Most noble RPG character?

[CerebroDragon]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by CerebroDragon: Why should it be 'good by christian morality'? I interpret the question free from religious values in general

No you don't.

And yeah, what Luvian said... [/QUOTE]Errr, Yes I do. Surely a human being can claim their own morality regardless of where it may be somewhat derived from historically. The Platonic/Christian ideology in and of itself that you mention has no direct influence on the values I admire from LB, regardless of whether they can be arguably derived from it. Religious systems don't 'own' morality, the concept of 'the good', or values by association alone, by any means.
So here's to individualism and individual values, free from 'unconscious' influences of religion. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

To Lord British again and the Triumvirate of Truth, Love and Courage! [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

And on what Luvian said:
Yes, I've noticed Hiero has a penchant for Nietzschean derived thinking, of whom in general I have alot of admiration for. He was a university favourite who helped make my brain explode with ideas. You'd be more than aware then of his ideal for humans to create their own values, as he wrote of the constant need for the re-evaluation of them.
"The artist creates his own moral universe,” seems an apt quote. I think Dicky Garriot managed to do this very well with the Ultima universe even if it is a synthesis of values arguably derived from the world's religions.

For everyone else, just a thought, to make the thread more interesting....

I'd like to see some more reasons listed for your choices rather than just name listing. For instance, I found Arthas from Warcraft III to be incredibly selfish, cynical towards the elder paladins and often quite self-righteous which I think detracts from any 'noble' disney like characteristics he might have.

Cheers,
CerebroDragon

[Griefmaker]

I think that one of my favorite characters that I ever created in Arcanum is the most noble.

His name was Jack the Stripper.

He was a butt-ugly human, cursed with trollish looks, who was a very kind and charismatic healer--always willing to help others in need or give someone a kind word. Oh, and he was always completely naked.

Jack believed that wearing clothes meant that a person was trying to hide something--some shame or misdeed. Jack wanted to let everyone know that he was willing to do anything for anyone, no matter what it cost him!

Naked and butt-ugly--the people of Arcanum were always mean to him! They were always rude and sometimes flat out hostile to the good and kind Jack. Even the prostitutes of Tarant refused the good, kind, and wealthier-than-God Jack!!

Yet Jack was always willing to forgive the dirt bags of Arcanum, and help any in need. When someone was rude to Jack, he would beg for the person's forgiveness--anything to make the upset person happy. If someone was in need, Jack would give freely!

Jack was the definition of Nobility.

At least until the incident with the Dwarves of the Wheel clan who were even uglier than Jack (if that was possible) and worse than the jerks living in Tarant (definitely possible). However, Jack healed and resurrected all that he hurt--and then the ungrateful cretins of the Wheel clan chased Jack out of their hole with threats of pain and death. Stupid Dwarves!!

In the end, Jack sacrificed himself to help the poor kites of the world. You see, he realized that the kites are so small because they do not get enough food to eat. So he shaved himself bald (no one likes getting hair caught in the back of their throat), bathed himself (no one should have to eat dirt), and allowed a kite scout to slaughter him in order to feed the kite nation. Just how great was Jack's sacrifice? He had to endure almost 30 minutes of agony before the malnourished kite could kill him.

Jack the Stripper was Nobility made manifest!

[The Hierophant]

Cerebro: By all means Nietzsche advocated re-creation of morals, but he was not so presumptuous as to assume that the very process of such re-creation was somehow removed from the norms of philosophical discourse laid down by historical religious leaders (cf one of the central themes of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the Superman overcomes the restrictions that make modern men mediocre by recognising and overcoming the static ideals and habits of historical philosophy). You're kidding yourself if you think your morals do not have roots in the various religious movements of the past, and this is coming from one of the most 'devout' atheists you'll ever 'meet'. You're not a superman yet. But no one is, so don't feel bad...

[ 01-30-2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[CerebroDragon]

Haha, indeed Hiero! I'm well aware of of das ubermensch and its theory of 'overcoming', but thanks for your nice succinct summary. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm just as 'bungled and botched' as most regular poeple - I wouldn't dare blaspheme the ideal of the Superman, for that's what it is, an ideal.
I doubt very much it is attainable, though it is inspiration for man to rise above mediocrity.
Besides, I've too much Schopenhauerian pessimism in my blood to be too far on the path of the ubermensch!

In my previous post I acknowledged that it is possible to derive values back to the world's religions (Nietzsche wrote extensively on the genealogy fo morals) but countered with the idea that this does not give them 'ownership' of values above the individual.

For example:
Lord British' ideal of Avatarhood could be said to contain elements of Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle said that a virtuous life is one where man lives out his fullest potential in learning, a maxim I'm certain ol' LB would agree to.
But does this necessarily make the ideal Aristotelian?
I don't think so, but that's not to say the influence isn't there in the ideal's creation.

Conclusion:
That people can make their own interpretations of 'noble' I.E Thinking 'like a christian' doesn't make the thoughts themselves christian, regardless of whether it fits the ideology or not.
Thus, if a value can be said to be a pre-defined order of values (a 'christian' one) that in itself does not make it christian. (Hope that makes sense.)

Aiiiie. I'm prattling on here. But I like discussions like this. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thoughts anyone?

Cheers,
Cerebrodragon

P.S Hiero: I'm Agnostic, don't think I can make the big jump just yet to full fledged Atheism...

Neat story, Griefmaker! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[ 01-31-2005, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: CerebroDragon ]

[Griefmaker]

The scary thing is that the story is true! Jack the Stripper is still one of my favorite character builds that I have ever made from any game! He ended tragically though...

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by CerebroDragon: Haha, indeed Hiero! I'm well aware of of das ubermensch and its theory of 'overcoming', but thanks for your nice succinct summary. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm just as 'bungled and botched' as most regular poeple - I wouldn't dare blaspheme the ideal of the Superman, for that's what it is, an ideal. I doubt very much it is attainable, though it is inspiration for man to rise above mediocrity. Besides, I've too much Schopenhauerian pessimism in my blood to be too far on the path of the ubermensch! In my previous post I acknowledged that it is possible to derive values back to the world's religions (Nietzsche wrote extensively on the genealogy fo morals) but countered with the idea that this does not give them 'ownership' of values above the individual. For example: Lord British' ideal of Avatarhood could be said to contain elements of Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle said that a virtuous life is one where man lives out his fullest potential in learning, a maxim I'm certain ol' LB would agree to. But does this necessarily make the ideal Aristotelian? I don't think so, but that's not to say the influence isn't there in the ideal's creation. Conclusion: That people can make their own interpretations of 'noble' I.E Thinking 'like a christian' doesn't make the thoughts themselves christian, regardless of whether it fits the ideology or not. Thus, if a value can be said to be a pre-defined order of values (a 'christian' one) that in itself does not make it christian. (Hope that makes sense.) Aiiiie. I'm prattling on here. But I like discussions like this. [img]smile.gif[/img] Thoughts anyone? Cheers, Cerebrodragon P.S Hiero: I'm Agnostic, don't think I can make the big jump just yet to full fledged Atheism... Neat story, Griefmaker! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

*Sigh* Of course the ubermensch is a theoretical ideal. Thank you for attempting to patronisingly insult my intelligence again.
Perhaps you're not actively trying to patronise, but keep in mind that I've already read all of Nietsche's published works, along with the preserved manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle etc... so please refrain from the philosophy tutorials, and I'll do the same for you.

Now, as per your conclusion, it isn't particularly clear to me what you mean by defining a value as 'a pre-defined order of values'. So in describing a chair to someone who has never seen a chair before you would simply say 'a chair looks like a chair, y'know?'

Lord British is a fictional character, written by a group of people who developed the ideology of their gameworld based upon historical philosophical thought in this world. Yes, yes Lord British's philosophical discussion of ethics could be considered Aristotelian in nature. As well as Christian (humility and compassion as the mainstays of of society), Buddhist (infinity as the all-embracing force to be reflected upon during meditation)... etc etc. The fictional world created by Garriet and co. is the net result of months upon months poring over philosophical texts and discussing their application to a medieval fantasy game world. There would be no Britannia virtue system without Earth's philosophical movements.

The names of philosophical movements are just identification codes. 'Christian' can just as easily describe 'communal survival ideals for oppressed/enslaved populations'. It's the mindframe that matters, not the name given to it (which, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to have been arguing anyway). Mindframes do not change, there have always been fighters, takers, slaves, pessimists, optimists, guilt-trippers ever since life itself began. You can pick and choose the bits you like from other people's ideas and sew them together into a formulaic structure, but that doesn't mean you've created anything inherently new. Nietzsche was just reiterating the ideals of much older civilisations to an unreceptive contemporary audience. He didn't necessarily create anything new, he just re-articulated old moral systems and tried to 'remind' his colleagues of the validity and value of ways of life that they had either forgotten, or had written off as archaic, outmoded, and 'evil'.

So, what I'm saying is that all developement of thought is derived from the ingredients that have gone in to it. However you want to label your 'new' thoughts, they are still totally reliant on the thoughts that have gone before.

With regards to moral philosophy, we're not creating anything new in our discussions. We're not creating anything fresh. We're just repeatedly stirring the philosophical pot with each and every successive generation. Reminding ourselves of airy, pretentious crap that already drives our subconscious, but that we find inconvenient to slot into the droll, hum-drum legal processes of our conscious daily lives. Our physiology by and large determines the type of philosopher we are. The more vital and energetic are more likely to embrace a 'master' view of the world, whilst the weaker and less 'able' will likely take a more pessimistic, 'life is hard and painful' view...

So, to bring it back to the topic of the poll... I asked Sir Degrader what he meant by 'noble', because my choice of fictional character depended on the concepts he meant by that oh-so-loaded n-word. Now, AD&D games rely mainly upon the Christian ideal of moral superiority (ie: servitude, kindness and humility = good. Aggression, self-interest, exploitation = evil). And seeing as IW forum is devoted predominantly to AD&D CRPGs, I was interested in knowing whether his definition of nobility was derived from the AD&D alignment system, which in essence is a Christian moral code glossed with an overcoat of polytheistic paint. I certainly did not mean to imply that the morals narrated in the Christian Bible(s) are the 'true' moral code, but rather that that is what the AD&D alignment system seems to suggest (which is unfortunate, because I really enjoy AD&D CRPGs except for this rather major portion of their gameplay structure).

[ 01-31-2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[CerebroDragon]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Thank you for attempting to patronisingly insult my intelligence again. Perhaps you're not actively trying to patronise,

The latter, obviously, mate. No offense or insults were intended at all. Perhaps you misconstrued my naive jovial enthusiasm for the topic of discussion or are being just a bit sensitive. I suppose that it is quite understandable when one is passionate about thinking, but whenever I feel someone's being patronising towards me, I usually just try to be a little more openly objective from the ideas being discussed, thereby preventing the intellect from perceiving any insults, intended or otherwise.

Actually, if anyone has a right to feel insulted, its probably the philosophers and the "original thinkers" themselves from whom we derive 'our' ideas, since its very possible that we'll somehow butcher, simplify or quote them out of context etc.

but keep in mind that I've already read all of Nietsche's published works, along with the preserved manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle etc... so please refrain from the philosophy tutorials, and I'll do the same for you.

I'm very pleased that you're an avid reader of philosophy, but you needn't tell me what you've read, as I have gathered as much from reading your posts.
And don't refrain on my part! I didn't ask you to. If you've got something to share, then by all means! I sincerely enjoy reading your posts and I'm quite open to reading interpretations of all kinds of ideas from a variety of personalities. Furthermore, I might learn something or perceive something in a new-ish light. Discussion is one of the core reasons to be here, after all.

Bear in mind however that there may be those who don't know who Lord British, Aristotle or Nietzsche are (Guardian forbid!) and that this is a public forum so in that way, I generally try to cater for a range of general knowledge levels.
So honestly, my post wasn't meant to sound like a tutorial, it was simply some thoughts off the top of my head hoping in turn to raise more thoughts and ideas.

Now, as per your conclusion, it isn't particularly clear to me what you mean by defining a value as 'a pre-defined order of values'.

I wrote:
Thus, if a value can be said to 'be' a pre-defined order of values (a 'christian' one) that in itself does not make it christian.

The word 'be' should be replaced by 'belong to'. I'm basically just summarising my argument that morality and values are not owned conceptually by the world's religions and that an individual can freely interpret values for themselves (in this case, what is noble) without necessarily inheriting the religious mindset (in this case, the christian mindset). I agree with your elaboration on the differences between the nominal and the actual mindframe though, well put.

Lord British is a fictional character, written by a group of people who developed the ideology of their gameworld based upon historical philosophical thought in this world. Yes, yes Lord British's philosophical discussion of ethics could be considered Aristotelian in nature. As well as Christian (humility and compassion as the mainstays of of society), Buddhist (infinity as the all-embracing force to be reflected upon during meditation)... etc etc. The fictional world created by Garriet and co. is the net result of months upon months poring over philosophical texts and discussing their application to a medieval fantasy game world. There would be no Britannia virtue system without Earth's philosophical movements.

Eloquently expanded upon and I completely agree. I'd only hasten to add just for the trivia buffs that Lord British was in fact the alter-ego or pen and paper roleplaying persona of Richard Garriot, so-named after some of his friends said that he spoke with a British accent. (To which he says he doesn't and from the interviews in the Ultima Ascension Dragon compilation, I can't help but agree with him!)

