|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All these analogies relating to armor statistics being off or some other element of the universe is at least consistent within its universe, objective value is completely inconsistent with itself and the reality it lives in.
"Wow!? You've figured out the mysteries of the universe and can finally settle and prove the un-provable which philosophers and theologians have argued for milennia!?"
*sits down with chin supported by palms - looking up with a dreamy expression*
"Please; regale us with your wisdom, oh wise sage."
/sarcasm
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a good distinction at work I share my position with the owner's son. If I want to keep my job I am obligated to show up be at my desk and answer the phone among other things. His son has incentive to do so, by that I mean his dad has flat out told my supervisor that he won't relocate or fire his son he can come and go as he pleases deal with it. But if he does manage to show up for at least 3 days a week he gets he truck payment made.Slight tangent, I've never been clear where this attitude of "Writers have no responsibility or obligations to anyone or anything" comes from. As if it's somehow different from every other profession, where doing a competent job is expected, and rightly so.Uh...no.
Self-employed people who personally make things for other people to buy have no obligations of any sort in regards to the nature of their product. They just aren't gonna make any money if people don't like what they make. So...they have a huge incentive to provide a quality product, but no obligation.
And writers generally fall somewhat into that category, though they're far from the only ones to do so.
Those employed to write a specific thing (like most freelancers in the RPG industry), not so much, but most novelists without an ongoing contract? No obligations at all, just a strong incentive.
I'm not sure I really see the distinction, at least from a practical perspective.
Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that peopke want, or you're out of a job.
It's really just the difference between 'should' and 'must'. If you think those words are equivalent, you won't understand the distinction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that people want, or you're out of a job.
Most writers don't write for a job. Most writers write because they have a story they want to tell. If they're really lucky, they write something and then sell it (because an editor thinks it will make the publisher some money downstream). Most writers never see a dime from their work, though.
Even the freelancers on contract don't have any obligation to the reading public. The editor asked for something, she got it, the check cleared, end of story. If the magazine it was published in tanks, that's not her responsibility.
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.
So your argument boils down to... "No way is that true! And I'm going to be snotty about it."?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.
That's right. I'm rather proud of my imperviousness to pseudo-intellectual patently nonsensical drivel in the context of how someone else's fiction must be written.
If your ideas were coherent -- which they aren't -- they might possibly be descriptive of the real world -- which they aren't. But even then, they'd only be descriptive of the real world, and not of a fictional one that by definition is free of any constraints imposed upon the real one.
But even that is asking too much, because your entire "argument" is an exercise in fallacious reasoning, specifically argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because you yourself do not see how a thing happens, this must mean that the thing itself is impossible. Of course, this is (again) patently nonsensical, because you do not have a complete understanding of how the universe works. So you're basically in the position of a Victorian clergyman saying that evolution must be impossible because he doesn't see how a chimpanzee can turn into a human.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.So your argument boils down to... "No way is that true! And I'm going to be snotty about it."?
I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.And you can't suspend disbelief on it for the sake of the game?
Then house rule it.
Superman can't fly, either. That's why no one has ever been able to draw a picture, write a story, produce a tv show, or film a movie about him.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a creator is obligated to respond to critique of their work, but also don't think that it's appropriate to say that consumers shouldn't engage in critique.
Not understanding or agreeing with the rationale behind how the moral system works in this game decreases my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't bug me much because I play in a home game (and often GM) so we can hit it with Rule 0. But for some people it may become an actual issue in their game, and that can be upsetting.
This sort of negative reaction and emotional critique occurs in plenty of places other than alignment. See for example the repeated arguments about martial-caster disparity or certain bits of errata (Fencing Grace being a recent example).
And yes, there are cases in other media where fans actively ignore things the creator put in their work because doing so increases the fans' enjoyment.
That's a bit of shakey reasoning. There is no requirement to use it, thus no reason to sow distrust. In fact in my last 8 Pathfinder campaigns it's never been cast.
