Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

JMeganSnow

Admin
  • Posts

    4091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by JMeganSnow

  1. Oh, yes, I read that letter some time ago and I completely agree. Personally I wonder if I use RPG's as a method of self-medicating my emotional problems. Otherwise normal, healthy people don't often become as devoted to RPG's as I've been, and I find my interest gradually decreasing as I become involved in other things. Well, no, I'm as interested as I ever was, it's more that my priorities have shifted.
  2. *waves at The Management* I must confess to an error, here, I think this thread belongs on the Culture board and not in the Aesthetics board. Mea culpa. And, please, I really did mean for this thread to be about paper-and-dice or tabletop gaming, not computer RPG's. Those are computer games first and RPG's as a secondary. I'll agree with this to an extent, but I'll add one thing. The period in my life that I was most active in gaming for the sake of gaming I was also suicidally depressed. I had no DESIRE to engage in useful activities, and wouldn't regardless of what filled the time. The ultimate purpose gaming served for me was that it enabled me to get in touch with my values in a non-threatening environment and to develop a sense of what I wanted and why. I don't think it was wasted time any more than any sort of learning or recreation is wasted time. The facts I might have absorbed if I'd spent the time studying something "practical" would have been of no use to me if I couldn't manage to come up with a reason to stay alive in the first place. That's all? Goodness, I can hardly list the things that I learned through gaming. history, science, computer programming, art appreciation, philosophy, problem-solving . . . the list goes on and on. It even helped me to find my passion: novel-writing. I won't claim that everyone has or will have the experience I did, but I don't think that my gaming was anything but beneficial. The only CoC I've played was after the d20 conversion. It didn't impress me much, but then I find horror more amusing than anything. I'm too plebian I suppose. I've never played Rolemaster, although the worst criticism I've ever heard of it was that there were too many tables. Too much randomness detracts from the artistic aspects of the game sometimes. This may be that my group doesn't stop to consider what the results of failure may be, only how to prevent said failure. Do you have AIM? I play online with a group of friends via AIM. One of them lives in New York, but we've have players in Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, California, and Pennsylvania. It makes it a bit easier to find a group when you don't have to be in the same geographical location. If you're interested email me . . . if I can get some players I have an idea I'd be willing to run.
  3. Nice to meet you, Charles! I've done some traveling myself (in Europe, and all over the U.S.) and I well remember feeling adrift and lost and afraid. It was this feeling, I think, that led me to question the necessity of withering slowly away to a bitter old husk, drifting in nostalgia for days when I didn't know anything. Now, every time I learn something new I'm better than I was before. I look forward to the day when I can travel again. But I'm going FIRST class this time.
  4. I STRONGLY recommend you take a look at Mutants and Masterminds. I've played both Champions and M&M (and Abberant, and DC Heroes, and took a stab at Marvel Universe). M&M is by far my favorite, largely because of its elegant simplicity. Let me ask you a more general question: what draws you to gaming? Why do you enjoy it? What makes a good game, or a poor one?
  5. Ahh, you refer to computer RPG's, considered a lesser form of the High Art by us snooty paper-and-dice gamers. You give up character sovereignity for cool graphics. On an side note: KOTOR uses the d20 system pioneered in the Third Edition D&D game. It was rapidly expanded to other genres and essentially destroyed the old Star Wars RPG that once enjoyed some popularity. I've played the new version once and I was not much impressed with it, but then I'm not much of a Star Wars fan, either. I will agree with you that the "alignment" system is a bit . . . what's a good word . . . contrived. For the edification of anyone not previously familiar with RPG's, the dominant system, Dungeons and Dragons, has a method for determining where your character stands morally. Interesting, is it not, that a game finds it necessary to have an objective (small o) means of determining moral standing? Your character has two alignment ratings to determine where he/she stands on the two alignment axes Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. The trouble is that they define Lawful to mean "obedient", and Good to mean "nice". You can infer the definitions of Chaotic and Evil from there. Thus your Lawful Good character, who should be a model of strength, virtue, and morality, becomes a simpering consensus-seeking brother-lover. Bah. What alignment should a conscientious Objectivist pick? (Pardon the bizarre tone of this post; I had too much sugar today. I don't THINK I infringed on any copyright/trademarked stuff, but if I did the D&D 3E manuals are the source.)
