philosophy

[GreenBuddha]

Just as a curiousity...what is the opinions about how to reconcile the violence or questionable moral practices of BG or any game with your personal beliefs. I run into this being both a Buddhist and a gamer of old. I have taken a vow not to cause harm to another being, but does that apply to games as well? Does that affect how I look at things? I used to be a paper gamer, but I gave up the group I had because the DM I had could not comprehend the concept of a character designed not to fight, or ..gasp.. be a pacifist. And I didn't want to run a killing machine anymore. I have kind of sidestepped the issue in BG because I really don't know what I think. It kind of moves into the whole TV causing violence thing, and I want to stay as far from that as possible. My character in BG is a druid who mainly heals and buffs, but every once in a lights up a flamestrike or lightening strike. So what does everyone else think? Are games and life completely separate or do they have some overlap, or does one mimic the other?

p.s. I posted this here instead of general, b/c it was a little more focused than that board tends to be...

[Garnet FalconDance]

Are you saying we at GD are ....unfocused? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] We work very hard at being unfocused!

I look at gaming (and I mean crpg, not first person shooters since they are not my cup of tea) as not so much a reflection of rl as an outlet for safe experimenting of a facet of personality which usually gets suppressed because of religious/spiritual beliefs, societal norms, or other moderating factor. For instance, while I am not a pacifist, I am also not a violent person. Yet I almost always play someone in the fighter class or at least multi with ftr. Conversely, I deal with 'magic' in the real world as well as 'cleric' work on a daily basis, so I tend to totally ignore mages as a character option for myself.

Do I somehow justify the violence in the rpgs as only being a game? Perhaps. But to me it is a non-issue. Playing a kick ass fighter/ranger/thief/whatever in no way places my personal beliefs in jeopardy nor does it violate them as the game is *not* real. As a real life 'cleric' and 'ranger', I consider it my duty and responsibility to fight evil (or evil-doers) in whatever manner available to me, actively fighting as a last resort. Maybe that's how I get around your posed query. ::shrugs::

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: Garnet FalconDance ]

[J'aran]

My view is that games and real life are completely separate things. Especially fantasy games such as Baldur's Gate and the like, you can hardly call the combat in this kind of games realistic. Although I must admit it's a bit different for games like, for example, Wolfenstein, but even there I would say that what you do in the game doesn't reflect on or interact with your real life in any way.

Of course, if you're totally against violence, like you are, the issue is a different one. I can understand your dilemma, though I wouldn't have an answer to it.

[Sir Marcus Swordseeker]

Does playing the game bother you ? either way theres your answer if you feel guilty playing stop if not enjoy the fantasy

[Lemernis]

Actually, since this is all imagined, fantasy, roleplaying, etc., anyway, you're almost by definition playing out some conflict within the self through this, aren't you? I'm not sure whether Buddhism would necessarily have you trying to avoid that... I guess it would depend on the school of Buddhism. But you could conceivably use this sort of gameplaying as a means putting the Buddhist value of non-attachment into practice, actually. Doesn't Buddhism teach that dualism is ultimately an illusion anyway?

[Lavindathar]

A game is what it says it is: a game!

Fantasy is just that: fantasy.

Games and RL are totally different, so do not worry. It won't stop you getting to Nirvana....

If you dnt want to play it because of the fighting, then dont play it. I play them becuase I hate fighting in RL, but luv it in the gaming world.

BTW - Garnet, that other moderating factor you spoke of, could that be the law?? [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

[Garnet FalconDance]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lavindathar:
A game is what it says it is: a game!

BTW - Garnet, that other moderating factor you spoke of, could that be the law?? [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

---

Ah, come on, Lavi...let me use the big words .

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of possibly conscience, perceived 'peer pressure', that type of thing. But the law as a moderating factor works, too! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Lavindathar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance:

But the law as a moderating factor works, too! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

---

Well, I sat down, and thought: If i started cleaving people up with swords, what factors would hinder this: the law was the biggest one that came to mind!!!

[Hayashi]

As some have said, it IS only a game. As long as one is able to distinguish between the game and Real Life (tm), I don't see any problems.

Of course, one could argue that any game affects the player, even subconsciously. I suppose for some that could lead to a dangerous blurring of the game and RL. (Imagine someone who shaved his head bald, had a tattoo done, and carried around a hamster called Boo )

But for most us we know what is real and what is not. The average person is able to distinguish between the game & RL. But games allow us to experiment (albeit in an artificial environment crafted according to the designer's visions, whims and fancies, and not completely realistic) things which we could or would never do in RL. Gaming is, at its roots, a form of entertainment, no different from other legitimate pursuits such as watching a movie, reading a book, etc.

Can a pacifist play a 'violent' game? Personally for me it's not a problem (not that I'm an avowed pacifist). The problem behind BG, or a first-person shooter, or any other game, is that violence in some form or other is essential to the completion of the game. You can't act like a pacifist in say, Counterstrike and expect to succeed at the game. The premise that violence is not the only solution is not built into it.

There are the rare ones that allow both violent and non-violent solutions to puzzles, like Planescape: Torment. But even text adventure games sometimes require you to 'kill', like in Zork where you need to kill the cave troll in order to proceed further.

And what if the game is violent, but there is no depiction of persons being killed? I play Starfllet Command, a tactical simulation of space warfare set in the Star Trek Universe. The fighting is between ship to ship. Most of the time, the object is to blow the other guy to space dust. And all that is depicted in the game are objects, not sentient beings - space ships, asteroids, planets, etc. No crew, Klingon, Romulan or otherwise, just Klingon, Romulan ships.

And what difference between violence in a game and violence in a book? Both are artificial constructs. Both attempt to tell a story. Both are fictitious (usually).

So to me, BG is just a game. A good and entertaining game, but still a game.

Just my $0.02. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Katherine]

Interesting topic.

Well, even though this is 'just a game,' all things, real or 'unreal' happen in your head.

So, is it okay to play a violent game, but stand against violence in other areas of your life? Who knows...

Here's a little something something from Lord Krishna on the topic of death:

"It is said that these bodies of the eternal embodied soul, which is indestructible and incomprehensible, are perishable. Therefore, fight, O Bharata!

He who thinks that this is a slayer, and he who thinks that this is slain; both of them are ignorant. This neither slays nor is slain.

It is never born, nor does it die, nor having once been, will it again cease to be. It is unborn, eternal and everlasting. This primeval one is not slain when the body is slain.

He who knows that it is indestructible and eternal, unborn and unchanging, how can that man slay, O Partha, or cause another to slay? Just as a man casts off worn-out clothes and takes on others that are new, so the embodied soul casts off worn-out bodies and takes on others that are new.

Weapons do not cut it, nor does fire burn it; waters do not make it wet, nor does wind make it dry.

It is uncleavable, it cannot be burnt, it can be neither wetted nor dried. It is eternal, omnipresent, unchanging and immovable. It is everlasting.

It is called unmanifest, unthinkable and immutable; therefore, knowing it as such, thou shouldst not grieve.

Even if thou thinkest that it is constantly born and constantly dies, even then, O mighty-armed, thou shouldst not grieve.

For death is certain for one that has been born and birth is certain for one that has died. Therefore for what is unavoidable, thou shouldst not grieve.

All beings are unmanifest in their beginnings, they are manifest in their middles and are unmanifest again in their ends, O Bharata. What reason is there, then, for lamentation?

One sees it as marvelous, another also speaks of it as marvelous, another hears it is marvelous, but even after having heard, no one whatsoever knows it.

The soul in the body of everyone, O Bharata, is eternal and indestructible. Therefore thou shouldst not mourn for any creature."