alignment is bad and you should feel bad

[Frozen_Feet]

The thing is though... if the game suddenly switches to "frail seniors who beg for mercy", and all the cheering stops, except for one guy who keeps going "yeah! Ha! Smash those seniors. ha, ha, ha... *sigh* look at them beg". Many people would feel uncomfortable around that person, and worry about his mental health.

And maybe they have a reason to, but only because you moved the goal posts from one end of the field to another.

Hint: sudden, realistic portrayal of human suffering (like the above example) is not psychologically the same as expected, unrealistic suffering of anti-humans (slaughter of xenomorphs, orcs, or demons).

You don't even have to change the "unrealistic" part, only the "sudden". For example, people have different reactions to horror movies on second and further viewings. The first view has much greater shock factor which distract from other traits of the movies, where as once the shock factor is gone, analysis and humour become possible. That is, the person who is morally shocked by the slaughter of seniors, and the person who laughs at their destruction, can be the same person, just at different points of time.

What I'm saying is that being ok with in game infanticide is a similar thing (although to a much lesser degree). i.e. most people seem to feel uncomfortable with it, and will look at you (or me) funny if we say "what's the big deal, it's a goblin"

The body of players who gleefully run over human civilians in GTA is probably larger than the entire player base of tabletop RPGs. That is, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of "most people". Feeling moral discomfort over infanticide of orcs is niche concern for people in a niche hobby. The only times when such discomfort has reached mainstream has been during moral panics over how new media is bad to children, such as the Satanic panic over D&D

There are always boundaries, and the boundaries are different for everyone. Some people think that the most vile person just needs a hug, and they will turn nice...

And I don't disagree with that, I disagree over which sort of boundaries are normal, or, which should be used as the basis for deciding whether something is a genuine problem.

I know there are people who get upset over any sort of fictional violence, but using those people as a standard for what is morally bad in games makes about as much sense as using blind people as standards for visual arts, deaf people as standards for music, or Max_Killjoy as standard for using fiction tropes in RPGs is.

I would suggest another category: people who can't comprehend someone different than them.

Normal people comprehend just fine why violence against fictional beings is morally a non-problem and why violence in games is fun.

.

Many people can get past that mental hurdle (some people are different than me), but they still can't imagine a sentient creature that isn't human.

True, but also irrelevant, because people have no problem understanding that game objects are unreal and hence arguments about them have different weight than arguments about real humans.

And this is why they can't imagine such a creature being "always evil"... because that would mean that a human could be "always evil", and they don't want to go there.

You may be right, you mayve wrong, but you're also chasing a red herring.

The only thing that's required for a normal person to happily genocide xenomorphs, devils, orcs or whatever is for them to grok the trivial fact that the game events are unreal, and hence no real killing is taking place. Worrying about philosophical implications of the concept of "always evil" is domain of smart people who are being stupid in a very particular way, and people who listen to their rhetoric.

That is, the problem you describe is an artificial one that's entirely avoided by not making the argument you're trying to make in the first place.

Not quite. My concern is more that (as above), there are people that can't separate fantasy creatures with humans... and as such when I say "monster babies can be evil", they subconsciously hear "human babies can be evil", and I don't want them to hear me saying that... even if that isn't what I mean. My concern is more the perception of others than my own perception.

And I don't disagree about the existence of such people. I disagree about using them as a standard for what's normal, or what' good gaming. Because while your argument is not exactly the same as moral alarmists (moral alarmists would claim I genuinely mean human babies are evil, or would come to believe that as result of playing games), it on effect asks me to bow to their whims.

I'll have none of that, thank you very much.

If someone thinks that when I say killing Xenomorph larvae (etc.) is morally acceptable in a game and thinks I am endorsing real-life infanticide, the problem isn't me nor the xenomorphs (etc.).

This is not a hypothetical question nor a hypothetical answer. All of my hobbies have been subject to bizarre preconceptions, stereotypes and moral panic from the part of outsiders. "Having concern" over incorrect "subconscious" perceptions of people would force me to hide under a rock.