Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6695958" data-attributes="member: 4937">[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]: Well, at least I have some notion of what your logic appears to be.   You appear to be constructing an argument something like this:1) D&D is good.2) How D&D is usually played is what D&D is.3) D&D is usually played in a greedy manner.4) Therefore, greed is good, at least for the purposes of the game.There are problems with that at every step, and I have an almost unlimited number of rebuttals, but lest you accuse me of kicking down a strawman, I'll use your own words.   - emphasis addedThe bolded section doesn't follow.  It's not objective fact.  It's a subjective assessment.  Fundamentally what you've just said in that section is, "The reason we play is to gain levels."   And I put it to you that that is absurd.  Gaining levels isn't even the destination, but it is certainly not the journey.   The reason we play is to have fun.   The reason we play is to socialize.   The reason we play is to explore a shared imaginative space.  The reason we play is to put ourselves against various challenges.   The reason we play is to explore an imagined character.   The reason we play is to feed our egos with the illusion of success.   The reason we play is to tell stories.   The reason we play is to live out fantasies or scenarios that would be dangerous, impossible or immoral if done in real life.   Often the reason we play is many of these things at once.  We certainly don't all play for the "phat loot" or the levels, which are useless things in and of themselves.   They aren't the goals of play, but merely the means.  Sometimes getting the "phat loot" or XP points or other things helps us achieve our goals of play, but it would be a mistake to think they are the purpose of play itself.   But what is even more important is that the fact that we have something as a goal of play doesn't make that goal good.   Whether or not our goals of play are good are judged by the same standards of what makes something good as anything else.  We can't say simply because "I want this", that it is it is good to want it or any means that we go about attaining what we want are good.  That's ridiculous on its face.   Examine your words again, this time slightly altered: - alterations in bold.Applying your statement about the game to life, as I've done in the above paraphrase reveals just how ridiculous it is to apply it even to the game.  It's no more objective fact that the purpose of the game is to get more powerful than it is objective fact that the purpose of life is to get more powerful.  It's no more factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as the game's purpose, than it is factual that unrestrained self-interest is ultimately justifiable regarding life because it makes you better at the one thing you've defined as life's purpose.If greed is evil, then it can't be good for the purposes of the game.  We could for the purposes of the game define that we are all playing greedy evil SOBs and therefore our goal in the game is an evil and greedy one, but we can't ennoble this purpose as good simply because it is the objective of the game.  Rather, our objective would be to explore some evil in a safe and hopefully harmless manner.If in fact it was part of the essential nature of the game that it confused the player regarding what was good and what was evil, if the game inevitably did that, then indeed the game would be evil.  If the in game definition of evil had to be so radically different from the real world definition of evil, such that "Greed was good", then the game would be evil indeed.  And we should not at all refrain from "opening that can of worms".  We should be shouting that danger from the rooftops.  If the game was indeed pernicious and subversive, then we should be announcing that fact first and foremost above all others and warning people against the game.   But obviously, I don't agree that the game is required to be pernicious, subversive, and well evil.  I don't agree that for the purposes of the game evil is good.   As for my usage of the word Munchkin, so capitalized, I thought I'd made it clear that I was referring to the stereotypes satirized by the card game Munchkin and other humorous send ups of D&D dysfunctional play.   I have already admitted that such dysfunctionality is commonplace, otherwise the stereotype likely wouldn't exist.  But I don't agree that every character acts like a greedy psychopath, however commonplace it may be (or even pervasive in some groups).I don't agree that some how this greedy psychopathy is a game necessity or inevitability, and even if I did it wouldn't make it good.I don't see how that section is incongruent with what I've said.  The section itself declares that it is a mistake to think Fornication is principally about sex.  It says it is linked to sex because sexuality is intrinsically apart of our self because it is intrinsically a part of our physicality and something others will intrinsically value about us regardless of whether they value anything else at all about you.  That is to say, people will gladly treat you as a slave or a tool, even if they value you no higher than that.  But that's not even remotely the same as saying sex is evil.  All I can tell is that the discussion makes you uncomfortable, and causes you to accuse me of prudery as if a prude would unashamedly discuss such topics.But ok, since I'm not at all actually naïve, let me address what I think your real complaint is in a round about manner without actually stating it.   Have you ever read the Kama Sutra?  I mean the real Kama Sutra and not the illustrated picture books passed around in some circles as self-help manuals or aids.   Whether you have or not, the Kama Sutra is in actuality a pious religious text of the Hindu religion.  It is in fact some real person's sacred scripture.  It is admittedly somewhat different in character from the sort of religious text that most Westerners would associate with sacred scripture (considered piously or not), but sacred scripture it remains.   Comparing the text of the Kama Sutra with a Judeo-Christian text, it is not immediately clear that they have anything at all in common regarding their teachings on sexuality.   The only similarity appears to be that both are a list of prohibitions or requirements for engaging in lawful (that is 'licit') sexual behavior.   But the list in the Kama Sutra while being a lot more detailed in many ways (a full list of the lawful ways to kiss, a full list of the lawful ways to pinch your lover, a full list...) appears to have a very different set of mores and in many ways actually does have a different set of mores.  For example, in the Kama Sutra you are allowed exceptions to explicitly to break certain sexual mores if in doing so you could get a promotion or if in doing so you could avenge yourself on an enemy.    I'm not going to judge between the two ethical codes regarding which is more moral or which regions of the alignment wheel the two religion's ethics seem to be most easily aligned.  What I do want to draw your attention to is the fact that these two very different essays on sexual morality do actually agree on one very basic and fundamental point regarding what is illicit sexuality, and when it is wrong to engage in sexuality and that is precisely the definition given in the section on Fornication - you aren't allowed to sell yourself short.   Both the writer of the Kama Sutra and the writer of the Pentateuch agree with the basic precept that it is possible to sell yourself short, and that you should by all means refrain from doing so.If the writer of the Kama Sutra can have that as a thesis, then I put to you that you are in complete error to accuse me of being a prude or of calling sex evil.</blockquote>

Verification