|
Much like video games, if you don’t start young, you just don’t get the appeal
of Ayn Rand. There is something about The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged that
alienates the older or uninitiated demographics. So for those of you unsure of
even the pronunciation (Ayn as in Ein) please proceed to listing your favorite
female rpg character on the message boards. And those of you quick to chime in
“Ayn Rand is not even her real name,” take a deep breath, your version of Howard
Roark isn’t in jeopardy. Everyone else, if you would, stay within the vehicle
at all times, as the establishment will not be responsible for any shattered
illusions.
First banish the notion that a Randian defense of selfishness means an action
that does not appear selfish should not be pursued. All actions, the
consequence(s) of which ultimately benefit a person, regardless of whether the
person would be labeled selfish, are selfish. Secondly, all selfish actions are
not justifiable, most especially when such actions cause more harm than a person
might have realized. Above all, reason and rationale should be the guidelines
when choosing what paths to pursue or actions to take.
To backtrack, a selfish action is any in which the action either directly or
indirectly benefits the doer of the action. If I eat food to get nutrition or
if I breathe air because I need oxygen, either one is a selfish act. These are
not normally thought of as selfish acts, because selfishness, especially in
America, is widely held to be morally reprehensible. Selfishness is condemned
and associated with miserly acts of hoarding possessions, stealing from others,
or otherwise being an enemy of all, friend of none and general ass. Forget that
definition of selfishness because it is misdirected, inept and ultimately dim in
purpose, direction and goal. What Rand says though, is selfishness is not
simply a good, but the only morally justifiable good. Selfishness drives humans
towards self-preservation, enlightenment, civilization, and improvement. While
humans pursue their own good, this does not mean they are isolated when in the
pursuit of selfish goals. Harmony, in which two or more individuals work
together to achieve something neither one could have on their own, is both
selfish and the foundation for a community.
At this point, you’re either on board or you’re sitting there wondering what
this has to do with roleplaying games. In either case, it may be best to
elaborate with an example.
Supposing I am a member of a gaming party, it would be a selfish act if, when
fighting a monster, I hold back to avoid taking damage and then race to collect
the treasure at the end. But this is a selfish act that is irrational and
unintelligent. I may be successful once or twice in this manner, but before
long my reputation will suffer or my friends will turn on me and take what is
wrongly mine. So my shortsighted selfish act ultimately results in a longterm
unselfish act: I have warned others of my ineptitude as a party member and my
previous riches would soon after be redistributed to others. A rational selfish
act in this case would be to fight along with every one else, helping when I can
so long as it is not reckless. If I take too much risk and must then be saved,
I have become a burden, not a help. Then if I am allied with other rationally
selfish players they will help me in turn. In this way my shortterm gain may
not be as large as if I were to hog everything, but in the longterm I will enjoy
a much larger pool of wealth as well as other valuable, but not necessarily
quantifiable items, such as trust and friendship.
If Rand were to have taken a position on playerkilling, clearly she would have
considered it unacceptable. For her the use of force is to be forbidden, except
in self-defense. To take action against another is to ultimately invite action
to be taken upon you. And while you may be more powerful than your prey, you
are not a god, and eventually someone or someones will band together and take
you out. Again whatever shortterms gains you might have realized (including a
sadistic pleasure in killing off weaker or inexperienced players) is lost in the
longterm banning or shunning that will occur. Ultimately no one benefits from a
lawless society and killing other players is not an act of self-preservation,
but one of cowardice and dishonor that should and usually is punished.
As ours is not a perfect world, yes there will be some exceptions, or some evil
actions that go unpunished. Why do good things happen to bad people? Why do
celebrities usually get to hook up with other attractive people AND are wealthy-
as if just one is not enough? And why do the most rational of acts seem
sometimes not to end up in your favor? It’s just the way the dice land. But if
everyone is trying to act in the most rational, selfish way, on the whole more
benefits will arise than any other course of action.
Pulling back from the multiplayer scenarios, it might be easier to see this
balance in the single player realm, as it is no different. Party dynamics
necessarily require resources to be divided: if the healer is kept too weak and
dies, your fighter too will soon die. So always relying on only one member of
your party to remain alive is not an example of a selfish act but one of
stupidity and actually goes against self-preservation. You need to create a
balance where no one character gets all the rewards/experience/life potions,
because you tilt your party out of balance. That does not mean everyone needs
to get the exact same percentage of all spoils, as you would soon be sucking the
enjoyment out of the game (unless this level of micromanagement appeals to you,
in which event, micromanage away!) Or even that all difficult choices can be
prevented since sacrifice is often unavoidable. But you should be staring at
the looming horizon, not just the sparkling lids of every treasure chest, so as
best to minimize sacrifices from arising.
You might be thinking this thought process follows closely the golden rule. In a
way it does, but the difference hinges on the motivation. A universal maxim of
roleplaying might be to act at all times in that rational way, which minimizes
potential harm and maximizes potential fortune both in the long and short term,
taking into account not just those quantifiable values such as experience, gold
or items, but other perhaps even more valuable possessions such as friendship,
trust and pride.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
