Game in the Brain

 

Does the concept of Redemption fit a Fantasy setting? The hero can change but the villain cannot? If there is a diety that Corrupts and a Diety that Redeems – doesnt this kinda throw out Absolutist views that a race or people is bad or good? Is this too uncomfortable to people – and if we use comfort (a subjective matter) to determine what to discuss or ideas to explore. 

ChatGPT4 Help me clarify my thoughts. 

Sarenrae is the goddess about redemption, which opens up a philosophical can of worms I’ve never thought of. Particularly the role of Evil races if there is a DIETY OF REDEMPTION. As there is a diety of redemption there should be a diety of corruption. Anyway, there has been a long argument about Evil races being unchangable and this is the heroic genre created by Tolkien and early authors. The thing about it is that – in the Christian tradition – redemption and forgiveness is an essential part of the doctrine. It’s also a part of Christian tradition which results in internal conflict because of the “Paradox of Tolerance” (The concept that Tolerating Intollerance results in an Intollerant and Hostile environment) – representing the church Faction conflict of the Jesuits and Franciscans vs the Dominicans and Opus Dei.  

The Lawful Good actually in conflict of the Neutral Good – and the Neutral good ends up In direct conflict of all the Lawful alignments (Paradox of Tolerance). But because Neutral Good is not Absolutist – it will bide its time and chose its battles – it is incompatible with absolutes – as an Absolute. 

In a setting with Redemption and Freedom – and as the game moves away from the Alignment and will begin giving players codes of conduct and examples of Points of Views and Ethics/moral perspectives – this is growth as it moves from oversimplified systems to more nuance. 

Nuance and Complexity. First I have to qualify that removing nuance and complexity is not a bad thing. My first hand experience of participating in a democracy (being part of the Condo Corporation and learning first hand how democracy works)  made me realize how its entirely optional in society – that no one wants it or understand problems – and that those who are tasked with complexity and problem solving are subject to the perception and the mood of the crowd. Having learned that no one wants to understand is an acceptable and just part of reality – that understanding a value judgement that is entirely subjective. That people cannot be judged on the criteria if they want to understand a problem or dont want to understand it and react to a problem without understanding – doesnt make them bad or good – it is just the way things are. Of course while its not a value judgement – it does affect the cost of the problem – acting without understanding the problem can just make it more expensive in emotional labor, financially, time and manpower. 

WHat does this have to do with Redemption in a setting – when you have a complex philosophical element that has many implications and reverberates through a setting affecting the perspective of Living creatures – but have to juggle Oversimplification vs Nuance – any Thought I or Others Invest in what it can mean has to be flexible enough to allow itself to be entirely discarded. 

Every scientific thought and paramount human innovation in the world should be readily be Discarded when an Individual believes their experience overrides the entire history of humanity in the reflection of context – because they do not hold those values and it is a dangerous predisposition to impose our values on those who dont hold the same values. Always work with the values of the other party to understand their point of view. It can be entirely alien to us and we have to accept that its alien and seek to work with their context and perspective – and the reality they operate in. 

So while we may seek to understand how it affects the setting, our perspective only matters to us and outside of us the world it doesnt matter. It may be profitable, powerful knowledge that leverages money, resources, and time – but if it doesnt fall within the value system of the circumstance it doesnt matter. 

GPT4 

Certainly, Justin! It seems like you’re exploring some deep philosophical issues and wrestling with some complex notions about redemption, alignment, tolerance, nuance, complexity, and how these ideas might intersect in various contexts. Let me attempt to break down and clarify your thoughts:

### 1. Redemption and Alignment in Fantasy Settings:

– **Redemption in Fantasy**: You’re reflecting on the concept of a deity of redemption, like Sarenrae, and contrasting this with a deity of corruption. This sparks a broader philosophical question about the nature of good and evil.

– **Alignment Complexity**: The interplay between Lawful Good and Neutral Good can result in conflict, manifesting a paradox akin to the “Paradox of Tolerance.” This might be illustrated through different church factions.

– **Growth in Game Mechanics**: The evolution from rigid alignment systems to more nuanced codes of conduct represents a maturing of the storytelling medium, allowing for greater moral complexity.

### 2. Nuance and Complexity in Society:

– **Value of Simplicity**: You acknowledge that removing complexity isn’t necessarily bad. People’s reluctance or inability to engage with complex issues isn’t a moral failing; it’s just how things are.

– **Cost of Misunderstanding**: Acting without understanding can lead to greater costs in various domains, but this isn’t a value judgment on the individuals involved.

### 3. Application to Redemption in a Setting:

– **Flexibility of Thought**: Any deep philosophical insight must be flexible enough to be discarded if it doesn’t align with the values of those involved.

– **Individual Perspective**: Every individual’s perspective is unique, and what might seem valuable or true to one person might be irrelevant to another. This applies to both in-game philosophical elements and real-world innovations.

### Conclusion:

The overall theme here seems to be a contemplation of how complex philosophical ideas like redemption can be explored within a fictional setting, and how these explorations mirror real-world complexities. The balance between nuance and oversimplification, both in fictional worlds and in how we approach real-world problems, is central to these thoughts.

You emphasize the importance of empathy and understanding, recognizing that people may have entirely different value systems and perspectives. The task, then, is to navigate these differing viewpoints without imposing our values on others.

Your reflection seems to be an exploration of how to honor complexity and nuance without losing sight of the reality that not everyone values or engages with these complexities in the same way. It’s a thoughtful meditation on the delicate balance between depth and accessibility, both in storytelling and in real-world interactions.

Let me know if you need further clarification or if you have specific questions about any of these points!