Fezek,
You are touching on *the* issue I have with the question, and why I am frankly incensed. The question itself is almost PURE Zen...and has NO place in a game with a western based alignment system like DnD (and Baldur's gate). The fact that the designer *thought* that a bit of Zen would be KEWL just gets me mad since it wrecks the entire consistancy of the game.
In addition look at the answers you have posted. In particular look at the first three:
If you were to take each answer and break it down into symbolic logic....and then mod out all the self-referencial words and clauses, you will find that they *all* say the same thing: You do not owe a debt because Sarevok has freewill. This is the classic and CORRECT western answer..so why do two or the three give evil results.
The solar was wrong. 'Nuff said.
-Polaris
Debt to Sarevok
To Polaris
I do not follow the logic of "by assuaming a debt for saverok in the solar test I am therefore deneying the free will of Saverok or Gorien." Again the question is directed to my protaganist role played charactor, not at Gorien or Saverok or anyone else in that game setting. Gorien and Saverok made their decisions. Based on the overall situation, from my charactors views on life (perhaps those views have little to do with western philosophy) I may assume a debt or not.
You may say by assuaming a debt it is wrong because based on western philosophy there is no debt because you may not owe a debt for the decisions that others have made that lead to their consequences, but what if you had made decisions in your past that would override those factors as far as what debt means to you? For example Solamnic knights of Krynn have swore to uphold honor and truth equating that to life. They would defend this with their life and this vow would hold them to a stricter interpretation of what debt is in comparison to most others for any future interraction. It guides their decisions in life.
Another thing is if you term the whole Solar situation for that debt question as being too zen then why are you still useing western philosophy to break the situation down?
Do you realize that by using what you know and understand from the past to interpret situations you are basicly doing the same thing that a charactor does in the game? Basicly You are taking your understanding of what debt means to you and then coming to a decision of whether there is a debt owe or not. That would be legitimate would it not? Someone else with different interpretation of what debt means to them may come upon a different answer. Being that this is not a courtroom with rules in the game that define what debt is (although there probably is in a western philosophy class) why is that not legitamate for their charactor. When is something real or when does it becaome real?
Ultimately this is a roleplying game. So what are you roleplaying? This will give you different interpretaions for similar tests.
I do not follow the logic of "by assuaming a debt for saverok in the solar test I am therefore deneying the free will of Saverok or Gorien." Again the question is directed to my protaganist role played charactor, not at Gorien or Saverok or anyone else in that game setting. Gorien and Saverok made their decisions. Based on the overall situation, from my charactors views on life (perhaps those views have little to do with western philosophy) I may assume a debt or not.
You may say by assuaming a debt it is wrong because based on western philosophy there is no debt because you may not owe a debt for the decisions that others have made that lead to their consequences, but what if you had made decisions in your past that would override those factors as far as what debt means to you? For example Solamnic knights of Krynn have swore to uphold honor and truth equating that to life. They would defend this with their life and this vow would hold them to a stricter interpretation of what debt is in comparison to most others for any future interraction. It guides their decisions in life.
Another thing is if you term the whole Solar situation for that debt question as being too zen then why are you still useing western philosophy to break the situation down?
Do you realize that by using what you know and understand from the past to interpret situations you are basicly doing the same thing that a charactor does in the game? Basicly You are taking your understanding of what debt means to you and then coming to a decision of whether there is a debt owe or not. That would be legitimate would it not? Someone else with different interpretation of what debt means to them may come upon a different answer. Being that this is not a courtroom with rules in the game that define what debt is (although there probably is in a western philosophy class) why is that not legitamate for their charactor. When is something real or when does it becaome real?
Ultimately this is a roleplying game. So what are you roleplaying? This will give you different interpretaions for similar tests.
Yin and Yang balance. There is one within the other. No Difference in Reality. What do you experience?
To Polaris
In regards to playing alignments in baldur's Gate and western basis for aligments (which may be true or not) What about a chaotic good alignment? chaotic good chractors are known for their "streaks of kindness", not necessarily based on society's interpretation in regards to law.
Alignments are a part of the game, but in the game most of the decisions that you make do not affect your alignment. They affect reputation, but not alignment, so alignment is more of guideline rather then a ruling factor for decision makeing in baldur's gate series.
If you pick the answer that said you do not owe saverok a debt does your alignment change or do you just get a different special ability?
I just want to clarify that I am not supporting the game design that was made by the developers for that section of test, but instead my purpose is to point out that since this is a roleplaying game with the question directed at you and with no court as the judge, ones interpreation of oweing a debt is personal base more on your guidelines in life. Polaris's guidelines are points in western philosophy, other people's guidelines may differ. The truth is what you make of it. A debt will exist if based on your guidelines (whether to family or party member) you see it as such. It will not exist if based on your guidlines you see that it does not. Who in a roleplaying game ultimately decides what is correct or incorrect? What is good or Evil? Ultimately it is the main charactor's responsibility to take a quest or not; to determine if they owe a debt or not. They make a decision and go on from there; there will be consequences and rewards. Such is life.
In regards to playing alignments in baldur's Gate and western basis for aligments (which may be true or not) What about a chaotic good alignment? chaotic good chractors are known for their "streaks of kindness", not necessarily based on society's interpretation in regards to law.
Alignments are a part of the game, but in the game most of the decisions that you make do not affect your alignment. They affect reputation, but not alignment, so alignment is more of guideline rather then a ruling factor for decision makeing in baldur's gate series.
If you pick the answer that said you do not owe saverok a debt does your alignment change or do you just get a different special ability?
I just want to clarify that I am not supporting the game design that was made by the developers for that section of test, but instead my purpose is to point out that since this is a roleplaying game with the question directed at you and with no court as the judge, ones interpreation of oweing a debt is personal base more on your guidelines in life. Polaris's guidelines are points in western philosophy, other people's guidelines may differ. The truth is what you make of it. A debt will exist if based on your guidelines (whether to family or party member) you see it as such. It will not exist if based on your guidlines you see that it does not. Who in a roleplaying game ultimately decides what is correct or incorrect? What is good or Evil? Ultimately it is the main charactor's responsibility to take a quest or not; to determine if they owe a debt or not. They make a decision and go on from there; there will be consequences and rewards. Such is life.
Yin and Yang balance. There is one within the other. No Difference in Reality. What do you experience?
If half of you aren't to young to remember this, sing along...
Philosophers song
Immanual Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed
Philosophers song
Immanual Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed
"But I also made it clear to [Vladimir Putin] that it's important to think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew each other up, the world would be safe." -President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 1, 2001
If you pick the answer the Solar thinks is evil, then you CAN NOT become a good god in the end. I consider that fairly extreemly no?
Also reread the question.... "...is there a debt *between* you yet unpaid". That answer is unabigiously clear. That answer is NO. You may *feel* an obligation, but that is a *different* question.
Sorry guys, but you are reaching madly to try to cover bioware's stupid blunder.
-Polaris
Also reread the question.... "...is there a debt *between* you yet unpaid". That answer is unabigiously clear. That answer is NO. You may *feel* an obligation, but that is a *different* question.
Sorry guys, but you are reaching madly to try to cover bioware's stupid blunder.
-Polaris
This is getting redeculous. As a programer I can sympathise with bioware on how hard it is to have multiple tiggers for events based on alignment. They can do it. But it takes time and probably whoever wrote the script of the "tests" probably had a set of personal beliefs that made him/her think the PC did have *some* sort of debt to Sarevok. I mean all you say is there is a debt. You don't say what type. The debt could be one of compassion. That's the way I saw it and that seems to be what Bioware intended because the Saverok alignment change questions started after the second pocket plane test.
Me, personally I would never ever have picked the flat out No answer in a million years to that question. Maybe the "I don't know answer" or "Gorien" answer but not the no answer. Which makes me think that perhaps Polaris you are being a tad too Euro-centric about the whole thing. But perhaps you only being able to become a evil god if you do say "No debt" was a bit extreme.
I don't know.
Me, personally I would never ever have picked the flat out No answer in a million years to that question. Maybe the "I don't know answer" or "Gorien" answer but not the no answer. Which makes me think that perhaps Polaris you are being a tad too Euro-centric about the whole thing. But perhaps you only being able to become a evil god if you do say "No debt" was a bit extreme.
