Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous has sold a million copies - A stellar or abysmal performance?

[Desiderius]

they never marketed it

Pretty much

 

[Jarmaro]

Theseus was not considered controversial in ancient Greece. He is unambiguously a hero. The founding father of Athens. One of the reason the marvel films did really well, I think, is because they let their heroes kill pretty frequently. Captain America shoots a lot of dudes. Iron Man vaporizes his villains. There's no hand wringing about whether it's moral to shoot bad guys.

I think fantasy is attractive because it has a similar reactionary quality. Letting someone cut loose, kill everything that stands in their way, rescue the princess, and crown themselves king speaks to every man at a primal level. Stories that tap into this feeling do well, stories that reject, subvert, or deconstruct it usually don't. I have this theory that modern men (especially writers) are so spiritually weak that they can't visualize themselves as a triumphant hero. Even imagining a shining hero makes their own failures that much more unbearable. In the name of 'realism' or 'drama' or 'subverting expectations,' they mutilate and destroy the human soul, not stopping until everyone else is as pathetic and weak as themselves.

While I agree with the overall spirit of the post, I think you miss the mark. Iron Man and Captain America don't shot people. Well yes, they do, but they don't. Faceless, emotionless mooks exist only to provide a resistancce a protagonist, not to be seen an actual being that are fought. The issue of morality is being circumvented by ignoring the reality of the situation, providing a simple story. That's because modern people don't like ruthless characters slaughtering enemies with impunity, even if the enemies deserve it.

Another aspect is that many writers do write stories where the protagonist is a triumphant hero getting girls. It's called Harem genre and it's quite popular, but ultimately niche. Self-inserting is as old as fiction and still kicking. And yet it isn't that popular. If it spoke to men's instinctual needs and desires at a primal level then wouldn't be it quite popular? Porn speaks to obvious need and you couldn't root it out with combined forces of United Nations.

I do agree that almost every man deep-down feels an urge to protect, kill enemies and get the girl, but the extend to which it affects men isn't as big as you would think. Modern men aren't 'spiritualy' weak, they simply fulfil their needs or desires in a different way. Hard to call killing ones enemies really spiritual in the first place, anyway.

 

[Tyranicon]

I think fantasy is attractive because it has a similar reactionary quality. Letting someone cut loose, kill everything that stands in their way, rescue the princess, and crown themselves king speaks to every man at a primal level. Stories that tap into this feeling do well, stories that reject, subvert, or deconstruct it usually don't. I have this theory that modern men (especially writers) are so spiritually weak that they can't visualize themselves as a triumphant hero. Even imagining a shining hero makes their own failures that much more unbearable. In the name of 'realism' or 'drama' or 'subverting expectations,' they mutilate and destroy the human soul, not stopping until everyone else is as pathetic and weak as themselves.

Every red-blooded man should read the Conan (or the somewhat more wholesome John Carter of Mars) books at some point in their lives.

There's nothing wrong with being masculine. Masculine qualities are highly desirable and should be cultivated.

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

There's nothing wrong with being masculine. Masculine qualities are highly desirable and should be cultivated.

There is, and there isn't. Replace 'masculine' with strong and powerful, and then its almost tautological that its a good thing. The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong. Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. Not for the sake of protecting weaklings who do not possess it. Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force. But even Howards work has a stench of 'muh protection, muh sacrifice' to it, here and there.

Masculinity is good and desirable when it means 'being strong for your own benefit', and secondly, for its own sake, as it implies a certain appreciation of excellence. It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

 

[Harthwain]

The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong.

You're literally crossing out the core idea of being a knight here when the western code of ethics, chivalry, is undeniably something that's deeply rooted in Christian values ("Defend the weak and fatherless", "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed").

Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. Not for the sake of protecting weaklings who do not possess it. Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force. But even Howards work has a stench of 'muh protection, muh sacrifice' to it, here and there.

Strength means you can do what you want. This includes protecting the weak, if you so wish. In this case it means women in particular, although there are some other examples as well.

Spoiler

Conan was not only a raider: he was also a ranger and the king at different points of time, and he did recognize the responsibilities that came with it, such as warning the people who lived on the border against the invading Picts, as well as protecting his subjects in The Scarlet Citadel. Firstly, by refusing to sell them in exchange for his own freedom. Secondly, by organizing an army and relieve the besieged Shamar. He also helps a guy trapped in the tunnels, merely because it didn't feel right for him to just leave him there.

