GameBanshee Forums

Sorry to double post like this but....

Doltan, you made the claim that I was 'full of it' (without contesting my basic position...can you?) based on your philosophy courses. If that is so, why didn't you engage me in the same conversation Tom did long before? If you know so much about philosophy, then what was holding you back?

Tom and I have already discussed this and come to an agreement (and as I said, he agreed with my underlying position), but since *you* seem to know so much about philosophy and I am 'only' a pretender, I will put the same challenge to you:

Can a person owe a debt because of the actions or choices of ANOTHER person?

Please, give me a straight yes and no answer....don't waffle. If you have studied as much philosophy as you claim you have, then I know that the answer can not be 'yes' *especially* in context of the question.

-Polaris

Lorsadan,

Yes you CAN completely reject Sarevok and send him packing when you first meet him and still become a good God...which seems odd considering the context of the second test....it seems that only your dialog answers matter as to whether or not you become a good/evil god (dialog with Solar I mean) and NOT any other action, reputation,etc.

I note that this workds in reverse too. A Chaotic Evil protagonist could *act* chaotic evil (whith the appropriate abyssmal reputation) and STILL become a good god if he gives the solar good answers. That *is* also wrong.

-Polaris

To Polaris

Hmmm, that would hint at inconsistency for a person roleplaying the game.

But look at it this way, would it not be ironic if a charactor who is chaotic evil in nature was looking to gain favor with the solar and therefore gave the solar all the "good answers". But because they did this they are forced to become a Good god for all eternity in the end? That would be torture to them I imagine. Likewise the other way around.

I guess The solar is the "all mighty" in Tob. You can overcome everything else but you need to change the programming if you want to pick the answers that "should be right" and still become a good god.

So polaris after all those posts what what will you do next?

L:

I am hoping (forlornly probably) that someone at Bioware has read this will patch this dialog along with other fixes if and when ToB ever gets officially patched. I am not counting on it, but a person can dream right?

For 'good' characters, I will do [and I recommend that all others that want good characters do] the following:

Say you have pity for your mother (give the best good response you can to the first part), and THEN take the middle of the road answer (which is philosophically correct), i.e. Sarevok made his own fate.

This will generate the good result with minimal pain. Of course if you WANT to say you think a debt is owed, no one on this board can stop you, not even me I am giving my advice for those that DON'T think a debt is owed but don't want to be branded as evil.

-Polaris

My advice on this topic is to remember to enjoy life and have lots of fun while playing the baldur's gate series.

Ehh... Polaris You do know that I kept on responding to your posts because I owe you a debt don't you?

Lorsdan!!!

Lorsadan,

Did you owe me a debt or did you FEEL you owed me a debt ? There is a difference ya know.

Have fun.

-Polaris

To Polaris

I know, but I take debts seriously, why else have I been spending most of my time on the internet on this topic posting different ways of saying the same event?

So on the matter of debt, what is the difference between taking a debt on the matter based on "strong feelings" compare to taking a debt based on strong commitments, compare to taking a debt as defined by western philosophy? What do all these diffent paths do to the inherent nature of "Debt"?

Losadan,

Reread the coversation I had with Tom earlier today. The essential difference is one of obligation. If you owe a DEBT, then the other person can ask you to meet the obligation of that debt. In short, the nature of the question, "...is there a debt between you yet unpaid" directly implies that I OWE Serevok something that he has a right to collect.

OTOH, what you are describing is not debt in the classic sense but moral obligation. If you /must/ use the word 'Debt' then consider it a debt you owe to yourself. This is NOT between Sarevok and you but between you and your conscious.

In the *context* of the question, the answer is unambigious: There is no debt. Why? Because a person with free will can NOT be held accountable for the actions or choices of another person with free will. Since you had no control over Sarevok's life, you don't owe him a debt in the sense the question is trying to get at. You may have a moral obligation to help him, but that is NOT something you owe *Sarevok*.

Is that clearer? The question was loaded, INVALID and pretty generally a mistake.

-Polaris

You are not responsible for his actions. PERIOD. However, you are his (half)brother, and do owe him something, in the sense that families are supposed to stick together. IF your brother commits a crime, it is his fault. However, you are morally obligated to aid him, if and when he tries to reform.

To Polaris

Okay then at what point or factors would hold someone accountable for a debt as oppose to someone who just "feels" they are morally obligated?
If debt is something that you can collect on, what could you collect that would fulfill the debt? What is the fulfillment of the debt based on and who defines this?

Grim Reaper,

But that is *not* a debt in the context of the question. It might be an obligation (but that is a debt you owe yourself). Think of it this way: While a family member *ought* to help another family member, a family member has no right to DEMAND said help as payment.

That is the nub of the problem. Reread the question as asked in the context it was asked. Had the test been about frateral caring and obligation, I would not be so intransigent. But it isn't. The test is trying to say that BECAUSE through a quirk of fate Gorion picked you, Sarevok *automatically* became evil (implying that had you not been picked *YOU* *AUTOMATICALLY* would have become evil) and you owe a debt in the classic sense of the word because of it.

In short the question is asking you to assume a debt for someone else's actions. Xyx said it best when he pointed out that a refusal to do so is NOT considered evil (or even out of line) by most ethical standards...so the Solar was out of line by labeling you as evil.

Is this clearer? If you accept the truism that you can not be held accountable for the actions of others (and you seem to), then the question in the *context* it was raised was INVALID and generally a mistake.

-Polaris

P.S. I simply think Bioware made a mistake and got sloppy....but it was a pretty big mistake.

