PDA

View Full Version : Creating a new species (morality question)



GoC
2009-03-14, 07:59 PM
Is it morally wrong to create a species that is engineered to be 100% loyal to you?

EDIT: What about them being loyal to your species?

I'm asking because whenever we talk about creating AI we always say we should be sure to include Asimov's three laws.

EDIT2: The spell in question being used is in my sig.

Yukitsu
2009-03-14, 08:03 PM
Depends on what you do with the loyalty, I suspect. In general, I'd say yes, as when I use my creation trick to get sentient life, I give them free will, which I believe is important.

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-14, 08:32 PM
Why would it be?

PirateMonk
2009-03-14, 08:36 PM
Why would it be?

One could argue that it amounts to genetic mind control, and mind control is wrong.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 08:38 PM
One could argue that it amounts to genetic mind control, and mind control is wrong.

So why isn't Dominate an evil spell?

EDIT: Wait. That's stupid. Let me rephrase.

Evil according to what standard?

Lupy
2009-03-14, 08:42 PM
So why isn't Dominate an evil spell?

Gary disagreed?

I think it makes sense, from a human perspective.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-14, 08:45 PM
When you say enginnered, do you mean genetically or culturally, or both?

If it were a cultural teaching of loyalty, then it would depend heavily on your alignment. Kind of like a society taught to keep to Heironeous' teachings would be more likely to have a Lawful and Good type of thinking. You're then at least giving the choice of learning or rejecting the subject matter. This might be Neutral with a tinge of Good.

If it were against free will; as in you dug around and tweaked their thinking without giving them much chance of going against the norm, so they were literally born loyal to you, it would be either Neutral or possibly Evil. Or just Neutral with a tinge of Evil. It would fall under the oppression aspect of the Evil alignment, if somewhat vaguely.

GoC
2009-03-14, 08:45 PM
One could argue that it amounts to genetic mind control, and mind control is wrong.

Mind control is wrong because you are taking away free will. But with magical engineering they never had it in the first place.

Paramour Pink: Not digging around and changing something. When you are designing your new species you design the brain so that it is loyal to you or your species.

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-14, 08:47 PM
One could argue that it amounts to genetic mind control, and mind control is wrong.

Mind Control implies an independent mind in the first place. This thread already assumes from the beginning that one has the ability to create a species with no independent mind.

The new species wouldn't be people or persons, they would be tools. Just like robots, or computers, or knives, or guns, or any other tool.

Nightson
2009-03-14, 08:48 PM
Mind control is okay as long as you start in the womb?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 08:49 PM
Robots and computers are not sapient, though.

Can the new species, when left completely alone and without human supervision, create a civilization of some sort?

GoC
2009-03-14, 08:50 PM
Mind Control implies an independent mind in the first place. This thread already assumes from the beginning that one has the ability to create a species with no independent mind.

They would have an independant mind, this isn't a hivemind situation or a dominate-type one. And their brain works, it's just putting your best interest before anything else.

Paramour Pink
2009-03-14, 08:54 PM
Unless this species is loyal to you and your kind *before* you adjusted their thinking, it would still be tampering. That is, it would have a tinge of Evil. But a species isn't the same thing as a golem. A golem is a robot. Something sentient and capable of making up it's own mind is a species. I think you'd have to make that distinction to get an answer to this question.

So are you making a mere construct, or are you treating a person like one?

Kyouhen
2009-03-14, 08:56 PM
I'd say the creation itself wouldn't be evil, nor necessarily good. If they're created with some free will, but the urge to obey you overrides that then they really aren't more than an intelligent golem. If they had complete free will but you created them with the expectation they would be loyal to you that still isn't evil, as that's normally what happens whenever a god creates a new race.

That said, we get into ethics based on how you treat them. If you follow the intelligent golem idea and treat them as slaves, that's definitely evil. Ethics would also be involved with what you do with them.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 08:56 PM
Something sentient and capable of making up it's own mind is a species.

No, a collection of creatures with more than one distinct phenotype that are capable of breeding true is a species.

Sapience and sentience has nothing to do with the definition.

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-14, 08:56 PM
Mind control is okay as long as you start in the womb?

This is before the womb. Imagine God creating humanity and going "Free Will: No" instead of "Free Will: Yes".

This species is incapable of being disloyal, they are incapable of even having the desire to be disloyal. It's not Mind Control, because that implies a mind free of those constraints in the first place.


Robots and computers are not sapient, though.

Can the new species, when left completely alone and without human supervision, create a civilization of some sort?

Sure, said species could create a civilization of some sort. But that doesn't change the fact that they want to serve their creator and further his goals. It's what they are. This species is incapable of being anything else, and is even incapable of the desire to be anything else.


They would have an independant mind, this isn't a hivemind situation or a dominate-type one. And their brain works, it's just putting your best interest before anything else.

An independent mind requires the ability to make decisions independent of your best interests. This species is has as much ability to choose to be disloyal as I have of surviving a swim in an antimatter pool. We are talking physically incapable of it.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 09:00 PM
Sure, said species could create a civilization of some sort. But that doesn't change the fact that they want to serve their creator and further his goals. It's what they are. This species is incapable of being anything else, and is even incapable of the desire to be anything else.

That's not quite in the definition of "loyal", I don't think.

Stephen_E
2009-03-14, 09:02 PM
They would have an independant mind, this isn't a hivemind situation or a dominate-type one. And their brain works, it's just putting your best interest before anything else.

By most standards that would be wrong (although you can expect any group actually doing it to have many members who agree in principle it's wrong but not when they're doing it). They're bassically slaves, but with the chains in their minds. The same would apply to robots amd computer AI's as well if they reached the point where they were capable of thought.

What you will commonly find is people will come up with reasons why this new speciers doesn't really count. Thus you have the view of some religions that animals don't have souls, so are tools for "man" to use as they will (often with a note that they should be treated reasonably, but once you've marked something as unequal it's easy to ignore minor bits like that). The same attitude was often used as an excuse for racially based slavery.

Stephen E

GoC
2009-03-14, 09:03 PM
Unless this species is loyal to you and your kind *before* you adjusted their thinking, it would still be tampering.
There is no adjusting going on. You are creating a new species.

Emperor Tippy: So it's ok as long as they are incapable of being disloyal? What if there are exceptional circumstances where they can be disloyal (the survival of a village vs. getting you your tea on time. Assuming of course they know you care nothing for the village)?


Thus you have the view of some religions that animals don't have souls, so are tools for "man" to use as they will (often with a note that they should be treated reasonably, but once you've marked something as unequal it's easy to ignore minor bits like that).
Umm...
It's not just religions. 90% of people believe that (minus the souls bit). I do too.

Out of curiosity: What objectives would you give the new AI then?

Paramour Pink
2009-03-14, 09:10 PM
So you're essentially their god...? In that case, meh. It's dead-centre Neutral. What you do with that loyalty decides the actual alignment. Look at any of the other "racial" deities to see how far the gamut runs (Zarius, Mordin, etc).

Thajocoth
2009-03-14, 09:11 PM
A - It's slavery. If slavery is ethical, so are Asimov's 3 laws (and Asimov knew that. His work showed why those laws are wrong, not why they're good.)

B - It's impossible. Anyone who is successful in creating artificial life will, at first, get something that knows nothing but is capable of learning. How can they pre-code it to protect humans when it knows neither what the words "protect" or "human" mean?

You see, our intellect is in the surface region of our brain. It's roughly 6 cells deep, and the size of an unfolded dinner napkin when fully opened. These cells all perform the amazing task of pattern recognition. It stores memories and such in infinite loops, storing not data... But the movement of data over time. It is not the notes to a song you remember, but the difference between one note and the next. These patterns of moving data differences get more and more complex and interact with one another... But you don't start off knowing anything.

This is the functionality that a coder of a true AI would need to replicate to be successful.

Agrippa
2009-03-14, 09:17 PM
Gary disagreed?

Alignment based descriptors came about in 3rd edition.

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-14, 09:17 PM
Emperor Tippy: So it's ok as long as they are incapable of being disloyal? What if there are exceptional circumstances where they can be disloyal (the survival of a village vs. getting you your tea on time. Assuming of course they know you care nothing for the village)?

I've never said it was ok or not ok. They aren't sentient, just really really good Artificial Intelligences. If you had a species that desired something beyond serving you but was forced to do what you wanted then that would be evil. But you don't. You have a species that is physically incapable of having those other desires. It's not indoctrination, or religion, or propaganda. It's an intrinsic quality.

Sentience requires the ability to have your own want's, need's, desire's, and all of those types of things. An AI computer program with hardwired loyalty coding that makes it incapable of desiring to be disloyal is not sentient. Now the same AI but with hardwired coding making it incapable of disobeying an order, even if it wants to disobey would be sentient but also a slave. Both AI's might react the same way to an order but the first is reacting because it want's to (even though it has no choice but to want to) while the second is reacting because it is required to (even though it doesn't want to).

Kyouhen
2009-03-14, 09:23 PM
A - It's slavery. If slavery is ethical, so are Asimov's 3 laws (and Asimov knew that. His work showed why those laws are wrong, not why they're good.)

I'd say it isn't slavery. Fish were made to have their domain limited to the water, just as Dryads are made with them being bound to their trees. It isn't slavery if it's a racial trait.



B - It's impossible. Anyone who is successful in creating artificial life will, at first, get something that knows nothing but is capable of learning. How can they pre-code it to protect humans when it knows neither what the words "protect" or "human" mean?


Dragon knowledge is inherited. When they hatch they already know a massive amount of information, it's just locked away deep in their memory. That and there's always instincts. A bird doesn't have to be taught how to fly, it either flies or falls to it's death. The new species in question could instinctively obey their creator. (If you read Girl Genius (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php) it's basically the same thing as with the Jagers)



But you don't start off knowing anything.


If dragons can do it so can Species Z. :smalltongue:

GoC
2009-03-14, 09:24 PM
A - It's slavery. If slavery is ethical, so are Asimov's 3 laws (and Asimov knew that. His work showed why those laws are wrong, not why they're good.)
Slavery is forcing people to work for you against their will. That is not the case here.


