Name, Job, Bye: Matthew Weise Discusses The Ultima Series
Ultima fan and Video Game Writers podcaster Kristen Maxwell shot me the following tweet yesterday:
@ultimaaiera a big long podcast with a respected games scholar, chatting about the greatness of Ultima: j.mp/zgWE5p
— Kristen Maxwell (@kristen_maxwell) February 6, 2012
The link in question goes to this Prattle podcast, in which gaming archaeologist Matthew Weise of MIT-Singapore’s Gambit Game Lab speaks with the folks at Prattle — the podcast for Video Game Writers — about the Ultima games.
Have a listen, Dragons and Dragonettes; the MP3 of the podcast can be downloaded from the Prattle website, and also listened to there. Or you can get it on iTunes, if that’s your thing.
I especially liked the critique of Bioware’s binary morality system in the podcast.
Thanks for sharing! I neglected to SPECIFICALLY mention UDIC on the cast– something i will remedy on our inevitable follow-up. i don’t recall my UDIC code, but i still cherish my UDIC name: Vortex Dragon!
Wow. That is an incredibly in-depth meditation of Ultima. These guys get really into the themes and narrative concepts as well as the gameplay, which tends to get a lot of the press. Two thumbs up for matching my perceptions of Ultima almost right the smeg on.
The only quibble I have is their hostility to people of faith. I can understand where they’re coming from given their background (they both mention a highly conservative environment as they grew up) and I get why they’re attracted to the humanism of the Ultima virtues, but Christians are equally capable of perceiving the depth and complexity of morality and virtue as the series developed from U4 on. It just comes from a different perspective.
Ouch, why all this hate for poor Ultima IX. It came out like it did because of an ever worsening bad situation.
The fundamental story is actually quite good, probably not as strong as U5 or U6, but still a decent Ultima. Then again, the execution ended up so terrible, that story is almost completely lost in the actual game.
No, the story was just… weak. It was an Ultima plot but a stripped down Ultima plot mated with pared back spoken dialogue. That compounded with the obvious continuity issues that the gentlemen mentioned. It wasn’t deep. It didn’t plumb the themes these guys have so eloquently talked about. It was… kind of the children’s cassette tape version of a long, involved movie.
I agree that they made the best of a tough situation, but that doesn’t mean I can’t judge the game on its merits or, as I said in another post, against the weight of the rest of the Ultima canon. And my judgment remains: it’s an ok game once patched but a weak Ultima; worthy maybe of a side development, but not as part of the canon proper.
And yet, part of the canon it is. I think we’re long past the point where we can escape that reality. If Ultima 8, which even Garriott acknowledges as quite possibly the weakest point in the series, counts for canon, then Ultima 9 must count as well, since even in its weakness it is still the better entry in the series of the two.
I’m with Iceblade here, in general. It’s not the best Ultima — clearly, that was Ultima 6, followed closely by Serpent Isle. But I’d argue that for all its problems, it is somewhat more respectful of canon than Ultima 7, at least in the important details. Oh, it muddles a lot of the small stuff…sure. Granted. But I find Ultima 7…difficult to abide, once I see the ruin and disrepair that has befallen the shrines, and once I note the way that its entire narrative largely pushes the Virtues, so important in Ultimas of the past, into (if not beyond) the margins. In Ultima 9, they’re back. Not at their best, sure…but better than in what many regard as the high point of the series.
However…
Here, I quite agree, Bedwyr. But the more I read, the more I realize that there is — and then at many levels — a kind of conceited opinion which sets itself against Christians that permeates much of the history of Ultima. More than a few design choices Garriott himself made were seemingly calculated to get a rise out of socially conservative elements within American society, and in particular Christian social conservatives. So while it’s disappointing that the folks in the podcast can’t help but have a chuckle at the expense of a particular class of believers (of whom I am one, note!), it’s also not exactly surprising.
Personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of the Ultima Virtues as an actual life philosophy, though I respect their place in the series’ lore. A genuinely inspired system of virtues, deep and complex in its description of what is moral, shouldn’t be rife with internal contradictions that set the various tenets against each other in an orgy of mutual contradiction.
What I think people miss in Ultima IX (and the series as a whole) is the message that even the best of intentions can cause catastrophic results of which the Guardian is the worst. Another aspect that is missed but is actually explicitly stated is that Britannia has become too much reliant upon the Avatar to fix things and that the quest of the Avatar had failed at a fundamental level – the Avatar was not an example to follow but the ultimate errand boy for problems big and small. “You’re supposed to be out there fixing things.”
Part of Ultima IX was getting people to do good deeds for themselves and others rather than expect the Avatar (or some hero) to do it for them. Unfortunately, the execution of this fell way short and is lost on almost all players it seems.
American adults acting like perpetually rebellious teenagers, news at eleven.
“SCREW YOU, DAD!!”
But I find Ultima 7…difficult to abide, once I see the ruin and disrepair that has befallen the shrines, and once I note the way that its entire narrative largely pushes the Virtues, so important in Ultimas of the past, into (if not beyond) the margins.
Of course that’s part of the game’s point. As Garriot has said: “The central subtext of the story to Ultima VII is that, when the fabric of society becomes weak, it’s very easy to have evil inflict itself on you”
I do agree though that the game could have used maybe a bit of sociological backstory explaining just what had happened to the virtues in the past 200 years.
This, yes.
But more than that too. Even the Avatar, steeped in the Virtues so thoroughly as to make for one hell of a strong tea, utterly discards the use of the shrines and (in most cases) appeals to these hallowed principles of the land.
Which just doesn’t make sense to me. Even if the general populace has fallen away from the Virtues, shouldn’t the Avatar still maintain them, since s/he is their champion?
