Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:20:27 AM
I mean, you know me, so I guess you all are insiders, too.

Well with that and a nickel I can buy a hot cup of 'Who gives a shit?".

As if you're the only one here that's published or written in the industry? LOL... dude you should look around more.

QuoteI will immediately derail this thread by espousing a belief in Moral Nihilism and demand evidence that morality is intrinsic to the universe.

How about immediately derailing your desire for answer with swift ruthless execution, the most perfect argument against moral nihilists?

Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 30, 2023, 12:23:00 AM
I will immediately derail this thread by espousing a belief in Moral Nihilism and demand evidence that morality is intrinsic to the universe.

I'll just point out that the sheer number of beneficial coincidences on a universal scale required for you to even be able to make that statement points to a higher power who cared enough to put you here.

On topic, I would suggest that the humanities/creatives tend to be outliers to the general public in terms of beliefs and values and in the West that has naturally been outliers to Western civilization. Basically, being left of center is the average for creatives so it's not really that great of a surprise to find that tendency in RPG companies... particularly as it shifted away from its wargame roots (board, card and dice games are mainstream, war games are an outlier from that, rpgs started as an outlier of that outlier).

The main difference these days is that the scale has shifted so far to left that the old school left when many rpgs got their start are now considered far right (ex. Bill Clinton's policies in the 90's would be considered far right extremism today). A lot of the people labeled Green on the Woke Company guide would have been seen as "Liberals" in the 80's and 90's.

I would also suggest that as the Woke push further into the mainstream it will make the right into the natural outliers (indeed, the up and coming generation is more right-wing than its predecessors) simply because to go much further to the Left is to pass the event horizon of insanity (some on the Left already consider it valid to declare you identify as a cat and that refusing to let them shit in a litter box at school is a hate crime... at some point they're going to declare speaking a coherent language is a hate crime against the mentally disabled).

That means in the long run, I expect the RPGs that actually survive into the next decade to begin a swing back towards Western values simply because that's where the creative outliers who aren't shitting in litter boxes while babbling incoherently will be found.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 30, 2023, 10:26:17 AM

Quote from: MeganovaStella on November 30, 2023, 12:23:00 AM
I will immediately derail this thread by espousing a belief in Moral Nihilism and demand evidence that morality is intrinsic to the universe.

I'll just point out that the sheer number of beneficial coincidences on a universal scale required for you to even be able to make that statement points to a higher power who cared enough to put you here.

On topic, I would suggest that the humanities/creatives tend to be outliers to the general public in terms of beliefs and values and in the West that has naturally been outliers to Western civilization. Basically, being left of center is the average for creatives so it's not really that great of a surprise to find that tendency in RPG companies... particularly as it shifted away from its wargame roots (board, card and dice games are mainstream, war games are an outlier from that, rpgs started as an outlier of that outlier).

The main difference these days is that the scale has shifted so far to left that the old school left when many rpgs got their start are now considered far right (ex. Bill Clinton's policies in the 90's would be considered far right extremism today). A lot of the people labeled Green on the Woke Company guide would have been seen as "Liberals" in the 80's and 90's.

I would also suggest that as the Woke push further into the mainstream it will make the right into the natural outliers (indeed, the up and coming generation is more right-wing than its predecessors) simply because to go much further to the Left is to pass the event horizon of insanity (some on the Left already consider it valid to declare you identify as a cat and that refusing to let them shit in a litter box at school is a hate crime... at some point they're going to declare speaking a coherent language is a hate crime against the mentally disabled).

That means in the long run, I expect the RPGs that actually survive into the next decade to begin a swing back towards Western values simply because that's where the creative outliers who aren't shitting in litter boxes while babbling incoherently will be found.

Not only do I agree, but I admire the very evocative way you put it...

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:40:30 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:20:27 AM
I mean, you know me, so I guess you all are insiders, too.

Well with that and a nickel I can buy a hot cup of 'Who gives a shit?".

As if you're the only one here that's published or written in the industry? LOL... dude you should look around more.

Thank you for restating my point, so concisely.

I may not have direct experience with the industry, but I do have basic situational awareness as a consumer. When a corporation sells a bundle promising that things will go to a political cause, that's a political stance. When accusations are made regarding the politics and morality of editions gone by, and they are edited to conform to the modern political and societal lines of a company, including censoring past lore after they had previously left it intact to "show how bad it was" and "not practice erasure" because the past editions and content is still selling, that's a political action. The left, and not the right, has been doing both of the former things. The first, widely across the industry, and with a wide range of corporations, many specific instances being noted in our segment on political censorship for, and what causes you support via the purchasing of, TTRPGs list. The latter in major corporate properties such as D&D, or even White Wolf stuff, which apparently is no longer far enough left.

