Debt to Sarevok

[Tom]

Polaris

Lets just be clear. An unfulfilled obligation seems prima facie to be a debt. I am however aware that in this context that is not what is meant.

U say.

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.

This is wrong in every way. According to Kant you should follow the action that can be made into a universal principle. It does not matter if you get something in return for your action. Furthermore - if you see a person drowning and save that person it does not affect the moral status of the action if you as a result is given a medal at the town hall.

The catagorical imparative is ‘The formal moral law in Kantian ethics, based on reason. It is opposed to hypothetical imperatives, which depend upon desires, e.g. 'Catch the 9.15 - if you want to arrive by noon'. In its most famous formulation, it states that the 'maxim' implied by a proposed action must be such that one can will that it become a universal law of nature. I consider lying to you so that you will lend me some money, my maxim therefore being 'Whenever I can gain something from it, I shall lie'. Can I will this to become a universal law of nature? No, for the practices of communication on which lying depends would break down. This is Kant's conception of universalizabillity, based ultimately on fairness: why am I entitled to free-ride on the honesty of others?’
(The Oxford Companion to Philosophy)

u say

‘He had a test for that involving all possible worlds, but enough philosphy for now.’

It seems you are bit confused here. Your use of the ‘all possible worlds’ terminology is misplaced here. It is not about other possible worlds but rather whether the action could be translated in to a universal principle.

u say

Is is clearer now that the good/evil axis in ADnD is almost classic Kant?

With respect – No.

For example it would be completely consistent for a utilitarianist to hold that you should help others because it is the 'right' thing to do. It is the right thing to do because it maximises utility in that situation.


Hope this helps

[Sojourner]

Wow, it's amazing how much one can beat a dead horse. Ironically, on my first run-through of the game, I chose a "good" response, without the benefit of philosophy or looking at the scripts beforehand:

1. "If there was a debt, then it was Gorion's...and it has been paid." - I didn't choose this one because it just sounded pig-headed and wrong for my paladin.
2. "There is no debt. Gorion had no choice...and I wouldn't have ended up like Sarevok." - Being of the school that children need guidance, I didn't agree with this one either.
3. "Sarevok made his own fate. Neither Gorion nor I are responsible for it." (This was the middle-of-the-road answer.) - I agreed with this one, but I was role-playing a paladin, so chose the next one.
4. "Sarevok paid for what he did...as for now, I don't know...perhaps there is a debt." - I chose this one, because I felt my paladin had a reponsibility to redeem Sarevok.
5. "Yes, there is a debt. I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine."
   - I didn't really like this one either; had they phrased it differently, I might have agreed.
   [/list=a]
   
   I took the word debt, especially the way it was used, to be one of those "overloaded operators", as we say in programming.

[polaris]

Tom,

With /respect/ you are being dense.

1. I am well aware that the catagorical imperitive means that you have to be able to generalize it to a universal principle. The *way* you do that is by using a varient of 'possible worlds'. If I stated that badly, I apologize. However, I *do* know what I am talking about here.

2. I am well aware and *did* say a long time back that the alignment system was a *combination* of a lot of philosophies. You are quite correct that you can make the case for Utilitarianism with the AD&D alignment system. Guess *what*....Utilitarianism will *also* deny the debt.

3. Obligation != debt. You don't get that prima facia (or at all). Even if you did, *who* do you owe the debt to? In western ethics, this sort of debt is NOT owed to Sarevok.....he has free will and owing that sort of obligation denies that (something you have NOT touched). The debt is ultimately owed to yourself. However *read* Xyx's post and the question. That was NOT the question asked.

4. Tom, I would like a clear and concise answer:

Do YOU think that *anyone* CAN owe a debt for a decision someone else has made? I will only settle for a yes or no answer. If you HAVE studied philosophy, then I know what that answer must be (and it isn't yes).

-Polaris

[polaris]

For the record, I got the 'good' response two the first few times, but ONLY barely.

I said I had pity for my mother, and then said that Sarevok make his own fate. That was 'just' enough to get the 'good' result.

I think that Xyx stated the case even better than I did. NO answer there is so far from a 'good' alignment that it deserves an evil test result. Bioware messed up. It is as simple as that.

-Polaris

[Tom]

Polaris

Im sorry if im being ‘dense’

First of all I never said that you could owe a debt for the actions of someone else. My little point was simply that one could take the view that a debt was owed Saravok. Although, and I reiterate this, I know that was not what was meant in that situation.

