TheNoob
Dank Memes
I seem to recall some mrrandomplayer saying he would join my America story once his finals were done...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
.
- Thread starter GreekAnalyzer
- Start date
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
I've noticed a trend on this forum. The vast majority of people RP as a liberal in stories. We need some more people to rp as conservatives to keep stories interesting and not unanimous decisions for everything.
Remember that RP you is not actual you.
Have a good day
This was a public service announcement from the Better Stories and Tales Bureau (BSTB).
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Remember that RP you is not actual you.
Have a good day
This was a public service announcement from the Better Stories and Tales Bureau (BSTB).
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
TheNoob
Dank Memes
I've noticed a trend on this forum. The vast majority of people RP as a liberal in stories. We need some more people to rp as conservatives to keep stories interesting and not unanimous decisions for everything.
Remember that RP you is not actual you.
Have a good day
This was a public service announcement from the Better Stories and Tales Bureau (BSTB).
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I would just like to second this motion.
Niccolo Edwards
Looking busy
I've noticed a trend on this forum. The vast majority of people RP as a liberal in stories. We need some more people to rp as conservatives to keep stories interesting and not unanimous decisions for everything.
Remember that RP you is not actual you.
Have a good day
This was a public service announcement from the Better Stories and Tales Bureau (BSTB).
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I would like to third this motion. I've got a fairly conservative character right now (America: Home of the Brave) though.
I've noticed a trend on this forum. The vast majority of people RP as a liberal in stories. We need some more people to rp as conservatives to keep stories interesting and not unanimous decisions for everything.
Remember that RP you is not actual you.
Have a good day
This was a public service announcement from the Better Stories and Tales Bureau (BSTB).
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Fourth!
I did that in Citis's Russia story with my character. Also, after the Socialist uprising in RT's original America story, I did that too to some extent.
TheNoob
Dank Memes
I would love some more people in my America story 
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
adhiraj.bose
Deity
Forget Liberals, forget conservatives, forget any political loyalty. How about we have a completely unprincipled conspirator who'll join anybody to further his ambition ? xD
Any politician?
TheNoob
Dank Memes
Niccolo Edwards
Looking busy
As this is a Stories [and Tales] Subforum I have a question to pose about stories and media in general.
What does everyone here think of the capacity of stories to deal in no-win moral situations? That is a situation in which none of the sides are truly moral, right or righteous.
I think a major problem with doing this is that most of us like to think in terms of "black-and-white"; we like binary choices, in this case, between good and bad. Even when we eliminate this though (see, House of Cards, Game of Thrones) and introduce shifting morality and/or non-binary morality we still like to have characters that we clearly can/should be opposed to (Joffery/Lanisters in Game of Thrones, etc.) and wish for them to eventually lose. This doesn't necessarily reflect reality though. A number of conflicts (both in the military sense of the term and pretty much every other type of conflict) are started by two or more parties, each with intentions that conflict or they are drawn into a conflict by other means, despite all (or almost all) parties being morally and righteously equal.
In summary the question I'm asking is: Can the various storytelling media portray a conflict without one side being in any way morally superior to the other(s)?
What does everyone here think of the capacity of stories to deal in no-win moral situations? That is a situation in which none of the sides are truly moral, right or righteous.
I think a major problem with doing this is that most of us like to think in terms of "black-and-white"; we like binary choices, in this case, between good and bad. Even when we eliminate this though (see, House of Cards, Game of Thrones) and introduce shifting morality and/or non-binary morality we still like to have characters that we clearly can/should be opposed to (Joffery/Lanisters in Game of Thrones, etc.) and wish for them to eventually lose. This doesn't necessarily reflect reality though. A number of conflicts (both in the military sense of the term and pretty much every other type of conflict) are started by two or more parties, each with intentions that conflict or they are drawn into a conflict by other means, despite all (or almost all) parties being morally and righteously equal.
In summary the question I'm asking is: Can the various storytelling media portray a conflict without one side being in any way morally superior to the other(s)?
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Yes, it is possible to achieve this, here's an example.
