When Dungeons and Dragons Set Off a Moral Panic
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
However I have to hand it to her. A child of the 60s herself, she knew that there was no point in forbidding it. So, she opened her house to it, so "at least it will be happening where I can see it."
Once she was exposed firsthand to the amount of totally harmless riotous fun we were having - totally sober and clothed, mind you - she changed her mind entirely.
Besides which, those were the Bush years, conservative Christians were at the highest levels of the government, never mind at some religious school somewhere or other. What I remember from US news in the mid-oughts was serious moves in the direction of teaching intelligent design in schools, and just generally that this sort of thing was not viewed as a ridiculous archaism, but a defined political perspective with a lot of support in red states.
I'm British (and we obviously also have moral panics, but less often overtly religious nowadays), but thanks to the internet I spent a lot of time talking/arguing with Americans, including a few intelligent young religious conservatives, who would share articles around arguing that it was definitely not OK to let your kids go out trick or treating on Halloween (from my memory, the argument was basically that it's all just good fun and games and candy until you're burning in the lake of fire).
When the gay marriage stuff started steamrolling across the states in the last few years, my first thought was how quickly things have changed - that was unimaginable ten years ago.
I was raised Catholic but decided that it was all bullshit way back in middle-school and have been atheist ever since.
Anyway the gist of it was that they were opposed to D&D (and any entertainment) that presented the occult and paganism (from their perspective) as anything other than unadulterated evil. D&D was only a small part of it. Their main objection was to television shows; the example they cited was in all seriousness an episode of Duck Tales that featured "pyramid energy" in a positive light.
Strangely, this made some sense to me - if you start from their premises that the Bible is literal truth and is an instruction manual for a moral life.
We wrote it off as another example of religion - or indeed any irrational philosophy - corrupting the minds of otherwise good and intelligent adults ;)
I did have a really good laugh at some of the Jack Chick comics. That was the extreme end of the ant-D&D looney fringe, but it was so infantile in it's extreme depictions and outrageous in it's claims that I saw it as a valuable tool. I'm sure he did do a lot of damage and caused some harm, but for me being able to point to something so clearly absurd seemed helpful. I was confident that anyone in my circle of family or acquaintances would be able to see the absurd side of the claims by Chick and his kind. That meant anyone agitating against D&D or roleplaying games in general could be put on the defensive because they would need to show that their objections weren't absurd in the same way.
Serious question: what's proportionate, if you believe that your children are engaged in a 'game' that will literally cost them their souls?
It would mean asking people who play the game what their actual experiences of it were and honestly and directly discussing with them any aspects of that you found troubling.
It would mean actualy addressing the problem in a way that has a realistic chance of working, rather than being completely counterproductive.
D&D isn't the only roleplaying game. You could encourage them to play science fiction, modern or historical games with little or no religious content, or a game like Pendragon so they can play Christian knights in the age of Chivalry. There are lots of options
One year when Halloween rolled around on a Sunday, a local woman was interviewed who said she'd send her daughter out on Saturday instead because Sunday was the Lord's day and Halloween was a day for the devil.
A: Why are you allowing your daughter to participate at all, if that's how you feel?
B: Saturday is the Sabbath!
For the standard HN car analogy, driving while drunk is perhaps only 10 times more dangerous than driving sober. So ten times practically nothing is still close to zero. So when the ball game lets out and 40K fans drive home and at least half are legally drunk, there are no bodies stacked like cordwood, because its just not that dangerous. However, virtually everyone agrees the cost/benefit ratio, especially in the long term, is such that drunk driving should be illegal. A standard HN golf analogy would be holding up your golf club during a lightning storm, where the odds of getting lit up are extremely low because a spark that jumped 10 kft isn't going to care about a primate waving a stick, yet only an idiot would intentionally do it.
Paradoxically most of our legal system is based on risk/reward ratios, not level of risk. For example speeding is illegal although the odds of an accident are extremely low. On the other hand climbing Mt Everest isn't illegal at all, even though the death rate is about 50% or whatever it is now. Smoking is not illegal although the odds of smoking killing a smoker are pretty good, yet psychedelics are illegal despite the actual death rates and counts being pretty close to zero.
Lets say 100 times per year the local pro baseball stadium fills all 40K seats and a mere 1/4 (probably more) drive home after some beers. So right there, the odds of someone being killed in any individual baseball game related drunk driving incident are under 1%, likely far, far lower, given that's hardly the only pro sport, there are more baseball stadiums in the country than the one nearby me, more than half the people sitting the stands have had a beer, and almost all drinking happens outside baseball stadiums anyway.
However, I agree with you completely, its only banned because its a completely senseless and avoidable risk to take, not because its highly risky. Its measurably an extremely low risk, but the key is its a dumb risk to take, which is the only reason why its illegal. Tobacco smoking on the other hand is extremely high risk, but its not illegal, because most people don't see it as senseless or dumb.
Then not too long after that we wound up playing at my house a few times and she saw it was really just us being silly and playing a very fancy form of pretend and she came all the way around to approving, since it kept me social and imaginative, and it was pretty hard to get in actual trouble when me and my friend group spent all our time sitting around the dining room table at one or another's house.
Of course you can play it with a lot more moral ambiguity than that, but out of the box, D&D is very suitable for a black & white world view.
Put the party into a situation where they could ally with a profoundly evil power to achieve a great good. Or maybe give them a powerful magical item that they discover is slowly corrupting them as they start wielding it for the right reasons...
I wish more of our current crop of politicians had played RPGs that way...
