The Witcher series

[JustKneller]

I think I might change my position and support @O_Bruce here, but I can be swayed.

This whole thing has me thinking about bioessentialism in RPGs, which I think is an absurd debate. To give an example, the anti-bioessentialists would have a major issue with B/X D&D because the "classes" are fighter, mage, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, and halfling. That's right, race as class. There are two camps that oppose this. One consists of people who want to play characters like dwarf clerics, which you can't technically do RAW. There are some house rules and hacks to make that happen, some effective, some just silly. Anyway, I don't really dispute that camp. I don't find this taxonomy to be supported by the narrative (and actually it contradicts it in places). The other camp of naysayers are anti-bioessentialists who would claim that having race as class (and effectively barring non-humans from any kind of spellcasting) is morally wrong. This, I find to be seriously absurd. I'm very much pro-civil rights, but I could care less about the civil rights for fictional species. It's a fictional creature. It has no true sentience. It's really just a plot device.

And this is why I'm swaying to Bruce's side. The only difference between an elf and a woman is that women exist in the real world. However, does fictional women being barred from what seems like the shittiest job in Witcher-world have any impact on the gender narrative in the real world? I'm pretty sure that (despite its popularity) The Witcher isn't the tastemaker for gender politics in real life. In fact, you might even be able to draw a metaphor between women's lack of representation in Witchery and the real world lack of female representation in a lot of dirty jobs (at least in the U.S.). But, that's a bit of a tangent.

Sure, we can argue that reinforcing potential gender discrimination in fiction provides an avenue to reinforcing it in the real world. But, that's not enough to win me over. It's the same logic that built the Satanic Panic of D&D in the 80s, and that was a load of crap. So yeah, I'm running out of road to argue against @O_Bruce on this one.

 

[m7600]

This whole thing has me thinking about bioessentialism in RPGs, which I think is an absurd debate. To give an example, the anti-bioessentialists would have a major issue with B/X D&D because the "classes" are fighter, mage, cleric, thief, dwarf, elf, and halfling. That's right, race as class. There are two camps that oppose this. One consists of people who want to play characters like dwarf clerics, which you can't technically do RAW. There are some house rules and hacks to make that happen, some effective, some just silly. Anyway, I don't really dispute that camp.

I do. I dispute them. Here's what I say in The Independence of Antarctica:

"Among all of the social and political concepts that have failed in the past, race is the one that has failed the hardest. Differences in skin color and tone mean nothing to us. Two individuals of different races have more differences between them as individuals than they do as members of different races. The unwillingness to recognize this is un-Antarctican."

The other camp of naysayers are anti-bioessentialists who would claim that having race as class (and effectively barring non-humans from any kind of spellcasting) is morally wrong. This, I find to be seriously absurd. I'm very much pro-civil rights, but I could care less about the civil rights for fictional species. It's a fictional creature. It has no true sentience. It's really just a plot device.

Again, to borrow a quote from my own unfinished book:

The Unanimous Declaration of the Unified States of Antarctica​

McMurdonia District Capital, 2125.​

In a temporal sense that is exclusive to human beings, it sometimes occurs, in a necessary way, that a single people ends their political relationships with other peoples. There are laws of Nature, of that we are certain. Yet the decision to separate ourselves from the United States of America is not determined by natural laws. Nature has no God, of that we are certain as well. So, our decision is not determined by Nature’s God either. The reason why we wish to separate ourselves is motivated only by our respect for the human species.​

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, were conceptualized by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America as unalienable Rights. What they lacked, which we now have, is a scientific understanding of their true significance. Life has a precise meaning in biology, liberty has a precise meaning in sociology, and the pursuit of happiness has a precise meaning in psychology. It is therefore not enough to institute governments in order to secure those rights in an efficient way, science is required as well for that aim. And so while it is true that the authority of governments is legitimized by the consent of the governed, it is also true that the authority of science is legitimized by the consensus of its community. Science, therefore, is an essential component of our national identity as Antarctic Americans, and of our continental identity as Antarcticans.
​

And this is why I'm swaying to Bruce's side. The only difference between an elf and a woman is that women exist in the real world. However, does fictional women being barred from what seems like the shittiest job in Witcher-world have any impact on the gender narrative in the real world? I'm pretty sure that (despite its popularity) The Witcher isn't the tastemaker for gender politics in real life. In fact, you might even be able to draw a metaphor between women's lack of representation in Witchery and the real world lack of female representation in a lot of dirty jobs (at least in the U.S.). But, that's a bit of a tangent.


Sure, we can argue that reinforcing potential gender discrimination in fiction provides an avenue to reinforcing it in the real world. But, that's not enough to win me over. It's the same logic that built the Satanic Panic of D&D in the 80s, and that was a load of crap. So yeah, I'm running out of road to argue against @O_Bruce on this one.

I invite you carry over this discussion to the Philosophical Musings Public Thread. Or just send me a PM.

