"Syndrome" Syndrome: or the Fallacy of "Special"

[pawsplay]

Dude, I was talking about the movie in the context of the application to 4E. I really don't see the point to a tangent discussion of the "message" of the movie as a whole; otherwise, I would have put it in Off-Topic.

It is important, when proposing an argument, to choose first principles or assumptions that your audience finds agreeable.

 

[eyebeams]

The film's great, but its subtext is a fascist apologia. I don't see what it has to do with D&D, really. 4e is remarkably vague about what powers represent in the story. This is good for some people and bad for others. But really, if people envision them as superpower-like and don't care for it, their reaction is essentially to their own attitudes. This includes saying they don't have narrative impact because everybody has them. Powers are rules for dramatic adventure events. If not everyone can have them, then this is basically denying that the players should have equal access to that excitement.

 

[Intense_Interest]

It is important, when proposing an argument, to choose first principles or assumptions that your audience finds agreeable.

I think that the argument you have been having right now proves that impossible in the universal sense.

However, in the context of "4E", "Special", "Game Balance", etc., I don't see how you could disagree with my choice of source, or arguement.

 

[pawsplay]

I thought that the 'everyone is special, and therefore no one is' was the same point made in Harrison Bergeron.

No, the argument there was that reducing people to the lowest common denominator was insulting to everyone, including the lowest common denominator.

 

[pawsplay]

The film's great, but its subtext is a fascist apologia.

I believe it's a criticism of fascism and corporatism from a humanist, egalitarian standpoint. It's even slightly Marxist.

 

[pawsplay]

I think that the argument you have having right now proves that impossible in the universal sense.

However, in the context of "4E", "Special", "Game Balance", etc., I don't see how you could disagree with my choice of source, or arguement.

If I disagree with what someone has to say about the film, then if I try to respond to the argument you are making an analogy to, it's hard to respond to the argument without being sure what qualities from the analogy you consider a part of the argument.

If you say, "It tastes like chicken, because of all the breading," I want to ask what makes it taste like chicken, but I wonder if you just mean it has breading and that's what makes the taste similar.

 

[Intense_Interest]

If I disagree with what someone has to say about the film, then if I try to respond to the argument you are making an analogy to, it's hard to respond to the argument without being sure what qualities from the analogy you consider a part of the argument.

If you have a disagreement with what someone has to say about the film, and it requires you to respond in a way that is absolutely off topic, you are being off-topic.

On-Topic being that "Everyone is Special, therefore No One Is", is an applied quote stolen from a source that then dismantles that position, and people who use it as a criticism are far off base.

You have close to a third of the replies in the thread. I invite you to a create a take-on-all-comers OP in the Off-Topic forum concerning the Message of The Incredables.

 

[Cadfan]

No, it's saying that when we have power, we have a mandate to use it for the good of all.

No, no, no. You added basically all of the stuff in your post.

The movie is very clear. The villian's nefarious plan is to sell the inventions that make him super so that everyone can have them. This will make everyone super, which, he reasons, is the same as no one being super. This is clearly presented as 1) logical, and 2) a scary idea. We can't have everyone being super! The viewer is supposed to hear this and feel resentful on behalf of the Incredibles family, because they're REAL superheroes, and they're SPECIAL, and now this guy is going to take that away by making everyone else just as good as them!

The problem is, the main characters didn't earn their powers at all. They didn't earn the ability to be special. They just had it handed to them. Later, they did stuff with it, that's great. Good for them. But the fact that they have super powers was something they were born into. It required no effort at all, no work, no nothing.

For us to feel that its bad for everyone to get super powers requires us to feel that the main characters are in some way more deserving of superpowers than others. Which is absurd- they may have done good things with their powers, but they certainly didn't earn them.

Its like a landed nobleman in the medieval era arguing that the peasants can't be given the same rights as him, because that would drag him down to their level. He wouldn't be special anymore. And he deserves his inherited privilege! He runs such a nice estate, and is quite kind to the little people down beneath him.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I haven't seen the film. Don't need to.

What makes a 'special' 4E character? A character that is *played* specially.
What makes a 'special' 3E, 2E, 1E, OD&D character? A character that is *played* specially.

Sting didn't make Bilbo special. Bilbo made Sting special.
The Ring didn't make Frodo special. The fact Frodo resisted the Ring to the end made Frodo special.
Even Wormtongue was special ... BECAUSE he WAS Wormtongue, and not just any Rohirrim turned traitor.

EDIT:

Galadriel saw that if she took the Ring, she most certainly would not become special. (The Ring did it's utmost to entice her, obviously, but it failed.)
Because she saw that, and decided not to take the Ring when it was freely offered to her, she proved herself special.

What beat Sauron is the fact that he thought everyone wanted to become 'special' like he was. Instead, they decided to forego such 'specialness' and destroy the Ring.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I don't even see how the (misunderstood) quote is even a decently formulated argument, since earlier versions had spellcasters.

I guess the argument is "well, you leveled up to the point where you were Special, so you earned it", or something.

Maybe the OP could clarify which personal preference causes 4e to rub him the wrong way? Is it that martial classes are on an even footing with spellcasters, or what?