Building on existing human motivations
A marketer explains what he learned from D&D.
In particular, that killing monsters, taking their stuff, and telling the tale are basic human pleasures, and successful marketing builds on such stuff—and that playing the good guy is more satisfying than playing the bad guy.
On the other hand (this is me, not the article), it doesn’t seem to be as satisfying to be a good guy who finds an undramatic solution than to be a combative good guy. I count the sort of non-violence that gets you killed as combative goodguyism.
Would it help to personify irrationality as a monster? I don’t think so, though I do think we come close to personifying death as a monster, and in fact there’s a parable somewhere portraying death as a dragon.
I was never a serious gamer, but I do have pleasant memories of actually finding a use for the druid spell that creates a forest.
For my own part, I generally find it more satisfying to find a way of dissolving a conflict than I do to find a way of winning one.
I don’t think this makes me particularly virtuous, just practical: people I defeat are far more likely to come back and initiate further conflict, perhaps at a time when I’m relatively weak and they are relatively strong.
Fable of the Dragon that you mention. I think it’s closer to portraying aging as a dragon than death per se, though, since the story contains non-dragon causes of death.