作者 主题: Drm#38,圣武士与游侠:善良并非愚蠢  (阅读 1997 次)

副标题: 聆听创世神的圣言!(误)

线上 鸽巫不吭不咕

  • Knight
  • ***
  • 帖子数: 480
  • 苹果币: 1
Drm#38,圣武士与游侠:善良并非愚蠢
« 于: 2020-02-06, 周四 11:18:10 »
本文是对果园已有半机翻稿件的原文章的翻译
感谢Victor大佬的原翻译
原翻译链接http://www.goddessfantasy.net/bbs/index.php?topic=86116.15


圣武士与游侠:善良并非愚蠢
作者:加里 吉盖克斯

似乎在一部分专家级龙与地下城(ADND)玩家中流传存在着一种广泛的,对于“什么是真正的善良”的误解。这一问题确实具有其两面性,当然了,如果善良没有被确切的定义,我们怎么能去知悉邪恶?道德和论理的准则,同时基于宗教教义,世俗法律,家庭教养,以及其个人对这些传统的约束的看法。如果有人对“为何如此多的玩家对于判断自己善举的对错感到如此无力”进行深入根基的思考,他可能会感到烦躁不安——除非他将这一无力感与游戏是源自幻想这一事实结合起来,并因此意识到这一奇异的无力是源于,他没有在日常与奇幻之间“划平行线”的能力。要想立刻清晰的解释这些记录,并且确切的为所有参与者定义何为“善良”,(我们就必须明白)这意味着字典的所有解释都会被个人的道德与伦理修养——还有当地法律——所扩大与改动!
剧透 -   :
There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding amongst a segment of ADVANCED D&D® players as to what the term “good” actually means. This problem does cut both ways, of course, for if good is not clearly defined, how can evil be known? Moral and ethical precepts are based on religious doctrines, secular laws, family teachings, and individual perceptions of these combined tenets. It might be disturbing if one reflected deeply upon the whys and wherefores of the singular inability of so many players to determine for themselves the rights and wrongs of good behavior — unless one related this inability to the fact that the game is fantasy and therefore realized (rationalized?) that this curious lack must stem from the inability to draw a parallel between daily life and the imagined milieu. In order to clear the record immediately, then, and define the term “good” for all participants, it means everything defined in the dictionary as augmented and modified by one’s moral and ethical upbringing and the laws of the land!

敬爱的读者,如果你正为了某个特定的行为而犹豫——这尤其适用于玩圣武士和游侠的玩家——就去参照你的现实经验吧。在大多数情况下,在现实里的“善良”在幻想中依旧“善良”。不过,反过来就未必正确,因而我们需要对此进行一些量化。
剧透 -   :
Gentle Reader, if you are in doubt about a certain action —and this applies particularly to all who play rangers and paladins — relate it to your real life. It is most probable that what is considered “good” in reality can be “good” in fantasy. The reverse is not quite so true, so I’ll quantify things a bit.

善良并不意味着愚蠢,就算你的DM试图强加给你这个概念也是如此。这种断言本身就是愚蠢(asinine)的,而接受于此的人也是愚蠢(stupid)的。为了量化善良,我们还需要考虑ADND阵营系统里的另外三个修饰:1)守序;2)中立;3)混乱
剧透 -   :
Good does not mean stupid, even if your DM tries to force that concept upon you. Such assertions are themselves asinine, and those who accept such dictates are stupid. To quantify “good,” however, we must also consider the three modifiers in the AD&D™ alignment system: 1) lawful; 2) neutral; and 3) chaotic.

1)守序对于善良的理解表明:一个向至多推动至善的秩序是最理想的。它进一步假设了混乱所带来的结果会侵蚀带给大多数人善良的能力。因此,没有法律和秩序,善良就会落于虚无。
剧透 -   :
1)   The lawful perception of good dictates that the order which promotes the greatest good for the greatest number is best. It further postulates that disorder brings results which erode the capability of bestowing good to the majority. Therefore, without law and order, good pales into nothingness.

2)中立对善良的理解或许是最为纯粹的,因为他们不关心秩序与个人自由,只要总的结果是好的,所以他们对善良的定义没有约束。不论是什么导致了好的结果都是可以接受的,而在存在不伤害他人就能完成目标善举的情况下,他们所使用的手段不应该古板到会对任何其他生物带来坏影响——或者会更好,对所有人在某种程度上带来好影响。
剧透 -   :
2)   Good from the neutral perception is perhaps the purest sort, in that it cares not for order or individual freedom above overall good, so there are no constraints upon the definition of what is good. Whatever accomplishes the good result is acceptable, and the means used should not be so fixed as to bring bad to any creature if an alternative way exists which accomplishes the desired good without bringing ill to others — or better still, brings good to all in one degree or another.

3)必然的,混乱对于善良的看法出发于个人自由。混乱的本质便是个人意志:不受限制,人权至上。善良最先和最多应用于自己;然后是自己身边的人;最后是离自己最远的人¬——以连锁反应,如果你愿意。理解到对自己的“善良”并非意味着对他人的“邪恶”是很重要的,尽管对自己的善良并不会对其他人相似的益处——而且,或许没有任何益处。不过,后者只有在其个人可以预见的未来能为他人带来真善时,才被认为是情有可原的“善良”。
剧透 -   :
3)   The chaotic views good from an individual standpoint, of necessity. The very stuff of chaos is individual volition, freedom from all constraints, the right of person above all else. Good is first and foremost applied to self; thereafter to those surrounding self; lastly to those furthest removed from self — a ripple effect, if you will. It is important to understand that “good” for self must not mean “bad” for others, although the “good” for self might not bring like benefits to others — or any benefit at all, for that matter. However, the latter case is justifiable as “good” only if it enables the individual to be in a better position to bring real “good” to others within the foreseeable future.

相对于现实世界,ADND世界的好处之一,便是其的确具有对善良和邪恶的,非常清晰的分界——就算实质上不是(显然,鉴于这篇文章还有被攥写的必要),至少他名义上是。角色和怪物都具有能识别其道德和伦理地位的方便标签。黑即是黑,灰即是灰,白即是白。尽管黑会有烈度(intensities),灰会有程度(degrees),白会有色度(shades),但他们的大标签都是能被轻易阅读的(而不会有混淆)。
剧透 -   :
One of the advantages of the AD&D environment over the real world is that we do have pretty clear definitions of good and evil — if not conceptually (as is evident from the necessity of this article), at least nominally. Characters and monsters alike bear handy labels to allow for easy identification of their moral and ethical standing. Black is black, gray is gray, white is white. There are intensities of black, degrees of grayness, and shades of white, but the big tags are there to read nonetheless.

一切战役的最终决策者是DM,那个形象的为阵营赋予上精美图案的人,然而DM也必须遵循规则书上的大致轮廓,否则他就不得不面对她或者他的战役并不是一个ADND战役的事实。除此之外,这些战役的参与者也可以拒绝继续游玩。【保留掀桌权,笑】。这是对裁判者的行为表示不满的最可靠和最直言不讳的方式。事实上,这些标签(阵营)和他们的基本定义是基于ADND规则的,而具体的细节,应该交由整组参与者定夺。
剧透 -   :
The final arbiter in any campaign is the DM, the person who figuratively puts in the fine print on these alignment labels, but he or she must follow the general outlines of the rule book or else face the fact that his or her campaign is not an AD&D campaign. Furthermore, participants in such a campaign can cease playing. That is the surest and most vocal manner in which to demonstrate displeasure with the conduct of a referee. In effect, the labels and their general meanings are defined in the AD&D rules, and the details must be scribed by the group participating.

对善良的看法会因为个人的年龄,学历和神学训练而不同。小孩子从他们受到的来自父母的惩罚上看不出善良——“让我们继续玩火柴啊”。而文化对善良的定义可能会是要在吃完东西后大声打嗝,或是去杀死任何一个进行过某种禁忌行为的人。宗教上对善良的定义和文化对善良的定义一样多种多样,不仅如此,鉴于文化和宗教的互相影响,相异的宗教要比相异的文化还要多。因此,仅凭一个作品就要划分出善与恶、守序与混乱、以及(如果现实存在的话)他们之间的中间地带,是不可能的。然而,这并不是说,就意味着“善良”可以是任何想要的东西,任何这么告诉你的人,实际上,是想说善良是愚蠢的,或者至少,是可笑的。在龙杂#36(1980年4月刊)的贤者问答里,包含了一些关于圣武士和游侠的有趣问题和答案。让我们根据前面的情况来研究这些:
剧透 -   :
Perceptions of good vary according to age, culture, and theological training. A child sees no good in punishment meted out by parents — let us say for playing with matches. Cultural definitions of good might call for a loud belch after eating, or the killing of any person who performs some taboo act. Theological definitions of good are as varied as cultural definitions, and then some, for culture is affected by and affects religion, and there are more distinct religious beliefs than there are distinct cultures. It is impossible, then, for one work to be absolute in its delineation of good and evil, law and chaos, and the middle ground between (if such can exist in reality). This does not, however, mean that "good” can be anything desired, and anyone who tells you, in effect, that good means stupid, deserves a derisive jeer (at least).
The Sage Advice column in issue #36 of DRAGON™ magazine (April 1980) contained some interesting questions and answers regarding “good” as related to paladins and rangers. Let us examine these in light of the foregoing:

