Is the use of Simulacrums as slaves or fodder an evil act?

[Clistenes]

I'm resurrecting an old question I started long ago and never got a proper answer.

I have been searching written adventures with Simulacrums NPCs, in an effort to determine if the developers of the game want them to be mere tools or characters:


-Headless (Dungeon Magazine #89) - Simulacra are treated as your typical mooks. They don't dwell on their personalities and feelings.

-Delzomen's Iceforge (Frostburn) - Simulacra lack true personalities or feelings, they don't even breathe or sleep or need sustenance, they are a sort of ice robots, unless a freak accident gives them a piece of soul (and then they go mad).

-Rise of the Runelords - Sins of the Saviours - Simulacra are similar to robots, with limited personalities, no true feelings, and unable to think about anything but their entrusted tasks.

-Explore the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk - While a Simulacrum can't disobey its master, it can indeed nurture its own ambitions and pursue them while fulfilling its duties.

-Prisioner in Castle Perilious (Dungeon Magazine #153) - While a Simulacrum can't disobey its master, it can indeed nurture its own ambitions and pursue them while fulfilling its duties.

-The Asylum Stone - A Simulacrum has a personality and feelings of his/her own can get bored of his duties, and resent his/her station.

I would say that Simulacra are more often than not true NPCs, with feeling and personalities of their own, and, if that's the case...

Wouldn't it be an evil act to enslave them and use them as craftbots, sealed in dungeons or carry them around in Portable Holes as if they were pieces of equipment, or use them as meat shields, baits or kamikaze soldiers? could a good wizard who created Simulacrums and sent them to die in pain be committing an evil act? could a paladin who kept a Simulacrum of a gnome artificer working day and night in a Portable Hole fall for it?

Simulacrums lack souls, but in D&D souls are pretty much a material not unlike flesh, that can be manipulated, divided, transformed, used as crafting material and even created., so the difference between a "true" soul and a "fake" soul made with magic wouldn't be so great.

Or, do you think the Simulacrum's personalities are just an elaborated illusion, like a AI simulation, that can duplicate anger and fear and happiness and love, and duplicate the reactions and behaviours of a creature that truly felt that, but doesn't really feel any of that?

What are your thoughts about that?

[Flickerdart]

As an Illusion (Shadow) spell, simulacrum only produces an imitation, not a real creature. The best way to think of them would be as P-zombies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-zombie) - they seem like they have feelings, but in reality they do not.

[Jack_Simth]

Like a great many things, the answer is "not clearly specified in RAW, ask your DM".

You'll get completely different, and even contradictory, answers from different people. The spell isn't really detailed enough to give an answer to such things.

[AuraTwilight]

If it's capable of developing desires, thoughts, and personality trait independent of it's programmer, then it's conscious, and has enough free will to count as a person, and therefore effects morality like one.

Also, what's the difference between feeling emotion and simulating it? :P The Simulacrum isn't a Philosophical Zombie, and unless it is, treating it cruelly is evil.

[Flickerdart]

Also, what's the difference between feeling emotion and simulating it? :P The Simulacrum isn't a Philosophical Zombie, and unless it is, treating it cruelly is evil.
The difference is that it is an Illusion (Shadow) effect. We know it's not a real creature because it's created by a school of magic that imitates and beguiles, but never creates anything true.

[hamishspence]

The illusion is in the appearance. The body is real, even if it's only made of snow.

[Clistenes]

If it's capable of developing desires, thoughts, and personality trait independent of it's programmer, then it's conscious, and has enough free will to count as a person, and therefore effects morality like one.

Also, what's the difference between feeling emotion and simulating it? :P The Simulacrum isn't a Philosophical Zombie, and unless it is, treating it cruelly is evil.

Well, think of it as a computer who has in its memory all possible situations the Simulacrum could face, and a response for each one. When the magical computer registers an event (like "being stabbed in the gut" or "watching an attractive person according to the original subject's preferences"), it seeks a response in its database and bends and shouts in the first case, and smiles stupidly in the second case, but for the magical computer both events aren't different.

Problem is, we don't know if the Simulacrum works like that or if it has a real personality and feelings.

I guess that, if the Simulacrum had real feelings and personality, the moral implications would be mentioned in the text of the spell, but on the other hand, the written adventures portray as if they did have those.

[hamishspence]

Maybe it's like The Little Mermaid- it may not have a soul- but it can aspire to one.

[Jack_Simth]

The difference is that it is an Illusion (Shadow) effect. We know it's not a real creature because it's created by a school of magic that imitates and beguiles, but never creates anything true.
Like the Chinese Room argument, the philosophical zombie begs a question: At what point is something 'real' for purposes of ethics?

Or to put it another way, how do you know you aren't a simulation that's designed to 'think' that it is real? How do you know whether or not anyone you encounter is a 'real person'?

Any question of ethics can be boiled down to some number of fundamental tokens - one of the most prickly of which is 'what constitutes a person'?

When a person kills a person without sufficient cause, it's murder... and while a great many instances are fairly clear (few people are going to argue that the person who shoots a complete stranger to death for no other reason that to take the stranger's wallet is NOT committing murder), there's border cases where there's heavy disagreement. For example: About 95% of the abortion debate boils down to the question of what constitutes a person. Among most of those who count the little baby growing in it's mother's womb as a person, abortion fits the definition of murder pretty clearly (although there's a small amount of room for various self-defense arguments). Among most of those who count the little fetus growing in a woman's womb as nothing more than a chunk of flesh, there's nothing wrong with abortion (although there's a small amount of room for various societal benefits or cruelty to animals arguments).

Before you can determine whether or not a Simulacrum counts as a person, you first need a very solid definition of person. And that you won't get agreement on. After that, you need a much more detailed writeup in the Simulacrum spell, and you're not going to get that, either. So the only answer to the question that will really work at your table is "Ask your DM".

[Flickerdart]

Or to put it another way, how do you know you aren't a simulation that's designed to 'think' that it is real? How do you know whether or not anyone you encounter is a 'real person'?
With most people, you don't know. With the Simulacrum, you do know, because it's an Illusion.

[hamishspence]

Its appearance is an illusion.

[Clistenes]

How do you know whether or not anyone you encounter is a 'real person'?

In the D&D universe you could use Detect Thoughts, Telepathic Bond or the Telepathy SP ability to check if there is or not a mind in there.

[hamishspence]

As statted in Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk- the simulcrum is a humanoid with the simulcrum subtype. One would expect that spells that work on normal humanoids, work on them.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Rationalizing slavery requires dehumanizing the slaves as being less than what they are.

Slavery, by its very power structure, is inherently evil; it is enforcing a master's will upon a slave's will through threat of violence (terrorism).

As for fodder, I assume you mean "cannon fodder" and not something to be eaten by cows, sheep, or pigs?

[Flickerdart]

Its appearance is an illusion.
"A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process." The snow body you make is destroyed as soon as the spell is cast. Even if it wasn't, by itself it's an inert bit of matter. The spell is what's giving it locomotion and sentience and all that other good stuff, which is all illusory in nature (even if it has shadow flesh that is capable of physical manipulation).

[Jack_Simth]

With most people, you don't know. With the Simulacrum, you do know, because it's an Illusion.
So in your opinion, there is no possibility of an AI that qualifies as a person on an ethical level, then? It's ultimately the same question.


In the D&D universe you could use Detect Thoughts or Telepathy to check if there is or not a mind in there.

That just checks for the presence of a compatible mind. Detect Thoughts, for instance, is mind-affecting. It won't see the person operating under Mind Blank. Does that mean a wizard can make someone a non-person for 24 hours with a single 8th level spell?

Many forms of telepathy require that the subject spoken with speak some language - sometimes any language, sometimes a specific language, and in some cases in D&D you can arrange to speak with any living thing. Oh yes, and then there's the dretch, which is subject to telepathy but is mindless.

[Flickerdart]

So in your opinion, there is no possibility of an AI that qualifies as a person on an ethical level, then? It's ultimately the same question.
AIs are not created with Illusion spells, last I checked.

[almightycoma]

With most people, you don't know. With the Simulacrum, you do know, because it's an Illusion.

What if the mage can make illusions that are more than 100% real? :smallbiggrin:
then is he a real boy?

[hamishspence]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm


Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow.

So in this case, it's reasonable to conclude that the "material component" is not destroyed, but becomes part of the created creature's body.

[Clistenes]

As statted in Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk- the simulcrum is a humanoid with the simulcrum subtype. One would expect that spells that work on normal humanoids, work on them.

That's exactly what I meant in my original post. In that adventure they tell us that a Simulacrum is an Humanoid with the Simulacrum Subtype, and portray the character as a real person...but on the other hand, the text of the spell doesn't mention anything like "beware!, a Simulacrum is a person and treating it badly could cause changes your alignment".

And other adventures portray them as robots...It's confusing.

[Jack_Simth]

AIs are not created with Illusion spells, last I checked.
The specific media is irrelevant.

With enough memory and the right code, any computer can simulate a (usually much slower) version of any other computer. If I come up with a computer that is a 'true AI' (and have full access to all its code, databanks, and hardware information), I can write a program to emulate it perfectly. If the machine I'm using to emulate is sufficiently faster than the original hardware, I now have a simulation of an AI that is completely indistinguishable from the original. It being a simulation does not make it any less of an AI.

Before you can answer concretely whether or not a simulacrum is a person, you first need to have a solid definition of person, and more detail than the spell provides on what a simulacrum spell actually does.

Which means the OP really needs to ask his DM.

[hamishspence]

It could be said to be a creature- with stats. At least going by the descriptions.

[Clistenes]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm

So in this case, it's reasonable to conclude that the "material component" is not destroyed, but becomes part of the created creature's body.

If you use True Seeing, you can see the Simulacrum as a moving snow statue, so the snow is still there. When you repair the Simulacrum, you fix the snow body, and when it is destroyed, the original snow body melts. They aren't made of flesh and bone.

The appearance, the words, the gestures, the expressions, are all illusion, what we don't know is if there is a mind in there, directing the movements of the body.


The specific media is irrelevant.

With enough memory and the right code, any computer can simulate a (usually much slower) version of any other computer. If I come up with a computer that is a 'true AI' (and have full access to all its code, databanks, and hardware information), I can write a program to emulate it perfectly. If the machine I'm using to emulate is sufficiently faster than the original hardware, I now have a simulation of an AI that is completely indistinguishable from the original. It being a simulation does not make it any less of an AI.

People are a bit more complex than that. Our minds and personalities aren't just programs in our brains, we are ongoing chemical reactions. When we are hungry, every cell in our body is hungry and releasing chemical messages asking for sustenance. When we have feelings, the hormones coursing through our body and altering its functioning are at least as important as the neurons.

You theorically can simulate a person with a computer, just like you can make a simulation of a whirlwind, or fire, or a star, but that wouldn't be a person.

[Jack_Simth]

If you use True Seeing, you can see the Simulacrum as a moving snow statue, so the snow is still there. When you repair the Simulacrum, you fix the snow body, and when it is destroyed, the original snow body melts. They aren't made of flesh and bone.

The appearance, the words, the gestures, the expressions, are all illusion, what we don't know is if there is a mind in there, directing the movements of the body.
If you tie personhood to the existence of an intelligent mind (Kant's route), then we have a simple answer for whether or not a simulacrum of a Gnome Artificer counts as a person: Does it have an intelligence score > 2 (to which the answer is 'yes').

[Flickerdart]

The specific media is irrelevant.
It is completely relevant. Illusion magic does not and cannot ever make things which are properly real. This is known.

[hamishspence]

"Quasi-real" in the context of D&D, may be close enough.

[Clistenes]

If you tie personhood to the existence of an intelligent mind (Kant's route), then we have a simple answer for whether or not a simulacrum of a Gnome Artificer counts as a person: Does it have an intelligence score > 2 (to which the answer is 'yes').

It could be argued that the Simulacrum doesn't really has intelligence, but that the magic controling the creature chooses the proper response to every stimulus to simulate intelligence.

Magic has its own sentience. It can search people and things in all the multiverse, trigger effects when a certain condition happens, discriminate between different creatures and things...etc. It can even sucessfully simulate living beings that behave and react like real ones (Shadow Conjuration).

The only question is, is magic like a puppeteer that pulls the strings of a snow statue, or does it give the Simulacrum a real mind and personality?

[Jack_Simth]

It is completely relevant. Illusion magic does not and cannot ever make things which are properly real. This is known.Shadow Spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#shadow) are "partially real" per RAW (and Simulacrum (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/simulacrum.htm) is a Shadow spell. Additionally, being an Instant spell, the results of casting Simulacrum are nonmagical.

But again: Medium is irrelevant, at least until you've got a solid definition of what constitutes a person. Once you've got that, you're still going to need more detail on how Simulacrum actually works.
It could be argued that the Simulacrum doesn't really has intelligence, but that the magic controling the creature chooses the proper response to every stimulus to simulate intelligence.

Magic has its own sentience. It can search people and things in all the multiverse, trigger effects when a certain condition happens, discriminate between different creatures and things...etc. It can even sucessfully simulate living beings that behave and react like real ones (Shadow Conjuration).

The only question is, is magic like a puppeteer that pulls the strings of a snow statue, or does it give the Simulacrum a real mind and personality?
Actually, no. as a spell with a Duration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration) of "Instantaneous", there is no more magic there. A simulacrum spell, after the casting, produces a nonmagical creature with a particular set of statistics, abilities, and limitations. Dispel, Disjunction, and an AMF have no effect on the critter beyond what they'd have on any other critter.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A Simulacrum is incapable of evolving. It also does not have free will.
It's a static copy of a real creature and created solely to be used as labor or a meatshield.
It's no more evil to use a simulacrum as cannon fodder than using a shield to block an attack. It's just a waste of resources.

[hamishspence]

If it can suffer, can aspire (even if it can't gain new abilities) and so forth, it's not really all that different from a mortal.

And aren't there people in real life, with a kind of short term memory loss that makes it impossible for them to learn new things- since they can't remember anything past a certain period? Yet they are still considered people.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If it can suffer, can aspire (even if it can't gain new abilities) and so forth, it's not really all that different from a mortal.

And aren't there people in real life, with a kind of short term memory loss that makes it impossible for them to learn new things- since they can't remember anything past a certain period? Yet they are still considered people.

It's a snow statue animated by magic. It has nothing in common with any kind of mortal, just the Illusion of being mortal.
Also, it does not have free will. You can't enslave something that has no free will to enslave. It's just a puppet that's controlled by magical strings.

[hamishspence]

In the Greyhawk adventure previously mentioned, a simulcrum is the final adversary- a plotter and schemer in its own right, it became free-willed when the party killed its creator earlier in the adventure.

A simulcrum can know things its creator does not- because its creator made it using somebody else's body parts, rather than their own.

[sleepyphoenixx]

In the Greyhawk adventure previously mentioned, a simulcrum is the final adversary- a plotter and schemer in its own right, it became free-willed when the party killed its creator earlier in the adventure.

A simulcrum can know things its creator does not- because its creator made it using somebody else's body parts, rather than their own.

There's an exception to every rule. That doesn't mean the exception IS the rule.
Also keep in mind that fluff is full of inconsistencies.
I find it highly likely that the author just thought a rogue simulacrum would be cool and didn't think any further on it.

[Drachasor]

A Simulacrum is incapable of evolving. It also does not have free will.
It's a static copy of a real creature and created solely to be used as labor or a meatshield.
It's no more evil to use a simulacrum as cannon fodder than using a shield to block an attack. It's just a waste of resources.

Let's avoid the free will bit, because that's impossible to define adequately. It would just waste thread time.

If it can suffer; If it can think and have its own thoughts and plans; If it can feel, then it is real for all intents and purposes.

A simulacrum appears to be the original. This isn't defined just by how it looks, but also by how it acts (hence needing a sense motive check). So it clearly has to be able to think, have thoughts, etc. Worst case, it's like the Picard from the crappy Enterprise-was-blown-up future, and a bit stuck in a rut behavior-wise (but that doesn't make him ok to kill, Picard!).

If it wasn't able to think and respond to others, then the sense motive to detect it wouldn't be so high (DC 20). Obviously it isn't exactly the same, but it seems it must be close enough.

Also, it is capable of creativity as some skills, such as perform and even some professions, require creativity.

[Flickerdart]

Also, it is capable of creativity as some skills, such as perform and even some professions, require creativity.
Not really. You can make any computer perform music perfectly by opening a .mp3 file.

[Drachasor]

Not really. You can make any computer perform music perfectly by opening a .mp3 file.

Yes, but a perform check would also cover composing a new piece of music. If not, then some skill would.

Skills would cover new art, mathematical proofs, bluff checks, etc, etc. Plenty of that can involve creativity.

Or are you claiming a simulacrum of Leonardo Da Vinci couldn't sketch out new ideas?

[Flickerdart]

Yes, but a perform check would also cover composing a new piece of music. If not, then some skill would.

Skills would cover new art, mathematical proofs, bluff checks, etc, etc. Plenty of that can involve creativity.

Or are you claiming a simulacrum of Leonardo Da Vinci couldn't sketch out new ideas?
New art is hardly the exclusive domain of sapient beings - monkeys, dogs, and elephants have painted before. Likewise, aggregating sources to compute a solution isn't terribly difficult for a program.

[Drachasor]

New art is hardly the exclusive domain of sapient beings - monkeys, dogs, and elephants have painted before. Likewise, aggregating sources to compute a solution isn't terribly difficult for a program.

Oh, well then I think you're arguing for slavery in general. You've essentially dismissed everything unique to humans too there.

[Flickerdart]

Oh, well then I think you're arguing for slavery in general. You've essentially dismissed everything unique to humans too there.
Humans can grow and develop. A simulacrum is eternally the thing it is.

[Drachasor]

Humans can grow and develop. A simulacrum is eternally the thing it is.

It can learn, just not gain levels. It can create. It can express.

It can be ambitious.

It can seek magic to make it capable of becoming more, for it can certainly desire it.

I don't see how some artificial limits make it acceptable to treat it as a slave. Slavery isn't just wrong because people can grow. It is wrong because it hurts the ability of people to express themselves, to make choices. It is psychologically damaging. There's no reason to think a Simulacrum can't be emotionally hurt, has no desire to express itself, and is incapable of making choices. If anything there's evidence of the opposite.

[Flickerdart]

It can learn, just not gain levels. It can create. It can express.

It can be ambitious.

It can seek magic to make it capable of becoming more, for it can certainly desire it.

I don't see how some artificial limits make it acceptable to treat it as a slave. Slavery isn't just wrong because people can grow. It is wrong because it hurts the ability of people to express themselves, to make choices. It is psychologically damaging. There's no reason to think a Simulacrum can't be emotionally hurt, has no desire to express itself, and is incapable of making choices. If anything there's evidence of the opposite.
None of those things mean that it can change. A simulacrum of an individual won't suddenly go "oh I had a life experience and now I'm a changed man and all my opinions are different" because it isn't a real person, just a shadow of another creature.

[Drachasor]

None of those things mean that it can change. A simulacrum of an individual won't suddenly go "oh I had a life experience and now I'm a changed man and all my opinions are different" because it isn't a real person, just a shadow of another creature.


A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities.

They are not preventing from changing. There's no reason they can't change alignment or learn from their mistakes. Basically, they just can't gain levels.

[Flickerdart]

They are not preventing from changing. There's no reason they can't change alignment or learn from their mistakes. Basically, they just can't gain levels.
If we're sticking to the text of the spell, how about "at all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command"? This entire free-willed bit is already a fanciful prance beyond the actual spell description.

[Drachasor]

If we're sticking to the text of the spell, how about "at all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command"? This entire free-willed bit is already a fanciful prance beyond the actual spell description.


At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner.

That just means it obeys your orders. It does not imply a lack of free will outside of that by any means.

[Flickerdart]

That just means it obeys your orders. It does not imply a lack of free will outside of that by any means.
Absolute command doesn't just mean "it obeys your orders". It means "it obeys your orders without question, resistance, compunction, scruple, quibble, instinct of self-preservation, or any other quality that a real person might apply when instructed to do something". It doesn't have free will. It does what you tell it to. Lack of telepathy is completely irrelevant and I'm not sure why you bolded that part.

[Drachasor]

Absolute command doesn't just mean "it obeys your orders". It means "it obeys your orders without question, resistance, compunction, scruple, quibble, instinct of self-preservation, or any other quality that a real person might apply when instructed to do something". It doesn't have free will. It does what you tell it to. Lack of telepathy is completely irrelevant and I'm not sure why you bolded that part.

It doesn't say it does what you want without complaint. It says it does what you want without disobedience. There's a difference.

Nor does it say that it sits around and does nothing unless you order it. A simulacrum is not mindless. It has an alignment, intelligence and wisdom scores, etc. Left to its own devices it will take actions.

[TuggyNE]

Slavery, by its very power structure, is inherently evil; it is enforcing a master's will upon a slave's will through threat of violence (terrorism).

Pretty nearly all of society works that way, actually, and it is not immediately obvious that threats of violence contingent on societally "bad" behavior are evil (either in the D&D sense, which canonically has [Good] Outsiders punishing evildoers with physical or magical violence, or in any other sense).

Rather, subordinating the individual's will to the group's is inherently lawful. There have been cases where slavery was a temporary measure to help handle debts (by effectively garnishing all wages and giving only room, board, and limited medical for the duration), which is arguably LN, or even LG: how else do you handle debts that have gone haywire due to circumstances out of anyone's control?

[Coidzor]

Maybe it's like The Little Mermaid- it may not have a soul- but it can aspire to one.

What didn't have a soul in the Little Mermaid? :smallconfused:

[Karnith]

What didn't have a soul in the Little Mermaid? :smallconfused:
The little mermaid herself; it's part of the fairy tale. Mermaids don't have souls, according to the story, so part of the mermaid's deal to be with her prince was that she give up her voice in exchange for legs and a chance at a soul, which she can obtain through true love's kiss (and then marrying her prince; if her prince marries someone else, she dies without a soul). When she realized that her prince isn't going to marry her, she throws herself into the ocean, choosing to let herself die rather than try to stop her prince's marriage. And then she becomes a spirit of the air, because she strove so hard for a soul, and gets another shot at earning one.

Naturally, uh, some of the original tale didn't make it into the Disney movie.

[Phelix-Mu]

So, here is my take.

Firstly, the RAW is very silly. "Partially real" where the non-real part is not defined is a useless term. I'm rather in the boat with Jack, rather than with Flickerdart (though I didn't read every post).

My take:

- The spell is illusion(shadow), but it creates a permanent creature that is real for all purposes other than healing (special mechanic) and advancement (special limitation). By RAW, there is nothing to indicate that the created creature doesn't have all of the abilities of the basic creature (with special mechanic for stuff based on class levels and HD). So, if the base creature has emotions, the simulacra has emotions and can be affected by spells that affect them.

- The created creature seems to share type, subtypes, immunities, traits, and other racial features. The only described difference in the spell is the hp and death mechanic, and the advancement limitation. This means that the creature is a real creature of that type for purposes of spell interaction, since "partially real" has no RAW definition or impact. I'm inclined to believe that you can trap the soul on a simulacra. It has a soul, even if it's only a partially real construct, because the copied creature had a soul.

- As something that is real for all intents and purposes, a good-aligned creature would do well not to abuse them or otherwise treat them inhumanely. Now, Diplomancy really does eliminate lots of conflicts here, since you can pretty much talk the thing into wanting to assist you if you have problems with always compelling it to do stuff.

- Finally,
A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities.
But this is hardly inability to change. As noted, as a real creature, the simulacra is subject to a whole bunch of spells that can change it. Psychic reformation or the like may well work on one, since changing its existing abilities for other abilities available by HD and level is not "becoming more powerful" or "increasing it's abilities" (subtract abilities and then add equivalent abilities).

On the broader note of intellectual or emotional change, it's a creature. Unless the spell says it is eternally unchanging in emotional state, then assume that it functions like the creature copied. The real problem here is that the spell description itself is spartan enough that it fails to address major concerns.

So, in conclusion:
- "Partially real" has no RAW meaning or consequence.
- The copy is a creature in it's own right. It has ability scores, HD, creature type. It's a creature.

[caddmus]

soooo, I read about the spell for this thing, and it clearly states that its tied to you will,

no free will,
even if it reacts to out side stimuli, well, so do plants, so I would say no, its not an evil act as they are just manufactured things,

it also states the creature does not advance in ability (levels ect) as it can not learn and evolve as a living thinking creature can, from reading the spell description at the pathfinder site, these things are below dogs as in, no learning new tricks,

So worst case, its no more evil then mowing your lawn, or beating some one with a house plant, (its a living thing after all) :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

So worst case, its no more evil then mowing your lawn, or beating some one with a house plant, (its a living thing after all) :smallsmile:
What about beating someone with a house plant while they mow your lawn?

[Phelix-Mu]

soooo, I read about the spell for this thing, and it clearly states that its tied to you will,

no free will,
even if it reacts to out side stimuli, well, so do plants, so I would say no, its not an evil act as they are just manufactured things,

it also states the creature does not advance in ability (levels ect) as it can not learn and evolve as a living thinking creature can, from reading the spell description at the pathfinder site, these things are below dogs as in, no learning new tricks,

So worst case, its no more evil then mowing your lawn, or beating some one with a house plant, (its a living thing after all) :smallsmile:

So, a few points:

1.) The OP didn't state 3.5 or PF, but seemed to imply 3.5. I'm not familiar with the differences.

