Author Archives: John Ayers

About John Ayers

By day, John is a mild-mannered techie, geek, and dad. But by night, he is a dice-rolling, comic-reading...techie, geek, and dad. Not everyone has to live two lives, you know. You can find him on Twitter as @FalconX2.

Religion in Guild Wars 2: The Sylvari

Posted on by
Reply

If you are an MMO player like me, you are probably excitedly awaiting the release of Guild Wars 2 at the end of August. If you are an armchair philosopher like me, then you are probably very intrigued by the concepts behind a couple of the races and their relationships with religion. The obvious being the Charr, a race that gave up religion completely so they could host an industrial revolution. They knowingly rid their soceity of religion because they recognized it was being used to oppress their people.

Now, I’m not saying this is a metaphor for all religion, in fact, the humans of Guild Wars 2 seem to be doing just fine with their belief structure. Regardless, the Charr are actually neither here nor there–I actually want to focus on a different race, altogether. The Sylvari.

The Sylvari are particularly interesting to me, because according to Guild Wars 2, the race is only 25 years old. An entire race of people, and they have only been around for 25 years. How fascinating is that? Naturally, one has to wonder what effect that might have on their views of the world, especially regarding religion.

To Dream a Little Dream

According to Guild Wars 2 lore, the Sylvari exist in the Dream before they are “born.” Though, they are not actually born; they are sort of hatched from a seed pod. But within the Dream, they have a consciousness that does not seem to know it is not alive. At least, not alive as we would traditionally see it. It is as though they are able to experience life through a kind of simulated existence inside the Pale Tree, the massive tree that sprouts the Sylvari.

This concept should be immediately familiar to any student of religion, as it seems to almost be based on a facet of Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) belief. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe the soul of a human exists with God before it is selected to be born. It makes me wonder if this particular tenet was not an inspiration for the Sylvari.

But I digress. I’m here to discuss the implications of religion on the Sylvari in-game, not the effect of real-world religion on the game.

Pod People

So imagine this: you just sprouted from a seed pod–fully grown, mind you–and you are seeing the world for the first time. You are realizing that the existance you thought you knew in the Dream is not the actual world around you. Not to say the Dream is not real–it is–it’s just not everything you thought it was.

What would you instantly think, being “born” fully aware? Would you believe in a god? Would you think the Pale Tree that sprouted you is a god? Or is the world just what it appears to be?

The Guild Wars 2 Wiki states that the Sylvari are agnostic toward to concept of the human religion in the game, which is a polytheistic (more than one deity) belief structure. It states the Sylvari would prefer to see the actions of these gods before they put any faith in them.

Could this desire be because of how they are brought into the world? They spend so much time in the Dream, now they awaken and realize everything wasn’t as it seems, so now they view things with a skeptical eye. But that would imply the Sylvari held some sort of cynical view of the Pale Tree, that it was “lying” to them all that time. No, instead it seems they view the Pale Tree as a respected parent, and less a god.

So what about you? Try to put yourself in the position, if you can, of a newborn Sylvari.

How do you think you would view the world if you were born/hatched/harvested to find out everything you thought you knew was only the tip of the metaphysical iceberg? How would you handle being thrust into a world where your entire civilization has only existed, when compared to others you interact with, for the blink of an eye?

With all that in mind, the Sylvari aren’t alone in having a unique take on religion. As we look deeper into Guild Wars 2, we’ll be able to discuss not only interesting parallels between in-game belief systems and the real-world, but unique interactions between the religions in the game. How does the Nords’ polytheism differ from the humans’? Do the Charr and the Asurans share any common beliefs? And more importantly, what does any of that mean to you? Will any of this affect the way you play the game?

I guess we’ll see!

The Batman Tragedy: Death in the Family

Posted on by
Reply

Today is a sad day for nerds, comic fans, and movie goers everywhere. If you have not heard of the tragedy in Colorado at the Batman: Dark Knight Rises premiere, you can get a recap here.

