PDA

View Full Version : Your beliefs? And how they shape what you might play



randomhero00
2013-01-14, 10:27 AM
I'm wondering if there is a correlation between what you might believe in real life, and what you tend to play/favor in an RPG.

For instance, if you believe in the supernatural, life after death, or whatever, is it more likely you'd rather play a wizard over a fighter?

These days I'm none too sure what I believe in exactly. I do believe in life after death...but beyond that I'm not sure (like if actions affect what happens after death, etc).

I want to believe in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, ESP, whatever) but just haven't seen any real evidence, well except for some crazy happenstances over my life. But statistics say that in a world of billions, crazy stuff will happen every day.

Anyways, that said, I do much much prefer the roleplaying of magic type using classes. I also put a lot of stock on brains and willpower IRL, and big surprise, I like the idea of Psion the best.

Now remember, this is what you like the idea of the most, not what class might be the most fun for you to play mechanically or the most powerful combo in game...strictly roleplaying.

Grinner
2013-01-14, 10:51 AM
For instance, if you believe in the supernatural, life after death, or whatever, is it more likely you'd rather play a wizard over a fighter?

It's worth pointing out that wizards in most RPGs don't lend themselves well to a supernatural image. Think about it. They consistently produce certain effects through certain actions. Done correctly, there's very little chance of anything backfiring. Yet, when they start getting experimental, they end up making horrific monstrosities of all kinds. To top it all off, they're described as manipulating energy, a physical medium.

That's not magic. That's science.

Morph Bark
2013-01-14, 11:11 AM
That's not magic. That's science.

You say that like something cannot be both. :smallamused:

Magic is simply a science, just like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

randomhero00
2013-01-14, 11:12 AM
Wizards are clearly supernatural to us humans. Science produces nothing of the sort of personal power a wizard could muster. Science has produced flamethrowers in the real world, but I'd say a scientist is a lot more akin to some kind of magical craftsmen or alchemist in an RPG than a wizard.

I'd also disagree that most wizards in RPGs are like the DnD wizard.

Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

ghost_warlock
2013-01-14, 11:20 AM
Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

+1

As for me, although I'm sure that my personal beliefs/non-beliefs color my character choices, they don't dominate them. In terms of the supernatural I've played the gamut of characters from atheists to shamans to priests to gods themselves. Morally, I've played every alignment in D&D and in the other systems I've spent a good deal playing I've also played a number of moralities - from the saint to the murderous psychopath rapist. Granted, the most horrific acts usually take place behind the scenes, but not always since I usually play with other mature players.

GenericMook
2013-01-14, 11:34 AM
Nope. My beliefs don't shape anything with my characters.

My experiences and inspiration from fiction tends to do that. Most of the time, I make a build and develop a character from there. I think about it for two/three days, and settle on what I like.

Raimun
2013-01-14, 11:58 AM
No, not really. I can separate my character from myself.

... Unless you count my opinion that modern combat fought with modern weapons (guns, intercontinental missiles, etc.) isn't honorable. That's different from whether it's good or evil, mind you.
Anyway, that's part of the reason my characters tend to gravitate towards close combat and melee. Still, I've played plenty of characters who used guns.

JoshuaZ
2013-01-14, 12:11 PM
For a while now I've wanted to play a necromancer with strong transhumanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) attitudes. I have strong philosophical sympathy with transhumanists, but I don't think their goals are likely to be practically doable anytime soon. This SMBC is relevant (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1968#comic).

But most of my characters are generally pretty far away from my personal beliefs.

Grinner
2013-01-14, 12:20 PM
Wizards are clearly supernatural to us humans. Science produces nothing of the sort of personal power a wizard could muster. Science has produced flamethrowers in the real world, but I'd say a scientist is a lot more akin to some kind of magical craftsmen or alchemist in an RPG than a wizard.

I'd also disagree that most wizards in RPGs are like the DnD wizard.

Anyways, that is kind of off topic as I am talking about beliefs, not job description or ways of discovering truth. Science is not a religion or a belief. It is a way of going about things to prove what is possible in our natural world.

I dare say that D&D-world operates on slightly different physics, where such personal power is quite possible.

Besides, science, not strictly speaking, is very much a belief. I take it on the scientific community's word that the things they propose exist. I myself have never seen an atom up close, nor have I ever tampered with DNA. I don't know these things, I merely believe in them.

BlckDv
2013-01-14, 12:24 PM
Thinking about this question made me aware of a line I had not previously been aware of in my own RP habits.

When playing a Modern or Future setting, I tend to enjoy settings which mimic my understanding of a world that fits my beliefs about our real world, whether or not my character believes as I do. I want a setting in which any divine force is mysterious and the world "makes sense" without demanding you believe, but belief in such a force exists among many of the inhabitants, I want a world that has laws of science which behave and are well mapped, even if those laws include forces not present in our experience (such as functional communication via telepathy, or FTL travel). Within that setting I may play an atheistic mercenary or a star hopping chaplain seeing God in the mystery of the stars; but I do not enjoy Modern/Future settings which establish outright "The Greek Gods are real and show up to swan hump you sometimes." (Now, a setting in which Aliens/Time Travelers/Etc. impersonated the Greek Gods either now or in the past a la Dan Simmons Illium novel setting would be fine)

When playing a Fantasy setting I want the opposite.. I want Magic that works and Gods that have met mortals. I want creatures that just flat out don't work by modern laws of biology, I want an afterlife that has tangible proof and in which being an atheistic naturalist would be at best borderline madness. In large part I want a Fantasy world that does not reflect the belief of any player at the table, so that we all agree that the made up story we tell is not being disrespectful or alternately evangelistic for any real world belief system. Because I want a world so definitely not my own, I don't find that my beliefs impact what sorts of characters I end up playing in those settings.

I've erased some more that originally followed, as going any further in my answer brings in too much concrete commentary on my real world faith and would invite debate which I think may quickly stress the forum rules.

nedz
2013-01-14, 12:44 PM
I've occasionally ran moral quandary type plots which can be quite revealing.

There was one where I had an evil young cultist going around sacrificing children. After a lot of effort in tracking him down, they caught him and took him into custody. The locals formed a lynch mob which the party held off. They then took him off to the city for trial — well actually they allowed the Paladin of Horus to take him to his temple. The trial was brief, and the sentence capital. Apart from one player (the paladin as it happens) the rest of the party split along their real world views on this matter.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-01-14, 12:45 PM
Yes, actually. I tend to avoid classes that more or less force religious overtones such as the paladin and the cleric. I don't really have issues with favored souls since they, according to the fluff, didn't choose their powers, the powers choose them. But classes that actively pray to a god for their powers just doesn't sit to well with me. I have no issues with others playing them, but for me personally? I'd rather steer clear of them.

randomhero00
2013-01-14, 01:04 PM
BlckDv- Reading your post I realized I am quite similar. If you want we could discuss more in PM.

Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

SamBurke
2013-01-14, 01:07 PM
My beliefs have about magic actually being a science have caused me to look at the game in a whole new way, and I am currently re-writing the entirety of the ruleset of DnD in order to promote the idea of science and roleplaying.

That is all.

EDIT: Must reply.


Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

Grievously incorrect. 1+1=2 is not provable to anyone who does not have a fundamental understanding of the number 2. In fact, all of math is built on a set of postulates (such as the law of non-contradiction), which in turn are formed out of traditional Western Logic. Thus, science, while not a "belief" in itself, is based on a system of belief. This belief is well-founded, of course, but it is nonetheless belief.

This is a fundamentally different pointing out of the belief, compared to what Grinner said. Nevertheless, I agree with him as well. You, personally, cannot know very much about the universe. I, presumably, know less. Nevertheless, we have a system of credibility in place (universities, scholarly reviews, peer reviewed journals, scientific testing et all) which allows us to be fairly confident that the unprovable parts of our world are as we believe them to be.

Grinner
2013-01-14, 01:13 PM
Grinner- I really don't want to get sidetracked here. But science is not a belief. Your examples, atoms and DNA, are not "science" they are a product of the scientific method met from observable facts through our natural world.

In other words, to use the simplest of examples, 1+1=2 is correct not because of any belief, but because that's the way it is in our universe. You can prove it. Whether you understand how you can prove it or not does not rely on ones belief in it.

If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

prufock
2013-01-14, 01:18 PM
Well, if we want to be literal, everything you experience shapes everything you do. Whether that has a noticeable effect is a different matter.

I think that my beliefs absolutely shape the characters I play. I know my education does. I have a psychology degree, and every character I build has some sort of psychological rationale. Often I'll hone in on some psychological concept and build around that. I tend to do research for my characters.

Let's take the current character I'm playing as an example. I'm would classify myself as something of a humanist. I believe strongly in encouraging people, supporting people, and complimenting people - not falsely, but sincerely in a "look for the silver lining" way. I'm a pretty honest guy as well.

My current character: a bard that uses Perform: oratory as motivational speaking and pep talks. He tries to be everyone's friend and believes that all differences can be solved through diplomacy. Granted this isn't always true in the world of D&D, and sometimes he is forced into a more direct militaristic approach, but he'll always try talking first, and he always regrets having to hurt anyone. Everyone should make an effort to get along, or at least be civil to one another. After all, life is hard. No need to make it harder. He rarely lies (but is good at it if he chooses to; better to fix a situation through a harmless lie than violence). His cheerful mood also extends to objects and situations. He always has something good to say.

He will go out of his way to help people, he always has something cheerful to say, he's genuinely interested in people's stories, and he will give encouragement freely. He is, in many ways, what I try to be (though I don't have nearly as many ranks in the pertinent skills, and charisma is quite possibly my dump stat).

He would agree with the statement "Beginning today, treat everyone you meet as if they were going to be dead by midnight. Extend them all the care, kindness and understanding you can muster. Your life will never be the same again."

I've looked up things regarding motivational speaking, influence, likeability, and I try to portray those things through the character.

I've also played an atheist wizard who treated magic as a science, a force user/gambler that was a bit of a con man but always stood up for what he felt was right, and an Objectivist heroic cleric who would not help anyone that didn't help themselves (but would always take time for those who were willing to do the work). These reflect at least a part of my own beliefs.

Not all character concepts are so readily applicable though. I've even played some evil characters that don't reflect my beliefs at all, but they are still psychologically motivated.

AuraTwilight
2013-01-14, 01:21 PM
Nah, not really. Feeding my own beliefs, whatever they may be, into an explicitly fictional setting different from reality seems sort of silly to me.

prufock
2013-01-14, 01:21 PM
If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

Science is a (set of) discipline(s). It has rules to govern how we seek out facts. It's a way to study the universe. Atoms and DNA could be classified as facts or objects.

SowZ
2013-01-14, 01:22 PM
I'm a religous person in real life who leans towards freedom as the most important value. (I don't think we can name drop our religions/political parites?) Regardless, I can play atheist/occult/pacifists/new-age-everything-is-perception-its-all-a-dream characters and rebels/government-super-agents/fairly-oppressive-paladiny-types... no, I don't think so. If anything, I try and fairly explore new ideas and different ways of thinking when I make a serious character.

randomhero00
2013-01-14, 01:27 PM
If they're not categorized as science, then what would you place them under?

The scientific method is the heart of science, but science itself seems to have grown beyond it, I'm afraid.

