Artists lean left (on average!). But I wonder--specifically in games, are there any with notably conservative themes? 'Conservative' casts a wide net, and the libertarian emphasis of a lot of American conservatism might mean there are some themes that might fit into the American variety but not the European, for example.
Some of these might be unintentional--I am pretty sure Chaosium leans left, but Call of Cthulhu always struck me as an essentially conservative struggle to preserve one's world against unknowable, dangerous invaders.
Usually, the strongest conservative/libertarian angle in RPGs is that 'the authorities are useless, it's up to -us- to set things right'.
Sure, the government might lend a hand, but it comes down to people (the PCs) to right the wrongs, slay the dragon, etc, etc.
I think that word means too many different things (just like liberal does these days) so I would need a pretty clearly defined meaning of the word to have any sort of input.
Are we talking about:
- classical burke'an - social evolutionism (basic schtick: antirevolutionism)
- religious reactionism (basic schtick: slowing down advances of corruption)
- monarchism and legitimism
- integral traditionalism
- counterrevolutionary
or what?
One could say for instance that Warhammer is unconcioussly promoting some sort of stoicism (conservative philosophy these days) as Chaos is born from human emotions, so cleansing yourself from passions make you better armoured against it.
Any of the above, to be honest, perhaps calling out which one you mean for each example. You could play a libertarian game about fighting a tyrannical government, a monarchical game defending the King against revolutionaries, or any other combination.
I think both tropes are more or less common even if not shown directly as conservative ones. TBH to really get conservative in a way that would be clear and vivid - I assume game moral systems would have to delve into judging of sexual behaviours - down with adult consent, and other liberal perspectives on the subject. Otherwise both fairy legitimism and anti-tyranny can easily be seen as left-leaning,.
Funny enough SIGMATA - this signal kill fascist - game made by leftist allows for right-wingish PCs fighting with secular fascism within USA, as factions are in large based on anti-Assad forces in Syria. So you can play libertarian rednecks or religious fundies from Bible Belt against statocratic regime.
Traveller is inherently capitalist and free market.
Quote from: David Johansen on January 29, 2021, 10:18:07 AM
Traveller is inherently capitalist and free market.
I know it gives off that vibe (which is part of the reason why I love it) but it isn't really mandated in the rules. I suppose the tramp freighter campaign is probably the most popular, even if most of the published adventure material (at least classic era) is more survivalist or mercenary.
This is kind of obscure but there was a supplement called Olympus Mons for an SFRPG called Stellar Wind.
And I quote: "With a touch of Ayn Rand, a touch of Heinlein and a slightly larger touch of Poul Anderson as inspiration, Olympus Mons is set in a time when the solar system is settled; great fusion-powered "scoop ships" travel back and forth between the stars; and a powerful, wealthy, terraformed Mars is the center of human civilization."
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92841/Olympus-Mons
It's one of the few explicitly conservatively inspired RPG products I know of.
I would say that there is considerable "classical liberalism" still in some game themes. Because of the times we live in, most classical liberal thought is rapidly being smeared as "right-wing". However, the people doing the smearing aren't consistent enough about it to drive it out entirely, at least not yet. This is a big reason why yesterday's darling of the left is tomorrow's target.
Well, the system I'm all but done writing probably falls under what you're looking for, though the label I choose to apply to it is Superversive.
What's that? Look at Game of Thrones; heroes are unheroic, people are generally bastards, virtues are subverted, love is tarnished, the world is ugly, and no matter what they sacrifice the heroes efforts ultimately don't change much of anything...
Superversive is the opposite.
Heroes are heroic. People are basically good. Virtues matter. True Love and Beauty are real and have power, and though the struggle is long and the sacrifices great, good wins in the end.
That may or may not be conservative to you, but it is certainly counter to the values of the mainstream cancel culture.
QuoteIt's one of the few explicitly conservatively inspired RPG products I know of.
As an European reactionist I cannot even say how hurtful for me it to heard anything touched by Ayn Rand or Heinlein (I love Troppers but still) to be "conservatively inspired".
QuoteI would say that there is considerable "classical liberalism" still in some game themes. Because of the times we live in, most classical liberal thought is rapidly being smeared as "right-wing". However, the people doing the smearing aren't consistent enough about it to drive it out entirely, at least not yet. This is a big reason why yesterday's darling of the left is tomorrow's target.
Also PC-centric nature of RPG game sort of naturally leads to at least element of liberalism/libertarianism even if game wants to emulate socialist or conservative themes.
