Listening to Alabama Shakes and Thinking About Things That Don't Matter to Anyone

So I'm listening to Alabama Shakes, which is a phenomenal band, and it occurred to me that I spend a lot of time thinking about things that just don't matter. I mean, let's be honest, who the fuck cares about imaginary concepts that have no real world application?

Me I guess. 

What sort of things am I worrying my precious, little head about? Here's just a short sampling: the differences between classical feminists (of which I am one) and modern feminists (who I am completely mystified by); the validity of the Quantum Ogre debate; whether Spinoza was actually happy within his intellectual life or if he was shaken to his core by the inconsistencies in his thought; whether Socrates was real or just a fictional creation designed to explore philosophical concepts by the Greeks; and so on, and so on. 

So what about you? What's got your mind grinding to dust?

WTF is Objectivism and What Do We Mean When We Say Something Is Objectively So?

Objectivism is the moral theory that there are certain moral truths that would remain true regardless of an individual's perception or desire and that this would remain so regardless of whether or not anyone else agreed or if everyone else in the world agreed with the moral truth. The underlying idea of this theory is that there is a way to determine the status of moral truths; however, the problem lies in actually creating a process to do so. In Antony Flew's A Dictionary of Philosophy he illustrated the problem for Objectivism as follows:

. . . If we accept that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to what ought to be . . . then they cannot be proved by any facts about the nature of the world. Nor can they be analytic, since that would involve lack of action-guiding content; 'One ought always to do the right thing' is plainly true in virtue of the words involved but it is unhelpful as a practical guide to action . . . At this the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths,' but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the mind of the beholder? If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgments are true? (Flew, 343)

Objectivism, however, has morphed in the years since Flew wrote his fantastic dictionary in 1979 through the efforts of Ayn Rand and her cult like following. For our understanding of the term it can be broken down to hold the following (though it is not limited to just these concepts): (1) reality exists independently of consciousness; (2) human beings have direct contact with reality through their senses; (3) one can obtain objective knowledge through concept formation and inductive logic; and (4) that a proper morality is based around the pursuit of the individual's happiness - sometimes called 'rational self-interest.' Ayn Rand's philosophy is rightly discredited by most moral and political philosophers though that hasn't stopped her followers from pretending otherwise as they stick their fingers in their ears and loudly bray on.

What do we mean when we say that something is objectively so then?

To use the term in this sense is to say that the statement we are referring true will remain true regardless of an individual's opinion or of the opinion of the entire world. Often this refers to verifiable statements such as, "The Earth is the third planet from the Sun," but it can be used for logical statements such as, "All men are mortal" (which is true so far as we know but may not always be the case). 

Works Cited

Flew, Antony. A Dictionary of Philosophy Revised Second Edition. St. Martin's Press. New York: 1979. Print

Moments Like These

Sometimes I find myself wondering if I chose the right format for my blog in the early days. Early day? That makes it's sound like my blog has been around for a decade rather than a little under two years. Anyway there are moments when I'm looking at the way that SEO works and I see how little blogger does to help your blog gain traction that I think about moving myself over to wordpress. Of course Wordpress has it's issues. It's more vulnerable to hacking. To get the same options as Blogger I'd have to pay for a premium account. Oh, and then there's the whole thing about messing up everyone's bookmarks and feeds for my blog.

Forgive me. Today is a rainy day and I'm struggling to get through three project pieces I'm doing for the blog with my internet going out with every heavy downpour - and they're all heavy. Fuck it. I'm going to go read some old comics.

Later kids.

WTF is Subjectivism, and What Does It Mean When We Say Something is Subjective?

Subjectivism, at it's core, is the philosophical position that all morality is merely a matter of personal taste. For example, "Spanking your children is a form of child abuse," and it's counter argument are not intrinsically true or false but are, in actuality, the expression of the individual's personal preference on the matter. People brought up in the same society will naturally have similar moral standards; however, according to this simplest form of Subjectivism, individuals from separate societies with differing moralities are unable to prove that one standard is in error and the other correct. 

Practically no one adopts Subjectivism in its simplest form. Instead most Subjectivists tend to develop their moral position along two themes. (1) Morality is not dependent on an individual or individual society's inclinations but rather it is based on the natural desires of mankind as a whole. According to this line of thought people value certain things more than others and our morals are an expression of that valuation. As a result when we ask what is 'good' what we are asking as Subjectivists is "What do all, or most, of the people desire?" If the majority of people desire to live unmolested and free than allowing people to do so is 'good.' The opposite condition, naturally, is bad. (2) The alternative theme ultimately relies on the individual as the arbitrator of what is 'good' or 'bad' but rational arguments to support those valuations are required just as they would be for any other pronouncement. Thus if we argue that murder is 'bad' in all cases then we must create logical justifications for that position (for example, it is wrong to murder another person because doing so deprives them of their lives and negatively affects the community by depriving it of the individual's financial, social, and economic contributions).

Let's move away from the theory of Subjectivism and towards the question of what it means when we say something is subjective. At it's simplest form, to call something subjective is to imply that the speaker's valuation of it is bound to their personal preference. Yet it can be expanded to include any discussion that seeks to use popular opinion as the logical basis for something's value. For example, to say that Star vs the Forces of Evil is the best animated show on television based exclusively on the speaker's opinion and to say that Dungeons & Dragons is the best role-playing game based on its popular appeal are both subjective statements.

Where All the Ancillary Organizations At?

I never seem to make enough use of ancillary organizations - whether it's unions, guilds, or social clubs - in my games. Oh I make them, don't get me wrong. I set them up in the early stages. I've built complex knighthoods, Hellfire clubs, quasi-Satanic cabals, social clubs, volunteer organizations, unions, and guilds. I've given them names, drawn out complex connections to each other and the wider world, established their internal power structures and dynamics. But once everything begins it all goes to pot. 

Always.

Part of the reason behind this is that all of that plotting I do tends to make my sluggish in how I effectively bring these organizations to bear; like I'm worried that I'll get something integral wrong. I'm thinking that I may have found a solution to this problem but I'm still working out the kinks. More on this later.

Also, how was your weekend? Did you have fun?

The Happy End of Days

One of the things that I deeply enjoy about ending a campaign is that it means that once I'm done with it that I can start something new. I like new things which I think is why I tend to do so much on this blog and look at so many different things along the way. 

Anyway.

This weekend I'm going to be away for a few days while I work on something that should be going live next week. Hope you all have a good weekend while I'm away. Get some good games, better food, and hopefully lots of sexy pants fun. 

See you on Tuesday.

BEST READS OF THE WEEK! April 25 - 30, 2015

Welcome back to the Best Reads of the Week! Every week I read through more than 370 blogs looking for the best rpg related articles to bring them directly to you. This week we've got an amazing setting for a campaign; the history of one of D&D's enduring artifacts through the editions; a great new mini-game; a slew of new character playbooks for Beyond the Wall; and so much more! If you see a post that you like be sure and tell the author how much you enjoyed it!

If you've got any questions about this month's lists be sure and check out the FAQ. And as always, thank you for your comments, shares, plus 1s, and for taking the time to read this list. See you on the next set!

BEST READS OF THE WEEK!

APRIL 25 - 30, 2015!

Dragonwrack Part 2: On the Dragons of Dragonwrack, Dragonwrack Part 3 Black Dragons, Part 4 Blue Dragons, Part 5 Green Dragons, Part 6 Red Dragons, and Part 7 White Dragons by J.D. Jarvis, from the blog Aeons & Augauries: Building on the ideas laid out last week J.D. continues to lay out a great way to use Dragons in your games in this fantastic Dragonwrack Series. Be sure to read them all because they're worth it.

Best of the Joesky Tax by Paul, from the blog, Blog of Holding: The Joesky Tax was an idea that for every rant, every asinine and frivolous post, that the author would then follow it up by creating something useful for the people who had to suffer through such things. Unfortunately many of these posts are beginning to disappear. To help preserve them Paul has collected some of his favorites in this post.

Castles in the Sky Part 2: Religion, War and Conquest by +Emily Dresner-Thornber, from the blog Critical Hits: This is the conclusion of Emily "multiplexer" Dresner-Thorber's examination of a world dominated by flying castles. Well worth reading.

They Wait in Darkness / The Quiet City by +Pearce Shea, from the blog games with others: This description for the world Pearce has been playing in with 5e hits me as perfect in practically every way. The writing sets the tone for the city with the sort of skillful craftsmanship that rarely shows itself in our daily world and that begs for more to be shown. To say I love this setting and would gleefully spend years adventuring here is an understatement.

Sword of Kas Through Editions by +Mike Bridges, from the blog Greyhawkery: This article hits me just right. First it covers one of the great artifacts from the game's history in an easy to read manner; and second, it's about a Greyhawk artifact. Great article from Mike.

Violent Resolutions - Never Tell Me the Odds Part 2 by +Douglas Cole, from the blog Gaming Ballistic: In this concluding part of the Never Tell Me the Odds tandem Douglas looks at combat in dramatic systems that don't really rely so much on the math that the previously examined games did. As someone who doesn't play FATE I found the discussion fascinating.

You Probably Haven't Heard of It Before by +Charles Akins, from the blog Dyvers: Another in the series of posters for Greyhawk.

International Dungeoneering League by +Scott Malthouse, from the blog The Trollish Delver: I love all sorts of mini games that require you to think outside the traditional role-playing game format and this one proposed by Scott just makes me way too happy.

Beyond the Wall - New Character Playbook - The Foreign Diplomat (Rogue); Beyond the Wall - New Character Playbook - The Pious Priest (Mage); Beyond the Wall - New Character Playbook and Class - The Cursed; and Beyond the Wall - New Character Playbook and Class - The Exiled Monk by Wrathofzombie, from the blog Wrathofzombie's Blog: One of the things that I love about how these character playbooks are put together is how easily you can manipulate them for other games. Each of the ones in this series really get my mind working and have gotten me to pick up the Beyond the Wall game.

BEST READS OF THE WEEK! April 18 - 24, 2015

Welcome back to the Best Reads of the Week! Every week I read through more than 370 blogs looking for the best rpg related articles to bring them directly to you. This week we've got new magic spells; the old school roots of 5e; an interview with Shanna Germain; inspiring art; a lexicon for aspiring war gamers; and so much more! If you see a post that you like be sure and tell the author how much you enjoyed it!

If you've got any questions about this month's lists be sure and check out the FAQ. And as always, thank you for your comments, shares, plus 1s, and for taking the time to read this list. See you on the next set!

BEST READS OF THE WEEK!

APRIL 18 - 24, 2015!

The Compleat Spell Book of The Blue Album by +Jensan Thuresson, from the blog The Acorn Afloat: One of the things that I can never get enough of is creative spells that make instantly make me think of how they would be used in my games, and this post from Jensan that's exactly what you get. Honestly, if you aren't watching for Jensan's updates you're missing out.

The Dragonwrack Series Part 1, by J.D. Jarvis, from the blog Aeons & Augauries: Have you ever hesitated to drop a dragon into your Old School Dungeons & Dragons style game? Well if you have then this series by J.D. is perfect for you.

Every Adventure is a Dungeon by The Angry Game Master, from The Angry Game Master: Sometimes one of the hardest things about creating an adventure is understanding how to build one with a solid foundation which is why this article is so good.

The Old School Roots of D&D 5e by Al, from the blog Beyond the Black Gate: One of the things that I love about 5e is how easy it is to really get into, and this article from Billy examines those roots directly from the man who had one of the biggest hands in it's development, Mike Mearls.

Interview with Shanna Germain, Co-owner of Monte Cook Games by Liz, from the blog Contessa: Shanna Germain is a fascinating person. Her interests are varied and she often offers a refreshing take on every issue she touches. Naturally this interview with her is fantastic.

Castles in the Sky Part 1: History, Mechanics, and Trade by +Emily Dresner-Thornber, from the blog Critical Hits: It is arguable that there is no more astute mind in rpg blogging right now than Emily "multiplexer" Dresner-Thornber. Everything she touches is graced with an economy of words and a brilliant intellect. Castles in the Sky, Emily's exploration of a setting filled with floating castles, is just the latest in a long line of excellent posts.

The Rules are Not the Game by +Jens D., from the blog The Disoriented Ranger: There is a question that occasionally surfaces in our hobby: what constitutes the game? What is its essence? Is it the rules? Or is it something more abstract? Jens works on this issue and his thoughts on the subject are provoking.

The Livid Fens - Color Maps by +Gus L, from the blog Dungeon of Signs: If you're looking for a great place to launch a campaign than this evocative map is a perfect place to start. Plenty of adventuring possibilities, and not to much civilization to mess it all up. Just the way I like it.

Defeat and Running Away by Archon Shiva, from the blog Further Up the Spire: I always find it interesting how little we run away in modern role-playing games. I'm not alone in that I don't think. So this post by Archon Shiva really hit my sweet spot as it explores the topic in a way that few others have. Well worth checking out.

