Errapel's Circle

Stories and games

2011-03-17T09:14:00.000Z

I recently got a new RPG (Role-Playing-Game) and have spent the past week or so enjoying it. It's from one of those game developers that make an attempt to work in a coherent narrative, convincing characterisation and above all a good story. This doesn't always work and there are occasions when this falls down badly, but it's always nice to see an attempt.

This lead me to consider games as an art-form, an under-appreciated medium for story-telling. There are a variety of such games out there, from the strictly linear (you're basically only there to move the protagonist around, take over during combat and watch as the story unfolds), to the extensively open-ended (where you choose the character, their personality, background, motives, actions and get a big amount of control over how and in what way the story progresses). I'm less of a fan of the first version, I think other mediums can explore a linear narrative far more easily, for me a game like that needs to have excellent game play as well as story, otherwise I've just spent 12+ hours watching a story unfold that could have been done in less than 2 in a film (or however long it would have taken me to read it in a book). But the second form has a potential that as far as I know is unrivalled in any other medium (save perhaps those 'choose your own adventure' books, but this is far more extensive).

A good story can immerse you in the world of that story, it can make you identify with characters or even project onto them, so that you feel their emotions and experience the events as/with them. I think games provide a very convincing forum for this. After all you aren't just passively watching a story unfold, you must take control, you ARE the hero. You are the one who changes the world. In many such games character customisation is pretty extensive, you can change their features, hair colour/style, eye colour, class, race and talents. You can create a character that looks just like you, or someone you know, or your own created character. You can explore a world as them, learn about a different world, make choices that effect that world. The sort of games I'm talking about here are ones like the Elder Scrolls series, Fallout 3, the Dragon Age games, maybe the Mass Effect games. None get it perfect of course, but all revolve around the idea that YOU are the one driving the story, it's up to you to find interesting things to do, places to go, treasure to find, worlds to save.

Instead of a film that can (usually) only go one way, you have a medium in which a large number of combinations are present. And all can have an effect on the game world, and even on you. Take an example from Dragon Age (origins): You have a dispute between elves and werewolves, you only need one faction to side with you. Do you support the elves and wipe out the werewolves? Do you support the werewolves and wipe out the elves? Do you mediate the dispute to create a peaceful solution? Whatever you choose will determine who is there to help you later in the game. Not to mention you are controlling the story, are you a good, compassionate person who will go out of their way to help people? Or a ruthless dispassionate individual for whom the end justifies the means? In these games you have these options, and what you decide to say and do effects how the story unfolds and how other characters relate to yours.

A well designed game can tell a story in a way no other medium can: it can create a protagonist in whom you are personally invested, characters you can get to know (or flat out ignore), the ability to alter and control how the story unfolds, and ultimately how it ends. Games are obviously not to everyone's tastes, but I honestly feel they are an interesting and under-explored medium for storytelling.

Why Atheists are often greeted with hostility.

2011-03-08T21:48:00.004Z

An angry row recently erupted on a message board I enjoy. For better or worse the topic of faith arose, and it lead me to ponder why many people respond with such hostility when encountering Atheists.

I think part of the problem is that a small minority of Atheists are too forceful about it, they can become just as evangelical, just as eager to proselytise, as the religious fanatics they abhor. Of course even the most mild-mannered of atheists can make some believes uncomfortable, the fact that someone can live without faith in a divine being, can be deeply unsettling for some. But when it comes to the more militant atheists, who act as if only delusional fools and gullible idiots believe in a divine being, well it can ruffle some feathers. Some people feel their faith is in integral part of them, as strong a part of their identity as their gender, race or nationality might be. To have someone come out and say that such a vital component of your identity makes you inferior or stupid, or that it's based on a lie, it can be hurtful. Of course people of faith who are mature (and presumably have a stable faith) can brush off such criticisms, and most mature atheists are able to go about their lives without attacking and belittling others for believing something they don't. The problem is the more vocal minority is what people remember, what people experience, and they set the example that people come to expect.

People choose their beliefs, or lack of them, because they make sense to them. People choose their religion (if they did choose it) because, generally, they feel it's the best religion for them. When something seems so self evident as the rightness of your faith (or lack of it), it can be hard to understand why someone would choose a different path. Why someone would come to a different conclusion than you, even while presented with the exact same facts.

Atheists make (or can make) believes uncomfortable, because their existence demonstrates how a person can live quite happily, quite morally, without the guiding tenants of a faith. Their presence can also raise the question of "What if?" in a believer's mind. "What if they're right?" "What if there really is no God/s?" "What if I'm wrong?" "What if this really is it?" "What if there is nothing more to the world than what we see?" For many these questions can be deeply unsettling, or even downright frightening. Consider the question of death for example: What if there is no life after death? What if you just die, cease to exist? What if you'll never see your loved ones again? Aside from many other things, faith gives comfort, that there is something better, something greater, in this world. The presence of an Atheist can shake that faith, leaving one with deeply uncomfortable questions.