QuoteWhat's that? Look at Game of Thrones; heroes are unheroic, people are generally bastards, virtues are subverted, love is tarnished, the world is ugly, and no matter what they sacrifice the heroes efforts ultimately don't change much of anything...
I know millenials like to paint ASOIAF this way - but for all it's cynicism and darkness it's also world balanced by BIG DOSE of humanist romanticism even though often tragic but definitely shown as something... worthy. There are truly cynical, amoral writers out there, but for all his subversiveness GRRM is too much of old fat hippy to really delve there.
QuoteThat may or may not be conservative to you, but it is certainly counter to the values of the mainstream cancel culture.
Half-counter. Cancel culture as much as against conservatism, is also deeply moralistic, though toxic and authistic about it (and probably often hypocritically narcistic). So at least some of those themes would work for them as well - and be countered more by grimdark, than by modern SJ ideals.
Quote from: Null42 on January 29, 2021, 09:19:26 AMSome of these might be unintentional--I am pretty sure Chaosium leans left, but Call of Cthulhu always struck me as an essentially conservative struggle to preserve one's world against unknowable, dangerous invaders.
That is an extremely woke way to look at it and I think any extreme leftist would agree with that assessment of Call of Cthulhu mythos, lore, and writing.
Lovecraft himself fueled his writing with his extreme insane levels of racism. When he saw a mixed person, it caused him existential dread and nightmares. Kind'of like an inverse Snowflake-racist.
Quote from: Null42 on January 29, 2021, 09:19:26 AM
Artists lean left (on average!). But I wonder--specifically in games, are there any with notably conservative themes? 'Conservative' casts a wide net, and the libertarian emphasis of a lot of American conservatism might mean there are some themes that might fit into the American variety but not the European, for example.
Some of these might be unintentional--I am pretty sure Chaosium leans left, but Call of Cthulhu always struck me as an essentially conservative struggle to preserve one's world against unknowable, dangerous invaders.
I would say that Traveller does lean libertarian. As written, it's pretty skeptical about government as a narrow balance between anarchy and totalitarian control -- the major governments are more feudal or corporate than democratic. The Zhodani as the shocking extreme of totalitarianism.
I think D&D and imitators also lean libertarian, though less explicitly. Characters are typically homeless soldiers-of-fortune, with no social connections and living on pure cash. Some people think of this as the RPG default - but many other RPGs have PCs with more social connection, like superhero RPGs with secret identities, acting as part of societies (Ars Magica, most World of Darkness, Star Trek), and similar.
Also, there are a number of RPGs that follow more socially conservative source material: like the various Conan RPGs, Pendragon, various Old West RPGs, James Bond 007, and some steampunk like Space: 1889. Conservatism might or might not be baked into the rules, but the source material is generally more conservatively themed. On the most explicitly conservative, there is Greg Costikyan's Price of Freedom RPG.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TOxk7hmr32I/AAAAAAAACv8/IOlgl0mDLQo/s320/priceoffreedom.jpg)
Source: http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/11/retrospective-price-of-freedom.html
I partly disagree about Call of Cthulhu. Lovecraft's fiction is quite different in theme from traditional alien-invasion stories. Lovecraft often write stories about how other creatures have already been on Earth for longer than humans, and often how human institutions are part of them. His horror was often set in his home territory New England, where protagonists find horrific things in their own neighbors or even in themselves (The Shadow over Innsmouth). Some of this bleeds over into the game. On the other hand, a lot of Call of Cthulhu RPG adventures lean more traditional conservative horror - about going out to exotic locations and fighting off invaders and weird cults.
The Chill RPG draws from more traditional horror like Dracula and other monster movies, where crosses and holy water are important. I'd say it's a better example of conservative defending the world against evil.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 11:09:43 AM
QuoteWhat's that? Look at Game of Thrones; heroes are unheroic, people are generally bastards, virtues are subverted, love is tarnished, the world is ugly, and no matter what they sacrifice the heroes efforts ultimately don't change much of anything...
I know millenials like to paint ASOIAF this way - but for all it's cynicism and darkness it's also world balanced by BIG DOSE of humanist romanticism even though often tragic but definitely shown as something... worthy. There are truly cynical, amoral writers out there, but for all his subversiveness GRRM is too much of old fat hippy to really delve there.
I said "Game of Thrones" and not "A Song of Ice and Fire" for a reason. Similarly, you can tell in Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films that he didn't quite grok the concept of mercy to the degree that Tolkien conveyed in his works, particularly at the end when Golem is forced into the pit with Frodo pushing and grabbing at him rather than because of his own crazed glee; looking up at the Ring as he paid no mind to the ground beneath and danced right off the edge.
Hollywood treatments are in general more banal and nihilistic than the stories they adapt from. Game of Thrones was always more graphic and bloody than the books they were based on... particularly once they ran out of the actual material and had to improvise an ending.
Ah, pardon me then, I should take it into consideration. Not many people differentiates between two unfortunately.
And I definitely agree about LOTR - things like Aragorn murdering Sauron's envoy, making Sam sort of absolutely right about Gollum (while Tolkien was clear Sam's attitude pushed Gollum to betrayal), butchering of Denethor character, all shows Jackson is well hack and fraud.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 09:29:26 AM
Are we talking about:
- classical burke'an - social evolutionism (basic schtick: antirevolutionism)
- religious reactionism (basic schtick: slowing down advances of corruption)
- monarchism and legitimism
- integral traditionalism
- counterrevolutionary
or what?
If someone says "conservative themes" in a game I would expect
Defending Bill of Rights freedoms against oppressors
Personal freedom vs government authoritarianism
Preference for personal effort and private enterprise vs government
Financial responsibility
Resistance to societal takeover by fringe groups
Keeping to practices that work until they are proven to not work
Incremental vs radical change when change is necessary
Respect and support for the guardians of society
Support and respect for morality
Looking at long term costs and consequences for actions
Economic freedom
Maximum economic output vs equalized economic benefits
Doing the best one can in an imperfect world
Meritocracy
Just my own take, of course. If this actually falls into an established category, I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me what it is.
Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2021, 12:44:51 PM
If someone says "conservative themes" in a game I would expect
Defending Bill of Rights freedoms against oppressors
Personal freedom vs government authoritarianism
Preference for personal effort and private enterprise vs government
Financial responsibility
Economic freedom
Maximum economic output vs equalized economic benefits
Meritocracy
These all have to do with individual liberty, which is the hallmark of classical liberalism, or in slightly modified form, modern libertarianism. These are some of the most radical philosophies ever promoted, and aren't conservative at all, except in the topsy-turvy world of today that assigns them to the right.
Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2021, 12:44:51 PM
Resistance to societal takeover by fringe groups
Keeping to practices that work until they are proven to not work
Incremental vs radical change when change is necessary
Respect and support for the guardians of society
Support and respect for morality
Looking at long term costs and consequences for actions
Doing the best one can in an imperfect world
These is more philosophical conservatism. It's the underpinnings of a lot of specific types of conservatism, without expressing any of them in particular.
Combine the two sets, and you're within spitting distance of Burkean conservatism.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 29, 2021, 12:39:32 PM
Ah, pardon me then, I should take it into consideration. Not many people differentiates between two unfortunately.
And I definitely agree about LOTR - things like Aragorn murdering Sauron's envoy, making Sam sort of absolutely right about Gollum (while Tolkien was clear Sam's attitude pushed Gollum to betrayal), butchering of Denethor character, all shows Jackson is well hack and fraud.
There was an amazing thread over at Previously.TV in the Game of Thones section (one of its subforums actually) called "Climbing the Spitball Wall" where one of the "Unsullied" (the term for viewers who had not read the books and avoided all spoilers) finally started reading the books that really drives home the differences between the two even in the earlier seasons. The outrage at certain points when they realized what had been butchered in the adaptation was palpable.
For example, the setup of Jon Snow's identity... which those who only watched the show felt came out of nowhere... was plain as day. Similarly, the fact that Ned Stark was doomed from the start (basically the Obi-Wan of the story) vs. "Wow, they killed the main character" was obvious.
So, yeah, I make distinctions between books and adaptations (and in GoT's case at least they made it easy on me by not calling the HBO series ASoIaF)... don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that was "The Hobbit Trilogy."
QuoteJust my own take, of course. If this actually falls into an established category, I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me what it is.
Absolutely liberal take, only 3% of conservatism detected. :(
Imagine wanting economic libertarianism rather than different tax laws in each town based on war merits of town citizens 300 years ago. :(
QuoteThese all have to do with individual liberty, which is the hallmark of classical liberalism, or in slightly modified form, modern libertarianism. These are some of the most radical philosophies ever promoted, and aren't conservative at all, except in the topsy-turvy world of today that assigns them to the right.
Indeed.
QuoteThese is more philosophical conservatism. It's the underpinnings of a lot of specific types of conservatism, without expressing any of them in particular.