The scary thing for me, is like most readers on this site, I myself fit all three categories of nerd, comic fan, and movie goer. This could have happened to me, my family, or my friends. My son could be without a father, just because I wanted to engulf myself in the filmed artistic expressions of nerdom. This is a frightening thought. As I told B. J., these people were us.

I shudder to think what the families of these victims are going through. Truly, these people have the condolences of everyone here at ProfessorBeej.com and I hope they get all the support they need. And don’t think for one moment, that because you may not have been there, or have any personal ties to the people involved, that you are not allowed to be affected. Quite the opposite. Like I said, when I heard this happened, it scared me. It scared me to the point of nearly shaking. Reach out to friends, family, or professional help if this situation gets to you. There is no shame in that. But at the same note, do not let this affect your life. They say that the terrorist wins when we stop our day to day lives due to their actions. Personally, I don’t see how there are any winners in situations like this, but that does not change the fact that life goes on, and there is plenty of wonderful nerdy goodness for us to enjoy.

With that being said, I think the words of nerd legend, George Takei, sum things up, “Many victims of today’s tragedy were fans of science fiction/fantasy. They stood in line to be the first to see, to be inspired, and to escape. As a community of dreamers, we mourn this terrible tragedy and the senseless taking of innocent life.”

Batsravaganza! – The Batman Paradox, Part Two: No (Bat)Man’s Land

Posted on by
5

In our last “The Batman Paradox” post we delved into the philosophic waters of what is morally right when it comes to handling the Joker. Should Batman kill the Joker? That single action could save several, hundreds, maybe even thousands of people from potential harm, or even death. But we established last time that maybe Joker is not completely in control of his actions. Does that mean we have the moral right to rid the world of him? If he can’t be responsible for the death and destruction he leaves in his wake, do we have the right to punish him for it?

The short answer is, we don’t know.

However, since that is not our decision to make–it is Batman’s–we need to look at if (and why) Batman would kill the Joker. See, while Batman isn’t against violence, he is against two things: guns and killing. Or rather, the most modern iterations of Batman are.

Yes, I know that earlier comics have him breaking people’s necks, but if we just say, “Yeah, he’ll kill him,” that doesn’t leave us much to discuss here. For argument’s sake, we will say that our version of Batman is known to preserve life where possible.

Now, if you are like me, the first scene that pops in your head is the final confrontation between Ra’s al Ghul (Liam Neeson) and Batman (Christian Bale) in the 2005 movie Batman Begins. In that scene, Batman leaves a defeated al Ghul on a train racing toward it’s destruction. Batman claims he does not have to kill him, but he does not have to save him either. Not exactly the type of thing that would come from someone who preserves life.

But in that scene, I think Batman considers a couple of things. First, Ra’s al Ghul can clearly take care of himself. I mean he did train Batman after all. If Batman can get out, he knows al Ghul can get out. Second, Ra’s al Ghul created this scenario, and unlike Joker, he cannot play the insanity card. The diabolical scheming card, sure, but not insanity. Everything al Ghul did leading up to that point was with focused purpose, intention and consideration and with the power of a secret Illuminate-type organization at his disposal. Removing him from being classified as just an average, innocent life.

I’m not a Super-Human Being, I’m a Super-Human Doing

And that brings us to my next point. My inspiration came from a debate I had with a friend of mine over Batman’s willingness to kill. It was all brought about from a post on Reddit that plotted out how Batman and Joker essentially represent each other’s yin and yang. See, my friend was trying to explain to his wife why Batman would not kill the Joker, but I brought up that Batman is willing to kill in general. During Alan Moore’s run on Swamp Thing, Swamp Thing essentially holds the entire city hostage by turning it into a jungle. To be fair, he does so out of love. Batman recognized this and helps Swamp Thing reunite with Abigale Arcane. However, afterward, Batman threatens Swamp Thing, if he does anything like that again to his city, he will kill him.

