|
A long time ago in D&D - probably before you were conceived on that old blanket by your parents - There was a concept called ML (Morale) and basically that was the number which when rolled against would decide whether a monster fled for its life at the prospect of being butchered by your PC. Morale was also an aspect of Charisma - to be precise it was the morale of your retainers based on your charisma. So If morale is the morale of the follower of a source of charisma then a monster's morale represent their belief system. This is about right because wolves with 11 morale believed in the strength of the Pack and once that was broken - you killed their leader - the morale of the pack dropped.
So If Morale is your loyalty to your belief System what about your belief system? What is the Charisma of your Belief System? Are you a fanatic (12 ML)?
Are you a fanatic (12 ML)?
No, I'm kind of a lukewarm moderate, you stooge.
You'd abandon your belief system for food? Man, are you weak.
Sex on the other hand...
Dingo, I was with you until this sentence:
ASo If morale is the morale of the follower of a source of charisma then a monster's morale represent their belief system.
But then you said "morale" so many times that it should have meant something, but it just didn't.
|
|
In the day I see light, in evening but dark. I do but live a moment in the twilight each evening and morn. Thus is reality.
Only in fantasy can I live always in the light, or the dark or even dusk.For only in fantasy is moral grayness possible.
For in reality I eat my bacon sandwich and can see both the light, the dark and the colors inbetween.
I liked the old morale system, and I still use it. It sits behind the stats and is also influenced by an actors exposure to warfare and bad odds.
LG had great morale, evil was varying levels of cowardice, neutral got a bad rap.
As for fanaticism, meh, not interested.
My morale is pretty firm, I'd say. Still, all you have to do to change my belief system is to convince me through reasonable arguments that my old one is wrong.
Okay, so your argument, dear Generic Villain, is that arguments don't matter? And you expect me to take that seriously?
Everything you say is subject to exactly what you say. Sorry.
No Generic. You are attempting to win an argument by attacking yourself, the act of arguing and the way in which people at times argue, so that you end in an advantageous position. The we are all biased argument and cannot move beyond this is used a lot in forums, it is not a startling or brilliant point because it is flawed like any throw away theory.
Emotion and pack mentality are observable but don't apply to all for all debates. Not everyone is a part of the pack on all issues, or gets swamped by emotion and rendered unable to think.
For an example, a friend and I were discussing a new theory I had read, the mantropology thesis, that men aren't what they used to be and are far weaker than what has come before (there sure is a lot of enthusiasm for the we are pathetic ideas isn't there?). Now I thought it held water, but what did you know? My friend just happened to have expertise and experience in this area, and showed me the error of believing the thesis I had read, because it was wrong. As I put out the claims of the thesis, he had counter-examples on hand. I didn't dig in my heels, and I didn't gen angry or emotional, what would be the point? My friend could clearly show that the author had either neglected or deliberately chosen not to include groups and individuals that would undermine his thesis.
There are still herds (I prefer it to packs) and people will enter them for benefits and the comfort of finding truth and belonging, but critical thinking is not dead or impossible. Seeing where your biases lie and not being a slave to them is something we all can do. People can play intellectual games, they can have debates, change views without screaming or making it all about primitive dominance. Argument and exchanging opinions and even belief, is not just about confirmation bias with that being all that matters.
To use another example, you can take a religious adherent, and turn them against their own herd when the herd is not acting religiously or according to the book/doctrine. There is fundamentalism, but there is also individuals taking a moral stance against majorities.
To end, I'll respond to this: "We can't find the problems in our own reasoning very well." We absolutely can, it is called reflexivity in Sociology (which I am a postgrad in).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29
The psyche students have another name for it, and it does go via different terms in the humanities and social sciences. We can see where we come from, what shapes our views and why we are taking a specific position and for what benefit. We can also beware of reification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28Marxism%29) and remain cognizant of the Thomas theorem: that if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Bias is not the end of thought, that is only knowing where we stand. Know thyself and all that. :)
Everything you say is subject to exactly what you say. Sorry.
Do not fight on the enemies terrain. They are ready for you.
Generic wasn't.
I'm Discordian and so are all of you, or not, if you like.
Eris has a pretty awesome Charisma score.
I'd take a bullet for the Pope.