Parental Control

[Umhm]

After playing a couple of Dungeons and Dragons games with my friend I've decided that I really want to join an RPGing group. However my parents really don't like the game and don't want me to play. I'm old enough so its not an age problem, and I just can't understand why they wouldnt want me to play it. :smallannoyed:

[shadow_archmagi]

After playing a couple of Dungeons and Dragons games with my friend I've decided that I really want to join an RPGing group. However my parents really don't like the game and don't want me to play. I'm old enough so its not an age problem, and I just can't understand why they wouldnt want me to play it. :smallannoyed:

Holy crap NOT Ninja'd


In the early years of D&D it had a lot of extremely bad press and was repeatedly blamed for satanism suicide and murder and was basically the Grand Theft Auto of the 80s

http://www.theescapist.com/basic_gaming_faq.htm#reputation

Relevant link.

[FoE]

After playing a couple of Dungeons and Dragons games with my friend I've decided that I really want to join an RPGing group. However my parents really don't like the game and don't want me to play. I'm old enough so its not an age problem, and I just can't understand why they wouldnt want me to play it. :smallannoyed:

Perhaps they're concerned about the people you're playing with?

Maybe they're worried you're too obsessed with this 'RPG crap'?

I don't know. I don't know your parents and I don't know you, so it's all speculation on my part.

[taltamir]

After playing a couple of Dungeons and Dragons games with my friend I've decided that I really want to join an RPGing group. However my parents really don't like the game and don't want me to play. I'm old enough so its not an age problem, and I just can't understand why they wouldnt want me to play it. :smallannoyed:

ask them why.

A good chance of them hearing lies about it from some crazy zealot and believing them to be true. If you don't ask them to find out what it is they OBJECT to, you cannot counter argue.

[Grynning]

One thing you'll want to do is accentuate the positive. Don't bring up the dark days of D&D being stigmatized...the hobby is out of the basement now and is very mainstream. Explain to them that the game is something that's enjoyed by lots of people from different walks of life and is just another kind of social game like a board game or a card game.

I would recommend taking them down to a local gaming store where they have public games. Just let them see some people playing. If your parents are reasonable people, it shouldn't take long for them to see that it's fairly harmless.

[Starbuck_II]

Asking might help.

If they say no logical reason like: "just because"
Then the have a reason but it sounds stupid in their minds so they won't tell you due to image issues (don't want to look stupid)

Really, anything might have done it. Kayne might have appeared and told them during their discussion with each other and said, " I'll let you finish, but don't let him have fun playing D&d".

Likely, as said above: there is alot of sterotypes, myths, and propaganda against D&D.

You could mention that a good portion of the US army plays D&D if your parents are patriotic.

[Katana_Geldar]

Point out that you're getting together with friends, using your imagination as well as doing some very quick maths.

[darkblust]

That is annoying.As said above,talk to your parents about the pro's of dnd,and stay away from teh con's.I was lucky,and my parents wanted me to play.Its a social activity or what.

[Riffington]

Tell them to ask Stephen Colbert about it if they have any concerns.

[dragonfan6490]

Tell them to ask Stephen Colbert about it if they have any concerns.

Or Vin Diesel.

[Tyndmyr]

{Scrubbed. No Jack Chick or other religious tracts!}

[Korivan]

{Scrubbed}

[Zovc]

{Scrubbed}

After reading that, all I can say is, "WAT?!"

[taltamir]

The vast majority of this started when some highschool kid who didn't get voted student council shot himself over it with his mothers loaded and unlocked gun...She of course couldn't cope...ta da, amongst the first crap to throw at DnD.
This reminds me the time the news was all about how 6 people were murdered "over an xbox"... I decided to get to the bottom of it... what really happened was this:

Man had a roomate. Man was sent to prison for breaking parole (has history of violent crimes). While in prison roomate pawned off all of the man's possions, ALL, even his CLOTHES were pawned off... Man comes out of prison to find out 5 people in his old place, and that his roomate sold everything... he gets a friend, and the TWO of the go back and murder all 6 people in the appartment.

Among his possessions was an xbox... news response "people killed over xbox".

Or there was the chinese "boy" killed over a "virtual sword in wow"... well, the "boy" was 17, he bought a sword for 300$ from another player (which is the normal market price for them), however, after getting the sword he will not pay up... the seller went to the police who laughed at him. So he killed him.
Try stealing a 300$ golf club? would it be "just a game" then?

[Vorpal word]

I'm another player with parental control over our games. It's actually really annoying because I'm only allowed to play twice a month since "it gets in the way of my schoolwork". Actually, I'm pretty sure NOT doing it wouldn't improve my grades, but anyway, I sympathize with those others with similar issues.

Anyway, this has forced me to secede from many ongoing or planned campaigns. I don't know how much time you are allowed to spend on the game, but if you don't want your parents to think it's evil, don't go overboard playing. Our gaming group is notorious (at least to me) for planning at least 2 games that never start for every one that does, which means a lot of character, monster and dungeon making for nothing. I don't know how things are for you, but I find that the less time I spend planning games, the less my parents bother me. Of course, the best way possible is to convince them to take the limits off, but in my case that simply doesn't work.

[KellKheraptis]

{Scrubbed}

[Gamgee]

My grandmother thought it was some daemonic cult game too. I explained to here how e play, and what we do. I even let her watch a little bit of a game. She still thought it was stupid or silly, but at least she knew it wasn't some crazy cult thing.

Dumb? Definitely, but sometimes all you have to do is explain. If they don't listen then meh and go ahead with it anyway.

[Korivan]

I'm another player with parental control over our games. It's actually really annoying because I'm only allowed to play twice a month since "it gets in the way of my schoolwork". Actually, I'm pretty sure NOT doing it wouldn't improve my grades, but anyway, I sympathize with those others with similar issues.

To be honost, playing DnD has helped me keep my edge with math skills, logic and reasoning skills, and even improved my vocabulary on a fantasy and non-fantasy level.

[taltamir]

{Scrubbed}

if that is the case... than "what they don't know wont hurt you"... seriously, just don't tell them.

[KellKheraptis]

To be honost, playing DnD has helped me keep my edge with math skills, logic and reasoning skills, and even improved my vocabulary on a fantasy and non-fantasy level.

And this right here, this is why I was bored out of my skull all through school :D That and the first time a teacher tries to mark you down for a word THEY don't know, only to get a healthy dose of humility for being a smug smart @ss, will be utterly priceless. And it WILL happen.


if that is the case... than "what they don't know wont hurt you"... seriously, just don't tell them.

Again, QFT.

[Gamgee]

To be honost, playing DnD has helped me keep my edge with math skills, logic and reasoning skills, and even improved my vocabulary on a fantasy and non-fantasy level.

I concur. It doesn't improve my skills, but keeps them honed enough so they don't go by the wayside and degrade. The vocabulary actually improves from it, but that may just be my penchant for reading books. :P

[wadledo]

To be honost, playing DnD has helped me keep my edge with math skills, logic and reasoning skills, and even improved my vocabulary on a fantasy and non-fantasy level.

Actually, warn your parents that your vocabulary may improve too much.
Once I started playing D&D, my parents noticed that my smart mouth just seemed to get smarter and smarter, exponentially.

[Tyndmyr]

After reading that, all I can say is, "WAT?!"

I know, right? I've gotten characters WAY past level 8. I'm seriously overdue for my spells here.

[Korivan]

I concur. It doesn't improve my skills, but keeps them honed enough so they don't go by the wayside and degrade. The vocabulary actually improves from it, but that may just be my penchant for reading books. :P

OOOH, yes, reading. Not to mention in my case, research. Alot of times I look up in dictionarys and a theasoris to find out what words mean, or at least get a visual clue. This is often the case in clothing, armours, weapons, battle tactics, landscaping, manuvers, body lanugage, and so on. I love it when authers make me think.

[Mystic Muse]

details would really help here. we can't argue against arguments we're not aware of.

[sofawall]

Heh, my Uncle used to play D&D, and my Mom knows it as "All his friends come over, roll some dice, shout a lot, and eat all the cereal."

[Korivan]

details would really help here. we can't argue against arguments we're not aware of.

Your best bet would be to go to a search engine and just type up anything with dungeons and dragons and religious intolerance.

[Jade_Tarem]

Just have your parents read the Wikipedia article on it. Last time I checked, it gave a fairly impartial review of the game, a decent explanation of the controversy behind it, and a history. If they still refuse, then it's probably something to do with them not wanting it to interfere with your schoolwork or something.

DON'T try and play it behind their backs. If anything, that's going to confirm their suspicious that it's something dirty when they eventually find out about it.

[taltamir]

And this right here, this is why I was bored out of my skull all through school :D That and the first time a teacher tries to mark you down for a word THEY don't know, only to get a healthy dose of humility for being a smug smart @ss, will be utterly priceless. And it WILL happen.

Ah, all those years wasted, being bored out of my mind in school and just burning time... if you find school boring, go buy some college textbooks on an interesting subject... organic chemistry is a very good one. Or you can do cell biology, or something else equally specific and high quality.. (as long as the book is good, some books are crap).

[KellKheraptis]

Ah, all those years wasted, being bored out of my mind in school and just burning time... if you find school boring, go buy some college textbooks on an interesting subject... organic chemistry is a very good one. Or you can do cell biology, or something else equally specific and high quality.. (as long as the book is good, some books are crap).

That's the thing...I was in AP classes...they WERE college textbooks :P So I resorted to astrophysics as an independent study while continuing practicing martial arts (from age 10 to present).

[Mystic Muse]

Your best bet would be to go to a search engine and just type up anything with dungeons and dragons and religious intolerance.

I mean his/her parent's arguments about why they don't like it. if it was religious intolerance we unfortunately would not be able to discuss that on these boards.

[Woodsman]

Heh, my Uncle used to play D&D, and my Mom knows it as "All his friends come over, roll some dice, shout a lot, and eat all the cereal."

Replace "cereal" with "wings" and you've got what my dad knows it as because of my group. :smalltongue

[kjones]

Heh, my Uncle used to play D&D, and my Mom knows it as "All his friends come over, roll some dice, shout a lot, and eat all the cereal."

This is the best description I have ever heard. Except at my house, they ate all the dried fruit my mom kept around.

[taltamir]

That's the thing...I was in AP classes...they WERE college textbooks :P So I resorted to astrophysics as an independent study while continuing practicing martial arts (from age 10 to present).

thats what i meant... college textbooks read OUTSIDE of class, that are highly advanced, and are not for any class which you are currently taking :).

[Korivan]

That's the thing...I was in AP classes...they WERE college textbooks :P So I resorted to astrophysics as an independent study while continuing practicing martial arts (from age 10 to present).

Its funny just how few people that actually fit the sterotypical bill of role-players. You martial arts, vin diesel, robin williams...wait, thats not so far fetched. Heck 3/5 of our group workout on a semi to professinal level.

On a related note. Follow Jades advice. Don't hide it from your parents. Thats just gonna make you feel like its unacceptable too. Then you hide it from potential love interests, and then they find out you play, and its just an on and on thing there. I don't know if I could hide it from my wife and be comfortable. That and I totally plan on teaching my son when he's old enough (only 6 months now.)

[Thurbane]

{Scrubbed}
I'm surprised a 7th/8th level party can't afford a simple Raise Dead. Not to mention the DM screwed the pooch by not allowing a save against the poison. :smalltongue:

[Ostien]

Moar details MOAR I SAY...

But seriously detailed concerns would be helpful. Most people have given some good suggestions in general. However, if the concern is, for them, a moral one, such as "D&D is all evil etc.," Then a good idea would be to explain the alignment system. The game being 3.5 or 4e does not matter as long as it is clear there is an alignment system and objective morality (according to the rules). So then you can say there are penalties to being evil, and you are playing a non-evil game. I have heard this works, people who have moral/religious concerns (however unfounded); they are put at ease with the idea of o an enforced objective morality.

Also, please don't make this into a **** storm about the merits of an alignment system. :smalltongue:

[Paulus]

Just tell them it's about as satanic as Monopoly.

No wait scratch that... with today's current economy Monopoly seems satanic.

Tell them it's about as bad as chess, only with MORE math and storytelling.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It might just be an issue of time. I first discovered D&D in 2nd grade, and my dad flatly refused to let me play (a friend of his committed suicide and the press/his school blamed it on D&D; he never got over that), so I kept showing him good points and accepted his wishes. In 4th grade, he let me give it a chance. I'm currently a sophomore in college, and he hasn't had any complaints since he okayed it.

[Tyndmyr]

Its funny just how few people that actually fit the sterotypical bill of role-players. You martial arts, vin diesel, robin williams...wait, thats not so far fetched. Heck 3/5 of our group workout on a semi to professinal level.

On a related note. Follow Jades advice. Don't hide it from your parents. Thats just gonna make you feel like its unacceptable too. Then you hide it from potential love interests, and then they find out you play, and its just an on and on thing there. I don't know if I could hide it from my wife and be comfortable. That and I totally plan on teaching my son when he's old enough (only 6 months now.)

At this point, given my experiences, I'd just assume that in any random D&D group, there'll be at least one martial artist, or someone who works out intensely in another area, and likely a few computer gurus.

And the junk food, yeah. For some reason, all D&D sessions result in utterly insane quantities of junk food, mountain dew, and diet coke vanishing. Science has no explanation for this phenomenon.

[gdiddy]

As a parent, DM, and player: This all goes out the window if you're not doing good in school. Seriously. The game is great, but unless you're planning on becoming a WotC employee, you're parents want to see you become educated. If anything is going to distract you from the chance to become a doctor or attorney, parent's will only see it as a threat to your future and happiness.

[Mushroom Ninja]

{Scrubbed}

[Tyndmyr]

I'm surprised a 7th/8th level party can't afford a simple Raise Dead. Not to mention the DM screwed the pooch by not allowing a save against the poison. :smalltongue:

Not to mention, Elfstar is the name of the character who lives. That lame of a name should be automatic cause for rocks falling.

Mind Bondage at level 8 sounds good though. I haven't the faintest idea what that spell actually is, though...Charm Monster? I mean, it is a parent. Still though, he should have gotten a save for doing something he wouldn't ordinarily do.

Oh no...Ive got it...they're MUNCHKINS. It should have been obvious. First, any rogue that dies to a single poison trap at level seven isn't worth raising. Secondly, the wizard lives and becomes the powerful one, casting spells of dubious legality. Yup, definitely going to hell.

[Mushroom Ninja]

any rogue that dies to a single poison trap at level seven isn't worth raising.

Maybe the DM was running Tomb of Horrors.

[Voldecanter]

Heh, my Uncle used to play D&D, and my Mom knows it as "All his friends come over, roll some dice, shout a lot, and eat all the cereal."


This is exactly what D&D is .

[Lycan 01]

A close friend of mine, who plays Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy, and every other major RPG I run, isn't allowed to play DnD with us. His mother has said that she just doesn't want him playing it.

We never asked her why.

Instead, we repeatedly tried to convince her to let him play, while never disobeying her request. I personally told him that even if he wanted to lie to his mom and play anyway, which he didn't want to, I would not allow him to play DnD with us. I've got too much respect for his mom to disregard her wishs. At any rate, we tried many times to convince her to see things our way, but to no avail. I even contemplated doing a Powerpoint presentation, but then decided that might be going a bit overboard, and might actually get on her nerves.

Finally, my friend asked her why she wouldn't let him play it, especially if she didn't have any first-hand knowledge about it.


He promptly got verbally owned by his mother, who replied that in college she'd often watched her friends play it, sitting in one many of their weekend games. She knew exactly what the game was about, how it was played, and what was so bad about it. Having had in-depth experience with the subject, she realized that she did not want her son getting involved in something like that. End of discussion... not that either of us could ever come up with a counter-arguement to that.


I've just got to wonder what sort of DnD group her friends had going... :smalleek:



Edit: My point is, ask your parents why you can't play. They might have a surprisingly good reason for it... :smallconfused:

[Drakyn]

A close friend of mine, who plays Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy, and every other major RPG I run, isn't allowed to play DnD with us. His mother has said that she just doesn't want him playing it.

We never asked her why.

Instead, we repeatedly tried to convince her to let him play, while never disobeying her request. I personally told him that even if he wanted to lie to his mom and play anyway, which he didn't want to, I would not allow him to play DnD with us. I've got too much respect for his mom to disregard her wishs. At any rate, we tried many times to convince her to see things our way, but to no avail. I even contemplated doing a Powerpoint presentation, but then decided that might be going a bit overboard, and might actually get on her nerves.

Finally, my friend asked her why she wouldn't let him play it, especially if she didn't have any first-hand knowledge about it.


He promptly got verbally owned by his mother, who replied that in college she'd often watched her friends play it, sitting in one many of their weekend games. She knew exactly what the game was about, how it was played, and what was so bad about it. Having had in-depth experience with the subject, she realized that she did not want her son getting involved in something like that. End of discussion... not that either of us could ever come up with a counter-arguement to that.


I've just got to wonder what sort of DnD group her friends had going... :smalleek:



Edit: My point is, ask your parents why you can't play. They might have a surprisingly good reason for it... :smallconfused:

Maybe her friends were horrible munchkins who all played tippy-style wizards. That's the only reason I can think of for her to hate it and be perfectly fine with him playing practically everything else.

[Admiral Squish]

I don't really have anything meaningful to contribute, without more details on the situation.

My suggestion, if there IS no logical argument or reasoning for their disapproval, is, as has been said before, 'what they don't know won't hurt them'. My brother spent six months hanging out with a guy, never knowing the guy was a gamer, because he always referred to his 'Vampire: The Masquerade' meetings as 'football'. Even if you don't have to use it on anyone else, just telling your parents you're going to go play 'football' will be enough to get them off your back long enough for some game time.

[Mystic Muse]

I don't really have anything meaningful to contribute, without more details on the situation.

My suggestion, if there IS no logical argument or reasoning for their disapproval, is, as has been said before, 'what they don't know won't hurt them'. My brother spent six months hanging out with a guy, never knowing the guy was a gamer, because he always referred to his 'Vampire: The Masquerade' meetings as 'football'. Even if you don't have to use it on anyone else, just telling your parents you're going to go play 'football' will be enough to get them off your back long enough for some game time.

not targeted towards you specifically admiral squish but don't do this.

going against your parents wishes will not help your case. It will just make them think they were right all the more. If you had to hide it from them they'll believe it's because there is something wrong with the game.

maybe there's a certain aspect that makes the game uncomfortable for your parents? most things in the game can be wiped away without any real problems and then the cause for anxiety is gone. I'm actually going to make a one shot version of D&D that will take away most things that some parents find wrong with the game just to prove that the game isn't inherently evil. Unless the problem is the violence in the game which they're going to have to just get over.

[grubblybubbly]

emphasoze on it being CREATIVE. also that it isn't neccesarily violent. that might help.

[Admiral Squish]

not targeted towards you specifically admiral squish but don't do this.

going against your parents wishes will not help your case. It will just make them think they were right all the more. If you had to hide it from them they'll believe it's because there is something wrong with the game.

maybe there's a certain aspect that makes the game uncomfortable for your parents? most things in the game can be wiped away without any real problems and then the cause for anxiety is gone. I'm actually going to make a one shot version of D&D that will take away most things that some parents find wrong with the game just to prove that the game isn't inherently evil. Unless the problem is the violence in the game which they're going to have to just get over.

That's if there is NO logical explanation. If they have a valid or reasonable reason, don't go against that. If you must, argue your point, but my suggestion only stands if there is no reasoning to their argument, and all other methods of convincing them have failed. I expect you to be considering powerpoint presentation and well-drawn graphs before you resort to my suggestion.

[Sharkman1231]

When my parents found out I started playing D&D, If was soooo annoying. For a year and a half my dad would routinly call me a "dork","nerd","etc". Butnot in front of anyone I knew, which was good. Then he finally stopped and I was really happy about that.

Yeah so, just talk to your parents about why you cannot play dnd.
Hmm...What a novel idea I have...

[Mystic Muse]

That's if there is NO logical explanation. If they have a valid or reasonable reason, don't go against that. If you must, argue your point, but my suggestion only stands if there is no reasoning to their argument, and all other methods of convincing them have failed. I expect you to be considering powerpoint presentation and well-drawn graphs before you resort to my suggestion.

okay then yeah. That definitely works.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religion, including religious reactions to gaming, is an inappropriate topic on this Forum. Please steer clear of it.

[Dragonmuncher]

A close friend of mine, who plays Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy, and every other major RPG I run, isn't allowed to play DnD with us. His mother has said that she just doesn't want him playing it.

We never asked her why.

Instead, we repeatedly tried to convince her to let him play, while never disobeying her request. I personally told him that even if he wanted to lie to his mom and play anyway, which he didn't want to, I would not allow him to play DnD with us. I've got too much respect for his mom to disregard her wishs. At any rate, we tried many times to convince her to see things our way, but to no avail. I even contemplated doing a Powerpoint presentation, but then decided that might be going a bit overboard, and might actually get on her nerves.

Finally, my friend asked her why she wouldn't let him play it, especially if she didn't have any first-hand knowledge about it.


He promptly got verbally owned by his mother, who replied that in college she'd often watched her friends play it, sitting in one many of their weekend games. She knew exactly what the game was about, how it was played, and what was so bad about it. Having had in-depth experience with the subject, she realized that she did not want her son getting involved in something like that. End of discussion... not that either of us could ever come up with a counter-arguement to that.

I've just got to wonder what sort of DnD group her friends had going... :smalleek:

Edit: My point is, ask your parents why you can't play. They might have a surprisingly good reason for it... :smallconfused:

Er... sounds like she didn't have a surprisingly good reason for it, at all. For whatever reason you respect this woman, it's obviously not good reasoning skills.


As for the OP, I agree with the other suggestions that have been made- make sure your parents understand about it, show them it won't affect your studies, etc. After all, it's just hanging out with your friends for a few hours.


And if worst comes to worst, do a bit of sneaking around. It's not ideal, true, but if it's a choice between that and being forbidden to play because your parents are convinced D&D will leave you a high school dropout that sacrifices cats in mystic rituals, just tell them you joined Chess Club and ignore them.

[taltamir]

Its funny just how few people that actually fit the sterotypical bill of role-players. You martial arts, vin diesel, robin williams...wait, thats not so far fetched. Heck 3/5 of our group workout on a semi to professinal level.

On a related note. Follow Jades advice. Don't hide it from your parents. Thats just gonna make you feel like its unacceptable too. Then you hide it from potential love interests, and then they find out you play, and its just an on and on thing there. I don't know if I could hide it from my wife and be comfortable. That and I totally plan on teaching my son when he's old enough (only 6 months now.)

I have never, EVER had a DnD group that did not have AT LEAST one girl. And she wasn't anything stereotypical.


Maybe her friends were horrible munchkins who all played tippy-style wizards. That's the only reason I can think of for her to hate it and be perfectly fine with him playing practically everything else.

or maybe they played using the book of erotic fantasy...

[gdiddy]

Please don't lie to your parents.

It's just a pass-time. Consider lifting weights instead. That way, when you turn 18 and move out, you can be jacked and play DnD. It will certainly help when playing DnD at the beach (like all the cool folks), you can defend yourself when someone kicks sand on the battle map.

[charl]

When I started playing DnD my parents were generally just happy that I stopped sitting at home reading all the time and started interacting with other people. I was seven years old.

Though you may not be as maladjusted as I am/was, I would emphasize the fact that it is a very social and friend-building hobby that gives you the opportunity to make long lasting friendships that you otherwise might not be able to.

[taltamir]

Please don't lie to your parents.

It's just a pass-time. Consider lifting weights instead. That way, when you turn 18 and move out, you can be jacked and play DnD. It will certainly help when playing DnD at the beach (like all the cool folks), you can defend yourself when someone kicks sand on the battle map.

the thread is about legal adults who don't even live with their parents, whose parent's told them they don't want them "doing that" with no explanation as to why.

[gdiddy]

the thread is about legal adults who don't even live with their parents, whose parent's told them they don't want them "doing that" with no explanation as to why.

The OP is 14.

14 year olds should not be sneaking around to do anything, regardless of whether its dating, surfing, managing an elaborate criminal network, or playing DnD.

[charl]

The OP is 14.

14 year olds should not be sneaking around to do anything, regardless of whether its dating, surfing, managing an elaborate criminal network, or playing DnD.

I don't necessarily agree in principle, but for this specific question I do. DnD should not need to be something you have to do in secret.

[Jade_Tarem]

The OP is 14.

14 year olds should not be sneaking around to do anything, regardless of whether its dating, surfing, managing an elaborate criminal network, or playing DnD.

Freudian slip? :smalltongue:

But yeah. That's no way to live.

[taltamir]

After playing a couple of Dungeons and Dragons games with my friend I've decided that I really want to join an RPGing group. However my parents really don't like the game and don't want me to play. I'm old enough so its not an age problem, and I just can't understand why they wouldnt want me to play it. :smallannoyed:

he is 14? i read this as "i am a legal adult so age is not a problem, but my parents don't want me doing something and I respect their wishes"

pfft, if you are 14 than age is HECK OF A PROBLEM!
Age is not a problem when you are a legal adult living on your own, until then you follow your parents rule's... nothing says you can't argue with them about said rules though... just make sure to be sensible about it... (aka, don't jump up and down saying "I AM A BIG BOY"... ask them for their reasoning and give well thought out counter arguments)

[Hawriel]

I agree with the rational argument approach. As in point counter point not fight.

Ask your parents if they have a problem with King Arthur, Robin Hood, Connan, Odysseus, Hercules, and Tolkin. My bet is they don't, and have watch or read meny of these stories with you as a child.

D&D as a role playing game originated out of these stories and myths. Playing D&D is acting out your own mythical story.

If you have not baught your own book ask a friend to barrow their's. Show it to your parents and ask them to read it. If there is eney thing they object to talk to you about it.

You can then tell them about all the other games that exist. Star Wars, Star Trek, Connan, World of Darkness, Battletech, Roll Master, Shadowrun. There are as meny of genre turned into RPGs as there are movies and TV shows.

[Totally Guy]

We have a 15 year old group member that is having trouble with his parents allowing him to participate.

He took home the 3.5 PHB a couple of weeks back and his mother took an interest. She came to the conclusion that the game was racist as it showed pictures of dwarf skulls next to human skulls and that's apparently similar to what nazis used to do. She didn't like "racial traits". And classes she though represented social classes where one class can't do do things that other classes can, as if the fighter can't cast spells because he is a second class citizen.

I think that this is a cover argument. As the oldest member of the group I can't ignore there is 10 years difference between myself and him. I think this is the real issue, we've not met the mother in question but we've invited her to observe/join in, but had no response. I don't know when we'll next see him.

[Athaniar]

She came to the conclusion that the game was racist as it showed pictures of dwarf skulls next to human skulls and that's apparently similar to what nazis used to do.
Wait, what?

[charl]

Wait, what?

It probably doesn't help that all the text on the background illustrations in the PHB is in German (not that German in itself is innately racist or "Nazi" any more than any other language).

[Totally Guy]

Wait, what?

I'm no expert but I was told that it was Arian skulls that were compared with non arian skulls rather than actual dwarf and elf skulls. Seeing as they do not exist.

[blackseven]

And classes she though represented social classes where one class can't do do things that other classes can, as if the fighter can't cast spells because he is a second class citizen.

She's onto something there, but got it backwards. The fighter is a second class citizen because he can't cast spells, not that he can't cast spells because he's a second class citizen.

Honestly, to OP, you're going to have to reason with your parents. Sneaking around is not a good choice because you're just going to be in deep trouble when you get caught. As long as you live in someone else's house, on their money, they get a significant say in your affairs, especially as your legal guardians.

[Calmar]

It probably doesn't help that all the text on the background illustrations in the PHB is in German (not that German in itself is innately racist or "Nazi" any more than any other language).

Where? :smallconfused:

[Totally Guy]

She's onto something there, but got it backwards. The fighter is a second class citizen because he can't cast spells, not that he can't cast spells because he's a second class citizen.

Shhh, we'll claim it's balanced just to avoid talking about the separate washbasins for non casters at the mage's guild.:smallwink:

[charl]

Where? :smallconfused:

The background illustrations at the start of all the chapters, as well as some of the illustrations in the race chapter. The equipment chapter illustration for example clearly says: "Ausrustung für Abenteuer" on the top.

[AslanCross]

I started playing D&D when I was 23, as such my mother (whom I live with) never really objected to it. However, I always make it a point to communicate with her regarding potentially controversial issues, so I brought up the topic with her.
We are both practicing and devout Christians. We are also both teachers, so the effect of gaming culture on the youth is a concern we share.

I simply told her that after reading the rules, I could find nothing in it that was objectionable by any standard. In fact, after talking to her about the addictive nature of certain MMOs and even DOTA (which seems to be crippling the youth here), my mother saw those as a greater evil.

I always market D&D as a game about being heroes, which is how I play it, and how my players play it. Any evil path the PCs may take is purely their choice and is not forced on them by the rules or the DM.

[Mystic Muse]

"Ausrustung für Abenteuer"

do you know what this says? at least a rough translation?

if they're going off the fact that there's german in the PHB that it's evil they're the ones who are racist.:smallmad:

[PhoenixRivers]

My easiest way to describe D&D to the uninitiated is "it's a grown up version of cops and robbers."

You pretend you're something you're not. There's good guys and bad guys. The main thing that's different is the level of involvement. Cops and Robbers is acting out a specific scene.

D&D is acting out the development of an individual as he learns, grows, and experiences a world with danger around every corner.

[charl]

do you know what this says? at least a rough translation?

if they're going off the fact that there's german in the PHB that it's evil they're the ones who are racist.:smallmad:

Yes I do know what it says (I have a basic understanding of German). It simply says "equipment for adventurers." The only thing remotely racist in the whole thing is the one for the first chapter that lists anatomical features of humans, which really is more of a medical thing, or most likely an imitation of Leonardo da Vinci-style illustrations.

I can't read the old script style text on any of the illustrations though, so they might say some horrific things for all I know.

EDIT: Well, the race chapter does say something along the lines of "pictoral studies of peoples C".

[Totally Guy]

if they're going off the fact that there's german in the PHB that it's evil they're the ones who are racist.:smallmad:

That's not what's happening.

[shadow_archmagi]

I think that this is a cover argument. As the oldest member of the group I can't ignore there is 10 years difference between myself and him. I think this is the real issue, we've not met the mother in question but we've invited her to observe/join in, but had no response. I don't know when we'll next see him.

It is either a cover argument or an absolutely stupid woman. No one could possibly be so thick as to...

no.

[Starbuck_II]

My mom has played D&D with me in the past. So that can be one way to do it. Although, my mom never "grew up" so that helps.

[Diamondeye]

I'm a little unclear on the age of the OP and some of the other people asking for advice, but here's all 3 scenarios:

1) If you are still a minor, you need to repsect your parents' wishes, regardless of what the reasons may be. That doesn't mean you can't still try to convince them they're wrong, but do it in a reasoned manner. Telling them they're "intolerant", or "closed-minded" or whatever won't help much. If my daughter told me something like that I'd probably respond "No, but if you're just going to engage in name-calling because you aren't getting your way, then my mind is definitely closed". Temper tantrums don't help anything. Getting good grades, on the other hand, does. One possibility is to suggest that as long as your grades stay good (say, no more than one 'C', for example) you're allowed to play, or maybe when you improve them. Of course, if your grades are already really good, this might not work, but at least you can point to them as evidence that you are responsible.

2) If you are an adult, not living with your parents or otherwise dependant on them, the proper response is "Butt out. It's none of your buisness". It is totally inappropriate for parents of independant adults to attempt to forbid them from doing anything (barring some circumstance like you working for them in which case "not on company time" is perfectly legit, or something like that). If this is the case for anyone, your parents are exhibiting an inability to recognize that their parental authority no longer exists, and that all they have the right to do is express an opinion. This is a situation you need to work out with them in no uncertain terms. If they act this way regarding D&D, there's a good chance they'll act the same way in other regards, such as grandchildren.

3) If you are an adult in college or living at home, the situation is complicated. They certainly have the right to put certain conditions on your acceptance of their housing or money for school (if they're paying for it. If, say, ROTC, is paying for your school then see #2) However, that is not the same as having full parental authority; especially if you are paying rent, bearing part of the cost of school, etc. How you handle this will depend on how entrenched they are in their position and how badly you need what they're providing. No one would recommend, I'm sure, dropping out of school or living on the street over D&D. However, this is the time to start putting limits on your parnets, and a certain amount of "If you want to see me finish college/keep living here/etc. then you need to leave decisions about perfectly legal adult activities to me". is appropriate. I know of one guy whose parents installed internet filters, a time and key-logger, and a few other things and laid down all kinds of rules he "had" to follow if he wanted them to keep paying for college. If that's the sort of thing going on, what's really happening is that your education or well-being is being held hostage to maintain parental authority they're no longer entitled to. The issue may only be D&D or something like that now, but it is symptomatic of a real problem with limits on the part of one's parents.

[Grey Paladin]

He took home the 3.5 PHB a couple of weeks back and his mother took an interest. She came to the conclusion that the game was racist as it showed pictures of dwarf skulls next to human skulls and that's apparently similar to what nazis used to do. She didn't like "racial traits". And classes she though represented social classes where one class can't do do things that other classes can, as if the fighter can't cast spells because he is a second class citizen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/Shdow/wat-1.jpg

[Random832]

the thread is about legal adults who don't even live with their parents, whose parent's told them they don't want them "doing that" with no explanation as to why.


The OP is 14.

I read back; the OP at no point said anything more specific than "old enough". @gdiddy, do you know the OP? If so, maybe you can explain more about his situation (such as the parents' reason for objecting).


I'm no expert but I was told that it was Arian skulls that were compared with non arian skulls rather than actual dwarf and elf skulls. Seeing as they do not exist.

The real problem is the difference between the use of the term "race" in fantasy and its use to apply to different groups of humans in the real world.

Tried explaining "It's not really races like in the real world, the word's being used wrong - it's actual different species, you know, like Klingons or Vulcans"

[Douglas]

I read back; the OP at no point said anything more specific than "old enough". @gdiddy, do you know the OP? If so, maybe you can explain more about his situation (such as the parents' reason for objecting).
Check the OP's profile.

[Glass Mouse]

A bunch of random thoughts through reading (will work only if the parents' problem is in the "D&D is bad!" alley):

My brothers started LARPing at an early age. Now, my parents are generally really cool, but I think it helped somehow that this particular LARPing was organized and governed by adults in the local after-schooltime-place (such a place where you hang out after school, and there are adults and afterschool activities and other kids... what's it called in English?). Are there adults in your group? That might ease your parents' worries.
The local gaming shop idea might be really good. Like my parents, if yours can be introduced to the hobby through "sensible adults", it might be easier to accept.

If your parents haven't seen LoTR, show them the movies. After that, explain to them that D&D is basically LoTR, only with more math and a lot more stupid jokes (don't mention the unhealthy junk food right away :smallwink:).
If your parents are radical, this might not work. But I personally haven't met anyone who'd deem LoTR satanic or anything (boring og silly, maybe, but that shouldn't really be a problem). Otherwise, go Eragon or Harry Potter or, heck, even Labyrinth. Whatever regular fantasy you can find.
Maybe show them The Gamers. The ending is... weird, but it shows pretty well the general sillyness (and unharmfulness) of D&D.

A more... convulted idea: If the group is already gathered, you might try the "These friends of mine really need me to fill in for another guy, just this evening, and they have no place to be! I'll clean up everything, and we promise not to be too loud, if you'll just let us play," approach. If you're lucky, they'll peek and realize that it's not dangerous at all.

Maybe, if your friends are cool people, ask your GM to meet with your parents (if both are willing). If he sits down and explains what kind of game you're running, what to expect, etc., again... it might help. But then of course, if they're willing to do this meeting, they've already come a long way.


Personally, I like to descripe D&D as "a gamey kind of improv theater", but that may tell more about my playing style than about D&D :smalltongue:

[Dragonmuncher]

He took home the 3.5 PHB a couple of weeks back and his mother took an interest. She came to the conclusion that the game was racist as it showed pictures of dwarf skulls next to human skulls and that's apparently similar to what nazis used to do. She didn't like "racial traits". And classes she though represented social classes where one class can't do do things that other classes can, as if the fighter can't cast spells because he is a second class citizen.

Yeah, it's stuff like this that had me say if there's no reasoning with your parents, go behind their back.


Honestly, what is all of this "Be a good little boy and listen to your parents" stuff? Most teens keep some secrets from their parents- they should be happy its playing a game and not, you know, drugs and gangs.

So, yeah, try to convince them, keep your grades up, and the rest of that- it's a better solution. But if your parents refuse to see reason, just say "Oh, I'm going over to Ted's house" and then go play D&D for a few hours.

[Starbuck_II]

Honestly, what is all of this "Be a good little boy and listen to your parents" stuff? Most teens keep some secrets from their parents- they should be happy its playing a game and not, you know, drugs and gangs.

So, yeah, try to convince them, keep your grades up, and the rest of that- it's a better solution. But if your parents refuse to see reason, just say "Oh, I'm going over to Ted's house" and then go play D&D for a few hours.

Most of us are Lawful or Neutral: disobeying parents is very chaotic.

[Diamondeye]

Yeah, it's stuff like this that had me say if there's no reasoning with your parents, go behind their back.

"Reasoning with your parents" does not mean "getting your way." It's not automatically true that any and all objections to RPGs are spurious.


Honestly, what is all of this "Be a good little boy and listen to your parents" stuff? Most teens keep some secrets from their parents- they should be happy its playing a game and not, you know, drugs and gangs.

It's people understanding that a good relationship with anyone isn't served by going behind each other's back. When the parents find out - and chances are they will - then not only will he not be allowed to play for sure, he won't have his parents' trust. Obviously its not as bad as doing drugs or gangs, but if he's being deceptive about one thing his parents will think he's deceptive about others.

Chances are he'll get caught too. Teenagers just don't have the life experience and saavy (usually) to keep stuff from their parents as well as they think. I should know - I find stuff out about my daughter that she doesn't know I know all the time.


So, yeah, try to convince them, keep your grades up, and the rest of that- it's a better solution. But if your parents refuse to see reason, just say "Oh, I'm going over to Ted's house" and then go play D&D for a few hours.

What you're really saying isn't "if your parents won't see reason"; it's "if your parents won't give you your way." The bottom line is that parents have the right to make decisions like this. They aren't obligated to justify their decisions to their children, and children and adolescents are notorious for not seeing the circumstances as they are but rather how they think they should be. Maybe his grades aren't so good. Maybe there are other issues. Even if the reason is completely spurious, parents have the right to make decisions like that. It's not as if there's anything abusive or outside the scope of parental responsibility about regulating teenage activities, RPGs included. It might be silly, but that's their buisness.

[Random832]

It's not automatically true that any and all objections to RPGs are spurious.

The examples of valid objections you have listed below are not objections to RPGs (i.e. specific to RPGs whereas any other activity such as video games would be allowed)


They aren't obligated to justify their decisions to their children, and children and adolescents are notorious for not seeing the circumstances as they are but rather how they think they should be. Maybe his grades aren't so good. Maybe there are other issues. Even if the reason is completely spurious, parents have the right to make decisions like that. It's not as if there's anything abusive or outside the scope of parental responsibility about regulating teenage activities, RPGs included. It might be silly, but that's their buisness.

[UnChosenOne]

Well, if you parent's won't allow you to play dnd and you're underaged, I can give you next advice: Act like they say even if it feels unjust. We all do have those times when you must sacriface your own hapiness in the sake of the common happines. But this only if they can give you good reason.

And about this DnD tuns you to nazi thing. I have just one comment: Kanada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_1vX-8uUUk&feature=related).

[Diamondeye]

The examples of valid objections you have listed below are not objections to RPGs (i.e. specific to RPGs whereas any other activity such as video games would be allowed)

I didn't list any examples, and even if I had, parents are completely within their rights to apply those objections selectively to activites as they see fit. They don't need to justify them to either their kids or the denizens of this board.

[thubby]

invite her to sit in on a session.

[Raewyn]

We have a 15 year old group member that is having trouble with his parents allowing him to participate.

[crazy racist/classist arguement]

I think that this is a cover argument. As the oldest member of the group I can't ignore there is 10 years difference between myself and him. I think this is the real issue, we've not met the mother in question but we've invited her to observe/join in, but had no response. I don't know when we'll next see him.

*hug for Glug*

I had a similar problem with my parents. I was 16 and the DM was 23, so my mom's first conclusion was that he was a giant pedophile. I tried to convince her he wasn't, even tried to have the two of them meet so she could see he had nothing but the noblest intentions, but she refused even that, so I was out of the game...

... Until I turned 17 and I could tell my mom I was going [insert place here], and then drive to the DM's house. :smallamused:

[Kurald Galain]

I didn't list any examples, and even if I had, parents are completely within their rights to apply those objections selectively to activites as they see fit. They don't need to justify them to either their kids or the denizens of this board.
I would find it very childish if a parent would forbid a teen to play D&D without some kind of justification, and would find it very mature of the teen to, then, do as he's told. There's something wrong with that picture.

[Mystic Muse]

I would find it very childish if a parent would forbid a teen to play D&D without some kind of justification, and would find it very mature of the teen to, then, do as he's told. There's something wrong with that picture.

this reminds me a bit of a comic. two kids are fighting over something inconsequential and this guy says "for crying out loud act your age!" trying to get them to stop. one of them asks "how? we're only nine." and the guy responds "I mean stop acting like adults.":smallbiggrin:

[Ostien]

It's people understanding that a good relationship with anyone isn't served by going behind each other's back. When the parents find out - and chances are they will - then not only will he not be allowed to play for sure, he won't have his parents' trust. Obviously its not as bad as doing drugs or gangs, but if he's being deceptive about one thing his parents will think he's deceptive about others.

Chances are he'll get caught too. Teenagers just don't have the life experience and saavy (usually) to keep stuff from their parents as well as they think. I should know - I find stuff out about my daughter that she doesn't know I know all the time.

What you're really saying isn't "if your parents won't see reason"; it's "if your parents won't give you your way." The bottom line is that parents have the right to make decisions like this. They aren't obligated to justify their decisions to their children, and children and adolescents are notorious for not seeing the circumstances as they are but rather how they think they should be. Maybe his grades aren't so good. Maybe there are other issues. Even if the reason is completely spurious, parents have the right to make decisions like that. It's not as if there's anything abusive or outside the scope of parental responsibility about regulating teenage activities, RPGs included. It might be silly, but that's their buisness.

I'm not sure I can agree with your base assumption that parents have a right to control their kids lives. Why should parents be allowed to live vicariously through their children, and forbid them to do thing they do not like? We make an arbitrary age limit of 18 in most cases where a "child's" life is not their own. Now I'll grant you that a parent should intervene in the case of a child's safety (make that what you will) but in this case it is just ignorance on the part of the parent, and if it is about grades then that may be a different story but it seems OP is not being hindered in just hanging out.

Parents are not simply more intelligent because of their age they can make bad and uninformed decisions and no one should have to abide by a misinformed decision no matter the arbitrary position of authority. My advice to OP would be to go and play. Disobedience is sometimes a very good thing and can impart important life lessons both positive and negative.

[Random832]

I didn't list any examples,
:smallconfused:...yes you did.

Maybe his grades aren't so good. Maybe there are other issues.

Anyway, do you have an example of a non-spurious objection to D&D or to Tabletop RPGs specifically? I think you need to support your claim that
It's not automatically true that any and all objections to RPGs are spurious.

I will concede, arguendo, that it is not automatically true, but that's a very thin technicality for you to stand on if it is in fact true, non-automatically or otherwise.

[Glass Mouse]

Ostien just wrote most of what I was going to say, so I'll just emphasize:

No. Parents are most definitely NOT always right. I'm one of the lucky few who have parents that actually (most of the time, anyway) are, but I've known way too many examples of over-controlling parents. I've got a friend, who - and I get angry just thinking about it - has a frikkin' phobia of going outside of her home, because she's, from an early age, been taught that the world is a scary place, she's had all kinds of restrictions, and learned (indirectly, through this) that she herself is not to be trusted. The parents are (apart from this) fairly sympathetic and definetly non-abusive; they simply want what is best for her. And fail.

So, no. Not saying that the OP's parents are excessively protective (since I have no idea), but these horror story parents (I've known more bad parents, including some who were actually right, but just went about it completely wrong and made everything worse) have taught me to be wary with accepting parents' words as law.
Sometimes, parents are just wrong. Simple as that.

Aaand I'll stop derailing this thread now. Just needed to hammer this point in.

[The Neoclassic]

... Has the OP posted again to clarify? I see tons of ideas being thrown around, but without more information, it's hard to speculate and suggest beyond a certain point.

[Glass Mouse]

Nope, he hasn't. But the thread is no more than 5(ish) hours old, so he may be at school or something.

[The Neoclassic]

Nope, he hasn't. But the thread is no more than 5(ish) hours old, so he may be at school or something.

That's a lot of posts for 5 or so hours. :smalleek: OK, thanks!

[Diamondeye]

I would find it very childish if a parent would forbid a teen to play D&D without some kind of justification, and would find it very mature of the teen to, then, do as he's told. There's something wrong with that picture.