“And yet, part of the canon it is. I think we’re long past the point where we can escape that reality. If Ultima 8, which even Garriott acknowledges as quite possibly the weakest point in the series, counts for canon, then Ultima 9 must count as well, since even in its weakness it is still the better entry in the series of the two.”
I’ll put it this way, I can get behind the general thrust of the story (the 30 second elevator pitch) but contend that the execution was poor because it dealt with the themes in such a chock-a-block, ham handed way. Ultima 8 had a similar problem in that there was a narrative trying to get out but was limited by poor design choices rather than stop-start development and the sudden desire to go full voice, full 3-d before storage and processing were ready to handle it.
“More than a few design choices Garriott himself made were seemingly calculated to get a rise out of socially conservative elements within American society, and in particular Christian social conservatives.”
Funny thing, I also come from a historian’s family as well as a Christian one. Something that social conservatives often miss is that Garriott’s concepts have very very deep roots in enlightenment thought. In fact I’d say the country’s concepts of a “public religion” through at least the 20th century have been very close to Garriott’s and enlightenment virtues, embodying concepts of natural law and, in the case of many founding fathers, a “natural God” as opposed to a Christian God.
Well, the Avatar is basically a silent protagonist. Clicking keywords isn’t really making your opinion known.
Hi! Just wanted to pipe in on the religious topic.
Yeah, we were rough to religion in the podcast, and that was obviously motivated by our respective upbringings. For the record, I know plenty of nice, intelligent Christians, both liberal and conservative.
I don’t think a look at history teaches you anything other than tyrannical dogmatism can corrupt any philosophy, no matter how good. You can be a Communist and still basically be a religious zealot (Lenin), and you can be a Muslim and still be a laid back dude with gay friends.
I don’t believe bigoted behavior is a feature of what you believe so much as how you practice what you believe. That’s why I’m not an essentialist atheist, and I don’t believe the world would be better of religion were eradicated. Dogmatism is everyone, not just in religion.
That said, I had a pretty fucked up experience with some pretty fucked up people, so when I meet someone else who can related to that I tend to vent, which I think is pretty natural. But my off-handed sarcasm didn’t really make clear my larger feelings on the subject, so I wanted to better articulate them here.
Hi Matthew!
It has been my experience that this is typically the case. It’s also a road I very nearly went down during my adolescent years, before I realized that rejecting wrong-headed and irrational people didn’t necessarily have to entail rejecting the philosophies and beliefs they were incapable of articulating correctly.
The trick, of course, is differentiating between a tenet/teaching/dogma/philosophy that is articulated in a way that is wrong (whether that means “wrong” in the sense of a murderous extreme or “wrong” in the sense of an idiotic articulation) and a tenet/teaching/dogma/philosophy that is actually wrong in and of itself.
(To take the most basic example I can think of: if I beat someone up because he disagrees with me that “2 plus 2 equals 4”, I am wrong to do so, but 2+2 does in fact equal 4. If I beat someone up because she disagrees with me that “2 plus 2 equals 5”, then I am again wrong, but so is the teaching I am espousing.)
Perhaps it’s just my own bitter experience as one who has debated on these topics online for too many years already, but the first thing that comes to my mind upon reading this is: “Hey, I have a lot of black friends!”
That probably wasn’t your intent, and no, I don’t think of you as an anti-religious bigot. Maybe, as I say, it’s just me and my own bitter experience…but I think the “hey, I know lots of X” defense is one that has largely run its course and passed into the realm of irrelevance. Or I’ve heard it too many times from people who’ve said far worse things, as an attempt to make their very real bigotry seem tempered by reason.
Let’s just move on.
This is true. Any tenet, teaching, dogma, or philosophy carried to extremes can have utterly horrific consequences, as the gulags, concentration camps, and mass graves have attested to far too many times in history.
This is the realization I had to come to in my adolescense, attended by another realization: that I didn’t have to throw the baby (the real and good fruits of a rational faith) out with the bathwater (the utterly inadequate catechesis I received growing up and the moral & philosophical mushiness espoused by much of my family).
It is a very natural response, which is in many respects the problem. Such things tend to go down almost to the level of instinct, if not all the way down to that level, and often we fall into them without first passing our thoughts, emotions, and words through the part of our mind responsible for reasoned thought. Venting is cathartic, but it’s also often pre-rational in its execution.
Which gets back to what I said above, about separating the person and the teaching/tenet/dogma/philosophy that person claims to adhere to and/or attempts to articulate. That the former is wrong does not automatically mean that the latter is as well.
Well, thank you for the clarification.
From myself, there’s no hard feelings. There’s always been something a bit…philosophically challenging about running an Ultima website and being a reasonably orthodox Catholic at the same time, because the series itself is certainly not devoid of cheap shots against Christians, among other groups. (The Fellowship might have been meant primarily as a critique of Scientology, but it’s pretty clear that Garriott was hoping to put a few noses out of joint with the combination of the box art for Ultima 8 and its original planned release date: just prior to Christmas, 1993.). But these are things that can, for the most part, be set aside.
And writing about Ultima remains fun, even so. As was listening to the podcast, if we leave aside the sarcasm about religion. As someone noted above, you can never go wrong (amongst Ultima fans, at least) by offering a critique of the way BioWare attempts to emulate moral consequence in their games.
Aaaaaand… I should proof-read what I write before posting. 😛 (Sorry about the typos.)
Matthew: It was your personal experience experience that came through, so I’m not too troubled by it. I just thought that pointing out the contrary possibility regarding virtue would be wise. And yes, I agree that being an ass transcends boundaries of particular worldviews.
Also: look forward to further thoughts on Ultima/Origin when you guys get the time.
@ WtF
Any religion whose dogma asserts that belief in its particular diety/dieties and the practice of its rituals as being the only path to a person’s spiritual salvation is tyrannical. Why do you think there are so many different religions and their associated sects? A person of one religious faith fundamentally disagrees with their religious group’s form of tyranny and goes off to start up his own faith-based organization to hold power over his own constituency and to propagate his own version of tyranny.
