Just thought I'd get this going and then weigh in sometime soon. I picked it up and, so far, absolutely love it. My first character is a Sith Juggernaut Warrior. I love how its really story driven and the huge amount of voice acting. I also dig how crafting is setup. Anyway, all the time I'm going to put into this post for now... back to playing
Thought I'd update this with some useful info instead of having to dig through the thread.
Clan info, servers, etc.
Many of us are on the Kass City server - includes many SD staffers + folks from the community
Ryat has several other character on Hyperspace Cannon server:
Ryat - SentinelRyata - GunslingerTayme - SageZachy - Commando
Well, to be honest, I made it about 70% through lula's last reply - I'll do some more reading tomorrow between meetings (side note... 2 days of 8 hour+ training for me... pacov is wiped on the work end lately). Anyway, here's all I want to say. Lula is certainly welcome to post here. Please get that. It's a general discussion thread about the old republic. She's completely on topic, even if she doesn't normally join in on the video game jibber jabber.
I know this is clearly going into a religious or morality discussion, but hopefully everyone can have a good discussion and not just slam one side or the other. We can all be friendly here. Choose to do so, please.
2nd side note - thanks for the folks that explained things a little more (eg you fellas that corrected my misunderstanding about marriage in SWTOR). To be crystal clear, there aren't marriages in SWTOR. You currently have the ability to engage in sexual relations with various NPCs and companions in the game. Per the article, there will be the ability to have sexual relations with members of the same sex - and apparently there was lobbying to make that happen for some reason (though that sounds strange - tis what the article in question says).
To clarify yet again, there's no marriage either in homo or hetero situations. It's sex outside of marriage period. And I'll add, SWTOR has MANY, MANY scenes involving torture, often encouraging the player to torture, etc.
Hopefully, that much sets the overall record straight. What remains is a discussion regarding the morality of this sort of thing in SWTOR. And again, to completely clarify, if you want to address this at its root without getting into a discussion about homosexuality, the game allows folks to participate in torture and sex out of wedlock. You can throw the new "feature" of same sex romance onto the pile, but I think its safe to say that lula and like minded folks are not a fan of those 2 things without even involving same sex relationships.
Anyway - off to bed. Thanks for everyone sharing their thoughts... hope to get some time to contribute meaningfully as well soon.
I wonder how quickly this thread will get locked ...
As far as moral relativism I'll organize what I've observed in an over simplistic way, like I would any video-game based observations
The Hedonists -> Pleasure is the most important. Some hedonists can also be pragmatists.
Pragmatists -> Success is best. Do what works, having skills and being productive is equivalent to being morally correct. Some can also be judgementalist/self righteous. Others can be hedonists. Others might be Thinkers.
Judgementalists -> Be the Moral Authority. Being Judemental is the best, as you can steer the herd in the right direction. (are almost never Hedonists)
Ascetics -> Self Denial is best. Fast, Celibacy, no TV, etc. Absence of pleasure is morally correct. Some may be judgemental, none are Hedonist (direct opposite of hedonism)
Family First -> Relatives are above all else, and beyond that the Community is the most important thing. Many are also Judgementalist. Some may also be Pragmatists.
Truth Seekers/Thinkers -> Finding the truth/ eternal truths is the most righteous path. Some follow a strict set of guidelines, others follow their own path. Many end up believing there is no eternal truth, but keep looking anyway because its in their nature. Those of the former are usually those seeking enlightenment, while those of the last subset are usually scientists or philosophers. (or psuedo-scientists)
Nature Lovers -> The earth is the most important aspect of our universe. Protecting the earth is the most morally just cause.
Humanists -> 'everyone be happy' the happiness of one's fellow humans is most important. Some are Hedonists, others are Family First. None are judgemental (this is the direct opposite of a judgementalist)
Usually various forms of 'Counter Culture' are either Hedonist, Truth Seekers, or Humanists.
I obviously left out the mentally insane and those whose souls have been twisted into something dark and destructive. The latter may also be a part of some counter culture movements, but also may occupy some of the ranks of the 'pragmatists'.
And I think that is about everything I can think of at this moment!
I may add more if other categories come to mind.
While this is true in a theoretical sense, in practice this is not so clear cut. The Epicureans, despite the modern definition of the word, believed in the "rational pursuit of pleasure". What this seems to have meant is that the Epicureans recognized that unrestrained Hedonism would in fact lead to individuals having less happy/pleasurable lives due to their excessive desires that could never be realized (or at great cost), thus a certain degree of personal self restraint was required. Or perhaps that is what you meant by pragmatists, but either way I'd be careful with your mutually exclusives, chances someone has found some (if quite likely crazy) philosophy to include both seemingly contradictory elements.
Certainly not a bad list for a quick internet post.
True, Hedonism is more on the desire-based pleasure side of things, while Asceticism is usually pleasure based upon having no desires (or at least Buddhism seeks to remove suffering with the removal of desire).
The thing is, is this pleasure? Or simply the removal of suffering. Personally I think its semantics
--> I'd agree though, that life is usually better if you aren't constantly pursuing desire-based pleasure, but instead take a path of moderation.
(and actually Buddhism is more a path of moderation ... but that is sort of like a 1st parter Truth Seeker, with perhaps an element of pragmatism)
But I guess what I would ultimately answer is that anyone following a religion could interpret it in a number of ways, and it would usually fall into one of these categories.
For instance ... most Buddhists and Hindus would likely fall into the Family First Category, while only those more spiritually inclined would fall into one of the Truth Seeker categories.
While most protestant Christians would likely fit into either the Family First or Pragmatist Categories, with a few falling into the Truth Seeker categories.
Confucians would likely all be in the Family First Category (and Confucian ideals are likely why many Buddhists fit into the family first category as well), and likely a fair number of Judgementalists as well, due to the Confucian sense of teaching through shame. (well, teach through virtue, and control with shame).
Meanwhile Hinduism is such a spiritually focused religion, it probably has proportionally more 'truth seekers' then any other religion ... India could arguably be considered the birthplace of modern religion, even if Indian culture itself didn't spread very far.
If a truth seeker Christian grew up with another truth seeker Christian, it is possible that both will become Theologians (especially if the mentor already was a theologian or priest), however if the truth seeker Christian was surrounded by Judgementalists of various sorts while growing up, then said Truth Seeker would most likely become either Atheist or Agnostic, or even pick up a new religion entirely.
Certain types of Family firsts of any religion are the least likely to switch religions, as they will follow the beliefs that are best for the family/ that the community upholds as just and righteous.
Likely most medieval 'heretics' were of the Truth Seeker variety, meanwhile those that deemed their works heretical were also of the Truth Seeker variety (just of a different opinion)-> those deep into Theology/ theory/ etc.
However those that 'enforced' the punishment were likely of the Judgementalist category (including Inquisitors, but likely also Bishops and Cardinals)
A Taoist could easily fit into either a Humanist or a Nature Lovers category, but honestly Taoists probably exist in EVERY category
Then either don't let your children play the game or teach them the play it the "right" way. Teach your children your values as if your prerogative as a parent. Homosexuality has been around since before the Bible has been written (Sodom and Gomorrah occurred during Abraham's time), it will be around until God decides to do something about it if He so chooses. Hiding children from this is an even bigger stumbling block then teaching them that it exist and how they should handle it.
From here on out I will keep things on game topic. Sorry for the minor digression.
Lula posts: Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 272Yes, of course the rules (or laws) from the spiritual realm apply to our material/physical thoughts, words and actions. We can't get away from it even if we try. These rules are called the Natural or Moral Law which is written in our heart. The sense of moral obligation confirms these rules. In every one of us there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It's the voice of conscience, a law we did not make and which no man could have made for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand condemning us after its violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a Lawgiver who has written His Law in our hearts. Now, apply that to the coming updated video game and the issue and choice of either condoning or condemning homosexuality and exposing that to children.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274Morality is a subjective aspect of the human psyche.
Morality is that quality of an act which characterizes it as right or wrong, good or bad.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274 There no moral absolutes in humanity. I disagree.