That's not childish at all, nor is there anything wrong with that picture. I have found from considerable eperience that no justification will ever be good enough for a teen. Giving them a reason is fine, but trying to justify it is just asking for endless argument.

I don't see anything childish at all about telling a teenager "Because I said so." Parents, ultamitely, have the authority as much as that might grate on some people. It's not a democracy either.

It really doesn't matter if the parents are right or not either. As long as they aren't engaging in some sort of abuse, its their decision to make. Sure, some parents take this to an illogical extreme and kids carry baggage from it but A) everyone has burdens to bear in life, and B) not being allowed to play RPGs is hardly sufficient to approach that problem.


:smallconfused:...yes you did.

Sorry, no I didn't although I understand the confusion. I wasn't using that as an example of an objection to RPGs, I was using it as an example of a situation in which a teenager would ignore a circumstance like that in order to claim "they aren't gunna make my grades worse come onnnnnn....". However, sicne it could be an example of an objection to RPGs, we can use it as that.


Anyway, do you have an example of a non-spurious objection to D&D or to Tabletop RPGs specifically? I think you need to support your claim that

Grades are one example. There are a number of others. However, the fact of the matter is that most objections would not be spurious; only absurd ones with no basis in fact such as the earlier mention of nazis and dwarf skulls. Objections the rest of us merely disagree with aren't spurious just because we disagree with them. I could post a long list of examples but I have a feeling that someone would simply confer upon themselves the authority to decide if they were spurious or not, claiming to have "disproved" the argument.


I will concede, arguendo, that it is not automatically true, but that's a very thin technicality for you to stand on if it is in fact true, non-automatically or otherwise.

It's not a technicality or thin. Just because you, I, or anyone else doesn't agree with a reason doesn't make it spurious. Ultamitely though, it doesn't matter if the objections are spurious or not; they're the parent's call.


I'm not sure I can agree with your base assumption that parents have a right to control their kids lives.

If by "control their kid's lives" you mean "raise the child", its because that's the parents responsibility. They are required by law and society to provide for the child from their resources, and that carries with it the right to make decisions on the child's behalf. It would be impossible to rear children if parents did not have authority to do so.


Why should parents be allowed to live vicariously through their children, and forbid them to do thing they do not like?

Aside from the fact that "live vicariously" is a strawman since that's not what anyone's talking about, its because the parents are responsible for the child's well-being. The parents may not like heroin, either. I don't see any objections to forbidding drug use. Yes, I know RPGs aren't heroin, but the parents know their child and are in the best position to make decisions like that. Yes, some parents suck, but in those cases the child isn't any better equipped to decide things anyhow


We make an arbitrary age limit of 18 in most cases where a "child's" life is not their own.

Yes. So what?


Now I'll grant you that a parent should intervene in the case of a child's safety (make that what you will) but in this case it is just ignorance on the part of the parent, and if it is about grades then that may be a different story but it seems OP is not being hindered in just hanging out.

Based on his evaluation of the situation, sure. His parents, however, know him far better than anyone here. He's representing himself here, and quite frankly teenagers are well known for picking out the facts they feel are most beneficial to them when trying to get something. Actually adults do to. I know because I've got a teenager, have taught high school, and have arrested plenty more.


Parents are not simply more intelligent because of their age they can make bad and uninformed decisions and no one should have to abide by a misinformed decision no matter the arbitrary position of authority.

Being more or less intelligent is irrelevant; the kid isn't any more intelligent because of his age either. Parents are, however, more experienced at life, and are in the position of responsibility for the child. There's nothing arbitrary about their position of authority either. It's there as a result of them having or adopting the child and being expected to expend their time, energy and resources on the child.

As for a "misinformed" decision, we don't know that. we only know the OP is representing himself that way, but we aren't in a position to know as well as his parents. In any case, yes, people should have to abide by "misinformed" decisions unless someone is going to be put in real danger. Yes, authority can be wrong sometimes, but just because authority doesn't make a call someone likes doesn't make it misinformed or wrong.


My advice to OP would be to go and play. Disobedience is sometimes a very good thing and can impart important life lessons both positive and negative.

Disobedience is almost never a "good thing", unless it prevents someone from being hurt. If you obey yor parents and continue to use good arguments like the fact that your grades are good, eventually they will probably change their minds. Truely unreasonable parents are the exception, not the rule.

[taltamir]

That's a lot of posts for 5 or so hours. :smalleek: OK, thanks!

1 hour = 1 page of posts around these parts :)

[Kurald Galain]

That's not childish at all, nor is there anything wrong with that picture.
Certain psychologists disagree with your opinion:


Authoritarian parents make the rules, expect unquestioned obedience from their children, punish misbehavior, and value obedience and authority. "Because I said so" is considered a sufficient reason for obedience. Parents using this parenting style tend to be uncommunicative, unresponsive, and somewhat distant. Parent's failure to provide a rationale for rules makes it hard for children to see any reason to follow them. The "Because I said so" technique may be effective when the parent is present but is ineffective when the parent is not around. This parenting style has been associated with low intellectual performance and lack of social skills, especially in boys.

Source: The World of Psychology, 4th edition.

[Ostien]

That's not childish at all, nor is there anything wrong with that picture. I have found from considerable eperience that no justification will ever be good enough for a teen. Giving them a reason is fine, but trying to justify it is just asking for endless argument.

I don't see anything childish at all about telling a teenager "Because I said so." Parents, ultamitely, have the authority as much as that might grate on some people. It's not a democracy either.

From where do they derive this authority? In your opinion parents may have authority but they don't get it from some immutable truth, one grants someone else authority. For me a cop has authority because they have a gun and can thus enforce that authority. I may not respect it and will work around it, but I can do little to argue with a gun (other then of course with another gun). Authority only comes from one granting authority over you or enforcement, which is more really more coercion then authority. So a person can disobey a parent just as much as one can disobey a cop. Parents have laws and thus coercion on their side perhaps but thats not authority, and that's no way to have a parent child relationship, only through coercion. So in this case the OP would only be evading undue coercion, which is admirable just as disobeying an unjust law is.

You do not see the "I say so" as childish because you are coming from that position of power, opposite of the child. You are assuming the parent is right simply based on their position not their arguments. You are saying that they need not have a justification and can be as despotic as possible. If one can not afford a reason then they should not be listened to as they are simply abusing their power.

On a more practical note I would never treat a child of mine in this manner, as abuse of authority will degrade its legitimacy and then the child will disobey at times when it is in their interest to listen.


Just because you, I, or anyone else doesn't agree with a reason doesn't make it spurious.
I disagree :smallwink:

[taltamir]

Certain psychologists disagree with your opinion:


Authoritarian parents make the rules, expect unquestioned obedience from their children, punish misbehavior, and value obedience and authority. "Because I said so" is considered a sufficient reason for obedience. Parents using this parenting style tend to be uncommunicative, unresponsive, and somewhat distant. Parent's failure to provide a rationale for rules makes it hard for children to see any reason to follow them. The "Because I said so" technique may be effective when the parent is present but is ineffective when the parent is not around. This parenting style has been associated with low intellectual performance and lack of social skills, especially in boys.

Source: The World of Psychology, 4th edition.

heh, I didn't need a psychology book to tell me that... I think I was five when I figured that one out...

It also ESPECIALLY hurts if the parent's do the thing that they forbid their children from doing...

And talking to some parents, many also intuitively understand that.

[Godskook]

1 hour = 1 page of posts around these parts :)

Ah, the relativity of forum clocks:smalltongue:

[Calmar]

do you know what this says? at least a rough translation?

if they're going off the fact that there's german in the PHB that it's evil they're the ones who are racist.:smallmad:

"Ausrüstung für Abenteuer" means equipment for adventures - or, as my American/English PHB says on the beginning of chapter seven (p.111), "Adventuring Gear".

I'm confused.

[Rhiannon87]

Certain psychologists disagree with your opinion:


Authoritarian parents make the rules, expect unquestioned obedience from their children, punish misbehavior, and value obedience and authority. "Because I said so" is considered a sufficient reason for obedience. Parents using this parenting style tend to be uncommunicative, unresponsive, and somewhat distant. Parent's failure to provide a rationale for rules makes it hard for children to see any reason to follow them. The "Because I said so" technique may be effective when the parent is present but is ineffective when the parent is not around. This parenting style has been associated with low intellectual performance and lack of social skills, especially in boys.

Source: The World of Psychology, 4th edition.

There was actually an excellent article in the New York Times on this subject recently as well... I believe the title was "When 'I Love You' Means 'Do as I Say'", and it was essentially on this very thing.

Anyway. To the OP: try to find out what their concerns are, first, and try to figure out how to deal with those. There's been a lot of good suggestions for dealing with the more ignorance-based reasons for being opposed to D&D: explain that it's not satanic or evil or anything like that. It is basically a combination of acting, storytelling, and mathematics, generally in a fantasy (LotR-esque) setting. If the concern is grades... that's trickier, but still workable. Try to come up with a compromise-- you improve your grades by X amount, you get to spend 2 weekends a month playing D&D, your grades continue to improve, you can spend more weekends, etc. It'll require work on your part, but if you really want to play, then it's worth it. (Plus, as has been mentioned, D&D can often improve some verbal and math skills.)

And if your parent's reasoning is "because we said so", and they refuse to explain themselves, and they refuse to listen to you, and they refuse to compromise... well, ask if you can hang out with friend X after school and play anyway. In this case, your parents are being unreasonable. So screw it. Have fun, live your life, and if you're lucky your parents will eventually realize that you aren't a little carbon copy toy to be ordered around. You've got a life, a mind, interests, and opinions all your own. No one, including your parents, should be allowed to repress that.

And if you're not able/willing to do that... there's always play-by-post games on the forums here! It's definitely something to look into. They're fun, and if you explain your situation during sign-ups/pre-game prep, people will help you build a character, even if you don't have any books.

[Diamondeye]

From where do they derive this authority? In your opinion parents may have authority but they don't get it from some immutable truth, one grants someone else authority.

From the law and society. You may want it to be different, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't different, and they do have it. This is really just a red herring; it doesn't matter where it comes from. That's the way it is, and it is that way because its necessary for raising children. The biggest current complaint about children that grow up to be unsuccessfula dults is
lack of aprental involvment and control.


For me a cop has authority because they have a gun and can thus enforce that authority. I may not respect it and will work around it, but I can do little to argue with a gun (other then of course with another gun).

I hate to break it to you, but humans are social animals. Society has given the cop authority; the gun didn't. That's not authority; its a means of force. All you're really saying here is that you don't want to follow the rules and only do to avoid negative consequences.


Authority only comes from one granting authority over you or enforcement, which is more really more coercion then authority. So a person can disobey a parent just as much as one can disobey a cop.

Obviously one can disobey. We're not discussing if it's impossible or not. It also is irrelevant that enforcement is coercion. Of course it is. IF you couldn't coerce people into following rules when they break them there'd be no point in having them.


Parents have laws and thus coercion on their side perhaps but thats not authority, and that's no way to have a parent child relationship, only through coercion. So in this case the OP would only be evading undue coercion, which is admirable just as disobeying an unjust law is.

Except that the OP is not having a parent-child relationship through only coercion. That's a complete leap in logic. Obviously the parents can enforce their rules, and they can make them because they have legal authority to do so. It's not "admirable" to avoid enforcement or authority in and of itself, nor do unjust laws have anything to do with it.


You do not see the "I say so" as childish because you are coming from that position of power, opposite of the child. You are assuming the parent is right simply based on their position not their arguments. You are saying that they need not have a justification and can be as despotic as possible. If one can not afford a reason then they should not be listened to as they are simply abusing their power.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They aren't abusing their power at all by not having a reason. The law clearly defines abuse, and that's not it. It doesn't matter if they are right or not. They have the right and the authority to make the decision regardless if its right or wrong. They can be as 'despotic' as they want, because it isn't a democratic relationship. The parents don't answer to the child; they answer to society.


On a more practical note I would never treat a child of mine in this manner, as abuse of authority will degrade its legitimacy and then the child will disobey at times when it is in their interest to listen.

That's what you don't get. The relationship between parent and child isn't like between citizen and government. The parent's authority is automatically legitimate until removed by duly appointed agencies of society, such as the court. This is because children are immature and incompetant to decide matters for themselves. Yes, we arbitrarily pick a point where we say that's changed, but that's based on an average because its a lot easier and less expensive than having people to decide it for each child.

If, however, you insist on trying to jsutify yourself to your kid, be prepared to argue a lot.

[Kurald Galain]

From the law and society.
...because teenagers disobeying their parents is illegal and against social norms? I don't think so.


They have the right and the authority to make the decision regardless if its right or wrong. They can be as 'despotic' as they want, because it isn't a democratic relationship. The parents don't answer to the child; they answer to society.
Because society approves of parents being as 'despotic' as they want? Again, I don't think so.

[Diamondeye]

Certain psychologists disagree with your opinion:


Authoritarian parents make the rules, expect unquestioned obedience from their children, punish misbehavior, and value obedience and authority. "Because I said so" is considered a sufficient reason for obedience. Parents using this parenting style tend to be uncommunicative, unresponsive, and somewhat distant. Parent's failure to provide a rationale for rules makes it hard for children to see any reason to follow them. The "Because I said so" technique may be effective when the parent is present but is ineffective when the parent is not around. This parenting style has been associated with low intellectual performance and lack of social skills, especially in boys.

Source: The World of Psychology, 4th edition.

That's really not relevant. Obviously there are effects and consequences of any parenting style, but that does not mean that the parents' authority to do so is somehow lessesed outside of cases that the law defines as abuse. That entire blurb is addressing an extreme level of authoritarian parenting anyhow, where no reason is ever provided and the anser is always "because I say so." In rality, most parents will provide a reason often, and will use "because I say so" when they get tired of the child trying to ignore the validity of the reason based on what they want rather than the facts. I'm quite sure there's also a psychogical evaluation of the effects of parents who feel they need to justify whatever they decide to their kids, and won't exercise any control or authority. I'm quite sure its not positive, too.

[taltamir]

That's really not relevant. Obviously there are effects and consequences of any parenting style, but that does not mean that the parents' authority to do so is somehow lessesed outside of cases that the law defines as abuse. That entire blurb is addressing an extreme level of authoritarian parenting anyhow, where no reason is ever provided and the anser is always "because I say so." In rality, most parents will provide a reason often, and will use "because I say so" when they get tired of the child trying to ignore the validity of the reason based on what they want rather than the facts. I'm quite sure there's also a psychogical evaluation of the effects of parents who feel they need to justify whatever they decide to their kids, and won't exercise any control or authority. I'm quite sure its not positive, too.

That is ALSO not relevant. while their LEGAL authority is not lessened, their EFFECTIVE authority is...
Basically, the child will disobey, and they should, and there is nothing the parent's can do about it other then not sucking as parents.

Or do you think the parent's will SUE their child for playing dnd against their wishes?

[Diamondeye]

...because teenagers disobeying their parents is illegal and against social norms? I don't think so.

That's because that isn't what I said. I said the parents get their authority from the law and society. Society knows that its normal for there to be disobediance, that's why they give authority to parents to deal with it. Teh same with the law.

