A Non-Violent MMO

Why are MMO's so violent? I like a good online game, but most of them are the same routine: kill the monsters to gain levels, talk to person A, person B, and person C, gather 6 crystals by killing crystalline elementals, and talk to person C again to finish the quest. You will never see any of those people again throughout the course of the game, but you will gather a lot more items and kill a lot more monsters.

Ugh.

Puzzle Pirates is original, but I never really got into it. I hope Star Wars: The Old Republic does a good job with the story, but they're definitely planning to have fighting be central to the game. Free Realms and Endless Forest don't have a compelling plot or interesting goals. The Sims Online failed, and A Tale in the Desert is mostly about crafting. I think crafting is cool, but it tends to rely on gathering. And gathering resources bores me to tears.

Matthew Everett posted a great analysis of why violence is a convenient mechanism for game design. Dana Massey posted a wonderful suggestion for a non-violent mystery MMO, which I find fascinating. If somebody created a good mystery/adventure MMO, I know one thing for sure.

I'd play it.

Edits:

Captain Dwur posted a list of ideas for genres that can provide non-violent RPG challenges: adventure, detective, natural disaster, political, and puzzle. Some of his readers posted other ideas, such as card games, treasure-hunting, getting close to animals to study them, or competitions based partly on numerical skills and partly on strategy (e. g. footraces, archery, art/poetry). Syp also wrote a commentary on some common non-combat elements of MMORPGs.

The new Mistborn Adventure Game is a tabletop RPG that focuses much more on mysteries than combat. When questioning someone, the GM has a list of "secrets" that are revealed in order. If the person resists questioning, there are three ways to challenge them: physical, social, and mental. The victim is "unconscious at 0 Health, disgraced at 0 Reputation, or devastated at 0 Willpower." (See Crafty Games's downloads section for a free intro to the game.)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

The traditional King James Version of these two verses is extreme and has hurt and confused many peoples' understanding of the general role of women:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

Joseph Smith changes the word "speak," in both cases, to "rule," in the Joseph Smith Translation/Inspired Version of the Bible. Also, the Greek word translated as "silence" can also be translated "tranquility" or "peacefulness," according to my Greek lexicon. According to the footnote, the Greek word translated "obedience" should be translated "submissiveness." Finally, my personal interpretation of the word "learn," based on context, is that is applies to Church government--meaning that if the Bishop's wife disagrees with Church or Ward policy, or, for that matter, if any spouse has ideas, counsel, encouragement, or concerns about the way their husband or wife is performing their calling, they should discuss it with their spouse in private.

So, here's my personal (not doctrinal) interpretation of that scripture, with the changes in italics:

"Let your women keep the peace in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to rule; but they are commanded to be submissive, as also saith the law. And if they will learn (or change, understand) any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to rule in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

Note that this scripture repeatedly uses the phrase "in the church." Not once does it make a comment about the differing roles of father and mother in a family setting. It seems clear to me that, in the formal organization of the Church, men should and will be more prominent than women--not more important, but more prominent. (Since it is Church doctrine that the simplest Sunday School teacher or nursery leader is just as important as the President of the Church, just with a different role, "for without the feet how shall the head be able to stand?) However, in the patriarchal order of the family, husband and wife have equal authority and power. If one gets a revelation concerning the family, the other has the right and responsibility to know whether it is a true revelation.

Proper Time and Place

Well, I'm planning to propose to my girlfriend tomorrow, less than three months after our first date. So, I wanted to ramble for a bit about decision-making and time. Making choices too quickly can lead to all sorts of problems. There may be unforeseen consequences. There are more likely to be mistakes. Making choices too slowly also leads to all sorts of problems. It hurts those who are waiting for you to decide. If you delay too long, the choice usually defaults to the worse of the two options.

So, like in all things, decision making requires a balanced amount of time. It requires that one do their best to consider all the implications. It requires that one enjoy life and not worry too much. Faith in God helps tremendously, knowing that He is anxious and willing to make up for our weaknesses, especially in the long run. He will make everything right in the end. However, he is also ready to bless us in the short run, if we ask for it and are believing. We must believe that God is completely capable of giving us the blessing now, and we must desire to put His will first. If we are truly humble and believing--not letting doubts drown out the possibility of divine intervention, but also preparing for all possibilities--then we will be at peace with ourselves and with God.

Another aspect of decision making is listening to advice. Obviously, asking for advice from friends and family will almost always produce a large variety of responses. In my case, for instance, you ask your friends when you should marry, and they think short-term happiness. Why wait? That just produces more stress, they say. You ask your family, and they remind you of the financial implications. Having seen marriages struggle and fall, they urge you to give it more time, to be sure it is what you want. Then you ask your Bishop, and he tells you to get married as soon as possible to more easily keep yourselves clean. You read the words of the prophets, and they say to be wise and have faith that God will provide what you need if you do your best, and even recommend, in general, not delaying marriage or children for financial reasons, since in struggling together you can choose to grow together. That too can be a great blessing.

My decision was to get married sooner rather than later. A great comfort is that in most situations, there is more than one good option. Either way will bring a lot of happiness. Which job? Pray about it. But the Lord may remain silent because both are good or because you already know enough to make the decision on your own. Good luck to my readers. Especially my unmarried ones. ;)

Civil Unions

A friend and I were talking, and I came to a new conclusion about the government definition of marriage. I've always felt that it wasn't really the government's place to define marriage, but that it seems to have to define it out of necessity.

Here's a potential problem: If homosexual marriage is officially recognized, then ministers--who act as agents of both religion and government when they officially marry two people--will be forced to recognize homosexual marriage. This violates their freedom of religion. It also means that public school teachers will be forced to recognize homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage equally. This essentially means that a certain religious view will be being taught in schools that children are legally required to attend unless they can afford a private school. Again, this violates their freedom of religion.

So, here's a possible solution: Take away all official government recognition of marriage. Set up a civil union system designed for people who are living together and uniting their finances on a long-term basis. The government will completely ignore marriage as a social and religious institution, and only pay attention to the legal contract of a civil union. Then, churches, institutions, and individuals will be free to call marriage whatever they like. Churches won't be required to recognize a homosexual couple as married, and homosexual couples won't be required to consider themselves unmarried. Everyone has the freedom to believe as they choose.

Based on what I know so far, I think that this is the best possible legal system.