft could corrupt individuals or are morally questionable irrespective of their impact. The article considers whether D&D should be stripped of these elements in a similar vein to racist content, highlighting the potential radical changes to gameplay and suggesting that while some play violence-free campaigns, the core issues remain divisive.
Using Plato's argument as a template, it is easy to argue that violence and looting should be removed from D&D: engaging in fictional violence and theft could corrupt people and make them more likely to behave badly in real life.
I can also reuse the Kantian argument: even if hacking up dragons and looting their hoards had no impact on people, allowing the immoral content of killing and stealing would be immoral.
This would allow for an argument from analogy: if D&D should be cleansed of racist elements for moral reasons, then it should also be cleansed of violence and theft on moral grounds.
The first is to accept the analogy and agree D&D should also be cleansed of violence and theft. This would radically change the game, although some people have run violence-free campaigns.
Collection
[
|
...
]