Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

get your own humanity, this one's mine

Started by apparition13, March 18, 2005, 01:27:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


Sorry about the delay;  I got a little obsessive and had to track down "City Slickers".  

With that out of the way, let me begin by saying that I started this thread because I had a question, and that question was eventually answered to my satisfaction by Sirogit.  I thought the thread was over at that point, but Ron wanted my reaction to his post, which is why I'm writing this.  Unfortunately a full response is going to necessitate going point by point, so I apologize ahead of time.  I'm also going to start at the end and begin by working my way backwards.

Quote from: Ron Edwards
But no, you are not seeing differing Humanity definitions in dealing with stories like this, with multiple and often contradictory protagonists and antagonists. You are seeing one Humanity, with multiple lenses (as you describe) being expressed as different characters and demons.

In light of Sirogit's post, this is now clear to me.

QuoteSo yes, you do see many diverse and fascinating characters, some of whom "disagree" with one another in all kinds of ways. And yes, you can get all kinds of different themes out of what these characters do and what happens to them. No one has said that every Sorcerer character in a given game will yield exactly the same theme through play; in fact, I'd be stunned if they did.

Same as above, also clear.

QuoteThink of one very general term: call that Humanity. Then think of dozens and dozens of different ways for it (a) to be interpreted by a given individual and (b) for it to come under crisis - those are Characters.
If (a) and (b) can be paraphrased as "for it to be interpreted, and for those interpretations to come under crisis"  then that's also clear.  If it isn't a fair paraphrase, then I seem to have missed something.  Either way, calling that interpretation "character" introduces me to another lens with which to look at character.

QuoteI suggest that your description of Confucionism/family with its variety of means of challenging it is agreeing with my point, not disagreeing. That leads me to think that you're mistaking ways to challenge Humanity for different versions of Humanity. That's the "un-kinking" I mentioned above.

With regard to the second sentence here, not at all.  The original question was about playing with different versions of humanity in the same game.  I was fully aware that any particular version of humanity can be challenged in a multitude of ways.  What I'm not clear on is what the "my point" is that I seem to be agreeing with.

I was going to continue, but I think I'll stop here rather than risk a misinterpretation.  So the question on the table is what is the "my point" Ron suggests I'm agreeing with?

Ron Edwards


Sirogit's point = my point = what you're agreeing with. So I think we've all jumped into bed together. Or are on board with one another. Or whatever one calls it, "all good."