B - It's impossible. Anyone who is successful in creating artificial life will, at first, get something that knows nothing but is capable of learning. How can they pre-code it to protect humans when it knows neither what the words "protect" or "human" mean?
The same way certain instincts are programmed into human babies.
Like instead of "desire for food" it would be "desire for caster (person who radiates a certain magical aura detectable by the species) to be happy (defined by a change in said aura)".
In fact it's even possible to code things into brains after said brains are mostly formed, such as the desire of a parent to protect it's children.

Lupy
2009-03-14, 09:26 PM
Which brings us to the Second Law of Robotics...

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 09:27 PM
In fact it's even possible to code things into brains after said brains are mostly formed, such as the desire of a parent to protect it's children.

I'm pretty sure that's coded into a brain before the parent is born. That's how you ensure the propagation of your genetic data, after all.

EDIT: Honestly, at this point, this thread is less of a Roleplaying Games thread and more of a Friendly Banter thread.

GoC
2009-03-14, 09:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that's coded into a brain before the parent is born. That's how you ensure the propagation of your genetic data, after all.

No. As a kid I cared nothing for my fellows and wondered why on earth people were so defensive about kids. "aren't they just little humans? why would someone think it worse to kill one than an older person? if anything the older person is more valuable and should be saved first!" But as I got older I started to be very distressed when seeing a young child suffering.

EDIT: It was sent off-topic by Thajocoth.
Anyway, back to the point. Using the magic spell in the page in my sig is it morally right to create a species that is subservient to you?
Would anyone else like to present their opinion on the matter?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 09:41 PM
It was sent off-topic by Thajocoth.

It was sent off-topic long before that.

Honestly, if it's D&D, it's not evil. After all, Suggestion and Dominate aren't evil. Why should this be?

Froogleyboy
2009-03-14, 09:48 PM
(sorry if this has already been posted, i didn't read all the post)
I believe that it would be like Lolth with the Durual (Drow to you modern folk) or Tiamat with the Chromatic dragons. What are your views of them?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 09:57 PM
(sorry if this has already been posted, i didn't read all the post)
I believe that it would be like Lolth with the Durual (Drow to you modern folk) or Tiamat with the Chromatic dragons. What are your views of them?

Both examples are capable of disobeying their creators.

This spell makes it so they can't. They can probably do anything else they want to unless it goes against the well-being of the creator, but the moment they're ordered to do something, they have no choice but to obey.

Froogleyboy
2009-03-14, 09:59 PM
I don't think its evil. On the contrary I think it shows inititative

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:01 PM
Evil usually has more initiative than good. That's why in fiction, good people are mostly reactive while evil is proactive.

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:02 PM
It's creating a race of slaves.

Even if they like it their still slaves. If it's their only purpose in life then their still slaves. There is no extenuating factor that makes them free.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:03 PM
You're missing the point. This is D&D. Slavery isn't evil in D&D. In fact, there is a kingdom on Toril that is largely good and largely based on slavery.

jcsw
2009-03-14, 10:04 PM
Okay, for some reason I don't see a link to any such spell in your sig, so this is based on the OP.

---

I think everyone here's basing this a bit much upon human values. Humans value freedom (and not all cultures value it equally). They regard it as something necessary for happiness. So taking away happiness in the form of freedom to suit your own is considered wrong; by utilitarianism this would result in a large net loss in happiness.

But such a race could have no concept of freedom. In such they do not value freedom. It does not give them joy, they might even derive joy from serving you//the race. Thus such a race would be happy without freedom. Giving them no freedom to start with results in a net increase in happiness.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:07 PM
Said spell for the search-deficient people (myself included). (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3515727&postcount=17)

Froogleyboy
2009-03-14, 10:08 PM
Okay, for some reason I don't see a link to any such spell in your sig, so this is based on the OP.

---

I think everyone here's basing this a bit much upon human values. Humans value freedom (and not all cultures value it equally). They regard it as something necessary for happiness. So taking away happiness in the form of freedom to suit your own is considered wrong; by utilitarianism this would result in a large net loss in happiness.

But such a race could have no concept of freedom. In such they do not value freedom. It does not give them joy, they might even derive joy from serving you//the race. Thus such a race would be happy without freedom. Giving them no freedom to start with results in a net increase in happiness.

I agree with this completely

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:11 PM
Okay, for some reason I don't see a link to any such spell in your sig, so this is based on the OP.

---

I think everyone here's basing this a bit much upon human values. Humans value freedom (and not all cultures value it equally). They regard it as something necessary for happiness. So taking away happiness in the form of freedom to suit your own is considered wrong; by utilitarianism this would result in a large net loss in happiness.

But such a race could have no concept of freedom. In such they do not value freedom. It does not give them joy, they might even derive joy from serving you//the race. Thus such a race would be happy without freedom. Giving them no freedom to start with results in a net increase in happiness.

Mentally dominating all human life to feel the same way would also lead to a net increase in happiness.

Also, slavery is most certainly evil in D&D

"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil."
~Book of Exalted Deeds

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:14 PM
"Even if slavery, torture, or discrimination are condoned by society, they remain evil."
~Book of Exalted Deeds

You do realize that Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness are two of the most loathed books in D&D 3rd Edition history.

For books that claim to be "mature", they certainly don't do much other than reinforce a black & white morality.

They are also completely optional. I realize that everything is optional in RPGs, but a setting's established history is usually less optional than a splatbook.

Collin152
2009-03-14, 10:15 PM
Creating an all new species of free-willed beings, with the exception that they are immutably loyal to you?
Not Evil.
Why?
You've taken nothing from them; in fact, you've given them their entire existence. I think you have a right as their creator to expect absolute loyalty; the Gods have their Angels or whatever, so why can't you have unquestioning minions?

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:19 PM
You do realize that Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness are two of the most loathed books in D&D 3rd Edition history.

For books that claim to be "mature", they certainly don't do much other than reinforce a black & white morality.

They are also completely optional. I realize that everything is optional in RPGs, but a setting's established history is usually less optional than a splatbook.

Player's Handbook

Lawful Evil description:
He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.

Chaotic Neutral description:
He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.

Saying slavery isn't bad in D&D is just silly.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:21 PM
Player's Handbook

Lawful Evil description:
He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.

Chaotic Neutral description:
He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.

Saying slavery isn't bad in D&D is just silly.

So, slavery is mostly neutral.

Unless you're saying Chaotic = Evil, which is a whole lot of different silly.

Also, bad ≠ evil. And non-good ≠ evil.

Especially in the crapfest alignment system of D&D.

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:28 PM
So, slavery is mostly neutral.

Unless you're saying Chaotic = Evil, which is a whole lot of different silly.

Also, bad ≠ evil. And non-good ≠ evil.

Especially in the crapfest alignment system of D&D.

Caring about people's freedom is good. Not caring enough to do anything to protect them is neutral. Actively oppressing people is evil. Unless you want to provide a quote that portrays oppression or slavery in a positive light.

GoC
2009-03-14, 10:28 PM
He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom.

In this case he wouldn't have to as no freedom is being taken away.

EDIT: You're going to have to tell me what slavery is then. In my book:
Slavery is forcing people to work for you against their will. That is not the case here.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-14, 10:30 PM
If you force a being to serve you against its will, that is enslavement. But if it serves you willingly, that is not enslavement.

If you create a mind from scratch, it won't actually do much until you include some goals into it. Your options include

(1) Don't put any goals in. (In which case, the mind won't attempt to do anything. Why did you make it again?)
(2) Give the mind goals that cause it to behave in the way you want it to behave. (This seems only sensible.)
(3) Randomize the mind's goals. (This seems far more morally questionable than option 2, unless you choose evil goals.)

What humans currently do when they reproduce is more akin to option 2 than the others: A new human's desires, emotions, thoughts, etc. are somewhat predictable, but still sort of a crapshoot. Given the option to create someone who would be reliably moral and happy, that would seem to be far more moral and responsible.

I've never been quite clear on what's meant by "free will". Does it simply mean that one's behavior is unpredictable? If so, is this really desirable? I rather think that I would opt to predetermine my own future behavior along several lines, if given the opportunity.

Would a created mind have "free will" if given a negligible chance of displaying disloyalty? Would greater odds of disloyalty equate to greater free will? (I predict with a high degree of confidence that you will eat a meal within the next 24 hours. Assuming that this is accurate, would you have more free will if you were less likely to do so?)

Similarly, "mind control" is vague. We routinely deliberately influence the thoughts and behavior of another person in a given direction. Does this become "control" when it becomes reliable? If so, is this inherently a violation of another's freedom? It seems to me that violating freedom involves preventing someone from doing what he wants to do, not getting him to want to do what you want him to do.


Is it morally wrong to create a species that is engineered to be 100% loyal to you?

EDIT: What about them being loyal to your species?
Well, if you and your species are bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs creating a race of supersoldiers to wipe out all other life, then it would be morally wrong in a "par for the course" sort of way. If you and your species are benevolent, then it might be morally good. Although making the created species itself unfailingly benevolent would probably be morally superior to making it unfailingly loyal. In the latter case, its good actions are dependent on you, and you're probably not incorruptible.


I'm asking because whenever we talk about creating AI we always say we should be sure to include Asimov's three laws.
Um, who is "we", here?


EDIT2: The spell in question being used is in my sig.
I don't see it. Post or link spell in question plz.

EDIT: Never mind, it's here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3515727#post3515727). I couldn't find it right away because it was just in a linked thread instead of being linked directly. (Tsk, tsk! Sloppy!)


Sentience requires the ability to have your own want's, need's, desire's, and all of those types of things.
Ahem. (http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So far as I'm concerned, if I desire something, then that desire is mine. But I get the impression that you mean something different by "your own" here. Do you? If so, what?


An AI computer program with hardwired loyalty coding that makes it incapable of desiring to be disloyal is not sentient.
I don't see how sentience implies the possibility of desiring disloyalty. What's your reasoning here?

Do you assume that a human being is capable of holding all conceivable desires?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:33 PM
Caring about people's freedom is good. Not caring enough to do anything to protect them is neutral. Actively oppressing people is evil. Unless you want to provide a quote that portrays oppression or slavery in a positive light.

