Hikmat on the Ethics of Individualism in RPGs
The text of
two of Hikmat's
posts on Ethics in RPGs (this should probably be required reading; in fact,
I'd like her as our Diplomat to post a link to *everything* she posts on the
Ubi.Com forums, when she posts it):
In which the author attempts to cast the conflict as an ethical dilemma, to
provide insight to the reader.
The real issue is hidden behind
allegations and name calling, whether it be carebears or 1337 d00ds. The
stereotypes are, in the end, caricatures which no one actually is. I've never
seen someone say "u r pwned." Nor have I ever seen someone say "Forsooth, fair
sir, what dost thou doest!? I seeth a dagger in thy hand, and beseech thee to
stay it!"
However, the caricatures aside, there is a disagreement on how
Shadowbane should be played. It doesn't have to do with whether killing R3s or
killing R2s is ganking. It doesn't have to do with speaking in Shakesperian
English. I'd argue it doesn't have to do with ARAC, or roleplay, or any of the
virtues or sins that are tossed around these boards. I think it has to do with
something else entirely: whom you're trying to entertain.
Take, for an
example, PvP. Let's say someone is sitting in their city, chatting with a friend
OOCly over tells. They're playing your most hated enemy. That person really
doesn't want to PvP, in fact, is in the midst of moving a cat off the desk. You
can attack them and easily kill them, before the mouse is back in hand. If you
knew all this, would you attack?
The question is whether your enjoyment
considers the enjoyment of others. You can go and kill people in a way that is
decidedly a total haze for them. That is, I think, what people mean by
'ganking.' It's attacking characters that have no chance. There is no possible
fun in it for them. You have a good time -- at their expense.
Take, for
example, a fellow player of mine, who will go unnamed. Once, he jumped a few
Tribunal in the desert, an R5 and two R3s. He killed one of the R3s, and took
something very valuable they happened to be carrying. Being Tribunal, and his
being able to sneak, they were quite unable to find him. He played cat and mouse
for a while, and their frustration grew. So, ICly, so the encounter could be fun
for them as well, he challenged the R5 to a duel. He lost. Leaving the Tribunal
angry and frustrated was not something he wanted to do -- he wanted them to have
fun too. Take, in contrast, Haunted descending on your R2 hunting party and
killing you in a few moments. They're not concerned with whether you had fun --
although some might enjoy it, as a reminder of the danger of the game, many do
not, and Haunted certainly doesn't care if you do.
You can argue that
pulling punches is carebearish. You can argue that playing without consideration
about the other person's wants is d00dish. These sorts of ethical disparities
are present in many aspects of our lives, such as the distinction between
conservatism and liberalism in the U.S. They boil down to the distinction of
consideration of community and consideration of the individual. Are you playing
this game for yourself, or for everyone?
in the end, all of this
RP-nonRP, ARAC-lore conflict comes down to two approximate groups (there are
people inbetween, of course) trying to establish a shared morality. One side is
communal, the other individualistic. Each will try to establish it as the one
that rules the server. The question is, which side, if any, will you take?
--------------------
Quote:
But the fact is, that they knew
what was fun for them might not of been fun for us.
I don't
think communalism necessitates never doing something the other party doesn't
want. That is a separate approach to the problem, one which has been in MUSHes
for some time. I think the term usually bandied about is "consensual roleplay."
That is, you can't act against another character without their consent.
For a variety of reasons, purely consensual roleplay is untenable. A
friend of mine once wrote a treatise(1) on the matter, in an attempt to
construct a system that could hopefully capture the spectrum of playing styles.
The conflict between consensual and non-consensual RP can also be reduced to an
ethical dilemma, with a simple spectrum. The extremes of the spectrum (outside
of a game) are the Spectator, who cannot act, and can only observe, and the
Solipist, who has complete control over everything that occurs. The first reads
a screenplay, while the second writes it. Generally, people play these games for
neither. Instead, they want some degree of control (whom you attack), while
having many events outside their control (what races other players play).
Of course, these are "Multiplayer" games, and so you can't have 1000
screenwriters on at once. At some point, there are conflicting desires for what
happens in-game. On one hand, you could say that you didn't consent to being
attacked; on the other, LoO could say they didn't consent to jeapordize their RP
by having to treat an obvious foe peacefully. These sorts of contradictory
desires prevent pure consent from being feasible. Note, for example, how while
there seems to be a common opinion that killing R2s is ganking, there's also a
common opinion that R5s are generally fair game? These are the sorts of
guidelines that emerge, trying to codify what people can agree on as a
compromise between the competing desires of action and control.
(1) I
think the most interesting part is Appendix C: Dice.