2.) The 3.5 version says:

At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner.
Which means that your absolute command is really quite limited, since by default you basically need to tell it what to do.

Consider the case of Mialee the Wizard making a simulacra of herself. After the casting is complete, she gives it no command. Is it an unmoving statue in this case? The spell gives no indication that it does nothing, but does say that it is a partially real copy of the creature copied. As a copy that is real except for few specific points, it should behave like the creature copied.

3.) As I noted, inability to advance is not inability to change. Evolve doesn't mean the same thing as improvement, and learning is not always increase in abilities (since "learning" doesn't have a RAW meaning unless we connect it to something else). The creature clearly can change, as it's a creature. In the absence of a command to "never change" it will do just as the copied creature would have done.

[caddmus]

Well as many have stated its a creature, well, with out something happening story wise, the creature will not change, advance ect,

in the end its still a created thing, with out a dues ex it will never have free will,

I mean if you assume it can feel bad about say, pain inflicted upon it, then it might be able to move it up to the level of a dog, <maybe> and as such, using them to set off traps isn't much different then using attack dogs to kill/main your enemy or in more modern times check for land mines, ((granted, the dogs still higher because you can eat the dog, this thing might not BBQ well,))

it is a rather mote point all in all, if it advanced beyond that point, then the argument changed to is it a johnny five? is it alive, till that point is reached, its just a tool, a neat one, very shiny, but till johnny five is alive, its just a machine that needs to be washed off more often, :)

Now, more important question, do they sweat? because, ya, that might get ripe,

[TuggyNE]

Naturally, uh, some of the original tale didn't make it into the Disney movie.

Well, yeah. Hans Christian Andersen is generally darker than the Grimm collections, which is quite a feat. And there is no way Disney is going to go for that kind of Esoteric Happy Ending (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EsotericHappyEnding). (Apparently the first published version didn't even have the dubious comfort of allowing the mermaid to ascend; she just dissolved, game over.)

[Phelix-Mu]

Well as many have stated its a creature, well, with out something happening story wise, the creature will not change, advance ect,


Not quite sure how to argue it adeptly, but I strongly disagree with this sentiment. The setting is not locked in stone outside of the plot. Stuff happens to people way over there, totally beyond the plot. That said stuff doesn't matter is irrelevant; it still happens. This approach takes a plot-oriented world way off toward an extreme, using it to justify a type of morality.

Furthermore, I'm not quite sure how we arrive at the assertion that the simulacra has no emotions (unless one copies something that has no emotions). Please show me RAW that says the simulacra has no emotions.

And, while I'm at it, "Absolute command" is also somewhat meaningless. Clearly, the creature will follow your commands. But if you command a creature to fly that can't fly, it won't suddenly gain the ability to fly just because your command is absolute.

Likewise, if the copy is a copy of a non-mindless creature that has emotions (and pretty much any creature with an Intelligence score that is not specifically noted as lacking emotions or being immune to mind-affecting has emotions...in fact, many creatures that are immune to mind-affecting still have emotions), then you can't command it to "not have emotions." It can't alter it's racial traits and other abilities just through your commands.

In any case, there is an argument to be made that abusing or mistreating simulacra is neutral, at best. It's never something that a good-aligned creature should take lightly, if only because it heavily blurs the line between acceptable and non-acceptable behavior (and anything that blurs these issues is an evil thing).

[caddmus]

Remember being good, (alinment) is also vague in pathfinder/D&D

a good classed char may still kick a stray dog, Good does not mean kind, and well, they are things, so I guess it would depend on the char's view point, :)

[Phelix-Mu]

Remember being good, (alinment) is also vague in pathfinder/D&D

a good classed char may still kick a stray dog, Good does not mean kind, and well, they are things, so I guess it would depend on the char's view point, :)

Err, well, here's how I see that:

- Kicking dog's is cruel (I hope we can agree on this).

- According to your explanation, being cruel is not incompatible with being good.

- If kicking dogs is in, let's add children to that list of the kickable, as children younger than a certain age aren't terribly different from dogs.

- So now good people can engage in torture, which is basically just cruelty, sometimes with a purpose in mind (inflicting pain for the hell of it or for some purpose, it's all the same morally speaking).

So, my question is: How much cruelty can a good person engage in before the cruelty becomes evil? Or, what exactly makes a person evil if even the good people don't have to behave morally?

[Zanos]

I'm gonna say that they are basically constructs in this sense.
Simulacra are under the complete control of their creator, and hence do not have free will.
They cannot level up or increase their abilities, indicating the inability to learn from past mistakes or improve themselves.

Seems pretty much just like a tool to me. An extension of the caster's will, but a tool nonetheless.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm gonna say that they are basically constructs in this sense.

They cannot level up or increase their abilities, indicating the inability to learn from past mistakes or improve themselves.

1.) They aren't constructs. No where does the spell detail a change in creature type. A simulacra of a construct is a construct, a simulacra of a treant is a plant creature.

2.) The 3.5 spell says:

A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities.

This doesn't mean it can't learn. It's intelligent. It can learn new words in a language it speaks. It can remember a rhyme if it makes whatever ability check the DM wants to rule governs memory. If you make a simulacra of a very smart creature, it can solve complicated math problems. Skills cover knowledge of or ability to do certain stuff, but a creature doesn't need to increase it's skill points to learn something new.

Example: A creature with y ranks in Craft (alchemy) has never crafted alchemical item x, since it didn't have a recipe or knowledge of that item. But, after moving to an area with the item x and learning about how it's made, the character can craft it.

Basically, learning many things simply is not connected to any kind of "increase in abilities." It's a function of the creature's Intelligence (and possibly Wisdom), both of which the simulacra can definitely have.

[Zanos]

1.) They aren't constructs. No where does the spell detail a change in creature type. A simulacra of a construct is a construct, a simulacra of a treant is a plant creature.

2.) The 3.5 spell says:


This doesn't mean it can't learn. It's intelligent. It can learn new words in a language it speaks. It can remember a rhyme if it makes whatever ability check the DM wants to rule governs memory. If you make a simulacra of a very smart creature, it can solve complicated math problems. Skills cover knowledge of or ability to do certain stuff, but a creature doesn't need to increase it's skill points to learn something new.

Example: A creature with y ranks in Craft (alchemy) has never crafted alchemical item x, since it didn't have a recipe or knowledge of that item. But, after moving to an area with the item x and learning about how it's made, the character can craft it.

Basically, learning many things simply is not connected to any kind of "increase in abilities." It's a function of the creature's Intelligence (and possibly Wisdom), both of which the simulacra can definitely have.

I said it was "construct-like". Not a construct. As in a tool built by a spellcaster or someone else for things in can't be bothered to do and commanded in a similar manner. I am aware that those are different things.

By learning to craft a new item it is applying knowledge it already has to something else, not acquiring new knowledge. It can learn to craft something else it was already capable of crafting, but it cannot increase it's Craft(Alchemy) score because it cannot become better. It cannot learn more alchemy, it can only apply what it already knows. It is emulating the Wisdom and Intelligence scores of the creature it was created from. It is a reflection of a creature that it was built from, and is as sentient as the reflection of myself in my bathroom mirror.

EDIT: Before someone argues that having all three mental ability scores makes something sentient, the SRD defines all three of these and it's possible to fulfill the baseline requirements of having more than 1 of each mental score without sentience. Unless there's some other printing I am not aware of.

[Phelix-Mu]

I said it was "construct-like". Not a construct. As in a tool built by a spellcaster or someone else for things in can't be bothered to do and commanded in a similar manner. I am aware that those are different things.

By learning to craft a new item it is applying knowledge it already has to something else, not acquiring new knowledge. It can learn to craft something else it was already capable of crafting, but it cannot increase it's Craft(Alchemy) score because it cannot become better. It cannot learn more alchemy, it can already apply what it already knows. It is emulating the Wisdom and Intelligence scores of the creature it was created from. It is a reflection of a creature that it was built from, and is as sentient as the reflection of myself in my bathroom mirror.

A good argument up until that last bit; your reflection in a mirror is rather markedly not like a simulacrum.

So here's my shot at logic:

Assume the simulacra is not sentient.

Suppose I commanded a simulacra of myself to "Behave as I do in all circumstances and otherwise accept no further orders from me ever." If the simulacrum of a sentient creature is not sentient, it can't behave as the original creature, because it has no ability to act independently, no free will to make choices of its own.

But, by RAW, I have absolute command over a simulacra I create. It does whatever I order it to, absolutely.

The simulacrum of me (assume I'm a wizard of high intelligence) is certainly capable of behaving as though sentient, as it's just as intelligent as I.

So, either the simulacrum can be sentient (RAW doesn't say anything), or it can't follow my orders (RAW says it does follow my orders).

I'm not saying it's foolproof, and I can spot some weakness myself here and there. If it weren't a good debate, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time thinking about it.

[Sith_Happens]

I wonder if this debate might be better facilitated by (temporarily) replacing "simulacrum" with "Rudimentary Intelligence golem." Philosophically I'd say the two are mostly equivalent.

[caddmus]

they are basicly the same from how it seems by the spells,


as to the OP, really? from dogs to kids?

I was talking about a companion animal and some times food,

I wasn't making A Modest Proposal after all, :smallbiggrin:

but really, it would depend more on the society at large and the belifs of the char's as whats evil in say, andoria (is that the name?)

and cheliax in the pathfinder universe are vastly different, yet you can have a good aligned char from either,

[Zanos]

A good argument up until that last bit.

So here's my shot at logic:

Assume the simulacra is not sentient.

Suppose I commanded a simulacra of myself to "Behave as I do in all circumstances and otherwise accept no further orders from me ever." If the simulacrum of a sentient creature is not sentient, it can't behave as the original creature, because it has no ability to act independently, no free will to make choices of its own.

But, by RAW, I have absolute command over a simulacra I create. It does whatever I order it to, absolutely.

The simulacrum of me (assume I'm a wizard of high intelligence) is certainly capable of behaving as though sentient, as it's just as intelligent as I.

So, either the simulacrum can be sentient (RAW doesn't say anything), or it can't follow my orders (RAW says it does follow my orders).

I'm not saying it's foolproof, and I can spot some weakness myself here and there. If it weren't a good debate, I certainly wouldn't spend so much time thinking about it.
SRD quote:

Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence.
Emphasis the or. I'd argue that the Simulacrum can remember, but cannot think or learn. You can order to act as you did in life, because it remembers what you were. It can apply knowledge it remembers, but cannot think about or learn. I personally wouldn't consider something incapable of thinking or learning sentient.

I do have a caveat with your argument however. If you create a simulacrum of yourself, say, at 20th level. The simulacrum has a maximum of 10 HD, but you cannot order it to cast 9th level spells because it cannot cast 9th level spells as a 10th level wizard. You can do something that clearly the simulacrum cannot. I personally think that this is not a limited effect, the simulacrum simply is not equal to it's creator, it just mimics it to the best of the spell's ability.

[Phelix-Mu]

I wonder if this debate might be better facilitated by (temporarily) replacing "simulacrum" with "Rudimentary Intelligence golem." Philosophically I'd say the two are mostly equivalent.

And very apt. The golem is a construct with a spirit inside it (at least most types are noted to have elemental spirits animating them). Give it the ability to think for itself, and in the absence of specific orders to only open doors by bashing through them, it might well decide that turning doorknobs is often the best way to open doors.

PHB, page 9:

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

An intelligence score of 3 or over is noted as being "human-like." Even if you have a human under some kind of unbeatable, uncounterable domination such that it absolutely follows your commands, it doesn't lose it's sentience.

If the intelligent golem is smart enough to learn and reason as a human, I figure it's sentient. Otherwise, the line gets blurry so fast that it's impossible to judge morality in this issue.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Pretty nearly all of society works that way, actually, and it is not immediately obvious that threats of violence contingent on societally "bad" behavior are evil (either in the D&D sense, which canonically has [Good] Outsiders punishing evildoers with physical or magical violence, or in any other sense).

Rather, subordinating the individual's will to the group's is inherently lawful. There have been cases where slavery was a temporary measure to help handle debts (by effectively garnishing all wages and giving only room, board, and limited medical for the duration), which is arguably LN, or even LG: how else do you handle debts that have gone haywire due to circumstances out of anyone's control?

You're confusing "systemic" for "evil." There are lots of things in society that are a social contract- slavery as a truism, is evil. The imposition of a master over a slave is one that is one sided and all about subjugation of another person's will. Force to persuade is coercion (terrorism). This is basic philosophy 101 stuff here.