However, a child that repeatedly disobeys in such a way that the law DOES become involved can be declared unruly and removed from the home, so yes, at a certain level it IS illegal.


Because society approves of parents being as 'despotic' as they want? Again, I don't think so.

Society allows parents to be as depsotic as they want (within certain limits) because it is recognized that eah family situation is different. Society certainly approves of parents being extremely strict about what child is allowed to do. Try calling the police and claiming your parents are being 'too despotic' by not letting you play D&D, go to an 'R' rated movie or homeschooling you. They may laugh. They may arrest you for misuse of 911.

[taltamir]

That's because that isn't what I said. I said the parents get their authority from the law and society. Society knows that its normal for there to be disobediance, that's why they give authority to parents to deal with it. Teh same with the law.

No, they don't.
They get their authority from being the most influential persons on their child's development. Who then grows to respect and obey them.
If they mess it up, they lose their authority; and the child will simply disobey them.

Their LEGAL rights as parents to make final choices in LEGAL manner for their child is completely irrelevant to, well, pretty much everything.

[Diamondeye]

That is ALSO not relevant. while their LEGAL authority is not lessened, their EFFECTIVE authority is...
Basically, the child will disobey, and they should, and there is nothing the parent's can do about it other then not sucking as parents.

Maybe the child will disobey, maybe not. You can't proclaim that for sure. A pernt's effective authority is not lessened by refusing to argue with a child that won't accept a given reason. My wife argues with my daughter. I don't; I give a reason once and then it's "what did I just say"?

Guess who she's more obediant to? Don't bother trying to tell me about how I'm wrong about what's going on in my own family based on your intenet knowledge of me either.


Or do you think the parent's will SUE their child for playing dnd against their wishes?

What's that got to do with anything? Is a lawsuit the only sanction parents can impose?

[Kurald Galain]

Don't bother trying to tell me about how I'm wrong about what's going on in my own family based on your intenet knowledge of me either.
Don't bother trying to tell us about how we're wrong about what's going on in families in general based on your rather low sample size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size).

[Diamondeye]

No, they don't.
They get their authority from being the most influential persons on their child's development. Who then grows to respect and obey them.
If they mess it up, they lose their authority; and the child will simply disobey them.

No, that's how they get influence. They get authority from being the parents. They don't walk some knife-edge where if they "mess it up" by not justifying alltheir decision to a child they lose it. They don't lose their authority even if the child disobeys. All they've lost is influence, and even children who respect their parents greatly disobey sometimes.

If the child does disobey, then the parents punish them. IF they don't, they aren't parenting.


Their LEGAL rights as parents to make final choices in LEGAL manner for their child is completely irrelevant to, well, pretty much everything.

Not at all. Prents have a legal right to make decisions for a child in almost ANY matter. A parent can make a seventeen-year-old wear a sailor suit to school every day if they want. It's not advisable, but its perfectly within their rights.


Don't bother trying to tell us about how we're wrong about what's going on in families in general based on your rather limited

If I were using only my own family, there might be some validity to that complaint. however, I've dealt with hundreds of teenagers over the years through both education and law enforcement, and the problems of children whose parents fail to set standards and discipline for them is well documented.

[Kurald Galain]

A parent can make a seventeen-year-old wear a sailor suit to school every day if they want. It's not advisable, but its perfectly within their rights.

I don't think parents can actually do that. E.g. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/parents-lose-cu.html

[taltamir]

i think i need to hear your DEFINITION of the word "authority" Diamondeye. Because right now it seems to mean nothing at all.

[Ostien]

If by "control their kid's lives" you mean "raise the child", its because that's the parents responsibility. They are required by law and society to provide for the child from their resources, and that carries with it the right to make decisions on the child's behalf. It would be impossible to rear children if parents did not have authority to do so.


Shouldn't parents tech their child to reason for themselves not simply blindly follow authority? The articles speaking on the subject of parenting say that parents who simply rely on that blind autority, usually leads to children rebelling for rebellious sake or being paralyzed by making their own decisions. Neither of which are benificial.



Aside from the fact that "live vicariously" is a strawman since that's not what anyone's talking about, its because the parents are responsible for the child's well-being. The parents may not like heroin, either. I don't see any objections to forbidding drug use. Yes, I know RPGs aren't heroin, but the parents know their child and are in the best position to make decisions like that. Yes, some parents suck, but in those cases the child isn't any better equipped to decide things anyhow

Thats not a strawman argument because if we take out the grades argument (which is valid but not an argument against D&D but of time management), then we are left with either concerns that can be reasoned out (which have not been given) or the "I don't like it so you should not either." Which is the essence of living vicariously.



Based on his evaluation of the situation, sure. His parents, however, know him far better than anyone here. He's representing himself here, and quite frankly teenagers are well known for picking out the facts they feel are most beneficial to them when trying to get something. Actually adults do to. I know because I've got a teenager, have taught high school, and have arrested plenty more.

Arrested eh? Well this ladies and gentleman is the conflict between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good :smalltongue:. Again the argument is that authority is always good even if it does not have a reason or has a poor reason, which I cannot agree with. If the child is having problems with grades then okay make them study more at the expense of other activities that are distracting but don't make an arbitrary distinction between one activity over another with no good reason. You are assuming authority is always right, I always am wary of authority as you may tell from my sig.



Being more or less intelligent is irrelevant; the kid isn't any more intelligent because of his age either. Parents are, however, more experienced at life, and are in the position of responsibility for the child. There's nothing arbitrary about their position of authority either. It's there as a result of them having or adopting the child and being expected to expend their time, energy and resources on the child.

As for a "misinformed" decision, we don't know that. we only know the OP is representing himself that way, but we aren't in a position to know as well as his parents. In any case, yes, people should have to abide by "misinformed" decisions unless someone is going to be put in real danger. Yes, authority can be wrong sometimes, but just because authority doesn't make a call someone likes doesn't make it misinformed or wrong.

More experience is not a plus all the time. One can have more experience in an issue but it may be negative experience that is not representative of the whole. Also a child is not a project so saying you put time and money into a child is a really bad way of looking at a child, as a object not a person.



Disobedience is almost never a "good thing", unless it prevents someone from being hurt. If you obey yor parents and continue to use good arguments like the fact that your grades are good, eventually they will probably change their minds. Truely unreasonable parents are the exception, not the rule.

I think our founding fathers would disagree that disobedience is almost never a good thing. Again my sig. I can see no good arguments beyond grades that you seem to be hammering at, which has no evidence to it. Many people have made suggestions to the OP if this is the case, but if not then there really is no reasonable argument.

[Diamondeye]

I don't think parents can actually do that. E.g. http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/parents-lose-cu.html

I do. I see no relationship between a name and clothing. A name legally identifies a person.

In any case, that does not change the fact that a parents right to make decisions for a minor extends to the vast majority of life situations, and certainly includes whether they can play RPGs.


i think i need to hear your DEFINITION of the word "authority" Diamondeye. Because right now it seems to mean nothing at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority


1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government: They finally persuaded the authorities that they were not involved in espionage.
5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.
6. a quotation or citation from such a source.
7. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball.
8. persuasive force; conviction: She spoke with authority.
9. a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
10. right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
11. mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
12. a warrant for action; justification.
13. testimony; witness.

[taltamir]

Shouldn't parents tech their child to reason for themselves not simply blindly follow authority? The articles speaking on the subject of parenting say that parents who simply rely on that blind autority, usually leads to children rebelling for rebellious sake or being paralyzed by making their own decisions. Neither of which are benificial.

They should... this is why I have never done drugs, stayed in school, and never rode a bike (deathtrap)... Parent's who just ORDER instead of TEACH are setting themselves up to failure, whatever magical force of "authority" you might want to attribute to them otherwise. It simply does not work. You wan't your kids to do something? you work within the realms of psychology, otherwise it will not work (unless you put a brain control chip in them, but we don't have those yet)

[Diamondeye]

They should... this is why I have never done drugs, stayed in school, and never rode a bike (deathtrap)... Parent's who just ORDER instead of TEACH are setting themselves up to failure, whatever magical force of "authority" you might want to attribute to them otherwise. It simply does not work. You wan't your kids to do something? you work within the realms of psychology, otherwise it will not work (unless you put a brain control chip in them, but we don't have those yet)

Yes, actually it does work. No one is saying that parents SHOULD simply give orders with no justification; I'm saying they can, and if they don't give one every single time, or the child doesn't agree with it, that doesn't give them the right to do as they please.

Of course, tht's not as easy a position to deal with so people keep attacking this strawman "Authoritarian parent RARRRR!!!" instead. I think a lot of it is teenagers who get upset at the reality that their parents don't have to jsutify things to them.

[taltamir]

I do. I see no relationship between a name and clothing. A name legally identifies a person.

Read the article, it is child abuse because it is forcing her into a social disability. Forcing her to wear a stupid costume to school is identical!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?

Right, this means nothing at all whatsoever in a parent child relationship. They have the legal RIGHT to be the "authority", but in REALITY they cannot simply make their child obey because they do not have magical MIND CONTROL POWERS over their children.

[taltamir]

Yes, actually it does work. No one is saying that parents SHOULD simply give orders with no justification; I'm saying they can, and if they don't give one every single time, or the child doesn't agree with it, that doesn't give them the right to do as they please.

Of course, tht's not as easy a position to deal with so people keep attacking this strawman "Authoritarian parent RARRRR!!!" instead. I think a lot of it is teenagers who get upset at the reality that their parents don't have to jsutify things to them.

only order my parent's gave me without explanation was "don't eat in any room other than the kitchen", when i asked why they do so, they said "because"... so i ate everywhere i damn pleased. Since I was 5... i am now 25, i still eat wherever I please. I did avoid, for some time, doing it in FRONT of them though.

[Sipex]

How'd this thread go from advice to arguement/debate?

First, OP, read the advice here and use your personal judgement, nobody here has all the answers. The best approach (imo) is probably a mixture of both extremes being argued.

Second, you guys are all arguing in futility because your assumptions of the circumstances/society/etc are all completely different based on factors. I see people arguing that their authority should be absolute probably because they are reasonable parents themselves and thus assume the OP's parents are reasonable or maybe they just had/have very reasonable parents growing up and thus believe the OPs parents are reasonable. Maybe their parents sucked but they're the obediant type.

I see rebellious types making a bee-line for the 'just do it anyway' approach maybe because they had bad parents or are assuming that the OP's parents have no valid reason for doing this...or maybe they had great parents who encouraged the 'always question your authority figures' approach.

Point is person A isn't going to see it from person B's view who isn't going to see it from person C's view and everyone will continually argue their point until you guys get bored or the thread gets locked.

So why can't we just agree that we're all right and wrong and get back to the point of this thread?

[Kurald Galain]

only order my parent's gave me without explanation was "don't eat in any room other than the kitchen", when i asked why they do so, they said "because"... so i ate everywhere i damn pleased. Since I was in the single digits.

Yep. That matches my experience as a camp leader. A bunch of twelve-year-olds were having fun pulling tent pegs out of the ground. My co-leader told them in no uncertain terms that whoever would next pull out a peg would have to do all the dishes that night. On the other hand, I told them that it was funny the first time but it gets old having to put all the tents back up. Guess which of the two approaches worked... :smallbiggrin:

[charl]

I don't think this was what OP had in mind when he started the thread.

[Kurald Galain]

How'd this thread go from advice to arguement/debate?
Welcome to the Internet - serving all your 24/7 argument needs since 1985! :smallbiggrin:


Second, you guys are all arguing in futility because your assumptions of the circumstances/society/etc are all completely different based on factors.
Yes, I am aware of that. Nevertheless, armchair psychology is fun. Also, welcome to Corneria the Internet!

[shadow_archmagi]

While parents may legally issue orders without explanation, this is a poor choice that may very well lead to negative consequences.

[Ostien]

Sipex is right, we'll never see eye to eye one this because probably of completely different upbringings. I was a kid who was trusted almost completely, probably made some bad decisions but feel I am all the better for it. Can't speak for the other "extreme."

I still feel that parents need to give reasoning and justify their decisions that a child parent relationship should be a place of communication not domination. Even if they have a valid reason they still need to state it not simply say "no" because then that no becomes meaningless without a reason.

[Diamondeye]

Shouldn't parents tech their child to reason for themselves not simply blindly follow authority? The articles speaking on the subject of parenting say that parents who simply rely on that blind autority, usually leads to children rebelling for rebellious sake or being paralyzed by making their own decisions. Neither of which are benificial.

You're creating a strawman of "blind obedience to authority". That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that parents don't have to provide a justification for things. They generally should. I haven't said that children should nevr question it, either. However, once the parents have given it and declared their decision final that doesn't give the kid a right to go do as he pleases because he doesn't agree.


Thats not a strawman argument because if we take out the grades argument (which is valid but not an argument against D&D but of time management), then we are left with either concerns that can be reasoned out (which have not been given) or the "I don't like it so you should not either." Which is the essence of living vicariously.

Not at all. Just because a parent is saying "I don't like it" does not mean they think the kid shouldn't, just that they aren't allowing them to participate. The parent may not even dislike it; they may just feel the child is too immature. As for grades being a time management issue, if the kid isn't getting good grades and wants to play D&D, then D&D is the time management problem. If they want to play video games its video games. IF they want to play baseball its baseball. The issue doesn't need to be D&D-specific to be a significant reason.


Arrested eh? Well this ladies and gentleman is the conflict between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good :smalltongue:. Again the argument is that authority is always good even if it does not have a reason or has a poor reason, which I cannot agree with.

No one has argued any such thing. I've argued that children don't ahve the right to disobey authority, regardless fo "right" or "good". That's another strawman.


If the child is having problems with grades then okay make them study more at the expense of other activities that are distracting but don't make an arbitrary distinction between one activity over another with no good reason.

Who said anything about making an arbitrary distinction between activities? Not all activities take the same amount of time, and there are other reasons to prohibit one activity but allow another. Playing sports looks good on college applications. D&D, video games, not so much.

I don't think you're in a position to just proclaim the proper course of action for all families everywhere when someone has grade problems.


You are assuming authority is always right, I always am wary of authority as you may tell from my sig.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that regardless of whether its right or not children don't ahve any authority to disobey unless the authority in question is doing something illegal. When we're talking about authority between adults, that's another story, but even there we have a system by which impartial people determien who is in the right. We don't make one side of a dispute justify themself to the other side to be valid.

As for you being suspicious of authority, I've found that most people who are "suspicious of authority" are so because it's not letting them have their way. Being suspicious of authority or claiming its wrong simply because its authority is a reverse Appeal To Authority.


More experience is not a plus all the time.

Yes it is. It may not have been pleasent to the person, or a plus for their life in general, but it is certainly always beneficial to making future decisions.


One can have more experience in an issue but it may be negative experience that is not representative of the whole.

The whole what?


Also a child is not a project so saying you put time and money into a child is a really bad way of looking at a child, as a object not a person.

A child most certainly is a project. In fact, it is the most important and critical project a parent will undertake! In any case, pointing out the fact that a parent puts time, effort, money, and energy into a child is the truth. It's not a way of making them an object at all.


I think our founding fathers would disagree that disobedience is almost never a good thing.

