Paizo Top Nav Branding
Welcome, guest! | Sign In | My Account | My Subscriptions | My Downloads | Shopping Cart   Shopping Cart | Help/FAQ
  About Paizo     Messageboards     News     Paizo Blog     Help/FAQ  




Pathfinder Society
SEARCH


BROWSE
Avatar V avatar

Thiago Cardozo's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber. 168 posts. 1 review.

Profile | Recent Posts | Recent Reviews


Recent posts by Thiago Cardozo:

Color Spray in area of Total Darkness
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Well, boards just chewed my post :(

Making the long story short, I decided at the time that darkvision guys would see the pattern, albeit colorless, and would be affected while others would not, since the spell description says "sightless" not "color blind". However, I have been questioning my decision and decided to post it here for discussion.

I particularly like Laurefindel's take on the "physics" of phantasms; however, I would not dare introduce the complications which would arise from players deciding to close and open their eyes as free actions.


Oh, just correcting myself here, it was the physics of **patterns** Laurefindel discussed, not phantasms :)

Color Spray in area of Total Darkness
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Well, boards just chewed my post :(

Making the long story short, I decided at the time that darkvision guys would see the pattern, albeit colorless, and would be affected while others would not, since the spell description says "sightless" not "color blind". However, I have been questioning my decision and decided to post it here for discussion.

I particularly like Laurefindel's take on the "physics" of phantasms; however, I would not dare introduce the complications which would arise from players deciding to close and open their eyes as free actions.

Color Spray in area of Total Darkness
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Fellow Paizonians, the following situation has come up last session, and I need your help:

The PCs were in an area of total darkness, facing enemies with darkvision. The group's wizard decides to cast Color Spray in the general direction the enemies seem to be coming. However, it also includes other PCs (which do not possess darkvision). Now, who is affected ? Does Color Spray generates a "flash", cancelling momentarily the darkness, thus affecting everyione in its path, does it affect only those which can see in the conditions under which the spell was cast, or does it fail to affect friend and foe ?

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

I think I have been unfailingly clear. It just seems that every time I try to explain myself in within parameters you and the others have set for your understanding, I fail to either remember or have knowledge of a specific fact or nuance of terminology which cause everyone to instantly dismisses the extremely simplistic nature of my observation. Seems to me this is more of pick on the new guy because he doesn't know as much as we do.

Let me try to see if I get it:

You are saying that, since theoretical constructs depend on postulates, one has to have faith in those postulates ? Is that what you are saying ?

Or are you saying that to pursue the investigation or proposition of scientific hypotheses is meaningless unless you have all possible evidence beforehand ?

Or are you saying that, for instance, if we know for a fact that life forms exist and existed before, even then, we cannot draw theories concerning those very life forms unless we also know how they came into being ?

Please help me here, so that we can properly discuss this in philosophical grounds.

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

If you believe that Darwinism or any other science based theory for the origin of life requires no leap of faith to maintain, then you are either too indoctrinated to continue this argument, or are missing my point entirely.

There is a third option: you are not aware of the way theories are structured and investigated. The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It however, presupposes the existence of life, as a postulate, say.

But you seem eager to talk about a different topic which is the origin of life. One of the current hypotheses for the origin of life does involve the idea that enviromental restrictions can impose order to an otherwise random process, in a manner similar to what is understood from Darwin's theory. For instance, one experimentally verifies that certain peptides or polynucleotides can replicate in certain situations. Since both kinds of molecules carry information, and since that information can be changed by chemical means, it is reasonable to hypothesize that evolution can "improve" sequences of aminoacids or nucleotides in respect to capacity to repclicate when subjected to restricitng conditions. Since some experiments corroborate that idea (for instance, a mixture of auto-replicating RNA sequences undergo selection when exposed to different conditions), it is said that the hypothesis is supported by this evidence. Note that evolution is being applied to support a tentative mechanism to explain life (since it is so successful at explaining other phenomena), not the other way around. Evolution theory does not need a "theory for the origin of life" to be established as a good theory.

The fact that we do not know yet what is the correct hypothesis for a specific problem in science has nothing to do with faith, and does not mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence, which does not yet give the whole picture. If scientists had "faith" on one particular mechanism for the origin of life they would not be investigating it with so much enthusiasm.

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

1. Suggested idea for how something operates, functions, or exists within a given concept. Widely accepted as being beyond dispute with the acknowledgement that a superior idea may exist which will supersede it
Quote:

Theoretical construct which attempts to describe how something operates, functions, or exists. In order for it to be scientific it must lead to conclusion which can, in principle, be verified to be false directly or inderctly by an experiment.

Quote:

2. Believing in something that cannot be proven based on no, little, or partial evidence. I.e. Judeo-Christian God, life sparking from amino acids, thetans, etc. (I realize the age-old, "Am I real? Are you real?" argument could start here, but I am assuming we are all beyond that silliness.)

I reiterate that theories cannot proven. By definition. THence, there is no 100% evidence for any theory whatsoever. If partial evidence is not enough to support scientific claims then all scientific knowledge is meaningless or "blind-faith". Which of course makes it quite difficult to explain how the modern world works.

Quote:

3. I am not truly speaking of Darwin's theory of evolution, but rather the idea that all life culminated as the result of random chance and then evolved from one species to another.

Then, rigorously, you are not talking about theory, but about scientific hypotheses for the origin of life. Once again, no scientist chooses one of the current hypotheses (or at least should not) by "blind faith". Evidences are weighed, and many different approaches are attempted to understand how life emerged. This is the kind of topic which is considered "under investigation". If you are claiming that taking position in favor of one of the proposed hypotheses by weighing known evidence, while being open to other evidence which forces a revision of one's concepts is "blind faith", you are mistaken.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
If someone truly was so gun-ho about evolution theory they would admit that they have no idea about the origin of life and stop right there.

Yep. They would point out, as I do, that evolution does not involve the origin of life, that it's a separate question... and then leave the origin of life aside until we know more.

and we know a lot ;)

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

Yet, that's not the point I was making. I am not asking anyone to step away from their beliefs in any. I am merely pointing out that all theories as to the origin of man's existence, of life on this planet of ours, all require blind faith. Not one idea about man's origins can be proven based on the evidence at hand.

You appear to have the wrong idea about science. Evidence does not "prove" theories. It supports them. This is as true for Darwinian Evolution as it is for Electromagnetism or Newtonian Mechanics. Kirth just laid for you evidence which supports Evolution theory and you say scientists give it credit due to "blind faith".

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Like I said, by all means please give me a third option to evaluate in light of the evidence. Until then, we've got one that sort of works and one that doesn't work at all.

Yet, that's not the point I was making. I am not asking anyone to step away from their beliefs in any. I am merely pointing out that all theories as to the origin of man's existence, of life on this planet of ours, all require blind faith. Not one idea about man's origins can be proven based on the evidence at hand.

That's all I am saying. I am not trying to sway the boards that one idea or the other is more likely. It's everyone's prerogative to decide what they feel is best for them. But it's all based on how one believes, not "evidence". If you want to believe the most ludicrous notion you're going to. Whether or not Darwinism is ludicrous is for others to argue. I am just pointing out we all actual sit on the same playing field trying to get everyone else to pick our game whether the rules make sense or not.


What is your working definition of the term "theory" ?
And "blind faith" ?
And finally, what is your understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution (in a resumed form) ?

I am guessing that part of the problem with this discussion is that we are using different meanings for words which are critical to this discussion.

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

Since the nature of what gravity is still eludes even modern science let alone in Newton's time, the off-the-cuff analogy I made really isn't any less viable. Considering gravity holds all the required elements necessary for life within proximity of one another...whose to say really? Since gravity seems to =/= molecular bonding the closest equivalent we know of, just because Newton didn't propose the idea doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a viable theory that by modern day would have had a serious amount of evidence given it would have had centuries to accumulate. Why didn't he suggest it? Perhaps a break through in the nature of gravity would have been obtained. *shrug*

Because it is not the nature of the gravitational pull which prevents it from having importance in molecular binding, it is its magnitude, of which Newton was well aware of *shrug*. A simple calculation would disprove such a theory.

Let us not, however, dwell in the discussion of hypothetical hypotheses and get back to the topic at hand. :)

A Civil Religious Discussion
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Replying to a discussion started elsehwere on the boards:

pinvendor wrote:

I apologize you stepped in to the conversation not realizing this was just an analogy. I assure you, I am well aware this wasn't said until I said it.