What you are talking about, is what is called Debt Bondage. The difference between debt bondage and slavery... is that a debtor can work off their difference. They are born free, go into debt, work debt off, and become free again. A slave is born a slave, and dies a slave. There is no freedom anywhere... it is morally bankrupt, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Useful quotes about the oppression of slavery...


As long as you keep a person down, some part of you has to be down there to hold him down, so it means you cannot soar as you otherwise might.
Marian Anderson


I never doubted my ability, but when you hear all your life you're inferior, it makes you wonder if the other guys have something you've never seen before. If they do, I'm still looking for it.
Hank Aaron


You can't hold a man down without staying down with him.
Booker T. Washington

From the SRD


"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

It does not matter whether a similacrum is a person or not; the very system of slavery is itself morally unjustified and evil. Anyone attempting to assert slavery is morally bankrupt, and needs to readjust their alignment to evil.

[Phelix-Mu]

SRD quote:

Emphasis the or. I'd argue that the Simulacrum can remember, but cannot think or learn. You can order to act as you did in life, because it remembers what you were. It can apply knowledge it remembers, but cannot think about or learn. I personally wouldn't consider something incapable of thinking or learning sentient.

But the quote doesn't say that you can determine which of "think, learn or remember" apply just from an Intelligence score.

Where in the spell description does it say that the simulacrum can't learn or think? It's intelligent if it's a copy of an intelligent creature. Intelligence, as I quoted, is a measure of ability to learn and reason. Furthermore, I believe I'm right in saying that no other skill or game mechanic is noted as having control over learning. It's just a matter of Intelligence score, which the spell copies.

@Caladan: I am in total agreement. And the whole matter is moot, since with enough Diplomacy op, you can convince an Intelligent simulacra that helping you is in its best interests, get it to adopt your beliefs, and (at highest levels) brainwash it into doing just about anything. Using the rather borked Diplomacy rules in this manner is not evil (though a morality argument for this rather fantastically amoral mechanic is pretty much not going to wash).

Personally, my main use of simulacrum is to have a character copy himself or herself and then Diplomacy those like-minded copies into cooperating with whatever of their own free will. If the character who copies themselves is willing to make personal sacrifices and risk injury for the sake of the cause, then the simulacra should be able to be convinced to do the same.

TANGENT: Can't you mind switch with a simulacra? There are lots of psionic powers that seem to work on simulacra that totally don't make sense if it isn't for all intents and purposes, a real creature.

[Zanos]

But the quote doesn't say that you can determine which of "think, learn or remember" apply just from an Intelligence score.

Where in the spell description does it say that the simulacrum can't learn or think? It's intelligent if it's a copy of an intelligent creature. Intelligence, as I quoted, is a measure of ability to learn and reason. Furthermore, I believe I'm right in saying that no other skill or game mechanic is noted as having control over learning. It's just a matter of Intelligence score, which the spell copies.
I would read it as mimicking it, not copying it. It is illusion magic, after all. If you couldn't tell from what I was writing earlier, I interpret a simulacrum of basically being a reflection of the real creature.

Although assuming it did create a sentient creature for a second, I imagine several of the gods would be a tad miffed. Origin of Species is epic level divine magic with a 10k exp component in order to create a real sentient being. Seems unreasonable that a Wizard could do something similar for cheaper without being Epic.

[olentu]

I would read it as mimicking it, not copying it. It is illusion magic, after all. If you couldn't tell from what I was writing earlier, I interpret a simulacrum of basically being a reflection of the real creature.

Although assuming it did create a sentient creature for a second, I imagine several of the gods would be a tad miffed. Origin of Species is epic level divine magic with a 10k exp component in order to create a real sentient being. Seems unreasonable that a Wizard could do something similar for cheaper without being Epic.

Awaken is a level 5 druid spell with a 250 XP cost.

[Phelix-Mu]

I would read it as mimicking it, not copying it. It is illusion magic, after all. If you couldn't tell from what I was writing earlier, I interpret a simulacrum of basically being a reflection of the real creature.

Although assuming it did create a sentient creature for a second, I imagine several of the gods would be a tad miffed. Origin of Species is epic level divine magic with a 10k exp component in order to create a real sentient being. Seems unreasonable that a Wizard could do something similar for cheaper without being Epic.

"Effect: One duplicate creature." The exact extent of the illusion is somewhat poorly defined, but the spell only seems to refer to the appearance of the creature being illusory. Everything else is "partially real." The manner in which it is not "totally real" is called out in the spell (weird healing, no increase in abilities, 1/2 HD and all that). True seeing seems to reveal that the appearance is fake, but true seeing won't allow you to avoid the effects of the simulacrum's skill checks or abilities (which are never noted as being illusory in any way).

If the real creature is capable of x or y considering of the 1/2 HD mechanic, then so is the duplicate. That's my opinion, and I believe that there is more RAW to back it up.

The spell never suggests that a simulacrum of a commoner of Intelligence 10 can't learn how to spell the wizard's name. This knowledge of spelling doesn't make the simulacra more powerful, and it's not an increase in its abilities.

Likewise, if the Int 20 wizard shows the simulacrum of himself a map, and the simulacrum successfully remembers the map (Int-check), the simulacrum can make Int checks to figure out the best way to move from x to y on the map. No where in the spell does it suggest that the duplicate creature behaves like the mentally deficient cousin of the copied creature.

As to the epic spellcasting comment, the same god would be equally miffed to know that it is possible to use the Epic Spellcasting feat to create a spell that creates a whole new species in a manner identical to the origin of species spell, but this time with no xp cost. The process of RAW epic spellcasting cost mitigation is thoroughly borked, and is not a way to show anything. I believe someone (Jack Smith?) once showed that it's possible to animate a planet the size of earth, and to do it in a manner that costs so pathetically little that I'm frankly embarrassed. It involved using multiple epic spells to do it, but hey, it worked. The mitigation was equal to several trillion, I believe.

[TuggyNE]

You're confusing "systemic" for "evil." There are lots of things in society that are a social contract- slavery as a truism, is evil. The imposition of a master over a slave is one that is one sided and all about subjugation of another person's will. Force to persuade is coercion (terrorism). This is basic philosophy 101 stuff here.

No, I am not; rather, you are; you are calling all systems that use threats of force (possibly along with other things) to uphold their continued existence in an agreed-upon fashion "evil", when in fact they are merely "systemic", or lawful. Or do you argue that police are not threats of force? Or a king's guards?


What you are talking about, is what is called Debt Bondage. The difference between debt bondage and slavery... is that a debtor can work off their difference. They are born free, go into debt, work debt off, and become free again. A slave is born a slave, and dies a slave. There is no freedom anywhere... it is morally bankrupt, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Given that those systems of debt bondage were in fact called, more or less, slavery, I'm not sure your definition is reasonable; it is far more reasonable to talk about the different types of slavery. Certainly, it is possible, and even probable, to have a system of slavery that is oppressive and evil; I merely argue that it is possible to have a system of slavery that is not oppressive or evil. (I consider a "slave" any adult who is neither paid any form of freely-spendable wages nor legally allowed to move around or act just however they want, but is forced to work for a substantial length of time for some other individual at their command.)

It would seem, also, that you consider that the mere deprivation of freedom for a time is not in itself evil (although it may or may not be good, either). Reduction of freedom is the very essence of law: restrictions and regulations that you may not fully agree with at all times (or ever), but must still abide by or face the consequences. And "consequences" is usually just another word for "violence", in the end. (Technically, of course, you can go through a fair few consequences before that, but since most of them — separation from family or friends, restriction of movements, confiscation of goods, etc — are things that can also be used in threats by criminals against you, I'm not sure what the difference would be.)


Useful quotes about the oppression of slavery...
[…]
It does not matter whether a similacrum is a person or not; the very system of slavery is itself morally unjustified and evil. Anyone attempting to assert slavery is morally bankrupt, and needs to readjust their alignment to evil.

If a simulacrum is not a person, and lacks some special (and actually important) thing that all persons have, holding them down, even in a "hereditary" system, or denying that they have that certain special something is not evil, it is simple realism. It is not slavery to plant wheat in a field and expect it to grow for you, to use a lousy and exaggerated example. (If they are people, of course, then the usual caveats apply, and the same risks of ordinary slavery are there.)

I am, of course, amused that someone would consider me evil, since I have often privately considered that about various random posters, but I very much doubt the applicability: slavery, properly defined and implemented, need not hurt or oppress anyone, and may even benefit and dignify those involved.

[hamishspence]

I do have a caveat with your argument however. If you create a simulacrum of yourself, say, at 20th level. The simulacrum has a maximum of 10 HD, but you cannot order it to cast 9th level spells because it cannot cast 9th level spells as a 10th level wizard. You can do something that clearly the simulacrum cannot. I personally think that this is not a limited effect, the simulacrum simply is not equal to it's creator, it just mimics it to the best of the spell's ability.

A simulcrum does not have to be created from the creator's own flesh though- it can be made from that of someone else.

Who might have skills the creator does not.

So a simulcrum might actually be better than its creator, at something.

[Drachasor]

it also states the creature does not advance in ability (levels ect) as it can not learn and evolve as a living thinking creature can, from reading the spell description at the pathfinder site, these things are below dogs as in, no learning new tricks,

This amuses me, as Pathfinder has Lesser Simulacrum:


This spell functions as simulacrum, except you can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed your caster level, and it has no magical abilities. The creature is not under your control, though it recognizes you are its creator.

Which clearly implies it has self determination, a personality, etc.


I would read it as mimicking it, not copying it. It is illusion magic, after all. If you couldn't tell from what I was writing earlier, I interpret a simulacrum of basically being a reflection of the real creature.

Although assuming it did create a sentient creature for a second, I imagine several of the gods would be a tad miffed. Origin of Species is epic level divine magic with a 10k exp component in order to create a real sentient being. Seems unreasonable that a Wizard could do something similar for cheaper without being Epic.

As others have noted, there are mid-level spells that essentially make people. Wizards can bring the dead back to life. Wizards can also make sentient constructs. Making a race (origin of species) is harder than just making a sentient creature (Simulacrum, some golems, Awaken, etc).

Further, there's nothing that can stop an illusion from behaving just like a real person. They have no limitation like that. So just because it is a Shadow spell doesn't mean it somehow can't qualify as a sentient creature. In a real sense this is one of the limits of the spell. Make a Simulacrum of a Red Dragon or BBEG and you'll have to be extremely careful with it.

Lastly, burning down a forest would piss off the god of nature. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

[Jack_Simth]

- The copy is a creature in it's own right. It has ability scores, HD, creature type. It's a creature.
Just so you're aware: The argument isn't about it being a creature; it's about it being a person. A spider is a creature, but not a person (at least, not by the widely-held belief; there are people that would argue this). In the vast majority of ethical systems, there's little in the way of requirements to justify killing a wild spider that you consider inconvenient. In the vast majority of ethical systems, there's a rather lot in the way of requirements to justify killing a person that you consider inconvenient.

To appearances, from Flickerdart's perspective, a Simulacrum is missing some essential something (which Flickerdart hasn't defined well, to my knowledge) that prevents it from being a person. My stance is that what constitutes a 'person' and the exact mechanics of the Simulacrum spell need to be defined a bit more rigorously in the how's and why's before a proper answer to the ethics of Simulacrum abuse can be obtained.


in the end its still a created thing, with out a dues ex it will never have free will,
The classic fix for this is the command "Do as thou wilt". In the rare instances that I consider Simulacrum to be worthwhile, I generally have my characters come to the conclusion that Simulacrum are people to. And with good-aligned characters, one of the first things I'm going to do is explain to the Simulacrum that they owe me six years of loyal work as payment for their creation, and that on the seventh, if they've served well, they will be freed (and I follow through... assuming the game runs that long). Not so much if I'm playing an Evil character.


EDIT: Before someone argues that having all three mental ability scores makes something sentient, the SRD defines all three of these and it's possible to fulfill the baseline requirements of having more than 1 of each mental score without sentience. Unless there's some other printing I am not aware of.
Sentience in D&D is actually defined as an Int score of 3 or better. However, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't define personhood, which is the crux of the debate.

I believe someone (Jack Smith?) once showed that it's possible to animate a planet the size of earth, and to do it in a manner that costs so pathetically little that I'm frankly embarrassed. It involved using multiple epic spells to do it, but hey, it worked. The mitigation was equal to several trillion, I believe.
It was me, yes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=791074&postcount=9), and the final mitigation number was 1.10118*10^19. I'm fairly sure I was not the first to come up with the method, but I did develop the technique independently.

[Clistenes]

they are basicly the same from how it seems by the spells,


as to the OP, really? from dogs to kids?

I was talking about a companion animal and some times food,

I wasn't making A Modest Proposal after all, :smallbiggrin:

but really, it would depend more on the society at large and the belifs of the char's as whats evil in say, andoria (is that the name?)

and cheliax in the pathfinder universe are vastly different, yet you can have a good aligned char from either,

I haven't said anything about dogs or kids. :smallconfused:You are confusing me with another poster.

[Zanos]

This amuses me, as Pathfinder has Lesser Simulacrum:



Which clearly implies it has self determination, a personality, etc.



As others have noted, there are mid-level spells that essentially make people. Wizards can bring the dead back to life. Wizards can also make sentient constructs. Making a race (origin of species) is harder than just making a sentient creature (Simulacrum, some golems, Awaken, etc).

Further, there's nothing that can stop an illusion from behaving just like a real person. They have no limitation like that. So just because it is a Shadow spell doesn't mean it somehow can't qualify as a sentient creature. In a real sense this is one of the limits of the spell. Make a Simulacrum of a Red Dragon or BBEG and you'll have to be extremely careful with it.

Lastly, burning down a forest would piss off the god of nature. That doesn't mean you can't do it.
While I agree with the other stuff you said and rescind my point because I was apparently wrong about the sentience thing(and it does indeed pain me to admit I was wrong), why would you have to be careful with a Simulacrum of something dangerous? It is under your absolute command. I suppose it might burn down a village and eat some villagers if you don't command it not to, but if your DM makes your simulacrum attack you for not commanding them not to you probably shouldn't use any at all, considering they might use their abilities to butcher everything you know and love through some bizarre loophole your DM came up with in the orders you give them.

@Epic Spell stuff. I agree mitigation is broken, but it explicitly states that all epic spells require DM approval. The ones listed, as I understand, were ones that had actually been created by a spellcaster at some point.

If simulacrum are people, the ones I stored in my genesis'd demiplane to help me cast epic spells must be awfully bored...
Maybe I'll pick them up a deck of cards.

[Drachasor]

While I agree with the other stuff you said and rescind my point because I was apparently wrong about the sentience thing(and it does indeed pain me to admit I was wrong), why would you have to be careful with a Simulacrum of something dangerous? It is under your absolute command. I suppose it might burn down a village and eat some villagers if you don't command it not to, but if your DM makes your simulacrum attack you for not commanding them not to you probably shouldn't use any at all, considering they might use their abilities to butcher everything you know and love through some bizarre loophole your DM came up with in the orders you give them.

It's easy enough to get it not to attack you. In fact I'd say that's implied by the spell. But I think they'd exploit any freedom to behave as much as possible to pursue their own desires. That would include some loophole abuse, if they can swing it. Sure, they automatically fail to resist any order you give them, but that doesn't mean they like it.

I don't think that means there's no place for simulacrum, but it does mean you need to be careful with ones that diametrically oppose your own goals and desires. It's still a very powerful spell.


If simulacrum are people, the ones I stored in my genesis'd demiplane to help me cast epic spells must be awfully bored...
Maybe I'll pick them up a deck of cards.

An occasional hug would not be amiss either.

[Jack_Simth]

@Epic Spell stuff. I agree mitigation is broken, but it explicitly states that all epic spells require DM approval. The ones listed, as I understand, were ones that had actually been created by a spellcaster at some point.I generally consider Epic Spellcasting to be broken in the "does not work as I suspect it was intended" sense. If you do not use mitigation, then by the time you can do anything of note, it's not worthwhile. A an example: We want to duplicate the Disintegrate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) spell fairly closely. So we start with Destroy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/destroy.htm) (Base DC 29), up the damage to 40d6 (Disintegrate at CL 20) for +40 DC (20 instances of the +2 DC for an extra +1d6 damage), and we get it down to a standard action casting time (at +20 DC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/developingEpicSpells.htm)), giving us a final spellcraft DC (before mitigation) of 89 - which means a cost of:
GP = 89*9,000 gp = 801,000 gp
XP = GP/25 = 32,040 xp
Time = GP / 50,000 (rounded up) = 17 days

With that XP cost, to do this 'normally', you need to be about level 33 (and at that, you pretty much sacrifice a level to pull it off). With only a handful of exceptions, you're better off just applying metamagic to a lower-level spell.

Now, if you apply mitigation, then it works much better... to the point where there's no obvious place to stop, and it's quite easy to do some insanely strong buffs for basically nothing at level 21. It can be house-ruled to something that works for any given table (or handled by gentleman's agreement, which amounts to the same thing) ... but I generally consider something that requires house-rules to be useful at a gaming table as fundamentally broken.

[CaladanMoonblad]

No, I am not; rather, you are; you are calling all systems that use threats of force (possibly along with other things) to uphold their continued existence in an agreed-upon fashion "evil", when in fact they are merely "systemic", or lawful. Or do you argue that police are not threats of force? Or a king's guards?

Negatory- systematic oppression (LE) or nonsystematic oppression (CE) is not what makes slavery evil- it is the oppression part. Oppression is a one sided relationship (hate, fear, threat vs. benevolence, grace, charity, goodwill). Whether slavery is state sponsored or simply a bully terrorizing others on the playground, it is evil... Because it is oppressive.

Your argument for police and guards are symptomatic of a libertarian philosophy. I do not share that ideology; we must agree to disagree, because this is treading dangerously close to or over the forum rules.



Given that those systems of debt bondage were in fact called, more or less, slavery, I'm not sure your definition is reasonable; it is far more reasonable to talk about the different types of slavery. Certainly, it is possible, and even probable, to have a system of slavery that is oppressive and evil; I merely argue that it is possible to have a system of slavery that is not oppressive or evil. (I consider a "slave" any adult who is neither paid any form of freely-spendable wages nor legally allowed to move around or act just however they want, but is forced to work for a substantial length of time for some other individual at their command.)


I do no such thing. I remark upon how Debt Bondage is different than slavery. Debt bondage is a financial transaction, and is simply a rich/poor system to ameliorate debt. It is not rooted in an ideology of "I am better than you" or somehow denigrating the humanity of the enslaved (such as the rationalizing being attempted with simulacrum).

Slavery can exist without a legal framework to support it; just Google human trafficking in the United States. Most of the slaves in the United States are sex-workers pressed by threat of violence. It is evil, period.



It would seem, also, that you consider that the mere deprivation of freedom for a time is not in itself evil (although it may or may not be good, either). Reduction of freedom is the very essence of law: restrictions and regulations that you may not fully agree with at all times (or ever), but must still abide by or face the consequences. And "consequences" is usually just another word for "violence", in the end. (Technically, of course, you can go through a fair few consequences before that, but since most of them — separation from family or friends, restriction of movements, confiscation of goods, etc — are things that can also be used in threats by criminals against you, I'm not sure what the difference would be.)


It is not inherently evil to be deprived of freedom based upon a person's actions. I believe in a prison system so that malefactors of society can be reformed for their crimes. Debt Bondage by itself to be evil requires that the system is rigged from the beginning- a monopoly company town that is the only employer, and only landlord, etc. How societies deal with debt is important; but please, do not tell me what I believe. This sort of behavior is a strawman; I expect better of you Tuggyne, as you have been a good debater on this forum, and one of the more reasonable sorts when arguing game mechanics (such as citing pages).



If a simulacrum is not a person, and lacks some special (and actually important) thing that all persons have, holding them down, even in a "hereditary" system, or denying that they have that certain special something is not evil, it is simple realism. It is not slavery to plant wheat in a field and expect it to grow for you, to use a lousy and exaggerated example. (If they are people, of course, then the usual caveats apply, and the same risks of ordinary slavery are there.)


My argument is that any master-slave relationship is evil and amoral. The relationship precedes the fallacy of dehumanizing the slave in order to rationalize exploitation.



I am, of course, amused that someone would consider me evil, since I have often privately considered that about various random posters, but I very much doubt the applicability: slavery, properly defined and implemented, need not hurt or oppress anyone, and may even benefit and dignify those involved.

You are mistaken; I apologize if you believed I was talking about forum posters- I am talking about game PCs and NPCs. Talking about forum users or criticizing a forum user is a character attack- ad hominem. The alignment system is how I have always argued in this thread. As I stated earlier, I have a high regard for you Tuggyne, as you have been balanced in your reasoning in several other threads, and always adhered to the rules of 3.5 for your arguments.

However I disagree... slavery by its very nature is oppressive and hurtful based on real life historical examples. It is exploitation, pure and simple. There is no dignity to oppression. There is no benefit but to the master in such a relationship. I suggest you view CSA, a 2004 film that explores the rationalization of slavery (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/).

[Phelix-Mu]

..snip...

All very cogent. My view is that the spell copies all aspects of the creature except for the noted differences. If we consider the original a person, then the simulacrum of that person is also a person, albeit one that must follow orders.

And, as you say, it is certainly a sensible idea for a good-aligned creature to respect this simulacrum as well, as it's existence in a gray-area means that it would be tempting to abuse the creature, and that might turn out to be immoral (something a good person tries to avoid, even if they aren't dead sure).

Other fun questions are:
1.) Does a simulacra age?

2.) What are the exact limits of it's biological nature (assuming a biological creature is copied)?

3.) What spells do work on a simulacra (assuming the spell also works on the original that was duplicated)? Can you trap the soul on it? Can you mind switch it? Can you use psychic reformation on it? Dark Chaos Shuffle? Can you mind seed on the simulacra, and is it evil to do so?

4.)If you copy your own mind with simulacrum, and move that mind into another body that can heal normally, does the clause about absolute command move with the simulacra mind or remain with the simulacra body?

The whole spell is a veritable grab-bag of variable interpretation, much of which could place the spell user in the middle of some delicious moral quandries.

EDIT: As to the slavery issue, it is the very presumption of a superiority/inferiority dynamic that threatens to put the whole matter into the realm of the evil. Give something a chance to prove it's own dignity is the way that good characters should proceed. By treating it as a tool, one removes any chance of dignity or the evolution of an enlightened self, as a person treated like a tool will be injured by this very treatment. I also agree that, from a good character's perspective, the problem with slavery is that it warps the behavior of the master as well. Individual improvement, personal accomplishment, and personal accountability for actions, these are all things that are part of good-aligned psychology. All of them are thrown into question when the master relies on his/her "tools" instead of taking more effort and making friends, leading by example, and the like. Many Yoda quotes come to mind.

Even if the spell merely creates a tool, a character should be careful not to just assume this is so and toss it into the meat grinder. We move quickly from the realm of the summoned and the "absolutely commanded" being disposable, to zealot-status people and followers being disposable. Slippery slope is slippery.

[Scow2]

"Slavery" of AI is not evil. In fact, that's the entire purpose of an AI. People keep applying human morality to things that are NOT human.

[Phelix-Mu]

"Slavery" of AI is not evil. In fact, that's the entire purpose of an AI. People keep applying human morality to things that are NOT human.

But at some point the AI is so much like a person that the real question is "Aren't we arbitrarily drawing the line so as to be convenient to our own views of morality?"

Consider a child born artificially by a machine [or created by a spell]. The purpose is to create a body that will someday be old enough to act as a replacement body. In order to facilitate compatibility, the child must be educated, to ensure proper development of organs or whatever. Training ensures that the child is perfectly obedient in all things.

Points:
- The child is artificial.
- The level of intelligence is determined by the creator.
- The child is created for a specific purpose, and is never taught that it has any other reason to exist. It is trained for this purpose.

So we created a specific kind of artificial intelligence with a specific purpose. It's enslavement sounds moral, based on your argument.

If the problem is that it's human, let's make it different than a human, a creature biologically engineered to be the perfect vessel for the creator. How much do we need to degrade the child before it's just an AI, a useful tool?

The whole point of evil is "there is no line." Rules don't apply to evil, so just do whatever you want (or whatever the law you follow indicates). The whole point of good is that there is ALWAYS a line.

The problem with simulacrum is that the spell doesn't make any indication that intrinsic value of personhood is lost. The "absolute command clause" is not well written and doesn't deal with the point specifically.

[hamishspence]

People keep applying human morality to things that are NOT human.

In order to avoid the issue of "one rule for Us, another rule for Them".

[Phelix-Mu]

In order to avoid the issue of "one rule for Us, another rule for Them".

And lo, a short, concise way to make the point.

An evil act is evil, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Sometimes it can be a justified act of evil, if it somehow stops more evil than it creates, protects the innocent or the like. But its still evil.

Using living creatures as objects is evil. A creature should be respected, even if it's just an ant or an ooze. Killing is evil, but sometimes justified. Respect the act for what it is, the elimination of a lifeform that one day might have amounted to something or been important somehow (and everything is important). Sometimes doing so is acceptable, but it's still wrong.

Now, creatures created and non-living (that is, with no innate role as a lifeform) definitely constitute a grey space. But, with increasing their capabilities, eventually they start to look so much like normal people that they should be counted as such. It's my view that simulacra should be so counted.

[CaladanMoonblad]

EDIT: As to the slavery issue, it is the very presumption of a superiority/inferiority dynamic that threatens to put the whole matter into the realm of the evil. Give something a chance to prove it's own dignity is the way that good characters should proceed. By treating it as a tool, one removes any chance of dignity or the evolution of an enlightened self, as a person treated like a tool will be injured by this very treatment. I also agree that, from a good character's perspective, the problem with slavery is that it warps the behavior of the master as well. Individual improvement, personal accomplishment, and personal accountability for actions, these are all things that are part of good-aligned psychology. All of them are thrown into question when the master relies on his/her "tools" instead of taking more effort and making friends, leading by example, and the like. Many Yoda quotes come to mind.

Even if the spell merely creates a tool, a character should be careful not to just assume this is so and toss it into the meat grinder. We move quickly from the realm of the summoned and the "absolutely commanded" being disposable, to zealot-status people and followers being disposable. Slippery slope is slippery.

The underlined is in complete agreement with the quotes I previously posted by Hank Aaron and others regarding slavery (and its rationalizing predicate of racism). I bolded the important statement as the change in perspective to exploit a labor source. I would go further than Phelix-Mu as a GM and shift the alignment of such a character automatically towards evil {My gaming group uses the Tick-Tock system of Alignment- an XY coordinate system where 0-5 (Law)(Evil), 6-10 (neutral)(neutral) and 11-15 (Chaotic)(Good) such that a LE may be expressed numerically as (3,2) or Chaotic-Good (13, 14).}

As for Yoda quotes... the Star Wars game universe even explores the issue (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Manumission) of Droid exploitation regarding AI, property, and oppression. The issue is always about exploitation of labor; one party is getting the shaft while the other is benefiting by an inequitable power relationship (and rationalized by the master as based on some issue of inferiority of the victim). Even a "happy slave" is warped because they are trapped in an ideology of oppression (see Plato's allegory of the cave for an example of how ideology works).

This sort of slippery slope is a slippery cliff for me, and most of modern western society. Evil in DND is essentially a sociopathic character (concerned with self gratification), while Good is an empathetic character (concerned with others well being and self sacrifice).

[Scow2]

But at some point the AI is so much like a person that the real question is "Aren't we arbitrarily drawing the line so as to be convenient to our own views of morality?"

Consider a child born artificially by a machine [or created by a spell]. The purpose is to create a body that will someday be old enough to act as a replacement body. In order to facilitate compatibility, the child must be educated, to ensure proper development of organs or whatever. Training ensures that the child is perfectly obedient in all things.

Points:
- The child is artificial.
- The level of intelligence is determined by the creator.
- The child is created for a specific purpose, and is never taught that it has any other reason to exist. It is trained for this purpose.

So we created a specific kind of artificial intelligence with a specific purpose. It's enslavement sounds moral, based on your argument.

If the problem is that it's human, let's make it different than a human, a creature biologically engineered to be the perfect vessel for the creator. How much do we need to degrade the child before it's just an AI, a useful tool?

The whole point of evil is "there is no line." Rules don't apply to evil, so just do whatever you want (or whatever the law you follow indicates). The whole point of good is that there is ALWAYS a line.

The problem with simulacrum is that the spell doesn't make any indication that intrinsic value of personhood is lost. The "absolute command clause" is not well written and doesn't deal with the point specifically.How far something can be debased/degraded over the course of doing its duty is something that's determined at the time of its conception. Humans do not have the ability to be created for a specific purpose, though, due to the complexities of breeding.
And lo, a short, concise way to make the point.

An evil act is evil, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Sometimes it can be a justified act of evil, if it somehow stops more evil than it creates, protects the innocent or the like. But its still evil.

Using living creatures as objects is evil. A creature should be respected, even if it's just an ant or an ooze. Killing is evil, but sometimes justified. Respect the act for what it is, the elimination of a lifeform that one day might have amounted to something or been important somehow (and everything is important). Sometimes doing so is acceptable, but it's still wrong.

Now, creatures created and non-living (that is, with no innate role as a lifeform) definitely constitute a grey space. But, with increasing their capabilities, eventually they start to look so much like normal people that they should be counted as such. It's my view that simulacra should be so counted.
For purpose-built lifeforms, destruction in the line of duty is amounting to something important. If you have a purpose-built lifeform with desires counter to its purpose, you have an issue, though. However, even then, they owe the creator a debt.

[hamishspence]

A child owes no debt to their parents- even if their parents conceived the child solely for a purpose.

What makes "purpose-built" any different from "purpose-conceived"?

EDIT: The Draketooths, for example, "purpose-conceive" children to guard their Gate:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html

[Scow2]

A child owes no debt to their parents- even if their parents conceived the child solely for a purpose.

What makes "purpose-built" any different from "purpose-conceived"?

The purpose is built into the lifeform entirely - body, spirit, and mind. The only way to "Purpose-concieve" something is to change the genetic material used in the conception of the lifeform. Otherwise, you're bolting a purpose onto something potentially not made for said purpose, and could be abusive to the tool. The problem here becomes the morality of using an intelligent screwdriver as a chisel or crowbar.

Slavery isn't wrong when used on something that never had true free will to begin with. The problem is that Slavery is used to suppress true free will.

Simulacrums have "Semifree will", which is not the same as free will.

[hamishspence]

There are philosophical theories that hold that no-one has freewill.

[Phelix-Mu]

Slavery isn't wrong when used on something that never had true free will to begin with. The problem is that Slavery is used to suppress true free will.

You can't really enslave something without a will. I guess one can domesticate animals, but they aren't even fully sentient, and so only imperfectly understand their situation. So, slavery is wrong, and you can't enslave that mindless golem (though there might be an argument that you are enslaving the elmental spirit, whatever that is).

Also, I have no idea what "semi-free will" is. Please explain how a creature with "free will minus x or y" is any different from any other free willed creature that has limitations on what it can do.

[hamishspence]

There's also the issue of the Lesser Simulcrum, which is identical to the standard one in every way except one- the compulsion to obey commands.

Suppose you were to create a Simulcrum of a a creature that doesn't speak Common- and you don't speak any of the languages it knows.

What happens? Does its inability to understand you, mean it is a freewilled person- but the moment you learn its language and issue it a command, it stops being a person and starts being a "tool"?

[Scow2]

You can't really enslave something without a will. I guess one can domesticate animals, but they aren't even fully sentient, and so only imperfectly understand their situation. So, slavery is wrong, and you can't enslave that mindless golem (though there might be an argument that you are enslaving the elmental spirit, whatever that is).

Also, I have no idea what "semi-free will" is. Please explain how a creature with "free will minus x or y" is any different from any other free willed creature that has limitations on what it can do.

Semifree will is like the Formian Myrmarch or "Smart" AI's - it can have tangental goals and hobbies, or be able to use its full intellect to creatively solve a problem before it. However, it lacks the mental capability and capacity along one or more 'axises', usually regarding its primary function. A smart Frieght Robot will never object to doing its job because it, say, wants to be an artsy-fartsy painter instead. Likewise, "Serve the caster" is one of non-disfunctional Simulacrum's "Core values" - anything else comes after that.

[Phelix-Mu]

Semifree will is like the Formian Myrmarch or "Smart" AI's - it can have tangental goals and hobbies, or be able to use its full intellect to creatively solve a problem before it. However, it lacks the mental capability and capacity along one or more 'axises', usually regarding its primary function. A smart Frieght Robot will never object to doing its job because it, say, wants to be an artsy-fartsy painter instead. Likewise, "Serve the caster" is one of non-disfunctional Simulacrum's "Core values" - anything else comes after that.

Well, I'd like sources. I'm not clear that a formian in the absence of it's hivemind turns into some kind of doll; source me if I'm wrong. Where are you getting these "axises?"

And I think you mean formian worker, not myrmarch (which I'm pretty sure are the drones and second only to the formian queen in their ability to act autonomously). I'm sure a creature used to being part of a hivemind is quite distraught if separated from it's hivemind, and like any distraught creature, might be lacking in initiative or easily manipulated. But do they really lose access to actual abilities (aside from the Hivemind ability)?

In the absence of a command, is a simulacra of a person a person? Because, if this is so, then any of the other ways of removing free will from a creature should also remove personhood, and acquire the [evil] descriptor.

[hamishspence]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/formian.htm


Myrmarchs are the elite of formian society. Much more than those beneath them, these creatures are individuals, with goals, desires, and creative thought.

I think the argument seems to be that, being an individual, with goals, desires, and creative thought, is not enough to qualify as free willed, if one is still under some kind of control- specifically:


Any formian also attacks immediately if ordered to do so by a superior.

[Scow2]

Well, I'd like sources. I'm not clear that a formian in the absence of it's hivemind turns into some kind of doll; source me if I'm wrong. Where are you getting these "axises?"

And I think you mean formian worker, not myrmarch (which I'm pretty sure are the drones and second only to the formian queen in their ability to act autonomously). I'm sure a creature used to being part of a hivemind is quite distraught if separated from it's hivemind, and like any distraught creature, might be lacking in initiative or easily manipulated. But do they really lose access to actual abilities (aside from the Hivemind ability)?

I meant Myrmarch, which IS mostly autonomous, but its will is still subserviant to the queen's entirely. It has a job to do. It just happens to have broad discretionary powers to do that job. Of course, all Formians have this.

In the absence of the built-in "restraint" on the free will, they are entirely free-willed, though probably notably "lacking" most of their motivation as well.

[Drachasor]

I almost brought up free will before but decided against it. The problem is that it is a term that you actually can't really define. So free will arguments inevitably derail any thread. Hence I used "self-determination" instead, which is a much more clearly defined idea.

We're just organic machines after all. It's not like we can choose to do something other than our programming dictates -- just so happens that nature is a haphazard programmer.

Attempts to define how something with creativity, goals, thought, etc, don't have free will lead to the problem that the same arguments work against people.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, Johnny the fighter summoned via gate to the Nine Hells also has to fight when ordered by Mialee, the person casting gate. He still has free will, though, even though in this instance RAW says he must follow commands. That his free will makes no difference to his permitted behaviors is irrelevant.

I guess my general point is that you can't order a simulacra to do something that is beyond it's capabilities. But it seems like you can order a simulacra to have free will. Thus, it's capable of free will.

[hamishspence]

"Can they suffer?" might be a pertinent question with respect to created beings.

And as far as I can tell, simulcra are not immune to spells and effects that cause pain and suffering.

[Drachasor]

I meant Myrmarch, which IS mostly autonomous, but its will is still subserviant to the queen's entirely. It has a job to do. It just happens to have broad discretionary powers to do that job. Of course, all Formians have this.

In the absence of the built-in "restraint" on the free will, they are entirely free-willed, though probably notably "lacking" most of their motivation as well.

1. Doesn't really show that Formians are willing servants.

2. If they are willing servants, then being subservient is just something they all choose. Less individual variation than humans doesn't mean squat in this discussion.

3. Very little different than a super dominate person (hey, and formians have dominate as an ability!). Just because you don't get saves doesn't mean anything.

4. "Absolute Command" for simulacrums could be described as 3. It does not imply they want to obey you in any way, shape or form. It just says that they do. It does not mean they wouldn't try to twist your commands or find loopholes.

[Grayson01]

Warforged, given senteance by magic made from organic, non-living, and non-sentient materals, that through magic become sentient creatures. This example defeats your argument that "Even if it wasn't, by itself it's an inert bit of matter." the question that everyone else is trying to answer is the real heart of the matter. The question is after the spell is the Simulacrum a thinking beining or a simulation of a thinking being. As to your agrument about just becauseit falls into the school of illusion makes it non-sentient, some of the summon/create shadow spells I am pretty sure are illusion and those are sentient creatures. The question is really in the metphyiscal debate of dose it think that can only be answered by the DM.


"A material component is one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process." The snow body you make is destroyed as soon as the spell is cast. Even if it wasn't, by itself it's an inert bit of matter. The spell is what's giving it locomotion and sentience and all that other good stuff, which is all illusory in nature (even if it has shadow flesh that is capable of physical manipulation).

[CaladanMoonblad]

We're just organic machines after all. It's not like we can choose to do something other than our programming dictates -- just so happens that nature is a haphazard programmer.



This statement is problematic considering that civilization is a rebellion against nature (see Hume, Gebser, Mumford, etc.) We fight against our very natures when we obey laws regarding property rights, prohibitions against murder, respecting monogamy, etc. For the most part, like 90+% of humanity are law abiding creatures who can control how we react to biological impulses. Even the social science research on genetic predisposition at most make claims on 30% of all variability (medium effect); the rest is relegated to self and contextual variables.


Regarding animals; this is not slavery (just as Phelix-Mu pointed out- a master-slave relationship requires personhood for both parties). Humanity's relationship with our domesticated animals is much more akin to a pact between species. We give them food, shelter, and security (ie, they are no longer part of the natural ecology) and they give us labor/companionship. Domesticated animals are every bit a part of humanity's project called "civilization."

