Azarkon

Err, I guess this is probably a bad time to mention that I've enjoyed certain harem anime in the past... :"> But on the topic of pandering - do you see this is an artistic obligation you have towards games not to engage in excessive indulgence and pandering? I guess some might argue that since games are entertainment, developers are entertainers and therefore should pander to the audience's desires.

Josh, you should really post something on the official NWN 2 boards regarding your stance. I think it'd do well to resolve alot of the hate you seem to be getting from romance-fans.

Infanticide, whether intentional or unintentional, happens all the time; they only make the news when accompanied by taglines such as "FATHER KILLS BABY BECAUSE SHE BROKE VIDEO GAME." Don't be fooled - though it appears that video games should be the least of our concerns in this case, the article writers certainly didn't feel that way. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stressed things such as: "he was playing one of Tom Clancy's "Ghost Recon" games - a violent combat epic - ..." It's sensational news reporting with a heavy bias against gamers. The media is always looking for someone to blame - otherwise, such articles would quickly go out of style as they do nothing but make us more depressed about human nature.

*sigh* Why can't people take responsibility for their own actions, for once?

I'm sure this will get blamed on video games, as usual.

Now let's be fair here - the initial topic of this thread (I should know, since I started it) was regarding why JE didn't like current RPG romances, not whether he supported including romances in RPGs. The answer to the latter, I think, can be found in this quote: JE: "I agree, which is why I feel that romances should either receive less (i.e. zero) time or significantly more time per character." Which is a response to: "It seems to me that that stems from a design policy rather than the writing itself. Perhaps developers should approach romances more as a secret side quest, rather than a main feature of RPGs. With this in mind, romances should be made easier to screw up (you say the wrong thing, and you're done), and also, the PC should choose who he/she wants to romance. This should make things seem a little bit more open-ended and not as scripted as they usually are. The problem with this approach is, of course that a lot of development time/money is spent on something that in the end, won't be experienced by most players of the game." From that, I think it's pretty safe to say that JE isn't against romances in CRPGs, more that he's against gimmicky romances included as an afterthought.

Right I hope meta is a better rationalist...

I don't see that as an act against the interests of the individual. An act against the interests of the individual is one in which the individual is forced, against his will, to do something (as in a draft); with altruism, the individual decides that his or her best interests lie with helping others and willingly sacrifices his or herself. Of course not. Just because you oppose evil laws, does not mean you oppose laws in general. Just because you refuse to serve in an evil war, does not mean you refuse to serve in wars in general. My point has always been that the individual must be free to choose whether his or her interests lie with serving society in a certain situation. In altruism, the individual decides that service trumps personal benefits - but that is still a decision made freely. Not so for drafts. The doctrine of enlightened self-interest, my friend. The belief that acting for your immediate benefit is in your best interest is naive, as many moralists have argued. Disobeying laws whenever convenient leads to a lawless society, which is against the interests of most individuals. Therefore, we abide by laws so as to not create such a society. However, there are cases when certain laws are so clearly against the interests of the individual that disobedience leads to a better society (for example, laws that compromise your rights). If you believe such to be the case with respect to a certain law, then it is your obligation to disobey it.

I don't think that's what I'm supporting at all. Anarchy is unrealistic precisely because of what you argue, and so as a result it's unrealistic to expect that people will revert to anarchy if left to their own discretion to decide what sort of society to build. What I'm arguing is that civic duty, upkeep, etc. should exist as long as society represents the interests of the individual. If your argument is that anarchy better serves the interests of the rich and the powerful, I beg to differ - the law of the jungle is self-regulating, and even if you are the big guy today, you might very well be the small guy tomorrow. The sense of insecurity towards the ever present threat of violence, betrayal, and overthrow belies the necessity for rule of law, stability, and peace. Modern society would not exist if it were not a better alternative - for nearly everyone - than what had come before. Let's further not forget that the purpose of this discussion is not to discuss whether the current system of government and society should be changed, but whether you should willingly submit yourself to a draft in the case of an evil war. If society exists, as I argue, for the benefits of the individual, then when an act of society no longer represents the individual's best interests, what duty the individual owes to that act becomes null and void. It's easy - once again - to misinterpret this as saying that you should disobey laws whenever it suits you, but that's not what it implies unless your best interests lie with lawlessness. That would be an excuse. Resisting an evil war is, on the other hand, a means by which you can stop it.

So I owe my country something for not oppressing me? Gee, thanks. Moreover, by your argument, it'd also be the case that a citizen of the US owes his or her country alot more than a citizen of, say, China or Africa - and that's just plain wrong as you'd be basing the degree of duty on chance of birth. You might as well feel an obligation towards God, or fate, for having placed you in the position that you are in. Btw, Di, were you one of the ones who argued against me on the subject of national guilt? Because what you're suggesting here applies to national guilt as well - if you're going to base personal duty on the basis of having benefitted from the nation's past achievements, than by the same argument - you would also be guilty of the nation's past misdeeds. Is that the view you want to espouse?

Meta: Yet that is in fact what I see as being emergent: the creation of a society that abides by certain "global" rules, but which operates largely in concert with its own interests. The law of the land thus becomes the law of the world, and in doing so transforms into the law of self-interest. This does not, however, necessitate the law of the jungle - what you're referring to is only a short-sighted view of individual interest. The truth of the matter is - we would not have civilization if the state most in people's interests is anarchy. Civilization and its laws exist because people decide that it's in their best interests to establish such laws, not because they have an obligation to become civilized. The country owes me none of those things. The fact that they exist attracts me to the country in the sense that if they did not exist, I would likely be living in another country, and contributing to that country's economy and wellbeing. Now, that is not to say that I am unwilling to fight for those things - simply that I do not owe a country or its government the right to possess them - for that implies an obligation, and I do not think that people have an obligation to society. Rather, they have an obligation to act in their own interests - which means, most of the times, acting in concert with society. If society, on the other hand, becomes contrary to their interests, that is the time they should act against it. It's an easy stance to misunderstand, but the difference is fundamental. On one hand, you have the abstract notion of a nation and the obligations of citizenship; on the other, you have the concrete benefits of living in a nation and the laws that make them possible. I think the latter idea is much easier to swallow than the former. After all, if you owe anyone your basic freedoms, it's the founders and activists who are now long dead - every politician afterwards just received the benefits. Why should you owe them anything? They haven't done a thing to preserve your rights. If anything, they've taken them away. I do not, therefore, feel that I owe the current batch of people running the country anything. If not them, someone else would be running the country - and they'd probably do just as well of a job. It's ridiculous, in my mind, to generalize the achievements of individuals to the nation at large. The US did not fight for my right to vote; people fought for my right to vote. The Bush administration does not guarantee my freedoms; the Constitution, which is the result of centuries of liberal struggle, guarantees my freedoms. Should I feel like I owe the Bush administration something simply because they allowed those freedoms to be (if only)? No, of course not! The life style that I am able to afford today is a result of 1) my own achievements, 2) my line of descent, and 3) the freedoms of my environment, given to me by those who fought for such freedoms. My best obligation to that last category of people is to fight, in turn, to preserve those freedoms - not to simply serve those who happened to inherit the country's leadership. By that same argument, it's impossible for me to support someone fighting a war that they did not believe in. That sort of duty is self-destructive - if you cannot convince yourself that the war is just, then you have an obligation to not partake in it. That is the true meaning of freedom, and to abandon it is to abandon the very principle behind why societies are formed, which is always for the benefits of the individuals who live within it. In the final analysis, I take issues with the very nature of the statement "if you believe your country owes you nothing..." I am not separate from my country; I am part of it. How can a part of something owe the whole? My duty is not to the abstract concept of a nation but to the people who act on my behalf and in my interests (in the case of a war I do not believe in, this equates to those who are against the war). Bush maybe fighting a war in Iraq, but even though I am an American, it is not my war. Why should it be? I personally think that you need to be alot more selective in terms of who deserves your duty, and not just what country - but that's just me.

If the FF series can be considered RPGs, then I suppose Mass Effect could be considered one, too. Though, from what I've seen of it, Mass Effect plays more like an action game with dialogue than anything else. To be fair, that's probably the intent. Presumably, this will be the future of single-player action/shooter games, and if ME makes it big, perhaps other games of the genre would follow. Can't disagree with that.

That might have been true, once upon a time - back when people actually lived and died by virtue of their nation. Today, with globalization breaking down barriers of nationality, it's become increasingly obvious to me, personally, that what country you're from ultimately doesn't matter. Fluidity is the name of the game - more and more people today are multinational, hold several visas/citizenships, and go where the work and the money are. Their choice of a nation, therefore, has nothing to do with a sense of family or belonging, but with personal pursuits and market movements. In such an environment, it's hard to relate to the mentality that you owe your country something, or that your country is like your relative. It's much easier to think - and rightfully so - that your priviledges, if you have them, are the result of personal achievements and not citizenship. Many people, in fact, adopt the opinion that they're in a country because the country needs them. And you're really in no position to say that they're wrong - after all, the US actively attempts to recruit the best and brightest in the world and many of the people in question are often sitting on offers from across the globe. Of course, whether such an environment exists for you depends on your state of residence. Living in California or New York is very different than living in the heart of Bible country. In some areas of the US I have no doubt that your point of view is still very much alive and prominent - the South, for example, is much more patriotic and duty-minded than the coastal cities. But at the same time, there is no right and wrong here. It's true that the US is a better place to live in than many other places in the world, but it's equally true that the US - unlike many European nations - does not exactly look after your welfare. A bum living on the streets of downtown LA would probably not respond very well to your ideas toward duty, and if you can't explain, on the basis of citizenship alone, why he's living in abject poverty while others are filthy rich, then the idea that every citizens owes his or her "prosperous" life style to the nation becomes particularly unconvincing.

Pretty much. But it's not so much that America has no moral authority, but that the moral system under which it derives its authority is inherently flawed. For example, we might agree that nations today have an obligation to stop genocidal wars wherever it occurs, irregardless of the past. At the same time, however, it's hypocritical for the US to require that other nations not engage in genocidal wars, when its wealth and position came from doing precisely that (nevermind the fact that it's potentially engaging in one itself - that's another topic altogether). Since both positions are, from their own respective viewpoints, justified, morality becomes irrelevant to the argument. A subjective moral system is worthless for dialectical purposes, since it has no mutually agreed upon basis (as such, the best thing you can do is "agree to disagree"). It's difficult to argue my position when the only example I can use is the highly stigmatic subject of genocide, which due to its emotionally charged nature is bound to render any contrarian position assinine. A far better example would be something like conquest of land. If my ancestors took your land two hundred years ago and then claimed it as our own, are you morally unjustified to take it back two hundred years later, simply because the people who invaded your land are now dead and gone? If so, how do you expect anyone to abide by the conditions of this moral system, which simply reduces to the idea that might makes right and that if you can take land and hold it, it subsequently belongs to you? I consider this example highly relevant to current controversies on the world stage. The creation of Israel, for example, is the central issue around which the entire conflict of civilizations between the West and the Middle-East is based. Yet, no Western or Middle-Eastern moralist has ever provided what I would consider an objective moral argument with regards to who is right - the Jews with their ancient claim to Israel, or the Muslims who believe that the land belongs to them because they took it away from the Jews so long ago?

