The Pygmallion Effect
Mr Mad
Hello:
I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
all roleplaying games.
Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
Effect"?
Let me elaborate. In greek myths Pygmallion was a statue carved
so lifelike that her creator sorely wished that she was alive. The fable
revolves around the consequences of the wish being granted.
Earlier this century Benard Shaw wrote a play based partly on that
legend that was titled, oddly enough, "Pygmallion." That play would later
become the classic movie "My Fair Lady".
The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
real for me.
To this day I sometimes wonder about the character. I talked with
a trained psycologist about it, for at one point I was worried that I might
be developing Multiple Personality Disorder. She reassured me that at the
worst, the character was little more than an expression of my feminine side
(Incedently the character was female and I am male). Still, I am uneasy
about the prospect of running the character once more.
My apologies if I have offended anyone by posting to most of the
rec.games.frp.* directory, but I believe that this topic should be interesting
to all fantasy gamers. I would like a copy of any replies E-MAILed to me,
for I might use any information gathered for a philosophy or English project
later this semester.
Thank you for your time.
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0 mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\ ////
\M / "The Poor have little, Beggers none, the Rich too much, enough not one."
\/ -Benjamin Franklin
Chris Baginski
> Hello:
>
> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> all roleplaying games.
>
> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
> Effect"?
>
Greetings,
I think personally, that the effect you are describing is something that
every *intence* role-player has experienced to one extenct or another, at
some point. Having role-played for many, many years, first tabletop, and
in the past four years live, I can tell you from purely personal
experience that this sort of effect is most likely to occur in a
live-roleplaying environment. I think the thing that you have to
recognize before you begin to play *any* character, is that if it's
something that you have created, the character's personality will reflect
a part of your own, no matter how unlike your personality it may be. The
reason I say this, is that most of the characters I play - though I
generally tend to stick to characters of my own gender - female that is -
are very much unlike what I am in a day to day situaltion, however, when
I've played the character for a while, and learned more about them I
usuallly realize that it's just some aspect of myself that I either don't
want to admit to, or havent fully realized in a day to day situation. I
think that most of us tend to do things in RPGs and LRPGs that we can't do
in a day to day situation, otherwise why do it. So we may play characters
that we think of as *evil* - though I've met very few people who will
allow their characters to do things that they themselves would not do in a
simmilar situation - or at least I've never been able to do so - or they
play characters that are incredibly good and law abiding. I tend to think
of the characters I play as fawcets of a whole. Really, if you were to
analize a character that has been played for a short period of time, you'd
find that it's really quite shallow. And on the other side of the scale,
if you were to analize a character played for a longer period of time
there would be more layers to the personality, but I think you'd find them
very simmilar to the personality of the person who's playing them.
So to wrap this up - I agree with your analyst - the "Pygmaion" you
created is just another part of you. What you have to keep in mind, is
that it is *just* a part of you, and not a seperate personality. If you
really admire some of the traits that hage comeout while portarying the
persona, then why not incorporate them into your own personality? I think
that if you were to take the character out of the context of the game, and
place them into a *real* life and time situation they would not hold up.
There's nothing wrong with escaping reality for a while, in my mind, I do
it on a semi-regular basis my self, but what you have to keep in mind is -
would you really want to live full time in a world that dosn't have CD
players and Burger King?
Regards,
Anna Baginski
Steffan O'Sullivan
Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
>rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
>all roleplaying games.
Then you post to r.g.f.misc - please don't cross-post like that,
especially to groups you don't read. I've trimmed it down to .misc
(where it belongs - one wonders why if you have a topic that concerns
all roleplayers that you don't read .misc, which is for all
roleplayers?) and .dnd, which you read.
>Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
>Effect"?
>
>In greek myths Pygmallion was a statue carved
>so lifelike that her creator sorely wished that she was alive.
Actually, Pygmalion was the sculptor. The statue's name was Galatea.
>RPG's, all of them, involve
>the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
>lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
>that the character could somehow become a real person?
RPG characters *are* real. They are living parts of your psyche.
They are not real in the sense you can touch them, but real in the
sense that they are alive in you. If one is so vivid to you as to
make you wish you could know that person, then your psyche is telling
you there is an aspect of yourself you need to develop.
This is quite normal, not abnormal or sick in any way - we are
constantly growing into new areas of our personality. The branch
of psychology that deals with this the best is, IMO, Psychosynthesis.
Try reading something by Pierro Ferrucci or Molly Young Brown or
even Eva Fugit if you don't want to consult an actual Psychosynthesist.
(If you have any training in psychology, you could go right to the
source: Roberto Assagioli - but he's hard to read for the average
lay person.)
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@io.com Plymouth, NH, USA
--------------- http:///oz.plymouth.edu/~gaming/ ---------------
Pike
Mr Mad wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> all roleplaying games.
>
> Effect"?
>
> so lifelike that her creator sorely wished that she was alive. The fable
> revolves around the consequences of the wish being granted.
> Earlier this century Benard Shaw wrote a play based partly on that
> legend that was titled, oddly enough, "Pygmallion." That play would later
> become the classic movie "My Fair Lady".
> the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
> lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
> to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
> control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
> real for me.
> To this day I sometimes wonder about the character. I talked with
> a trained psycologist about it, for at one point I was worried that I might
> be developing Multiple Personality Disorder. She reassured me that at the
> worst, the character was little more than an expression of my feminine side
> (Incedently the character was female and I am male). Still, I am uneasy
> about the prospect of running the character once more.
>
> My apologies if I have offended anyone by posting to most of the
> rec.games.frp.* directory, but I believe that this topic should be interesting
> to all fantasy gamers. I would like a copy of any replies E-MAILed to me,
> for I might use any information gathered for a philosophy or English project
> later this semester.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
hmmm, for me, I guess somewhat that is true, but not entirely. let me
explain: my first D&D character, pike was created some 3 years ago, and
have been playing him since. At first he was just a pretty cool thing
to play, but that has long since changed. he's like a complete
fictional being now, with a past, emotions, mannerisms, dreams, etc...
not just a character with stats and profiencies. when I play pike, I
don't have to think about what he would do, i know the character so well
that when something happens, it just happens. and if he should die in
the game, it would be a loss, and It would affect me on some level, as
opposed to losing a new character and just having to reroll another.
but I think all this is because it was my first, and most favorite
character and I've had more fun playing him then any other character
I've ever had. i dunno.
I've like never thought or wished or whatever for him to be real,
however.
--
--Pike
"Why the hell did you just push me through that portal!?"
Marshall Ryan Maresca
Mr Mad (mlm...@pop.uky.edu) wrote:
: Hello:
:
:
: Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
: Effect"?
:
: Let me elaborate. In greek myths Pygmallion was a statue carved
: so lifelike that her creator sorely wished that she was alive. The fable
: revolves around the consequences of the wish being granted.
Actually, Pygmallion was the carver-- the statue was Galatea.
: The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
: the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
: lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
: that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
: to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
: control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
: real for me.
I've only played two characters long enough to really get a "feel
of reality" to them. That's a natural effect of playing any character for
a long time-- you can slip into character naturally. The same thing
applies to actors. And, to an extent, the person can be lost to the
character, or at the very least the character is integral to the person's
life. William Shatner/ James Kirk is an example.
Also, I do believe in the "reality of creation"-- something
created with enough vividness does take on a reality of its own. If it is
known by enough people, it's reality can grow far beyond the original
creator. The Star Trek universe is a good example of this.
Can it reach a dangerous, even obsessive level? Yes, I'm sure it
can. But I think that it would be a symptom, not a cause. That is to
say, it would be the vehicle through which a mental disorder manifests
itself, rather than that which makes one go over the edge. In other
words, the person is going to exhibit a mental disorder anyway.
That is just my opinion, and I'm hardly an expert or a
professional.
-Marshall Ryan Maresca
Pierre Kluchert
I had a character once: elf F/M/T his stats were awsome and his prospects
were great. His name was Silthlick Glimmertree (last name I agree now is
rather funny). I had his entire life mapped out; whayt spells he was
going to gather, what wishes he would work towards, what skills he would
attempt to acquire. He didn't last long as some... ok many of my other
characters. He died in a sort of unavoidable event. This adventure took
place in Ravenloft in an egyptian setting with the god of death involved
(I sould have realized my doom then). Some powerful being was attempting
to reach immortality and we were somehow involved in his schemes. Well to
make a long story short, we screwed up, this being became locked into
combat with another of like power. Silthlick decided to stick around to
watch along with the party cleric. It didn't dawn on me that mere
`mortals' were not meant to witness this event. The sheer power of the
meeting of these powers caused instant death. Even the DM didn't like
this ending and yet felt he was unable to change it. Needless to say
curiosity killed Silthlick (silk or slick). Later on the cleric who also
died was brought back to life for unknown reasons. This did vex me a
little.
Reading other posts about munchkins and THE BETTERMENT OF GOOD
ROPLAYING. I found out really that my character had no depth nothing
spectacular bout him other than his stats. 16str 19dex 18int 15const
11wis 11char. On my birthday (NO CHEATING) using 4d6 take the lowest out
gave me 2 18's 2 16's and 2 11's.
That was a hard lesson learned that stats can't save you from your own
follies and that sometimes you do have to run away from impossible odds.
Through other characters I learned that I assume too often and that I
often act before I think (probably the same for many people).
Hah! I've learned a lot of things and come out in my regular life in odd
places; i.e. experince in D&D has tought me just a few things that can be
used outside.
Many a time I've dreamed to become a character with stats of 25 right
down the line playing a `simple' albite powerful monk like charatcer who
only depends on himself to save the world. I myself would have loves to
become some allpowerful Mage who would step out of the D&D world to save
earth as we now it.
As I gain more understanding of our planet I would see how that would
be a cruel injustice to ourselves as a whole at to those powers who may
have created us; whether they be aliens, gods or chaos.
We are here struggling with the skills and powers that we have gained
not only through the cultural and technological revolutions but also
through our physical and mental evolution. To see millions of years go to
waste by some Idealist mirical worker solve ALL of our problems would be
like a writter writing his chef d'ouevers and then getting a power surge
on his computer wipping it clean.
It would piss me off if I was the power behind the evolution of Homo
Sapiens.
That's what pissed me off when I lost my character Silthlick...
Good luck!! :+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Kluchert
Carleton University
Email address: pklu...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SVEN SKOOG e
Marshall Ryan Maresca (cove...@io.com) wrote:
: Can it reach a dangerous, even obsessive level? Yes, I'm sure it
: can. But I think that it would be a symptom, not a cause. That is to
: say, it would be the vehicle through which a mental disorder manifests
: itself, rather than that which makes one go over the edge. In other
: words, the person is going to exhibit a mental disorder anyway.
To quote the veritable R. Gary Gygax --
[from his infamous _60 Minutes_ rap regarding suicidal gamers and cultists]
'Of course it's dangerous. Of _course_ it is. But so is _life._
I realize that some of the people who play these games are
mentally unstable, and do crazy things, hurting themselves and
others... but you can do the same thing with a chair.
'What are you going to do? Put signs on chairs that say,
"WARNING: Someone could hit you with this?"...'
And maybe that's all that needs to be said.
-- Sven Skoog
Mr. Mad
Pierre Kluchert wrote:
> Reading other posts about munchkins and THE BETTERMENT OF GOOD
> ROPLAYING. I found out really that my character had no depth nothing
> spectacular bout him other than his stats. 16str 19dex 18int 15const
> 11wis 11char. On my birthday (NO CHEATING) using 4d6 take the lowest out
> gave me 2 18's 2 16's and 2 11's.
High stats aren't neccessarily deterimental to good roleplaying,
although this is contrary to popular belief. The stats of the character
who I mentioned in the post at the start of this thread read thusly:
Strength 11 Stamina 12 Muscle 9
Dexterity 15 Aim 13 Balance 17
Constitution 16 Health 16 Fitness 16
Intelligence 18 Reason 18 Knowledge 18
Wisdom 17 Intuition 16 Willpower 18
Charisma 16 Leadership 14 Appearance 18
The character was quarter elven and so could find secret doors
as if she were an elf. I patterned the way I played her after her stats
and took it as a starting point to her background.
For instance, what could have happended in childhood to cause
the character to develop her willpower? What about balance?
I finally completed a true final draft of her *background* story,
which is a novel. I'm going to try to get TSR to publish it (I know
it's
a snowball's chance in well: you know; but I gotta try).
Still the character's stats were rarely an issue, primarily because
she was (perhaps *is* is a more accurate term) filled with much self
doubt.
She was given to brooding over mistakes made, especially if others were
hurt.
Though beautiful beyond most measures, she was filled with bitterness
and
pain which made it difficult, at best, for other characters to get along
with her. In one memorable session I began to cry even as the character
did.
One event that occured far after the events of the novel was in play,
when she was speaking with the party's paladin, her love. The party had
joined an army and was about to face an orcish force three times it's
size.
She was obviously troubled that evening, and the paladin finally goaded
her
into speaking. I'll never forget the dialogue, completely unprompted...
Orlando (the paladin): "What is wrong with you Tasha?"
Tasha turned to him and slowly asked, "Is it wrong? Is it wrong to be
afraid?"
He shook his head in slow reply, "No Tasha. Only a fool would lead or
wish
to lead an army that is not afraid and do so with no fear."
She replied, "But what if I 'err. That is what I fear, that and losing
you."
He replied, "I have confidence in you lass. You'll be alright."
Her worst fear, the loss of her love, came true.
Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
character?
S. Olmstead-Dean
: I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
: rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
: all roleplaying games.
: Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
: Effect"?
Not yet. Actually, I very much enjoy the characters I play while I am
playing them, but find that there is always just a little bit of
Stephanie in the background. Sometimes there is even a little bit of
inner dialogue: "I could say thus-and-so..." "No, no, no! Stephanie
would say that, said charcter would NOT!" "Ah, good point there." ;)
Another comparison to Pygmalion, IMHO, is the joy one feels as a game
writer when the characters one has written are brought to life by the
players. That is sheer joy.
Cheers!
Stephanie
The Amorphous Mass
Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
[newsgroups trimmed to .dnd and .misc]
> The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
>the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
>lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
>that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
>to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
>control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
>real for me.
None of my characters have gone quite that far, but in the midst of a
campaign it is not uncommon for me to have dreams involving the character
in the campaign world, or to wonder what it would be like to have the
character knock on the door (the latter often ends up like a comedy --
imagine introducing your character to the gaming group!).
> To this day I sometimes wonder about the character. I talked with
>a trained psycologist about it, for at one point I was worried that I might
>be developing Multiple Personality Disorder. She reassured me that at the
>worst, the character was little more than an expression of my feminine side
>(Incedently the character was female and I am male). Still, I am uneasy
>about the prospect of running the character once more.
That's interesting; my feminine side has been expressing itself regularly
lately. :-) I agree with her implicit theory that a PC is created from
a part of your own psyche, and in roleplaying the character you might find
yourself digging around in more unused parts of your personality. I
wouldn't worry about running the character again; if the world you run her
in is sufficiently different from the last one you might have to rewrite
some of her background and run her with different stats. If you write a
cursory background and allow the character to be recreated to suit the
current campaign then you might not have the problem of habitually
reifying the old one. This is pure, untrained speculation on my part, of
course. :-)
[posted and emailed]
--
The Amorphous Mass "The trees are all burning
james-r...@uiowa.edu in your promised land." -- L. Cohen
The Amorphous Mass
"Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
[cool story about character snipped]
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
>character?
