[MUD-Dev] Alignment

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

(I believe it was Phil who said): 
> > I'm not sure what case you are covering by "two wrongs don't make a 
> > right.", but I for one have no problem with helping an evil creature being
> > an evil deed. Why would healing a demon while it is battling a paladin be
> > a good deed?
> 

Malcolm responded:
>   Well, as the heart of this discusssion shows, good and bad are very
> difficult to determine. Sure, your demon battle example is a bad thing,
> however, giving food to someone so they don't have to steal it should
> be a good thing...

Hmmm.  Is it still a good thing if you give food to someone so they don't have 
to work for it?  Realistically speaking, how many characters in a MMORPG steal 
because they "have" to?  Also, implicit in your argument is the assumption that 
all evil-ness is equal.  But we don't have to assume this.  The demon and 
paladin example is perfect because these characters represent the extremes of 
what we imagine good and evil to be.  I don't think that a scale in which a 
demon is -10 a thief is -1, and a paladin is +10 is unfathomable.  While still 
negative, giving bread to a thief is not the same as healing a demon.  To be 
honest, I wouldn't expect a self-righteouss paladin to do either one, but a +1 
merchant might give bread to a thief and suffer no great moral crisis.  However, 
a +1 merchant who consistently showed more generosity toward thieves than toward 
the "good" who are in need should be expected to meet some moral resistence to 
personal growth.

> ..., whatever their alignment. Also, IMHO and in general,
> the actual act of deciding who is good and who is evil is an evil act,...

The philosopher in me can't help but point out that (if you suppose that one who 
does evil acts is evil) you've just engaged in what you deplore.  It's that 
self-referential incoherence thing.  ;-)  But perhaps you believe that 
qualitative evil-ness is somehow seperate from evil acts?  What then qualifies 
one as evil?

> ...for the character that is, not the game designer, and so the character
> must in general treat everyone as though they are "good". Obviously
> slavering demons are an exception.

I think we are getting a couple of ideas confused.  First of all, while it may 
be evil for a creature to take on the role of a god by presuming to decide what 
is good or evil for another creature, IMHO the whole concept of god is 
undermined if godhood does not include the right to determine good and evil for 
its followers.  Furthermore, if the creator of a world (virtual or otherwise) 
cannot decide what is good and what is evil in what they have created, then the 
whole concept of good and evil (and perhaps the concept of creativity itself) 
should be thrown in the nearest garbage can.  I think that you allude to this 
very thing by making a distinction between the character's right to determine 
good and evil and the designer's right to do the same.  But when determinations 
regarding good and evil are left in the hands of the gods and the creators, it 
becomes much less difficult.  

If I am a devout follower of the great Poobah, then whatever Poobah says is good 
is good to me, and whatever Poobah says is evil is evil to me.  But suppose I am 
not really a devout follower of Poobah, but I am only role-playing that I am.  
When I do something that Poobah says is evil, there are only two possibilities: 
1) I am  defying Poobah (but I am IC) and should lose His favor  2) I am not 
doing a very good job of role-playing a devout follower of Poobah (perhaps I am 
letting OOC concepts of good and evil influence my RP). IMHO, negative (moral) 
game consequences for either case make sense and will work to encourage 
role-play and immersion in a virtual world.

Instead of all characters treating everyone like they are "good," the focus now 
becomes all Poobah followers treating everyone like a Poobah follower is 
_supposed_ to treat everyone (as defined by the creator).  If Poobah says that 
feeding slavering demons is good, then that's what Poobah followers should do.  
(But it shouldn't be surprising that Poobah followers might occasionally be 
accused of being aligned with slavering demons).

So defining good and evil in a virtual world can be straightforward, _unless_ 
there is the insistence that it must exactly reflect good and evil in the real 
world.  I suppose the trick is to make it enough of a reflection of the real 
world to be intuitive and immersive while making it different enough to be 
distinctive and not easily mistaken for some sort of absolute moral statements 
for real life.

--Phinehas

	
-----------------------------------------------------------------                 
		"All things are permissible,
			but not all things are expedient."
-----------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev