You would probably prefer to choose what to be. Free will, master of destiny and all that have a strong appeal. But what if some external force could tell you: You are so and so. Your attributes, skills, convictions fit *there*. Now that would also satiate the existential craving. And without all that messy responsibility thing. Tempting too. The same, I would argue, also holds for the reverse of this “belonging” urge, let’s call it the “separating” need. What makes you stand out from the rest? Various gigs have long caressed these tendencies, allowing for some exploration.
The typical role-playing game does it straight-forward: You create an alter-ego through selecting a race/ class/ some moral compass combination, depending on the setting (fantasy/ dystopia/ sci-fi whatever), and prowl a world. Other games start with a relatively uniform group of beings (think vampires, mages, witch-hunters, and more snowflake conceptions like lost souls), and you get to choose your caste, school or brood, that defines how you are different from each other in skills, allegiances and dispositions (toward tradition, authority, companionship and so on and so forth). Both styles give the player a “free” hand. Well, not exactly free to choose, but not too bad.
The games that give the player the paternalistic finger, so to say, work a bit different. Even if you are not into such hobbies, you may have watched it at the big screen, at its more spectacular: The Sorting Hat of the Harry Potter books adapted series, the sentient hat that allocates students to Houses according to its assessment of each kid’s qualities. Lacking a badass magical hat, a simpler method is called for: Quiz! Leaving bs quizzes (with questions as subtle as “do you prefer a green single bladed saber or a red double bladed one?” to discover who jedi you would be) aside, answering a set of well-put questions allows the omnipotent voice to determine your in-game self.
Quick note: While the archetypes and tropes of these games draw heavily (rip-off would be a more appropriate term) from literature, books like HP and especially works by Brandon Sanderson classify their characters through devices that strongly resemble role-playing game mechanics. Even so that there is indeed an official online quiz for The Stormlight Archive book series (I qualify for the Edgedancer order, if you must know).
Throwback to early 2000s. Acclaimed The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind1 included both free and paternalistic ways to create your character. The questions tried to form your preferred problem-solving method (hit it at the face, pickpocket or stab it in the dark, cast a spell, pray to your gods, sweet talk your way out), and also catch some glimpses of your sense of justice and loyalty. The background process was less impressive than it seemed, actually, but provided for some introspection nonetheless. Consider this:
There is a lot of heated discussion at the local tavern over a group of people called 'Telepaths'. They have been hired by certain City-State kings. Rumor has it these Telepaths read a person's mind and tell their lord whether a follower is telling the truth or not.
A. This is a terrible practice. A person's thoughts are his own and no one, not even a king, has the right to make such an invasion into another human's mind.
B. Loyal followers to the king have nothing to fear from a Telepath. It is important to have a method of finding assassins and spies before it is too late.
C. In these times, it is a necessary evil. Although you do not necessarily like the idea, a Telepath could have certain advantages during a time of war or in finding someone innocent of a crime.
I find this particular question compelling. Apart from the obvious Thought Police reference (not the sole wink to Orwell’s 1984, there is also a Ministry of Truth on - above actually - the island of Vvardenfell), it is a concise way to put forth the private life viz-a-viz general interest (as expressed by the King) theme to mostly teenagers or so. Maybe I am reading too much in this, ok. As a young adult, I had opted for the modest C option without reservations, probably expecting that the ruler could only be a benevolent factor, and, in truth, not understanding what a personal right is about. Funnily, I had not yet read 1984, so not only the references flew over my head, but also, when I did read it some years later, I had an aha moment (or maybe a proverbial boot to my face?) and switched to a firm A (not that I continued to play, unfortunately, but I would switch if I did).
It turns out, the topic is also at the heart of a recent heated public debate here in Greece. The National Intelligence Service (EYP) tapped the mobile of a politician (the leader of the third biggest party in the Greek Parliament and a member of the European Parliament) for few months, due to national security reasons. The tapping was conducted lawfully (a Prosecutor verifies the requests by EYP), it seems, but still “provoked substantial concerns about the protection of the right to secrecy of communications and in a wider sense the quality of rule of law in Greece”, as a constitutional scholar put it. Per the same scholar:
Article 19 par. 1 of the Greek Constitution provides that “1. Secrecy of letters and all other forms of free correspondence or communication shall be absolutely inviolable. The guaranties under which the judicial authority shall not be bound by this secrecy for reasons of national security or for the purpose of investigating especially serious crimes, shall be specified by law”.
The “absolute” protection of the right portrays its fundamental value in a democratic society, given its strong connection with personal autonomy and private life. Hence, the Constitution allows two – and only two – restrictions on the confidentiality: for national security reasons and for the penal investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crimes, defined exhaustively by the law. These exceptions shall be strictly interpreted by legal agents so as not to distort or reverse the rule-exception anatomy of the constitutional provision.
“National security” is itself a dodgy term, since
[c]onstitutional theory has interpreted the vague concept of “national security” as the protection of the country from external threats, which is not to be extended and confounded with the internal “public order”.
The publication of the tapping (by the independent authority that oversees communications) has prompted a rift between the first (and currently-in-office) and the third biggest parties in Parliament, a change of hearts, since they were prospective allies in the coming elections. The coverage in international outlets has been significant, and in some cases inflammatory.
The affair is to be examined by a Parliament Committee, but already key players are invoking confidentiality issues. From what has already been reported, I pinpoint that in 2021 alone, c. 15,000 orders of surveillance were approved on national security reasons. Additionally, their recent yearly increases have been in two-digit percentages. So a quantum of transparency has already been served, even as a by-product of the main “event”. I lack the expertise, or similar data from other European countries, but 30-40 orders per day do seem a bit too much, for we are discussing a right that can only be restricted as an exception, and the national security pretext should be very narrowly defined.
As a closing note, two trivia underline the importance of secrecy of communications in Greek constitutional order : It has been protected under Greek Constitutions since 1844, and it was the subject-matter of the case that fucking inaugurated the judicial review of constitutionality of laws, in 1893.
The best single player RPG ever, better than its successors. No argument here. When facing Sarevok’s party in Baldur’s Gate, I had to take down that asshole wizard before he could cast a spell, ‘cause my 16MB RAM PC would crash. We are not the same.