Castle Paradox

[Battleblaze]

As soon as I wave the next flag you guys post more stuff. arg...
_________________
Indy OHR! and National OHR Month Contest going on now!

"Aeth calls PHC an anti-semite; PHC blames anti-semitism"
-squall

[JSH357]

I think the reason Zappa/MrBungle/Slayer songs appeared in the game was because of the composer backing out and Fyre not wanting to have to delay the release.

[Iblis]

I already wrote a review on the game, so I haven't contributed to this thread yet as I couldn't think of anything new to say. I just remembered though one thing I thought was really weird and I forgot to mention in the review: Talvas' group. Who are they? They seem like high-ranking followers of Gahn or something, but they don't seem to have any direct interaction with Gahn in the game that I can remember. Also it was very strange that you meet them once in the beginning, in the second tomb, but then never see them again until the very end. They could've been more interesting foes, but in the end they were just floating characters, connected to nothing. Though I guess this could be on purpose, making their existance vague like that. Doesn't seem like it though.

Also, a point of interest: in the proem, Scarf wields the blade Vonnegut, later used by Rift. You can see this in the equipment menu. Heh, I don't have anything to say about this, just thought it was interesting.

[Rinku]

Regarding the animals and the anthropomorphism: I asked Charbile about this once, because I felt the game had a danger of being wrongly classified as a "furry" game (which it has been), and his response was that he tends to use anthropomorphic characters because they highlight the difference between animals and humans, and because by using animal-people you get an immediate impression of their personality (foxes are sneaky, dogs are loyal, and so on), that they decided on animal-people for the same reason that Aesop used animals in his fables.

Regardning Long Dao's comment on the NPCs, there are a few NPCs who help themselves without help, such as the people in the final town area, or "Charlock", etc.

Regarding the music, I believe they call those tracks "temporary" and plan to replace them one day.

Regarding the differences w/ Rand's philosophy, I'd have to replay it as I haven't played it since it was first released. But I'll go into the ones I remember.

One important difference is that Rand disdained fantasy, felt that the fantasy genre was escapism and that art should be set in either the real world or in a future potential world (as in some sci-fi). She would not have liked this game's setting at all. Personally I disagree with her on this, but I understand why she felt that way: she felt that restricting heroism and adventure to fantasy, instead of keeping them in the real world, caused people to believe that adventure and heroism are things which don't really exist in day-to-day life. And I've come across that response before, people don't really believe that life is as adventerous as in the typical RPG, whereas I (and she) believed that life was even more adventerous than in any novel, game, or movie.

Another important difference is that she believes dishonesty should only be used in emergency situations, such as when Nazi's come knockin' at your door looking for Jews and you're hiding them in your broom closet, and even then only when there's absolutely no other way to save them, and in general espoused a policy of complete and total honesty with everyone, even your enemies. She was against even tiny forms of dishonesty, such as "white lies" (and I agree with her in this). Whereas in SoJ even most of the "good" characters of the game use dishonesty and deception quite freely, even on eachother (such as Mi'la keeping her attraction for Dogero secret). I suspect that's because Charbile and Fyrewulff don't really believe in the total honesty is the best policy idea, and that's fine, they can have their own opinions about it. This isn't to say that Fyre or Char or the heroes of SoJ are "dishonest" or "liars", just that they're not as completely open as Rand believed one should be (best expressed by the famous phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth") -- they keep secrets, reply evasively to questions when they don't want the person to know the full answer, etc. etc. -- I suspect they believe that Rand and I are naive to promote a sort of ideal perfect honesty, but I really don't believe deceiving others or keeping things from them is necessary in any degree, and do believe that it poisons a person's personality to even allow a little of it in to one's words or actions.

There were other differences I noticed while playing but which I've forgotten now over time. When I replay the game I'll get back to you.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Onlyoneinall]

[Iblis]

[Camdog]

Regardless, those strike me as nitpickey examples anyway. I still feel the overall themes, like that of the individual taking precedence over the group, the idea that selfishness is actually beneficial to society, the feeling that beneficiaries of charity are drains on society, etc. were very characteristic of Rand's philosophy. Am I misrepresenting her views? The themes in SoJ? Both?

[Onlyoneinall]

Oh. It is black..ish. It's more gray, but I guess that's why I mistakened it to think it wasn't the same as Rift's.
_________________
http://www.castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=750 Bloodlust Demo 1.00

[Rinku]

"Regardless, those strike me as nitpickey examples anyway. I still feel the overall themes, like that of the individual taking precedence over the group, the idea that selfishness is actually beneficial to society, the feeling that beneficiaries of charity are drains on society, etc. were very characteristic of Rand's philosophy. Am I misrepresenting her views? The themes in SoJ? Both?"