Lorsadan,

Ahh...you would have to ask the tricky questions

The exact answer various from philosophical school to school because different schools determine culpability differently. There is Kant's Catagorical Imperitive (which requires a what-if everyone did this test...and it a pain), there is Utilitarianism (which asks you to measure the Ultility and in the case of Debt how much utility you borrowed from the other), etc.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the best rule of thumb I can give you to distinquish whether you OWE another or just feel OBLIGATED to another is this:

Did your actions or choices directly affect that other person (and some would add did you *in*actions directly affect that other person)?

In short, if the other person needs help, did YOU cause the problem by your own choices?

If the answer is YES, then you OWE that other person. If the answer is NO, then you do not *owe* the other person, but may *feel* obligated to help. In short it boils down to free will. If you are to have freewill then you are accountable for your choices (and the same applies to others).

-Polaris

Sorry for posting again, but there is another thing about the test that should be bothering all of you.

*IF* you read 'Debt' as a sort of familial obligation (which is not in the context of the question, but that has been thoroughly covered), then it *should* be important whether or not you took Sarevok into your party and gave him a second chance.

Guess what? It ain't. The script doesn't even check to see if you included Sarevok in your party...so you could toss Sarevok like a bad apple, LIE to the Solar and still get the good test result. That seems sort of lame if you take the 'family obligation' angle seriously. It is just one more indication that Bioware messed this dialog up.

-Polaris

To Polaris

I had a nice nap, hopefully you were not waiting for me on the computer...

To fulfill an obligation to someone is not just doing something for someone else. In the process of fulfilling a debt to someone you are also upholding your own values so it is at least a two way relationship fulfillment thing.

As to testing to see whether a debt is owed to someone "...did your actions result in the cause of the problem for the individual?" Who is to say for certain how much of an effect through particular points of interaction results in debt being owed or not? Debt is not a standard defined measurement where you can say okay if I whacked you two times in the head then I owe you a debt as oppose to whacking you on the head only once.

Or the other side of oweing someone a debt, "Well johnny you been such a good friend, and i owe you a debt ever since you introduced me to abaigal (who the person now is steady with)" But who is to say abagail is not really a serial killer who will murder him, then where is debt in this?

In baldur's gate (as limited as games goes) the game does not take into account whether you take saverok into your party as being relevant to the final determination of whether you become a good god or evil god but only your responses to the tests given by the solar. Remember polaris that in terms of your charactor in the game he/she's life experiences does not end with the completion of Tob. If you take a debt to saverok for what it is you may very well complete your adventuring in Tob and then fulfill your obligation to saverok afterwards(npc's wait for you in the abyss). As a god your power and influence to change things is greater. And a debt that you agee to with the solar may be binding even to a god. Especially if the bhaal essence does not overcome you to cause you to become an evil god, you will most likely go on to fulfill an obligation with saverok. But you say this is moral responsibility and not debt? What is the defining difference between the two in terms of impact?

Okay the point that i would like you to get is that oweing someone a debt is a concept that varies based on numerous factors and the "true" answer is not set in stone.

Let me give you a small illustration. From Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. In the westlands where magic does not exist offering apples to someone is consider a friendly thing to do and apples are taste great and is good for you. However in the same world, but in the midlands where magic exist offering an apple to someone is like drawing a dagger on someone, apples in that part have been made poisonous. Someone who travels from the westland to the midlands and offers an apple to a person in the midlands (based on his experiences and background from the westlands without knowing the customs of the midlands). Would you consider such person's action evil?

Part of that is the standard reletavist postition which I object to. While that was interesting reading, we are *not* talking about the same thing....and I recommed we leave it at that.

*IN* the *CONTEXT* of the question, debt was clearly meant to be something rather tangible. The sort of 'debt' you are talking about is really a moral obligation to yourself.

Since you didn't care for my first test, try this:

Does the other person have a RIGHT to ask something of you? If the answer is 'yes', then that is a debt. Otherwise it isn't. I am sorry this isn't clear to you, but again *in* the context of the *question* there is NO DEBT because you had no CONTROL over Sarevok's life. Frankly any other conclusion is just double-speak.

This *is* my last post here, REALLY. I feel as though I am talking to a proverbial brick wall.

-Polaris

To Polaris

Come on surely I have some weaknesses as a "proverbial stone wall"?



Okay let us look at that response.

"Yes, there is a debt. I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine."

From my study of techniques of advertising I notice that there is not a necessary link between those two statements to determine whether there is a debt that could be owed.

The response is not written as follows
Yes, there is a debt "because" I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine." "Yes, there is a debt." (Notice the period) is one part. the other part is "I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine." You could make a determination of whether there is a debt on the first part (as it is phrased without connection to the second part). Then you could state "I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine." Oweing a debt to saverok would not be a false response even if you do not agree with the second statement because the two statements are not technically linked.

In regards to if saverok has a "right" to ask the protaganist for payment, who determines the criteria for this right?

But anyway I was hoping to repay my debt to you...but since that was your last post on the topic I hope you got something more out of this discussion then what you started out with.

You don't debt him a thing, what did YOU do to make him doing bad things? Gorion did what he could do, too bad for Sarevok. There is no debt, I don't see why there should be one...

"there is NO DEBT because you had no CONTROL over Sarevok's life"

You mean aside from ending it? Terminating someone's life seems to me, in my little ignorant non-utilitarian world, to be a definite measure of control over another.

This is, of course, ignoring the entire possibility that determinism isn't at play. One can easily argue that Alundro's prophecy is a self-fulfilling one, but just about any fulfilled prophecy can be argued as such.

*chuckle*

To vegeta and sargon;

my whole point is that you are both "right".

Just as there is night and day in this world and they seem to contradict each other if you try to place them both together in the same "time". The two are still in harmony when viewed as a whole.