Conservative thought ruined my DnD

[K]

Ok, I read this New York Times article about this badass conservative thinker. He literally has people in power asking him to come to their smoky room and tell them how to win the hearts and minds of the people. Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magaz ... nas&st=cse

Now, if you read the article you find his big philosophical technique is to use Aquinas's "natural law" to justify religious positions. In an eggshell, he takes a religous standpoint, and tries to come up with a logical reason to accept it based on some a priori sense. Always, they rebrand the idea with a new name.

Anyone who keeps an eye on things see that this is the same technique used with Intelligent Design (ID). We know that it's creationism, we even have actual legally sufficient evidence that the major ID handbooks used to be creationist handbooks, but still people take it as if it were some logical position because it has a new name that sounds almost like science.

But it is a lie. Fundamentally, and whole cloth.

And this works as a technique. Bush's Clean Air Act lowers standards and allows more pollutants into the air. The Patriot Act takes away a pile of constitutional freedoms. The Healthy Forests Act allows for clearcutting of forests on Federal land.

And so that takes us to 4e DnD. In a very basic sense, 4e DnD is not DnD when you look at the guts of it. Like, in a fundamental and clear way. We see this when they try to convert old brands to the new ruleset, when not just vast tracks of things are suddenly not even possible under the new ruleset, but whole settings are suddenly not possible. Just look at what they are doing with Darksun and tell me you disagree.

And I blame the conservatives. They pushed a movement of lies. Like magicians of old, they knew the power of names and choose to exploit it, and now everyone thinks they can just misleadingly label their actions and have no one call foul.

And maybe they can. Maybe we are in the middle of a vast social movement like an Age of Un-Enlightenment[/b] where the progress of the last 300 years will be swallowed by the archaic ideas of 1000 years ago. That it is felt in something as fringe and marginal as DnD only shows how pervasive it is.

But I expect the conservatives will have a different name for it. Maybe the Awakening, or the Age of Light, or even the New Age of Enlightenment, because we all know that people would never name it that if it wasn't correct and accurate, right?

[Lago PARANOIA]

And I blame the conservatives. They pushed a movement of lies. Like magicians of old, they knew the power of names and choose to exploit it, and now everyone thinks they can just misleadingly label their actions and have no one call foul.

This borders on conspiracy theory, since the people who worked on 4E were also there for 3E and I really don't think that they were knowingly trying to mask a turd. If you listened to all of the blathering that they did on the runup to the edition they were genuinely excited about their work and thought they were doing the Next Big Thing.

Of course, Bruce Cordell/Andy Collins/Ed Stark/Mike Mearls are incompetent boobs so they ended up cocking up the whole project. But nonetheless, their behavior is inconsistent with the law of chocolate. If they were really trying to pull a con job they would talk about their new mechanics and features as little as possible.

[tzor]

You are using a shotgun argument K and it shows. You are trying to connect a number of points that have nothing to do with each other and trying to put a “vile evil conservative” conspiracy behind it. (How the hell you can make that, given the current location of development for D&D is beyond me.)

First and foremost; there have always been major changes between major editions of D&D. Do these changes break the game? Do the changes make the game no longer D&D? Well that’s in the eye of the beholder. Some people thought that non linear tables (especially the natural 20 gap in the “to hit” tables) were a fundamental element of AD&D and using a linear THAC0 system somehow made it not D&D. Some people thought that the non linear experience system of different rates for different classes was a fundamental element of AD&D and that a unified progressive experience system for all classes somehow made it not D&D. There are those who, I suppose, look at the current changes (the unification of the economy of combat across all combat types) as somehow not making the game not D&D.

It sounds like a horrid “Dr. Who” discussion; even though each actor is different they are still “The Doctor.” Each edition is different; it is still D&D at the core.


The second problem is the question of scenario verses system. Take Dark Sun … PLEASE! No, seriously, this has been a system breaker since day one. Dark Sun did more to kill second edition than any of the later supplements including the option series! Dark Sun took concepts that were not supported by the second edition system and rammed it down the rules throat, resulting in the complete breakdown of the system in the process.

This is not to say that I am going to probably think that the 4E is the most pathetic thing written so far for 4E, but that is because I understand the paradox in trying to get a scenario that is oil and water incompatible with the system you are writing it for. My years as a Lankhmar DM in first and second editions have proved to me that when push comes to shove, the system has to trump the scenario.

In one sense I think Dark Sun is highly doable in 4E; you need to understand both the core essentials of the scenario and of the system. Too bad the official designers know neither.