The best way to avoid that is to create someone with strong traits that either make him loved or hated by the audience without trying to push them one way or another; one example of this is Aaron Burr or Alexander Hamilton in the play Hamilton. One may see one as a good person and the other as bad for what they did, and this is brilliant writing on the part of Lin-Manuel Miranda. By managing to write the play in a specific way, he let the audience decide the morality of the characters. Even then, though, the people still do decide on a morality in their own minds. Before the play was written, more people disliked Burr than Hamilton, simply because they only saw Burr as a murderer at that very moment, and were not entirely aware of all of the proceedings. (The play did embellish Aaron Burr a little bit more than his real life counterpart, but this is about the writing, not real life.) In the play Aaron Burr is portrayed as someone that takes his time, and is shown to be more than just the killer of Alexander Hamilton. He has very strong traits, strong emotions, and strong interactions with other characters. He is shown to have flaws, such as loving a woman who is married to a British officer and possibly swaying with the political winds as they change. Hamilton is not shown as just some brilliant man that helped to strengthen America's economy. He is shown as a man with faults, such as cheating on his wife, and being impatient, fiery, and prideful. These traits give them faults, and thus keep them from being morally perfect. To offset this, both have strong love for their children and both have tragic stories to garner sympathy (Burr was born pretty well off but his parents died and so did his wife, Hamilton was born in squalor, his parents, son, friend, and many others died). They also have little traits that make them likeable.
In one of the last scene's the duel between Hamilton and Burr, it's not seen as an act of aggression by either one, but as something that could have been defused by either but wasn't purely based on principle. As the duel is about to commence Burr states that "this man will not make an orphan of my daughter", giving him possible justification to not let Hamilton shoot him. There's a scene where, as the bullet travels to Hamilton, he reflects on his life, making people feel emotions for him as well, and finally, at the end, Hamilton refuses to shoot and raises his gun at the sky, sealing his fate. In Burr's final lines of the play he seems to have regret, but whether he actually does is still debatable, as his lines are vague.
By showing both Burr and Hamilton as flawed but loveable characters that are not morally superior to the other. Personally I think Hamilton was the better of the two, but I know most of my friends disagree with me, pointing out his infidelity.
I know this was long, but the overall point was to agree with what Niccolo Edwards said. It is possible to create two (or more) sides that are not inherently morally superior. However, they need to have strong traits, otherwise they will simply be bland. While the writer maybe ought not to create a side that is morally above the others (sometimes it is necessary for story-telling), they do need to create multiple sides to which the readers can latch onto.
Sorry for the text block, I sort of got carried away.
(Edit: I should talk about cases where moral superiority can be necessary.
There can be multiple reasons for moral superiority in writing, the biggest of these I have seen is justification One instance used by Miranda in Hamilton is when King George III is shown as an almost misogynistic boyfriend of America in his songs. He makes the audience hate his stance and his attitude(his character is hilarious), thus giving justification for the American Revolution. It is used in the song "Stay Alive", where Charles Lee is portrayed as a bumbling fool of a general and publicly denounces General Washington who is shown as pretty morally upright. His denunciation of Washington, which is meant to upset the audience, gives justification for John Laurens to duel Charles Lee. At no point does the majority of the audience want Charles Lee to win the duel, and this is due to making him morally inferior to Washington and the others.
If a writer needs to create justification for something, moral inferiority is one of the best ways to do it. Why hate the KKK? They're racist bigots that don't tolerate anything but heterosexual, Protestant Anglo-Saxons. If we didn't already know about the KKK and it wasn't shown that they are bigots, then there would be no reason to hate them, and no reason to try and eliminate them. This can be used in more subtle ways to get a specific character to be disliked instead of just branding them "RACIST" or something of the sort. Anyways, there are cases where polarizing morals is good for writing a story.)
The best way to avoid that is to create someone with strong traits that either make him loved or hated by the audience without trying to push them one way or another; one example of this is Aaron Burr or Alexander Hamilton in the play Hamilton. One may see one as a good person and the other as bad for what they did, and this is brilliant writing on the part of Lin-Manuel Miranda. By managing to write the play in a specific way, he let the audience decide the morality of the characters. Even then, though, the people still do decide on a morality in their own minds. Before the play was written, more people disliked Burr than Hamilton, simply because they only saw Burr as a murderer at that very moment, and were not entirely aware of all of the proceedings. (The play did embellish Aaron Burr a little bit more than his real life counterpart, but this is about the writing, not real life.) In the play Aaron Burr is portrayed as someone that takes his time, and is shown to be more than just the killer of Alexander Hamilton. He has very strong traits, strong emotions, and strong interactions with other characters. He is shown to have flaws, such as loving a woman who is married to a British officer and possibly swaying with the political winds as they change. Hamilton is not shown as just some brilliant man that helped to strengthen America's economy. He is shown as a man with faults, such as cheating on his wife, and being impatient, fiery, and prideful. These traits give them faults, and thus keep them from being morally perfect. To offset this, both have strong love for their children and both have tragic stories to garner sympathy (Burr was born pretty well off but his parents died and so did his wife, Hamilton was born in squalor, his parents, son, friend, and many others died). They also have little traits that make them likeable.