Now this is going to get confusing: I am not saying that you said that anyone said such nonsense before. I am just saying that the fact that you cannot find Newton stating this could have to do with the fact that his theory could not predict anything remotely like this. As for Darwin's theory (if we are talking about evolution, not origin of life), it can make claims concerning the evolution of species since it is allows one to make verifiable predictions. In other words, I was just saying it was a bad analogy.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

I apologize you stepped in to the conversation not realizing this was just an analogy. I assure you, I am well aware this wasn't said until I said it.

If you'd like to see the answer to your reply, please go to "The Civil Religion Discussion" thread, so that we stop this threadjack once and for all! :)

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

pinvendor wrote:

But history doesn't have Newton trying to use the law of gravity to say life was formed because atoms were pulled together by this force called gravity in a convenient and unique pattern which poof! produced life.

History doesn't have this because this is wrong. Gravity does not produce molecules.
As for the "pulled together in a convenient and unique pattern", this is not what is said or even remotely implied by theories of origin of life. It is a strawman. I would love to discuss the specifics with you. Maybe we should start a new thread because I have no idea what all this fascinating debate has to do with Obama and his Nobel Prize. It is not like he got a Nobel for chemistry or medicine.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.

As for this note, although government-funded research can, in principle at least, be biased (see, for exemple Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and Nazi Germany's rejection of theoretical physics as "Jewish science"), it is usually easier to spot such bias due to the differing objectives of the many different countries. This is why I don't buy the "government is promoting fear" in the case of global warming, it would be something more like "a coallition of governments all over the world are secretly flexing their muscles in order to direct scientific research towards evidence for global warming" which is a bit hard to swallow.

In my short life working in government-funded science, I have never witnessed, heard, or found any evidence whatsoever of anything looking remotely like government forcing research to yield specific results. Which does not mean, of course, it does not exist.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I concur that the photochemical interaction of ozone and CFCs is completely verifiable and reproducible in a controlled environment, and I accept in principal that this reaction is observable in the stratosphere in varying degrees through photolysis of CFCs, but diffusion and air motion is an inadequate practical explanation for the dispersion of sufficient quantities of CFCs (with a vapor density of ~2) to produce sufficient chlorine free radicals to impact...

Do you have a reference Thorn ? I am truly intrigued by your statement, and I would like to read a bit more to compare evidence. I happen to work near an atmospheric chemistry lab and would like to discuss this with them. Maybe in a couple of weeks we can start a thread on the subject, which is a quite interesting one. Gotta love science :)

/end threadjack

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Although i am not an expert on Physics or medicine, i would be willing to propose that NASA's work on CFC associated oozon depletion, and the subsequent ban has benifited humanity and the entire...

This is a reasonable counter point if one accepts anthropogenic CFC release as the the principal driver in Ozone fluctuation. I am skeptical of this as well as anthropogenic causality of global climate change. However, given the nature of these topics, I should probably start my own thread on them at some point. Now that I know we have a PhD in chemistry on the boards it should make for an intriguing discussion.

As for ozone fluctuations, the evidence is quite solid. The photochemical mechanism of ozone depletion by CFCs is well-known. The ozone layer does suffer natural fluctuations; however, the rate of ozone depletion observed at the time could not be explained by these fluctuations only. Recent observations show the rate dropping, and it seems that the ozone layer is starting to regenerate, which is a good thing.

Since I am no meteorologist, I cannot say for certain whether evidence for global warming is 100% correct. CO2 surely has an effect on infrared absorption, the question being whether the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is enough to provoke global warming.

The whole global warming issue also points to the importance of independent research. Corporation-sponsored research in global warming is, in most cases, too biased to be trustworthy.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Heathansson wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...

Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!

By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!

My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.


Well, on this one apparently my wording was confusing; I meant that I was "reading between the lines," not you.

Now this was me reading too much between the lines :P I am really sorry for unnecessarily lashing out at you.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Heathansson wrote:
Well, here's the thing, as I understand it:
the "sexy" drugs will get made and brought to market.
The "not so sexy" drugs to help the 500 people in the world with the extremely rare condition in question....have an extremely lower probability of doing so.

There are also these "not so sexy" drugs to help thousands and thousands who cannot pay for them.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Of course I also don't believe that a government has to have total ownership or control over an industry or company for it to be nationalized. I would consider GM and much of the banking industry to be nationalized for example, so the issue may be different definitions of the term nationalize.

I agree this might be the reason for the confusion.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Heathansson wrote:

Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...

Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!

By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!

My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Zombieneighbours wrote:

*Hiss* Biochemistry...Pure, unadulterated evil.

It is evil. I abandoned it together with my prayers for Nyarlathothep. My life has improved significantly since then :)

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Do you have private for profit pharmaceutical research and development coupled with vigorous protection of intellectual property in Brazil? I'm not under that impression.

This is indeed a problem in Brazil. The whole process of patent submission takes years here. This is probably one of the reasons why private research is mostly unknown in Brazil (pharmaceutical or not). The only company which has a strong showing in research is the oil company Petrobras which is a private company (though the government is one of its major shareholders). It does not seem to me Petrobras has had any problems with its intellectual property during all these years. However Brazil's government has been known to break AIDS drugs patents in order to produce them for people who cannot afford it.

Quote:

If that were the case (presuming that it isn't) wouldn't it stand to reason that more private R&D assets would gravitate to tropical disease cures?

One of the other problems with tropical disease research is that most of the people who suffer from those are poor, with no possibility to buy medicine which would be surely expensive. The fact that such ilnesses are not cronic, and should, in principle, be curable also makes their research less atractive.

Quote:

You make compelling arguments for curiosity based research or pure science, but I remain skeptical that government is a just and logical way to pursue it.

I agree that the government is an inefficient way to do it. Heck, the way bureaucracy gets in the way is atrocious, meriting a whole new discussion. However, it is better than nothing. During our last president's term we had the taste of "almost nothing" government research funding and I can tell you it was not an awesome time to be a scientist (or a scientist apprentice, for that matter :).

Quote:

I'm also opposed to having the taxpayer do the heavy lifting on the basic science so that government can then select the corporate winners and losers who benefit from it.

My point is that there is a balance which can be achieved and that should be negotiated by society. When hard, unnegotiable rules like "no government, anyway, anyhow" are thrown around, we lose the possibility of arriving at better solutions. Note that I am not accusing you of making such claims, but some people do make them :)

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Hey, just out of interest, not really knowing you from elsewhere on the boards, i was wondering what your specialism is and what sort of stuff you work on? Judging from your posts, i am guessing your a biologist, with his or her fingers in the medicinal bio-sciences, but thats pretty much a guess.

I have a bachelor in Chemistry and a PhD in Physical Chemistry, specializing in applying quantum mechanics to understand chemical phenomena. We try to describe chemical transformations using models derived from the quantum description of molecules. This is part of a larger area of research which has the curious name of Theoretical Chemistry.

During my undergraduate course I did work in a biochemistry laboratory for one year, but I do not work with anything resembling biology for years now :)

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:

Bailey's review of Kealy who would disagree. I tend to agree with Kealy's conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with his construct in reaching them.

He is wrong. It is funny that, although he mentions the importance of basic science, all his examples of profit-driven successful research come from applied science. However, applied science is practically limited by the development of basic science. What companies do is get basic research generated at public research centers and use those in the research of new, patentable, and profitable products. Rational drug design, for instance, is dependant on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, function optimization techniques, among other things, all of which were mostly developed in curiosity-driven research.

The development of the light bulb, which he cites, is a great example of the problem with a lack of basic research. There is a reason why some scientific articles say stuff like "The development of non-linear optical materials has, up to now, mostly depended on trial and error experimentation. In order to avoid this kind of Edisonian research we attempt to derive a two-state model blah, blah, blah".

The problem with "letting the markets decide" is that the markets have no investment whatsoever in the promotion of knowledge, only in that knowledge which can directly be put in the form of a product. In Brazil, for instance, as soon as you remove government funding, the majority of scientists become "oil scientists" because private research here is mostly restricted to it. No tropical disease cures for anyone, sorry.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Heathansson wrote:
Another government driven thing is the former East German barber who, in the newly unified Deutschland, after completing 10 haircuts by noon, which was his former quota, still insists on reading the paper for the rest of the day because old habits die hard.
I wonder how linked "scientific curiosity" is to "I'll get a mondo 6 figure income with stock options at a pharmaceutical co. when I get my phd and develop this novel new ACE inhibitor metabolite that cuts the side effects in half."
That kind of motivation tends to dry up when governments nationalize the pharma's to plunder them for their liquid assets.
People end up kinda putzing around, reading the paper when their quota is finished.
Then, what megacorporation is next on the block for nationalization? Who cares? They're all parasitic bourgeoisie, right?
Only good luck getting anything done. Your future is an old Wendy's commercial: "Svim vear.....veddy nice. Evinink vear.....veddy nice."

Nice strawman. No one is talking about nationalizing pharma. Did anyone even hint at something like that here ?

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:
So I gather that you believe that governments have the right to force companies to spend some of their capitol on curiosity driven science directly by mandate or indirectly though taxation and policy. If so then it's just a question of relative benefit which is presumably determined by the government. Is that a fair understanding of your position?

Taxation, yes. Companies themselves force people around the world to deal with the "externalities" of their production and services. It is quite reasonable to expect them to cope with some of the expenses of the communities where they thrive.

It is certainly possible to reach a compromise between all-government and no-government. Voting and mobilization are tools which allowthe population to influence, at least in theory, the government's decision regarding spending. If a country's population has no interest whatsoever in developing basic science they should show it by means of vote or other forms of democratic expression, and the government will not need to bother. If people think it makes their country better, what is the problem in having a tool to provide something, which, in other situation, would be impossible ?

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Uzzy wrote:
NASA rarely considers profit a primary motivation in it's work, and it's advancing human benefit from science far more then the big pharma companies. The human nature to be curious, to show interest in strange phenomenon and discover how the world works would seem to be the best method, personally. That leads to greater fundamental innovations, rather then the slow progression the big pharma companies are interested in.

Interestingly enough, the development of the World Wide Web, something that should in time be seen as one of the greatest advancements in mankinds history, was driven by the desire for universities to share information, not the desire for profit. I often quip that the Web would be pretty rubbish if it had been designed by an American Company, rather then a Brit and a Belgian working at CERN. And of course, you'd be paying through the nose for the privilege of using the web.


+1. This.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:

I feel that the benefits of private research are far greater than the benefits of government research. I dare say most of the benefits of government research have been facilitated by contracting with entities driven by profit. I suppose benefit is a fairly subjective concept so I'm not sure how to quantify and support that belief beyond observation, but I'll try to give it a shot soon.

I'll try to explain my point. Profit-driven research is, by definition, short-sighted and limited. It aims for very specific projects with higher expected degrees of success than usual in scientific investigation and which take the least possible time to yield fruits. Although this method is great to obtain profits, it has some problems.

Firstly, it keeps research directed towards development of profitable products. However, many of the problems humanity face, and which can in principle be solved by science, are not seen as "profitable enough". See, for instance, the investigation of diseases which are endemic in poor regions of the world. These are usually profit-poor endeavours, which are, nonetheless, of great importance to humanity.

Secondly, paradigm shifts in science are hardly arrived at by a profit-driven mentality. These very paradigm shifts are the ones which eventually allow the explosion of profitable research. The development of each of those fundamental subjects I mentioned before led to the possibility of creating technology which is now used for our well-being. By focusing only on the short-term development of specific knowledge, we, in practice, stunt scientific growth.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Skeld wrote:

What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?

Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld


You'll find out that both Maxwell and Newton also received for their research, which is natural. What this has to do with anything ? (Mostly) everyone receives for their jobs. I am talking about the advancement of knowledge and how the priorities of those funding science can be detrimental to it in some extent. Notice that I am not saying companies should remove their cash from scientific development. I am only saying that there should be other kinds of funding available (yes, government funding, for instance).

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Skeld wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Let me exemplify: ...

You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.

What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?

Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.

-Skeld


I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Profit-driven research can be a plague to the development of science in some aspects. The fact that most of the research money for drug development comes from pharma business means, among other things, that the type of medical problems which are researched are mostly those which a)affect people who can pay for it; and b)which are cronic, in such a way that people have to buy the drug for the rest of their lives. Pharma companies are growing less and less interested in researching actual cures for diseases.

Would you agree with me that profit-driven research has yielded the most benefit for the human race?

No I would not. Curiosity (and yes, pride) driven research did. Thermodynamics was (partly) developed with profit in mind. Most of the rest of basic science which practically allows all the neat thecno-stuff we take for granted to exist have been developed with few to none of such things as main concerns. Let me exemplify:

Newtonian Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics
Classical Electromagnetism
Chemical Revolution (Lavoisier)
Theories of the Chemical Bond
Statistical Thermodynamics
Evolution

If Maxwell had been forced to direct his research toward profit we would live in a very different world than we do.

Blending academic freedom, the best bits of socialism and kicking the Pharma companies where it hurts...sounds like fun to me.
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Profit-driven research can be a plague to the development of science in some aspects. The fact that most of the research money for drug development comes from pharma business means, among other things, that the type of medical problems which are researched are mostly those which a)affect people who can pay for it; and b)which are cronic, in such a way that people have to buy the drug for the rest of their lives. Pharma companies are growing less and less interested in researching actual cures for diseases.

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Steven T. Helt wrote:

Unless maybe we could award it to people who uncovered laws instead of theories.

So Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr, Pauling, Feynman, among many, many others, totally did not deserve their Nobels ?

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Do you really think there wouldn't have been a conventional war between the U.S. and Soviet Union long ago if it weren't for the fact that if they came to blows, they knew that it would be the end of the world, literally?

Yeah, the unconventional war among them really worked out fine. MAD only assured that they would confront and kill people from other countries rather than their own.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Decorus wrote:
(Actually what happened should not have happened, because the party are not the Goblin's friends just the Sorc who cast it.)

What happened is what happened. Charm person made him trust the enchantress. The enchantress, in turn, by means of roleplaying (no rules for that, I guess) convinced him that her friends were to be trusted. She was wrong, of course. I have seen some people second-guessing my DMing and that is fine, though I stand by my decision. However whether the decision was right or not has no bearing on the moral debate at hand.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

nathan blackmer wrote:

I don't know. The best stories are the ones where the characters are the most involved, and they're not likely to bend to unrealistic, restrictive prohibitions on human behaviour. It's one of the WORST cases of deus ex machina.

I completely agree. However some of the most powerful stories involve moral dillemmas, where generally good characters are forced to make difficult decisions. If the moral restrictions are not there, there is no dilemma, and hence, no drama.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

mdt wrote:

The Cleric's Goddess however, is going to be seriously torqued off. Her cleric commited an Evil act using her name. If the cleric had just promised healing and then done the deed, the Goddess might be upset and withhold prayers until an atonement is done. But, using their name to commit an Evil act has a tendency to seriously Torque off Good Deities.

Clearing up a bit; the cleric did not explicitly use her name to convince the goblin. He did say he would use his god's magic (cure something wounds) to heal him. The fact that it was a cleric of a good deity was enough to convince the goblin that no foul play was intended.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

nexusphere wrote:

I am *so* *glad* I am not sitting at a table where we have to talk for an hour before every combat about whether it's ok to kill the BABY EATING GOBLINS. Combat in Modifer Editi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Pathfinder is long enough as is.

Oh, and I don't think anyone here spends an hour every combat in their game discussing moral and ethics, as you insinuate. This surely does not happen in mine. It happened in this particular situation because two PCs (arguably) acted outside the tropes which myself and other players at the table implicitly held as true for that particular game. The goblin had the same expectations I did :)

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

nexusphere wrote:

I am *so* *glad* I am not sitting at a table where we have to talk for an hour before every combat about whether it's ok to kill the BABY EATING GOBLINS. Combat in Modifer Editi^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Pathfinder is long enough as is.

The fact is, they do not know if that particular goblin likes to eat babies. They might assume it because he is a goblin. However many other evil beings exist which do not. This particular warchief might not.

This eating babies argument has been thrown around and my point is this: the fact that (most) goblins eat babies does not make it a good action to eat goblin babies.

The fact that goblins are treacherous and abusive of the trust others place into them does not make it a good action to do the same to goblins.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

mdt wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
As for leaving the goblins to die, they did intend to release them or take them to Sandpoint for a trial after they had saved the captive (the Paladin did, at least). The cleric's player and I couldn't stop laughing after reading the last posts and realizing they did forget the goblins there to starve! This can be argued to be even more evil, of course. I am not sure if I retcon it and say "ok, you rembered to do what you meant to!" or just torture the Paladin with the knowledge of the horror he brought to those wretched goblins

Actually, unless they slaughtered the women and children in the goblin village as well, then they didn't leave them to starve (man, I can't believe people were popping that off as valid thing). They left them tied up in the village, so the women, children, survivors are going to find them long before they starve.

The women had already fled, they let the children live. They even saved one in particular from their more "savage" buddies.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Zurai wrote:
Decorus wrote:

EDIT: Do note that I also find this questionable on the DM's part, because goblins don't trust anybody. However, we're dealing within the circumstances that actually happened in game, so this goblin was, indeed, willing to trust someone and did trust the truce offered by the PCs, partly because the PC cleric used their status as a cleric of a Good deity to convince him.