That brought my friend and I into a discussion in which we concluded that the Swamp Thing situation is particularly special because Swamp Thing is so far removed from standard humanity. See, Batman has a particular disdain for those beings who are so powerful, they are on a completely different level than humans. The only reason he tolerates Superman and the Justice League is because they work towards securing a safer world for humanity.

Just one of the guys

Well now, that brings us to the Joker. Like it, or not, he is human. In fact, it was once believed that Joker is so human, it just took one really bad day to get to him, and make him into the psychopath we know and love today.

So then, is that it? Is it that Batman’s cause is the common man, and the Joker represents the true worst the world can do to the average person? By killing Joker, does that mean he would be taking out that which he is fighting for in the first place? That could certainly be it. That makes the most sense anyway. Joker is just a result of the injustice in the world that Batman is trying to rid the world of. And even on the opposite side of the coin, Batman is the symbol of morality that Joker believes can be (and should be) broken.

But I think there is more to it than just this for Batman. Earlier I said Batman and Joker were the yin to the other’s yang. This is a fairly popular concept derived from the Tao philosophy. But I think a different Tao belief works better for Batman. See in Tao the revere the idea of emptiness. Often in life, it is the lack of something that makes it useful. For example, if it is hot inside you home, you might open a window. This creates an empty space for wind to travel. Here we see the “lack of window” more useful.

So apply that to Batman. He does not kill, but he threatens it on rare occasion. Think about it, if he will not kill, arguably,  the most dangerous murderer in the DC Universe, but will threaten to kill other people/creatures/heroes/villains, then they must be REALLY dangerous. That fact that he does not kill, makes the threat even more meaningful. The emptiness gives the actual action, more impact.

So, is this why Batman refuses the kill the Joker? Yes. No. We don’t know. Isn’t philosophy grand?

Will we ever really know? Sure!

One day, a writer might just blatantly put in a bubble that has Batman saying or thinking, “I won’t kill the Joker because he has such an endearing smile.” Of course, considering the way comic book canon changes on a whim, even that would never stick. And for us armchair philosophers, that makes comics an exciting goldmine of ever-changing thought and theory.

The Batman Paradox: The Joke’s On You

Posted on by
2

One of the things I enjoy most about reading comics is the commentary on culture it can make. Such as how the 1980s run of Animal Man by Grant Morrison gives huge props to animal rights. Or the way Alan Moore’s run of Saga of the Swamp Thing explores the ideas of what it means to be given natural life versus what is artificial, and the viability of each. Essentially, what makes a man (or swamp-man as the case may be). Then, you have the overwhelming amount of statements made with Peter Milligan’s version of Shade, The Changing Man. But that one is a post all on its own.

My favorite thing to do with so much commentary is investigate the philosophical implications in each story. I admit it, I am an armchair philosopher. So, if you are one of those people who think philosophy is a waste of time, you might want to leave now. Many people believe all philosophy does is give people who can’t do anything, something to think about to make them feel important.

Frankly, I don’t see the problem. Even if studying philosophy as a profession teaches you nothing more than asking, “Why do you want fries with that?” Just the fact that, at its heart, it is nothing more than an experiment in thought, is very important. I truly believe that in our modern society, much of the current generation has lost the ability to do critical thinking, and philosophy (or me) is a great way to get the mental muscle moving.

So where am I going with this? Well, I’m going into one of the biggest philosophical questions in the comic book world.

Should Batman kill the Joker?

Okay, folks, there is the $10,000 question. We all know about Batman’s personal no guns and (generally) no kill policy. But before we tackle this further, we need to set some ground rules.

We will primarily be speaking on the philosophical side of things, dealing with morality. This has nothing to do with the legal aspect, or what rights Batman or Joker has according to the law. When we say things like, “Does Batman have the right to kill someone?”, we mean from a completely philosophical stand point. Here, the word “right” means more about Batman’s moral responsibility as a free-willed individual, not as a subject of government law.