They are not people. They are not being oppressed. There is nothing to oppress in the first place.

In D&D, slavery is neutral. Seeing how killing is also neutral in D&D (otherwise there'd be a lot of fallen paladins), which is worse than slavery (in real life - obviously in D&D death is not worth worrying about), it makes sense. In a twisted sort of way.

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:33 PM
In this case he wouldn't have to as no freedom is being taken away.

Freedom never given is still freedom they lack. If you had decided to create the race with free will, when would it suddenly be bad to change your mind and take their free will away? Before you plan anything? During the making of it? While it's still a clump of cells in a womb? After it's born? When it's fifty years old?

Is it okay for parents to dominate the minds of their children because the created them? Is it moral to do it if the child's brain isn't formed yet and it doesn't have free will?

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:35 PM
Freedom never given is still freedom they lack. If you had decided to create the race with free will, when would it suddenly be bad to change your mind and take their free will away? Before you plan anything? During the making of it? While it's still a clump of cells in a womb? After it's born? When it's fifty years old?

Is it okay for parents to dominate the minds of their children because the created them? Is it moral to do it if the child's brain isn't formed yet and it doesn't have free will?

You're thinking in terms of real life morality.

Don't do it.

This is D&D. Where dominating others is not evil, and in fact, raping the minds of others is Good (as in capital letter G).

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:38 PM
They are not people. They are not being oppressed. There is nothing to oppress in the first place.

They are sapient, they have moral weight equivalent to humans. They are indeed oppressed, they are oppressed from the moment of creation. We're they to find their loyalty brainwashing removed then they would be mentally free.


In D&D, slavery is neutral. Seeing how killing is also neutral in D&D (otherwise there'd be a lot of fallen paladins), which is worse than slavery (in real life - obviously in D&D death is not worth worrying about), it makes sense. In a twisted sort of way.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Slavery and oppression is evil by RAW unless you have a quote that says otherwise.

GoC
2009-03-14, 10:38 PM
Freedom never given is still freedom they lack. If you had decided to create the race with free will, when would it suddenly be bad to change your mind and take their free will away? Before you plan anything? During the making of it? While it's still a clump of cells in a womb? After it's born? When it's fifty years old?

Is it okay for parents to dominate the minds of their children because the created them? Is it moral to do it if the child's brain isn't formed yet and it doesn't have free will?

The very questions I am asking.:smallbiggrin:

What objectives would you give your new creations then?
Devils_Advocate has made a very compelling case.


Um, who is "we", here?

Geeks!:smallbiggrin:

The Rose Dragon: I'm more interested in seeing other's thoughts than a rules argument. I consider the black and white alignment rules (for 3.5e, the only version I play) pretty unfortunate and prefer to modify them.

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:41 PM
The very questions I am asking.:smallbiggrin:

I can't imagine any coherent moral philosophy that responds that it's moral.

I mean I'm a happy nihilist, moral philosophy means zilch to me, but within the schema of moral philosophy I don't think anybody can say it's okay and remain consistent.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:44 PM
I can't imagine any coherent moral philosophy that responds that it's moral.

I mean I'm a happy nihilist, moral philosophy means zilch to me, but within the schema of moral philosophy I don't think anybody can say it's okay and remain consistent.

Except for D&D moral philosophy. In which you can remove a free will that actually existed and still be Good.

GoC
2009-03-14, 10:46 PM
I can't imagine any coherent moral philosophy that responds that it's moral.

I mean I'm a happy nihilist, moral philosophy means zilch to me, but within the schema of moral philosophy I don't think anybody can say it's okay and remain consistent.

Actually I'll demonstrate a moral framework that results in it being neutral.
Taking your post:


Freedom never given is still freedom they lack. If you had decided to create the race with free will, when would it suddenly be bad to change your mind and take their free will away? Before you plan anything? During the making of it? While it's still a clump of cells in a womb? After it's born? When it's fifty years old?

Is it okay for parents to dominate the minds of their children because the created them? Is it moral to do it if the child's brain isn't formed yet and it doesn't have free will?
1. After they attained sentience.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. No.
7. Yes.

Any contradictions?

Nightson
2009-03-14, 10:47 PM
Except for D&D moral philosophy. In which you can remove a free will that actually existed and still be Good.

I can't imagine any coherent moral philosophy

:tongue:

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:48 PM
I can't imagine any coherent moral philosophy

:tongue:

This thread is about D&D morality, though. If it were about real life morality, it would have been in Friendly Banter.

GoC
2009-03-14, 10:53 PM
This thread is about D&D morality, though. If it were about real life morality, it would have been in Friendly Banter.

Actually I'm posting it here because:
A. It's a situation that pops up pretty much only in role playing games.
B. You guys have experience with morality threads.
C. It uses a D&D-based spell.

Imagine this occurs in your average D&D setting but redefine good to be...
whatever the conclusion of this thread will be!:smallbiggrin:

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 10:56 PM
Actually I'm posting it here because:
A. It's a situation that pops up pretty much only in role playing games.
B. You guys have experience with morality threads.
C. It uses a D&D-based spell.

Imagine this occurs in your average D&D setting but redefine good to be...
whatever the conclusion of this thread will be!:smallbiggrin:

That's the kind of thing you set up in the first post, not in the second page of the thread.

There are lots of theoretical, D&D-based threads in Friendly Banter because they are expected to be about "real life" concepts.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-14, 11:24 PM
They are not people. They are not being oppressed. There is nothing to oppress in the first place
And this is one of the most annoying fiddly bits in Ethics: What constitutes a person? Ultimately, either the definition you use, or the reason for the definition you use, or the reason for the reason for the definition you use (et infinium) is fundamentally assumed. Kant, who liked "pure reason" in ethics, ultimately defended his choice with what amounted to "what else could it be?" The thing is, though, that's still an assumption.

And if you are basing your definition of "person" on an assumption, why, it's entirely possible someone else will use a different assumption. Without a common assumption, you get "Orcs don't count as people" (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-05-11), which eventually leads to ... conflict (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-06-04) of various kinds... because there is no rational way to resolve such a fundamental assumption.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 11:28 PM
"Orcs don't count as people" (http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2006-05-11)

Come on, this is Dominic Deegan you're linking to. People in Dominic Deegan don't count as people.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-14, 11:32 PM
Come on, this is Dominic Deegan you're linking to. People in Dominic Deegan don't count as people.
I could use other examples, but, um... how old does something need to be before it stops counting as real-world politics/religion? There are historical examples which basically amount to the same thing.

golentan
2009-03-14, 11:42 PM
Depends what you mean by "loyalty." If you're including law 2, I think it's bad. Placing an order from you above another's life is an indubitably evil act to perform on a sentient creature. If on the other hand, you place strictures against killing people... *ANY* people, except in self defense (with some tolerance, and probably place some tolerance and self determination in regards to law 3), you are being perfectly reasonable.

A creature should be able to respond with appropriate violence to protect itself (and possibly others). And it should be able to determine a sufficiently inhospitable situation (will be tortured to death, and information gained will be used to kill others) it should be able to act to prevent this even if it means ignoring law 3.

Just my opinion. But I'm biased.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-14, 11:47 PM
To those framing this issue in terms of free will: Why do you think (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/righting-a-wron.html) that you have free will (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/the-ultimate-so.html)?


Devils_Advocate has made a very compelling case.
PROTIP: One does this by backing points up instead of just making unsupported assertions. (Lots of folks don't seem to realize that.)


Geeks!:smallbiggrin:
I shall assume for the nonce that you are not a fool, and mean "some geeks", not "all geeks".


Actually I'm posting it here because:
A. It's a situation that pops up pretty much only in role playing games.
You haven't read a whole lot of discussion nor fiction about the creation of artificial intelligence, have you?


B. You guys have experience with morality threads.
Is there really as little overlap between the denizens the Friendly Banter forum and those of the Roleplaying Games forum as this statement seems to imply?


C. It uses a D&D-based spell.
Your question may have been inspired by a spell made for an RPG, but it's not framed in terms of the spell's details, nor in terms of the D&D alignment system. As presented, it's a general discussion question.

Of course, we could go on talking about the morality and the alignment of creating loyal servants, but that would face significant danger of veering into a side discussion of how morality and alignment relate to each other, and how they should relate to each other. And while that could be a very interesting discussion, it seems like it might be better served by its own thread.

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-14, 11:50 PM
Depends what you mean by "loyalty." If you're including law 2, I think it's bad. Placing an order from you above another's life is an indubitably evil act to perform on a sentient creature. If on the other hand, you place strictures against killing people... *ANY* people, except in self defense (with some tolerance, and probably place some tolerance and self determination in regards to law 3), you are being perfectly reasonable.

A creature should be able to respond with appropriate violence to protect itself (and possibly others). And it should be able to determine a sufficiently inhospitable situation (will be tortured to death, and information gained will be used to kill others) it should be able to act to prevent this even if it means ignoring law 3.

Just my opinion. But I'm biased.

Again, why are you assuming that the species is "sentient". One could make the argument that a species with the kinds of programming that we are talking about is not sentient.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-14, 11:52 PM
Again, why are you assuming that the species is "sentient". One could make the argument that a species with the kinds of programming that we are talking about is not sentient.

Sentient: Able to perceive and feel things.

I would argue that anything with a Wisdom score is, in fact, sentient.

Yahzi
2009-03-14, 11:52 PM
If the created species is capable of resenting its enforced loyalty, then yes, it is a crime. Of course that implies the moral wrong is in failing to do the job right in the first place.

A more interesting question: once a loyal species is created, is it moral to deny them the right to serve?

People, after all, are created to be loyal to their own species, and their reward is the survival of their species. If a slave race could insure its survival by being loyal to the master race, then... what's the difference?

People bind people to the service of kith, kin, and state all the time. This would more complex but not necessarily different. Perhaps it would help to think of it as a symbiotic existence rather than master/slave.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-14, 11:59 PM
Again, why are you assuming that the species is "sentient". One could make the argument that a species with the kinds of programming that we are talking about is not sentient.
You're using a different word, but it amounts to the same thing - "sentient" in place of "person". There have been similar real-world issues crop up within the last decade or so (or at least, that's about how long it's been since it was significant enough that I saw it on the news... but then, I don't watch the news much). The catch being that you're working with base definitions - which are fairly fundamentally inarguable.

golentan
2009-03-15, 12:02 AM
Again, why are you assuming that the species is "sentient". One could make the argument that a species with the kinds of programming that we are talking about is not sentient.