If, as you say, there are no moral absolutes then does this mean we cannot say what Hitler did was "wrong"? If there are no moral absolutes, how can we argue that the morals of a group like Habitat for Humanity is any better than the morals of a group like the drug cartel?
When we make these judgments we are indeed appealing to a standard of morality that exists independent of those..I would say..above them. God provides the source for morality as well as the standard for the moral law in the universe He created.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274In fact, some people have totally thrown out the idea of right and wrong in favor of more pragmatic terminology. I I know. That there is no right or wrong, good or bad...how utterly foolish is that? Did the murderers of the 9/11 attack do anything "wrong"? Try as we will, we cannot escape believing in right and wrong and that's because the "moral sense" or "law of morality" or Natural Law is written in our heart. Right and wrong are very real. Since every human being is made in God's image, we are moral beings. That's why we know intiutively that right and wrong exist.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274I have never heard of any legitimate claims of innate morality.
I bet you have you just don't know it.
In philosophy it's called the Natural Law engraved or written by God in our heart. Our "innate morality" or "moral sense" is a law that is implicit in the very nature of things. It's applied exclusively to man and a rule of conduct that proceeds from human nature as rational. For St.Thomas Aquinas, "natural law is nothing other than the participation of eternal law in rational creatures." Aquinas conceives it as the imprint of God's providential plan on man's natural reason."
The historical evolution of NL may be traced as far back as the pagan period corresponding to the Greco-Roman world. The origin of a natural law doctrine, if you will, is first found among the Greek poets and historians. Sophicles 497-406 BC., Thucydides, and Xenophon presented a concept of a natural law that is divine, universal and known to all. Plato elucidated on this doctrine and his student Aristotle clarified the distinction between natural law and law that is humanly enacted.
NL reached it's highest development within Stoicism founded by Zeno of Citium. After Rome conquered Greece, natural law began to infiltrate into the Roman World by Cicero. For Cicero, NL is the highest reason transending space and time. It is eternal and unchangeable from one place to another. It commands what is to be done and forbids what is to be avoided. It precedes written law and the State.
Christ came and Christianity flourished. St.Paul of the Apostles wrote that the NL is inscribed in the hearts of all men even though all do not have the law of Sinai (Moses). Romans 2: 12-16. The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostendom, etc. taught the NL is promulgated through man's conscience which supplies the basis of human law. Then came the Thomistic concept which I've already noted.
There is also evidence of a universal natural law binding on man in Oriental literature, long before the rise of philosophy in the West.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274If morality was innate, you might have a point, but really you are just trying to spread your brand of morality on the assumption that children need special protection from homosexual content.
Yes, my "brand of morality" as well as my conscience convinces me children need special protection from homosexual content.
One of the article comments asks: "Will the game tell the dark side of homosexuality?" Since the body parts don't fit, the only life that is produced is bacteriological which causes anal cancers, HIV, AIDS, syphilis, and STD's galore.
Quoting seanw3, reply 274 I guess if there were any other parents on this forum that also wanted to make sure their children thought exactly what they did, your presence here would be slightly welcome. As it stands, you seem to barking up the wrong tree.
Again, all I've done is provide some info about the new updated Star Wars game.
What I find interesting isn't any of this philosophical stuff.... its the rating on the game itself.
The game is rated "Teen" by the ESRB - which is, according to their website....
TEEN Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
So how does this game get away with the sexual content? Shouldn't it be rated "M" ?
Of course Christian theology has much of its origin in Greek thought because the early disciples, including Paul, were Greek educated, and all of the New Testament was originally written in greek.
St. Augustine iirc was a neo-platonic philosopher, as well as a Christian theologian.
This does not mean that 'Moral Law' is naturally inherent however. Ethical Monotheism believes in 'revealed truths', as they must be revealed to the masses because they are not naturally inherent.
I do not agree with lulapilgrim that we should specifically target homosexual content, however seeing as this game is rated TEEN, it should likely have all sexual content removed OR be upgraded to MATURE rating.
