Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 04:59:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 31, 2022, 01:09:44 PM
Children aren't taught right and wrong from D&D alignment. My son grew up sometimes playing D&D and other RPGs, but while they were positive and creative, I think his moral center came from real-world living and instruction, and not at all from game mechanics. Neither D&D alignments nor the non-alignment-using mechanics of other RPGs were important either way in his learning to be a good person. I think trying to use D&D alignments to teach real-world morality is a bad idea, because the real world is vastly different than most D&D worlds.

I think your comment here misses the point.  Using vanilla D&D to teach actual morals would indeed be a bad idea.  However playing D&D, with its objective good and evil, accustoms and gives practice to kids in thinking in terms of right and wrong being important in making decisions,  and good and evil being objective.  That's all good IMO.

I don't think D&D is bad for morality, but I don't think it's any better than other RPGs. Alignment in D&D isn't about real moral situations - it's about killing monsters because they're supernaturally evil. If my son told me he was into playing Traveller or Savage Worlds rather than D&D/OSR, I'd have zero concerns that he was missing out on such practice.

Saying that the game gives kids practice for the real world sounds like the same logic that D&D encourages paganism and occultism because characters do that in game.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.

Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.

your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.

Why bother?  You just stated your opinions without any evidence or logic to support them.  His response was at the same level as yours.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 31, 2022, 09:03:10 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 06:35:27 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 31, 2022, 01:42:23 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 01:32:24 PMEven if people believe otherwise, it's still true that morality is a human construct and is dependent on the existence of such.

Your insight on how societies function are pretty stellar. I will now go and rethink my life.

your sarcastic quotes are solidified copium. Please try to refute my statements.

Why bother?  You just stated your opinions without any evidence or logic to support them.  His response was at the same level as yours.

All he said was 'Nuh uh it real, if it not real then it destroy society'

He didn't actually disprove that morality is independent of humans. He just said that people needed to believe that it was, when in fact that doesn't make it independent- it just proves its dependent on the whims of humanity if anything.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

Whether or not  you believe that morality is universal, there's no question that HUMAN MORALITY is in fact objective. It is not just made up arbitrarily. It is a product of human evolution. Likewise you could assume that most humanoids would end up having similar moralities, in the same way that all human cultures have developed the same core moral elements.

Quote from: Reckall on October 31, 2022, 12:31:01 PM

Quote from: Omega on October 30, 2022, 03:07:47 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 29, 2022, 09:13:43 AM
It's been explicitly stated now that in Nu-D&D, undead and demons can have any alignment.

uhhhh... Hate to break it to you. But that was a thing with 2e D&D and especially Planescape.

In Planescape: Torment a character in your party (Fall-from-Grace) is a succubus who became "enlightened" and changed her alignment from Chaotic Evil to Lawful Neutral (she is basically Spock). She is also a cleric but worships no god - so there you go.

Yes, I also think that Planescape is trash.

Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.

I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 31, 2022, 11:47:58 AM
I'll add my $0.02 about "Demons":

It's very much a specific mythological/theological background to treat all demons as inherently evil.

Exactly, various religions, folk tails and media have depicted demon type creatures as messengers of the gods and meting out vengance and punishment against crimes of the evil.

And its bitching here about something that TSR did as well over 25 years ago. And doing the exact same thing the woke do. Just from the opposite direction. And no less insipid.

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 31, 2022, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 12:12:39 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on October 31, 2022, 09:34:26 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 30, 2022, 08:27:35 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 30, 2022, 03:01:51 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 08:35:49 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 29, 2022, 10:00:14 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 29, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
I'm fine with good devils depending on the setting. for instance, a setting based around giant apartment mecha that are piloted by swarms of devils who fight against the infinite legions of heaven? good shit right there.

And I think that sounds truly retarded. And that is the great thing about opinions. Neither opinion negates the other. It is all subjective.

