Guest Article: The Political Economy of Diablo II

[Nathan Danylczuk]

As a philosophy major, i'd say that this article has very unsound arguements.

Really, did you think a politcal philosophy essay using a video game as an example would be perfectly sound?

Further, if I had written it like I write most of my papers (yes, I am also a philosophy major), do you think it would have been chosen as a guest article or that people would even bother to read it?

I think not

 

[Nathan Danylczuk]

the non-free-market, non-libertarian (i.e. the non-freedom, non individualist) version of D2 might look like this:

A lack of freedom does not follow necessarily from goverment regulation, and communism does not follow necessarily from a non-libertarian ideology. And further, by saying that we need government regulation, I do not mean that we need complete government regulation, only to some degree. In the article, I point government regulation toward things like crime regulation and fair treatment, not to redistribution of wealth or complete control of the economy.

Just because I'm not hard right, it does not mean I'm hard left.

sounds like a pretty dull game. D2 like life, should be as free from freedom-restricting regulation as possible. If people are being 'exploited' it is because they allow themselves to be. I don't need game code (or government) to protect me from my own stupidity nor do I want to be penalized because of other's stupidity.

Healthcare, social programs, and infrastrcture programs are not freedom-resricting, nor do they make life any more dull. And it is clearly false that people are exploited only because they allow themselves to be. No one is infallible: there was a point in Diablo 2 where account passwords could be stolen from trade channels, and everyone, no matter how big their fence is, is susceptible to robbery.

 

[HBeachBabe]

not to turn this thread into a huge political debate, but actually, they are, in that my money via taxation goes to pay for them. thus my personal choice of how to allocate that money I earned is taken from me and instead spent on programs I didn't personally choose. My freedom to spend my money as I choose to is limited.

From the standpoint of economic philosophy, all government interference in the economy is freedom-restricting to some degree.

also, don't assume that the political spectrum is only left-right. Libertarian is no more 'right-wing' than it is 'left-wing,' it's socially liberal, but economically conservative.

Personally, I agree there are those who are exploied without their consent (via hacks, cheats, etc) and that needs to be regulated. I don't believe freedom means freedom to do anything i.e. my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

 

[jerryku]

The vast majority of people prefer a "meritocratic" system, they also believe a "free market" is *NOT* meritocratic.

If Diablo was about merit, and not the free market, then players who were the most skilled and effective fighters would be rewarded the most. If a level 10 fighter is killing twice the # of monsters as a level 15 fighter in a party, the level 10 fighter would get the most xp, and they wouldn't share xp on such an equal level.

The mantra of socialism is "Equal pay for equal work", and is actually a human right according to the United Nations Human Rights Declaration (although it's completely ignored and basically impossible to enforce anywhere, let alone across the world). This doesn't mean everyone is equal, not at all. It means if you work harder and smarter than someone else for doing the same kind of work, you should get more money. The mantra of COMMUNISM is a bit more muddy. I won't go into that one, there's lotsa competing thoughts about equality. Albert Einstein was a communist, and I don't believe he thought everyone should be absolutely equal, for example.

Definately the biggest complaint I've had about RPG games (i'm more of a FPS gamer, Day of Defeat) is that there is so much emphasis on "time spent playing", instead of actual skill. What little skill is involved in these games, can only vary by a small amount between players. One guy might be 10-25% more efficient a level 25 player than another level 25 player, but that's about it. To me, RPG games lack a lot of space for individual competitive ability, and instead reward simplistic play styles that any Joe Schmo can get into. Compare this to DOD, where some players (such as myself) can be so overwhelmingly powerful that they achieve 30 to 2 kill ratios in a few minutes, being 15 times better than the next player over. For this reason, games like DOD and Counter-strike are considered great competitive games, while RPGs are seen as primarily co-operative and too simplistic to show who is really good, and who is simply "good because they play so much". RPGs are seen as games for people who aren't very good at games, to be honest. For people who don't have the ability to win at strategical or tactical games.

In other words, RPGs cater to "the lowest common denominator", and not the "best and the brightest". When you think of it this way, there's a great deal of irony behind RPGs. On one hand, the game rewards materialistic, greedy and selfish players with wealth and character strength. On the other hand, the playing field of RPGs is fundamentally built to be far more egalitarian than other game genres. Everyone is essentially doing the same job, at the same rate. This rewards mere effort, instead of skill. If the above is correct, it's no wonder RPGs have become so popular in the last few years. Hmm. I think we've found something here.... RPG games tell people what everyone wants to hear: The person who is weaker/poorer than me is simply lazy, they have the ability to become just like me if they simply put the same amount of effort into it. The person who is ABOVE/stronger than me, isn't smarter than me.... no, no, they are simply harder workers, I'm just as smart as they are. But they put more work into it, and I can get to that level too, if I wanted to.

Now look at FPS games. With the exception of Counter-strike (I'll come back to this later), FPS games put everyone on an equal level (they all move the same speed, and have access to the same choice of weaponry), but the gameplay itself results in vast gaps of player skill. Like I said, one guy can be 15 times better than another guy, even if the less skilled guy has been playing for years more than his superior. The irony here is that when the game ends, the superior player recieves no reward for his superior ability.... besides a measly score chart saying he was the best. No heaps of gold, no super powerful gun. It's the opposite of Diablo and RPGs. Skill grants you no reward.

Now let's take a look at Counter-strike. I'm trying to launch a game center cafe in the coming months, and so I've been trying to figure out the psychological reasons behind the popularity of CS and strategy games (warcraft) at LAN centers. My theory is that these games are popular because they are so intertwined with the idea of equal opportunity, meritocratic competitive play, but with slight rewards to serve as incentives to succeed. First off, the playing field is always reset, and equalised at the beginning of each 30 minute match. (this explains why so many people support the educational goal of "equal opportunity", all kids getting the same quality of education, regardless of parental wealth). This makes sure people do not have a "head start" that must be overcome. Everyone starts off with a pistol (or town hall) and runs off. Secondly, individual skill is rewarded with advanced weaponry/technology, but not so advanced and far ahead that you feel your enemies have no chance to overcome you. Thus, an MP5 user can still defeat an expensive assault rifle user. People LIKE the idea of REAL competition, *not* total domination. People want to see a football or basketball game where the outcome is up in the air.... the score is going back and forth. These games are popular at LAN centers because when you're physically around other people, you want to compete with them, whether through a game of basketball or through a game of CS. YOu want to compete, and you want to compete on an equal level at START. You do NOT want to compete with them by starting off saying that "since this guy played basketball with us 5 times before, he gets certain advantages over you by default".

Meanwhile, RPGs are primarily designed for people to play alone at their home. So maybe the thirst for real competition between players is non-existant... you don't feel the need to prove yourself over complete strangers... you simply want to reward yourself, and compare your OWN status at level 25 to your status at level 1. Eh shrug.

 

[jerryku]

also, don't assume that the political spectrum is only left-right. Libertarian is no more 'right-wing' than it is 'left-wing,' it's socially liberal, but economically conservative.

While Libertarians have long been saying that they are not left or right wing, no one else agrees. The reason is that no one actually believes social issues are important. 99% of people who are considered "leftists" in this country are considered that by others, and by themselves, due to their economic beliefs. Thus immigrants and minorities are considered left-wing, even though they all have socially conservative views. Social issues are irrelevant in regards to political affiliation. The only people who don't see it this way are the Libertarians themselves and perhaps some Pat Buchanan people.

This is why the vast majority of Libertarian Party members are ex-Republicans. They're nothing more than Republicans who don't like taxes, and would rather not join the culture wars. Guess what? No one cares about the culture wars. Example: No one would argue that the Communist Party of China is "right-wing" because it is socially conservative in its treatment of homosexuals, for example. It's irrelevant. For more evidence, I invite you to simply open political magazines every once and a while. The Democrats and left-leaning magazines all consider the Economic Policy Institute to be liberal. The Republicans and right-leaning magazines all consider the Libertarian CATO Institute to be conservative. There's no argument on either side of the aisle. Democrats *and* Republicans think Libertarians are right-wing, because they both know that social issues are meaningless. That being said, I understand where Libertarians are coming from. They don't want to be hemmed into the label of "right-wing" because it sounds like they are supporting something in the past... something already tried. Many Libertarians, perhaps most, believe that what they want has never been tried before, and thus it cannot possibly be right-wing. They also don't want to be hemmed into "left-wing" because that's just a naughty term in America to start with.

I would also like to remind people that "government regulation of the market" is not, by definition, left-wing or liberal. Current leftist thought all wishes to see a more DEMOCRATIC and INTERNATIONALIST economy. Thus, if monarchy returned, and a King ruled over the economy, this would not be left-wing. It would be right-wing. This is the classical definition of left/right-wing. Another example, if a group of ultra-nationalists democratised the economy..... but only for a certain race, slammed down the borders against immigrants, and did everything "America Uber Alles", that's right-wing, too. Another source of confusion that might need to be cleared up: Libertarians (self-labelled economically conservative) and Democrats/Socialists/Communists (self-labelled economic liberals) both believe immigration should be INCREASED, while Republicans believe immigration should be severely decreased. So in this way, Republicans are the ones regulating the free-market to benefit themselves ("that's *my* job that immigrant stole!"), while most people who are in favor of more immigration call themselves leftists.

 

[Nathan Danylczuk]

not to turn this thread into a huge political debate

Too late

but actually, they are, in that my money via taxation goes to pay for them. thus my personal choice of how to allocate that money I earned is taken from me and instead spent on programs I didn't personally choose. My freedom to spend my money as I choose to is limited.

I am going to drop this argument because I think this case simply comes down to our political preferences, and no amount of arguing is going to change this.

But still, it's nice to see response to my article

 

[joepublic]

My theory is that these games are popular because they are so intertwined with the idea of equal opportunity, meritocratic competitive play, but with slight rewards to serve as incentives to succeed. ... (this explains why so many people support the educational goal of "equal opportunity", all kids getting the same quality of education, regardless of parental wealth). ... This makes sure people do not have a "head start" that must be overcome. ... Secondly, individual skill is rewarded with advanced weaponry/technology, but not so advanced and far ahead that you feel your enemies have no chance to overcome you. ... People LIKE the idea of REAL competition, *not* total domination. ... YOu want to compete, and you want to compete on an equal level at START. You do NOT want to compete with them by starting off saying that "since this guy played basketball with us 5 times before, he gets certain advantages over you by default".

Very insightful, jer. I'd like to add that american corporations are about dominance. They have bought off both parties in america, and the media, and manipulate them all to heir ends.

P.S. The CIA SOG is back in force and the CIA runs a number of companies.

 

[joepublic]

All characters are the same level. No one can level up until everyone has leveled up.

Lol, then all characters are the same lvl.

Everyone always finds the same amount of gold and items. No one is allowed to use + to GF or +to MF as those are unfair to the people who don't have them.

Or, they are hoarded by the government until there is enough for an even distribution. At which time they will be een dstributed.

No trades. All items must be bought and sold through vendors regulated by the game code (the D2 'government' as it were) for whatever amount the vendors offer.

You don't get to choose your class. character class is randomly dictated by the game in order to preserve the balance between the 7 classes at all times.

This is what happens in cuba. You don't chose ur major in college. Castro's monkies choose it for u.

D2 like life, should be as free from freedom-restricting regulation as possible.

That's the problem. Determining what's possible.

If people are being 'exploited' it is because they allow themselves to be.

Hmm, that's debatable, more so in the real world than in the game. Nobodie's perfect. We all have exploitable weaknesses that we'd rather not have.

 

[joepublic]

From the standpoint of economic philosophy, all government interference in the economy is freedom-restricting to some degree.
...
Libertarian is ... socially liberal, but economically conservative.

At what cost social liberalism? Seems to me the libers are conflicted.

 

[tl998]

So...many...good...points...must...comment...later...after..sleep...

 

[Nastie_Bowie]

These post are wayyyyyyyyyy too long.

Political science majors, ... what did you expect? :lol:

Thought provoking article and arguments. :thumbsup: to all.

:drink:

 

[squigman]

Firstly let me say that I am a mere High School kid, although quite interested in philosophy and poli-sci/econ (I am a Christian, so obviously a theist and dualist etc., but I am also what some would call hard-left, although I favour a form of social anarchism called Parecon. See here for an exposition of Parecon, suited for economists).

WARNING: This is a non-technical anti-market rant. A short lesson in the political economy of participatory economics.

There are 4 values that I believe economies should promote to the greatest extent that they can. These are equity, self-management, diversity, and solidarity.

I think everyone favours equity, but controversy arises as to the extent and/or nature of this equity.

The first issue with equity is income. There are, broadly, 4 possible remuneration norms. Remuneration by contribution of personal or human assets, as well as physical assets; remuneration by only personal assets; remuneration by effort or personal sacrifice; remuneration by each persons need. This is ignoring, almost of course, a sort of brute-force purely social Darwinist stance as ethically unsound, and therefore undesirable.

Certainly within my paradigm, remuneration by effort seems to be most fair and equitable. But on to the other norms first.

Remuneration by need simply encourages freeloading. There is no way around this, and this is perhaps one of the greatest ideological failures of traditional Marxism. The fact is that people are selfish, and have an inherent want to serve primarily themselves (to Christians, this is a prime example of the noetic effects of sin) with service to others of secondary importance if at all. This seems to be born out by the economy in D2 to keep with the article, but is born out in many real life interactions too.

Remuneration by personal assets alone favours disproportionately those who are born better suited to a task. This is a purely meritocratic norm. I will be returning to this one after assessing our society's current norm.

The first norm, remuneration by both personal and material contribution gets into the issues of private ownership of the means of production, the principles of self-management, amongst other things. The rationale for this norm can be illustrated with a stew-pot analogy... If I bring more ingredients to the stew pot, even though you do the cooking, I deserve a greater portion of the stew than you, because I brought more. This norm fails on many levels... Take the Rockefeller's grandson problem. According to this norm, the grandchild of a rich person should eat a thousand times or more of the stew than a hard-working child of a pauper, even if the rich heir(ess) works not a single day in their life. But is this in any way morally desirable? This allows for a greatly widening wealth gap (take America recently... CEO pay increases 340% while worker pay increases 60%) and a disproportionately large number of the population become wage-slaves. The traditional Marxist critique of this norm is still telling, and while some may tout the values of this norm, it is distinctly immoral (at least when placed against my morality... James 1:27 for instance, and seemingly when placed against many other ethical schemes) and therefore undesirable. I am not going into this too much here, but if you are interested in this, see the online book transcript I posted the link to, and maybe see the Marxist critiques of capitalism. The conclusion is that this norm does not support equity. This is the traditional capitalist norm, and therefore capitalism exists in conflict with genuine equity (with whichever other norm is equitable and ethical)

Going back to remuneration by personal assets alone... Now we are left with a society that places higher regard on indeterminate genetic quirks rather than genuine work. The fact is that a person who is born very smart, and strong, and athletic, and charismatic should not be given a proportionately higher slice of the pie than a person born disadvantaged. This norm skirts, ethically, on a sympathy with eugenics. The fact is that to believe “all men are created equal†but then to reward people in different ways due to accidents of birth is contradictory. And I for one would rather stick with the maxim “all men are created equal†than with a norm that violates this.

So we are left with remuneration according to personal effort... The only norm which accounts only for individually determinable factors, and rejects indeterminate and fixed factors. Now this norm needs to be supplemented with, in certain cases, remuneration according to need. Take Jo. Jo has been a great worker for 15 years, but is hit by a drunk-driver and paralysed and is now completely incapable of proper work. It is obviously unfair and unethical to say that Jo now must drop out of society, and possibly die due to her inability to put forward any effort. Zero effort equals zero remuneration according to this norm unfettered. So some form of social remuneration according to need in certain circumstances is needed. I will leave the individual to determine where and when this would be needed, but suffice to say that there ARE instances when it would be necessary, to remain ethical.

This standard of remuneration removes the possibility of private ownership of the means of production (or at least, removes any and all significance that said ownership currently entails and replaces it with purely symbolic ownership) and tends to serve as the most complete rejection of the market... For if the traditional market value of property is subverted, then the rest falls too. An ideal market would not have the failings of modern markets that will appear later, but even an ideal marker remunerates unethically. The fact is that ownership becomes a meaningless concept.

Remaining with equity, but focusing now on circumstances rather than remuneration. Is it fair that some people have fulfilling, interesting and pleasant whilst others have debilitating and depressing circumstances at work? The arguments about remuneration translate almost unchanged though. If it is unethical to have remuneration by contribution, then surely it cannot be contribution that determines work conditions. If it is unethical to have remuneration determined by random genetic factors, surely this carries over to random geographical factors too, say? I think to deny this is to skirt fascism, as defined by the link given in the article.

The second value I wish to quickly explore is self-management. There are 3 basic ways that management can be distributed. 1) Vest most power in the hands of a few agents, and leave those who are affected by a decision largely without say. 2) 1 person 1 vote democratic management. 3) Vary power distribution greatly with each decision, by the amount that an individual is affected by the outcomes (i.e. greater affect, greater weight to one's vote/say).

Politically, norm one is primarily rejected as oligarchical or totalitarian. Why then is it ethical when applied to the economic sphere? (Red herring or false analogy? Maybe... wait for the rest.) Norm one is the norm primarily adopted by markets. Now take, for example, your desk at work. Who should decide how you arrange your computer and personal effects? A few decision makers at the top of the chain, dictating some sort of blanket policy that puts the monitor too close to your eyes and thus causing you pain, or too far and making work unduly hard? Or a democratic majority deciding this very same thing? Or what if the leaders, or majority, decided that you could not post pictures of your family for fear of offending those without families? Surely this is undue intervention. And if this is so with your desk, why is it different with the entire workplace? I have yet to see a telling defence of either pure democratic management, or localised and/or oligarchic management. It seems that norm 3 is the only alternative, unless someone is willing to provide a defence of the 2 other distinctly unfair and unethical norms.

Diversity seems to be a no-brainer... totally regimented life would not only be unethical in that it restricts each person's libertarian agency (here using libertarian not referring to the political ideology, but to the philosophical type of free-will) unduly. Of course, if one does not believe in free will but is a strict determinist (I am not sure about compatibilists really, I fear that I am unable to provide any telling arguments regarding diversity of outcomes with regards to a compatibilist paradigm.) then that tack falls apart. But purely for efficiency reasons, a diversity of outcomes seems desirable when compared with truly homogenous outcomes. Assuming all else being equal, an economy that promotes diversity of outcomes will excel above another if in fullfilling its functions it promotes and supports greater diversity.

Solidarity also seems to be a no-brainer. It is better if people get along than if they violate one another. So an economy that pits actors against one another is less desirable than one which encourages cooperation, given equal eficiency and attention to the above values. Markets pit actors against one another in the interests of efficiency. However parecon, as laid out by the online book, is both efficient and promotes solidarity (as well as the other values) and so is preferable.