A product of science as I already said.

You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

SamBurke- you just spouted a bunch of goblygook (which no, I don't know what that means lol)... you seem to be postulating that an ignorance of 2 means that you must have a belief in it...well no, just because one does not understand something does not make it faith, belief, or any such thing. The laws of the universe are there whether we know them or not. 1+1=2 was true 60 thousand years ago before we even invented math, and it'll be true after the human race dies.

It's kind of analogous to the law. Just because you might have an ignorance of a law, does not make one not-guilty in court (unfortunately :D )

Grinner
2013-01-14, 01:29 PM
Science is a (set of) discipline(s). It has rules to govern how we seek out facts. It's a way to study the universe. Atoms and DNA could be classified as facts or objects.

:smallsmile:

Then how would you respond to the trend towards theoretical sciences?

prufock
2013-01-14, 01:33 PM
Then how would you respond to the trend towards theoretical sciences?

In what respect? Theoretical sciences still follow particular rules in studying the universe - falsifiability, replication, etc.


You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

I'd be careful about slamming that hammer down. Science started as a branch of philosophy, was even dubbed "natural philosophy", and theoretical sciences are still systematic in their approach to understanding phenomena. As long as they are still forming testable predictions, it's still science.

Grinner
2013-01-14, 01:36 PM
In what respect? Theoretical sciences still follow particular rules in studying the universe - falsifiability, replication, etc.

In that they rely more upon rationalism than empiricism, thus being theoretical.

JoshuaZ
2013-01-14, 01:39 PM
Grievously incorrect. 1+1=2 is not provable to anyone who does not have a fundamental understanding of the number 2. In fact, all of math is built on a set of postulates (such as the law of non-contradiction), which in turn are formed out of traditional Western Logic. Thus, science, while not a "belief" in itself, is based on a system of belief. This belief is well-founded, of course, but it is nonetheless belief.


Counting discrete entities is a basic aspect of reality, which even some non-human species, such as many ravens and crows can do. Curiously, other ancient cultures, not only the classical "Western" ones developed basic logic. India would be the most obvious example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic). It is however, possible that the issue being discussed is one that is more about definitions than anything else. What do you mean by belief? Do you mean that things aren't certain? If so, that's trivially true. I can't rule out (although it seems extremely unlikely) that 1+2=4 and the main reason I think that 1+2=3 is because I've just had a stroke. But this isn't a reason to disregard beliefs or see all statements as having equal validity. Thus, I can assign a higher probability to 1+1=2 than I do to Andrew Jackson being a President of the United States which has a higher probability than there having been an assassin on the grassy knoll, which has a higher probability than Jack the Ripper having been a time-traveling alien. Beware the fallacy of grey (http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/).

So the lack of provability in the strong sense really doesn't matter for much purpose beyond first year philosophy.

prufock
2013-01-14, 01:40 PM
In that they rely more upon rationalism than empiricism, thus being theoretical.

I understand what theoretical science entails. What I mean is: in what way is this question related to what I said previously (and wasn't answered in my last post)?

Moriwen
2013-01-14, 01:41 PM
I think my beliefs shape what I play, but only in a "play what you know" sort of way. It's fun to apply the ways that real-life religious people act, good and bad, to, say, a cleric of a deity of death and destruction.

They also, I think, shape my characters in a reverse way--I'm not likely to play a character whose beliefs are very close to mine, just as I don't play characters who look just like me or have the same interests or personality.

randomhero00
2013-01-14, 01:45 PM
I'd be careful about slamming that hammer down. Science started as a branch of philosophy, was even dubbed "natural philosophy", and theoretical sciences are still systematic in their approach to understanding phenomena. As long as they are still forming testable predictions, it's still science.

Oh I know the first parts. And I was almost a philosophy major, there's nothing wrong with philosophy. But string theory and such, is not science. And that's the point, they are not forming testable predictions last I checked. Doesn't mean its useless, far from it. Its a great framework for when science does catch up. Just not science yet.

Philosophy also systematically approaches the human phenomenon and experience. Doesn't make it science.

JoshuaZ
2013-01-14, 01:45 PM
You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

So I'm not sure what you mean by "quantum stuff"- quantum mechanics makes testable predictions which are used all the time in our everyday lives, such as with lasers. Heck, the computer you are reading this on now uses very small transistors whose behavior only makes sense and can only be designed using quantum mechanics. So if it is a lack of testability then "quantum stuff" doesn't fall into an sort of philosophical pool. Here I'm using a variant of Popper's notion that scientific ideas should be falsifiable/testable- this isn't a perfect criterion for what ideas are or are not scientific but it works as a good rough approximation.

Now, string theory is an interesting different case. The primary problem is that string theory seems to be as of yet not testable. However, this should not by itself cause one to dismiss something as not science if something simply isn't testable now. Often hypotheses are difficult or nearly impossible to test for decades after they are constructed.. That doesn't make the hypothesis non-scientific by itself (although if this goes on for a while this can be a serious warning sign).

randomhero00
2013-01-14, 01:52 PM
QM yes. By quantum stuff I was more, editing for my current audience. I wasn't thinking too much on, more just about the quantum world in general. But yes, I know we use QM to quite a successful degree. My engineer friend just went back to school for it.

pendell
2013-01-14, 01:53 PM
You say that like something cannot be both. :smallamused:

Magic is simply a science, just like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

I don't believe that's the original concept. Let me steal from the intro to the Sorcerer RPG (http://www.rpgunited.com/info/sorcerer.html)




THE STORY - Magic in roleplaying games and in much of modern fantasy fiction has become too nice. That's right: too nice. Wizards are sad-eyed fellows who say cryptic things . . . or they're Just Folks who raise cats or struggle for social reform. What has happened to Maleficent, to Elric, or to those wonderful fellows in black robes who wielded curved daggers and swore by Set? Whatever happened to the sorcerer as cosmic outlaw?