I think your 2+2=4 argument is flawed. People have not been beating up one another over 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. People abuse one another over ?+?=? where they scramble incessantly to fit in variables that allows the equation to make sense to their belief system.
You speak of your own Catholicism, well, I was raised Muslim in the Deep South of the U.S. You want to know what fucked up is? Fucked up is having to explain over and over why you can’t eat pork, drink alcohol, date, engage in premarital sex, or believe Jesus as being the son of God and my personal savior. Fucked up is having to explain why you fast in Ramadan, pray 5 times a day, and other rituals. Fucked up is having kids you go to school with (good Christian white kids) paint shit like “Jesus saves” on your house in the middle of the night. I’m surprised I didn’t wake up to see a flaming cross in my front yard, but I suppose that’s probably reserved for African-Americans.
But it works both ways. I was taught that Christians will go to hell for their polytheism and idolatry. I was taught that homosexuals will go to hell for their ‘sin’. When I had the opportunity to study overseas, I have seen Christians and Hindus treated as second class citizens in their own country on the other side of the globe. I have met with Islamic extremists and political thugs/terrorists and listened to their rhetoric and witnessed acts of random terror and violence and could not understand how a just deity could allow such things to happen in its name.
It was funny because my father always taught me that Islam was peaceful, just, and compassionate. Growing up I felt a bit superior to my Christian counterparts because I didn’t have to attack their beliefs because of the expectation of my religious teaching that “I’ll go on my path and they will go on theirs”. When I went overseas, that particular brand of Islam didn’t exist. It was mired in hypocrisy and ignorance. I was exposed to the same sort of dogmatic fear mongering and hatred that I suppose the Protestant kids I was at odds with were exposed to because I was the ‘other’.
And did any of that ignorance end when I returned home? A few months after I returned, 9/11 happened and the religious bigotry that I was exposed to as a child became intermingled with fanatical flag-waving patriotism. Now that was a fucked up few years for me right there. More explanations of who I was and what I was and whom I represented. I bet you’ve never had to face anything like that.
And now, several years following that, I live in a country which claims to have separation of church and state, but interjects its own Judeo-Christian dogma in a way that defines who can or cannot be related to one another or who can or cannot be in the same hospital room of a loved one or who can and cannot raise children based upon their sexual orientation. Is that not tyranny? Is that not oppression?
You know what spoke to me above all the religious texts and mythologies that I’ve read in my lifetime? The Ultima virtue system because it allowed me to think in the moment about the dilemmas I faced. If I was being bullied, I would be valorous and fight back. If someone was being unjust to another, I would step in to help (and most times get my ass handed to me for it). You say that these virtues are contradictory; I disagree. I find them complimentary to one another. I see them offering choices based upon personal resonance whereas religious dogma offers none.
The beauty of the progression of the examination of the belief systems in the Ultima series was the conclusion that there is no one valid path to enlightenment and I think that also challenged the belief system with which I was raised that condemned all others to hellfire.
I am glad I am areligious now (I don’t care for labels so I’ll refrain from calling myself a humanist) and have moved past inherited bigotry and irrational belief in an imaginary diety whose job is to wag its finger at me and shape my morality.
I also kind of wish that folks (including myself) would keep religious discussion private. I, for one, because of my experiences find anyone wearing their faith as a badge of honor particularly offensive as I’m sure those of faith find those who disdain religious belief, overtly, offensive. Although it makes me cringe whenever you tie in your particular brand of religious point of view with Ultima, I don’t want to fall into the trap of “If you don’t like it here, you can leave…” or “you don’t have to read the article because this is my own personal site” (not that I’m saying you would) because Ultima has meant something to me as it did to that gentleman in the podcast. Although I don’t wear an ankh or chant mantras, the virtue system of Ultima will always remain a positive part of my life because of what it represents to me — a healthier alternative to the oppressive dogma of religion.
I agree, by and large. Why do you think I’m Catholic? Well, okay, there are many reasons…but this would be one of them.
The sad history of the Reformation. Note, though, that the disagreement ultimately has a personal basis, and then not typically a wholly rational one. The same is often true of those who reject religion outright.
Every analogy is, but that is beside the point.
And that would be to miss the point, sorry to say.
Or, in many cases, their lack of same.
Actually, burning crosses are most formally associated with the Klan, as I’m sure you well know, and the symbolism thereof has only a tenuous connection to Protestant Christianity. Also, the Klan espoused a similar (though not quite as virulent) hatred toward Catholics, and many Protestant denominations which are prominent in the Deep South also take a dim view of Catholicism at best. Muslims would, naturally, get an even worse rap in such a climate.
I would, in general, agree that in the modern era, the various dietary restrictions of both Judaism and Islam make little sense, though in the eras in which those religions were promulgated there was some sensibility to them (elimination or reduction of disease vectors, for example). The proscription against pre-marital sex makes a bit more sense if you actually dig into data from e.g. the CDC that correlates promiscuity in the history of parties to a relationship with instability (e.g. infidelity, divorce) in same.
But okay, I get that you harbour some deep seated anger at Christianity for various reasons. Obviously, you were badgered and mistreated by Christians, and that is indeed unfortunate. Though to be fair, it really only goes to show that certain people who happened to be Christian acted in “fucked up” ways which weren’t necessarily reflective of the authentic teachings of the Christian faith. What you outline above doesn’t actually go to show that Christianity itself, at the level of tenets and dogma, is “fucked up”.
I hear this a lot, from both Muslims and non-Muslims, and I confess that it confuses me at times since my own reading of the Koran and Hadith suggested…something else.
