Thiago Cardozo's page

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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

Replying to a discussion started elsehwere on the boards:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

/end threadjack

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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'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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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."

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?

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . .

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.

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!

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.