[K]

I don't see it as a conspiracy, or even a anti-conservative rant.

The conservative movement popularized a tactic of outright lying about their goals and the effects of those goals. The fact that this works is as much the fault of everyone else for not calling BS.

The fact that this tactic has reached and ruined my favorite hobby makes me sad. I don't even know how you fight a tactic that should fail on first principles, but somehow still has the power to sway opinions.

I'm equally baffled by denialism (climate or Holocaust, you name it), religious groups that think they have the right to dictate the sexual practices of non-believers(which seems very pervy to me), and nostalgia politics (Reagan was the greatest president evar, and not the guy who dismantled social services while increasing spending). You'd think the cold non-partisan facts would have an effect on these movements, but they don't.

[Crissa]

Yes, but you can be a disingenuous liar and an incompetent boob.

I thought W kinda proved that.

-Crissa

[Maj]

The conservative movement popularized a tactic of outright lying about their goals and the effects of those goals.

Greenland.

[Crissa]

Yeah, but it comes and goes in popularity.

Also, Greenland was rather green. The summer grasses are a vibrant color.

-Crissa

[CryptoSolipsist]

This is a fascinating line of thought, especially as applied to 4E, but isn't blaming it on the conservative "movement" a little, well, short-sighted? People have been doing this for literally thousands of years. And if you want to argue about the scale of it being new, then I direct you to The Big Lie. And there's nothing new about that.

[K]

This is a fascinating line of thought, especially as applied to 4E, but isn't blaming it on the conservative "movement" a little, well, short-sighted? People have been doing this for literally thousands of years. And if you want to argue about the scale of it being new, then I direct you to The Big Lie. And there's nothing new about that.

Like most social movements, this is just a recent recurrence of the same thing. I just blame conservatives for this recent incarnation.

But, when in a less ranty mood I admit it could just be a recent phenomenon that is a sign of the times, and the conservatives are just a symptom as much as DnD.

Although thanks for the link. I now think conservatives have an actual link to Nazis, and not just as a informal fallacy kind of way. I think I believe even more in the fact that conservatives seem to be following an actual fascist playbook.

[Josh_Kablack]

And so that takes us to 4e DnD. In a very basic sense, 4e DnD is not DnD when you look at the guts of it.

• Polyhedral dice. Check.
• Nerds sitting around a table. Check.
• 200-300 page hardbound rulebooks incomprehensible to non-gamers. Check.
• Illustrations of elf babes in skimpy outfits. Fewer than there used to be, but: Check.
• Small profit margins for the manufacturer, notable geek-cred gain for a 3rd party cartoonist. Tycho ain't no Foglio but: Check.

K, you are truly off in crazy town on this one.

I would instead submit that the Reaganite Trickle Down policies of blatant unconcealed hatred towards the working class have now resulted in enough job destruction and reduction in standards or living to have been a major boon for the hobby of gaming as a whole. More people now have more free time and less money to spend on more expensive forms of entertainment - and that should result in more gamers. Futhermore, more people in the key gaming age demographic are now forced to live together due to economic necessity, and that should result in more games being run.

[Crissa]

Josh, that defines many things which are not D&D.

-Crissa

[tzor]

Illustrations of elf babes in skimpy outfits. Fewer than there used to be, but: Check.

I just thumbed through the old AD&D (1E) core books and I had completely forgotten how many topless females were in them. Skimpy outfits? That's a result of the prudish (let's not offend the fundies) 2nd Edition, not REAL D&D!

(Old age is effecting me. I though the nudies were only in Arduim Grimore and All The World's Monsters, but now I remember that ATWM was known for full frontal pen and ink nudity. WOOT!)

[Lich-Loved]

I would have thought all the communists here would love 4E. Everyone is now about the same and does the same thing with about the same impact. Everyone benefits about equally and everyone acts about the same.

Long live the Egalitarian Movement! Power to the People! Down with Whitey!

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

I would have thought all the communists here would love 4E. Everyone is now about the same and does the same thing with about the same impact. Everyone benefits about equally and everyone acts about the same.

Long live the Egalitarian Movement! Power to the People!

I'm confused. That's not what Communists advocate at all - at least not any that I've ever met. Still, I suppose misinformation about Communism is only to be expected in the United States.

Down with Whitey!

