Two players, friend and his now ex girlfriend, just had a falling out.

[MonkeySage]

Basically, I've just been given a tough decision; these two can no longer play the game together, so i have to figure out how to keep the game going smoothly. He has asked me if I can give his ex the boot, but understands that this is a very harsh thing to ask of me. I generally consider myself a nice guy, one who hates making enemies, gets along easily with just about anyone.

Most of the group knows what's going on, and I have a pretty good feeling that if anyone does end up leaving our game, it's probably her. This is a shame, since next to me she's the most experienced player... Not to mention, the team's only rogue.

[Ceaon]

That is indeed a lousy situation. I'd say that, though you might offer them help, it is the responsibility of the two players rather than the GM to decide who if anyone should quit or if there is another solution.

[MonkeySage]

Unfortunately they are not talking right now.

[SowZ]

I've been in similar circumstances on multiple occasions. My policy on this sort of thing is this. "Can either of you play with the other one?" If one of them says 'Yes, I'm fine.' then I'd gently tell the other that they should try and make it work to or else they can bow out, no hard feelings and it is understandable.

If they both don't want to play with the other? Then a decision has to be made and all the factors considered. Hopefully one of them volunteers to leave, but they may not.

[Raine_Sage]

If I may ask why is the ex more likely to go? Did you not know her until she started dating your friend or were you all mutual friends before they started dating?

Either way they shouldn't be pinning this on you. They're presumably adults so tell them that they're both being put on hiatus from the game until they can reach some sort of agreement about who goes. They shouldn't make their baggage the group's baggage. That's a great way to kill a game for good.

[MonkeySage]

My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave... Maybe I can set up a sort of mediated chat(me being the mediator), get them to talk their problems through... She's saying that she "can't be friends with him" and he's angry... I do not know the full story, though.

He wants me to talk to her, and from what I know about her so far, she's a pretty rational person, maybe more so than him.

Maybe if I can get her to agree to this plan, then I could play the friend card with him to get him to try?

[Aasimar]

The fairest solution is to ask both to bow out until they can play amiably with others.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm about the worst person to give advice on this, but I'll offer this.

Put game on hiatus for a week or two, to give them a chance to cool off, then ask both of them alone if they still want to game if the other is around.

If they can't get along after they've had time to cool off, they might be more willing to talk about a compromise at that point. Trying to make them decide what to do about your shared activity right away, when they're all ragey might just make each one feel that you're against them, even when you're not.

[SowZ]

My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave... Maybe I can set up a sort of mediated chat(me being the mediator), get them to talk their problems through... She's saying that she "can't be friends with him" and he's angry... I do not know the full story, though.

He wants me to talk to her, and from what I know about her so far, she's a pretty rational person, maybe more so than him.

Maybe if I can get her to agree to this plan, then I could play the friend card with him to get him to try?

I don't support this plan. Talk to both individually, don't play mediator unless they both come to you and ask you. I have been on your friends side of this issue, it was rough on all because we had both been dating and part of the same game group for close to two years. We were both friends with everyone. But even then, I would have been offended if somebody in the group told me we need to sit down altogether and discuss the problem. Even if we'd consented, it would have ended not prettily and probably with the mediator knowing more about the situation and things that were done then he would've cared to know. Which would just be awkward for everyone.

I figure you are coming from a good place. But these kinds of issues are bigger then a game and healing can't be forced.

[MonochromeTiger]

I don't support this plan. Talk to both individually, don't play mediator unless they both come to you and ask you. I have been on your friends side of this issue, it was rough on all because we had both been dating and part of the same game group for close to two years. We were both friends with everyone. But even then, I would have been offended if somebody in the group told me we need to sit down altogether and discuss the problem. Even if we'd consented, it would have ended not prettily and probably with the mediator knowing more about the situation and things that were done then he would've cared to know. Which would just be awkward for everyone.

I figure you are coming from a good place. But these kinds of issues are bigger then a game and healing can't be forced.

agreed, often we think we're helping when we try to mediate something for a friend but there's the inherent risk of aggravating whatever problem they had before (and potentially causing them to take issue with you for doing so). if at all possible in a break up where you have to deal with both people try to minimize any blame that can be placed on you. the last thing you'd want is for both of them to be upset with you.

[SowZ]

The fairest solution is to ask both to bow out until they can play amiably with others.

I don't know if it is quite that simple, though. When I was in that situation, I certainly would not have played a game with her and I don't think I was being unreasonable.

[Rhynn]

I don't support this plan. Talk to both individually, don't play mediator unless they both come to you and ask you.

I figure you are coming from a good place. But these kinds of issues are bigger then a game and healing can't be forced.

Oh goodness yes, absolutely do not get in the middle of their break-up, or of anyone's break-up, pre-, mid-, or post-. That is not a good place to be, and frankly it's none of your business. (Being nearby their break-up, e.g. to lend a shoulder and an ear, is mostly pretty fine.)

Give it a little while, ask them to sort out who stays. There are no good solutions here, unfortunately.

If you really want to work something out, try running two different games, one with group + A, one with group + B. It's a bother, but there you go.

[Gavran]

The fairest solution is to ask both to bow out until they can play amiably with others.

I agree. It's unfortunate, since good people to play with can be a semi-rare commodity and none of the drama is game related, but so is losing just one player. It would very much be both or neither for me, even if one of them left voluntarily. Being the only one left out of the group, while going through a tough breakup would be very very damaging to friendships with the other players.

[SowZ]

I agree. It's unfortunate, since good people to play with can be a semi-rare commodity and none of the drama is game related, but so is losing just one player. It would very much be both or neither for me, even if one of them left voluntarily. Being the only one left out of the group, while going through a tough breakup would be very very damaging to friendships with the other players.

If one left voluntarily you'd kick the other one out? Why would you do that? Telling the friend who opted to stay he isn't welcome would be fairly close to a guarantee that the friendship is severely damaged if not right out unrepairable. Whereas for the person who left of their own volition there is no reason you couldn't continue to hang out with them in other settings without hard feelings. The one who opted to leave could only be mad at you if that person was insisting everyone stop being friends with their ex, which probably isn't someone you want around anyway.

[Aasimar]

I don't know if it is quite that simple, though. When I was in that situation, I certainly would not have played a game with her and I don't think I was being unreasonable.

Doesn't matter, you can't ask your GM to take sides if he doesn't want to.

[SowZ]

Doesn't matter, you can't ask your GM to take sides if he doesn't want to.

I would never have asked him, though. I just wouldn't have played with her. Any friend gathering I know she'll be at I'll just excuse myself and wish everyone else has a good time. Which I don't think is wrong by anyone's standards. We got sorta lucky. As it was, it made more sense for her to leave since she lived an hour and a half anyway so already missed half the time and had another group in her town she could play with if she'd wanted.

Point is, it is not unreasonable of his friend or his friend's ex to not want to play with the other. It is a normal, reasonable response and both shouldn't be kicked out of the game for the bad luck of being in a break up that didn't end with them staying friends. Asking both of them to sort it out themselves is reasonable, though, and the DM certainly shouldn't get involved.

[Delta]

I also agree that the "mediated chat" idea will most likely end badly. It's not your job to fix or mediate their personal problems unless they want you to. Just ask both of them individually what they think, and I also agree that it's best to wait for a week or two to give them time to cool off.

[Lorsa]

While it may be of little help in your particular situation, I find that if one person gives you an ultimatum of "it's me or her/him" and the other says "I'm fine with you being friends with both / being in the same group as him/her" then it's the one giving the ultimatum that needs to go.

If both are giving you an ultimatum, then they obviously have some issues you shouldn't get in the middle of.

[Gavran]

If one left voluntarily you'd kick the other one out? Why would you do that? Telling the friend who opted to stay he isn't welcome would be fairly close to a guarantee that the friendship is severely damaged if not right out unrepairable. Whereas for the person who left of their own volition there is no reason you couldn't continue to hang out with them in other settings without hard feelings. The one who opted to leave could only be mad at you if that person was insisting everyone stop being friends with their ex, which probably isn't someone you want around anyway.

For me the goal is getting both of them back in the game. It isn't so difficult to be civil to someone that after a week or two to stabilize you can't play elfgames together. Also the one who volunteered to leave quite likely doesn't want to leave and is only doing so for the sake of the game/group, and since both are at fault it is unfair to let them make that sacrifice. For many of us, gaming together is the only time we get together with certain friends and in those cases letting just one leave the group is tantamount to total excision. Coincidentally, someone who wouldn't understand why I won't take sides or let sides be taken with the group also isn't someone I'd want around very much.

Note that I'm assuming neither party did something so horrible that I wouldn't associate with them in any context and that both parties are refusing to play together. If only A said they wouldn't play with B, then B would still be welcome and I'd make sure A knows that B is willing to play together still, as well as encouraging A to give it a chance.

[Mastikator]

Boot both, tell then you refuse to choose side but also realize they can't play together.

Potentially (if you have the time) split into two groups of which excludes each of the respective postparamours.

[Frenth Alunril]

Don't be the mediator.

Be a dm. The game table is a game table. Your "friend" is asking you to boot a player because he wants to avoid a mess they made, that's no reason to boot the other player. If the ex shows up, and you play just fine, the game goes on, if with one of them stats a fight, they are booted.

I would be very direct, and day, "I don't care about your love life, I need (character name) to be there, and so do (character name, character name, character name...) This fight you have is none of my concern."

But you be ready to boot which ever one becomes the aggressor at your table, that is how a boot works in this situation.

Your "friend" is actually asking you to inflict extra damage on the ex in a childish form of jackassery. It's manipulative and very passive/aggressive. In fact, they're asking you to be the meat shield, and stand between them and the ex, and do the heavy lifting. This us privacy the resin the relationship has ended, and now you know why dating is discouraged in the work place.

Good luck,

But don't use the boot until you have a valid table reason. The boot is mighty, but it stays on the foot, and is not to be used by others.

[Rhynn]

While it may be of little help in your particular situation, I find that if one person gives you an ultimatum of "it's me or her/him" and the other says "I'm fine with you being friends with both / being in the same group as him/her" then it's the one giving the ultimatum that needs to go.


This works fine unless, say, one of them is an abusive jerk and one is a victim of abuse, and you don't necessarily have any idea about that. Then you're essentially facilitating an interpersonal power-play. "Oh, you're just being unreasonable and over-emotional! I'm perfectly fine! Don't make a scene!" is a staple of abusers.

Sometimes, people can have good reasons for saying "it's him/her or me" - some people are legitimately awful, particularly in relationships.

Given that you may not know, and can't necessarily expect to be told, all the details, I think that sort of approach is a poor principle.

[Lorsa]

This works fine unless, say, one of them is an abusive jerk and one is a victim of abuse, and you don't necessarily have any idea about that. Then you're essentially facilitating an interpersonal power-play. "Oh, you're just being unreasonable and over-emotional! I'm perfectly fine! Don't make a scene!" is a staple of abusers.

Sometimes, people can have good reasons for saying "it's him/her or me" - some people are legitimately awful, particularly in relationships.

Given that you may not know, and can't necessarily expect to be told, all the details, I think that sort of approach is a poor principle.

I would expect however, that if you've interacted with both of them on a regular basis, you'd know if one is an abusive jerk. While you're not there for their private time, the signs would still be there and especially a victim is fairly easy to spot. It's basic empathy?

[Mastikator]

Don't be the mediator.

Be a dm. The game table is a game table. Your "friend" is asking you to boot a player because he wants to avoid a mess they made, that's no reason to boot the other player. If the ex shows up, and you play just fine, the game goes on, if with one of them stats a fight, they are booted.
[snip]

If only it were that simple. They're both gonna make passive aggressive remarks to each other that may fly under the DMs radar but will strike at very sour nerves on each other. The one who flips out may actually be the one that's less cruel.

I don't think the guy is asking the DM to boot the girl because he doesn't like her, I think he wants it because he fears her. Or at the very least it's impossible to know (within reasonable doubt) which is the case.

[Rhynn]

I would expect however, that if you've interacted with both of them on a regular basis, you'd know if one is an abusive jerk. While you're not there for their private time, the signs would still be there and especially a victim is fairly easy to spot. It's basic empathy?

I really doubt that, actually. Abusers are generally very good at not letting on, and at keeping their victim from telling. That's sort of the point: othewise no one would have anything to do with them.

[hymer]

My analysis:
Even if you do manage to get them to play again, it's likely to affect the enjoyment of the game - particularly for the two of them, but not exclusively.
In my experience, I've had two cases of "I won't play with that guy." The obvious consequence of that is the one saying it won't get invited when the other one is, at least until something changes. Or sometimes you invite both, with the understanding that "that guy" gets to play over "I won't play" if both can find the time. No hard feelings intended, and being clear in this regard is important, I think.
I have the advantage of a fairly large gaming group, which often has multiple campaigns going on, so I haven't seen anyone cut (themselves) off completely so far (though this may change). Your situation may differ in that regard. If you can only have one group and one campaign, you will have to do without one of them, until such time at least when they can be in the same room without problems.

@ Rhynn: While abuse may be going on, OP is hardly in a position to know if or who, and assumptions will only strain relationships. Not all breakups are due to abuse. Lesser jerkassery, incompatible personalities or simple growing apart do happen, and can lead to a lot of anger.

[Lorsa]

I really doubt that, actually. Abusers are generally very good at not letting on, and at keeping their victim from telling. That's sort of the point: othewise no one would have anything to do with them.

True enough. Perhaps I am deluding myself into thinking I would notice. I think that people who are abusers are somewhat... cold... and that coldness can be noticed in other areas as well, if you interact with them regularly and in a fairly intimate setting.

You are right that letting someone go because (s)he has been abused and really can't be in the proximity of the abuser is bad form. In that particular case, you should drop the abuser of the group, your friendship in general and preferably take measures to ensure that he/she doesn't get the opportunity to abuse anyone else in the future.

[MonochromeTiger]

True enough. Perhaps I am deluding myself into thinking I would notice. I think that people who are abusers are somewhat... cold... and that coldness can be noticed in other areas as well, if you interact with them regularly and in a fairly intimate setting.

You are right that letting someone go because (s)he has been abused and really can't be in the proximity of the abuser is bad form. In that particular case, you should drop the abuser of the group, your friendship in general and preferably take measures to ensure that he/she doesn't get the opportunity to abuse anyone else in the future.

as interesting as the diversion into potential accusations of abuse levied against monkeysage's friend are, perhaps we should limit ourselves to the information presented to us. if we start declaring this or that person we haven't met is breaking up with someone else because of abuse all we get is a personal bias against them and it ruins our ability to be helpful in something where we could be applying logic.

[AMFV]

Breakups can be pretty devastating and having to interact with somebody with whom you were once romantically involved, is extremely difficult, even if it's mandated. That can turn fun time, into something that's not fun for anybody. I would ask somebody to step down. Probably the girlfriend (since she's not been with you guys for as long and she's not your friend, but the friend of a friend).

Unless of course, she's had a good impact and is well liked by the group. I would bring other members of the group into the decision making process. DMs often try to be the king of their little friend groups in situations like this, but it really isn't your responsibility, it's the entire groups decision.

[ElenionAncalima]

I agree with what a lot of whats others have suggested.

You are the DM...you are not there relationship counselor. You are responsible for running the game, but you can't be held accountable for their relationship outside of the game.

Obviously if they can't play together, it will ruin the fun for everyone...but your friend and his ex need to figure that out...or they both have to go. It is not fair to ask you to choose. That is not your responsibility as GM.

[The Oni]

If it were me, I'd tell them both to leave until they can fix their respective ****.

Now, this comes from my (granted not enormous) experience, and my personal rule is that personal drama stays out of the game world, period. I've seen too many games ruined by the players having beef with each other or showing out for their friends instead of legitimately playing the game as a game. Caving to this pressure only opens the door wider and wider for somebody else to bring their meat-space grievances into Golarion/Caneis/Eberron/what have you.

[Friv]

While it may be of little help in your particular situation, I find that if one person gives you an ultimatum of "it's me or her/him" and the other says "I'm fine with you being friends with both / being in the same group as him/her" then it's the one giving the ultimatum that needs to go.

If both are giving you an ultimatum, then they obviously have some issues you shouldn't get in the middle of.

To be fair, though, there's a pretty big space between "it's them or me in your life", and "it's them or me in this one event that we are both a part of". The former is an ultimatum about your activities when the giver is not around. The latter is a request about not creating really awkward situations.

Heck, this is even weaker than that. There's no indication that the friend doesn't want his ex invited to, say, larger parties that he'll happen to be at. He just doesn't want to be in a small, teamwork-driven environment with her, and is hoping to be the one who gets to stay in this one.

But yes - the ideal situation would be for them to hash their stuff out together, but I can kind of understand how, in the middle of a messy breakup, that's not going to be foremost in their thoughts.

[geeky_monkey]

As the DM your responsibilities are with resolving problems that exist in the game world or, at worst, problems that arise between players due to in-game events.

Anything away from the table isn’t your responsibility.

Personally I’d put the game on hiatus for a couple of weeks to let their tempers cool then see if they are up for playing together. If not I’d have a group vote – over which (if either) player they’d rather keep in the group, and whether the campaign should end or be rejigged to cover the gaps in the party that have arisen due to this.

[SowZ]

I think too many people here are being too idealistic, and that booting both because they can't play together is actually cruel. I certainly would never feel safe in a social environment where I could be kicked out because I'm unfortunate enough to be in a relationship where we aren't friends afterwards. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to continue to hang out with exes after a break up, even if you are capable of doing that with your exes. People cope differently and you don't know all the circumstances. Even if you aren't meaning to, a policy of, "If you break up and both can't play, neither of you can," is telling people their emotional response is invalid and you are punishing people for their personal lives.

If one person opts out, accept it. Refusing to accept that decision is not treating people like adults.

Saying, "Hey, if she's here I won't be," isn't a horrible ultimatum. Saying, "You have to break off friendship with my ex or me," is almost always unreasonable. But saying, "I choose not to spend time with her because it is painful and there is no reason to put myself through that. If she plays, I won't." is perfectly rational and adult behavior.

[Lorsa]

To be fair, though, there's a pretty big space between "it's them or me in your life", and "it's them or me in this one event that we are both a part of". The former is an ultimatum about your activities when the giver is not around. The latter is a request about not creating really awkward situations.

Heck, this is even weaker than that. There's no indication that the friend doesn't want his ex invited to, say, larger parties that he'll happen to be at. He just doesn't want to be in a small, teamwork-driven environment with her, and is hoping to be the one who gets to stay in this one.


I think too many people here are being too idealistic, and that booting both because they can't play together is actually cruel. I certainly would never feel safe in a social environment where I could be kicked out because I'm unfortunate enough to be in a relationship where we aren't friends afterwards. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to continue to hang out with exes after a break up, even if you are capable of doing that with your exes. People cope differently and you don't know all the circumstances. Even if you aren't meaning to, a policy of, "If you break up and both can't play, neither of you can," is telling people their emotional response is invalid and you are punishing people for their personal lives.

If one person opts out, accept it. Refusing to accept that decision is not treating people like adults.

Saying, "Hey, if she's here I won't be," isn't a horrible ultimatum. Saying, "You have to break off friendship with my ex or me," is almost always unreasonable. But saying, "I choose not to spend time with her because it is painful and there is no reason to put myself through that. If she plays, I won't." is perfectly rational and adult behavior.

You are quite right. It's perfectly okay to not wish to be part of an intimate setting with a person that you don't want to interact with. Saying "if X is in the group, I don't want to be" is quite alright and I know several people who say that about others for a variety of reasons.

However, what I was getting at is if someone says "I don't want to spend time with X so you have to kick him/her out of the group" then that's something I'm not going to follow. Kicking someone out of a roleplaying group of the request of one other player feels horribly unfair to the one that is getting kicked. So if you don't want to be part of that group, that's FINE! You are free to leave, no hard feelings at all. I will make sure to invite you to the next group.

Like Rhynn says, if there is abuse involved, the whole thing is a very different matter indeed and if I found out anyone I was spending time with was an abuser, they'd get booted out of my life.

Inviting your partner to a roleplaying group and then kicking them out the moment the relationship breaks seems a bit like an unfair way to treat a human being. Certainly nothing I would like to do.

[NichG]

It isn't the function of the game to help people through broken relationships, be used as a tool for people to snipe at eachother, turn into a power play, console people, be used to levy social stigma against abusers, etc.

Whether its fair or not to the individuals is less important than whether its fair or not to all the other players who are going to have to deal with any drama or crap that is dragged in. Those players should be the ones given 'priority' in this situation.

So from that point of view, I would suggest ignoring any particular instinct to make a judgement call about who was 'in the right' in the break-up. It doesn't matter for the purpose of the game table. What matters, fundamentally, is who is going to be able to keep that drama away from the game.

One of your players has asked you to take an action that would bring that drama into the game by kicking the ex. To me, that says you should kick the player who asked. It doesn't matter whether the request was out of fear or out of being a jerk or whatever - they're bringing the drama to the table.

But really, the safest option is just to ask both to leave for a few sessions and say 'when you guys think you can play in the same game again, then you're both invited to come back, but I don't want you turning my game into a battlefield for your issues'. Don't phrase it as 'I'm booting you', just ask them to take a few sessions off to cool down. Tell them both that if they want to continue to play in the game, its their responsibility to decide whether they can do so in the presence of all the other players who have a spot in the game, and no one is going to get kicked for anyone else's comfort.

I've had a player come into game with outside issues (bad things in his life) and really act out, and in retrospect I should have basically done that - ask him to take a few sessions off until he got under control. I didn't, and it caused a lot of damage in the group, including nearly driving away other players.

[SowZ]

You are quite right. It's perfectly okay to not wish to be part of an intimate setting with a person that you don't want to interact with. Saying "if X is in the group, I don't want to be" is quite alright and I know several people who say that about others for a variety of reasons.

However, what I was getting at is if someone says "I don't want to spend time with X so you have to kick him/her out of the group" then that's something I'm not going to follow. Kicking someone out of a roleplaying group of the request of one other player feels horribly unfair to the one that is getting kicked. So if you don't want to be part of that group, that's FINE! You are free to leave, no hard feelings at all. I will make sure to invite you to the next group.

Like Rhynn says, if there is abuse involved, the whole thing is a very different matter indeed and if I found out anyone I was spending time with was an abuser, they'd get booted out of my life.

Inviting your partner to a roleplaying group and then kicking them out the moment the relationship breaks seems a bit like an unfair way to treat a human being. Certainly nothing I would like to do.

Sure, that's all fair. Mostly, I'm responding to the idea that if one of the people volunteers to opt out, kicking the other person, too, is unreasonable and does not lead to a socially safe environment.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's an incredibly difficult situation. You're not supposed to do anything about the problems between them (because it's definitely not your place), but neither can you avoid it, because those problems are splashing into the game--which is a very natural consequence.

As the DM, you are the group's leader, in a sense, which means ensuring that everyone who's at the table is able to work with one another--and the hard part is, you have to do it without treading into people's lives. It's a tough job. It's a lot more complex than some people realize. You have to manage a story and work to keep a social group cohesively together in times like this.

Whatever course of action you wind up taking, make it clear to everyone involved that your actions are attempts at keeping the group going. If someone stops playing, it's because you couldn't resolve a way for them to play well with the rest of the group.

[SowZ]

That's an incredibly difficult situation. You're not supposed to do anything about the problems between them (because it's definitely not your place), but neither can you avoid it, because those problems are splashing into the game--which is a very natural consequence.

As the DM, you are the group's leader, in a sense, which means ensuring that everyone who's at the table is able to work with one another--and the hard part is, you have to do it without treading into people's lives. It's a tough job. It's a lot more complex than some people realize. You have to manage a story and work to keep a social group cohesively together in times like this.

Whatever course of action you wind up taking, make it clear to everyone involved that your actions are attempts at keeping the group going. If someone stops playing, it's because you couldn't resolve a way for them to play well with the rest of the group.

Unfortunately, though, when two people within a social group get into a serious relationship and it ends, most the time one of them leaves. Not always, certainly. But it is the normal conclusion of such a break up and people everywhere have learned to accept that sucky situation. As Kermit the Frog put it, "Life is filled with meetings and partings, that is the way of it."

You try and avoid one person leaving, but sometimes there's nothing to be done for it.

[Rhynn]

Like Rhynn says, if there is abuse involved, the whole thing is a very different matter indeed and if I found out anyone I was spending time with was an abuser, they'd get booted out of my life.

To be clear, I was only specifically objecting to kicking out, on principle, the person who categorically refuses to be around the other person, because they may be right to refuse, and it could conceivably put power in the wrong hands. It's not about whether this is the case in any particular instance, but about what strikes me as a bad general rule to use.


Sure, that's all fair. Mostly, I'm responding to the idea that if one of the people volunteers to opt out, kicking the other person, too, is unreasonable and does not lead to a socially safe environment.

Yeah, I don't think that makes any sense either, as such. Generally, I've found that letting your friends sort out their own break-ups while trying to find time to hang out with both is the way to go. (Unless there's some practical or ethical reason not to.) Don't be distant, just don't get in the middle of it, before, during, or after.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Oh, yes. Sorry I wasn't more clear there. What I mean by "ensuring that everyone at the table can work together" includes the possible action of letting a player go so that the remaining people at the table work well together.

You make a great point about people generally understanding that these things happen, too.