Magic in modern-day settings is the worst for this problem. The one element missing is the classical sorcerer who, by himself or herself, wields NO magic: no spells, no powers, no senses. He or she just knows how to call up demons (whatever THEY are) and how to bind them. That's all.

Demons are wonderfully versatile: the sorcerer may bind them into his or her own body or into the bodies of others, or directly send them at enemies or goals. And they can be subverted! Your own bound demon is easier to control, and someone else's bound demon is harder,
but it's not impossible to be served one day by the demon you were fighting the day before.

In this game, all of what other games call "magic" is a load of hogwash: fantasy, frippery, and swindling. But you play a person -- a normal person -- who knows how to summon and bind beings of horror and madness for personal purposes.


*Science* is the art of observing phenomena, forming hypotheses, and verifying the hypothesis via experiment. It assumes a natural world with natural laws. Most "magic" in modern fantasy is actually a branch of science. The world is different. There is a science where you can heat water by reciting certain words or making certain hand gestures. It's not really different from electromagnetism in that there is a natural method and natural laws for making this happen.

*Magic* is the art of dealing with things outside natural reality. Things that cannot be understood by scientific principles, because they are outside natural laws. It has a great deal in common with religion in that the truths are mysteries in the literal sense -- they cannot be discovered by observation or reasoning or repeated in experiment, but must be revealed by someone who already knows them.

Now, I am a religious believer IRL. I am also an intelligent person trapped in a handicapped body. This naturally leads me to gravitate towards wizard-type characters not because of any religious belief, but simply because it's far easier for me to want to be a character who can blow things up with his mind rather than with physical strength. Wish-fulfillment, you see.

However, because I DO have beliefs of various kinds, I attempt to make my fantasy "magic" as scientific and naturalistic as possible. Or I look at the part of my belief system that allows for miracles and try to put "magic" in the framework of "miracle-working". The word for "miracle-worker" is "Thaumaturgos", after all :). I do what I can to reconcile my real-world beliefs with the fantasy world without ruining the schtick that makes a particular fantasy world fantastic.

Y'see, there's a very good reason for fantasy, because it allows us to talk about these kind of issues in a "what-if" environment. And this is because when you start talking about the real world you have to bring in a lot of tired old men to make sure what you are teaching is as orthodox as possible, ruining any conceivable value as a thought experiment.

It's why David Drake set what would have been a novel for Rome in the city of Carce (http://david-drake.com/tag/carce/), instead. The way he explained it, when he wrote stories about Rome he got truckloads of nitpicking fanmail taking exception, at length, to his portrayal of Roman society. The role of slaves and of women. Anachronism. The specific wood used to make the shields, for heaven's sake.

So Drake renamed his world "Carce". That way, he explained, if he wanted the Carcean legions to march into battle with top hats and parasols, no one could complain.

That's dealing with geeky historians and wargamers. When you get away from that and start bringing in real-life religious issues, well, you can imagine the disaster.

Which is why in-game I would rather play a cleric of Tyr than a cleric of <your-name-here>. Because if I decide to reinvent Tyr to be closer to my own personal ideals, or to bring him closer to my real-life beliefs, or if I want to make a new deity called Aslan or Unknown God or what not, we can still play together without breaking the game's framework. Whereas if I tried to insert a factual belief with all the religious baggage that entailed, it would offend everyone at the table who did not share that viewpoint and it would also introduce a serious discrepancy between game crunch and fluff.

Games, in short, are a place for me to step outside my normal beliefs and explore a what-if world, whether that is for simple wish-fulfillment or for the purpose of learning. It is because I wish to learn that I do not restrict myself to my real-world beliefs or my real-world alignment. I consider myself neutral good. But I would play a CE necromancer as a one-off purely to exercise my acting skills and to have an opportunity to learn how that kind of character ticks. The best way to learn empathy for another human being is to walk a mile in their shoes, and games are one of the best ways to do that.

This doesn't mean I completely abandon my real-world views and beliefs when gaming. But it does mean I strive for a certain creative tension between them. If the game corresponds exactly to my idea of the real world, I might as well be in the real world. There is no room to grow, no element of what-if. Likewise, if there is NO correspondence with the real world, then what purpose is there to playing? What do I learn? If it does not reflect on my real life and real choices, what value does it have to *me*?

That's the way I roll, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Grinner
2013-01-14, 01:53 PM
I understand what theoretical science entails. What I mean is: in what way is this question related to what I said previously (and wasn't answered in my last post)?

Didn't see the edit.

Anywho, it wasn't directly related. I just don't get much opportunity for stimulating conversation on these forums.

As for the OP, I can answer that with a definite "sometimes". When I make a god, a living concept, I tend to have them represent only that concept with all of the implications. I recently made a god for a Lords of Creation campaign who represented the concept of family. He was initially the embodiment of the idealized family, but he soon came to represent others kinds of family, like the single mother and her one night stand child.

Mortal characters tend to be a little two dimensional, but I do like giving them some kind of motive for action. It's always something I'm comfortable with, however.


That's the way I roll, anyway.

I saw what you did there. :smallwink:

SowZ
2013-01-14, 02:00 PM
A product of science as I already said.

You are referring to the scientists who have jumped in to the pool of philosophy (i.e. quantum stuff and string theory and such but that is no longer science.)

SamBurke- you just spouted a bunch of goblygook (which no, I don't know what that means lol)... you seem to be postulating that an ignorance of 2 means that you must have a belief in it...well no, just because one does not understand something does not make it faith, belief, or any such thing. The laws of the universe are there whether we know them or not. 1+1=2 was true 60 thousand years ago before we even invented math, and it'll be true after the human race dies.

