(no subject)
The Mun/Pup Equation. Or, why we hate you because your pup is bootiful.
There's been a focus in my small corner of online roleplaying, at least for me, involving the relationship between the pups or characters and their muns, the real life people playing them. Concern and accusations abound about the idea that some muns can't define the difference between their fictional character and themselves, that they're taking emotional injuries to their pups as injuries to their real selves. Not being able to differentiate between the make believe world and the real one is a definite problem, and one that a lot of muns worry from time to time may apply to them. Hurt is inflicted on their pups in a make believe situation, and they feel it themselves, sometimes to the point of tears, anger and resentment toward other pups and their muns. Then they worry that this means they are losing the definition, taking it all too personally. In most cases, however, this is not so.
The first thing that needs to be understood is - as a general rule, muns love their pups. The vast majority of us do recognise that the pups are not 'us', and can clearly see the division between our fictional or made up characters and our real selves. But, we love them. We wouldn't be playing them, we wouldn't want or feel able to speak in their voice if we didn't like, identify or feel some connection with the character. And yes, we often extend that to put pieces of ourselves into the characters. We play them because they are someone we might like to know or be, and to make them a little like us helps us with that fantasy. We put them into roleplaying situations because we feel that through these little pieces of us we can achieve something that we don't feel we have in our own lives. We know it's not real life - that's the point. Real life has just as many bad points as good, and quite a lot of it is out of our hands. Roleplay is for fun, an escape, a situation over which we have some control, and which we can, through our characters, engineer to temporarily 'fill the gaps' in our own lives.
In these ways, our characters become very important to us. It's not believing that we are the character, but there's a very definite connection, caring and identification with them. They are the pieces of ourselves that we send to accomplish the things that in the real world we can't. Within the boundaries of their own separate, fictional world, they are real people. There, they are us, and their feelings and responses reflect on our own.
When we place them into their fictional world, we also become part of another world, that of the muns. We interact with and get to know the real real people behind each of the characters. Like the characters, some of us become friends - not necessarily dedicated, lifelong friends, but enough to establish some kind of trust and regard for one another, and to expect, at least subconsciously, the same standards of consideration and honorable behaviour that might be expected in any social group. It's important to feel 'safe' within that group of people, just as in any other, and we project that trust and those expectations onto our pups.
So, what happens when one or more of the muns allows their pup to transgress those standards of behaviour? When for example, a character is permitted to interfere with and destroy a 'relationship' between two others, or one of the characters in the relationship 'cheats' on the other?
In a nutshell - chaos. All the forces come into play that would apply to just that situation in the real world. Shock, hurt, confusion, mistrust, not just for the mun and pup who are the injured party, but the muns and pups who are their friends. Firstly, in the world of the pups, a friend has been wounded. It makes no difference that the betrayal has happened in a fictional world, the pups are 'real people' within that world, and they will respond as real people could be expected to respond. They'll be upset and angry, they'll be caught in the middle or rally behind the injured party, perhaps ostracising the transgressing pup/s from the group. Basically, all the responses that could be expected among a group of friends in the real world.
And in the real world, the relationship between the muns follows a similar pattern. Despite any protestations, it is expected that a mun will be the dominant personality in the mun/pup pair. The mun is, after all, the real person. Whatever the 'voice' of their pup may want to do, it's expected that the mun will temper this within the standards of trust and consideration assumed within the group. The pup may want to do something, but it is the mun who facilitates and allows it to happen - the mun who does the typing. So in the situation described above, where a pup has suddenly gone against the accepted standards of trust within the group, blame does fall squarely on the mun. It's the flip side of differentiating between the character and the real self - a mun is expected to have responsibility for their pup and what the pup may do.
In essence, it is the mun who has betrayed the trust of both groups; not only the upheaval felt by the pups, which through attachment to them is also felt by the muns, but they have transgressed the accepted standards within the real life group of muns. Trust, on all levels, has been betrayed, and the other muns no longer feel acceptably 'safe' associating with the guilty mun. Anger, resentment and mistrust towards the mun appears alongside that directed at the pup - the pup may have done the deed in the make believe world, but in real life it is their mun who has either made or allowed them to do it. That is a betrayal of trust almost as severe as the actual 'act', and engenders the same emotions and responses between the muns as the pups.
Responses to a mun who has allowed their pup to act in this way are not a confusion of real life with make believe. In fact, it is quite the reverse. It is the mun who has directed the pup, who has facilitated the pup's actions and allowed them to commit whatever act has caused the upheaval, and it is this that the other muns see when they feel hurt, anger and resentment toward that mun. They are not angry with the mun because of what the pup did to theirs, although that, too, hurts - they are angry because the mun chose, willingly, to type the description of those acts into the keyboard and allow their pup to inflict that hurt. They can no longer trust the mun as a friend, to feel secure that the mun will not, through the pups, cause them hurt again in the future. This is very much in reflection of the feelings their pups might have toward the transgressing pup, but it is not the same. This betrayal is real, and although it has been caused by the actions of a fictional character in a fictional world, the affect upon the relationships among the real world muns is just as dramatic, and most likely not unjustified.
