Debt to Sarevok

Dimensional · Post by **Dimensional** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 3:20 am

I realy am in two minds about adding to this thread.

but having said that i feel i must say a few things

@ Kayless
While you have generaly been less abrasive in your posts you are at much at fault in this issue as Polaris. You say that you are quite able to accept His position yet your actions seem to refute this as you continue to ask him to change his view to fit yours(that is that the all opinoins are equaly valid.) In this case you are in the wrong, For him to admit the possible validity of your veiw, would be to admit that his own view point is inccorect. add this to the factthat he is factualy in the right, it Might be a good time to consider that Your constant posts are as much an attack as his are and pehaps that you should stop.

@ Polaris .
I understand that this is a very important issue to you and you are unwilling to let it slip. however we all understand your point at this time and further posts will not convince those who are unable to accept it at this point. continued post will damage you credibility in the future. perhaps yo should also consider your point made and l;eave it.

Finnally - while this thread has been intersting it has managed to generate some quite intense feeling. perhaps we should all give it a bit of time to cool off.

of course this is all my own feelings on the matter and you may all disagree wildly.
All comments are ment in a freindly and non confrontational manner.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 3:32 am

Dimensional,

I think you are correct that everything that needed to be said has been. I also think that any minds that could have been changed already have been and as such further discussion is pointless. Thank you for a post of sanity....I will admit that I did get abrasive and a bit heated and I apologize.

Please consider this my last post on this thread (although I will follow this forum with interest).

-Polaris

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 5:42 am

@ Polaris do not get me wrong. I have no idea about philosophy and IMO it matters little to me. What is important to me is my opinions. I have mine, I have developed them for 16 years and I consider that to be a long time (for me). I grudge no one their opinion. In fact this sort of discussion helps develop opinions. I enjoy reading everyones opinion and like to reply. Lets not ruin this discussion, it could be very good indeed if we all cool down a little bit...

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 7:35 am

Personally, I think that you are definatly not responsible for the actions of another. This is why this dialog threw me a little bit. But I think what it boils down to, at least for me, is not whether you owe a debt to Sarevok for what he did, but whether you owe a debt of compassion for lack of a better term. True, Sarevoks choices and decisions were his own, but I can also see how things might have turned out different had the situation been reversed. So understanding that, I had to think, if I were in Sarevoks place, would I deserve a second chance. I felt that my alignment in the game compelled me to take the compassionate route and try to help Sarevok. Also reading Sarevoks biography tilted my view in this direction as well. Anyway, it comes down to this, I took Sarevok into my party because I felt responsible for bringing him back from the dead. Then, once in my party, I felt I owed him, not from a philisophical standpoint, but out of compassion, to try and show him a better life. however, I never in any way felt obligated to Sarevok due to Gorion's choice to save me and not him. It was purly a compassion thing. Any way, this is my opinion. I can see and understand differing opinions, but just felt like adding my own two cents worth.

pip · Post by **pip** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:49 am

Let me put it this way. The wording of the question of that part "Do you owe Saverok a debt?" is aimed at "You". In that way it is highly personal based on what your viewpoints on in life. A regular adventurer fighter with good alingment may say no I do not owe Saverok a debt and this would be perfectly legitamate as it pertains to "you" which in that case is the fighter and that determination is I agree not evil.

However if that person answering that same question has a different value system and a stricter set of rules as it pertains to how they see things in life then for them they could say Yes I owe saverok a debt. This answer should be just as legitamate. It does not matter whether the game is based on eastern or western philosophy the game is aimed and question is aimed at "you". Conditions should be accounted for. Water is not water all the time; it may change to ice or gas under different conditions.

The game environment is not a philosophy class The Solar who asks this question is not a philosopher (as far as we can tell).

Someone may take it upon themselves to owe someone else a debt in that case they would owe someone a debt because due to their beliefs they have made the decision to take the debt so for them they do owe a debt while another person may choose to not take the debt and for that person they do not owe a debt since they have not taken it.

Whether this is right or wrong based on a cetain philosophy should not override the experience for YOU as far as what you experience and what you choose to take it upon yourself to owe someone or not.

I believe the game is aimed ultimately at the player charactor, The Solar is the Judge and according to the reality of the game the solar may deem that not oweing Saverok a debt is evil. That may not be agreeable and it may not be "correct" but that is the circumastances for that situation.

The words of obligation and debt is a matter of degree. We have basis and general guidelines for determining obligations and debts (for example if someone saves you life, gives you something) then you may say you have an obligation to them for doing those things for them. But I emphasize again that because they are a degree they are also personal. Good Solamnic knights of Krynn would live the saying "My honor is my life". They have a higher degree of obligation to uphold honor while a fighter who is not a good solaminic knight may have a lesser degree of obligation as far as how they choose to live life. "Do you owe saverok a debt?". Who is Saverok? He is your half brother, Yes he killed Gorien, yes he tried to killed you, and yes when Gorien took you instead of Saverok it was not your decision to make so you should not be held responsible. But then again what do You choose (based on your way to live your life) to consider the situation as? As we have seen from previous posts nost may say no I do not owe Saverok a debt. Others may say yes I do owe him a debt because they have a stricter interpretation of debt. Both should be legitamate for YOU. What stricter interpretation could apply? It may simply be that he is part of your party or group (if you have decided to take him as part of your group) for you may feel a debt to all members of your group because they have taken it upon themselves to aide you in your cause in Tob. Or you may feel a higher obligation to family (who are still alive) to take it upon yourself to change him for the better. "Do you owe Saverok a debt?" This is not a court or judicial system; it is roleplaying.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 1:50 pm

Gack,

I promised I would not post again here, and I am sorry (failed a will check I guess).