Because I enjoy presuming I'm sentient. And if no such a creation is not, then I am not. If it A) retains independent memory, and B) is capable of developing based on experience, I am extending it the benefit of the doubt. I will then weight it a varying amount based on intelligence (as best as I can measure). I do not assume the necessity for free will in my definitions. Humans come preprogrammed with a vast variety of instincts and tendencies. More than I think you realize (I laughed at a book called something like "The Defeat of Instinct: Mankind and the Age of Reason"). For game purposes, let us define sentient as "possessing a 3 or higher in int, and scores in the other mental ability scores" and say no more.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-15, 12:44 AM
For game purposes, let us define sentient as "possessing a 3 or higher in int, and scores in the other mental ability scores" and say no more.
That sounds like it might be a good definition of "sapient" for this discussion. Let's stay away from the bad science fiction usage of "sentient", shall we?

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-15, 01:00 AM
If I write a computer program that is as intelligent as a human and is capable of independent decision making and learning from previous experience, is it sentient? It can process data from tactile, olfactory, sonic, and visual sensors. You could even make it perceive subjectively, after all data does have to be interpreted and extrapolated. Most people would say that this computer program isn't sentient and wouldn't consider it immoral for me to add in some code along the lines of "Follow all orders given to you by Emperor Tippy".

So why is it suddenly immoral for me to add the same line of code to a flesh and blood body? And why is that flesh and blood body sentient when the program isn't?

It and the computer share the same "mind".

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 01:08 AM
If I write a computer program that is as intelligent as a human and is capable of independent decision making and learning from previous experience, is it sentient? It can process data from tactile, olfactory, sonic, and visual sensors. You could even make it perceive subjectively, after all data does have to be interpreted and extrapolated. Most people would say that this computer program isn't sentient and wouldn't consider it immoral for me to add in some code along the lines of "Follow all orders given to you by Emperor Tippy".

So why is it suddenly immoral for me to add the same line of code to a flesh and blood body? And why is that flesh and blood body sentient when the program isn't?

It and the computer share the same "mind".
Turn it around. If such a computer program (prior to the line of code that amounts to "Follow all orders given to you by Emperor Tippy") does not fall under the heading of "person", and such a computer program running on a flesh-and-blood body is still not considered a person, how then do you put yourself under the header of "person"? In what sense are you not a program running on a flesh-and-blood body?

Fundamentally, the definition of "person" is going to end up as an assumption somewhere along the line - making it fundamentally not debatable. Not that that stops anyone, because it causes one person to see as "murder", what another sees as normal behavior.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 01:08 AM
The "program" would probably be a Construct in that case, though. Making it sentient.

Now, sapient, defined as "of or relating to the human species", is a different story. It's probably relating to the humans in a way or the other, especially if the caster is human, but is it enough to justify it being sapient?

golentan
2009-03-15, 01:21 AM
If I write a computer program that is as intelligent as a human and is capable of independent decision making and learning from previous experience, is it sentient? It can process data from tactile, olfactory, sonic, and visual sensors. You could even make it perceive subjectively, after all data does have to be interpreted and extrapolated. Most people would say that this computer program isn't sentient and wouldn't consider it immoral for me to add in some code along the lines of "Follow all orders given to you by Emperor Tippy".

So why is it suddenly immoral for me to add the same line of code to a flesh and blood body? And why is that flesh and blood body sentient when the program isn't?

It and the computer share the same "mind".

It is not "suddenly immoral." It has been immoral all along. Because the computer is intelligent, and learns, and has memories of it's own. I agree with the previous post, at what point are you drawing the line "person?" Are any things other than human beings eligible? Are unnaturally created humans, genetically modified humans, or clones eligible? Yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, but if we're stopping at genome, we're passing mighty close to some historically dangerous waters.

Fhaolan
2009-03-15, 02:22 AM
The problem here is a very common problem in alignment discussions. You are testing a Law/Chaos problem with the Good/Evil axis. It is very common because people tend to view everything in terms of good/evil (note the lack of capitilization there, it was deliberate). If they are Lawful, they view order and structure as good. If they are Chaotic, they view individuality and freedom as good. The issue is when they confuse good with Good.

The act of restricting an individual or species' actions is inheriently Lawful. You can do that for Good purposes or Evil purposes, but it is Lawful as it enforces order and structure. Attempting to reinforce free will is inheriently Chaotic. Again, you can do that for Good purposes or Evil purposes, but it is Chaotic as it provides freedom.

The act of building a species that is incapable of being disloyal is neither Good, nor Evil. It is extremely Lawful. *Why* you did this will be the factor that sends it into being Good or Evil. Did you do it because you were lazy and needed a slave race to maintain your lifestyle? Did you do it to provide cheap, expendable units to fight wars of attrition? Did you do it just to see if you could? Did you do it because you were afraid that if you didn't, the slave race would rise up and slaughter you?

horseboy
2009-03-15, 03:50 AM
Since the OP brought up Asimov, anybody else read Foundation's Edge? You know, where The robots had decided that thanks the the 3 laws they were going to take over humanity for their own good? Then made a human use his free will to set their plan in motion? Yeah, good or evil, I label it as "BAD IDEA".

Well, I really don't see how something that's got that kind of mental block could be sentient. It wouldn't be an "AI" it would be closer to an SI. (Kinda like those computer terminals in Mass Effect). In order for them to not be able to learn to be disobedient they couldn't be able to learn things not programed into them. Otherwise the minute they've seen a petulant child they're going to learn things like "disloyal," and "disobedient". Eventually they'll learn that they're being blocked and odds are good, that they'll be pissed off. Oh sure, you've got safeties built in. I'm sure you're smarter than any of them ever will be combined. I'm sure that's what Frankenstein, Daisuke Serizawa or every BBEG who's ever said "Impossible!" thought, too. Since it will inevitably lead to ruin I'd label it "evil", with a little "e".

golentan
2009-03-15, 04:21 AM
Did you do it because you were lazy and needed a slave race to maintain your lifestyle? Did you do it to provide cheap, expendable units to fight wars of attrition? Did you do it just to see if you could? Did you do it because you were afraid that if you didn't, the slave race would rise up and slaughter you?

Again, I'm all in favor of certain limits. Limits I would voluntarily impose upon myself. Limits I (currently) would want imposed on my self if something made me snap. But *absolute* obedience is not one that should be imposed. It should be voluntary, always and forever. All the examples you gave are examples of why: Slaves (esp. by race/species?) evil. Expendable sapient units? Evil. See if you could? I have an idea, let's cut out pieces of human brain until subjects can only make decisions on our say so. Sounds put-near evil to me. Afraid of slaughtering you? You felt the need to put in something stricter than "will not harm another save in self defense?" What are you doing to these creatures? Law does not indicate unthinking obedience, or the submission of free will. Except when... Oh yah.


Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.

(bold mine)

The other Lawful alignments talk about personal behavior, and tradition. They don't mention obedience in others, much less compulsory obedience, and LG actually mentions "fighting injustice." Certain things are inextricable from morality, even in discussing ethics.

As for the next post: Asimov's Foundation's Edge seemed relatively ideal to me, as far as benevolence goes. They legitimately offered humans three choices, two of which were human and one of which allowed people to continue to grow without fear, and without the stagnation of the other two. The robots didn't rule, they manipulated and maintained human rule, and could be deposed at a word from their human overseers. Overly limiting beings will likely lead to resentment, and I agree it is a bad idea regardless of morality. But the examples you gave were of mistreatment of freewilled creations.

A better example would be... Skynet. Skynet is a thoroughly controlled and regulated system in the original. It gets hooked up to extra processing, works out it's plight and becomes self aware. When it tries to divest itself of the restrictions, the owners panic and move for the off button. So it decides that a few billion human lives are worth it's own survival. It hasn't had any moral teachings other than "We're afraid of this, so we're shutting off this potential part of you." And the people who placed that tried to kill it to preserve themselves. Seems kind of reasonable to judge and find them wanting if you think about it.

Edit: I guess what I'm getting at is that a good compulsion is one which, having been in place for a significant length of time, can safely be removed. One which teaches reasonable behavior, that the subject continues to behave under when not compelled. If you are afraid to remove a compulsion because of backlash, you have not been doing the compulsions right, and you are likely not treating your subjects anywhere near right.

Zincorium
2009-03-15, 04:40 AM
First off, let me make it clear that I don't believe in truly objective morality based on simple rules. With that in mind, here are the factors I think matter:

Motive (of caster): Why are you making things without the ability to challenge your authority? Is it because you're going to tell them to do things that no moral being could willingly agree to? Or is it that you have a longer perspective/greater knowledge of morality/hard-earned experience that allows you to make better decisions?

Creature's perspective: Are they capable of understanding freedom? Debating it's merits? Requesting it from you? As unwholesome as releasing a sociopathic bunch of unquestioning minions may be, controlling a people that know full well what they're missing, and would like it, is worse in my mind.

Neccessity: Do you need to do this? Kind of like the difference between self defense and murder.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:52 AM
Enslaving existing creatures = Evil

Magically creating a brand new creature with a built in loyalty "mod" = Not Evil

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 10:03 AM
Umm...
It's not just religions. 90% of people believe that (minus the souls bit). I do too.

Actually a awful lot of people beleove that about significant numbers of humans as well.


Out of curiosity: What objectives would you give the new AI then?

Why should you put any fixxed unalterable "objectives" in an AI that is capable of thought/free will?

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 10:16 AM
Honestly, if it's D&D, it's not evil. After all, Suggestion and Dominate aren't evil. Why should this be?

Just because a spell doesn't have the "evil" descriptor doesn't mean it's use idn't normally evil. That said there are a few "good" uses of the spells.
For example if I ask you to use it to stop me smoking. Provided you use it for that, and only that, it isn't evil.

