[OPR] A lesson on Morality learnt 30 years late (part 2)

Foreword

I am on Substack from March 2023 however I officially kicked off my VI·VIII·X project in March 2022: I ran for one year an “ordinary” blog with “ordinary” posts and then I moved here… Since some old posts are worth to be read to fully understand my work and purpose, I decided to re-post the most relevant ones in a new series entitled OPR (Old Post Revisited) where I simply resume these old texts, rephrase them (an ideally keep within the 4-minute length threshold I set as a golden rule) and present again since I consider them “worth to be read”.

May the fun be always at your table!

(continues from part 1)

Rules mechanics usually represent physical reality: how people and objects move and act, effects of damage, and so forth. A campaign background represents the reality of a culture: what the inhabitants live for and aspire to, and how they interact. To impose a moral agenda on the physical world (that is, the rules) is dangerous and limiting. But a useful, effective cultural background requires it.
Why? Every culture depends on guidelines. … These are the universal concerns of life and the concerns of story. Characters in a role-playing setting presumably face the same issues. Their varying solutions create the conflicts that produce powerful adventures. Players become more deeply involved in a scenario when setting and NPCs are plausible, when they address the same universal concerns that real societies do. This implies a moral basis for the society.

The presence of rules about morality in an RPG are set to preserve consistency of a moral position without constraints over the freedom of choice, what is nowadays called ‘players’ agency’. The consistency avoids a character behaving one day as a ‘good’ guy and the day after as a ‘bad’ one: since the main assumption of the morality is that it is the most intimate code of conduct of a person therefore that cannot change from one day to the following one.

‘Why would players become more deeply involved in an adventure when their characters’ actions are restricted?’
Say rather, ‘defined’. They act from points of reference. They know typical behavior, so that if and when they deviate from it, that departure creates drama. Without societal guidelines, too, it’s harder to acquire goals. Here’s a line from writer Thomas M. Disch’s 1981 story ‘Understanding Human Behavior.’ It concerns a man who has his memory erased so he can make a new beginning:

‘The major disadvantage of having no past life, no established preferences [was that] he just didn’t want anything very much.’

…really I could not have found a better text to express what I have in my mind and in my heart! This is one of the key messages I found in ‘The Abolition of Man’ (by C.S.Lewis, 1943). And being neither a writer nor a great communicator, I was simply struggling to find a way to transfer this to the VI·VIII·X gamer, now I got it!

Not every way of establishing campaign guidelines can succeed, and some approaches are disastrous. At one extreme lies ‘Here is the one true way. Stray not from it, upon pain of dismissal from the game’. At the other we find the games wherein PCs can bless or slaughter as they like, where every action equals every other, all occurring without significance against a background as impersonal and vacuous as outer space. The latter setting inspires no more interest than the former. A balance is the key. What actions in a setting are considered positive, what negative, how broad is the range for each, and how does the design encourage or discourage each? The answers make up the campaign setting’s moral viewpoint.

First strike: I do not feel any need to add more words or explanations to this part.

‘But the referee determines a campaign’s viewpoint! A group of players can just throw out the designer’s definitions of right and wrong, then play the setting as they like. Some referees and players don’t want their games to be stories, or they prefer a neutral backdrop.’
That’s fine. They can play any way they want, obviously. The issue is the designer’s attitude toward the material, and the kind of experience the design tries to create for the players. A coherent moral viewpoint strengthens most adventures, because it inspires atmosphere, thematic unity, well rounded characters who reflect their settings, and clear, believable goals. The products that players use are better for that viewpoint, even if they discard it in favor of their own, or none. … ‘Morality’ here doesn’t mean one particular moral agenda. … ‘Morality’, in this case, means any reasonably coherent viewpoint about behavior, a sense that some actions are right and others are wrong, and a willingness to assert that view. So the designer should have an agenda. Its details are a matter of choice and open to discussion by the players.

Second strike! What is amazing is that from a beginning where I felt the author was thinking slightly different (with the idea of rules vs setting for morality), I found as the reasoning went into this depth of details that I am totally aligned with him!

‘I have moral beliefs of my own, but I see no reason to foist them on the players.’
The morality of the setting need not be the designer’s own code of behavior. Quite the contrary. But the designer should convey ideas of right and wrong appropriate to the setting and its adventures.

…and let me add: the designer should set the play-field with some rules to both foster the players to understand the importance of the presence of morality in a setting and provide them the fullest free will to let them enjoy their own characters with an underlying purpose.

‘Some settings and games are amoral. Why is that bad? Lots of people play them and have fun. Do these settings somehow corrupt players?’
No, they don’t. If the players have fun, that’s great.
‘So what is the point here?’
There are other grounds for discussion besides danger, though we seldom hear of them nowadays. People seem to assume that if they don’t hurt anyone, all approaches are equally valid.

Sorry if I want to add a more arsh view on the last thought, however in the the last 20 years the assumption has moved from ‘they don’t hurt anyone’ to ‘they don’t hurt anyone important’. And on this base I found the strength to start my project here. If possible by leveraging on the ‘futile’ and ‘light’ concept of a role-playing game, I wish to transfer the message that we are losing a great part of our essence in this transition to nowhere in terms of morality.

Conscientious designers of scenario settings and role-playing adventures do the best work they can—not to guarantee future assignments, but because self-respect obligates them to work to the limits of their powers. That must include the desire to communicate something worth hearing. This might be a joke or funny situation, a scene of beauty, an insight into the way people live or the consequences of behavior. In the last case, the insight must convey, at least implicitly, judgement. How does this behavior influence the setting? What are the strengths and drawbacks of this way of life? Without this moral judgement, the designer might as well leave the job to someone else and take up knitting, because this so-called creator’s work is really saying, ‘Look: no action is more worthwhile than another. All actions are justified. People are objects, societies are trivial, and concern about how things turn out is pointless.’

Third strike and out! (I hope that’s the correct way to say) I could not find a better essay that explains my point and my view and I am both proud to have met Allen and reported his great job here!

What is really amazing is that more than 30 years have passed and the lesson is still valid: this implies the universality of a moral code… let me add that it is not only still valid… we do not need to be philosophers, it is enough to observe how the RPG industry has evolved and where the ‘mainstream’ is going… alignment and morality have abdicated to make room for concepts that have an ephemeral duration and satisfaction such as average damage points and character builds… proof is that these continue to grow in size to satisfy today's bored gamers… and gamers are bored also due to the absence of a morality in their games: it’s a vicious circle.

Ok, better is stop here, otherwise this post becomes a rant whereas I want to keep a positive overall mood and conclude by thanking again and again Allen as well as stating that there is still hope we can find the way to do the right thing!