In one of the last scene's the duel between Hamilton and Burr, it's not seen as an act of aggression by either one, but as something that could have been defused by either but wasn't purely based on principle. As the duel is about to commence Burr states that "this man will not make an orphan of my daughter", giving him possible justification to not let Hamilton shoot him. There's a scene where, as the bullet travels to Hamilton, he reflects on his life, making people feel emotions for him as well, and finally, at the end, Hamilton refuses to shoot and raises his gun at the sky, sealing his fate. In Burr's final lines of the play he seems to have regret, but whether he actually does is still debatable, as his lines are vague.
By showing both Burr and Hamilton as flawed but loveable characters that are not morally superior to the other. Personally I think Hamilton was the better of the two, but I know most of my friends disagree with me, pointing out his infidelity.
I know this was long, but the overall point was to agree with what Niccolo Edwards said. It is possible to create two (or more) sides that are not inherently morally superior. However, they need to have strong traits, otherwise they will simply be bland. While the writer maybe ought not to create a side that is morally above the others (sometimes it is necessary for story-telling), they do need to create multiple sides to which the readers can latch onto.
Sorry for the text block, I sort of got carried away.
(Edit: I should talk about cases where moral superiority can be necessary.
There can be multiple reasons for moral superiority in writing, the biggest of these I have seen is justification One instance used by Miranda in Hamilton is when King George III is shown as an almost misogynistic boyfriend of America in his songs. He makes the audience hate his stance and his attitude(his character is hilarious), thus giving justification for the American Revolution. It is used in the song "Stay Alive", where Charles Lee is portrayed as a bumbling fool of a general and publicly denounces General Washington who is shown as pretty morally upright. His denunciation of Washington, which is meant to upset the audience, gives justification for John Laurens to duel Charles Lee. At no point does the majority of the audience want Charles Lee to win the duel, and this is due to making him morally inferior to Washington and the others.
If a writer needs to create justification for something, moral inferiority is one of the best ways to do it. Why hate the KKK? They're racist bigots that don't tolerate anything but heterosexual, Protestant Anglo-Saxons. If we didn't already know about the KKK and it wasn't shown that they are bigots, then there would be no reason to hate them, and no reason to try and eliminate them. This can be used in more subtle ways to get a specific character to be disliked instead of just branding them "RACIST" or something of the sort. Anyways, there are cases where polarizing morals is good for writing a story.)
Niccolo Edwards
Looking busy
That wall of text is actually greatly appreciated (I like walls of text for some reason) and your answer was great.
Obviously sometimes you have to have characters who are on a different moral level from the POV of the story and/or are polarizing characters. I cannot deny that they can be (and often are) important in driving the plot.
Personally though if you're going to have polarizing characters I'd like to see different moral systems (or at least individual morals) forced into conflict, but forced together as mutual goals are the same. i.e. Group A has moral system A that conflicts with Group B's moral system B. Group C's moral system C though is in conflict with both moral system A and B. Thus Groups A and B are forced to work together which brings their moral systems into conflict, despite this moral system C is still the larger conflict between the two. If we consider moral systems A and B to be equal before the audience (both have positives and negatives to the audience's collective morals) then the conflict between the two is present despite the threat of moral system C. Thus, moral system C (the polarizing one) has forced A and B together and into conflict. I think forced conflict, while both sides try to create a solution (even if temporary and only to last as long as mutual goals are present) is far more intriguing then just conflict while both sides seek victory.
Obviously sometimes you have to have characters who are on a different moral level from the POV of the story and/or are polarizing characters. I cannot deny that they can be (and often are) important in driving the plot.
