Humans in rpgs

[Axolotl]

My guess is he's talking of Elric Of Melniboné, the antihero emperor with the sword Stormbringer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elric_of_Melnibon%C3%A9

That was what I was talking about. One of the best fantasy series' I've ever read.

adoption and charity are almost always done by womens.Guys mostly do it either by being forced into it or for gaining popularity(Correct if wrong.).

Not really. But look at it this way. Humans actively try to prevent themselves from wiping out other species. Even ones that we don't benefit from in any way. No other organism would do that, most actively try to cause extinction.

Even if both are wrong,human evil outweights human good by far,very far.

How exactly?

 

[number4096]

Thanks for correcting me as i asked,i apologize.

Though,you must make the difference between what people do out of fears of retributions,and what people genuinely want to do(Doesn't mean i am necessarily right,but consider it.)

Plus,big guys in black armors rock.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

About what SakSak just said:

(Cool picture by the way.)I know many more such examples and i know it is not rare in RPGs.

I just think that humans should usually be shown as that much evil/cool.Especially considering human history were a guy like sarevok would fit perfectly(Just look at vikings or mongols,for example.).

Having a bunch of snobby nobles/emo heroes for humans is both unmanly and inaccurate to the gratuitous barbarism seen in human history(Plus a big guy in black armor just rocks.).

But you see, it's not the armoured 'cool' antagonists that cause the most damage. It's those with good intentions, those who speak and entice and conquer by words that do the most harm.

I'm of a contrary belief, we need more of the intelligent, plotting kind of evil in games, rather than just generic armored monstrosities that you get a dozen for a dime.

EDIT: Armor is not cool. A huge sword/polearm/weapon is not cool. A consitent, utterly amoral plan that is not contrived and that actually might work is extremely cool. The ability to adapt those plans to the goody-two-shoe player is cool. Attempting to swing a sword to all your problems is just plain stupid and instantly removes any change the NPC gets to be called a villain.

Oh man, every time I try to post, not only do you ninja me, you say it even better.

 

[Zacharine]

Though,you must make the difference between what people do out of fears of retributions,and what people genuinely want to do.

And where exactly do you think that retribution comes from? Oh noes! *gasp* certainly it's not the other humans, the great majority that find such actions despicable and punish those who go against the rules meant to give us all a chance for a good life. Again proving my point: human good outweighs human evil, because we have laws that punish evil behaviour and the vast majority of people agree with these laws.

And about evil villans being cool: nothing is cooler and says EVIL when, after a hard assault on their stronghold, as you prepare for what you hope is the final showdown between good and evil.... they meet you with a wine glass in hand and thanks you for slaughtering the pests between him and you and for so admirably bringing yourself to his grasp. And then proceeds to enact his Xanatos' Gambit and either uses you, abuses you, experiments on you, steals something from you or makes you do his dirty work for him. And then leaves, with you being utterly impotent to resist him in any way shape or form.

 

[Axolotl]

Thanks for correcting me as i asked,i apologize.

Though,you must make the difference between what people do out of fears of retributions,and what people genuinely want to do(Doesn't mean i am necessarily right,but consider it.)

Of copuirse. I don't think anyone is saying humans are never evil but I think it's fair to say we have equal capacity for good and evil.

Plus,big guys in black armors rock.

Since you didn't know who Elric was:

 

[number4096]

About what SakSak just said:

Manipulative villains could manipulate big guys in black armors while still keeping them around.

Think of the potential(Or look at human history and see the potential in action all over the place.)

Sorry for generalising,but i know a lot of people who keep good images outside while being completely irredeemable when you know them and see the real goal behind what they do.So hearing that someone did a good action makes me doubt said action usually.Though keep correcting me if i do other mistakes.It keeps me from doing them again(usually).

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

I have two main interests beside gaming, mythology and history and various forms of fencing so seeing as swords have come up...

A sword is not represented so well in history because it's a noble sword (in fact iron weapons meant the sword became a cheap weapon with which to equip an army, and the main difference was a noble or knight had more than one type of weapon) but because of their proven effectiveness.