​

 

[JustKneller]

I don't think any of that actually refutes my argument.

 

[m7600]

I don't think any of that actually refutes my argument.

Care to state your argument, then? As a list of premises from which a conclusion is deduced. For example:

P1) Every philosopher is mortal.
P2) Aristotle is a philosopher.
P3) So, Aristotle is mortal.

Make an argument like that one.

 

[JustKneller]

Make an argument like that one.

That's tricky. I could think of something I could say, but I already know how you would refute it. Let's see, how about...

1) Social justice is only for human beings
2) Characters in a game are not human beings
3) Social justice is not for characters in a game

I'm sure you can shoot this down, but let's start there.

 

[m7600]

Well, let me think about the underlying problem here, damn it. Don't expect an immediate answer.

 

[JustKneller]

Nice! I thought you would kill that one lickety split. I feel like I just got a critical hit.

 

[m7600]

Hmmm...

Ok, I'll just shoot from the hip: if I deny the second premise ("Characters in a game are not human beings"), I would be effectively saying that characters in a game are human beings. And what I would say to that, is that the truth value of the second premise, is contingent. It is true in some cases, it is false in other cases (Think of the statement "Today is Friday". It's true when it's Friday, and it's false when it's not Friday). In other words, it depends on the game. The characters in Baldur's Gate (i.e., Jaheira, Minsc) are not human beings. And if you say that we ourselves, as players, are "Characters in the Game of Reality" (to speak in "Hegelspeak") I would say that I'm quite certain that we ourselves are not such Characters, since Reality itself is not a game. This being the case, Premise 2 is false, and your argument, while valid, is unsound, which is what allows me to safely reject it.

What should I say about your First Premise? I'm unsure. But I don't need to call its truth value into question in my rejection of the second premise.

 

[m7600]

BTW, have you ever noticed that, structurally, a classical argument (i.e. modus tollens) is somewhat comparable to a haiku? They're both three-liners, usually. The logic is somewhat different, but they have more or less the same structure. Not that such fact means anything, though.

 

[JustKneller]

Ok, I'll just shoot from the hip: if I deny the second premise ("Characters in a game are not human beings"),

I don't think you're effectively denying it, though. How can you support the assertion that characters are human beings. And, if so, why are Minsc and Jaheira not? I mean, if we're going to get up in arms about women not being Witchers then we need to have a talk about the exploitation of characters with traumatic brain injury (Minsc).

BTW, have you ever noticed that, structurally, a classical argument (i.e. modus tollens) is somewhat comparable to a haiku? They're both three-liners, usually.

Debate in three lines
A haiku has three lines too
False syllogism

 

[m7600]

I don't think you're effectively denying it, though. How can you support the assertion that characters are human beings.

What would you accept as proof? Tangible evidence? Valid sound reasoning? Both? Something else? What?

 

[JustKneller]

I'm pretty flexible. Something empirical would be nice. You say the truth value of my second premise is contingent. Find me a character in a fictional work that is also a sentient human being.

 

[m7600]

Find me a character in a fictional work that is also a sentient human being.

Ok. Batman is a fictional character. He was played by several different actors (i.e., Adam West, Christian Bale, etc.). Every time that Batman was played by an actor, that character was also a sentient human being (West, Bale, etc.). Batman, as a character, is a role that the actor assumes for the purpose of making a work of cinema.

 

[JustKneller]

But Batman is not a sentient human being. Batman is just a facet of a performance by an actor. Batman has no civil rights or liberties. He only exists as he is written.

If that's your logic, then let's talk about Celie Harris-Johnson. She was a character played by Whoopi Goldberg. Her character was married to Albert Johnson, played by Danny Glover. Albert used to beat the hell out of Celie. It was very much not right. However, nobody is trying to get Whoopi Goldberg to a battered women's shelter or put Danny Glover in jail for spousal abuse. Where is Celie's social justice?

 

[m7600]

But Batman is not a sentient human being.

"Batman" is a role that a human being assumes for a short period of time. As such, he's a character that's interpreted by the actor. That's why Bards have Interpretation as a skill in 3.0, in D&Dspeak. And it's a Charisma based skill.

Batman is just a facet of a performance by an actor.

Yep, I agree.

Batman has no civil rights or liberties.

Of course he does. In Gotham city, he has fictional civil rights and fictional liberties. So does Chief Gordon. So does The Joker. Well, the Joker arguably lost them.

He only exists as he is written.

You're wrong. He only exists as he is performed. That's why Bards have Performance as a skill, in D&Dspeak.

If that's your logic

It isn't, as I've just demonstrated.

let's talk about Celie Harris-Johnson.

Ok, let's talk about her. I don't know who that it's, but let's do it.

She was a character played by Whoopi Goldberg.

Ok.

Her character was married to Albert Johnson, played by Danny Glover. Albert used to beat the hell out of Celie. It was very much not right. However, nobody is trying to get Whoopi Goldberg to a battered women's shelter or put Danny Glover in jail for spousal abuse.

