Grimoire - Game is Complete

[Mustawd]

I wasn't even referring to Clive but to the "However, not buying the game for exclusively "moral" reasons is - to me - the exact same thing" bit. But ok. Would you buy "Bugs Bunny" tee shirt from the Arian Brotherhood?

If they invented bugs bunny, sure. Assuming he was in his current version and not a white power version of himself.

Do you not buy Walt Disney products because Walt Disney was antisemetic?

 

[zahratustra]

Walt Disney is dead. But if was alive I wouldn't.

 

[Mustawd]

Fair enough. Although one could argue that the apple might not fall too far from the tree, and you're just enabling his descendants, but that's just speculation.

I tend to think there are a lot of creators whose projects I enjoy that I would probably disagree with vehemently if I knew their personal thoughts on a variety of issues. As long as the product isn't pushing those specific agendas, I try not to let it bother me and treat it as its own thing.

 

[Stingray]

Would you buy "Bugs Bunny" tee shirt from the Arian Brotherhood?

If, for whatever reason, I wanted a Bugs Bunny t-shirt, and they were the sole providers of them, then sure. Cleve, obviously, is the sole provider of Grimoire - you can't go get the same game from someone else whose opinions align more with your own. I buy/consume products from people with all kinds of wacky views that I don't agree with on a regular basis, actors and athletes being the first examples to come to mind. And that's not even to bring up the cases where the creators actually let their views seep into their product and yet I (sadly) still buy it - for example, all the SJW's at BioWare who have been clearly injecting their agenda into their product for years now. AFAIK, Cleve has not done that, so he's one step better than them on that count.

 

[NewDArt]

Sorry DArt but that's just BS. Would you buy a "White Power" tee shirt from the Arian Brotherhood?

If I wanted the T-shirt and I believed in its message, I would.

But the Arian Brotherhood has been established as a faction that takes violent action and does actual harm. I couldn't support that.

AFAIK, Grimoire is a fantasy RPG - and not a racism facilitator. At that point, there WOULD be a reason to align Cleve as a person with his game.

Unlike several here, I don't think a racist is a person that's necessarily racist in everything he does - or that everything he does is similarly destructive. I think it can be a single unfortunate position among many positive positions.

But if Grimoire obviously promoted racism, I wouldn't want to support that either.

So, I can't really see how the two compare. In the case of Grimoire being a racism facilitator, it wouldn't be for moral reasons I wouldn't support it - it would be rational reasons.

I don't consider racism immoral. I consider it irrational and destructive, however.

 

[Silver]

Many famous artists and writers work would be ignored if people took the position of boycotting because of a disagreeable position which may or may not be present in the work itself. Its like the old Disney cartoons, they are still art, but you can watch them today with a disclaimer for the content and take into account the history. They are still of value even today for landmark achievements in production processes, artistic direction and the like.

Just because an artist holds a debatable position does not mean that the art itself contains no value. The value it holds is ultimately up to the public and the public consensus although many great artists have gone unappreciated in their own time.

 

[NewDArt]

Many famous artists and writers work would be ignored if people took the position of boycotting because of a disagreeable position which may or may not be present in the work itself. Its like the old Disney cartoons, they are still art, but you can watch them today with a disclaimer for the content and take into account the history. They are still of value even today for landmark achievements in production processes, artistic direction and the like.

Just because an artist holds a debatable position does not mean that the art itself contains no value.

Just look at Lovecraft and his obvious racism.

So, he was a bit dense and subject to the ignorance of his environment.

I still absolutely adore his work, I must say. I also think he was a decent guy overall.

 

[Silver]

Just look at Lovecraft and his obvious racism.

So, he was a bit dense and subject to the ignorance of his environment.

I still absolutely adore his work, I must say. I also think he was a decent guy overall.

Madness affects people in different ways. It is interesting seeing people today who are so used to tearing down people for character flaws struggle with Lovecraft and the world he ultimately created. Those people cannot reconcile his flaws with the work he created and ultimately try to distance him, in the public mind, from his creation.

 

[NewDArt]

Madness affects people in different ways. It is interesting seeing people today who are so used to tearing down people for character flaws struggle with Lovecraft and the world he ultimately created. Those people cannot reconcile his flaws with the work he created and ultimately try to distance him, in the public mind, from his creation.

I'm afraid it comes down to the flawed concept of morality. I say flawed, because I'm an agnostic - and not a religious person. I understand why religious people believe in morality - for obvious reasons.

Morality, ironically, is one of - if not THE most - prevalent instigators of intolerance and destructive behavior.

 

[Stingray]

Cleve was just talking today about his next game possibly being a Lovecraft thing:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...n-steam-greenlight.114452/page-7#post-5043307

I guess it will be out in 2090. :lol:

 

[Silver]

I'm afraid it comes down to the flawed concept of morality. I say flawed, because I'm an agnostic - and not a religious person. I understand why religious people believe in morality - for obvious reasons.

Morality, ironically, is one of - if not THE most - prevalent instigators of intolerance and destructive behavior.

My running theory on moralistic types is it always attracts people of a certain mindset. The authoritarian kind mostly who desire to fit in and be seen to be doing the right thing in their social circles. The saying 'No true Scotsman' applies here.

When religion got discredited in the public mind for being corrupt and just wacky beliefs in general (from a scientific viewpoint) the morally minded shifted to more socially acceptable movements to preach their beliefs. But in truth these people never left the church and still dispense judgements and pronouncements about virtue just with different language. Mind you its just a theory

 

[NewDArt]

My running theory on moralistic types is it always attracts people of a certain mindset. The authoritarian kind mostly who desire to fit in and be seen to be doing the right thing in their social circles. The saying 'No true Scotsman' applies here.

When religion got discredited in the public mind for being corrupt and just wacky beliefs in general (from a scientific viewpoint) the morally minded shifted to more socially acceptable movements to preach their beliefs. But in truth these people never left the church and still dispense judgements and pronouncements about virtue just with different language. Mind you its just a theory

Hehe, I think of religion and morality as natural by-products of ignorance.

The ignorance we all share, by the way.

It's part of the human equation that our brains want answers - and we want to KNOW how to behave. We want to believe that what we're doing is good.

So, I guess it's only natural that some people think that when people behave differently - and in ways that we can't understand or appreciate - they're not good.

So, to me, racists and non-racists are both equally guilty of harm if they combine their beliefs with morality and the desire to eliminate or suppress freedom of expression and thought.

 

[Silver]

So, to me, racists and non-racists are both equally guilty of harm if they combine their beliefs with morality and the desire to eliminate or suppress freedom of expression and thought.

Thats essentially the problematic behaviour. Having belief systems is fine, its the desire to impose them on others by unjust means that is the problem.

 

[NewDArt]

Thats essentially the problematic behaviour. Having belief systems is fine, its the desire to impose them on others by unjust means that is the problem.

The tricky part is that "unjust" thing

Because how do we define what's unjust?

I mean, we're all subject to a certain degree of injustice because of societal legal structures.

Laws can rarely, if ever, take into account all relevant factors. Meaning, almost every single law can and will inevitably be enforced in such a way that actually goes against the intention of a legal system, which is to provide justice and security for us all.

As such, I think it's part of the human condition that we must all be able to tolerate some measure of injustice - because otherwise living together will be impossible.

That is what people who take to moralising is often missing.

 

[Silver]

The tricky part is that "unjust" thing

Because how do we define what's unjust?

I mean, we're all subject to a certain degree of injustice because of societal legal structures.

Laws can rarely, if ever, take into account all relevant factors. Meaning, almost every single law can and will inevitably be enforced in such a way that actually goes against the intention of a legal system, which is to provide justice and security for us all.

As such, I think it's part of the human condition that we must all be able to tolerate some measure of injustice - because otherwise living together will be impossible.

That is what people who take to moralising is often missing.