Personally though if you're going to have polarizing characters I'd like to see different moral systems (or at least individual morals) forced into conflict, but forced together as mutual goals are the same. i.e. Group A has moral system A that conflicts with Group B's moral system B. Group C's moral system C though is in conflict with both moral system A and B. Thus Groups A and B are forced to work together which brings their moral systems into conflict, despite this moral system C is still the larger conflict between the two. If we consider moral systems A and B to be equal before the audience (both have positives and negatives to the audience's collective morals) then the conflict between the two is present despite the threat of moral system C. Thus, moral system C (the polarizing one) has forced A and B together and into conflict. I think forced conflict, while both sides try to create a solution (even if temporary and only to last as long as mutual goals are present) is far more intriguing then just conflict while both sides seek victory.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
As it stands, most moral conflicts in this sub-forum will be involving political ideologies. In most political systems there are various factions that, despite their differences, work together to fight against a common enemy, forming coalitions. I've noticed, though, that there is only so much a writer can do for that. At a certain point the writer can no longer control certain aspects to get the desired effects, and has to hope that the readers interact in a significant manner. The best current case for this would be Noyyau's story where the readers that interact do so in a manner that makes the story interesting. In a lot of stories the writer has to do a majority of the work, and in others the writer is more of a taxi driver, getting told where to go and finding the best way there. The latter is what leads to true conflict like what is seen in the real world. In the story "America: Write Your Own History", the original one, that was what happened. For most of it the people were involved, but not on an extreme degree. As soon as socialism was presented (and I threw a wrench into everything and helped to add to the chaos), everything began to swirl into conflict. People began to forge alliances they wouldn't have otherwise to fight for or against the rise of communism in America. Years after the story has ended, a discussion about the cause of the collapse of America can get extremely heated. That story is the extreme case of what can happen when two moral sides can get into conflict.
In a direct comment on what you're saying, for that to be achieved it would have to be steered properly by the author in an interactive story (which can drive away interest), would have to happen by pure luck, or the story would have to not be interactive.
Going off on a tangent, I've only just noticed how many stories are interactive in this forum. I think that may be one reason that interactivity has decreased, because there are so many things to interact with. A long time ago there was a higher AAR to IAAR ratio, leading to a higher proportion of people in IAARs. Now IAARs are more popular, leading to less involvement. The less involvement is also due to just a general decline in people on the forum. I've only recently come back actually. It's hard to believe that, at one point a few years ago I posted here 14 times a day. That's not an exaggeration either, that's what my post count was. That's how I was able to get to over six thousand votes in such a short time when veterans of the forum only have a couple thousand.
Anyways, this block was much more tangential than my last one, sorry about that. I've just noticed a few things as they've been changing over the course of the last two and a half years.
In a direct comment on what you're saying, for that to be achieved it would have to be steered properly by the author in an interactive story (which can drive away interest), would have to happen by pure luck, or the story would have to not be interactive.
Going off on a tangent, I've only just noticed how many stories are interactive in this forum. I think that may be one reason that interactivity has decreased, because there are so many things to interact with. A long time ago there was a higher AAR to IAAR ratio, leading to a higher proportion of people in IAARs. Now IAARs are more popular, leading to less involvement. The less involvement is also due to just a general decline in people on the forum. I've only recently come back actually. It's hard to believe that, at one point a few years ago I posted here 14 times a day. That's not an exaggeration either, that's what my post count was. That's how I was able to get to over six thousand votes in such a short time when veterans of the forum only have a couple thousand.
Anyways, this block was much more tangential than my last one, sorry about that. I've just noticed a few things as they've been changing over the course of the last two and a half years.
TheNoob
Dank Memes
I know I haven't written in a while; I haven't given up (like usual lol). The German I hosted last year flew in about a week ago and he's staying until the 29th. Still playing Civ (not my America story atm because that's kind of a play-per-update basis), but I just don't have the time to write
Niccolo Edwards
Looking busy
Me when my boss asks me to go to an airport and wait for thirteen hours because "We may have an issue regarding the [redacted]. Just go wait, I'll call you as soon as I can."
As it turns out "may" meant we absolutely have a (colossal) problem, someone is probably going to end up being sued for millions of dollars and we weren't informed (my firm doesn't deal with law suits outside of some settlement negotiation, but it's still probably something we should be informed/aware of). And "as soon as I can" turns out to be not very soon at all. To be fair he was busy (we all are and this is just going to screw us up even more) and I was at least able to have a phone conference with a few individuals to get something done while I waited.
So anyway I'm probably not going to be able to get online until at least Monday, until then enjoy the weekend.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
Has the crisis ended?
Niccolo Edwards
Looking busy
Right now it's a yes and no. We've talked most of the parties down, but there are still a few that won't listen to reason and all our meetings with the one's that even bother to show up feel rather like the Cold War where a single wrong word could probably send someone (followed shortly by everyone else) back on the warpath. I've only got a few more people that I need to chase down, then my job will be done and I'll hand it off to other people from my firm so they can wrap it up in a little bow for the other lawyers (who honestly should have dealt with it in the first place). My guess is that It'll be handed off to company's legal division and/or their regular firm by the end of the week. I'll be headed back to Europe to deal with some more of the fallout from Brexit.
CaterpillarKing
Conqueror of Cacoons
While it sounds nice to be able to travel, I imagine you don't get to experience a lot of the places you go to with all the work you have to do?