一个拥有圣武士角色的玩家询问这个角色是否可以“让被严重伤害并且不想活下去的人死亡” 。尽管在贤者问答中给出的答复是强烈的否定,这里要指出,这个问题的实际真理可能在别的地方。这个玩家并没有提供圣武士所侍奉的神的名字,而这正是在ADND游戏里守序善良行为的钥匙。记住,“善良”往往可以联系现实,但并非总是。它也能与真实或者幻想中的“过去”对“善良”的认知相关。在后一种情况下,圣武士甚至可能可以进行武力强迫,让目标展示出接受“正道”的倾向,来令他们从良,以增加皈依者。这能保证悔改者不会重回从前的邪恶行径,并且将现在其已被拯救的精神带到更加善良的层次上,还能减少世界上的一个潜在的麻烦制造者。这样的行为就是“善良”的,因为:
1.   邪恶(至少一个角色的邪恶)被消灭了
2.   善良获得了一个皈依者
3.   皈依者将渴望来世的奖励(而非折磨)
4.   善良的大众变得更加安全(由于至少多了一个令他们安全的因素)
剧透 -   :
A player with a paladin character asked if this character could “put someone to death (who) is severely scarred and doesn't want to live.” Although the reply given in Sage Advice was a strong negative, it is suggested here that the actual truth of the matter might lie somewhere else. The player does not give the name of the deity served by the paladin. This is the key to lawful good behavior in AD&D terms. Remember that “good” can be related to reality often, but not always. It might also relate to good as perceived in the past, actual or mythical. In the latter case, a paladin could well force conversion at sword point, and, once acceptance of "the true way" was expressed, dispatch the new convert on the spot. This assures that the prodigal will not return to the former evil ways, sends the now-saved spirit on to a better place, and incidentally rids the world of a potential troublemaker. Such actions are "good,” in these ways:
1.   Evil is abridged (by at least one creature).
2.   Good has gained a convert.
3.   The convert now has hope for rewards (rather than torment) in the afterlife.
4.   The good populace is safer (by a factor of at least 1).

因此,一个圣武士实际上可以执行“安乐死”,如询问玩家所要求的那样,假设是他或她的宗教信条允许这样做。这虽然看上去不太可能,但实际可能。
剧透 -   :
It is therefore possible for a paladin to, in fact, actually perform a "mercy killing” such as the inquiring player asked about, provided the tenets of his or her theology permitted it. While unlikely, it is possible.

另一个问题来自那些拥有一个希望结婚并且诞下血系的圣武士的玩家。又一次的,我们的贤者问答给出了否定的建议。虽然许多宗教都禁止结婚并且要求独身,但这绝不意味着这是普遍的。当然,关键点又在所侍奉的神上。不使用专指,确定的神的DM们将回到“圣武士”这个词的起源,并且意识到独身并不是这种风味的圣武士的常态。同样的,尽管罗马的天主教会要求他们的神职人员独身,犹太基督教的教义却认为结婚和生养子嗣是神圣而正当的,也即,“善良”的。因此,除非一个特定的神灵要求他的战斗仆从独身,否则就没有合理的的理由让圣武士不结婚生子。这是一个常识问题——而DM,如果他或者她不是武断的,大概会同意这一游戏精神,并允许结婚生子。(这肯定是个长战役,或者他的参与者都专注于游戏不同寻常的地方。不论如何……)
剧透 -   :
Another case in point was that of a player with a paladin character who wishes to marry and begin a lineage. Again, our Sage Advice suggests a negative. While many religions forbid wedlock and demand celibacy, this is by no means universal. The key is again the deity served, of course. DMs not using particular, specific deities will harken back to the origin of the term “paladin" and realize that celibacy is not a condition of that sort of paladin-hood. Also, although the Roman Catholic church demands celibacy of its priests, the doctrines of Judeo- Christianity hold matrimony and the bearing and rearing of children as holy and proper, i.e. “good." So unless a particular deity demands celibacy of its fighter-minions, there is no conceivable reason for a paladin not to marry and raise children. This is a matter for common sense — and the DM, who, if he or she is not arbitrary, will probably agree with the spirit of the game and allow marriage and children. (This must be a long- range campaign, or else its participants are preoccupied with unusual aspects of the game. No matter....)