It's kind of analogous to the law. Just because you might have an ignorance of a law, does not make one not-guilty in court (unfortunately :D )

The scientific method has had to adapt and change, though, to account for the study of things we can't actually test or observe on the scale we'd like to taking the forefront of so many scientific fields.

SamBurke
2013-01-14, 04:24 PM
Counting discrete entities is a basic aspect of reality, which even some non-human species, such as many ravens and crows can do. Curiously, other ancient cultures, not only the classical "Western" ones developed basic logic. India would be the most obvious example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_logic). It is however, possible that the issue being discussed is one that is more about definitions than anything else. What do you mean by belief? Do you mean that things aren't certain? If so, that's trivially true. I can't rule out (although it seems extremely unlikely) that 1+2=4 and the main reason I think that 1+2=3 is because I've just had a stroke. But this isn't a reason to disregard beliefs or see all statements as having equal validity. Thus, I can assign a higher probability to 1+1=2 than I do to Andrew Jackson being a President of the United States which has a higher probability than there having been an assassin on the grassy knoll, which has a higher probability than Jack the Ripper having been a time-traveling alien. Beware the fallacy of grey (http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/).

So the lack of provability in the strong sense really doesn't matter for much purpose beyond first year philosophy.

I was speaking more for Geometry, and the principles used there. But I wasn't saying science can be disregarded at all. My post indicated that I have a high regard for science, which is why I'm re-working DnD to conform to that principle.

I am merely stating that holding science highly is in itself a belief, one that I hold.

As to whether or not various parts of math or science are "belief" or solid fact, there is still a grey line. As we all agree, String Theory is an interesting extension of the idea of science: not known one way or the other, and thus, believed in. Even though it is a belief, it is still pursued scientifically, and that is the heart of my point.

Chilingsworth
2013-01-14, 08:16 PM
I'm not sure how much my beliefs affect my character choices.

Let's see... really, the only concrete belief I have is a belief in uncertainty (that is, "no such things as certainty or impossibility exist, only varying degrees of probability") I'm also something of a moral relativist, I suppose. I do tend to play nonlawful characters, and have had trouble sticking to lawful alignments in the past.

As for classes, I tend to play spellcasters (though not nessicarily well.) I generally like to play smart, or at least not stupid, characters. I often use wisdom as a dump stat, though. (I think that part is because I can be quite oblivious at times, and at least that way I have an excuse for my character to be so, too.)

As an example, my current character (a NE-ish wizard/beguiler in the way of the wicked adventure path):

-snip- (I started writing his backstory up, then realised this thread is likely not the place for it.)

Suffice it to say that my current character is definately influenced by my beliefs in so far as his rage against self-righteousness and hypocrisy, and his disgust for intolorence and governmental corruption. (Of course he's OK with intolerance towards the local church of Tyr, since he blames them for alot of misery he suffered. He wants them exterminated, in fact.) I expect him to end up Lawful Evil by the end of the campaign: His current goals are to reforge his country into a propserous and militarily powerful nation that gives any (non tyr-worshipping) sentient to live under its laws, contribute to it, and benefit from citizenship. Oh, and to see the church of Tyr (at least in his country) destroyed and all its members either converted or messily put to the sword.

However, if those laws are broken, or an individual or nation is actively working to harm the country... he's perfectly fine with horrible things happening to them. Also, he's fine with fueling this prosperity with sacrifices to an Evil power and powering it with undead, if that's the most effective way to achieve it.

So... Yeah, some of his motivations are definately in line with mine, but... I'd (probably, no telling what I'd do if I had lived his backstory and had his power) balk at his specific methods.

hiryuu
2013-01-15, 04:21 AM
*Science* is the art of observing phenomena, forming hypotheses, and verifying the hypothesis via experiment. It assumes a natural world with natural laws. Most "magic" in modern fantasy is actually a branch of science. The world is different. There is a science where you can heat water by reciting certain words or making certain hand gestures. It's not really different from electromagnetism in that there is a natural method and natural laws for making this happen.

Alright. That makes magic a science, good. That's really good, most games think "science" is just all numbers and gizmos rather than observing results independently.


*Magic* is the art of dealing with things outside natural reality. Things that cannot be understood by scientific principles, because they are outside natural laws. It has a great deal in common with religion in that the truths are mysteries in the literal sense -- they cannot be discovered by observation or reasoning or repeated in experiment, but must be revealed by someone who already knows them.

Wait, what. No. If it can be done, it is no longer outside natural reality. It's part of how the universe works. It is NOT outside natural law anymore, because IT CAN BE DONE.

If you encounter something that's "outside natural law," that doesn't mean anyone broke a law. It means the law was written down wrong and needs to be changed. That's how science works. We do it all the time. This is a very common, fundamental misunderstanding in how science works.

Magic is a form of technology. It fits the definition to a big, capital T. Now, technology isn't science, but science can help develop technology. Technology is simply a set of tools or systems that solve problems. At some point, you have to face the fact that summoning up a demon and making it do something is a form of technology. An alien one to us here on Earth (especially since out cultural memes tell us "but technology has metal and is cold and hateful!" That's a whole other can of worms I'd like to fry and force a child to eat in exchange for a bike.) maybe, but still a form of technology.

That doesn't mean it has to be known exactly how it works in the setting, mind you. If you're playing a game set in the 17th to early 18th Century they still don't even know how fire works, but blacksmithing is a very complex process by that point. They even have guns!

I bet the culture that uses demons regularly moves a lot more heavy things than we do.

SowZ
2013-01-15, 04:29 AM
Alright. That makes magic a science, good. That's really good, most games think "science" is just all numbers and gizmos rather than observing results independently.