Violent Resolutions - Never Tell Me the Odds Part 1 by +Douglas Cole, from the blog Gaming Ballistic: In this first of a two parter Douglas takes a look at the math of crunchy systems, like D&D, and how to properly gage your chances of success. I'm always amazed when someone can take something that can quickly become dull, like math, and make it an interesting read that gets your mind working for hours afterwards.

Henrique Alvim Correa - War Of The Worlds Illustrations, 1906 by Aeron Alfrey, from the blog Monster Brains: My games tend to be a bit more along the lines of a pre-WWI time period so this collection of War of the World illustrations really hit in my sweet spot.

Taking 5e to the Con Circuit by +Baz Stevens, from the blog Treehouse: One of the great stress tests for any system is to put it into a pressure situation; and playing in a convention game is a perfect place to find the weaknesses of any game. What's better? Having a professional game designer look into it.

MOAR GREYHAWK! by +Charles Akins, from the blog Dyvers: a series of eight covers created to help spread the good word about one of the oldest settings in the history of RPGs.

Of Strategy in RPGs (Also: Simplify) by John, from the blog The Wandering Gamist: Let's say that complexity in role-playing games is there biggest barrier. How then do we fix it?

The Art of War Gaming: A Lexicon by +Stelios V. Perdios, from the blog The Word of Stelios: If you're new to war gaming, or are just contemplating getting into the hobby, then this short post by Stelios is an invaluable aid.

Artisan Toolkits: Glassblower

Weight: 25 lbs (11.3 Kilograms)
Cost: 45 gold

Contents:

Blowpipe

Gathering Iron

Marver

Tweezers

Block

Jack

Punty

Crucible

Silica (purified sand)

Glass blowing is a very odd toolkit to have for an adventurer as it’s not really a profession that travels very well without the use of a portable gas furnace. Still, there may be people who wish to be glassblowers in the game and they’ll need their basic supplies which are included above. To actually blow glass they’ll need to set up a work space where they can create a permanent (or semi-permanent in case they’re using someone else’s work space) area where they can be involved in the rather laborious process.

Artisan Toolkit Series

Introduction

Alchemist

Brewer

Calligrapher

Carpenter

Cartographer

Cobbler

Cook

Glassblower

Jeweler

Leatherworker

Mason

Painter

Potter

Smith
Surveyor

Tinker

Weaver

Woodcarver
Final

[Trigger Warning: Racism] I Am Perplexed

Last night I'm reading an article on Salon - which is something that I rarely do because they tend to push their advertisements a bit aggressively for my tastes and their script keeps messing up on my version of Firefox - when I came across the article titled, When “harshtags” backfire: Mocking #whitegirltears and joking #killallwhitemen stir up more university debate. In the article there is this suggestion that there is a legitimate debate about who can be labeled "racist" which I find disturbing to see coming up again.

See, back when I was in college I had a very intelligent young man try to argue that only white people could be racist because white people had the power in the United States. For him the term was a subjective one that relied on power structures. For example, if a Chinese man living in China hates a white man because of his race he would then be a racist because in that situation his race has all the power in that society. However, if that same Chinese man were to move to the United States he would no longer be a racist because in the United States the white man's race has power in that society. That the Chinese man hates another person because of their race is secondary to the power of his own race within the context of society. 

I pointed out that this argument struck me as disingenuous and as a way to excuse racism. The Chinese man in the above example is just as much a racist in New York as he is in Beijing. Making allowances for his terrible behavior because of his location and the society he currently occupies is wrong in every way. If you hate someone because of their race you're in the wrong and you're being a racist jerk. He had trouble with that argument because his mind was so wrapped up in the idea that power structures mattered more than anything else in the world. For him every relationship was bound up in who had the power and who was disenfranchised as a result. All his views were constantly shifting standards that would change based on what relationships you entered and your standing within those relationships. The argument was soon put aside, however, as other more pressing issues arose that occupied everyone's debates (read: 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan). 

Anyway, here that argument is again and after being away from it for so many years it's shocking to me. I am completely perplexed that people would actually believe that they're not racists because they happen to be a minority in a society even though they fully participate in racist actions. Look, if you hate someone because of their race, regardless of your own race and its standing in your society, you are a racist. You're not exempt because of your own race's societal power, nor are you a reverse racist (which is the dumbest term to ever be coined). You're just a racist and that makes you a shitty person.

Enough talk, Riker beard of space awesomeness.

Okay, that enough of this serious talk. More silly imaginary dwarf games shortly.