I don't know.Love is eternal till you meet someone you like better.
To polaris
In regards to the question as phrased "...is there a debt between you and saverok?" based on your role playing of your charactor and taking western philosophy into account which determined your response it would be perfectly legitimate to say no there is not a debt. And to you this would not be a feeling of whether debt exist because you are basing this on western philosophy that you see as "fact", and it means a lot to you. It is more then a feeling isn't it that there is no debt as far as how the question is phrased? If I interpret this right that should be the case.
On the flipside of the coin given the same question another with a different set of "facts" may be obligated to saverok, I could also see this easily. Let us say this charactor comes from a past in which they had taken a vow that they will go above and beyond a normal calling in terms of repaying someone or that they have pleged to serve a cause (not uncommon in roleplaying games look at charactor classes such as wizard slayer, undead hunter, solamnic knight of krynn etc..). If this person is asked the same question of "...is there a debt between you and saverok?" I could see them saying yes there is a debt. Oweing someone a debt is not your normal every day thing like oweing someone 50 cents. For them to come to this decision it would also have to be more then a feeling. It would have to mean a lot to them to assume such responsibility.
Therefore I am trying to illustrate that the "true" answer to the question of debt as set forth by the solar to "you" is very much dependent on what "you" define debt as for "You".
Setting this illustration I also would say it would not be legitimate to deem your answer to be evil. I say this because a regular good fighter who do not have the same outlook should be able to say no and not be consider evil. I thought it was just the basis for a special ability in the game, you are saying that it determines whether you become a good god or an evil god in the end. It is more difficult to see if this is probable.
I would like to know how you were able to narrow the choice that you made by saying "no" to the solar in regard to a debt to saverok was the sole cause of your charactor becoming an evil or good god? Did they offer an explanation in the end of why your chractor becomes an evil god?
In regards to the question as phrased "...is there a debt between you and saverok?" based on your role playing of your charactor and taking western philosophy into account which determined your response it would be perfectly legitimate to say no there is not a debt. And to you this would not be a feeling of whether debt exist because you are basing this on western philosophy that you see as "fact", and it means a lot to you. It is more then a feeling isn't it that there is no debt as far as how the question is phrased? If I interpret this right that should be the case.
On the flipside of the coin given the same question another with a different set of "facts" may be obligated to saverok, I could also see this easily. Let us say this charactor comes from a past in which they had taken a vow that they will go above and beyond a normal calling in terms of repaying someone or that they have pleged to serve a cause (not uncommon in roleplaying games look at charactor classes such as wizard slayer, undead hunter, solamnic knight of krynn etc..). If this person is asked the same question of "...is there a debt between you and saverok?" I could see them saying yes there is a debt. Oweing someone a debt is not your normal every day thing like oweing someone 50 cents. For them to come to this decision it would also have to be more then a feeling. It would have to mean a lot to them to assume such responsibility.
Therefore I am trying to illustrate that the "true" answer to the question of debt as set forth by the solar to "you" is very much dependent on what "you" define debt as for "You".
Setting this illustration I also would say it would not be legitimate to deem your answer to be evil. I say this because a regular good fighter who do not have the same outlook should be able to say no and not be consider evil. I thought it was just the basis for a special ability in the game, you are saying that it determines whether you become a good god or an evil god in the end. It is more difficult to see if this is probable.
I would like to know how you were able to narrow the choice that you made by saying "no" to the solar in regard to a debt to saverok was the sole cause of your charactor becoming an evil or good god? Did they offer an explanation in the end of why your chractor becomes an evil god?
Yin and Yang balance. There is one within the other. No Difference in Reality. What do you experience?
-
Jo_b_1
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Straight out of you know where...
- Contact:
Polaris, I agree with you (again), however, I would mention that the solar (i.e. the programmer/writer) might be refering to the debt that the protagonist owes to -everyone- (most western thinking) is one of offering a chance to make them (Sarevok, your brother,party members, etc) a better person(s) (a little compassion, caring, a second chance as it were). Which might play into (depending on the programmers/writers pov) what kind of god you become, one with or without compassion. I agree though, the use of the word "debt" is a rather dubious position to take.
-mad-
-mad-
"He who hesitates, meditates in a horizontal position."