Wait, what. No. If it can be done, it is no longer outside natural reality. It's part of how the universe works. It is NOT outside natural law anymore, because IT CAN BE DONE.

If you encounter something that's "outside natural law," that doesn't mean anyone broke a law. It means the law was written down wrong and needs to be changed. That's how science works. We do it all the time. This is a very common, fundamental misunderstanding in how science works.

Magic is a form of technology. It fits the definition to a big, capital T. Now, technology isn't science, but science can help develop technology. Technology is simply a set of tools or systems that solve problems. At some point, you have to face the fact that summoning up a demon and making it do something is a form of technology. An alien one to us here on Earth (especially since out cultural memes tell us "but technology has metal and is cold and hateful!" That's a whole other can of worms I'd like to fry and force a child to eat in exchange for a bike.) maybe, but still a form of technology.

That doesn't mean it has to be known exactly how it works in the setting, mind you. If you're playing a game set in the 17th to early 18th Century they still don't even know how fire works, but blacksmithing is a very complex process by that point. They even have guns!

I bet the culture that uses demons regularly moves a lot more heavy things than we do.

Yeah, which is why I am irked when magic can circumvent the whole idea of no such thing as free energy. I always assume there is some sort of twisty swirly center where a lot of magic energy exists and it somehow replenishes itself in some cycle and spells draw from it. But enough spells cast at once could, theoretically, end magic. At least for a while.

At any rate, even divine intervention is natural. If the D&D dieties can otherwise circumvent physics, it is some greater force (which may just be the gods force of will or whatever, I don't care,) that lets them do it and that is natural, too.

TuggyNE
2013-01-15, 04:35 AM
Which is why in-game I would rather play a cleric of Tyr than a cleric of <your-name-here>. Because if I decide to reinvent Tyr to be closer to my own personal ideals, or to bring him closer to my real-life beliefs, or if I want to make a new deity called Aslan or Unknown God or what not, we can still play together without breaking the game's framework. Whereas if I tried to insert a factual belief with all the religious baggage that entailed, it would offend everyone at the table who did not share that viewpoint and it would also introduce a serious discrepancy between game crunch and fluff.
[...]
This doesn't mean I completely abandon my real-world views and beliefs when gaming. But it does mean I strive for a certain creative tension between them. If the game corresponds exactly to my idea of the real world, I might as well be in the real world. There is no room to grow, no element of what-if. Likewise, if there is NO correspondence with the real world, then what purpose is there to playing? What do I learn? If it does not reflect on my real life and real choices, what value does it have to *me*?

I am in so much agreement with this I can't even.

pendell
2013-01-15, 12:32 PM
Wait, what. No. If it can be done, it is no longer outside natural reality. It's part of how the universe works. It is NOT outside natural law anymore, because IT CAN BE DONE.


If it can be done by humans, yes, it is science. But if it's something that is not reliable, not repeatable, is impossible by the laws of science but people still claim it happened, it's not.

Hmmm ....

Maybe I can illustrate my point . Imagine, for a moment, there is a person named Bob. Bob is a person in a book I am writing.

In this book, I've written the story and the universe in such a way that the color blue does not exist. Neither Bob nor anyone else in his universe can perceive it. But *I* can, because I'm not bound by the scientific laws and conventions that exist in their reality. I am bound by different laws --- call my rules reality-2.

There is no way they can observe or participate in reality-2, because they don't exist in it. *I* can, however, because I'm part of reality-2. And because reality-1 is my subcreation, I can modify their world as I see fit.

*They* cannot know what blue is and cannot discover it because it literally does not exist for them. But I can know what it is, and I can temporarily suspend or altar their world so that blue can exist, for a few moments, without breaking their world's reality irrevocably.

We call these temporary suspensions of the rules "miracles". It is what happens when something outside reality steps in and twiddles with it.

One this is done, of course, it is very likely that the subject of my twiddling will be thought mad. Because the things he describes are literally impossible. They cannot be observed by anyone save him or those who were present at the time, it cannot be replicated, and all the theories will flatly show that what he claims is impossible.

Of course, there is no guarantee that *my* reality, reality-2, is the ultimate reality. There may be another reality transcending mine, call it reality-3. I cannot perceive or act on the laws of this reality, but those who dwell in it can act on me. And is there a reality-4 above that...?

These are not questions scientific method can answer. If "magic" is what happens when reality-2 interacts with reality-1, the interaction will take place on reality-2's terms. I, the author, can act on the characters, but the characters have limited ability to impact me in return. So those in reality-1 can neither replicate it reliably nor even prove its' existence -- they are reduced to speculations, unproven observation, and a pile of superstitions because something worked one time.

Flatland (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/) explores the concept in some detail.

So I would not say that "magic" and "science" are the same thing. "Magic" is what happens in the absence of science. Magic is what happens when you're faced with the unexplainable and are left grasping with questions, speculations, and superstitions.

Most of the time, in our world, the frontiers of science advance and things we thought magical prove not to be , prove to have a rational explanation. But if the incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) holds outside arithmetic, then the provable, repeatable, observable truths about the universe will always be a subset of the total truths about the universe. And we haven't even started bring alternate levels of reality in yet.

Which means there will always be a limit to science and scientific knowledge. And where there is no science, there is room for magic and superstition. They are not the same thing: Rather, one is what you get when you hit the limits of the other.