Combine the two sets, and you're within spitting distance of Burkean conservatism.
I'd say the second part is quite Burkean, it sounds like non-idealisitc, pragmatic evolutionary conservatism.
QuoteThere was an amazing thread over at Previously.TV in the Game of Thones section (one of its subforums actually) called "Climbing the Spitball Wall" where one of the "Unsullied" (the term for viewers who had not read the books and avoided all spoilers) finally started reading the books that really drives home the differences between the two even in the earlier seasons. The outrage at certain points when they realized what had been butchered in the adaptation was palpable.
You mean this one I guess:
https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/27813-climbing-the-spitball-wall-an-unsullieds-take-on-a-song-of-ice-and-fire-reading-complete-now-onto-rewatching-the-show-and-anticipating-season-6/
Quotedon't even get me started on the dumpster fire that was "The Hobbit Trilogy."
Funny enough I still thing making Hobbit LOTR style was generally good idea, and putting book type of narrative in film would be impossible, - it's ultimately quite epic tales just written as children story. You can expand upon it and give it proper scale - but... you need to be smart about it.
For extra confusion, in America the word 'liberal' means 'moderate progressive' or generally 'center-left', whereas in Europe it means 'classical liberal' or what Americans would call 'libertarian', considered a position on the right.
I was curious about games from the perspective of any of the groups on the right, whether libertarian/classical liberal, European throne-and-altar conservatism (probably the closest American analog would be paleoconservatism as we never had a throne or a state altar in our history as a separate nation), or something between the two.
Well first and foremost - The One Ring of course, as it's widely accepted to be closest in spirit and best Middle-Earth game, and Arda is creation of writer who is epitome of English Catholic traditionalism.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2021, 12:33:31 PMSimilarly, you can tell in Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films that he didn't quite grok the concept of mercy to the degree that Tolkien conveyed in his works, particularly at the end when Golem is forced into the pit with Frodo pushing and grabbing at him rather than because of his own crazed glee; looking up at the Ring as he paid no mind to the ground beneath and danced right off the edge.
That may have been part of it, but I'd suggest that it's more because as a filmmaker Jackson was looking for an inherently more active resolution where Frodo the protagonist played an active part in the event, rather than simply watching in agony as sheer Providence saves the day. Modern movie audiences find the
deus ex machina ending inherently less satisfying.
It also visually dramatizes the idea that the real weakness of evil is that it always creates the conditions for its own destruction: it was precisely the addictive compulsion to possess the Ring, which Sauron built into it to keep anyone else from being
able to destroy it, which wound up creating the fight between Frodo and Gollum that ended up destroying it anyway.
It depends on what one means by conservative. It sometimes just means not leftist, which is why libertarianism can be conservative, as can monarchism or even fascism. I'll just include anything that could be considered conservative.
There are a few aspects of the fantasy genre which are conservative. In fact, fantasy is in part a romanticized Middle Ages. There are royals and nobles, in large part they rule justly. There are noble knights who save the day. Honor, chivalry, courage (especially combined with combat prowess) are taken very seriously and feature heavily. There is a certain sense that morals and values are eternal, sometimes objective good and evil, that there is wisdom in the past. Often literally as there are sometimes golden ages of great heroes and powerful magic.
Fantasy is conservative, and that is what it was for Tolkien himself. The only exceptions are when some setting deliberately subverts or deconstructs fantasy tropes. A Song of Ice and Fire only partly does this, it still leans heavily on traditional fantasy appeal.
One might say that racial essentialism is conservative. Orcs are inherently this way, elves are inherently that way, and so on. I'm sure that many conservatives are ready to balk at this, but no aspect of conservatism claims that all demographic populations are equal and identical, though that claim is often made by major elements of the left and in fact in the past such claims would not have been controversial.
The idea that a small group of heroic people with great abilities are the ones needed to save the day can be considered conservative. Great Man Theory. Evil kings or dark sorcerers threaten all that is good, heroic knights or wise wizards must stop them. It is an anti-egalitarian sort of idea. That sort of thing appears through out RPG genres: we may have knights, psychics, superheroes, faeries, cyborgs, or brilliant detectives - but they are always a cut above normal people and they are needed to defeat their dark reflections, the supervillains. This idea is frequently subverted, because it appeals to us to have a normal person save the day, even Tolkien did this with the Hobbits juxtaposed with all of the more powerful characters around them. Even with frequent subversions in fiction, most RPG's are about playing great people who are the only ones who can accomplish great deeds.