[SowZ]

Oh, yes. Sorry I wasn't more clear there. What I mean by "ensuring that everyone at the table can work together" includes the possible action of letting a player go so that the remaining people at the table work well together.

You make a great point about people generally understanding that these things happen, too.

Yeah, I didn't gather that you were implying that it isn't an option.

[Lorsa]

Sure, that's all fair. Mostly, I'm responding to the idea that if one of the people volunteers to opt out, kicking the other person, too, is unreasonable and does not lead to a socially safe environment.

This is true. If one person wishes to leave that's all fine, as long as said person doesn't feel forced to do so, implicitly or explicitly.

[MonkeySage]

So I went ahead and called her and she seems to be keeping a very level head. She is willing to continue gaming with him there, but is also willing to step out if it makes things easier for him.

What she told me is that she basically needs space, and time away from him for a while. That she is in fact interested in keeping the friendship, but believes that he got clingy.

He believes that she's going out with someone, but when I called her, she told me that someone is just a friend.
He tells me they planned a movie night as just friends and she blew him off for bowling with her own friends. She tells me that she doesn't remember them making such plans.

He tells me she doesn't want to talk, she tells me that she just needs time and then she'll talk.

My conversation with her gave me hope that things might work out, but he doesn't seem to agree.

Trying to stay neutral is hard... She believes he's trying too hard, he believes she's not trying hard enough, to make their friendship work out.

She's divulged to me her plans of calling him tomorrow...

I can already tell what drove them apart, really... Completely different personalities.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I can already tell what drove them apart, really... Completely different personalities.

Just give them a week or two to sort this out amongst themselves, then things can probably return to semi-normal.

[Honest Tiefling]

My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave...

I'm going to disagree with a lot of posters here. Even if he's being fairly immature, he's your friend, you only met her recently. I'm probably going to get a lot of flak over this, but if you must choose one, I'd choose your friend. I assume you've known him for a while.

Sometimes, break ups are messy and it sounds like these two are not doing well. It is better to be honest and say that you cannot be around another person then be forced out of a social group you introduced your SO to because they happened to be able to be more reasonable. And given that he sounds more emotionally invested, he might genuinely be unable to do well around his ex when she can handle it better.

[SowZ]

I'm going to disagree with a lot of posters here. Even if he's being fairly immature, he's your friend, you only met her recently. I'm probably going to get a lot of flak over this, but if you must choose one, I'd choose your friend. I assume you've known him for a while.

Sometimes, break ups are messy and it sounds like these two are not doing well. It is better to be honest and say that you cannot be around another person then be forced out of a social group you introduced your SO to because they happened to be able to be more reasonable. And given that he sounds more emotionally invested, he might genuinely be unable to do well around his ex when she can handle it better.

I'm not positive that I'd handle the situation the same as you, but I still think that is reasonable. If my friend introduced me to his girlfriend and she started gaming with us, and then she broke up with him and they weren't going to remain friends, I'd probably just assume she'd leave, to be honest.

[Jay R]

I will not make a decision that isn't mine to make, and I will not choose one friend over another.

This is their problem, and they will make the decisions.

In a similar situation, I invited both back to the next game, and told both that the other was invited back. Each of them decided what to do, on his or her own basis.

Both are still my friends; only one still plays D&D with me.

Their decisions, not mine.

[SowZ]

I will not make a decision that isn't mine to make, and I will not choose one friend over another.

This is their problem, and they will make the decisions.

In a similar situation, I invited both back to the next game, and told both that the other was invited back. Each of them decided what to do, on his or her own basis.

Both are still my friends; only one still plays D&D with me.

Their decisions, not mine.

Yes, that is what I would typically do. However, if the girlfriend isn't that close with the rest of the group yet and hangs out with the group as 'What's-his-name's-girlfriend' as opposed to a sincere friend yet, she'd usually be the one to leave in any social group.

Of course, that very well may not be the case and she may be just as integral a member of the social circle as the man and the man just happens to be closer friends with the DM. In that instance, it wouldn't be fair of the DM to be too biased.

[Drachasor]

You could cancel gaming for a couple weeks and see where they are at.

I'd advise your friend to back off and realize he needs to let go of any hopes or expectations regarding her. The "clingy" comments and others really imply that if she really wants any sort of friendship with him, then it is at a much reduced level than before (obviously). I'd also say that it indicates a hitherto unforeseen incompatibility relationship-wise. He should just wash his hands of it, and assume nothing. If a friendship happens, then it happens. If not, then not. Whatever he is feeling for her, it does not seem significantly reciprocated (e.g. he wants a lot more than she wants to give, even on a friendship level).

He might consider it to not make sense, be unfair, or whatever, but that's how it is. She clearly doesn't want things to be antagonistic though. So gaming should still be possible.

[Brookshw]

Absolutely agreeing with others, stay out of it! Let them figure it out between themselves.

[Jay R]

Yes, that is what I would typically do. However, if the girlfriend isn't that close with the rest of the group yet and hangs out with the group as 'What's-his-name's-girlfriend' as opposed to a sincere friend yet, she'd usually be the one to leave in any social group.

Agreed. But it's still her choice, not mine.


Of course, that very well may not be the case and she may be just as integral a member of the social circle as the man and the man just happens to be closer friends with the DM. In that instance, it wouldn't be fair of the DM to be too biased.

That's (part of) why I would stay completely out of any decision-making.

I can't be biased if I'm not expressing an opinion or deciding anything.

[SarahV]

If you think things might work out after a few weeks... maybe have one of them go off on a sudden emergency solo adventure for a few sessions? That way everyone can keep playing but they don't have to play together for right now. At the end of a few sessions you can either bring them back to the party or (if they decide they permanently can't play together and one of them will leave the group) come up with a way to end that character's story in a satisfying way.

[Another_Poet]

I think the best solution is to do... nothing.

(Other than tell your friend you're not taking sides and booting his gf.)

Chances are, one or the other won't show up. If they do both show up, then if it's awkward, one will stop coming.

Let the problem resolve itself.

[ngilop]

The fairest solution is to ask both to bow out until they can play amiably with others.

This.

Also its a great way to tell if you want either of them to play with you in the future. If peopel can't be mature, put past differences aside and hold grudges over a game. typically those people are not the ones youd want to be playing with or hanging out with in the first place..

BUT, im a different sort of person.. so i guess others might be cool with people like that.

[AMFV]

This.

Also its a great way to tell if you want either of them to play with you in the future. If peopel can't be mature, put past differences aside and hold grudges over a game. typically those people are not the ones youd want to be playing with or hanging out with in the first place..

BUT, im a different sort of person.. so i guess others might be cool with people like that.

They're not holding grudges over a game, they're holding grudges over a messed up relationship, that's a bigger deal. I would never play D&D with my ex-wife, not if she was playing with all of my friends, and I'd expect that choice to be respected one way or the other. Relationships are a really hard thing to bounce back from, and as a friend, you shouldn't force people to interact with their exes when it may be painful to do so.

[NichG]

Well then you basically have to choose between that pain and whatever enjoyment you get out of the game. That is in some sense what makes 'kick both' the truly fair option. It means that the game doesn't become a game of chicken for who is more bothered by it to leave first.

However doing that means that if the players can be mature about it, the GM has just lost the chance that they could continue to be reasonable players in the game. But that's basically something one has to weigh as the GM and based on the various out-of-game friendships.

[AMFV]

Well then you basically have to choose between that pain and whatever enjoyment you get out of the game. That is in some sense what makes 'kick both' the truly fair option. It means that the game doesn't become a game of chicken for who is more bothered by it to leave first.

However doing that means that if the players can be mature about it, the GM has just lost the chance that they could continue to be reasonable players in the game. But that's basically something one has to weigh as the GM and based on the various out-of-game friendships.

Fairness should not come before friendship, you aren't the boss of the D&D group, you're friends. One player has already refused to play if the other player participates, furthermore the player that has refused is the longer friend. While banning the other player, or politely asking her not to come is not necessarily fair, it is better in line with what one expects from one's friends.

[MonkeySage]

Update:
My friend rescinds his request that I give his ex the boot; the two of them talked, and now he's good to game with her again(so he says). However, I have not spoken to her yet. I'm pretty sure she'd be ok with it, and I'm assuming they also talked about it, but I'm probably gonna call her to see how she feels about it first.

In any case, he's not gonna be around for the next few weeks so the game goes on hiatus anyway.

[NichG]

Fairness should not come before friendship, you aren't the boss of the D&D group, you're friends. One player has already refused to play if the other player participates, furthermore the player that has refused is the longer friend. While banning the other player, or politely asking her not to come is not necessarily fair, it is better in line with what one expects from one's friends.

There are more people involved than just the GM and these two people. Frankly, in a situation like this, if the GM feels that their own personal decisions have to outweigh considerations of the game as a whole, they should seriously consider stepping down as GM. You're right in that friendship is important, but so is responsibility - if doing what's right as a GM gets in the way of your friendships, you owe it to yourself to not GM.

But in practice I think thats overkill. If these people are your friends they should understand it when you say 'hey guys, nothing against you, but leave me and the game out of your breakup'. Personally, even putting GM responsibility aside, if a friend gave me an ultimatum to stop being friends with their ex, that request would seriously make me reconsider that friendship.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Update:
My friend rescinds his request that I give his ex the boot; the two of them talked, and now he's good to game with her again(so he says). However, I have not spoken to her yet. I'm pretty sure she'd be ok with it, and I'm assuming they also talked about it, but I'm probably gonna call her to see how she feels about it first.

In any case, he's not gonna be around for the next few weeks so the game goes on hiatus anyway.

Seems like things are going well, but keep in mind that it may take a while for everything to settle down completely.

[AMFV]

There are more people involved than just the GM and these two people. Frankly, in a situation like this, if the GM feels that their own personal decisions have to outweigh considerations of the game as a whole, they should seriously consider stepping down as GM. You're right in that friendship is important, but so is responsibility - if doing what's right as a GM gets in the way of your friendships, you owe it to yourself to not GM.

But in practice I think thats overkill. If these people are your friends they should understand it when you say 'hey guys, nothing against you, but leave me and the game out of your breakup'. Personally, even putting GM responsibility aside, if a friend gave me an ultimatum to stop being friends with their ex, that request would seriously make me reconsider that friendship.

I disagree vehemently with this, friendship comes before DMing, I DM for people because they are my friends. It's not some higher calling or something that has real responsibilities as one does to a friend. I think that putting the game on hiatus is acceptable, but kicking a friend out because he doesn't want to have to be around somebody that causes him emotional turmoil is not even close to fair.

The first time I had to deal with my ex-wife after I divorced, it was so traumatic, that I got blackout drunk and lost several hours of memory, that may no be a healthy reaction, but it's not that abnormal, and by god if somebody was calling it "their higher as a DM" to have be around the person again, I would not only stop playing. I would stop dealing with that person.

Breakups are sticky, sometimes you get by without having to "choose sides" sometimes you need to choose sides, not fair, it isn't, but its the real world, and that is absolutely the way it is.


Update:
My friend rescinds his request that I give his ex the boot; the two of them talked, and now he's good to game with her again(so he says). However, I have not spoken to her yet. I'm pretty sure she'd be ok with it, and I'm assuming they also talked about it, but I'm probably gonna call her to see how she feels about it first.

In any case, he's not gonna be around for the next few weeks so the game goes on hiatus anyway.

Outstanding! That is really good news, I hope that goes well with you and it doesn't wind up being terribly awkward, but if they're willing to hang out weekly immediately following it'll probably turn out okay.

[NichG]

I disagree vehemently with this, friendship comes before DMing, I DM for people because they are my friends. It's not some higher calling or something that has real responsibilities as one does to a friend. I think that putting the game on hiatus is acceptable, but kicking a friend out because he doesn't want to have to be around somebody that causes him emotional turmoil is not even close to fair.

That's why I say, if its that much of a problem to be fair, you should just step as a DM.

This kind of rationale can be used to 'excuse' all sorts of horrible DMing. I don't care what your particular situation is, but if you as a DM do stuff like play favorites at the table with your closer friends or significant other (taking it particularly easy on their characters, giving them extra XP or more attention, etc), then thats a table that I'm going to walk away from, and I'd encourage others to do the same thing.

Yes, your friends are important. But just because you're protecting your friendship doesn't mean that I as a player should have to tolerate you being a jerk to the people you 'like less'. If you can't be impartial, just step down and let someone else GM for a bit - you get to preserve your friendships, and the game continues on with minimal harm. If you can't game with someone without turning the entire experience into a heated argument, step away from the game. It's just the mature thing to do.



The first time I had to deal with my ex-wife after I divorced, it was so traumatic, that I got blackout drunk and lost several hours of memory, that may no be a healthy reaction, but it's not that abnormal, and by god if somebody was calling it "their higher as a DM" to have be around the person again, I would not only stop playing. I would stop dealing with that person.


You have the choice of stepping away from such a game. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this - its just taking responsibility for putting yourself in environments where you can be happy, and not relying on other people to make your decisions for you.

If there's a game that you and your ex-wife were both in, and you can't deal with being in the same game with her, the correct response is to say 'I can't deal with being in the same game as this person, so I'm going to bow out'. Not 'kick her or I won't be your friend anymore'. The second is just a jerk move, no matter what you're going through. It may be something you're driven to, it may be something that one could understand, but its still a jerk move.

[AMFV]

That's why I say, if its that much of a problem to be fair, you should just step as a DM.

This kind of rationale can be used to 'excuse' all sorts of horrible DMing. I don't care what your particular situation is, but if you as a DM do stuff like play favorites at the table with your closer friends or significant other (taking it particularly easy on their characters, giving them extra XP or more attention, etc), then thats a table that I'm going to walk away from, and I'd encourage others to do the same thing.

Yes, your friends are important. But just because you're protecting your friendship doesn't mean that I as a player should have to tolerate you being a jerk to the people you 'like less'. If you can't be impartial, just step down and let someone else GM for a bit - you get to preserve your friendships, and the game continues on with minimal harm. If you can't game with someone without turning the entire experience into a heated argument, step away from the game. It's just the mature thing to do.



You have the choice of stepping away from such a game. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this - its just taking responsibility for putting yourself in environments where you can be happy, and not relying on other people to make your decisions for you.

If there's a game that you and your ex-wife were both in, and you can't deal with being in the same game with her, the correct response is to say 'I can't deal with being in the same game as this person, so I'm going to bow out'. Not 'kick her or I won't be your friend anymore'. The second is just a jerk move, no matter what you're going through. It may be something you're driven to, it may be something that one could understand, but its still a jerk move.

But what if the game is what is keeping the person going, routine is critical if you've been through anything unpleasant, and I would take my friends over my friends exes, sorry that's how I would do that. I disagree heavily on these matters. I think there is a serious problem in assuming that the DM gives you some kind of higher prerogative.

Furthermore, I never discussed favoritism in terms of XP, or terms of table-favoritism, I just suggested that in this particular extreme circumstances, you should go with a friend over somebody you've met a few months ago. I'm not a favoritist at the table, but if it's down to my friend or his girlfriend, then I'm going to go with a friend.

Furthermore, if you haven't been through a divorce, I don't think you can really relate to this sort of thing. I don't know if you have been through a nasty divorce, but I'm supposing you haven't, the support of your friends is critical, and I simply would not withdraw that.

We are coming at this from completely different angles and I don't see us ever agreeing. Not ever. So I'm going to back down, but I really do think there is a problem when GM becomes "friend director", that's simply not how it should work.

[NichG]

But what if the game is what is keeping the person going, routine is critical if you've been through anything unpleasant, and I would take my friends over my friends exes, sorry that's how I would do that. I disagree heavily on these matters. I think there is a serious problem in assuming that the DM gives you some kind of higher prerogative.


The game table is not a place for therapy.

There are more people at the table than you and your friend. If you are putting giving therapy to your friend above their enjoyment in game, they have every right to be upset. You're basically wasting their time. Given the degree to which I've seen people rearrange their lives around having a common time to game together, this is at the very least incredibly rude.

Since giving ultimatums seems to be all the rage, this would be mine - if I saw a GM do this without the support of the other players, I would not play with that GM again. You do not get to decide that my time is going to be used to give your friend therapy - that is an abuse of trust, and trust is essential to a good game. I think that this is a standard that all self-respecting players should hold to - bad gaming is worse than no gaming.



Furthermore, I never discussed favoritism in terms of XP, or terms of table-favoritism, I just suggested that in this particular extreme circumstances, you should go with a friend over somebody you've met a few months ago. I'm not a favoritist at the table, but if it's down to my friend or his girlfriend, then I'm going to go with a friend.


This is just another form of favoritism though. Ask yourself this question - would you make a different decision if you were any of the other players at the table aside from the ones directly involved? If the answer is 'yes', then its favoritism.



Furthermore, if you haven't been through a divorce, I don't think you can really relate to this sort of thing. I don't know if you have been through a nasty divorce, but I'm supposing you haven't, the support of your friends is critical, and I simply would not withdraw that.

We are coming at this from completely different angles and I don't see us ever agreeing. Not ever. So I'm going to back down, but I really do think there is a problem when GM becomes "friend director", that's simply not how it should work.

If I'm vehement about this, its because I've seen this kind of thing go wrong, and I've been in the DM chair when it happened. I can look back and say 'this was a mistake' and 'this is what I should have done'.

I've been on this from the point of view of the DM whose game ended up supporting someone else through their hard times - not divorce, but a breakup combined with simultaneous huge family issues. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Not only did it nearly wreck the game, but having the one player dump their emotional baggage into the game nearly wrecked that player's friendship with the other players. Another GM who was a player in my game at that time and had this player in his game ended up ending his campaign from burnout around that time.

I feel the important thing is - there are some things that are yours to give and some things that are not. You can step down as DM - that's yours and always will be. You can run a solo campaign for your friend, even. But what isn't yours to give is the time and participation of the rest of your gaming group.

And I think many people are more mature than you're giving them credit for. I value maturity in my friendships and my players for this very reason - someone who uses my friendship as a weapon against others isn't going to be my friend for very long. Someone who is incapable of understanding that its not all about them and that there are other people in the group whose enjoyment matters is not really going to be welcome in my gaming group.

If I had asked my friend to leave my campaign until he could keep it together, it would not have destroyed our friendship. If I say 'I will be impartial' to my players and stick by that, they know that when I don't take their side its not because I hate them, but because I'm standing by my word. Normally you should not have to disband your game, turtle yourself off to avoid the fluctuations of life, etc, because its reasonable to expect people to exercise some maturity.

[Knaight]

This is just another form of favoritism though. Ask yourself this question - would you make a different decision if you were any of the other players at the table aside from the ones directly involved? If the answer is 'yes', then its favoritism.

Sure, it's a form of favoritism. However, in the context of deciding who you want to spend time with favoring your friends over acquaintances you've spent time with because they were friends of your friends is entirely reasonable.

That is the context here. That one is a GM in a game played is pretty much entirely irrelevant. Looked at from the perspective of the person who was asked to be kicked - they were dating someone, it went south and they won't talk, and as such they are no longer invited to an event with that person's friends. Even from that side, it seems reasonable.

Had the situation been that two people who were already part of the friend circle started dating and had an acrimonious breakup, it would be an entirely different matter. As is evidenced by the way the basic guideline below doesn't even make sense:

Don't cut ties with or stop doing something with a friend because they had some conflict with someone you barely now.

Obviously, there are exceptions - particularly if you know what happened and think whatever your friend did was wrong - but it's generally a solid guideline. It's what applies here, and GM fairness doesn't even enter into it.

[hymer]

@ MonkeySage: Well, sounds like there's a light at the end of the tunnel! :smallsmile: Good for them, good for you, and good for the group.

[AMFV]

The game table is not a place for therapy.

There are more people at the table than you and your friend. If you are putting giving therapy to your friend above their enjoyment in game, they have every right to be upset. You're basically wasting their time. Given the degree to which I've seen people rearrange their lives around having a common time to game together, this is at the very least incredibly rude.



It's not therapy, it's having a routine and your friend's being there for you, I submit that you've only seen this from the outside. You don't have any idea how it feels, and therefore really no context to comment.


Since giving ultimatums seems to be all the rage, this would be mine - if I saw a GM do this without the support of the other players, I would not play with that GM again. You do not get to decide that my time is going to be used to give your friend therapy - that is an abuse of trust, and trust is essential to a good game. I think that this is a standard that all self-respecting players should hold to - bad gaming is worse than no gaming.

And that is your right, I imagine though that most of the friends would be supportive and I submit that they should be, since again he's been playing with them for longer, he's been hanging out longer, it's only fair, the person that gets the ax is the least senior.



This is just another form of favoritism though. Ask yourself this question - would you make a different decision if you were any of the other players at the table aside from the ones directly involved? If the answer is 'yes', then its favoritism.

It is a form of favoritism, but a very different one than you imagine. I'd take my friend over somebody else. And we have seniority as I previously discussed, that's two strikes if somebody needs that kind of option.



If I'm vehement about this, its because I've seen this kind of thing go wrong, and I've been in the DM chair when it happened. I can look back and say 'this was a mistake' and 'this is what I should have done'.

I've been on this from the point of view of the DM whose game ended up supporting someone else through their hard times - not divorce, but a breakup combined with simultaneous huge family issues. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Not only did it nearly wreck the game, but having the one player dump their emotional baggage into the game nearly wrecked that player's friendship with the other players. Another GM who was a player in my game at that time and had this player in his game ended up ending his campaign from burnout around that time.


I think this is probably an apples to oranges scenario, a game where there are two broken up people could be potentially very harmful for one or both of them, not just awkward, but emotively very harmful, and expecting people to behave rationally and just leave when they are emotionally wrecked is not a reasonable assumption.

There's no way to know that you're game ruined his friendship, those things are emotionally traumatic, and could have ended friendships in any case. I would not allow myself to be involved in a game with my ex, it would unimaginably painful for me. And while you may have seen something similar, you've not seen what I've seen.

You also have a different methodology for helping your friends than I do. Which is fundamentally okay, but if the game is helping your friend keep some sense of normalcy, then I'd be all for it. Absolutely all for it. I mean again my experience has been pretty extreme but the case is that this experience could have been that extreme.

It turned out not to be, but it could have been.

[NichG]

Sure, it's a form of favoritism. However, in the context of deciding who you want to spend time with favoring your friends over acquaintances you've spent time with because they were friends of your friends is entirely reasonable.

That is the context here. That one is a GM in a game played is pretty much entirely irrelevant. Looked at from the perspective of the person who was asked to be kicked - they were dating someone, it went south and they won't talk, and as such they are no longer invited to an event with that person's friends. Even from that side, it seems reasonable.


The context involves one person deciding by fiat who gets to spend time with the entire social circle and who doesn't. Thats the key point. It isn't just a personal decision.

If you're just another player at the table, you can decide to stay or leave. If you're the GM and you kick someone over this, you're not just saying 'I'm not going to spend time with this person', you're saying 'all of you guys aren't going to either'. That's what I object to. When you act as a player, you're acting as an individual. When you act as a GM, you're making other people's decisions for them - decisions they've basically entrusted to you on the premise that you're going to use that power fairly.

Since we're talking about hypotheticals, let me construct a specific example:

The gaming group is Bob (GM), Alice, James, Fred, and Cindy.

Fred and Cindy have just broken up. Fred is Bob's close friend, whereas Cindy is James' close friend. Fred asks Bob to boot Cindy from the game because he has a problem with being in the same group as her.

You're basically saying 'its okay for Bob to choose to spend time with Fred instead of Cindy', but if Bob boots Cindy from the group, Bob is making the choice that James and Alice can't spend time with Cindy in this group. Furthermore, if it were James who was the GM instead of Bob, conceivably this would go the other way, and James would want to keep Cindy in the group and kick Fred.

Bob (GM) has been given the right to make unilateral choices to some extent because that is part of being a GM. However, its important to recognize why that right is given - its to create the scenario of the game, resolve rules disputes, and the like.

In all of this, it has been assumed that the GM not booting Cindy is causing awful, soul-crushing problems for Fred. But what applies to Fred can just as well apply to Cindy. Why should Fred be the one who gets the constancy of a continued game and Cindy by denied that, just because Bob happened to be GM instead of James?



Obviously, there are exceptions - particularly if you know what happened and think whatever your friend did was wrong - but it's generally a solid guideline. It's what applies here, and GM fairness doesn't even enter into it.

Whether or not you think your friend did something wrong shouldn't actually enter into it. A GM isn't there to impose social stigma for actions taken outside of the context of the tabletop sessions.


It's not therapy, it's having a routine and your friend's being there for you, I submit that you've only seen this from the outside. You don't have any idea how it feels, and therefore really no context to comment.


First of all, I think this is kind of a crappy way to argue - 'you haven't had my exact circumstances, therefore you can't say anything about [general situation]'.

The thing is, how it feels doesn't matter. No, not even then. This isn't about how awful going through bad things in life is, its about fairness and not betraying the trust that your other players have placed in you.

If you want to use the tabletop game to help your friend, then convince the other players of that. Get them to agree before you make a selfish decision that impacts the group as a whole.

In fact, I think it would be a good idea for groups in general to follow a rule that no one gets kicked without an anonymous 2/3 majority vote to kick them, and no one new gets invited without a unanimous decision to accept them. Kicking and inviting players should be a group-wide decision, and that takes away the temptation for the GM to exercise favoritism and also takes away the personal responsibility of being the one to say 'you stay' and 'you go'.