This segways perfectly into efficiency... Efficiency is important when judging economies, and the fact is that a horribly inefficient economy that fullfills all the values I have laid out is less desirable than, say, our imperfect markets that tend to encourage only diversity.

Markets tend to be efficient, but whilst they efficiently allocate scarce resources etc. they discourage solidarity, and provide for distinctly unethical and unequitable conditions, and promote unethical management systems.

Sorry for going slightly off-topic.
in H-m
t

 

[squigman]

No replies from any of the (seemingly) confident marketeers in here? Apparently either markets aren't as sacrosanct as they seem, or I just have way more time than anyone else. I'll be optimistic.

Down with the exploitative and unethical market!

 

[Quelex-X]

Really what is this? the posts are way too long. The political economy of diablo II is an excellent article, but there is one main problem with it: It's kind of pointless. As it is true that people are continuosly ripping off the fools on bnet, that is there problem for not realizing whats going on or how to play the game. This article does prove the point it was trying to make, that it is more of a ruleless society where rarely people are punished for their actions (Cd-key ban). Unfortunetly diablo II is slowly becoming diablo, where the online game is so screwed up bnet doesnt care, so they abandoned it. Last time I played on Diablo, 90% of everyone playing were hackers, the 10% were newbs and bored people who eventually joined the 90%. And as with Diablo, Diablo II is becoming like this. But it's not Blizzard's problem, they don't need to take action and wont bother to.

In the next years Diablo II will become a game where you'll need super powerful builds to go item hunting, and the anarchy will continue.

Until then have fun.

 

[Nathan Danylczuk]

Really what is this? the posts are way too long. The political economy of diablo II is an excellent article, but there is one main problem with it: It's kind of pointless.

Until then have fun.

Rather, I think you missed the point of the article. The reason there are such long posts regarding political theory and economics is because the final conclusion of the article is that Libertarianism in general (not just in-game) does not work. People would not bother to respond if all I was saying is that the Diablo 2 community sucks. Everyone knows that. I'm using Diablo 2 in an attempt to validate a point about the real world. Whether or not I've been successful is what is being debated.

There is a lot at stake in this article, and that is why there have been so many long responses. I would suggest re-reading the final few paragraphs.

 

[Nastie_Bowie]

Really what is this? the posts are way too long. The political economy of diablo II is an excellent article, but there is one main problem with it: It's kind of pointless. As it is true that people are continuosly ripping off the fools on bnet, that is there problem for not realizing whats going on or how to play the game. This article does prove the point it was trying to make, that it is more of a ruleless society where rarely people are punished for their actions (Cd-key ban). Unfortunetly diablo II is slowly becoming diablo, where the online game is so screwed up bnet doesnt care, so they abandoned it. Last time I played on Diablo, 90% of everyone playing were hackers, the 10% were newbs and bored people who eventually joined the 90%. And as with Diablo, Diablo II is becoming like this. But it's not Blizzard's problem, they don't need to take action and wont bother to.

In the next years Diablo II will become a game where you'll need super powerful builds to go item hunting, and the anarchy will continue.

Until then have fun.

Get a different font and color!

Too frickin hard to read.

 

[Quelex-X]

Respond to Nathan Danylczuk

That was a good reply.

I could come up with a better response but the thing is, I'm not going to use as many huge words as the rest of these people.

Originally posted by: Natsie_Bowie

Political science majors, ... what did you expect? :lol:

 

[Frenzied Bovine]

I just want to congratulate the article poster. I happen to think I'm one of the rich buggers of b.net in 1.10. While the currency is different, and SoJ's not like coins (not on Ladder) nearly everything said about SoJ's applies right over to runes, runeworded gear, etc.

I cannot think of a SINGLE thing I would change in the article - at least, in terms of the evaluation of the Diablo economy. I am not a political analyst or anything, so I won't comment on the closing statements about libertarianism, but that seems to ring true to me as well.

