by Larry DiTillio

Morality I	Morality II	-	Morality III	Morality IV
Dragon	-	-	-	Dragon 43

In Dragon #39, Douglas P. Bachmann wrote a piece on morality
in fantasy which he says was prompted by my views in The Dragon
#36. I am replying to that piece for two reasons: 1) Mr Bachmann
made several unfounded assumptions about my game world and
2) I believe Mr. Bachmann did not truly tackle the notion of responsibility in DMing.
Let’s get the assumptions out of the way quickly, since they are
really personal pique. Assumption One is made in an examination of
an exchange between myself as Dungeon Master and a young boy
who was playing a Paladin at a pick-up game I ran at an area
convention. The exchange related to sexual activity as it affected the
player character’s alignment, and I used it as an example of natural
sexual curiosity manifesting itself in the human experience of
game-playing. My reply to the boy’s question, for the record, was
that if he considered sex to be evil, then it was, but that I personally
didn’t consider it evil. Mr. Bachmann stated that I misinterpreted the
question and went on to state what the boy was REALLY asking. I
find this mildly annoying since I was, after all, present at the time and
Mr. Bachmann was nowhere around. I know what question was
asked; I experienced the situation I “reported.”

Mr. Bachmann further states that real-life situations have no
place in fantasy, but then describes my answer to the boy as unacceptable in real-life. He cites Hitler’s holocaust and the Inquisition
as proof that just because someone perceives an action as acceptable, it is not necessarily right. I submit that sexual morality is
very open to relativity and in general does boil down to the personal

belief that certain sexual activity is either right or wrong and therefore acceptable or not. To compare sexual morality to the
“morality” of mass murder is to commit the apples-oranges fallacy
of logic; i.e., there is no sound basis for comparison.

Assumption Two on Mr. Bachmann’s part is that the scenarios
involving sex and drugs that I used as examples were created for
mere gratuitous titillation. Again I am annoyed, since Mr. Bachmann
has no basis for judging this. He is not one of my players, he does not
know the overall world view of my campaign and he does not know
what context those scenarios appeared in. Were we to sit down and
talk, he might discover that both scenarios fit into his own pattern of
morality in fantasy.

I sincerely believe that Mr. Bachmann could have written his
article without mentioning me at all, and I believe he was not justified
in dismissing my creations as “pointless” and “gratuitous” without
knowing all the facts. Moreover, I suffered all the more intensely
since Mr. Bachmann used my personal experience without giving
the reader the slightest inkling of his own. Is Mr. Bachmann writing
from the viewpoint of a younger player or an older player, as DM or
as delver? I think it would help to know this.

Now, on to more pressing matters—namely, that ole demon
responsibility. I can accept Mr. Bachmann’s “inherent morality of
being” in fantasy, but I have trouble with the notion that “fantasy is
not designed to teach us anything” and “If someone uses a fantasy
game or novel as a soapbox or pulpit that person has perverted
Fantasy and turned a form of art into a form of propaganda or
pornography.” (It is somewhat ironic, of course, that both our
articles appeared in a column entitled “Up On a Soapbox”). I don’t
believe that all teaching is propaganda, just as I don’t believe that all
sex is pornography. I may have got a bit pretentious in “Painted
Ladies and Potted Monks” by claiming older DM’s could and should
teach younger players about the “real evils” of life. Allow me to
confess that and then clarify my stance here. By “teaching” in the
context of AD&D I meant providing role-play situations that allowed
(as opposed to forcing) dialogue on real life. The crux of this is that a
DM who has had experience in certain areas can share that experience with younger players who have not had the same experience.

Role-playing is not a new concept in society, despite the fact that
it is a fairly recent innovation in gaming. When I was discussing
AD&D once with an older friend (a corporate executive turned
successful sculptor), he told me about the use of role-playing games
in corporations to promote better relationships between executives.
These were not AD&D games, but in essence were surprisingly
similar. The psycho-drama technique, a more intense form of roleplay, is used in the field of psychology to deal with deep-rooted
traumas and other emotional problems. They may be well too
“Poughkeepsie” for Mr. Bachmann, but I do not believe it invalidates the premise that fantasy games can teach attitudes about life to
younger players.

When Mr. Bachmann further states that sex and drugs are not
weighty enough for inclusion in fantasy gaming, I feel he misses the
specific point of responsibility to younger players. I made it clear that
there are areas of significant concern to young players only—and it
was not my intention to preach morality in these cases, but rather to
foster dialogue on the subjects by not categorizing them as intrinsically evil.

Mr. Bachmann stated that he was going beyond my conclusions,
but he was in fact going in a different direction than I was. His
concern was an overall concept of morality in fantasy, while my
article was a description of specific areas in the actual experience of
role-playing. What he did do was change practical to theoretical, or
more simply, take a “way-it-should-be” approach to a “way-it-is”
discussion.

Please, please do not misinterpret that statement. I am not saying
Mr. Bachmann is wrong and I am right. It would be impossible to do
so since once again we are faced with comparing apples and
oranges. Mr. Bachmann’s inherent fantasy morality is a very broad,
general area; indeed, morality is defined as “a set of codes for
virtuous conduct” (Random House Collegiate Dictionary). My
“teaching through role play” was concerned with general morality
only in espousing examination of the codes of virtuous conduct &
they exist in reality and as they are symbolized in fantasy. However,
to speak directly to Mr. Bachmann’s moral viewpoint, I dealt with
other areas besides sex and drugs which Mr. Bachmann does not
mention at all. These were summarized in the beginning of this
article. One of the key areas to consider is the killing that is an
intrinsic part of AD&D, I wish Mr. Bachmann had included my views
on a DM who glorifies life-taking (I am against it), or for that matter
my ideas about racism in AD&D (Is black always the color of evil in
your games?).

Playing AD&D as primarily a role-playing game is not all that
easy. Many DMs can’t handle situations not clearly covered in game
mechanics, and many players are shy about “overacting.” Mr.
Bachmann has a good idea about offering experience for growth in
nobility and dignity instead of for growth in power; however, such a
concept must come from the individual DM, since to try to include it
in a game system would lead to problems; an Assassin player’s
nobility and dignity would perforce be vastly different from a Paladins. However, as a point of information, the role-playing game
Bushido does provide experience for honor as reflected in the
Japanese concept of On, or “face.” I further wish that Mr.
Bachmann had been a little less abstract in his views and offered us at
least one example of the type of mechanics or role-play situations he
desires. I would sincerely be interested in seeing such an example,
and I am certain Mr. Bachmann could provide it.

I am firmly of the opinion that increased role-play is the key to
better AD&D and I also believe that role-play can only be fostered by
the DM who is willing and able to set up more elaborate situations,
no matter what areas those situations encompass. If the sword is the
only answer in each and every encounter, then AD&D becomes a
cut-and-dried wargame. My method of achieving more role-play is
to use experience from real life that players have a basis for relating
to; players may still react in ways they wouldn’t in real life, simply to
vicariously experience that way of reacting.

All literature, mythology, fantasy—and, yes, gaming—is an extension or elaboration of reality. We cannot play exclusively on the
ethereal plane, nor can we spend all our game time buying equipment in city shops (a “reality” situation that I often find boring, but
that many players really enjoy).

I believe there is a place for Larry DiTillio’s “Poughkeepsie” and
Douglas Bachmann’s “Faerie,” but not to the exclusion of one or
the other. It is the blend of reality and fantasy that makes the
role-play vital and significant and keeps the imagination going. A
“scarlet-hued” room can be as wonderful as a meeting with a deity if
the DM can make it so and the players respond. The elements of
mystery, awe, terror, villainy and heroism are not plucked from
some cartoon heaven but are facets of human existence. They can
be used in a boring manner and not achieve the desired end, or they
can be used with dash and excitement to round out the game world.