Of course, maybe the reasoning is that most teenagers are sexually active anyways, who knows.
Still, the TEEN rating is likely undeserved, just going to show that ratings aren't worth crap, and personal judgement is best. (Ratings can be bought, and people can use ratings for manipulation. For instance, independent films used to be labeled NC-17 just to kick them out of theaters ... pure crap).
I have not played this game far enough to get to the controversial content, but I assume the sexual scenes are not very revealing or done mostly off camera, which will allow it to get away with only the "Suggestive Themes" warning. Compare this to another Sci-fi hit Mass Effect which is rated M, the sexual scenes are fairly revealing though perhaps just sort of nudity, leave little to the imagination.
Hmm, I see.
Yes, I have studied some pieces of historical philosophy. It is as subjective as any other cultural affect. The whole concept of Natural Laws is part of the structuralist era long past. We are in a post-structuralist era now. Advances in science and philosophy have proven pretty convincingly that the assumptions of the structuralist are false. There is no innate morality. Each person has their own perspective, a positionality if you will.
As to the token Hitler comment, the point is not whether you or I think what he did was wrong. We may both agree that it was a terrible atrocity or a clever means to grab power. It matters not. The fact that we can agree about that and still disagree on a number of other acts as they pertain to morality, proves that there is no absolute. It is not something we were born with, but instead a collection of ideas we have learned through past experiences. There were millions of people in American and Germany that felt it was morally right to kill Jews. They were considered innately evil creatures. See how that kind of logic causes problems? You may define moral killing in one way, while I do in another. I, a pragmatist see killing as perfectly moral as long as it benefits my society. That includes everything from insects to humans. There is no difference in what you kill. Killing is killing. It either has a positive effect or a negative one. As an opposing example, is the spider any more or less evil than Hitler? This is a species that eats it mother, rapes its mate for procreation and feeds the father to the mother after. I assume you feel spiders are neither evil nor good because they don't have a soul or higher consciousness. To me, given how inept the human consciousness is, I would say we are on the same level as them. But, since they kill to benefit the society, there is nothing immoral about it. I would feel the same if humans did the same, although eating each other causes health problems we have not yet overcome.
Drug cartels and HFH are again up for interpretation based on my positionality. There is no Natural Law inspiring my perception of the two systems.
If God provided the source for morality, why then are there so many cultures that had no contact with the Christian culture, who had very different morality structures? This ranged from cannibals, who the Christians called barbarians and burned to death, to the Japanese who called Christians barbarians and boiled them to death. If God were the source, it would be in every culture. I find it hard to deny this logic.
There are no laws that say homosexuality requires this extra protection. It is fine to bring it up in a forum like this, as pacov has said, but don't expect a warm welcome by younger generations. We have a different perspective about sex. Just as your parents and grandparents had different perspectives from yours.
The dark side of homosexuality? They live in a space age society. I am pretty sure Doctor Lokin can cure up any AIDS I get. But of course, disease is just a cloak that your homophobia wears to seem more intelligent. There is just as much danger in having heterosexual relations. Oh, and as far as I know, you get STD's from promiscuity, not anal sex. I also don't think that anal cancer is a huge risk either, but hey, might be worth it.
...If God provided the source for morality, why then are there so many cultures that had no contact with the Christian culture, who had very different morality structures? This ranged from cannibals, who the Christians called barbarians and burned to death, to the Japanese who called Christians barbarians and boiled them to death. If God were the source, it would be in every culture. I find it hard to deny this logic.
...
I would ask for your definition of morality before I can answer that question...
If by morality, you mean purity/goodness then yes, God is the source. But if you mean right/wrong, then no, God is not the source, Humans are. Free will gave morality over to humans. Humans determine their own fate, and with it, their morality. Modern "morality" has become quite twisted indeed... but your analogy to animals is not valid. Humans are the only creature on this planet with a high consciousness and with it the ability to connect with the Creator. Animals do not, and only operate on survival.
