A rant against so-called heroes

[Elennsar]

Answer: Your conclusion assumes that only one possible outcome could exist in the movie. The script could not involve him dying.

False and faulty.

Does the fact that I ate a banana mean that there was only the "eat a banana?" option?

No. Same principle.

Note: Obviously, in the movie that was made, the "McClane dies" outcome did not occur. Unless they resurrected him for the sequel/s.

[RandomCasualty2]

Answer: Your conclusion assumes that only one possible outcome could exist in the movie. The script could not involve him dying.

False and faulty.

ok fair enough.

So false for the conclusion.

What about the premise?

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Is that true or false?

[Draco_Argentum]

RC, be ruder so you can get on E's ignore list.

[Neeeek]

RC, be ruder so you can get on E's ignore list.

Ya know, it's kinda funny, RC used to be the guy who basically did what E does now. Only less annoying. And with fewer posts. And less of a tendency to ignore legitimate inquiry.

[violence in the media]

No double standard, just different circumstances.

Basic test: Historically, Hannibal failed to capture Rome. Does that mean that it was impossible to for him to capture Rome?

A given outcome not happening and that being what we see and a given outcome not being possible to begin with are two different things.

Given the same inputs, Hannibal will never capture Rome. No matter how many times he tries it. The outcome is inevitable, provided all prior influences remain the same. It's Groundhog Day without the continuous knowledge of previous events.

Happy now?

[Roy]

Ever notice that ignoring Elennsar reduces the forum activity to just over half? Which means he is seriously fucking responding to every fucking thing. Fuckity fuck fuck.

[Elennsar]

What about the premise?

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Is that true or false?

Note: Obviously, in the movie that was made, the "McClane dies" outcome did not occur. Unless they resurrected him for the sequel/s.

Given the same inputs, Hannibal will never capture Rome. No matter how many times he tries it. The outcome is inevitable, provided all prior influences remain the same. It's Groundhog Day without the continuous knowledge of previous events.

Happy now?

No, because all such influences are not likely to remain the same if we "rewound".

If the right conditions occured, which as it happens did not, it could happen.

Therefore, it was not impossible, unless you can prove those conditions could not occur.

Regarding the main point - if McClane, in the "reality" he inhabits, can die, then he is risking death - if not, he isn't.

The movie showing him not dying does not mean that he cannot die in the "reality" in which the movie is set.

If nothing that can happen in that reality can lead to him dying, he's not risking death.

[violence in the media]

Given the same inputs, Hannibal will never capture Rome. No matter how many times he tries it. The outcome is inevitable, provided all prior influences remain the same. It's Groundhog Day without the continuous knowledge of previous events.

Happy now?

No, because all such influences are not likely to remain the same if we "rewound".

If the right conditions occured, which as it happens did not, it could happen.

Therefore, it was not impossible, unless you can prove those conditions could not occur.

Are you retarded, or insane?

Why would you assume that if we somehow rewound time to the point right before the battle, that any inputs and influences that were already present would somehow mystically change?

For the results to be different, the inputs have to change. It's that fucking simple.

I will give you this. Maybe, maybe, there is some unpredictible, indeterminable variable on a quantum level that could somehow occur differently than it did and influence the outcome in such a way that the end result is wildly different, but I really doubt it.

If you're hinging your entire argument on that, then fuck it. I am not interested in your one-in-a-trillion, alternate-history, what-if bullshit.

[Elennsar]

Rewound was a bad word, I'll admit that. Mind still on the movie (and thus the metaphor twisted into goobledegook by that) - so a better way to put it would be to "reload" to right before the battle.

If you reload a saved game, are you necessarily going to get the exact same outcome if you do the same thing? Is there no chance that the battle will turn out differently because while you did the same thing, the 25% chance of an extra attack (or whatever) would(n't) appear on the roll of the dice (so to speak)?

So are you expecting the battle of Cannae to go a certain way inevitably (with a given set of decisions by Hannibal and Varro), or is it possible that things beyond their control can go wrong (or right, depending) that didn't even with them doing the same thing?

What happened is what happened as things actually worked out, it is not the only possible outcome of a decision to do a given act (and it is hardly inevitable that one will make a given decision in any given circumstance) most of the time. (its pretty darn inevitable that if you flap your arms and jump off a cliff, you're not going to fly)

[violence in the media]

If you reload a saved game, are you necessarily going to get the exact same outcome if you do the same thing? Is there no chance that the battle will turn out differently because while you did the same thing, the 25% chance of an extra attack (or whatever) would(n't) appear on the roll of the dice (so to speak)?

I don't know if you realize it, but you are changing the inputs here. There is no possible way that you can accurately "reload" a scenario because no one can properly identify all the factors that went into the original outcome in the first place. If you could identify all those factors AND reset them to their original values, then the results would be the exact same thing. Every. Damn. Time.

Again, this is with the same prior caveat about quantum variables.

So are you expecting the battle of Cannae to go a certain way inevitably (with a given set of decisions by Hannibal and Varro), or is it possible that things beyond their control can go wrong (or right, depending) that didn't even with them doing the same thing?

1. Yes.

2. No.

What happened is what happened as things actually worked out, it is not the only possible outcome of a decision to do a given act (and it is hardly inevitable that one will make a given decision in any given circumstance) most of the time.

Given the accumulation of inputs, what happened is the only possible outcome. Something would have to change in order for something different to result.

[Elennsar]

If you could identify all those factors AND reset them to their original values, then the results would be the exact same thing. Every. Damn. Time.

Again, this is with the same prior caveat about quantum variables.

Not really, no - unless you think it each step (as in footsteps) would inevitably produce exactly the same result because it would be performed exactly the same way.

1. Yes.

2. No.

So if Hannibal did the same thing, everyone else and/or everything else would be the same too? Or not?

Given the accumulation of inputs, what happened is the only possible outcome. Something would have to change in order for something different to result.

And of course, the inputs had to be the same. No possibility that instead of what historically happened, someone could have delayed half a second. Or a second. Or maybe ten minutes.

No, no way that could have happened.

[violence in the media]

And of course, the inputs had to be the same. No possibility that instead of what historically happened, someone could have delayed half a second. Or a second. Or maybe ten minutes.

No, no way that could have happened.

Finally! You understand!

Can we move on now?

[Elennsar]

No, because that's utter bullshit.

History is what as things worked out, happened.

In brief, Booth could have missed.

[violence in the media]

In brief, no he couldn't. Something would have to change.

Think of this from the standpoint of an omniscient, omnipotent god. There is no other possible outcome for event X, because of laundry-list-of-events-stretching-back-to-the-beginning-of-time Y.

Who knows? Maybe we do live in a deterministic universe where everything is preordained and only appears random because of our imperfect understanding of the nature of it's processes. Does that possibility bother you? If so, why?

[Elennsar]

In brief, you're assuming it couldn't.

[RandomCasualty2]

What about the premise?

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Is that true or false?

Note: Obviously, in the movie that was made, the "McClane dies" outcome did not occur. Unless they resurrected him for the sequel/s.

Does that mean you're saying the statement is true?

I don't need a long dissertation on it. I just need true or false.

[Elennsar]

What you need is to understand why it being true has no relationship to the reality the character being capable of killing the character if that is in fact the case - as noted by someone else, its apparently not - which makes it the case that he's not taking life threatening risk, whether the statement is true or not thusly has no bearing on whether or not he CAN die.

[RandomCasualty2]

What you need is to understand why it being true has no relationship to the reality the character being capable of killing the character if that is in fact the case - as noted by someone else, its apparently not - which makes it the case that he's not taking life threatening risk, whether the statement is true or not thusly has no bearing on whether or not he CAN die.

Great. You can argue that later, once I've said something to the contrary using your answer to the question.

For now I just want true or false for that statement.

Pretty simple answer for a pretty simple statement. I don't think there's anything misleading anywhere in that statement, so it should be a no brainer to answer.

Your main argumentative style seems to be preventing people from reaching any sort of common ground with you, and that's got to stop. So before I can even start arguing this, I have to get the basics down and see if you can even agree with me on anything, or if you're so wrapped up in winning the argument that you refuse to acknowledge anything.

So lets get some common ground.

[violence in the media]

In brief, you're assuming it couldn't.

In the same way that you are assuming it could.

[MartinHarper]

Interesting idea, the possession or intelligent magic items. However, how to make sure that any new PCs that come along take the intelligent item? Or, how to get the spirit into a close by NPC? What happens if one NPC takes all the intelligent items?

You'd need some sort of one-to-one bond between the intelligent items / spirits / my little ponies, such that each pony can only ever have one rider. If one NPC takes all the items, he can only ever use one of them. The others he will probably hand out to close friends. There is still the possibility of being dropped down a bottomless well, as you say, but you can make that the next-to-impossible thing, and have death as something that can happen. I guess it's a similar get out to d&d, where death can happen, but unressurectable death is next-to-impossible.

Premise: If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion: If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

Premise: true in this universe, false in other universes.
Conclusion: true in this universe, false in other universes.

The other universes might be due to the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory, or hypothetical alternate universes for the purposes of counterfactual reasoning, or they might not exist.

[Parthenon]

Okay, this is all getting really hypothetical and argumentative. And petty.

Lets try having the same discussion from a different angle.

From what I understand, Elennsar's position is:

In RPGs, if the PCs by the rules of the game have an overwhelming chance of success then they are not being heroic. How heroic any action is has nothing to do with the character's perceptions, but solely the probabilities and dangers.

However, in a story written by an author, how heroic an action is is dependant on the situation and perception of the audience.

At one point you said that even if the character believed that there was a sudden and very likely risk of death if they continued trying to act, they don't count as actually being in danger.

Am I putting the wrong words in your mouth Elennsar? The second is slightly interpreting your position since I'm not entirely sure what you believe. If I'm wrong, please give a short statement describing your position.

Hmmm... that last bit might be the important part. If in books and film heroism is solely based on the audiences perception, then the counterpart in RPGs is that heroism is solely based on the player's perception. This is a reasonable argument to take, but you haven't made this argument. If you had, the argument would have been much shorter.

---

Other peoples position (correct me if you differ widely from this) is:

In RPGs, heroism is based on the character's perception of the action. If the PC believes that the action has reasonable danger/cost to the PC (not the player) and does something the PC would consider heroic, then the action is heroic. Some ignoring of the consequences of the rules and the relationship between the player and the PC has to be done to make it a fun game.

In books and films, actions are heroic based on the perception of the characters within it and the consequences of it. The reader does have to ignore the fact that it is a story so a plausible, interesting and often happy ending is needed which would mean that seriously bad consequences are not going to happen.

In both of these, the heroism and risks/dangers are based on the characters perception of the risk. And also in both of these, various facts and ideas have to be ignored.

---

A little while back my cousins stayed around, and my uncle was reading a Harry Potter book to them. Goblet of Fire I think. He was reading about the part where they are all waiting just outside Hogwarts for the other schools, when Ron takes offence to McGonagall and pulls out a grenade and throws it into the crowd. And the rest of the book was about all the funerals. You may not have heard that version.

Now, this wouldn't happen in a book. It was hilarious at the time, especially at my cousin getting pissed off at my uncle for not reading it right, but normally when reading a book you are aware how much of the story is left, so you are aware that there isn't any real danger.

Now, since you know there isn't any real danger, you could argue that nothing that happens in the book is actually dangerous, and so no heroic acts take place.

On the other hand you could argue that at the time in the theoretical situation the characters would be aware of a risk of death and so be able to be heroic.

This has no real difference to an RPG, where the DM and players know that this is the beginning or middle of a campaign, so there is quite a long way to go, and since everyone wants to get to the end the actual danger is very low. However, in the theoretical situation the characters would be aware of a risk of death and so be able to be heroic.

---

The main point:

So, as far as I can tell, the main argument is that the actual chances of danger aren't that important, but the roleplaying of the character as knowing that there is a large risk is important. People have to ignore various metagame aspects to roleplay anyway, so ignoring the fact that the actual chance of death may be 0.01% isn't that big a deal.

[Psychic Robot]

In brief, Booth could have missed.

NO WAY THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN.

[name_here]

Actually, booth COULDN'T have missed, because the brain chemistry of everyone involved worked certain ways, and the energy output of the sun was a certain value and reached earth with a certain distribution of energy and met certain air masses and created certain winds, and in essence without a new or different input booth would fire at the same time, pointing the gun at the same angle, and the bullet would meet the same interactions with forces and hit at the same time and same place.

And if you reload a save on the computer, one direct input is different: the system clock. and when the system clock is different, the RNG generates different values. if you made a program to record all the inputs and the timing, and then reloaded and had the program begin inputing the same button clicks as when you played, and had it do so at the same system clock values and the same input-to-action delay, the scenario would play out percisely the same.

Unless you have an unusual RNG, in which case you'd need to duplicate whatever seed it was using to get the same results.

The thing is, all events are just as "random" as the RNG outputs in a computer game, with the slightly possible exception of quantum scale effects and i'm frankly not sure about those. just because we can't see interactions doesn't mean they have to not exist.

tl;dr

random really means not predictable by a human that cannot see all variables ahead of time. If the variables are all really the same as another instance the events will be percisely the same, but the variables aren't because the universe is too complex for that. Scripts and computer RNGs, however, are not too complex for that.

[Leress]

Okay now the conversation is just plain out of control.

Here is how I see a hero:

Doing what is right no matter how powerful and in spite of anything else. I don't care if the person running to the building knows that they can't die from the fire. Saving someone's life is saving a life period. If Superman does it he is a hero, if I do it I'm a hero. It's all about the actions and the out come of the action.

El, you may think it's boring for Superman to be called a hero just because the fire won't hurt him, but tell that to the person he saved. I guarantee you that person will say that he was a hero. Hell you don't even need people to tell you that as long as you (the saver) know it. If I deactivated a bomb that was going to blow up a building and now one was around to see me do it, I'm still a hero. Ramza from Final Fantasy Tactics was a hero and he was branded a Heretic. There are many kinds of heroes in the world and in a game I play I want to be able to choice what kind.

[name_here]

Actually, Superman is a hero under just about every defintion i've seen used or brought up in the thread, he just doesn't show his adherence to Elennsar's very often.

But anyway, i agree with Leress in general. Superman's time may seem worth less to everyone than the lives of the people he is saving, but traditional heros consider hitting the on button on the radiation water filter from space or whatever worth more than their lives anyway, otherwise they wouldn't do it.