Print

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

[Jude]

Maybe the demons are the ones that engineer the creation of obsidian towers? We don't really know what powers demons hold beyond the ability to slaughter dwarves by the dozen without batting an eye.

[Neonivek]

Maybe the demons are the ones that engineer the creation of obsidian towers? We don't really know what powers demons hold beyond the ability to slaughter dwarves by the dozen without batting an eye.

Even goblins without demons create Obsideon Towers quite easily.

Though that would be an awsome mechanic for Toady to add Goblins being "Power" reliant for technology.

[Dude_Jebawe]

Goblins aren't evil, just pragmatic. The "evil" part comes in because of their willingness to worship anyone who can prove themselves to be worthy. Such a policy is like a beacon to every demon in the world.

[StrayCat]

Preemptive strikes are what you're arguing mate. And THAT is evil. Point blank, no dispute. There is no certainty that one could have that the dwarfs would always invade, but goblins -always- raid and babysnatch. That isn't self-defense, that's plain old hostility. Preemptive strike = evil.

Wait. Ohshi-

* StrayCat looks surreptitiously from his Baltimore home at the metaphorical White House he can metaphorically look at.

[Muz]

Lol, I did my ethics assignment on DF. DF is the most philosophically advanced game out there.

Ok, from my understanding of evolutionary biology, psychology, and philosophy, as well as my experience in living in third and first world countries, I've come to the conclusion that good and evil are only survival techniques. Good is an ideal. People will be more 'evil' if it comes to survival. Ethics is a luxury.

Good is simply 'helping your fellow man', not much more. For example, an evil act is stealing from someone. This is evil because they worked hard for it. In the long run, people will stop working hard and start stealing, which is bad for everyone. That's why the 'good' thing to do is to not steal.

In a similar example, monogamy. Cheating on your spouse is 'evil'. Leaving your baby to die is 'evil'. This is a survival thing.. people who cheat on their spouses have children who are at a significant disadvantage, because they have half as many resources as a child with two parents.

So, anything that harms survival in the long run is evil.

Which brings us to goblins. From what I've been looking at, good and evil only apply to other species in very advanced civilizations. Humans, for example, didn't really recognize black people (Africans) as an 'equal' race, until a few centuries ago. Animal cruelty today is practically unheard of - 80% of us don't give a damn that thousands of living things are killed each day to feed us.

In the same way, Goblins might see humans, dwarves, elves, as a similar species, or an entirely different one. A babysnatcher is little more than a human who domesticates an elephant or dragon and rides it to war. It's a non-ethical issue [Non-ethical means that it's not ethical nor unethical. It's simply an issue that doesn't involve any ethical frameworks at all].

The issue with demons could simply be because demons help them exist. Fighting a demon is stupid - it will piss off the demon and lead to you and all your friends being ripped to pieces. Thus, anti-demonism would be an evil act.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I may have misunderstood the question and answer completely

[Rilder]

In a similar example, monogamy. Cheating on your spouse is 'evil'.

Technically this is only "evil" because our culture and the christians, decree it so.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

ah but what about the religions that beilieve otherwise about monogamy? there are a few and some might even consider it to be "evil" or "morally currupt" to only have 1 wife. also i believe morals are how you view them. what good is being good if you would die from it? only a very populous civilization would have this kind of ethics. the death only matters in a civilization if it happens to depopulate it or remove all of one sex for what good is an all male or all female civ? the goblins probably belive themselves good and the dwarfs and whatnot bad. what matters in the end of who is moral or not is who wins. the winners right the history books not the other way around. sacrificing to gods is now immoral because the civs that did this all died out or where taken over. so if the mayans had won and not died from deasese it would be bad form not to sacrifice captured people to gods. same with torture which is only not the thing because America the current power in the world doesn't approve of it along with many other powerfull countrys. what does it matter what a small civ believes if there is the a bigger one. majority rules when it comes to morrals in most situations.

i prefer to think in terms of constructive and destructive for morality. is what they do bad for them or good it what matters. this comes from my firm choice to be on the chaos versus order side of morality. chaos is not bad and order is not good. chaos can cause great things like the freedom America has and order can cause great things through keeping stuff like said freedom. it also true caos can be very bad like how a terorist can kill may people but order can be just as bad becuase of stagnation and keeping things that should not be like a religion whos goal is to kill any nonbeliever or force conversion. good and bad are prospective while chaos and order are overall. something can be bad in your eyes and good in another such as when someone has many wives but overall it is and orderly act. a river flooding is bad for anyone with homes placed right next to it is bad but good for the farmer whos farm will be filled with silt to fertilize it but overall if it is yearly like the nile this is orderly while when it does not flood bad for farmer good for house owner but overall chaotic.

[eerr]

ok, lets slow down with the theoretical ideas and start with something more practical


at goblin fort A:a demon leads one goblin fortress and many of his goblin inferiors worship him.
.
at fort B: another goblin group just murdered their horrific goblin eating demon, and forms a strong anti-demon philosphy
.
.
make it possible for the demon from fort A: to declare war on fort B: seeing that he might absorb another civilisation?
.
make it possible for the goblins from fort B: declare war on fort A: that they could dispose the demon lord. then the demons supporters defend against the revolutionaries.

