The upsetting thing about Gamer Girl shame is that it has again thrown into doubt the legitimacy of what women are doing; however, men in gaming are allowed to do as they are wont without the same prejudice.
Once again, gender bias rears its ugly head in an attempt to inform women, “You are different and do not belong.” To which I say, “No. I know who I am. And no one else can dictate otherwise.”
I am writing this from my phone, so it is likely neither to be eloquent nor quotable. And this one is all about ME guys - apologies for the grandiosity.
In thinking about character concepts for online roleplay, I think about the one I currently (and almost exclusively) play.
- Who has been referred to as an “unerring good guy”
- Who often wanders into trouble (and not by mistake)
- Who spends more effort getting OUT of situations than INTO them
- Finally, who gets weak knees for heroes, but will never go for the prize
This is completely converse to the Evil Is as Evil Does character who was my focus in my last MMO.
She:
- Spent more effort getting others into situations and almost never had to back away (she always had the last word)
- Was referred to as the server’s ultimate Wit and Witch with a capital you know what
- Directed others toward trouble and traps she would create
- Thought all personal connections were rubbish
Is this the converse of evil vs good characters I am seeing, or did I just take a complete 180 on The Ebon Hawk in SWTOR from my World of Warcraft server and there’s no correlation?
I am only asking, because I want to try my hand at Evil again … But I am curious if others have had the same experience? I have run Wile E Coyote type evil characters as well, with similar general results.
The only quote/unquote good characters I play are Tabletop. Everything else online is either morally ambiguous to just plain mean. SWTOR is really my first try at playing nice nice.
I think I like it.
Amazing. Innit?
(via wilwheaton)
In the realm of child psychology, development tends to go a certain way. The child experiences the world in a series of patterns, learning, and experiences that bring the child up in the world to be an adult. This allows for normal brain development - most children go through this in the quote unquote normal patterns (barring severe mental illness or developmental disorder).
People such as Piaget, Erikson, and other child psychologists have come up with theories to explain how the child learns and reasons their way through the years - sometimes literally measuring out their situation as they ”play” by themselves.
What happens, then, when you add the apocalypse into the mix?
Carl Grimes of The Walking Dead fame (borne of the comic book, and now made famous in Chandler Riggs’ portrayal of the character in the AMC television show) may be in conflict with Erikson’s theories of cognitive development, and might be running afoul of Kohlberg’s moral development theory stages.
Erikson designed developmental theory along the cognitive spectrum, also involving social groups (which neither Freud nor Piaget really touched upon) as a means of developing cognition and belonging withing the world around them. His theory is embraced by Social Workers (hooray!).
Carl Grimes seems in direct conflict with either of the two Erikson stages in which he could be standing in at this point (depending on whether he is 11 or 12 years of age). I will concentrate on the Industry vs Inferiority stage of development (see the stages here): existing between 6 and 11 years of age, where a child is typically in school. This stage of development usually has to do with a child’s sense of belonging, and their sense of doing what contributory in a social setting.
His sense of Industry is strong vis a vis The Group; however, in terms of his family, namely his father, his sense of Inferiority bears some weight. Whereas an Erikson Psychologist might argue that Carl’s continued success in terms of the group and continued growth would lead to his sense of Industry - Rick’s lack of attention to his son (due to Rick’s mental state) could have a lasting impression.
Which brings me to Kohlberg. Kohlberg was a developmental theorist concentrating on morality. He theorized 6 stages initially, eventually breaking it down to 5 practical stages in which human beings can exist. Children usually will go through these stages, as they age, sometimes stopping along the way.
Do we even want to discuss morality during an apocalypse where people such as The Governor seem to run the show?
Carl Grimes, at a re-glance seems to be doing relatively well. Existing while running along side of Stage Three of Kohlberg’s Moral Development (see the stages here.): Good Interpersonal Relationships - Carl wishes to be seen as a relatively good kid. He wishing to be seen as an asset to the group, and someone who has something to give. In other words, he means well.
The majority of the remaining members of the show, however, seem to exist along Stage Two of Kohlberg’s Moral Development line: Individualism & Exchange - the sort of “You Scratch My Back; I’ll Scratch Yours” mentality. The give and take exchange. Take that as you will.
In all, regardless of the show’s attempt to highlight Lori and Rick’s lack of parenting skills, Carl Grimes has shown himself to be a rather industrious and well rounded young man. How this affects him as he becomes older, remains to be seen. As an ensemble cast show, as The Walking Dead is, we may never get to see into the mind of an “adult Carl” as it were. And hell, I missed yesterday’s episode, so the kid may well not be in the show anymore.
What remains to be seen, if Carl is still in the show, is how he continues to react to the stimuli brought forth to him as the world continues to march on its literal death march. Continue on, Carl Grimes. Continue on.
DISCLAIMER: This is all said tongue in cheek of course, as I am not diagnosing someone in a television show, just waxing philosophic on child developmental stages in terms of a convenient apocalyptic example in Carl Grimes. This is not meant to be taken as any sort of truth in text, or any sort of hardline ‘gospel’ as it were. Whereas I am a mental health professional, I am discussing a fictitious character in a hypothetical situation.
None of this is should be taken as true. Just theory.
However, if you found it entertaining or a good read, and I hope you did. Thanks! I hope you have a lovely day.
(Source: redd.it, via wilwheaton)
When you come into an MMORPG to roleplay, you come into it with expectations. You want this class or this species to be this certain way. We all know that we do this, although each of our individual expectations of our own characters’ and species’ and class’ behaviors may be different from how those of others’ participate in their own individual adventures.
However, sometimes there is strife on how this person is to behave here, or that person is to behave there. Forum wars have been fought over this, tears have been shed, and there have sometimes been rampant plagues of /gquits. It’s a crazy world that Internet, but it’s really not all that different from our own.
Communities in MMORPG roleplay servers, just like neighborhoods in real life, do not come with Who-Ville like camaraderie where everyone gets along in the end, and invite The Grinch down to carve the roast beast. Some roleplayers will not jive with others, and this is fine. This is why roleplay pods and cliques exist, so that people can have a sense of belonging amongst like-minded others.
Cliques, guilds, insulation, things such as this are sometimes healthy for roleplay as it allows for certain pods to form where (as stated above) those who wish to roleplay with their friend-groups and only those can remain to do so, while the more ‘social butterfly’ characters can flit about between groups and do as they are wont regardless of sectioning off behaviors. It is normal for this to occur in any society, and a roleplay server is a society, just as is anywhere else what houses an amount of people for a sustained period of time.
So the next time you hear someone cry out against: This sort of insular behavior is bad for our precious server, think to yourself - how is this different from human behavior? It is not. How is this different from simian behavior? It is not. We have a very long and sordid history of breaking off in like-minded groups and hovering there. This is why we develop friendships. This is why we develop pods and teams.
With a little recreation, and a little social science, it’s amazing what sort of wonders we can come up with: Microcosms of reality, all wrapped up in imagination.
Wild, huh?
I live in Ohio.
We’re a convenient state.
We pop into being every 3-4 years or so & then fade again into American geographic obscurity.
(Unless you’re into sports, in which case, you really only remember Ohio for scandals & losing things with extravagance.)
—Lemony Snicket (via phytos)
(Source: blue-voids)
Windows & Icicles.
—Mark Waid, on the creation of INSUFFERABLE (and also giving some print-this-out-and-hang-it-on-the-wall-where-you-work advice for writers.)
(Source: wilwheaton)