Isn't that precisely the problem? The US (and to a lesser extent, Europe) attempts to justify its position and actions in the world on the basis of morality (spreading democracy, civilization, etc.), its opponents disagree and labels the US (and Europe) as imperialist beneficiaries, thereby creating a moral conundrum in which both sides believe themselves to be righteous, wherein might is the only answer. Morality is thus cast as realpolitik's magic trick. Of course, that's just another way of saying that historically, no people ever believed themselves to be immoral - but then what's the point of discussing morality with regards to foreign policy? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.

"Yeah, drug-dealing was wrong... But I sure as hell ain't gonna relinquish the millions I've made from it!" Remorse is obviously not moot, but it has to be demonstrated, not merely paid lip-service to.

Not the same situation. Now, if Ozzy Osbourne got wads of cash selling drugs back in the day, and that got him to where he is today - and then he told other would-be drug dealers they shouldn't sell drugs, that'd be a closer analogy.

The Allies certainly thought so; that's why they demilitarized Germany and outlawed any hints of Nazism. But compared to most other nations of the world, Germany didn't have it all that bad. The Allies did rebuild the country and integrated it within the larger world economy, thus addressing one of the major grievances of a defeated nation. If every developing nation could have it as good as Germany from the West, I doubt there'd be any terrorists looking to bring down tall buildings.

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective." But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective.

Realpolitik is the reality. The question is how we can define a way of acting that is consistent with that reality, while being an improvement over it. My argument is that only the victor willingly follows the system of morality we have now. For the defeated to follow it, there must be some account for historical wrongs and a guarantee against it being twisted by victor's justice. Can you come up with a moral system that, when followed, can satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered? If not, then it's hard to claim any moral objectivity with regards to foreign policy. Yet, moral subjectivity (more commonly called moral relativism) is widely regarded as being unacceptable.

Precisely. All pretense of morality is baseless so long as we operate within a flawed moral system.

*sigh* This is a semantics argument and therefore meaningless. Fine. You can define a nation as a body of people. But a nation has a history that the body of people do not - namely, the nation existed before the body of people that currently inhabits it. Moreover, the conditions by which the current body of people live are direct results of that history. The same is true of the rest of the world that the nation affects. If a nation is reborn each time a new generation comes, then you'd have a point. But this is patently untrue. The life span of a nation is far longer than that of a single generation, and the history of a people defines that people and their identity. You can't simply take the goods of that history and ignore the bads. Again, though you might not be personally responsible (and indeed I regret ever taking this analogy to the personal level), it's absurd to assume that moral systems are time-independent. Just because something occured in the far past does not mean its repercussions do not define the modern world. As such, any moral system that assumes innocence-by-birth and, at the same time, exists in the context of a world that does not give equity of birth - is inherently flawed and unrealistic. For this reason, when the UK (for example) argues against imperialism by developing nations, even while it is reaping the benefits of its own imperialism, it is hypocritical to those nations' eyes. If you can't see that this is a legitimate classification, then you have to ask yourself this - why should any nation obey moral laws when it's clear that by disobeying them, you can benefit yourself and still be righteous after but a single generation? Such is the argument made by the self-righteous conquerors of the world: history will justify the winners. It will erase the losers. I cannot accept any system as moral, that does not have an argument against this claim.

That's ridiculous. By your definition, any body of people forms a nation. If that's the case, I declare the Obsidian Forum Community as a nation. Now where's my army?

I don't agree and I've made the argument as to why elsewhere. It's reductio ad absurdum to assert that nations are just bodies of people. That just about ignores everything one should know about a nation.

You, as a person, can't. Your nation, however, can. The intersection with you lies in nationalism. If you're a nationalist, which means that you identify with your nation, then you can (and indeed I argue it's your obligation) to feel guilt over your nation's deeds. If not, then there's no connection. When US nationalists deny other nations the right to do what the US did a hundred years ago in order to get to where it is now - that's a form of hypocrisy. You might argue that the moral incentives have changed, but when moral incentives are defined by the victors - that' s a hard argument to make.