Likewise, explicit censorship rules on major forums such as Reddit and rpg.net, which get more than 70% of incoming traffic, seem to actively target conservative voices within the hobby. Like reddit's ban on even discussing Ascendant or ACKS and condemnation of various other games and creators from a position of site authority, enforced with active mod rulings. Corporate censorship sucks, and it's more widespread than you might immediately suspect. Personally, I think sites should either be effectively free in speech or be counted as publishers for the views they condone and weed out as the ONE TRUTH from general public opinion, but that's neither here nor there.

When political views at the table are a required part of the game and your qualifications to DM or play it, that's political in nature. Guess who puts that into writing? There are many left-wing examples I could name, many quite popular, that have recently begun trying to dictate table political leanings from the corporate office. And I mean literally, in the rules of the game.

Now, are there games which explore left and/or right leaning, or even orthogonal, political and social themes to a heavy degree within their settings or content without doing that? Sure. Moreso on the left than on the right, probably, but I'd actually be broadly fine with that. The problem is that all the issues above are not only political, but actively encourage the overextension of corporate power over everyday life. They have ties also to rising plans of government censorship, which you should be concerned about regardless of political affiliation. They also have ties to ESG being the only metric legally endorsed as usable in investment that isn't profit when investing somebody's money. (Regardless of what they may value or want you to do, that's your only legal option, which is very much government-backed economic and societal distortion.) These complex issues all interconnect and come into play together.

In short, one can argue that woke ideology is not the dominant enforced ideology within a TTRPG context, but to do so is more or less delusional. If you must argue, argue for the rightness of the above practices and positions and acknowledge the consequent fact that the preceding statement is false. Because whilst still probably being wrong from a legit moral perspective, at least you won't be ignoring the reality of the situation.

And to segue into the whole morality thing... if you don't believe in the rightness of anything, or in any moral values, or objective "better" or "worse" situations, then by all means vacate any conversations of related bent, such as this one. But also, if remaining due to a belief that you are in the right, remember that if moral values do exist and there is no deity or magic force to tell us their attributes, you most certainly do not have a scientific way of ascertaining them magically, and there are in fact infinite theoretical possibilities as to what they could theoretically be. Which means you're still bullshitting yourself about the being right bit, if you really are an atheist who also doesn't believe in magic... yet still thinks they or anybody else can be a "good" human being. (Humanism is bullshit, pass it on.)


On a side note, I do enjoy philosophy, and would argue that there are roughly 3 core possibilities for morality within this world:

1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 07:07:08 PM
And to segue into the whole morality thing... if you don't believe in the rightness of anything, or in any moral values, or objective "better" or "worse" situations, then by all means vacate any conversations of related bent, such as this one. But also, if remaining due to a belief that you are in the right, remember that if moral values do exist and there is no deity or magic force to tell us their attributes, you most certainly do not have a scientific way of ascertaining them magically, and there are in fact infinite theoretical possibilities as to what they could theoretically be. Which means you're still bullshitting yourself about the being right bit, if you really are an atheist who also doesn't believe in magic... yet still thinks they or anybody else can be a "good" human being. (Humanism is bullshit, pass it on.)


On a side note, I do enjoy philosophy, and would argue that there are roughly 3 core possibilities for morality within this world:

1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

and in a matter of five posts we have exceeded the total discussion quality made from the 505 posts of pawsplay

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 07:07:08 PM
1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

Divine command morality is the stupidest shit. You literally cannot create an actual set of moral values from it, because good becomes equivalent to evil if God commands it. Which means there actually isn't any such thing as morality.

Morality can be extracted from the struggle for survival and our social instincts as human beings. Morality is, roughly, what is good for you, and the people you care about, where "good" means beneficial.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 09:23:53 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 07:07:08 PM
1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

Divine command morality is the stupidest shit. You literally cannot create an actual set of moral values from it, because good becomes equivalent to evil if God commands it. Which means there actually isn't any such thing as morality.

Morality can be extracted from the struggle for survival and our social instincts as human beings. Morality is, roughly, what is good for you, and the people you care about, where "good" means beneficial.

okay, and what makes something 'good' for you?

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 09:23:53 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 07:07:08 PM
1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

Divine command morality is the stupidest shit. You literally cannot create an actual set of moral values from it, because good becomes equivalent to evil if God commands it. Which means there actually isn't any such thing as morality.

Morality can be extracted from the struggle for survival and our social instincts as human beings. Morality is, roughly, what is good for you, and the people you care about, where "good" means beneficial.

Oh this again...

Quote from: Brad on November 30, 2023, 09:40:34 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 09:23:53 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 07:07:08 PM
1. Magical knowledge or divine command makes ascertaining moral principles possible. One may be right, but only if you are in tune with what the revelatory moral force is saying. If you don't believe in a communicative entity that can reveal or order such things, you're probably wrong by failing the aforementioned hearing test.

2. Morality exists but a revelatory/communicative force of magical or divine nature does not, so there is a 1/infinity chance of finding the correct morality by guessing. You are wrong by default.

3. Morality does not exist.  You are not right, nor are you in the wrong, but that also means the same is true for folks like Hitler.

Divine command morality is the stupidest shit. You literally cannot create an actual set of moral values from it, because good becomes equivalent to evil if God commands it. Which means there actually isn't any such thing as morality.

Morality can be extracted from the struggle for survival and our social instincts as human beings. Morality is, roughly, what is good for you, and the people you care about, where "good" means beneficial.

Oh this again...

have a feeling they're going to respond like other leftists when faced with moral nihilism (which, btw, i don't believe in, but i believe it would be true under a certain worldview that leftism accepts).

The burden of proof rests on them. I can't prove a negative. They can try to prove that morals exist outside of a human imagination.

So, pawsplay... You may not like or believe in possibility 1, or the idea that objective morality could hypothetically be subject to change, but that doesn't negate my argument. Also, you're ignoring magical knowledge/gnosis/divine knowledge/whatever, which would not require divine command theory. Which was the other half to possibility number one. Though I guess in the absence of divine command, using my infinite moral possibilities argument, a randomly generated morality is likely to be essentially infinite in size, which would make achieving it without divine grace pretty damn hard for a finite mind and existence. 

Likewise, exactly as MeganovaStella hints at, the terms good/beneficial/moral/better/superior/whatever are normative assessments that positive science cannot claim to analyze under its present core assumptions. Hell, that's even in social "science" 101. You would have had a better shot with moral relativism, but that's basically an argument for point 3.

Also who says objective morality can be extracted from survival and social instincts? What proof do we have that humans, or I guess all other living creatures, are intrinsically evolutionarily disposed towards "good" in the absence of magical morality indicators? Rather, we seem to have a solid mathematical argument based on sheer number of moral possibilities to the contrary, if there is no magically or divinely revelatory moral force.

One could also accepts that morality exists within the human imagination, which is sufficient, because we are humans. But in any case, morality is what you make of it. Divine command is just abandoning your post, ethically speaking; divine command purports to establish morality, but actually establishes the nihilistic case.

I read my Nietzsche a long time ago; I don't find nihilism daunting. I feel sorry for people who can't wake up and understand what would be good in their lives, and what would be bad.

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 09:50:10 PM
Also who says objective morality can be extracted from survival and social instincts? What proof do we have that humans, or I guess all other living creatures, are intrinsically evolutionarily disposed towards "good" in the absence of magical morality indicators? Rather, we seem to have a solid mathematical argument based on sheer number of moral possibilities to the contrary, if there is no magically or divinely revelatory moral force.

Not me! Whatever disposes us toward evolutionary success, that is the good. You are putting Descartes before the horse.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 09:50:41 PM
One could also accepts that morality exists within the human imagination, which is sufficient, because we are humans. But in any case, morality is what you make of it. Divine command is just abandoning your post, ethically speaking; divine command purports to establish morality, but actually establishes the nihilistic case.

I read my Nietzsche a long time ago; I don't find nihilism daunting. I feel sorry for people who can't wake up and understand what would be good in their lives, and what would be bad.

Quote from: KindaMeh on November 30, 2023, 09:50:10 PM
Also who says objective morality can be extracted from survival and social instincts? What proof do we have that humans, or I guess all other living creatures, are intrinsically evolutionarily disposed towards "good" in the absence of magical morality indicators? Rather, we seem to have a solid mathematical argument based on sheer number of moral possibilities to the contrary, if there is no magically or divinely revelatory moral force.

Not me! Whatever disposes us toward evolutionary success, that is the good. You are putting Descartes before the horse.

so in other words, you agree with moral nihilism: good and evil don't exist out of the imaginations of a few naked apes.

...then why are you morally lecturing us?