I don't. They pretty promptly quashed it during the Whiskey Rebellion, and in any case, they weren't children. Disobediance on the part of adults, or whole nations, is a totally different issue. Teenagers, regardless of what they like to think, aren't prepared to make decisions for themselves until at least their late teens. yes exceptions exist, but we don't account for that just as we don't accoutn for those who aren't responsible until much later. Doing so would be exceedingly complex.


Again my sig. I can see no good arguments beyond grades that you seem to be hammering at, which has no evidence to it. Many people have made suggestions to the OP if this is the case, but if not then there really is no reasonable argument.

Your sig is not a aource of argument. In any case, all you're really doing is proclaiming all other reasons and arguments why invalid on nothing more than your own say-so, which doesn't change the fact that they don't need one.


While parents may legally issue orders without explanation, this is a poor choice that may very well lead to negative consequences.

Now someone's getting the picture!

However, jsut because the parents do this occasionally does not mean dire consequences in the future. IF the parents do it all the time as a matter of course, then yes, there might be, but doing it on this matter (if that's happened at all) doesn't mean they do it all the time.

It also doesn't mean that if they DO give a reason and the child doesn't accept it that they can simply disregard it.


only order my parent's gave me without explanation was "don't eat in any room other than the kitchen", when i asked why they do so, they said "because"... so i ate everywhere i damn pleased. Since I was 5... i am now 25, i still eat wherever I please. I did avoid, for some time, doing it in FRONT of them though.

So in other words you completely disrespected your parents, in their own house (who paid the mortgage at that time?) simply because they would justify it to you?

Did you take any time to think maybe it was because they didn't want carpet stains? Ants? Appaently from what you say it was just all about you.

This is a perfect example of why children aren't allowed to make their own decisions. They make decisions based on their own petty wants and needs in the moment, and think if THEY aren't satisfied with a reason, or one wasn't given, it must not exist.

[Ostien]

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that regardless of whether its right or not children don't ahve any authority to disobey unless the authority in question is doing something illegal. When we're talking about authority between adults, that's another story, but even there we have a system by which impartial people determien who is in the right. We don't make one side of a dispute justify themself to the other side to be valid.

Basically I see your argument as children are somehow not full people and don't have the same rights as adults do. I don't agree with that. Ffurthermore all laws are simply one of agreement, they have no intrinsic truth and should be seen as highly subjective.


As for you being suspicious of authority, I've found that most people who are "suspicious of authority" are so because it's not letting them have their way. Being suspicious of authority or claiming its wrong simply because its authority is a reverse Appeal To Authority.

and people who like authority tend to be benefiting from it :) The argument goes both ways.


The whole what?

The whole of the experience. Say someone has had a bad experience at a hospital, that may not be representative of the whole of hospital visits.


You're creating a strawman of "blind obedience to authority". That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that parents don't have to provide a justification for things. They generally should. I haven't said that children should nevr question it, either. However, once the parents have given it and declared their decision final that doesn't give the kid a right to go do as he pleases because he doesn't agree.

But that is what you are talking about blind obedience to authority is following without a reason which is exactly what you want, a child to follow without a reason. It is blind obedience to authority.


No one has argued any such thing. I've argued that children don't ahve the right to disobey authority, regardless fo "right" or "good". That's another strawman.

Perhaps I mis-spoke. You still seem to think that authority can be questioned but not disobeyed, at least by what you call a child. However, a child is not restrained they can disobey you may not like it but they certainly can. A way to try and ensure they don't is to explain reasons. I still think this points to a fundamental assumption that authority is good simply because it fosters a status quo, which is easily manageable.


A child most certainly is a project. In fact, it is the most important and critical project a parent will undertake! In any case, pointing out the fact that a parent puts time, effort, money, and energy into a child is the truth. It's not a way of making them an object at all.

looking at a child as a project objectifies them.

In any case, I think people need to give reasons for their decisions and if they can't well then one can simply disregard them law or no law.

[charl]

One thing you could try if you feel ballsy is reverse psychology on your parents. Children can play games too, you know.

It works like this: if your parents don't allow you to do a lot of things on unreasonable and/or unexplained motivations you start calling them all the time asking for permission to things they wouldn't care about at all. I'm talking about things like: "Mum, I'm thinking of taking a short detour to the store on my way home from school. Is that okay with you?" going all the way up to "Dad, can I open the unopened milk in the fridge?" and "Would I be allowed to use the microwave?" Eventually they will be so tired of you asking that they won't care any more and will probably in fact start begging you to stop asking them for permission to do things.

This can backfire if you have the kind of mentally unstable parents who actually want to micromanage every aspect of their child's life, so if you do then don't do this.

[Douglas]

So in other words you completely disrespected your parents, in their own house (who paid the mortgage at that time?) simply because they would justify it to you?

Did you take any time to think maybe it was because they didn't want carpet stains? Ants? Appaently from what you say it was just all about you.

This is a perfect example of why children aren't allowed to make their own decisions. They make decisions based on their own petty wants and needs in the moment, and think if THEY aren't satisfied with a reason, or one wasn't given, it must not exist.
Do you seriously expect a 5 year old child to bother coming up with such reasons on his or her own, or to put much weight, or even any weight at all, on a "because I said so" reason?

If a parent gives a child an order, is asked for a reason, and does not supply one other than the threat of punishment (promising a reward works better but is still dubious), I expect that in the vast majority of cases the child will completely ignore the order whenever he thinks he can get away with it. If the parent does give a reason, even if it's one the child doesn't really understand or agree with, the order is much more likely to be followed. If the parent gives a reason the child does understand and agree with, whether immediately or after explanation and discussion, the order will likely be followed completely with no attempts at hedging even if it is one the child would have blithely ignored without the reason. A parent who does not understand and use this is going to have a lot more trouble than one who does.

[Random832]

Grades are one example.

I believe I already explained why they're not. Any objection I can think of is either spurious (like the nazi thing) or is not an objection to D&D specifically (like the grades thing). Neither one qualifies as a "non-spurious objection to D&D [or to tabletop games]".

[Wizzardman]

This is a perfect example of why children aren't allowed to make their own decisions. They make decisions based on their own petty wants and needs in the moment, and think if THEY aren't satisfied with a reason, or one wasn't given, it must not exist.
Point of inquiry here, Diamondeye:

You've made plenty of statements as to how children should obey their parents regardless of their own opinions on the matter. However, I feel there is something here that you haven't properly addressed: enforcement.

Taltamir's statement regarding his kitchen, which you indicate proves him to be "disrespectful," is indicative of a fairly normal child or teenage response to reasonless authority. You take this as still further evidence that children should not be allowed to make their own decisions; after all, kids are quite happy and willing to do stupid stuff without thinking.

However... as Taltamir's statement suggests... how the blazes are you going to consistently enforce these rules?

Providing a reasonable explanation isn't a requirement of being a parental authority, yes. However, it does make parental authority a lot easier; kids are more willing to believe their parents' explanations than you suggest (especially if the parents make a habit of providing these suggestions), and even if they don't, it provides the parent with a stronger arguing position, which may be rather helpful in dealing with inter-family squabbles. Especially when said explanations have been backed up with "I told you so"s in the past.

The fact is, kids are going to ignore the rules on occasion, regardless of whether the parents provide an explanation or not. However, kids are far less likely to break the rules when they believe there might be an actual, visible, easy to understand consequence, aside from parental anger if they are discovered. If said kids know from experience that the parents' explanations are accurate (via an "I told you so" or two) they're far more likely to follow the rules because of the explanation, than they are to follow the rules without having been provided an explanation. Essentially, its the difference between "learn these rules and behave accordingly" and "learn these rules to avoid potential consequence."

Now, I'm NOT trying to tell you how to interact with your family, and I'm NOT saying that all kids will break the rules regardless (though I AM saying that kids tend to break rules regardless of how much "respect" they hold for their parents, and I AM going to say that kids learn early on how to violate rules without getting caught, and often without the parents ever finding out about this violation of said rules). However, its a lot easier for parents using explanations to use said explanations to enforce their rules. The OP's parents are going to have some difficulty enforcing their "no D&D" rules without providing a reason for it, and I know many a teen who has managed to sneak in some roleplaying without necessarily "disrespecting" their parents at all.

Oh, and the authoritarianism comment earlier, pulled from that Psych 101 textbook? Its actually a good bit more broadly defined than you might think. Authoritarian parenting is pretty common, and is at least partially responsible for the perceived "rebellious tendencies" many teenagers experience.

[Indon]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real world religion, including religious reactions to gaming, is an inappropriate topic on this Forum. Please steer clear of it.

What? Can't cite {Indeed. And stating it isn't any more allowed than linking it.}? It seems extremely relevant to this discussion. Well, OP, since we can't discuss it, I recommend you Wiki it on your own time.

I'd like to echo the recommendation of others in the thread - confront your parents as to precisely why they would prevent you from playing the game.

Mind that the reason may have nothing to do with D&D proper - maybe your mother knows one of your potential fellow players and wants to limit your socialization with that person, for instance.

If you can turn your problem from one related to D&D, to one solvable by effective interaction with your parents, then effective communication should go a long way. (Studying effective communication techniques is advice I would give to any child wanting to interact with their parents more effectively)


I'm talking about things like: "Mum, I'm thinking of taking a short detour to the store on my way home from school. Is that okay with you?" going all the way up to "Dad, can I open the unopened milk in the fridge?" and "Would I be allowed to use the microwave?" Eventually they will be so tired of you asking that they won't care any more and will probably in fact start begging you to stop asking them for permission to do things.


This sort of passive-aggressive behavior is not what I would recommend. Yes, a lot of people, adults included, behave this way, and sometimes it can work - similarly, you can win roulette on 00, but it's a bad idea because it's a less effective approach.

Spoilered for being part of the tangential discussion of parental authority.


I have found from considerable eperience that no justification will ever be good enough for a teen.
My parents would disagree, as that wasn't their parenting approach.

I, personally, would disagree on more abstract grounds, as I feel without internalization of respect for authority (which requires the ability to articulate justification of policy based on intent by said authority), a person is little more than an animal, obeying out of fear of punishment rather than understanding. You don't explain discipline to a dog or a cat because they are animals - you explain discipline to a human because they are a person.

As such, I feel the invocation of authority without justification is a dehumanizing process, one that is unwarranted barring extreme circumstances.

[Starbuck_II]

My parents would disagree, as that wasn't their parenting approach.

I, personally, would disagree on more abstract grounds, as I feel without internalization of respect for authority (which requires the ability to articulate justification of policy based on intent by said authority), a person is little more than an animal, obeying out of fear of punishment rather than understanding. You don't explain discipline to a dog or a cat because they are animals - you explain discipline to a human because they are a person.

As such, I feel the invocation of authority without justification is a dehumanizing process, one that is unwarranted barring extreme circumstances.

What? You don't explain why you hit your dog when bad?
That is abhorent to me.
I treat my dog as one of the family. So I do explain why they are on the stool, etc.
Heck, sometiimes he'll go right to the stool after doing it without telling him because he knows it was wrong. Just like a child.

Animals may never go beyond 7 year olds, but even 7 yr olds can be taught.

[Sipex]

I think his point was because animals can't understand english.

[Woot Spitum]

You know, I see a lot of people bashing parental authority and advocating disobedience. I don't see a lot of people addressing the issue of trust.

The fact is, unless you grow up in an abusive household, you should be able to trust that your parents really do have your best interests in mind. Will they always be right about everything? No, of course not. Nobody is. But that does not mean that you should disobey them whenever you think they are wrong or even if you know they are wrong (if they are wrong about something that is patently illegal obviously that is a different issue). Your parents, if they are like most parents probably trust you to a certain extent, and if you end up lying to them about going to D&D, regardless of whether or not they find out, you will have betrayed their trust. If they can't trust you, not only will they be hurt, but they will be forced to conclude that since you won't obey them when they allow you a fairly good amount of freedom, they will have to place more restrictions on you. Ultimately, your relationship with them will become strained.

I like D&D a lot. I think it is a perfectly good way to have fun with friends. But it is not worth sacrificing relationships with people who care about you in order to play it. It is just a game. It is not the end of the world, if you don't get to play it.

I remember when I was younger, my parents would not let me watch Jurassic Park, despite the fact that nearly all my friends had seen it. At the time it was the biggest movie around, and all my friends were constantly telling me how awesome it was. I probably could have found a way to watch it with friends, but I didn't. Years later, I now can watch it anytime I want to. But whenever I've tried to watch it on tv, I've never been able to finish it. It turns out that Jurassic Park was just a decent action movie, not the best thing ever that I had been told it was years ago. Meanwhile, I still have a good relationship with my parents. That's worth a lot more than seeing any movie or playing any game.

[Starbuck_II]

I think his point was because animals can't understand english.

Yeah, and that is bullocks. Animals can't speak it no, but they can learn to understand it.
I find it hard to believe my dog is that special.

[thubby]

Yeah, and that is bullocks. Animals can't speak it no, but they can learn to understand it.
I find it hard to believe my dog is that special.

they understand as much of english as you understand chinese. it's easy to pick up the intent for simple things, but a conversation is impossible.

done properly, punishing or rewarding a dog should associate the action with the consequence. if they consider being talked at in a certain way as negative or positive, wonderful.

[Sholos]

@Diamondeye:

You're arguing against yourself, though you may not realize it. You say that kids are stupid (as in "lack experience") and so need to be told what not to do. To an extent, I agree with you, but you don't take it far enough. Kids are inexperienced, yes, which is exactly why they need to be told why not to do things. Humanity, in general, is a curious beast and likes to know. That curiosity is especially strong in youth, and it needs to be assuaged whenever possible.

Now, the specific part of your argument I take issue with is that parents have no responsibility to give an explanation. I think a parent is actually being negligent in most cases by not giving an explanation. There might be times when not giving one is appropriate, but for the most part it's harmful, which I see as failing in your responsibility as a parent; and, yes, parents have a responsibility to their kids. It's not a one-way street.

@Starbuck: No doubt your dog has associated the stool with certain acts and it has merely become a conditioned response. The huge majority of animals are not capable of really understanding English. All they understand is tone. You can get a dog very, very excited by calling him all sorts of nasty names, as long as you do it in a nice tone. Even when you've used those same names in anger. It's all about tone and body language. Holy crap is it about body language. Pro tip: never try to discourage an overly playful dog by pushing with your arms; that only excites them (it's their signal to play). Push with your whole body and turn away from them. That lets them know that you do not approve of the behavior.

[Xenogears]

You know, I see a lot of people bashing parental authority and advocating disobedience. I don't see a lot of people addressing the issue of trust.

The fact is, unless you grow up in an abusive household, you should be able to trust that your parents really do have your best interests in mind. Will they always be right about everything? No, of course not. Nobody is. But that does not mean that you should disobey them whenever you think they are wrong or even if you know they are wrong (if they are wrong about something that is patently illegal obviously that is a different issue). Your parents, if they are like most parents probably trust you to a certain extent, and if you end up lying to them about going to D&D, regardless of whether or not they find out, you will have betrayed their trust. If they can't trust you, not only will they be hurt, but they will be forced to conclude that since you won't obey them when they allow you a fairly good amount of freedom, they will have to place more restrictions on you. Ultimately, your relationship with them will become strained.