Ed Parker
Ed Parker
Lorsadan,
I think we are actually agreeing more than others might think:
I would not be so upset if a perfectly reasonable answer (that is *umambigious* and *correct* in western ethics) did not forever brand your character as evil...but it does.
[As an aside, I am *not* being too Eurocentric. The GAME is Eurocentric. As for the statement, 'I would never pick a flat no' I have news for all of you....
Go ahead and break down each of those answers into symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is a device philosophers and mathematicians use to get rid of verbal deadwood and come down to the actual meaning of statements....it is also taught in law school. The FIRST THREE ANSWERS ARE IDENTICAL in symbolic logic....but do NOT give identical results.]
I *do* know that denying the debt *was* the sole reason for becoming an evil god:
1. My pro was a paladin with a Rep of 20 throughout all of ToB (and didn't lose a point of Rep *ever*)
2. All my other tests were good (and emphatically so).
3. On the first part of the same test, I said I had pity and sympathy for my mother (the classic good response).
Nevertheless when I beat Mellisan, the Solar said, "You will have few allies, and it remains to be seen whether or not you can master the evil of Bhaal's taint or it will overcome you." That is fancy game-speak for: You fouled up.....you are forevermore an evil god.
Gah! Give these programmers a CLUE. I know it is hard to program ethical decision for most parts of the game, but that is NOT an excuse for scripted dialogs like this. I *know*; scripts like that are *easy* to code and *easy* to check. The fact bioware did not (and worse tried to slip Zen into a western ethical system) is frankly criminal.
-Polaris
I think we are actually agreeing more than others might think:
I would not be so upset if a perfectly reasonable answer (that is *umambigious* and *correct* in western ethics) did not forever brand your character as evil...but it does.
[As an aside, I am *not* being too Eurocentric. The GAME is Eurocentric. As for the statement, 'I would never pick a flat no' I have news for all of you....
Go ahead and break down each of those answers into symbolic logic. Symbolic logic is a device philosophers and mathematicians use to get rid of verbal deadwood and come down to the actual meaning of statements....it is also taught in law school. The FIRST THREE ANSWERS ARE IDENTICAL in symbolic logic....but do NOT give identical results.]
I *do* know that denying the debt *was* the sole reason for becoming an evil god:
1. My pro was a paladin with a Rep of 20 throughout all of ToB (and didn't lose a point of Rep *ever*)
2. All my other tests were good (and emphatically so).
3. On the first part of the same test, I said I had pity and sympathy for my mother (the classic good response).
Nevertheless when I beat Mellisan, the Solar said, "You will have few allies, and it remains to be seen whether or not you can master the evil of Bhaal's taint or it will overcome you." That is fancy game-speak for: You fouled up.....you are forevermore an evil god.
Gah! Give these programmers a CLUE. I know it is hard to program ethical decision for most parts of the game, but that is NOT an excuse for scripted dialogs like this. I *know*; scripts like that are *easy* to code and *easy* to check. The fact bioware did not (and worse tried to slip Zen into a western ethical system) is frankly criminal.
-Polaris
I think I finally understand the problem. Basicly Polaris you are giving far more thought to this than Bioware ever did. Or conversly Bioware started making the game euro-centric perhaps but did not concider it as a criminal act to mix Zen with western ethics. Or never imagined that anyone would break down the dialogue and start analysising what the sentence actually meant. A short sighted approach on their part perhaps. But from what I understand the triggers work like the triggers in hell i.e. some variable is set if you take a path that the programmers deem evil and in the end of game in the case of TOB you become an evil god or in the case of SOA your alignment shifts. Your rep does not facter into it. Perhaps does triggers could have been more sophisticated.
Having never studied Philoshopy and having done only basic law and maths I can't comment on the actual meaning of the sentence.
But I go the impression though the first three replies meant *you* didn't owe a debt only the first two meant no one owed him a debt.
Having never studied Philoshopy and having done only basic law and maths I can't comment on the actual meaning of the sentence.
But I go the impression though the first three replies meant *you* didn't owe a debt only the first two meant no one owed him a debt.
Love is eternal till you meet someone you like better.