第三个询问涉及一个游侠角色。其作者声称他或者她的DM与一名守序善良的游侠坚持一只嗜血的双足飞龙是应该被保护,而不是被宰杀的,除非他攻击了小队。这就是一个玩家被告知(守序)善良是愚蠢的的案例。断言一个有邪恶倾向的杀人怪物应该受到一个守序善良游侠的保护是纯粹的精神错乱。立刻,有多少人会(因此)担受风险?此后,有多少受害者会因此而亡? 简而言之,这不属于任何公认标准的“善良”!这和赦免疯狂的猎犬,凶暴的大象,吃人的老虎没什么两样。
剧透 -   :
The third inquiry concerned a ranger character. The writer claimed that his or her DM combined with a lawful good ranger to insist that a wounded wyvern was to be protected, not slain, unless it attacked the party. Here is a classic case of players being told that (lawful) good equates with stupidity. To assert that a man-killing monster with evil tendencies should be protected by a lawful good ranger is pure insanity. How many lives does this risk immediately? How many victims are condemned to death later? In short, this is not “good” by any accepted standards! It is much the same as sparing a rabid dog or a rogue elephant or a man-eating tiger.

如果仔细考虑了善良,并对比和对照邪恶,那么常识将使大部分,即使不是全部的,关于圣武士和游侠的行为准则的问题得到解决。考虑到这个角色的神祗是在了解了善的基础上才得到的。此后,战役“世界”的道德和伦理准则必须在文化基础上被规定。这些观点可能来自神话或其他来源。最重要的是,“善良”的定义要基于理智与合理的土壤。观点会不同,所以绝对的准则(特别是在游戏里)既不可取,也不可能。
剧透 -   :
If good is carefully considered, compared to and contrasted with evil, then common sense will enable most, if not all, questions regarding the behavior of paladins and rangers to be settled on the spot. Consideration of the character’s deity is of principal merit after arriving at an understanding of good. Thereafter, campaign "world" moral and ethical teachings on a cultural basis must rule. These concepts might be drawn from myth or some other source. What matters is that a definition of “good” is established upon intelligent and reasonable grounds. Viewpoints do differ, so absolutes (especially in a game) are both undesirable and impossible.

线上 常乐

  • Hero
  • ****
  • 帖子数: 623
  • 苹果币: 4
  • 本人弱智,你们永远不要和弱智争论,拉低自己的智商水平
Re: Drm#38,圣武士与游侠:善良并非愚蠢
« 回帖 #1 于: 2020-02-08, 周六 21:06:33 »
看完了...感觉例子举得...呃...
我觉得遇到“一眼分辨不出善恶的问题”
再试图用阵营观去分析这件事究竟是善是恶本身就是愚蠢的。
如果用了阵营九宫格,DM就不要抛出这样的弱智问题,也不要给出回答。
阵营九宫格太菜了,不适合解答这种问题。
« 上次编辑: 2020-02-08, 周六 21:09:29 由 常乐 »

离线 霜千翎

  • Flawless
  • *******
  • 帖子数: 5599
  • 苹果币: -3
Re: Drm#38,圣武士与游侠:善良并非愚蠢
« 回帖 #2 于: 2020-02-08, 周六 23:36:31 »
GGG他就是个胖子,他懂个屁的DND!
“没有胜利者,我们只是活下来了......
伴随着许多噩梦...”——万华镜诸神

剧透 -   :
根据不完全的计算,将近四年的时间里,我们已经完成了单个长团“正文”超过六百万字的里程碑,相当于四大名著加起来写了六次...
我和我的角色也在故事里度过了四次生日并收到了你给我的四件礼物。
在这其中发生了很多开心的经历,有趣的剧情。也出现过一些悲伤的,甚至让人愤怒的情况。我们在不爽时争论不休,然后又在争论后互相体谅而重归于好。
非常感谢你一路以来的坚持和陪伴,我的朋友。
也希望我们的友谊可以继续走得更远...更远...                                       —————2020/08/22