GameBanshee Forums

@ Polaris don't be like this. You may be right (I sure as hell don't know) but don't do it in such an abrasive manner. Not only in another thread have you insulted someone and claimed to have made an 'enemy' you are also posting in anger. I am being quite serious now. Calm down, think before you post. Angering someone else is not the way to go. You can get your viewpoint across just as if not more easily if you write calmy. There is no need to rant at anyone just because they may be right or wrong. This doesn't matter at all. The whole thing is opinion. Some people may consider that just because you are playing as a good character you say the 'good' responses. Thats it. You say the 'good' responses as a good character and 'evil' responses as an evil character.

I think you need to calm down when you write Polaris. This is two threads now, complaints may follow.

Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>Some people may consider that just because you are playing as a good character you say the 'good' responses.</STRONG>

Heh, one reason would be to suck up to the Solar in order to get a better reward.

Discussing ethics and CRPG's, you gotta love it. My NG NPC knew he had no obligation or responsibility for any thing Saverok did or any thing done to him. And yet he still felt something. Is this feeling wrong? Western ethics says I'm not reponsible for the actions of others. Fine, I agree, but does it condem me for taking on the burden willingly? The Solar was at fault for demanding this debt but the Gods are often harsh and unfair in their demands.

Kayless by bringing that 'mass appeal' statement you ignore one big factor.

Many westerners are completely ignorant of eastern culture. The vice versa is not true.

Polaris: I don't think I have ever flamed anyone before, but seeing two different topics in a matter of week where you have behaved unacceptably really bothers me. Your opinion appears to be that you are right because you say that you are right. Insulting someone's intelligence (Kayless has more than proven that he/she is a well-written, intelligent and thoughtful person) in order to make a point is really counterproductive. You claim to have completed extensive coursework in philosophy, but from my experience your condescending attitude, quickness to anger, taking arguments personally, and inability to make a point would never work in a good philosophy course (certainly philosophers are arrogant, so that part of your reaction was typical...). Now, for a second time, I state my opinion that this behavior detracts from an amazing message board and should stop.

May be this "debt" is not about philosophie? The PC is YOU, and it is about how YOU feel the world in real world. I usualy feel responsible for something that occured somewhere and has no connection with me. But... I always has this pulsing thought: Would that "something" happen if I would be a better person that I am? So, not being better than I could, leaves me with the feeling of having debt towards ... other people? May be Bioware designer felt the same - can you call it fault?

Path,

Yes I can fault that feeling. Questions about ethics, feeling, and doubt are a big reason why philosophy (and ethical philosophy) exists. THere are very few things that are clearcut in ethical philosophy, but this just happens to be one of them.

I am sorry that you all feel I have been abrasive but I just don't care. You are asking me to accept something that is simply *wrong* (by western ethics) and has been for most of western civilization. It is this 'can we just get along because your view is as good as my view' nonsense (which goes under the technical term of relativism) which has caused a great deal of EVIL (imo) in current society.

In any event, the designer should take a composition course AND a philosophy course *before* scripting ethical questions.

-Polaris

P.S. Don't ask me to back off when I am right. You have to prove I am wrong first....and in *this* case I know you can not.

Part of this is lost on me because I don't have ToB. Could someone explain exactly how the Solar lets you know you've made the Good/Evil choice?

Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>I am sorry that you all feel I have been abrasive but I just don't care. You are asking me to accept something that is simply *wrong* (by western ethics) and has been for most of western civilization.</STRONG>

To which Western ethics are you referring?

Xyx,

There are three ways you know:

1. If you have the Balderdash patch installed, you get a new power after every test (much like the Tears of Bhaal in Hell). It is pretty easy to see which choice was 'good' or 'evil' based on the new power.

2. Look at the testing room when you enter for you challenge. If it looks hellish when you entered, and then changes to something pleasent (or less hellish), you made a 'good' choice. If it looks pleasent when you enter and THEN changes to hellish when you pass the test, you made an 'evil' choice.

3. Finally if you made more good choices than evil choices (regardless of rep or alignment), you become a 'good' God (if you choose immortality). Likewise (again regardless of alignment or rep), if you made more evil choices than good ones, you become an 'evil' God....at least this is to the best of my knowledge [if it is like the test in hell where you had to pass them all or go evil, that would torque me off even more].

-Polaris

Sojourner,

All except *perhaps* Relativism....and I could make my case even there. Western ethics goes from the gamut of Greco Vitue Theory to Utilitarianism to the various Deaontological Schools (such as Kant). They are quite different and often disagree. Nevertheless, they *all* still agree on one essential point (and have since Socrates): You can NOT owe a debt for another person's actions.

-Polaris

P.S. Even naturalism (the religious variety) agrees on that point per Thomas Aquinas.

Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>You can NOT owe a debt for another person's actions.</STRONG>

Perhaps not, but you *can* take responsibility for them, as any parent or military leader will tell you. Judging by what I saw with Infinity Explorer, that's also what the game designers meant.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

You can NOT owe a debt for another person's actions.

-Polaris

Just want to clear things for myself : I even canNOT CHOOSE to lead a life as if I (partly) responsible for others' actions?

As far as I know, the Western Philosophie stands on the fact that no one can HOLD you responsible for actions of others, but that is different from will of choice.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Path of Wind ]

Ahh....

Now you are touching on an issue that is far less clear

My *take* on it (and this /is/ only an opinion....schools vary widely on /this/ issue) is that if others can not hold you accountable for the actions of others then you *ought* *not* (note the wording) as well. Some ethicists disagree, however.

The problem is, however, was that was not the question that was asked. You were asked , "...and what of your brother Sarevok. Do you owe him a debt?" *THAT* answer is clear and unambigious in *all* of western philosophy. That answer is NO.

That does not mean that you shouldn't feel compassion...or (in a Kantian view) feel obligated to act on that compassion, but as I said before compassion != debt (or obligation for that matter).

-Polaris

Originally posted by Sojourner:
<STRONG>Perhaps not, but you *can* take responsibility for them, as any parent or military leader will tell you. Judging by what I saw with Infinity Explorer, that's also what the game designers meant.

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Sojourner ]</STRONG>

What they 'meant' is not the point. We've agreed before on what we thought they meant.

The point is what is written. In the game it says debt, and I sure as hell am not going to say I owe a debt to someone who chose his path long before I ever knew he existed!

Sojourner,

In western ethics, the only reason a leader (especially a militiary leader) can be held accountable (responsible) for the actions of his subordinates is BECAUSE (in principle) his subordinates freely cede some of their freewill to that leader. In short, the responsibility is balanced by the moral authority to give an order. Btw (and off topic), this leads to one of the oldest truisms in military leadership: NEVER give an order you *know* will not be obeyed. It destroys your moral authority to give orders in the future.

In this case, however, the analogy is invalid. YOU were never given any authority/influence over what sort of life Sarevok would lead or actions he would take. In this case, *all* western ethical schools are clear: You are *not* accountable, period.

-Polaris

"...and what of your brother Sarevok. Do you owe him a debt?" *THAT* answer is clear and unambigious in *all* of western philosophy. That answer is NO.

Then may be Bioware ment "Do you FEEL you owe him a debt?" Just a programming error? Because with just this one word FEEL the whole question changes orientation: it becomes a test of being compassionate, not completely self-centered. And then it starts make sence at the end (if you choose to be god): evil self-centered, egoistic god, or good, compassionate god. And the whole thread (one of the most interesting in weeks, BTW), started with a small typing error, with ommiting of one word.


@polaris: thanks for clearing this up for me.

Path,

I would even disagree with that. If it is unambigously clear that you do NOT owe him a debt, then why should you FEEL that you owe him a debt? A better question IMO would have been, "Do you FEEL that you should do more for your brother?" [Or some philosophical equivalent.] NOW it becomes a question of compassion.

-Polaris

You're right. That is probably just choice of words. Sometimes even clear things are regarded differently in different regions. Off topic, but good example what I mean:

I am from Quebec, and our current prime minister is considered to be a "natonalist", "separatist", opposed to "federalists", who wants to keep Canada as united country. But couple of weeks ago during his trip to Belgium, he was praised by one of the locals authoriries as the one of the greatest modern federalists! That because some of the belgians wants to transform the unitarian, wholesome country into federation of provinces, like Canada (or states, like USA). You see? Same purpose (more independence), different words. I guess that Bioware wanted a test for compassion, just chose different (wrong from your perspective) words.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm new to this sort of thing, however, I have been monitoring this board for many months and have finally gotten off my ass and decided to throw my hat in the ring. So first and formost I would like to say "hi".

Second, and slightly more important, I am on my fist time through bg2 (and almost done), so I do know what's going on as they say.

Third, and more relavent to the subject matter is that I must agree with polaris. I have not purchased ToB yet, however, given the "quote" that polaris has given about the Solar's question, and the fact that the majority of U.S. persons operate on a "Western" Philosophy, that the Protagonist owns Sarevok nothing. Period. Second, keep in mind that this strictly based on Western Philosophy (or at least Polaris's version. Note: Not and attack). Apply other philosophies and the rules change completely. Again, I agree with polaris's statement concerning the re-wroded question:

"Do you FEEL that you should do more for your brother?" [Or some philosophical equivalent.] NOW it becomes a question of compassion.

.

What you DO own him, is what you owe every human being: the chance to make himself better, improve himself, to show kindness and love (he is your brother). i.e. if you take him in your group, and if you are playing a Good aligned character, then you have the oppurtunity to change his alignment.

Note: that western philosophy has been profoundly impacted by Greek philosophy and Biblical thinking.

Polaris: I commend you on your defense of your position, but more so on you attitude to not back down. That is commendable to say the least. Take it for what it's worth.

-Mad-