The sword is a very loose descriptive term for a vast range of weapons each favouring a differing style of combat. Some designs work wonderfully in close stabbing work, others to keep an enemy at long ranch and slashing through them each type is poor at other areas. Usually the problems and triumphs faced by a sword design were down to the armour, training and culture of the user.

example: The Mediterranean late bronze age swords generally seen as wonderful weapons but against a pankratiast (think european gong-fu) could be very poor. the problems were very often armour designs, the pankrate would focus on the exposed body parts or would simply crush bronze of wooden armour into the fighters body. The unarmed man would place himself in full contact with the swordsman rendering much more than a short knife useless.

This is why sword designs and armour vary so much; cultures were in an arms race to match good weapons with good armour to beat the oppositions particular designs. In almost any period of human history you will find the sword while many weapons fell in and out of favour.

Having practised using the long ash pole (that killik sort of thing) I can say that I found that to use it effectively is far more exhausting than the mid to late European swords and certainty the rapier.

I'd probably say that an abmi-dexterous man with good spatial awareness and training could be extremely effective with a pair of full blades. Dual wielding isn't anything special though, throughout history skilled men have fought with a full sword and a shorter blade, it's where the term 'cloak and dagger' came from.

Oh and someone said that they only considered "two handed swords like claymores" to be real ones, in Europe two-handed swords only appeared from the 13th century onwards and the claymore was a long one-handed weapon that you could assist with your left hand for a killing blow.

 

[Axolotl]

Oh and someone said that they only considered "two handed swords like claymores" to be real ones, in Europe two-handed swords only appeared from the 13th century onwards and the claymore was a long one-handed weapon that you could assist with your left hand for a killing blow.

I was the one who mentioned "two handed swords like claymores" I was of course refering to the two-handed highland claymore.

 

[number4096]

Sorry SakSak,just one more that needs to be clarified,if i irritate you warn me.It is not my intention.

So,here it goes,the retributions led upon the evildoer come from the fact that people are afraid of getting hurt by him,so logically,out of fears of retributions,they will try to prevent the guy from hurting them by preventing such a thing with retributions,which the evildoer will be afraid of.Fears of retributions is more or less all that is standing between human and cackling monster,instead of willingness.

Again correct what i got wrong,if you are tired of this argument about human evil,i will keep quiet about it(I never meant to offend you.).

 

[Tirin]

I'd probably say that an abmi-dexterous man with good spatial awareness and training could be extremely effective with a pair of full blades. Dual wielding isn't anything special though, throughout history skilled men have fought with a full sword and a shorter blade, it's where the term 'cloak and dagger' came from.

The term 'cloak and dagger' didn't come from using a one-handed sword and a shorter blade, but from the actual use of a cloak and a dagger. The cloak was used to hide the dagger, serve as a distraction, and generally be a minor defense. The tactics, unsurprisingly, revolved around deception.

 

[MinishArcticFox]

I like how you started with "being more diverse than the other races" and followed it with "usually portray as only white Europeans" that doesn't really make sense

 

[Zacharine]

Manipulative villains could manipulate big guys in black armors while still keeping them around.

Which delegates the big guy in black armor to the status of mook or at the most an underling. Removing their villain status.

Think of the potential(Or look at human history and see the potential in action all over the place.)

Oh I know that plenty.

Sorry for generalising,

Generalization is usually a sign of ignorance. Yes, I'm aware of the in-built hypocricy of that statement. But the fact is, humans can rarely be categorized easily into neat boxes. The world is not black and white, but shades of gray. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The difference between a righteous coup against an oppressing government and a rebel uprising is simpy 'who won?'. From what I've read of your posts so far, you make generalizations far, far far too easily.

but i know a lot of people who keep good images outside while being completely irredeemable when you know them and see the real goal behind what they do.

And I'd be ready to bet that for every such individual, there are a hundred who actually are decent people once you get to know them.

So hearing that someone did a good action makes me doubt said action usually.

There is nothing wrong with being sceptical. But to blindly focus on one effect of an action to the exclusion of every other effect is naive and not too smart. Most things have both good and bad effect associated with them. Example: Let us say that UK suddenly adopts capital punishment for all convicted murderers and hangs them all within a week. What are the bad things? discounting political fallout, there are serious ethical implications. But what good did it achieve? Certainly the freed taxpayers money previously used to feed and clothe and house the executed inmates could be used to improve healthcare and education within the country.