Congratulations on a very well written article. You've said everything i've been thinking for quite a long time.

There IS a huge disparity. It's the exact thing that's made us "elite" - my wife and I have dug our way up. We earned our first "SoJ", or if you prefer, rich currency item, and from there we hoarded up wealth through canny trading. Nowadays, well, I could reel off a list of godly gear on characters that is just ridiculously rich (gratuitous, even) compared to how I felt when I first started 1.10 Ladder. Like you said, it's ALL about screwing them as hard as you can, and knowing when you're being screwed and bailing out.

And yes, I would take the SoJ offered for 3000 gold, and totally ignore the little voice in the back of my head telling me i'm a very bad person. I think that's quite sad, actually, how far i've "fallen" in terms of personal honor, but that's really what it came down to.. toss away a bit of honor and start "breaking the law" (that wasn't being policed anyway, you're exactly right) and doing things "socially distasteful" - or accept that you're going to be a "have not" forever.

To get rich, I had to get dirty. I've tried not to get too dirty (eg. I don't bot), but i've turned into enough of a deal-hunting screw-everyone-as-hard-as-possible ******* that it just makes me feel bad.

I'm gonna go play some D now. In about 10 minutes i'll have forgotten all about my guilt.

 

[smokey[dead]]

Very interesting article. Human nature does play a major part in lod. Hence: more money for bnet. A human's ambition is his most valued and hated trait. It can get us wealth on second, and rob us blind the next. I always find myself wanting more and more on lod even after I have all the "godly" necessary equipment for my characters. It never ends, there will always be better gear, face it. But I myself can control this "addiction" as the writer of the article so eloquently put it. I dont think it is as bad as the author of the article said it is. If you ever get mad or frustrated while playing the game, simply go outside. It is merely a game and for you to spend a good 45$ on a computer game that will bring you displeasure would be foolish. I think the quintessential example of a game so addicting was with the mmorpg similar to lod "everquest." A middle-aged man shot himself in the head because he lost all of his items. Imagine that someone could be caught up so much in a mere game that he would willingly cut his life short because he lost his computer-generated "items" So if you feel like your having a bad time at a game that features the devil (diablo) as the final boss. I urge you to shut down your computer, go outside, and enjoy life.

 

[Zeratul1128]

Great Article. Best I've read. Nice conversation everyone.

You don't get to choose your class. character class is randomly dictated by the game in order to preserve the balance between the 7 classes at all times.

D2 like life, should be as free from freedom-restricting regulation as possible. If people are being 'exploited' it is because they allow themselves to be. I don't need game code (or government) to protect me from my own stupidity nor do I want to be penalized because of other's stupidity.

I agree with you completely, but after reading I started thinking, isn't life like a random character choice? But not to keep it balanced (well it is balanced in it's unbalanced...ness) for example:

I am born into a rich family and go into a great college (lets say both grades and money just to keep my point supported) (I'm a 1.10 fire sorc heavily tweaked because my previous nova sorc from 1.09 was an uber-bugged-mfer-sorc and I had enough unique items to buy a l33t uber awesome secluded island).

I, however, (different person now, just pretend!) was born into a poor family and under my completely inhuman-lifetime-network for women-ability I have the dedication and I strive to do my best, which I end up doing (remember dedicated!) (I used to play a while ago, and I know more than any other player).

Now, both people (random characters) succeed in later life (high levels), they are both random right? Pretend further, pretend one didn't succeed, isn't that unbalanced? But in it's randomness, balanced? Is it balanced if both succeed? or still unbalanced?

Maybe my point was unclear, but I guess what I'm saying is, life is random, somtimes it is unfair, sometimes it isn't, but is that balanced? Or unbalanced? I guess I should admit I've been thinking about this for a few years now, and just after comparing it to an RPG it makes sense. I know I don't make any sense....