another take on "the character doesn't exist"

[Marco]

Marco, you HAVE raised that point several times...and IMO its been addressed several times already.  I'll summarize:

Valamir, I hear you--but--check this out:

1. The issue is not whether the character exists with a mind of it's own. That's not the issue here. I checked. Twice. Read the last two paragraphs of the post that starts the thread (Mike, again--good and cognizant--but the thread is, if I read it correctly about what context you *can* say the character has an existence outside the owning player).

2. I agree with the Lumpely principle as well--you had said this:

"the character has no rights outside of what the player chooses for it. "

Because of the Lumpely principle that (above) is not true.*

When that is not true then character behavior becomes unpredictable to the owning player (or at least somewhat unpredictable)--and therefore, in the context of the game, the character has wants the owning player didn't choose which can be enforced against his wishes.

That's what I didn't see you addressing. I.e. I think you find your quoted statement congruent with your immediately previous post--and I think that's clearly not true (because, as I said, of the Lumeply principle).

I'm not arguing that *the rules* will throw a thunderbolt from the heavens--and haven't been--and your using that in your argument is what's making me think there's a disconnect. I'm arguing that the game rules instruct the GM to take the character away from the player (in one case, there are many others) and therefore the character "has rights" "outside" of what "the player" chooses for it.

When the character is not doing what I tell it to do, from my perspective it may as well be independent (a more nuanced form of this occurs when established parameters of character behaviors conflict with story-first priorities--something that at least Ron is on the record as saying isn't applicable in any unique fashion to RPG's--when it, IMO, clearly is).

-Marco
* I suppose you may decided to argue that the character doesn't have "rights" (or can't have rights) or some other semantic "rights" based argument. But if the player can choose "rights" (as you imply) then I see no reason to say that when the player has chosen a right, the character has it--which I think would then mean (in whatever context you were speaking) that my argument means the character would "have" other rights chosen for it by other players or even the game designer (Lumpely).

[Gordon C. Landis]

Marco (and everyone),

You're right, by my reading of the various threads - people (here, anyway) agree that the character does not exist with a mind of its own (though for some folks, and/or sometimes, it can be fun and useful for to act as if they did).  But if that's the case, how can there be *any* context in which the character actually has an existence outside the owning player?  Well, "owning player" is an interesting issue right there - if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll eventually figure out a way to start a thread on that topic, which has been mentioned and (rightly) avoided a number of times in these threads.  But for now, let "owning player" and "the group as a whole" be rough equivalents.  My take is that influences to the character, which might then be revealed through the process of play, might come from anywhere.  But the character itself is never "outside" the context of play.  No matter how strongly you do or do not privledge the owner of a character regarding that characters' behavior and etc., the influences to that behavior always come from within the group of real humans playing - and can only be made real by the agreement of the participants.

I can't speak for Ralph, but the way I read his post is this: if the character has "rights" outside what the player "wants" for it, that is only because the player chooses to grant the system the ability to impose those "rights" (per Lumpley).  So, if the player must choose to allow his "wants" to be usurped - well, that's not really losing control, is it?  It's granting control - in particular situations, and always subject to a rules/social contract-trumping complaint - by choice.

Now, most of that is subtle stuff and/or philosophy-debate (if I want to not want, is that wanting?) - in some situations I think that's important, but I'm thinking we can move past it here.  Because, really a matter of choice or not, people have STRONG opinions about what they like and don't like in allowing the system and/or other players to influence/control "their" character.   What's that about?  Power struggle?  Aesthetic preference  Some of both, and . . . what else?

Perhaps that's a new thread.  My purpose here was both to try and explain why Ralph's way of looking at it makes perfect sense to me, and also to see if perhaps the interesting stuff lies outside of the areas these threads seem to keep focusing on.  I'm open to ideas . . .

Gordon

[Marco]

I can't speak for Ralph, but the way I read his post is this: if the character has "rights" outside what the player "wants" for it, that is only because the player chooses to grant the system the ability to impose those "rights" (per Lumpley).  So, if the player must choose to allow his "wants" to be usurped - well, that's not really losing control, is it?  It's granting control - in particular situations, and always subject to a rules/social contract-trumping complaint - by choice.

Gordon

That's what I surmised--and, as I said, I find that a potentially very sticky position.

Namely, it's a deep and nuanced personal-responsibility argument (which, as I said, I find interesting).

For one thing: consider (again, the trivial case) where the GM "enforces alignment" and the player disagrees with the call but is over-ridden. Saying the player 'wants' that recalls back in the bad-old-days of Gamism discussion where people married to the "it's about competition[/i]" argument said "well, it's not incorrect to say that a football referee in some way competes in the football game" or "in team play where the GM is rooting for the characters the team is competing against the GM." Again, both those comments can be made from *some* perspective but neither is a really accurate address of what's going on.

But, as I said, that's the trivial case. There are more nuanced questions I have about that stance (if the person is playing Vampire: The Masquarade and is in a continuing dysfunctional power-struggle with the GM, is it appropriate to say they "want" to be in that power-struggle? They chose to play in that game which, the GNS essay holds is the 'most likely'.)

So, I'm not saying I find that POV necessiarly *right* or *wrong*--but if that's the position that's strongly being taken, I've not seen Ralph state it.

Gordon: Is that what you think?

-Marco

[Valamir]

I'm arguing that the game rules instruct the GM to take the character away from the player (in one case, there are many others) and therefore the character "has rights" "outside" of what "the player" chooses for it.

No...there is a huge leap you're making here.
Consider  "the character has rights because the GM took it away from me"?
No, the GM has rights.  The other players at the table have rights.  The character has nothing.

When that is not true then character behavior becomes unpredictable to the owning player (or at least somewhat unpredictable)--and therefore, in the context of the game, the character has wants the owning player didn't choose which can be enforced against his wishes.

Again.  Same problem as above.  The character does not have wants opposed to those of the owning player.  The other players have them.  Again, the character has nothing.

I'm arguing that the game rules instruct the GM to take the character away from the player (in one case, there are many others) and therefore the character "has rights" "outside" of what "the player" chooses for it.

And I quite bluntly think that arguement is wrong.  It doesn't even make sense.  In this example you keep using, the GM is exerting his rights to over rule and over ride the player's rights.  There are no character rights here at all.  

When the character is not doing what I tell it to do, from my perspective it may as well be independent

Again, you are demonstrating what I can only conclude is habit of thought.  You are used to phrasing and concieving these events in these terms and so you keep coming back to them like a comfortable pair of shoes.

When the character is not doing what you tell it to do because of the actions/interferences of another player...it is the other player who is independent.

[Marco]

I'm arguing that the game rules instruct the GM to take the character away from the player (in one case, there are many others) and therefore the character "has rights" "outside" of what "the player" chooses for it.

No...there is a huge leap you're making here.
Consider  "the character has rights because the GM took it away from me"?
No, the GM has rights.  The other players at the table have rights.  The character has nothing.

It was your quote that I took exception too--wherein you say "the character has no rights outside of what the player chooses for it."

As I said (and I thought I addressed this--you didn't say "the character has no rights--cannot have rights, and it makes no sense to discuss this, even in context of the game's 'reality.')

If the character can have rights chosen for it by the player (drawing from your statement) then it can have rights chosen for it by someone else (the game designer, for example).

If you want to argue that the character "has no rights at all," I can agree with that--but it's changing the definition of 'rights' after the ball is in play (IMO).

The character exists as an artifact of the game system. There's (often) a record-sheet with writing on it--that writing is source code for instantiating the character in the game (to dip into computer terminology--but I'll strive to avoid analogous argument beyond that).

Okay, so let's talk about that:

I say: the character has limitations on its behavior other than those chosen for it by the player--or perhaps those chosen by the player that the player is not happy with (i.e. doesn't want for a garden-variety definition of 'want').

Can either of those things be true. I think 'yes' (but who knows if you agree: my example is a randomly rolled psych-limit the player is mucho unhappy with).

So then, can there be limitations on a character's behavior the player is not *aware* of? Yes--clearly. I've seen players get the exact effects of their psych-limits (again, a blunt case) wrong all the time. The rules aportion credibility to the game designer (I find this weak) or to the GM but with social-contract-limitations on the GM from the group in general saying that s/he must enforce the rules as writ (I find this a bit of a gymnastic stretch of the Lumpely principle and an indication that saying that "the rules have credibility" might actually be clearer in some ways, if less correct)--but the upshot is that the character can "behave unpredictably" from the POV of the player.

Now, you agree *that* can happen--that because of the way you made your character or the game system you chose to play--your character can behave in unpredictable ways from you--but within accordance of the guidlines of system--then, is it fair to say that:

"From the POV of the player, a character may sometimes behave in ways that are in accordance with the nautre of the character (as described by System) but against the preferences/will of the player."

Yes, I know there's another person involved. That's clear. And yes, in that schema it becomes the person who has the "rights"--but you were the one who gave a character rights that were chosen for it by the player in the first place. That's why I constructed my dialog the way I did. If we ditch the rights, we're just talking about behavior of the character.

Btw: I don't think you're being thick-headed or beligerent (I'm not sure if you think I'm chasing semantics or hounding you for a quote out of context)--but I find cases where there's a disconnect between the precieved reality of the character (as instructed by the game system) and the player's play priorities very interesting and important--and I find the "the character doesn't exist" statment extremely dismissive of them--which I find very odd around here.

-Marco

[Gordon C. Landis]

First of all - yes, Marco, I think I am making that personal responsibility argument.  The person who stays for a prolonged period of time (and I have no firm notion how to define "prolonged" - it probably varies based on a lot of stuff, like are there other aspects of the game that are rewarding) in a game with a dysfunctional power-struggle must want to be there, or they'd 1) force a "fix" to the power struggle, or 2) walk away.  Remaining in the game with the power-struggle becomes, at some point, tacit agreement to let the power struggle continue.  There are nuances - you can still dislike that aspect (which, sure, lets you say you don't "want" it, for a not-committed-to-do-anything-about-it kind of want), but if you're still there, and the power struggle is still there - you're accepting it. Basically - I think I am saying what you think I'm saying.

Now, a couple quotes:

Marco says: "When the character is not doing what I tell it to do, from my perspective it may as well be independent."

Ralph says: "When the character is not doing what you tell it to do because of the actions/interferences of another player...it is the other player who is independent."

I find these two quotes interesting, because I think they are both true.  Marco is right - the character is (in some way, and ignoring the fact that this can only happen if the player agrees to let it happen) acting independently from the player.  By not squinting close and noticing just where that independence is coming from, the player might get the feeling that the character itself is asserting something.  This may be desireable.  Note, though, that it is fragile - even with squint-avoidance, if the thing asserted by this method feels totally wrong for what the player already imagines about the character, it suddenly becomes obvious that rather than the character somehow doing the asserting, it's "just" another player/the GM/the system.  And there goes the possibly-desired illusion of character independence, just as surely as if you'd taken that close look to see where it was "really" coming from in the first place.

This may be why personality mechanics have such a mixed reputation: they carry with them the potential to destroy (one of?) the very thing(s) they seek to promote.

(Getting into really tricky personal mental state stuff - replace the "outside" influences vs. player with the player's internal imagined space for the character vs. various other internal impulses, and I think you've got a perfectly good model for generating the illusion of an independent character within your own mind, too.  Again, this might be what you want - to fool yourself into making an internal monologue feel like a dialouge.  Personally, I find doing this really neat at times - even mystical.  It's a great trick.  But it isn't always the best trick for my RPGing enjoyment.)

But Ralph is right, too - the actual source of independence is not "the character," but rather another participant, or the game system/designer.  The question is - when is Ralph's right answer the best one to look at, and when is Marco's right answer the better one to use?  I like to use Ralph's answer when I see what look like reflexive, unconsidered assumptions about the nature of the character in RPG play expressed.  I'll happily concede my strong opinion and the nature of on-line communication (where it's hard to tell if, when someone says "the character wanted x", they are using it as shorthand or not) may result in my over-use of that answer.

But the implications that follow on from Marco's right answer are also very interesting - if from the player's perspective the character has some independence (whatever the "true" source, or their perception of that source), is that good or bad?  Why?