I think so. My mage Aleandra was pretty close to a tragic character.
While we're listing stats (these are from memory):
Human Female Transmuter Level 11, height 5'10", weight 160#, age 34, AL CG
S:11, D:16, C:9, I:17, W:14, Ch:10, Co:14 (comeliness has no mechanical
effect; it's RP only)
Aleandra was a shy, awkwardly tall (but not awkward) woman from an
unexceptional background (her parents ran an apothecary), who became an
adventurer fairly late in life (she was 28 years old at first level) as a
consequence of the vicious murder of her older, prettier and more extro-
verted sister, whom Aleandra admired, and tried hard to emulate. The
killer was never found, and A. withdrew into herself almost completely and
began studying the art of altering reality. Her parents didn't approve
of this, or of her new taste in black clothing, or her more solemn and
irascible mein, but there wasn't much they could do about it, as she was
far too old for their care. She told them that she'd gone South to study
with a master mage, dropped her last name to avoid damaging her parents'
reputation, and struck out into the world. By the time the campaign had
ended, she had literally served time in Hell, found out that the patron of
all magic is a devil and was forced to repay him a favor for allowing the
party to bring her back (remember, she's chaotic good!), while being almost
constantly cuckolded by her earstwhile boyfriend (a bard) but at the same
time too afraid of spinsterhood to leave him. She had seen two close
friends die horribly; she showered herself with blame for not saving the
NPC priestess who had been part of the party from the beginning, even
though there wasn't much she could have done, and she wracked herself
over the other dead PC becoming a vampire, and over her own curse to become
a vampire, too, when she finally dies. Unless she can find a cure. She
has searched unsuccessfully for one; the only lead she has is that if
she kills the vampire who bit her, those she cursed will be cured as well
(if they aren't dead or undead yet). Unfortunately, the vampire who
bit her dwarfed her in power, so she conducted her research through a fog
of fear and despair. And yes, she was a blast to play. She's still one
of my favorite characters, and the DM liked her a lot too. Nevertheless,
my current character, an elf, is considerably more jovial. :-)
*phew* That came out longer than I thought it would.
Daniel Pawtowski
In article <4vq9db$1...@news.inforamp.net>,
Chris Baginski <bagi...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>
>I think personally, that the effect you are describing is something that
>every *intence* role-player has experienced to one extenct or another, at
>some point. Having role-played for many, many years, first tabletop, and
While this isn't directly the same effect, it probably is related.
Just about every professional (or even half-decent) writer who has ever
commented on the subject says that the _best_ way to write is when
you get to the point when your characters become "alive". That is, the
you are left with the impression that you are not the author, but
merely an observer. The characters are running around somewhere,
independently of anything *you* tell them to do, all the writer is
doing is recording their actions.
I've had this happen to me, on occasion. It's almost scary- I've
had characters talk back to me, criticize my writing style, sucessfully
use skills well above my own ability, etc. Some have become aware that
they were fictional- once, the entire cast of a novel went "On strike"
because they didn't like the plot I had given them to work with. A
couple times, the heros and villians would literally call a "time out"
and take a coffee break because their actions were getting so far ahead
of my pitifully slow typing rate that they decided to let me catch up.
This isn't unusuall, I've heard published authors describe this effect
as relatively common. Only rarely had it happen to a gaming character,
though. Most people who have talked about it will also say that the very
idea makes no sense to those who haven't experienced it.
Daniel Pawtowski
dpaw...@vt.edu
The Invisible One
Pike <pi...@tahiti.netreach.net> wrote:
>Mr Mad wrote:
>>
>> Hello:
>>
>> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
>> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
>> all roleplaying games.
>>
>> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
>> Effect"?
>>
Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
"I lurk in the mind waiting to strike. You do not realize I am about until it's too late."
The Invisible One
The Nomad
bagi...@inforamp.net (Chris Baginski) wrote:
> So we may play characters
>that we think of as *evil* - though I've met very few people who will
>allow their characters to do things that they themselves would not do in a
>simmilar situation - or at least I've never been able to do so - or they
>play characters that are incredibly good and law abiding. I tend to think
>of the characters I play as fawcets of a whole.
That`s interesting: I can allow my characters to do that, but it tends
to have to be a conscious OOC decision that my character would do
something I myself would not. If I don`t have time to think, I can`t,
or don`t.
It`s been interesting at the Gathering this year playing a character
who is unlike me in a lot of ways: it`s very hard, and I`ve been
unsatisfied with a fair bit of my RPing (although I enjoyed the
weekend immensely). The hardest things to change for a character, I`ve
found, are speech patterns( virtually impossible to do consistently:
I`m not talking about an accent but different phraseology here. In
places I felt I was getting it, but it needs some considerable
concentration) and instinctive reactions.
Oddly, in the latter case I`ve found that one acts without thinking on
occasion, feels at the time that you might have acted inappropriately
for your character, and later found you acted perfectly as he would
have done. We put more of ourselves into our characters than we
realise.
The Nomad
Currently trying to stop reaching for spellcards every 5 minutes...
"My name was Mike. His name is Bob."
Alexander Johannesen
Hi, there,
> : The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
> : the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
> : lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
> : that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
> : to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
> : control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
> : real for me.
Here is my story.
Being a live roleplayer (the norwegian way, which is quite different from LARP)
I had a role which was very special to me. In a game called Nosferatu her in
Norway I played an excorsist that came from Cridova, a south-eastern like
country like the Czech republic or Romania. He was laid back, calm, wise,
and enjoyed good food and drink. A truly great character, and I played him
for two and a half years.
To me he meant more than 'yet another character'. I'm half Czech myself, but I
never been to my fathers country, and never had any connections with the country.
But when I studied for my part, I chose my fathers country as a rolemodel for
my own character.
This character I created, Ludek Ocasek, was in a sense somebody I might had been.
He was very much like me, but also very different. He 'died' by commiting
suicide because of his lost love. A true romantic.
It was first after his death I began to 'miss' him. I felt like I had lost an
important piece of myself. In a sense, I had created someone real, because he
was a different me. Sometimes, I even wish that we could change places.
If you put A LOT of work into a character, you probably will feel some affection
for this character, no matter what. This makes sense, up until the point where
you would rather BE that character than yourselves.
Regards,
Life is not a mystery to solve, but a puzzle to play
______________________________________________________
Alexander Johannesen e-mail: alej...@sn.no
Uncle Don Ross
> would you really want to live full time in a world that dosn't have CD
> players and Burger King?
I am -so- there (then again, I have a guitar).
--
--
Uncle Don Ross dr...@world.std.com
-Don't- make me happy. You wouldn't -like- me when I'm happy.
JL
pklu...@chat.carleton.ca (Pierre Kluchert) is rumored to have spoken thusly:
> Many a time I've dreamed to become a character with stats of 25 right
>down the line playing a `simple' albite powerful monk like charatcer who
>only depends on himself to save the world. I myself would have loves to
>become some allpowerful Mage who would step out of the D&D world to save
>earth as we now it.
I had that dream once before too.
But the thing that made me stop and think about if I really wanted that much
power was : "How do I know what is right for the world?"
Seriously, I could, with every good intention, muck everything up and leave us
all worse off than when we started.
I suppose it is just a feeling of powerlessness in our society against the
"evils" of the world, coupled with wanting everything NOW instead of waiting for
it and letting it grow naturally that leads many people to have
Messiah-complexes and dreams of grandeur, despite whether they will admidt it to
themselves or not (EVERYBODY wants to change the world and be remembered!).
-Oarim
**********************
Fate leads
the willing,
the unwilling--
she drags.
Ole Martin Kristiansen
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> character?
All the time, mate. All my characters have had an element of tragedy in
them. As do most real persons, I guess. But of course, not on an epic
scale all the time. Most of the time, when I play fairly "normal" gung-ho
action-heroes (in fantasy as well as modern day settings) I can't help but
regard them with a sense of pity, as they all automatically seem too
caught up in some twisted macho illusion of honour, heroics, patriotism or
whatever. And sadly, this kind of overblown personallity traits are the
only plausible motivations for actually committing the acts they do -
fighting orcs, hunting spies, go dungeoncrawling or brawling cyberpsychos.
They become tilted persona, they are beyond normality. And they always, in
my case, become driven, tormented, unable to rest, but ever weary. And
they are seldom happy.
There are usually two kinds of RPG characters - heroes and anti-heroes.
Anti-heroes are tragic in their own right, its self-explanatory, they are
less than they should be. Heroes are also tragic. As Aristotle said, a
hero should be perfect in all aspects but one, in which he is seriously
flawed. Look at Akillevs and _all_ the other classic greek heroes - tragic
sods, all of them. As it should be, also in modern roleplaying. Usually,
the flaw is Hubris.
It is of course possible to attemt to play someone in between, somebody
striving for normality and humaity, and this can be even more rewarding.
Right now I'm playing such a character in CP2020. He is a thoroughly
decent fellow. A true humanitarian, anti-violent, with high regard for
life and truth, full of respect for his fellow beings and so on, artist,
intellectual and philosopher. But still he is the most tragic character
I've ever played, because he is continually forced to commit atrocious
acts. He cannot live up to his own standards, much like everyone else in
the modern society. He is an epithome of urbanity, modernity and
alienation. But all he wants is to be another guy.
Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
character that _is'nt_ tragic?
JL
"Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> is rumored to have spoken thusly:
>Orlando (the paladin): "What is wrong with you Tasha?"
>Tasha turned to him and slowly asked, "Is it wrong? Is it wrong to be
>afraid?"
>He shook his head in slow reply, "No Tasha. Only a fool would lead or
>wish
>to lead an army that is not afraid and do so with no fear."
>She replied, "But what if I 'err. That is what I fear, that and losing
>you."
>He replied, "I have confidence in you lass. You'll be alright."
<sigh>
If I could get players to role-play like that with each other (they have no
problems with NPCs).
> Her worst fear, the loss of her love, came true.
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
>character?
Any number of times.
I think tragedy is at the heart of my being, many of my own shortstories reflect
it. I remember playing Rimmergaard Thelselan, the Elven Prince, exiled by his
father because he refused to pick up a sword and fight Orcish invaders. The
last words his father spoke to him were those of a curse and a breaking of
family ties and birthright (if you can imagine what this felt like for an Elf!),
then his father rushed off into the fires of their burning city and died
fighting the Orcish hordes. All of Rimmergaard's people were slaughtered to the
last, if any others survived but him, he has never found any.
He is homeless, clanless, and alone.
Of course the story goes deeper, but that is just the begining, and his life has
followed a similar pattern since, despite his heroics (maybe that's why he
suicidally jumped that demon at 4th level...and maybe that is why he actually
SURVIVED).
Viola Krings
Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> writes:
>Hello:
>
> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
>rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
>all roleplaying games.
>
> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
>Effect"?
Well, kind of. When playing certain characters, I no longer consciously
decide what they do, but they start acting themselves.
I never wish to meet them, however, very much the same way that I would
not like to meet a copy of myself, even though my characters are quite
different from me.
Empathy with a character went even as far as reducing me to tears
when I tried to talk about her to my boyfriend, because that character
was in a very depressed emotional state. This does not happen during
roleplaying, since the character would not show tears in front of
other persons.
I once also had a character, Lorin, who I had loved to play, but
unfortunately the gaming group did not come together for over a year.
Afterwards, I did not dare to revive that group again, for fear
of destroying the good feel of the charater because of distance
that had build up in the meantime. I prefer to preseve the memory
of a very close character.
Yours
Viola
Kristen & Bill Keegan
Mr Mad wrote:
> > Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
> > The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
> > the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
> > lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
> > that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
> > to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
> > control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
> > real for me.
J'ne comprens pas why anyone would bother doing this role-playing stuff if it
was just like playing with Tinker-Toys. One's character is of course an invented
person, but she's invented out of bits of oneself, and if you can do this without caring
or feeling anything about the character, you're missing something.
The best character I've developed so far (after 8 years' experience) was a lady
only a mother could really love - ill-tempered, frequently homicidal, described by the
gamemaster as "psychotic": things I'm glad I'm not. She was also clever, dedicated to
the betterment of her world, and very much in love. Most if not all of the best moments
in my role-playing experience come from that game, and those moments are the ones where
I knew without thinking about it what Gwenthera would do or say. The fact that it took
me a good 24 hours to regain my personal equilibrium after one incident in her life
doesn't bother me, because I knew the whole time that it wasn't REAL.
But Gwenthera wasn't a pretty, harmless creature like Galatea. Quite frankly,
if I met her in real life I would swallow hard and try to pretend not to be terrified
(nothing pissed her off like people showing they were afraid of her), and leave as
quickly as possible. So would you, if you had any sense. I certainly don't want her to
be real. Even more certainly, I don't want to _BE_ her (my life has NEVER been as grim
as hers and I like it that way, thanks very much). But I'm very fond of her and I miss
playing her. She was brittle and dangerous but brilliantly alive and wonderfully
tragic. And, gracias a Dios, NOT me.
I don't know if this helps, but that's my response to your interesting question,
"Mr. Mad." (I haven't seen your original post so I don't know your e-mail. Sorry.)
Kris K.
--
kee...@neca.com - www.neca.com/~keegans
____________________________________
Only the phoenix arises
and does not descend.
And everything changes.
And nothing is truly lost.
-- Neil Gaiman, "Exiles"
____________________________________
Lise Mendel
The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Pike <pi...@tahiti.netreach.net> wrote:
>
> >Mr Mad wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello:
> >>
> >> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
> >> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> >> all roleplaying games.
> >>
> >> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
> >> Effect"?
> >>
>
> Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
>
That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
contain the number pi.
--
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
http://www.access.digex.net/~catalyst/
I reserve the right to repost e-mailed flames wherever it amuses me to
Mr. Mad
Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
> >I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
> >rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> >all roleplaying games.
>
> especially to groups you don't read. I've trimmed it down to .misc
> (where it belongs - one wonders why if you have a topic that concerns
> all roleplayers that you don't read .misc, which is for all
> roleplayers?) and .dnd, which you read.
>
I am not an incompetant newbie. I am fully aware, probably more
than most, of where this or that item should be posted, and along with
Aardy I try to nudge ill placed posts at *.dnd to their proper place.
My reasoning is threefold:
1) I only read *.dnd. Others only read *.storyteller and *.advocacy
or *.whatever have you. It is time consuming to track just one
newsgroup
let alone several. This thread however concerns *all* RPG's, not any
one
in particular. I wanted (and have seen) the participation of the Role
Playing community as a whole, not just one sector or system.
2) You are incorrect. r.g.f.misc is for the players of the game systems
that do not have their own place. D&D has thousands of players, so does
Storyteller. They can justifiably have their own sites. What about
TOON?
What about TALES FROM THE FLOATING VAGABOND. *.misc gives the followers
of
the systems with small followings a place to post info about their
games.
3) Crossposting, contrary to popular belief, is NOT one of the seven
deadly sins. It's rare because few people know how, and those who do
rarely have a topic that is so broad as to be justifiably cross posted.
Thus 99.9% of all crossposting is childish stupidity (such as DaddyMac)
by
idiots seeking attention. Still, on very rare occasions like this one,
there comes a topic that concerns us all as gamers, and on those
occasions
crossposting is acceptable, but only if it doesn't go elsewhere. What
each group basically does is covered in the REC.GAMES.FRP.DND FAQ. To
jump
directly to that topic use the following URL.
http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0/rgfdfaq6.html#H1
Be careful who you correct. Not everyone goes around in ignorance
of the FAQ files or group charters. Some take pride in what they know
and
offense to accusations of ignorance.
