Quote from: SHARK;1122926Greetings!

I always enjoy riding at the right hand of Ghenghis Khan.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I bet you think Temujin was evil. The guy had a rough childhood.

I think the line is like obscenity, as ruled per US constitution: "you know it when you see it" and "it is a function of the community's mores." The trouble with that answer is it becomes a negotiation in a public and private sphere, in an individual and social level. Which feels like a cop-out to some because suddenly everywhere has its own 'aesthetic logic'.

:cool: But in reality it asks people to do two very complicated things: a) have a confident individuality that has judgment in respecting the negotiated power of the area, yet b) also its own strength of character in expressing what does not cross boundaries into actual harm. Thankfully our USA legal system is quite well-argued on where our rights and boundaries intersect, and what is defined as harm. (It's like we have laws expecting adults to behave like adults whenever possible. )

As much as any social movement of Nanny Harpies, regardless of their political origin, may protest ("for the children," "changing the -archies narrative") thoughts, feelings, and Imagination-Land do not constitute an assault requiring redress. And this is why mimes are brave defenders on the front lines of our civil liberties. :cool:

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1122931The guy had a rough childhood.

I heard that was just a public-relations Khan job.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1122901I would also say that the kind of people who get all bent out of shape about such things in the culture war are the type of people that probably shouldn't play RPGs--at least not without talking to their therapist first.

These are the type of people that should not be allowed near RPGs, be told a story, watch movies or plays, play board games, or even read a book.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

Some observations from years of seeing stuff first hand and hearing from others or reading accounts going back to the 1910s.

RPGs and LARPs and Acting and even Costuming/Cosplay can be a great thing for people. This has been known quite a long time. Actually before RPGs existed. It is why proto LARPs originated in schoolastic activities before D&D came out. Studies were being done and showing that this sort of "simulation" as they were termed at the time, were potentially great learning tools and it was used all across the US. Since then these sim's have filtered into some business orientations as well, especially after RPGs hit the scene.

Problem though. And this is the flip-side of the SJW loonacy...

Some people take it too far. Some go way too far. Its NOT rare either. The main problem are the "immersion" fanatics. Not the ones that just like some immersion. These nuts take it to extremes. They want to BE the character. This pops up ALOT with LARPs as its so much more physical and its gained an appalling following over in europe where "Its not real unless you BLEED!" and the insane push for more and more "realisim" in the violence to the point that some LARPs are anything but safe.

I suspect this will carry over into VRmmos once they get to the full dive technology. (Bemusingly Overlord notes that VR in that setting specifically lacked sensory inputs to curtail this.)

And I've seen people for whom the character and the player start to blur. Mostly LARP, but a few cases noted in RPGing.

But this is not what the SJWs and nuts out there are really on about usually. Their rally is that just playing something casually MAKES you that thing. Or that you Like or DO those things for real. Or at least want to. And you MUST BE STOPPED! To protect others of course. Most are just insane and should never be allowed near anything really as they can and will hallucinate boogymen in anything.

Some of this stems from the anti-violence (anti anything really) nuts out there who want to sanitize everything. This is part of the cyclic surge of these Moral Guardians about every 20 years. Books, Comic Books, Movies, Cartoons, RPGs, Video Games, Fan Art, etc ad nausium as each surge adds some new burgeoning media to the great big list of "CENSORED!"

QuoteTo be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation. This article has an extensive discussion of the many findings on this topic, with links to more details. We repeatedly fool ourselves into thinking people "really are" a certain way, when really virtually everyone is just certain ways in certain situations. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-or-many-selves

Who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game* can only tell us one thing, and that's who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game*.  Drawing further conclusions from there about what a person "is really like" is unwarranted and unjustifiable by psychological science.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

This isn't going to be the only consideration, but in my experience, players who easily abuse the characters of other players tend to be arseholes in real life as well. The ones who make the excuse that they're 'just playing my character/alignment'. (Chaotic 'good' is no exception, sadly; if anything it's an extra excuse to get away with sociopathy, when it comes to such players.) The ones who are the reason why 'you never let that damn thief out of sight!'

There's probably some leeway for large player pools, like the roster of dozens of potential players that Gygax had, where you could be adventuring with a different combination of people each session. But if you've got a group of 4-8 players, usually it's expected that you'll have each others' backs in the dungeon, be true companions, etc.

Beyond that? If someone can't tell that make-believe is make-believe and starts acting out the Dark Dungeons Chick tract, they should be eased out of the RPG sessions, and perhaps into therapy.

-Albert the Absentminded

Ask Heath Ledger.

Method actors. Stage or screen can suffer this. They usually recover. But while they are "the character" it can get progressively bad. Others can easily differentiate and switch it on and off.