Trunks,
If you break down the three first answers into symbolic logic and take out all the contradictory elements and meaningless qualifiers, then they *all* say the same thing:
There is no debt.
This is the correct response for western ethics. Since the AD&D alignment system is based entirely on western ethics, it is the RIGHT answer in a factual sense of the word.
The first answer reinforces the idea that it was Gorion's freewill (not yours) that made the change, but since he is dead, it is a meaningless qualifier==No debt.
The second answer is clear. No debt.
The third answer is a shade more complicated,but it too means no debt. Why? Because the third answer reaffirms Sarevok's FREE WILL (and your lack of control over it). If he makes his own fate (free-will), then this directly implies that NO ONE owes him a debt. [The contrapositive is not true however.]
If Bioware had used *any* word other than debt and/or had AT LEAST not made the good/evil choice pass-fail on an INVALID question, then I would not be hitting the ceiling.
I notice that bioware has still said nothing.....wonder why? I am quite certain that if *I* am hitting the ceiling than a lot of ethicists out there are as well (especially when their children might be playing this game).
-Polaris
If you break down the three first answers into symbolic logic and take out all the contradictory elements and meaningless qualifiers, then they *all* say the same thing:
There is no debt.
This is the correct response for western ethics. Since the AD&D alignment system is based entirely on western ethics, it is the RIGHT answer in a factual sense of the word.
The first answer reinforces the idea that it was Gorion's freewill (not yours) that made the change, but since he is dead, it is a meaningless qualifier==No debt.
The second answer is clear. No debt.
The third answer is a shade more complicated,but it too means no debt. Why? Because the third answer reaffirms Sarevok's FREE WILL (and your lack of control over it). If he makes his own fate (free-will), then this directly implies that NO ONE owes him a debt. [The contrapositive is not true however.]
If Bioware had used *any* word other than debt and/or had AT LEAST not made the good/evil choice pass-fail on an INVALID question, then I would not be hitting the ceiling.
I notice that bioware has still said nothing.....wonder why? I am quite certain that if *I* am hitting the ceiling than a lot of ethicists out there are as well (especially when their children might be playing this game).
-Polaris
I can tell this question is very close to your heart. But seriously it is clear that whatever philoshopy the alignment system might be based on, correct me if I am wrong but terms chaotic, lawful and neutral are keying you into the idea that the alignment system is based on western philoshopy, that perticular test was intended to be based on philoshopy other than western. I mean forget the question and the choice of answers the actual abyss stronghold test is you fighting your Saverok counter part. I.e. had Gorian not taken you your free-will, Saverok's free-will aside you would have been what Saverok was in BGI. Meaning a cruel evil creature obsessed with ascending to the bloody throne of the lord of murder.
In light of the of that you saying you owe no one any debt *is* evil, had it not been for the smallest twist of fate you would have lead his rotten life. Of course now you are going to say that the whole thing was convoluted and Bioware should have made the second test something totally different. You might be correct in this. You are clearly better versed in philosophy than me. Me having ever learnt the philosophy of my own culture (even that not too well) and with the only knowledge of western philosophy coming from a five or so pages I had to read in high school dealing with what was meant by intelligence and sentient beings.
However, I do stand corrected in that I would not have picked the so called middle of the road answer. The actual words of the answers save for the last one got jumbled up in my head. No I would have only picked either of the last two. My apologies.
In light of the of that you saying you owe no one any debt *is* evil, had it not been for the smallest twist of fate you would have lead his rotten life. Of course now you are going to say that the whole thing was convoluted and Bioware should have made the second test something totally different. You might be correct in this. You are clearly better versed in philosophy than me. Me having ever learnt the philosophy of my own culture (even that not too well) and with the only knowledge of western philosophy coming from a five or so pages I had to read in high school dealing with what was meant by intelligence and sentient beings.
However, I do stand corrected in that I would not have picked the so called middle of the road answer. The actual words of the answers save for the last one got jumbled up in my head. No I would have only picked either of the last two. My apologies.
Love is eternal till you meet someone you like better.
Trunks,
Actually I get the 'idea' that the alignment system is western by READING the alignments and comparing them to various ethical schools....especially the N-G, T-N, and N-E alignments.