I have to confess I stretched out a bit the trust the warchief put on the PCs because a)I feared a TPK, since the players did not come up with a different solution; b)the enchantress makes some great roleplaying with her charm "victims", which, in addition to her great diplomacy rolls, can convince them of mostly anything; c) this specific goblin knows (because I wanted him to) that Good characters sometimes possess this thing called mercy.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Decorus wrote:
After reading the entire thread I'm confused.

What is the evil act?

Killing an unarmed and unarmored Goblin?

How is that any different from tying up the goblins and leaving them to starve to death?

Casting sleep then slitting thier throats?
Casting Color Spray and slitting thier throats?

The Goblin was not helpless he may have been unarmed which is easy enough for it to rectify, definitely unarmored which there is nothing he can do about it.

The only alignment offense that happened was breaking the truce which is chaotic not evil.

Now if they tied the goblin up and tortured it for sport then yeah definitely evil.

You aren't going to redeem a goblin, if you let it go its going to go back to eating babies, killing dogs and horses.


They did not only break the truce. They broke it in a particular fashion:

"Look, I will heal you with the benevolent magic of my benevolent and forgiving deity! Just take your armor off so I can better tend to your wounds."

"Ok! Thanks nice and blond lady! Even though I am nasty and all, I fully expect that you will keep your word since you good cleric guys do this forgiveness stuff all the time. That and because I am temporarilly dim-witted thinking that you are all cool guys, and that this has been a great misunderstanding, just as the beautiful Varisian lady has told me."

"DIE UGLY MIDGET!"

As for leaving the goblins to die, they did intend to release them or take them to Sandpoint for a trial after they had saved the captive (the Paladin did, at least). The cleric's player and I couldn't stop laughing after reading the last posts and realizing they did forget the goblins there to starve! This can be argued to be even more evil, of course. I am not sure if I retcon it and say "ok, you rembered to do what you meant to!" or just torture the Paladin with the knowledge of the horror he brought to those wretched goblins.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

RicoTheBold wrote:
Yes, the ranger's favored enemy should matter. More props.

Guys, I must say I screwed up a little. I am reading your posts and asking myself "what ranger are they talking about? There is no ranger in the party". Then I go back to my original post and see that I did write elven ranger, when it is actually an elven fighter. He is a bow wielding, tree-hugging fighter, that's for sure, but no ranger. My mistake.

Oh, and even though he has no favored enemies, he does hate goblins.
I must say that my main concern at the time was with the cleric taking part on it, using Shelyn's name to succeed in this trickery. Note that the players were in no way penalized for making their PCs act like they did (I did feel tempted to, but backed down after being convinced it did not make any sense).

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

BryonD wrote:

I fail to see how that is possible. The very conditions which made the bluffs possible existed solely due to the charm. And if the charm was expired, it seems absurdly poor DMing to me to allow these particular checks to even be attempted.

The charm was on. Lucky me :)

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

RicoTheBold wrote:
One thing I don't get is how the original poster is now saying the good/evil has to be evaluated without regard to tactics, but still thinks it was evil. I'm just baffled by that.

I think I did not make myself clear enough. What I am saying is that no matter how a given situation is evaluated by someone in the tactical sense (i.e. determinig what is the most tactically effective action to deal with it), this has no bearing in the morality of a given solution to that situation.

For example, a king might determine that the best way to deal with the problem of a kingdom's economy is to rob another country of its riches by means of force. What I am saying is that, even though he might be correct in the tactical sense, it has no consequence on whether the action is good or not.

More to the point, the fact that it was a good tactic to fool the goblin does not makes it more Good in terms of morality.

Oh, and the cleric's player finds that he agrees with mostly everything you say :)

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

mdt wrote:

See, that's an important thing to know, that they had already tied up some of the goblins and taken them prisoner earlier. That means they had already decided to go through some difficulty with regards to prisoners, and that they decided not to with this guy means it was pure ruthless murder. There wasn't even a convenience factor, they were already being inconvenienced by prisoners taken earlier.