As with everything whats good to one person is poison to another.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122898My thoughts on the matter aren't fully baked at the moment, and probably won't be for awhile. There's definitely a middle ground here, and it may just be that it's different for everyone. So until then I'd really like to hear where everybody else thinks this line should be drawn, because this issue is at the heart of the current culture war when it comes to RPGs.

Well, I think the culture war in RPGs has as much to do with players not having to put up with actual bigotry and exclusion at the table--be that from other players, the game/setting itself--as it does with the idea that people who play RPGs are somehow acting out real aspects of their subconscious personalities in some sort of Freudian psychodrama. I am more or less on board with the first part. It's the latter issue that I am really amazed about. So, if you like playing characters that do horrible things or who are horrible people, then somehow, somewhere deep down inside you, you are harbouring those feelings and the potential for actually behaving like that. Which seems ludicrous for reasons that I think are entirely obvious, at least on the face of it.

Isn't the only real measure of virtue and goodness actual, you know, behavior? I could be thinking all sorts of things. I could be tempted to cheat on my wife. I could be tempted to steal, or lie, or maybe I see a black guy walking towards me on the sidewalk and I could feel threatened. But I don't actually act any of those inside thoughts. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't lie, steal, and I don't cross the street to get away from anyone.  Isn't that the most we can ask from anyone? Anything more would require thought police and virtue signalling.

Oh crap.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1122935I think the line is like obscenity, as ruled per US constitution: "you know it when you see it"

Nit: that's Justice Potter Stewart, not the Constitution itself.

I've been coincidentally thinking about this recently because I consciously tried to play a different character in my new game... except there's still still a strong streak of stubbornness, determination, loyalty, and dedication, which are all things that I value in myself when I am at my best. And that seem to show up in my characters.

Is it that the character calls for it, so I'm just doing it right? Or is it that one can't step out of one's self, really? On the other hand, without a little of those things, there's no adventure, either.

The "I can't play evil characters" thing rings true with me too. I can't even play Cards Against Humanity.

Of course, then I scroll down the thread and see this...

Quote from: amacris;1122943Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation. This article has an extensive discussion of the many findings on this topic, with links to more details. We repeatedly fool ourselves into thinking people "really are" a certain way, when really virtually everyone is just certain ways in certain situations. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201404/one-self-or-many-selves

Who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game* can only tell us one thing, and that's who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do *in a game*.  Drawing further conclusions from there about what a person "is really like" is unwarranted and unjustifiable by psychological science.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

So maybe the actual boundaries are each person's definition of "the situation" -- maybe because I think about RPGs in terms of adventure, heroism, and experiencing history, I tend to pull out the personality attributes I associate with that.

"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."

Now quit cluttering up my mental life, you bunch of p-zombies.

" Are You What You Pretend To Be? "

Obviously not, because then it wouldn't be pretend would it?

(This place takes naval gazing to a new level sometimes.....)

Quote from: RandyB;1122946Ask Heath Ledger.

Interesting that you brought this up. His performance in The Dark Knight was remarkable and excellent. In the uncut version which is rarely shown these days, the Joker actually had a better set of morals than Batman, and James Gordon, as well as Harvey Dent. The Joker in this movie was a much better crime fighter than Batman was. It was a phenomenal performance.

Heath Ledger was messed up by Hollywood and busloads of money, which has an interesting effect on people who may not have always had money. I doubt his demise had much to do with his method acting, and much more to do with the non-movie people he regularly hung out with.

Which brings us back to gamers and gaming, and gamers that focus mostly on fun and well balanced play, instead of on being evil.

Quote from: amacris;1122943Psychological research strongly suggests that there is no such thing as "who we are". There is instead just "what we do in certain situations". E.g. our behavior is largely a function of the situation.

One person might be a murderous bastard in an RPG, and then go home and devotedly care for sick children and work in a soup kitchen. Another person might play a morally conservative paladin in the game and then spend his evenings getting debauched in strip clubs. A person might enjoy being a tyrannical king in an RPG and a committed egalitarian in the ballot box.

Certainly true. But are players like this outliers or representative?

I have to admit, my own bet -- based on my own example and observations -- is that in practice behaviour patterns by situation do cleave more closely together than this. And if "how we behave in certain situations" is consistent when the situations are analogous enough, then "how we behave" is just another term for "who we are".

That said, the key caveat is, of course, that "cleave more closely" is not the same as "identical", or even "predictable enough that it justifies pre-emptively judging someone". And "analogous enough" also covers a lot of extremely variable-by-individual ground. But if the patterns weren't consistent enough to sometimes be useful, we wouldn't have developed the predilection for spotting them.