Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

I was thinking about Monkeysphere while I was writing that post.  It didn't apply directly to what I was saying, but it does apply very well to the good/evil thing!

[JT]

My results, annotated with my justifications (to be read only after you have taken the test, to avoid spoiling the test and influencing your results): http://www.jtgibson.ca/df/tmp/morality_play.txt

[Alfador]

quote:Originally posted by ricemastah:
<STRONG>Asehujiko I'd like to respond to your statement.... several of them. Arthas was initially from the Alliance that is true, and he did start the Scourge, but wouldn't that make him part of the Horde which is  sort of allied with them? And Archimonde is in no way part of the Alliance. Neither is Kel'Thuzad. Play a little of the Warcraft 3 game or learn about it. I would consider it more cannon then WoW.</STRONG>

Additionally:

The Scourge and the Burning Legion are WAY beyond any "racial" ties with the Alliance or Horde. The Forsaken quite literally define themselves as those undead who did NOT want to be allied with Arthas's Scourge (for the Lich King is now a fusion of Arthas and Ner'Zhul). And calling the demonic eredar part of the Alliance is an insult to the Draenei whose very name (much like the Forsaken) denotes the fact that they rejected the evils of the rest of their race.

Also, a lot of the argument seems to bring up old wars involving elves or dwarves from BEFORE they were a part of the Alliance. Remember that the Night Elves didn't even want anything to do with these human "encroachers" until Medivh showed up and told them to knock off the bickering and fight Archimonde.

Also, Kel'Thuzad wasn't a living human when he summoned Archimonde. He was a lich. Part of the undead Scourge.

Personally, I find the creepiest playable characters the new Blood Elf Paladins. They get their power by literally torturing the Warcraft universe's equivalent to an angel. Neon Genesis Evangelion aside, this makes the Blood Knights hands-down the most evil playable characters in the game. (Though I am also seriously creeped out by some of the quests you can do for the Forsaken regarding their "New Plague.")

Oh and for the record? In the tunnel morality question? I look at my responses realistically, and I say...

I'd almost certainly panic and freeze up, unable to act as I watched the magma melt five engravers. Then too, from a purely selfish (*coughevil*) perspective, if you look at the *legal* consequences of acting in a way that directly causes someone's death, versus merely failing to act in a way that would have saved five people... yeeeeeah.

Of course, by Dwarven Justice, you're screwed no matter what you do. That's thirty hammerings, that is.

[Mephisto]

JT, would it be possible to turn word wrap on? It would make it a lot easier to read while using a touchpad.

Anyways, my results: http://www.geocities.com/svblackhawk07/index.html

[ October 18, 2007: Message edited by: Mephisto ]

[Blargh]

quote:Originally posted by Sowelu:
<STRONG>People tend to favor family and friends over strangers.  Barring that, they tend to favor people they can -see- and talk to directly over people that they can't.  People in two different tunnels are just numbers, they're too far away from you.  That one guy you could push into the tunnel on the other hand, he's a real person, you can't sacrifice him for people that aren't really -here- (even if you know intellectually that they are people too).  If you imagine it in DF terms, though, NONE of them are real, they're ALL in the game.  Your natural moral sense doesn't register any of them as real.

Just felt like responding to Blargh, there.</STRONG>

Well, I can't really agree with you, there. When speaking of distance as a factor, I can't imagine fifty meters making much of a difference as to how you would feel about helping them. Of course, maybe you know the guy on the platform personally, or maybe you know the engravers, but assuming they are all total strangers, it all boils down to that the only difference between the two scenarioes, is the physical action you take. You either pull a lever, or push a dwarf. The end result is EXACTLY the same. You kill one, to save five. You kill one dwarf by either directing the train into his path, or directing him into the trains path.

If you put yourself into that situation, nobody would even consider pushing the guy, but most would act in the first situation, when the accident will happen anyway, and it's just a question of how many people will die. So you divert the train. That's not murder, right? That's just an accident. Well, no, it's still murder. Your action has cost a person his life.