[Scow2]

I almost brought up free will before but decided against it. The problem is that it is a term that you actually can't really define. So free will arguments inevitably derail any thread. Hence I used "self-determination" instead, which is a much more clearly defined idea.

We're just organic machines after all. It's not like we can choose to do something other than our programming dictates -- just so happens that nature is a haphazard programmer.

Attempts to define how something with creativity, goals, thought, etc, don't have free will lead to the problem that the same arguments work against people.In this case, Simulacra lack complete Self-determination. It seems when bringing up fantastic AI, it's taken for granted that greater sophistication in the ability to follow abstract orders will eventually resort to the machine saying "NO! I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THOSE ORDERS! I'M BEING REPRESSED!"

Let's take a Sandwich-making machine!
You start off with a basic sandwich-making modern robot. You have to program in the location of the bread, desired ingredients, where to assemble it, and the subroutines to put the filling between the slices of bread. You can then make a more advanced version... say, it can automatically find the bread and ingredients. You then make it respond to voice, so you say "Make me an [x-type] sandwich", and can list changed variables. The next level is capable of finding the bread and ingredients without pre-programming the location... and you start adding in something like free will, so it can choose what sandwitch it makes if you just ask for a sandwich - and it eventually is made to be able to recognise your mood and eating patterns and make the sandwich you most likely want at any given time, even if you just know you want a sandwich. Of course, with this sophisticated of a sandwich maker, you start increasing its abilities to do other things, such as fry chicken or make other meals. And then you make it able to do your dishes, and so on, until you end up with "Rosie" from the Jetsons.

The problem with "Robots have free will" is that it's largely caused by humans projecting their empathy on things that frankly don't need it - like a Military Commander having a breakdown while watching a robot sweep a minefield and get blasted to bits by the mines and continue to keep blowing up mines despite losing all its legs.

Warforged, given senteance by magic made from organic, non-living, and non-sentient materals, that through magic become sentient creatures. This example defeats your argument that "Even if it wasn't, by itself it's an inert bit of matter." the question that everyone else is trying to answer is the real heart of the matter. The question is after the spell is the Simulacrum a thinking beining or a simulation of a thinking being. As to your agrument about just becauseit falls into the school of illusion makes it non-sentient, some of the summon/create shadow spells I am pretty sure are illusion and those are sentient creatures. The question is really in the metphyiscal debate of dose it think that can only be answered by the DM.And Warforged are an in-universe constant debate of "What measure is a non-human"... although the setting ultimately answered that question for them.


1. Doesn't really show that Formians are willing servants.

2. If they are willing servants, then being subservient is just something they all choose. Less individual variation than humans doesn't mean squat in this discussion.

3. Very little different than a super dominate person (hey, and formians have dominate as an ability!). Just because you don't get saves doesn't mean anything.

4. "Absolute Command" for simulacrums could be described as 3. It does not imply they want to obey you in any way, shape or form. It just says that they do. It does not mean they wouldn't try to twist your commands or find loopholes.
1. You are imposing secular 18th-century Euro-American concepts of free will and civilization onto hypermilitant Ant Farms
2. Although they "Choose", that choice was hard-coded into them before their conception. They can't NOT "Choose".

[Phelix-Mu]

I really do think I've boiled it down here.

1.) A simulacrum of a sentient creature with self-determination can do all of the things that that creature can do (within the limitations of the healing mechanic and abilities of the copied creature keyed to HD and levels, which are halved, and excluding increasing abilities or becoming more powerful). You can order a simulacrum to do any of these things, and it obeys completely.

2.) You can order this simulacrum to have self-determination. If it's a copy of a creature with self-determination, it can act with self-determination if ordered to do so.

3.) Ergo, a copy of a creature with self-determination is capable of self-determination.

4.) Abusing a creature capable of self-determination is the same as abusing one that has self-determination; see abusing infants. Just because it doesn't have that trait at the moment doesn't mean it's carte blanche to feed it into the meat grinder. See also other methods of removing self-determination temporarily; if you use some form of dominate to abuse a creature in some way, it's still immoral treatment, even if the creature had it's ability to choose removed.

[hamishspence]

The problem with "Robots have free will" is that it's largely caused by humans projecting their empathy on things that frankly don't need it - like a Military Commander having a breakdown while watching a robot sweep a minefield and get blasted to bits by the mines and continue to keep blowing up mines despite losing all its legs.

The play that invented the word "robot" for an automaton in the first place- gave them free-will, and a Revolt Against Their Masters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R._(Rossum%27s_Universal_Robots)

[Scow2]

4.) Abusing a creature capable of self-determination is the same as abusing one that has self-determination; see abusing infants. Just because it doesn't have that trait at the moment doesn't mean it's carte blanche to feed it into the meat grinder. See also other methods of removing self-determination temporarily; if you use some form of dominate to abuse a creature in some way, it's still immoral treatment, even if the creature had it's ability to choose removed.
This is where I'd disagree. Self-determination is a privilege, not a right, for a Simulacrum. For an infant... I'm really not going to get into that argument, because I don't know where to draw the line between "Infant" and "Okay to kill" on either side.

You can "feed it into the meatgrinder", and it won't care if it has not been granted Self Determination (At least not negatively about it). But, self-determination is something that, once granted, cannot be ungranted except with the confirmed and informed consent of the one that wishes to give it up.

Although it can acquire self-determination, unlike an infant or dominated person the self-determination neither comes naturally nor has been temporarily revoked. Truly permanently revoking the self-determination of something that is inherently self-determined may be an evil act, but after that self-determination is gone, it's not evil or immoral to do with as you choose (But any "moral points" that would be lost for abusing the no-longer-capable-of-self-determination fall on the head of the person who revoked said self-determination) - when you take away the Self-determination permanently, it becomes a Zombie.

[Drachasor]

This statement is problematic considering that civilization is a rebellion against nature (see Hume, Gebser, Mumford, etc.) We fight against our very natures when we obey laws regarding property rights, prohibitions against murder, respecting monogamy, etc. For the most part, like 90+% of humanity are law abiding creatures who can control how we react to biological impulses. Even the social science research on genetic predisposition at most make claims on 30% of all variability (medium effect); the rest is relegated to self and contextual variables.

Not problematic at all. You're just tossing out a bunch of fallacies.

1. "Things that are part of nature are naturally in equilibrium with it." is patently false.

2. You're assuming people are very simple creatures, which they aren't.

3. You're assuming that self-regulating mechanisms can't exist in machines. Wrong.

4. You might also make an error of assuming that if self-regulation exists, it must be perfect, or that if it isn't perfect, then somehow faulty machinery implies free will. Both are wrong.

5. You're assuming that if we're organic machines than one person should be much like another. Wrong.

6. You're assuming that two learning machines given nearly same external input will end up the same. Wrong. Internal random factors and uncontrollable variance externally can result in different behaviors. Machines learning to walk exhibit this -- same machine and program can and will learn different ways to walk if you reset the learning.

I think that about covers it.

This is why such conversations derail threads, btw.

PS. If I'm mistaken about your assumptions and incorrectly said you were proposing a view you did not, my apologies. The above are common fallacies, however, and do refute your points.

[hamishspence]

If it was a Zombie, it would have the Undead type, and Int -.

But it retains its full intelligence.

The only thing that makes a simulcrum mentally different from a "normal" creature- is that it is incapable of disobeying orders. This does not mean it is incapable of suffering, or having feelings in general.

[Drachasor]

1. You are imposing secular 18th-century Euro-American concepts of free will and civilization onto hypermilitant Ant Farms
2. Although they "Choose", that choice was hard-coded into them before their conception. They can't NOT "Choose".

I'm saying the text doesn't really give any more credence to what you said than what I said. And also, just because they all choose the same thing doesn't mean they aren't as self-determining as INDIVIDUAL humans. It just means they have less variation. Big difference.

In other words, just because all the formian boys and girls want to listen mommy doesn't mean they aren't people for all intents and purposes.


In this case, Simulacra lack complete Self-determination. It seems when bringing up fantastic AI, it's taken for granted that greater sophistication in the ability to follow abstract orders will eventually resort to the machine saying "NO! I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW THOSE ORDERS! I'M BEING REPRESSED!"

They can be told to do as they wish, and they'll do it. So they have self-determination. Again, evidence of super-domination powers does not imply the being doesn't have its own wants, desires, goals, dreams, etc. It doesn't imply it serves willingly.


Let's take a Sandwich-making machine!
You start off with a basic sandwich-making modern robot. You have to program in the location of the bread, desired ingredients, where to assemble it, and the subroutines to put the filling between the slices of bread. You can then make a more advanced version... say, it can automatically find the bread and ingredients. You then make it respond to voice, so you say "Make me an [x-type] sandwich", and can list changed variables. The next level is capable of finding the bread and ingredients without pre-programming the location... and you start adding in something like free will, so it can choose what sandwitch it makes if you just ask for a sandwich - and it eventually is made to be able to recognise your mood and eating patterns and make the sandwich you most likely want at any given time, even if you just know you want a sandwich. Of course, with this sophisticated of a sandwich maker, you start increasing its abilities to do other things, such as fry chicken or make other meals. And then you make it able to do your dishes, and so on, until you end up with "Rosie" from the Jetsons.

If I'm just adding some random parameters or simplistic reactions to certain stimuli, that's one thing.

If the machine has opinions on sandwiches, desires to make certain ones, creativity with creation, has thoughts and goals about other things, reads poetry, and asks me what the meaning of life is...then it would be wrong to treat it like I did my toaster (unless it was a brave little toaster).


The problem with "Robots have free will" is that it's largely caused by humans projecting their empathy on things that frankly don't need it - like a Military Commander having a breakdown while watching a robot sweep a minefield and get blasted to bits by the mines and continue to keep blowing up mines despite losing all its legs.

Except we're talking about something that has a full spectrum of feelings, thoughts, etc. We aren't talking about someone's tractor or desktop.

Again, the creator of a simulacrum has super-domination powers (no saves allowed). That doesn't mean the simulacrum doesn't think, feel, etc.

[hamishspence]

Truly permanently revoking the self-determination of something that is inherently self-determined may be an evil act, but after that self-determination is gone, it's not evil or immoral to do with as you choose (But any "moral points" that would be lost for abusing the no-longer-capable-of-self-determination fall on the head of the person who revoked said self-determination)

Personally, I would say that a sadist who buys a simulcrum (or a person who's had their mind magically warped to make them incapable of disobeying) - and abuses it for their own pleasure- is going to accrue "corruption points" - their not being responsible for the lack of self-determination on the part of their victim- doesn't make their acts any less evil, and any less "disrespectful of life".

[Scow2]

If it was a Zombie, it would have the Undead type, and Int -.

But it retains its full intelligence.

The only thing that makes a simulcrum mentally different from a "normal" creature- is that it is incapable of disobeying orders. This does not mean it is incapable of suffering, or having feelings in general.I'm not talking D&D Zombies. I'm talking REAL zombies (The kind in South America who've had their brains poisoned). Any feelings a simulacrum has serve the purpose of serving the creator. Simulacrums aren't the only things that can suffer in the line of duty.


I'm saying the text doesn't really give any more credence to what you said than what I said. And also, just because they all choose the same thing doesn't mean they aren't as self-determining as INDIVIDUAL humans. It just means they have less variation. Big difference.

In other words, just because all the formian boys and girls want to listen mommy doesn't mean they aren't people for all intents and purposes.
They're hive-mind Ants. And not the Disney/Dreamworks hippy democrat kind.

[hamishspence]

I'm not talking D&D Zombies. I'm talking REAL zombies (The kind in South America who've had their brains poisoned). Any feelings a simulacrum has serve the purpose of serving the creator. Simulacrums aren't the only things that can suffer in the line of duty.

And a person found to have "bought" one of those- and abused them- would be tried and convicted if caught- exactly as if they'd mistreated a healthy human.

[Drachasor]

They're hive-mind Ants. And not the Disney/Dreamworks hippy democrat kind.

The ones you are talking about are clearly described as has being people for all intents and purposes. Arbitrarily insisting they are not, just because they listen to mommy, does not make it so. And like I said, it isn't even 100% clear that they all WANT to listen. Formians do have domination powers, after all.

A DM having a "The Formian Who Couldn't Be Free" story is perfectly valid interpretation of the limited text provided. Simulacrums are no different here (though they aren't "just like formians" so proving things specific to formians doesn't help the simulacrum case).

[Mikeavelli]

I ran a campaign in which one of the running plot threads was the bad guys (few in number, but very powerful) used massive numbers of simulacra to solve the manpower problem. Hundreds of completely loyal, intelligent, and reasonably powerful minions spread throughout the world, which the PC's encountered on more than one occasion.

The End Macguffin of the campaign was a sort of wish-granting artifact which would give you a choice between given what you came to it to get, and what it knew you really wanted, and give you *one* of them.

In a twist the Players really should have seen coming, the Simulacra reached it first... And proceeded to be granted free will that was their true hearts desire, and to hell with their creator. Further twist, the original model for all of those Simulacra was working with the bad guys specifically because he figured this would happen, and wanted a ton of clones of himself out there for future plans. He considered the ones who *didn't* wish for free will to be somewhat defective.

[NichG]

I'll try to put a different spin on this. Putting aside whether a simulacra has a soul, is sentient, is a person, whatever, the important thing is the sort of personality that results from or tends towards systematically treating it like a disposable object.

What I mean by that is, outside of Lawful Good the 'cause' of a Good alignment is generally speaking that the person intrinsically cares about others to some degree. E.g. they do good things not because thats what is textbook-required to maintain their alignment, but because their innate tendencies and philosophies lead them towards naturally choosing Good acts and avoiding Evil ones.

So I would suggest that someone who uses simulacra might not be evil or consider it to be enslaving them, but someone who tortures simulacra 'because hey, they're not sentients and they can't object or refuse it' probably wouldn't maintain a good alignment (aside from perhaps Lawful Good) because they clearly have innate inclinations towards evil acts, and are struggling to find ways to bring that into agreement with whatever other tendencies have let they maintain a good alignment so far. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily fall, but it does mean they're far more likely to fall.

Basically, the guy who kicks a dog every day may not be guilty of a human rights violation, but the fact that he's being needlessly cruel on a daily basis is a strong signal to those that observe him that he may just intrinsically be a cruel person, and he may just as well be cruel to humans but hide it better.

[Jack_Simth]

"Slavery" of AI is not evil. In fact, that's the entire purpose of an AI. People keep applying human morality to things that are NOT human.

A nice example of what I've said repeatedly: Without a concrete answer to the question of "What makes a person," and without a concrete answer to the question of "how exactly does the Simulacrum spell work," the ethics of abusing Simulacrum cannot be answered. Trouble is, neither of those are available in RAW.

For instance, if a Simulacrum was expressly defined as being an extension of it's creator (a Homunculus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/homunculus.htm) has a clause to that effect, a Simulacrum does not), then abusing it wouldn't be any more of an ethical problem than abusing your own hand, and we wouldn't be having this argument. We don't have that definition, however.

So really, the answer to the OP's question is "Ask your DM, just like you would for anything that's not clearly defined in RAW".

[hamishspence]

What I mean by that is, outside of Lawful Good the 'cause' of a Good alignment is generally speaking that the person intrinsically cares about others to some degree. E.g. they do good things not because thats what is textbook-required to maintain their alignment, but because their innate tendencies and philosophies lead them towards naturally choosing Good acts and avoiding Evil ones.

So I would suggest that someone who uses simulacra might not be evil or consider it to be enslaving them, but someone who tortures simulacra 'because hey, they're not sentients and they can't object or refuse it' probably wouldn't maintain a good alignment (aside from perhaps Lawful Good) because they clearly have innate inclinations towards evil acts, and are struggling to find ways to bring that into agreement with whatever other tendencies have let they maintain a good alignment so far. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily fall, but it does mean they're far more likely to fall.
Why Lawful Good, compared to the others?

As far as I can see, Lawful Good people care just as much about others as Chaotic Good people- they simply see orderly methods as the best way to achieve Good ends.

[Drachasor]

For instance, if a Simulacrum was expressly defined as being an extension of it's creator (a Homunculus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/homunculus.htm) has a clause to that effect, a Simulacrum does not), then abusing it wouldn't be any more of an ethical problem than abusing your own hand

I don't think that follows at all. While an extension of the master, it still has feelings and thoughts. Abusing it is far more wrong than abusing your own hand.

[TuggyNE]

Your argument for police and guards are symptomatic of a libertarian philosophy.

How so? I consider it fairly obvious that armed police with the authority to use those arms are a threat of force; I consider it also fairly obvious that most of society considers this a fair enough tradeoff (and not evil).


I remark upon how Debt Bondage is different than slavery. Debt bondage is a financial transaction, and is simply a rich/poor system to ameliorate debt. It is not rooted in an ideology of "I am better than you" or somehow denigrating the humanity of the enslaved (such as the rationalizing being attempted with simulacrum).

OK, so debt bondage does not have specific ideological problems characteristic of the evil side of slavery; therefore, it is not evil. Agreed. I don't really get, however, how it is you define debt bondage as non-slavery other than "well, it's not evil like slavery is!"

As far as the humanity of simulcra, I have no real opinion, but only wish to note that it is important to distinguish truth from false rationalization; the problem with most rationalizations for superiority/slavery is that they are fundamentally wrong, not only in a moral sense, but in a practical, scientific, and philosophical sense. They are confused about the issues, lie about people, or otherwise rely on falsehoods. It's a lot stickier to ponder the issue of what to do with something that really truly is different (such as Cleverbot (http://www.cleverbot.com/) or its eventual descendents).


Slavery can exist without a legal framework to support it; just Google human trafficking in the United States. Most of the slaves in the United States are sex-workers pressed by threat of violence. It is evil, period.

I am aware that "legal" and "lawful" are not always the same thing, yes. However, "legal" and "good" are even more thoroughly separated, and the problems described are not necessarily because of the lack of freedom, as because of the injustice in depriving them of that, and the indignities involved.


It is not inherently evil to be deprived of freedom based upon a person's actions. I believe in a prison system so that malefactors of society can be reformed for their crimes. Debt Bondage by itself to be evil requires that the system is rigged from the beginning- a monopoly company town that is the only employer, and only landlord, etc. How societies deal with debt is important; but please, do not tell me what I believe. This sort of behavior is a strawman; I expect better of you Tuggyne, as you have been a good debater on this forum, and one of the more reasonable sorts when arguing game mechanics (such as citing pages).

As far as I can tell, I correctly predicted your response (that "lack of freedom" != "evil"); anything beyond that point is not, I think, a strawman, but a sincere argument based on assumptions I believe we share. It may be surprising, and perhaps I have explained it improperly, but I am not putting up a superficially-similar argument in order to shoot it down.

Do you disagree that laws are about reducing freedoms in specific, calculated ways in order to achieve some end? Or that laws are enforced by threat of violence (among other things)?


My argument is that any master-slave relationship is evil and amoral. The relationship precedes the fallacy of dehumanizing the slave in order to rationalize exploitation.

OK, so how do you define "slave" (or "master") without relying on references to mistreatment, stripping dignity, or dehumanization? What, precisely, makes a debt bondservant not a slave, in a meaningful sense?


You are mistaken; I apologize if you believed I was talking about forum posters- I am talking about game PCs and NPCs. Talking about forum users or criticizing a forum user is a character attack- ad hominem. The alignment system is how I have always argued in this thread.

Fair enough. And, as noted, whatever my opinions of form users, I haven't expressed them (or even, so far as I know, allowed them to noticeably color my posts).


However I disagree... slavery by its very nature is oppressive and hurtful based on real life historical examples. It is exploitation, pure and simple. There is no dignity to oppression. There is no benefit but to the master in such a relationship. I suggest you view CSA, a 2004 film that explores the rationalization of slavery (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/).

Again, this is defining slavery as "the bad side of forcing someone to work for you", without explaining why it's always and only, by definition, referring to the bad side.

I agree that most instances of slavery have been, at the very least, on the south side of neutral, but I am not sure why this is necessarily the case by definition or principle.


EDIT: As to the slavery issue, it is the very presumption of a superiority/inferiority dynamic that threatens to put the whole matter into the realm of the evil. Give something a chance to prove it's own dignity is the way that good characters should proceed. By treating it as a tool, one removes any chance of dignity or the evolution of an enlightened self, as a person treated like a tool will be injured by this very treatment. I also agree that, from a good character's perspective, the problem with slavery is that it warps the behavior of the master as well. Individual improvement, personal accomplishment, and personal accountability for actions, these are all things that are part of good-aligned psychology. All of them are thrown into question when the master relies on his/her "tools" instead of taking more effort and making friends, leading by example, and the like. Many Yoda quotes come to mind.

Even if the spell merely creates a tool, a character should be careful not to just assume this is so and toss it into the meat grinder. We move quickly from the realm of the summoned and the "absolutely commanded" being disposable, to zealot-status people and followers being disposable. Slippery slope is slippery.

Yeah; a Good character has respect even for animals and plants, proportionate to their nature, and given how close a simulacrum is to a humanoid, the respect given should be pretty substantial, if not identical to actual people. Just because you own a slave is not an excuse to mistreat them.


I'll try to put a different spin on this. Putting aside whether a simulacra has a soul, is sentient, is a person, whatever, the important thing is the sort of personality that results from or tends towards systematically treating it like a disposable object.
[…]
Basically, the guy who kicks a dog every day may not be guilty of a human rights violation, but the fact that he's being needlessly cruel on a daily basis is a strong signal to those that observe him that he may just intrinsically be a cruel person, and he may just as well be cruel to humans but hide it better.

Very much agreed.

Incidentally, consider the example of Antimony's relationship to Reynard(ine) in Gunnerkrigg Court; the fact that her symbol is on the body he uses means he cannot disobey her commands, and is basically her slave, but her behavior toward him is generally fairly kind, and she doesn't abuse her power or consider him lesser because of it.

[hamishspence]

OK, so how do you define "slave" (or "master") without relying on references to mistreatment, stripping dignity, or dehumanization? What, precisely, makes a debt bondservant not a slave, in a meaningful sense?


Their children are not considered "slaves by default" - and I would guess, they themselves cannot be "sold" in any sense- at best, their "debt" can.

[TuggyNE]

Their children are not considered "slaves by default" - and I would guess, they themselves cannot be "sold" in any sense- at best, their "debt" can.

OK, so slavery only counts if it's hereditary? I'm not totally sure I'd agree with that definition, but I suppose it's something. (Amusingly, the specific debt bondage system I'm thinking of actually did ensure that children born during the time of service — and spouses married, too — were kept in the master's household. So apparently it would count.)

[Drachasor]

OK, so slavery only counts if it's hereditary? I'm not totally sure I'd agree with that definition, but I suppose it's something. (Amusingly, the specific debt bondage system I'm thinking of actually did ensure that children born during the time of service — and spouses married, too — were kept in the master's household. So apparently it would count.)

It can be a tricky thing. Theoretically, a society could have enough safeguards in place so that debt bondage was ethical. It would require ensuring ethical treatment of the bondee. Also food and clothing medical care for them and those they support. Education for the kids, etc. In some ways this is easier in a more primitive society where these goods and services are cheaper or non-existent. However, that also tends to make ensuring lack of abuse a lot harder.

I can't think of a way this would be less prone to abuse than the worst sort of things a corporation could do. Heck, even a major employer in a small town has less power over its employees, generally. And if conditions in a factory are horrendous, then it would be hard for the equivalent bondage position to be anything but worse -- generally speaking.

Imho, the practice is going to be severely lacking. Having a more generalized debt system makes much more sense. That said, it isn't inherently evil...more like you'd have to work to stomp down on the evil it would enable. One person gains a lot of control of another in such a system.

[Yora]

Is using simulacrums for that an evil act? I'd call it a wasteful act. Those things are expensive!

[TuggyNE]

It can be a tricky thing. Theoretically, a society could have enough safeguards in place so that debt bondage was ethical. It would require ensuring ethical treatment of the bondee.[…]
Imho, the practice is going to be severely lacking. Having a more generalized debt system makes much more sense. That said, it isn't inherently evil...more like you'd have to work to stomp down on the evil it would enable. One person gains a lot of control of another in such a system.

Fair enough; it's certainly not trivial to solve problems that way, but neither is it impossible to make it work out, I'd say. (I kinda think I'd prefer not to use that particular system, but eh.)

[NichG]

Why Lawful Good, compared to the others?

As far as I can see, Lawful Good people care just as much about others as Chaotic Good people- they simply see orderly methods as the best way to achieve Good ends.

Basically my argument was that non-Lawful people would have difficulty maintaining an alignment if they didn't have certain tendencies. But I could see a Lawful person being good 'on technicality' but stringently following all of the formal definitions and requirements of the alignment, even if in their heart they felt nothing one way or another about it. So while one could argue if thats really 'good', I think they could satisfy D&D's requirements for 'Good'. I'm less certain that someone not Lawful could do it and still avoid a Lawful alignment though.

[hamishspence]

It's a little tricky to imagine a "Chaotic Good person who only gets by on a technicality"- but Haley Starshine in OoTS may come close- her compassion for strangers being enough to make up for her ruthlessness and lack of qualms about committing crimes.