I think this is probably an apples to oranges scenario, a game where there are two broken up people could be potentially very harmful for one or both of them, not just awkward, but emotively very harmful, and expecting people to behave rationally and just leave when they are emotionally wrecked is not a reasonable assumption.


This is why I'm in favor of asking both to leave until they cool down. Its not final and it gives them time to regain rationality.



There's no way to know that you're game ruined his friendship, those things are emotionally traumatic, and could have ended friendships in any case. I would not allow myself to be involved in a game with my ex, it would unimaginably painful for me. And while you may have seen something similar, you've not seen what I've seen.


I'd like ask you to refrain from this kind of argument. This isn't about us bragging about who has seen more suffering, and I'm not about to post personal details about exactly what happened to my player just to try to one-up you.

But, as I've been saying - if its unimaginably painful for you to game with your ex, you should walk away from that game. You have the power to take actions that avoid creating messy situations for other people, and the responsible thing to do is to exercise that power.



You also have a different methodology for helping your friends than I do. Which is fundamentally okay, but if the game is helping your friend keep some sense of normalcy, then I'd be all for it. Absolutely all for it. I mean again my experience has been pretty extreme but the case is that this experience could have been that extreme.

It turned out not to be, but it could have been.

The point is, the game was not the place for it.

Eventually, after 4 weeks or so, what happened in my game is that the other players gave him an ultimatum. That ended up being the best thing that could have happened. What I did (which was the right thing to do and probably the reason my game didn't actually fall apart and these friendships weren't ruined), is I basically supported the players' ultimatum that he get in control of himself or leave the group. At the same time, I ran side-sessions for him over Skype outside of game where he could basically just kill things and posture all he wanted without consequence. After the ultimatum, there were sessions of the main game he didn't show up for because he knew he wouldn't be able to hold it together, but as a result a lot of the tensions were reduced.

This helped him get under control and probably helped him keep being part of both my game and another game he was in with one of my players as GM.

[AMFV]

The context involves one person deciding by fiat who gets to spend time with the entire social circle and who doesn't. Thats the key point. It isn't just a personal decision.

If you're just another player at the table, you can decide to stay or leave. If you're the GM and you kick someone over this, you're not just saying 'I'm not going to spend time with this person', you're saying 'all of you guys aren't going to either'. That's what I object to. When you act as a player, you're acting as an individual. When you act as a GM, you're making other people's decisions for them - decisions they've basically entrusted to you on the premise that you're going to use that power fairly.

Since we're talking about hypotheticals, let me construct a specific example:

The gaming group is Bob (GM), Alice, James, Fred, and Cindy.

Fred and Cindy have just broken up. Fred is Bob's close friend, whereas Cindy is James' close friend. Fred asks Bob to boot Cindy from the game because he has a problem with being in the same group as her.

You're basically saying 'its okay for Bob to choose to spend time with Fred instead of Cindy', but if Bob boots Cindy from the group, Bob is making the choice that James and Alice can't spend time with Cindy in this group. Furthermore, if it were James who was the GM instead of Bob, conceivably this would go the other way, and James would want to keep Cindy in the group and kick Fred.

Bob (GM) has been given the right to make unilateral choices to some extent because that is part of being a GM. However, its important to recognize why that right is given - its to create the scenario of the game, resolve rules disputes, and the like.


Not a fair comparison, as the girlfriend was pretty much announced as somebody who had recently been playing with the group. In fact:


My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave... Maybe I can set up a sort of mediated chat(me being the mediator), get them to talk their problems through... She's saying that she "can't be friends with him" and he's angry... I do not know the full story, though.


It was explicitly announced. The scenario you present is different and infinitely more difficult to resolve.



In all of this, it has been assumed that the GM not booting Cindy is causing awful, soul-crushing problems for Fred. But what applies to Fred can just as well apply to Cindy. Why should Fred be the one who gets the constancy of a continued game and Cindy by denied that, just because Bob happened to be GM instead of James?


Because Fred was the friend for longer in this scenario, he introduced them. She has no context of a player of the game. She doesn't hang out with people. Generally when somebody introduces somebody as "so-and-so's girlfriend" you know which they are closer to.

So false comparison.



Whether or not you think your friend did something wrong shouldn't actually enter into it. A GM isn't there to impose social stigma for actions taken outside of the context of the tabletop sessions.



First of all, I think this is kind of a crappy way to argue - 'you haven't had my exact circumstances, therefore you can't say anything about [general situation]'.


Sorry that's the way of the world, you can say things about it, but you can't say "FRED SHOULD NOT HAVE THESE FEELINGS HE'S BEING AN IMMATURE ASS" which is what was said. I'm saying you cannot empathize properly with that scenario, so you have no idea if he is being an immature ass, or what the reality of the situation is.



The thing is, how it feels doesn't matter. No, not even then. This isn't about how awful going through bad things in life is, its about fairness and not betraying the trust that your other players have placed in you.


I would betray D&D players and people I hang out with, socially, in a heartbeat if it meant I'd be salvaging a friendship.



If you want to use the tabletop game to help your friend, then convince the other players of that. Get them to agree before you make a selfish decision that impacts the group as a whole.

In fact, I think it would be a good idea for groups in general to follow a rule that no one gets kicked without an anonymous 2/3 majority vote to kick them, and no one new gets invited without a unanimous decision to accept them. Kicking and inviting players should be a group-wide decision, and that takes away the temptation for the GM to exercise favoritism and also takes away the personal responsibility of being the one to say 'you stay' and 'you go'.


Not a bad rule, I concede that a 2/3rds majority is probably a good bet, although I would probably ask the lady if she could refrain from coming for a few sessions before bringing it up in group, because I don't drag my friend's business out in public if they don't want it there, since it was stated that it was not exactly common knowledge.



This is why I'm in favor of asking both to leave until they cool down. Its not final and it gives them time to regain rationality.


Yes, but I'd again take the long-time friend over an acquaintance, particularly if he's just had a bad time in his life. If it was two people I knew equally well it'd be different.



I'd like ask you to refrain from this kind of argument. This isn't about us bragging about who has seen more suffering, and I'm not about to post personal details about exactly what happened to my player just to try to one-up you.


No, but I'm saying you can't even really understand what your player went through, not even a little, if it's something you haven't went through you can't really empathize that well. I wasn't saying "his scenario isn't that bad", I was saying, firstly, that its a wholly different scenario than the one presented, and you aren't even him, you can't really understand how he really felt either.



But, as I've been saying - if its unimaginably painful for you to game with your ex, you should walk away from that game. You have the power to take actions that avoid creating messy situations for other people, and the responsible thing to do is to exercise that power.


Because people who are drinking to the point of blacking out always make rational decisions? Look I would do whatever it takes to help a friend in those circumstances, whatever it takes.



The point is, the game was not the place for it.

Eventually, after 4 weeks or so, what happened in my game is that the other players gave him an ultimatum. That ended up being the best thing that could have happened. What I did (which was the right thing to do and probably the reason my game didn't actually fall apart and these friendships weren't ruined), is I basically supported the players' ultimatum that he get in control of himself or leave the group. At the same time, I ran side-sessions for him over Skype outside of game where he could basically just kill things and posture all he wanted without consequence. After the ultimatum, there were sessions of the main game he didn't show up for because he knew he wouldn't be able to hold it together, but as a result a lot of the tensions were reduced.


That's very gentlemanly of you, to be honest that's damn decent. I think that maybe we are approaching with different understandings of the situation or having a cultural difference. I just find that routine is important on those type of things. But no, I really approve of what you did, since you would help out a friend, just in a different way.

I think we are having a slight cultural misunderstanding, also it's possible that you'd missed the later post where he had introduced the girl to the group, which I think changes the dynamic completely, anyways, I really should have backed out of this earlier, this is a little close to home for me.

[Knaight]

Fred and Cindy have just broken up. Fred is Bob's close friend, whereas Cindy is James' close friend. Fred asks Bob to boot Cindy from the game because he has a problem with being in the same group as her.

You're basically saying 'its okay for Bob to choose to spend time with Fred instead of Cindy', but if Bob boots Cindy from the group, Bob is making the choice that James and Alice can't spend time with Cindy in this group. Furthermore, if it were James who was the GM instead of Bob, conceivably this would go the other way, and James would want to keep Cindy in the group and kick Fred.

We're working off a particular situation, wherein there is an existing social circle with one person attached, where their one attachment point is the bridge that just got burnt. I also don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm advocating for doing this behind the backs of everyone else involved, rather than as a group - wherein everyone not involved is in the same place.


Whether or not you think your friend did something wrong shouldn't actually enter into it. A GM isn't there to impose social stigma for actions taken outside of the context of the tabletop sessions.
That phrase had to deal with general principles, wherein favoritism toward ones friends is entirely fine, as a caveat. Put in the bluntest terms possible, if someone turns out to be an unethical scumbag, cutting ties with them is entirely reasonable; this is an important enough caveat that it had to be attached to the general rule. It also trumps anything where the phrase "GM" is even applicable.

[NichG]

It was explicitly announced. The scenario you present is different and infinitely more difficult to resolve.


I'm trying to point out why fairness does in fact matter. Bob cannot know what the rest of the group thinks on the matter, and doesn't really have the right to decide for the group. The system I proposed (all members of the group vote) alleviates that problem.



Sorry that's the way of the world, you can say things about it, but you can't say "FRED SHOULD NOT HAVE THESE FEELINGS HE'S BEING AN IMMATURE ASS" which is what was said. I'm saying you cannot empathize properly with that scenario, so you have no idea if he is being an immature ass, or what the reality of the situation is.


Actually, I can say 'Fred can very well have these feelings but he's still being an immature ass'. Maturity is, in part, the ability to separate what you're feeling from what you should do - its maintaining rationality despite stress, not just when things are going well.

A person's actions being understandable does not actually lessen the harm caused by those actions, nor does it obligate others to suffer that harm. Bob's friendship with Fred might constitute such an obligation, but he has no right to impose Fred's bad behavior on the others of the group, just as Fred has no right to impose his own bad behavior on the group.



I would betray D&D players and people I hang out with, socially, in a heartbeat if it meant I'd be salvaging a friendship.


No offense, but this would make me doubt your friendship. I would never be able to truly trust you, because I could never know if I was 'enough of a friend' that I'd be immune to that betrayal.



Not a bad rule, I concede that a 2/3rds majority is probably a good bet, although I would probably ask the lady if she could refrain from coming for a few sessions before bringing it up in group, because I don't drag my friend's business out in public if they don't want it there, since it was stated that it was not exactly common knowledge.


For the given scenario, I think the proper course is:

- Establish at start of campaign that this is how it works
- If Fred asks to kick Cindy, remind him that he needs to get the group's approval, not yours.
- Suggest from the point of view of a mediating friend to give it 2 weeks before pushing the issue.

I would not informally 'ask' one player not to attend. Again, thats overstepping. The point of having the group decide is that it shouldn't be the GM's sole job (not to mention the conflict of interest).



No, but I'm saying you can't even really understand what your player went through, not even a little, if it's something you haven't went through you can't really empathize that well. I wasn't saying "his scenario isn't that bad", I was saying, firstly, that its a wholly different scenario than the one presented, and you aren't even him, you can't really understand how he really felt either.


I am trying to be polite about this - this kind of thing really pisses me off, and I've had to rewrite my response to this particular comment several times now. What I'm left with is still somewhat strongly stated, but I think its important I make this clear: I find it incredibly arrogant that you assume that your suffering is more important and more telling than that of others, and I find it personally despicable of you to push this given that I have said that the details on my side are private and have requested you let it be. More generally, your suffering in your own situation is completely irrelevant to discourse about the social contract of a gaming group, and trying to make this about your personal sob story is an intellectual dishonesty.

I am not you. No person is another person. You are not the people mentioned in the original post. Yet we may still talk about the situations that are fair or unfair, social contracts, and reasonable expectations.

You are basically saying 'this is worth enough to me to betray everyone else in my social circle'. I'm saying 'if you screw over people in your social circle, it doesn't matter how bad your friend's pain is, its reasonable for them to do things to prevent it and to ostracize you as a result'.

If you as a GM pulled this crap and I felt strongly about it, its perfectly reasonable for me to leave. It's even arguably reasonable for me to talk with all the other players and get them all leave and start up a new game without you being included. Your feelings for your friend do not insulate you from the consequences of your actions with regards for others, no matter how strong those feelings or how much suffering is involved.

The sad thing is, people in our hobby tend to be passive aggressive about this kind of thing. They let themselves get abused by GMs on power trips, GMs who 'have good reason', GMs who betray their trust. Then you get crappy games where no one trusts anyone at the table, players drifting away from the hobby, players reacting in little spiteful ways because they don't know how to actually stand up for themselves.

If there's anyone I'm trying to defend here, its those players - the ones who end up with a bad experience of GM drama and power trips and who basically get burnt out on the game or insist on draconian rules-lawyering in order to feel 'safe' in a social setting.

I've been in groups where this kind of thing could have happened. I've DMed for couples where the boyfriend was pushy and outgoing and probably could end up socially maneuvering the girlfriend to get kicked out of the group if they broke up. I've been in groups where there was a whole ugly social meta-game of people trying to manipulate or guilt each-other into leaving or taking their side on things or help them get their way. I firmly believe that people who can't think of the needs of the group as a whole, not just their own, shouldn't be in charge of such situations. It's damn hard already without adding personal bias into the mix.



Because people who are drinking to the point of blacking out always make rational decisions? Look I would do whatever it takes to help a friend in those circumstances, whatever it takes.


Honestly I think the best thing to do here is to call them on their bad behavior. You don't want to give tacit approval to someone to engage in self-destruction, even if you can empathize with it. If your friend is weak, sometimes you have to be strong in their place.



That's very gentlemanly of you, to be honest that's damn decent. I think that maybe we are approaching with different understandings of the situation or having a cultural difference. I just find that routine is important on those type of things. But no, I really approve of what you did, since you would help out a friend, just in a different way.

I think we are having a slight cultural misunderstanding, also it's possible that you'd missed the later post where he had introduced the girl to the group, which I think changes the dynamic completely, anyways, I really should have backed out of this earlier, this is a little close to home for me.

Perhaps that would be best. It seems like the OP's situation was resolved anyhow.

[PhallicWarrior]

I'd do one of two things: either ask them both politely to leave, or explain to the guy that since he was selfish enough to put his participation in the game ahead of someone else in the party, she deserves the spot more and he should go.

[SowZ]

I'd do one of two things: either ask them both politely to leave, or explain to the guy that since he was selfish enough to put his participation in the game ahead of someone else in the party, she deserves the spot more and he should go.

Eh, it depends a lot on how the guy went about it. If it was this ultimatum of, "You have to kick her out!" he wasn't being fair or reasonable, no. If it was, "If she's here, I won't be." That is just fine. I've done the same thing. And if she'd been there, I wouldn't have been, but I wouldn't have ended my other friendships.

Again, why are some people thinking that both people should get kicked? It's like you are telling your friends that if they don't deal with emotional trauma the way you want them to, they will be punished. It creates an unsafe social environment. Treat them like adults, and let them work it out.

[MonochromeTiger]

Eh, it depends a lot on how the guy went about it. If it was this ultimatum of, "You have to kick her out!" he wasn't being fair or reasonable, no. If it was, "If she's here, I won't be." That is just fine. I've done the same thing. And if she'd been there, I wouldn't have been, but I wouldn't have ended my other friendships.

Again, why are some people thinking that both people should get kicked? It's like you are telling your friends that if they don't deal with emotional trauma the way you want them to, they will be punished. It creates an unsafe social environment. Treat them like adults, and let them work it out.

it's kind of an extreme take on "I'm not getting involved". instead of not kicking either and having them deal with it themselves which could spill over into the game and group they're thinking of kicking both so that the game and group don't deal with any of it....even though kicking them over that forces the game to be set up for 2 fewer people and the group to have to deal with 2 friends no longer being included because the DM decided on a burnt earth approach.

kicking both also does nothing for your friendships and while I see a lot of people are going "if they make ultimatums they're not good friends anyway" YES THEY ARE. ultimatums are made as the result of emotional strain, they are not an attempt to cut you off or force you to do something, they're an attempt to feel supported by someone that the person thinks is too close of a friend to even consider kicking them out. they're shortsighted and a bit mean but they're made that way due to emotional reasons not logical ones. expecting someone to go "yeah it would make sense for me to deal with my problems rationally after BREAKING UP WITH SOMEONE I MIGHT HAVE LOVED" is just plain wrong.

in short, kicking both just alienates both. it doesn't solve group drama, it doesn't give your friends support to get over a breakup, it doesn't keep your game from being impacted by the issue. kicking one because they're emotional may be slightly worse because then you're being certain that a bridge is being burned.

[AMFV]

it's kind of an extreme take on "I'm not getting involved". instead of not kicking either and having them deal with it themselves which could spill over into the game and group they're thinking of kicking both so that the game and group don't deal with any of it....even though kicking them over that forces the game to be set up for 2 fewer people and the group to have to deal with 2 friends no longer being included because the DM decided on a burnt earth approach.

kicking both also does nothing for your friendships and while I see a lot of people are going "if they make ultimatums they're not good friends anyway" YES THEY ARE. ultimatums are made as the result of emotional strain, they are not an attempt to cut you off or force you to do something, they're an attempt to feel supported by someone that the person thinks is too close of a friend to even consider kicking them out. they're shortsighted and a bit mean but they're made that way due to emotional reasons not logical ones. expecting someone to go "yeah it would make sense for me to deal with my problems rationally after BREAKING UP WITH SOMEONE I MIGHT HAVE LOVED" is just plain wrong.

in short, kicking both just alienates both. it doesn't solve group drama, it doesn't give your friends support to get over a breakup, it doesn't keep your game from being impacted by the issue. kicking one because they're emotional may be slightly worse because then you're being certain that a bridge is being burned.


Furthermore only one of them is actually a friend the one was described as an acquaintance. Or at least was not very well known.

[SowZ]

Furthermore only one of them is actually a friend the one was described as an acquaintance. Or at least was not very well known.

If the girlfriend is close to others in the group, though, and just happens to be an acquaintance with the DM but may be closer than that to other players, it is unfair to side with your friend and remain the DM. The DM is a position of authority and as such you are responsible to do what is best for everyone not just you and your closest friends. If you can't do that, that is perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be in an authority position.

Fortunately, there is a third option. Don't get involved unless they both ask you to.

[AMFV]

If the girlfriend is close to others in the group, though, and just happens to be an acquaintance with the DM but may be closer than that to other players, it is unfair to side with your friend and remain the DM. The DM is a position of authority and as such you are responsible to do what is best for everyone not just you and your closest friends. If you can't do that, that is perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be in an authority position.

Fortunately, there is a third option. Don't get involved unless they both ask you to.

As was quoted before...


My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave... Maybe I can set up a sort of mediated chat(me being the mediator), get them to talk their problems through... She's saying that she "can't be friends with him" and he's angry... I do not know the full story, though.

He wants me to talk to her, and from what I know about her so far, she's a pretty rational person, maybe more so than him.

Maybe if I can get her to agree to this plan, then I could play the friend card with him to get him to try?


That's pretty much stating the opposite. Or at least to my reading it is.

[SowZ]

As was quoted before...




That's pretty much stating the opposite. Or at least to my reading it is.

For all I know that was a year ago and since then the ex girlfriend and another member of the group are besties.

[AMFV]

For all I know that was a year ago and since then the ex girlfriend and another member of the group are besties.

However it wasn't phrased in a way that would indicate that. Or imply it, as such we have to deal with what we have on the surface, which is that one of them is a friend and one of them is not.

[The Grue]

I'll just leave this here:


Geek Social Fallacy #3: Friendship Before All

Valuing friendships is a fine and worthy thing. When taken to an unhealthy extreme, however, GSF3 can manifest itself.

Like GSF2, GSF3 is a "friendship test" fallacy: in this case, the carrier believes that any failure by a friend to put the interests of the friendship above all else means that they aren't really a friend at all. It should be obvious that there are a million ways that this can be a problem for the carrier's friends, but the most common one is a situation where friends' interests conflict -- if, for example, one friend asks you to keep a secret from another friend. If both friends are GSF3 carriers, you're screwed -- the first one will feel betrayed if you reveal the secret, and the other will feel betrayed if you don't. Your only hope is to keep the second friend from finding out, which is difficult if the secret in question was a party that a lot of people went to.

GSF3 can be costly for the carrier as well. They often sacrifice work, family, and romantic obligations at the altar of friendship. In the end, the carrier has a great circle of friends, but not a lot else to show for their life. This is one reason why so many geek circles include people whose sole redeeming quality is loyalty: it's hard not to honor someone who goes to such lengths to be there for a friend, however destructive they may be in other respects.

Individual carriers sometimes have exceptions to GSF3, which allow friends to place a certain protected class of people or things above friendship in a pinch: "significant others" is a common protected class, as is "work".

[AMFV]

I'll just leave this here:

Well I take friends over acquaintances, if somebody wants to call that a "social fallacy" I call that horse****, like real horse****. Friendship is really important and a solid friend you can depend on, you could could count with your life... That is somebody who should be given precedence over somebody you can't do the same for.

People earn my friendship because I trust them, that's a big deal.

[MonochromeTiger]

Well I take friends over acquaintances, if somebody wants to call that a "social fallacy" I call that horse****, like real horse****. Friendship is really important and a solid friend you can depend on, you could could count with your life... That is somebody who should be given precedence over somebody you can't do the same for.

People earn my friendship because I trust them, that's a big deal.

agreed. my friends are my friends because I can trust them, I enjoy their company and talking with them, I'd be willing to put myself at risk for them and I know they would do the same for me even if neither of us asks. saying it's wrong to value that over someone you don't know nearly as well is devaluing the trust you've both worked to gain.

[SowZ]

agreed. my friends are my friends because I can trust them, I enjoy their company and talking with them, I'd be willing to put myself at risk for them and I know they would do the same for me even if neither of us asks. saying it's wrong to value that over someone you don't know nearly as well is devaluing the trust you've both worked to gain.

It's not saying that is wrong, so much as it is saying that is is dishonest to value your own relationships above everyone else's in the group if you are in a position of authority.

[Lorsa]

But what if the game is what is keeping the person going, routine is critical if you've been through anything unpleasant, and I would take my friends over my friends exes, sorry that's how I would do that. I disagree heavily on these matters. I think there is a serious problem in assuming that the DM gives you some kind of higher prerogative.

What if the game is what is keeping the other person involved in the breakup going? Routine might be just as critical for them.

I'm going to help my friends when they're in need, and do my best to make them happier, but not by doing something that is morally wrong. Kicking someone out of a game because another person has requested that, implicitly or explicitly, simply isn't right.

There are some people who end up spending a lot of time and being friends with their partner's friends. If those friendships and social inclusions are going to hinge on them never breaking up it's not going to be a very healthy relationship. It gives a power imbalance, and helping a friend act immoral by abusing such a power simply isn't right. I'm not going to help my friend steal a car just because he's upset or throw stones through a window to help him with depression.

Women in particular, have historically been on the lower end of relationship power; where leaving would mean loosing the only source of income they have (the husband) and similar issues. Loosing your social circle can be equally detrimental, and knowing that it would happen if you leave your partner, cause some people to stay together even if they shouldn't.

So to sum it up, the feelings of a friend's ex is just as valid and equal in importance as those of a friend (for the individuals in question), and kicking someone out of a social circle they've been a part of on the request of a friend isn't morally right.

Nothing forces anyone, your friend or yourself, to continue to be part of the group though; you could both leave if that's what you desire.

[AMFV]

What if the game is what is keeping the other person involved in the breakup going? Routine might be just as critical for them.


But there is much less responsibility to somebody that isn't my friend. I'd say take the friend over the acquaintance every time.



I'm going to help my friends when they're in need, and do my best to make them happier, but not by doing something that is morally wrong. Kicking someone out of a game because another person has requested that, implicitly or explicitly, simply isn't right.


Again cultural disconnect, to my line of thinking not supporting your friend is morally wrong. "Kicking" and you'll notice that's in quotes, somebody out of a game isn't any great moral expenditure, while it may not always be fair for them, your responsibility is more to your friend than it is to them. They have friends to whom their wellbeing is a responsibility, if they don't, then that's a different circumstance and it would need to be handled differently, but again the friends should take precedence.



There are some people who end up spending a lot of time and being friends with their partner's friends. If those friendships and social inclusions are going to hinge on them never breaking up it's not going to be a very healthy relationship. It gives a power imbalance, and helping a friend act immoral by abusing such a power simply isn't right. I'm not going to help my friend steal a car just because he's upset or throw stones through a window to help him with depression.


It is absolutely not an immoral action, you could even run a different game if you wanted, that would be a fine solution, but expecting them both to come to the same game is unfair to both of them, and will likely be traumatic for one or both of them, and I'm sorry she has her own friends, that's why its your responsibility to stand by your friends.



Women in particular, have historically been on the lower end of relationship power; where leaving would mean loosing the only source of income they have (the husband) and similar issues. Loosing your social circle can be equally detrimental, and knowing that it would happen if you leave your partner, cause some people to stay together even if they shouldn't.


And if it was a woman who was the friend my advice would remain the same, which is that your friends are your responsibility for good and bad. So when it comes time that you have to sacrifice one relationship, it's better to sacrifice one with an acquaintance.



So to sum it up, the feelings of a friend's ex is just as valid and equal in importance as those of a friend (for the individuals in question), and kicking someone out of a social circle they've been a part of on the request of a friend isn't morally right.


Again with the morally heavy-handedness. This is NOT her social circle, it's a group of people she meets with once a week and likely has no other relationship with, as we've discussed and was mentioned at the beginning she's an acquaintance, if she needs friends she has her own social circle.

Your responsibility is to your friends. If you have the time you could run two game sessions, but that shouldn't be expected, and not doing so isn't immoral.



Nothing forces anyone, your friend or yourself, to continue to be part of the group though; you could both leave if that's what you desire.

And she's a periphery outside member to the group, not a friend, as I infer most of the other group members are, that makes the dynamic fundamentally different, while that may suck, she's not losing her social circle, she's losing the equivalent of poker night. Poker night with people she doesn't really know all that well, so I'd say that probably isn't the biggest factor in her personal well-being, and again your friends is your responsibility, her friends should keep an eye on hers.

And I'm really kind of frustrated that gender was brought into this, because really the friend vs. acquaintance has absolutely nothing to do with gender, and if the gender roles were reversed, my advice would still be the same, and I'm pretty offended that it might be suggested to be otherwise.


It's not saying that is wrong, so much as it is saying that is is dishonest to value your own relationships above everyone else's in the group if you are in a position of authority.

Again there is no information to suggest that there are relationships with other members in the group beyond that, if there were my advice might be different, but barring that it remains the same.

Edit: And if my friend were stealing a car, I'd advise him that it was a bad choice, but I'd still keep an eye out for the cops for him. Because that's how I treat friendships. Period.

[SowZ]

Again there is no information to suggest that there are relationships with other members in the group beyond that, if there were my advice might be different, but barring that it remains the same.

I suppose not much else can be advised without a greater understanding of the circumstances.

[AMFV]

I suppose not much else can be advised without a greater understanding of the circumstances.

True, and it appears for the OP at least that they've come to an understanding which is good. I'm not suggesting being heavy-handed, only that a recent member of the group shouldn't get precedence without some mitigating factor if it does wind up that the group remain as it is.

[molten_dragon]

Basically, I've just been given a tough decision; these two can no longer play the game together, so i have to figure out how to keep the game going smoothly. He has asked me if I can give his ex the boot, but understands that this is a very harsh thing to ask of me. I generally consider myself a nice guy, one who hates making enemies, gets along easily with just about anyone.

Most of the group knows what's going on, and I have a pretty good feeling that if anyone does end up leaving our game, it's probably her. This is a shame, since next to me she's the most experienced player... Not to mention, the team's only rogue.

It sounds like one of them is going to have to go, and if the guy involved is your friend outside the gaming group, you probably owe it to him to keep him and boot the ex.

Don't get me wrong, it's a crappy situation, but I don't really see a better answer.

[Lorsa]

And I'm really kind of frustrated that gender was brought into this, because really the friend vs. acquaintance has absolutely nothing to do with gender, and if the gender roles were reversed, my advice would still be the same, and I'm pretty offended that it might be suggested to be otherwise.

If you read my reply, you'll notice that I didn't bring up gender at all in the paragraphs that discuss that issue. In fact, I believe I was very careful to omit any reference to gender.

I didn't say that your actions would be affected by gender, nor did I mean to imply it. The reference to women often being in the lesser position of power in a relationship was meant to illuminate an issue that often is gender-based in the case it might be applicable to this situation.



There seems to be two discussions going on here, both what would be a good thing to do in this particular situation (of which we have too little information) and what to do in general situations like these.

It seems to me you are discussing what to do in this particular situation, lacking some crucial information like the thoughts and feelings of the ex, the behavioural history of the friend e.t.c. while I am discussing general situations. Perhaps you are too, but you are alternating between giving broad "always choose your friend" statements and "she's just an acquaintance" (referencing this particular situation).

As for this situation in specific; we don't know how important these games or meeting these people are for the ex. The value she puts on the group is information we don't have. Claiming it isn't the ex' social circle, or that there is no desire from the ex for it to be such is something we don't know.

As for these situations in general; I still believe it isn't right to kick someone out of a group, any group, simply based on the whims and desires of one individual in the group. If you're the one "in charge" of a group (as Game Masters often are), choosing the side of this one person feels wrong to me, regardless of how close you are.

Based on what you are describing, I get the feeling you have some sort of internal ladder upon which you order all people you interact with. When given a decision to follow the wishes of one while ignoring the wishes of the other you'd always know which one to pick. It makes me curious if you've informed all people you interact with where they are located on this ladder, perhaps with some form of numbers that they can compare as to know which other people in your social group they need to be on good terms with. That might not be the case but it leads me to some very important questions.

When do people become friends with you (how long does it take)? Are some friends more important than others? Is there a limit on the sort of things you'd do for a friend (like destruction or theft that was mentioned before)?

I believe your first responsibility should be to yourself and to you acting in a moral way. If a friend has me make a promise to help with something, that later turns out to be robbing a bank, I'm going to say no. My friend might then complain claiming that "You promised to help! We're friends!", but there's a limit to what I'd do for friendship. Someone demanding that I act in an improper way isn't really my friend, just abusing our emotional connection for personal gain.

Now if the ex in question volunteers to leave, saying it isn't a big deal then I will accept it. If my friend leaves and I find I don't want to GM the other people that are left in the group without said friend I will quit as well. If that was the case though, I'm not sure why I'd have invited all these people to begin with. I like to play with people I know and care about. In any case, I'm not going to let one person determine the bes and be-nots of an entire group.And you don't invite someone just to kick them out later if you change your mind.

[Jay R]

The game table is not a place for therapy.

That depends on what kind of therapy you mean.

I agree that the game shouldn't be interrupted for a therapy session.

But playing with friends is in fact good therapy for the depression that often accompanies life's turmoil.

[AMFV]

I didn't say that your actions would be affected by gender, nor did I mean to imply it. The reference to women often being in the lesser position of power in a relationship was meant to illuminate an issue that often is gender-based in the case it might be applicable to this situation.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent when you were discussing the balance between men and women in a relationship. As far as I could tell the only reason that was contextually significant was that particular reason.



There seems to be two discussions going on here, both what would be a good thing to do in this particular situation (of which we have too little information) and what to do in general situations like these.


Well their situation has resolved, the thread has evolved more towards what would be ideal in an idealized or similar scenario if the situation hadn't resolved.



It seems to me you are discussing what to do in this particular situation, lacking some crucial information like the thoughts and feelings of the ex, the behavioural history of the friend e.t.c. while I am discussing general situations. Perhaps you are too, but you are alternating between giving broad "always choose your friend" statements and "she's just an acquaintance" (referencing this particular situation).


I was more discussing a similar hypothetical, if somebody presents me with an alternative hypothetical to discuss then I could discuss how I think one should react in that particular scenario.



As for this situation in specific; we don't know how important these games or meeting these people are for the ex. The value she puts on the group is information we don't have. Claiming it isn't the ex' social circle, or that there is no desire from the ex for it to be such is something we don't know.


This is true, but as I've pointed there is less of a moral responsibility to the well-being of an acquantanence, or at least not to the same degree as to a friend.



As for these situations in general; I still believe it isn't right to kick someone out of a group, any group, simply based on the whims and desires of one individual in the group. If you're the one "in charge" of a group (as Game Masters often are), choosing the side of this one person feels wrong to me, regardless of how close you are.


Well naturally taking sides feels crappy, and it seems like its a bad idea. But in this type of scenario its unavoidable, there may be a need to take sides as depressing and frustrating as that is, many people like to say things like "you should never take sides," on the assumption that it will in worst case lead to two members of the group leaving. But I've had a lot of experience with this, I've been in the military so I've seen many bad divorces, and I can tell you that worst case is the entire group tearing itself apart and never talking again.

Probable best case is both of them leaving without more intense drama starting, so it may be necessary to take sides or quickly cut off that sort of thing if necessary.



Based on what you are describing, I get the feeling you have some sort of internal ladder upon which you order all people you interact with. When given a decision to follow the wishes of one while ignoring the wishes of the other you'd always know which one to pick. It makes me curious if you've informed all people you interact with where they are located on this ladder, perhaps with some form of numbers that they can compare as to know which other people in your social group they need to be on good terms with. That might not be the case but it leads me to some very important questions.


Maybe, I'll certainly answer your questions.



When do people become friends with you (how long does it take)?

It depends on the context in which I know them. I've had to be able to trust other people in life-threatening situations in very little time, so I tend to place that sort of trust quickly.


Are some friends more important than others?

Nope, although that's a different scenario and would require more careful handling.


Is there a limit on the sort of things you'd do for a friend (like destruction or theft that was mentioned before)?


It would depend, as I said, I would advise a friend that such a thing was a bad idea, and I would try to protect them from the repercussions of that idea, for example watching for the police, that sort of thing. So I guess I'd make myself into an ersatz accomplice to protect my friends.

It seems that compared to that asking somebody to leave a game, isn't that big a deal. I'd be willing to go to jail, or risk serious injury for people I consider to be my friends.



I believe your first responsibility should be to yourself and to you acting in a moral way. If a friend has me make a promise to help with something, that later turns out to be robbing a bank, I'm going to say no. My friend might then complain claiming that "You promised to help! We're friends!", but there's a limit to what I'd do for friendship. Someone demanding that I act in an improper way isn't really my friend, just abusing our emotional connection for personal gain.


I believe that the first responsibility should be to your commitments, your family, your friends, then yourself, in that order. I disagree very strongly with a philosophical stance that would put me, and my own moral well-being above that of everybody else. Particularly my family or my friends.



Now if the ex in question volunteers to leave, saying it isn't a big deal then I will accept it. If my friend leaves and I find I don't want to GM the other people that are left in the group without said friend I will quit as well. If that was the case though, I'm not sure why I'd have invited all these people to begin with. I like to play with people I know and care about. In any case, I'm not going to let one person determine the bes and be-nots of an entire group.And you don't invite someone just to kick them out later if you change your mind.

Well the problem is that in this scenario, there is no happy medium, you are kicking one member for sure. If you're allowing her to remain you're kicking him, just without the actual testicular fortitude to do it directly, instead you're doing it in a rather painful and snide way. There is no easy solution, somebody is going to wind up leaving, and possibly hurt, so the way to deal with this is to figure out who you should be standing behind, and if it's an acquaintance and a friend, then you know, who you should be standing behind.

If they're both friends then the scenario gets a lot more complex and difficult to resolve. It's still resolvable, but it's just more difficult, I'd recommend splitting it into two gaming sessions or something to that effect.

[NichG]

That depends on what kind of therapy you mean.

I agree that the game shouldn't be interrupted for a therapy session.

But playing with friends is in fact good therapy for the depression that often accompanies life's turmoil.

As I've been saying though, this is unfair to impose upon the other players. Therapy is fundamentally an asymmetric process - it involves being patient with a lot of misbehavior. Its fine to decide that you're willing to go through that kind of thing for a friend, but you shouldn't decide on behalf of other people to turn their shared social activity into this.

This is the kind of well-meaning thing that can easily turn into hostility and make things worse. You're trying to help someone, but someone else at the table may rightly be pissed off that they're misbehaving and dumping drama on the group. And when they then express that hostility, it can often polarize a group into 'sides' and amplify the drama.


It would depend, as I said, I would advise a friend that such a thing was a bad idea, and I would try to protect them from the repercussions of that idea, for example watching for the police, that sort of thing. So I guess I'd make myself into an ersatz accomplice to protect my friends.

It seems that compared to that asking somebody to leave a game, isn't that big a deal. I'd be willing to go to jail, or risk serious injury for people I consider to be my friends.

I believe that the first responsibility should be to your commitments, your family, your friends, then yourself, in that order. I disagree very strongly with a philosophical stance that would put me, and my own moral well-being above that of everybody else. Particularly my family or my friends.


Can you understand though why this willingness might make other people unwilling to trust you to GM? I realize its just a game, but if I know ahead of time 'you will use any power I give you, up to and including power over life in death situations, strictly for the benefit of people who have specific meaning to you and without regard to my wants' why would I give you that power?

This is just a game we're talking about, but since you're talking about going to jail for a friend I figure the bigger picture is open to discussion as well.

In general, it's important to be able to compartmentalize different parts of your life, especially if you're going to be in a position of authority. You need to be able to recognize conflicts of interest and be conscientious about stepping aside when they could affect your judgement. If you're hiring for a company, you have to be able to separate your position as acting on behalf of the company from your position as a friend or a family member. If you're a politician, you need to be able to separate the needs of your constituents from what you want to do to help your friends and family.

Being able to compartmentalize and avoid conflicts of interest is a mandatory skill for any position of authority. The game is just a microcosm of that.

This, incidentally, is where the separation between 'what is moral?' and 'what is ethical?' can come in. What is moral may be defined by your own beliefs and cultural attitudes, but 'what is ethical?' is a social construction of the activity in which you're engaged. You're objecting to people who are complaining about your morality, but what they're really saying is 'your actions would be unethical in the social setting of a group activity', and that is independent of your own personal beliefs.

[AMFV]

Can you understand though why this willingness might make other people unwilling to trust you to GM? I realize its just a game, but if I know ahead of time 'you will use any power I give you, up to and including power over life in death situations, strictly for the benefit of people who have specific meaning to you and without regard to my wants' why would I give you that power?

This is just a game we're talking about, but since you're talking about going to jail for a friend I figure the bigger picture is open to discussion as well.

In general, it's important to be able to compartmentalize different parts of your life, especially if you're going to be in a position of authority. You need to be able to recognize conflicts of interest and be conscientious about stepping aside when they could affect your judgement. If you're hiring for a company, you have to be able to separate your position as acting on behalf of the company from your position as a friend or a family member. If you're a politician, you need to be able to separate the needs of your constituents from what you want to do to help your friends and family.

Being able to compartmentalize and avoid conflicts of interest is a mandatory skill for any position of authority. The game is just a microcosm of that.

This, incidentally, is where the separation between 'what is moral?' and 'what is ethical?' can come in. What is moral may be defined by your own beliefs and cultural attitudes, but 'what is ethical?' is a social construction of the activity in which you're engaged. You're objecting to people who are complaining about your morality, but what they're really saying is 'your actions would be unethical in the social setting of a group activity', and that is independent of your own personal beliefs.

I don't think it is... There's a really good book out there, which talks about this morality divide in modern culture. Where there's a certain segment that believes in tradition and a certain segment that believes in the self, it's a really fascinating thing. The point being that traditionally loyalty to friends is important, more so than other things.

I don't think that a DM is a position of authority that overrides your obligations to your friends, since it is part of that same sort of social contract. You still have an obligation to your friend that overrides an obligation to an acquaintance, as far as DMing goes that obligation should be ignored, because that's the position of authority. But who you invite to the games isn't a function of your being a DM, it's a function of your friendships. That's where I think the disconnect is, yes when you game, you shouldn't rule more favorably for your friends. But if you have to stop inviting one of two people or the game is going to fall apart, you should stop inviting the person that is an acquaintance to most of the group and keep the friend, because that's your responsibility.

Also there could be a very big divide on what ethics system you're using, there is not an easy ethics solution to this sort of problem, because ethics in a friendship and social situation are VERY VERY different from professional ethics, you're not a professional DM, it's a social position and as such is subject to a completely different system of ethics. Furthermore if it was a professional position then the male friend would have seniority, and therefore would be the one you should support, since that would be the business ethics decision. So there you have it, business ethics wise it's still the same answer just for different reasons.

[NichG]

I don't think it is... There's a really good book out there, which talks about this morality divide in modern culture. Where there's a certain segment that believes in tradition and a certain segment that believes in the self, it's a really fascinating thing. The point being that traditionally loyalty to friends is important, more so than other things.

When it comes to interacting with other people though, its not all about what you believe. If I'm a doctor doing a medical trial and I 'arrange' to make sure that my friend doesn't get the placebo, I may be doing the morally correct thing as far as my own personal morality, but what I'm doing is professionally unethical. Those standards of ethics are not determined by my culture or beliefs, they're determined by the medical profession as a whole.

While I may have an obligation to my friend, the medical community does not have an obligation to help me help my friend. If I am invested with authority, then that investment comes with a certain set of external ethics that I cannot really just wave off - because if I do, that authority will call me on it.

And those ethics have a strong reason for existing - they're there to allow a complete stranger to trust someone with their life. If I go in to a surgery, I generally don't have to worry that e.g. I might be organ-compatible with my surgeon's dying son, and that he'll arrange for me to have a little accident on the operating table to save his son's life. I don't have to worry too much that my accountant will siphon funds out of my accounts in order to give his brother a loan because his brother is more important than a complete stranger. And if it does happen, I have legal recourse.

DMing isn't being a surgeon or an accountant, and the stakes are not nearly as high in this situation as they might be in the other hypotheticals. But how you respond to small responsibilities can be a warning sign for how you might respond to larger responsibilities when the stakes are correspondingly higher too.



I don't think that a DM is a position of authority that overrides your obligations to your friends, since it is part of that same sort of social contract. You still have an obligation to your friend that overrides an obligation to an acquaintance, as far as DMing goes that obligation should be ignored, because that's the position of authority. But who you invite to the games isn't a function of your being a DM, it's a function of your friendships. That's where I think the disconnect is, yes when you game, you shouldn't rule more favorably for your friends. But if you have to stop inviting one of two people or the game is going to fall apart, you should stop inviting the person that is an acquaintance to most of the group and keep the friend, because that's your responsibility.

The important thing here is that you must act to best support what the group wants, not what you personally want. In other words, you had better be absolutely sure that the rest of the group feels the same way, and that you aren't just projecting your own friendships and values where other people may have a different preference.

If you're doing it because 'this is the will of the group' thats one thing. If you're doing it because its your will, and claiming that that's the will of the group, that's quite another.



Also there could be a very big divide on what ethics system you're using, there is not an easy ethics solution to this sort of problem, because ethics in a friendship and social situation are VERY VERY different from professional ethics, you're not a professional DM, it's a social position and as such is subject to a completely different system of ethics.

You notice all the posters who are calling your stance unethical? It's not like GitP is the last word on the ethics of GMing, but if your players are anything like the people responding to this thread, then yes, it would be unethical to do what you proposed. Those ethics are basically determined as part of the social contract of 'we will give you authority, but you will do X' - something often unstated, but which I guarantee you players have strong feelings about (it just usually comes out in cases where there's in-game unfairness, rather than out-of-game unfairness which is the much rarer situation).

Whether or not a given group will actually call you on it is another question. Or they may just become sullen. That kind of passive-aggressive response is one of those 'geek social fallacies'.


Furthermore if it was a professional position then the male friend would have seniority, and therefore would be the one you should support, since that would be the business ethics decision. So there you have it, business ethics wise it's still the same answer just for different reasons.

Seniority doesn't really factor in to professional ethics, so I'm not sure where you're getting this. If anything, seniority is often tied with ethics violations in e.g. discriminatory hiring processes - ageism and the 'old boys club' phenomenon.

Generally, the key phrase in professional ethics related to this situation is 'conflict of interest'. If you have a conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do is usually to temporarily yield authority to someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the given situation. There are situations where it isn't so easy (e.g. in research, you sometimes can't avoid working in situation in which there is potential conflict of interest - e.g. grant money is coming from a biased party - so what you do then is declare your conflict of interest in any related publications so that it is clear to any readers). In some fields, the professional ethics is so stringent that one must even avoid the 'appearance of impropriety'.

[AMFV]

When it comes to interacting with other people though, its not all about what you believe. If I'm a doctor doing a medical trial and I 'arrange' to make sure that my friend doesn't get the placebo, I may be doing the morally correct thing as far as my own personal morality, but what I'm doing is professionally unethical. Those standards of ethics are not determined by my culture or beliefs, they're determined by the medical profession as a whole.

While I may have an obligation to my friend, the medical community does not have an obligation to help me help my friend. If I am invested with authority, then that investment comes with a certain set of external ethics that I cannot really just wave off - because if I do, that authority will call me on it.

And those ethics have a strong reason for existing - they're there to allow a complete stranger to trust someone with their life. If I go in to a surgery, I generally don't have to worry that e.g. I might be organ-compatible with my surgeon's dying son, and that he'll arrange for me to have a little accident on the operating table to save his son's life. I don't have to worry too much that my accountant will siphon funds out of my accounts in order to give his brother a loan because his brother is more important than a complete stranger. And if it does happen, I have legal recourse.

DMing isn't being a surgeon or an accountant, and the stakes are not nearly as high in this situation as they might be in the other hypotheticals. But how you respond to small responsibilities can be a warning sign for how you might respond to larger responsibilities when the stakes are correspondingly higher too.

That is horse****. This a manager of a social activity, I have had responsibility like you cannot even imagine, I've been in charge of Marines, in situations where they might have gotten in trouble and I damn well did not let my personal life get in the way there, so don't you dare accuse me of that. As a manager of a social event, then yes the well-being is a goddamn important factor, there is no way around it.

This isn't even remotely comparable to the medical profession, because the ethics are different, this is comparable to a director of a bridge club, dealer in a friendly poker game, movie master at movie night. And you are losing one or losing both, so you have to pick which. Losing both is the officious jackass way of doing it, that's absolutely ridiculous, you aren't the arbiter of their relationship problems, but you are responsible for your friendship and for your friends.



The important thing here is that you must act to best support what the group wants, not what you personally want. In other words, you had better be absolutely sure that the rest of the group feels the same way, and that you aren't just projecting your own friendships and values where other people may have a different preference.

If you're doing it because 'this is the will of the group' thats one thing. If you're doing it because its your will, and claiming that that's the will of the group, that's quite another.


But in this case, what the group doesn't need is to find out all about this couple's dirty laundry, since it's not public knowledge, you need to make a decision, it's not your job to reveal their personal squabbles in front of everybody, since they have not made them public.

It is your job to try to protect their privacy, and support your friend through this tragic time, so you should probably (politely) ask the ex if she can sit out for a while, and see how things develop.




You notice all the posters who are calling your stance unethical? It's not like GitP is the last word on the ethics of GMing, but if your players are anything like the people responding to this thread, then yes, it would be unethical to do what you proposed. Those ethics are basically determined as part of the social contract of 'we will give you authority, but you will do X' - something often unstated, but which I guarantee you players have strong feelings about (it just usually comes out in cases where there's in-game unfairness, rather than out-of-game unfairness which is the much rarer situation).


There as many posters with the same stance as I have as there are posters who are calling my stance unethical, in fact several people who just entered the discussion have stated the same things that I have, or have stated the very similar viewpoint.

Almost nobody has went so far as to call it "unethical" except you. So maybe you should reevaluate your viewpoint regarding this since most of the people don't agree with you, or maybe you should concede that ethics are not controlled by popular vote.



Whether or not a given group will actually call you on it is another question. Or they may just become sullen. That kind of passive-aggressive response is one of those 'geek social fallacies'.


Which are bull**** as I've pointed out, or at least to my belief they are. I disagree about the ethical side of this, completely. I think that your responsibility to your friends supersedes your role as dealer for your poker group. That's what being DM is equivalent to, not some higher ridiculous kind of duty, it's the same as being the person responsible for inviting people to bridge club meetings. It's the facilitator of a small social event. So if your friendship is taking a lower priority than that then you may want to re-evaluate the importance you're placing on a minor social event.




Seniority doesn't really factor in to professional ethics, so I'm not sure where you're getting this. If anything, seniority is often tied with ethics violations in e.g. discriminatory hiring processes - ageism and the 'old boys club' phenomenon.

Generally, the key phrase in professional ethics related to this situation is 'conflict of interest'. If you have a conflict of interest, the ethical thing to do is usually to temporarily yield authority to someone who doesn't have a conflict of interest in the given situation. There are situations where it isn't so easy (e.g. in research, you sometimes can't avoid working in situation in which there is potential conflict of interest - e.g. grant money is coming from a biased party - so what you do then is declare your conflict of interest in any related publications so that it is clear to any readers). In some fields, the professional ethics is so stringent that one must even avoid the 'appearance of impropriety'.

Not seniority in terms of age, but seniority in terms of has been with the company longer. The ethical thing is when you have to fire one, to fire the most junior. This is a case where one person or both has to be let go. Firing both is unacceptable, so you fire the most junior, since the other person has seniority. It's why seniority is so important.

[NichG]

That is horse****. This a manager of a social activity, I have had responsibility like you cannot even imagine, I've been in charge of Marines, in situations where they might have gotten in trouble and I damn well did not let my personal life get in the way there, so don't you dare accuse me of that. As a manager of a social event, then yes the well-being is a goddamn important factor, there is no way around it.


And yet, you'd be willing to help a friend steal a car, regardless of the harm that would cause to the owner of that car. This tells me that, no, you aren't someone I would trust with responsibility. Its clear that even if there are situations where you can keep things straight, its pretty impossible for me to know whether or not a given situation will be 'serious enough' for you to actually take it seriously.

So you can manage personal life when in a life in death situation, fine. But can I trust you to manage money? Can I trust you to make unbiased hiring decisions? Can I trust you to give truthful witness? I have no clue. Your willingness to violate ethics for personal obligations in some cases means that, even if you might not do it in others, you're basically proving yourself untrustworthy because its a big unknown - I have no way of knowing whether you'll favor your personal obligations or your other obligations in any given situation.

Trust is all about knowing that you can rely on someone else. It means you have some ability to predict, if not their actions, then their motivations.



This isn't even remotely comparable to the medical profession, because the ethics are different, this is comparable to a director of a bridge club, dealer in a friendly poker game, movie master at movie night. And you are losing one or losing both, so you have to pick which. Losing both is the officious jackass way of doing it, that's absolutely ridiculous, you aren't the arbiter of their relationship problems, but you are responsible for your friendship and for your friends.

At its core, its about people giving you power over them. In the case of the tabletop game, there isn't much at stake. I might not be surprised if a GM picks their friend over the group, but that also doesn't mean I'll tolerate it if its a group I'm in.

Its low stakes - no one is going to go to jail over it, no one is going to lose their livelyhood or their life over it. But at the same time, that means that I'm not hurting myself very much if I end up having to stand up for my principles. Maybe that involves walking out of a game, or just making a statement that I think its crappy behavior in front of the group, but I believe it's important to not just let such things go.



But in this case, what the group doesn't need is to find out all about this couple's dirty laundry, since it's not public knowledge, you need to make a decision, it's not your job to reveal their personal squabbles in front of everybody, since they have not made them public.

It is your job to try to protect their privacy, and support your friend through this tragic time, so you should probably (politely) ask the ex if she can sit out for a while, and see how things develop.


I disagree. You're acting as GM. That's leader of a group. Your friend is basically trying to leverage their friendship with you as an individual to manipulate the group as a whole. That puts you in a conflict of interest situation. Your only ethical choice is to cede authority to make the decision.

You can do this by letting the group vote. You can do this by stepping down as DM. You can do this by telling your friend 'that isn't a decision I can make'.



There as many posters with the same stance as I have as there are posters who are calling my stance unethical, in fact several people who just entered the discussion have stated the same things that I have, or have stated the very similar viewpoint.


Not by my recent count at least. We've certainly been arguing this, but I got back into it after you said you'd step away because it kept going with other people than me arguing this side.



Almost nobody has went so far as to call it "unethical" except you. So maybe you should reevaluate your viewpoint regarding this since most of the people don't agree with you, or maybe you should concede that ethics are not controlled by popular vote.


No, they've (incorrectly) called it 'immoral'. Ethics and morality are different things. In this case, ethics are determined by the group that is giving you power. That is the nature of the social contract.

If your players 'popularly vote' that you are being unethical in your behavior, the practical consequence is they can kick you from the group. If an individual player feels you are being unethical in your behavior, they can leave the group.

Whether or not you believe you have a moral responsibility, that doesn't insulate you from the consequences of your actions. If you exhibit signs that you have difficulty being impartial when things get personal, then the natural consequence is that people may not trust you to be impartial in those situations.

Or more simply put, if you betray my trust, then I won't give you power over me in the future. If you indicate a willingness to betray my trust, then I won't give you power over me to begin with.



Which are bull**** as I've pointed out, or at least to my belief they are. I disagree about the ethical side of this, completely. I think that your responsibility to your friends supersedes your role as dealer for your poker group. That's what being DM is equivalent to, not some higher ridiculous kind of duty, it's the same as being the person responsible for inviting people to bridge club meetings. It's the facilitator of a small social event. So if your friendship is taking a lower priority than that then you may want to re-evaluate the importance you're placing on a minor social event.


Your problem is that you're putting everything on a vertical stack. Group X has priority over group Y has priority over group Z. But life is more complex than that.

'When I'm GM, Group X has priority over Group Y'. 'When I'm chatting with someone, Group Y has priority over Group X'. 'When I'm an employer, Group Z has priority over Group X and Group Y'. 'When I'm a doctor, Group Q has priority over ...'

It isn't betraying a friendship, its saying 'being a friend means that I will help you, but it doesn't mean I will compromise my other responsibilities either'.



Not seniority in terms of age, but seniority in terms of has been with the company longer. The ethical thing is when you have to fire one, to fire the most junior. This is a case where one person or both has to be let go. Firing both is unacceptable, so you fire the most junior, since the other person has seniority. It's why seniority is so important.

I'll admit I had to go search on this, but it does appear to be the case. It's definitely a different situation than the sort of professional ethics I generally encounter (disclosure: I'm a physicist, so the emphasis is on a dedication to truthful reporting of results, managing financial conflict of interest, etc, and not firing decisions of this sort)

[The Grue]

agreed. my friends are my friends because I can trust them, I enjoy their company and talking with them, I'd be willing to put myself at risk for them and I know they would do the same for me even if neither of us asks. saying it's wrong to value that over someone you don't know nearly as well is devaluing the trust you've both worked to gain.

Please show me where I or anyone else suggested that is objectively, unilaterally "wrong".

It's easy to deal always in absolutes; unfortunately, the real world is one of nuance.

[AMFV]

{{scrubbed}}

[The Grue]

Well if you have no professional experience with issues of this type then perhaps you should not comment on the professional ethics of matters of this type.

Can we maybe not resort to pointless personal attacks here? Thanks.

[AMFV]

Can we maybe not resort to pointless personal attacks here? Thanks.

Well there were accusations that I was untrustworthy first, perhaps you should have commented on those. I didn't attack anyone's character, only their experience, since they had commented on professional ethics and were completely mistaken with regards to those ethics.

[The Grue]

"He started it" is the defense of a child on the playground. Thematically fitting given the name of this website, but not what I personally come here to experience.

Instead of playing the blame game, how about we all just agree not to do it, okay? This is typically why one avoids using personal experience to justify a position, because any response to that assertion is interpreted as a personal attack.

I'm sure you're a stand-up guy AMFV, but if you're unable to separate your opinions from yourself as a person for the sake of discussion and discourse, then I for one have no interest in engaging with you.

[AMFV]

"He started it" is the defense of a child on the playground. Thematically fitting given the name of this website, but not what I personally come here to experience.

Instead of playing the blame game, how about we all just agree not to do it, okay? This is typically why one avoids using personal experience to justify a position, because any response to that assertion is interpreted as a personal attack.

I'm sure you're a stand-up guy AMFV, but if you're unable to separate your opinions from yourself as a person for the sake of discussion and discourse, then I for one have no interest in engaging with you.

Well I didn't attack him as a person, I attack his lack of experience on the matter, which is a valid point to make, if you comment on something in a definitive manner then it is expected that you have some experience or familiarity with it.

I'm also curious as to why I'm the one being attacked here, when as I've pointed out, I haven't attacked anyone's character merely their inexperience, which is not a fundamental character flaw. Furthermore separating opinions from oneself as a requirement of a good discourse, is probably the most ridiculous requirement for discourse that I have ever heard.

Fundamentally most discourse has at least some level of anecdotal reference, if we are discussing a matter of social contract then, yes anecdotal and personal experience is important. Particularly in the judgement related to such a matter.

[The Grue]

EDIT: Self-scrubbed. I'm not getting into a semantics debate, nor will I engage you on the topic of "who started it". Personal attacks have no place in civilized discourse. Act however you wish, but be aware that people will judge you based on those actions.

[AMFV]

That's not how I read your post, though I could be mistaken. My interpretation was, you were using his lack of personal experience with seniority in a professional setting as it relates to layoffs to devalue his opinions about seniority in a social setting as it relates to friends playing D&D games. Is it your position that these two scenarios are functionally the same?

If you'll read the entirety of the preceding post you'll see that I'm defending in a professional ground. My statement is that from a position of social ethics you have a responsibility to your friend, and if it were a business ethics question (as he was positing) then you would have responsibility to the group member who had seniority. So yes in this, they would be functionally the same, although if we switch the scenario at all. For example make the acquaintance, the senior group member. Make both of them equal seniority. Introduce relationships to other group members that are differing in some way, then how you should handle the situation changes.

But as it stands they are functionally the same. Which means that even in a professional situation the ethical responsibility would be the same, the only reason that I was bringing that up, is that it was suggested that a DM was the equivalent of a professional position with the implication being that the friendship shouldn't matter, so I was pointing out that even in the provided scenario the ethics were the same, the conclusion was the same in any case.


EDIT: Self-scrubbed. I'm not getting into a semantics debate, nor will I engage you on the topic of "who started it". Personal attacks have no place in civilized discourse. Act however you wish, but be aware that people will judge you based on those actions.

You'll notice that I didn't get into a "who started it" debate with that post at all, I merely answered your question. And I didn't have any attacks against character at this juncture, as I've said I only brought up somebody's inexperience, whereas my character (my trustworthiness) was directly attacked.

[NichG]

I agree with Grue that this has gotten a bit too personal, so I'll back off on that.

Basically what I want to say though is, when people give power to someone to give them authority, that comes with an implicit contract - that you will use this power responsibly and in accordance with their reason for giving you that power. That means that those people are your judge. You can say 'under this situation, I would consider it worth it to violate the trust placed in me', but what you can't say is 'but you can't blame me for it'. If you're going to make a decision like that, you also have to be willing to accept that the group may find fault with it - that's just taking responsibility for your choices.

Edit: Now, perhaps your group does have a different social contract. Perhaps they explicitly have chosen you to choose who they get to play with. But in my experience, a GM just ends up being a social director because no one else does it, not because that's what the GM's actual job is supposed to be. The authority given as a rules referee and the authority given to choose who you get to be friends with are not the same.

[AMFV]

I agree with Grue that this has gotten a bit too personal, so I'll back off on that.

Basically what I want to say though is, when people give power to someone to give them authority, that comes with an implicit contract - that you will use this power responsibly and in accordance with their reason for giving you that power. That means that those people are your judge. You can say 'under this situation, I would consider it worth it to violate the trust placed in me', but what you can't say is 'but you can't blame me for it'. If you're going to make a decision like that, you also have to be willing to accept that the group may find fault with it - that's just taking responsibility for your choices.

And what I've shown is that even if it were an impartial businesslike relationship as you've suggested... Then it's still the same ethical conclusion, seniority wins out. So in either case, if the role of a DM is an impartial business relationship. Or if it's a friendship based enterprise, in this scenario the ethical conclusion is the same one.

Edit: So there is no violation of trust here. It's the expected ethical outcome to the given scenario.

[NichG]

And what I've shown is that even if it were an impartial businesslike relationship as you've suggested... Then it's still the same ethical conclusion, seniority wins out. So in either case, if the role of a DM is an impartial business relationship. Or if it's a friendship based enterprise, in this scenario the ethical conclusion is the same one.

Edit: So there is no violation of trust here. It's the expected ethical outcome to the given scenario.

We would have to delve into the reason for the seniority rule in business ethics. My guess is there are factors behind it that are dissimilar, having to do with job availability and desirable factors of job stability.

But I think its clear that DM-ing is a friendship-based enterprise. But there is still a reason for impartiality in such a situation, and a case for professionalism as a DM. As I've pointed out before, a social group is more complex than 'my relationships'. Its 'our relationships', and that includes relationships between people other than the GM. 'Impartiality' is being able to put the group's needs above your own. Putting your needs above the group's violates trust.

[AMFV]

We would have to delve into the reason for the seniority rule in business ethics. My guess is there are factors behind it that are dissimilar, having to do with job availability and desirable factors of job stability.

But I think its clear that DM-ing is a friendship-based enterprise. But there is still a reason for impartiality in such a situation, and a case for professionalism as a DM. As I've pointed out before, a social group is more complex than 'my relationships'. Its 'our relationships', and that includes relationships between people other than the GM. 'Impartiality' is being able to put the group's needs above your own. Putting your needs above the group's violates trust.

In this scenario we are losing one member no matter what, at least one member of the group is gone. Period. If we are impartial then it should be the person who has been with the group longest. If we are basing our decisions on friendship then it should be the person who is a friend. Furthermore in this scenario the other person is an acquaintance for everybody, and isn't close with any other member of the group. At least with the information provided.

We could bring it up for a vote, but that would involve revealing information that you were told in confidence to everybody, and dragging people's dirty laundry into the group's eyes, which is very unacceptable, and is likely to lose you both members, and any others that find that sort of thing unacceptable (I personally would not stay in a group where people's trust was violated in that manner)

So you have to make a decision, you can kick one of them or both of them. Kicking the one who's been with group longer is clearly the wrong decision on an ethical level, because he has committed more of his time and his effort to the group (which is by the way the reason for the seniority rules). Kicking both of them is clearly unethical since again you're placing somebody that has given less of their time and effort to the group at the same value as somebody who has put more of their time and effort to the group. Furthermore that's probably going to cause some group cohesion issues, since you've kicked somebody who is friends with everybody.

So you have only one appropriate option, as painful and unsavory as it might be.

[NichG]

In this scenario we are losing one member no matter what, at least one member of the group is gone. Period. If we are impartial then it should be the person who has been with the group longest. If we are basing our decisions on friendship then it should be the person who is a friend. Furthermore in this scenario the other person is an acquaintance for everybody, and isn't close with any other member of the group. At least with the information provided.


So lets be clear what we're debating. The key thing I'm debating is that the GM's personal friendships should factor into their decisions as GM, which I disagree with strongly.

If the entire group prefers to keep one player over another, then in my eyes thats a no-fault situation.



We could bring it up for a vote, but that would involve revealing information that you were told in confidence to everybody, and dragging people's dirty laundry into the group's eyes, which is very unacceptable, and is likely to lose you both members, and any others that find that sort of thing unacceptable (I personally would not stay in a group where people's trust was violated in that manner)


Or you tell your friend 'I won't kick someone without the group's agreement' and then see if they will stick by their insistence even with it coming to that.

Its best to standardize this. If its clear with the group from the start 'people stay or go on the consensus of the group, not my personal feelings' then you avoid the conflict of interest before it even happens.

Heck, you could do an informal vote (e.g. you go and tell each player 'okay, things are messy between player X and Y right now, and we might have to kick one'). Or a cool-down period. Or any number of other things rather than a unilateral decision.

No matter what, the group is going to find out that players X and Y had a messy break-up. That will be pretty clear, especially if the group are friends with each-other. The details of the breakup may be private, but they also aren't really relevant to the group making the decision to kick one player any more than they're relevant to the GM making the decision.



So you have to make a decision, you can kick one of them or both of them. Kicking the one who's been with group longer is clearly the wrong decision on an ethical level, because he has committed more of his time and his effort to the group (which is by the way the reason for the seniority rules). Kicking both of them is clearly unethical since again you're placing somebody that has given less of their time and effort to the group at the same value as somebody who has put more of their time and effort to the group. Furthermore that's probably going to cause some group cohesion issues, since you've kicked somebody who is friends with everybody.

So you have only one appropriate option, as painful and unsavory as it might be.

1. You let the group decide, formally or informally, either by establishing that you aren't the final word for kicking/recruiting or by making it a precedent.

2. You ask the two players to both take a break and cool off, then revisit the situation. As happened in the OP's case. Which has, in the OP's case, which is the exact case in question, led to both players being able to co-exist in the game.

So no, there isn't 'just one appropriate option'.

[AMFV]

So lets be clear what we're debating. The key thing I'm debating is that the GM's personal friendships should factor into their decisions as GM, which I disagree with strongly.

And this is where I disagree, DMing is largely a social activity, so your personal friendships should factor in at least on some level it isn't an impersonal business relationship and if it is then your ethics should be dictated by impersonal business ethics.

So either there is a responsibility as a friend or as a professional. There is a responsibility not to involve the group in a personal matter. And that to me is the most important imperative here.

[Lorsa]

I apologize if I misinterpreted your intent when you were discussing the balance between men and women in a relationship. As far as I could tell the only reason that was contextually significant was that particular reason.

I do realise it could be seen this way, so there is no need to apologise. I didn't want to imply that your decisions would be affected by gender so I'm sorry you took it that way.


Well their situation has resolved, the thread has evolved more towards what would be ideal in an idealized or similar scenario if the situation hadn't resolved.

Yes, their situation resolved quite well I believe? This still leaves us with discussing similar scenarios, which can be quite interesting I think.


I was more discussing a similar hypothetical, if somebody presents me with an alternative hypothetical to discuss then I could discuss how I think one should react in that particular scenario.

If I come up with another hypothetical, I'll let you know!


This is true, but as I've pointed there is less of a moral responsibility to the well-being of an acquantanence, or at least not to the same degree as to a friend.

I think this is where I disagree with you. I believe that I have an equal moral responsibility to the well-being of every person I interact with. I certainly can't help everyone I meet, even if it would be the right thing to do, but I certainly can make sure not to cause harm. Furthermore, what is morally right to me isn't dependant on my personal connection to said individuals.


Well naturally taking sides feels crappy, and it seems like its a bad idea. But in this type of scenario its unavoidable, there may be a need to take sides as depressing and frustrating as that is, many people like to say things like "you should never take sides," on the assumption that it will in worst case lead to two members of the group leaving. But I've had a lot of experience with this, I've been in the military so I've seen many bad divorces, and I can tell you that worst case is the entire group tearing itself apart and never talking again.

Probable best case is both of them leaving without more intense drama starting, so it may be necessary to take sides or quickly cut off that sort of thing if necessary.

If it's unavoidable to pick a side, you have to pick a side. I will choose the one that I feel is the right thing to do. More on that later!


It depends on the context in which I know them. I've had to be able to trust other people in life-threatening situations in very little time, so I tend to place that sort of trust quickly.

Nope, although that's a different scenario and would require more careful handling.

It would depend, as I said, I would advise a friend that such a thing was a bad idea, and I would try to protect them from the repercussions of that idea, for example watching for the police, that sort of thing. So I guess I'd make myself into an ersatz accomplice to protect my friends.

It seems that compared to that asking somebody to leave a game, isn't that big a deal. I'd be willing to go to jail, or risk serious injury for people I consider to be my friends.

I believe that the first responsibility should be to your commitments, your family, your friends, then yourself, in that order. I disagree very strongly with a philosophical stance that would put me, and my own moral well-being above that of everybody else. Particularly my family or my friends.

Given your responses, it seems to me you'd be placed at the lawful neutral part of the D&D 3.5 alignment spectrum.

Personally I value ethics and morality above all else, including my friends' morals, and I would do my very best to make sure they don't compromise it, because they are my friends and I care about them.


Well the problem is that in this scenario, there is no happy medium, you are kicking one member for sure. If you're allowing her to remain you're kicking him, just without the actual testicular fortitude to do it directly, instead you're doing it in a rather painful and snide way. There is no easy solution, somebody is going to wind up leaving, and possibly hurt, so the way to deal with this is to figure out who you should be standing behind, and if it's an acquaintance and a friend, then you know, who you should be standing behind.

If they're both friends then the scenario gets a lot more complex and difficult to resolve. It's still resolvable, but it's just more difficult, I'd recommend splitting it into two gaming sessions or something to that effect.

The way I like to think of these scenarios is to place myself in the proverbial shoes of the other people and ask myself how I would feel in their situation or how I would feel would be a right way to act.

For example, if I had been involved in an activity for a larger period of time and then suddenly one day someone tells me "sorry, you can't come anymore because X doesn't want to see you", I would be very upset. I wouldn't feel very right about kicking me nor would I feel it was my moral imperative to leave the group because another individual has a problem with me.

If I had a problem with another person in the group, and didn't wish to be around them, asking my friend to kick them out of the group doesn't feel like the right thing to do. Demanding that my friends act in an (what I consider to be) immoral way simply isn't right, and asking my friend to choose between me and someone else isn't right either. I can certainly ask my friend to spend time with only me, or come to other events where I can choose whom to invite, but I can't ask my friend to kick someone out of a regular social group that they are a part of. There are certain demands you shouldn't put on your friends. The right thing to do for me in this situation is to say "I'm sorry, I don't want to be in a group with that person so I'm going to leave".

With this in mind, my answer would be different from yours. I don't think it's right for a friend to come and demand from me to kick someone out simply because they don't like to see that person. Since it isn't a morally right action, I'm not going to let my friend engage in it, as I believe that my first and foremost responsibility to my friends is to make sure they act in a morally proper fashion. Also, for me to kick someone out of the group simply based on the wishes of the friend doesn't seem right because if I was the one that was being kicked out I wouldn't feel that it was right.

So, my conclusion is that the right thing to do, no matter how painful, is to kick your friend. They are the one with the problem, not the ex. The right thing to do, for them, is simply to leave and not push their problems onto other people, especially not their friends. If both of them don't want to see each other, then they should probably both leave, even if it will disband the group as a whole.

For me, acting in a moral fashion supersedes everything. I will also be a good friend and help my friends act morally, just as I expect them to stop me when I am doing something that is isn't right.

[AMFV]

I do realise it could be seen this way, so there is no need to apologise. I didn't want to imply that your decisions would be affected by gender so I'm sorry you took it that way.

I think this is where I disagree with you. I believe that I have an equal moral responsibility to the well-being of every person I interact with. I certainly can't help everyone I meet, even if it would be the right thing to do, but I certainly can make sure not to cause harm. Furthermore, what is morally right to me isn't dependant on my personal connection to said individuals.


I disagree here, your personal connection isn't just a friendship, there is fundamentally an aspect of responsibility here, supporting your friends is part of a deeper fundamental code, at least to my thinking. Friends and family are more important than I, and I should support them, even if it isn't the comfortable path to take.



If it's unavoidable to pick a side, you have to pick a side. I will choose the one that I feel is the right thing to do. More on that later!

Given your responses, it seems to me you'd be placed at the lawful neutral part of the D&D 3.5 alignment spectrum.

Personally I value ethics and morality above all else, including my friends' morals, and I would do my very best to make sure they don't compromise it, because they are my friends and I care about them.

I would say probably Lawful Good under most circumstances, or at least based on my trending towards a compassionate type of person. At least that is how I view myself, in this particular decision there isn't really a good-evil component as far as D&D alignments go, it is "impossible for them to be friends" her words, and he "can't have her at the session", his words. So that's neither side being really good.

So in this case your higher moral responsibility to your friends come into play, they're your friends so you have a responsibility to them, and just because it isn't an easy responsibility does not mean it ceases to exist, it's a social contract and it is a the way that you should place those you value, which is over yourself, at least to my logic.




The way I like to think of these scenarios is to place myself in the proverbial shoes of the other people and ask myself how I would feel in their situation or how I would feel would be a right way to act.

For example, if I had been involved in an activity for a larger period of time and then suddenly one day someone tells me "sorry, you can't come anymore because X doesn't want to see you", I would be very upset. I wouldn't feel very right about kicking me nor would I feel it was my moral imperative to leave the group because another individual has a problem with me.


Well that would depend for me on why they didn't want to see him, breakups are rough, and it could be psychologically damaging to be there, I could see the reasons why a group member might side with their friend over me, their acquaintance, and I would respect that decision, because it would be the one I would make.



If I had a problem with another person in the group, and didn't wish to be around them, asking my friend to kick them out of the group doesn't feel like the right thing to do. Demanding that my friends act in an (what I consider to be) immoral way simply isn't right, and asking my friend to choose between me and someone else isn't right either. I can certainly ask my friend to spend time with only me, or come to other events where I can choose whom to invite, but I can't ask my friend to kick someone out of a regular social group that they are a part of. There are certain demands you shouldn't put on your friends. The right thing to do for me in this situation is to say "I'm sorry, I don't want to be in a group with that person so I'm going to leave".

Is it though? Is that the right course of action? Firstly, we have somebody that may not be emotionally in a good state to choose what might be an easy out, they might be needing the support of their friends, a time to just relax and have routine, and go through the same course of things. So maybe it isn't the healthiest or most moral decision.

So again, while the friend asking you to kick the other, is probably in the wrong, you have a responsibility to support him as a friend, because in this case friendship is the highest ideal. You have a responsibility to act honorably towards your friend, beyond a responsibility to act honorably to acquaintances.



With this in mind, my answer would be different from yours. I don't think it's right for a friend to come and demand from me to kick someone out simply because they don't like to see that person. Since it isn't a morally right action, I'm not going to let my friend engage in it, as I believe that my first and foremost responsibility to my friends is to make sure they act in a morally proper fashion. Also, for me to kick someone out of the group simply based on the wishes of the friend doesn't seem right because if I was the one that was being kicked out I wouldn't feel that it was right.

So, my conclusion is that the right thing to do, no matter how painful, is to kick your friend. They are the one with the problem, not the ex. The right thing to do, for them, is simply to leave and not push their problems onto other people, especially not their friends. If both of them don't want to see each other, then they should probably both leave, even if it will disband the group as a whole.

I disagree, because you have a responsibility to your friend, that is overarching, it supersedes your responsibility as a DM, and even that responsibility would side with the member with more seniority. Neither of those positions, "friend" or "Dungeon Master" place you in a position where you should judge a friend as immoral or moral, so their actions should factor not at all on your own.

They've acted in a way that way that was inconvenient but but understandably so. Actions under emotional duress should not be given as heavy a weight as those without, as we can see by the fact that Manslaughter is not typically punished as Premeditated Murder. Or is it Murder 1 and Murder 2, I can never remember.

So since we've established that you have no responsibility to force your friend to behave a certain way, and the options are:

1.) Have both players stay, this is emotionally damaging, probably to both of them, and could lead to an argument that could destabilize the group, is likely to reveal their private business to everybody. So bad on all counts. You violate their trust, you violate your expectation as a DM to manage the group, you violate the trust your friend places in you to try to help them. It's the worst option.

2.) Kick them both. This is debatably a fair option, but as we've pointed out, seniority is a thing, so as a DM this isn't exactly the most ethical option. Nor really the most fair. As a friend it's absolutely disgusting to kick out a friend when they really need friendship, and therefore should not be followed through on, ever if you can avoid it.

3.) Kick Him. Your option, this one is for the reasons I suggested in my opinion bad. While he has acted with impropriety, we have no way of knowing if she has or has not also acted with impropriety. Since you have a responsibility to your friends, you should support him, which includes being forgiving of lapses in judgement, and understanding that gaming with her might be impossible for him, or severely painful.

4.) Kick Her. A hard choice to be sure, but you do have a responsibility to your friend, which she should understand, also she has said that she didn't want to be around him, or at least had at the beginning of the hypothetical scenario. So this is a very challenging choice, but it is an appropriate one, you have a responsibility to your friend. You have the responsibility to the group to hold onto the senior member over a junior one.

5.) Group Vote. This is probably fairest, but it shrugs off your responsibility. Furthermore you violate confidence, and that is unforgivable to my mind.

6.)Split the game. The best option if it is at all feasible, and probably the way that I might try to resolve this in real life.



For me, acting in a moral fashion supersedes everything. I will also be a good friend and help my friends act morally, just as I expect them to stop me when I am doing something that is isn't right.

I would say that your viewpoint is more Lawful Neutral than mine, since mine involves putting your friends over yourself, and over an abstract concept of morality.

[SowZ]

I disagree here, your personal connection isn't just a friendship, there is fundamentally an aspect of responsibility here, supporting your friends is part of a deeper fundamental code, at least to my thinking. Friends and family are more important than I, and I should support them, even if it isn't the comfortable path to take.



I would say probably Lawful Good under most circumstances, or at least based on my trending towards a compassionate type of person. At least that is how I view myself, in this particular decision there isn't really a good-evil component as far as D&D alignments go, it is "impossible for them to be friends" her words, and he "can't have her at the session", his words. So that's neither side being really good.

So in this case your higher moral responsibility to your friends come into play, they're your friends so you have a responsibility to them, and just because it isn't an easy responsibility does not mean it ceases to exist, it's a social contract and it is a the way that you should place those you value, which is over yourself, at least to my logic.




Well that would depend for me on why they didn't want to see him, breakups are rough, and it could be psychologically damaging to be there, I could see the reasons why a group member might side with their friend over me, their acquaintance, and I would respect that decision, because it would be the one I would make.



Is it though? Is that the right course of action? Firstly, we have somebody that may not be emotionally in a good state to choose what might be an easy out, they might be needing the support of their friends, a time to just relax and have routine, and go through the same course of things. So maybe it isn't the healthiest or most moral decision.

So again, while the friend asking you to kick the other, is probably in the wrong, you have a responsibility to support him as a friend, because in this case friendship is the highest ideal. You have a responsibility to act honorably towards your friend, beyond a responsibility to act honorably to acquaintances.



I disagree, because you have a responsibility to your friend, that is overarching, it supersedes your responsibility as a DM, and even that responsibility would side with the member with more seniority. Neither of those positions, "friend" or "Dungeon Master" place you in a position where you should judge a friend as immoral or moral, so their actions should factor not at all on your own.

They've acted in a way that way that was inconvenient but but understandably so. Actions under emotional duress should not be given as heavy a weight as those without, as we can see by the fact that Manslaughter is not typically punished as Premeditated Murder. Or is it Murder 1 and Murder 2, I can never remember.

So since we've established that you have no responsibility to force your friend to behave a certain way, and the options are:

1.) Have both players stay, this is emotionally damaging, probably to both of them, and could lead to an argument that could destabilize the group, is likely to reveal their private business to everybody. So bad on all counts. You violate their trust, you violate your expectation as a DM to manage the group, you violate the trust your friend places in you to try to help them. It's the worst option.

2.) Kick them both. This is debatably a fair option, but as we've pointed out, seniority is a thing, so as a DM this isn't exactly the most ethical option. Nor really the most fair. As a friend it's absolutely disgusting to kick out a friend when they really need friendship, and therefore should not be followed through on, ever if you can avoid it.

3.) Kick Him. Your option, this one is for the reasons I suggested in my opinion bad. While he has acted with impropriety, we have no way of knowing if she has or has not also acted with impropriety. Since you have a responsibility to your friends, you should support him, which includes being forgiving of lapses in judgement, and understanding that gaming with her might be impossible for him, or severely painful.

4.) Kick Her. A hard choice to be sure, but you do have a responsibility to your friend, which she should understand, also she has said that she didn't want to be around him, or at least had at the beginning of the hypothetical scenario. So this is a very challenging choice, but it is an appropriate one, you have a responsibility to your friend. You have the responsibility to the group to hold onto the senior member over a junior one.

5.) Group Vote. This is probably fairest, but it shrugs off your responsibility. Furthermore you violate confidence, and that is unforgivable to my mind.

6.)Split the game. The best option if it is at all feasible, and probably the way that I might try to resolve this in real life.



I would say that your viewpoint is more Lawful Neutral than mine, since mine involves putting your friends over yourself, and over an abstract concept of morality.

I still don't even begin to comprehend why kicking both people is even a legitimate option, but whatever.

Anyway, your views and loyalty to your friend is all well and good. It's perfectly fine to feel that way but just not as a DM. A boss could just as easily justify promoting a friend over a more deserving candidate using the exact same logic. Yes, DM is less responsibility than a boss in some respects. But it is still a responsibility. And the more weight you put behind the emotional importance of the game, the more responsibility it becomes.

So, based on your morals, I'd say the right thing for you to do is step down as DM and back your friend.

[AMFV]

I still don't even begin to comprehend why kicking both people is even a legitimate option, but whatever.

Anyway, your views and loyalty to your friend is all well and good. It's perfectly fine to feel that way but just not as a DM. A boss could just as easily justify promoting a friend over a more deserving candidate using the exact same logic. Yes, DM is less responsibility than a boss in some respects. But it is still a responsibility. And the more weight you put behind the emotional importance of the game, the more responsibility it becomes.

So, based on your morals, I'd say the right thing for you to do is step down as DM and back your friend.

I disagree, D&D is formally at most a social responsibility. Not a professional one, and even were it a professional responsibility the ethical action is still the same one. In fact in that case it's much clearer, since it's just a question of seniority, there's no bad behavior, except for some mild bad behavior, which is understandable and forgivable.

Besides which, in this case being a DM is a responsibility, yes. But it's the exact same level of responsibility as the host of the weekly Barbeque... Most of the social responsibility in this case comes from being a good host, and that responsibility is not paramount over your responsibility to your friend.

Why do you think somebody should step down in that position, as has been posited we have the question, of seniority, so as far as professional ethics goes the answer is simpler. So why should somebody step down? This isn't a courtroom, a minor conflict of interest, isn't going to break the game, because it's a social environment, suggesting that would be like suggesting a political official can't appoint cabinet members of their own party because it might be a conflict of interest.

I don't think kicking both is a legitimate option either, but it was presented, which is why I addressed it. Furthermore what do you think the best option is? Because if you're suggesting that the option I would take is so far removed from the correct one that I should step down as DM, I would like to know what the correct option would be.

[NichG]

On looking into it a bit, I think the seniority thing is not really relevant here.

Why is seniority a factor in professional ethics? Well, for one thing, salaries tend to increase with seniority. If you could always fire the more senior person, you could basically maintain a pool of skilled employees at lower wages. Since there's an incentive to selectively fire the most senior person, there's a need for an ethical constraint to not do so.

But there really isn't something equivalent for tabletop RPGs.

[AMFV]

On looking into it a bit, I think the seniority thing is not really relevant here.

Why is seniority a factor in professional ethics? Well, for one thing, salaries tend to increase with seniority. If you could always fire the more senior person, you could basically maintain a pool of skilled employees at lower wages. Since there's an incentive to selectively fire the most senior person, there's a need for an ethical constraint to not do so.

But there really isn't something equivalent for tabletop RPGs.

Seniority isn't just about salaries, it's about effort and time committed to the company. And that is transferable to his scenario. The person who has been with the group longer has given more of their time and effort to the group, so if there is a choice in retaining one, they deserve to be retained more than the other.

If you're rating them equally, then you're devaluing the contribution of the one group member, by putting it at the same level as the other, that's the reason for the constraint, or another part of it, and the part is applicable here to this scenario.

[SowZ]

I disagree, D&D is formally at most a social responsibility. Not a professional one, and even were it a professional responsibility the ethical action is still the same one. In fact in that case it's much clearer, since it's just a question of seniority, there's no bad behavior, except for some mild bad behavior, which is understandable and forgivable.

Besides which, in this case being a DM is a responsibility, yes. But it's the exact same level of responsibility as the host of the weekly Barbeque... Most of the social responsibility in this case comes from being a good host, and that responsibility is not paramount over your responsibility to your friend.

Why do you think somebody should step down in that position, as has been posited we have the question, of seniority, so as far as professional ethics goes the answer is simpler. So why should somebody step down? This isn't a courtroom, a minor conflict of interest, isn't going to break the game, because it's a social environment, suggesting that would be like suggesting a political official can't appoint cabinet members of their own party because it might be a conflict of interest.

I don't think kicking both is a legitimate option either, but it was presented, which is why I addressed it. Furthermore what do you think the best option is? Because if you're suggesting that the option I would take is so far removed from the correct one that I should step down as DM, I would like to know what the correct option would be.

I think if you are going to pick who should stay and go in a group based upon who you are closest friends with, you don't deserve the choice of who stays and goes. As for the right choice, I think it is to stay out and let them sort it out themselves. One will likely stay, the other go, and it isn't my choice.

[AMFV]

I think if you are going to pick who should stay and go in a group based upon who you are closest friends with, you don't deserve the choice of who stays and goes. As for the right choice, I think it is to stay out and let them sort it out themselves. One will likely stay, the other go, and it isn't my choice.

I don't know, I might be colored by my personal experience, but that's pretty rough on both people. Almost untenably so. It also would likely be bad for the group as whole. So I would strongly advise against that, also the seniority of the members plays in. Since we're still playing on the hypothetical that was set up at the beginning, then we know that only one member is senior, and is closer with the rest of the group, so there's only one decision in my opinion.

Furthermore, why should my friendship be excluded from the decision making, if we're factoring in no special wrongdoing by either person? This isn't a corporate decision, it's deciding who I want to spend time with. Furthermore the fact that the DM is typically a host changes matters quite a bit. You're hosting the event, that gives you the right to invite whom you please. Or dis-invite somebody if you think it will cause a disruption.

[SowZ]

I don't know, I might be colored by my personal experience, but that's pretty rough on both people. Almost untenably so. It also would likely be bad for the group as whole. So I would strongly advise against that, also the seniority of the members plays in. Since we're still playing on the hypothetical that was set up at the beginning, then we know that only one member is senior, and is closer with the rest of the group, so there's only one decision in my opinion.

Furthermore, why should my friendship be excluded from the decision making, if we're factoring in no special wrongdoing by either person? This isn't a corporate decision, it's deciding who I want to spend time with. Furthermore the fact that the DM is typically a host changes matters quite a bit. You're hosting the event, that gives you the right to invite whom you please. Or dis-invite somebody if you think it will cause a disruption.

The group is the group, not the DM. Everyone is investing time and emotional energy in the game and everyone's well being and friendships are equally important as mine. Staying out of my friends relationships isn't being harsh on them, but respecting them as adults.

[AMFV]

The group is the group, not the DM. Everyone is investing time and emotional energy in the game and everyone's well being and friendships are equally important as mine. Staying out of my friends relationships isn't being harsh on them, but respecting them as adults.

And if they can't necessarily handle it? There is a fundamental responsibility to the well-being of your friends, and that dictates how one should behave. More so in my opinion than respecting them as adults does. This is possibly a result of going through a messy divorce myself, so it'd be very difficult to separate out what is right here, but I think that there is a greater intrinsic responsibility to your friends.

Your responsibilities as a host and an organizer are important, but those are secondary, and even in that case, having them both come is likely to cause a scene, which is really bad, for both of them, and for the whole group. That's something you have a responsibility as a host to avoid.

I think we have differing ideas about responsibility in a social context, so it is unlikely that we will come to an agreement, but there is a very important social responsibility to your friends. One that is more important than your responsibility as a DM, and even that decision is ethically on the side of seniority.

[NichG]

Again, I think the seniority thing is a red herring, and really it has nothing to do with the primary point of debate - whether a GM's personal relationships should be allowed to influence their decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. The seniority thing is like saying 'what you object in general doesn't matter because in this specific case, it lines up with this other ideal'. But what we're objecting to is the GM putting personal 'good' ahead of the good of the group, which is a distinct question that has nothing at all to do with seniority. One could easily reverse the situation, and have the 'close friend' be the newer member of the group, but based on what you've said I don't think your answer would change.

The basic standard is, if someone else was GM, would the decision be different? If so, then the GM is using a social position for personal reasons. Whether or not the GM's personal morality allows this, the group as a whole should have a problem with the GM doing this.

[AMFV]

Again, I think the seniority thing is a red herring, and really it has nothing to do with the primary point of debate - whether a GM's personal relationships should be allowed to influence their decisions on behalf of the group as a whole. The seniority thing is like saying 'what you object in general doesn't matter because in this specific case, it lines up with this other ideal'. But what we're objecting to is the GM putting personal 'good' ahead of the good of the group, which is a distinct question that has nothing at all to do with seniority. One could easily reverse the situation, and have the 'close friend' be the newer member of the group, but based on what you've said I don't think your answer would change.

I'd need to know more specifics about the changed scenario, but that is a very different scenario, probably what I would do in that case is try and either form a splinter group for the friend or work with him on some kind of solo campaign if he really was counting on that particular part of his life. Since he hasn't been playing as long, it's probably not as cemented a thing. Of course this is subject to change, because the suggested new scenario, doesn't really have many parameters to it, but my decision would be different in that case, as I've already mentioned.

I've only been addressing a simulative case that is the same as our presented scenario, so in a different scenario there may be a different or other options may be more ethical, for example if your friend is a new member, then it isn't exactly fair to kick out a more senior member for him.

Does that answer your query as to whether or not it's a red herring, because I don't think it is a red herring.

[Knaight]

Anyway, your views and loyalty to your friend is all well and good. It's perfectly fine to feel that way but just not as a DM. A boss could just as easily justify promoting a friend over a more deserving candidate using the exact same logic. Yes, DM is less responsibility than a boss in some respects. But it is still a responsibility. And the more weight you put behind the emotional importance of the game, the more responsibility it becomes.

It's not a remotely comparable situation. For one thing, a boss exists within the parameters of a business (or nonprofit). They have a job which includes looking after the company/nonprofit, and promoting a friend over a more deserving candidate is subverting their own job. Also, said boss has a huge amount of control over a large amount of one's life, starting with their source of income.

By contrast, a DM exists within the parameters of a bunch of friends hanging out. It's a title that only makes sense while playing a particular game, and even then it can shift from campaign to campaign or session to session; it vanishes completely if the group decides to play boardgames or something. It's an irrelevance.

The situation is that there is a fairly tight knit group with a hanger-on. Said hanger-on was attached because she was formerly close with the person who now wants her gone, and doesn't have any real attachments with the rest of the group. This seems like a situation with a pretty clear cut solution to me.

[NichG]

I'd need to know more specifics about the changed scenario, but that is a very different scenario, probably what I would do in that case is try and either form a splinter group for the friend or work with him on some kind of solo campaign if he really was counting on that particular part of his life. Since he hasn't been playing as long, it's probably not as cemented a thing. Of course this is subject to change, because the suggested new scenario, doesn't really have many parameters to it, but my decision would be different in that case, as I've already mentioned.

I've only been addressing a simulative case that is the same as our presented scenario, so in a different scenario there may be a different or other options may be more ethical, for example if your friend is a new member, then it isn't exactly fair to kick out a more senior member for him.

Does that answer your query as to whether or not it's a red herring, because I don't think it is a red herring.

The key point in my mind is - do you still maintain that the GM's personal relationships with the various parties is an acceptable reason to make an overall decision for the group as to which person stays and which person goes?

If you are saying 'if the seniority were reversed, I would decide the other way' then that suggests that your personal friendship is not the deciding element, but that seniority is. That is a fundamentally different position than 'I will help my friends no matter what, even if it goes against the wishes of the group'.

[SowZ]

It's not a remotely comparable situation. For one thing, a boss exists within the parameters of a business (or nonprofit). They have a job which includes looking after the company/nonprofit, and promoting a friend over a more deserving candidate is subverting their own job. Also, said boss has a huge amount of control over a large amount of one's life, starting with their source of income.

By contrast, a DM exists within the parameters of a bunch of friends hanging out. It's a title that only makes sense while playing a particular game, and even then it can shift from campaign to campaign or session to session; it vanishes completely if the group decides to play boardgames or something. It's an irrelevance.

The situation is that there is a fairly tight knit group with a hanger-on. Said hanger-on was attached because she was formerly close with the person who now wants her gone, and doesn't have any real attachments with the rest of the group. This seems like a situation with a pretty clear cut solution to me.

The scale and consequences is vastly different, but the core moral is the same. If you choose a position of authority over a group of people, you accept to do what is best for the group above your own personal bias.

[AMFV]

The key point in my mind is - do you still maintain that the GM's personal relationships with the various parties is an acceptable reason to make an overall decision for the group as to which person stays and which person goes?

If you are saying 'if the seniority were reversed, I would decide the other way' then that suggests that your personal friendship is not the deciding element, but that seniority is. That is a fundamentally different position than 'I will help my friends no matter what, even if it goes against the wishes of the group'.

It depends on the relationships, and what exactly is involved. In the reverse scenario we are not only reversing the relationships, but the intensity of the relationships with the rest of the group. So it is a completely different scenario and needs to be approached differently.

It is impossible to make decisions about a social group, without consulting at least partially your own personal relationships. There is no objective high ground here, you can say "well professionally..." because there is no "professionally" there is no scope of judgement that is not personal in this case.

So no, I think that your personal relationships should effect your decisions regarding a group of friends, there's simply no way for that not to be the case. Since you have no objectivity really, it's impossible to have objectivity under those circumstances. You could cede the decision, which I think is wrong, for the reasons that I outlined when I was discussing it earlier.

The problem is that every scenario here is a very different one, if the group is a fundamental part of my friend's life, then it's going to be something I'm not going to want to separate them from when they are going through a rough transition, if it's not as in your alternative scenario, then maybe a different solution could be worked out.

If you talk about rights of the group, you must remember that the DM is usually an organizer, and frequently a host, that gives you certain rights regarding who you invite to your events, and who you invite to your home. If they are not the same person, then both people would share that particular responsibility, or have the right to veto people from either their group or their home. That's part of the fundamental rights of organizing group or inviting people into your home.


The scale and consequences is vastly different, but the core moral is the same. If you choose a position of authority over a group of people, you accept to do what is best for the group above your own personal bias.

I don't think so, it's a different scenario with different discussions, even in a business scenario it may be impossible to separate out your personal feelings. If you are hosting or organizing the group that gives you certain rights regarding who is included. "What's best for the group" regarding a roleplaying group, or a bridge club, or a Fantasy Football league (or any other social organization) is such a nebulous concept as to be absurd, 'good for the group', what does that even mean in any real context, it's a good statement, but it has no real meaning, especially in this context, the group has no output, but subjective "fun" so 'best for the group', isn't really definable, uncomfortable for one member or two, or all is clearly negative, but if there is a scenario where one member's uncomfortable reaction is unavoidable, then as far as 'best for the group' goes you have zero gain either way, so then you have to rely on other decision making factors.

[NichG]

It depends on the relationships, and what exactly is involved. In the reverse scenario we are not only reversing the relationships, but the intensity of the relationships with the rest of the group. So it is a completely different scenario and needs to be approached differently.


The specific scenario is, to me, unimportant. The 'thing' I'm arguing against is the idea that because you're the GM, its okay (from the point of view of the group) for you to exercise favoritism in your decisions in order to help a friend - be it choosing sides on who to kick/who to keep, or any other form.



It is impossible to make decisions about a social group, without consulting at least partially your own personal relationships. There is no objective high ground here, you can say "well professionally..." because there is no "professionally" there is no scope of judgement that is not personal in this case.


The 'part' you should consult should be weighted by 1/N, where N is the number of people in the group. Yes, your opinion matters - the important thing is that it should matter exactly as much as everyone else's.



If you talk about rights of the group, you must remember that the DM is usually an organizer, and frequently a host, that gives you certain rights regarding who you invite to your events, and who you invite to your home. If they are not the same person, then both people would share that particular responsibility, or have the right to veto people from either their group or their home. That's part of the fundamental rights of organizing group or inviting people into your home.


This is dodging the question I think. There can be alternate, justifiable reasons for making a unilateral decision, but those alternate reasons are not what's at question here. I think its pretty clear that e.g. if someone is hosting, they can refuse access to someone for whatever reason (though the group of course has the option to continue to game with that person but at a different venue). But that's a secondary consideration, independent of the core question 'is it okay (from the group's point of view) for the GM to exercise favoritism in order to help a friend?'

If it isn't okay from the group's point of view, then regardless of whether its fine in the GM's morality, the group should object to the behavior in order to avoid being taken advantage of.

[AMFV]

The specific scenario is, to me, unimportant. The 'thing' I'm arguing against is the idea that because you're the GM, its okay (from the point of view of the group) for you to exercise favoritism in your decisions in order to help a friend - be it choosing sides on who to kick/who to keep, or any other form.


If you are either the host, or the event organizer then yes, that is something you can do. I question if it's actually favoritism, to you the specific scenario doesn't matter, to me it is critically important. There is no way to have catch-all ethics, not without sacrificing to a vagary, it becomes meaningless, lots of nice words about commitment and individual responsibility, but very little of either would actually be present.



The 'part' you should consult should be weighted by 1/N, where N is the number of people in the group. Yes, your opinion matters - the important thing is that it should matter exactly as much as everyone else's.


You can't consult them without violating your friend's confidence, which is much much much worse in my opinion than kicking an acquaintance out of a dinner group. That's something that could be unrecoverable.



This is dodging the question I think. There can be alternate, justifiable reasons for making a unilateral decision, but those alternate reasons are not what's at question here. I think its pretty clear that e.g. if someone is hosting, they can refuse access to someone for whatever reason (though the group of course has the option to continue to game with that person but at a different venue). But that's a secondary consideration, independent of the core question 'is it okay (from the group's point of view) for the GM to exercise favoritism in order to help a friend?'

If it isn't okay from the group's point of view, then regardless of whether its fine in the GM's morality, the group should object to the behavior in order to avoid being taken advantage of.

The group can object, many groups fall apart that way, but as a person it is my responsibility to stick with my ethics, even if they aren't shared by the majority, and I will. I will support my friend if necessary in a group setting. I would aim to not involve the group, because of the aforementioned confidence thing.

See while the scenario doesn't matter to you... to me being told something in confidence I would never ever break, regardless of circumstance, that's something I take very seriously, in fact that would the thing I take most seriously out of this whole thing, is the violation of a friend's confidence that would come with voting on it as a group.

As such I would make a decision, because both sides have talked to me in confidence, so they have given me some input in how things are done, furthermore as a coordinator I have input in any case.

[NichG]

If you are either the host, or the event organizer then yes, that is something you can do. I question if it's actually favoritism, to you the specific scenario doesn't matter, to me it is critically important. There is no way to have catch-all ethics, not without sacrificing to a vagary, it becomes meaningless, lots of nice words about commitment and individual responsibility, but very little of either would actually be present.


The thing is, if you invent some other justification, its no longer about whether you compromise your position in the group to help your friend. Its like if one were asking the question 'is it okay to steal for personal gain?' and the response was 'well what if they stole it from me first and I'm just stealing it back?' or 'what if they asked me to steal it from them and are willing to pay me for it, because they want to test their security system?' or something like that. By creating alternate 'causes' that can explain away the questionable element, the scenario no longer becomes about the questionable element.

To me that questionable element is 'making a decision as GM based on my personal interests'. If there is some factor like 'well its my house' then if you're making such a decision, its as the host, not as the GM. It's hiding the questionable thing by 'covering' it with some other factor, so its not a scenario that gets at the real question.



You can't consult them without violating your friend's confidence, which is much much much worse in my opinion than kicking an acquaintance out of a dinner group. That's something that could be unrecoverable.

The group can object, many groups fall apart that way, but as a person it is my responsibility to stick with my ethics, even if they aren't shared by the majority, and I will. I will support my friend if necessary in a group setting. I would aim to not involve the group, because of the aforementioned confidence thing.

See while the scenario doesn't matter to you... to me being told something in confidence I would never ever break, regardless of circumstance, that's something I take very seriously, in fact that would the thing I take most seriously out of this whole thing, is the violation of a friend's confidence that would come with voting on it as a group.

As such I would make a decision, because both sides have talked to me in confidence, so they have given me some input in how things are done, furthermore as a coordinator I have input in any case.

As I've pointed out, stepping down as GM if you find yourself in an irreconcilable situation is an option. You don't have to violate your personal ethics, and you don't have to violate the trust of the group.

To put it another way, your friend does not have the right in the group to insist that someone else be kicked without explanation or deliberation, any more than you have the right to enact that in your friend's place.

Consider the situation where neither you nor your friend were host/GM/in any position of power and compare it to the case where you are the GM. If you being the GM enables your friend to exert undue influence on the group (e.g. getting someone kicked on their say-so) then that is favoritism.

The reason I'm focused on the group's point of view is that, assuming the group is able and willing to stand up for themselves, they have the option of replacing you as GM and annulling your decision. Now, in practice most groups would not do that - they might trust you as GM that you have a reason related to the group as a whole for deciding one way, or they might just not care that much, or they might be afraid of confronting authority. However, if the real reason comes out, its likely to create a sour feeling and feel like a betrayal.