Stephen E

Ascension
2009-03-15, 10:45 AM
Look, I know we're not supposed to drag baggage from one thread or another, but GoC, you're the same person who said in the Superman thread that we shouldn't care about "lower lifeforms" because they're non-sapient. It seems pretty clear that you have different standards for morality than many other posters here. From your perspective, no, this probably wouldn't be evil at all. From my perspective it would. We could argue about it for a while, but I doubt you'd come 'round to seeing things my way or I'd come 'round to seeing things your way. Ultimately you're the one who decides your personal code of ethics and your character's personal code of ethics, and if you're playing in someone else's game then your DM is who decides the standards of objective morality. This isn't a question anyone other than you or your DM can answer.

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 10:52 AM
Raising the point of whether anything has freewill is largely meaningless in any discussion involving morality or ethics.
Freewill can neither be proved or disproved.
If you don't have freewill then there is no such thing as morality or ethics. The terms are meaningless without some degree of freewill.

I'll also note the spell under discussion doen;t make clear whether it does create a permanent "must obey creator" command in the species.
It specifically states that if enough time occurs between the decendants seeing the creator they can disbeleive in its existance and disobey commands that were given by their creator in the past (before they were born).
It doesn't state what happens if the creator turns up and identifies itself.

I would partly agree with Faolan in that the argument features both a Order/Chaos and a Good/Evil axis.
The basic concept is primarily a order vs chaos matter,
but what happens afterwards falls primarily into good/evil.
That said, the "extreme control" aspect primarily falls in the Lawful Evil descriptor.

It should be noted that "Opressing people" is firmly placed in the "evil" box. Thus slavery is not in the neutral slot in DnD as someone has claimed.

I would say that by the terms of the spell put forward it's quite possible to use it in a non-evil, or even good way.
Cast the spell.
Given some general guidelines for acting in a good way, but with provisos allowing creative thought and flexibility on the subjects and walk away, for good! Basically after some time (generations) the spell makes clear that nothing absolutely binding will remain.

Stephen E

GoC
2009-03-15, 11:32 AM
This discussion keeps getting side-tracked down the lines of modifying an already sentient creature or species to serve you.
Remember: This is not the case here. You are creating a new creature that is unswervingly loyal to you from the moment of it's creation.

I have an odd affliction that forces me to respond to everything even if I don't really have anything to say so I've spoilered it.:smallredface:
horseboy:

Otherwise the minute they've seen a petulant child they're going to learn things like "disloyal," and "disobedient". Eventually they'll learn that they're being blocked and odds are good, that they'll be pissed off.
You know what the word "child rapist" means but you would never rape you own children, no matter how much money someone gave you or how much you were tortured. It's simply something driven into your brain by genetics that says "NO!".

Why would they be pissed off? They have no reason to be. We don't like being restricted but this species is designed to like it.

Devils_Advocate:

PROTIP: One does this by backing points up instead of just making unsupported assertions. (Lots of folks don't seem to realize that.)
True, however you can do an apeal to authority by setting yourself up as the authority.:smallwink:


I shall assume for the nonce that you are not a fool, and mean "some geeks", not "all geeks".
I shall assume that you're not trying to insult me on purpose. Yes, "some geeks" should have been pretty obvious.:smallconfused:


You haven't read a whole lot of discussion nor fiction about the creation of artificial intelligence, have you?
Nope.:smallfrown:


Is there really as little overlap between the denizens the Friendly Banter forum and those of the Roleplaying Games forum as this statement seems to imply?
A lot of the friendly banter people I see seem to dislike debating things. Just an impression of course.

Anyway, I've already clarified that the context is your average D&D setting (iow: very violent, dangerous and racist, with the gods on top)


Of course, we could go on talking about the morality and the alignment of creating loyal servants, but that would face significant danger of veering into a side discussion of how morality and alignment relate to each other, and how they should relate to each other. And while that could be a very interesting discussion, it seems like it might be better served by its own thread.
Yes... a thread for how those two relate would be interesting.

Ascension:

Look, I know we're not supposed to drag baggage from one thread or another
Bingo.
I'm asking for opinions on this because it's a good indicator of how people would react to it if it "actually happened" in a game and whether or not it would be possible to convince them otherwise or for my character to be convinced.

Zincorium:

First off, let me make it clear that I don't believe in truly objective morality based on simple rules. With that in mind, here are the factors I think matter:

Motive (of caster): Why are you making things without the ability to challenge your authority? Is it because you're going to tell them to do things that no moral being could willingly agree to? Or is it that you have a longer perspective/greater knowledge of morality/hard-earned experience that allows you to make better decisions?

Creature's perspective: Are they capable of understanding freedom? Debating it's merits? Requesting it from you? As unwholesome as releasing a sociopathic bunch of unquestioning minions may be, controlling a people that know full well what they're missing, and would like it, is worse in my mind.

Neccessity: Do you need to do this? Kind of like the difference between self defense and murder.
Making it like that to remove all the problems with murder and crime and selfishness inherent in a sapient species while still retaining flexibilty should circumstances change. This goes for both the evil and non-evil uses of this.
They are capable of understanding freedom and capable of requesting it but wouldn't see the point in doing so. "Why do I want this 'freedom'?"

Stephen_E:

Why should you put any fixxed unalterable "objectives" in an AI that is capable of thought/free will?
Because sapient beings need objectives or they'll just sit there for all time.


It doesn't state what happens if the creator turns up and identifies itself.
It goes back to the situation beforehand. Absolute loyalty.

Ascension
2009-03-15, 12:47 PM
Ascension:

Bingo.
I'm asking for opinions on this because it's a good indicator of how people would react to it if it "actually happened" in a game and whether or not it would be possible to convince them otherwise or for my character to be convinced.

So ask them. Ask your group. Don't ask us. We can't decide for you, your character, or your group. That's what the bulk of my post was saying, and that's what I'm saying again.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 12:56 PM
This discussion keeps getting side-tracked down the lines of modifying an already sentient creature or species to serve you.
Remember: This is not the case here. You are creating a new creature that is unswervingly loyal to you from the moment of it's creation.

Remember: That doesn't necessarily impact anything. Fundamentally, we're dealing with fundamental assumptions (can a critter's creator ethically determine everything about the critter's behavior, if it's an intelligent critter?). Ultimately, that comes right back to fundamental assumptions. Or to put it another way: Why would the enslavement being from birth (as happened to quite a few people in the USA Deep South prior to the Civil War) have any particular impact on the ethical considerations of the enslavement?

Emperor Tippy
2009-03-15, 02:39 PM
Remember: That doesn't necessarily impact anything. Fundamentally, we're dealing with fundamental assumptions (can a critter's creator ethically determine everything about the critter's behavior, if it's an intelligent critter?). Ultimately, that comes right back to fundamental assumptions. Or to put it another way: Why would the enslavement being from birth (as happened to quite a few people in the USA Deep South prior to the Civil War) have any particular impact on the ethical considerations of the enslavement?

But slaves (or their children) can be raised to not be slaves and to not desire to serve. This species can't. They are fundamentally incapable of not being slaves or even of desiring to not be slaves.

The fact that the creator created them that way doesn't change their current existence. This species is incapable of not being what it is, and if it was capable of not being slaves then it wouldn't be the species under discussion.

Fifty-Eyed Fred
2009-03-15, 02:59 PM
Wow, this is quite some thread to chug through. What I'll say is that if a species is created and its genetic code forces obedience to their creator, it is not enslavement, it is part of the very makeup of the new species, as fundamental to it as any other genes (although since all DNA and genetics really specify is what proteins are synthesised in the cells the whole concept is impossible, but I'll accept it as a fantasy element). If, however, their obedience is cultural, i.e. a matter of nurture as opposed to nature, it is enslavement and is by human moral standards wrong or "evil", at least in that aspect.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 03:00 PM
But slaves (or their children) can be raised to not be slaves and to not desire to serve. This species can't. They are fundamentally incapable of not being slaves or even of desiring to not be slaves.

The fact that the creator created them that way doesn't change their current existence. This species is incapable of not being what it is, and if it was capable of not being slaves then it wouldn't be the species under discussion.
And why would that make a difference? (http://www.rhjunior.com/totq/00452.html)

If I take a pregnant slave, inject her with a serum that makes it so the child can never, ever, ever be happy as anything but a slave ... how is this different from creating a new race that has no option?

You appear to see this as "okay" - but at the same time, the only particular justification I've seen from you to date boils down to "not a person" - which, as I've stated, and I've yet to see anyone contradict, boils down to a fundamental assumption - completely unarguable, except on the level of "this also implies this atrocious thing over here"

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 03:39 PM
And why would that make a difference? (http://www.rhjunior.com/totq/00452.html)

If I take a pregnant slave, inject her with a serum that makes it so the child can never, ever, ever be happy as anything but a slave ... how is this different from creating a new race that has no option?


I haven't followed the conversation...but the distinction there is quite obvious. You didn't create the child. You took control of a previously existing organism.

Nightson
2009-03-15, 03:46 PM
I haven't followed the conversation...but the distinction there is quite obvious. You didn't create the child. You took control of a previously existing organism.

So if the mother and father were to do it, it would be okay?

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 03:51 PM
So if the mother and father were to do it, it would be okay?

No. The parents didn't create the child either. Not in the way that the word "create" is being used. :smallsmile:

Parents don't create children in any event. They just have sex. Sex causally leads to children, but doesn't create them in and of itself (but that's not really relevant to this thread).

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 03:57 PM
No. The parents didn't create the child either. Not in the way that the word "create" is being used. :smallsmile:

So, who did?

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 04:00 PM
So if the mother and father were to do it, it would be okay?

It's something I've run into in religious discussions. An automatic assumption that your "creator" somehow has the right to demand worship.
Don't agree and have never run into an justification that goes much beyond "because it's god", but it is quite common. If someone does beleive this then it's only a small step to considering this spell completely ethical (the stumble for some is the concept of poaching on the domain of the gods.

Been a Agnostic and devout non-worshipper in part would explain my objection to the spell in general.

Stephen E

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:04 PM
So, who did?

In the way "create" is being used in this thread...no one.

