The first thing I noticed about this game is that its protagonist is an ESFj. That makes her my dual. Obviously I’m going to be quite interested in what this game has to say.
Indeed, this game has many interesting things to say. First off, the theme: it’s totally oriented around light and darkness. The opening movie displays a series of glyphs (think stained glass) of a mostly nude woman with ram’s horns on her head, who is suggested to be in control of a “dark prince”. This dark prince appears to be some kind of gargoyle-like demon. The game’s primary theme is stated — “wherever there is darkness, there is light.” A nude angel woman is seen bequeathing a blessing to a praying girl. Next we see this self-same girl, who is described as the Maiden of Light, standing toe to toe with the demon. The nudity betrays a definite psuedo-sexual tone to the game — I say psuedo because it is evident that the game has strong feminist themes. (the idea of a woman as lead character — especially a typically “super girly” ESFJ — is itself a bold statement in a world of masculine leads.) In the context of these themes the nudity of a figure is held to the same level as Greek nudity in the Olympics — it is a feminine trait and a symbol of the protagonist’s self-assurance. The idea is “You have your naked Davids slaying Goliaths… well women are every bit man’s equal in that regard, and their nudity may be similarly heroic and meaningful.”
Also relevant is the ESFj type of the protagonist. ESFj is a very beauty-attentive person: they seek to create harmony between themselves and the world, and to offer the same to others. Obviously an INTj born-hedonist (and they all are, don’t be kidded on that notion for a second) has a lot to feel at home with in an environment controlled by ESFj. Similarly, an ESFj themed game will be a rather beautiful sight to behold. (or at least one would think.)
The protagonist is named “Priere” (pronounced”pre-A”). She is described as having a very short temper and a huge ego fization. She is obsessed with becoming the next Maiden of Light. These flaws seem to be rooted in her history: she and her younger brother (an INTp — yes, that’s right: HER CONFLICTOR) were orphaned when both of their parents died. Priere vowed then to be strong enough to survive for herself and her brother. Part of having insecurity as a basis for self-determination (Nietzche’s Zarathustra) is the having of such an attitude and ego, because to have such tremendous insecurity one must aspire to be indispensible to society. By becoming socially indispensible, one manages to rest the burden of one’s own success on the shoulders of society, thus nullifying one’s burden to society and achieving relative social invincibility. (self-actualization) In leu of having a relationship to society proportional to her insecurity, Priere is burdened with the task of anchoring her personality on the strength of her own ego, which must be defended by whatever means are within the scope of social acceptance. (however closely the boundaries are skirted.)
Why is Priere so insecure? Beyond the circumstances of her position, she is a creative leader. Creative leaders are open to questioning the ways dual IM elements relate to each other. This sets them apart from the majoritarian element of the “domain leader” natural leader class. (domain leaders emulate creative leaders relative to their degree of success or failure; this is why one observes only small islands of originality amidst the huge informative morass of modern media.) Non-creative leaders are tactical; creative leaders are strategic. Non-creative leaders will debate the same points endlessly, regardless of their type. Creative leaders will observe the debate as a problem of purpose: the existing methods are not sufficient to the burden of creating a better environment for oneself and for one’s dual. (the primordial fundamental motive of human cognition.) By questioning the debate itself, the creative leader at once takes on two tremendous responsibilities: 1) the burden of enduring the scorn of those who were content to see the situation a matter of debate, with no concrete movement for change, 2) the burden of supplanting the debate by means of a coherent strategy for positive change. Non-creative leaders will advise and assist, but they will place responsibility for failure squarely on the shoulders of the creative leader. This is an awesome responsibility that intensifies relative to the level of questioning partook by the creative leader: the more fundamental the question, the more severe the potential consequences and the greater the social risk could be. The creative leader, who is naturally inclined to undertake these questionings, must make use every feasible mental defense technique. A leader like Priere, who undertakes on basis of her own natural sense of morality to question the ethical norms of a universally revered cultural figure, must carefully navigate the treacherous social waters thereby entailed. On the one hand she must avoid weakness; on the other, she must demonstrate humility and openness to positive solutions wherever they may be found. The demands of either manifest as an outward demonstration of above-average intellect (due in part to her fixation on offering the very best solution available at any given momentto the problems at hand, itself requiring the accumulation of some body of knowledge and at least a neophyte apprehension of the problem.) and resourcefulness. The successful creative leader is a far-ranging “renaissance” person who dabbles into everything, and is never caught completely off guard. When they are questioned, they have at the ready the appeal of that vital force — duality — on which basis they frame the questioning in the context of the larger issues of the day. By such means the creative leader does not just frame consensus — they create it anew by appealing to the common humanity in everyone. (or for the sociopathic, a common fear of the same.) This is this self-confidence and appeal which makes the creative leader a leader among leaders.
And, in the troubled worlds of cRPGs, quintessential protagonists.
But then if not everyone has the potential to be an effective creative leader, why are they such popular protagonists? Two reasons. Firstly, the psyche is psychodynamic, meaning that the capacity exists within a majority of humans to appreciate any internal psychic state of any other human by means of replicating it in their own minds. It’s not about apprehending what is presented: most people do that fine. It’s about, rather, actually creating a new synthesis of ideas that is relevant to the situation at hand. Apparently only creative leaders have that trait, although any person leader or no can appreciate when an idea is useful, and can choose to emulate it on basis of its personal usefulness.
(consider if the psyche was NOT psychodynamic. How then would speakers employ the ancient rhetorical technique of “transport” to make themselves understood by their audience? We all have the capacity for creativity, but some of us are better at offering useful creativity than others.)
The second reason is that just because a person is not confident in their ability to be a creative leader — and to demonstrate that hidden side of themselves in the world outside them — doesn’t mean they don’t inwardly aspire to it. When you play a cRPG, you ARE the protagonist. Whatever fantasies you have of providing the world with some vital idea or theme, you can live those out in an RPG. (saving the world is nothing more than a generic form of that, after all. When was the last time you heard of how one man “saved the world” in real life? (not counting religion, obviously.)) Thus comes the divide: those who see RPGs as an outlet for the “inner hero” they otherwise feel unable to be; and the people who do have the self-awareness — and self-confidence — to risk altering the world around them on a mass scale, and who dare to see in the games something remarkable and substantial. As one of the latter, I hope to relate how the experience of playing games influences my own theories of personality, which I center around extensions to socionics. I assert that we hear too little today of how new ideas are actually generated, of the life stories and experiences that underlie technological and scientific acheivements great and small. (did you know that dreams about cows were a part of the development of Einstein’s theory of relativity?) As to whether or not my theories will prove useful to society… time will tell. Suffice to say, I’m taking the risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment