199 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

The game can have a plot without making me ultimately be a goody two shoes regardless of how many "selfish' actions my character partakes in.

Yes, it could do that.

The problem is that plot divergence is expensive. It's much easier for the developers to create a story where you save the town in spite of being selfish than one where your selfishness leads to the destruction of the town.

Doesn't fit in the new 18-24 month cycle.

[the_one_54321]

Now that you all are making me think further into this, maybe we can actually take farther back, make it even simpler and say the starting point is actually "to be caused detriment is bad."

[the_one_54321]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms...

Consider how this has been constructed. I know what you're thinking and I've actually already talking about it in a couple of the other posts.

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

By harming you are causing detriment. This is the negative of a benefit.

Ahhhhhhh, right, I see. Yes, I'm associating it with "wrong" as opposed to detrimental.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:03 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

Now you're opening a whole new can of worms...

Consider how this has been constructed. I know what you're thinking and I've actually already talking about it in a couple of the other posts.

I'm aware the thread history partly encompasses the matter. But the implications are far greater than the scope of your previous posts.

[the_one_54321]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
]I'm aware the thread history partly encompasses the matter. But the implications are far greater than the scope of your previous posts.

Actually no, one of the specific things I've said is that from any point after the initial statement the scope expands to infinity because there are an infinite number of potential unique scenarios. I am well aware, and have said so, that there is not really a practical aplication for this.

[upsettingshorts]

I'm following so far and I'm seeing quite a bit of semantics, not as much ethics actually being discussed.

Anyway, from where I sit all human interaction boils down to power (in all forms, hard and soft, ranging from violence to persuasion and anything in between) and interest (of all kinds, ranging from monetary to psycho-sexual).  This is a cold, analytical way of putting it, but these things can be extremely emotional and passionate, not all interests have to be or are rational. 

When governments use whatever powers they have at their disposal to further their interests, we call it policy. When people use whatever powers they have at their disposal to further their interests, I'm not sure what we call it. Behavior?

If holding to some ethical standard is in our interest, then we do what we can within our power (willpower included) to see that we do. If our interests demand we abandon ethical principles and it is within our power to do so, guess what happens? Most of the time though I'd say commonly held ethical principles are rarely in the best interests of being violated by the common person - they stand to lose too much.

TLDR version: I'm cynical.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
]I'm aware the thread history partly encompasses the matter. But the implications are far greater than the scope of your previous posts.

Actually no, one of the specific things I've said is that from any point after the initial statement the scope expands to infinity because there are an infinite number of potential unique scenarios. I am well aware, and have said so, that there is not really a practical aplication for this.

I mean, what you said goes into "anything is true until it is falsified" territory. That's different.

Anyway, it's not like I have a problem with it.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'm following so far and I'm seeing quite a bit of semantics, not as much ethics actually being discussed.

Of course it's semantics. That's what axioms are: semantics. It's about definition as its most simplified level. What becomes really important are the concepts that are born of this semantic construction.

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
I mean, what you said goes into "anything is true until it is falsified" territory. That's different.

No... I wouldn't take there. Axiom = most basic. You add things on based on further reasoning.

Strictly speaking, if you take one statement and verify that it is "true" there is no reason to take a separate statment that is constructed similarly and then say "therefore this is true as well." There is no link between my statement and "anything is true until it is falsified" except for a similar grammatic structure. Specificially, the use of the word "anything" has large implications that I purposefully left out of my statement. My statement is intended to be a begining, not a universal.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:14 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

the_one_54321, I believe I've seen you elsewhere. You're a big fan of Ayne Rand and hate taxation, right?

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

Wouldn't the fact harming can be also beneficial to thing be reason not to say it? Because it renders such statement false and basing the system on false premise is likely to skew the results.

[the_one_54321]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
the_one_54321, I believe I've seen you elsewhere. You're a big fan of Ayne Rand and hate taxation, right?

Woah... no, absolutely not. In fact, I'm like the opposite of whichever person you're thinking of.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Of course it's semantics. That's what axioms are: semantics. It's about definition as its most simplified level. What becomes really important are the concepts that are born of this semantic construction.

I just pointed it out because it seemed dull and I didn't want to dive right into it seeing it was progressing without me.  So I went on my own vaguely related spiel.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad.

Wouldn't the fact harming can be also beneficial to thing be reason not to say it? Because it renders such statement false and basing the system on false premise is likely to skew the results.

That's one of the potential unique scenarios that can be created as a result of this. And it creates a new axiom: "except when it is beneficial." And this is why I said everything blows up to infinity. And why it can't be applied in actual usuable practice in society. There is more in this to consider than any one person, or any group of people could ever hope to entirely consider. Every situation is entirely unique.

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Strictly speaking, if you take one statement and verify that it is "true" there is no reason to take a separate statment that is constructed similarly and then say "therefore this is true as well." There is no link between my statement and "anything is true until it is falsified" except for a similar grammatic structure. Specificially, the use of the word "anything" has large implications that I purposefully left out of my statement. My statement is intended to be a begining, not a universal.

But if you take one statement and then continue with "because..." it is not a beginning anymore, intentions notwithstanding. I just meant to point that out.

As for "anything is true until it is falsified"...well, being a territory (as I termed), it is bound to have large implications. There was no intention to pursue a direct link anyways.

[Wicked 702]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

the_one_54321, I believe I've seen you elsewhere. You're a big fan of Ayne Rand and hate taxation, right?

This would move closer to my belief system however...somewhat.

Vote chaos!

[the_one_54321]

Well, you cannot create a concept without the use of language to convey an idea that otherwise exists purely in abstract thought. The first rule of anything is "accept the use of words to convey thoughts." If you're not going to allow for that then there is no point in talking about anything in the first place.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

"Why is harming bad? Because something is caused detriment and there is no reason to say that is not bad."

If your starting point here is "being detrimented is bad", it doesn't imply anything.

If, however, your starting point here is "harming is bad", that means you're in a position where you're actually explaining the underlying reasons behind your starting point (which is a problem in itself already) and your reason (bolded part) is assumed to be true without a chance of proving it.

Again, not that I exactly have a problem with it. Just playing with semantics, as Shorts put it.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And this is why I said everything blows up to infinity. And why it can't be applied in actual usuable practice in society. There is more in this to consider than any one person, or any group of people could ever hope to entirely consider. Every situation is entirely unique.

Then couldn't the statement about "morality being shades of grey" be simply acknowledgement of this, and just a term intended to indicate that any situation is actually infinite combination of "black" and "white" aspects, with ratio that cannot be fully determined let alone then reduced to either white or black?

Modifié par tmp7704, 23 novembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[the_one_54321]

Certainly it could be, but I would assert that most, if not all, do not use it that way. Rather I believe that they mean to say that an objective valuation system cannot exist. And this assertion I strictly disagree with, as I've outlined ad nausium above.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The innitial statement is mostly empty: "it is bad to harm something." You don't have any magnitude for "harm" and you have no specification on what is a "thing" and there is no inclusion of any context at all. There is no reason to reject this statement except for bias or arbitrary rejection.

I agree, but I fear you're presupposing that the badness of harm is inherently relevant.  The purpose of morality is to drive behaviour, is it not?  And I see nothing here so far that does that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I don't think anyone's aware just yet as to the circumstances whereby Hawke becomes the Champion of Kirkwall. That's sort of the point of the entire story: how did this happen?

If one wishes to assume the player lacks proper motivation to do that, I guess that's fine. We're not going to comment on it just yet. Ultimately, however, this is still heroic fantasy-- if someone doesn't want to buy into the basic premise of that, then I suspect all the motivation in the world isn't going to do much for them.

Generally, your games require only that the PC do things that are viewed by others within the setting as heroic.  There's not typically any requirement that the PC sees himself as heroic, or that the player sees his character as heroic.

I see no reason to presuppose that DA2 will somehow abandon this design.  This particular aspect of DA2 doesn't concern me at all.

[Adanu]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I mean really, just look at Ferelden. It's populated by idiots: Loghain,
Cailan, Lily, Jowan, Alistair, Maric, Isolde, Eamon, Murdock, Erlina,
Howe, Vaughn, Harrowmont, Bhelen, Branka, Oghren, Mithra, Zathrian,
Sarel, Cauthrien, Wynne, Velanna, Howe's Noble lackeys, Ser Guy,
Constable Aidan...  As far as I'm concerned, the Free Marches is no different. If you ask me, they should get what's coming to them. Why should I (Hawke) stick my neck out for a bunch of stupid, self righteous, racist, malevolent and/or ungrateful scumbags like the people I mentioned above? Let the Darkspawn/Qunari/Flemeth have their fun I say. Thedas is definately not worth saving.

You haven't even *seen* anything about the FM yet and you are judging them? You may want to look in the mirror to find most of those traits you just described.

[darrylzero]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm following so far and I'm seeing quite a bit of semantics, not as much ethics actually being discussed.

Anyway, from where I sit all human interaction boils down to power (in all forms, hard and soft, ranging from violence to persuasion and anything in between) and interest (of all kinds, ranging from monetary to psycho-sexual).  This is a cold, analytical way of putting it, but these things can be extremely emotional and passionate, not all interests have to be or are rational. 

When governments use whatever powers they have at their disposal to further their interests, we call it policy. When people use whatever powers they have at their disposal to further their interests, I'm not sure what we call it. Behavior?

If holding to some ethical standard is in our interest, then we do what we can within our power (willpower included) to see that we do. If our interests demand we abandon ethical principles and it is within our power to do so, guess what happens? Most of the time though I'd say commonly held ethical principles are rarely in the best interests of being violated by the common person - they stand to lose too much.

TLDR version: I'm cynical.

While I'm sympathetic to opening up the idea of interest to non-material goals/desires, but I think we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to slip into tautological definitions of interest, such that anything anyone does must by definition have been in their interest.  Some combination of ideology and values (with religious faith hovering around in there somewhere) has to be a part of the picture, in ways that I don't think can always be reduced to some non-economic form of interest.  That could be good or bad -- I think a variety of violent or racist acts (among other things) clearly exceed any vision of interest that I can drum up. 

So, I'm not sure where ethics fits in for me.  It's clearly a more bounded, specific concept than values (which again could well include things we might from our perches see as good or bad values).  I guess I would mostly use it to refer to some form of professional standard in the real world.  In Kirkwall?  Not abusing forms of power that flow from your position within an organizational hierarchy, whether in the chantry or a smuggling outfit?  Of course, I suppose certain behaviors would have to be considered off limits by the organization in question, which might not be true for bandits or smugglers or the like, depending.

I am really hoping that the framed narrative, with the chance it supposedly brings to experience of the impacts of our actions on the world throughout, will help me play a character in the process of developing ethics.  I usually want to play a scoundrel of sorts, but I frequently end up with kind of a goody-goody of a scoundrel.  This seems like a time when I can play a character who starts out desperate and resentful, with no time for ethics, but who forges a sense of ethics or responsibility through seeing the consequences of his choices.

That's always the dream, for me at least, and it's the main reason I'm still really hyped about this game, despite being a little worried about a few of these developments. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

darrylzero wrote...

While I'm sympathetic to opening up the idea of interest to non-material goals/desires, but I think we have to be careful not to allow ourselves to slip into tautological definitions of interest, such that anything anyone does must by definition have been in their interest.

I think those are the only sensible definitions of interest.