I agree with you that no debt is owed Saravok in the sense of the question.

I am glad that you agree with me that there is nothing particularly kantian about the alignment system in ad&d.

U say

I am well aware that the catagorical imperitive means that you have to be able to generalize it to a universal principle. The *way* you do that is by using a varient of 'possible worlds'.

Im sorry to say that that is not correct. You do not use a variant of the ‘possible worlds’. (In fact I am not sure what you mean be this. “The possible worlds argument” is usually used to refer to an argument employed by kripke to show that russells theory of descriptive names is wrong.)
It has been a while since I have had my fingers on Kants ‘The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals’ but I am sure he never talked about possible worlds. You simply make your action into a general principle and then make it hold universally.

[polaris]

Tom,

But how do you test and see if the priciple can be held to be true universally? If I am mangling the term 'possible worlds', then I apologize, but I do think we are agreeing here. In short you have to take the imperitive and see if it makes sense for EVERYONE to do it in EVERY situation (a *tough* test!) It has been a while since I have read 'Critique of Pure Reason' myself, but that was what I meant by 'every possible worlds' but after some thought I see where you might object.

*MY* objection was this (and I hope we can agree here):

1. The question itself was INVALID given the way it was phrased. It is clear *no* debt is owed in the context of the question because you *can* *not* owe a debt for the decision(s) of others without denying freewill....and if you deny freewill, then the question of debt is meaningless because no one had any choice (it was fated you would be picked QED)

2. Given that it is clear no debt is owed in the context of the question, it is unreasonably harsh to have your character branded as EVIL (as the game does) for picking a choice that firmly denies said 'debt'.

Can we agree on these two points?

-Polaris

[Tom]

polaris

yes i think we can agree on those two points.

But how do you test and see if the priciple can be held to be true universally?

ha - yes i would like to know that as well.

however it is not completly impossible to see what Kant means. 'I consider lying to you so that you will lend me some money, my maxim therefore being 'Whenever I can gain something from it, I shall lie'. Can I will this to become a universal law of nature? No, for the practices of communication on which lying depends would break down.'
ibid.

So if everybody was lying the whole practise of comunication, on which lying depends, breaks down.

But what about other cases? Well kant does not give many examples perhaps because that is quit hard. but maybe not impossible.

A bigger problem for kant is that he has no way of resolving moral dilemmas.
there is a catagorical imp that say that we should not lie. there is also one (presumably) that says we should not let murderes kill if we can stop them.
But if you see a man hide in a closet and an axe murdere comes up and asks you where the man is, you will be forced to let the man die or tell a lie.

what should you do? it seems Kant can't deal with this because he has no mechanism to choose the overiding catagorical imperative.

before this gets out of hand we better stop on kant.

I hasten to add that i am no expert on kant and what i have written should not be taken to be the 100% correct. people who are interested in more should jump in the river or if that didnt help - read.

Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory
by Roger J. Sullivan


[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Tom ]

[polaris]

Tom,

I think we can agree on this third point too....we SHOULD stop talking about Kant while we are ahead (or at least not so far behind ).

Yes, I too can see what Kant was getting at, but yes I too think that his ideas have real problems with moral dilemnas primarily because it is SO DIFFICULT to phrase the imperitive in a proper way so you can test it.

Getting back (closer) on topic: As I said earlier, I dislike alignment systems in RPGs because IMO they give a 'cartoonish' idea of ethics and force players to accept ethical systems (even in the negative sense) that they might disagree with and/or find difficult to RP. However, I *do* think that Bioware should have done better.

I also think that the ADnD alignment system (which we both can agree is flawed I think) represents a 'common sense' idea of good and evil from a western PoV.

Let's end this with another point of agreement shall we? Can we agree that the use of the word 'DEBT' especially in THIS context was philosophically 'loaded' and patently unwise?

Cheers

-Polaris

P.S. I personally am more comfortable with ethical theories that seek to describe ethics rather than solve ethical dilemnas but that is *really* off topic

[Tom]

polaris

yep agrement allround.

Getting back (closer) on topic: As I said earlier, I dislike alignment systems in RPGs because IMO they give a 'cartoonish' idea of ethics and force players to accept ethical systems (even in the negative sense) that they might disagree with and/or find difficult to RP. However, I *do* think that Bioware should have done better.

infact i would say that just leaving out aligment systems would be much better. if people want to be evil let them do evil deeds in the game. so much better for roleplay.

signing of for today.