The individual taking precedence over the group is not a new idea. It was a deep belief in ancient Greece and Rome, ancient India, etc. -- it was only after the advent of organized religion that the idea that the group is more important than the individual began to take hold.

Even today, there are hundreds of philosophies which believe the individual takes precedence over the group, Rand's is not alone in this at all. I could offhand name dozens of philosophers who believed that the individual was more important than the group. The strongest and most vocal one about it was Max Stirner. Another strong one was Nietzsche. But even in Locke or Voltaire etc., it's there.

The idea that selfishness is beneficial to the society is not a part of Rand, nor (if I'm remembering correctly) a part of SoJ. The point wasn't that being selfish is beneficial to society. The point is that being selfish is beneficial to *the self*. That's the whole point of selfishness: to be of benefit to yourself. What you might have meant is the belief that selfishness is a moral ideal, that working toward your best interests, and not toward the best interests of others, is ethical. But again, Rand and SoJ aren't alone in believing this. Aristotle did, back in 300 BC or whenever it was he wrote. So did the aforementioned Stirner and Nietzsche. Even Oscar Wilde did (not that he's normally thought of as a philosopher).

The idea that people who accept charity all their lives and make no effort to support themselves are drains on society isn't unique to SoJ or Rand either. The entire Republican party of the United States tend to believe that (they tend to believe the poor parasite off the work of the rich), as does the Communist party (they tend to believe the rich parasite off the work of the poor), and both parties believed it long before SoJ or Rand. I'm sure that even if you go back to ancient Sumeria (the oldest known civilization) you'll find the belief that those who don't work for their keep are a drain on society. It's hardly a unique idea.

But to clarify Rand's position on charity: she was not against charity in those cases when a person had suffered some temporary setback, such as a natural disaster, or was in a state of poverty due to despotic conditions (as in third world countries). She was only against *perpetual* charity, long term over the course of a person's life -- such that a person could survive simply on charity and never have to work a day in their life. She certainly wasn't against all kinds of charity. In fact, many Objectivists are big donators to charity. Angelina Jolie (who is not exactly an Objectivist but is a big fan of Rand and very likely will play Dagny Taggart in the Atlas Shrugged movie) has donated most of the money she's earned in her acting career to helping the war-displaced in Africa. So I do think that the idea that Objectivism is against charity or wants the poor to die of hunger or something is something of a straw-man: Objectivists want the poor to work, and don't believe that wealth should be redistributed by force, but they are all in favor of *voluntary* charity. In other words, Objectivists believe that if you want to give some or all of your money to others, fine and great, but you shouldn't be *forced* to do it, especially because government does it so inefficiently as compared to private charity organizations (such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has so far saved the lives of millions of people and brought the standards of living up for even more people, and done it very efficiently, all without any government involvement and without forcing anyone to donate to them).
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Onlyoneinall]

Lots of philosophy.

[Rinku]

I think it depends on how rich you grew up, really. For instance, if you grew up rich you'd probably know that the taxes on the rich are extremely high (around 70% of their income). It's like, if you worked for 12 months, and only got to keep the money you made in January and February and bits of March, the rest your earnings for that year going to support welfare, you'd feel that the poor were parasiting off you too. So, the idea that the poor parasite off of the rich is common among the rich, and the idea that the rich parasite off the poor is common among the poor. I believe both because I grew up poor but had a few rich friends, and read widely enough that I see the validity of both positions.

It also should be mentioned that in Rand's novels there were also rich parasitic people -- so she wasn't saying that the poor are the only ones who parasite, she was saying that it was the people who rely on the productive efforts of others, whether they be rich, poor, or in-between, who parasite. I don't want to give the impression that she believed that welfare recipients are the only parasites. She did, however, defend the idea that some of the rich actually do deserve their money. And I agree with this. I don't believe that just because someone has a lot of money that they should be resented, provided they earned that money fair and square. But again, this idea isn't unique to Rand, it can be found even in Duck Tales (Scrooge McDuck).

