Let's say that you, dear reader, and I are playing chess. According to the game's rules, I take your rook, and you get upset by it. My response would be, "Sorry sweetheart, but taking pieces is how you play chess! If you expected something different, then maybe you should try playing a different game." My wife offered a similar analogy: "If we're playing Monopoly and I buy out all of your land, deal with it."

Let's change things up, and say that before playing, you and I both agree to a modified rule set, which states "no taking of rooks is allowed." During the game, I take your rook anyway. In that case, you are rationally justified in being upset with me, because I cheated-- I violated the game's rules. And cheating is a form of contract violation, which we already know is immoral because it can't be universalized without leading to insoluble logical contradictions.


Now, apply my hypothetical examples above to this real-world Dungeons & Dragons scenario. Or, for the busy, here is a summary of facts:

1. Co-workers are playing AD&D. One of them creates a "chaotic evil" character.
2. The group almost gets wiped out in a fight
3. In total compliance with AD&D rules, "chaotic evil" character kills the rest of the party and takes the loot
4. The rest of the co-workers are butt hurt, and start passive-aggressively shunning the guy in the workplace

Someone today was arguing to me that:

1. The "chaotic evil" guy was a jerk
2. The "chaotic evil" guy was "transferring hostility from the game to real life and the workplace".
3. The "chaotic evil" guy was "taking the game too seriously"-- the co-workers were just playing "casually"
4. The feelings of the co-workers were totally justified simply because the co-workers had them, and that the "chaotic evil" guy should apologize
5. The co-workers' subsequent passive-aggressive behavior was justified

My counter arguments, in turn, to the someone who was arguing with me:

1. The "chaotic evil" charactered guy was just playing the game according to the rules. If the co-workers wanted to play with a modified ruleset-- for example, "no attacking each other"-- then they needed to indicate that beforehand, just as in my chess example above. In addition, I find it rather suspicious that they didn't just interrupt him at the point he initiated the first attack-- they could have just said, "Oh, we don't attack each other in our group", to which he probably would have responded, "Oh, ok!" Rather, they were only upset after they'd lost to his rolls.


2. The "chaotic evil" charactered guy wasn't doing this-- the co-workers were. They were the ones manifesting the game's outcome at work, not him. In fact, I find it rather disturbing that these people can't separate a game from real life; all of the times my dad beat me at chess while I was growing up, I never once took that as some sort of sign that he didn't love me. All of the times I lost to friends at Quake deathmatch wasn't an indication that they hated me. We were playing a game for Pete's sake.


3. No, the co-workers were taking the game too seriously-- they were the ones who were upset afterwards. In psychological terms, this phenomenon is called "projection". The "chaotic evil" charactered guy was just playing according to the rules and having fun. He harbored no anger towards anyone after the game.


4. Feelings aren't valid just because they exist. For example, if stealing your car would make me happy, you aren't obligated to honor that feeling. The co-workers were irrationally upset-- the "chaotic evil" charactered guy would only reinforce their goofy behavior by apologizing, and should not do so, rather adopting the attitude: "Their loss, not mine, if they don't want to play with me anymore".


5. What was most interesting to me about this comment, was that the someone with whom I was arguing was being passive-aggressive during our conversation, constantly posturing as totally neutral by playing the "well, I can see both sides" card-- all while arguing only one side, and getting visibly red in the face with me for disagreeing. My response cut the implication off at the neck: "I can see both sides too-- and one side is wrong."

I also threw in for good measure that the co-workers were actually doing the guy a favor, in that now he knows that they are totally irrational, and that he shouldn't waste his time playing games with them in the future. In fact, it's a shame that he had already wasted one evening, which he can never get back.

My opponent in the argument also kept firing this off at me, with the explanation regarding its validity being that that "lots of people" had posted it. "Lots of people" used to think that the Earth was flat. Interestingly, the article explicitly instructs players to agree to the rules ahead of time-- supporting my view, not my opponent's-- while also straw-manning the "chaotic evil" charactered guy as someone who was blindly following some imaginary mandate, verus just playing the game by the rules-- which is all he was doing.

On a personal note, this is why I tend to not have many friends, and why I so intensely derive satisfaction from enjoying time to myself; in the past, when people have acted irrationally, I've confronted them and then written them off. Indeed, am I so emotionally and intellectually inadequate that I need to constantly surround myself with buffoons, just so I don't need to be alone with my mind?

It's a shame more people don't hold themselves in a high enough esteem to take a similar approach to life. In an entire world of possible friends, why not maintain connections with only the finest?