What is this I don't even

As for the main topic...I'm not sure that 'misnaming things for fun and profit' is a uniquely conservative tactic. Conservatives certainly seem to be using it a lot these days (HEALTH CARE IS SOCIALISM!!!!1!), but I'm not sure it's something fundamental in their ideology.

[Lich-Loved]

I'm confused. That's not what Communists advocate at all - at least not any that I've ever met. Still, I suppose misinformation about Communism is only to be expected in the United States.

Well my post was tongue in cheek, but I will seriously admit that I do not understand Communism, even after reading about it. Where it seems to be practiced in terms of a national government it is an abject failure (flawed as the implementation is, but that is another issue), and I have trouble reconciling what I see of it and what it is really supposed to accomplish or do.

To me, it seems to fall philosophically into the Utilitarian or Egalitarian ideas but as the discussion on that topic shows, it makes a good college bullshit session between hits on a hash pipe but is another one of those un-implementable concepts that is often discussed but rarely or poorly practiced because of human nature.

[Koumei]

"From each according to his ability (flat-out admitting people have different abilities), to each according to his needs (flat-out admitting people have different needs)."

It's not actually hard to understand.

Someone once tried (unsuccessfully) to troll me by asking how I could like communism and S&M, because "Everyone is equal in communism! So there's no sub and no domme."

But all he ever does is troll anyone. Hell, he likes 4e just because it's a tool of trolling.

If anything, it's capitalism that says "Everyone's born equal. Rich people got that way through hard work! Those unemployed homeless people are just lazy. It's not that hard to say 'Hey dad, can I be CEO of one of your corporations?' like I did, I don't see why those lazy fucks don't do it."

[The Lunatic Fringe]

Well my post was tongue in cheek, but I will seriously admit that I do not understand Communism, even after reading about it. Where it seems to be practiced in terms of a national government it is an abject failure (flawed as the implementation is, but that is another issue), and I have trouble reconciling what I see of it and what it is really supposed to accomplish or do.

To me, it seems to fall philosophically into the Utilitarian or Egalitarian ideas but as the discussion on that topic shows, it makes a good college bullshit session between hits on a hash pipe but is another one of those un-implementable concepts that is often discussed but rarely or poorly practiced because of human nature.

Socialism is an economic system in which the workers control the means of production.

Contrary to the beliefs of some Americans, socialism does not mean "a planned economy". Rather, it means "a democratically (direct or not) run economy". This necessarily excludes Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union from the socialist camp as they afforded control of the economy to a small (relatively) group of people. That is called oligarchy.

You can have socialism to varying degrees in varying areas even within a primarily capitalist society. A good example would be Mohammad Mossadeq's nationalization of Iranian oil (though this was somewhat overshadowed by the fact that this action was anti-imperialist as well as socialist). Indeed, only a really rabid libertarian (or a businessman) would rail against socialism in industries like water and domestic electricity.

Really, you can take it as far as you want. I support both democratic reforms and nationalization (or state control) of all or almost all natural resources, inherent monopolies, factories, and social services (and frankly, my definition of social services is probably more inclusive than yours). I do not favor nationalization of sandwich shops and bookstores

Communism is an economic system in which all (or a vast majority of) property is collectively owned.

Honestly, communism is weird. The idea is that once a society has been socialist for a bit, they won't need the government anymore because they'll all be so nice and sharing. Or something like that. Really, it strikes me as being an archaic theory dating back to when "the ages of man" were used to define societal "progress".

On the other hand, with the increased use of automated processes in manufacturing, the idea that we could someday overcome scarcity in most industries seems pretty likely.

Notably, the only institution that I can think of as being communist is the family, inside of which property is defined not (at least in my family) by ""ownership" but by interest and necessity.

[Crissa]

I just thumbed through the old AD&D (1E) core books and I had completely forgotten how many topless females were in them. Skimpy outfits? That's a result of the prudish (let's not offend the fundies) 2nd Edition, not REAL D&D!

What was it Frank had a discussion with on the WotC boards... Oh, right. He said, 'Ahh, I see, we can view breasts we don't want to see, but not ones we do.'

Also, WotC had posted all the images from the Monster Manual, but not all of them were allowed to be posted on the forums.

x-x

In Santa Cruz, it's actually against the law to request a woman cover up on a public place. Businesses vary, as they're private, but they can't ask a nursing woman to cover up. And yes, different laws apply to the boardwalk, as it's a private business. Even so, they never stopped the lesbian groups from playing skins and shirts volleyball. Probably because they knew they'd be protested, much like Borders was when it was built (after bribing council members to violate some local zoning).