  6. Mmm . . . I may have misunderstood your posting, Pericles. My apologies. I can't tell if this question is meant to be rhetorical. The simple answer is that Roark doesn't really want to make money, he wants to build buildings. Making money is dealt with in Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead is more about originality and art. Keating was an architect to the extent that he designed buildings. Yes, he borrowed everything from SOMEONE, so I suppose it might be more technically correct to call him a draftsman. Salesman, though? He was largely incapable of recognizing that he was a cheat. Toohey was the salesman. Keating was a sponge. Returning to the Microsoft question, the most damning evidence I EVER heard against Microsoft was a memo Bill Gates supposedly sent out saying that they needed to do everything possible to put a competitor (Oracle?) out of business. Am I remembering this correctly? To me, this smacks of a fear of competition, a certain mark of a second-hander. What I recall of the anti-trust suit, though, was that the competition was angry because Microsoft was conveniently packaging Explorer in with their operating system and seeking government protection against this unfair convenience. Edit: the competitors were seeking the government protection, not Microsoft. To any Objectivist I've met this is utter absurdity. Shall we persecute fast-food because the drive-through is more convenient than going into a restaurant? Shall we put Amazon.com out of business because it's easier to buy books online than to go to a store, discover they don't have it, wait for them to order it, etc., etc. Bah. Bill Gates may or may not be a brilliant programmer, he may or may not be the author of Microsoft's success, I don't know. Microsoft is a great company that is being persecuted because it is great. On that, I KNOW where I stand.
  7. I was a bit curious to know if anyone else here plays role-playing games. I've found it to be an enjoyable, albeit expensive, hobby and almost a form of performance art. I'm aware that RPG's aren't held in much esteem, and I'd love to hear from anyone wanting to express that side of things, too. Here's my favorite systems: Dungeons & Dragons (the NEW new one) Deadlands Mutants and Masterminds Unless you're a serious fanatic I doubt you'll find a system I haven't seen, though.
  8. I agree to an extent with most of the game selections here, but I'll add a few more (dated) games that I really enjoyed. Arcanum an 1880's steampunk/magic crossover game with an interesting plot. Unfortunately it's a bit buggy. I had to buy the hint book to figure out what happened to one of the NPC's because the plot thread didn't trigger correctly. Edit: if you play the game and have that precise problem I'll help you out; I really don't think there's any other way to get past that error. Drakan Tomb Raider meets Dragon Strike. I liked this game tremendously because the scenery was beautiful and the ground combat was interesting. The mobs would usually startle you by doing something surprisingly effective or funny, like using their shields. There is a sequel out but only for PS2. Gothic and Gothic II I loved these games, again, because of the scenery and because you could go absolutely everywhere if you were so inclined. The games are pretty non-linear until you get to the very end. The people in the games do things like sleep and fix their houses, they wander up and talk to you, they react to what you do very convincingly . . . it's excellent. You don't have to read very much if you don't want to, either; all the conversations are voice acted on BOTH ends, you can turn the subtitles off entirely if you are so inclined. That's all for now.
  9. I'm currently on the third book in the series (after a LENGTHY pause after reading the first two) and I'm not really enjoying them very much. His writing is very heavy-handed (according to me) and at least twice he stops the story entirely for topical vignettes about, it appears, his favorite gripes. The writing reminds me too much of stereotypical "series" fantasy: David Eddings, Robert Jordan, Mercedes Lackey . . . I don't know whether I'm developing better taste or just losing patience.
  10. I don't know that I really qualify as repressed; I think I may actually have a chemical disorder (a mild one, thank goodness) that results in peculiar mood swings. I've taken medication and it seemed to help but the side effects were really bizarre and I can't afford it now. One of the results of my constant battle with my emotional fluctuations is that I take frequent "samplings" of my mental state and analyze them . . . "All right, why am I upset NOW when this wouldn't have upset me two hours ago?" It doesn't make the emotional state disappear. It does lessen it and I don't act on the irrational emotions. Well, no, I can't quite claim that: I don't act on them very OFTEN. Not as much as I used to, anyway, when they were destroying my life. Some days it's a teeth and toenails thing, though.
  11. There's no reason that any contract has to include the list I mentioned, but if it doesn't I really can't see you getting away with calling it a marriage. Maybe a next-of-kin agreement, or a civil union, or a child protection agreement. Marriage is a name for a very specific group of agreements. I may be off base but I don't think you can take any old agreement and slap any name you like on it, just like I don't think you can take any old thing and slap any name you like on it. A keyboard is not a mouse is not a telephone.
  12. I've found this entire issue to be extremely bizarre, and the more I think about it the more bizarre it gets. My reasoning: Marriage is a legal contract, but it's not a simple legal contract. It contains a complex exchange of values, rights, and legal protections. Here's my list: 1. Spouses become legal next-of-kin. This is a 1-for-1 exchange. 2. Spouses commit to cease outside sexual activities (1:1) 3. Spouses share property in common (at the very least, property acquired during the marriage). In theory this would be an even exchange. If you go to Dumblaws.com I believe that in Alabama at least all property of the man becomes common property, but the woman is entitled to retain as private any property she owned prior to the marriage. Odd. 4. Some provision is made for children. In a "traditional" marriage this means that the man agrees to provide for the woman and offspring. In return he gains rights to his offspring that are equivalent to the rights the woman already possesses. I'm aware that these "traditional" marriages are becoming less and less common as the reasons for them disintegrate. The basis for this is the simple requirements of biology: providing for children requires quite a bit of effort and men, despite their many virtues, can't breast-feed a baby. Of course now there's substitutes, but that's the "base condition" that created the institution. The odd part about #4 is that now, due to the malicious welfare-state child support program, men lose the benefits they receive from marriage. Women are entitled to support for a child regardless of any contractual agreement being in place. The response of men to this was to demand that they should have rights to their offspring regardless of the contractual agreement as well. This is a side issue, but I just thought I'd mention it in passing. Marriage is a collective title given when all four of the above legal contracts are enacted at once. There may be more provisions, but if you take out one of the above provisions it's not marriage any more. So, looking at this, why shouldn't homosexuals be able to engage in this particular legal contract? Is there any condition that they are fundamentally unsuited to fulfill? Given, they may not be able to produce a child between them without assistance, but many hetero couples can't do that either. If anyone can come up with a reason why, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise as far as I'm concerned the issue is pretty much moot.