Since that crime is fictional (it's a fictional crime), there was no real spousal abuse in that case, since it was just a scene in a work of cinematographic fiction. Danny Glover didn't actually beat the crap out of Whoopi Golberg. So, no real crime was committed. That's why Danny Glover is not in real jail, and that's why Whoopi Golberg is not really battered.

Where is Celie's social justice?

She deserves fictional social justice, just as much as a real victim of spousal abuse deserves real social justice. That's my answer.

 

[JustKneller]

Since that crime is fictional (it's a fictional crime), there was no real spousal abuse in that case, since it was just a scene in a work of cinematographic fiction. Danny Glover didn't actually beat the crap out of Whoopi Golberg. So, no real crime was committed. That's why Danny Glover is not in real jail, and that's why Whoopi Golberg is not really battered.

But, here's the thing. Nobody got their knickers in a twist and criticized Alice Walker because she wrote that Danny Glover's character beat up Whoopi Goldberg's character. However, people will absolutely raise a stink if a video game comes off as lacking inclusion. In both cases, a world is presented that contains elements that are unacceptable in the real world. Why does one get away with it and the other become the target of a protest?

 

[m7600]

Nobody got their knickers in a twist and criticized Alice Walker because she wrote that Danny Glover's character beat up Whoopi Goldberg's character.

Why would they? Would they have a reason to? I'm asking you to answer this question with honesty.

However, people will absolutely raise a stink if a video game comes off as lacking inclusion.

That's easy. They're different media. Objectively, the "mechanics", if you will, for a film and a video game are not the same. You don't play while you're watching a film, you're not a player. In a videogame, you are playing while you are... playing (I would hope instead, learning to philosophize, like in Planescape: Torment). After all, you're a player. In film, you're just a spectator. The difference is that the player actively makes choices, while the spectator doesn't.

In both cases, a world is presented that contains elements that are unacceptable in the real world. Why does one get away with it and the other become the target of a protest?

Here I would like to quote a friend of mine, a professional philosopher from the United States (no, it's not the Iowa guy, this is a different but equally brilliant guy). This is from one of his book:

"I can imagine some metaphysicians complaining that my approach is disgracefully messy and unprincipled. Even if the charge of arbitrariness can be defused, case by case, by appeal to a hodge-podge of different phenomena, the conservative treatment of ordinary and extraordinary objects evidently isn’t going to conform to any neat and tidy principles. So whatever conservatives are doing, they surely aren’t carving at the joints.
I would remind these metaphysicians of the story of Cook Ting, who offers the following account of his success as a butcher:

I go along with the natural makeup . . . and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint . . . However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety.

Some cooks are going to view Cook Ting’s approach with suspicion, as they watch him slowly working his knife through some unlikely part of the ox, carving oxen one way and turkeys a completely different way, even carving some oxen differently from other oxen. They’ll see his technique as messy and unprincipled, hardly an example of carving the beasts at their joints. But from Cook Ting’s perspective, it is these other cooks, the ones who would treat all animals alike, who are in the wrong. They aren’t carving at the joints. They’re hacking through the bones." (Korman, 2015: 158)

 

[JustKneller]

Why would they? Would they have a reason to? I'm asking you to answer this question with honesty.

For the same reason people are demanding social justice for elves in retroclones, whatever that reason is.

That's easy. They're different media. Objectively, the "mechanics", if you will, for a film and a video game are not the same. You don't play while you're watching a film, you're not a player.

Gotta disagree. This isn't about who is watching the film, this is about how the audience reacts to the creator. People criticize game developers for portraying such-and-such in a certain way. The writer, Alice Walker, is the creator in my example.

Here I would like to quote a friend of mine,

I'm not sure that explains it.

 

[m7600]

For the same reason people are demanding social justice for elves in retroclones, whatever that reason is.

I'd question that. It seems far too coarse-grained to be a good sociological explanation for what's really going on in such cases. I would suggest a more fine-grained approach on that matter.

Gotta disagree.

Ok.

This isn't about who is watching the film, this is about how the audience reacts to the creator.

Is it? I'm not convinced.

People criticize game developers for portraying such-and-such in a certain way. The writer, Alice Walker, is the creator in my example.

But that's my point, Alice Walker didn't create a video game. In the Witcher discussion, @O_Bruce is not pissed off at Andrzej Sapkowski, the author. He's pissed off at the video game company that's making the new video game. They're not the Author, in other words, they're not Sapkowski. In D&Dspeak, this is a purely "rules" problem. You need to think this one like a rules lawyer, from a GM point of view, if that makes sense.

I'm not sure that explains it.

Well, then what would? What would you accept as an explanation? Facts? Words? Both? Something else? What?

 

[Antimatter]

Here is a video from a hardcore Witcher YouTuber, with all the references to books, games, and even TTRPG.