Consequences of playing "EVIL" races

[Umbran]

So not only did you evade my question

With respect, your question used loaded language ascribing an emotional state. It looks to me like he said he doesn't play games with alignment. I don't see him claiming discomfort.

It isnt' really evasive when the question isnt' appropriate.

but the explanation for why you personally don't play games with alignment seems weak and not based on a rational consideration of the evidence.

As if two people considering things rationally always have to come to the same conclusion?

Maybe you shouldn't be positioning yourself as the arbiter of rationality....

 

[Umbran]

Lions will kill other predators in their area, hyenas, leopards, cheetahs, wild dogs, foxes. Is that good or evil?

The simple answer here is that (real world) lions are not capable of moral judgement. The lion is not capable of stopping and thinking, "Wait a minute, can I do this in a way that causes less pain and suffering in the world?" Asking if their behavior is good or evil is not terribly different from asking if a hurricane is good or evil.

 

[Celebrim]

@Umbran With all due respect, the questions you are addressing to me are pretty much exactly the questions I am addressing to the other poster.

The discomfort you apparently feel with the assertions I'm making parallels rather strongly the discomfort I'm feeling with @shawnhcorey assertions. He said for example that he doesn't play games with alignment because "Labeling someone for any reason is wrong." That's not a claim of subjective experience, but a normative claim. It would appear to apply to games other than the ones he participates him. Likewise, you seem to be worried that I'm positioning myself as "the arbiter of rationality". Leaving aside that everyone is an arbiter of rationality so if was positioning myself to do that it wouldn't be unusual, I'm not actually the person who introduced the issue into this discussion. The other poster defended his assertion by suggesting the contrary required "unscientific thinking".

Just as you seem to want clarification of my position, I would like clarification from the original poster.

As for your question, it should be well known to you that I don't insist that two rational persons will always come to the same conclusion. That is not actually the point of contention. The question is, given a body of evidence, is every conclusion rational. I left open right from the start that there would be rational reasons to decide that you didn't want to play a game with alignment. I don't have a particular problem with assertions like, "Alignment isn't right for me. In games I've played, it hasn't worked out, and these are the reasons why."

But again, that isn't what the poster asserted. For each of the for bullet points he made, I suggested that there was a logical problem with the assertion. Neither you nor him have offered to disagree with my points.

 

[shawnhcorey]

In the game Mass Effect, one of the sentient species is the Krogan. The Krogan are a violent predatory species that have in their natural evolved state the ability to overproduce offspring. Krogans naturally reproduce many more children than an ecology can support. In their natural state the Krogan have to make war and kill a very high percentage of their own species, or else the ecology would collapse from an overabundance of top order predators.

Which is artificial. Most predators die from starvation.

Lions and hyenas have very little to do with the question. Morality is generally seen as something only a fully sentient species can possess.

Another arbitrary labelling. What is morality?

Here's a moral problem for you: In WW2, the allies intercepted a encoded message from the Nazis about their plans to bomb a small town in England. If Churchill evacuated the town, the Nazis would realize their codes have been broken and change them; the allies could no longer read the messages. This could result in the deaths of thousands of soldiers. On the other hand, if they did not evacuate, hundreds of townsfolk would die. But then again, the Nazis could change their codes at any time, so not evacuating the town does not guarantee future decoding of their messages. What is the moral choice?

 

[Celebrim]

Another arbitrary labeling.

Are you suggesting that it the distinction between a virus, broccoli, a lion, and a person is arbitrary?

What is morality?

The question, "What is Truth?" is not nearly as novel or as penetrating as some think. In any event, since you ask me the question, "What is morality?", I take that to mean that you don't think morality actually exists, or that morality is wholly arbitrary? Is that a correct inference from your question?

Here's a moral problem for you: In WW2, the allies intercepted a encoded message from the Nazis about their plans to bomb a small town in England. If Churchill evacuated the town, the Nazis would realize their codes have been broken and change them; the allies could no longer read the messages. This could result in the deaths of thousands of soldiers. On the other hand, if they did not evacuate, hundreds of townsfolk would die. But then again, the Nazis could change their codes at any time, so not evacuating the town does not guarantee future decoding of their messages. What is the moral choice?

While that is a very interesting discussion, this is now what the fourth time you've attempted to deflect from the conversation at hand. Why must I persist in writing essays to new questions you are raising, when you've showed absolutely no inclination to cordially answer any of my questions?

 

[shawnhcorey]

Why must I persist in writing essays to new questions you are raising, when you've showed absolutely no inclination to cordially answer any of my questions?

That's because your questions have an answer. What is good or evil, right or wrong is subjective; it changes from person to person.

 

[Umbran]

The discomfort you apparently feel with the assertions I'm making parallels rather strongly the discomfort I'm feeling with @shawnhcorey assertions.

Okay. Same problem. You are ascribing a feeling or emotion to me, and it isn't accurate. I am not, by any common use of the term, "uncomfortable".

 

[Celebrim]

That's because your questions have an answer. What is good or evil, right or wrong is subjective; it changes from person to person.

If that is so, how can you say, "Labelling someone for any reason is wrong."

 

[Celebrim]

Okay. Same problem. You are ascribing a feeling or emotion to me, and it isn't accurate. I am not, by any common use of the term, "uncomfortable".

Ok, if that is the sticking point, would you - completely without regard to your emotional state - say that you find my logic in some way faulty, or that the implications of my logic are unfortunate?

Or in short, what prompted you to disagree if you felt no disagreement?

You claimed that this statement was "inappropriate": "Are you saying you don't feel comfortable playing in a game with alignments, or are you saying that anyone is wrong to do so?"

I don't think it violated any board rules, if that is what you mean by "inappropriate". I think that the intention of the statement was clear, and that it wasn't in fact "loaded language describing an emotional state".

However, I would be perfectly happy with however you want to frame the question in a way that asks the same thing, without what you describe as "loaded language describing an emotional state". It's not my intention in asking about whether someone is comfortable with an idea to ascribe to them any particular emotional state, and certainly not some state of passion and high stress. What language do you use to describe a state when you are disinclined to agree with something? Or perhaps I should state, what language do you want me to use to ask the question?

 

[Lanefan]

I don't play games with alignment because:

• races are labelled good and evil arbitrarily.
• evil races won't survive because they'll kill their offspring.
• the GM decides what is good and evil, not the players.
• it requires unscientific thinking.

Responding to these points in order:

A - While the labelling might seem arbitrary on the surface, one would hope some thinking went into it from the DM side as regards how a given race or species fits in to the setting and-or is viewed by others. Further, many GMs use these labels as guidelines rather than absolutes, to allow for some variance.

B - A massive and unsupported leap of assumption. Any species that hopes to remain viable is going to reproduce in numbers enough to keep itself going (which also tosses out your lions example a few posts down); also by no means do all 'evil' species or races kill their offspring.

C - Absolutely. Setting construction is the GM's purview, and determining general alignments of races and species is a part of that process.

D - Nothing new here; much of what goes on in a typical RPG throws scientific thinking out the window. Just look at any of the countless debates about hit points, falling damage, and recovery via resting.