Not at the level of race, but being a person who has both willingly inserted himself into theologically hostile environments and a person who has journeyed abroad to places…not known for espousing a particularly tolerant form of Islam, I certainly can make the claim that I’ve been a recipient of some pretty harsh religious bigotry.
Heh…you’re asking the wrong guy. It used to be illegal for a guy like me to attend Mass in parts of said country. Or, well, it used to be illegal for the priest to say Mass. Almost the same thing.
The Virtue questions posed in the character creation sequence explicitly pit one virtue against another: do you slay a man (Justice) or spare him (Compassion)?
I can’t speak to other Christian denominations, but Catholicism espouses virtues as well, a set of seven that serve admirably as the sort of life guide and instruments of discernment that you hold up the Ultima virtues as. The difference, of course, is that they don’t mutually contradict; I’ll never have to choose between a temperate action and a prudent action, because to be temperate is to be prudent, and vice versa.
There may be more than one path which will end you up at enlightenment, though I’d point out that the existence of a multitude of paths does not strongly imply that each path affords the same possibility of completing the traversal thereof. I can drive to my wife’s home town on a major highway, or via an interconnected series of back roads. Depending on various factors, one route will be preferential to another, one route safer than another, and one route more likely to be completable than another.
Yeah, I don’t believe in that god either.
Why? Like it or not, that is a core aspect of our identity as persons, even for those who don’t espouse any belief. It shapes how we regard others, how we regard the world and universe, and how we order our lives (and toward what end(s) we order them).
I find any number of non-believers non-offensive, and I find others offensive. It usually depends on whether I’m having an intelligent and rational discussion with them, or whether they’re subjecting me to a torrent of emotion, insults, and deep-seated personal issues. And honestly, if I meet people who are open about their faith and live in humble accordance therewith, I feel quite proud for them.
Missed saying: None of us has the right to never be offended, and so the best I can say is that it is unfortunate that you take offense in this way.
I comment on it primarily from a philosophical perspective. Yes, I interject Catholicism at times, but mostly by way of comparison only. I’ve tried to maintain a fairly strict policy of only commenting on matters of belief in and around Christmas and Easter*. I typically interject more general philosophical concepts (especially Aristotelian philosophy) into my commentary on the Virtues in articles outside of those seasons.
I both acknowledge and respect that many people here have found some meaning in the Eight Virtues that was not given to them from the faith in which they were raised. Well and good; the Virtues are not a terrible philosophical system.
But they are a philosophical system that, at their core, depends upon contradictions and conflicts between its tenets as much as it does on harmony between same. And in another way, they represent an incomplete system; each Virtue (with the possible exception of Humility) is missing at least one anti-virtue opposing it (Valor isn’t opposed solely by Cowardice; it should also be opposed by Recklessness, or something along those lines.). Maybe you can look past that; I can’t. I don’t comment on these things in the hope that people will step away from Britannian philosophy and sign up for the next RCIA class in their area; frankly, I’m long past the point where I care whether people I know join the Church or not, and I’m also long past the point where I believe words on the Internet will convince anyone to switch anything central to their worldview and identity.
I comment on them because I think there’s more “there” that could be there, if someone wanted to do something with Ultima on down the road…something more than just re-make one of the earlier entries in the series. Ultimately, I want to enrich how we look at the philosophy of the Virtues, by challenging things like the way they break down into rote binary pairs of virtue and vice.
* In articles, at least. What happens in the comments is…well, basically a free-for-all. Anything goes, as they say.
One of the primary functions of religion is to provide a framework for community. The people are the faith, and the faith is the people. Once you understand that, grousing about things like dietary restrictions doesn’t seem so important anymore.
That’s what so naive about the Eight Virtues – they’re predicated on the notion that the purpose of a system of belief should be to tell people how to be good. It’s a very American idea.
@Kinbud
It was cool to hear your story. Thanks for sharing.
I agree that any belief system which presents itself as the Only Way is basically tyrannical. I know plenty of people, though, who supposedly follow such systems that instinctively ignore their tyrannical aspects, leaving just the good bits. This doesn’t seem entirely conscious in most cases, and I think that’s because some people are just humanists at heart. If their god appeared to them, handed them a sword, and told them to kill people they would say ‘no’ out of instinct, and that’s just because they are good people.
Do you folks remember that part in Ultima V where Blackthorn forces you to kill one of your companions in an effort to illustrate your devotion to the virtues? (Or something like that. Memory is hazy.) I always wondered if it was inspired by the story of Abraham and Isaac.
Matthew: It could be a cruel twist on the story of Isaac (whom, you’ll recall, was spared). But it’s interesting that you bring up that particular example, especially in light of what you said to end the previous paragraph:
This is actually a really interesting hypothetical scenario, one I feel like exploring a bit. Suppose that God, the God described per the Nicene Creed, did in fact appear to me in this way, and that He did in fact hand me a sword and issue that exact instruction.
Firstly, it would demonstrate that said God was in fact an actual being rather than just some flight of fancy I’ve imagined in the deep recesses of my mind. That right there is a particualrly significant fact, and certain implications flow from it, not the least of which is that this God is the author of all things and the final arbiter and judge of what is and is not moral.
Which, in turn, means that it is necessarily and only ever going to be moral to follow His directives, and it is necessarily and only ever going to be immoral to reject them outright, even if the directives in question seem at first shocking or even repugnant. Certainly, Abraham likely felt no small amount of shock when he was directed to offer up his only son — the son he had waited far too many years for already, the son who had been given to him only by way of a miracle — in a ritual sacrifice.
And yet, he made ready to do what was asked of him, because he understood and believed what I outlined above.
And as it turned out, God did not in fact demand Isaac’s life, and never intended for Abraham to harm the boy. The entire scenario was a test of Abraham’s worthiness to be the first of God’s chosen people, a test to see what Abraham would put first: his faith in God or his attachment to his son.
It’s a hard thing –counter-intuitive, even — to understand, but it relates to the hypothetical appearance of a sword-bearing God quoted above: since God is, in fact, real and since He is as described, the only moral and rational course of action is to follow His directives. There is no moral or rational means of refusing said directives, under the terms of the scenario as outlined, just as Abraham realized there was no moral or rational opposition he could offer to the instruction to sacrifice his only son.
So I’ll come right out and say it: if the God in whom I articulate belief, as revealed through the Scriptures and described in the Catechism and the Nicene Creed, appeared to me, handed me a sword, and told me to start swinging it…I would. Or, at least, I would hope that I would.
Because as a man of faith, who believes in this God, I understand and believe that He would intervene before the first blow I might strike fell upon its target. I would understand and believe that the point of the whole encounter was not to actually set me out into the world to slay whom I might, but that it was instead a means of testing my obedience to His ordinances.
And what if the blow was allowed to land upon its target? That’s outside the terms of the scenario as quoted above, at least inasmuch as it pertains to “my” “god”.
There’s a lot of interesting discussion going on here– so glad you guys got something to talk about out of the show. I am especially glad to find that Kindbud felt some kinship with my experience– it’s not something i have shared with many people and I’m happy it resonated with someone.
On the other theological notes, i find it interesting how our experiences paint our perceptions, as well as the variety of values we place on things like virtues, and what we expect of them. I have no interest in waging a holy war– what i enjoy is the perspective these conflicting beliefs give me on my own philosophy.
WTF’s discussion of contradiction made me realize that the lack of “completeness” in the system is actually what appeals to me. While my personal philosophy is not exactly 1:1 with the Britanian virtue system, it does reflect the idea of a system that actually INCORPORATES conflict, which i see as a ubiquitous issue in life itself. I don’t find it very interesting to have a path laid out before me where the “right way” is clear, and I do not look for that in a philosophical system.
I don’t mind that Justice can be in conflict with Compassion– that’s what i see when i look at the world. The value of such a system in my view is that it does not offer all of (any of?) the answers, but is there to raise questions that I can use to help determine my actions. Every time i do something, it reflects on my character (much moreso than what i SAY– take note, Bioware). Having a set of “virtues” or “tenets” or “questions” in mind before taking any action helps me to be conscious of how i am living my life one action to the next. i find that’s rather useful.
On the issue of canon, i also find it interesting how we have very different expectations of what that means. Some people see value in the “officialness” of the product sold under the Ultima logo, despite what differences there might have been in the creation of the product under the behest of Garriott or EA or whomever. For them Ultima is Ultima, and you take the good with the bad, and accept what the franchise delivers.
Personally, i fall into a different camp, which takes a more (warning- pretentious art-school rhetoric) post-modern approach that sees the audience’s contribution and interpretation as equal to the weight of the artists (or even game publisher). This camp says “Ultima is TO ME what Ultima is TO ME, and i will decide what feels true to the series.”
So thanks for listening and continuing the discussion. Pretty amazing that this level if discourse is spurred by a game that hasn’t been released in what? 15 years? Here’s to more lively discussion!
@Kristen:
You should’ve seen the Horizons Tavern forum when it was at its heyday and Tibby was still around. Lots of arguments, lots of “agree-to-disagree”, but eventually there was a slowly increasing sense of respect amongst all the parties whether Christian, Buddhist, Nihilist, Agnostic, or what have you. It’s just stuff you have to deal with when interacting with a diverse and (often) well educated group of people.
I remember Horizons. It was my first forum, and it was the first time I used my internet name “Sajon”.
Heeey, I remember you. You were the jerk who… (j/k).
“since God is, in fact, real and since He is as described, the only moral and rational course of action is to follow His directives. There is no moral or rational means of refusing said directives, under the terms of the scenario as outlined, just as Abraham realized there was no moral or rational opposition he could offer to the instruction to sacrifice his only son.”
Here’s the rub– that certainty relies upon your beliefs about the deity. Perhaps it would be more interesting scenario if in your case Allah appeared to you and asked you to kill your friend because he was an infidel. Would you feel the same moral abstention then?
Wow. You just said that. So what, I take it Frailty for you is not a horror movie?
Damn, dude. You are freakin’ me out.
Kristen: That’s kind of moving the goalposts, though.
The scenario as detailed was that “my” “god” — the deity in whom I articulate belief — would appear to me, not some other god. Said deity is well-described in the Bible, various promulgated creeds, and the document put forth by my Church which is called its Catechism. (I actually reject the idea of a personally-defined notion of God.)
Note, too, that my act of compliance with the instructions of that god, my God, would not be an act of moral abstention; it would be moral abstention to refuse to comply. That’s kind of a definitional quibble, but there it is: an instruction from God, assuming “God” here comports with the being detailed and revealed in the above-listed documents and professions, is necessarily and by definition an instruction which it is moral to follow, and immoral to refuse to follow. God’s game, God’s rules, so to speak.
Would I comply with an instruction from Allah? No, not at all, because Allah is not my god. I might be a bit surprised, sure, under this alternative scenario, to learn that Allah actually exists, although there is certainly room within Catholic theology for that possibility. But inasmuch as Catholic theology allows for the possibility that other gods exist, it does so with the caveat that such gods are causally posterior to God, and of a lower supernatural order.
Now, if Allah could convincingly demonstrate that he is causally prior/of a higher supernatural order than God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, the Trinity one in being and undivided, then logically he would in fact merit my compliance, revealed as he would be in that case as the true author of creation and the final arbiter and judge of what is moral. Would that happen? That, as the current US president once famously said, is “above my pay grade”.
Matthew: Frailty is a shitty movie, more than anything else. It’s not even that good at the horror aspect.