What *was* unique to Rand are things which almost nobody ever talks about, because they tend to be semi-arcane epistemological and aesthetic theories, and her strong promotion and arguments for the classical virtues (including, as I mentioned, honesty). But for some reason everyone focuses on her defense of selfishness and capitalism instead.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Onlyoneinall]

Oy, I knew taxes for rich people were high but 70%? That's friggin insane, even with how much money they make. If the government was more efficent, I would guess taxes wouldn't be as bad? I mean, spending efficently would mean taking less of our money to help out and everything and all.

By the way Rinku, who is Rand? I'm not exactly sure who you're talking about.

"I don't believe that just because someone has a lot of money that they should be resented, provided they earned that money fair and square."

I agree with this too. I'm talking about someone who is benefitting and living the easy life from someone who made all that money earlier, but they've never worked a hard day in their life.
_________________
http://www.castleparadox.com/gamelist-display.php?game=750 Bloodlust Demo 1.00

[Rinku]

"Rand" is Ayn Rand, which if you look back at the first entry in this thread, Camdog accused SoJ of sounding too much like Ayn Rand. Sorry for the confusion.

If you mean who she is in a broader sense, she was an influential 20th century Russian-American novelist and philosopher. If you've heard of Alan Greenspan (the guy who used to be in charge of the World Bank), he was one of her students/friends. Also, another of her students, Nathaniel Branden, started the whole "self-esteem" idea in psychology. Also, the Libertarian Party, which is the largest "third-party" in the United States, was largely inspired by her ideas.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Camdog]

Well, regardless of the uniqueness of those ideas, don't they form a major part of Rand's philosophy?

[Rinku]

Yeah, Charbile has a thing against beggers, so I suspect that element of SoJ was because of that. However, I've known a lot of homeless people over the years, and they *do* tend to have self-defeating behaviors and no desire to work. There are exceptions, but I don't think it'd be unfair to say that at least half of homeless people in the United States are homeless out of choice, not because of any external conditions (but I may be biased, this is from someone who's had an uncle who was homeless most of his life and often showed up drunk to borrow money from my parents all the time). But I agree that "valueless" isn't the right word for people who act like that, it's more that they lack self control. But there are exceptions. In some cases begging is caused by external factors (such as being born in a homeless family, which happens a lot). A good book on the mentality of the homeless is by George Orwell (who also wrote 1984), it's called Down and Out in Paris and London, and is a non-fiction book detailing his life as a tramp, he intentionally lived homelessly with beggars for a year and reported his observations.

The 70% is not just income tax: you have to realize that people aren't just taxed one way. There's federal income tax, property tax, state sales tax, state income tax, etc. etc. -- all of those together add up to 70% if you make more than a million dollars a year. If you only make about 25,000$ a year (about the average) it only adds up to about 35%. If you make below 8000$ a year or so, and don't own land, the only tax you pay is sales tax. Interestingly, this means that even the middle class of this country are more highly taxed than serfs were in the middle ages.

I liked the Fountainhead better, but liked both. If you didn't enjoy the Fountainhead, it might be better to wait for the Atlas Shrugged movie(s) to see if you'd like Atlas Shrugged. The main difference between the two is that the Fountainhead was on the individual level and AS was on the social level -- for instance, in the Fountainhead there was really only one hero (Roark), a few mixed (Wynand and Dominique), whereas in AS there are dozens of people like Roark. It has many more characters and is more epic in scope (much like War and Peace), but this has a cost in that it has less characterization.

As for whether selfishness and capitalism made up a lot of her philosophy, the answer is: only in the novels. The Fountainhead is primarily about selfishness, Atlas Shrugged is primarily about capitalism, but her non-fiction works (which make up the bulk of her writing) are on all kinds of topics. She wrote a book on aesthetics, a book on concept-formation, a book on how to write fiction, a long essay on philosophical history and the connection between the dominant philosophy and world history (for instance, on why she believed Kant was the cause of World War 2), and a wide range of essays, from the property status of air waves to stamp collecting. So I suspect that because her novels are more popular people focus on the issues she raised in those novels the most. But this doesn't mean that those issues were the most important to her philosophy. She felt that the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of her philosophy were much more essential, and that her conclusions in ethics and politics could only be understood if you understood those first. During the course of my moderation of an Ayn Rand LiveJournal community, I've come across many "Objectivists" (quotes intentional) who only read her two large novels and nothing of her nonfiction, and they have a completely different (usually very shallow) understanding of Objectivism than those that have read her non-fiction works, and are quite annoying if I must say. One thing that's important to realize is that Rand did not consider her novels to be part of her philosophy, they were her novels, they did contain some of her philosophical premises, but still, they're just novels, not philosophy.
_________________
Tower Defense Game