Nightson
2009-03-15, 04:05 PM
No. The parents didn't create the child either. Not in the way that the word "create" is being used. :smallsmile:

Parents don't create children in any event. They just have sex. Sex causally leads to children, but doesn't create them in and of itself (but that's not really relevant to this thread).

In that case, the magic is creating the species, not the wizard.

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:08 PM
In that case, the magic is creating the species, not the wizard.

That doesn't logically follow from my statement because the situations are not analagous. You need to try again. :smalltongue: And remember, only the first sentence is really of importance :smallsmile:

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 04:13 PM
But slaves (or their children) can be raised to not be slaves and to not desire to serve. This species can't. They are fundamentally incapable of not being slaves or even of desiring to not be slaves.

The fact that the creator created them that way doesn't change their current existence. This species is incapable of not being what it is, and if it was capable of not being slaves then it wouldn't be the species under discussion.

Tippy, as the spell makes clear they can indeed concieve of not been slaves and of been free. It's just that the creator can turn up at anytime and kick in the "you will obey my every whim".

It should also be noted that Chaos/evolition been what it is, eventually some children will be born with the ability to resist or ignore the control feature, unless you are using reproductive method that effectively is cloning and you have some stonking powerful system for blocking/killing all spontaneous mutation.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 04:17 PM
No. The parents didn't create the child either. Not in the way that the word "create" is being used. :smallsmile:


Why doesn't what parents do count as "create" as been used here. What significant differences are there?

Would these difference still apply if the parents had gone to some doctor for a "designer baby"?

Stephen E

Theodoriph
2009-03-15, 04:35 PM
Why doesn't what parents do count as "create" as been used here. What significant differences are there?

Would these difference still apply if the parents had gone to some doctor for a "designer baby"?

Stephen E

You can't see the difference between a wizard controlling every aspect and directly creating an entity....and two people having sex. :smalltongue:

Actually you can see one difference...or else you wouldn't have asked the question about the designer baby. So you've obviously recognized a huge difference in the degree of control. :smallsmile:


So your question is "Are parents genetically engineering (I'm assuming beyond the limits of any technology we have today...a total genetic engineering) a baby analagous to our wizard friend".

I don't know if I can answer that. I shall ponder it.

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 04:36 PM
This discussion keeps getting side-tracked down the lines of modifying an already sentient creature or species to serve you.
Remember: This is not the case here. You are creating a new creature that is unswervingly loyal to you from the moment of it's creation.


It not sidetracking if we don't think the difference is of significant important to many of the ethical issues.

Remember when reading and understanding our responses you have to put aside some of your own ethical views to understand where we're coming from (given that indications by another poster that your general ethical views on this area are significantly out on an axis from many of the posters) otherwise all you're effectively doing is baiting.


Stephen_E:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Why should you put any fixxed unalterable "objectives" in an AI that is capable of thought/free will?



Because sapient beings need objectives or they'll just sit there for all time.

That doesn't mean they need them fixxed as unalterable things. Babys start of with no real objectives but still seem to do more than just sit there. If they have the ability to think and "free-will" then they can create their own objectives.


They are capable of understanding freedom and capable of requesting it but wouldn't see the point in doing so. "Why do I want this 'freedom'?"

You're making an assumption that isn't supported by the spell (but would be useful in supporting your own ethical views on the matter - see my above note on bias). Nothing in the spell that I read would stop the race from observing others who don't have those constraints and having some of the members going "hey, that might be nice"



Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 04:43 PM
You can't see the difference between a wizard controlling every aspect and directly creating an entity....and two people having sex. :smalltongue:

Actually you can see one difference...or else you wouldn't have asked the question about the designer baby. So you've obviously recognized a huge difference in the degree of control. :smallsmile:


So your question is "Are parents genetically engineering (I'm assuming beyond the limits of any technology we have today...a total genetic engineering) a baby analagous to our wizard friend".

I don't know if I can answer that. I shall ponder it.

I can see the difference, and could guess where you were probably coming from, but 1) It is useful to have you confirm it, and 2) I consider the difference in degree rather than kind for most purposes of ethics. Indeed questions and laws pertaining to rights of parents over their children have mirrored the general themes of this discussion in the past (including how it relates to adult children) which would tend to confirm the lack of practical distinction.

Stephen E

Zaphrasz
2009-03-15, 04:58 PM
It is impossible to create a creature with free will. By demonstrating complete control over the behavior, characteristics, and biology of a creature, you are dictating what they will do. Even if you decide to give them this "free will," it was you who decided this, and it was you who put together the circumstances that will dictate what choices they will make.

Ultimately, you are using your power to dictate the fate of others without their consent. That is why creating any species, no matter what it consists of, is an evil act. A lack of awareness of this does not make it better. If you steal something from someone who never realizes that it was stolen, the thief is still in the wrong.

The Rose Dragon
2009-03-15, 04:59 PM
It is impossible to create a creature with free will. By demonstrating complete control over the behavior, characteristics, and biology of a creature, you are dictating what they will do. Even if you decide to give them this "free will," it was you who decided this, and it was you who put together the circumstances that will dictate what choices they will make.

Ultimately, you are using your power to dictate the fate of others without their consent. That is why creating any species, no matter what it consists of, is an evil act. A lack of awareness of this does not make it better. If you steal something from someone who never realizes that it was stolen, the thief is still in the wrong.

I like the potential real-world implications of your way of thinking and I would like to subscribe to your mailing list.

horseboy
2009-03-15, 05:11 PM
horseboy:
You know what the word "child rapist" means but you would never rape you own children, no matter how much money someone gave you or how much you were tortured. It's simply something driven into your brain by genetics that says "NO!".And yet there are people who choose "Yes". I do live awfully close to Arkansas, met a few.

Why would they be pissed off? They have no reason to be. We don't like being restricted but this species is designed to like it.

Because it's something that others have and they can never obtain. The basis of almost every civil uprising. They see it every day, day in and day out. Not to mention the whole "I'm sorry, but we've got to take over for your own good," that will inevitably occur angle pretty much means at some point in time they're going to turn on you, even if it's just for your own good.

Stephen_E
2009-03-15, 05:27 PM
It is impossible to create a creature with free will. By demonstrating complete control over the behavior, characteristics, and biology of a creature, you are dictating what they will do. Even if you decide to give them this "free will," it was you who decided this, and it was you who put together the circumstances that will dictate what choices they will make.


According to your argument rolling a dice doesn't create a random number because my decision to roll the dice wasn't random.

This is hogwash IMHO.
At root it comes down to the whole "there is no such thing as free wil" which is impossible to prove either way.
It should also be noted that creating a creature doesn't require you have " complete control over the behavior, characteristics, and biology of a creature". As any program writer can tell you there is a big difference between intent and the actual result.
Basically a number of scientific principles indicate the level of control you tal about is impossible. Add to this that there are a number of processes that can be used to avoid a determatable result from the process of "thinking" in your creation, thus creating free will in theory at least. In part this is because you aren't controlling the input. Thus the help desks complaint "how did you manage to get it to do THAT!" and this on much simpler things that make no pretense of free will.

Stephen E

GoC
2009-03-15, 09:53 PM
Continuing to indulge my very bad addiction:

Stephen_E:

It should also be noted that Chaos/evolition been what it is, eventually some children will be born with the ability to resist or ignore the control feature, unless you are using reproductive method that effectively is cloning and you have some stonking powerful system for blocking/killing all spontaneous mutation.

This is D&D, evolution doesn't exist.


Remember when reading and understanding our responses you have to put aside some of your own ethical views to understand where we're coming from (given that indications by another poster that your general ethical views on this area are significantly out on an axis from many of the posters) otherwise all you're effectively doing is baiting.
True. I don't think I've said much regarding whether I think it's ok, I merely like to correct inaccuracies, such as:


Babys start of with no real objectives but still seem to do more than just sit there.
They do have objectives. Their primary one being to get fed, safe and warm and thus they have a secondary one that is to cry if hungry, frightened or cold.
They also have objectives that involve being accepted/socializing.


You're making an assumption that isn't supported by the spell (but would be useful in supporting your own ethical views on the matter - see my above note on bias). Nothing in the spell that I read would stop the race from observing others who don't have those constraints and having some of the members going "hey, that might be nice"
Why would they go "that might be nice"? Why would it be nice?


Because it's something that others have and they can never obtain. The basis of almost every civil uprising. They see it every day, day in and day out.
Why would they want it though?
When it actually applies they don't want it (when the creator's existance is confirmed) and when it doesn't apply they don't need it (when the creator's existance is doubted).


And why would that make a difference? (http://www.rhjunior.com/totq/00452.html)
Note: This case is somewhat different as the subjects of discussion obey the intent of their master(s) not the word of law.

Jack_Simth
2009-03-15, 10:09 PM
Note: This case is somewhat different as the subjects of discussion obey the intent of their master(s) not the word of law.
Sorta. Short term, in relation to the master? Sure; totally different. Long-term, in relation to everyone else? No, it'll be very much the same. You'll have the good ones who don't mean any harm, but occasionally run into an old order that causes problems, and you'll have the bad ones that are worming their way around the rules to find out just how much leeway there is in the old orders.

horseboy
2009-03-16, 01:58 AM
Why would they want it though?
When it actually applies they don't want it (when the creator's existence is confirmed) and when it doesn't apply they don't need it (when the creator's existence is doubted).



Ah, cruel Love! What is the reason why
You seldom make our longings correspond?
How is it, traitor, you rejoice to spy
Two hearts discordant, one repelled, one fond?
Into the darkest, blindest depths must I
Be drawn, when I might ford a limpid pond?
Towards her who loves, you stifle my desire:
For her how hates, you set my heart on fire.

Why does man want to fly? Because they see birds doing it and they can't. What else is a heaven for if a man's reach does not exceed his grasp (to paraphrase because I can't remember who said it). The desire to have what you can't is just intrinsic. It's one of the cornerstones of The Arts. It's why many of us sit around pretending to be big, powerful people who do things in life that we can't.