The *exact* wording of the relavent question was:

"... Is there a debt yet unpaid between you and Sarevok?"

That is not a matter of what you feel or anything of the sort. There is a *factual* and *unambigious* answer to that in all schools of western ethical philosophy. The answere is NO. Sorry guys, but there is no opinion about it.

Also (go back to sojourner's post), if you look at the possible answers, and reduce them to symbolic logic, the first three (that deny the debt) are identical when reduced to symbolic logic, yet the first two will give 'evil' results and only the third is considered 'neutral' (which may give a good result if you gave the good answer w/regard to your mother).

Now, having said all of that, I am *not* suggesting you shouldn't have compassion, and some schools of philosophy (notably Kant) would ague that you *are* obligated to act on that compassion precisely *because* there is no debt (can be shown using the catagorical imperitive). That, however, was NOT the question asked.

-Polaris

P.S. I am sorry and will shut up now

pip · Post by **pip** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 2:21 pm

To Polaris

Are you playing as a "western philosopher" as your protaganist in Tob?

Things are not black and white all the time. What is the real truth in life? I know what the the question is about. Can one just look at the question by itself not taking into account what has made You who you are and then form a proper response? I think not, after all it is what you gained from western philosophy that formulated your backbone for your response of whether there is a debt left unpaid for to saverok.

Is that roleplaying? As I said this is a roleplaying game. Polaris, do you remember the circus in athlataka or how illusions work in general? Illusions may not be real, but if you are totally convince that it is it could kill you just the same whether it is real or not. Whether there is a debt to be owed is similar, If one because of their code of life believes that they owe saverok a debt (no matter if the reason is valid under philosophy's guidelines or not) then their actions will reflect this and for them they do owe saverok a debt ( not as seen by any other) but more so as how it pertains to themselves roleplaying their charactor. The solar's question after all is directed at your player charactor not a court, a judge, a room of philosophers but at you.
What guidelines determine what someone owes?
At what point do we consider what is a debt and what is not?

Doltan · Post by **Doltan** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 3:55 pm

Originally posted by polaris:

"... Is there a debt yet unpaid between you and Sarevok?"

That is not a matter of what you feel or anything of the sort. There is a *factual* and *unambigious* answer to that in all schools of western ethical philosophy. The answere is NO. Sorry guys, but there is no opinion about it.

Actually, your statement about this not being up for debate in Western philosophy is incorrect. A modernist would say that the understanding of the question depends on the language constructs and environment in which the question was framed and interpreted. Therefore, the question could have various answers based on each person's unique background, experiences, and understanding of the language.

The modernist perspective is certainly part of Western philosophy (although, as the name suggests, it is a relatively new understanding). Likewise, I find your criticism of the relativists perspective to be interesting given that it too is a Western philosophy.

Path of Wind · Post by **Path of Wind** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 5:19 pm

I just wonder: What if someday the position of Western philosophie would change? Not completely, but towards more differention between "no one can hold anyone responsible for others' actions" and "everyone is entitled to consider him(her)self responsible"? For couple of centures Newton physics was "untouchable" and complete, then quantum mechanics changed everything. In fact Newton physics became subclass of wider picture. Why this could not happen to western philosophie views one day?

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 6:17 pm

Hey, I have a question . Does anybody know whether in Western Philosophy a third party has a moral obligation for an act commited by another person?
Cheers.

oldgamer · Post by **oldgamer** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 7:30 pm

I've been thinking about the conflict generated in this thread and first off I'd like to thank the participants, especially Polaris, for damning the torpedoes and charging full speed ahead. Sure it's annoying but without strong statements debates are boring. Again, thanks.
But back to the Truth(hehe) Polaris is right in insisting that within western ethics his PC cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. The Solar was dead wrong in judging his response evil when the PC was simply exercising his free will. If you accept the supposition of a western ethical foundation to the game then there is no room for discussion. The Solar was wrong.
But what if you don't accept this supposition. Polaris made good arguements for a western ethical foundation for the BG world but I don't see it limited to or solely based on those principles. I don't mean to start another debate but rather to point out that the absolute certainty in the issue of "Not owing Saverok a damn thing" is IMO not present here. The degree to which western ethics, to the exclusion of all others, is the basis for the BG world is open to debate. And if this point is open for debate what effect does it have on the absolute nature of the Solar's mistake?
Am I making any sense? I guess my point is belief systems require a leap of faith some where along the line to arrive at certainty. To me, if you acknowledge this leap within your own system of beliefs it should temper your dealings with others no matter how 'wrong' they are. I guess my conflict with Polaris' position is in its absoluteness and vehemence, not it's content. But I've said enough. I'm gonna get a beer. Cheers!
feeling 'oldgamer'

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:50 pm

Originally posted by oldgamer:
I guess my conflict with Polaris' position is in its absoluteness and vehemence, not it's content. But I've said enough. I'm gonna get a beer. Cheers!