Also, you are *begging* the question: Do you know for a *fact* that had Gorion picked Sarevok instead of you, that you *had* to have turned out evil????
All western philosophy is grounded in the idea of free-will. That is every person has the ability to make a moral choice and be held accountable for those choices. Even relavism agrees on this essential point. In fact it is SO obvious and written into the alignment system, that I am shocked I even have to explain it.
The *FACT* is that you can NOT owe a debt for the actions of another person. You can NOT *KNOW* that had fate been different that you *HAD* to have become an evil person like the test protrays.
The designer flunked philosphy and the entire test needs to be completely rewritten.
-Polaris
P.S. I am sorry I seem to be intransigent, but this is one of *the* foundations of all western ethical philosphy.
Actually I get the 'idea' that the alignment system is western by READING the alignments and comparing them to various ethical schools....especially the N-G, T-N, and N-E alignments.
Also, you are *begging* the question: Do you know for a *fact* that had Gorion picked Sarevok instead of you, that you *had* to have turned out evil????
All western philosophy is grounded in the idea of free-will. That is every person has the ability to make a moral choice and be held accountable for those choices. Even relavism agrees on this essential point. In fact it is SO obvious and written into the alignment system, that I am shocked I even have to explain it.
The *FACT* is that you can NOT owe a debt for the actions of another person. You can NOT *KNOW* that had fate been different that you *HAD* to have become an evil person like the test protrays.
The designer flunked philosphy and the entire test needs to be completely rewritten.
-Polaris
P.S. I am sorry I seem to be intransigent, but this is one of *the* foundations of all western ethical philosphy.
This my absolute last post on this topic. But I am now convinced that though western philosophy might have been the base of the alignment system that test was not. I have always been taught that sometimes your fate, your destiny leads you into circumstances despite your free will. More acuratly the choices you *can* make are limited by fate and all that. Gorian doesn't take you, you end up a street urchin (not your choice). You are hungry, always scared and frightened, can't trust anyone, getting by as best as you can and suddenly a guy offers to take you in. In that situation very few amoung us would choice not to take up the offer. So the decision to join the Iron Throne *was* Sarevok's own free-will. Although alternative open to him due to fate might have made it appear to him as if he didn't have a choice. Many amoung us would have felt the same.
Once he joined the Iron Throne I think the desisions facing him would most of the time be an evil or another evil. Again his choices are limited by fate. In short his choices are limited by fate though his will *is* free. In the end it can be said had it not been for the smallest twist of fate he might not have been what he is.
Since I do believe that though your will might be free but fate can dictate what you actually choice I do not have a hard time believing the PC would have ended up with Sarevok's life or that there is some sort of debt. But than as I have said before I am not a philosophy student. I literally study on the opposite side of the campass from the philosophy department. More importantly perhaps I am not from a western background.
Once he joined the Iron Throne I think the desisions facing him would most of the time be an evil or another evil. Again his choices are limited by fate. In short his choices are limited by fate though his will *is* free. In the end it can be said had it not been for the smallest twist of fate he might not have been what he is.
Since I do believe that though your will might be free but fate can dictate what you actually choice I do not have a hard time believing the PC would have ended up with Sarevok's life or that there is some sort of debt. But than as I have said before I am not a philosophy student. I literally study on the opposite side of the campass from the philosophy department. More importantly perhaps I am not from a western background.
Love is eternal till you meet someone you like better.
Trunks,
Yes, but in philosophy (at least western philosophy) THAT doesn't matter.
Sarevok HAD his chances and HAD his choices. Granted they may have been poor ones, but the protagonist had NO control over that (if he did it would be different).
In order to say for a FACT that a debt *might* exist, you need to be able to answer two questions with an unabigious affirmative:
1. Do you *know* for an absolute FACT that had Gorion NOT chosen you that you HAD to wind up being evil. Likely doesn't feed the bulldog here. You MUST be able to tell me without the slightest shadow of a doubt that your goodness depends *absolutely* on the fact that Gorion chose you and not Sarevok.
Guess what....you can't MAKE that claim unless you completely deny the role of Sarevok's free will. [An important reason why in Western philosophy you can not owe a debt for the actions of another. Btw this is ALSO true (checked it with a friend of mine who is an imman) in Islamic religous ethics.]