Is such a theoretical action automatically good or evil? Or is it both, depending on your point of view? Depends on your personal philosophy.

A more common ethical problem used as an example: Let us say you are standing on a bridge above a railway with two different rails. To your horror, you see that on the first rail there are ten people tied up an incapable of moving. On the second rail, there is one man tied up on the rail. A train is approaching. You cannot get down to the potential victims in time to save any of them. Luckily next to you is a switch that controls which rail the train will go on. Currently the train is about to hit the ten people tied up.

Question: Do you hit the switch and direct the train to the rail with only a single person bound, or do you do nothing and let those ten people die while saving that one person.

And what if that single person was the current prime minister of your country and the other ten simple farmers? Or alternatively, that one person is just a blue-collar worker, while those ten people are all convicts who confessed to various crimes. Would either of these affect your choice to redirect the train?

To declare an absolute anything in situations that depend on perspective and the particulars of that situation is folly at best, hubris at worst.

 

[number4096]

uh...just one more thing SakSak...

You are talking about ethics while i am talking about primal instincts.

For the train metaphor i will obviously go for whoever is the most beneficient to save.but that is also caused by fears of retributions.

I am talking about what people would do in retributions-free world,without restraints.

I really have the impression that i offended you and it was not my intention.Sorry.

 

[Zacharine]

Sorry SakSak,just one more that needs to be clarified,if i irritate you warn me.It is not my intention.

So,here it goes,the retributions led upon the evildoer come from the fact that people are afraid of getting hurt by him,so logically,out of fears of retributions,they will try to prevent the guy from hurting them by preventing such a thing with retributions,which the evildoer will be afraid of.Fears of retributions is more or less all that is standing between human and cackling monster,instead of willingness.

Again correct what i got wrong,if you are tired of this argument about human evil,i will keep quiet about it(I never meant to offend you.).

If you are irritating me, that is my own problem.

But what you fail to see is that the basis for morality is somewhat a biological function present in all social animals.

We know of chimps who are unable to swim jump into zoo moats to help other animals that are drowning. We have life-guards on beaches, firemen, rescue workers in mountain areas professionally risking their lives for others, bracing poor conditions and usually for only a modest pay. This is not caused by fear, but by empathy. We see suffering. We know suffering and what it feels like. And we do not want others to suffer if we can help it.

And fear of retribution... yes, some people only work out of fear. They are usually the emotionally stunted or ethically immature people. I for one am a decent citizen who follows laws not because I fear retribution, but because I feel stealing and killing is wrong on a fundamental level.

This is why we have people who give themselves in after committing a crime even when they know they have escaped the clutches of law. This is why we have people who leave their contact information when they bumb into someone elses car and cause damage to it, even when no one saw it and there are no cameras to witness it: Because it is the right thing to do. And they know it.

 

[Zacharine]

uh...just one more thing SakSak...

You are talking about ethics while i am talking about primal instincts.

For the train metaphor i will obviously go for whoever is the most beneficient to save.but that is also caused by fears of retributions.

I am talking about what people would do in retributions-free world,without restraints.

I really have the impression that i offended you and it was not my intention.Sorry.

And those primal instincts lead us to develop groups, villages and societies. They lead us to instinctually treat others with respect and things like the Golden Rule - constructing unspoken rules that develop later into codified laws. It was these precise instincts that guided us down the path of group existance and where we currently are. Because our instincts tell us that hurting others is wrong, that showing empathy is good and acting for the benefit of others brings its own rewards.

I am not offended or irritated by you or your posts. You simply come across as a somewhat black-and-white kind of person who has is somewhat ignorant of the world. The mistakes and assumptions you make are common, I too used to make some of them. But this is nothing to get angry or frustrated about for me. Ignorance is cured only by knowledge. So I try to show you your mistakes and offer knowledge. If I come across as somewhat impatient or irritated, then you have my apologies. It is simply how I approach what I perceive to be falsely constructed statements: ideas fight, not persons. I see your idea as being wrong or poorly justified and offer my own idea, my own justifications to counterpoint it.

 

[number4096]

Glad to see you are not offended(i think)SakSak.

As for people giving themselves in,i merely consider that's what they were told to do and they obey due to their educations(Still takes courage though.).