J. Thaddeus Klopcic
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
> Being a live roleplayer (the norwegian way, which is quite different from LARP)
> I had a role which was very special to me.
Just curious -- how would you say "the norwegian way" is different from
LARP?
JTK
++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++
My opinions, no matter how well reasoned and insightful, are not those
of my employer, their affiliates, or their lackeys. Anyone who says
otherwise is just itching for a fight.
++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+==+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++
T Schwartz
Mr. Mad wrote:
>
>
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> character?
I often played (or attempted to play) tragic PCs. From fallen
paladins (that one got over it, he's married, has three children and is now
the King of Ghan Xa--a small, agriculturally based nation) to half elves
shunned by both families (dead now--killed trying to save his elven half
sister from capture by soldiers led by his elf-hating human uncle).
My favorite is still alive and his "tragic" aspect has yet to bring
his story to a conclusion. Cain of No'Quar, drow lesser cousin to the
No'Quar family of Erheni Cinlu (See D2 Vault of the Drow) and self styled
"savior" of the drow race (one of his tragic flaws is egomania)is a PC I
created some 14 years ago and have played on and off since. A major
contributor to his tragic career is the way he was incorporated into the
campaign/gaming group I currently play with (I've played him in only two
campaigns--one group from my youth and the current one which I entered in
college and am still playing with).
When I entered this campaign, Cain was my only surviving PC of high
enough level to run with the existing PCs. I offered to roll a new character
but my GM thought he could use Cain to create some interesting plot twists.
This group, as it turned out, had just completed the Giant/Drow/Demonweb
series and was so successful that the GM ruled that Lolths influence over
that material plane (later, when Spelljammer came out this ruling was changed
to encompass only the crystal sphere) was cut off for approx. 1000yrs. When
Cain entered, my GM gave him a familiar (he had none previously) --a quasit.
This creature delivered to him instructions on how to restore Lolths power.
To make a very long story short, Cain infiltrated the party and did what had
to be done, restoring Lolth (hence "drow savior") but also sparking a series
of conflicts between Erheni Cinlu (led by the "new" House No'Quar) and the
various groups and kingdoms run by other PCs. These battles came to be
known as the Drow Wars. In truth, I believe my GM expected the other PCs to
kill Cain and be done with it, however, Cain is a supra-genius (Int. 21--
It didn't start that way, it took years and was Cains favorite hobby for a
while) and I am a much better strategist/tactician/logistician than any of
the other players (or the GM for that matter, I'm not bragging) and I
defeated my opponents at every turn. Here's the tricky part: I loath PC
killing and so Cain refused to destroy his enemies. Instead he negotiated
one agreement after another, gaining war repairations and trade contracts.
The other PCs (or players) could not abide being so humiliated time after
time and continued to break our agreements (they had no problems with PC
killing) and renew the war effort. Needless to say, this was making Cain
look pretty bad in the eyes of his people (and family) though no one dared
attack him since they had seen him defeat so many powerful opponents.
As a player, I was getting paranoid. I had gone to great lengths to
avoid having to kill the other PCs (at the expense of my PCs reputation and
standing with Lolth) and yet they continued to plot ways to kill Cain.
I should note here that Cain is my oldest and best defined character (to
this day, my wife calles me Cain when she sees aspects of him surfacing in
me outside of the game) I was NOT going to let anyone off him without a
fight! I slipped into quite a fit of depression over this. These gamers
were, afterall, my FRIENDS!
Finally, the other players seized upon a plan which might defeat
Cain: Kill Lolth (her avatar) again, sever her influence over this crystal
sphere, cut the power of the drow in half, destroy Erheni Cinlu and KILL
CAIN PERMANANTLY!!! It was a good effort. This was the break I'd been
waiting for as a player. When they defeated Lolth (the second time in Cains
lifetime) Cain lost all faith in Lolths ability to rule the drow--she was
obviously too weak to adequately defend them against the enemies she had
goaded them into making. He managed to fake the deaths of those members of
House No'Quar that agreed with him before the other PCs were able to get to
him. All divinations "proved" that all members of House No'Quar are dead
and the other PCs were satisfied.
Meanwhile, Cain has again infiltratied the PCs group. This time,
however, he fell in love with a neutral good mage/priestess of Mystra (the
"in our campaign" surface expert on drow history, culture, and magic) and
under her influence, his alignment returned to neutral.
His "tragic" egomania is still a factor though. He still considers
himself the savior of the drow race (only now he's saving them from Lolth)
and with the help of his family, and his new bride, he intends to kill
Lolth permanantly (as long as she exists, the drow will be unable to change)
and reunite the drow with the surface elves (with an acceptable attrition
rate--due to inability to "adjust" to a new lifestyle--of 75%). This plan is
years in the making and no action will probably be taken for quite some time,
but when it happens....I can't think of a better way for Cain to die.
Respectfully,
todd
P.S. Actually, it just might work! If anyone in my game can plan this thing
right, it's me/Cain!
Eric Stevenson
Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
: > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
: > character?
: Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
: character that _is'nt_ tragic?
Sure. All of them, actually. Sometimes I start out wanting a tragic
character, but I always change my mind. I always try (and sometimes
succeed) in playing characters that are people, living their lives, not
actors playing their roles. The reason the tragic aspect never works out
for me is probably just due to my own prejudices. Occasionally, people in
real life may be forced into tragic roles, but I feel that most people
are able to either solve their problems or live with them. I also think
anyone worth being called a hero should be able to solve their own
problems, as well as other people's problems. Idealism, or too much TV,
I'm not sure.
Michael Karapcik (SCFN)
Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
: > Pike <pi...@tahiti.netreach.net> wrote:
: > >Mr Mad wrote:
: > >> Hello:
: > >> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
: > >> all roleplaying games.
: > >> Effect"?
: >Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
: >imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
: That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
: that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
: counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
: contain the number pi.
What does any of this have to do with the Pygmallion Effect? It is
psychology, not math. It is a self-fufilling prophecy based on expectations.
Basically, you have two scenarios.
1) A teacher thinks that a student is brilliant, so the teacher spends
"a little extra time" with the student. The encouragement and assistance
help the student get excellent grades.
2) A teacher thinks a student is an inbread, spam-sucking goober, who will
never know cultural literacy beyond a six-pack and bug zapper. When the
student approaches with a question, the teacher uloads a can of pepper spray.
The student gets poor grades.
In both cases, the teacher was right, but the teacher's actions
(perhaps) unknowingly led to or created the situation.
(The name is from a fairly cool Greek myth, and was re-done in the
[good] movie "My Fair Lady".)
I have seen this in effect. Childish or inconsiderate gamers gain
the "disfavor" of the group, causing them to become even more irate or
vindictive. The gamers who get along form a little click with open
communication and positive reinforcement, allowing growth and development.
Basically, in a constant environment, good gamers get better, bad gamers
get worse. This has affected every group I have been in.
The real consideration is how far you will help people to change.
Is it really worth spending eight months or more with a person just so he
won't call the rest of the group a bunch of cheaters for not getting his
way or sending the DM hate mail because of a correction or disagreement?
In any group, the Pygmalion effect will be in full force within
about 10 meetings (personal observation, not scientific). As for changing
it, the people that "the teacher sees as inbread, spam-sucking goobers"
have to recognise that they annoy others and try to change. Otherwise,
they will keep getting "a can of pepper spray" in the face, and will
eventually end up vindictive troublemakers or leaving.
--
Michael Karapcik Automated Services
Hardware/Software Technician 273-3711
* Osibili, si ergo fortibuses in ero. *
* Nobili, demis trux. Sewatis enam? Cowsendux! *
Sir Quarex
: : I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
: : rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
: : all roleplaying games.
: : Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
: : Effect"?
: Not yet. Actually, I very much enjoy the characters I play while I am
: playing them, but find that there is always just a little bit of
: Stephanie in the background. Sometimes there is even a little bit of
: inner dialogue: "I could say thus-and-so..." "No, no, no! Stephanie
: would say that, said charcter would NOT!" "Ah, good point there." ;)
I can't have this problem with the character I've played the most (he's
quasi-retired right now, since we haven't played the campaign in months, but
we'll get back to it eventually), for the simple reason that I'm playing
myself. The campaign started out with us sitting at one of our friend's
houses playing cards and watching a thunderstorm, and that night ended up
with us being mutated. So therefore, I just play my own mind, but with a
lot more power :)
SEE! THAT'S the *SAFE* way to do it! :)
Q
--
[ amh...@odin.cmp.ilstu.edu | That's right, the word ODIN is in my address!! ]
Great Bands: Overkill/Amorphis/PetShopBoys/DepecheMode/ManOwaR/SpinalTap/Devo!
["Love does not conquer all, and I'm screaming because of you."-TypeONegative]
Fun Stuff: AD&D/Champions/irc/Denny's | Misogynist Dragon of the -=] UDIC [=-
[Taboo fifth .sig line: Member of International Thespian Society, Troupe #613]
Lise Mendel
Mr. Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
> I am not an incompetant newbie. I am fully aware, probably more
> than most, of where this or that item should be posted, and along with
> Aardy I try to nudge ill placed posts at *.dnd to their proper place.
> My reasoning is threefold:
>
> 1) I only read *.dnd. Others only read *.storyteller and *.advocacy or
> *.whatever have you. It is time consuming to track just one newsgroup let
> alone several. This thread however concerns *all* RPG's, not any one in
> particular. I wanted (and have seen) the participation of the Role
> Playing community as a whole, not just one sector or system.
>
Which is why, ideally, you should have posted as you did and set
followups to .misc or .misc _and_ *.dnd if you didn't want to join .misc
for the one thread....
I don't think Steffan's objection was out of line or phrased in an
insulting manner.
Lise Mendel
Sir Quarex <amh...@odin.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
> I can't have this problem with the character I've played the most (he's
> quasi-retired right now, since we haven't played the campaign in months, but
> we'll get back to it eventually), for the simple reason that I'm playing
> myself. The campaign started out with us sitting at one of our friend's
> houses playing cards and watching a thunderstorm, and that night ended up
> with us being mutated. So therefore, I just play my own mind, but with a
> lot more power :)
>
> SEE! THAT'S the *SAFE* way to do it! :)
>
> Q
Not if you play with the GMs _I've_ done this with. I've had three
versions of myself go crazy... The first one gradually accrued god like
power, but not by _her_ choice. A divine being asked for a volunteer to
step forward, and all the other PCs took a step back, so she became his
'representative'. This was in a troupe style campaign, and the other
GMs kept the trend... Eventually she lost all touch with humanity (it
happened around the time her _cat_ became a god).
The second time was a superhero campaign much like the one Sir Q was
playing in, but the GM played the universe as absolutely relentless and
crushingly hostile. She flipped too.
The third time she was an NPC in a champs campaign I ran. _One_ of the
players was based on himself, and I had a macguffin transport him into
the game universe and give him powers. The Lise NPC was involved in his
origin, and, sort of to preserve the trend, I gave her powers that were
not compatible with sanity (she was a 'time sensitive' as well as being
a medium and a living manna battery...)
Steffan O'Sullivan
That should read, "Be careful whom you correct."
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@io.com Plymouth, NH, USA
--------------- http:///oz.plymouth.edu/~gaming/ ---------------
Mr. Mad
Michael Karapcik (SCFN) wrote:
>
> Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> : > Pike <pi...@tahiti.netreach.net> wrote:
> : > >Mr Mad wrote:
> : > >> Hello:
> : > >> rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> : > >> all roleplaying games.
> : > >> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
> : > >> Effect"?
> : >imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
> : That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> : that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> : counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> : contain the number pi.
> : Lise Mendel
>
> What does any of this have to do with the Pygmallion Effect? It is
Agreed.
Actually Michael, the "Pygmallion effect" that I asked about at the
start of this thread asks if you've ever had a character so real that it
seemed like a real person. Your analogy above deals more with Benard
Shaw's play and the movie than the greek myth itself.
But before I hurt your feelings let me say you have an excellent and
beautiful point, and although off track at least it's still in the
ballpark and not somewhere off on Saturn like the math discussion.
Your point is under the topic of "Newbies", hence the subject change
above.
Thanks for your participation.
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
\ //// mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\M /
\/ Clinton / Gore '96
Phase
Yay! I'm back on my 'old' newserver.
cata...@access.digex.net (Lise Mendel) writes:
>The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
>> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
>>
>That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
>that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
>counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
>contain the number pi.
doesn't mean that it _can't_. Whereas your 'counting numbers' consisted
of all whole numbers from 1 on up, and couldn't include any other type
of number, a Universe is not so constrained (eg. It can contain
anything). So an infinite series of 'anything' could very well contain
'everything'.
But really, I don't like to use the term 'multiverse', as I define the
'universe' as containing everything. I would rather use dimensions or
planes of existences. But anyway, to play with semantics, and pretend
to use logic, I can say that sense I define the Universe as containing
(being a super set of) everything, everything should very well include
ALL POSSIBILITIES, and thus, the living dreams of others.
Are you saying it's an impossibility?
Everything can include all impossibilities as well. ;)
Oh goodness, I don't even know how we got on this subject.
I'll shut up now. (:
Phase FX
-
Phase's Pages have moved to http://www.cs.sc.edu/~jason-e
"Lie to me... I promise I'll believe..."
Sheryl Crow
-
Pierre Kluchert
Mr. Mad (mlm...@pop.uky.edu) wrote:
> Pierre Kluchert wrote:
> > Reading other posts about munchkins and THE BETTERMENT OF GOOD
> > ROPLAYING. I found out really that my character had no depth nothing
> > spectacular bout him other than his stats. 16str 19dex 18int 15const
> > 11wis 11char. On my birthday (NO CHEATING) using 4d6 take the lowest out
> > gave me 2 18's 2 16's and 2 11's.
> High stats aren't neccessarily deterimental to good roleplaying,
> although this is contrary to popular belief. The stats of the character
> who I mentioned in the post at the start of this thread read thusly:
You might have noticed that I did say that, and I quote myself
-That was a hard lesson learned that stats can't save your
character from your own follies and that etc...etc...
I admit it was a bit vague, but my meaning was pretty much which you
exposed above and bellow that stats should rarely come into play because I
feel that you may be only intelligent relating to certain things and may
have little inttlegence and knowledge in others. Intelligence is based
upon experience and if you've never seen or heard of something remotely
similar to past experience how can you have a method of going about
working with this new situation. I believe that's when wisdom comes in!
> Strength 11 Stamina 12 Muscle 9
> Dexterity 15 Aim 13 Balance 17
> Constitution 16 Health 16 Fitness 16
> Intelligence 18 Reason 18 Knowledge 18
> Wisdom 17 Intuition 16 Willpower 18
> Charisma 16 Leadership 14 Appearance 18
> The character was quarter elven and so could find secret doors
> as if she were an elf. I patterned the way I played her after her stats
> and took it as a starting point to her background.
> For instance, what could have happended in childhood to cause
> the character to develop her willpower? What about balance?
> I finally completed a true final draft of her *background* story,
> which is a novel. I'm going to try to get TSR to publish it (I know
> it's
> a snowball's chance in well: you know; but I gotta try).
> Still the character's stats were rarely an issue, primarily because
> she was (perhaps *is* is a more accurate term) filled with much self
> doubt.
> She was given to brooding over mistakes made, especially if others were
> hurt.