This is not to say that it is right to treat Atheists with hostility. Only that, when the urge arises, we should consider exactly why we feel that way. More often than not it is down to our own insecurities, rather than any slight on the part of the Atheist. And any Atheist that feels they need to validate and legitimise their own views by belittling those of others, really needs to do some growing up. (And thus we should not be upset by them, but smile and nod and wish them well).

When we feel upset or threatened, we should always remember to examine our emotions, and ask ourselves why we feel the way we do. Otherwise we risk hurting those who really did not deserve it, a very unhappy outcome for all concerned.

Taking advantage

2010-04-21T10:55:00.003+01:00

I recently saw the following article featured on Witchvox's 'Wren's nest', where news stories of interest to the Pagan community are posted:

http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_ca11a396-60b3-5ebd-8bd7-ac539d5c2030.html

I read a lot of comments about there being two sides to everything, etc... But what I noticed most was what I term 'victim blaming'. Comments along the lines of "Well this is why you shouldn't let under 18s in, because they aren't mature enough for grown up ritual." Or asking why the girls would stay for these 'cleansing rituals' (with the basic implication that they either wanted it or were stupid). And this attitude bugs me. So it's time for a rant.

Without knowing the people involved or the exact situation I can't come to any firm conclusions, but I will say this:

There are individuals within our community (or claiming to be) who can and do take advantage (emotionally, financially or sexually) of the people under their authority. Any reputable group will do its best to weed out and shun (and where appropriate report to relevant authorities) people like this. But predators can slip through the net. Not to mention there is nothing to stop someone claiming to be a 'high priest' and offering to 'initiate' vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have any actual training or experience.

Also, bare in mind that while it may seem odd to us that a girl would not report an assault and even continue to go to the group, the sort of individual who might take advantage of a vulnerable young woman is often the sort of person who is very good at manipulating people. A lot of victims of sexual assault can go into denial, or simply not recognise what has happened to them. And an abuser is certainly not above using threats of violence to keep their victim quiet, or even make their victim believe it was their fault or nothing happened.

These are things we should all remember, and remain vigilant. Sure WE know that someone who offers to initiate you the day you meet them is probably not trustworthy. Sure WE know that no reputable group will take someone under 18. Sure WE know how a reputable group is supposed to act. But then WE have been in this community for a long while, we're familiar with the protocol. An outsider, especially a naive or vulnerable young person, may know none of this.

Do not allow us to become complacent, or worse start to victim blame. Otherwise we're no better than the individuals within the Catholic Church who stood by while horrific abuses were perpetrated.

(And yes I realise this has become a bit tangential, the case in this news article could be a large number of things, and without knowing the situation or people involved I can't make a judgement on what happened. I just felt the above needed to be said.)

Balancing the scales

2010-04-09T11:51:00.004+01:00

Most religions, and nearly all systems of magic, have a control mechanism to keep people from transgressing the group's moral rules. In Christianity this would be the concept of Hell, that someone who does bad things will be punished for them after death. Many neo-Pagans have a concept of Karma that states that what a person does will rebound on them (in Wicca's case, it is believed to come back with momentum). One thing I encountered a lot of while exploring magic, was this rather bizarre idea that if you misused your power (i.e. went round hurting people) it would be taken away from you. I was also often told that people claiming to be both powerful and bad were lying, because of the afore mentioned rule. At the time I believed this. Now I'm really not so sure.

The point is that the world is patently NOT fair, bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad things, and it very rarely seems to balance out. I'm given to understand that the origional concept of Karma states that it's the cumulation of the deeds in all your lives that will balance, so in any individual life it may seem very unbalanced, this makes somewhat more sense to me. But I'm not convinced there really is any rhyme or reason behind how things work.

Perhaps this is because I honestly don't see any reason why things SHOULD balance, other than my desire that they would. Sure I can see how actions have consequences, but I see no reason why these consequences should conform to our belief that things will balance out morally.

But back to my origional topic, and why I think all these systems of 'morality' are flawed. Because it works by scaring or rewarding, it's carrot or stick. Sounds fine, but if you look back to an earlier post of mine on virtue, virtue is only virtue if it was a choice. Not doing something bad because you're afraid you'll be punished, that's not virtue, it's fear. Doing something good because you think you'll be rewarded, is also not virtue. The result is the same of course, and since I doubt a large enough proportion of the population can be convinced to do good for good's sake, then I do feel these systems have a place in our world. But not for me.