What is NOT subjective is D&D does not have mecha apartments. There is a rich history of devils and demons being absolutely evil in D&D.

They continue to make these bad design decisions because of their activism and lack of creative ability.

i think what they're trying to do is make DND more setting agnostic. I haven't read the article, however, so I don't know for sure- if it's for woke reasons then I hate it.

The excuse that the wokist at D&D are using is to make D&D setting agnostic.  In reality its a long standing leftist post modernist belief that there is no good or evil.  Everything is grey and whatever man wants it to be it is.  Meanwhile having a set alignment system that makes it exceedingly easy to role play a monster is inherently evil (ironic) to a leftist because it is reinforcing objective concepts of good and evil.  Having alignment in D&D teaching children the concept of right and wrong is a moral affront to the post-modernist moral degenerates.

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%208%20Ethics/PostModernism.htm

I disagree that objective (as in independent of humans) morality exists. Reality? Yes. Morality? No. Whether objective morality exists IN A FICTIONAL WORLD depends on the setting's makers. If the creators of a particular setting says X is bad, then it is. If the creators of another setting say nothing is good or bad, then that is true. The creators of the setting are its Gods, they determine everything about it.

I disagree on both counts. Morality in the real world is primarily in the form of cause and effect and if you are doing something which forces other people to act in self-defense against you. These are not intuitively obvious, and as the world becomes increasingly complex, more subtle interactions come into play. There are moral interactions which we don't understand, yet, just like we don't have a theory of Quantum Gravity. But fundamentally, morality is baked into the universe as deeply as mathematics and fictional universes with senses of morality which don't line up with the real universe will feel less like fictional worlds and more like acid trips.

Morality is not baked into the universe. Morality is a human construct. Without humans, there is no morality. Even with humans, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is defined entirely by humans. In the case of a fictional world, the author can make up whatever morality they want. Sure, you can disagree. That doesn't make what they said false.

pundit, if this is off topic, tell me, I'll make several more posts responding to the other people. If it is then I'll move it to Discord.

Whether or not  you believe that morality is universal, there's no question that HUMAN MORALITY is in fact objective. It is not just made up arbitrarily. It is a product of human evolution. Likewise you could assume that most humanoids would end up having similar moralities, in the same way that all human cultures have developed the same core moral elements.

Evolution guiding humans to have a sense of morality doesn't mean it's objective. It just meant that we evolved to categorize certain deeds as 'good' or 'bad'. And those deeds are mutable. The Aztecs said that sacrificing humans is good. The Nazis said that killin millions of people is good. I hate both of them because the society I grew up in taught me view them as evil (but also because I don't like it).

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.

I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.

Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.

If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 10:59:21 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.

I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.

Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.

If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on November 01, 2022, 12:26:44 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on October 31, 2022, 10:59:21 PM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on October 31, 2022, 10:35:32 PM
Sigh. The fact that the statement "morality is subjective" even makes sense to anyone is a sad consequence of the collapse of the traditional understanding of ethics at the very beginning of the modern world. Before the Reformation and the Jansenists, ethics wasn't just "the rules the community have laid down" or "the rules God or the gods have laid down" — it was the study of how to live well given the sort of creatures we are.

I don't get to just decide that murdering someone is good for me any more than I get to decide that eating tons of junk food and never exercising is good for me — that's a function of their consequences, for my body, for my mind, for my relationships with others, for the sort of person I make myself.

Which is a nice way of saying they're made up. Just like laws and the meaning of words.

If you decide murder is good, all power to ya man. Anyone can stop you at any time.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.

I am in fact serious. That anyone includes me, and I'll stop you from doing murder for the sole reason being that I don't like you doing that. And also I have a gun.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on November 01, 2022, 12:26:44 AM
Sorry, my bad. I didn't realize you were just being edgy. I thought you were serious. Carry on, then.

Yeah.  That one was funny, but it was the clincher for me, too.

This whole "morality is objective/subjective" thing is getting on my nerves.