This premise of perspective right/wrong is also flawed. This world is filled with duality, decisions that have 2 distinct outcomes. And morality is one of them. One can reason away any action, but the consequences will determine the morality of that decision. Using that Hitler argument, Hitler was obviously flawed in his morality, and brought much suffering to his people, and the world. Even from his perspective, I don't see how that was a good thing. He even committed suicide! The results speak for themselves in this case.
As far as Christians are concerned... that is a religion, not a relationship with God. One can find God without needing to be exposed to Christianity.
And I just had to do this....
So is it an absolute fact that there are no absolutes?
As far as we can comprehend, yes. I can't think of one thing that is absolute besides the idea that nothing is absolute. Not really a solid line of logic to refute the claim. It may confuse a drug addict for a few hours though.
Even your assumption that humans are the only creatures capable of a connection is based on a leap into the absurd. God is an assumption based on faith. There is no evidence of it. So how do you know that animals do not have the same connection? It may simply be a lack of understanding of animals preventing you from seeing it. Not that anything about spirituality can be seen or recorded in a physical sense. So it is rather haughty of a human to say animals and other mammals even are not connected to God. It is much more likely that you simply have no way of knowing. How exactly do humans have free will and not a deer? Deer choose several things throughout the day. Primates are capable of emotions and language. Hell, even crows have developed an intelligence par with humans. And as far as consciousness goes, from a wider perspective, we are no different than the other animals on the planet. Other higher beings probably don't make a distinction between us, other than that we are able to use tools. We are very small and stupid. Big fish, little pond. Try not to forget that.
Purity and Goodness are simply religious words for morality. Morality, as it applies to this discussion is the difference between what is good and what is evil. Moral choices could be thought of as right and wrong. Learned experience is where the human brain derives what is good and what is evil. You may read it in a really long book, your parents may teach it to you, or you may learn it from personal experience, but at no time do you instinctively know that something is good or bad. You may guess, but even that is an approximation from previous experiences. The thing I don't like is when people convince themselves that what they think is inherent in all people simply because they know it is right. That is bad logic.
Insert joke about the absolutes of death and taxes here.
But wow guys, it's ok to believe in God and separate the metaphysical teachings we learn from religion from the physical world.
I think this is Sean's main reason for his post.
And I agree in a sense ... Ethical Monotheism should be about 'revealed truths from God' not some natural order that is so obviously inherent within the natural world.
If it was naturally inherent then everyone would believe it.
Instead we have prophets that reveal truths to us, and from there we can learn the will of God and spread those truths to others (evangelism).
It is simply patronizing and illogical to assume that people not following the revealed truths are doing so simply because they refuse to abide by the natural way of things.
In fact it is the natural way of things, the antediluvian way, that those very 'revealed truths' are fighting against, at least in part.
Tasunke gets off his soapbox
Well, I haven't had too much of a chance to comment... the joys of hectic work. Anyway, do I personally have any issue for myself re: playing a game with torture, out of wedlock sex, and (in an upcoming patch) same sex relationships (eg sex)? No. I don't. And you'll note the clear context. For me. Seeing any of these things, etc, isn't going to change my world view, in any way, shape, or form. Things like this were in dragon age and mass effect already (and I'm sure some other games).
If you ask me if I'm ok with a 12 year old participating in deliberate torture in a game, well, in that case, I'm pretty uncomfortable. I'm not really a fan of kids perhaps developing a belief that things like that are ok. But then you also have to examine other games, like first person shooters (eg where your goal is to kill lots of things or people). Anyway, my simple take is that the government shouldn't have to regulate things like this. Eg, a kid under 16 isn't likely to have any money of their own unless supplied by a parent. The parent should take the time to evaluate if their money should be spent to get their kid the latest call of duty or a subscription to a game like star wars. I also think that the rating systems should be adjusted to something more appropriate to help parents discern what might be ok and what is downright bad. But ignoring that comment, parents are the responsible party - not the government.
So, if a media outlet like the one lula linked to says "HEY PARENTS - TAKE A LOOK!" - then parents should take a look. I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with bringing concerns to peoples attention and then letting them decide how to handle that information.