[Doltan]

I just wanted to point out the latest quotes from Polaris. At first I was enjoying reading this thread, but now I'm more convinced then ever that the guy is a complete pretender (my measely 3 Philosophy courses were already telling me that).

Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>Tom,
*Big Sigh* Read some philosophy please. I am not trying to be insulting, but it would help.
...
Tom, please read some philosophy and then THINK about the question some more.</STRONG>

and

<STRONG>Tom,
With /respect/ you are being dense.</STRONG>

But the great part is, Tom did know quite a bit of philosophy (as did Fezek and Kayless).

Polaris, you have to learn to grow up. I have to say that you have almost single-handedly made the forum less fun for me. There have been at least three threads now which I have had to stop reading because of your childish antics (and the fact that they make me angry). Others were certainly disagree and some like the lively discussion. But few have had the philosophy training to call you on what is most likely a marginally true position. When people have called you on it, you've resorted to insulting either their intelligence, their training, or both. And you have used a lot of fancy phrases (often inappropriately in the cases where I have the background to know well enough) to beat them down.

To be honest, I am sick of your arrogant attitude and I feel like the longer you keep up your immature attacks, the more likely I am to quit coming to this forum. Although me leaving this forum won't be a great loss, there are certainly other people that have indicated that they feel the same way.

- Doltan

[Tom]

Doltan

steady on

no reason to take it more seriously than it was meant.

Generaly i dont worry about the posts i dont like so no harm done to anyone

[Doltan]

Ok Tom. It's good to hear that you weren't offended (you seem the even-tempered sort). But my blood still boils a little as I read the arrogance in his posts and it drives me nuts. I'll calm down, but I meant it when I said that Polaris sucks the fun out of some of these topics.

[pip]

To Polaris

let me state this in another way. Would a roleplayed charactor who has made a vow prior to the solar's question about debt to saverok supercede the answer that they might have given to the solar otherwise?

In other words If my protaganist at that point have taken saverok into my party and have vowed to repay a debt in the past to guide and protect party members or change them to be a better person. Would this vow of responsibility not take precendence over whether "...there is a debt between saverok and you?" I am stating that this would take precendence and override what the answer may otherwise be.

To xyx

I do not see the matter of debt between you and saverok being just as simple as 2+_2=4. Hence this discussion is still going on. The difference that I see is that "oweing" and "debt" are not accepted finite definitions. They mean different things to different people.

To polaris

I recall that right after the solar question of debt if you were to go into the room in the abyss that the solar opens you would meet an image of an Npc who says that basicly they are you if Gorien had taken saverok instead of you. So as far as the programmers are concerned if Gorien had taken saverok instead of you, you would be most likely in his place. Now again, in "real" life I agree that a decision that you have no part in making should not necessarily produce such a result but this is Baldur's gate world.

On the matter of becoming a good god or evil god based on that decision I would say that the it was their call. I would say it is very easy to become evil, and you will always make enemies and friends whatever you do.

[Xyx]

Originally posted by Lorsadan:
<STRONG>I do not see the matter of debt between you and saverok being just as simple as 2+_2=4. Hence this discussion is still going on. The difference that I see is that "oweing" and "debt" are not accepted finite definitions. They mean different things to different people.</STRONG>

I would certainly not wish to imply that this issue is as transparent as 2 + 2 (although probably even that example could be argued not to be true necessarily). Did that make sense?

Problem is, whatever your (or your protagonist's) perceptions of "debt", "owing", "Good" or "Evil", the Solar has the arrogance of deciding for you. Someone could very well give an answer that they believe to be Good with all their heart, and still be judged "Evil" by the Solar.

The game judges neither your intentions nor your reasoning. Instead, it measures you by some obscure standard of what some designer thought was kewl. This does not encourage roleplaying...

Would you give your opinion on my previous "Minsc" example? (re-posted here for your very personal convenience )

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!"

[polaris]

Doltan,

If you take offense at me, then I certainly take offense at you. It *did* turn out that Tom knew a bit of philosphy. That does NOT make your implied generalization about Fezek or Kayless true or even correct because it does not.

There is a great series on NPR called, "The Rest of the Story" and that truism applies here. If you look at the REST of the story, you will find that Tom agreed with my basic and underying position: In the context of the question, the question of debt *itself* was INVALID because you CAN NOT owe a debt for the actions of another.

The programmers at bioware are simply *wrong*. I understand what might have been driving their position. They are essentially saying that but for a quirk of fate your position and Sarevok's *would* have been reversed. That is NOT SO. The *best* they can say is that they /MIGHT/ have been reversed. In short the programmers are assuming that neither you nor the protagonist had any free will in deciding how you would become....but if you deny free will, then debt becomes meaningless QED (reread what Tom and I AGREED ON before you jump on my case).

The *fact* is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION, the Solar was wrong *in* *fact* and Bioware really messed up. Also look at what Xyx said.

Are you suggesting that a person who does NOT feel there is a debt is ALWAYS evil in the context of the question regardless of compassion or free will? Regardless that he had no CHOICE in the matter? You have to agree some prety outrageous things to be able to defend the Solar on this. In this case (at least in western ethics) in the context of the question, it *is* as simple as 2+2=4.

-Polaris

[THE JAKER]

1. Cast Death Ward on your protagonist.

2. Use Shapechange to change in Mind Flayer form.

3. Kill the Solar.

(The REAL Evil Response)

Hey I love this thread because I can tell people I'm "studying philosophy" instead of admitting to obsession with Baldur's Gate!!!! .

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by THE JAKER:
<STRONG>1. Cast Death Ward on your protagonist.

2. Use Shapechange to change in Mind Flayer form.

3. Kill the Solar.

(The REAL Evil Response)

Hey I love this thread because I can tell people I'm "studying philosophy" instead of admitting to obsession with Baldur's Gate!!!! .</STRONG>

aha, you realy deserve yor nickname, clap, clap, clap

[pip]

To Xyx

I understand, and based on previous posts if I was looking at this from an outside perspective I would agree that the solar should not judge the answer by itself as being evil but should take into account where one is coming from.

Unfortunately this is governed by game restraints not a court to decide whether it is right or not. Someone else had mentioned that it may be a little too complex to factor in all the alignments and get every detail in to determine the proper judgement of what is really a good or evil answer. This may or may not be the case. In game terms it appears that saying no there is not a debt between you and saverok is interpretated as evil by the solar.

To me it does not matter as much the result from the determination of whether a debt exist or not is good or evil as interpretated by the solar in the game. I am more concern with the player as what it is for them in that situation based on their background and previous commitments. In that light the player should be able to say yes there is a debt or no there is not and both would be legitamate for them. Hmm maybe the solar is wiser then all of us. In game term environment I guess she is.
That was why I was looking for any explanation in the end of why that decision of no would result in one becomeing an evil god. Is it because the Bhaal essence overwealms the charactor toward evil actions if that charactor does not have the highest interpretation of responsibility? Who knows?

[polaris]

L:

I think I understand the justification for why you become an 'evil' god if you fail the test (note that I am not saying I agree with it!): Supposedly the evil in Bhaal's taint is so overwhelming that it will overcome anyone's good intentions if they have the slightest 'flaw' in their innate goodness.

Of course I have issues with that too...and largely the same issues I have witht the question: It neglects the protagonist's free will.

Having said that, I could deal with and even understand how failing one test would make you an 'Evil' god IF every test were clear cut. And actually *most* of the tests *are* clear cut! [As a matter of fact, I think the pro gets off too easily on the first test. I could make a STRONG case that not taking Sarevok *might* be an evil action in itself depending on how he was rejected, but the game doesn't test for that....which is quite odd considering the context of the second test. I find it *equally* odd that the second test doesn't factor in whether or not you gave Sarevok a second chance as IMO it should....if I understand the *intent* of the test correctly.]

The fact is the Solar is ethically wrong in the context of the question. I know you would like to find out why the Solar would be right, but an easier answer is simply that the programmer made a mistake and inserted a bit of Zen he that was KEWL w/o thinking it through. At least that is how I see it. [I think I am right because the OTHER tests ARE given from a western ethical PoV.]

-Polaris

[pip]

To polaris

I only played Tob once and did not choose to become a god so I do not know of those results. So what I'm getting is that you could still become a good god in tob if you do not take saverok and that even if you rejected him harshly you will still be able to become a good god?

On the matter of "...is there a debt between you and saverok?" I do not feel a need to repeat my interpretation on that issue.