It's only 10 HP over 10 rounds, so it's efficient, yes. However it's slow, useful only out of combat, and only worth casting really if someone is dying and you have nobody who can make the heal check.
So if the idea was to make people paranoid it's a poor gambit as it doesn't scale. So virtually nobody of significant power would get snared.
It's much more likely it is a, "Hook 'em while they're young." Situation.
If it's almost never worth casting, how is it going to be effective bait? Besides, didn't we just establish (starting here that the out of combat use is precisely the appeal? Especially for wizards and such who don't get CLW - also the most likely to in-character see spells as tools without inherent moral meaning. If you've never seen it used at your table, it's probably because the rest of the group also believes that it's [evil] and thus unsuitable for heroes. This is not necessarily true of people in the game.
I'd consider this a lot more responsive -- or even relevant -- if I thought there were a huge number of PF players, writers, developers, or publishers in 13th century Iceland, or Mesopotamia c. 3000 BCE, or Coruscant "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Oddly enough, for a game written in the 21st century and published almost exclusively in English (and US English, at that), the game as written assumes the reader has the cultural trappings of the early 21st century United States.
Sharing cultural trappings is not the same thing as sharing moral frameworks. Hence continued heated debates in the US about everything from gay marriage to doctor-assisted suicide to genetic modification of human embryos.
Also, while understanding the law is not necessary for being held legally responsible, it is often necessary for feeling content with obeying the law, especially when doing so is inconvenient. For example, if I understand and agree with how my taxes are spent, I'll be a lot happier about paying them. This is the difference between a player accepting that the GM will change their character's alignment if they cast Infernal Healing too regularly, and a player actually feeling like their good-aligned character shouldn't want to cast Infernal Healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a creator is obligated to respond to critique of their work, but also don't think that it's appropriate to say that consumers shouldn't engage in critique.
I don't think anyone suggested that. Not buying the product is, indeed, the ultimate critique.
Not understanding or agreeing with the rationale behind how the moral system works in this game decreases my enjoyment of the game. It doesn't bug me much because I play in a home game (and often GM) so we can hit it with Rule 0. But for some people it may become an actual issue in their game, and that can be upsetting.
Sucks to be them, then. Remember what I said about "the ultimate critique"?
Also, while understanding the law is not necessary for being held legally responsible, it is often necessary for feeling content with obeying the law, especially when doing so is inconvenient.
Hmmm. Sounds like that discontented person may have a decision to make in the not too distant future, then. But if the objective nature of Pathfinder morality is an issue, the infernal healing spell is probably among the least of people's worries, since it's baked very deeply into this particular cake. "Objective morality" is a deeply controversial philosophical position in the real world. But in Pathfinder, it's less controversial than heliocentrism, because it's much easier experiment to perform. And precisely because of the objective nature of Pathfinder morality, contentment is not a necessary component of the inhabitants' lives.
As Pterry Pratchett so memorably put it, it's hard to disbelieve in gods in a world where the gods regularly throw rocks through atheists' windows.
I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.So your argument boils down to... "No way is that true! And I'm going to be snotty about it."?
So a rock can make a judgement call. K.
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.
Consider using Animate Dead to create skeletons in order to protect orphans from attack, or to evacuate a burning building full of invalids, or to work the fields and stave off starvation when there aren't enough laborers.
They might as well have a rule that says down is up.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a rock can make a judgement call. K.I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.So your argument boils down to... "No way is that true! And I'm going to be snotty about it."?
Yay blatant straw-man!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a rock can make a judgement call. K.
I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."
And he digs himself deeper into his own self-description.
So a rock can make a judgement call. K.
I do, however, like the description Trogdar incorporated of himself: "the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness."
And he digs himself deeper into his own self-description.
Does it make you feel good to insult people over and over again? You must feel so proud. It's a good thing I'm not conscious(according to you), otherwise your behaviour would be considered immoral.
And we're off again with a new contestant making the same argument.
House rule it. Add some consequences that make it make sense to you. Suspend your disbelief so you can enjoy the game.