I like D&D a lot. I think it is a perfectly good way to have fun with friends. But it is not worth sacrificing relationships with people who care about you in order to play it. It is just a game. It is not the end of the world, if you don't get to play it.

I remember when I was younger, my parents would not let me watch Jurassic Park, despite the fact that nearly all my friends had seen it. At the time it was the biggest movie around, and all my friends were constantly telling me how awesome it was. I probably could have found a way to watch it with friends, but I didn't. Years later, I now can watch it anytime I want to. But whenever I've tried to watch it on tv, I've never been able to finish it. It turns out that Jurassic Park was just a decent action movie, not the best thing ever that I had been told it was years ago. Meanwhile, I still have a good relationship with my parents. That's worth a lot more than seeing any movie or playing any game.

And when I was a teenager I acted in the opposite manner towards a lot of my moms rules and also have a wonderful relationship with my mom still. Apparently you CAN have your cake and eat it too.

I think the reason for it is that my mom understood that it was important for me to make my own decisions and mistakes and that by doing so it allowed me to become more mature and understand not only which choices might or might not have been good ones but also why they weren't.

Also, no matter what society or the law might say, parents cannot dictate a child's future. As a teenager I understood that, for my life goals, ditching class at some points to spend time with a friend was more important.Turns out I was right as the two of us are engaged with a child and I am still able to persue higher education. Parents might know what is right for what they think the child should grow up to be but forcing a child into the mold you want them to be in is not good parenting.

[Bang]

This is a perfect example of why children aren't allowed to make their own decisions.
Allowed or not, they do.

[taltamir]

I think I need to clarify something that I didn't make clear before.

Authority is
1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
according to the dictionary, as pointed out to me by other...

But, authority as described there is not magic, it always stems from something.
A higher ranked officer in the army has authority because you will be tried and imprisoned if you refuse
An employer has an authority because he can just stop paying you (fire you)
A vampire has authority over its brood via magic telepathy.

Any position of authority stems from some cause. usually money (they stop paying you), or legal (they put you in prison if you disobey).

The presumption that parent's have an authority over their children given by society does not work with the nature and definition of authority.

If parents got their "authority" from the "government" then the government will punish a disobedient child, obviously not the case.

If parents got their "authority" from "society", than society would punish a disobedient child. again, not the case

Parents can earn the respect and obedience of their children, but that is a choice of the child, and cannot be forced.

Parents can also use "bully tactics", they can hit, they can kick out, they can deny food, etc... which are actually frowned upon by society, and if severe enough can result in the parent going to prison and the child being a ward of the court.

So in fact, the ONLY thing that society / the law does for a parent's authority, is undermine it.

It does, however, hold a parent's choices at higher regard than that of a stranger, such a school teacher. But that is not a matter of authority.

[Ostien]

Any position of authority stems from some cause. usually money (they stop paying you), or legal (they put you in prison if you disobey).

Parents can earn the respect and obedience of their children, but that is a choice of the child, and cannot be forced.

So in fact, the ONLY thing that society / the law does for a parent's authority, is undermine it.


These are points I was making, but you have said them clearer then I had. Authority is granted by those who obey via submission or through coercion, money, prison etc. So parents having little coercive recourse should then try and gain trust with their kids so they understand the reasons for the decisions the parents make, which makes it more likely they will listen. Though children can and do make their own decisions and this is sometimes necessary in order for them to learn from mistakes, or for parents to learn when they are wrong.

[charl]

This sort of passive-aggressive behavior is not what I would recommend. Yes, a lot of people, adults included, behave this way, and sometimes it can work - similarly, you can win roulette on 00, but it's a bad idea because it's a less effective approach.


It is not passive-aggressive if you tell them why you are doing it ("Well, since you guys seem to think I can't play Dungeons and Dragons it seems I need to ask permission to do anything, so that's what I'm doing. Don't want to accidentally do anything you don't want me to do."). It's going on the offensive.

[Jade_Tarem]

Incredibly Long Post: Read at your own peril!

"Vhat we 'ahve here iz a failure to communicate!"

As nearly as I can determine, everyone sees Diamondeye as a goose-stepping fuhrer attempting to impose totalitarian rule of those oh-so-wacky and stupid parents, who have no justification for coming up with arbitrary rules that govern how their children behave (remember, it's not the child's house, now, so... why does the child make the rules concerning where he eats? That is disrespectful) no matter the circumstances. Fight the Power! To the OP: get out on your own, get a job, pay your own bills, while you still know everything!

And oh yes, children really don't have the same legal rights as adults. They can't vote, drink, drive, etc... the very good reason being that my driving skills at age 12 were limited to my "mad skillz" at the N64's Rush 2049, where I frequently ran down whole rows of parking meters before slamming into brick walls. I'm fairly certain that my voting and drinking would have been just as suspect. Children just aren't that bright sometimes. Teenagers too.

"But," you say, "this is legal control handed down by the government, with good reason!"

True, but these are also blanket rules determined by men and women with no connection to the child in question. The parents of a given child have likely known that child as long as he or she has been alive. They very probably know what's best for him - and while being older doesn't necessarily make you smarter, wisdom is largely advanced pattern matching - and with more life experience to draw on, the parents are more likely to make good choices for their children.

Also, it's possible for a parent to collect a wealth of empirical data on a subject and still make a bad call when it comes to their kid. I have an example: a guy at our high school was expressly forbidden to play DnD with us. Why? Well, his parents were devout religious types, but that wasn't their reason: their reason was that his mom had seen a fair bit of DnD in college. The problem was that this particular DnD playstyle was... ah... quite the perversion, by which I mean that it actually resembled Dark Dungeons to a certain extent, only with presumably better dialogue. You can see why she didn't want him involved in that. Naturally, that's not how we played, but why should she bother listening to protests that that's not how it normally goes? It's how it was played 100% of the time she saw it. And frankly, if I had seen a sick ritual and had another group come to me and say that theirs used the same rules and traditions but was, "like, totally different," I probably wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.

So she said no for a long time. I do believe he eventually convinced her otherwise, but think for a moment what might have happened had he just chosen to ignore her. She probably would have figured it out eventually, put two and two together and come up with him being connected to a satanic cult. It's only going to go downhill from there.

Better still, as someone pointed out, you really do have to trust that your parents know what's best on some level. Otherwise they might as well not even be a part of your life. "Don't do X because Y" quickly becomes just as meaningless as "Don't do X because I said so." After all, you're much sharper than dumb ol' mom and dad, so why listen to them?

Finally, obeying even the little, unfounded rules is a good thing to build patience - because trust me, if you haven't yet, you WILL run into someone who really can force you to obey arbitrary, stupid rules for no reason, and giving them crap about it can hurt more than you think.

AND THEN THE BADGER AND I HAD A TWO HOUR DEBATE ON STEM CELL RESEARCH.

Now that I've got your attention again, I've more or less seen both sides of the authority spectrum. My parents generally explained everything and were very reasonable. My school "para-authorities" - vice principles and security, were the "do it because we said so" type.

For example: my high school DnD group originally played after school in the cafeteria. Then one day the custodians told us we had to go. We left, because hey, they probably had to clean or something, right? Well, we found out later that wasn't the case, but whatever. So we got permission from a teacher to use her classroom, and she agreed. Heck, I think she actually wanted to play too, but she never said so out loud. So we played there for a while, and things were good. Then one fine afternoon the vice principle came by and promptly booted us. The fact that the teacher had given her permission for us to use her room was irrelevant. The fact that in over a year we had damaged and taken nothing was irrelevant. She had the power, and by God she was going to abuse it. We asked her where we were supposed to hang, then, and her response? "The cafeteria."

At this point I decided that maybe a catch-22 was sufficent justification for speaking out. Boy was I wrong! She threw a temper tantrum on the spot, and I nearly got ejected from the Honor Society. All of this wasn't over the morality or time consuming aspects of DnD, but the specific room that we played DnD in.

Sometimes, you just need to grin and bear it. Seriously.

Meanwhile, the other side sees those advocating the "do it anyway" side as something between anarchists and... ok, just anarchists. It's true that those in authority aren't always correct. Sometimes authority does need to be defied. Children do need to think for themselves, but I'm not sure blatantly ignoring their parent's wishes is the best move. Just because no reason is provided doesn't mean that there isn't one. Respect and trust are a big part of the issue as well. My final advice to the OP? Try to find out what your parent's specific objection to DnD is. If it's ignorance of the game, show them the game. If it's time managment, learn to manage time better. If there isn't a reason, ask them why not.

But don't throw it in their faces. They deserve your respect. I assume they provide food, shelter, and support, and abiding by their rules is the least you can do in return.

[taltamir]

As nearly as I can determine, everyone sees Diamondeye as a goose-stepping fuhrer attempting to impose totalitarian rule of those oh-so-wacky and stupid parents
No, not at all...
We disagree with his analysis of the nature of parent child relationship, he assumes there is some sort of magical "authority" parents posses which was granted to them BY THE LAW (TM). where the law hampers parent's authority by forbidding many methods of actually acquiring authority.

Parents must understand that they can MAKE any rule that they want, but if they expect it to WORK then they have to realize how the WORLD work. Authority works because you are either paid, or threatened, or respected, etc.


"But," you say, "this is legal control handed down by the government, with good reason!"
No, actually all of us agree that the government actually hampers parent's authority by forbidding them many means of coercion(which would have been stupid bad choices of controlling a child, but that is besides the point) ; in general the government does not interfere at all


At this point I decided that maybe a catch-22 was sufficent justification for speaking out. Boy was I wrong! She threw a temper tantrum on the spot, and I nearly got ejected from the Honor Society. All of this wasn't over the morality or time consuming aspects of DnD, but the specific room that we played DnD in.
You cannot avoid any confrontation in your life by assuming everyone will be a childish prick with a stick up their nether regions. Your principle was a stupid childish brat, (unless you "spoke out" disrespectfully)... so what? she had authority, which, as you pointed out, came from a REAL source. To wit, she could expel you from the honors society. She enforced that authority, and you obeyed her stupid senseless laws out of fear of punishments. So what?

[thubby]

Parents can also use "bully tactics", they can hit, they can kick out, they can deny food, etc... which are actually frowned upon by society, and if severe enough can result in the parent going to prison and the child being a ward of the court.


you only call it bully tactics when parents do it when most authorities do similar if not the same things.

you're also conflating being the authority and being granted authority.

for simplicity's sake lets assume the government grants parental authority. the government itself does not have parental authority, only the authority to grant it. meaning it can't punish the child, but it can't grant the right(wrong word maybe) to others.

[taltamir]

you only call it bully tactics when parents do it when most authorities do similar if not the same things.

you're also conflating being the authority and being granted authority.

for simplicity's sake lets assume the government grants parental authority. the government itself does not have parental authority, only the authority to grant it. meaning it can't punish the child, but it can't grant the right(wrong word maybe) to others.

1. When was the last time your boss beat you up? your teacher? or the police for that matter?
2. I am conflating nothing. There is only one type of real authority that exists in the real world. Authority backed up by something. Otherwise it is nothing but an empty statement which is unenforceable and ineffective.
3. No government has ever GRANTED parents authority over their child. Not even "fake" authority. Parents grant themselves authority over their children via coercion, respect, etc. If the government granted parent's authority, that means it is the government's job to enforce it, aka the government will send police officers you punish your child when it disobeys you.

Some government ban government employees from exerting certain authority over minors. But that is not granting parents authority...

Other governments ban parents from exerting certain forms of authority.

But there has never been a law specifically granting people "authority" over their children. They might have been laws worded to sound like it, but what they were doing is banning non parents from exerting authority on minors. Banning a non parent from exerting authority is not the same as granting a parent authority.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Is it just me, or is this being blown a little bit out of proportion? I mean, unless I've got something wrong, Diamondeye has just stated that parents have the authority to make arbitrary decisions in their child's life. He wasn't advocating or decrying it - simply describing a phenomena. It's not like parental authority over their children is anything new.

[taltamir]

Is it just me, or is this being blown a little bit out of proportion? I mean, unless I've got something wrong, Diamondeye has just stated that parents have the authority to make arbitrary decisions in their child's life. He wasn't advocating or decrying it - simply describing a phenomena. It's not like parental authority over their children is anything new.

blow what out of proportions? this isn't a mob out to set someone on fire... diamondeye and us are debating the definition of a word and its applicability. He even brought out a dictionary, I brought examples...
And by his very definition parents do NOT have the authority. They can choose to make arbitrary dicision, but its not gonna work due to psychology.

He argued that the GOVERNMENT gives parents AUTHORITY over their children, then defined it...

But it is between them and their children and works on psychology, the government is not gonna punish mommy for not allowing you to play DnD, the government is not gonna gonna punish timmy for disobeying mommy and playing DnD anyways.

By law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is legal.
By law, it is not expressly forbidden for mommy to ban things arbitrarily
By law, it is not expressly forbidden for boy to disobey mommy.

By law the government stays out.
By law, the government does not give mom the authority to ban anything, it does not give the son the authority to ignore the ban
By law, it is legal for mom to forbid DnD, it is also legal for her son to disobey her.

My entire argument is that brining the government into the issue is utterly ridiculous because the government does not interfere or care and does not empower anyone to do anything in such a situation.

The only rule the government sets is "parents cannot abuse their children".

[Wizzardman]

@Starbuck: No doubt your dog has associated the stool with certain acts and it has merely become a conditioned response. The huge majority of animals are not capable of really understanding English. All they understand is tone. You can get a dog very, very excited by calling him all sorts of nasty names, as long as you do it in a nice tone. Even when you've used those same names in anger. It's all about tone and body language. Holy crap is it about body language. Pro tip: never try to discourage an overly playful dog by pushing with your arms; that only excites them (it's their signal to play). Push with your whole body and turn away from them. That lets them know that you do not approve of the behavior.

Actually, with dogs, that's not entirely consistent.

There is some significant evidence, stemming from research into parrots and some dog breeds, that dogs can develop a distinct "vocabulary" of understood words, that can be understood even separate from intent. While it is perfectly true that you can get a dog excited by calling it nice names in a nasty tone, that doesn't mean that the dog is incapable of understanding language--merely that you're using words it doesn't immediately understand or have regular exposure to in a way that doesn't fit their regular use. Some dogs are certainly capable of learning the meaning of words its exposed to regularly--to the point where you can say "no" in a calm voice, and receive a standard no reaction, even if you usually shout "no."

....But this is entirely off topic, so I'll shut up now.

[Mushroom Ninja]

And by his very definition parents do NOT have the authority. They can choose to make arbitrary dicision, but its not gonna work due to psychology.


The right to make a decision, arbitrary or not, is the definition of authority. The decision may be ignored or be impossible to back up, but that doesn't change the authority of the deciders.

[taltamir]

The right to make a decision, arbitrary or not, is the definition of authority. The decision may be ignored or be impossible to back up, but that doesn't change the authority of the deciders.

no it isn't. The right to make decisions that are unenforceable and ignored by everyone is called freedom of THOUGHT.