There's been a focus in my small corner of online roleplaying, at least for me, involving the relationship between the pups or characters and their muns, the real life people playing them. Concern and accusations abound about the idea that some muns can't define the difference between their fictional character and themselves, that they're taking emotional injuries to their pups as injuries to their real selves. Not being able to differentiate between the make believe world and the real one is a definite problem, and one that a lot of muns worry from time to time may apply to them. Hurt is inflicted on their pups in a make believe situation, and they feel it themselves, sometimes to the point of tears, anger and resentment toward other pups and their muns. Then they worry that this means they are losing the definition, taking it all too personally. In most cases, however, this is not so.
The first thing that needs to be understood is - as a general rule, muns love their pups. The vast majority of us do recognise that the pups are not 'us', and can clearly see the division between our fictional or made up characters and our real selves. But, we love them. We wouldn't be playing them, we wouldn't want or feel able to speak in their voice if we didn't like, identify or feel some connection with the character. And yes, we often extend that to put pieces of ourselves into the characters. We play them because they are someone we might like to know or be, and to make them a little like us helps us with that fantasy. We put them into roleplaying situations because we feel that through these little pieces of us we can achieve something that we don't feel we have in our own lives. We know it's not real life - that's the point. Real life has just as many bad points as good, and quite a lot of it is out of our hands. Roleplay is for fun, an escape, a situation over which we have some control, and which we can, through our characters, engineer to temporarily 'fill the gaps' in our own lives.
In these ways, our characters become very important to us. It's not believing that we are the character, but there's a very definite connection, caring and identification with them. They are the pieces of ourselves that we send to accomplish the things that in the real world we can't. Within the boundaries of their own separate, fictional world, they are real people. There, they are us, and their feelings and responses reflect on our own.
When we place them into their fictional world, we also become part of another world, that of the muns. We interact with and get to know the real real people behind each of the characters. Like the characters, some of us become friends - not necessarily dedicated, lifelong friends, but enough to establish some kind of trust and regard for one another, and to expect, at least subconsciously, the same standards of consideration and honorable behaviour that might be expected in any social group. It's important to feel 'safe' within that group of people, just as in any other, and we project that trust and those expectations onto our pups.
So, what happens when one or more of the muns allows their pup to transgress those standards of behaviour? When for example, a character is permitted to interfere with and destroy a 'relationship' between two others, or one of the characters in the relationship 'cheats' on the other?
In a nutshell - chaos. All the forces come into play that would apply to just that situation in the real world. Shock, hurt, confusion, mistrust, not just for the mun and pup who are the injured party, but the muns and pups who are their friends. Firstly, in the world of the pups, a friend has been wounded. It makes no difference that the betrayal has happened in a fictional world, the pups are 'real people' within that world, and they will respond as real people could be expected to respond. They'll be upset and angry, they'll be caught in the middle or rally behind the injured party, perhaps ostracising the transgressing pup/s from the group. Basically, all the responses that could be expected among a group of friends in the real world.
And in the real world, the relationship between the muns follows a similar pattern. Despite any protestations, it is expected that a mun will be the dominant personality in the mun/pup pair. The mun is, after all, the real person. Whatever the 'voice' of their pup may want to do, it's expected that the mun will temper this within the standards of trust and consideration assumed within the group. The pup may want to do something, but it is the mun who facilitates and allows it to happen - the mun who does the typing. So in the situation described above, where a pup has suddenly gone against the accepted standards of trust within the group, blame does fall squarely on the mun. It's the flip side of differentiating between the character and the real self - a mun is expected to have responsibility for their pup and what the pup may do.
In essence, it is the mun who has betrayed the trust of both groups; not only the upheaval felt by the pups, which through attachment to them is also felt by the muns, but they have transgressed the accepted standards within the real life group of muns. Trust, on all levels, has been betrayed, and the other muns no longer feel acceptably 'safe' associating with the guilty mun. Anger, resentment and mistrust towards the mun appears alongside that directed at the pup - the pup may have done the deed in the make believe world, but in real life it is their mun who has either made or allowed them to do it. That is a betrayal of trust almost as severe as the actual 'act', and engenders the same emotions and responses between the muns as the pups.
Responses to a mun who has allowed their pup to act in this way are not a confusion of real life with make believe. In fact, it is quite the reverse. It is the mun who has directed the pup, who has facilitated the pup's actions and allowed them to commit whatever act has caused the upheaval, and it is this that the other muns see when they feel hurt, anger and resentment toward that mun. They are not angry with the mun because of what the pup did to theirs, although that, too, hurts - they are angry because the mun chose, willingly, to type the description of those acts into the keyboard and allow their pup to inflict that hurt. They can no longer trust the mun as a friend, to feel secure that the mun will not, through the pups, cause them hurt again in the future. This is very much in reflection of the feelings their pups might have toward the transgressing pup, but it is not the same. This betrayal is real, and although it has been caused by the actions of a fictional character in a fictional world, the affect upon the relationships among the real world muns is just as dramatic, and most likely not unjustified.