From a more libertarian angle, any game that focuses on a small group of plucky heroes fighting against the man is going to have libertarian (or rugged individualist conservative) appeal. In fact, left wingers will often create stories or settings like this to reflect their own sense of "fighting the man" and accidentally create a very conservative game, setting, or story.
Settings based on society collapsing or survival can have a strong conservative appeal. Society collapses and only rugged individualists who have guns, are tough and self reliant, live in the country, and so on can survive and save humanity.
Militaristic settings and games can be interpreted as being conservative. 40K started off as a silly setting, satire really, but as time went on it's become more serious and sometimes played straight and at face value. If you're playing characters straight from the 40K Imperium of Mankind, there are all sorts of arguably conservative elements. Monarchism and nobility, the need for harsh action by hard men to fight evil, racial loyalty, religiosity, inherent inequality, traditions, wisdom of the past, degenerate and corrupt not-Satanists. The more you play it straight and make the Imperium heroes, the more far right you get, even if it's not in the libertarian or classical liberal sense. Fascism even.
Religion in some settings is considered good and even true. A character of great religious faith can receive miracles from their god. Is that conservative? Kind of.
White Wolf games, even though the creators are certainly left wingers, can have incredibly conservative elements. Imagine a game of vampire hunters: the degenerate evil vampires control politics and corrupt humanity, but a small group of devout vampire hunters can fight the power with their guns and crosses. Pure conservative fodder there. Mage: the Ascension is extremely right wing if you look at it from a certain perspective. We have this monolithic modernist secular globalist organization that controls the world's governments and institutions, wants to brain wash everybody, wants to monitor us at all times, wants to suppress religion and tradition. It's like a game based on Alex Jones being right, it's potentially one of the most right wing settings every accidentally made by leftists.
Those are just a few of my thoughts, I will probably think of more later.
If one wants to be nitpickingly literal about things (as I so often am ;) ), one could go back to the roots of the word and argue that any plot, situation or theme which is centered around the idea of protecting the current status quo from destructive change (or possibly restoring a previous status quo after it's been overthrown for a distinctively subpar successor) is "conservative".
But I think to make it what most people unconsciously associate with the term, you have to add one vital element of motivation: You are trying to protect/restore the status quo because you think it is inherently worth protecting for its own sake -- not just because you have a personal stake in it, not just because you hate the alternative and would resist it anyway, but because something about it makes it the best thing to keep around right now, or because whatever its flaws, it also embodies goods that you think indispensable. Frodo Baggins once remarked that he thought an invasion of dragons might be a good thing for the Shire, but he put his own life and health on the line to save his homeland the instant such a threat became real.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 29, 2021, 03:57:08 PM
If one wants to be nitpickingly literal about things (as I so often am ;) ), one could go back to the roots of the word and argue that any plot, situation or theme which is centered around the idea of protecting the current status quo from destructive change (or possibly restoring a previous status quo after it's been overthrown for a distinctively subpar successor) is "conservative".
But I think to make it what most people unconsciously associate with the term, you have to add one vital element of motivation: You are trying to protect/restore the status quo because you think it is inherently worth protecting for its own sake -- not just because you have a personal stake in it, not just because you hate the alternative and would resist it anyway, but because something about it makes it the best thing to keep around right now, or because whatever its flaws, it also embodies goods that you think indispensable. Frodo Baggins once remarked that he thought an invasion of dragons might be a good thing for the Shire, but he put his own life and health on the line to save his homeland the instant such a threat became real.
I'd call the distinction you're making the difference between philosophical and pragmatic conservatism. Formal philosophies around conservatism tend to involve praising the past, the status quo, or otherwise finding virtue in what
is, as opposed to what
might be. But coalitions that promote conservative ends will include many members who don't believe in that. They might just be the leave me alone crowd. Or they might be radicals who want society to progress in a very different direction from the directions currently promoted by any of the mainstream groups. I think libertarianism falls into the latter category. Their ideas of individual freedom are radical, but the primary expression of political change these days is rooted in socialism, or collective enforced action. Which is diametrically opposed to the libertarian concept of individual liberty. So while they support a radical change to society, they've formed an alliance with conservatives. Not because they're conservative in any philosophical sense, but because the direction in which change is happening seems worse than the status quo.
Quote from: Pat on January 29, 2021, 04:10:09 PM
I'd call the distinction you're making the difference between philosophical and pragmatic conservatism.
Good point, and well said.
