Chris Avellone - On Great RPGs and What the Future Holds

[Cacheperl]

The most logical choice would be to not drink alcohol at all, or at least to have a hard limit on the amount of pure alcohol to ingest. But where's the fun in that?

Presumably, the fun in that would be to watch drunk people make fools of themselves. Then again, that's hardly a very ethical kind of fun either. It's just a few steps from watching Southpark's crack baby sports.

Long steps.

 

[SveNitoR]

A couple of simple questions: have you ever gotten drunk at a party and hit on somebody (successful or not)? If you have, do you deserve to be publicly humiliated and lose your job (possibly for life)?

Hit on people when drunk? Yes. There are different ways to do that, even when drunk. Some tend to go too far, I don't.

Deserves? That would depend on the actions included in my advances. And, if one is to include the same metrics as one usually does for women in similar situations, it should also depend on my choices. For example if I chose job opportunities, which depend on my reputation.

In Mr Avellone's case he has chosen a career as a freelancer, and has chosen to be a public figure. There reputation is everything and job security zero. So not a good idea to choose to drink at all outside of circles of close friends who can overlook temporary stupidity.

If I had a company where one of my employees was freelance and even a few rumors of misconduct surfaced I would have basically two choices: Keep the employee and risk being associated with their misconduct by the public or let them go and risk condemnation by the specific group who supports the employee.

Once again, though. I know nothing, you know nothing, 99% of the people writing about this know nothing. Anything could've happened. It is just pure speculation by every one and, frankly, getting to be pretty boring.

 

[Nereida]

This is why I don't drink. And any girl or boy who got drunk by being invited to have two more drinks than they should, should really have been more clever about it, because people are animals, and they'll resort to their basic instincts when they're at their worst and they think they can get away with it, and you should be guarded about that.

That said, at least in my country it is legally recognised that people can be made to act against their will without real physical violence. Simply having two tall guys next to a girl while cornered in a pub with loud music can get her to do things she does not want to do for fear and self-preservation, it has happened, and those people have been charged guilty of sexual harassment/abuse in court.

There is also things like smoking, or gambling. Nobody forces you to smoke, yet governments are legislating smoking more and more heavily every year to get rid of it because they recognise that even if you have the choice not to smoke, people are weak willed and it gets them killed.

Nobody forces you to walk into a gambling house and ruin your family's life savings, yet many governments are starting to legislate more heavily how many gambling houses can open business and what profit margins they can have so people stop potentially ruining their family's life savings.

Here is a fact that we as individuals tend to not want to recognise: Most people are gullible and malleable in one or another way, and generally weak-willed. This is why there is a radically huge difference between a good salesman and a mediocre one, and two people selling the same thing will have very different level of success, based on how good they are at embellishing and beguiling their "victim". It's why companies invest millions or billions in getting your favourite streamer to stream on their platform. It is an studied fact that a lot of people can be sold things they don't really want if it's the right person who is selling it. When it is a click of my mouse and some ads? Sure, who cares. I'll click your clickbait and mostly ignore the adds, and one minute later I'm back to my life as it was, without half a thought invested. When what is at stake is your moral and sexual integrity? Bigger problem here.

We all like to think of ourselves as the one person immune to all of that (I think that of myself, for sure), but if it works with a 10% of the people, then that's 700 million people in the world.

Putting things in perspective though, I don't want to think what happened was worth criminalising, unless proven otherwise. Guy meets girl, they get happy, guy sees the opportunity and slides a couple extra drinks, girl probably kinda liked the guy, and when the barriers are down, they have sex. Happens every day in every town, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

That said, the line "she was dressing so sexy, asking for it" is completely repulsive, and I hope that mindset is nuked out of orbit with the death of our generation. I can't believe in 2020 a girl still has to choose her looks based on how hard she wants to be seen as a sexual object. She can not choose her looks just because she wants to be happy with herself, or maybe because she's been starving for 6 months just so she can be proud of her physique and she definitely deserves to show off without being seen as nothing more than a frigging sexual object by drooling testosterone-dripping idiots.

Those people should go back to the Paleolithic.

 

[bjon045]

Agree. It is also worth noting that this is not just a guy picking up a girl in a bar. What makes it different is the power imbalance. One is a veteran held in very high regard in the industry and the other parties are people way down the bottom of the pecking chain trying hard to get a leg up. It is similar to being hit on by the boss at a christmas party or a legal clerk being hit on by a senior partner. Again, it is not criminal (most of the time) but the power imbalance means the person at the top has to be extra careful. It is ALWAYS best to avoid anything like this at a company or industry event.

 

[Thiraury]

So the lesson we should learn from all this is that, if you have done something in the past that isn't illegal, but could be judged as morally wrong, you should never become a public figure? Because then sooner or later you're probably going to lose your reputation and job.

 

[SveNitoR]

So the lesson we should learn from all this is that, if you have done something in the past that isn't illegal, but could be judged as morally wrong, you should never become a public figure? Because then sooner or later you're probably going to get fu**ed.

Yes, that's been my take for a long time.

In a way internet and social media makes this possible globally, instead of locally, for both good and bad. Normally in the case of morally dubious behavior the "tribe" deals with it and gives punishment tempered by foreknowledge and care for the person. Since the angry people online have little to no actual information or relationship with the accused, the punishment can become very severe.

But this also goes the other way. The accuser also gets reactions that are not tempered by foreknowledge. So everyone gets judged unfairly and everyone gets shat upon. One of the worst aspects of the internet in my opinion...

 

[lackblogger]

You make dictatorial psychopathy sound positively reasonable, lol.

It's not even a matter or "morally wrong" or even "morally dubious". Every single thing a human does could be construed as 'a morally questionable action' depending on the extent to which one wishes to naval gaze the philosophy of the point. Every single thing we do can be construed as morally offensive to at least someone.

Sex is just much easier to manipulate into a convincing narrative, what with its religious historical moral heritage and what with jealousy being such a prevalent and dominant human trait and what with everyone's natural interest in viewing sexual activity.

Any man accused of anything, as long as there's a sexual angle, will always result in the participants finding themselves in a minority of favour, because, first of all, both parties are effectively 'outed' as having 'sinned'. So its like watching two thieves fight over the loot.

Secondly, everyone who didn't have sex today is immediately delighted by the schadenfreude of seeing two people who at least tried to have sex today getting pilloried. 'My life might be a sexless nightmare, but at least I'm not those two, [simpson's character voice] HA-HA.". A bit like how slasher films usually kill off the couple having sex as a matter of cliche.

And then you add to the pot the age old adage that if there's one thing women find unattractive, it's moral perfectionists and that there's nothing more attractive to women than a bit of The Bastard about a man.

And you wind up in the situation we are in now, a situation that has occurred many times in history. A situation in which the total extent of 'justification' can be summed up by the phrase "Off with his head!", the famous meme from the Victorian era that is oft spoken in the satirical nonsense story Alice in Wonderland by 'The Queen of Hearts'.

A Queen declares "Off with his head!" and that is all the judge jury and executioner we need. As the royal court, it is our job to simply watch the spectacle and prepare ourselves for 'our turn'. To which, in order to avoid such a fate one could always… rush about so quickly that no-one ever sees you long enough to 'notice' you, or, hide in a teapot for as much time as you possibly can, preferably sleeping to the max, or, just go mad and hope for the best…

 

[SveNitoR]

You make dictatorial psychopathy sound positively reasonable, lol.

It's not even a matter or "morally wrong" or even "morally dubious". Every single thing a human does could be construed as 'a morally questionable action' depending on the extent to which one wishes to naval gaze the philosophy of the point. Every single thing we do can be construed as morally offensive to at least someone.

I agree. Though some things seem to be seen as morally wrong in all cultures, such as murder unless in self-defence.

Sex is just much easier to manipulate into a convincing narrative, what with its religious historical moral heritage and what with jealousy being such a prevalent and dominant human trait and what with everyone's natural interest in viewing sexual activity.

Any man accused of anything, as long as there's a sexual angle, will always result in the participants finding themselves in a minority of favour, because, first of all, both parties are effectively 'outed' as having 'sinned'. So its like watching two thieves fight over the loot.

I'm guessing this is more so in countries such as the US, where sex is such a taboo subject and religious fundamentalism seems to be quite common.

Secondly, everyone who didn't have sex today is immediately delighted by the schadenfreude of seeing two people who at least tried to have sex today getting pilloried. 'My life might be a sexless nightmare, but at least I'm not those two, [simpson's character voice] HA-HA.". A bit like how slasher films usually kill off the couple having sex as a matter of cliche.

Eh, maybe when I was younger. The older I get the more sex loses its status and appeal. So going straight from personal experience, I'm gonna guess that this is true for younger people.

And then you add to the pot the age old adage that if there's one thing women find unattractive, it's moral perfectionists and that there's nothing more attractive to women than a bit of The Bastard about a man.

My experience is that it is more boring and anonymous men who are unattractive. And vice versa. Bad boys are rarely boring and quiet. Anecdotally I've got two friends who are very popular with women. Both of them are very kind and considerate. They are also confident and charming.

I'm gonna guess that The Bastard, as you put it, is simply more visibly successful with women. Since the good people tend to be able to both stay in a relationship, and try to be faithful, their success is less obvious.

And you wind up in the situation we are in now, a situation that has occurred many times in history. A situation in which the total extent of 'justification' can be summed up by the phrase "Off with his head!", the famous meme from the Victorian era that is oft spoken in the satirical nonsense story Alice in Wonderland by 'The Queen of Hearts'.

A Queen declares "Off with his head!" and that is all the judge jury and executioner we need. As the royal court, it is our job to simply watch the spectacle and prepare ourselves for 'our turn'. To which, in order to avoid such a fate one could always… rush about so quickly that no-one ever sees you long enough to 'notice' you, or, hide in a teapot for as much time as you possibly can, preferably sleeping to the max, or, just go mad and hope for the best…

Well, I don't think it's that bad. We still have courts and I'm hoping that social media gets better somehow. My feeling is that it's mostly 30+ adults using social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so on. Younger people seem to use more private communication tools, which make the consequences of missteps less severe. At least that's my hope.

By the way: thanks for your post. Even though we've gone far off topic, I personally find discussions of human behavior and philosophy in general more interesting than specific cases.