Which also brings about that we will agree that free will exists. Anyone, provided in their capacity, has the ability to make any choice presented to them. There is no secret “hand of fate” that guides their actions.

With that in mind, are we good now? Everything understood? Are you strapped in and ready for the ride?

Excellent.

Then now is when I am going to tell you, we will probably be investigating the question across more than one blog post. So now that your buckled in, you have no choice but to come along. Bwahahaha!

Also, as with all philosophical pieces, we probably won’t answer a single freaking question without raising ten more.

So Welcome to the Asylum

To begin with Batman’s right to kill Joker, we need to start with Joker’s right to be…well…the Joker. We all know the Joker is playing with a few cards short of a deck. That is his defining feature, but can we hold him responsible for his actions because of it? So to ask if Batman should kill the Joker, we will need to ask, is it morally right to kill the Joker in the first place?

For this discussion, we will start by agreeing that if you have no control over your actions, you cannot be held morally responsible for them. Makes sense right?

I mean, if you are making a peanut butter sandwich and someone bumps your arm and you spread the peanut butter on the counter, that isn’t entirely your fault, is it? Sure, causal responsibility states your direct involvement caused the action. But morally, you did not make the choice that caused the incident.

So then, if you have a mental condition, say one that was brought on by an accident, unfortunate circumstances, or even genetic disposition, that causes you to involuntarily perform certain actions, does that remove your (moral) responsibility over said actions?

Naturally, I am speaking about insanity. Which, for simplicity’s sake, we will say is a mental condition in which the subject performs socially unacceptable actions involuntarily. No, that is not an all-encompassing medical definition, but I only have 1500 words to play with here.

Now then, let’s look at some of Joker’s actions/crimes:

As we can see, there is more than enough questionable intent behind Joker’s actions. But is this enough to prove he has no control, and therefor, no responsibility behind his actions? Does the fact that, on the surface, the actions make no sense, prove a lack of control over said action? Or is there some deeper reason to excuse actions ranging from the mundane to the deadly as acts of insanity?

I Want You to Want Me

In the book, Batman and Philosophy, Christopher Robichaud brings up that we have this amazing ability to conceive second-order desires. Think something along the lines of Inception. We have the ability to analyze our own wants. Essentially, we can ask ourselves if we want to have a desire, or do we desire a certain desire. No other animal on Earth seemingly has this ability. When an animal wants something, say food, they go and get it. No second thought as to how that food comes about. A wolf may kill a rabbit, and not think twice about it. It was hungry, rabbits are tasty, and boom goes the dynamite.

The example given by Robichaud is drug addicts. For our example, let’s use smokers. On the surface, their body requests cigarettes to fulfill a want (or a need, as addiction is defined). But as a human being, they can analyze this want, and decide if it is good for them, or worth it otherwise. At the most primal level, they may desire a cigarette, but they can say to themselves, they no longer want the desire for a cigarette, and thus, decide to quit smoking.

So back to the Joker. If we say that insanity is (at least in part) a lack of second-order desire, can that apply to the Joker? I believe so. Ever heard the phrase, “Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them?” We all come across people at times that we just do not like. No, we probably do not want to kill them, but we might want to do bad things to them. Do we do it though? No. At least, usually not. This is because we analyze the desire, and weigh the consequences. And decide not to follow through.

Joker, on the other hand, he decides he wants to do something, and then immediately follows through. Or at least begins planning. Now, just because he has animalistic tendency (the lack of second-order desire), does not mean it takes away from his intelligence. He still plans his goals. It’s just once that goal is desired, there is no going back for him.

The point is, never do we see any sign of analysis on the decision of said goal.

 As far as I know, I’ve never seen the Joker provide even a hint of regret for any decision, short of poor execution that resulted in failing his ultimate goal. As for regret for the goal itself. Never. And I think you could argue that regret would be closely tied to second-order desire. So at this point I think we can say that as a result of something outside of Joker’s control, he has lost the ability to recognize second-order desires, which for our discussion, can be used to excuse him for reasons of insanity.