2. You have to be able to say with *absolute* certainty that *you* MIGHT have been able to affect change in Servok's life (i.e. have some control over the choices he had to make).
Guess what, you can't make that claim either.
The fact the test was written from a KARMIC point of view but marketed to a WESTERN Audience using a game with a WESTERN Code of Ethics is criminal. There is no other way to describe it.
-Polaris
Yes, but in philosophy (at least western philosophy) THAT doesn't matter.
Sarevok HAD his chances and HAD his choices. Granted they may have been poor ones, but the protagonist had NO control over that (if he did it would be different).
In order to say for a FACT that a debt *might* exist, you need to be able to answer two questions with an unabigious affirmative:
1. Do you *know* for an absolute FACT that had Gorion NOT chosen you that you HAD to wind up being evil. Likely doesn't feed the bulldog here. You MUST be able to tell me without the slightest shadow of a doubt that your goodness depends *absolutely* on the fact that Gorion chose you and not Sarevok.
Guess what....you can't MAKE that claim unless you completely deny the role of Sarevok's free will. [An important reason why in Western philosophy you can not owe a debt for the actions of another. Btw this is ALSO true (checked it with a friend of mine who is an imman) in Islamic religous ethics.]
2. You have to be able to say with *absolute* certainty that *you* MIGHT have been able to affect change in Servok's life (i.e. have some control over the choices he had to make).
Guess what, you can't make that claim either.
The fact the test was written from a KARMIC point of view but marketed to a WESTERN Audience using a game with a WESTERN Code of Ethics is criminal. There is no other way to describe it.
-Polaris
polaris
first tell me why you think that the (pretty lame) aligment system in ad&d has anything to do with kantian ethics.
second there is a reading where the charecter do infact owe sarevok a debt. the moral debt/obligation that all those fortunate in life owe the unfortunate. (although this probably not what is meant here)
third if you translate the three first options in to any symbolic language complex enough to capture the meaning of the sentences then they are not identical.
even in simple sentential or propositional calculus they are not expressing the same proposition.
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]
first tell me why you think that the (pretty lame) aligment system in ad&d has anything to do with kantian ethics.
second there is a reading where the charecter do infact owe sarevok a debt. the moral debt/obligation that all those fortunate in life owe the unfortunate. (although this probably not what is meant here)
third if you translate the three first options in to any symbolic language complex enough to capture the meaning of the sentences then they are not identical.
even in simple sentential or propositional calculus they are not expressing the same proposition.
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]
[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Tigger
Tigger
Tom,
*Big Sigh* Read some philosophy please. I am not trying to be insulting, but it would help. Your last statement about the obligation to help the less fortunate shows that you are missing the point.
In Kantian ethics (and I *don't* want to go into the analysis of the catagorical imperitive...that would take pages), you *ought* to be kind to others *because* you do not owe them a debt. This seems odd, but the idea is that a moral action is only virtuous is you get nothing out of it in return.
The *fact* is, you do NOT owe Sarevok a debt. This should NOT be in dispute. You DO have an obligation in most ethical systems to help the less fortunate...but *listen closely* obligation != DEBT!!! Is that really so hard to comprehend?
I will agree that the ADnD alignment system is lame, but it IS the ethical foundation of the game. If you read the description of N-G, then the underlying principle is (called true good) is that you wish to help others because it is the 'right' thing to do (this is classic Kantian language). Essentially Kant said that most decisions had to be made on the hypothetical imperitive (If you wish to pass the course, you should study.....if you did not care about the course, then studying would become irrelavent). Kant said that some actions were things you ought to do *period*...and called those the catagorical imperitives (i.e. the 'right' thing to do). He had a test for that involving all possible worlds, but enough philosphy for now.
Is is clearer now that the good/evil axis in ADnD is almost classic Kant?
Just because you have an obligation to help those that are less fortunate than you DOES NOT in *any* way imply a debt....ESPECIALLY not in the way the Solar said.
Tom, please read some philosophy and then THINK about the question some more.
-Polaris
*Big Sigh* Read some philosophy please. I am not trying to be insulting, but it would help. Your last statement about the obligation to help the less fortunate shows that you are missing the point.