He also had a sense of honor ("Conan decided that he was indebted to Murilo and, since he was a man who discharged his obligations eventually, he determined to carry out his promise to the young aristocrat"), not honor as civilization knew it, but his own understanding of what's proper to do in any given situation (which is why at some point he had no qualms to not kill the judge and run from the law at one point in the books). Conan is not really the one to "get what he wants by overwhelming force" - a lot of what he does is done via coming up to an understanding of some sort.

Frankly, at this point I doubt you read the books or - if you did - that you understood them.

 

[Tyranicon]

The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong.

You're literally crossing out the core idea of being a knight here when the western code of ethics, chivalry, is undeniably something that's deeply rooted in Christian values ("Defend the weak and fatherless", "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed").

To add to this, the ideal vision of masculinity (as envisioned by american writers) is a strong and capable individual tempered by his ideals and beliefs.

To be strong for your own benefit is not discouraged, except when its at odds with your belief system.

Conan is a barbarian, and quite proud of it. But he is not an animal bereft of honor or ideas of righteousness.

 

[gurugeorge]

There's nothing wrong with being masculine. Masculine qualities are highly desirable and should be cultivated.

There is, and there isn't. Replace 'masculine' with strong and powerful, and then its almost tautological that its a good thing. The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong. Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. Not for the sake of protecting weaklings who do not possess it. Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force. But even Howards work has a stench of 'muh protection, muh sacrifice' to it, here and there.

Masculinity is good and desirable when it means 'being strong for your own benefit', and secondly, for its own sake, as it implies a certain appreciation of excellence. It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

I think this is an overly rationalistic view, a mixture of liberal individualism and the traditional view. The traditional view is that man works not only for himself but also for his family, tribe, town, nation. To go against that is to go against evolution, which has set up sexual dimorphism and a division of labour in our species. Men are the external-world-facing (therefore built to be tough) expendable self-sacrificers, and that's the way it is - and traditionally that was honoured.

If you think about what "glory" is, it's being remembered by your people. Occasionally that might be on account of some amazing act of self-preservation or something like that, sure, but more usually it's going to be because you did something remarkable for the group. Even if you're thinking of the Aryan type of highly mobile raiders, the Männerbund type of thing, the last historical example of which was the Vikings, the leaders of those did what they did for the group - their "glory" was the renown they had among their folk, which attracted other strong men, resulting in stronger raiding groups, resulting in more riches for them and for the group.

There's a strain of distortion in the lines of thought that came from the MGTOW (and to a lesser extent the MRM) spheres. Like for the MRM it's a boo fact that men are self-sacrificing, they would rather have a liberal equality between men and women, and they just think the equality isn't extant (as was promised), that things are skewed towards women (which they were until trannies came along). As for the MGTOW line of reasoning, it was the result of seeing through the mercenary female nature and being disgusted by it.

But the fact is, YES men are supposed to be the stoic, self-sacrificing ones, and YES women are harsh and fickle judges of men, and at the most fundamental level human societies are gynocentric - but that's how it's supposed to be, it couldn't be any other way without us turning into another species entirely. Those wrong turns (by men who are starting to wake up) are taken because along with those traditional roles, comes the fact that you have to "man up" and dominate the woman - otherwise she's disappointed that you're intimidated by her and that turns her off. But Western men have been trained (by, ahem, a hostile foreign entity) to think that dominating your woman is low status, which is a complete reversal of the truth (I say "dominate" but that's perhaps a bit OTT just to get the point across. "Don't take no shit from" pitches it about right). So neither MGTOW nor the MRM get it quite right, because they don't really understand the roots of traditionalism (although the MRM does a bit better, as it understands the gynocentric core more clearly, and how "patriarchy" is an offshoot of it, with the idea of women delegating temporal power to men being analogous to the broader idea of the people as the actual sovereign delegating temporal power to a government).

It's true that it's a bit of a sliding scale though - this syndrome I'm describing is less extant as you go further back in time. Really the gynocentrism is a function of settled agricultural societies since the Late Neolithic (i.e. in a sense, by co-evolving with grains and/or herds, our social patterns started to resemble somewhat those of the social insects). Our deepest roots are probably in far more violent and androcentric chimp-like or gorilla-like social structures in the deeper past, and that probably comes out at times when resources are getting very scarce and societies are under extreme stress.