We'll all unite against it, regardless if it exists or is even a problem. Its been the bane of minorities for centuries, although it works pretty well. So you get 100 teens in church holding up their hand or praying or whatever they did to promise, well, it doesn't matter, the point is they got them unified. From memory his mom worked the unity angle, what matters is every teen in the congregation made the same pledge. To some folks unity and conformity is more important than the rights of minorities. "well, maybe its not fair and maybe they're good people at heart, but what really matters is they're them and we're us".
Again from memory, his Dad was freaked out by the business model. So wait... you're saying that its possible for a very small number of people to sit around and write a completely fictional work of vast size that is creative and interesting mythology and publish numerous books about it and it becomes crazy popular and culturally influential? You're not, uh, implying anything about the development process of a certain book we consider holy from 2000+ years ago, are you? So this annoys the parents twofold, first of all its highly unfavorable direct analogy with their favorite business model aka religion, and secondly no one likes weasel words and if you're trying to say holy books are works of fiction then just spit it out don't talk around it. To those parents it sounds a lot like "I'm not coveting my neighbor's wife, I just want a one night stand with her, so technically I'm off the hook WRT sin and commandments, right, I mean the words don't literally match up so its OK, right?"
It's a cycle, happens about every ten years or so. The usual "this example of popular culture I don't like will destroy our youths!" type of thinking.
My favorite was that time Papa Smurf was converting the children because he used magic. Oh, and the Smurfs were communists.
Take a look around, I'm sure you can find a current example of "video games is responsible for this thing I don't like" syndrome.
We went to the same church when we were young, where his parents sometimes had very specific problems with some video-games.
It was long time ago, but I remember them having problem with Age Of Empires, because "That is not how conversion works!" [1] :)
Playing Duke-Nukem was fine a.f.a.i.k.
I also encountered people who took their kid's Christmas present away for the same reason you mention. To be fair, you really could make some scary-ass demon noises with the Casio SK-1.
I don't really mind the title, nobody's demanding that it be revised and it's clear what is meant, but I think it's reasonable to point out where the responsibility lies.
Definitely the overreacting organised group, but also a large amount of blame falls on the media helping them promote their overreactions to the masses
The reason why the moral panics in the last couple of years have not been from the religious right isn't so much because they've particularly changed, but because the media isn't willing to push those anymore, and the media on the right just isn't large enough right now to sustain their own. (Give it another three or four years at current pace, though.)
That said, the position is not wholly different from "laws are the leading cause of crime" or "the ebola outbreak did not cause people to panic - it was their desire to live and be healthy".
But that's an interesting analogy. Why are people who take certain drugs "criminals"? Because we passed laws against it.
Some laws have a legitimate moral basis, others don't -- and I guess the same is true about moral panics.
The first three statements all roughly take the form "if only you would stop regarding X as Y, then you would stop observing Y when X happens".
"Just stop regarding the content of D&D as morally corrupting, and then you will not need to panic when you find your children playing it."
"Just stop considering robbery to be illegal, and then crime rates will plummet."
"Just stop wanting to be healthy and then you won't mind the ebola outbreaks when they occur."
By contrast, "Stop dressing so sexy and then noone will rape you anymore" is not a suggestion that you can make a problem go away simply by ceasing to regard it as a problem. It may be an absurd attempt to transfer blame by stripping the rapists of their moral agency, but it proposes to solve a problem in the world by taking a physical action in the world.
Got the same satisfaction out of it I suppose, and my social circle was all pretty into the SW game as well so I don't know if it really mattered that much. Not to mention I had a black border Darth Vader, which at the time made me the "coolest" kid in my friend group for a short period of time.
It always felt strange to me, visiting a friend who can only play special games or only play for one hour a day etc.
So interesting how puritanism evolves
More like the main stream media which love to run these "white male gamers/developers pushing women/minorities out of gaming/tech" stories. Their business is outrage, that's the result of the click bait culture. They don't do that because they believe in that crap, they do that because it drives ad-revenue. Unfortunately they don't understand that by publish content that sides with extreme ideas,they are alienating their own audience on the long run.
http://kotaku.com/5289471/eas-fake-protest-riles-some-religi...
As they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Nobody that has any sort of voice says that if you are playing video games you are anti-women/minority/whatever like they were with DnD and Satanism. There are people that say there is disparity in representation of genders in video games, and that's hard to dispute, but not that the act of playing them is an act against any of those groups.
I went to Catholic school when the Apple ][ was current. The teachers strongly warned us not to play D&D.
It varies greatly from state to state; everywhere I grew up and went to school, there were a lot less religious conservatives so it wasn't an issue for me. But sometimes visiting other states, it can be a bit of a shock to see the amount of religious bumper stickers, house decorations, clothing, etc.
I thought it was one of Tom Hanks better performances. [/sarcasm]
To a person the group I played D&D with ultimately ended up in professional jobs. With a sample size of 20+ over the years, we all finished college. At least half got graduate degrees. A couple have made major impacts on science and technology.
There was one friend whose parents went a little overboard with the moral panic. Despite that, he came out ok too. :-)
One year at GenCon (even better than "at Band Camp") a cop at my table mentioned that criminal behavior for games was almost unmeasurable compared to the general population.
Unclear probably because I'm tired - Do you mean the criminal behavior of gamers when they are not playing games? As opposed to their (imaginary) criminal acts in the game?
According to a review on Amazon for Pat Pulling's book, an anti-D&D author who's mentioned in the article, Pat admited to "butchering pets" with her son; unable to find a source backing that up though; Pat's book on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0910311633/