True virtue

2009-10-04T18:08:00.003+01:00

It's a concept I've been exploring a lot recently, what is virtue? The Romans took the question so far that they personified many virtues (a list of Roman virtues found here: http://www.religioromana.net/virtues.htm ).

Is a person virtuous simply by doing good things? Or by refraining from doing bad things? Is the motive behind an act, as important as the act itself? In my experience the large number of humans tend to inhabit a sort of neutral middle-ground between 'good' and 'evil' (both abstract concepts I'll explore later), generally following the path of least resistance. So most people will do good things if it's easy, and most will do relatively bad things if it's the easiest way. It generally takes a great strength of will do actually break free of this. To be truly virtuous or wicked then actually requires a choice. A conscious decision. And generally speaking to be truly virtuous or wicked requires a great deal of effort. For example it's fairly easy to drop a few coins in a charity box when you walk passed, but takes much more effort to see a cause, research it, then join the organisation, setting aside your time, money and energy towards forwarding that cause.

So virtue, I would argue, is only virtue if you have a choice. To decide that you wish to do something good, to make a donation to a charity (for example), is virtuous. But if you had no say in the matter, and, for example, the money was simply taken from your account each month without your consent, that would not make you virtuous, since the thing would be done whether you wished it to be or not.

This leaves open the question however, 'What if there are truly good/evil people out there, who do good/evil unthinkingly and automatically?' I would argue that if a person did exist, who did good/evil things because they were naturally a good/evil person, and couldn't actually do any different, that perhaps this might not class as true virtue or wickedness at all. We do not blame the lion for pouncing on (and killing) it's pray, it does what it needs to do to survive, following it's nature. Perhaps the aforementioned hypothetical being should be classed in a similar way as most animals are. As simply following their nature.

Of course the good or evil is still done, so the net result is the same whether an individual had a choice in the matter or not. So it all comes back to the question: Does the motivation behind an act, mean more than the act itself? I would argue that it does. If you kill someone because they were going to kill you if you didn't, it is legally classed as self defence, and thus you are unlikely to be jailed for it. If you kill them because you didn't like the t-shirt they were wearing, you are clearly insane and will probably be locked in a mental hospital for a long while. If you kill a person because they were in your way or you didn't like the colour of their skin, it's classed as murder and you will likely be jailed for it. In all three examples the net result is the same, a dead person. And yet few would argue that the situations were the same. Self defence is a very different thing to murder, so clearly one's motivation is just as important as the result.

The nature of balance

2009-10-03T18:09:00.003+01:00

"The essence of balance is detachment.
To embrace a cause, to grow fond or spiteful, is to lose one's balance,
After which no action can be trusted.
Our burden is not for the dependant of spirit. "
-Mayar, Third Keeper.

That was a quote, from a cut-scene of a computer game (Thief: The Dark Project), I try to avoid quoting computer games when trying to make a point, but in this case I'll gladly make an exception. This is because it so aptly sums up the nature of balance. It's so often forgotten in debate and argument. If asked, most people would say they are aware that emotion can cloud judgement, and that once you become passionate about a subject, it is often hard to think objectively. But few really internalise this message.

It's something I've only recently come to terms with myself. There are many emotive topics on which I have strong views. I also enjoy debating (you might notice from some of the topics I choose to blog about). One thing I often noticed when debating was that most people (I'm ashamed to say, myself included) would often only look at evidence that supported their own position, and if looking at evidence that refutes that position, do so only in a way that looks for fault. I learnt then that in order to be able to fully understand a debate, one must look, objectively, at both sides, no matter how strongly one may disagree with one side.

Because, as my opening quote so aptly states, once you embrace a cause (either in favour or in opposition), you lose your balance. Once you lose your balance all action is to a certain degree suspect. Of course emotion is an important factor when making moral decisions, but it should never be allowed to fully over take logic and reason. It is always worth considering one's motives when debating or acting.

This is why I now try to avoid debating on topics I feel strongly about, because I know that the strength of my feeling is very likely to cloud my judgement, and it takes a great strength of will for me to force myself to examine, objectively, the evidence supporting both sides.

Balance is an ideal, and thus may never be fully achievable (or perhaps even desirable), but our balance, or lack of it, is always worth taking into consideration, whenever we make a choice.

'Honesty is the best policy'

2009-10-03T17:39:00.003+01:00

Honesty is an important concept, a shared sense of honesty and fairness is what allows us to function as a society. We must cooperate in order to survive, and yet cooperation means that some can take more than they give. In our attempts to balance the scales, 'honesty' is a crucial concept.

However I take issue with the often quoted phrase 'honesty is the best policy', because often it isn't. Many people have gained financially, socially or politically by careful use of dishonesty. Provided you don't get caught dishonesty would seem to be the best policy.

A short while ago I went to my local shop, and bought a can of cherry coke (price 55p). I didn't have any change, so I handed the cashier a £20 note. He hands me my change; several notes and some coins. I walk out of the shop with my can. I then notice that instead of £15 in notes and £4.45 in change I found I had £25 in notes and £4.45 in change. Clearly the cashier had given me a £20 note instead of a £10 note. I was out of the shop and half way down the street. The cashier had clearly not noticed his mistake. I could be reasonably sure I had 'got away' with a profit of £10.

So I was posed the moral problem: I gained nothing by going back and telling the cashier of his mistake. I gained £10 if I didn't. I almost kept on walking. Then I remembered my days working at a charity shop, and the stories my friends who worked in retail told. If the till is down the cashier is often blamed, might even be accused of dishonesty. I didn't know the cashier, he was clearly new. But I just couldn't face the idea that he, a person I'd never met before, would get in trouble for something I could so easily correct. So I walked straight back to the shop and told the poor man, who was clearly very embarrassed at the mistake, and very grateful I'd been honest.

Was this true honesty? Did I do the right thing? And just as importantly, did I do the right thing for the right reason? Is doing the right thing, because you know you'll feel guilty if you don't, true honesty? And does it actually matter why I did it? When it comes down to it, I know in my heart I turned round and sorted out the mistake, because I felt it was the right thing to do, and there was no way in all conscience I could do otherwise. Am I a bad person for even considering walking home with the money? Or is a virtue only virtuous if it holds fast against temptation?

Irritating elders

2009-02-09T20:37:00.003Z

There's a saying, 'Respect your elders', I'm not entirely sure why. Simply being older does not make an individual wiser. I was chided on some message board by an older woman, (of twenty years experience, a high priestess of her own coven of course), because I publicly stated how much I disproved of proselytising. She went on at length about why JWs and Morons, I'm sorry I meant Mormons, go door to door. Yes I know this, but it makes it no less irritating, and no less objectionable. Just because they have a right to their beliefs does not mean I'm not entitled to disapprove of the practise. Of course what annoys me most about the whole affair is the fact that she seems to be of the opinion that because she is older and more experienced she is automatically right, and everyone else is a foolish child to whom she is giving the benefit of her immense wisdom. And you can't argue, because that just proves you ARE just some foolish child.

I just hope that when I am old enough to earn the title of elder, I may actually retain some degree of modesty. I hate to think I'll become more of an obnoxious know it all than I am already.

Of course in all other respects she's a very nice woman, whom I respect greatly. It just frustrates me that this attitude is so prevelent.

Spring follows winter

2009-02-09T20:28:00.003Z

*Sigh* he's gone. He went Monday, it's a shame, and it hurts, but it's probably for the best. It hurts like hell, but what else am I to do? It feels like I'll never be happy again, but then, in the depths of winter it sometimes feels like spring will never return. But it always does, spring follows winter, summer follows spring. And of course day follows night, so I suppose happiness can plausibly follow sorrow.

In other news I've already done the first two weeks' worth of work for 'Culture, identity and power in the Roman empire', it's quite fascinating, even if it is only the introduction. It's slightly concerning that it took me two days to do two weeks' worth of work, but I'm sure it's only because this is the introductory bit, maybe the later bits will be more intensive. I've also done the first weeks' worth for Latin, I'd never imagined grammatical terms could be so dull. I'm sure once I actually get onto learning the language it will get far more interesting.

I am Lozen

2008-06-13T15:33:00.001+01:00

I took the "women warriors" quiz on gURL.com
		my woman warrior is lozen If you're like Lozen, you probably follow your gut when it comes to making a decision, even if that means going off the safe and steady route. Lozen was also known for ability to give great advice. Read more... Which woman warrior are you?

Me, the water fairy

2008-06-02T20:32:00.002+01:00

This is me, well, the closest you're gonna get:

Stonehenge: A royal burial ground?

2008-06-02T20:09:00.002+01:00

What was Stonehenge? I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but according to this news report

it was in fact a royal burial ground:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080529/sc_nm/stonehenge_cemetery_dc_2;_ylt=AsGPWkKKFoRD_4XL3Oc1gWkE1vAI

"New radiocarbon dates of human remains excavated from the ancient stone monument in southwest England suggest it was used as a cemetery from its inception just after 3000 BC until well after the larger circle of stones went up around 2500 BC."

That doesnt suprise me. I've been there, and I've visited many of the barrows surounding it. I'd suspect that area had been used as a burial ground for a long time before the stones went up.

Starting out

2008-06-02T20:05:00.001+01:00

This is my first post, no doubt things will all get more interesting, although I've no idea if I'll ever post it.