First, everyone acknowledges that certain things are objectively true (at least I hope they do).  For example, it is objectively a fact that the earth orbits the sun, that objects dropped on the earth fall accelerating at 9.8 M/Sec2 (subject to atmospheric disturbance), and that mammals need oxygen to survive.  These are facts.  You can disagree with them, but you can prove them, again and again.  Our opinions won't change the matter, and they'll be true whether or not there are any humans around to observe them, and everything will still be subject to those facts.  I think everyone here agrees to that.

Now, morality: it's manifestly not like gravity.  People can have different opinions about it, and there's no experimental way to prove that one system of morals is 'true' and another is 'false'.

Sure, you can argue that a person may have morals that are incoherent or otherwise illogical, or that they fail to achieve their stated goals--and insofar as you can demonstrate that a moral system is incoherent or irrational, you can prove that they're objectively 'false'.  But saying 'your goals are false' is a bit like saying liking boozing it up every night is 'false'--it's not a question of truth, it's a question of what someone wants.  (And yes, liking booze can cause numerous problems that the person may wish to avoid...and you could tell that person that their love for booze is going to work against their stated goal of being healthy or living a long life, but again, that's not a question of being 'true' or 'false'.)

But if someone has a total alien set of moral beliefs--let's say "Human sacrifice is a good thing" (and they might even build a civilization around that, like the Aztecs did)--you can say "You're wrong!", but there's no way you can demonstrate it with an experiment or logical argument.  Yes, you can force them to stop human sacrifice--but that merely shows you're more powerful than them, not that your moral system is 'true' and theirs is 'false'.

Now, does that mean "morality is subjective"?  Well--what do you mean by 'subjective'?  If you mean that it's all in an individual's mind, I'd say no, it isn't--every society has certain moral standards that are objectively outside of the individual.  Unlike gravity, of course, they can change over time...and unlike gravity, if that society was completely wiped out, the morals that they believed would also cease to exist--there'd be no one to believe them or enforce them on anyone else.  So yes, those morals have an objective existence, but it's a sociological construct that can and does change over time, and only exist so long as the society exists.  And that society will enforce that law--imperfectly, unlike gravity; you can get away with flaunting it in some circumstances.  They may punish you for it, but that never proves that the criminal's morals are 'false'--just that his society disagrees with him, and they're strong enough to capture him and punish him for it.

Now, taking a step back from that, aside from human society, are there any objective moral laws?  That's really a theological question.  I am a theist, so I'd say yes--there is a God, and he has a moral law and he will judge us regarding our adherence to it (or lack thereof). 

Someone might claim "well, God's morals are just his opinion, so it's subjective, just in his mind".  I suppose if you view God as a person on the same level as humans, that would be true--and indeed, if you read, say, the Iliad, it's obvious that the gods in that religion didn't really have any claim on being anything but essentially superheroes whose moral sensibilities were not exactly refined.  But if God is "the ground of all being", and eternal--always existing and will never cease to exist, and creator of all that is and everything is contingent on him and he is not contingent on anything else--it's a little hard to consider the mind of God as a 'subject' such as ourselves.  It makes his existence more solid than the ground we walk on, in that the ground's creation--and it's continued existence--is wholly dependent on him, but he is not dependent on it.

But, for better or worse, he also created a world in which one who flaunts that law is not immediately punished--not in the same sense that if one flaunts the law of gravity, the consequences are immediate and swift.  Some might use this as evidence against the existence of such a God, but that's another issue.  Suffice it to say that not everyone accepts the existence of this God, and I can't definitively prove his existence to those who don't believe.

All that said, what does this have to do with RPGs?