If making a decision that is going to be ignored and cannot be enforced is "authority", then everyone has unlimited authority over everything. Because ANYONE can make a "decision" that is going to be ignored and be totally unenforceable
For example, I just decided that I can fly, am god, and would henceforth be addressed as "your divinity".
It is not enforceable, it is going to be ignored by everyone, including the natural laws of the universe which prevent me from flying. Yet there is no law preventing me from making such a decision. I am fully within my legal rights to make such a decision. As such, by your definition, the government has granted me the authority to make such a decision.

Besides, he actually pulled up a dictionary and gave the following as a definition:

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?

[thubby]

1. When was the last time your boss beat you up? your teacher? or the police for that matter?

the military still has corporal punishment, teachers can kick you out of class, or the school can expel you, the police can be very violent when the situation warrants it.


2. I am conflating nothing. There is only one type of real authority that exists in the real world. Authority backed up by something. Otherwise it is nothing but an empty statement which is unenforceable and ineffective.
parents have as real authority as anyone else. frowned upon or not you're still allowed to spank or confine your children.

3. No government has ever GRANTED parents authority over their child. Not even "fake" authority. Parents grant themselves authority over their children via coercion, respect, etc. If the government granted parent's authority, that means it is the government's job to enforce it, aka the government will send police officers you punish your child when it disobeys you.
the parent having the authority means it's the parent's responsibility, not the government's. if the parent does not meet their responsibility then the government does step in.

But there has never been a law specifically granting people "authority" over their children. They might have been laws worded to sound like it, but what they were doing is banning non parents from exerting authority on minors. Banning a non parent from exerting authority is not the same as granting a parent authority.
restricting everyone else's authority and granting it to someone differ only in semantics.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Hmm... I guess I'm thinking of Power and Authority in the context of PoliSci/Leadership. In such fields, Power is the ability to enforce your decisions on others, and Authority is the right to make decisions that affect others. For example, a man with a gun has Power -- he can enforce his will on others. Congress, on the other hand, has Authority because it is perceived to have the right to make decisions pertaining to others (though it may not necessarily have the Power to enforce them).

[Ostien]

The right to make a decision, arbitrary or not, is the definition of authority. The decision may be ignored or be impossible to back up, but that doesn't change the authority of the deciders.

Again this term right is brought up. A right is arbitrary it does not come from anywhere other then the fact it is agreed upon by society, thus making any and all authority arbitrary. You may praise or detract from the merits of that arbitrary decision but it does not take away from its arbitrary nature. It makes it difficult to say anyone has authority if there is a possibility that it will be ignored, because then that right which is what is challenged. Authority is force of submissiveness, if neither exist then authority is placed into questionable existence.



Hmm... I guess I'm thinking of Power and Authority in the context of PoliSci/Leadership. In such fields, Power is the ability to enforce your decisions on others, and Authority is the right to make decisions that affect others. For example, a man with a gun has Power -- he can enforce his will on others. Congress, on the other hand, has Authority because it is perceived to have the right to make decisions pertaining to others (though it may not necessarily have the Power to enforce them).

I also studied political science (never mind the fact it is NOT a science). There are many theories of power and authority that have affected PoliSci, and in many respects PoliSci as a discipline has yet to grapple with other ideas of power and authority, like those talked about by figures such as Foucault. Those ideas you talked about of power and authority are in PoliSci but do not represent all ideas of power and authority in the field. I don't want to come off as arrogant, as you are completely correct that those ideas of power and authority you cited are important and seen by many as still "correct." It's just there are many more ideas out there that are having their impact.

But hey thats coming from a person who loves this stuff and will continue to study it and sometimes obsess over it :smalltongue:

[taltamir]

+1 Ostien

Besides... polsci (not a science) actually goes and DEFINES natural absolute RIGHTS? I thought those kind of courses avoid setting absolute evil, good, wrong, and right.

I would be harder pressed if someone said "god gave me the authority", I can't really disprove him then... but I sure as hell can disprove "government gave me the authority"..


Congress, on the other hand, has Authority because it is perceived to have the right to make decisions pertaining to others (though it may not necessarily have the Power to enforce them).
No, congress enforces its authority the exact same way a man with a gun does... or rather, a man standing next to a soldier with a gun who tells you to obey that man.
their power is backed up by the army and police. Which will punish you (with a gun might I add) if you chose to ignore the "laws" that they declare.

If I arbitrarily declare "you will consider me your god". Then nothing, I have no authority.

If pharoe declares it, than disobey and your head will be on a pike...

or for a modern example. Kim Jung Ill declared it illegal to take a picture of his likeness which does not showcase him entirely. Aka, if your photo cuts off half his statue, then it is a crime. But he has the authority to enforce it WITHIN HIS COUNTRY via his army and police.
If you got that picture and yourself OUT of the country, there is nothing he could do (short of sending assassins after you).


Congressional authority:
1. Congress makes a stupid arbitrary law (IRL examples: "no negro shall marry a white woman", "the possession and sale of dildos in texas is forbidden", etc etc)
2. Some people think "well screw them, I will do it anyways"
3. The police comes to arrest the person, which is then fined or sentenced to prison.

If the person refuses to pay the fine, he is arrested again, and sentenced to prison.
If the person at any point resists, violence will ensue.

Ask any person in the USA today, and they will have at least one law that they think is unjust and stupid and that congress does not have the "right" to force them to obey it. Had there not being the process of authority (aka, violence) i described above, people would have simply ignored that law, just as they would ignore a command from me to worship me as a god.

[Woot Spitum]

And when I was a teenager I acted in the opposite manner towards a lot of my moms rules and also have a wonderful relationship with my mom still. Apparently you CAN have your cake and eat it too.No regrets? Remember to that the OP's parents aren't your parents and might not react in the same way.


I think the reason for it is that my mom understood that it was important for me to make my own decisions and mistakes and that by doing so it allowed me to become more mature and understand not only which choices might or might not have been good ones but also why they weren't.But wouldn't it be better to learn without making those mistakes? The consequences of one person's mistakes might not have as far reaching effects as those of another. For example, one kid might sneak a drink of whiskey and end up with no more serious consequences than throwing up on the couch and getting grounded. Another kid might do the same thing and end up starting a lifelong battle with alcoholism. I would never want anyone to repeat mistakes I've made if I could prevent them from making them. Just because it's possible to play with fire without getting burned doesn't mean it's a good idea.


Also, no matter what society or the law might say, parents cannot dictate a child's future.

Quite right, ultimately the child will make their own decisions. But parents can, and should, do their best to help their children make wise decisions, even if that means saying no sometimes.


As a teenager I understood that, for my life goals, ditching class at some points to spend time with a friend was more important.Turns out I was right as the two of us are engaged with a child and I am still able to persue higher education. Parents might know what is right for what they think the child should grow up to be but forcing a child into the mold you want them to be in is not good parenting.Children may also think they know what is right for what they think they want to grow up to be at the time, but completely ignoring parental instruction is not a recipe for success. Parents don't make rules because they want their kids to fit precisely into a mold, they do it because they love them. They may be wrong sometimes, but more often than not, I've found they are right. Just because things turned out alright for you doesn't mean they will turn out alright for everyone.

[Ostien]

LOL and now this thread is completely off the rails :smalltongue:



Besides... polsci (not a science) actually goes and DEFINES natural absolute RIGHTS? I thought those kind of courses avoid setting absolute evil, good, wrong, and right.

not sure if this is an actual question. But yeah many thinkers talk about natural and absolute rights, such as Locke, Hobbes, Mill etc. Locke for one thinks that one has a natural right to all of the fruits of their labor. Hobbes says there is a natural condition (not a historical one) in which every person has the right to everything and thus this justifies the leviathan, the authoritarian state via a social contract. Rousseau has his own social contract etc. However, it is true it is rarely in the context of good and evil.

I'm more on the post modern end and thus like to think not of anything absolute and natural but subjective.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Again this term right is brought up. A right is arbitrary it does not come from anywhere other then the fact it is agreed upon by society, thus making any and all authority arbitrary.

But then, what value isn't, in fact, just a construct of society? Values like "Honesty" and "Murder is a Bad Thing" mean nothing without society. Hypothetically, if a society were to, as a whole, decide that these "values" aren't important, they would cease to be values to that society. These concepts are only powerful because they are accepted by people.

So, since, as a whole, society has decided that a parent has the right to manage their child's activities, they have the right, and thus the authority, to do this. If society were to have a sudden change of opinion, and it were to be decided that parents do not have the right to make decisions in their child's life, then they would no longer have the right.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, just because a value is powerful only because it is agreed upon by society, doesn't mean that it is empty.

EDIT: But then again, this is just one view on the nature of values -- there are many more out there :smallsmile:

[Ostien]

But then, what value isn't, in fact, just a construct of society? Values like "Honesty" and "Murder is a Bad Thing" mean nothing without society. Hypothetically, if a society were to, as a whole, decide that these "values" aren't important, they would cease to be values to that society. These concepts are only powerful because they are accepted by people.

So, since, as a whole, society has decided that a parent has the right to manage their child's activities, they have the right, and thus the authority, to do this. If society were to have a sudden change of opinion, and it were to be decided that parents do not have the right to make decisions in their child's life, then they would no longer have the right.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, just because a value is powerful only because it is agreed upon by society, doesn't mean that it is empty.

Oh no, no no. I'm not saying that somehow values are not important or empty. Quite to the contrary they are vital. The point is we have to understand that the values are still arbitrary and more importantly constructed. Societies draw a line in the sand and then defend it, but it is still arbitrary but it is also necessary.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Oh no, no no. I'm not saying that somehow values are not important or empty. Quite to the contrary they are vital. The point is we have to understand that the values are still arbitrary and more importantly constructed. Societies draw a line in the sand and then defend it, but it is still arbitrary but it is also necessary.

Yeah, this tends to be how I think about the issue. Mind, there are plenty of people who would disagree with us on this one, namely Plato/Socrates.

[Ostien]

Yeah, this tends to be how I think about the issue. Mind, there are plenty of people who would disagree with us on this one, namely Plato/Socrates.

Heh yeah, I'm not to look to those forms on perfect planes :smallwink:

[Mushroom Ninja]

Heh yeah, I'm not to look to those forms on perfect planes :smallwink:

I just realized, we somehow took this thread all the way from some guy's problem with apparently-arbitrary parental decisions to political science and value theory. How did we manage that?:smallconfused:

Oh well, this wouldn't be a proper forum-discussion without interesting tangents. :smallwink:

[taltamir]

Oh no, no no. I'm not saying that somehow values are not important or empty. Quite to the contrary they are vital. The point is we have to understand that the values are still arbitrary and more importantly constructed. Societies draw a line in the sand and then defend it, but it is still arbitrary but it is also necessary.

Well, there is social evolution... for example, when a society arbitrarily decides to be communist, its produces and thinkers escape and it fails.
When a society decides to adopt incest, it collapses due to mental retardation and physical deformity.
when a society decides to adopt cannibalism, it collapses due to rampant spread of disease, wreaking of hormonal balances etc (you do NOT want to eat someone's brain or someone of the opposite sex, ever!)

[Ostien]

I just realized, we somehow took this thread all the way from some guy's problem with apparently-arbitrary parental decisions to political science and value theory. How did we manage that?:smallconfused:

Oh well, this wouldn't be a proper forum-discussion without interesting tangents. :smallwink:

Yeah, I still hope OP will post again to give more specifics.

HEY OP COME BACK AND POST MORE SPECIFICS

[Woot Spitum]

No, congress enforces its authority the exact same way a man with a gun does... or rather, a man standing next to a soldier with a gun who tells you to obey that man.
their power is backed up by the army and police. Which will punish you (with a gun might I add) if you chose to ignore the "laws" that they declare.This is only true in the sense that you gave the gun to that man. Or if you want to split hairs, your ancestors gave it to him. Regardless, society at large banded together for mutual protection and decided on a method of choosing people to run things. Some may disagree with those running things or how those things are run, but as long as you are not prevented from leaving to seek an alternative, as long as you don't leave you still reap the benefits and are essentially approving of the entire process.

[taltamir]

This is only true in the sense that you gave the gun to that man. Or if you want to split hairs, your ancestors gave it to him. Regardless, society at large banded together for mutual protection and decided on a method of choosing people to run things. Some may disagree with those running things or how those things are run, but as long as you are not prevented from leaving to seek an alternative, as long as you don't leave you still reap the benefits and are essentially approving of the entire process.

And yet, the man still needs a gun to back up his authority. Therefore I am right. People do not obey the law because "our ancestors felt that we should give power and authority to those individuals over there" They obey the law because the law has a gun.

PS. It is actually possible to not use a gun, for example you can earn the RESPECT and UNQUESTIONING LOYALTY of someone to the point where you could make an arbitrary decision they disagree with and they will obey it FOR YOU.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Well, there is social evolution... for example, when a society arbitrarily decides to be communist, its produces and thinkers escape and it fails.
When a society decides to adopt incest, it collapses due to mental retardation and physical deformity.
when a society decides to adopt cannibalism, it collapses due to rampant spread of disease, wreaking of hormonal balances etc (you do NOT want to eat someone's brain or someone of the opposite sex, ever!)

You raise a good point. Most social values do seem to serve some purpose or another.

Hmm... I think I heard an argument very similar to this used to defend the existence of absolute values before. I can't quite recall how it goes now. Too bad...

[taltamir]

You raise a good point. Most social values do seem to serve some purpose or another.

Hmm... I think I heard an argument very similar to this used to defend the existence of absolute values before. I can't quite recall how it goes now. Too bad...

the problem with that is, that there are changing conditions.
For example, the jewish laws of kosher (what you can and cannot eat) are extremely accurate for a low tech desert environment with no refrigeration or modern sanitation.

But when your pigs are inoculated, inspected, given pills to kill parasites, only given processed food (without access to eating each other parasite infested feces) and then cooked well in a sanitized kitchen, then it is perfectly safe to eat them. (aka, NEVER EVER eat a pig in a third world country)

So the value "don't eat pigs" is certainly not absolute. It serves a purpose and it works for the conditions it was formed in, but it is not an absolute.

[Mushroom Ninja]

They obey the law because the law has a gun.


Well, that's just a wee bit cynical, isn't it? :smalltongue:

I see your point, though. Having the power to enforce your authority does make it seem a lot more real.

[Ostien]

the problem with that is, that there are changing conditions.
For example, the jewish laws of kosher (what you can and cannot eat) are extremely accurate for a low tech desert environment with no refrigeration or modern sanitation.

But when your pigs are inoculated, inspected, given pills to kill parasites, only given processed food (without access to eating each other parasite infested feces) and then cooked well in a sanitized kitchen, then it is perfectly safe to eat them. (aka, NEVER EVER eat a pig in a third world country)

So the value "don't eat pigs" is certainly not absolute. It serves a purpose and it works for the conditions it was formed in, but it is not an absolute.

This is an extremely good example of context depended values that serve a purpose but then can be disposed of when historical conditions change. Nice, I'll be sure to remember that one :smallsmile:

[taltamir]

Well, that's just a wee bit cynical, isn't it? :smalltongue:

I see your point, though. Having the power to enforce your authority does make it seem a lot more real.

I never leave home without my +5 underwear of cynicism.

[Ravens_cry]

{Scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: And with that, we've come full circle to inappropriate topics (real world religion). I think this thread's so far off course that further violations are more likely than discussion relevant to the OP.