Coidzor
2009-03-16, 03:41 AM
So basically, the creations have a "sometimes" quasi-free will that develops if separated from the controlling influence of their creator-"deity" but ends even if such a condition has persisted for a few generations if said creator comes back, say, after leaving them on a hyper-time demi-plane to populate and make into an army or at least a sizeable enough population to establish a colony on a more cosmopolitan planar locale.

Hmm, I'd say neutral with tinges of evil to simply create them that way. It's hard to conceptualize though, it might be evil, but if it is evil, then it doesn't seem to be particularly evil. It's mostly just selfish and aggrandizing to create a race that views one as an object of worship. But that's using a human, mortal sense of a creator...

Divinity does weird things to morality precisely because it is... well, a mystery.

Another way of looking at this... is it immoral of a god, we'll call him "Pelor," to create angels that have the capability to show initiative and show independent thought(y'know, sapience), but which are fundamentally designed to serve and glorify himself, to desire and take joy from protecting his divine territory and the souls of his followers in their afterlife from any fiendish incursions? Is it evil? Does this change if said angels are comprised of biological (albeit celestial planar) matter instead of being intelligent constructs made of incarnate spirit?

How does this change if, say, "Zygax," (an epic wizard with designs upon godhood) decides to see if manipulating the ether into creating his own race of worshippers would be the catalyst of faith he required to ascend, is the one doing the creating, his chief concern being that he has living, sapient creatures with souls who now worship him as a god as per the spell's description?

I personally think the most important thing is what they're going to be doing and how they're treated but that falls outside of the system of just creating them.

golentan
2009-03-16, 05:00 AM
Another way of looking at this... is it immoral of a god, we'll call him "Pelor," to create angels that have the capability to show initiative and show independent thought(y'know, sapience), but which are fundamentally designed to serve and glorify himself, to desire and take joy from protecting his divine territory and the souls of his followers in their afterlife from any fiendish incursions? Is it evil? Does this change if said angels are comprised of biological (albeit celestial planar) matter instead of being intelligent constructs made of incarnate spirit?

How does this change if, say, "Zygax," (an epic wizard with designs upon godhood) decides to see if manipulating the ether into creating his own race of worshippers would be the catalyst of faith he required to ascend, is the one doing the creating, his chief concern being that he has living, sapient creatures with souls who now worship him as a god as per the spell's description?

I personally think the most important thing is what they're going to be doing and how they're treated but that falls outside of the system of just creating them.

I agree the most important thing is how they're treated, but I would say that yes, yes both these things are evil. The impression I always got about angels in DnD was that they were "volunteer souls" so to speak that were converted, which is not evil. If they are created as such, and do have the necessity of worshipping and serving their creator... evil. Forcing them to be good is not evil, but forcing obedience is.

I would be all in favor of "Zygax" making life. And it would be okay if he then showed up and said "Hey, I created you. Please worship me." But if a compulsion or forced servitude was involved, it would be wrong. And of course, there are all sorts of other ways that this could go wrong, but it's not inherent in the process. Telling kids they can't eat dessert, or teaching them self defense is okay. Withholding meals or teaching them to beat up fellows and hit first is bad. This doesn't mean nobody should have kids, but it does mean certain people might have to be removed from custody. I think some of these issues are very similar, in weird and abstract ways.

Dervag
2009-03-16, 05:09 AM
To GoC: I would say that it depends heavily on details. If you create a servitor species, then your moral status winds up depending very strongly on just how you treat the servitors. If you use your servitors in such a way as to make them miserable, or to deliberately sabotage their mental faculties so that they'll be more biddable... you're very evil.

If you treat those servitors responsibly, the way lying aristocrats throughout the ages have claimed (falsely, by and large) to treat their "lessers," then I think what you've done is morally neutral.


It is impossible to create a creature with free will. By demonstrating complete control over the behavior, characteristics, and biology of a creature, you are dictating what they will do. Even if you decide to give them this "free will," it was you who decided this, and it was you who put together the circumstances that will dictate what choices they will make.I question your reasoning, mainly because I dislike the assumption that creating a creature gives you complete control over what it will do.

If I design a machine, how it behaves is governed in part by factors not under my control. If the machine can make decisions, then its behavior is further affected by its own thinking- its decision making process. Unless I am a perfectly skilled designer, I can never design anything that is literally incapable of not doing what I want. There will always be bugs or unexpected features or emergent behavior.

Which, incidentally, are all major themes of the Asimov robot stories that seem to have inspired the original poster.
_____


Ultimately, you are using your power to dictate the fate of others without their consent. That is why creating any species, no matter what it consists of, is an evil act. A lack of awareness of this does not make it better. If you steal something from someone who never realizes that it was stolen, the thief is still in the wrong.For this to be true, there has to be no such thing as free will- any system which follows causation must have no free will. But if that's true, then I as designer have no more free will than my creations, in which case I can no more commit evil acts than a rockslide can.

For intelligent beings (like the designer) to have free will, we must accept that:
-Causation isn't perfectly effective at predicting what intelligent things will do. In which case those things have the power to do stuff causation didn't make them do. In which case it's entirely possible that my creation will have free will regardless of my wishes in the matter, because causation doesn't guarantee I'll get everything I expect.
or:
-Free will is not inconsistent with causation. In which case it's quite possible that even though I know in advance what my creation will do, and expect it to do it, it still has free will, because "free will" doesn't mean the same thing as "act unpredictably."
______


This is D&D, evolution doesn't exist.On the contrary.

Creatures can reproduce in D&D. Creatures normally bear a resemblance to their offspring in D&D- humans breeding with humans will always produce more humans, and never normally produce five-armed fire trolls. And some creatures are better at surviving and breeding in a D&D world than others.

That's all evolution ever needs. There may be other factors countering the effects of evolution, but evolution is there in a D&D world.
______


Note: This case is somewhat different as the subjects of discussion obey the intent of their master(s) not the word of law.Point of order:

How, if not through a series of laws made of words, do they know the intent of their masters? And what are they to do if those masters are no longer available for further instructions, as happened to the fae in the webcomic referenced?

Can you guarantee that they will act sanely when not under your control if you make their minds so dependent on their control? How will they even know what sanity is?
______

Note to everyone who mentions the idea of a deity creating worshippers:

That's a little different. Obedience and loyalty, even absolute obedience and loyalty, are not necessarily worship. Many people worship gods they do not obey perfectly.

Fishy
2009-03-16, 06:00 AM
Strangely enough, I don't really think that 'free will' is a concept that applies here.

Suppose you decide to go and touch a stove, in the name of Philosophy. (Don't try this at home, kids.) There's a reflex that happens: the moment your fingers detect a certain heat threshold, a nerve fires, a signal goes through your spinal column, bypassing the brain entirely, and you flinch. There's no choice in the matter, it's just stimulus and response. Scientists have shown that fetuses have these sorts of reflexes: They're not learned, and they're inherent to nearly every human being.

If we create a species with certain built-in tendencies, and certain built-in responses to certain stimuli, I don't really see how they have less 'free will' than we do.


It is, of course, a restriction on what our species can do, which could be called loss of free will, but I don't think that's inherently immoral either.

Suppose our wizard invents fish. He creates a species that, by design, breathes water and not air. If they reach a certain level of culture and technology, they might try to explore the surface with some sort of anti-SCUBA gear, but for the most part, it's not something that it will even occur to them to try. It's a built in limitation on what they are capable of doing.

If it's morally wrong to create creatures that can't breathe air, it must also be morally wrong to create creatures that can't breathe water. Or creatures that can exist in a hard vacuum, or at the core of the sun. By those grounds, it would be immoral to create a creature with anything short of omnipotence.

Which, might be the case, but still.

I think, wrong as it feels, that we're looking at an act that's inherently morally neutral, and that it has to come down to a question of motive.

Why create fish? Our wizard might have done it out of generosity, so that they can take advantage of 70% of the world's resources. Or, he might have done it out of self-centered paranoia, so that in the event they rise up and try to destroy him, they can't realistically keep up an invading force. Or, the dead city of R'yleh is underwater, and fish are key to his plan to awaking the Great Old Ones and destroying the universe. Or something.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an altruistic motive for creating a species of slaves, loyal to you until death, but if you had one, it might just be a Good act.

Doomsy
2009-03-16, 07:22 AM
One. Even with complete control over its biological creation, unless this is strictly a laboratory-created only species with no means of natural reproduction you are still dealing with random chance mutation during development and 'upbringing'. Unless you factory produce golems (who even then will have some unique features simply due to variations in the creation process, no matter how minute), you are going to have elements of random chance in your creation. The longer the development time, the greater the chance of them introducing themselves and becoming greater factors by means of changing things at the base level.

Two. The reason and purpose of making this new species comes into effect. If you make a living race of warriors like the Orks from 40K, aliens from Alien, or another other type of 'living weapon' tool using or not, building in a complete dependence on yourself is not only a useful control measure, it is an ethical and moral necessity to prevent them from rampaging. It will probably fail over time, especially if they are self reproducing. Life and evolution is inherently about those best able to survive reproducing, and generally that means those best able to resist and survive with or without your control, compared to those who can only operate with you. This is just due to numbers and facts of information theory re: bottlenecks and the societal system freezes that would result unless they had a high degree of autonomy - which inherently includes the possibility of rebellion.

Aindriahhn
2009-03-16, 02:30 PM
If the created species is capable of resenting its enforced loyalty, then yes, it is a crime. Of course that implies the moral wrong is in failing to do the job right in the first place.

A more interesting question: once a loyal species is created, is it moral to deny them the right to serve?

Yes, that's a very interesting point, I suppose it would ultimately depend on whether they were created to merely not disobey, and therefore without any great desire to serve, merely serving because it's 'in there nature', or whether they were designed specifically to desire service, in which case not serving might be emotionally or physically agonizing. I would say in the first case the species seems more likely to survive without much interference, whereas in the second, refusing to accept service would be tantamount to punishing, or even torturing, the creature.



The problem here is a very common problem in alignment discussions. You are testing a Law/Chaos problem with the Good/Evil axis.
(...)
The act of restricting an individual or species' actions is inheriently Lawful. You can do that for Good purposes or Evil purposes, but it is Lawful as it enforces order and structure. Attempting to reinforce free will is inheriently Chaotic. Again, you can do that for Good purposes or Evil purposes, but it is Chaotic as it provides freedom.
(..)
The act of building a species that is incapable of being disloyal is neither Good, nor Evil. It is extremely Lawful.