Quote from: Pat on January 29, 2021, 12:58:42 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2021, 12:44:51 PM
If someone says "conservative themes" in a game I would expect
Defending Bill of Rights freedoms against oppressors
Personal freedom vs government authoritarianism
Preference for personal effort and private enterprise vs government
Financial responsibility
Economic freedom
Maximum economic output vs equalized economic benefits
Meritocracy
These all have to do with individual liberty, which is the hallmark of classical liberalism, or in slightly modified form, modern libertarianism. These are some of the most radical philosophies ever promoted, and aren't conservative at all, except in the topsy-turvy world of today that assigns them to the right.
Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2021, 12:44:51 PM
Resistance to societal takeover by fringe groups
Keeping to practices that work until they are proven to not work
Incremental vs radical change when change is necessary
Respect and support for the guardians of society
Support and respect for morality
Looking at long term costs and consequences for actions
Doing the best one can in an imperfect world
These is more philosophical conservatism. It's the underpinnings of a lot of specific types of conservatism, without expressing any of them in particular.
Combine the two sets, and you're within spitting distance of Burkean conservatism.
Thanks. I'll have to do some reading on that. Having not studied political theory, the idea that the first set are not conservative seems peculiar to me, as does WWW's 3% comment. My experience in living in the U.S.and a fair amount of political activism says that they are very much associated with practiced conservatism. If one considers that conservatism can described as "defense of the status quo" and that the U.S. was founded almost 250 years ago with the Bil of Rights as founding principles, defending personal liberties seems conservative indeed.
Having a "conservative" themed rpg is easy, and you don't even have to be openly or explicitly on the "right" in any way at all.
All you have to do is quietly not have anything in it that promotes current leftist views or narrative.
And done.
Congratulations, you are now a racist, misogynistic, alt-right bigot!
Because silence is violence.
Interestingly, Gygaxian AD&D (approximately 1977 to 1980, ending with his partial contribution to Q1/T2, which he never finished) did more to prepare me for good and evil in the real world then any other secular source. Gygax drew heavily on the stories that he read (note the Lovecraftian themes of his early work, such as the Elder Elemental God), and telling stories is how humans preserve the wisdom of their ancestors, so Gygaxian AD&D is not very far from our ancestral wisdom. The people of this culture have largely forgotten the magic in stories, but our Enemy has not, which is why they are constantly attacking and perverting our stories and games. It is not surprising then that AD&D is attacked for being racist, sexist, etc. Anything that makes evil too easy to recognize is under attack, and any such thing that contains ancient wisdom can be said to be
conservative. Truth is the enemy.
QuoteYou walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super-states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.
– Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone
I was reminded of this while watching the horror film
Hereditary. The cult in the movie, what an anthropologist would call a "cult of desperation", is very realistic in its portrayal of evil, as in them I can see the vile and perverse politicians and news media, as well as the epidemic of mental illness that causes people to cling to degenerate ideologies.
Gygax noted that Eclavdra, the drow high priestess, worshipped the Elder Elemental God because she wanted something that she could control and manipulate. I found that simple insight to be very astute, as that is the core precept of idolatry, or moral relativism. People are "spiritual but not religious" because they want something that they can control and manipulate.
Lolth held the keys to the EEG's prison (the EGG that she drops when she is defeated in D3), which to my mind means that the EEG was a puppet of Lolth, meaning Eclavdra herself was a puppet of Lolth, though her ego and pride would never allow her to see that reality. In real world theology, idolaters, whether they worship money, scholarship, trees, or themselves, are puppets of Satan and his demons. Very astute indeed. Of course, Lolth is the Oedipal mother that devours her children, symbolic of the feminist hatred for men, and the liberal hatred for our traditions.
QuoteThanks. I'll have to do some reading on that. Having not studied political theory, the idea that the first set are not conservative seems peculiar to me, as does WWW's 3% comment. My experience in living in the U.S.and a fair amount of political activism says that they are very much associated with practiced conservatism. If one considers that conservatism can described as "defense of the status quo" and that the U.S. was founded almost 250 years ago with the Bil of Rights as founding principles, defending personal liberties seems conservative indeed.
USA is country build on liberal rebellion my friend, and it simply cannot be conservative whatsoever ;) You just have social liberals fighting with libertarians, two bunches of freedom obsessed groups believing freedom is achieved by totally different means. Meanwhile conservatism is about order, about hierarchy and diversity in complex web, over human rights and egalitarianism.