The law is often a grey area and inevitably these areas must be set by legal precedent. Many lawsuits are avoided for this reason because of the fear of solidifying an area of law that is currently grey because of the often wide reaching ramifications. Although of course a judge can recommend that a legislator look at the area in question before this comes into question. The reality is more that access to justice is often predicated on ones ability to afford it.

Additionally I think the problem with law is that it is in a way so flexible it can be bound up into knots and rendered ineffectual to its purpose. To that end it is often beneficial to remove old laws from the statute book and prescribe simpler and less obtuse rules over time. Although poorly drafted new legislation can often be worse due to the open interpretation of a single line. Having said all that Magna Carta is still part of the law for which I am very grateful!

As far as injustice goes people that are raised with a Stoic tradition often come out stronger than their oppressors over time as opposed to the post-modern tradition of wearing every insult real or perceived publicly at the cost of self. Having said that sharing your feelings is a good thing but over sharing is sometimes much worse.

 

[NewDArt]

The law is often a grey area and inevitably these areas must be set by legal precedent. Many lawsuits are avoided for this reason because of the fear of solidifying an area of law that is currently grey because of the often wide reaching ramifications. Although of course a judge can recommend that a legislator look at the area in question before this comes into question. The reality is more that access to justice is often predicated on ones ability to afford it.

Additionally I think the problem with law is that it is in a way so flexible it can be bound up into knots and rendered ineffectual to its purpose. To that end it is often beneficial to remove old laws from the statute book and prescribe simpler and less obtuse rules over time. Although poorly drafted new legislation can often be worse due to the open interpretation of a single line. Having said all that Magna Carta is still part of the law for which I am very grateful!

As far as injustice goes people that are raised with a Stoic tradition often come out stronger than their oppressors over time as opposed to the post-modern tradition of wearing every insult real or perceived publicly at the cost of self.

The problem with laws - as with many similar things - is that they're subject to human beings, both upon creating and enforcing them.

Human beings are extremely flawed - and the only way to create a truly functional system would be to remove - or severely reduce - human agency when enforcing the rules.

 

[Silver]

The problem with laws - as with many similar things - is that they're subject to human beings, both upon creating and enforcing them.

Human beings are extremely flawed - and the only way to create a truly functional system would be to remove - or severely reduce - human agency when enforcing the rules.

But then what is human society without human agency?

Forgiveness and resolve to do better are our best qualities and what I would base society on in terms of ethos in the law. But all power structures become hollowed out of purpose and debased of their original goals over time without care. Broadly agreeable principles of governance founded on rights and responsibilities are the foundations of a just society but maintaining it requires persistence and no system can prosper with indifference and apathy.

 

[NewDArt]

But then what is human society without human agency?

I didn't say society should be without human agency. I said the enforcement (and interpretation) of rules should have as little human agency involved as possible.

It would then, theoretically, be fairer and more functional

Forgiveness and resolve to do better are our best qualities and what I would base society on in terms of ethos in the law. But all power structures become hollowed out of purpose and debased of their original goals over time without care. Broadly agreeable principles of governance founded on rights and responsibilities are the foundations of a just society but maintaining it requires persistence and no system can prosper with indifference and apathy.

We have many qualities - but a quality is really only beneficial if it's used beneficially.

For instance, much like a hammer - intelligence is a tool. It can be used to create or improve - but it can also be used to destroy.

The same goes for wanting to do good. Wanting it is nice, but that doesn't mean whatever you decide to do is actually good - or beneficial.

Having a "good heart" is sometimes very destructive if you don't combine it with rationality and the insight required to apply yourself in a beneficial way.

In that very same way, being smart and having great insight doesn't mean whatever you do with it will be beneficial, unless it's also combined with empathy or the desire to improve or benefit society.

That's why I don't have as much faith as you do in our ability to create and maintain a just society, regardless of our qualities or intentions. We're simply not smart or informed enough to accomplish a just society at this point.

Beyond that, our capacity for empathy is almost exclusively localised - or reserved for those we know or who are in close proximity - or those we approve of or recognise as "worthy".