What's important to me here isn't convincing you that your personal ethics are wrong for you to have. What's important to me is that you understand the potential consequences of this sort of decision and can accept that as the 'price'. If you can say 'I'm okay with hurting other people to help my friend' then I can take that at face value - its a valid position, if one that would make me hesitant to play at your table.

What I'm wary of is trying to convince others 'no, no its okay if I do this and you aren't allowed to be upset at me about it'.

Edit: and actually, on thinking about it, I'd actually be more comfortable with someone who told me 'in this game, my friends have priority' when I joined the group than someone I discovered had been making decisions like this and hiding it/trying to rationalize it; I think I'd respect the honesty behind just coming out and saying it.

[AMFV]

The thing is, if you invent some other justification, its no longer about whether you compromise your position in the group to help your friend. Its like if one were asking the question 'is it okay to steal for personal gain?' and the response was 'well what if they stole it from me first and I'm just stealing it back?' or 'what if they asked me to steal it from them and are willing to pay me for it, because they want to test their security system?' or something like that. By creating alternate 'causes' that can explain away the questionable element, the scenario no longer becomes about the questionable element.

To me that questionable element is 'making a decision as GM based on my personal interests'. If there is some factor like 'well its my house' then if you're making such a decision, its as the host, not as the GM. It's hiding the questionable thing by 'covering' it with some other factor, so its not a scenario that gets at the real question.


I disagree but that's fair game, I guess, I think that GM is very low on the totem pole of responsibilities. Friend, host, organizer, those are all much higher than GM, and as such if you have a conflict of responsibility GM, being not really a significant position at all loses out.



As I've pointed out, stepping down as GM if you find yourself in an irreconcilable situation is an option. You don't have to violate your personal ethics, and you don't have to violate the trust of the group.

To put it another way, your friend does not have the right in the group to insist that someone else be kicked without explanation or deliberation, any more than you have the right to enact that in your friend's place.


However this is a different scenario, this not just somebody being kicked because of your friend's say-so, it's somebody being kicked because having them there would cause your friend emotional duress. I don't really care about what the friend says in this scenario, it's more in terms of the fact that I want to do what's best for them regardless.

In fact the friend asking for that, is pretty bad behavior all around, the only reason why that's not factored into the final decision against the friend is that that sort of bad behavior is a typical result of emotional traumatic experiences.

If a friend just came up to me and asked me to kick somebody out of the blue for no apparent reason, naturally that's no dice... but if a friend had a good reason, and they had seniority, then I'd be inclined to listen, because otherwise they would leave, in all probability. So you are losing a longtime player for a short-time player, that's bad all round.



Consider the situation where neither you nor your friend were host/GM/in any position of power and compare it to the case where you are the GM. If you being the GM enables your friend to exert undue influence on the group (e.g. getting someone kicked on their say-so) then that is favoritism.


In this case we have a group where somebody is asked to leave, after an emotional argument with an other person, and the person that's asked to leave is the person I don't know as well. That's going to have to be something I'd back. Simply because the alternative is to have everybody be miserable or lose a long-time friend and fellow player. I made the only decision that I would be comfortable with as a group member.



The reason I'm focused on the group's point of view is that, assuming the group is able and willing to stand up for themselves, they have the option of replacing you as GM and annulling your decision. Now, in practice most groups would not do that - they might trust you as GM that you have a reason related to the group as a whole for deciding one way, or they might just not care that much, or they might be afraid of confronting authority. However, if the real reason comes out, its likely to create a sour feeling and feel like a betrayal.

I would probably ask the friend if I could give a short spiel about it, or make some excuse in the short term that would work until it became necessary or less painful to reveal the real reason. I wouldn't lie, but I might not be entirely transparent, which isn't a requirement of friendship or being a DM, particularly when somebody's confidence is involved.



What's important to me here isn't convincing you that your personal ethics are wrong for you to have. What's important to me is that you understand the potential consequences of this sort of decision and can accept that as the 'price'. If you can say 'I'm okay with hurting other people to help my friend' then I can take that at face value - its a valid position, if one that would make me hesitant to play at your table.

What I'm wary of is trying to convince others 'no, no its okay if I do this and you aren't allowed to be upset at me about it'.

I'm confused, I've not indicated that other players couldn't be upset with the decision, or that some of them might not be. Only that it seemed less likely to me when I was factoring in decisions, of course, there's no "wrong" way to feel about something, but I'm not going to predicate my decisions on what possibly may feel if it's a less likely result.



Edit: and actually, on thinking about it, I'd actually be more comfortable with someone who told me 'in this game, my friends have priority' when I joined the group than someone I discovered had been making decisions like this and hiding it/trying to rationalize it; I think I'd respect the honesty behind just coming out and saying it.

Friends don't have priority until it becomes a question of kicking somebody out. They don't get better treasure or more experience, or better story hooks. This is the one instance where that might matter that I can think of, and if it wasn't also a question of seniority, then it could be handled differently, it's a delicate scenario, and I'd handle it in the way that I think is best, certainly anyone who wasn't comfortable with that could be welcome to leave, but I doubt they would.

[NichG]

I'm confused, I've not indicated that other players couldn't be upset with the decision, or that some of them might not be. Only that it seemed less likely to me when I was factoring in decisions, of course, there's no "wrong" way to feel about something, but I'm not going to predicate my decisions on what possibly may feel if it's a less likely result.

Friends don't have priority until it becomes a question of kicking somebody out. They don't get better treasure or more experience, or better story hooks. This is the one instance where that might matter that I can think of, and if it wasn't also a question of seniority, then it could be handled differently, it's a delicate scenario, and I'd handle it in the way that I think is best, certainly anyone who wasn't comfortable with that could be welcome to leave, but I doubt they would.

Well, what it comes down is - at this point, do you understand why someone in the group might be very upset at your decision and might hold it against you in the future or take it as reason to mistrust you as GM?

If at this point you understand that, then whether you would personally go ahead with it or not is basically an informed decision on your part and really we can't say anything more about it.

I would hope that you would make a clear statement to your group if the situation came up, so that people could make an informed decision about how they felt about it. I think, if you're going to do this kind of thing, being honest about it is pretty important - "There's a problem between Bob and Alice, Bob is my friend, so I'm going to side with Bob and ask Alice not to come to game".

[AMFV]

Well, what it comes down is - at this point, do you understand why someone in the group might be very upset at your decision and might hold it against you in the future or take it as reason to mistrust you as GM?

If at this point you understand that, then whether you would personally go ahead with it or not is basically an informed decision on your part and really we can't say anything more about it.

I would hope that you would make a clear statement to your group if the situation came up, so that people could make an informed decision about how they felt about it. I think, if you're going to do this kind of thing, being honest about it is pretty important - "There's a problem between Bob and Alice, Bob is my friend, so I'm going to side with Bob and ask Alice not to come to game".

I would probably reveal as much as I was comfortable revealing without breaking confidence, since we don't know which things were in confidence it's hard to be sure, but yes that would be my course of action. And I don't see there being as nasty a response as you seem to expect, or if there is, then that would have happened in any case when the group continued.

[SowZ]

It depends on the relationships, and what exactly is involved. In the reverse scenario we are not only reversing the relationships, but the intensity of the relationships with the rest of the group. So it is a completely different scenario and needs to be approached differently.

It is impossible to make decisions about a social group, without consulting at least partially your own personal relationships. There is no objective high ground here, you can say "well professionally..." because there is no "professionally" there is no scope of judgement that is not personal in this case.

So no, I think that your personal relationships should effect your decisions regarding a group of friends, there's simply no way for that not to be the case. Since you have no objectivity really, it's impossible to have objectivity under those circumstances. You could cede the decision, which I think is wrong, for the reasons that I outlined when I was discussing it earlier.

The problem is that every scenario here is a very different one, if the group is a fundamental part of my friend's life, then it's going to be something I'm not going to want to separate them from when they are going through a rough transition, if it's not as in your alternative scenario, then maybe a different solution could be worked out.

If you talk about rights of the group, you must remember that the DM is usually an organizer, and frequently a host, that gives you certain rights regarding who you invite to your events, and who you invite to your home. If they are not the same person, then both people would share that particular responsibility, or have the right to veto people from either their group or their home. That's part of the fundamental rights of organizing group or inviting people into your home.



I don't think so, it's a different scenario with different discussions, even in a business scenario it may be impossible to separate out your personal feelings. If you are hosting or organizing the group that gives you certain rights regarding who is included. "What's best for the group" regarding a roleplaying group, or a bridge club, or a Fantasy Football league (or any other social organization) is such a nebulous concept as to be absurd, 'good for the group', what does that even mean in any real context, it's a good statement, but it has no real meaning, especially in this context, the group has no output, but subjective "fun" so 'best for the group', isn't really definable, uncomfortable for one member or two, or all is clearly negative, but if there is a scenario where one member's uncomfortable reaction is unavoidable, then as far as 'best for the group' goes you have zero gain either way, so then you have to rely on other decision making factors.

No, it isn't meaningless. It means not making decisions for everyone else's lives not based on respecting the group or what's good for everyone but selfishly valuing your own relationships and bias above everyone else's. Yes, it's selfish to put your friends above everyone else when you are in a position of authority.

[AMFV]

No, it isn't meaningless. It means not making decisions for everyone else's lives not based on respecting the group or what's good for everyone but selfishly valuing your own relationships and bias above everyone else's. Yes, it's selfish to put your friends above everyone else when you are in a position of authority.

In this hypothetical the relationship to the rest of the group is the same though... which is why I would unilaterally make a decision to protect people's privacy. As you can see if the scenario shifts, my answer shifts, as it did with other potential hypothetical.

[SowZ]

In this hypothetical the relationship to the rest of the group is the same though... which is why I would unilaterally make a decision to protect people's privacy. As you can see if the scenario shifts, my answer shifts, as it did with other potential hypothetical.

See, it all comes down to the root reason. Is it seniority? Is it loyalty to your friend? Is it because he is closer to the group on average? What is the biggest reason?

[AMFV]

See, it all comes down to the root reason. Is it seniority? Is it loyalty to your friend? Is it because he is closer to the group on average? What is the biggest reason?

I don't think the root reason matters so much in the long run, the outcome is the same. Loyalty to you friend is a part of it, seniority is a part of it, having only one root reason for something as important as this is probably a bad idea. Everything should be factored in, including your friendship, if you're about to sacrifice a friendship over a game, then that's probably a bad idea, in almost all cases.

[SowZ]

I don't think the root reason matters so much in the long run, the outcome is the same. Loyalty to you friend is a part of it, seniority is a part of it, having only one root reason for something as important as this is probably a bad idea. Everything should be factored in, including your friendship, if you're about to sacrifice a friendship over a game, then that's probably a bad idea, in almost all cases.

It's a false dichotomy. I don't see it as a choice between a friendship and a game, because none of my friendships would be ended by letting them sort it out. If and only if I was asked would I involved myself and make any sort of decision.

[AMFV]

It's a false dichotomy. I don't see it as a choice between a friendship and a game, because none of my friendships would be ended by letting them sort it out. If and only if I was asked would I involved myself and make any sort of decision.

Well as the organizer you are involved, if they both come, there will likely be a scene it will be uncomfortable for everybody, and you would have been able to prevent it. So no action is probably a wrong choice or at least will create a serious problem for the whole group.

[SowZ]

Well as the organizer you are involved, if they both come, there will likely be a scene it will be uncomfortable for everybody, and you would have been able to prevent it. So no action is probably a wrong choice or at least will create a serious problem for the whole group.

I'll tell them to sort it out themselves. They should be able to be adults and come to a decision. If I absolutely have to step in, I will. It isn't an unwillingness to confront people. It's that it isn't my relationship that ended and it isn't my business just because a friend is involved.

[AMFV]

I'll tell them to sort it out themselves. They should be able to be adults and come to a decision. If I absolutely have to step in, I will. It isn't an unwillingness to confront people. It's that it isn't my relationship that ended and it isn't my business just because a friend is involved.

Adults usually aren't capable of making that particular decision, at least in my experience. Relationships falling apart seriously clouds judgement. For me it absolutely becomes something I should be involved in, it's part of my responsibilities as an organizer and (possible) host to be aware of it. And to try to mitigate it's impact on my group.

It is absolutely my responsibility to try to support my friend and to try to handle the group in the manner that is going to not cause an explosive meltdown which could fragment the entire group. I've seen that sort of thing happen and with families, who have a lot more incentive to stay together than a D&D group does. So it isn't something that you just let run its course.

[The Grue]

Seniority isn't just about salaries, it's about effort and time committed to the company. And that is transferable to his scenario. The person who has been with the group longer has given more of their time and effort to the group, so if there is a choice in retaining one, they deserve to be retained more than the other.


Counterpoint: Salaries are a reflection of effort and time committed to the company. Ergo, seniority could be said to be primarily about salaries.

[AMFV]

Counterpoint: Salaries are a reflection of effort and time committed to the company. Ergo, seniority could be said to be primarily about salaries.

But Salaries don't always correspond directly to time and commitment to a company. Sometimes companies simply can't afford to give raises, particularly if they're tanking and needing to fire people. So the end result is that seniority can be correlated to salaries, but there is no causal link, and it would be a stretch to suggest it's primarily about salaries.

[Lorsa]

I really hate it how when I quote someone, the quoted quotes in that post goes away...

Anyway, I think this is a really intriguing discussion!


I disagree here, your personal connection isn't just a friendship, there is fundamentally an aspect of responsibility here, supporting your friends is part of a deeper fundamental code, at least to my thinking. Friends and family are more important than I, and I should support them, even if it isn't the comfortable path to take.

But you are not saying that your friends are most important than you, you are saying they are more important than a another third person. Placing your own feelings, or that of a friends, above someone elses simply isn't right in my mind. In a moral situation, the actions can't be dependant on who is involved, they have to be measured as a neutral.

As a hypothetical, what if both persons involved were aquiantances? One of them approaches you and asks you to kick the other? What is your answer then? This will give you an idea what is the right course of action in this scenario, because the personal connections simply can't enter into a moral equation. Otherwise you end up in scenarios where it is morally defendable to kill someone because a friend asked for you help and you promised it.

Or can you honestly say that if someone steals your car and when you find said person and he says "Yeah, my friend was depressed and he really wanted a car" you'd say "Oh, that's alright then!".


I would say probably Lawful Good under most circumstances, or at least based on my trending towards a compassionate type of person. At least that is how I view myself, in this particular decision there isn't really a good-evil component as far as D&D alignments go, it is "impossible for them to be friends" her words, and he "can't have her at the session", his words. So that's neither side being really good.

The reason it seemed like lawful neutral to me was the fact that you'd be an accomplice to evil acts like theft or the like due to responsibililty to friends. It seemed like you placed higher emphasis on commitments than on ethics and morality, while still being as you said a compassionate enough person not to be evil. That's neither here nor there and I'm not saying what you are, just how it was percieved to me.

If she can still interact and play with him then one side is clearly better than the other. So there is a good-evil component to it. The question is "Is it right to kick one person simply on the request of another". That's the moral implication here, and I am trying to say that it isn't.


So in this case your higher moral responsibility to your friends come into play, they're your friends so you have a responsibility to them, and just because it isn't an easy responsibility does not mean it ceases to exist, it's a social contract and it is a the way that you should place those you value, which is over yourself, at least to my logic.

The amount of self-sacrifice you are willing to do for friends has very little to do with moralilty. It isn't more inherently wrong to say no to a friend than it is to a stranger. Who have equal moral responsibility to both. You might have a higher social responsibility to your friends but that's another matter.

A social contract between you and a friend has to be explicit in order for there to be any form of morality involved; as in, you've agreed upon certain things. Implicit social contract is the worst lie ever constructed. Even if you have promised certain things to you friend, it can still be morally wrong to do certain actions for them, which should in my opinion matter more than whatever promise you make them. Just because I promise to help a friend with a request (before knowing what it is) and he then tells me to kill a man, it doesn't make it morally right for me to do so. But explicit social contract is the only thing to me that could make your responsibililty to your friends a moral question.

Or are you one of those people that believe that it's inherently wrong to say no to your friends? As in "hello, can we meet today?" "no sorry I don't want to" "what sort of horrible friend are you! I want to meet!".


Well that would depend for me on why they didn't want to see him, breakups are rough, and it could be psychologically damaging to be there, I could see the reasons why a group member might side with their friend over me, their acquaintance, and I would respect that decision, because it would be the one I would make.

So you'd have no hard feelings for being kicked out of a group simply because one person doesn't like seeing you? That's very interesting. Personally I think the one with the problem (the one who doesn't want to see the other) isn't in the right to force this problem onto someone else (which making someone else leave would entail).


Is it though? Is that the right course of action? Firstly, we have somebody that may not be emotionally in a good state to choose what might be an easy out, they might be needing the support of their friends, a time to just relax and have routine, and go through the same course of things. So maybe it isn't the healthiest or most moral decision.

I do think that if I don't want to see someone, the right course of action would be for me to leave. Otherwise I place myself and my own feelings above those of someone else. It's basically the same as grabbing another persons toy in the sandbox becuase it's shiny and you want it. And if my friends aren't in an emotionally good state to choose what is right, I have to do it for them. Or else what do I tell them? That it's okay to treat other people (in this case the ex) as lesser important beings, with feelings that doesn't matter and act in morally wrong ways simply because you're upset? That's not a very good precedent and may very well damage them in the long run (since you'll validate their behavior).


So again, while the friend asking you to kick the other, is probably in the wrong, you have a responsibility to support him as a friend, because in this case friendship is the highest ideal. You have a responsibility to act honorably towards your friend, beyond a responsibility to act honorably to acquaintances.

It's interesting how you can say my friend is probably in the wrong, which is sort of agreeing with me, and then say that while my friend is wrong, it would be right for me to follow through with his wishes. How does that make any sense? Either he is wrong in asking me to kick someone just because he doesn't want to see them, or it's perfectly acceptable for any person to make such demands. And if he is wrong, then it is equally wrong for me to do the very same action.

I believe you have an equal responsibility to act honorably to everyone, friend, aquaintance or foe alike. Acting in a proper and moral fashion should always be the highest ideal. Placing my friends' feelings above those of others is the same as placing my own feelings above others. If placing your own feelings above those of others is considered right for you, I must admit I am somewhat aghast because personally I think that way lies madness.


I disagree, because you have a responsibility to your friend, that is overarching, it supersedes your responsibility as a DM, and even that responsibility would side with the member with more seniority. Neither of those positions, "friend" or "Dungeon Master" place you in a position where you should judge a friend as immoral or moral, so their actions should factor not at all on your own.

If you never judge your friends as moral or immoral, you must live a very interesting life. That means your friends could quite easily abuse you for all sorts of actions, highly detrimental to both yourself and others.

Your responsibility as a friend only supersedes your responsibility as a DM insofar that it would be okay for you to say "sorry, I'm not going to DM for a while, because I need to spend time with my friend". It does not give you a carte blanche to treat the other people of the group as unimportant beings.


They've acted in a way that way that was inconvenient but but understandably so. Actions under emotional duress should not be given as heavy a weight as those without, as we can see by the fact that Manslaughter is not typically punished as Premeditated Murder. Or is it Murder 1 and Murder 2, I can never remember.

Actions under emotional duress should most definitely be given equal weight as those without. I've always found it curiously strange how a crime of passion could be seen as lesser than a premeditated one. The outcome of the actions are still the same, and that should be all that matters. If we really SHOULD take intent into account then there are many cases of premeditated murder that could be equally, or even more, morally defendable as those done in passion. You being upset or whatever doesn't in any way make your actions any more morally right. And this is the basic premise of growing up, learning how to deal with your emotions so that you do not take them out on other people in a wrongful manner. In all and every situation, you and only you are responsible for your behavior, and you need to regulate it accordingly. I can't really care about whether or not you were properly upset or not for whatever wrong you did to be okay, or if those feelings were valid or whatever. Impulse control is the most important sign of maturity.


So since we've established that you have no responsibility to force your friend to behave a certain way, and the options are:

I have a responsibility to make myself behave a certain way though, and claiming that "a friend asked me to do it", doesn't take away my moral responsibility. Or do you think it does and all the blame should be placed on your friend?


1.) Have both players stay, this is emotionally damaging, probably to both of them, and could lead to an argument that could destabilize the group, is likely to reveal their private business to everybody. So bad on all counts. You violate their trust, you violate your expectation as a DM to manage the group, you violate the trust your friend places in you to try to help them. It's the worst option.

I can't have both players stay unless I can somehow force them to attend and chain them to the chairs. I can say "I'm sorry, but I'm not going to kick anyone" and let everyone decide for themselves if they wish to attend or not. So this is really a no-option (unless we take abduction and chains into account).


2.) Kick them both. This is debatably a fair option, but as we've pointed out, seniority is a thing, so as a DM this isn't exactly the most ethical option. Nor really the most fair. As a friend it's absolutely disgusting to kick out a friend when they really need friendship, and therefore should not be followed through on, ever if you can avoid it.

Kicking them both is only fair if they both approach me and say "I don't want to play with X/Y, so you have to kick her/him!" Then they're both acting as immature jerks so that seems fair.

Seniority can only ever be an okay argument if it's been established explicitly before people joined the game. It's not an overall ethical rule that whoever's been with whatever the longest always has the most sway. Just because you were born before, or can run the fastest so you've been there a few minutes earlier or have a job that let you attend an hour earlier or whatever it doesn't automatically make you more important. Suddenly springing a rule of seniority to a group that hasn't agreed upon it is definitely wrong.


3.) Kick Him. Your option, this one is for the reasons I suggested in my opinion bad. While he has acted with impropriety, we have no way of knowing if she has or has not also acted with impropriety. Since you have a responsibility to your friends, you should support him, which includes being forgiving of lapses in judgement, and understanding that gaming with her might be impossible for him, or severely painful.

Unless she has also approached me demanding to get him kicked, she hasn't acted with impropriety as far as this situation is concerned. Emotional duress doesn't give you the right to treat other people like ****.

My responsibility to a friend can certainly make me take time off some of my other activities to spend more time with him, let him stay over at my place, schedule some extra campaign just for him or whatever. But it can't make me kick someone out of a group just because he wanted me to. I'm not a slave to my friends, nor should you be, or you're opening up yourself for abuse.

I'll forgive him for making such a request and not hold it against it, but I'm not going to go through with it because kicking one person simply on the request of one other isn't right.


4.) Kick Her. A hard choice to be sure, but you do have a responsibility to your friend, which she should understand, also she has said that she didn't want to be around him, or at least had at the beginning of the hypothetical scenario. So this is a very challenging choice, but it is an appropriate one, you have a responsibility to your friend. You have the responsibility to the group to hold onto the senior member over a junior one.

As I said, if she doesn't want to be around him, the scenario becomes very different. In the case they both calmly approached me and said "we really don't want to spend time together anymore, so can you choose who gets to stay in your campaign?" I would've chosen my friend. That case is a morally neutral though as they both agreed to submit to my judgement.

In the other case, if she still found it acceptable to be around him, I don't see why she would accept this outcome. I am making her take all the negative outcome of someone else's problem. That isn't right and it never will be. "I have a problem with you so now you have to go." How is that right?

Seniority isn't even a factor in this case, unless it's made clear at the formation of the group and the inclusion of new players.


5.) Group Vote. This is probably fairest, but it shrugs off your responsibility. Furthermore you violate confidence, and that is unforgivable to my mind.

I don't think group vote is a very fair option, unless both of them don't want to see the other and you could have the group choose. But even if the group votes to kick the ex out, it just makes the group as a whole morally responsible for the unfair treatment. You are right, I'd rather take the responsibility myself, and I wouldn't allow my group as a whole to act with impropriety.


6.)Split the game. The best option if it is at all feasible, and probably the way that I might try to resolve this in real life.

This is what I'd try to do as well. I would continue the group with the ex, tell my friend he can choose another day and invite whomever he wishes to that campaign. I make personal sacrifices for my friends, just not moral sacrifices.


I would say that your viewpoint is more Lawful Neutral than mine, since mine involves putting your friends over yourself, and over an abstract concept of morality.

I don't put my friends over myself, I put the "abstract" concept of morality over my friends. The way you place your commitments to your friends higher than everything else is why I'd say you are at the lawful side.

Personally I think I am chaotic, with good/neutral depending on if you consider my abstract concept of morality to actually be right or if I'm simply deluding myself. In general, when measuring moral choices, I believe every human being to be of equal importance and value everyone's lives equally.

[NichG]

I don't think group vote is a very fair option, unless both of them don't want to see the other and you could have the group choose. But even if the group votes to kick the ex out, it just makes the group as a whole morally responsible for the unfair treatment. You are right, I'd rather take the responsibility myself, and I wouldn't allow my group as a whole to act with impropriety.


This is an interesting position. I'm curious, do you not believe the group as a whole has the right to be selective about its membership, or is it specifically because the reason for the vote comes down to a conflict between only two of the players?

[AMFV]

But you are not saying that your friends are most important than you, you are saying they are more important than a another third person. Placing your own feelings, or that of a friends, above someone elses simply isn't right in my mind. In a moral situation, the actions can't be dependant on who is involved, they have to be measured as a neutral.

Which is good in a hypothetical, but not good in real life, since all scenarios are infinitely more complex and no real neutral situation exists.