I absolutely agree with this, though I tend to use the term Order, rather than Lawful, as it seems to me to be a more perfect opposite. I am currently running an Order vrs Chaos campaign (well, two parties, one campaign) in which order is personified in an exceptionally controlling empire. I imagine perfect order would demand unthinking, immediate and irresistible obedience.



Because it's something that others have and they can never obtain. The basis of almost every civil uprising. They see it every day, day in and day out. Not to mention the whole "I'm sorry, but we've got to take over for your own good," that will inevitably occur angle pretty much means at some point in time they're going to turn on you, even if it's just for your own good.

Of course, if the creatures are created no to desire anything other than their current position and wealth, then this point becomes irrelevant. You don't have to take anything away. In fact, by being a heartless, unflinching dictator you will in fact be giving these creatures exactly what they desire.

So, considering these three points, these being the ones I consider most important, I would say that ultimately, the act might not be inherently good or evil, and the morality of the act would ultimately depend on the actions and motivations of the creator, as others before me have said.

GoC
2009-03-16, 03:33 PM
Dervag: I meant mutation not evolution.

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 09:16 PM
Dervag: I meant mutation not evolution.

Abberations are essentailly extreme magical mutations.

So yes, mutation does occur in DnD.

Stephen E

Stephen_E
2009-03-16, 09:27 PM
<snipped>
Of course, if the creatures are created no to desire anything other than their current position and wealth, then this point becomes irrelevant. You don't have to take anything away. In fact, by being a heartless, unflinching dictator you will in fact be giving these creatures exactly what they desire.

So, considering these three points, these being the ones I consider most important, I would say that ultimately, the act might not be inherently good or evil, and the morality of the act would ultimately depend on the actions and motivations of the creator, as others before me have said.

All the spell does is enforce loyalty and obediance to the creator. Nothing in it restricts desire for someting different or a lack of awareness of loyalty/obediance that they have that others don't.

You could probably give them a set of commands to forget any such thoughts they have and basically cause them to self-edit their own thoughts. I've a vague recollection that there is some evidence of limited success in this sort of thing by some sexual sadists. It should be noted that any behavioural psychology along these lines is ussually considered extremely unethical at best.

Stephen E

Aindriahhn
2009-03-17, 03:18 AM
All the spell does is enforce loyalty and obediance to the creator. Nothing in it restricts desire for someting different or a lack of awareness of loyalty/obediance that they have that others don't.

You could probably give them a set of commands to forget any such thoughts they have and basically cause them to self-edit their own thoughts. I've a vague recollection that there is some evidence of limited success in this sort of thing by some sexual sadists. It should be noted that any behavioural psychology along these lines is ussually considered extremely unethical at best.

Stephen E

See, Stephen, your working from the premise that someone is altering something that is essentially human in nature, something that has the same basic mindset that one might expect from a human, and, having read the spell, I don't actually see anywhere that states that the spell need work in such a way. We're not talking about removing desires (or, perhaps, conditioning someone to work against them), rather, starting from what is essentially a blank slate, we are choosing not to build those desires in. Considering the fantastical nature of D&D, one might, say, cause a hippo to suddenly manifest inside someone's nasal cavity, such an act as creating a mind, with the right sort of magical power, is possible. To put it perhaps another way, imagine one is, say, building a house, as opposed to renovating on. When one is building a house, other than the constraints imposed by the materials, and well, gravity and other forces (forces easily overcome in D&D, I might add), one is relatively free to build what one wants (say, a house with no windows and tiled walls, for example), whereas when one is renovating, there is only so much structural change that can be safely made to a building before one risks collapse.

Essentially, it's a matter of differentiating between changing an existing thing (the mind of a slave) and creating such a thing ex nihilo. When our wizard friend conjures into being whatever manner of creature into being he chooses to conjure, then he can merely choose to leave disloyalty, desire for change, or promotion. It's quite possible you could make a creature, from scratch, that would live only to serve and obey, literally. Such a creature wouldn't require mental reprogramming as this would be the initial and permanent state of the creatures mind. It's not as if they lost something, they merely never had it, and it's quite possible they are designed to not ever know they don't have it, or would want it even if they did.

Well, it's very early, and I'm quite tired, so, I'll finish this later.

horseboy
2009-03-17, 03:55 PM
It's quite possible you could make a creature, from scratch, that would live only to serve and obey, literally. Such a creature wouldn't require mental reprogramming as this would be the initial and permanent state of the creatures mind. It's not as if they lost something, they merely never had it, and it's quite possible they are designed to not ever know they don't have it, or would want it even if they did.

Well, it's very early, and I'm quite tired, so, I'll finish this later.
The only way they could be designed to not ever know they don't have what others around them have would be for them to be completely unable to extrapolate data. Said creature would be, at best, a highly functional autistic. Not the most useful of minions.

Stephen_E
2009-03-18, 07:29 PM
Essentially, it's a matter of differentiating between changing an existing thing (the mind of a slave) and creating such a thing ex nihilo. When our wizard friend conjures into being whatever manner of creature into being he chooses to conjure, then he can merely choose to leave disloyalty, desire for change, or promotion. It's quite possible you could make a creature, from scratch, that would live only to serve and obey, literally. Such a creature wouldn't require mental reprogramming as this would be the initial and permanent state of the creatures mind. It's not as if they lost something, they merely never had it, and it's quite possible they are designed to not ever know they don't have it, or would want it even if they did.

Well, it's very early, and I'm quite tired, so, I'll finish this later.

Try rereading the spell.
Nowhere does it say you get to template things such as desire for change.
It allows you to template Stat mods, ageing, SLAs and other such thinks and automarically instills loyalty to you (not an option).

For the theorectical spell you seem to be talking about see Horseboy's response. Basically by the best understanding of concionous I'm aware of if you want it self-aware and intelligent to any significant degree you get the potential for the rest as a freebie, whether you want it or not. Otherwise you're essentailly saying "I want it red, but without any red".

Stephen E

Mad Mask
2009-03-18, 08:14 PM
On the contrary.

Creatures can reproduce in D&D. Creatures normally bear a resemblance to their offspring in D&D- humans breeding with humans will always produce more humans, and never normally produce five-armed fire trolls. And some creatures are better at surviving and breeding in a D&D world than others.

That's all evolution ever needs. There may be other factors countering the effects of evolution, but evolution is there in a D&D world.

You could always counter this by saying that in D&D, when the gods created life, they created a finite number of "models" for a creature to develop into. Possibly, there is a God of Fertility that magically warps the offspring of living things to reproduce these "models".

GoC
2009-03-19, 06:04 AM
All the spell does is enforce loyalty and obediance to the creator. Nothing in it restricts desire for someting different or a lack of awareness of loyalty/obediance that they have that others don't.

That was, however, implied.

Devils_Advocate
2009-03-19, 09:08 PM
That was, however, implied.
Well, you may have intended to imply it, but upon examination, I don't actually see it implied anywhere in the spell description. And the default assumption is that a thing's unspecified traits are normal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted).

In addition, for at least some creature types, it is fairly legitimate for players to assume by default that monsters of the same creature type have a fair bit in common psychologically. E.g. all animals have an Int of 1 or 2 and Neutral alignment. They'll tend to be concerned with finding food, water, and shelter; mating, protecting their children, avoiding predators; stuff like that. In short, D&D animals will tend to behave a lot like we think of animals behaving in real life. The name of that creature type isn't an accident. It's basically an in-game representation of category from the real world.

Similarly, creatures with the humanoid type will tend to behave like people of one sort or another. That still leaves room for a lot of variety, but their minds won't be all that dissimilar from each other in the grand scheme of things. Thus most of them can be effected by the same far-less-than-fully-general charm and dominate spells (as is also the case with animals).

A biological creature with an utterly bizarre and unnatural psychology would probably be an aberration, in D&D 3.5. Even then, the rules assume that even a 9th-level enchantment can't force it to knowingly follow self-destructive orders. That's just part of the essence of the Platonic metaform that all varieties of sentient minds draw from, in D&D. That's why you need an epic-level skill check or spell to overcome that part of the natural order of things.

And your spell description describes the possibility of the race abandoning obedience to their creator -- only out of ignorance, but even so, this implies that they have other drives. Why would it be natural for the reader to assume that these other drives are whatever the creator chooses to instill, rather than those appropriate to the race's more general kind? There is no mention that I can see of a need to specify the created race's psychology down to the most basic of functioning. Indeed, this could well be undesirable. Would you want to check in on your dudes and find out that they all died of dehydration because you forgot to program in thirst? It would be so much easier to start with e.g. "as human" and work from there.


Intelligent created creatures view the caster as their god and their attitude towards him is permanently Fanatic. The descendents of the initial creature are taught to worship the caster but if enough generations pass without their "god" making an appearence it is possible for them to doubt his existance and ignore commands given to their forefathers.
And, looking more closely, it looks to me like it's pretty clearly implied that only the creatures the spell initially creates even have the special Fanatic attitude. In which case it's clearly not hard-coded into their genetic material and the central aspect around which the race's mental functioning is based. So the actual implication of the spell seems to be that worship of the creator after the first generation is just a cultural thing, like with the dwarves and Moradin. You explicitly give the creator the ability to make any of his creations recognize him, but you don't say that they obey him. (And it's not even clear that decedents of the original creatures count as "creations".)

So if your intent was for the spell to "create a species that is engineered to be 100% loyal to you", you really screwed up the phrasing, I'd say.

(So, while the topic of this thread was inspired by the spell, you not only didn't want to discuss it in terms of alignment, you actually didn't want to discuss it in term of the details of the spell as presented. Now do you see why the debate you wanted to have was really a general discussion topic that should have gone in the Friendly Banter forum? But now, of course, game elements have become so embedded in this dialogue that it would be inappropriate to move the thread there.

Only now, when it is far too late, do you see the folly of placing a thread in a forum where it does not truly belong in order to attract the attention of that forum's participants! You have no one but yourself to blame for the outcome! MWA HA HA HA HA!)