In Kantian ethics (and I *don't* want to go into the analysis of the catagorical imperitive...that would take pages), you *ought* to be kind to others *because* you do not owe them a debt. This seems odd, but the idea is that a moral action is only virtuous is you get nothing out of it in return.
The *fact* is, you do NOT owe Sarevok a debt. This should NOT be in dispute. You DO have an obligation in most ethical systems to help the less fortunate...but *listen closely* obligation != DEBT!!! Is that really so hard to comprehend?
I will agree that the ADnD alignment system is lame, but it IS the ethical foundation of the game. If you read the description of N-G, then the underlying principle is (called true good) is that you wish to help others because it is the 'right' thing to do (this is classic Kantian language). Essentially Kant said that most decisions had to be made on the hypothetical imperitive (If you wish to pass the course, you should study.....if you did not care about the course, then studying would become irrelavent). Kant said that some actions were things you ought to do *period*...and called those the catagorical imperitives (i.e. the 'right' thing to do). He had a test for that involving all possible worlds, but enough philosphy for now.
Is is clearer now that the good/evil axis in ADnD is almost classic Kant?
Just because you have an obligation to help those that are less fortunate than you DOES NOT in *any* way imply a debt....ESPECIALLY not in the way the Solar said.
Tom, please read some philosophy and then THINK about the question some more.
-Polaris
Tom,
I almost missed your third point:
Actually the three answers DO say the same thing when reduced to symbolic calculous (and symbolic logic). Trying to say they don't 'if you capture the whole meaning of the sentence' is trying to weasel out of an unpleasent fact.
Break them down yourself. If you eliminate all the prositions and qualifiers that do not add information to the statements, the all reduce to the same statement:
No debt.
The first two are 'evil' however, and the third is 'neutral'. I would have thought that a programmer would at least have gotten symbolic logic right....
-Polaris
I almost missed your third point:
Actually the three answers DO say the same thing when reduced to symbolic calculous (and symbolic logic). Trying to say they don't 'if you capture the whole meaning of the sentence' is trying to weasel out of an unpleasent fact.
Break them down yourself. If you eliminate all the prositions and qualifiers that do not add information to the statements, the all reduce to the same statement:
No debt.
The first two are 'evil' however, and the third is 'neutral'. I would have thought that a programmer would at least have gotten symbolic logic right....
-Polaris
Personally, I don't see any Evil answers in there. Only realistic Neutral ones and naive Good ones...Originally posted by Sojourner:
<STRONG>The possible answers were:</STRONG>
- "If there was a debt, then it was Gorion's...and it has been paid."
- "There is no debt. Gorion had no choice...and I wouldn't have ended up like Sarevok."
- "Sarevok made his own fate. Neither Gorion nor I are responsible for it." (This was the middle-of-the-road answer.)
- "Sarevok paid for what he did...as for now, I don't know...perhaps there is a debt."
- "Yes, there is a debt. I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine."
- Sarevok brought it on himself and deserved to suffer horribly to sate my vengeance.
This discussion is about roleplaying. If your Neutral Good Fighter feels he does not owe a debt (but does feel compassion), the game punishes you for that roleplaying choice by insinuating that you made the "wrong" choice.Originally posted by Lorsadan:
<STRONG>Ultimately this is a roleplying game. So what are you roleplaying? This will give you different interpretaions for similar tests.</STRONG>
An answer should be undeniably far from your Alignment before the game can righteously decide you have failed a test.
In fact, from the perspective of a philosphically uneducated adventurer, every answer he gives fits his Alignment. Consider the following example:
Minsc: "Boo says every man must uphold his own honor. I feel sorry for Sarevok, but there is no debt."
Solar: "Minsc, thou art Evil."
Minsc: "That's not right!"
Did Minsc roleplay his Alignment (Chaotic Good) badly?
Finally, for the record...
Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. No, that doesn't mean everyone can disagree, yet be right at the same time. If someone says 2 + 2 = 3, then they're entitled to that opinion, but that does not make it right.
[url="http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/SpellsReference/Main.htm"]Baldur's Gate 2 Spells Reference[/url]: Strategy, tips, tricks, bugs, cheese and corrections to the manual.