Simkins and Steinkuehler

      The article made interesting distinctions between moralization in videogame contexts versus real life. It began by setting up basic understandings of moral theory developments and assigning the view to which the article was attached. The article seemed to take the position that morality should be taken in terms of context, cultural or personal, etc. As such, the context of a videogame is different than the context of say the classroom. Certain things are appropriate, morally one, and not in the other. The article presents the importance of role playing in RPG videogames, and how it can apply to building an understanding of diverse moralities, and stronger senses of morality, in class settings. In relation to RPG's, the role often switches between different types of characters, each with their own moral sets based on what would be appropriate action for that character. Many games provide choices for what kind of character the player would like to be. As the character changes, so does the morality. If I play a rogue, given my alignment, it may be moral for me to steal rather than not to. On the other hand, if I am a cleric, it would be immoral for me to not kill those who are evil and to kill those who are not. Explaining the differences in morality in role-play situations not only enhances an understanding of how morality shifts in different contexts, but provides an understanding of how valuable role-playing can be for building sensitive morals that can understand another's perspective.
      It seemed undefined whether or not the article took the opinion that game morality could have an adverse affect on real-life morality for students. It also debated but didn't quite answer what was special about RPG video-games. Is it the technology and interface, or the story? The article explored both sides of the argument.