But if you say that some people risk their lives for minimal money to save people,then all that is still needen is to make that "some" a "pretty much everyone"and then i will believe you regarding human good(Still,this sort of behavior sounds genuine,if they just wanted a job they could just sell cars,do you have more examples?).

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Glad to see you are not offended(i think)SakSak.

As for people giving themselves in,i merely consider that's what they were told to do and they obey due to their educations(Still takes courage though.).

But if you say that some people risk their lives for minimal money to save people,then all that is still needen is to make that "some" a "pretty much everyone"and then i will believe you regarding human good(Still,this sort of behavior sounds genuine,if they just wanted a job they could just sell cars,do you have more examples?).

I believe that human good simply isn't as noteworthy as human evil which is why we go through everyday without noticing small gestures of kindness without rhyme or reason. The pain that people feel at the sight of others suffering is an example of human goodness. The fury that we feel in the face of injustice is an example of human goodness. The cold disregard that we feel when a ruthless criminal is killed is an example of human goodness (a dark sort of goodness, mind you).

 

[number4096]

To SakSak:

Society was made by having someone dominate others by force(initially)and considering wars,it continued up to about right now(the club was exchanged for a nuke in other words.).

Even the police keeps order by beating up those who don't follow it(for example,the nazis were beating whoever was not following what they considered order,leading to genocide when they decided that what was against order was other races.).

The law is excessively far from flawless(Any country of any era for example.).

If you want examples of human evil:school,war,history,roman arenas,the celts motivation for fighting,and these:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/really-mad-science-5-scientific-explanations-for-the-angry-dickhead

http://www.cracked.com/article_15822_5-douchebag-behaviors-explained-by-science.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html

http://www.zetatalk.com/beinghum/b76.htm

It's not that i don't believe you,it is just the examples of human evil that are everywhere.

 

[Zacharine]

Glad to see you are not offended(i think)SakSak.

As for people giving themselves in,i merely consider that's what they were told to do and they obey due to their educations(Still takes courage though.).

But if you say that some people risk their lives for minimal money to save people,then all that is still needen is to make that "some" a "pretty much everyone"and then i will believe you regarding human good(Still,this sort of behavior sounds genuine,if they just wanted a job they could just sell cars,do you have more examples?).

Then let us go for the most recent example: Haiti earthquake. How much money has been donated to various organizations for relief effort? Hundredts of millions if not billions.

How many volunteers arrive every single day to help those people, when the money consideration clearly is out the window? How many people work every day on homeless shelters accross the world? How many people are out there giving out food and clothes for those unable to buy even the barests of essentials?

When a disaster strikes, how many people help out others to the best of their ability, even if it places themselves in danger?

Countless. Because when a crisis strikes, when a situation is not to our liking, we humans unify. We work together. We look out for eachother. Even when we damned well know we could just kill all the witnesses and steal all their stuff. It is also the same reason we cringe as we see a child playing with an AK-47. It is the reason we feel repulsed by news of animal cruelty. It is the reason we feel angry when we hear of children having stepped on landmines.

Because, deep within us, beneath philosophy and intellectual ethics, it strikes us as fundamentally wrong. And those instincts tell us something ought to be done to correct it.

And that is what I feel is the greatest lesson of the 'railroad' ethical experiment: the entire setup strikes as false. My instinct yells to me 'Injustice!', my gut reaction to the scenario is 'stuff like this shouldn't happen! It's wrong.'

I cannot offer more convincing evidence than this: Imagine yourself in the situation where consequences by retribution are taken away. Would you yourself rape, murder and steal if you knew for certain no one would even suspect you of it? And would you continue doing it for as long as you can? Would you do it to your family and friends?

Do not tell me the answer, but think upon it is peace and quiet. If your answer is no, then ask yourself why would the majority of other people choose otherwise? Why should you be any different than the majority of humans around you?

However if your answer is yes... Then let me say that I'm glad we shall never meet in real life.

This is pretty much all I have to say about this. If this doesn't convince you, then I cannot do it.

 

[okogamashii]

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.

How are they inaccurate and impractical? Polearms were cumbersome weapons useful in a large-scale battle only, and considering most RPGs focus a middle ages setting, swords were the most commonly used weapon.

Also, a katana is two-handed sword, how do you figure pairing it with another sword would make it better?