The games even contain characters named after philosophers. Buddha, George Santayana, Aristotle (who appears ironically as a paladin in Ultima IV) aswell as many other literary figures from history. Shakespeare, Dickens, etc.
I'm rather wistful for more games that promote thinking in the way that Ultima has done for me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So, what I'm saying is that all developement of thought is derived from the ingredients that have gone in to it. However you want to label your 'new' thoughts, they are still totally reliant on the thoughts that have gone before.

We could touch on Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts here....but that'd be getting a bit too far off topic eh? [img]smile.gif[/img] I wouldn't say they are totally reliant, perhaps they are influenced by or derived and adapted from somewhat. I'm not convinced yet (perhaps naively) that everything that can be thought, has already been done so before. An analogy that comes to mind is the problem of chess - recording every possible position would take eons and every time one is at the board, there is a sense of the boundaries between what is known theory (what has been thought before) and what is a potentially novel idea in a given position. Its one of the reasons I love the game so much...

With regards to moral philosophy, we're not creating anything new in our discussions. We're not creating anything fresh. We're just repeatedly stirring the philosophical pot with each and every successive generation. Reminding ourselves of airy, pretentious crap that already drives our subconscious, but that we find inconvenient to slot into the droll, hum-drum legal processes of our conscious daily lives.

Word, brother!

Pink Floyd said it pretty well too:

We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl
Year after year.
Travelling over the same ol' ground, what have we found?
The same old fears.
I wish you were here.

Its plausible however that ideas could seem literally new or fresh though to someone who hasn't encountered them before, no?

Our physiology by and large determines the type of philosopher we are

I'd throw in prejudice, selectivity and personal interests, propensity of neuroses, environmental factors, what ideas we are exposed to and even the possible influence of teachers and peers. Parental upbringing? Hmm. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The more vital and energetic are more likely to embrace a 'master' view of the world, whilst the weaker and less 'able' will likely take a more pessimistic, 'life is hard and painful' view...

Hmm, I'm not sure if this generalisation does justice to the rest of your post, even if I can't deny that it contains elements of truth. Many human beings will simply bury their heads in mute self destruction rather than grasp life with open hands, sure.
However, I don't think pessimism should necessarily be equated with weakness in this way since what is weak for one is often strong for another. For instance, A buddhist might take refuge in contemplating the grim thought that 'life IS suffering', but is he any the weaker for it? On the contrary, he may even feel enlightened and all the more stronger mentally for some revelatory experince.
Even Nietzsche himself never fully overcame the pessimism he battled with his entire life, but that is only my opinion...

I was interested in knowing whether his definition of nobility was derived from the AD&D alignment system, which in essence is a Christian moral code glossed with an overcoat of polytheistic paint.

Persuasively agrued and well expressed. Admittedly when I'm in gaming away in AD&D hero or anti-hero projection zone, I don't always see these correlations. Interesting to hear Sir Degrader's reply too. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I certainly did not mean to imply that the morals narrated in the Christian Bible(s) are the 'true' moral code, but rather that that is what the AD&D alignment system seems to suggest (which is unfortunate, because I really enjoy AD&D CRPGs except for this rather major portion of their gameplay structure)

I understand what you meant more clearly now, thanks. [img]smile.gif[/img]
The question I asked of "why should it be good by christian morality?" was a question directed at ensuring that it wasn't the only valid interpretation for the idea of what being noble entails. Apologies for the misunderstanding, but not for the good discussion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cheers,
Cerebrodragon

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

LMAO @ Jack the Stripper.


Most noble character? hmm... *picks one at Random*. Fenthick. *runs*

[The Hierophant]

CerebroDragon: Oh, great, now you're politely agreeing with me... how the hell am I supposed to keep fighting you if you start bloody well agreeing with me?! Bastard!

Yes, it has been a good discussion... moreso now that I've calmed myself out of 'fight' mode and into 'listen and discuss' mode and can re-read the flow of dialogue so far... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, basically we've been arguing the same thing most of this time. I don't think that religions 'own' philosophical mindsets or methods of enquiry, but rather they personify and symbolize these in easily observable ways. You don't have to possess a savior-yearning 'victim' psychology to be a christian, but at the same time most 'official' christian doctrine instructs people to view humanity as inherently corrupt and 'evil', and to subsequently trust church judgment and have faith that a supernatural force will 'save' the world and set things 'to rights'. Of course the psychological mindsets of followers of the christian faith are as infinite as the number of followers themselves.... but it's simply easier for me to refer to the 'salvation goes to the faithful victim' line of thought as 'christian'... if you get me. Same goes for other frames of mind, and the religious systems that loosely 'sum them up'.

[ 02-01-2005, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Niadh]

Most noble character- Enrique, Skies of Arcadia. He grows up around corruption and greed, but he wants the best for the world. Including running away with a battleship and giving up being a prince to help others.