Goethe wasn't whistling Dixie when he said "Das Ewig-Weibliche Zieht Uns Hinan!"

 

[cigaretteEnjoyer_despirit]

The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong.

You're literally crossing out the core idea of being a knight here when the western code of ethics, chivalry, is undeniably something that's deeply rooted in Christian values ("Defend the weak and fatherless", "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed").

Yes I am, I find it nonsensical. I agree its somewhat rooted though.

Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. Not for the sake of protecting weaklings who do not possess it. Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force. But even Howards work has a stench of 'muh protection, muh sacrifice' to it, here and there.

Strength means you can do what you want. This includes protecting the weak, if you so wish. In this case it means women in particular, although there are some other examples as well.

The same premise - that strength means you can do what you want - also includes taking advantage of the weak, if you so wish. It does not imply any direction in particular. Just to make it clear: this is a purely theoretical discussion of implications following from a statement. Personally I think helping people in need is noble and good, but that's beside the point. It might come as a surprise, but that's not the point of chivalry either.

Frankly, at this point I doubt you read the books or - if you did - that you understood them.

Womp womp. No, I reject the assumption that to 'understand' the book means 'to accept its moral premise'. I myself mentioned the same thing about Howard, and that I dislike these parts of his work. Btw moral statements are different from factual statements. Disagreements on moral principles don't come from a lack of understanding as you imply, but from differing value judgements.

To go against that is to go against evolution, which has set up sexual dimorphism and a division of labour in our species.

Evolution has no goal or agency. Its impossible to go against it, and its impossible to go with it. Its just a fact that encompasses everything that lives and everything we do. Its a 'meta' aspect to things, which means it cannot serve as an argument towards anything. If you're considering an idea or an action - that's already a part of evolution. This applies to all the possible ideas and actions.

But the fact is, YES men are supposed to be the stoic, self-sacrificing ones, and YES women are harsh and fickle judges of men, and at the most fundamental level human societies are gynocentric - but that's how it's supposed to be

Facts dont have any moral value in them. "X was there for centuries" sure, tomorrow it might be Y. Notice that if past human practices were binding, the way you say, then no change ever would be possible. This is the conclusion of "it happens, therefore its supposed to happen" premise. It ignores that humans have agency and the will to evaluate and change the world to their liking.

I appreciate your input though, because its thoughtful and you went really deep examining different perspectives and their origin, then classifying them. I'd love to discuss it with you in private, if you're up for that. But in terms of 'masculinity - good or bad' which is already a digression, we're simply getting too far off. I will not post more unless there's a pressing need for response. My stance remains as in the first post and there is not really much to add. Self sacrifice of the strong for the benefit of the weak is repulsive; it creates a world where the best suffer, distracted by supposedly high ideals, while the worst live safely at their expense. You dont need to be some kind of amoral Nietzschean to see how its fundamentally wrong. It boils down to this: I appreciate excellent people, and I don't want to see them sacrificed for the benefit of those less worthy. If anything, I expect the opposite.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

The issue of morality is being circumvented by ignoring the reality of the situation

U R Ghey.

The urge to humanize monsters is the scourge of modernity. We used to hang people for stealing a horse worth $25. Now we must debate endlessly the "reality of the situation." Post-modern morality is warped; it is no longer "who did what," but "who is whom." We must sit down and ask ourselves, why did this man steal a horse? What was his lot in life, to drive him to such a state?

Bullshit. Who cares? Fucker stole a horse. Don't want to die, don't steal horses. Simple.

These stories aren't circumventing morality, they're showing it clearly. But you are taught to empathize with criminals more than their victims, so you can't see that.

That's because modern people don't like ruthless characters slaughtering enemies with impunity, even if the enemies deserve it.

John Wick says hi. So does Deadpool, Indiana Jones, James Bond, John Matrix, Snake Pliskin, John Mclane, etc. That's not even touching gaming characters like Kratos or Nathan Drake. Audiences love these characters, it's dumbass critics and self-appointed scolds who cluck their tongues.

If it spoke to men's instinctual needs and desires at a primal level then wouldn't be it quite popular?

It is. The popularity of "romances" in otherwise straightforward RPGs are due to men's desire for harems. Witcher 1,2, and 3 were popular in part because Geralt is a man's man who gets lots of ass. Go check out Skyrim modding some time. If more mainstream games did this, they would get more sales. Harem isn't niche, Visual Eroge Novels are, for many other reasons.

Modern men aren't 'spiritualy' weak, they simply fulfil their needs or desires in a different way

No, they don't.

https://www.urologytimes.com/view/testosterone-levels-show-steady-decrease-among-young-us-men

 

[Delterius]

its not a completely normal conversation on rpg sales numbers until someone links The Urology Times

 

[Harthwain]

Yes I am, I find it nonsensical.

More like idealistic. Obviously the reality doesn't fit well with that, but same goes for things such as "do not murder" and "do not steal".

The same premise - that strength means you can do what you want - also includes taking advantage of the weak, if you so wish. It does not imply any direction in particular. It does not imply any direction in particular. Just to make it clear: this is a purely theoretical discussion of implications following from a statement. Personally I think helping people in need is noble and good, but that's beside the point.

You said straight up "Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. [...] Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force", which clearly shows a particular direction you were indicating. But having morals/ethics (which Conan clearly has) does not mean always doing what you want, even if you are strong enough to do - for a while at least - whatever you want. I am closer to Socrates on this, whereas you appear to be closer to Thrasymachus, insofar that strength alone is not good enough argument to justify your actions.

Womp womp. No, I reject the assumption that to 'understand' the book means 'to accept its moral premise'.

You don't have to agree with what the book says, but when what you say is contradicting what the book says, then the only possible explanation is you did not understand the book. And you clearly didn't understand the book when you said that the proper use of strength is to take what you want used Conan as an example of a character who "gets what he wants by overwhelming force". Nevermind that your position of "might is right" is weak in general, not just in the context of Howard's works.

Btw moral statements are different from factual statements. Disagreements on moral principles don't come from a lack of understanding as you imply, but from differing value judgements.

Statements on Conan's character, moral principles and actions, as depicted in the book, are factual statements though. This is not really up to a debate.

Evolution has no goal or agency. Its impossible to go against it, and its impossible to go with it. Its just a fact that encompasses everything that lives and everything we do. Its a 'meta' aspect to things, which means it cannot serve as an argument towards anything. If you're considering an idea or an action - that's already a part of evolution. This applies to all the possible ideas and actions.

You can fail at evolution though (by dying without any progeny) with the choices you're making, which is very much part of evolutionary game. The reason some species died is because they took a wrong turn somewhere and failed to adapt. So this is pretty much the question: "Does this help our species to evolve/survive?" more than anything else.

 

[Camel]

It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

It’s called chivalry.

 

[Delterius]

It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

It’s called chivalry.

chivalry is a bolshevistic reading of history designed to lower sperm counts

 

[Desiderius]

There's nothing wrong with being masculine. Masculine qualities are highly desirable and should be cultivated.

There is, and there isn't. Replace 'masculine' with strong and powerful, and then its almost tautological that its a good thing. The problem is that in western ethos men are supposed to be strong for someone else, to someone elses benefit. This is wrong. Strength is great when you use it properly, that is, to acquire what you want. Not for the sake of protecting weaklings who do not possess it. Conan is good when he's a raider, who gets what he wants by overwhelming force. But even Howards work has a stench of 'muh protection, muh sacrifice' to it, here and there.

Masculinity is good and desirable when it means 'being strong for your own benefit', and secondly, for its own sake, as it implies a certain appreciation of excellence. It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

You're close to being right here. The problem you're identifying is a real one:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ology-Study-3a-Source-data-are_fig6_336076674

Have to be strong for yourself to be strong for others. You can see lib heatmap will be ineffectual even for their stated goals. Likewise does disdain for arete defeat itself whatever one's aim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete

On the other hand no man is an island, and true excellence is best expressed by the proven achievements of one's Männerbund and the quality of the posterity it leaves behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kóryos

No protection no legacy.

 

[Desiderius]

It is bad and undesirable when it means 'being strong, to someone else's benefit'.

It’s called chivalry.

chivalry is a bolshevistic reading of history designed to lower sperm counts

There's a disturbing amount to this take. Jokes are funny because they reveal unexpected truth.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/call-me-unchivalrous/