Obsidian devs after the Limerick controversy..

[Katarack21]

 

You seem to be advocating the "death of the author" concept, which I've always personally found insulting and demeaning to authors.

 

 

If I've understood this correctly, you seem to have this confused.

 

Death of the author is advocacy to disassociate the author from the creation, which I'm doing the opposite of.

 

No, "death of the author" is the idea that an authors ideas, concepts, subconscious thoughts, etc. are reflected in their work regardless of the authors intentions, and that these things reflect the "real" themes and ideas regardless of whether the author meant them to or wanted them to. It's divorcing the author from direct control of the meaning of the work.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Katarack21

[evensong]

You know who does advocate the death of the author, though?

 

SJW's.

 

Heyooo.

[MLMII]

Also, as a med student: although you can measure the physiological process of pain through a variety of methods, the phenomenon is so complex and - crucially - is an entirely subjective experience anyway, so there is no point in measuring it on an individual basis. There's a reason the scale of insect sting painfulness (the Schmidt sting pain index), for example, is only useful as a relative measure and has to use the subjective experience of a single person (Justin O. Schmidt) as a baseline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really because as subjective as those "1-10 pain scale charts" are, physical pain can be measured, verified and more importantly denotes an underlying condition.    

Those charts actually exist because the pain cannot be measured, or verified. It's all subjective--what you say is an 8 might be a 5 to somebody else, etc. There is no "pain unit", no discreet measuring system. There is no way to objectively quantify pain.

 

 

Well to be fair it's my understanding that it is indeed possible, albeit extremely impractical to measure the activity in the pain centers of someone's brain.  And although you are technically correct in saying that what I consider to be a nine, you might call a seven, or even a three, physical pain does cause physical reactions that can indeed be verified ... for instance, it's fairly difficult to walk into a clinic (that is doing their due diligence and isn't simply a RX Mill) and walk out with pain meds simply by pointing at the chart and claiming a ten.

 

None of those physiological signs correlate directly; different people with the exact same symptoms can show different rates of acitivity in the "pain sensors", for example. A doctor or hospital judges your pain the same way you would somebody else, by looking for the signs of distress and emotional reaction, checking your physical symptoms to see if something could be causing the pain you claim, etc. They tend to be very cautious because there are laws about controlled substances; in general they will always err on the side of not giving you controlled drugs because of this.

 

There really is absolutely no way to objectively measure pain. They're working on it, but it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Perhaps ... either way I think I'll revisit my response to sparklecat.

 

 

*EDITED QUOTE*

 

 

 

I think a large part of the issue is that by its very nature "phychological trauma" is subjective at best; I'm waiting for someone to provide me with an actual method to measure the "phychological trauma" that can be applied across the board to all groups, both those favored by the SJWs as well as those that aren't.

So rather like with physical pain, then?

 

 

Not really because as subjective as those "1-10 pain scale charts" are, physical pain may can be it can be measured, verified and more importantly denotes an underlying condition.

 

 

There .... now let's talk about the supposed "phychological trauma" instead.

[Longknife]

And yet sympathetic villains who are no less villainous for their tragic orgins are a thing that exist. Jon Irenicus, for example; he's presented with a sympathetic, even tragic, backstory but his nature as an evil villain is never questioned. Creating a character with a sympathetic PoV can be as much about manipulating the readers as anything else; controlling their emotional reactions, subverting their expectations to heighten drama, all of these things and more can go into it.

 

Understanding and manipulating tropes like these, in a rational and logical way that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones personal opinions and ideas, is a powerful tool for any author.

 

 

I don't quite see how citing completely different people with completely different writing styles furthers this discussion. They're mere examples that show it can happen, which I never said it couldn't. I never even said "Obsidian agrees with the philosophy of Caesar's Legion because they wrote it."

 

I expressed surprise at how quickly they went against a philosophy they've actively opted to explore at least thrice in a row now, and one that Avellone has openly expressed admiration and approval for. (Ulysses) I never even said "they've opted to do this, so that's how they think." I said "they've opted to explore this, so I kinda expected a bit more reflection on the topic before making a decision."

 

 

I gotta say I just feel like I'm being strawman'ed really hard right now and like my claims got exaggerated to lengths they were never even close to. :U

[McMayhem]

 

You seem to be advocating the "death of the author" concept, which I've always personally found insulting and demeaning to authors.

 

 

If I've understood this correctly, you seem to have this confused.

 

Death of the author is advocacy to disassociate the author from the creation, which I'm doing the opposite of.

 

I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. Although, I would disagree that painting certain characters in a neutral light would suggest that MCA has personal ties to those moral standards. He usually depicts his worlds in such a way that defies the concept of concrete morality. IE: You are pure evil! I am pure good! 

 

He humanizes his characters even when they are the perceived "villains." That's why his games tend to have more of a focus on "reputation" than "morality." The word morality is often misused in RPGs to define what people think of you. In the end, that's all it really is. 

 

That being said, it would be hypocritical for me to interject what I believe MCA's beliefs are on this matter. However, from the conversations I've had with him, he's always come off as a well rounded, polite individual.

[AgreedSA]

I feel it's important for folks who don't feel like the OP to make that clear without being combative about it. I disagree with you, dude. I do not feel like that. Feminism has been a tremendous net positive in every facet of life except "can we still do everything our egos want us to, like big violent idiots?"

[evensong]

Also Longknife has got it right. The Barthes essay argues for the interpretation of texts without considering the authorial context (hence the "death"). It's true, it's on Wikipedia:

 

"Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated."

[McMayhem]

 

And yet sympathetic villains who are no less villainous for their tragic orgins are a thing that exist. Jon Irenicus, for example; he's presented with a sympathetic, even tragic, backstory but his nature as an evil villain is never questioned. Creating a character with a sympathetic PoV can be as much about manipulating the readers as anything else; controlling their emotional reactions, subverting their expectations to heighten drama, all of these things and more can go into it.

 

Understanding and manipulating tropes like these, in a rational and logical way that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones personal opinions and ideas, is a powerful tool for any author.

 

 

I don't quite see how citing completely different people with completely different writing styles furthers this discussion. They're mere examples that show it can happen, which I never said it couldn't. I never even said "Obsidian agrees with the philosophy of Caesar's Legion because they wrote it."

 

I expressed surprise at how quickly they went against a philosophy they've actively opted to explore at least thrice in a row now, and one that Avellone has openly expressed admiration and approval for. (Ulysses) I never even said "they've opted to do this, so that's how they think." I said "they've opted to explore this, so I kinda expected a bit more reflection on the topic before making a decision."

 

 

I gotta say I just feel like I'm being strawman'ed really hard right now and like my claims got exaggerated to lengths they were never even close to. :U

 

You very well may be. These discussions so often deteriorate into that kind of nastiness. 

 

As to your surprise, I think a lot of people (mainly here on the forums) lack an understanding of just how political business politics can be. It's very possible that Avellone didn't have a chance to weigh in on the decision, or that he was against it but just let it happen. He's not constantly pulling all the strings where decision making is concerned. 

[Detruncate]

 

 

 

A big problem right now is this societal shift of not taking personal accountability or responsibility for anything, which leads to finger pointing and excuses like limericks such as this causing "psychological trauma"

 

When did people become so soft?

 

 

I will admit I find it a tad odd and surprising to see that Obsidian chose to censor the limerick, seeing as how this is the company that produced Caesar's Legion and Durance. Both of them preach about how conflict or "fires" can make you stronger while burning away the weak and unworthy. With stories like that, you think they'd have a mentality of how the world is harsh and you need to be willing to face that some people can and will offend you, but you need to be able to carry on.

 

  But again I'm a realist and I'm sure this was a decision made (decision to even ask Firedorn) moreso in the interest of marketing. Companies are notorious for being a place for ideologies to die.

 

Do you find it a tad bit odd that Christian Bale is not actually Batman or a serial killer?

 

 

 

I find that analogy a little weak.