And you’re kind of moving the goalposts too. The original scenario stipulated that “my” “god” — the actual deity — approached me and gave to me the sword and the task. The original scenario did not stipulate that the witness of the deity was the result of delusion or some other mental illness, nor did it stipulate that some other human person handed me the sword and relayed the instruction to start killing people, claiming that it came “from God”.
So the Frailty reference is actually irrelevant.
Look, I get that this whole “saying ‘yes’ to God” thing doesn’t make sense, because you’re obviously not a person of faith. You don’t get that aspect of it, that need for obedience and openness to the will of God. But think about the question you posed! You ask me what I’d do if “my” God — the actual deity — showed up and told me to do something, even something that if any other person told me to do it, I’d recoil away in alarm and disgust. But this isn’t just some other person…this is God making this request of me, as surely as if I were Abraham, or as if I were Paul on the road to Damascus.
What other answer could I give? Should I presume to dictate what’s right and wrong to the deity who willed all things seen and unseen into existence, who authors all realities and executes final judgement over what is and is not moral? Yeah…no. I’m just this guy…I don’t think I could be that presumptuous even if I tried. (And that’s saying a lot!)
This conversation got interesting. Especially this latest “What if Allah told you to…” part. I find it interesting that you would say “No”, just because you believe in a different god. You would have proof that another faith is real, and yet that would not change anything for you (unless you found out Allah was more powerful/the only real god, and then you would immediately say yes). Also that you would do what God said without any question… I have some slight issues with that.
I’m Agnostic, not Atheist. I don’t know, and it wouldn’t affect how I live if I did. If God, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared and told me to kill my friend, for whatever reason, I would ask “Why?”. I would then ask for proof. And then I’d try to find another way to fix the problem then killing.
My way of living is basically “If there is a heaven, and I don’t get in, I don’t want to be there”. If a good person goes to hell for a reason as petty as not believing in a god, then why would I want to be anywhere near said diety?
I think that is why I like the Ultima virtues (at least my altered version of them: Honour is kicking your lord in the naughty bits when he is torturing innocent people, not saying “May I hand you your whip, sir?”). I think the one part of Ultima that stood out for me when it comes to morality is the Ethical Hedonism book in U9. I read that and thought “That is awesome”. If people lived like that, the world would be a lot better place.
I’m simply responding to the hypothesis. If God — actually, really God — showed up and asked me to do something, of course I’d do it. D’uh. He’s God. It really is that simple. Wheras, if someone/thing who was not God showed up and asked me to do something, I either would or wouldn’t depending on various factors and considerations. Because if God — actually, really, the Christian God — was in fact real as described in Scripture, the creeds, and the Catechism, it would only make sense to obey Him.
Note also that I’ve not actually said here that Islam is false, or that Allah is a false god. In fact, I’ve done something of the opposite; I’ve acknowledged the fact that the god Allah could, in fact, exist, just as surely as I believe God exists. It might even be possible that the two deities are one and the same in the end, although the respective theologies that describe each don’t allow for that possibility (but one theology or the other could be wrong). Ultimately, it’s a categorical distinction, though an important one.
To speak to the scenario in the more general sense, let us suppose that an actual, real deity who happened to be the First Cause — the deity from which all that exists, seen and unseen, in Heaven and on (and all around) Earth, proceeds — came and asked me to do something. Could be anything: drop everything and follow him, build him a temple, pick up a sword. This is the being that is creation, is existence itself asking me this; this is the being that is the final arbiter and judge of what is and is not moral. And he wants me — insignificant me — to do something. I’m going to say “no, thanks” to that, and somehow be in the right?
Note that I don’t deny that I could say “no”; I simply reject the possibility that I could say no and do so in a way that was moral.
This seems like wisdom, but smacks of a lack of humility. And no, I’m not saying I’m a paragon of that particular virtue…but it just seems profoundly presumptuous to me to think that if the author of all that exists showed up and asked me to do something — even something drastic — that the first thing I’d do is ask for an explanation, and then try and figure out a workaround.
Maybe that is just something that needs to be chalked up to our different philosophical viewpoints and the probable difference in the amount of philosophical and theological inquiry we’ve each done.
Would it surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church agrees with you here, for the most part?
Heh…whereas I read that book and thought that I’d rather not live in a world where it was the predominant philosophy, because I recognize that human beings (being imperfect and concupiscent) would be only too quick to try and skirt the framing principles wherever and whenever possible, and then often to the profound disadvantage of others.
I mean, c’mon…it happens enough with stuff that Jesus said, and he was (if Scripture be true) God Incarnate. I somehow doubt that a purely human-concocted system would fare better.
If god is the author of the universe and everything he says is right, then doing whatever he orders you to do is right, obviously. That’s just logic.
If you believe that then you believe that.
I don’t believe that, because there is no empirical way to prove the difference between god and insanity. If you raped a kid because god told you to the courts would still send you to jail, even if it was god.
Civilization is not based on the whims of a deity. It’s based the real impact people’s real actions have on the real world. The impact of people’s actions on the people around them is the foundation for moral thinking and moral law. When you divorce it from that you play a very dangerous game.
The part that concerns what I believe is, of course, what I believe. The part about instructions from the author of everything and the final judge of what is moral being, by definition, moral, is basic logic. And that’s really about all there is to ot.
Correct.
But — and I cannot stress this enough — you’re moving the goalposts again. The original hypothetical scenario, as worded, concerned itself only with the fact that “my” “god” appeared to me, Abraham or Damascus road style. There was nothing in the original scenario, as it was articulated, concerning what I thought I’d seen or heard.
It was to that scenario that I spoke and answered. I am not a terribly humble man, but…well…if God did in fact actually show up, I’d do what He asked of me. End of story. But that is only in the case where God did actually appear, Damascus road style, as per the original hypothetical scenario.
I don’t believe I asserted anything to that effect. Though to be fair, I recognize the value of a shared religious belief as useful to the construction of a civilization even so. This view comports reasonably well with history, since it now seems to be the case that the early humans built the first permanent towns and cities around places where they had previously come to gather and worship in community.
It’s also dangerous to confuse morality and law, I might point out, because they are separate concepts that do not overlap entirely. To do what is moral may, in fact, not always be legal, and what is legal may not always be entirely moral. (Adultery, for example.)
Per the original hypothetical scenario as it applies in my case: if God exists, and if this God is the God revealed in the Bible/the creeds/the Catechism, then this God is among many other things the author and primal cause of morality, and his will and instruction supercedes any human institution or ordinance. Again, just basic logic there, again in the assumption that God as described in the things I have listed does in fact exist/is in fact real.
That was the foundation of the question I originally answered. This quibbling about dementia, Allah, and suchlike is interesting, but is ultimately outside the terms of the original hypothetical scenario, and so is irrelevant thereto. Sadly, it seems to be the case in debates such as this that these sorts of tangential topics are the norm, rather than anything exceptional.
Shorter version: I was initially asked what I’d do if God actually showed up and asked me to do something. I replied that I would do what I was asked, in confidence that God knew what He was doing even if I didn’t see it myself.
I was not asked what I’d do if someone else’s god showed up and asked me to do something. I was not asked what I’d do if I only thought God had asked me to do something. I was not asked what I would do if someone else told me God wanted me to do something. I was only asked what I’d do if God actually showed up and asked me to do something, and that is the only question I answered. Discussing anything outside of that original and highly limited scenario is irrelevant at best, moving the goalposts at worst.
So as interesting as discussing Allah, Frailty, and the origins of civilization is to me, might I suggest we move on? We’ve gotten quite far off the reservation here. And frankly, for as interesting as I am finding the discussion (and as much as I am enjoying it), I just don’t have the time to give it my full attention. I’ve got articles to write and post, games to play, kids to parent, a work trip to prepare for, and music theory to teach my wife. I am, pace Prince Humperdinck, swamped. And matters such as this deserve more attention than what I can now give them.
“I was initially asked what I’d do if God actually showed up and asked me to do something. I replied that I would do what I was asked, in confidence that God knew what He was doing even if I didn’t see it myself.”
And that’s fucked up. Just ask the folks at Nuremberg.
Category error. Just sayin’.
And yes, Godwin.
God, not Godwin.
(Just proved Godwin’s Law trying to disprove God’s. :P)
Argh! You beat me! Well, yes. Some things are as constant as the universe.
[quote]This seems like wisdom, but smacks of a lack of humility.[/quote]
As I said in another thread somewhere, I’m often accused of not being humble. And this is a perfect example. I believe everyone is equal. Not as in “that is what I was taught” or anything like that. It is just what is built into me. Racism, etc, doesn’t even register with me.
So, in walks God. He is another being. He may have created the entire universe, create everyone and everything. He tells me to do something, and I would ask “Why?”. And why would I do that? As I said above… it’s built into me that everyone is equal. This is probably one reason why I seem to be incredible unhumble to everyone. As soon as someone makes a statement that basically can be summed up as “I am equal to God” it kinda makes seeming humble difficult.
But, if you also take into account the fact that I also think that everyone else is equal, it’s not actually putting me above anyone (hence my definition of humble). So, I guess it is either me being humble in my way, or being arrogant on a global scale.
[quote]Note that I don’t deny that I could say “no”; I simply reject the possibility that I could say no and do so in a way that was moral.[/quote]
I don’t believe I could say “yes” and be moral. I don’t believe anyone (even God) should have the right to unilaterally decide what should be done about something. If God wants someone dead, I’m not going to blindly follow that.
Wow I think everybody is reading too much into ultima’s plot/themes. Sure they were good, but is that what made ultimas 1-7 great?
I forget the book, ‘the official book of ultima,’ or something, said that the design teams whole goal was to design a world or engine. They spent all this time perfecting the world design, making it interactive. Only late in the process would they finalize a plot. It makes sense, because that’s why 4-7 are full of so many time-sinks, like shrine quests.
Sure RG pushed the cultural themes, but I recall the book being very clear that the reverse game design was what Origin thought was their secret sauce.
Kind of explains the slogan, we create worlds.
Also explains why u8 and u9 suck. They were the only engines that didn’t push the interactivity edge.
I might point out that U9 has a way more interactive world than most 3D RPGs. Not to the level of a U6 or U7, but more than U8 and much, much more than almost every 3D RPG that came after.
The conversation moved away from Ultima a while ago. I don’t think the virtues and such in Ultima were debate-worthy at quite this level 😛 (they were basically a simplistic fantasy set of rules)
Yes, the virtues are simplistic in that they take something that’s banally obvious and try to make it profound.
Take the Bible, for instance. It’s pretty much taken for granted that David was courageous, or that the prophets were humble, etc. The book didn’t have to go out of its way to tell you that these were good, admirable traits – it was obvious to any normal human being.
Following on what I said earlier, that simply wasn’t the point of the text.
Yeah, you could move a lot of stuff in U9. Certainly stuff that made sense. Moving a cannon is a rather tough action to do alone, and furniture as well. Much of the other interactivity issues result from a lack of time for usecode implementation. The fact that most objects can’t be placed in your invitation was more a side effect of extremely limited inventory (and no party members) and to make it easier to know what was totally useless to pick up.
We will end up making corrections to some of the excessiveness of the uninventoriable objects, though when we create the inventory art for it.
No promises on usecode, but there will be more interactivity in the game at a more simple level where appropiate: place the ingredients here and something happens to them.
And yet when I played I still felt it so difficult to connect. The delivery lacked something
It lacked the distinct people/places. People weren’t very interesting in U9. I vaguely remember things like “There was a gypsy here” and “There was a monk there” but I couldn’t tell you most of their names or what they were like. Towns were also kinda boring. They didn’t really seem like they could work as a functioning town. Stories in towns were absent. There was mostly just on main quest in a town, and nothing else. No mayors cheating on their wives, who were only elected because a corrupt organisation backed them (and took out the competition). No thieves pretending to be monks in order to escape the law. Stories were missing.
I always stand by my belief it was the people/places/stories that made Ultima Ultima, not the interactivity.
“Category error. Just sayin’.”
Well, I was making a category argument. And not a compelling one, apparently.
Oh the religion topic, my old faithful friend. To not get to heavy, I always felt Ultima dealt with death in an interesting way.
A never ending darkness engulfs thee.
Basically saying, there is no afterlife, and your existence is just over. It’s a pretty heavy statement for just a few words in a videogame. There was never any mention of deities(unless you count the Serpent of Balance) and the ghosts were never fully explained.
I always felt the basic assertion was there not being an afterlife and your soul goes to the void. I always thought it was pretty cool that it didn’t take a conventional viewpoint on religion. It was also a nice little set of morals for you to ponder with no direct link to a set of rules or some such dictated by some sky daddy. Just a basic set of virtues for you to try to uphold with self realization that no one is perfect.
As far as religion and morality goes. It’s been said in this thread that religions provides a good social institution. Also I’ve met people that I’m glad are religious. Some people need something to believe in and hope for. Even if you’re hoping for something after death.
There’s also a reason why about 99% of inmates in the united states are Christian. It’s not because Christian’s are law breaking maniacs. It’s because Christianity is about salvation and forgiveness. Some people need religion as a crutch to deal with things they’d never felt like they’d ever have to go through.
I dunno, for some people I’m very glad it’s there for them. I just think atheism shouldn’t be as taboo as it is. Years ago I remember hearing people say, “You’ll see a black president before an atheist president.” So true, so true.
Thepal: Out of curiosity, how do you define atheist and agnostic?
When I look up in the dictionary atheist, I see “denial in the belief in a god or gods.” And when you break the word down to it’s root you get, a – lack of, theist – belief in god. So denial of a belief in god is a good definition without the connotation that denial means denying something that’s a basic truth.
As for agnostic – lack of, gnostic – knowledge(inferred as knowledge of god). I believe this was the intended definition of the word when it was coined in the 1800’s. Been a while, I don’t remember his name.
Everyone has a different view of these words, but I think people are starting to become clearer and clearer. But as far as I’m concerned the blank slate to religion is the atheist position, a lack of belief in god, since it doesn’t posit there is a god or that there are no gods. So therefore a cat, or a tree, or a rock would therefore be atheist since they hold no beliefs in a certain idea. They would also probably be aunicornist, and aleprechaunist. People that hold a belief that no gods can possibly exist would more appropriately be called antitheists, but I’ve seen most people call that position “strong atheism”. And as far as I’m concerned everyone is an agnostic, because there’s no proof for or against the existence of deities. If there was some sort of irrefutable proof, then there wouldn’t be a belief or faith.
“Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.” Atheists believe there are no gods. They reject the idea.
Agnostics accept that they don’t know. That is me. I don’t deny their existance, I don’t know (and more importantly, don’t really care). The scariest thought I can think of is that there is nothing after you die. I don’t like the thought of ceasing to exist (I’d rather be in hell in horrible pain than that). But that isn’t going to make me believe in a god. Unless one comes and says Hi to me, nothing will. I’ll continue to live my life based on what is here and what seems right (to me, not some all-powerful being, or even society), and see what happens (or doesn’t happen) when the end comes.
“And as far as I’m concerned everyone is an agnostic…”
No, because as you said, there is “belief”. Belief in a god that there is no proof of is the opposite of being agnostic. I don’t believe there is a god, or no god. The only belief I have is that I don’t know. I think an easy way to tell if someone is agnostic is if they favour one religion over another (based on non-logical reasons). If they call themselves “agnostic”, but they kind of believe in the Christian God, then I would say they aren’t truly agnostic.
Ah I see, so you believe the same thing I do! I like the way you put it. You hold no belief in god or a belief there is no god.
The Oxford English dictionary has you pegged as an atheist.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist?q=atheist
a person who does not believe in the existnce of God or gods.
Note the order of the words. The definition reflects the origin of the word. A- without, theist- belief in a god or gods. Or all together “without belief in god or gods”
Agnostic on the other hand is not an undecided position to take. Infact, to be agnostic in a religious sense, is to hold the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of god. Again, according to OED.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic?q=agnostic
Knowledge does not equal belief. I would be hard pressed to find a believer or nonbeliever who could disagree with the validity of that thesis. Belief in a deity is based on faith not facts. And an atheist would obviously agree since there has been no information that’s been conveyed to them about the existence of a deity that they feel is valid.
It always bothers me when people use the words agnostic and atheist incorrectly. Everyone is without “knowledge” of a deity, that describes nothing. Antibeliever, nonbeliever, believer – antitheist, atheist, theist. Those are the three positions. Agnostic is not a position.
And that is also why, when polled, agnostic is lumped in the category of atheist or nonbeliever. Atheist has a lot of stigma surrounding it. Which is likely why you make the distinction for yourself.
Micro…I’m confused. Or tired. Tired is actually a really distinct possibility.
Didn’t you previously self-identify as a Christian at some point?
I posted the last sentence of my last post in err. I wasn’t entirely finished.
Which is likely why you (edit: and many others that identify as agnostics) make the distinction for yourselves. Simply because there is a general conception and stigma related to being an atheist.
I hope you don’t get the impression I’m trying to change what you call yourself. I just want to raise the awareness and sophistication for the true meaning of the two words in question.
On a more personal note, it’s very frustrating to be labeled as something you aren’t.