Or you know, rant about how one more thing in the Pathfinder rule set doesn't make sense as world building.
Dude...what's with the hostility? the guy asked. I'm not the one ranting...
P.S. You're better than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of reference points for the why of evil is exactly what divine command theory is about. It's good because the book says it is or its bad because the book says it is, exactly like the Bible. Your not allowed to object.
Do us all a favor and read up on the Eutyphro Dilemma (at the very least) before commenting about Christian morality on a public forum. Ever again.
Why didn't Gandalf just get the eagles to fly the damn Ring to Mt. Doom and drop it directly in the cracks? From a Doylist perspective, the Ring quest makes for so much a better story that the idea wasn't even discussed from a Watsonian perspective. Maybe Gandalf and Elrond are simply dumb, maybe there's some subtle reason they didn't share with the reader, and (again) fan-fic has been working on this question for decades. But don't try to deny the in-world existence of the hobbits' journey on the grounds that you personally don't understand why it was necessary.
Sauron had an air force, the Eagles could be felled by a random Orc with a crossbow (Mordor has lots of them), there would be no secrecy in Eagles openly breach Mordor air space... There's also the fact that while Orodruin was a volcano, we are not sure if it had a big caldera, or a lateral "crack" that allowed access.
Oh, I know this was rhetorical. I'm just so tired of seeing this objection around that I had to answer it.
As for imploding immediately - the PF verse wouldn't physically implode, but none of the economics works on anything better than a fiat level. There's little attention paid to things like monster population densities and whether the ecology should be at all stable. Nor should there be really. It's all designed around making fun adventures and keeping PC gear vaguely balanced.
Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.
Okay, I just can't square this circle because the fundamental impossibility of objectivity issuing from any conscious entity combined with the utter impossibility of value coming from anything without consciousness is clearly lost on you.
You are a conscious entity.
Per your (Slighlty Kantian, if I'm not mistaken) position, there can be no objectivity coming from you.
As such, you can't really speak in absolutes like "utter" or "fundamental".
Case closed.
Also because Captain Marvel could, and was becoming wildly more popular as the time went by.
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense. Calling a spell evil is like calling a screwdriver evil.
Consider using Animate Dead to create skeletons in order to protect orphans from attack, or to evacuate a burning building full of invalids, or to work the fields and stave off starvation when there aren't enough laborers.
They might as well have a rule that says down is up.
Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.
Does the idea disturb you in any way?
How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?
Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?
People have -- and will continue to have -- this argument because the concept of objective evil literally makes no sense.
It most certainly does to anyone who believes in a bogeyman, or a Devil.
Being "incentivized" to provide a good work and being "obligated" to end up at the same result, really. You provide something good, that people want, or you're out of a job.Most writers don't write for a job. Most writers write because they have a story they want to tell. If they're really lucky, they write something and then sell it (because an editor thinks it will make the publisher some money downstream). Most writers never see a dime from their work, though.
Even the freelancers on contract don't have any obligation to the reading public. The editor asked for something, she got it, the check cleared, end of story. If the magazine it was published in tanks, that's not her responsibility.
Well, yes, that would be the distinction between a job and a hobby.
Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.
Does the idea disturb you in any way?
How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?
Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.
"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."
Nonsense.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.
Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?
Consider raising human orphans in order to harvest their organs for future transplants.
Does the idea disturb you in any way?
How about bashing baby Hitler's skull in before the WWII nastiness could happen?
Enslaving a third of the population so the other two could live comfortably, maybe?
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?
Enslavement? :P
Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").
Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(
Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?
Yep. But I also know they have pirate Chinese DVD players, so it's hardly the same thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?
Yeah - that's become my thing to say when people start complaining about capitalism. :P
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?Enslavement? :P
What about enslavement?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. But I also know they have pirate Chinese DVD players, so it's hardly the same thing.Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?
that makes no sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds.
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."
No one is harmed.
That's an assumption on your part. There's (literally) nothing in the rules stating that no one is harmed in animating skeletons.