.
.

also, these moral implications need attention to each detail, so a list is much more useful than a paragraph


good and evil are polarizations, simplifications that simply aren't accurate much of the time.
good and evil are relative to the person or group who decides themselves whether to brand something good or evil.

if you have one race brand another as evil, then you have an incredibly real occurance, almost hearkening back to the primitive time of man.
if you have one goblin brand a demon or goblin or dwarf as evil, for a reason, then you have a real goblin. animals probably even get it!


if you have one race do many evil-stereotype things that they really don't need, then you have an incredibly unrealistic theme, so much so that it just shouldn't happen!

thus goblins should do evil, knowing the consequences-
goblins should bond based on their philosophy
goblins should have a better reason to kill dwarves too, but realistically, they never will

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

goblins like shinys...


dwarfs have shinys...


goblins try take shinys...


dwarfs not like goblins taking shinys...


goblins decide dead dwarf no stop taking of shinys...


dwarfs get sieged by shinys loving goblins

[Muz]

Um, yeah, what I meant from the long ramble earlier was that:
'Good' = something that helps the civilization as a whole (in the long run)
'Evil' = something that usually helps the single person doing it, but is detrimental to the civilization (in the long run)

It's as simple as that. Replace 'civilization' with 'tribe', 'family', 'the world', 'the universe' where suitable.

Applies for everything - monogamy, demon worshipping, God worshipping, stealing, raiding. Also, something like attacking a city that could tear you to pieces could be considered 'evil', because you're risking your whole tribe just to grab some shinys.

[Neonivek]

Goblins are largely Amoral in most of the important areas as in they think mostly without concern for morals. It isn't a Grey area... it is a Blank area... It doesn't apply.

Murder to them doesn't matter it is a personal thing. You don't like someone? Go ahead and murder them! Their family however is allowed to downright kill you though. (I unfortunately don't have access to their Civilization file... So I cannot judge their morality further)

Of course this may very well change in the future when civilisations are allowed more flexability as well as a more fleshed out goblin civilisation (afterall they live in largely empty forts). Id love to see things such as Goblin Romance, Child reering, and what they do want out of peace.

[StrayCat]

goblins like shinys...


dwarfs have shinys...


goblins try take shinys...


dwarfs not like goblins taking shinys...


goblins decide dead dwarf no stop taking of shinys...


dwarfs get sieged by shinys loving goblins

Replace "shinies" with "babies".

This is relativistic and universalistic theory of philosophy at its most basic.

Goblin says: "Oh, in my culture it's acceptable to steal babies!"

If you say, "Oh, that's nice, well, I shouldn't impart my culture on your culture because rules vary from civilization to civilization, and there are no universal rules for behavior," then you're a relativist. Morality is relative to each culture, and anyone trying to impose their beliefs on others just because they don't agree with the babysnatching is an asshole.

If you say, "Oh, that's nice, well, in my culture I get to chop your legs off with an axe and have me and m'boys here hack you into bits. Wait, that's a lie. We're not doing it because that's our culture, we're doing it because we'd do this very same thing if you were in -our- culture. We believe that there are universal rules of conduct, like how no one should go up to someone and rape them. Or, say, steal infants from mothers. We don't like that either. Where was I? Oh yes! Chopping off your limbs! Right then!" then you are a universalist. And also sane/intelligent. There are universal rules of morality, or you believe there should be.

[I3erent]

Evil is a totally abstract concept.  Do gobbo'sconsider themselves evil? Probably not.  Most likely they just beleive the have the most right to live and thrive like most societies.  Thus anyone in their way would be deemed expendable.  Dwarves, and elves share this belief.  So who is evil? 

On a side demons may need further characterizations.  Lesser and Greater demons of varying power should exist, with greater demons possesing more mystical powers.  Why should a stray frog demon who stumbles across a goblin tribe be deemed their leader?  He would probably be perceived as a threat to the tribes existance.  However a powerfull demon may have the power to warp goblins minds and force their enslavement to do his will.  Goblins under their own influence would probably hole up in a cave and make a goblin fortress,  goblins under the influence of a major demon may be compelled to fufill its desires and with a vision directed unto them by the greater demon would create a huge dark tower in his name. 

[Hectonkhyres]

Moral Relativism*, the belief that an ethical theory is right purely by virtue someone holding it, is a very small piece of the philosophical pie. I find goblins to be more into either Expressivism: they don't believe in any objective landmarks of good or evil. Just desire. 

_{*An overused and underunderstood term if ever there was one.}

[Balathustrius]

Not to get too off topic, but you guys know that it is logically impossible for there not to be objective ethical truths, right?

The premise that "there are no objective ethical truths" is logically self-refuting, therefore inherently false, therefore there must be such a thing as an objective ethical truth.  Therefore good and evil are more than just social constructs dependent on culture.

Or to quote Socrates more broadly on the subject of relativism as a whole:

"If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false."

Hence the self-contradiction of a relativist position.