He played a part that was handed to him. Obsidian wrote and constructed those things themselves. You're better at writing about concepts you're passionate about, so it's odd to see writings about "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" on one hand and then a desire to protect someone's feelers in the next. As I said though, the realist answer is of course that marketing would never allow such potential drama like that limerick existing post-complaint.

 

I believe OddEgg's only point, allegorically put, was that Durance doesn't define or limit the capacities of Obsidian's creations in any way.

 

I am curious however by your implication Longknife. Apologies if I am misconstruing or incorrect. Is Durance's overall philosophy reflective of his author's being? I don't believe Durance is any more representative of their thoughts than I do Thaos or Kana. I will agree that there's an undeniable connection between creator and creation. However, it isn't a one to one representation.

 

As to regards of better marketing... possibly? Probably? It definitely strikes me as having merit.

[Stun]

ENCHANT HATS WHY CAN I NOT?

ENCHANT HATS WHY CAN I NOT?

WHY CANT I ENCHANT THEM?

WHY CANT I ENCHANT THEM?

HATS ENCHANT CAN I WHY NOT????

Because enchanting hats would be unfair

Hats are a thing that Godlikes can't wear

Would imbalance the game

A whole race rendered lame

Unless they could enchant their hair.

[Mungri]

 

ENCHANT HATS WHY CAN I NOT?ENCHANT HATS WHY CAN I NOT?WHY CANT I ENCHANT THEM?WHY CANT I ENCHANT THEM?HATS ENCHANT CAN I WHY NOT????

Because enchanting hats would be unfairHats are a thing that Godlikes can't wearWould imbalance the gameA whole race rendered lameUnless they could enchant their hair.

Yes because putting +2 int on my hat is better than being a moon godlike.

 

No.

[Katarack21]

Also Longknife has got it right. The Barthes essay argues for the interpretation of texts without considering the authorial context (hence the "death"). It's true, it's on Wikipedia:

 

"Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated."

Yes, exactly as I said: divorcing the author from the meaning and intent of his work, not divorcing the author from all association and influence on the work. If you feel that this blue window shade put in this room in this scene indicates the people in this scene are shallow and cold, then regardless of what the author actually intended the "death of the author" says that it's a perfectly valid interpretation; the authors intention doesn't matter. It doesn't completely divorce the author from all impact on the work they created; it never really has, it just allows for each individual to create "perfectly valid" interpretations of it.

[Longknife]

You very well may be. These discussions so often deteriorate into that kind of nastiness. 

 

As to your surprise, I think a lot of people (mainly here on the forums) lack an understanding of just how political business politics can be. It's very possible that Avellone didn't have a chance to weigh in on the decision, or that he was against it but just let it happen. He's not constantly pulling all the strings where decision making is concerned. 

 

 

Like I said before, I have no doubt the marketing department (or employees with a sense for marketing, PR and the like) were the ones to jump on this and say "oh hell yeah we need to try and change it," and I don't really expect that Avellone for example would be someone who's consulted on such an issue. In a realist sense, this is just how companies work and I'd expect every other game developer to react similarly.

 

  My only surprise was learning the date that the limerick was called to the attention of Sawyer, and how quickly that manifested into the change. It was like no reflection given, it was a cut-and-dry "change that ASAP," which I find slightly surprising. Others are free to say it's not surprising at all or that I'm an idiot for being surprised, but yeah when I reflect on it it's just kinda funny to me.

 

EDIT: Actually it seems I had the date confused with another. Looks like there was a decent gap between when Obsidian got their attention called to it and when the change was made.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Longknife

[Katarack21]

 

And yet sympathetic villains who are no less villainous for their tragic orgins are a thing that exist. Jon Irenicus, for example; he's presented with a sympathetic, even tragic, backstory but his nature as an evil villain is never questioned. Creating a character with a sympathetic PoV can be as much about manipulating the readers as anything else; controlling their emotional reactions, subverting their expectations to heighten drama, all of these things and more can go into it.

 

Understanding and manipulating tropes like these, in a rational and logical way that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones personal opinions and ideas, is a powerful tool for any author.

 

 

I don't quite see how citing completely different people with completely different writing styles furthers this discussion. They're mere examples that show it can happen, which I never said it couldn't. I never even said "Obsidian agrees with the philosophy of Caesar's Legion because they wrote it."

 

I expressed surprise at how quickly they went against a philosophy they've actively opted to explore at least thrice in a row now, and one that Avellone has openly expressed admiration and approval for. (Ulysses) I never even said "they've opted to do this, so that's how they think." I said "they've opted to explore this, so I kinda expected a bit more reflection on the topic before making a decision."

 

 

I gotta say I just feel like I'm being strawman'ed really hard right now and like my claims got exaggerated to lengths they were never even close to. :U

 

Because this isn't a discussion about Chris Avellone; this is a discussion about writing and authorship using Chris Avellone as one example. At least that's how I've been rolling with it. What I was pointing out is that simply having a character who advocates a particular philosophy doesn't indicate anything about the author of that character. The author may not even know anything about that philosophy and may only have done it to create flavor, as an example. The author may simple be interested in it, and created a character who follows it as a way to explore themes and ideas they find interesting without any personal opinion (this is one I think Chris Avellone often does). In an RPG like this it's often simply a way to create a character who is unique and different from other characters.

 

My point is that it doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views. opinions, or beliefs of the author. An authors story is not a mirror, directly reflecting everything the author is. It's a creation that the author controls; therefore it can reflect the author directly or it can simply be things he chose for any of a number of ulterior motives.

 

 

[evensong]

Heh - I was surprised when I saw it in the game, because Obsidian are usually pretty progressive when it comes to questions about sexuality and gender. I was thus not surprised when they removed it after virtually no pressure at all, and I pretty much expected their explanation to be what it was too - I actually think it simply slipped past them. I'm also guessing it didn't require much reflection in that moment because Sawyer already has an opinion about that kind of stuff.

[Mungri]

Heh - I was surprised when I saw it in the game, because Obsidian are usually pretty progressive when it comes to questions about sexuality and gender. I was thus not surprised when they removed it after virtually no pressure at all, and I pretty much expected their explanation to be what it was too - I actually think it simply slipped past them. I'm also guessing it didn't require much reflection in that moment because Sawyer already has an opinion about that kind of stuff.

WILL JOSH SAWYER MARRY ME?

[evensong]

 

Also Longknife has got it right. The Barthes essay argues for the interpretation of texts without considering the authorial context (hence the "death"). It's true, it's on Wikipedia:

"Barthes's essay argues against traditional literary criticism's practice of incorporating the intentions and biographical context of an author in an interpretation of a text, and instead argues that writing and creator are unrelated."

 

Yes, exactly as I said: divorcing the author from the meaning and intent of his work, not divorcing the author from all association and influence on the work. If you feel that this blue window shade put in this room in this scene indicates the people in this scene are shallow and cold, then regardless of what the author actually intended the "death of the author" says that it's a perfectly valid interpretation; the authors intention doesn't matter. It doesn't completely divorce the author from all impact on the work they created; it never really has, it just allows for each individual to create "perfectly valid" interpretations of it.

Man, I have straight up misunderstood this essay for years. Seriously, thank you! I get it now.

[Longknife]

My point is that it doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views. opinions, or beliefs of the author. An authors story is not a mirror, directly reflecting everything the author is. It's a creation that the author controls; therefore it can reflect the author directly or it can simply be things he chose for any of a number of ulterior motives.

 

My point is I never said it does as a rule. I said it makes sense, and I said there's a friggin' interview with Avellone where he directly states agreeing with Ulysses on multiple fronts. Even that is besides the point, because again, I never said it does, hence why I said "I feel strawman'ed."

 

 

 

Yes, exactly as I said: divorcing the author from the meaning and intent of his work, not divorcing the author from all association and influence on the work. If you feel that this blue window shade put in this room in this scene indicates the people in this scene are shallow and cold, then regardless of what the author actually intended the "death of the author" says that it's a perfectly valid interpretation; the authors intention doesn't matter. It doesn't completely divorce the author from all impact on the work they created; it never really has, it just allows for each individual to create "perfectly valid" interpretations of it.

 

 

You find this insulting and demeaning to the author when other people's interpretations are given validity? This is a cornerstone of what art is about. I agree the author's intention is valuable and should be asked for, but the author's intent does not invalidate any other meanings or interpretations one might carry from a story.

Edited April 9, 2015 by Longknife

[Katarack21]

 

My point is that it doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views. opinions, or beliefs of the author. An authors story is not a mirror, directly reflecting everything the author is. It's a creation that the author controls; therefore it can reflect the author directly or it can simply be things he chose for any of a number of ulterior motives.

 

My point is I never said it does as a rule. I said it makes sense, and I said there's a friggin' interview with Avellone where he directly states agreeing with Ulysses on multiple fronts. Even that is besides the point, because again, I never said it does, hence why I said "I feel strawman'ed."

 

Well I'm sorry that you feel like that. You said directly that you are surprised that they reacted in such a way because you would expect, based on their stories and characters that they have written, that they would think and behave differently. All I was trying to do was enter into a debate and argument based on that statement.

 

[Longknife]

 

 

My point is that it doesn't directly reflect the thoughts, ideas, views. opinions, or beliefs of the author. An authors story is not a mirror, directly reflecting everything the author is. It's a creation that the author controls; therefore it can reflect the author directly or it can simply be things he chose for any of a number of ulterior motives.

 

My point is I never said it does as a rule. I said it makes sense, and I said there's a friggin' interview with Avellone where he directly states agreeing with Ulysses on multiple fronts. Even that is besides the point, because again, I never said it does, hence why I said "I feel strawman'ed."

 

Well I'm sorry that you feel like that. You said directly that you are surprised that they reacted in such a way because you would expect, based on their stories and characters that they have written, that they would think and behave differently. All I was trying to do was enter into a debate and argument based on that statement.

 

 

 

What debate dude? xD

 

I said "it was a little surprising to me cause" and I got like 4 people jumping on me for it, making hyperbolized responses like "DO U THINK CHRISTIAN BALE KILLS PEOPLE?"

 

This is a stupid meaningless internet "debate" where people want to prove their right for absolutely no reason at all, made especially annoying by the fact it's repeatedly been stepped over that I state "Avellone has gone on record saying he agrees with Ulysses' philosophies on several things" as the claim "you're assuming he agrees with all characters he writes" when it's like wtf no, I'm a broken record here that's really sick of being strawman'ed for the sake of a meaningless "debate" that accomplishes nothing at all.

[Kimuji]

Well I think it is time to get to the point angry people, you have to forgive me but I still don't get what are the expectations here. So what's the next step? Make a list of Obsidians developpers and speculate on their political opinions? Pitchforks, torches and stuff?

Edited April 9, 2015 by Kimuji

[Longknife]

Well I think it is time to get to the point angry people, you have to forgive me but I still don't get what are the expectations here. So what's the next step? Make list of Obsidians developpers and speculate on their political opinions? Pitchforks, torches and stuff?

 

 

I'm wondering the same cause wtf all I wanted to do was make a simple statement and nothing more and I feel like people are trying to assign me to a side or something based on that alone.

[evensong]

I like to imagine J.E. Sawyer's political opinions to be much like a warm blanket on a cold winter day.

[McMayhem]

 

Well I think it is time to get to the point angry people, you have to forgive me but I still don't get what are the expectations here. So what's the next step? Make list of Obsidians developpers and speculate on their political opinions? Pitchforks, torches and stuff?

 

 

I'm wondering the same cause wtf all I wanted to do was make a simple statement and nothing more and I feel like people are trying to assign me to a side or something based on that alone.

 

THAAAANK YOU

 

This happens to me all the time and it is infuriating.

 

That being said. Welcome to the lovely social discourse that is internet discussions  

[evensong]

Chris Avellone's, more like an interesting and complex main course you can't quite figure out the contents of.