Well, most worlds built for RPGs (and stories in general) have an implicit morality.  In the case of a game, it's the GM who decides what that is.  He'll create societies in which the PCs act, and those PCs will be judged for their actions.  If its a fantasy RPG, he'll probably also create a pantheon of gods, and usually these gods have some kind of moral sense.  They might be like the Greek gods of the Iliad and not really highly moral; they might be more like historic theistic Gods who have a strict moral code.  But there will be a morality...and it will be the GMs choice to see how the characters live their lives, and how the society/gods/die roll modifiers will react when they flaunt the morality of the GMs universe.

And really, in most old school games, there are creatures/spiritual entities who are by nature good, and there are those who are by nature evil.  Humans (and many non-human humanoids) tend to be mixed, some predominately good, some predominately evil, but all probably at least a little bit of good and evil.  If the GM determines Orcs are evil, there are no consequences for killing Orcs (other than making Orcs kind of unfriendly to you), well then--that's the morality of the game, and it's pretty much going to be absolute and solid.  As far as your PC is concerned, it's the law of the universe, and no amount of trying to redeem the Orcs is going to work in that universe.  Some Woke character isn't going to get too far in that universe if they try to convert the Orcs to goodness and light.  But it goes both ways--if, God forbid, you get a Woke GM, be prepared for their morality ruling the universe.  Be prepared to live according to their (or Xis or Xer or whatever pronoun they use) rules.

Oh well, I've blathered on too long.  'Nuff said.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on November 01, 2022, 03:26:51 PM
This whole "morality is objective/subjective" thing is getting on my nerves.

First, everyone acknowledges that certain things are objectively true (at least I hope they do).  For example, it is objectively a fact that the earth orbits the sun, that objects dropped on the earth fall accelerating at 9.8 M/Sec2 (subject to atmospheric disturbance), and that mammals need oxygen to survive.  These are facts.  You can disagree with them, but you can prove them, again and again.  Our opinions won't change the matter, and they'll be true whether or not there are any humans around to observe them, and everything will still be subject to those facts.  I think everyone here agrees to that.

Now, morality: it's manifestly not like gravity.  People can have different opinions about it, and there's no experimental way to prove that one system of morals is 'true' and another is 'false'.

Sure, you can argue that a person may have morals that are incoherent or otherwise illogical, or that they fail to achieve their stated goals--and insofar as you can demonstrate that a moral system is incoherent or irrational, you can prove that they're objectively 'false'.  But saying 'your goals are false' is a bit like saying liking boozing it up every night is 'false'--it's not a question of truth, it's a question of what someone wants.  (And yes, liking booze can cause numerous problems that the person may wish to avoid...and you could tell that person that their love for booze is going to work against their stated goal of being healthy or living a long life, but again, that's not a question of being 'true' or 'false'.)

But if someone has a total alien set of moral beliefs--let's say "Human sacrifice is a good thing" (and they might even build a civilization around that, like the Aztecs did)--you can say "You're wrong!", but there's no way you can demonstrate it with an experiment or logical argument.  Yes, you can force them to stop human sacrifice--but that merely shows you're more powerful than them, not that your moral system is 'true' and theirs is 'false'.

Now, does that mean "morality is subjective"?  Well--what do you mean by 'subjective'?  If you mean that it's all in an individual's mind, I'd say no, it isn't--every society has certain moral standards that are objectively outside of the individual.  Unlike gravity, of course, they can change over time...and unlike gravity, if that society was completely wiped out, the morals that they believed would also cease to exist--there'd be no one to believe them or enforce them on anyone else.  So yes, those morals have an objective existence, but it's a sociological construct that can and does change over time, and only exist so long as the society exists.  And that society will enforce that law--imperfectly, unlike gravity; you can get away with flaunting it in some circumstances.  They may punish you for it, but that never proves that the criminal's morals are 'false'--just that his society disagrees with him, and they're strong enough to capture him and punish him for it.

Now, taking a step back from that, aside from human society, are there any objective moral laws?  That's really a theological question.  I am a theist, so I'd say yes--there is a God, and he has a moral law and he will judge us regarding our adherence to it (or lack thereof). 

Someone might claim "well, God's morals are just his opinion, so it's subjective, just in his mind".  I suppose if you view God as a person on the same level as humans, that would be true--and indeed, if you read, say, the Iliad, it's obvious that the gods in that religion didn't really have any claim on being anything but essentially superheroes whose moral sensibilities were not exactly refined.  But if God is "the ground of all being", and eternal--always existing and will never cease to exist, and creator of all that is and everything is contingent on him and he is not contingent on anything else--it's a little hard to consider the mind of God as a 'subject' such as ourselves.  It makes his existence more solid than the ground we walk on, in that the ground's creation--and it's continued existence--is wholly dependent on him, but he is not dependent on it.

But, for better or worse, he also created a world in which one who flaunts that law is not immediately punished--not in the same sense that if one flaunts the law of gravity, the consequences are immediate and swift.  Some might use this as evidence against the existence of such a God, but that's another issue.  Suffice it to say that not everyone accepts the existence of this God, and I can't definitively prove his existence to those who don't believe.

All that said, what does this have to do with RPGs?

Well, most worlds built for RPGs (and stories in general) have an implicit morality.  In the case of a game, it's the GM who decides what that is.  He'll create societies in which the PCs act, and those PCs will be judged for their actions.  If its a fantasy RPG, he'll probably also create a pantheon of gods, and usually these gods have some kind of moral sense.  They might be like the Greek gods of the Iliad and not really highly moral; they might be more like historic theistic Gods who have a strict moral code.  But there will be a morality...and it will be the GMs choice to see how the characters live their lives, and how the society/gods/die roll modifiers will react when they flaunt the morality of the GMs universe.

And really, in most old school games, there are creatures/spiritual entities who are by nature good, and there are those who are by nature evil.  Humans (and many non-human humanoids) tend to be mixed, some predominately good, some predominately evil, but all probably at least a little bit of good and evil.  If the GM determines Orcs are evil, there are no consequences for killing Orcs (other than making Orcs kind of unfriendly to you), well then--that's the morality of the game, and it's pretty much going to be absolute and solid.  As far as your PC is concerned, it's the law of the universe, and no amount of trying to redeem the Orcs is going to work in that universe.  Some Woke character isn't going to get too far in that universe if they try to convert the Orcs to goodness and light.  But it goes both ways--if, God forbid, you get a Woke GM, be prepared for their morality ruling the universe.  Be prepared to live according to their (or Xis or Xer or whatever pronoun they use) rules.

Oh well, I've blathered on too long.  'Nuff said.

wow, osman, you're really articulate in your ideas. especially with the bolded part. most atheists get it wrong with the God described in the Bible/Quran, they think He's a being like a human, and is thus flawed like us. i'm agnostic myself but I get annoyed by that.

i see your point is that 'most games have objective morality' and I agree. woke people shouldn't go as far to say that morality is subjective in real life, so it is in every game. that's even more stupid than what they usually say.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 01, 2022, 03:56:13 PM
wow, osman, you're really articulate in your ideas. especially with the bolded part. most atheists get it wrong with the God described in the Bible/Quran, they think He's a being like a human, and is thus flawed like us. i'm agnostic myself but I get annoyed by that.

i see your point is that 'most games have objective morality' and I agree. woke people shouldn't go as far to say that morality is subjective in real life, so it is in every game. that's even more stupid than what they usually say.

Thanks for your kind words, Meganova.

At any rate, I can only imagine how hellish it would be to play a fully Woke RPG.  Heck, I could see playing an RPG with minimal fighting (hey, in Classic Traveller, if you fought, that usually ended the adventure pretty quick, at least for some characters...D&D was always more forgiving.)  I could see one that involved trying to solve puzzles, do trade and all sorts of non-combat things.  But something from a woke wet dream would seem like trying to role play an after-school special or a "Very Special" episode of Blossom.  If that's the direction that TSR goes, it would attract a completely different fandom--probably a completely different species--than I can see getting along with.