I'm gonna think on that a bit . . . but I certainly don't intend "the character doesn't exist" to be dismissive of those issues.  In many cases, I see it as useful in helping resolve those issues.

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

Ralph says that the character doesn't exist and has no rights.

We've all agreed that the character exists as a creative fiction within a larger creative fiction. Marco observes that this creative fiction is not solely within the control of its primary creator; Ralph asserts that when control shifts, it is not because the character has rights (that is, to be what it is, apart from the player's independent vision of it), but because other members of the group have rights (that is, to define aspects of the character). Since the character is not a person, the character cannot have rights.

I'm perhaps the controling stockholder in Valdron Inc; I've enough influence that it's unlikely that anyone could become director of the corporation without my support. I'm also chairman of the board of directors--a position to which I've been elected six out of six years, by those directors. However, the corporation does have rights; in fact, it has rights as against me: I cannot tell everyone what the corporation will do. Now, I created this corporation--I did the initial paperwork, the legwork to get the investment, the bylaws, the charter--and I have pretty much a controling interest; but the corporation does have rights, and I cannot change those without the agreement of the corporation.

The corporation doesn't really exist. It exists only as a legal fiction, not as a person. It can't make decisions other than through the decisions of the people who control it. Yet it does exist, and under law it has rights--it is, in fact, a person, under law, as a legal fiction. It has rights.

So it is certainly reasonable to say that something that only exists in the minds of a group of people, as a part of something else that only exists in the minds of a group of people, has rights.

The Lumpley Principle may very well give the character rights that are inviolable by the player.

--M. J. Young

[contracycle]

I'm not a fan of 'rights' discussions becuase I often find them rather vague.  I challenge MJ's well argued point as follows: it is not that the character has rights which are inviolable to player, but the player has duties to the other players.

I agree that Valdron Inc., as all forms of social endeavour, is a sort of imaginative construct, but I think it wrong to say that the corporation has rights.  The concept of the corporation can be seen as a holding space for articulating the 'rights' of the other real people in the company, and the 'rights' of the corporation seen as duties imposed on MJ to accede to the will of others as organised through the structure of the corporation.

How about an alternative terminology; the character can be objectified in the game space such that it is governed by the 'natural laws' of that game space to varying degrees.  To me that just means that it will be satisfying to the extent that you find the setting and system satisfying.  For example, I think the conspiracy genre relies heavily on the trope, almost the  fantasy, of the individual being more than they know themselves to be, albeit in a sinister manner.  Having character mentality to some extent externalised through the mechanics is appropriate.

One might say that alignment gives the characters rights over the player, but I don;t think this is menaingful: in selecting alignment the player has specified a clause in the social contract as to how they will instruct the  character to behave.  This is still the contract between the players, however, and I suggest the character is only the subject of the articulation of player vs player rights.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I kind of agree with Gareth here. The character does not have rights but to do well in playing elements need to be sold properly. This is a term used in pro wrestling, selling it. That is, when they get hit into the steel steps or whatever, they act like it hurt...and it probably did hurt but they make it look like it hurt more so the audience gets it and it adds to the drama.

I used to say that writing fiction was telling lies about people who had never existed. I now realise this is not true. The people may not be real, but you have to tell the truth about them. This also applies to roleplaying as well.

This guides the players. It has to fit. It has to be sold. They have to buy it.

This can look like the character is asserting control. Actually it's like playing a game like Go. In the movie Pi, one character said the each game of Go was like a snowflake. No two games are the same. The Go board hold infinite possibilities. The other character counters that as the game is played, possible moves are reduced and thus makes the possibilities finite.

When playing a roleplaying game, the possibities are endless. But once the group decides on what type of game and the characters are created, the posibilities have been reduced significantly.* As the game is played, the possibilities are similarly reduced. This is not due to the character having any rights. No more than the Jenga block having rights in making the player choose which block to pull from the bottom. It's more due to natural laws of balance and gravity that guides this.


* Makes me laugh when people says that games like MLwM are limited, like every other game is not likewise limited in play, at least

[pete_darby]

So it is certainly reasonable to say that something that only exists in the minds of a group of people, as a part of something else that only exists in the minds of a group of people, has rights.

The Lumpley Principle may very well give the character rights that are inviolable by the player.