ETA: I suppose from the perspective of reality-2 or reality-n all these occurrences will be science. But from the perspective of reality-1, reality-2 will never be science, unless the universe is somehow altered so that reality-2 and reality-1 merge. So long as reality-1 is a subcreation of reality-2, the existence of reality-2 or its laws or the way it impacts the world will never be more than a matter for conjecture, speculation. It will be possible for a rational man to disbelieve in the existence of reality-2 , and for a scientist it's probably wise to be highly skeptical of such claims. Because "it's reality-2 and unexplainable" is a cheap and easy handwave which might obscure actual exploration of some facets of reality-1's laws that are a better explanation. -- BDP.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Guizonde
2013-01-15, 01:39 PM
the elaborate answer:
if i could break reality, i would do it in a second for the fun factor. i think that life is too serious. i also believe "work hard, party harder" is key to a fulfilling life. i tend to be pessimistic and grimdark on a day to day, so you can apply the above to counter my moodiness. if i can, i will help out any and everyone. i am an avowed pacifist, atheist, and antiracist. i believe that humanity should get its ass in gear and stop fighting to better the human race. i weep inside for any and all conflict (be it religious vs secular, class-war, race-war, gang-war, war-war, flame-war...) since i honestly believe that tolerance is key to stop them all. last thing, i know nothing of healing people physically (mentally, i do my best to lend a friendly ear). loyalty is one of my favored traits in people i call friends.

what do i play?

optimistic pious characters (paladins, clerics...). i think that it's less about the other side as it is the "knight in shining armor" bit. playing a healer is wish-fulfilment, and being devoted to a god that preaches helping others is an obvious choice (especially if said god gives you the means to your creed).
i hate the fourth wall, and my characters tend to lean on it a lot. they also tend to jump into a fight headlong, enjoying the brutality of combat.

i guess my personnal beliefs do influence who i play, but more as a yin-yang mechanic. i can't cast healing spells irl (though i wish for it everyday) so my characters do in my stead. i don't have Faith (i believe you're either born with it or not... a philosophy that's kept me on great terms with very devout people) so my characters are representatives of a god, being overly pious but never preachy (sure, a lot of prayer time and calling upon their god often in their speech patterns, but never "convert or die"). i hate fighting, my characters are optimized to scrag everything in sight. twice.
the only two things my characters and i have in common is unswerving loyalty to the party and being xenophiles: halflings, half orks, dwarves, chameleon skinks, trolls, angels, i've played them all.
(ok, i hate elves, and so do my characters, but hey we all need a few paradoxes in life:smalltongue:)

the quick read
wish fulfilment determines my characters

that made me reflect upon myself and find unexpected answers, thanks TS. +1 cookie for you!

JoshuaZ
2013-01-15, 04:32 PM
Most of the time, in our world, the frontiers of science advance and things we thought magical prove not to be , prove to have a rational explanation. But if the incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems) holds outside arithmetic, then the provable, repeatable, observable truths about the universe will always be a subset of the total truths about the universe. And we haven't even started bring alternate levels of reality in yet.


Godel's theorem is a statement about arithmetic full-stop. In its most general form it is a statement about anything which models Robinson arithmetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_arithmetic). It isn't meaningful for it to "hold outside arithmetic". And even in this context, Godel's theorem doesn't actually force truths to not be knowable. For example, if one had a set of laws of physics that allowed one to build a Turing machine that sped up constantly so that every step took half as long as the previous, then Godel's theorem wouldn't matter for what one could physically do. (Obviously it doesn't look like we live in such a universe.)

Darthteej
2013-01-15, 05:53 PM
Not to be a killjoy, but isn't this topic really toeing the line rules wise?

hiryuu
2013-01-15, 08:02 PM
*snip*

No. That's not how it works. Once reality-2 starts interfering with reality-1, it's now an observable part of reality. It's no longer "super" natural. Seriously. Once anything starts interacting with an observational reality to the level where it can affect observational reality means it can be observed. There is literally no philosophical workaround to that. Even if the experiment can't be repeated. We're not looking for repeatable results, we're looking for repeatable observations. Everyone looking at the evidence independently has to come to the same or similar conclusions. Physicists are setting up experiments all the time that we can only do once or twice due to cost or precise cosmological conditions.

The scientific method CAN answer things like that. M-theory even makes predictions about these things that work just fine.

You know we have negative kelvin gases and Bose-Einstein condensates made of photons now (for about 2 years)? You know these REQUIRE the interaction of "reality-2s" in order to exist? That's not even getting into optics and QCLs, the lasers what trick the universe into forcing them to exist.

On the other hand, if one thing happens to one guy in a very specific set of circumstances and can never happen again, you know what else we can't do? Prolonged interaction with it that allows us to write a story or use in a gaming context in anything other than a thought experiment.

Because once it starts happening again, it's no longer a philosophical "what if" scenario, now it's an observable, repeatable phenomena. Someone will learn how it works and exploit the hell out of it.

I am reminded of a Bradbudy story. A Miracle of Rare Device. That's probably the closest you'll get.

There are things the scientific method doesn't help us with, but anything interacting with the laws of the universe isn't it.

___________

...to answer the main question, no. My experiences in this observed referential reality don't often intersect with my characters' beliefs. Actually, I'll often use a character to challenge my own, since I have to get into their head to really figure out how they'd think of things.

Grinner
2013-01-15, 09:36 PM
No. That's not how it works. Once reality-2 starts interfering with reality-1, it's now an observable part of reality. It's no longer "super" natural. Seriously. Once anything starts interacting with an observational reality to the level where it can affect observational reality means it can be observed. There is literally no philosophical workaround to that. Even if the experiment can't be repeated. We're not looking for repeatable results, we're looking for repeatable observations. Everyone looking at the evidence independently has to come to the same or similar conclusions. Physicists are setting up experiments all the time that we can only do once or twice due to cost or precise cosmological conditions.

Doesn't the scientific method require that valid experiments be repeatable?

Even then, unless you ascend to reality-2, you can only observe the elements that are interacting with reality-1, assuming that's it's really reality-2 you're seeing, not just some hidden mechanism of reality-1 acting on reality-2's behalf.

