> At the root of my objection are beliefs that (a) I play RPGs in part to
> express and explore
> different aspects of myself and (b) I have more fun when I do so.. I think
> this is generally
> true of role players. Expressing a group mind does not do so, even in the
> slightest.
> Perhaps it does for some folks. To make Aldryami revolve around a group
> mind makes them
> difficult to play. The ordinary elf is not attractive or comprehensible to
> me if it is an instance
> of a group mind. So I'd like to see a majority of elves be individuals.
As others have said, more or less, this is something of a false opposition. Individuation is a matter of degree, not an either/or. As for them being able to be considered part of oneself, the player: well, I'm rather fond of the trolls:uz :: dwarves:ego :: elves:superego metaphor, which is about as explicit a means as one could wish for for conceptualising that. Obviously if RPing 'pure superego' were _easy_ we'd all be playing Beatification: the Role Playing Game, or Advanced Moksha and Nirvana, Third Edition, but it's not completely beyond the realm of human experience. It would be correct IMO to less that they are 'less individuated' than humans, or to look at it the other way around, 'more aware of the collective'.
> It is fine for a lot
> of them to be yearning for utopia or nirvana or whatever. I suspect you
> would see the same
> in humans if you could verifiably prove that a group mind existed in some
> large part of humanity.
I could have sworn that you do... What's different for elves is that they're 'naturally', or at least fairly uncommonly and even unremarkably, part of the way there already (as compared to humans). But I agree with you that they are in some sense looking for something beyond that, if not in themselves, then in the condition of the world.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail