On RPGs and Morality and Allusions to Fairy Tales and Japanese Monsters
I seem to have fallen behind in entries. Ordinarily, I do not write public entries on weekends, but this weekend has been particularly lonely. So I guess the entries will balance out in the end....
One of my more unusual hobbies is creating games. I create games of all sorts and varieties. I have made card games, computer games (most in concept only or half finished), board games, strategy games, and role-playing games. The last is the one in which I consider myself most talented because it is also the one that I most enjoy doing. As an RPG-creator, one must also become a world-creator. And world-creation is not much different than creating a setting and characters for a story as an author. Only RPG-creation means that you must be even more detailed, because where an author creates an controls all characters, in an RPG, another person or persons control some of the characters. Since this is the case, you must be able to anticipate nearly everything they might do and how it might effect your world. Where a writer does not need to make certain "rules" for his world if he knows his hero or heroine will not use those "rules" in the story, and RPG-creator does not know the story. He or she knows the overall story and can "push" the players toward a certain end, but there is still great uncertainty that requires great preparation and planning and fine detail.
My worlds (not all of which were meant to become RPGs; some are solely for stories) contain geographies, histories, biographies, dictionaries, and other "-phies".
Some "rules" are actual mechanics of game play -- in a sense, the physical laws of the universe in which the game takes place. I must have a "rule" that simplifies the finding of the answer to, "Can this player's character, who weighs so many kilograms jump the so many meter moat in full armor, which weighs so many kg, while being shot at with arrows from the top of the tower, if he is running at full speed?" I must have "rules" for every imaginable event that can take place in a game.
Well, such things become complicated quickly. The simpler things are the less realistic they become, and I prefer all fiction to be realistic -- whether books, movies, plays, or RPGs. (Remind me to discuss here someday the difference between "realism" and "reality" in stories....) So, as I am not the worlds expert on such things, I have occasionally compared my ideas for rules with the rules of RPGs that have been around for years and years on the market and had countless revisions. (Oddly enough, I have never actually played any of these games; I just read their rules.)
And now on to my real topic: one such RPG I have studied for ideas has a setting that involves magic. Well, some magic within the game's world could only be used by bad guys and some only by good guys. So a system of rules was established to determine what makes someone bad or good. I found it interesting that the game did not presuppose that a player would be able to distinguish these two concepts automatically. What was more interesting to me was that the game differentiated between good and evil and lawful and unlawful. It also considered order to be related to lawfulness and disorder/chaos to be related to unlawfulness.
Now, I do not claim to think that this system is a perfect description of real-life morality, but it does bring up some interesting points. In one of my earlier entries, I established that I am a moral absolutist. [1] Yet, I also, in that entry, mentioned that I think that one must be careful to break down individual actions into its core components and motivations before determining the rightness or wrongness of the action.
In the aforementioned RPG, good actions are ones that benefit another over oneself, even if -- but not requiring harm came to oneself. Evil actions are ones that benefited oneself over others in a harmful manner to them. A lawful action was one that went along with the natural order of things or the common culture. A chaotic action was one that went against the natural order of things or rebelled against the culture.
Again, I do not claim these definitions to be perfect, but I admire the game for trying to define some concepts so often taken for granted.
As an example, in this game world, lying is not defined as universally right or wrong. First, one must know the motivation. I agree that in real life, the motivation is important. Second, the game allows that a good person with good motivations can inadvertently still do a wrong action and still be held accountable for that wrong action. I agree, too, that in real life, good intentions do not guarantee that right actions will be done, yet even so, the one who performed the action is responsible.
So one can come up with some varying scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, but she lives in Dumpty land. In Dumpty land it is illegal for Dumpties to let Humpties drink water from the wells. Jack lets Jill drink from his well. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill. She stole it on her own. Jill goes to jail.
Scenario 2:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill, nor did she even drink any water. Jill does not go to jail.
Scenario 3:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack tells the truth. Both he and Jill go to jail.
Scenario 4:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Only she really is a monster that needs water to morph into a Godzilla lookalike and ravage the towns and villages. Jack does not know this. Jack lets Jill drink from his well. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill, nor did she even drink any water. Jill does not go to jail. Jill morphs into Godzilla lookalike. See Jill eat village.
Now, here is how such things would be defined in the game:
Scenario 1:
Jacks intentions were selfish. Jack's actions were good at first, but he preferred his own safety over hers. So lying had evil intentions and was an evil action. But lying in this case caused Jill to go to jail, which was consistent with what would have happened had Jack not been involved at all. In a sense, his actions increased the lawfulness of the city. So though evil, the actions were lawful.
Scenario 2:
Jacks intentions were selfless. He wanted to protect Jill. But he clearly was breaking the law, and no one paid for that like in the former case. Here, lying was good, but unlawful.
Scenario 3:
Here Jack wants to follow the law, those his intentions were good in that he wanted to help Jill. Here, he chose to follow the law. But this brought harm to Jill. Not lying was evil but lawful.
Scenario 4:
Here Jack wanted to help Jill, but unbeknownst to him, helping her would be bringing devastation to the city and cause harm to many. Here his intentions were good, but unlawful. His actual action ended up being evil and unlawful.
After all these crazy examples, my points are simply that a single action -- lying, here -- cannot be judged without knowing the intentions and the outcome and that following the law is not always good. Whether it is or not depends entirely on whether the law or lawmakers are good and whether the lawmaker is all-knowing.
One of my more unusual hobbies is creating games. I create games of all sorts and varieties. I have made card games, computer games (most in concept only or half finished), board games, strategy games, and role-playing games. The last is the one in which I consider myself most talented because it is also the one that I most enjoy doing. As an RPG-creator, one must also become a world-creator. And world-creation is not much different than creating a setting and characters for a story as an author. Only RPG-creation means that you must be even more detailed, because where an author creates an controls all characters, in an RPG, another person or persons control some of the characters. Since this is the case, you must be able to anticipate nearly everything they might do and how it might effect your world. Where a writer does not need to make certain "rules" for his world if he knows his hero or heroine will not use those "rules" in the story, and RPG-creator does not know the story. He or she knows the overall story and can "push" the players toward a certain end, but there is still great uncertainty that requires great preparation and planning and fine detail.
My worlds (not all of which were meant to become RPGs; some are solely for stories) contain geographies, histories, biographies, dictionaries, and other "-phies".
Some "rules" are actual mechanics of game play -- in a sense, the physical laws of the universe in which the game takes place. I must have a "rule" that simplifies the finding of the answer to, "Can this player's character, who weighs so many kilograms jump the so many meter moat in full armor, which weighs so many kg, while being shot at with arrows from the top of the tower, if he is running at full speed?" I must have "rules" for every imaginable event that can take place in a game.
Well, such things become complicated quickly. The simpler things are the less realistic they become, and I prefer all fiction to be realistic -- whether books, movies, plays, or RPGs. (Remind me to discuss here someday the difference between "realism" and "reality" in stories....) So, as I am not the worlds expert on such things, I have occasionally compared my ideas for rules with the rules of RPGs that have been around for years and years on the market and had countless revisions. (Oddly enough, I have never actually played any of these games; I just read their rules.)
And now on to my real topic: one such RPG I have studied for ideas has a setting that involves magic. Well, some magic within the game's world could only be used by bad guys and some only by good guys. So a system of rules was established to determine what makes someone bad or good. I found it interesting that the game did not presuppose that a player would be able to distinguish these two concepts automatically. What was more interesting to me was that the game differentiated between good and evil and lawful and unlawful. It also considered order to be related to lawfulness and disorder/chaos to be related to unlawfulness.
Now, I do not claim to think that this system is a perfect description of real-life morality, but it does bring up some interesting points. In one of my earlier entries, I established that I am a moral absolutist. [1] Yet, I also, in that entry, mentioned that I think that one must be careful to break down individual actions into its core components and motivations before determining the rightness or wrongness of the action.
In the aforementioned RPG, good actions are ones that benefit another over oneself, even if -- but not requiring harm came to oneself. Evil actions are ones that benefited oneself over others in a harmful manner to them. A lawful action was one that went along with the natural order of things or the common culture. A chaotic action was one that went against the natural order of things or rebelled against the culture.
Again, I do not claim these definitions to be perfect, but I admire the game for trying to define some concepts so often taken for granted.
As an example, in this game world, lying is not defined as universally right or wrong. First, one must know the motivation. I agree that in real life, the motivation is important. Second, the game allows that a good person with good motivations can inadvertently still do a wrong action and still be held accountable for that wrong action. I agree, too, that in real life, good intentions do not guarantee that right actions will be done, yet even so, the one who performed the action is responsible.
So one can come up with some varying scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, but she lives in Dumpty land. In Dumpty land it is illegal for Dumpties to let Humpties drink water from the wells. Jack lets Jill drink from his well. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill. She stole it on her own. Jill goes to jail.
Scenario 2:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill, nor did she even drink any water. Jill does not go to jail.
Scenario 3:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack tells the truth. Both he and Jill go to jail.
Scenario 4:
Jill is from the Humpty clan, etc., etc., etc. Only she really is a monster that needs water to morph into a Godzilla lookalike and ravage the towns and villages. Jack does not know this. Jack lets Jill drink from his well. Jack is questioned by the authorities. Jack lies and says that he did not give water to Jill, nor did she even drink any water. Jill does not go to jail. Jill morphs into Godzilla lookalike. See Jill eat village.
Now, here is how such things would be defined in the game:
Scenario 1:
Jacks intentions were selfish. Jack's actions were good at first, but he preferred his own safety over hers. So lying had evil intentions and was an evil action. But lying in this case caused Jill to go to jail, which was consistent with what would have happened had Jack not been involved at all. In a sense, his actions increased the lawfulness of the city. So though evil, the actions were lawful.
Scenario 2:
Jacks intentions were selfless. He wanted to protect Jill. But he clearly was breaking the law, and no one paid for that like in the former case. Here, lying was good, but unlawful.
Scenario 3:
Here Jack wants to follow the law, those his intentions were good in that he wanted to help Jill. Here, he chose to follow the law. But this brought harm to Jill. Not lying was evil but lawful.
Scenario 4:
Here Jack wanted to help Jill, but unbeknownst to him, helping her would be bringing devastation to the city and cause harm to many. Here his intentions were good, but unlawful. His actual action ended up being evil and unlawful.
After all these crazy examples, my points are simply that a single action -- lying, here -- cannot be judged without knowing the intentions and the outcome and that following the law is not always good. Whether it is or not depends entirely on whether the law or lawmakers are good and whether the lawmaker is all-knowing.