I can see why distance would seem to be relevant here, after all, that's the whole difference between the two situations, right? But that's not -quite- it, no. It's more that it -feels- more like actually murdering someone in the second situation, compared to the first. Would you feel any less like a murderer if you shot someone with a rifle at 50 meters than you would if you shot them up close? It's just difficult to describe the difference.

As for none of them being real, you didn't quite understand me. I'm saying if I was an -actual- dwarf, I think I'd feel different. Probably just because I can't really imagine myself feeling the same moral obligation to a dwarf that I can to a human.

EDIT:

quote:
Then too, from a purely selfish (*coughevil*) perspective, if you look at the *legal* consequences of acting in a way that directly causes someone's death, versus merely failing to act in a way that would have saved five people... yeeeeeah.  

Actually, the legal ramifications would be the same. In both cases, your action has caused the death of a person. That is murder. It's much more difficult to be sentenced for murder when you -don't- do something in a panicked situation. If you don't do anything, then legally there has been an accident, and it's not your fault. Of course, then there's the whole legal mess of compensation after the fact, which -defines- the term "can of worms". There, you might stand to lose a bundle.

[ October 18, 2007: Message edited by: Blargh ]

[JT]

quote:Originally posted by Mephisto:
<STRONG>JT, would it be possible to turn word wrap on? It would make it a lot easier to read while using a touchpad.</STRONG>

I'd have to go through it manually.  EditPad Lite doesn't have the feature to insert carriage returns, and my (expired) demo copy of EditPad Pro won't let me use that particular feature.

I posted a word-wrapped version on my blog, though: http://jtgibson.livejournal.com/

(Cue LiveJournal ribs.  But at least I don't use Myspace. =P)

[Leerok the Lacerta]

Notepad++. It's free, and it's probably as good as UltraEdit. Don't know what features yours has, though.
http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm

[Alfador]

quote:Originally posted by Blargh:
<STRONG>Actually, the legal ramifications would be the same. In both cases, your action has caused the death of a person. That is murder. It's much more difficult to be sentenced for murder when you -don't- do something in a panicked situation. If you don't do anything, then legally there has been an accident, and it's not your fault. Of course, then there's the whole legal mess of compensation after the fact, which -defines- the term "can of worms". There, you might stand to lose a bundle.

[ October 18, 2007: Message edited by: Blargh ]</STRONG>

That is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I should clarify: I was pointing out the difference between pulling the lever and not pulling it: regardless of how your personal morality says you should act in a situation where you have to choose between five and one, if you ACT, you are legally liable, whereas if you do NOT act, you are not going to get a murder charge stuck on you.

[Alfador]

quote:Originally posted by JT:
<STRONG>

I'd have to go through it manually.  EditPad Lite doesn't have the feature to insert carriage returns, and my (expired) demo copy of EditPad Pro won't let me use that particular feature.

I posted a word-wrapped version on my blog, though: http://jtgibson.livejournal.com/

(Cue LiveJournal ribs.  But at least I don't use Myspace. =P)</STRONG>

*raises eyebrow* You can't type the Enter key in Editpad Lite? That's... a bizarre kind of crippleware. My version doesn't... ahh, I see, I'm using "Editpad Classic," which must be different somehow.

[WillNZ]

I don't know why WoW is suddenly a morality play. To be frank, good and evil doesn't exist in that game. I'm not saying in the sense where everything is "gray", I'm saying it's physically impossible to good or evil. Hear me out: the WoW universe is far too static to be good and evil. Sure you could go killing Horde/Alliance children or whatever, but they will respawn, limbs and sanity fully intact. The point is: any good or evil act is completely fruitless.

I'm not saying there are no jerky things to do in WoW. You could have a cussword in your name. You could kill some low-level PC. But WoW will do it's best to return to a status quo, the moderator will change your name, and the low-level PC will respawn and go to different grounds so he won't get killed by you. Very few things, if any, *really* organically change from your actions. Essentially, when you adopt an "evil" persona, you are in fact adopting the style of being evil (i.e, horns, red eyes, black clothes, etc), because you can't commit evil acts on the game world.

This isn't necessarily a fault of WoW. It requires an element of static-ness to remain playable. After all, if you could kill all the raid monsters in the universe no other player would have the joy of killing them. It does make the game a far less sophisticated RPG, though. But it's moral outlook is only a little more complex than that of DnD's. And before you ask, yes, I do find WoW bizarrely addictive.

If you're looking for a game which really does have dramatic and hard choices for you to make, play Baldur's Gate II. Better yet, play Planescape: Torment. I literally agonized over the decisions I made in Torment between two essentially evil choices. That was a ridiculously amazing game.

Dwarf Fortress is and will be completely different. If you kill people, they stay dead. This is important, it gives some permanence to your actions. You can literally kill every NPC in the world (I'm not sure about animals). Once your world is empty of human life, you'll definitely feel the consequences of your actions. Soon, when things get fully implemented, you can be evil in new and creative ways, such as being a horrible merchant whom establishes monopolies all over the world, and watch as cities slowly devolve into poverty. There are a lot of possibilities.

[Faces of Mu]

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
<STRONG>Discussing dwarf needs, I don't think it's really necessary for dwarves to do a lot of things against your will for those. On the lowest level, they already eat, drink, have babies, prefer shelter and a good bed, are willing to hunt vermin if starving, and get very upset if their basic needs aren't met.

</STRONG>

- I agree that the desperate behaviours dwarves show now make them pretty colourful, but their reactions all tend to blend in with each other and don't really lead you to knowing one dwarf more over another. I think a few more of the desperate behaviours described above might add a bit more flavour.

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
<STRONG>For safety and things like wearing armor, ... economy ...thievery ...avoid dangerous areas ..conscripted into the military ...stripping too much power from the player ... plead with the mayor ... psychoanalytic defense measures ... bad AI to a casual glance [my sorry if this summary was brutal!FoM]

</STRONG>

- I've never reached the economy so I don't know what variety of behaviours dwarves could wreak then. If thievery comes in then the moral scene of dwarves will probably have been set already and a lot of our ideas will have already been implemented or discarded. I suppose my question will always be "WHY would dwarves be good/evil/fearful/loving/stealing/raising undead/etc?". How much control the player has was also a part of the OP, so I guess that's another decision Toady will make and continues to make along the way. In regards to that, he's already got the framework for his personality system in place and he says he will attribute more to it over time. My suggestions above about how dwarves could achieve their own needs in their own way was to respect Toady's interest in creating dwarves that are unique and demonstrate individual differences. Just to put more ingredients in the stew, really, and propose a system in which even "evil"-resembling behaviours could be understood. (Is it too late to backtrack NOW and say "How could this theory explain what goblins and demons and elves do??"  :p)

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
<STRONG>dwarves are currently pretty shallow social creatures...nobles

</STRONG>

Agreed! And I imagine Toady's got a lot of code in there that isn't overt and already influences dwarven relationships and moods! The Relationships Arc will be very exciting stuff, too!

quote:Originally posted by Jonathan S. Fox:
<STRONG> self-actualization... Moods </STRONG>

Yeah, I'm a bit unsure about how moods fit into the scheme of things. The way Toady describes them in-game seems to suggest they have different causes (like possessed, secretive, etc). These may be tied to individual differences already, though I think someone else mentioned that the macabre mood is related to being unhappy when the mood sets in, I think (and being unhappy isn't a particularly exclusive or individuating state!). And because the concept of Self-Actualisation is pretty vague in itself, I'd wonder about how much the strange moods and their outcomes reflect a process of becoming or being self-actualised? Sure they go through a creative process that results in a very unique product, but killing oneself or others is probably not reflective of someone who has managed to satisfy the lower domains and is feeling ready to achieve their dream (i.e, you'd assume needs 1-4 have been met BEFORE they go into the mood, and that if they have achieved this, then not getting their materials wouldn't make them homicidal/suicidal). Hence, I wouldn't say self-actualisation and the moods correspond, but I also wouldn't say they're not related events, either.

BTW Jonathan, I haven't gone back to grab the exact quotes, but you've made some really well balanced and thought-provoking posts here. Thanks!

