?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Arguments - Qualified Perceptions
firstfrost
firstfrost
Arguments
From Auria: "I've been arguing with my cousin [harrock's first character] for twenty years, and he's the only person who can consistently make me angry. He told me he was getting married, and I got angry. It's a remarkable thing."

It is odd, how role-playing games bring that out in me. The Celine/Ferrak dynamic is the most argumentative I ever am with harrock, but I spat with Weythran on occasion too (less now than towards the beginning). In real life, I think I've had three serious arguments with harrock ever, and two were about Klothos, which (arguably!) doesn't count as real life. Maybe I'm suppressing my argumentative nature for the sake of marital harmony, and it all escapes in RPGs, but that doesn't seem like the right explanation. I think we mostly don't argue about things because we don't really disagree about things. Then, when we play characters who do disagree, it sets off my outrage much more strongly than with people who I disagree with more on a regular basis.

This made a bit more sense in my head when I thought of it.

Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful

7 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
kelkyag From: kelkyag Date: May 9th, 2007 08:33 am (UTC) (Link)
As an Irritable Person, and an irritation-activated person ... lots of teeny tiny things that aren't even worth griping about, nevermind arguing about, are still irritating, and they do slowly add up. If I can't put that energy into fixing the irritating things, it still needs to go somewhere. Blowing it off in an argument that either can be had-and-solved, or is okay to leave simmering, is something to do with it. YMMV.
firstfrost From: firstfrost Date: May 9th, 2007 01:32 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think I'm not nearly so irritation-activated; I do get irritated at this and that, but 99% of it is quick to fade (sometimes after grumbling to someone else, but not always), so it rarely builds up.
desireearmfeldt From: desireearmfeldt Date: May 9th, 2007 12:12 pm (UTC) (Link)
When Celine gets actually angry with Ferrak it's almost always (I can't think of a counterexample) because she feels he's betraying her and/or the party and/or her idea of what he's supposed to be like.

Even the marriage announcement was a bit of that, I think, because it sounded like he was being Nefarious in some way, and perhaps because it was an announcement that he (we) had been keeping secrets from the party. (OK, this is a bit tenuous and I'm not sure it's quite what I was getting at...on the other hand, in my mind, that episode isn't classed as "Celine got mad at Ferrak" so much as "Celine thought Ferrak was being a goof, and freaked out about the possible consequences," which is slightly different. Outraged, but not really angry, more baffled.)

I imagine if harrock did something you interpreted as betrayal, you *would* be angry...?
firstfrost From: firstfrost Date: May 9th, 2007 02:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
I imagine if harrock did something you interpreted as betrayal, you *would* be angry...?

Yes, and even out of proportion to the actual offense. But it doesn't end up turning into an argument, because it's never an *intentional* betrayal, so once the subject comes up, he apologizes and concedes. (And if there's time, I can usually figure out that it wasn't intentional and stomp down being angry, too, so I don't have to bite his head off.)
kirisutogomen From: kirisutogomen Date: May 9th, 2007 04:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
Aha! Being angry isn't the same as having an argument! That's because you only need one person to be angry, but you need two people to agree to have an argument. So theoretically the lack of arguments could have nothing to do with you -- it could be all harrock.

OK, it's probably not all him and none you, but you see the idea. For an argument you need a betrayal plus a disagreement plus two people who think having an argument is worth it.
harrock From: harrock Date: May 9th, 2007 04:44 pm (UTC) (Link)

Betrayal

It's true. You can totally short-circuit an argument by saying "Yup. I betrayed you. Sold you right up the river." What's there to disagree with? :)
desireearmfeldt From: desireearmfeldt Date: May 9th, 2007 05:05 pm (UTC) (Link)
And, on the flip side, you can have an argument, or a disagreement, without anyone feeling betrayed/seriously angry.

And in the Ferrak/Celine arguments, Ferrak's response tends to be something like "I'm sorry to hurt you and I don't mean it as a betrayal, but I'm sticking to the thing you don't like because my principles dictate it thus." (As opposed to times when they've disagreed about something and wrangled over it, but with the feeling that we're all on the same side and just have to work out a solution we can all live with.)

In real life, it's important to both of you not to put yourselves into that situation (i.e. back down or negotiate when possible), and because of your lower epic-level, it seems like there ought to be few situations where it really is a case of Clashing Principles That Can't Accomodate Each Other.
7 comments or Leave a comment