-Crissa

[Lich-Loved]

Capitalism decouples one's Economic Worth from their Social Worth. Everyone is equal (socially and under the Law, or should be if things were implemented perfectly) but this social worth has nothing to do with economic worth, which is the individual's utility to the economy. In a capitalistic system, a person's values, opinions and treatment under the law are the same regardless of economic position, but this does not guarantee the individual any economic success.

The problem I see with with the definition of Communism given here is that it doesn't really address the "shitty artist" syndrome": a certain individual is a shitty artist, but they love art, so that is what they do. Under communism, they are entitled to all kinds of benefits derived from the labor of others because they have Needs. Capitalism uses market forces to tell them to find another profession. Under forced communism, human nature tends to drive people to be shitty artists so they can reap the benefit with the least amount of work.

if anything, it's capitalism that says "Everyone's born equal. Rich people got that way through hard work! Those unemployed homeless people are just lazy. It's not that hard to say 'Hey dad, can I be CEO of one of your corporations?' like I did, I don't see why those lazy fucks don't do it."

I do not disagree that this happens, only that companies run in this manner are privately held, where all risk is born by the owner for such business planning. Publicly held companies rarely condone nepotism and even have strict policies against it because it leads to failure and thus declining value in the shares. You clearly have never started, owned or operated a company. While I am successful, I have never met anyone that was successful that did what you have suggested.

[Koumei]

The problem I see with with the definition of Communism given here is that it doesn't really address the "shitty artist" syndrome": a certain individual is a shitty artist, but they love art, so that is what they do. Under communism, they are entitled to all kinds of benefits derived from the labor of others because they have Needs. Capitalism uses market forces to tell them to find another profession. Under forced communism, human nature tends to drive people to be shitty artists so they can reap the benefit with the least amount of work.

Uh, no. Forced Communism would state "Okay, we're flat-out giving you the money you need to survive and all that, as well as keeping you happy by letting you do your shitty art in your free time. Also, you have to work. You are able to do any of ______ and they need doing, so that's what you'll do. But hey, it means you can eat, live in a house, and keep up with your hobby of shitty art."

No part of communism says we have to let people do whatever the fuck they want.

[Lich-Loved]

hmm I actually never realized that and I appreciate you pointing it out.

[tzor]

"From each according to his ability (flat-out admitting people have different abilities), to each according to his needs (flat-out admitting people have different needs)."

The fundamental flaw in communism is that people are not machines; they don't just crank out according to their ability. All things considered, without "incentive" they will all run at well below their ability. Therefore "to each" must be more than just according to their needs but according to their needs + their performance relative to their ability.

Now if you can figure out both how to measure current ability compared to potential ability and how to give "incentive" in such a way that current ability approaches or exceeds potential ability with minimal cost (bearing in mind that incentive might not and probably cannot be monetary) then you will have a good working system.

Recent studies indicate that autonomy may be a strong factor in productivity; a problem that dooms almost all communist systems in practice.

[Crissa]

Actually, there are no studies that 'incentives' actually get people to produce according to their abilities, either.

-Crissa

[Cielingcat]

To further its aims, Capitalism has created a huge body of pro-Capitalist propaganda. Some of its claims (which I hear from supporters of Capitalism and detractors of Socialism nearly every day) include things like:

1. Greed is inherently good
2. People are inherently greedy
3. Competition is inherently good for the economy
4. Competition is the best and only way to improve technology
5. Being rational requires selfishness; selflessness is irrational
6. Profit is the only way to measure success
7. And others

None of these are, of course, true, or even necessary for Capitalism to function. They are simply pieces of propaganda that American society has come to believe, and they are useful for the furthering of the goals of people who benefit from the Capitalist status quo.

I am making no statements as to whether we should keep or change the status quo, though I do have views on this and they do involve changing it. But these things that are brought forth in defense of it are not inherently true. If you want to say these things, you need proof that things are the way you say there, you can't just say "people won't produce if we don't threaten them with starvation" or anything like that.

"Common sense" arguments do not trump reality just because they sound correct.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Capitalism decouples one's Economic Worth from their Social Worth. Everyone is equal (socially and under the Law, or should be if things were implemented perfectly) but this social worth has nothing to do with economic worth, which is the individual's utility to the economy. In a capitalistic system, a person's values, opinions and treatment under the law are the same regardless of economic position, but this does not guarantee the individual any economic success.

You're talking about capitalism on Bizzaro World here, right?