--M. J. Young

But, again appealing to the LP, it only has the rights the players have agreed to give it, and they may withdraw those rights with no recourse to any court of appeal beyond themselves. The character has no inherent autonomous rights, only those granted by the group.

Obviously, the nature of the local social contract may privelige the presumed needs of the PC within the game world, but it is still subject to revision.

Since the character cannot change the nature of the csocial contract, nor appeal to the LP, I'd say that the players may, with the consent only of each other, violate the rights of the character.

To return to your coporate metaphor, when a corporate entity is created, it is done so under the social contracts and laws of the country of incoporation. They can also be changed, but only through due process of law. If RPG's operated under the same principles, we'd have all social contracts of play ratified by a council of players, with purely internal matters decided by a simple majority, etc etc

("I order you to be quiet!")

Different rpg groups have different models of governance, but they are all autonomous states, and can decide what rights characters have internally.

(going away to get the Python out of my system...)

[Marco]

MJ was not, I think, arguing that the corporation--absent of any people, anywhere--could back up its own rights.* He was arguing, if I understand it correctly, that the Lumpely Principle was the guiding method that could give my character some constraints that I had not placed upon it--or at least that were at odds with my desires at a given moment.

Which I think is clearly true. The idea that we're saying that somehow it's "the character" autonomously enforcing it's rights is a smoke-screen (the terminology of a character "having rights" was first used, IIRC, by Ralph). You can call it what you want, but your character, in the shared-imaginary space can obviously take actions out of accordance with your desires.

-Marco
* The exception may be the case where Valdron builds Artifically Intelligent Assault Robots. Since I don't know what it does, I'll leave that as an omniously cool but unexplored possibility.

[pete_darby]

Well, I wasn't talking about a corporation absent of any people, either. The rights of the corporate entity, and it's gestalt needs and desires, arise from an interaction of economics and law: The law prescribes that the the corporation must provide certain safeguards to it's employees, act with a certain amount of disclosure towards it's shareholders, etc.

I was trying to highlight the difference beyween the corporation and the character. The character has needs, desires and rights defined by an interaction between the player, his group, the game mechanics, the system, setting, etc. Whereas ignoring the restraints placed upon a corporation can lead to failure of the corporation economically, and possible legal ramifications for the individuals responsible for fulfilling those obligations (eg Enron), the ramifications for doing the same to a character are limited to possible artistic failure of the character, or compromise on style of play for the group.

As with all other aspects of the system, it's assumed that for most play, the group agress to abide by the results produced by the character system, including but not restricted to the game mechanics, setting, backstory, dice rolls, etc. For the most part, I think, we're accepting that acting as if the characters have an internal life gives a better game experience.

BUT, if maintaining that illusion becomes less enjoyable than what a momentary break would allow, I'm of the opinion that at that point Lumpley is involed, and the results produced by the game system are overridden by the desires of the group to make an enjoyable game. To persist, at that point, to maintain the illusion of character autonomy, smacks of masochism.

To restate, I believe that in most play that point is rarely reached. But if the player gets to the point of "My guy would do this, which would screw the pooch for the rest of the campaign," she can happily override it, busking a reason if need be, without agonising over whether she's done right by her PC.

[Valamir]

The corporation doesn't really exist. It exists only as a legal fiction, not as a person. It can't make decisions other than through the decisions of the people who control it. Yet it does exist, and under law it has rights--it is, in fact, a person, under law, as a legal fiction. It has rights.

An interesting aside, this is only the case because back in 1886 some crafy corporate lawyer decided to use the 14th Amendment (protecting the rights of former slaves to not be treated differently from other people) to claim his corporation shouldn't have to pay state property taxes different from other people.  The Supreme Court ruled in the company's favor but for completely different reasons.  Unfortuneatly the court reporter summarized the case as "corporations are people" and that set a precedent courts have been using ever since.

Its said that more companies have received court protection from the 14th Amendment than minorities.

File that in the strange but true files.

[Ron Edwards]

Well. Thanks to everyone for a fascinating thread. Please take up sub-topics (e.g. corporations as people, etc) in separate threads or by private mail. This one's closed.

Best,
Ron