[Asehujiko]

Perhaps i could have made my other post a bit more clear. Following the logic(from the article linked on the previous page) that anybody of any given race in warcraft shares exactly the same ideas and is inherently good or evil based on there race, both Archimonde and Kel'Thuzad would be considered members of their respective races(Eredar/Draenei and Human) and thus act on their races' behalf.

Which, ironicly would make the Legion the balanced middle way because they have both Eredar on the alliance side and Nathrezim(only one but for the article it doesn't matter, see Archimonde example above) on the horde side. Same applies to the Twilight Hammer and the old gods.

Both of these posts were intended to demonstrate that the logic used in the article makes no sense at all.

[JT]

quote:Originally posted by Alfador:
<STRONG>

*raises eyebrow* You can't type the Enter key in Editpad Lite? That's... a bizarre kind of crippleware. My version doesn't... ahh, I see, I'm using "Editpad Classic," which must be different somehow.</STRONG>

I meant automatic carriage returns: "Wrapping -> Line Breaks" in the Convert menu of EditPad Pro, for instance.  It's already a pain in the butt to reupload a file through my webhost, which doesn't let me use SSH without going through unreasonable lengths, so I simply didn't think it'd be worth it to have to hit Enter a few hundred times on top of that.

Disabling Enter would indeed be bizarre.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

On the topic of "I'm evil and only care about what I'm legally responsible for," the legal system is a lot more complicated and a lot more sensitive to the circumstances of the case than people are giving credit for. Note that I'm not really familiar with anything outside of English law (such as the US and UK legal systems), so what I say might be completely wrong under dwarven law.

In the case of throwing a switch to divert a magma flow resulting in less deaths, it's definitely not murder. The family of the victim could sue, but they'd have a very weak case and would likely get nothing from you. Even if taken to criminal court by an overzealous fortress guard, you'd have an extremely strong and legally solid defense by which to acquit yourself entirely. The situation described falls under the doctrine of necessity -- as the magma switch operator, whether it be your job or perhaps just by the fact that you're the closest to the switch when a disaster happens, you can claim that you have a dwarven responsibility to use the power at your disposal to save as many lives as possible in that disaster, and it was *necessary* to divert the magma in order to save many others from death, and the death of the lone engraver was therefore justifiable homicide. This is entirely legally sound and it will even hold up with a jury -- it's a "jury of your peers" after all, and they'd probably do the same thing in your boots. Killing him was justified because you did it to save the lives of four other equally innocent people who would have all died if you had taken no action. This argument goes from solid to totally airtight if your actual job is to operate magma switches and that includes making judgment calls to save lives if there is a magma flow problem.

On the other hand, the only thing saving you from criminal charges for not throwing the switch, thus knowingly allowing four engravers to die, is the fact that there's an engraver in the other tunnel. It's not like taking no action means you're free, as inaction can be criminal if inaction allows people to die. Even with the other dwarf in the tunnel as your defense, you may be forced to defend your reasoning in civil court against the families of the deceased, especially if you're a professional switch operator whose duty it is to manage magma flows. Failure to exercise your duty and minimize the loss of life from the magma flow disaster is not going to end up getting you convicted of murder unless the prosecution can demonstrate that you're Richard and kind of like seeing dwarves die, but manslaughter or civil liability is still entirely possible.

If you don't have much money, it's extremely likely that the magma flow company that hired you will get their beards sued off by the families of the deceased for hiring an incompetent switch operator, and you'll mysteriously disappear after being reassigned to a "special" switch, for causing the company so much trouble.

Pushing the big dwarf into the magma flow is harder to defend and not pushing him is more defensible. The switch is there in part to avoid disasters. Using it to minimize the damage is justifiable. The big dwarf is not standing there to be an involuntary human sacrifice. Shoving him into the line of fire is harder to justify, and it won't go over as well with the jury's "gut feelings". It's more defensible to have not pushed him in if sued, because it's definitely not your job to be shoving dwarves into magma, and a "reasonable person" would probably not have done it in your place (unlike in the case of the switch), thus shielding you from charges of negligence.

