Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Dungeons and Dragons and Christianity
« Adjustments |
Main
| A funning this happened to me… »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
May 06, 2006
Faith : Dungeons and Dragons and Christianity
I've had some private conversations related to my playing DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online), raising the question "should a Christian be playing Dungeons and Dragons?" Since this question is out there, I thought I'd outline my perspective (which I'll get to after placing a few stakes in the ground).
The first stake is Matthew 5:21-29. The essence of this passage is that from God's point of view, imagining yourself attacking someone is the same as (as bad as) attacking them; and imagining yourself having intercourse with someone else's wife is the same as (as bad as) actually doing it. It is also clear from the passage that this is a general principle, so it would be fair to say that imagining yourself practicing witchcraft (which God abhors) is the same (as bad as) actually doing it. So engaging in an activity which includes imagining yourself as a "wizard" or a "sorcerer" raises legitimate questions. It is therefore clear to me that there is a line someplace with respect to "role playing games" which should not be crossed.
For my second stake. Consider a computer game where you control a squad of American soldiers in WWII, fighting the Nazis. A couple of the soldiers in the squad are riflemen. If you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way, they will shoot at the Nazi soldiers and damage them. In addition to the riflemen, you also have some specialists in your squad. One is a medic, and if you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way you can make the medic try to remove to reduce the effects of damage that people on your squad have received. Another is a commando who is an expert on sneaking up on people and dispatching them silently. The commando is also good with traps, locks, etc. Another soldier on your squad is a "heavy weapons expert" who can use weapons like flamethrowers, mortars, etc. If you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way the heavy weapons expert can shoot fire at enemy soldiers or make explosions occur at great distance. Now, I appreciate that there are Christians who believe that violence is never justified, even in a "just war" like WWII; but most Christians would not have fundamental problems with this kind of game.
Now consider another game where you control a group of characters with different skills. Some of those characters, when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way, cause damage to the enemy. Others when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way try to remove to reduce the effects of damage that people in your group have received. Others are skilled at sneaking up on enemies and dealing with traps and locks. Others when you press the right keys on the keyboard and click the mouse in the right way can shoot fire at the enemy or create explosions at a distance. In fact, this game is played in exactly the same way with the same effects as the WWII game with just one difference – instead of calling some of the squad members riflemen, they are referred to as fighters; instead of a medic, you have a cleric; instead of a commando, you have a rogue, and instead of a heavy weapons expert, the character who can shoot fire at the enemy (who are called monsters instead of Nazis) is called a wizard. In brief, it is a computerized version of Dungeons and Dragons. So the question is – if the games are essentially identical except for the names used for things – is the game any different morally? Do the words used to describe something change its moral character?
OK, now for my point view.
I believe in the message of Matthew 5:21-29; but I do not believe it applies to how I used to play D&D when I had time and certainly does not apply to DDO. When I play DDO, at no point do I imagine myself to be doing the things my character is doing. I imagine myself sitting at my desk playing a game, controlling a character in a story. That character and that story may involve things which may raise moral issues (as all good stories do); but I don't picture myself ever doing those things. Likewise when I played D&D in person eons ago, I was never into the role-playing aspects that other people enjoyed. To me, D&D was an exercise in collaborative story telling – I described the actions of my character in a way which I felt told an interesting story when combined with the stories all of the other players were telling. The character was not me, and I did not imagine myself to be my character. I did think about what a character like that might do in a given circumstance; but there was always a separation of myself and my character. Based on that, I believe then and now I have stayed on the safe side of the Matthew 5 line.
Now having said that, I understand that for some Christians, the distinction I make is too subtle. I respect those who disagree and would not encourage anyone whose conscience is bothered by this to play such games. Furthermore, in terms of D&D itself, I have seen other groups play the game in ways which involve a lot more role-playing then I am used to (it is after all a "role playing game", so how I played it was perhaps unusual). There are groups I have observed which I would have trouble joining because they edge too close to the line my conscience informs me of. So, while I am comfortable with my own position, I respect that playing these games might well be a bad idea for other people in other circumstances. While my own conscience is clear, I would not want to cause someone else to stumble by my freedom (see First Corinthians, chapter 8 for this principle in action). Finally, in all this I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong. At some point in the future, God may well correct me on these points; but until then I can only follow my present understanding.
Posted by Steven at May 6, 2006 05:36 PM
Comments
Not being as much of a student of the bible, I hadn't made the Matthew connection. I will have to think on that.
To me, first and foremost, D&D is role-playing. It is exactly the same as taking a role in a play. You are charged with understanding the motivations of the character you are playing. You are expected to act in a way consistant with portraying that character in a proper manner. When the play (or the collabrative writing as you called it) is over, you are yourself again.
Two points:
There are people in the world who blur the distinctions between what they play and what they are. These cross the Matthew line.
If Christians are ok with Arnold killing hundreds in True Lies and don't believe that that is the same as killing for real, if they are okay with Sean Connery bedding one Bond girl after another without saying it is the same as 'lusting in his heart' (as Jimmy Carter did), and if they are okay with thief roles and Charmed, and Buffy then they shouldn't be complaining about this.
It is simply a role to play - without a stage, for sure, but a role nevertheless. And I don't think that role is restrained by anything in Matthew, even if I have to make up the lines as I go.
In fact, how better to walk a mile in another's shoes, to understand his reasoning, his needs, his decisions? It is hard to be shy when you are an extrovert, but if you've tried to be that, and played that, and done things in character that you as a person would never do because you wouldn't react that way, then you've at least made an attempt at understanding another soul - even if that attempt has potentially been shallow. At least I've tried to understand my fellow man and the hope is that understanding has also made me more tolerant.
Posted by: roland at May 8, 2006 08:21 AM
Ro
First, I completely agree with you on the "walking in another man's shoes" point. I have commented before that I believe that understanding how other people are different from you is one of the hallmarks of maturity. In abstract, exercises which help you establish that understanding are of great value in my opinion.
Second, your point regarding actors and their roles is an interesting one. I had actually considered that example when I was drafting my original post; but it would have brought in a whole lot more text into an already lengthy essay. Ignoring the issues of sex and violence, a Christian actor playing an "evil" character gets into a very fuzzy place IMHO. As a writer, when I write an evil/immoral character I do think about "what would someone like this do…" and try to understand their motivations; but there is always good separation between me and the characters in my stories. However, good actors tend to get much more intimate with the roles. I have seen interviews with "method actors" who deliberately try and "become" their characters – I'd love to hear a Christian method actor talk about their views on Matthew 5.
For me personally, I'm not sure I would be comfortable playing an immoral character in a play, yet a see the value of telling stories which depict reality which includes immorality and evil. I will continue to follow my own conscience, and trust others to follow theirs.
Posted by: Steven at May 8, 2006 10:00 AM
Interesting - you are worried about crossing a line while I am looking on this almost as a Christian duty....
I would harken back to my children at young tender ages, when faced with the gosh awful bad-bad Wily E. Coyote trying to kill yon roadrunner in more and more exotic ways with random adults horrified, wailing about 'what are we teaching the kids?' The kids however have it right, they answer in a d'uh tone: 'It's a cartoon, dad.'
To the same extent, and while your point is completely valid, I would use the same tone here, 'it's a play, dad.'
Moreover, in spite of what Matthew says, I'll argue that good Christians *need* this understanding. They have to be willing to try to understand the evil that lurks out there, because otherwise an advantage will have been ceded.
God helps those who help themselves.
Posted by: roland at May 8, 2006 02:39 PM
I agree completely that it is important for Christians to understand what the real world is like including understanding why people do the things they do. This means being able to think about how other people think. My point is that there are limits on what one does to achieve that understanding – that there is a distinction between understanding and participation and therefore a line which is not to be crossed in the process of gaining that understanding.
To make the extreme case, I believe it is important for Christians to understand why people enjoy pornography (assuming they don't already know from personal experience); but I would not say Christians have a duty to indulge in pornography to achieve that understanding. I believe it is important for Christians to understand why people get violent; but there is no duty to be violent so you understand what it feels like. So there are lines someplace which should not be crossed in the process of gaining understanding about the world and the people in it. My own discernment of where that line is may be flawed; but I definitely believe that line exists.
Now my understanding of Christianity says that sin is not fundamentally about actions, but rather about attitudes (which may or may not result in actions). Sin always starts in the mind and heart, and even when it does not produce obvious actions, it is still sin. So one can think about how people act as long as you don't become a participant in those actions, even if you are only participating within your own mind. Once you start to put yourself into the picture, you tread on dangerous ground. That at least is my understanding.
I just want to be clear that while I think there are limits to what a Christian should do to gain understanding; I do believe that understanding people, evil, etc. is of critical importance. As Jesus said in Matthew 10:16 " I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." I believe we are called to be a shrewd as we can be while staying innocent in the process.
Posted by: Steven at May 8, 2006 05:24 PM
News report: a teacher required his class to write a paper on who they would kill and how they would do it.
I wonder how Matthew would react to that? The teacher isn't violating these rules himself, but he's forcing his students to sin. Oy.
Posted by: roland at May 15, 2006 07:39 AM
Yeah, one of those "what in the world were they thinking?" stories. Wonder how she would have felt about any students that wrote about her?
Posted by: Steven at May 15, 2006 07:52 AM