I hear you oldgamer. A beer sounds real good right about now.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:21 pm

Gack,

Here I go again, but it has to be said:

First of all, my criticism is valid only if you accept western philosophy as the foundation of the good/evil questions (and alignment). I think in ADnD and BG this is extreemly reasonable (and yes there is no question then...the Solar was wrong). If you do not accept that, then all bets are off.

1. The modernists (also called the epistomophists (sp?)) would ALSO insist that you owe no debt to Savevok given the nature of the question and how it was phrased. A 'modernist' would, however, say that you need to look into the intent of the question (which is one reason I dislike that school but that is a whole 'nother topic).

2. I dislike relativism (how could you guess

), but yes relavism is a western philosophy. Guess what.... In standard RELATIVISM (as practiced by philosophers of that school), the answer is equally emphatic....you don't owe Sarevok anything? Why? Because Gorion was entitled to make his actions as was Sarevok. So to say that you owe Sarevok for Gorion's actions is to say that your point of view somehow supercedes his which is anethema to any relativist. I am sure that a practicing philospher could say that a bit more cleanly, but you get the idea I think.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:37 pm

Originally posted by polaris:
Gack,

Here I go again, but it has to be said:

First of all, my criticism is valid only if you accept western philosophy as the foundation of the good/evil questions (and alignment). I think in ADnD and BG this is extreemly reasonable (and yes there is no question then...the Solar was wrong). If you do not accept that, then all bets are off.

.

-Polaris

So if you don't accept the above then it's simply a case of one opinion vs another opinion, right?

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:37 pm

I don't says in posts of this topic before but for me, the fact that the planetar judge as an evil line if you anwser you don't owe serevok anything is a catastrofic mistake(planetar mistake). Btw I ever ask my self why they don't put a Fallen Planetar to Evil character.(it will be so easy, only a couple of dialogs changes and much less game linearity).

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:04 pm

Fezek,

Read the alignment descriptions in ADnD and BG and compare them to philosophical schools the world over (yes *all* of them). You will find that while the good/evil axis is a hodgepodge of many philosophical ideas, they are *all* western in origin (this is not suprising considering the source material DnD was inspired by....western myth and fantasy).

Of all the philosophical schools out there, the one the good/evil determination has the MOST common with is Kantian determinism....so I feel quite justified in using Kantian determinism as my basis in determining alignment questions *especially* if the pro is a paladin!

Given that, in WESTERN ethics the Solar is wrong. Period. There is no opinion about it. Given that the alignments were written from a western ethical PoV, I really don't see much room for another opinion. As I see it Bioware made a big mistake and a lot of people are streching language to (and past) the breaking point in a poor attempt to cover it up.

I notice that BIOWARE's silence continues....

-Polaris

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:28 pm

Fezek,

(sigh I promised I would stop posting on this thread...guess I am addicted)

You asked an interesting question: In western ethics can a third party be held accountable for someone's actions. The general answer is an *emphatic* NO. There are only two exceptions (and very limited exceptions at that...that I know of anyway):

1. If the person that did the act was not considered capable of /understanding/ the action/choice committed AND it was your responsibility (usually as a parent) to supply that understanding. The classic case here is the child-parent exception (in some cases in western ethics a parent can be held accountable for the actions of a child....to what extent and under which cases varies from school to school....and *that* depends on how much 'freewill' the child has).

2. If the person in question has CEDED some of their freewill to the third party. In short the third party by accepting *authority* and *control* over a person (hence restricting their freewill) also accepts partial responsibility for their actions. This exception is most common in the military but is found in most governments as well (as a department head you are *supposed* to know what your subordinates are doing....and failure to do this *is* considered your responsibility). Please note that this is very similiar to the first exception....BOTH involve cases where freewill is restricted.

In the case presented in the game, there is no such restriction. The pro has no control over either Gorion's or Sarevok's free will....so no debt is owed.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:43 pm

@polaris-san..I'll repeat my question. If you don't accept that Western philsophy is the foundation of the good/evil questions (and alignment) then it is simply a case of opinion A vs opinion B, right?

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:50 pm

If you don't accept Western Philosophy as the basis for BG, then how do you make sense of the alignment system or the OTHER tests the Solar puts you though? Compare the alignment system to ALL worldwide systems of philosophy......and the answer is quite clear (as I see it anyway): You CAN'T. The ethics behind the alignment system of DnD (and hence BG) is strictly western.

Sorry Fezak-san, but you are reaching badly.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:56 pm

@Polaris-san.. A simple yes/no will suffice.