 

quote:Originally posted by Faces of Mu:
<STRONG>BTW Jonathan, I haven't gone back to grab the exact quotes, but you've made some really well balanced and thought-provoking posts here. Thanks!</STRONG>

Why thank you   It feels good to be complemented! I've previously written a couple of college papers on issues related to some of these topics, so it's been a very interesting discussion to me.

[ October 18, 2007: Message edited by: Jonathan S. Fox ]

[Blargh]

Oh, I like this  

Yes, the legal system *is* a lot more flexible than that, of course. However, that doesn't mean that throwing the switch isn't murder, legally. First, I'd like to point out that throwing the switch *is* murder, in a purely technical sense, as you actively take someone's life. The legal question is, can you be convicted of said murder?

In a jury trial, I would say that that would be unlikely (However, I am not a fan of the jury arrangement. A jury consists of laymen, not legal professionals trained to remain impartial. A jury is biased, there are multitudes of examples of a jury aquitting rapists because they thought the victim dressed slutty.). Saving the lives of five by sacrificing one, purely from a utilitarian standpoint, is justifiable, thusly falling in under realm of necessity. Interestingly, that can also be said of the second situation. It is *necessairy* to push the dwarf to save the five, and so this also becomes a justifiable homicide, from a purely utilitarian viewpoint, which I'm assuming you're adopting?

For the sake of simplicity, I also think that adding the factors of employment, responsibilities and what have you is going a bit too far, in real life these things are relevant, but this is a philosophical problem, and not a real situation. That, of course, means that debating it legally isn't very easy, because the legal system relies on circumstances. No situation is really as static as "you're there and this happens, what do you do".

So since legal technicalities really aren't very helpful unless we speculate wildly as to who the relevant dwarves are, what they do, what their responsibilities are, this problem should be handled by legal philosophy alone. No adding or subtracting of facts, just the problem. Nothing more.

Now, you take the basically utiltarian standpoint of justifiable homicide, seeing as murdering one dwarf (in either situation) leads to the overall beneficial result of five dwarves surviving. The ends justify the means. Also, I must concur that inaction *can* constitute culpability. However, when action means taking a life, I would find it hard to convict someone for not acting.

Here's a challenge for you, though. Are you as culpable by inaction when not pulling the switch as you are for not pushing the dwarf? (And just to adress your view on this, you can't just assign a purpose to the switch and the dwarf in a philosophical problem, you have to stay within the frame. The lever has no inherent purpose other than to direct magma flow, it wasn't put there to "prevent disaster". If it were that simple, I could simply say that the dwarf in plate is most likely military, as reasoned by you at that time, and is thusly obliged to sacrifice himself to prevent the deaths of others. You're just helping things along. See how that works? You can just go on and on forever.)

As for defending not pulling the switch, I'd like to cite Immanuel Kant: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means" It is wrong to take a life as a means to an end, however justified that end may be. This goes back to human rights, you have a *right* to not be murdered to save another. This is widely accepted in most legal systems, and  think we can all understand the reasoning behind this. Would you kill someone to get their liver and heart, thus saving two others? I think none of us would very much enjoy living in a totally utilitarian world.

It's difficult, and legally, it's very much dependant on which country this "trial" is being had in. If the legal tradition of the country leans toward utilitarianism, taking action is not punishable, but inaction is. If the legal system leans towards human rights, however, then taking action would be punishable, but inaction would not be.

Personally, I like to go with human rights on this one. On the whole, it is a good thing to prevent accidents, but not by murdering an innocent bystander. An accident is just that; an accident. Nobody's fault. But a deliberate action resulting in someone's death? Murder. I like to feel like I have a right to not be randomly murdered by some guy, even though my death would save some people. I might volunteer, but I believe we all have a right to choose in the matter.

As for being sued, you're pretty much gently caressed either way.

quote:Shoving him into the line of fire is harder to justify, and it won't go over as well with the jury's "gut feelings".  

This is exactly my point, where the hell does that "gut feeling" come from? Drat and bebother it.