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel

So now we have to ask, do we (or Batman) have the right to kill someone who has no ability to stop what they are doing? Or does that mean we should be rid of them because they are an even bigger threat? Stayed tuned for my next post on this, when we will examine what it means for Batman to kill at all.

It’s In The Atmosphere

Posted on by
1

I love to read, and that is no secret. I wouldn’t say that I have a favorite genre, but I am probably seen more reading science fiction or fantasy. I have been known to pick up a classic or two, though–I still hold that Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird are two of the best books I’ve ever read, despite that the vernacular of both is very dated. Somehow that added to their charm.

That said, some of the most fun stories I have ever read come from H. P. Lovecraft.

Lovecraft is not only famous for the Cthulhu mythos, but he is also considered the father of modern horror. Which, I think personally, is due to his amazing ability to create a unique atmosphere for each of his stories.

Atmosphere Is All Around You

Atmosphere, put simply, is the feeling you get about the environment the characters are in. A good example would be going to a haunted house. Notice there is always little to no light? How about the spooky sounds or music that plays just loud enough for you to hear, but not quite make it out? These are just pieces that add together to spookify the atmosphere.

Of course creating atmosphere at a haunted house is much easier than say, a written story. In a haunted house, you are there to feel the cool breeze that gives you chills, or to experience the (emulated) thrill of your life threatened. In a story though, the author has to use words to describe the scene to you. Luckily there is a rule of human nature that comes into play here, and I believe H. P. Lovecraft understood this rule and took it to heart with everything he wrote.

You see, the rule is, you can never portray anything better than your audience can imagine it. A good use of this rule is the comic strip Garfield Minus Garfield. While each comic gives you the idea that Jon is really a paranoid psychotic by removing Garfield in the strip, you sometimes can’t help but imagine what Garfield was really doing in the original comic. Much of the time, if you view the original comic, it may not be nearly as funny as what you had thought up.

Close Your Eyes, What Do You See?

Luckily, this rule isn’t only for comedy, it works great for horror, and H. P. Lovecraft truly understood this. Take a look as this excerpt from the story, Whisperer in the Darkness.

“Night was falling now, and as I recalled what Akeley had written me about those earlier nights I shuddered to think there would be no moon.”

In your mind, you can see the darkening sky as the sun went down without a moon to light the sky or the monstrous clouds formed overhead, covering all the stars. Now look back at that excerpt.

There is actually no real description of the sky.

The image in your mind is just what you formed from your own experiences with a spooky night. It takes a great deal of talent and knowledge of the human mind to know just how much to describe in a story for the audience to take it the rest of the way. This talent and knowledge is what made Lovecraft a master horror author.

Let’s look at another excerpt. This one is from the famous Call of Cthulhu.

“A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful.”

Here we have the first description of Cthulhu that Lovecraft ever published. We all know the general concept of the monster, but look at how few details are really given. Now think about every version of Cthulhu you have seen. Or you can just do an image search on the Internet.

Sure they have the general tentacled face, and many have a sloping stature, but each interpretation is different. Some just slightly, and some by a huge difference. Each version has incorporated that particular reader’s concept of the monster, and it is that Cthulhu they have always seen when reading Lovecraft’s stories. Not yours, not mine, but their own. That one.

Even if Lovecraft gave exact specifications on how Cthulhu looked, all the way down to the exact dimensions of each tentacle, there would still be small gaps that, as readers, we would fill in with our own ideas. But he didn’t, because who wants to spend their time reading nothing but descriptions?

Instead, Lovecraft just gave us that one sentence, our first look at one of the most iconic–and most horrific–creatures in modern horror. He knew how to give just enough to make the darkest corners of our imagination come alive, and it was that ability that made him, arguably, the greatest horror author of the twentieth century.