Viable. I hate this word. Don't get me wrong, its not so much the word itself that bugs me as much as all the crap that comes with it. Its a word you see a LOT these days. When does x class's dmg become viable? Is x piece of gear viable? Is x and y class combination viable? X class in Y role isn't viable! The list goes on really, we've seen it time and time again. Yet, every time I see the word it never sits well with me. I get a reaction somewhere between annoyance and aggravation. It carries with it several connotations, which we'll get to in a moment. For now I just want to mark the fact that it is these connotations that annoy me, and the use of the word to convey them is poisonous.

In an MMO, the word "viable" stands as a substitution for the word "acceptable". Note that this is very different from its actual definition. In actuality, viable is anything that is practicable or workable (Dictionary.com). Basically, it gets the job done, its doable. It may not be the best way, or the fastest way, but you can still complete the task. Unfortunately, the current standard in many MMO's is not simply completing the task...or even completing the task well. Indeed, there is an obsession with quantitative efficiency. And it is this phenomenon that takes a relatively innocent word like "viable" and fills it to the brim with convention, norms, and rigid thinking. If one were to ask if a DPS cnj were "viable," what they are really asking is if it is acceptable to the community for a cnj to dps. If one were to say it isn't viable, they are simply telling the individual that a dps cnj is unacceptable to the community and their rigid standards.

And thus we come to the point, viability is a poisonous vehicle used to reinforce dogmatic views about a particular game and how it should be played. While most of us understand what viability *means*, we have learned to associate it with the connotation of "acceptable". It becomes a code-word in a sense. If we ask if something is viable, and receive a no in return, we can conclude its garbage and flee from our idea. But if we ask if its acceptable, and receive a no, then there's nothing to stop us from going against the grain anyways. See the difference? One word gives us an "out," while the other one forces us to recognize our "fear" before dropping the idea. One word gives us an excuse, that it simply can't be done, while the other word leaves no room for excuses. One word shields us from rejection, and one word leaves us entirely open to mockery and ridicule. The easier path is clearly "viability," but it is viability in name only.

For these reasons, I have a particular disgust whenever I see the word in a question or an answer. I know what it really stands for, as do the ones asking questions and giving answers. I know that person asking about viability is looking for a way to abandon an idea before it becomes a failure, before he is mocked and ridiculed by his peers for going against the grain. I know that the person giving an answer is simply trying to push his views on the community, trying to maintain the system and discourage others from going in a conflicting direction. People love to be right, and hate to be wrong; new evidence is the last thing anyone who was "right" wants to see, as it could easily prove them wrong later on. We all want to be on top of an age that we forged with our ideas, and many would loathe to make room for new ideas and new ages. Forgive me for the theatrics, but it has some truth.

I'm running on a bit long so I will leave it at that. If you want examples of what I speak, simply browse back quite a few pages in the forums. I remember the discussion of whether low delay weapons were "viable". Or perhaps, the more recent discussion of melees as "viable" in certain boss fights...PLDs as viable tanks. Once you go back and reread these "arguments" you'll see all the coding and propaganda there. With that, I leave you until next time.