|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2010 : 15:25:23
|
Apparently Dawkins is okay with science fiction, but is not okay with fantasy fiction. As a life-long role-playing gamer, allow me to say the following here for your thoughts and amusement....
I think Dawkins has precious little understanding of the impact of D&D (Dungeons and Dragons). As a powerful interactive media, D&D provided an opportunity and incentive for people to do what had pretty much been denied them in the past - to adopt different personalities and perspectives as if they were potentially legitimate - to role-play someone else. I think the import of this cannot be understated. This is something the average person did not partake of before - stepping outside themselves.
Role-play is so powerful, that it began to be adopted by non-gaming fields - business and psychology. Beyond D&D, other games began to stress role-play even more (especially when the wave of storyteller games hit). All of these represented a kind of individual relativism - a kind of consciousness of others that didn't exist before; we got to step outside our limited little internal realm.
The second aspect of D&D, which should have terrified the religious much more than a mere descriptor of Orcus (those who know the history of the religious strife with D&D will know to what I refer) is the two dimensional, cardboard cookie-cutout depiction of ethics. With only two axis (law-chaos and good-evil and absolutist dogmatism assumed) it actually presented ethics from a meta level. It was a common thought experiment for people to try to place themselves in the Gygaxian chart and recognizing the shortcoming of it. It was ridiculous, yes, but strangely accurate - primarily because the ethics of the religious are ridiculously two dimensional. Good-evil in D&D is absolutist by default and even the most casual reflection reveals the religious warrior class (the paladin) to be precious little more than a killer for a righteous cause.
In both cases, the players (and especially the game master) is driven to think of things along meta-levels - and the games were popular. A lot of people were doing this. If you want some weak evidence of the impact of role-playing games, check out the prevalence of skeptics at gaming conventions. This is not a coincidence...
When it comes down to it, any fictional setting, whether it is science fiction or swords & sorcery or what have you, is about *people* and their reactions to and in extraordinary circumstances. This is what Dawkins is missing.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 19:22:25 [Permalink]
|
Except, dglas, it wasn't good/evil and law/chaos. It was good, neutral, evil and lawful, neutral, chaotic.
It allowed a meta usage of ethics at a high level. Whenever clerics and palidins got involved (the preistly classes) it became a very black and white game for those characters. Palidins had a reputation (rightfully earned) as the most limiting of character classes. Simply ignoring the "it is evil/good and must be destroyed" aspect for too long caused the character to fall out of favor to the diety they served and either left them as a changed alignment simple fighter or required an epic quest to regain favor.
The preistly classes used prayer for their spells.
Then there was the addition of mongrel classes (multiclassed characters) and varmints (additional races than the standard ones playable in the basic rules).
If you read this and understood all of it. Make a WIS roll to see if you save vs. insanity. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 20:45:59 [Permalink]
|
"Except, dglas, it wasn't good/evil and law/chaos. It was good, neutral, evil and lawful, neutral, chaotic."
Yes and no. While it is true you could gravitate to the center of the graph, it was still presented as a dogmatic position. So, neutral meant, in game terms, fighting to maintain a balance between the extremes. Now this is a literary device (everything exists to provide the potential for conflict) but it also happens to parallel the religious concept of ethics. It is noteworthy that there was no "unaligned" alignment and that a third rather obvious axis "dogmatic-relative" was not present.
Now this is not to say that individual playgroups couldn't toy with the ethical concepts expressed in the game (I, myself, always allowed for "unaligned,") but that is not to say that such toying was intrinsic to the basic understanding of ethics in the game. In any event, it still presented ethics as a meta-level consideration, which was my point.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2010 : 22:34:47 [Permalink]
|
| I played in a game that lasted several years of weekly playing. I had a whole boatload of different characters over time. I did my best to make each as different as possible from the last, just to keep things interesting for myself. And since I knew the make-up of the party and what we were going through, when characters of mine died, the new characters I'd create were often designed to cause some sort of intra-party strife (with the DM's permission, of course). Alignments that were inconvenient for the group were often good for a laugh, though that sometimes resulted in me rolling up another new character pretty quickly. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 05:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Alright SFNers, I am granting three (D&D)wishes for your PC...
P.S. I will enforce the letter of the law... |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/12/2010 05:24:38 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 10:45:24 [Permalink]
|
| Now, I rarely post threads to the SFN. This is why. You folks cannot even try to consider the subject matter? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 07/12/2010 10:45:49 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 10:51:05 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
Good-evil in D&D is absolutist by default and even the most casual reflection reveals the religious warrior class (the paladin) to be precious little more than a killer for a righteous cause.
|
While people can get this impression, it is pretty far from accurate I think. Yes, you can get players that take the descriptions from the book literally and exercise only the extremes of a viewpoint. But most players, in my experience, who choose one of the "extreme" alignments (law/good for the paladin example) always challenge the rigidity of the extreme point of view.
D&D also changed significantly with the 3rd (and 3.5) edition. They added, literally, hundreds of variations on character classes. Paladins? How about a chaotic neutral paladin? It's there.
I have always played the game with a few things in mind about the alignment system. Mainly that it was intended as a guide for behavior, not something to lock you or others players into a set course. Some classes/alignments had behavior limitations and were compelled to act in some circumstances, sure, it's the price for their power. But D&D was meant to mimic fantasy literature, and if you hold to a very rigid behavior set then you are often missing the point.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 11:25:10 [Permalink]
|
What is there to consider? Yet another example of some self-appointed expert chiming in on a topic he really knows nothing about. D&D was the shizzle and is generally loved by all those who actually choose to try it.
As a long time 2nd ed. DM I was alawys putting the alignment issues on the back burner, mostly because of piss-poor, piss-drunk PCs with short attention spans. True-Neutral? WTF is that virtually impossible to function as a player with the strict limits of alignment. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 11:58:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
What is there to consider? Yet another example of some self-appointed expert chiming in on a topic he really knows nothing about.
|
Sorry. To whom do you refer? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 12:07:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Sorry. To whom do you refer?
|
I took it that he was referring to Dawkins. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 12:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dglas said:
Good-evil in D&D is absolutist by default and even the most casual reflection reveals the religious warrior class (the paladin) to be precious little more than a killer for a righteous cause.
|
While people can get this impression, it is pretty far from accurate I think. Yes, you can get players that take the descriptions from the book literally and exercise only the extremes of a viewpoint. But most players, in my experience, who choose one of the "extreme" alignments (law/good for the paladin example) always challenge the rigidity of the extreme point of view.
|
The point was that "the book" depicted matters as absolutes, including later additions of non-lawful good "paladins." The overall effect is still to present a particular kind of meta-ethic. Again, people played with the system realizing it is far from complete - in the real world. And that, itself, is part of the point. people playing D&D found themselves, almost unwittingly, engaging in meta-ethics examinations.
Hmm. How can I get this idea of presenting ethics from a systemic meta-ethical standpoint across and the import that carries for people who are, on average, not inclined to think about ethics from a meta-ethics viewpoint?
Meta or analytic ethics asks "what are we doing when we make normative claims," rather than examining the normative content of the particular claims themselves. This can take the form of developing ethical structures in a systematic way. Gygax, and D&D in general, presented one particular kind of meta-ethics system or framework as a storytelling-conflict device. This is only one of many potential ways of looking at ethics, but it is one (at least the conflict orientation)that is far from unfamiliar to us.
"But most players, in my experience, who choose one of the "extreme" alignments (law/good for the paladin example) always challenge the rigidity of the extreme point of view."
And that is part of the point I am trying to make. D&D effectively caused players to *think* about struggling against the constraints of absolutism and what it means to do so. It caused non-specialists to "think" about how absolutism creates unworkable and inflexible requirements.
The fallen paladin is a paradigm of heroic fiction.
Now, the real question is, what sort of influence did this have on the people who were exposed to it - and on what scale? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 07/12/2010 12:32:43 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 13:56:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by dglas
Sorry. To whom do you refer?
|
I took it that he was referring to Dawkins.
|
Yeah, that's what I thought too!
Originally posted by dglas
When it comes down to it, any fictional setting, whether it is science fiction or swords & sorcery or what have you, is about *people* and their reactions to and in extraordinary circumstances. This is what Dawkins is missing. |
Whether it's science fiction or fantacy, it's about imagination. It's about suspended disbelief for entertainment. What does it matter if the hero is wielding a light-sabre or a steel claymore? Or the arch-villain is wearing a black mask through which his loud hissing breath makes you gasp for air just as much as the putrid stench of the undead leech?
Just because magic is closer to woo and religion doesn't mean that the fantacy literature is void of its own science. The science of how the magic works in the D&D-setting, or the rules of "nature" which allows the cleric to access the power of his deity.
And there will always be cause-and-effect to consider.
If Richard Dawkins frown on fantacy, then it's his loss.
Though I don't read as much fiction as much as I used to, fantacy really rocks.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 14:33:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Apparently Dawkins is okay with science fiction, but is not okay with fantasy fiction. As a life-long role-playing gamer, allow me to say the following here for your thoughts and amusement....
|
Linky? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 14:48:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by dglas
Apparently Dawkins is okay with science fiction, but is not okay with fantasy fiction. As a life-long role-playing gamer, allow me to say the following here for your thoughts and amusement....
|
Linky?
|
You have me there. I have no link. It was reported as something Dawkins put forward at TAM ... although I do seem to recall some material from him having reservations about science fiction at one point. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 14:49:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by dglas
Sorry. To whom do you refer?
|
I took it that he was referring to Dawkins.
|
Yeah, that's what I thought too!
Originally posted by dglas
When it comes down to it, any fictional setting, whether it is science fiction or swords & sorcery or what have you, is about *people* and their reactions to and in extraordinary circumstances. This is what Dawkins is missing. |
Whether it's science fiction or fantacy, it's about imagination. It's about suspended disbelief for entertainment. What does it matter if the hero is wielding a light-sabre or a steel claymore? Or the arch-villain is wearing a black mask through which his loud hissing breath makes you gasp for air just as much as the putrid stench of the undead leech?
Just because magic is closer to woo and religion doesn't mean that the fantacy literature is void of its own science. The science of how the magic works in the D&D-setting, or the rules of "nature" which allows the cleric to access the power of his deity.
And there will always be cause-and-effect to consider.
If Richard Dawkins frown on fantacy, then it's his loss.
Though I don't read as much fiction as much as I used to, fantacy really rocks.
|
I suppose one could wield Arthur C. Clarke at this point... ;) |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 15:48:30 [Permalink]
|
dglas said:
| Now, the real question is, what sort of influence did this have on the people who were exposed to it - and on what scale? |
That is an interesting question. I'd go out on an anecdotal limb and say that the influence was significant, for me it was probably the first time I ever thought about ethics beyond the whole right/wrong punishment/reward level.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism and Role-Playing