We're back to the appeal to ignorance fallacy again. The fact that you don't know (and that the designers didn't publish) any explicit and detailed description of negative consequences to casting the animate dead spell does not mean that there aren't any. Especially since the designers did publish an explicit, but undetailed description of negative consequences.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that makes no sense.Yep. But I also know they have pirate Chinese DVD players, so it's hardly the same thing.Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?
Let me explain, then.
They don't have the same level of technological sophistication widely available, because there's a central power deliberately keeping them from accessing most of it (along with a wide variety of stupid decisions about economy).
But it's artificial. It's more about withholding technology from the undesirables than being unable to access it. And the government itself cannot utterly banish technology, something always slips in.
That is completely different than a Kingdom roughly on the level of XIX-century Russia sandwich between cavemen and Dark Ages vikings.
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."
That's an archetypal circular argument.
But I have way, Way, WAY less of an emotional investment in this topic than some appear to, so by all means, have fun. :P
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."That's an archetypal circular argument.
Not at all. Here's a definitive reference for it being an evil spell:
ANIMATE DEAD
School necromancy ; Level cleric 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (an onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead)
Range touch
Targets one or more corpses touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Proof by definition. q.e.d.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure there is. It's explicitly an evil spell, which means casting it is an evil action. That's not "nothing."That's an archetypal circular argument.
But I have way, Way, WAY less of an emotional investment in this topic than some appear to, so by all means, have fun. :P
It's closer to an appeal to authority. Which you can reasonably call unsatisfying, but not a logical fallacy in this case. If you were arguing with the people making the rules, that would be a reasonable argument.
Is there a side effect of the spell that you would consider sufficiently bad to justify that it has evil baggage (which in some cases could be justified by the ends)? Is that inconsistent with the rules?
You liken the spell to a screwdriver. Is there a reason you chose that tool? What if the tool you chose was built in a cesspool of suffering? By using it are you complicit in that oppression? A reasonable argument would say that you are. There's greater context in the world that is not revealed/left to the GM. I think that's by design and this is an example of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proof by definition. q.e.d.Why is it defined as such?
Are you asking from an in-world perspective or a game design perspective? I suspect they have different answers.
Your right, That was a poor choice of words. I got excited.
I have actually read some of the literature.
Though, reading through the dilemma and counter examples did jostle my memory regarding sovereignty, which doesn't hold with a plurality of God's.
I would love to get back into reading philosophy. My step dad just passed and his collection of books in this area are pretty extensive. We were totally at odds philosophically, but i enjoyed talking with him. I will miss it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Proof by definition. q.e.d.Why is it defined as such?
That's a good question. To which the answer is "I don't know," (although I can speculate), but my lack of knowledge doesn't change the definition.
|
|
That's a good question. To which the answer is "I don't know," (although I can speculate), but my lack of knowledge doesn't change the definition.
I find that lack of knowledge undermining the support. "Because I/the rules/zombie Jesus on a pogo stick said so" is not a valid argument.
Why not?
See above, and thejeff's response. We don't know why, other than 'because'. If there were a reason included, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention world trading powers with lower tech than small isolated nations.that makes no sense.Yep. But I also know they have pirate Chinese DVD players, so it's hardly the same thing.Don't even get me started on how neighbouring countries have wildly different technological sophistication levels. Simply absurd.Ever look at the Korean peninsula at night from space?Let me explain, then.
They don't have the same level of technological sophistication widely available, because there's a central power deliberately keeping them from accessing most of it (along with a wide variety of stupid decisions about economy).
But it's artificial. It's more about withholding technology from the undesirables than being unable to access it. And the government itself cannot utterly banish technology, something always slips in.
That is completely different than a Kingdom roughly on the level of XIX-century Russia sandwich between cavemen and Dark Ages vikings.
The why isn't relevant. The Average North Korean lives with a vastly lower tech level than his counterpart in the neighboring south which is the point. The Aztec and Incan empires existed at a higher tech level than their neighbors. The point was to show that you can have neighboring countries with differing tech levels.