(For reference, the scenario I'm working off right now is the Matrix.)

hiryuu
2013-01-15, 11:34 PM
Doesn't the scientific method require that valid experiments be repeatable?

Even then, unless you ascend to reality-2, you can only observe the elements that are interacting with reality-1, assuming that's it's really reality-2 you're seeing, not just some hidden mechanism of reality-1 acting on reality-2's behalf.

(For reference, the scenario I'm working off right now is the Matrix.)

It only requires the observation be repeatable and the results be testable, not necessarily all the conditions of the experiment - this is why they will follow up once-in-a-lifetime/can never be repeated experiments with follow-up experiments designed to test the equipment or the suggested principles. Everyone has to agree that they're drawing the same conclusions: some disciplines (such as paleontology and astronomy) have entire bodies of knowledge that have been constructed out of single case studies rather than direct, repeatable evidence.

Look at it this way: if you see a tiny part of a picture, there's no guarantee that you can -ever- see or interact with the entire picture, but you can make some really good guesses about what you're looking at, can't you? If you have enough information stacked up, you can even get close or even correct ones. You can't ever test exactly what it is you're looking at, but you could even go so far as to chop up other pictures and see if you could get something that looks close, right?

This could actually go back to the fire thing - we observed, described, documented, tested, predicted, and relied on the existence of Oxygen before we even had atomic theory. They used to call it "fire air," and it's why we don't use phlogiston theory anymore. Even though no one has ever seen an atom. Inference can lead you in the wrong direction, but inference verification is a powerful tool capable of telling you things you can't see.

We have had to change our entire methodology of thinking before, it's going to happen again. Can you imagine trying to describe time as a geographical location to someone from just the 1930s? It'd be damn near impossible, but that's where our current understanding of time leads us: traveling through time is roughly analogous to traveling from LA to New York. Neutrinos do it constantly. Just with more blue. I know it looks black, but trust me, it's blue from the outside (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/images/radiation/nuclear_reactor2.jpg).

AntiTrust
2013-01-16, 01:21 AM
You say that like something cannot be both. :smallamused:

Magic is simply a science, just like mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.

*nods* The technomancers from babylon 5 I think fit that role well

kardar233
2013-01-16, 04:56 AM
Well...

I'm an atheist, transhumanist, utilitarian, and being Canadian the only thing I can't tolerate is intolerance.

Characters I have played and liked in the past:

A formerly-LN enforcer of a fascist police state (40K's Imperium) who was forced to kill his entire family, the act breaking him so badly he turned straight to CE and started worshipping his family's patron Eldritch Abomination.

A LE Paladin of Tyranny, who absolutely never lies (but can be a bit... creative with the truth) and is really quite a nice guy until you start breaking his rules in which case he turns into a nastier version of Judge Dredd.

A CN ridiculously-powerful mage who's the next best thing to invulnerable and zips around the multiverse like a trans-dimensional Doctor Who lead in the name of having as much fun as possible in his eternal life. Protects creativity wherever he can find it, so that it'll make things that he can have fun with later. Also generally bat**** insane. Seriously, he abducted the cast of Dracula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1958_film)) to do a once-only live performance of the movie in his dream demiplane (he wiped their memories and sent them back after, of course), and then spontaneously decided to storm the Nine Hells with a pair of silver candlesticks. He got halfway through the Second Layer when he started getting bored and Dispater was telling him to cut it out.

Go figure.

Avilan the Grey
2013-01-16, 05:01 AM
The only thing that has an impact on my playstyle is my private morals; I have a VERY hard time playing a complete bastard. Even my most morally grey characters have a heart of gold hidden (sometimes very deep, sometimes wearing it on their sleeves, depending on character).

As for Magic vs Science: In most fantasy RPGs, as well as in most modern Fantasy, Magic takes the place of Science, or at least exists as a separeate, similar force. The Wizard's Laboratory, filled with (more or less gruesome) test subjects, beakers, bubbly liquid, thick tomes, scrolls of written down knowledge, detailed maps of 6-dimensional pocket universes etc is a cliché after all. And Magic A is Magic A is a trope, even.

This is also painfully obvious in DnD, where you have the three tiers: Wizards, who are fully scientific in their approach, Sorcerers, who are naturally gifted, but can control their powers, and Wild Mages, who are just accidents waiting to happen.

To a point, in modern fantasy, the place of the Mystic Wizard has been replaced by the Cleric, and especially the Druid.

Frozen_Feet
2013-01-16, 10:16 AM
Oh, my beliefs affect my playing quite a lot. As a GM, it's often reflected in certain karmic underpinnings of the game, or I might have a lot of fun spoofing whatever philosophical, religious or scientific phenomenom or theory has caught my eyes lately.

When making and/or playing characters, I often make a point to deviate as much as possible from my own views as sort of a self-imposed challenge. Other characters are the opposite, essentially being decontructions and examinations of "who do I feel like today?"

Finally, as a writer and setting-builder, I realized my current one essentially doubles as a tract of my worldview, just viewed through a thick lense of self-parody. My meds must not be working right, since it is a hilariously bleak place. :smalltongue:

Amphetryon
2013-01-16, 04:01 PM
If I allowed my personal beliefs to shape my Characters, I would never get any enjoyment from a Rogue archetype, particularly one in a classical "thief" mold. This is not the case.

hiryuu
2013-01-16, 11:37 PM
If I allowed my personal beliefs to shape my Characters, I would never get any enjoyment from a Rogue archetype, particularly one in a classical "thief" mold. This is not the case.

I know several people who'd have trouble playing Shadowrun straight up, but I'll admit that I see a lot of hooding whenever they do.