Am I going to lobby to have things like the above banned from games? No. We are all aware that things like torture and out of wedlock sex and homosexual sex exist. I don't need to deny its existence. Parents should be held accountable for the upbringing of their kids... and if a parent decides their children should not be playing a certain game, etc, then they should keep that from happening. Any other angle requires the government to ban such things under law or to make things like torture and out of wedlock sex and homosexual sex impossible. As the latter isn't possible, the former is the only option. And I do not support that. And that leaves things in parents hands.
Pacov,
Thanks for posting the original article and allowing the discussion to develop such as it has.
For me, the game with its enabling participation in violence and sexual vice is good for no one..not for the single person, not for the married person and certainly not for children of any age.
So gaming seems to be trending this way? I wonder, what's next on the slippery slope..kids torturing kids, pedophilia, beastiality, orgies, and so forth and so on?
We are on the same page as far as games, children and parent responsibility. I'm glad that it takes a subscription to get the Star Wars:TOR game. I hope that will continue once SWTOR gets the upcoming slouching towards Gomorrah "patch", as you call it.
Awareness that torture, promiscuity, and homosexuality exist is not the point. Rather, the point is that by these games people are acting them out. Pedophilia and beastiality exist too. Should these be banned? Where do we draw the line as far as the common good of society is concerned? Or do we?
Yes, but if you draw that comment out to its logical conclusion, then you are pretty much saying that any game that has violence, etc, is not a good thing. We have a disagreement if that is your stance. I'm sure we could get into the nitty gritty of it, but I'm curious if that's your overall belief.
Well, some games are trending to allowing elements like sex and homsexuality. I've never played one where such things were a real focus, though. Mostly they are random side elements. A guy in your group makes a comment that sounds like he's hitting on you. You decide how to react. That sort of thing. I honestly don't envision any of the other things you mention happening, though. I'd certainly hope not, anyway.
Games of this sort have the occasional week or so of free play for folks to try out the game and see if they like it. Eventually, most MMOs (games like star wars the old republic and warcraft) adopt some sort of free to play model. This means that anyone can play the game to a certain level or what have you. Star wars, at any rate, is likely quite some time away from implementing something like that. When games like this go free to play, then the content is available for anyone with an internet connection that chooses to download the game. Typically, you can do this sort of thing without even a credit card.
Well... can act them out or choose not to. Just like real life. Take yourself, for example. Let's say you decided to give the star wars game a try for whatever reason. At the beginning of the game, you decide if you want to (more or less) be a good guy or be a bad guy. You choose to be one of the good guys (or gals). Anyway, while your are protecting villages from being wiped out by the bad guys, one of your in game companions (this is the computer, not another human) makes a pass at you and happens to be of the same sex. Now, right after the pass is made, you can decide how to respond. You can flirt back, you can ignore them, or you can tell them you aren't interested. You have a choice to make. And based on that decision, other things will happen. Now for you, the solution might be as simple as to tell them you aren't interested. That would likely be the extent of anything homosexual in your game play experience - eg - quite literally, that would probably be the only thing along those lines that you experienced.
One of the things that is more common in good role play games, etc, is the ability to make moral and ethical decisions. And these decisions often have an impact and elicit an emotional response (provided its well written). You could make a decision that would result in your closest companion dying. You could choose to have a monogamous relationship with a character and then completely destroy that relationship by cheating on that character with another.
While I don't expect things like what you mentioned to ever be acceptable in a video game, I could easily agree that I'd certainly rather they NOT be in any video game.
But where is the line of bestiality drawn when there are thousands of humanoid species?
non sentient?
Define sentient.
Something capable of higher level and independent thought (developed cortex and not a part of a hive mind complex)
Some of the changes for 1.2 patch are looking good. The graphics are better. The color to chest thing is interesting. Sometimes you don't get get good results but fortunately you can modify each individual piece of armor to go along with the color scheme or not. Love the new PvP arena, makes for some dramatic play to the end. The class balance changes will be huge.
Is there a list somewhere covering all the changes?
I can't believe people play PVP with this kind of game. The game mechanics really start to split at the seems when you player against other humans.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