> Though beautiful beyond most measures, she was filled with bitterness
> and
> pain which made it difficult, at best, for other characters to get along
> with her. In one memorable session I began to cry even as the character
> did.
> One event that occured far after the events of the novel was in play,
> when she was speaking with the party's paladin, her love. The party had
> joined an army and was about to face an orcish force three times it's
> size.
> She was obviously troubled that evening, and the paladin finally goaded
> her
> into speaking. I'll never forget the dialogue, completely unprompted...
> Orlando (the paladin): "What is wrong with you Tasha?"
> Tasha turned to him and slowly asked, "Is it wrong? Is it wrong to be
> afraid?"
> He shook his head in slow reply, "No Tasha. Only a fool would lead or
> wish
> to lead an army that is not afraid and do so with no fear."
> She replied, "But what if I 'err. That is what I fear, that and losing
> you."
> He replied, "I have confidence in you lass. You'll be alright."
> Her worst fear, the loss of her love, came true.
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> character?
> _
> / \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
> mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
> \ ////
> \M / "The Poor have little, Beggers none, the Rich too much, enough
> not one."
> \/ -Benjamin Franklin
My greatest wish (in gaming that is) is to join up with a group that knows
how to role play instead of roll play as I often find myself. I think
this would leapfrog me into a high order of play and life experiences (I
imagine that some people do not think one can gain life xp from D&D; HAH
I say!). I would also like to see a group start up for THE BETTERMENT OF GOOD
ROLEPLAYING (I'm too lazy too start it up myself); perhaps someone could
think up a better anacronym (is that spelled right?).
:+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Kluchert
Carleton University
Email address: pklu...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lise Mendel
Terminus <hyb...@neosoft.com> wrote:
> Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> : that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> : counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> : contain the number pi.
> :
> Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
> which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
> is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
> measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
> So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
> but not infinite.
> For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
> total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
> realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
> definition, I would be happy to learn.
>
1) The limit is not artificial, there are different kinds of infifities.
Read "One, Two, Three... Infinity" I don't recall the author's real
names, but they can be mispronounced as "Alpha, Beta, Gamma"... (I'm not
joking, though I think they got Gamov to sign on as a joke) It's
actually a pretty interesting treatment of infinity.
2) Your basic postulate, that everything that can imagine _must_ exist
in the multiverse, has a collorary: there is no such thing as
imagination, only an awareness of what already exists in the multiverse
_somewhere_.
While there is a certain appeal to the second point (and it brings us
nicely back to the Pygmalion Effect) it discounts the reality of
creativity. In fact, it can be expanded into one of those unappealing
philosophies which dissallows free will.
I will not accept it, even if it _would_ mean I could some day sit down
and talk with HRH Antionette :-)
Terminus
Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
: that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
: counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
: contain the number pi.
:
Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
but not infinite.
For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
definition, I would be happy to learn.
Terminus
Noah Dowd
Vossie wrote:
>
> Carl Perkins (ca...@gerg.tamu.edu) wrote:
> : cata...@access.digex.net (Lise Mendel) writes...
> : }The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> : }>
> : }> Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
> : }> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
> : }That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> : }that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> : }counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> : }contain the number pi.
>
> : the somewhat larger infinite set known as the real numbers, which does include
> : pi and all kinds of other spiffy numbers, too, although you can't count 'em
> : anymore so you'll never know if a few go missing.
>
> I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
> And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
> infinitissimal (sp?) numbers. I'm afraid that in every infinite set of
> numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
>
Quite true. In fact, any defined set, whether finite or infinite, will, by
definition, exclude some other set. For example, the universal set of
numbers excludes many subsets of the alphanumeric characters, etc.
Now, what was this all about? :)
Oh yeah, the proposal that the multiverse is an infinite set containing
everything ever imagined. I guess it depends on your reasoning. If you
are reasoning that since a.) the multiverse is an infinite set, then b.) the
multiverse must contain everything, then you are wrong. To prove this
I would have you define the multiverse as some arbitrary, infinite set. I
would then define a set which is not a subset of your multiverse. However,
if you define the multiverse as the union of all imaginable sets, then you
are correct as, by definition, the multiverse contains everything imaginable.
While the former reasoning is one based upon logic and deduction, the latter
reasoning is based upon a leap of faith and is immune to any sort of
argument or debate to the contrary.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that, while all-encompassing may imply
infinity, infinity does not imply all-encompassing.
My head hurts...
-Noah
--
I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver.
And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand
it to him.
-Jack Handy
Anne B. Nonie Rider
Well, I tend to think of my Dark Champs character Savage
as a tragic character, but the campaign seems to have ended,
so her life may never be played out.
She grew up very close to her brother, who joined the CIA
and then "died". She had her doubts about that, so she went
to an old family friend to learn lots of infiltration/spy/
weapons-of-opportunity stuff so she could go look for him
in (pre-reunification) East Germany.
She found him there, just in time to see him beaten by street
thugs. She shredded her way through them, and held her brother
in his arms as he asked her to take care of his German wife
and son, and then died.
She smuggled them out of the country and got them to America,
where they ended up as a household--Greta got a little money
from a nursing-school grant, but the PC was too restless to
hold down any job except bicycle messenger, which hardly pays
well. All of 'em are living on illegal papers, and usually broke.
Then one evening she saw a bunch of skinheads beating up an
old lady, and it reminded her of her brother's death. She went
cold berserk and killed half; the other half ran for their lives.
I'd intended her to be a hero; she turned out to be a psychotic
murderer, although with good intentions. Most nights, she doesn't
sleep well until she goes out and prowls the roofs and alleys
for hours, looking for rapists, murderers, or drug dealers she
can take on with a broken bottle or sharp-edged bit of fender.
And there's several large, well-armed street gangs looking for
her with intent to kill her slow.
I don't see any non-tragic way her life could go, especially since
under it all, she'll never forgive herself for her brother's death.
Whether she dies by gang rape or Uzi, a rooftop fall or a cop's
bullet--or is crippled and takes stupid chances that lead to her
death--there's no good way out. She doesn't have friends, except
Greta and Johann; she can make temporarily alliances, but she
doesn't trust. And love? Try asking that of a razor. She's not
the type.
--Nonie
Carl Perkins
}> >Mr Mad wrote:
}> >> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
}> >> Effect"?
}> >>
}>
}> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
}>
}That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
}that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
}counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
}contain the number pi.
}Lise Mendel
That's only becasue you're not using base pi. Alternately you could switch to
the somewhat larger infinite set known as the real numbers, which does include
pi and all kinds of other spiffy numbers, too, although you can't count 'em
anymore so you'll never know if a few go missing.
--- Carl
J. Hunter Johnson
In article <322321...@pop.uky.edu>, Mr. Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
> Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
> >
> > Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
> > >rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
> > >all roleplaying games.
> >
> > especially to groups you don't read. I've trimmed it down to .misc
> > (where it belongs - one wonders why if you have a topic that concerns
> > all roleplayers that you don't read .misc, which is for all
> > roleplayers?) and .dnd, which you read.
> >
> I am not an incompetent newbie. I am fully aware, probably more
> than most, of where this or that item should be posted, and along
> with Aardy I try to nudge ill-placed posts at *.dnd to their proper
> place.
> My reasoning is threefold:
> 1) I only read *.dnd. Others only read *.storyteller and *.advocacy
> or *.whatever have you. It is time-consuming to track just one
> newsgroup let alone several. This thread however concerns *all*
> RPG's, not any one in particular. I wanted (and have seen) the
> participation of the Role Playing community as a whole, not just one
> sector or system.
So you can't be bothered to read .misc....
> 2) You are incorrect. r.g.f.misc is for the players of the game
> systems that do not have their own place. D&D has thousands of
> players, so does Storyteller. They can justifiably have their own
> sites. What about TOON? What about TALES FROM THE FLOATING
> VAGABOND. *.misc gives the followers of the systems with small
> followings a place to post info about their games.
This is right, except for the part about "You are incorrect." .misc
is for systems not covered by other groups. It is also, as Steffan
pointed out, for topics not covered by other groups.
> 3) Crossposting, contrary to popular belief, is NOT one of the seven
> deadly sins. It's rare because few people know how, and those who
> do rarely have a topic that is so broad as to be justifiably cross
> posted. Thus 99.9% of all crossposting is childish stupidity (such
> as DaddyMac) by idiots seeking attention. Still, on very rare
> occasions like this one, there comes a topic that concerns us all as
> gamers, and on those occasions crossposting is acceptable, but only
> if it doesn't go elsewhere.
"Crossposting between [rec.games.frp.misc] and other roleplaying
discussion groups is to be discouraged." -- from the [rec.games.frp.*]
Frequently asked questions Part 1
Also from that post, regarding the rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup:
"Crossposting between this group and other groups in the rec.games.frp
hierarchy is discouraged, however issues of general interest that
happen to involve a D&D rulebook or setting are more than welcome."
I don't think this topic happened to involve a D&D rulebook.
Some more advice, from [rec.games.frp.*] Welcome to the roleplaying
discussion groups!:
"First and foremost is to use the right newsgroup, and avoid
cross-posting. If your posting is an original piece of work which can
stand on its own without comments by other people, such as a story or
poem based on a roleplaying game, a scenario, campaign background, or
the like, then post it to rec.games.frp.archives, the newsgroup for
"keepers." If your posting is an announcement about a new roleplaying
product, a roleplaying convention, a pbem, and so on, post it to
rec.games.frp.announce. If your posting concerns official rules or
official game backgrounds for D&D, AD&D1, AD&D2, or BD&D, then post it
to rec.games.frp.dnd. If you are posting to buy or sell roleplaying
materials, post to rec.games.frp.marketplace. If your posting is
intended to convince people that one roleplaying game is better than
some or all other roleplaying games, or other inflammatory opinions,
then post it to rec.games.frp.advocacy. Finally, if your post doesn't
fit into any of the above niches, as is the case with a large
plurality of postings, then send it to rec.games.frp.misc."
Since your post didn't fit into another niche, rec.games.frp.misc
*alone* would have been the appropriate newsgroup.
> What each group basically does is covered in the REC.GAMES.FRP.DND
> FAQ. To jump directly to that topic use the following URL.
> http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0/rgfdfaq6.html#H1
What each group does is covered in the [rec.games.frp.*] intro and
FAQs. The .dnd FAQ should be specific to that group (and it is); the
section you point out merely gives a quick blurb about each of the
other groups.
> Be careful who you correct. Not everyone goes around in ignorance
> of the FAQ files or group charters. Some take pride in what they
> know and offense to accusations of ignorance.
...
Hunter
-- /\
J. Hunter Johnson / \ jhun...@io.com, sjg-e...@io.com
GURPS Bibliographer / () \ http://www.io.com/~jhunterj/gurps/bib.html
& Errata Coordinator /______\ http://www.io.com/sjgames/errata/gurps/
"GURPS is the vodka of RPGs; I can mix my own bloody cocktails." S. John Ross
Vossie
Carl Perkins (ca...@gerg.tamu.edu) wrote:
: cata...@access.digex.net (Lise Mendel) writes...: }>
: }> Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
: }> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
: }>
: }That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
: }that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
: }counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
: }contain the number pi.
: That's only becasue you're not using base pi. Alternately you could switch to
: the somewhat larger infinite set known as the real numbers, which does include
: pi and all kinds of other spiffy numbers, too, although you can't count 'em
: anymore so you'll never know if a few go missing.
I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
infinitissimal (sp?) numbers. I'm afraid that in every infinite set of
numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
ttfn,
mcv. <><
--
Unsolicited advertising will be proofread at the cost of US$500/message.
Mailing of such shall be taken as acceptance of these terms.
Lise Mendel
Carl Perkins <ca...@gerg.tamu.edu> wrote:
> cata...@access.digex.net (Lise Mendel) writes...
> }The Invisible One <Invi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> }>
> }> Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
> }> imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
> }>
> }That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> }that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> }counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> }contain the number pi.
> }--
> }Lise Mendel
>
> That's only becasue you're not using base pi. Alternately you could switch to
> the somewhat larger infinite set known as the real numbers, which does include
> pi and all kinds of other spiffy numbers, too, although you can't count 'em
> anymore so you'll never know if a few go missing.
>
> --- Carl
Exactly. You've got different series of numbers, one of which is larger
than the other....
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Pike (pi...@tahiti.netreach.net) wrote:
: hmmm, for me, I guess somewhat that is true, but not entirely. let me
: explain: my first D&D character, pike was created some 3 years ago, and
: have been playing him since. At first he was just a pretty cool thing
: to play, but that has long since changed. he's like a complete
: fictional being now, with a past, emotions, mannerisms, dreams, etc...
: not just a character with stats and profiencies. when I play pike, I
: don't have to think about what he would do, i know the character so well
: that when something happens, it just happens. and if he should die in
: the game, it would be a loss, and It would affect me on some level, as
: opposed to losing a new character and just having to reroll another.
: but I think all this is because it was my first, and most favorite
: character and I've had more fun playing him then any other character
: I've ever had. i dunno.
That's a normal occurance for good players. Most of my character take on
th same quality. That is, a complete fictional being, with a past,
emotions, mannerisms, etc. My characters are never simply a pile of
numbers but a living breathing entity. Those that don't click or work
right generally don't go past the stage of simply being well written
characters (if even that far. I can't say that EVERY character i've made
was very detailed). But some of my best characters almost take on a life
of their own. Expecially PBEM characters, live games are a different
matter. Simply because I can detach my own self from the character so much
more in PBEM, than in live games. In other words in face to face games, my
characters always hvae some aspect of me simply because i'm not as good at
role playing in live games as I am in PBEM (ie. poor acting skills, less
confidence face to face, more modest, etc.). PBEM games on the other hand
can diverge from my own personality a great deal because i'm a much better
role player/writer than an actor. Some of my better PBEM characters have
pretty much taken a life of themselves. Practically to the point where
I am no longer in control over them, they do what they want. That I AM
that character when I am writing my game move..
Back 5 or 6 years ago when my PBEM gaming was entirely on local BBSes.
When I would log onto a particular RPG BBS, I was no longer myself. All
my thoughts revolved around the character(s) I was playing. Every thougt
I did was that character's thoughts not mine. IN one particular moment
where my character with duo identies (one being an alien war machine the
other being the human host) it felt like my brain was seperating into 2
beings neither of which were me... Although that lasted only for afew
montns and when I logged of I went back to normal. I was probally pretty
close to going crazy there, heh.
Now with my online gaming being through the internet, with most of my
game moves being written offline, game moves saved and downloaded, read
offline then my replied uploaded when I'm logged on again. The process
makes it harder for me to go into "role playing mode" like I used to.
Also other things like more things on my mind, being older with the
possibility of being less creative, role playing burnout to a certain
extent, probally contribute to the problem. It may also just take that
certain character that takes on a life of it's own. It's probally better
for my mental health though, but I still miss those days when I was so
totally foccused into the games that I ceased to be myself anymore.. I
still do it on occasion in PBEM games but to a lesser extent for shorter
periods of time.
And my live group wonders why I still say PBEM is my prefered choice
for gaming. They probally don't understand the fact that I actually
become the character, when writing the game moves. It's so muhc easier to
do that in PBEM. With face to face games, it's hard to foccus in so
perfectly until the game turns to reality. No matter how much I try I
still see a bunch of people in front of me, playing a game, rolling dice.
Whereas with PBEM, its not that hard for me to simply foccus in on the
game so that it not longer feels like I'm simply playing a game but I am
actually IN the game experiencing everything that the character is
experiencing. In face to face games, there are occasions when I can
foccus in perfectly and reality changes but usually they are brief moments
lasting no longer than a minute or two. Until the effect is broken,
either by someone else or simply my attention moves elsewhere. No matter
how hard I try I just can't get past that visual barrier of seeing a
bunch of gamers sitting around playing the game. Maybe it's just my
difference in role playing ability between the two mediums, maybe it's
the dice rolling and game mechanics being out in the open (instead of
invisibile as there are in most PBEM games).. Usually the other
characters look to me, in my imagination, aspects of the player
controling the character. As opposed to simply the characters themselves
independant of who is controlling them...
### ./\. ### JASON POTAPOFF. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
### _|\| |/|_ ### Email: jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
### \ / ### "You got any toilet paper over there?"
### >______< ### "No."
### / ### "You got five ones for a five?"
Irina Rempt
Mr. Mad (mlm...@pop.uky.edu) wrote:
> 2) You are incorrect. r.g.f.misc is for the players of the game systems
> that do not have their own place.
Oh?
I'll have go read the charter again, then. I've always thought it was also
for people who want general discussions about role-playing games, not about
a specific system.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dare to be naive. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
: > character?
: All the time, mate. All my characters have had an element of tragedy in
Same here. ALL of my characters have some sort of flaw (and not only
becasue I mostly play Champions where you HAVE to give your character
flaws). While not every character is a tragic character in the offical
definition. A good number of them are. Certainly every character I create
(as a PC, characters as I am in the GM role are a different matter) has
some sort of flaw if I am allowed to have one. SOmetiems it's major,
sometimes it's just a minor quirk. But given enough time all my
characters will develope something that's wrong with them. That's just
the type of characters I play. (which is halarious now as in the "new"
group I joined this year. Another player has much the same idea. So we
both sort of compete to see whose character can get the most
mentally messed up).
Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
: Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
: character that _is'nt_ tragic?
Heh, not unless the GM just doesn't allow it. Then I usually find a way
to sneak something in later on as the game progresses.
Jessica Murray
In article <Dwup1...@cs.vu.nl>, mc...@cs.vu.nl says...
>I'm afraid that in every infinite set of numbers, there are still some
>numbers you're missing.
Yeah, like the square root of -1, which is the source of all imaginary
numbers!
--Mathematical Jessica Murray
David A Matta
This whole thread has been interesting, but its quite moot, since in
order to show that everything exists or fails to exist, one must first
create a system that is a superset of the universe (which, according to
one poster's definition, is everything that ever existed, exists, or will
exist).
Quite impossible (of course I cannot prove that either).
Cheers,
Dave
webmaster
Mark Zaynard wrote:
>
> Mr Mad wrote:
> >
> > Hello:
> >
> > Effect"?
>
> I do recall a conversation I had with a friend, wherein she told me that
> she had found herself playing a LARP character in the real world (i.e.
> at work and such) and had decided that she liked said character's
> personality better than her own. I told her that that probably wasn't
> healthy, and we haven't spoken about it since.
>
> -Mark
>
> P.S. Remember: Everyone has multiple personalities. The trick is keeping
> them under control.
>
I've found myself "playing" one of my old characters when I was in a
situation she would be better able to deal with than I would. The
character in question was a Cyberpunk 2020 Corporate, and I was taking a
state-mandated job training course (I was on food stamps at the time,
and the job I had didn't pay enough to suit the Department of Human
Services). At the end of the course (which was 90% useless) we all had
mock interview, which were video-taped and then watched and reviewed.
The instructors and other people in the class could hardly believe it
was the same person, and in a way, it wasn't.
(BTW I am not on food stamps or any other kind of public assistance now,
and I have a decent paying job!)
Atalanta Pendragonne
atal...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/2273/
Phase
>I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
>And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
>numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
with it. Anyway, since I contributed earlier to this off-topic
madness...
Yes, I have played/written characters that almost seemed to have
a life of their own. I had once portrayed the actions of a
gnome character towards a little match girl npc, and the way
I just jumped into the gnome's head, who subsequently jumped
into the girl's head, impressed everyone, and I got a
wonderful xp bonus.
Someone had raised the issue of becoming enmeshed with a
character, and warned against not being able to seperate
fantasy from reality. I wonder if something similar can
happen with the personas we present to everyone else on
the net (whether by usenet, irc, telnet, web, etc.)
This would be a little more serious I would think, because
for RPGs, we know we're playing a game, but online, we're
really playing roles, but some people take things too
seriously.
It makes us ask the question, "Who are we?"
It's nice to think that RPGs, and indeed, all social
interactions (where we play roles) can help us answer that. "Be careful with me... I'm sensitive,
and I'd like to stay that way." - Jewel Kilcher
-
Charles Duncan
>Cheers,
> Dave
Here's an interesting question for you: I was once in a D&D game,
where I was given some wishes by the DM (of course this was one of the
cruel and sadistics DMs when it comes to wishses, and he was also dumb
as a box of rocks). I stated my little wish, which was to be able to
breath underwater, BUT I stuck this little clause at the end: I wish
to be able to breathe above and below as per teh breathe under spell
for an unlimited duration WITHOUT an adverse effects, adverse effects
being defined as anything I don't want to happen. The DM tried pulling
all these little things like removing all the water from the universe
so I would never be under water and stuff like that. And no matter
what he said, I said, that's something I didn't want to happen. And he
said, "your mind isn't complex enough to handle the infinite ideas
that could wrong." To which I replied, "I don't have too, I just know
what it isn't; anything that isn't that." And he eloquate statement
was, "well, I'm the GM and you can't do that..." (Of course, if all he
was going to do was try to screw me over the wishes he shouldn;t have
given them to me in the first place, but that's a sore point with me
anyway...)
My point here is that you could define the universe (very, very, very
simply of course) by just saying what something isn't. "all that
exists and it isn't me!"
Opinions? Ideas? Silly pink clowns dancing on elephants?
Charles
JL
jhun...@io.com (J. Hunter Johnson) is rumored to have spoken thusly:
<snip>
O, quit yer' bitchin!
No one else is complaining, ya' know!
We're not being flooded by anyone screamin' and cryin' about "Oh, he
crossposted" cept' you.
-Oarim
*********************************************************************
Have you ever noticed exactly how many snotty, uptight, stupid people
there are in this world that hid under the umbrella of being:
THE DEFENDERS OF <HUMANITY>!!(tm) <or your choice of causes>?
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
>: That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
>: that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
>: counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
>: contain the number pi.
>Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
>which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
>is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
>measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
Nope. As a standard mathematical convention, that series means the
numbers 1 and 2 and 3 and ... and NOTHING ELSE. You're confusing the
idea of a series with the idea of a number line.
>So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
>but not infinite.
By any standard definition, the counting numbers are infinite. Here's a
fairly simple definition of finite and infinite sets:
A set with no members is finite.
A set with one more member than a finite set is also finite.
Unless a set specifically fits one of the above criteria, it is
infinite.
(Being pedantic, the set would be finite/infinite _in cardinality. A set
like, say, the real numbers from 0 to 1 is infinite in cardinality, but
finite in 1-dimensional measure. We could go on like this for hours.)
>For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
>total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
>realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
>definition, I would be happy to learn.
There's a difference between "the Infinite" (which means roughly what
you're talking about above) and "infinite" (which most definitely does
not.) "The Infinite" is certainly infinite, but not all infinite things
are "the Infinite."
The word comes from Latin: "finis" meaning end or boundary, "in-"
meaning without. Hence infinite, without end or boundary. The sequence
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... goes on without end, and hence is infinite, but
does _not_ contain everything in the universe.
"The Infinite", the beastie you're discussing, is a rather problematic
thing. As you've defined it, including "everything", it has to include
bananas, it has to include promises and colours, it has to include ideas
such as Truth, and it has to include all those things which don't
contain themselves. Does it then contain itself ? Think carefully before
you answer... it's not at all clear that "The Infinite" is actually a
meaningful entity.
Geoffrey Brent
(qualifications: numerous HDs in honours-level university maths,
currently avoiding writing up a fourth-year Honours thesis.)
--
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
Ross Gilbertson
hyb...@neosoft.com (Terminus) wrote:
>Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
>which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
>is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
>measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
>So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
>but not infinite.
>For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
>total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
>realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
>definition, I would be happy to learn.
What you are defining as infinite is actually called the universal set,
which I believe has been proven to be a paradox and so cannot exist.
(someone help me here!)
Secondly, even if we accept your defenition, the infinite may not contain
everything imaginable (at least as real objects). For example, it may be
that the infinite consists of an infinite set of worlds operating under
the same laws of physics, ie. no magic.
Ross
Mark Zaynard
Christopher Beattie
Vossie wrote:
>
> I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
> And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
> infinitissimal (sp?) numbers. I'm afraid that in every infinite set of
> numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
You can wrap the set of complex rational numbers into the set of
rational numbers and into the set of integers. They are all the
same order of infinity.
You can wrap the set of complex real numbers into the set of real
numbers, they too follow the same order of infinity.
Now if you had an infinite dimensional coorrdinates, the set of numbers
on the real infinite diensional space would be a higher order than
the set of real numbers. (get it?)
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | P.O. Box 2310|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33045|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Mr. Tines
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:26:25 -0400, in <322321...@pop.uky.edu>
"Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote.....
>
> 3) Crossposting, contrary to popular belief, is NOT one of the seven
> deadly sins. It's rare because few people know how, and those who do
> rarely have a topic that is so broad as to be justifiably cross posted.
> Thus 99.9% of all crossposting is childish stupidity (such as DaddyMac)
which means that half this thread fetched up against my
Newsgroups: *,*,*,*,*
filter, designed to remove floating Windows '95 flamewars, and the like.
Functionally, I'd expect this thread to sit better in .misc and .advocacy
than in any of the other more specialised groups.
ObOnTopic:
Unsurprisingly I place a software metaphor on these issues - a well
developed character is a subroutine running under the control of the set of
co-routines that make up the I. However, wetware being what it is, a
sufficiently developed subroutine can actually reach the same level that
the I co-routines operate at. I can feel different character-roles snap
into place in real life as the circumstances demand - if a PC gets
reinforced enough, that will become just another peer to the more mundane
ones.
- --
_______ Roger Penrose cannot consistently
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ assert this statement.
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-<
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui/v.byte3/cp850
iQCVAwUBMiNsyYoUd45Z7dNFAQFp7gP+KghQL0iR4fR0csZAu94KoSXKfygM7Co5
VWniHDpykRv/MVad3m0NoLQMeBUMNoKynQ3NOpklApnf8h5jn6wzWl0Jl01ButhT
6Npt6Eiy3+XXCh+DlM3/Lx/HNYAQQ2900kfiGWPK8EhHlLiv1/wpORbGLOL/mDje
1koclzagUbA=
=vZEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Larry Smith
Mr Mad wrote:
> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
> Effect"?
Pygmallion was the sculptor, the statue was Galatea. But let that pass.
I have not really encountered precisely what you describe. I have on
occasion found characters so _vivid_ that their mannerisms and dialog
came very naturally to me. But they have not had the kind of immediacy
you describe.
However, in another sense I have felt just that effect - not with a
character but with a world. My own gaming world has had over a decade
of intensive development, it has a long and detailed history - not a
"history" in the sense of some past events recorded as background,
but a real and genuine folk history, the sum of the hundreds of games
we played there. There are places in that world that are so real and
vivid to me even yet that I almost feel like I've been there, like I
could go back there, if I could just find the way. If I were to find
myself at the gates of Imri city, I feel like I could walk in with
confidence and walk to the Palace or the bank or the exchequer or
the silk merchant's or the alchemist's shop - blindfolded. It was a
very deep, real-feeling place. I know my players felt it, too. And
the city was not the only such place.
But I consider all that to be a _good_ thing, it is a sign of success
in creating a shared alternate world. But sadly, they are not _quite_
real enough to shake my sense of mundane reality.
> Has anyone created a character that
> lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
> that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
> to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
> control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
> real for me.
"Too" real? I can't get around that. However realistic I found my world
or my city, I always knew it was not _this_ world. That was what made it
and them so attractive. Our real world has an immmediacy that beats these
creations of ours back into the shadows of our minds with a depressing ease.
Most likely you are merely experimenting with mental viewpoints that you
have suppressed from your own personality but which "ring true" enough
that you realize that you could integrate them into your "real" person-
ality and become, quite literally, someone different. But that is an
option we _all_ have, always. I run a mean villain. I mean I can really
_do_ a villain, mean, cold, brutal, calculating. I can make him real
enough to scare players who face him. Could I _be_ him? Sure could.
Yeah, I could deal drugs, say. I'm probably smart enough not to get
caught, maybe smart enough not to get shot by the competition, I could
be ruthless enough to be a big success - IF I wanted to _be_ ruthless.
I don't. It's that simple. I view and evaluate the world through a
set of ethics that I have evolved over the years, will continue to
evolve until I die, which enable me to evaluate the best way for me
to live and relate to others, and how I wish them to relate to me.
There is no room for that kind of behaviour in that ethical system.
Sure I could be rich if I dumped my ethics. But then I would be slime.
Wealthy slime can be very comfortable, but they are still slime, and
the odor clings to them. There is no inducement here.
> To this day I sometimes wonder about the character. I talked with
> a trained psycologist about it, for at one point I was worried that I might
> be developing Multiple Personality Disorder.
I will note generally that I know people with tremendous mental problems
and people who talk to shrinks, and the people who talk to shrinks always
wind up worse off. It is not in the financial interest of a shrink to
cure people. You will always need another session. I hold them in higher
regard than _lawyers_ of course...but not by all that much. But that's
just my prejudice talking...
> She reassured me that at the
> worst, the character was little more than an expression of my feminine side
> (Incedently the character was female and I am male).
It isn't "macho" to admit it, but I don't think there is a man alive that
hasn't at some time wondered what it must be like to be a woman. Even as
some woman like to castigate men for our "power" (over them, presumably)
there are men who on occasion wish _they_ could break down in tears in a
socially-acceptable manner. Any society that continues to define social
roles in terms of gender will have equivalents. Identifying with the
point of view of the opposite gender is not a bad thing. It makes one
realize in a close and personal way that these differences are tiny be-
side our common humanity - but that itself is a concept most people in
the world today still can't handle, never mind genders.
It is vaguely possible you might be prone to identifying yourself with
the opposite gender so much that it may become a defining trait of your
personality. That's cross-gendering, the last guy I knew who had that
problem became a woman. That's an unbelievably difficult, painful,
and I'm sure embarrassing thing to try to do. But if that's what made
him comfortable, who am I to criticize? It's no skin off my nose. But
that is something that builds for years - I hardly think one particularly
vivid D&D character could trigger such a thing.
So long as you know who you are and are _happy_ with that, then no amount
of role-playing can change you. If you are _not_ happy, then each time
you roleplay you are experimenting with new mental furniture, and you
are bound to be affected by it (I am reminded of a Phil Foglio cartoon
about a typical gamers' reaction to an alien landing at a local mall -
the mundanes freaked and ran while the gamer sashayed up to the alien,
put his hands in his back pockets and asked "Have a nice trip?") Be
aware of how you define yourself and be aware of what you are _looking_
for - and this character will return to where she came from. And you
will be happier. We might be calling you _Ms_ afterward - but likely
not.
--
.-. .---..---. .---. .-..-.| Larry Smith - la...@token.net
| |__ | | || |-< | |-< > / | ---------------------------------
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | Life may have no meaning...worse, it may have a
--- My opinions alone --- | meaning of which I disapprove. Ashleigh Brilliant
Mr. Mad
J. Hunter Johnson wrote:
>
> So you can't be bothered to read .misc....
I don't have time. I can only ASSUME that there are others with the
same limitation, yet I still wished to reach them.
>
> "Crossposting between [rec.games.frp.misc] and other roleplaying
> discussion groups is to be discouraged." -- from the [rec.games.frp.*]
> Frequently asked questions Part 1
>
Did some power from on high change the definition of discouraged to
become synonomous with prohibited. Noone informed me.
> Also from that post, regarding the rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup:
> "Crossposting between this group and other groups in the rec.games.frp
> hierarchy is discouraged, however issues of general interest that
> happen to involve a D&D rulebook or setting are more than welcome."
> I don't think this topic happened to involve a D&D rulebook.
It did involve a D&D character in a D&D campaign world. In any event,
it could occur within any system. Also, unless I am unaware of the
contrary Netscape does not allow different followup newsgroups from the
ones you post to.
Finally, your whole argument smacks of rule lawyerese. The spirit of
the rule of "THOU SHALT NOT CROSSPOST" is an attempt, of sorts, to keep
the off topic subjects minimized.
Say for example, that I had asked each of the newsgroups this question
INDIVIDUALLY and followed each INDIVIDUALLY. You cannot successfully
argue that the question is without merit on any roleplaying group.
Furthermore you or the previous critic probably wouldn't have bothered
to complain, especially if the threads had different names. The
question indeed lies at the very heart of the genre of roleplaying,
regardless of the system (if any) used to carry out this art.
Seriously, you sound like a rules lawyer whining about a VERY mute
point. What is done is done. It's also highly hypocritical, since I
didn't see such a correction aimed DaddyMac's direction or the direction
of any SPAM 'er.
I posted to multiple groups in order to reach the greatest possible
audience. It is not an attempt to annoy anyone, and indeed I *THOUGHT*
that I posted in a mature enough manner and with proper reasons, for if
the orginal question doesn't lie at the heart of roleplaying (and not
ROLL PLAYING) then nothing does.
I will not follow this section of the thread any further. If want to
chastize me further, save the Usenet bandwidth and do it through
E-Mail. But bring the asbestos armor, I'm not so cogenial outside of
public.
And lastly, I did not, in my very humble opinion, do anything wrong. I
offer no apologies, no regrets, and if you don't like that then ....
'Oh well.
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
\ //// mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
\M /
\/ Clinton / Gore '96
pinocchio
Glenn Dowdy <glenn...@hp-spokane-om2.om.hp.com> wrote:
>Terminus wrote:
>> Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
>> which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
>> is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
>> measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
>> So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
>> but not infinite.
>> For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
>> total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
>> realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
>> definition, I would be happy to learn.
This would seem to only be a problem of definition, then. You
take infinite to mean absolutely everything. So by your standards our
universe cannot be infinite. Also, the distance one would travel if they
went around a circle forever would also not be infinite, since by your
definition the distance they travel would not be "The complete and total
sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum realities."
I just have to wonder, then, how far that person walking in a circle would
go.
A definition that sticks to mathematics a bit more would take
infinite to mean something that is boundless. The decimals for an
irrational number go off into infinity, meaning they don't hit a pattern
and go on boundlessly. A series which is intended to sum into infinity
means every term that applies to the pattern being summed over is added.
The whole numbers are infinite because they continue to increase in
increments of one, boundlessly.
About the space between the whole numbers and it not including
pi: Although the set does not include every element possible, it is still
boundless, and therefore, by my definition above, infinite.
Note that infinite does not imply length. In between the numbers
1 and 2 there are an infinite number of rational numbers. To see this you
can take the average of one and two. This gives a rational number (3/2).
Then take the average of this number and either 1 or 2. Find the average
between this and any of the other averages found before. There are an
infinite, aka boundless, number of rationals between 1 and 2. Does this
mean the whole numbers are not infinite? Certainly not.
Sorry if this elucidation is unnecessarily explicit. I get
carried away. To reiterate my previous point, it's a question of
definitions. In the case of mathematics i think it's better to use the
mathematical definition of infinity instead of more personal conceptions.
--
-----
I wish i was a real boy. joe Nikolaus
jjni...@midway.uchicago.edu
T Schwartz
Having read this thread further, I'm making an addendum to my post.
While the PC I used as an example for a "tragic" character, is indeed
a facinating and compelling (at least to me) personality, he is also moody,
paranoid, egomaniacal, and whines incessantly about how "misunderstood" he
is.
The original purpose of this thread was (if I'm reading it right) to
find examples of PCs which either seemed so complete it was as if they were
real or (more likely) PCs which were so compelling that the player wished
that they were real. Neither of these is the case with Cain 0f No'Quar.
Years ago, when I played this character in my youth, I sometimes
fantasized about what it might be like to actually _be_ Cain. When I entered
the theater (my occupation) I no longer had time for this fantasy as I became
so wrapped up in "being" other compelling and facinating people. But, NEVER
have I wished Cain to be a separate living individual. While he might have
been intellectually stimulating to have around, he certainly would have been
no fun at parties and his nasty drow habits would definately get the
neighbors talking.
While I'm on the subject though, I do think that more players find
themselves wanting to _be_ their PCs, rather than to meet them. This kind of
identification with fictional characters is common, though, and most forms of
theatre, film, and literature contain characters with which the audience
identifies in much the same manner.
Just my thoughts.
Respectfully,
todd
Clark Crawford
In article <322604...@Tansoft.com>, Christopher Beattie <chr...@Tansoft.com> writes:
|>
|> I will leave it as an exercise to the reader how the set of
|> rational numbers can be mapped to the set of counting numbers
|> while the set of irrational numbers can not be so mapped.
Diagonalization???!!???
Evil man! This is a recreational group!
;)
Anne B. Nonie Rider
webmaster <webm...@nowallmall.com> wrote:
> I've found myself "playing" one of my old characters when I was in a
> situation she would be better able to deal with than I would.
I did that with a character I was writing about in late highschool,
but mostly for physical stuff.
I mean, midwestern winters suck, and I was a book nerd. Trying
to walk to school at -20 F, facing into the additional -60 wind
chill, I just wanted to snivel and whine and go home. Pain!
But I was writing about Rham--picture a barbarian amazon
who ended up as a spacefaring mercenary--and she was a
real pragmatic type. So I'd get into Rham's mindset, and
she'd shut off the pain and just think "Hey, this is easy;
it's not even impairing me yet. I could do at least ten
miles more in this stuff."
A couple years later, I was taking a riding class, and trying
to learn how not to slouch. I couldn't find any way to reliably
keep my head up and my left arm bent at my side--until I pictured
Tolkien's Eowyn riding with a shield.
I haven't done something like that with a PC yet, probably
because the need hasn't arisen. But if it did, I expect I
still would.
--Nonie
Jeff Brumfield
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
> : In article <322205...@pop.uky.edu>, "Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>
> : > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> : > character?
>
> : All the time, mate. All my characters have had an element of tragedy in
>
> Same here. ALL of my characters have some sort of flaw (and not only
> becasue I mostly play Champions where you HAVE to give your character
> flaws). While not every character is a tragic character in the offical
> definition. A good number of them are. Certainly every character I create
> (as a PC, characters as I am in the GM role are a different matter) has
> some sort of flaw if I am allowed to have one. SOmetiems it's major,
> sometimes it's just a minor quirk. But given enough time all my
> characters will develope something that's wrong with them. That's just
> the type of characters I play. (which is halarious now as in the "new"
> group I joined this year. Another player has much the same idea. So we
> both sort of compete to see whose character can get the most
> mentally messed up).
>
> Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
> : Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
> : character that _is'nt_ tragic?
Yes I play a Paladin and a Gurps character.
Jeff
Jeff Brumfield
Eric Stevenson wrote:
>
> Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
> : In article <322205...@pop.uky.edu>, "Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>
> : > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> : > character?
Yes I have a drow character who tries to do good inspite of predices
against him.
Jeff
> : Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
> : character that _is'nt_ tragic?
>
> Sure. All of them, actually. Sometimes I start out wanting a tragic
> character, but I always change my mind. I always try (and sometimes
> succeed) in playing characters that are people, living their lives, not
> actors playing their roles. The reason the tragic aspect never works out
> for me is probably just due to my own prejudices. Occasionally, people in
> real life may be forced into tragic roles, but I feel that most people
> are able to either solve their problems or live with them. I also think
> anyone worth being called a hero should be able to solve their own
> problems, as well as other people's problems. Idealism, or too much TV,
> I'm not sure.
Christopher Beattie
Terminus wrote:
>
> Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> : that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> : counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> : contain the number pi.
> Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
> which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
> is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
> measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
> So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
> but not infinite.
> For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
> total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
> realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
> definition, I would be happy to learn.
of infinity.
(set of counting numbers or rational numbers) = Aleph0.
(set of irrational numbers) = Aleph1.
(In principle there ought to be higher orders, I just can't think
of any examples of them. In fact Quantum Mechanics might just
politely hint that the "real number" system is just abstract
and the universe cannot support infinities past Aleph0.)
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader how the set of
rational numbers can be mapped to the set of counting numbers
while the set of irrational numbers can not be so mapped.
The set of counting numbers are indeed infinite. You can play
all those wonderful infinity games with them. It is just that
there are greater orders of infinity which make the others seem
somewhat finite. <G>
Glenn Dowdy
Terminus wrote:
>
> Lise Mendel (cata...@access.digex.net) wrote:
> : That's a mathematical fallacy. A series being infinite does not mean
> : that it contains everything imaginable. For example, even though the
> : counting numbers (the series 1,2,3,4,5) is infinite, it will never
> : contain the number pi.
> :
> Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
> which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
> is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
> measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
> So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
> but not infinite.
> For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
> total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
> realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
> definition, I would be happy to learn.
>
I'm going back to my college analysis classes, so bear with me if I miss
a detail or two. As I recall, there are different levels of infinity,
generally designated by the Hebrew letter 'aleph' and a subscript. The
infinite list of all natural or counting numbers is call 'aleph null'.
The next level includes all rational and irrational numbers between two
consecutive natural numbers. This would be 'aleph one'. Remember that
I'm relyingg on ten year old memories of a fifteen minute off-topic
discussion with a professor. I would welcome input from more learned
colleagues.
Glenn
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
>I'm going back to my college analysis classes, so bear with me if I miss
>a detail or two. As I recall, there are different levels of infinity,
>generally designated by the Hebrew letter 'aleph' and a subscript. The
>infinite list of all natural or counting numbers is call 'aleph null'.
>The next level includes all rational and irrational numbers between two
>consecutive natural numbers. This would be 'aleph one'. Remember that
>I'm relyingg on ten year old memories of a fifteen minute off-topic
>discussion with a professor. I would welcome input from more learned
>colleagues.
I'm reasonably familiar with this stuff... [BTW, I realise this is
getting a bit off-topic, but I'm not sure who's reading it. If anyone
wants it taken off their ng, let me know.]
There are a couple of common situations where infinity arises. The first
is in describing the size of a set. (A set is basically a bunch of
things; there's a bit more to it than that, but that's a reasonable
definition.) For a finite set, its magnitude is just the number of
things it has in it. For instance, a set containing my fingers and
thumbs and nothing else has magnitude ten.
We also have infinite sets, where the magnitude isn't clearly defined.
For instance, the set of counting numbers {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...} However,
we can extend the idea of "magnitude" to a concept called "cardinality."
This lets us talk about different "sizes" of infinity.
Two infinite sets A and B have the same cardinality if you can pair off
their members so that each member of A is matched with one member of B,
that member of B isn't matched to anything else, and nothing is left
out. For instance, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...} and {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}
have the same cardinality, aleph-0 aka "d":
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10...
| | | | | | | | | |
0 1 -1 2 -2 3 -3 4 -4 5...
The set of all numbers from 0 to 1 has the same cardinality as the set
of all numbers from 0 to 2: just pair off x with 2x. These sets have
cardinality aleph-1, aka "c". But they do _not_ have the same
cardinality as the ones above. You can pair each member of {1, 2, 3,...}
off with a member of the interval 0-1, but you _always_ leave out some
members of [0,1].
Cardinalities greater than aleph-one don't often arise, especially not
in real-world applications. Aleph-one is sufficient for a set containing
all points in n-dimensional space, for any n. Still, there's a nice
simple way to generate a set of cardinality aleph-two, or whatever...
Take any set A of cardinality aleph-n. Now consider B, the set of all
subsets of A. B has cardinality aleph-n+1. So, for instance, the set of
all black-and-white paintings on a line, or a plane, or whatever, has
cardinality aleph-two.
It's not at all obvious that these things are different, but it can be
proven that in a certain sense aleph-one is "greater" than aleph-null,
because you can pair each element from a set of size aleph-null with a
different member of an aleph-one set, but the reverse isn't true.
Likewise, aleph-two is "greater" than aleph-one, and so on.
A couple of other points:
1) Aleph-null is the lowest possible cardinality for an infinite set.
2) Are there infinite sets with cardinality _in between_, say,
aleph-null and aleph-one ? Nobody knows. More than that - it's been
proven that it's impossible to answer this question.
3) The set {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...} has cardinality aleph-null. So
does the set of all rational numbers (a rational number is any number
that's just one integer divided by a non-zero integer.) So indeed does
_any_ set that can be written down, one element after another, without
missing anything out.
Geoffrey Brent
--
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
Terminus
Ross Gilbertson (g302...@student.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: hyb...@neosoft.com (Terminus) wrote:
:
: What you are defining as infinite is actually called the universal set,
: which I believe has been proven to be a paradox and so cannot exist.
: (someone help me here!)
I don't agree that because it cannot be understood, it cannot exist.
Which is what very smart people say when someone asks them a question and
they can't answer it ;)
: Secondly, even if we accept your defenition, the infinite may not contain
: everything imaginable (at least as real objects). For example, it may be
: that the infinite consists of an infinite set of worlds operating under
: the same laws of physics, ie. no magic.
Or perhaps our laws of physics exist as a subset of a greater reality,
where interaction of energy is handled differently. Ie our physics are a 3
dimensional picture taken of a four dimensional object.
Terminus
On a side note, I just found a good use for my Changeling book. I used it
to smash a roach.
Do I have to make a banality role now?
Terminus
pinocchio (jjni...@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Glenn Dowdy <glenn...@hp-spokane-om2.om.hp.com> wrote:
: Sorry if this elucidation is unnecessarily explicit. I get
: carried away. To reiterate my previous point, it's a question of
: definitions. In the case of mathematics i think it's better to use the
: mathematical definition of infinity instead of more personal conceptions.
*sigh*
I do understand all the other definitions of infinite. The reason I layed
out my definition of infinite was so that less emphasis would be put on
the argueing of the definition than in the origional idea, which was that
everything exists somewhere, because The Universe is infinite ( useing my
definition for the word infinite there ).
However, I have enjoyed reading all the talk of infinity, although I tried
to avoid it initially. It is, after all, one of my pet projects.
Terminus
Terminus
Christopher Beattie (chr...@Tansoft.com) wrote:
: Terminus wrote:
: >
: > For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
: > total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
: > realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
: > definition, I would be happy to learn.
: Gee and I always thought it symbolized the first and second orders
: of infinity.
It might, but, _for the purposes of that thread_, i defined infinite so we
would have a common ground from which to specualte on the existance of our
beloved characters somewhere in The Universe.
Terminus
( Its funny, mention infinity and everyone becomes a mathmatician... ;) )
Terminus
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au wrote:
: >Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
: >which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
: >is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
: >measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
: Nope. As a standard mathematical convention, that series means the
: numbers 1 and 2 and 3 and ... and NOTHING ELSE. You're confusing the
: idea of a series with the idea of a number line.
No, I'm not confusing them. I'm simply refusing to accept a difference
between the truth of the two. All measurments are limits placed on
infinity, and therefore all measurments, being an infinite fraction of
infinity, are infinite. Classification has its basis in human perception.
The Universe is beyond such things.
: >So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
: >but not infinite.
:
And only exist as an abstraction.
: >For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
: >total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
: >realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
: >definition, I would be happy to learn.
:
: There's a difference between "the Infinite" (which means roughly what
: you're talking about above) and "infinite" (which most definitely does
: not.) "The Infinite" is certainly infinite, but not all infinite things
: are "the Infinite."
:
infinite things are a subset of The Universe, and so in and of themselves
are infinite, but are not percieved as such by humanity because of our
desire to understand The Universe.
: "The Infinite", the beastie you're discussing, is a rather problematic
: thing. As you've defined it, including "everything", it has to include
: bananas, it has to include promises and colours, it has to include ideas
: such as Truth, and it has to include all those things which don't
: contain themselves. Does it then contain itself ? Think carefully before
: you answer... it's not at all clear that "The Infinite" is actually a
: meaningful entity.
:
I like the call what you call "The Infinite" The Universe. The Universe is
everything. Every point in The Universe can be described as a series of
variables that describe how that point relates to every other point. But
since points in space are artificial, than The Universe is one entity
which contains everything and which has no limits. The Universe does not
exist within anything, for The Universe is not a thing, but the measure by
which things may be percieved. The Universe is a phenomenon which we
percieve by our five senses as reality.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Universe is some giant computer, slowly
computing the solution to some problem.
Its so odd. Our perceptions are always just the barest fraction of a
second behind the present, so we continuosly exist in the past.
Excuse me, I'm going to go re-read Zen and the art of motorcycle
maitenance. <sp>
Terminus
( Turn on MY brain, will you?!?! )
Qualifications: Many hours under the tutalege of the revered While E.
Cyote, Super Genius
JL
Jeff Brumfield <al...@wolfenet.com> is rumored to have spoken thusly:
>> : In article <322205...@pop.uky.edu>, "Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
>> : > character?
>Yes I have a drow character who tries to do good inspite of predices
>against him.
I'm not sure that is particularly 'tragic'.
Does he constantly fail at these attempts? THAT would be tragic.
A person who does good depite prejudices against them ISN'T a tragic
person. Just misunderstood.
-Oarim
*****************************************************
I am the unqenchable fire, The center of all energy,
The stout heroic heart, I am the truth and the light,
I hold power and glory in my sway,
My presence disperses dark clouds.
I have been chosen to tame the Fates
I AM THE DRAGON
JL
gar...@holly.ColoState.EDU (Mark Zaynard) is rumored to have spoken
thusly:
> I, personally, don't believe that has ever happened to me, but
> I do recall a conversation I had with a friend, wherein she told me that
> she had found herself playing a LARP character in the real world (i.e.
> at work and such) and had decided that she liked said character's
> personality better than her own. I told her that that probably wasn't
> healthy,
Why?
As long as she doesn't confuse their ids, and start believing that she
IS Sheena of the Hill Tribes or whatever, it is perfectly healthy (and
perhaps even desirable) to adopt personality traits from "fictional
personas" that allow you to deal better with life.
ie-- taking bravery from your knight character, or wisdom from your
cleric, etc. AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT COFUSE THE CHARACTER'S ID WITH
YOUR OWN!!!!
go...@blkbox.com
Mr Mad <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
>Hello:
> I am not a regular poster to any of the groups above except
>rec.games.frp.dnd, but I've got a topic and a question that concerns
>all roleplaying games.
> Has anyone out there undergone what I have deemed the "Pygmallion
>Effect"?
> Let me elaborate. In greek myths Pygmallion was a statue carved
>so lifelike that her creator sorely wished that she was alive. The fable
>revolves around the consequences of the wish being granted.
> Earlier this century Benard Shaw wrote a play based partly on that
>legend that was titled, oddly enough, "Pygmallion." That play would later
>become the classic movie "My Fair Lady".
> The point I'm trying to get to is this. RPG's, all of them, involve
>the creation of a fictional character. Has anyone created a character that
>lived so vividly in mind's eye that one wondered, or perhaps even wished
>that the character could somehow become a real person? This has occured
>to me with one character, whose background and story snowballed out of
>control until finally, one day I had enough. The character had become too
>real for me.
No, I haven't. I think most people can distinguish the difference
between fantasy and reality. You sound sheepish. Like one of Jim
Jones' followers. I am offended that one of my favorite products gets
blamed for this kind of shit.
Maybe you are gay and the gay is trying to get out?
I don't think a game can cause somebody to get screwed mentally. This
would've happened to you if you were playing dominoes or anything
else.
> To this day I sometimes wonder about the character. I talked with
>a trained psycologist about it, for at one point I was worried that I might
>be developing Multiple Personality Disorder. She reassured me that at the
The minute someone thinks they are going nuts, is the beginning of him
going nuts. You better stop thinking about it.
>worst, the character was little more than an expression of my feminine side
>(Incedently the character was female and I am male). Still, I am uneasy
>about the prospect of running the character once more.
Obviously, you've turned it into some trigger, and a phobia. You
should try it again and say to yourself "It's just a game." three
times.
Personally, I think you are full of shit. Aren't you the guy who said
Microsofts Internet browser was better than Netscape's?
> My apologies if I have offended anyone by posting to most of the
>rec.games.frp.* directory, but I believe that this topic should be interesting
>to all fantasy gamers. I would like a copy of any replies E-MAILed to me,
>for I might use any information gathered for a philosophy or English project
>later this semester.
>Thank you for your time.
> _
>/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0 mailto:mlm...@pop.uky.edu
>\ ////
> \M / "The Poor have little, Beggers none, the Rich too much, enough not one."
> \/ -Benjamin Franklin
S. Olmstead-Dean
Eric Stevenson (es...@rocket.cc.umr.edu) wrote:
: Ole Martin Kristiansen (ole...@origo.telenor.no) wrote:
: : > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
: : > character?
: : Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
: : character that _is'nt_ tragic?
: Sure. All of them, actually. Sometimes I start out wanting a tragic
: character, but I always change my mind. I always try (and sometimes
: succeed) in playing characters that are people, living their lives, not
: actors playing their roles. The reason the tragic aspect never works out
: for me is probably just due to my own prejudices. Occasionally, people in
: real life may be forced into tragic roles, but I feel that most people
: are able to either solve their problems or live with them. I also think
: anyone worth being called a hero should be able to solve their own
: problems, as well as other people's problems. Idealism, or too much TV,
: I'm not sure.
Could be too much TV. :)
People in real life frequently encounter "no win" situations, where any
choice they make will have some negative effect. It's a bummer, but it's
true. Learning to balance the lesser of evils is a fact of life.
Now, granted, we probably roleplay primarily as an escape...but there's
also the "someone else's problem" field. For example, when we ran a LARP
called Smalltown 3 in 1994, not one character had completely resolvable
problems. Ask Tony Black, who believed he was the son of a space alien,
because his mother told him so. Ask Zeke, who believed he'd knocked up
his sister-in-law, and then accidentally killed her. Or Rayon Green, who
was doomed to a life of petty crime because that was the way he'd learned
to cope with his bizarre upbringing. Basically, Smalltown was a soap
opera. But in general, people enjoyed it! The angst and problems were
still an escape from their *own* angst and problems. And as surreal as
some of the problems were, they had a tinge of reality that made it not
quite silly.
I've drifted off on a tangent, true, but I think tragic characters can
be fun to play. Lady MacBeth? Sure, sign me up! Juliet! Fershure!
Visceral experience is fun, IMHO.
Stephanie Olmstead-Dean
I am assured by reliable sources that I am not a psychopath. Yet. :)
MR. OPINIONATED{Ray K Allen}
T Schwartz wrote:
> His "tragic" egomania is still a factor though.
Who's "tragic" egomania? I'd add "No offense", but that never works
anyway!
Pierre Kluchert
I think if someone really wanted to become character that they
envisioned is largely due to the fact that they are unstisfied with their
lives, many people who play munchkins to mind are ones in deep need of
change. Is it possible that those people who start taking on the
personalities or at least attempt to, tend towards suicide due to the
indability to fit in with society. (this shouldprobably be posted in the
"Is D&D satanic" area).
A lot of people say that generation `X' is is under a lot more pressure than
old timers, even though they give you that `walked a thousand miles every
day at 1:00 AM to get to school' line. Did they have as many worries as
we do about the econmy, the environment or the social environment for
that matter. (ok the depression and WW I & II) Overpopulation -> the
Orient. What about all those resrtictive laws that have come about; as
time goes on we will look like prison Utopia or Gotham City.
`Escapism' will become more and more prevalent, games will mean a lot
more as time goes on, robots and computers will handle the hard stuff and
the only jobs that will be left is social work, programming, repair
and entertainment; the latter being the largest. People will take a
stronger intrest in heros and heroins and will attempt to identify with
the latest winners of the "California Voodoo Games" (book about live
action VR RPing).
Does this sound like pessimism or better yet someone dissatisfied with
society?
You figure it out!
:+)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Kluchert
Carleton University
Email address: pklu...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Fitzpatrick
mc...@cs.vu.nl (Vossie) wrote:
>I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
>And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
>infinitissimal (sp?) numbers. I'm afraid that in every infinite set of
>numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
With all due respect, this is unadulterated bulshit. Within the
infinite set "Numbers" are _all_ numbers. It's only when you
particularise your infinite sets that you start excluding things.
--
Fitz
pf...@tpnet.co.nz
Anne B. Nonie Rider
ole...@origo.telenor.no (Ole Martin Kristiansen) wrote:
> Well to answer your question with another question: Has anyone played a
> character that _is'nt_ tragic?
Sure. Dozens. Rangefinder, the sniper villain I later converted
into a PC, was totally self-sufficient, AND had discovered the
joys of having a team and a child. But you could kill 'em all,
and she'd still be pragmatically getting on with life.
Smokey Jochanan's a world-grade competitor in formal Tae Kwon Do,
who got involved in some Ninja Hero adventures. But her past's
clean, her family's healthy, she's done nothing to wallow in
guilt about, and she likes learning how to use her art for real
combat without losing that meditative precision edge.
Whatsername's a yekken drover and caravan leader, already a
personality at thirty, handling the big beasts as if they
were babies. She likes to stop in at farmsteads and chat
with the matriarchs, handing out bells and sweets to the
little kids by the hearth. Tragic? Not on your life.
Tommy's a juvenile delinquent with heat powers and a certain
fondness for stimulants and narcotics. He didn't volunteer
for the "community service" superhero group, but despite his
smart mouth, he hasn't tried to escape; he LIKES having
friends.
And so on.
--Nonie
Mr. Mad
Clark Crawford wrote:
>
> In article <322604...@Tansoft.com>, Christopher Beattie <chr...@Tansoft.com> writes:
> |>
> |> rational numbers can be mapped to the set of counting numbers
> |> while the set of irrational numbers can not be so mapped.
>
>
> Evil man! This is a recreational group!
>
> ;)
I'll tell you math freaks what's infinite. Infinite is your ability to
go *way* of topic.
Infinite is also the capacity for human error (Murphy's 12th law of
random perversity)
_
/ \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
Steven Howard
[followups set to rec.games.frp.misc]
In <5030fj$3...@manuel.anu.edu.au>, gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au () writes:
>>For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
>>total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
>>realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
>>definition, I would be happy to learn.
>
>"The Infinite", the beastie you're discussing, is a rather problematic
>thing. As you've defined it, including "everything", it has to include
>bananas, it has to include promises and colours, it has to include ideas
>such as Truth, and it has to include all those things which don't
>contain themselves. Does it then contain itself ? Think carefully before
>you answer... it's not at all clear that "The Infinite" is actually a
>meaningful entity.
>
>Geoffrey Brent
>(qualifications: numerous HDs in honours-level university maths,
>currently avoiding writing up a fourth-year Honours thesis.)
While you're correct that the original poster's idea is not well-defined,
I can't stand idly by and watch you try and sneak Russell's Paradox
into a discussion where it doesn't apply. Russell's Paradox asks whether
the Set of All Sets that do not Contain Themselves contains itself. You're
asking whether a superset of that Set could contain itself -- which it clearly
could, For example, the (equally ill-defined) Set of All Sets _must_ contain
itself.
========
Steven Howard
bl...@ibm.net
What's a nice word for "euphemism"?
Alik S. Widge
In article <504p55$1m...@holly.ColoState.EDU>
gar...@holly.ColoState.EDU (Mark Zaynard) writes:
> P.S. Remember: Everyone has multiple personalities. The trick is keeping
> them under control.
Do you really want to keep them under control? Is it right to hold
someone else a prisoner in your mind? Why not let them run free?
Alik
Jeff Brumfield
Mr. Mad wrote:
>
> Pierre Kluchert wrote:
> > Reading other posts about munchkins and THE BETTERMENT OF GOOD
> > ROPLAYING. I found out really that my character had no depth nothing
> > spectacular bout him other than his stats. 16str 19dex 18int 15const
> > 11wis 11char. On my birthday (NO CHEATING) using 4d6 take the lowest out
> > gave me 2 18's 2 16's and 2 11's.
>
> High stats aren't neccessarily deterimental to good roleplaying,
> although this is contrary to popular belief. The stats of the character
> who I mentioned in the post at the start of this thread read thusly:
>
> Strength 11 Stamina 12 Muscle 9
> Dexterity 15 Aim 13 Balance 17
> Constitution 16 Health 16 Fitness 16
> Intelligence 18 Reason 18 Knowledge 18
> Wisdom 17 Intuition 16 Willpower 18
> Charisma 16 Leadership 14 Appearance 18
>
> The character was quarter elven and so could find secret doors
> as if she were an elf. I patterned the way I played her after her stats
> and took it as a starting point to her background.
> For instance, what could have happended in childhood to cause
> the character to develop her willpower? What about balance?
> I finally completed a true final draft of her *background* story,
> which is a novel. I'm going to try to get TSR to publish it (I know
> it's
> a snowball's chance in well: you know; but I gotta try).
> Still the character's stats were rarely an issue, primarily because
> she was (perhaps *is* is a more accurate term) filled with much self
> doubt.
> She was given to brooding over mistakes made, especially if others were
> hurt.
> Though beautiful beyond most measures, she was filled with bitterness
> and
> pain which made it difficult, at best, for other characters to get along
> with her. In one memorable session I began to cry even as the character
> did.
> One event that occured far after the events of the novel was in play,
> when she was speaking with the party's paladin, her love. The party had
> joined an army and was about to face an orcish force three times it's
> size.
> She was obviously troubled that evening, and the paladin finally goaded
> her
> into speaking. I'll never forget the dialogue, completely unprompted...
>
> Orlando (the paladin): "What is wrong with you Tasha?"
> Tasha turned to him and slowly asked, "Is it wrong? Is it wrong to be
> afraid?"
> He shook his head in slow reply, "No Tasha. Only a fool would lead or
> wish
> to lead an army that is not afraid and do so with no fear."
> She replied, "But what if I 'err. That is what I fear, that and losing
> you."
> He replied, "I have confidence in you lass. You'll be alright."
>
> Her worst fear, the loss of her love, came true.
>
> Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
> character?
Yes I play a Drow charactor who in spite of prediuce ties to help
others.
Jeff
> / \//\ Mr. Mad http://sac.uky.edu/~mlmorr0
Christopher Beattie
Jessica Murray wrote:
>
> In article <Dwup1...@cs.vu.nl>, mc...@cs.vu.nl says...
>
> >I'm afraid that in every infinite set of numbers, there are still some
> >numbers you're missing.
>
> numbers!
>
> --Mathematical Jessica Murray
But it can be proven that the set of all complex numbers can
be mapped into the set of all counting numbers.
I'll leave that as en exercise for the reader. (It's a cute proof)
Noah Dowd
Peter Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> mc...@cs.vu.nl (Vossie) wrote:
>
> >I can assure you that you'll still be missing the complex numbers.
> >And if you add those to your set, you still don't have the
> >numbers, there are still some numbers you're missing.
>
> infinite set "Numbers" are _all_ numbers. It's only when you
> particularise your infinite sets that you start excluding things.
> --
> Fitz
> pf...@tpnet.co.nz
Define "Numbers". Does it include e? Does it include i?
Does it include FF? Unless these important questions (and
more) are answered, your assumption (please, no offense here)
is "unadulterated bullshit."
"I love the smell of manure in the morning, it smells like Usenet."
-Noah
--
I think a good gift for the president would be a chocolate revolver.
And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him and hand
it to him.
-Jack Handy
Ross Gilbertson
Invi...@nowhere.com (The Invisible One) wrote:
>Actually since the Multiverse is infinite in scope everything we dream and
>imagine is REAL somewhere, it's the getting there that is the problem!
Look, all this arguing about defenitions is pointless.
I believe we can conclude thus,
1) The multiverse is infinite (in the traditional sense).
2) This is not sufficient condition for the multiverse to contain all
imaginable possibilities. (eg. the natural numbers are infinite)
3) Taking the new defenition as "The total sum of everything etc.", You
are saying that the fact that the multiverse contains everything means
that it contains everything (that you can imagine)
4) This cannot be proved and requires a leap of faith.
Ta da, Argument complete ^_-
Ross Gilbertson
sun...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
JL (slei...@northernnet.com) wrote:
: Jeff Brumfield <al...@wolfenet.com> is rumored to have spoken thusly:
: >> : In article <322205...@pop.uky.edu>, "Mr. Mad" <mlm...@pop.uky.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >> : > Which brings up a different question: Has anyone played a tragic
: >> : > character?
: >Yes I have a drow character who tries to do good inspite of predices
: >against him.
: I'm not sure that is particularly 'tragic'.
Tragic would be if he were cast out of drow society because he, in his
pride, thought himself above the strictures of his culture (and tried to
do good openly). Then he gets to the surface and is killed because of what
he is.
--
Regards,
--Matt
sun...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Jered Moses
hyb...@neosoft.com (Terminus) writes:
>Ross Gilbertson (g302...@student.anu.edu.au) wrote:
>: What you are defining as infinite is actually called the universal set,
>: which I believe has been proven to be a paradox and so cannot exist.
>: (someone help me here!)
>I don't agree that because it cannot be understood, it cannot exist.
>Which is what very smart people say when someone asks them a question and
>they can't answer it ;)
*Sigh* What happens when non-mathematicians begin discussing
mathematics, I suppose... No offense to non-mathematicians; it's just
that I wouldn't go making claims about, say, weaving techniques, since
I know I'm completely uneducated in the subject....
Anyway, what Ross wrote above was partially correct: you cannot have
a SET which contains all sets. It is a contradiction, and can be
proven as such:
Let S be the set containing all sets. Then in particular, S contains
the set {S, {1}}. [Please note that this is NOT the same as S
itself--it is a set containing two elements, the element "S" <itself
a set> and the set containing the element "1".] But this is a contra-
diction (S contains an element greater than itself); hence there can
be no such set S.
However, this is not to say that there cannot be a CONSTRUCT which
contains all sets; one could have a category of all sets (and some
functions), for instance. This avoids the paradox because the
category is not itself a set.
In any case, I found Terminus' response rather irritating; it seems
rather like claiming that "Just because you can't name an integer
between '0' and '1' doesn't mean there isn't one." Perhaps I just
have a problem with the anti-intellectualism so prevalent here in the
US...
[Incidentally, my credentials, should anyone care, are that I am a
senior in mathematics at Purdue University, having just completed a
400-level honors course in Real Analysis and currently enrolled in a
graduate-level course in Topology. With that in mind, please feel
free to correct any mathematical errors I may have made above.]
--Kid Kibbitz
--
"From childhood's hour I have not been | |
As others were -- I have not seen | "Alone," a poem by | kidkibtz@expert.
As others saw -- I could not bring | Edgar Allen Poe | cc.purdue.edu
My passions from a common spring." | |
Brett D Altschul
In article <502vkk$e...@student.anu.edu.au>,
Ross Gilbertson <g302...@student.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>What you are defining as infinite is actually called the universal set,
>which I believe has been proven to be a paradox and so cannot exist.
>(someone help me here!)
The Universal Set (a set of all sets) is logically inconsistent, and thus for-
bidden in set theory. (There are several ways to accomplish this, but that
gets into *heavy* analysis.)
The contradiction itself is simple. Cantor's Theorem (Cantor was the creator
of set theory) states that any set has more subsets than it has elements. So
the universal set should have more subsets than elements. However, since its
elements include every set, including the sets of its own subsets, we have a
contradiction.
Demon Sultan of Khaipur
Brett Altschul
Kristen & Bill Keegan
I think that's a 1990s American talking. They're infinitely gloomier than their
1980s predecessors, way less angry than the 70s folks, largely without the optimism of
the 60s activitists, lacking the complacence of the people of the 50s, have no war or
victory to distract them as people did in the 40s, can't begin to compare their problems
to those of the 30s ...
Generalization is fun! :)
This is getting away from gaming, but one further thought: If you've seen the
film _Escape from LA_, tell me -- would such a film have ended in such a way in any
_other_ decade but ours?
Kris K.
--
kee...@neca.com - www.neca.com/~keegans
____________________________________
Only the phoenix arises
and does not descend.
And everything changes.
And nothing is truly lost.
-- Neil Gaiman, "Exiles"
____________________________________
Pete Hardie
Pierre Kluchert wrote:
> A lot of people say that generation `X' is is under a lot more pressure than
> old timers, even though they give you that `walked a thousand miles every
> day at 1:00 AM to get to school' line. Did they have as many worries as
> we do about the econmy, the environment or the social environment for
> that matter. (ok the depression and WW I & II) Overpopulation -> the
> Orient. What about all those resrtictive laws that have come about; as
> time goes on we will look like prison Utopia or Gotham City.
Yeah, right.
Anyone old enough to remember the Cuban Misisle Crisis? And several
other incidents where WW III was the next step in the escalation?
Don't tell me about the 'greater stress' of Gen X.
Pete
Joshua Jasper
In article <3228BE...@cyberatl.net>,
Anyone old enough to remember (and be in the job market) during
the cuban missile crisis had a much better chance of getting a job, and
also, ahd less gangs on the street, and also never experienced 'domestic
terrorism' on the scale gen-x ers have. Oh, and as far as nuclear weapons
are concerned, well, consider that there is a _pound_ of plutonium out
there somewhere unaccounted for. If powdered and released into the
atmosphere, we'd _all_ die. End of story. There are also nuclear weapons
in the hand of islamic dictatorships, etc.. etc...
Stress feh. Angst and a loathing for the world we live in
classifys it he hell of alot better.
Sinboy
Ryan Thomason
As far as infinity goes, I try to avoid it. It really is a boring place, and
besides, I'm not a careful driver.
***********************************************
Be not afraid of the night; rather, embrace it,
and love it as a friend, for it
shall be the one to hide all your fears...
***********************************************
Ross TenEyck
Pete Hardie <pha...@cyberatl.net> writes:
>Pierre Kluchert wrote:
>> A lot of people say that generation `X' is is under a lot more pressure than
>> old timers, even though they give you that `walked a thousand miles every
>> day at 1:00 AM to get to school' line. Did they have as many worries as
>Anyone old enough to remember the Cuban Misisle Crisis? And several
>other incidents where WW III was the next step in the escalation?
>Don't tell me about the 'greater stress' of Gen X.
That's nothing. There are still people out there who talk about how
peaceful, idyllic and generally low-stress life was in the Middle Ages...
--
============== http://weber.u.washington.edu/~teneyck/home.html ==============
Ross TenEyck MS Mech Eng | A crow pecks at the wind-tossed scrap of paper,
ten...@u.washington.edu | scavenging between the lines of an old letter;
Tsuki ni kawatte oshioki yo! | he hoards stories like flecks of quartz.
Ross TenEyck
sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) writes:
> Stress feh. Angst and a loathing for the world we live in
>classifys it he hell of alot better.
And angst and loathing are somehow unique to Gen X? I suppose, in a
way, it's a peculiar kind of naivete, to suppose that every preceding
generation of the world lived in an earthly paradise, and only with our
generation has everything gone to hell.
A casual perusing of any decent history book should convince you that
there has *always* been plenty to experience angst and loathing about,
if one is inclined that way... we just happen to be in a period when
angst is fashionable, so you hear a lot more people sharing their inner
torment (translation: "whining") than you did, say, in the fifties.
Xiphias Gladius
Kristen & Bill Keegan <kee...@neca.com> writes:
> This is getting away from gaming, but one further thought: If you've
> seen the film _Escape from LA_, tell me -- would such a film have ended
> in such a way in any _other_ decade but ours?
Dr Strangelove, A Boy and His Dog, to a certain extent, Logan's Run, and
others.
It was a very "sixties" ending. The notion that getting rid of technology
is the best way to curb the excesses of a facist government -- I think
we've seen that before.
- Ian
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
>: >Ah, but what you speak of is an artificial limit imposed on infinity,
>: >which attempts to quantify and symbolize it. However, in your line, there
>: >is space between ( and around ) 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and that is a
>: >measurable space, which can be measured as 1.2, etc.
>:
>: Nope. As a standard mathematical convention, that series means the
>: numbers 1 and 2 and 3 and ... and NOTHING ELSE. You're confusing the
>: idea of a series with the idea of a number line.
>:
>No, I'm not confusing them. I'm simply refusing to accept a difference
>between the truth of the two. All measurments are limits placed on
What do you mean by "the truth of the two ?"
>infinity, and therefore all measurments, being an infinite fraction of
>infinity, are infinite.
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense here. None whatsoever. By your
previous definition of "infinity", this means that all measurements
contain all things, and that leads to absurdity.
>Classification has its basis in human perception.
>The Universe is beyond such things.
The Universe is only what we perceive.
>: >So therefore, the artifcial, non occuring counting numbers are endless,
>: >but not infinite.
>:
>And only exist as an abstraction.
So does everything outside my mind, if you want to carry that argument
to extremes. I have no way of knowing that this computer, for instance,
is real; sensory impulses come from my optical nerves, and more from
what I like to call my fingers, and I invent the abstract concept of a
computer. If you can tell me how this computer is fundamentally less
abstract than the natural numbers, go ahead...
>: >For the purposes of this message, I define infinite as "The complete and
>: >total sum of everything, everywhere, in all dimensions and quantum
>: >realities". Of course, if you would like to help me refine this
>: >definition, I would be happy to learn.
>:
>: There's a difference between "the Infinite" (which means roughly what
>: you're talking about above) and "infinite" (which most definitely does
>: not.) "The Infinite" is certainly infinite, but not all infinite things
>: are "the Infinite."
>:
>infinite things are a subset of The Universe, and so in and of themselves
>are infinite, but are not percieved as such by humanity because of our
Excuse me ? Anything in the universe must be infinite ? You're talking
nonsense here.
>I like the call what you call "The Infinite" The Universe. The Universe is
>everything. Every point in The Universe can be described as a series of
>variables that describe how that point relates to every other point. But
>since points in space are artificial, than The Universe is one entity
Artificial ? As compared to what ?
>Sometimes, I wonder if the Universe is some giant computer, slowly
>computing the solution to some problem.
42.
>Its so odd. Our perceptions are always just the barest fraction of a
>second behind the present, so we continuosly exist in the past.
What is the present, if it's not perceived ? And who says we have to
exist at the same point in time as our perceptions ? If I sit in a
sensory deprivation tank, I don't cease to exist. I still have my
thoughts; although they might have begun with perception, they can
continue without it.
Geoffrey Brent
--
gbr...@rsc.anu.edu.au
Joshua Jasper
In article <50ai9k$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Ross TenEyck <ten...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>sin...@netcom.com (Joshua Jasper) writes:
>
>> Stress feh. Angst and a loathing for the world we live in
>>classifys it he hell of alot better.
>
>And angst and loathing are somehow unique to Gen X? I suppose, in a
>way, it's a peculiar kind of naivete, to suppose that every preceding
>generation of the world lived in an earthly paradise, and only with our
>generation has everything gone to hell.
>
>A casual perusing of any decent history book should convince you that
>there has *always* been plenty to experience angst and loathing about,
>if one is inclined that way... we just happen to be in a period when
>angst is fashionable, so you hear a lot more people sharing their inner
>torment (translation: "whining") than you did, say, in the fifties.
>
things _are_ getting worse, as for that, I pont to cyberpunk. What other
era has spawned such a singularly dystopian literary style?
Sinboy
Geoffrey Schaller
>>> A lot of people say that generation `X' is is under a lot more pressure than
>>> old timers, even though they give you that `walked a thousand miles every
>>> day at 1:00 AM to get to school' line. Did they have as many worries as
>
>>Anyone old enough to remember the Cuban Misisle Crisis? And several
>>other incidents where WW III was the next step in the escalation?
>>Don't tell me about the 'greater stress' of Gen X.
>
>That's nothing. There are still people out there who talk about how
>peaceful, idyllic and generally low-stress life was in the Middle Ages...
Yeah - but that depends on who you were, and life then was more of a
struggle for survival tha it is now - disease, wars, etc. were a lot
more common.
I think it's the KIND of stress that's changing. And each generation
just adapts to their own stresses (and forms of stress release), but
rarely understands the one before (or after).
Anyone ever see the I:NWO card "Every Year is Worse"? That about sums
it up...
--
Geoffrey "Gofe" Schaller "Laugh, and the world laughs with you
g...@global2000.net Weep, and you weep alone.
510 Queen's Drive For the sad old Earth
Schenectady, NY 12304 Must borrow its mirth
(518) 393-8607 But has troubles enough of its own."
http://www.global2000.net/users/gjs
pinocchio
Joshua Jasper <sin...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Of course, there's the singularly beliveable possibility that
>things _are_ getting worse, as for that, I pont to cyberpunk. What other
>era has spawned such a singularly dystopian literary style?
> Sinboy
Kafka, anyone? Oh, wait. He was around at the beginning of the
20th century. Well, how about George Orwell? Whoops. I guess he wasn't
from the 1990's, either. Well, don't let these two minor examples cramp
your point. I'm sure you're right. ;)
--
-----
I wish i was a real boy. joe Nikolaus
jjni...@midway.uchicago.edu