To be fair, they tied them and locked them in some room; they did not go to great lengths to take them back to the city or whatnot. Your point, however, stands.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

Berik wrote:

Personally I probably wouldn't have allowed the bluff checks to work in the first place, at least not without the aid of a Philter of Glibness or similar magic or wonderful roleplaying. The Warchief had just been in a battle against these people and all of his minions had been killed. If the Enchantress had asked the question I might have allowed it due to the charm spell, but I can't see any way that the Warchief could have been convinced that taking off his armour around the people who slaughtered his soldiers was a good idea.

I based it on great roleplaying from the enchantress in convincing him they were not a threat, very good bluff checks, and the fact that there was a priestess from a good deity reassuring him he would be healed.

Quote:

Situation #2: Probably not evil, but I'd say that it depends somewhat on what the evil party have been doing during the truce. The nature of the curse on the item is probably fairly important to the question as well.

It could be something that changes gender, it could be something that makes the wearer very ill, it might kill the wearer or it might make the wearer a lycanthrope and cause him to kill innocents. Changing the wizard's gender probably isn't terribly evil, but giving him a curse that endangers innocent people is pretty bad. And if the sorceror didn't know what the curse actually was, then at best it's pretty irresponsible.


He knew what it was, a bracer of defenselessness.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

wraithstrike wrote:
Another point to be considered is intention. Did the players do it for the safety of the town or just out of irritation? Intent is important when determining the alignment of an action.

See, the goblins had always been a nuisance for the city, but they only became a real threat when someone else came and organized them. The PCs were there to a)rescue a captive; b)eliminate the threat to the city; c)find out why this was happening. Note that when I say eliminate, I do not mean "kill every goblin drawing breath". The threat could be eliminated by killing/capturing the boss behind it all. The goblins were, of course, an obstacle to the objectives and many were killed during the quest. Some who surrendered were also captured and tied, under the paladin's demand. In the case in point, the paladin was down, so he had no say in the matter. They did it due to a pragmatical consideration that keeping this goblin alive might be too risky. My opinion is that the attitude is correct from a tactical viewpoint. However its moral value has nothing to do with tactical considerations.

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

nexusphere wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
alignment questions.

Gygax wrote the alignment system. Based off his comments, and the fact that this board is (apparently) filled with modern moral relativist who don't live in a world of objective good and evil. . .

I am discussing this based on two assumptions: one, the game we play (and that is the feeling I get from the more recent books) is based on certain fantasy tropes which usually present the good guys as being different from their evil counterparts particularly in the way they treat their opponents. How do you tell a good from a bad guy ? Cliff scenario! Your enemy is almost falling from a cliff. The good guy offers help; the bad guy steps in his fingers. When the good guy helps the bad guy tries to pull the good guy with him to the precipice. When the good guy dances on the enemies fingers to see him plummet into oblivion because he is "evil", we are not in the "heroic fantasy trope" anymore and have fallen into the "dark and gritty anti-hero trope" where defining good and evil is, frankly, impossible.

Quote:

The first act without question is a good act. This is a being who's very nature in the universe is defined as evil to the point where if a spell is used he will exude an aura proving that this is the case. Any good aligned person is by nature required to eliminate this threat as quickly as possible.

Wrong. You are treating the goblin as an evil outsider, saying he is essentially evil. If a human is evil, he exhudes the same aura. If months later that same human (or the goblin, for that matter) repents and decides to help cats out of trees, he does not exhude it anymore. Remember Gandalf's commentary concerning Gollum and whether he should be killed and you will see what I am getting at.

Finally, you are presenting alignment definitions from 0D&D which is not the game I am playing. In fact, the quote from Gygax regarding the behavior of chaotic good characters and that they would condone slavery of evil creatures is so outlandish and uncharacteristic of CG as I understand it that it made it clear to me that we are working under a completely different set of pressupositions. Given that quote, it becomes clear to me that the 9 alignments concepts have changed a lot!

Alignment debates - two situations?
Thiago Cardozo (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber),

Avatar V avatar

I also completely disagree with the notion that, "once you are set to kill an enemy, all means are valid", specially in fantasy settings where heroic tropes are at work.



©2002–2009 Paizo Publishing, LLC®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Publishing, LLC, the Paizo golem logo, GameMastery, Pathfinder, Planet Stories, and Undefeated are registered trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC, and Pathfinder Chronicles, Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Society, PAIZOCON, RPG Superstar, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC. Amazing Stories is a trademark of, and Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by Paizo Publishing under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.