Authority over democracy, and so on. Now in terms of pragmatic conservatism which is more tactical choice acquired to other ideologies - sure defending your Constitution and stuff is conservative in this regard, and nuking your cities and bringing back iron fist of English king would be revolution in method. But personally I consider defining conservatism just by tactical approach bit meh. In this regard if socialdemocrats in US shall win and rule for 3 generation then they will be conservative while all libertarians, and free market thumpers will be revolutionist liberals.
Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2021, 09:31:00 PM
Thanks. I'll have to do some reading on that. Having not studied political theory, the idea that the first set are not conservative seems peculiar to me, as does WWW's 3% comment. My experience in living in the U.S.and a fair amount of political activism says that they are very much associated with practiced conservatism. If one considers that conservatism can described as "defense of the status quo" and that the U.S. was founded almost 250 years ago with the Bil of Rights as founding principles, defending personal liberties seems conservative indeed.
Political terminology has a tendency to drift, and the perversion of the word "liberalism" is one of the more extreme examples. Liberalism, in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries meant lassiez faire, natural rights, and human dignity -- i.e. your first list. It was an extreme philosophy, perhaps the most extreme in history, and radically changed how people think and assess the world. Aspects of it are shared by all Western cultures and cultures influenced by Western culture, but the American expression of those ideas is uniquely strong. The powerful emphasis on free speech is not shared to the same degree by France or Germany, for instance. To you it's conservative, but that's because you're from the US, and you're conserving that tradition. But if you were from somewhere else, even another Western nation, your traditions, and thus what you consider conservative, would be quite different.
People can share those values, because they're conservative, and believe in upholding the traditions. Or because the believe in the philosophical basis of those values, and want to change the world. They've reached the same destination, but they've taken very different paths. This is important, because it means some of the people who share your values do so for a very different reason. These ways of thinking seem to be objective and universal, across cultures. The first set of your values that I separated out maps to classical liberalism, which is a radical philosophy that those from the certain cultural complex may also want to conserve because it's part of their traditions. The second set of your values is more emblematic of the conservative way of thinking, and would be universally conservative across all cultures.
You might be interested in Haidt's
The Righteous Mind. It doesn't really get into political theory, rather it focuses on the cultural and psychological aspects. It's an attempt to analyze those two types of thinking, as well as looking at how the Western liberal tradition is a sharp break from previous value systems.
To bring it back to games, traditional fantasy draws on heavily conservative or even reactionary ideas. Kings, princesses, the idea that everyone has a natural place and some people are innately more important than others. But often, it's very superficial. That's because it's always filtered through the lens of the authors and players, who all came from cultures that highly valued individual rights, equality, and achievement. This is really evident in games like OD&D, where yes there are lords and ladies, but the whole idea of zero to hero, and a points of light campaign structure where individual can carve their own domains out of the wilderness, is extremely American, and thus is very liberal. That's one way to determine the degree to which a game expresses conservative ideals.
Quote from: Pat on January 30, 2021, 09:51:21 AM
This is really evident in games like OD&D, where yes there are lords and ladies, but the whole idea of zero to hero, and a points of light campaign structure where individual can carve their own domains out of the wilderness, is extremely American, and thus is very liberal. That's one way to determine the degree to which a game expresses conservative ideals.
In my experience, the general culture around original D&D and the OSR is libertarian or left-libertarian. WoD tends more progressive, as does the official word from Paizo and WotC. Traditionalist conservatives are pretty rare, perhaps because of the Satanic Panic of the 80s and the seeds it sowed in the hobby.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 30, 2021, 11:36:02 AM
In my experience, the general culture around original D&D and the OSR is libertarian or left-libertarian. WoD tends more progressive, as does the official word from Paizo and WotC. Traditionalist conservatives are pretty rare, perhaps because of the Satanic Panic of the 80s and the seeds it sowed in the hobby.
I think the effects of the Satanic Panic were very regional. In this part of the country you're safer presuming traditional conservative than not.
My one personal experience with the Panic was that one of my friend's mom's found his D&D books, boxed them up and took him and the box of books to our priest and told him "This is my son's devil worship kit." The priest took one look in the box, sat the mom down and explained to her that D&D isn't satanic. My friend still got to play D&D with us. I ran games every night throughout summer camp for my Catholic Boy Scout troop.
And that was all the Satanic Panic amounted to in my neck of the woods.
I suspect it depended a lot on which church you went to and the local culture within that church. A Catholic friend of mine once observed about his daughter coming home from Sunday School at his wife's Lutheran church, "nothing is more profitable than scared protestants."