  13. I had a peculiar experience after reading this thread and I'm not sure what to make of it. My first response was that LucentBrave worries too much , that, and I could identify with the definition of repression that was being used. I went off to do something else for a while, thinking that it was nice to find a lot of people that speak in terms I understand. Then I started to cry. I wouldn't mention it but I can't understand why. Self-pity? There's no reason to cry. Shouldn't I have started when I first read the posts?
  14. I think you're a little confused here, Pericles. Roark doesn't want to be "an architect" if that were true building any building would be enough for him, as you seem to state. That's not what he wants. He wants to build HIS buildings. He wants to create what he sees in HIS mind. >>SPOILER ALERT<< Keating initially enjoys financial success in the book because he is willing to pander to people that have no concept of what really constitutes beauty and functionality in architecture, or in anything else for that matter. He was trained to do this by his mother, by his school, by everyone that surrounded him, he generates no thoughts of his own, possesses no ideas of his own; his ego hardly exists at all. Roark, on the other hand, is possessed of spectacular ego. He will not act against his principles (i.e. that the building should look like THIS) in order to acquire a short term gain. He knows that such short term gains would destroy anything in him that was worthwhile and heroic. This is eventually what happens to Keating. In gaining unearned fame and fortune by copying from his betters, Keating is eventually only ABLE to maintain his fame and fortune by copying from Roark, which Roark permits because he thinks to enjoy the creation of one of HIS buildings by proxy. He was wrong, though, and he discovers his error when he sees what the commitee did to his buildings. So, he corrects his error in the only manner available to him: dynamites the buildings. Roark's entire attitude towards financial success is summed up in single quote: "I don't intend to build in order to have customers. I intend to have customers in order to build." >>END SPOILERS<< Objectivists generally admire wealth because we know that wealth can only be created through the reasoned activity of man's mind. There are other ways to acquire wealth, however . . . the slimy, vile methods of panderers, looters, moochers and thugs. Anyone that creates wealth is due some admiration, for to that extent they have acknowledged reason and used the power of their rational mind. I don't know if Microsoft or Bill Gates qualifies entirely for this accolade, but the actions of the government and litigation-crazy competitors are despicable. That is why Objectivists defend Microsoft.
  15. I loved Galt's speech too, I just didn't have the mental faculties to comprehend it at the time.
  16. AIM: SaneJenni If you contact me, I will talk your ear off. I've been told this is painful. Be warned.
  17. I didn't pick it but thank you! It was actually the most common girl name the year I was born. I find it somewhat comical that Jennifer translates as "White wave" considering what my last name is.
  18. My thoughts are these: Persecution is usually an attempt to gain or maintain power. Not necessarily over the specific victims of the persecution, although that may be a secondary, but over someone. What on earth does anyone have to gain from persecuting Objectivists? We don't have any political power and there isn't enough hatred directed towards us to make us a useful target for a politico seeking to ride that hatred. Instead, we get lumped in with people that agree with us approximately and attacked on that basis. If it did become possible to gain or keep power from persecuting Objectivists I think someone would try. I don't see it happening in the near future without some kind of dramatic change, but it is possible. It might be amusing to watch them try.
  19. Hello everyone, my name is Jennifer Snow. I'm a Data Entry Clerk at a Tissue Bank and I work at a spaghetti place a couple of days a week to help pay the bills. I'm also taking classes online towards a Liberal Arts degree. I've written two mercilessly bad fantasy novels and I'm working on writing some good ones just as soon as I can figure out how to go without sleep for more than two days at a time. A friend of mine introduced me to Ayn Rand's novels when I was in high school, around age 14 during a volleyball meet. I read all four of the major novels that year and I just couldn't quite make it through the "This is John Galt Speaking" speech. The concepts were so utterly foreign to me that I simply couldn't grasp them. I spent most of the next few years in the grip of major depression and, although I didn't really understand them the novels helped me a lot. I think if I had not had their powerful vision of life not as an endless series of compromises and delaying actions but as something wonderful and good I would have given up, shut my mind off, and died. In recent years I've been able to shrug off the mantle of depression and anxiety that's plagued me all my life, mostly because I've studied Objectivism more thorougly and developed an understanding of it.
×
×
  • Create New...