For empathy to benefit us all - it must be applied to us all.

 

[Silver]

I didn't say society should be without human agency. I said the enforcement (and interpretation) of rules should have as little human agency involved as possible.

It would then, theoretically, be fairer and more functional

Fair enough. But then you would still have to define how little agency is desirable.

As regards the human problem the answer is quite simple. We are glorious meatheads full of piss and vinegar. Knowing that we know very little is the answer to all our woes. But humility does not come naturally and is usually learned through painful mistakes.

Maybe we should send our kids off to an island to fend for themselves. Deprived of all illusions of their worth they will learn to make decisions for themselves.

 

[Ripper]

I was curious to give this thread some space, to see how far down the rabbit hole D’Art would go, to see who would buy into it, and who would identify the problems. We are deep into the nonsense at this point.

@Dart

Some of what you say is reasonable matter-of-opinion stuff, if a bit trite (catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and so on), and I think that’s fair enough. But your logical arguments, though perhaps superficially convincing to some, really don’t bear up to a bit of examination and thought.

But I now understand his behavior and his ability to do business on Steam belong together in your mind, and as such there's no confusion involved for you - and people with a similar position on human beings. You're actually serious about him not deserving your support for his ability to earn a living - based on what you feel you know about him.
…
You're actively preventing Cleve from earning a profit because you don't think he's worthy of it

As some have mentioned, here you are still trying to misrepresent the argument. In an attempt to create the charge of “moralising”, you portray the matter as sitting in absolute judgment of the man, and deeming that he ought to be stripped of the ability to make a living. That is, of course, a strawman, and there is a not only a categorical difference between that and responding negatively to poor behavior, but there is also an entirely rational basis for non-cooperation in the face of bad behavior.

I don't think not supporting Cleve will change anything about his behavior - so the only person who will suffer is Cleve - and I'm not the kind of person who would support the suffering of others - unless it's going to benefit more than harm. Simply punishing someone for being a bigot with no upside is not my style.

Punishment for the sake of it, without tangible benefit - is irrational in my opinion.

This gets to the heart of it, and I’ll try to illustrate why the imposition of negative consequences in a society is rational. Sometimes it's difficult to illustrate the very obvious, but here goes. You may have heard of the idea of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This is how the problem is defined:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is:
If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa)
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)

Now, taken in isolation, what this shows is that it can be rational to harm the other – your best bet, moral considerations aside, is to treat the other badly.

Back in the 70’s, Richard Dawkins wrote a famous book called The Selfish Gene. This was taken up by some on the Randian right as a justification for ruthless capitalism – every man for himself, survival of the ruthless. Dawkins was not happy about this nasty misreading of his work, and wrote an important piece called Nice Guys Finish First.

What he showed is that although the Prisoner’s Dilemma rewards the ruthless behavior when taken in isolation, in functional societies, both human and animal, the long term consequences of the negative choice are detrimental to that individual – because other individuals learn, and respond to the bad behavior with non-cooperation in the future. They are not rewarded for long, and the behavior is naturally disadvantageous. But, this functional incentive only works if there are rational consequences to bad behavior.

Now, the question of what constitutes bad behavior in our context is a different matter, and we can discuss, but what I’m trying to show you is that “punishing” behavior that we consider negative for ourselves or our society has entirely rational basis, even you take a consequentialist view, and (in my case) is not motivated by some nasty high-handed sense of terrible retribution.

In terms of defining "bad" behavior in Cleve's case (ignoring for a moment broken assurances and so on), I would argue that abusive behavior on the internet IS of consequence, and I think that the facts support that rather obviously.

There is quite a lot more to say on your ideas about morality, but first I’d like to ask about these two rather important points.

I don't consider racism immoral. I consider it irrational and destructive, however.

…

Morality, ironically, is one of - if not THE most - prevalent instigators of intolerance and destructive behavior.

I would be very interested for you to explain your arguments further, to justify those statements.