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 30, 2021, 12:27:01 PM
I think the effects of the Satanic Panic were very regional. In this part of the country you're safer presuming traditional conservative than not.
Good point. I tend to make too much of online culture as opposed to real culture.
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 30, 2021, 12:27:01 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 30, 2021, 11:36:02 AM
In my experience, the general culture around original D&D and the OSR is libertarian or left-libertarian. WoD tends more progressive, as does the official word from Paizo and WotC. Traditionalist conservatives are pretty rare, perhaps because of the Satanic Panic of the 80s and the seeds it sowed in the hobby.
I think the effects of the Satanic Panic were very regional. In this part of the country you're safer presuming traditional conservative than not.
My one personal experience with the Panic was that one of my friend's mom's found his D&D books, boxed them up and took him and the box of books to our priest and told him "This is my son's devil worship kit." The priest took one look in the box, sat the mom down and explained to her that D&D isn't satanic. My friend still got to play D&D with us. I ran games every night throughout summer camp for my Catholic Boy Scout troop.
And that was all the Satanic Panic amounted to in my neck of the woods.
As an older religion I would suspect it does a better job of managing group neurosis. A point of failure however is that as a vertical, centralized power structure it seems that there is a passivity in its members to creeping corruption, as people generally assume that the institution itself will handle things and that correct participation in the institution is all that is required. In gameplay, I like to use the intellectual aspects of the Catholic Church to model good vs evil, however I think that for a decentralized post-apocalyptic/quasi-medieval setting like Greyhawk, the aggressive zeal in confronting spiritual evil (represented in pre-Internet parody by St. Cuthbert and Pholtus) as can be found in Network Pentecostal Christianity to be a more appropriate social model, as it is a decentralized power structure that relies on loosely structured cooperative units (connected by the Internet and social media) that are resistant to corruption, in the same way that blockchain technology, vis-à-vis cryptocurrency, is resistant to corruption. Network nodes that go bad can be easily recognized and rejected by the whole and weeded out. I certainly see the spirit world acting as a sort of Internet with respect to the connectivity of nodes, so clerics of the same alignment will be part of a world-wide decentralized spiritual network, forming a network society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_society).
Regarding the Satanic Panic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFODkMUGpeM), one must remember that in the late 70's very few people had any idea what D&D was. Until I got the D&D Holmes set for Xmas in 1979, I thought that it was a cult, thanks to the Fake News which played a central role in the D&D Satanic Panic as well as the preschool scare of the 1980's when allegedly 1 in 4 preschools were fronts for devil worship and child prostitution, and the Fake News continues to do damage by spreading "pandemic" fears. There is a longstanding tradition of group neurosis being exploited by news media.
Quote from: "Pat"....The powerful emphasis on free speech is not shared to the same degree by France or Germany, for instance. To you it's conservative, but that's because you're from the US, and you're conserving that tradition. But if you were from somewhere else, even another Western nation, your traditions, and thus what you consider conservative, would be quite different....
It must be remembered that free speech is a direct threat to the old and corrupt aristocracy of Europe, represented in the USA by the democrat neolibs and neomarxists, and by the republican neocons, where lies and propaganda have long been normalized and used to manipulate the dirty, germ-infested peasantry. That mind set lead to two world wars. The concept of free speech however is thousands of years old, so it is absolutely the bedrock foundation of our cultural traditions and is most certainly a conservative value.
QuoteAnd ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32)
Christianity is a very rebellious and populist mode of thought as contrasted with those that came before it when society was rigidly stratified from top to bottom and individuals were defined by the group to which they belonged and slavery was a natural part of all human society. It is from this new way of looking at the human world that the sovereignty of the individual arises, whereas systems such as socialism and communism hearken back to much older, darker times.
QuoteThe concept of free speech however is thousands of years old, so it is absolutely the bedrock foundation of our cultural traditions
Maybe to American cultural traditions, not really Christian ones.
And pagans were certainly not lenient towards blasphemers and other folk of this kind.
QuoteIt is from this new way of looking at the human world that the sovereignty of the individual arises, whereas systems such as socialism and communism hearken back to much older, darker times.
Not really. I'd say both liberalism with it's more rampant forms like libertarianism, and totalitarian systems stems from simmilar - usually abrahamic induced - concepts of universalism (as lil cults/religions of old have universalist absolute tendencies and pan-human aspirations), but they lack balance between social order and personal growth religions promoted - taking each of those values to absolute extreme and abandoning the other one.