As a hypothetical, what if both persons involved were aquiantances? One of them approaches you and asks you to kick the other? What is your answer then? This will give you an idea what is the right course of action in this scenario, because the personal connections simply can't enter into a moral equation. Otherwise you end up in scenarios where it is morally defendable to kill someone because a friend asked for you help and you promised it.

Well first off I would need to know what the grounds for asking were, that is a fundamentally important factor here. Why are they asking?

It is morally dependable to kill people for your friends under certain circumstances.



Or can you honestly say that if someone steals your car and when you find said person and he says "Yeah, my friend was depressed and he really wanted a car" you'd say "Oh, that's alright then!".


I'd be more likely to say that than you might think... if somebody is driven to steal something, it's very likely for necessity and that's something I can respect. Furthermore, I wouldn't help my friend steal the car, just try to protect him from going to jail while he was doing it.



The reason it seemed like lawful neutral to me was the fact that you'd be an accomplice to evil acts like theft or the like due to responsibililty to friends. It seemed like you placed higher emphasis on commitments than on ethics and morality, while still being as you said a compassionate enough person not to be evil. That's neither here nor there and I'm not saying what you are, just how it was percieved to me.

Is theft evil? That's kind of a complex and touchy thing, it probably is, but necessity is a harsh mistress.



If she can still interact and play with him then one side is clearly better than the other. So there is a good-evil component to it. The question is "Is it right to kick one person simply on the request of another". That's the moral implication here, and I am trying to say that it isn't.


But we don't know that she can, she didn't ask, but she's an acquaintance, so it would be less likely that she would, she did say "she could no longer be friends with him" which is pretty telling. I'm not kicking her because of his request, but rather because he is my friend I would ask her to leave in that circumstance. He also has seniority which is an important thing.



The amount of self-sacrifice you are willing to do for friends has very little to do with moralilty. It isn't more inherently wrong to say no to a friend than it is to a stranger. Who have equal moral responsibility to both. You might have a higher social responsibility to your friends but that's another matter.

I disagree very strongly on this count, I think that what you are willing to sacrifice for others is tantamount to morality, and morality cannot be discussed without that.



A social contract between you and a friend has to be explicit in order for there to be any form of morality involved; as in, you've agreed upon certain things. Implicit social contract is the worst lie ever constructed. Even if you have promised certain things to you friend, it can still be morally wrong to do certain actions for them, which should in my opinion matter more than whatever promise you make them. Just because I promise to help a friend with a request (before knowing what it is) and he then tells me to kill a man, it doesn't make it morally right for me to do so. But explicit social contract is the only thing to me that could make your responsibililty to your friends a moral question.

I again disagree, it is not required to have a written code for a code to exist. If my friend asked me to kill somebody, I would probably want to know why, but if I thought that his reasons were sound I might be inclined to listen.



Or are you one of those people that believe that it's inherently wrong to say no to your friends? As in "hello, can we meet today?" "no sorry I don't want to" "what sort of horrible friend are you! I want to meet!".

I have no problems saying no to my friends. Again the scenario here, has less to do with him asking and everything to do with seniority and supporting my friend in a time of need. If anything asking is a negative on his part. But since he's under emotional duress it's a forgivable one.



So you'd have no hard feelings for being kicked out of a group simply because one person doesn't like seeing you? That's very interesting. Personally I think the one with the problem (the one who doesn't want to see the other) isn't in the right to force this problem onto someone else (which making someone else leave would entail).

I might have hard feelings, but I'd understand.



I do think that if I don't want to see someone, the right course of action would be for me to leave. Otherwise I place myself and my own feelings above those of someone else. It's basically the same as grabbing another persons toy in the sandbox becuase it's shiny and you want it. And if my friends aren't in an emotionally good state to choose what is right, I have to do it for them. Or else what do I tell them? That it's okay to treat other people (in this case the ex) as lesser important beings, with feelings that doesn't matter and act in morally wrong ways simply because you're upset? That's not a very good precedent and may very well damage them in the long run (since you'll validate their behavior).

But we're not theorizing on the right course of action for the friend in this scenario, but for the right course of action for the DM. Which is to support a more senior member of the group over a junior member, and to support a close friend over an acquaintance. The friend asking has nothing to do with it. The fact that they cannot play together has everything to do with it.




It's interesting how you can say my friend is probably in the wrong, which is sort of agreeing with me, and then say that while my friend is wrong, it would be right for me to follow through with his wishes. How does that make any sense? Either he is wrong in asking me to kick someone just because he doesn't want to see them, or it's perfectly acceptable for any person to make such demands. And if he is wrong, then it is equally wrong for me to do the very same action.

Because I'd not be acting that way because he asked, but because I felt that it was the right course of action. The senior group member and my friend would be the one I would support through hell or high water, and so if one player had to go, that'd be how I would pick.



I believe you have an equal responsibility to act honorably to everyone, friend, aquaintance or foe alike. Acting in a proper and moral fashion should always be the highest ideal. Placing my friends' feelings above those of others is the same as placing my own feelings above others. If placing your own feelings above those of others is considered right for you, I must admit I am somewhat aghast because personally I think that way lies madness.

It's not my friend's feelings over hers, but that my responsibility to preserve his happiness and well-being is greater than is my responsibility to preserve hers. I'm his friend and that requires a certain responsibility. That's why I would support him.



If you never judge your friends as moral or immoral, you must live a very interesting life. That means your friends could quite easily abuse you for all sorts of actions, highly detrimental to both yourself and others.

I don't think that's the case, I judge actions as moral or immoral, I think you're hung up on the request part, which I had glossed over as kind of irrelevant to the whole mess. An indicator that the two of them could not game together.



Your responsibility as a friend only supersedes your responsibility as a DM insofar that it would be okay for you to say "sorry, I'm not going to DM for a while, because I need to spend time with my friend". It does not give you a carte blanche to treat the other people of the group as unimportant beings.


But you're not, you're supporting a senior member over a junior member, you are losing one of them, you need to pick which one you lose. So that's the decision you have to live with.



Actions under emotional duress should most definitely be given equal weight as those without. I've always found it curiously strange how a crime of passion could be seen as lesser than a premeditated one. The outcome of the actions are still the same, and that should be all that matters. If we really SHOULD take intent into account then there are many cases of premeditated murder that could be equally, or even more, morally defendable as those done in passion. You being upset or whatever doesn't in any way make your actions any more morally right. And this is the basic premise of growing up, learning how to deal with your emotions so that you do not take them out on other people in a wrongful manner. In all and every situation, you and only you are responsible for your behavior, and you need to regulate it accordingly. I can't really care about whether or not you were properly upset or not for whatever wrong you did to be okay, or if those feelings were valid or whatever. Impulse control is the most important sign of maturity.


I disagree, I've been under real emotional duress, and it can change who you are as a person, how you think, how you act, what you think, how you verbalize and conceptualize your thoughts. It is certainly easier to make bad decisions under those circumstances, and a divorce or a rough breakup is absolutely those circumstances.



I have a responsibility to make myself behave a certain way though, and claiming that "a friend asked me to do it", doesn't take away my moral responsibility. Or do you think it does and all the blame should be placed on your friend?

Again it's not because my friend asked me, but because I'm losing one group member and my friend is senior and my friend so the decision is easy.



I can't have both players stay unless I can somehow force them to attend and chain them to the chairs. I can say "I'm sorry, but I'm not going to kick anyone" and let everyone decide for themselves if they wish to attend or not. So this is really a no-option (unless we take abduction and chains into account).

True.



Kicking them both is only fair if they both approach me and say "I don't want to play with X/Y, so you have to kick her/him!" Then they're both acting as immature jerks so that seems fair.

Possibly true, although I disagree that the request should be given more weight.



Seniority can only ever be an okay argument if it's been established explicitly before people joined the game. It's not an overall ethical rule that whoever's been with whatever the longest always has the most sway. Just because you were born before, or can run the fastest so you've been there a few minutes earlier or have a job that let you attend an hour earlier or whatever it doesn't automatically make you more important. Suddenly springing a rule of seniority to a group that hasn't agreed upon it is definitely wrong.


I disagree completely, seniority rules are implicit in most social organizations, having seniority in this case means you have committed more of your time and effort and that matters. If it's one minute more time and effort, it means that I'd be devaluing your time and your effort. For example if Joe has been playing for 24 months, and Susie for 1, I'm stating that I feel that Joe's 24 months of commitment are not worth more than Susie's single month. That's a pretty big moral lapse in my opinion.



Unless she has also approached me demanding to get him kicked, she hasn't acted with impropriety as far as this situation is concerned. Emotional duress doesn't give you the right to treat other people like ****.

No it doesn't given them the right to treat other people like ****, but it is more acceptable to excuse somebody's behavior when they are under emotional duress. Forgiveness is an important moral virtue, in this case you can forgive one minor stupidity on the part of the friend, who's faux pax, is a problem, but it doesn't and shouldn't affect the scenario at hand.



My responsibility to a friend can certainly make me take time off some of my other activities to spend more time with him, let him stay over at my place, schedule some extra campaign just for him or whatever. But it can't make me kick someone out of a group just because he wanted me to. I'm not a slave to my friends, nor should you be, or you're opening up yourself for abuse.


Which is not why I would kick the other member, again the asking part isn't really relevant to me, and is mostly a distasteful thing.



I'll forgive him for making such a request and not hold it against it, but I'm not going to go through with it because kicking one person simply on the request of one other isn't right.

But we're not kicking one person on the request of another, we're kicking one person since it is no longer possible for both of them to come and enjoy the game. So somebody has to go.



As I said, if she doesn't want to be around him, the scenario becomes very different. In the case they both calmly approached me and said "we really don't want to spend time together anymore, so can you choose who gets to stay in your campaign?" I would've chosen my friend. That case is a morally neutral though as they both agreed to submit to my judgement.

In the other case, if she still found it acceptable to be around him, I don't see why she would accept this outcome. I am making her take all the negative outcome of someone else's problem. That isn't right and it never will be. "I have a problem with you so now you have to go." How is that right?

Seniority isn't even a factor in this case, unless it's made clear at the formation of the group and the inclusion of new players.

I disagree on all counts.




I don't think group vote is a very fair option, unless both of them don't want to see the other and you could have the group choose. But even if the group votes to kick the ex out, it just makes the group as a whole morally responsible for the unfair treatment. You are right, I'd rather take the responsibility myself, and I wouldn't allow my group as a whole to act with impropriety.

Again you're putting undue weight on the asking portion of the problem, if he hadn't asked and had simply told you that he couldn't play with her there, then what? You'd just let him leave? To my mind that's a pretty egregious problem.




This is what I'd try to do as well. I would continue the group with the ex, tell my friend he can choose another day and invite whomever he wishes to that campaign. I make personal sacrifices for my friends, just not moral sacrifices.


Yes that would be the 'best' scenario but not always a possible one sadly.



I don't put my friends over myself, I put the "abstract" concept of morality over my friends. The way you place your commitments to your friends higher than everything else is why I'd say you are at the lawful side.

Personally I think I am chaotic, with good/neutral depending on if you consider my abstract concept of morality to actually be right or if I'm simply deluding myself. In general, when measuring moral choices, I believe every human being to be of equal importance and value everyone's lives equally.

I would agree with that, I was more saying that I felt that since I was at the very least attempting to put others before myself it was probably good in some way.

[Lorsa]

This is an interesting position. I'm curious, do you not believe the group as a whole has the right to be selective about its membership, or is it specifically because the reason for the vote comes down to a conflict between only two of the players?

It is specifically because the vote is due to a conflict between only two of the players, where only one of them is asking for the departure of the other. I don't feel people have the right to say "I don't like you anymore so now you have to leave" unless it's their party so to speak (say if the event take place at their house).

Whenever there is an idea of a new member, I always ask everyone in the group if they are comfortable bringing X person in, and only bring them in if everyone already in the group answer in the positive. A new untested person that noone knows will be told that there's a certain "trial period" if you may and if things doesn't work out with the group they'll have to leave.


Which is good in a hypothetical, but not good in real life, since all scenarios are infinitely more complex and no real neutral situation exists.

But they have to be judged based on a neutral value. That's the basis for "what is moral". Even if you'd do differently in the situation because of personal connections or whatnot, it can't be argued that it is moral because the moral implications can not change depending on who is involved, they can be only be based on the actions in themselves. The other road lies chaos (and not in the alignment sense).


Well first off I would need to know what the grounds for asking were, that is a fundamentally important factor here. Why are they asking?

The person is asking because they had a breakup with another person and now doesn't like seeing the other, whereas the other person can still see the first. They're both aquiantances to you, so you hold no special obligation to either.


It is morally dependable to kill people for your friends under certain circumstances.

Only under the same circumstances where it would be morally defendable to kill people for strangers.


I'd be more likely to say that than you might think... if somebody is driven to steal something, it's very likely for necessity and that's something I can respect. Furthermore, I wouldn't help my friend steal the car, just try to protect him from going to jail while he was doing it.

That's very charitable of you. I do actualy mean it, so please don't assume I was sarcastic.

I am a bit curious why people have to be driven to such drastic acts such as theft for you to be charitable though. What if they just approached you and asked for it calmly? If their need isn't strong enough to drive them to actual theft their necessity isn't high enough? Basically what you're saying is that you'd give people with lesser morals more than you'd give those with higher, and similarly people with less emotional stability more than those that has it.


Is theft evil? That's kind of a complex and touchy thing, it probably is, but necessity is a harsh mistress.

Whether you're driven to a morally wrong act out of necessity or whatever doesn't change the moral value of the action. Since you seem to feel so easy with people stealing things from you, my question would be; where do you generally park your car?


But we don't know that she can, she didn't ask, but she's an acquaintance, so it would be less likely that she would, she did say "she could no longer be friends with him" which is pretty telling. I'm not kicking her because of his request, but rather because he is my friend I would ask her to leave in that circumstance. He also has seniority which is an important thing.

But you ARE kicking him because of his request. If he hadn't asked you then you wouldn't have kicked her! Since we don't know whether or not she can, I've assumed that she can, until told otherwise.


I disagree very strongly on this count, I think that what you are willing to sacrifice for others is tantamount to morality, and morality cannot be discussed without that.

I do believe my point was always that it doesn't matter who you sacrifice yourself for. It's equally right to do so for a friend or a stranger. Your moral responsibility is equal, regardless of who it is.


I again disagree, it is not required to have a written code for a code to exist. If my friend asked me to kill somebody, I would probably want to know why, but if I thought that his reasons were sound I might be inclined to listen.

And would those reasons be different than the reasons why you'd kill for an aquiantance? Oh, and what are sound reasons to kill someone? Just to get a picture of how likely it is to happen.


I have no problems saying no to my friends. Again the scenario here, has less to do with him asking and everything to do with seniority and supporting my friend in a time of need. If anything asking is a negative on his part. But since he's under emotional duress it's a forgivable one.

So while supporting your friends in time of need, you're allowed to treat everyone else whichever way you like? Again, that is placing your friends' feelings above other people's, which is in a moral standpoint equal to placing your own feelings above other people's.


I might have hard feelings, but I'd understand.

And you feel it's perfectly okay to disregard your feelings? That's certainly okay, but you can't assume everyone will feel the same way.


But we're not theorizing on the right course of action for the friend in this scenario, but for the right course of action for the DM. Which is to support a more senior member of the group over a junior member, and to support a close friend over an acquaintance. The friend asking has nothing to do with it. The fact that they cannot play together has everything to do with it.

The right course of action for the friend has implications on what is the right course of action for the DM. It's not them can cannot play together, it's one person that cannot play with the other.


Because I'd not be acting that way because he asked, but because I felt that it was the right course of action. The senior group member and my friend would be the one I would support through hell or high water, and so if one player had to go, that'd be how I would pick.

And it will only ever be okay if that's something you've informed people in beforehand. Some rule of seniority isn't something you can assume will be in effect in all groups. Not everyone feel it is an implicit unwritten rule. Nor does everyone feel it's right for you to steal their car because your friend was depressed.

What you really need to do, is to inform everyone who joins your groups that "at any point, if any single person who's been here longer than you wants you gone, you'll be kicked" and "if at point, a friend of mine wants you gone, I'll kick you". If you don't tell them that, you're going to end up treating a lot of people in an unfair manner.


It's not my friend's feelings over hers, but that my responsibility to preserve his happiness and well-being is greater than is my responsibility to preserve hers. I'm his friend and that requires a certain responsibility. That's why I would support him.

In this scenario, that's exactly what happens, you are putting his feelings over hers. Either it's okay to treat one persons feelings as more important than another, or it isn't. You can certainly say that you'd choose to preserve your friends happiness, but saying it's the right way to treat the ex? That's what confuses me.


I don't think that's the case, I judge actions as moral or immoral, I think you're hung up on the request part, which I had glossed over as kind of irrelevant to the whole mess. An indicator that the two of them could not game together.

The request is important. Without it, we wouldn't have this problem whatsoever. So, the person with the request is the one with an issue, and you're taking that problem out on someone else, that doesn't have the same issue.


But you're not, you're supporting a senior member over a junior member, you are losing one of them, you need to pick which one you lose. So that's the decision you have to live with.

I wouldn't be loosing anyone if it wasn't for this request. Why should I kick the one that doesn't have a problem? How is that fair?


I disagree, I've been under real emotional duress, and it can change who you are as a person, how you think, how you act, what you think, how you verbalize and conceptualize your thoughts. It is certainly easier to make bad decisions under those circumstances, and a divorce or a rough breakup is absolutely those circumstances.

You keep giving me clues to what I'm trying to say. Under emotional duress, it is easier to make bad decisions. That's why you have to make sure to help your friends act in a proper manner, when the path isn't quite so clear to them. It's for this very reason we don't let family members investigate their childrens kidnappings or determine sentence for a murder. They can't be trusted to make moral decisions, so you have to make it for them, not let them go through with their vengeance. The friend is making a bad decision, morally wise, and you're just letting him go through with it instead of being a good friend and regulating his behavior.


Again it's not because my friend asked me, but because I'm losing one group member and my friend is senior and my friend so the decision is easy.

The request is important and you can't just ignore it.


I disagree completely, seniority rules are implicit in most social organizations, having seniority in this case means you have committed more of your time and effort and that matters. If it's one minute more time and effort, it means that I'd be devaluing your time and your effort. For example if Joe has been playing for 24 months, and Susie for 1, I'm stating that I feel that Joe's 24 months of commitment are not worth more than Susie's single month. That's a pretty big moral lapse in my opinion.

Seniority isn't implicit in most social organisations I've been in. And time isn't the only way to measure commitment and effort. So that's something that can't enter into the equation according to me. Unless it's been explicit.


No it doesn't given them the right to treat other people like ****, but it is more acceptable to excuse somebody's behavior when they are under emotional duress. Forgiveness is an important moral virtue, in this case you can forgive one minor stupidity on the part of the friend, who's faux pax, is a problem, but it doesn't and shouldn't affect the scenario at hand.

So people who are emotionally unstable should have more leniance compared to those who've worked hard to distance themselves from their emotions when they decide on a course of action? That seems horribly unfair to those people who've strived very hard their whole life to reign in their impulses and be prudent (also a virtue).

It seems like what you're saying here is "It's okay to beat your wife as long as you were angry/upset".

My ability to forgive isn't actually dependant on the emotional state of the person in question. I'm equally capable of forgiving both.


But we're not kicking one person on the request of another, we're kicking one person since it is no longer possible for both of them to come and enjoy the game. So somebody has to go.

And in this case, it's it more fair for the one that is suddenly unable to play with the other person to go as oppossed to the one that doesn't have a problem?


I disagree on all counts.

Since you disagree on all accounts, does that mean you think it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't like to see you anymore so now you have to leave the group"? Or does it matter who says it? It's only okay for a senior member or a friend of the DM?


Again you're putting undue weight on the asking portion of the problem, if he hadn't asked and had simply told you that he couldn't play with her there, then what? You'd just let him leave? To my mind that's a pretty egregious problem.

It is? Letting someone leave who doesn't want to play with one member of the group is bad? So as soon as someone wants to leave because of one person, you'll kick someone else instead? Yes, I would let him leave. Although not after talking to her, to get her view of the issue and see how she felt and if it could be resolved some other way.


I would agree with that, I was more saying that I felt that since I was at the very least attempting to put others before myself it was probably good in some way.

Well, it's certainly good to put others before yourself, but you're only putting some others over yourself, and also some others above other people and it's this second part I don't feel you have the right to do. You can put whoever you like above yourself, but the moment you put one person over another then you run into problems.



Also, I want to add a little paragraph to make sure you know exactly what you are saying here.

In essence, the message you want to give to your children is this:

No kids, it's not okay to steal or kill, unless you do it for a friend who's (properly?) upset. So, if you like doing those things, make sure to get some friends who are emotionally unstable and then you're in the safe!

[SowZ]

Adults usually aren't capable of making that particular decision, at least in my experience. Relationships falling apart seriously clouds judgement. For me it absolutely becomes something I should be involved in, it's part of my responsibilities as an organizer and (possible) host to be aware of it. And to try to mitigate it's impact on my group.

It is absolutely my responsibility to try to support my friend and to try to handle the group in the manner that is going to not cause an explosive meltdown which could fragment the entire group. I've seen that sort of thing happen and with families, who have a lot more incentive to stay together than a D&D group does. So it isn't something that you just let run its course.

I've had some big relationship problems, too. But I was never left incapable. Had a girlfriend of nearly two years leave me for somebody else I'd gamed with three days after we learned my dad was dying of cancer. I was devastated and hurt, but I was still capable of making decisions and didn't put it on anyone else. I would have been pissed if some well meaning friend started mucking about my personal life making decisions for me and decisions about how my life would now affect our mutual friends. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining my life even among turmoil, as are most people, I think.

Shoot, some people are really private about this stuff. My best friend in Denver didn't even know the last two times my relationships ended until weeks later. Some people are really open. Regardless, I think that choice is entirely up to them. And situations like this, they should have the first say to come up with whatever compromise/decision they want to.

Maybe some people aren't. But I will respect their ability to come to me and ask if they need that help, and assume they can make their own choices until they ask.

[AMFV]

But they have to be judged based on a neutral value. That's the basis for "what is moral". Even if you'd do differently in the situation because of personal connections or whatnot, it can't be argued that it is moral because the moral implications can not change depending on who is involved, they can be only be based on the actions in themselves. The other road lies chaos (and not in the alignment sense).

Not so, because my obligation changes based on my relationship to them. Blood is thicker than water and all that. My friends have a greater responsibility towards me and I towards them. That means that the moral situation is different than it would be for acquaintances.

The moral quandary is different, it's the same as doing something for a family member is a different moral standing, you have obligations to your friends or family that you don't have to strangers, and that shifts moral imperatives.



The person is asking because they had a breakup with another person and not doesn't like seeing the other, whereas the other person can still see the first. They're both aquiantances to you, so you hold no special obligation to either.

That's a much tougher scenario. Without as easy a solution, I would probably default to the seniority argument, or ask if I could bring it to a group vote. Since giving information to a stranger is tantamount to publicly announcing it, although I would ask first, since a vote from the group would be the best if there was no seniority.



Only under the same circumstances where it would be morally defendable to kill people for strangers.

Not so, making that argument is like saying that I as a US Marine should be willing to kill the enemies of the Government of Botwsana, while they may deserve to die, it isn't my responsibility and I have no moral imperative towards that. You have not the same obligations to a total stranger as you do to your friends and family.



That's very charitable of you. I do actualy mean it, so please don't assume I was sarcastic.

I am a bit curious why people have to be driven to such drastic acts such as theft for you to be charitable though. What if they just approached you and asked for it calmly? If their need isn't strong enough to drive them to actual theft their necessity isn't high enough? Basically what you're saying is that you'd give people with lesser morals more than you'd give those with higher, and similarly people with less emotional stability more than those that has it.


It would depend, I've given people lifts when they had no working vehicle, even people I didn't know. I've let people I did not know use my phone or things that belonged to me. I've given people I had no relationship with gear when they needed to turn in gear in the military. Charity is a high virtue. And it's one I try to hold to.



Whether you're driven to a morally wrong act out of necessity or whatever doesn't change the moral value of the action. Since you seem to feel so easy with people stealing things from you, my question would be; where do you generally park your car?

I didn't say I'd be alright with it, or not inconvenienced, but it is a moral issue. Furthermore necessity does change the moral value of an action. If I steal bread because I am using it to smuggle cocaine, that's a lot worse than if I steal because I'm hungry. If I steal a knife to defend myself, because my life is in danger, it's much worse than if I steal one because it looks cool.

I disagree very strenuously that morality is the same in all circumstances, mitigating factors have to be considered in most cases. Otherwise you wind up with a bizarre Kantian morality. For example is it wrong to hit somebody on the street? But if they are hitting you, is it still wrong? If you'd say yes to both cases, then you can hold to that kind of morality, but otherwise you're invalidating self defense, or any charity that isn't the same for all people. Ergo if you give money to the poor it's good, but money to the rich is equally good. Circumstances matter.




But you ARE kicking him because of his request. If he hadn't asked you then you wouldn't have kicked her! Since we don't know whether or not she can, I've assumed that she can, until told otherwise.

I would have kicked her, if it was going to be uncomfortable for them. The DM intimated that he played one session and it was extremely uncomfortable, so I would have kicked her even if he hadn't asked. Since I would have been smart enough to evaluate the situation and then discern that they couldn't play together as the OP did.



I do believe my point was always that it doesn't matter who you sacrifice yourself for. It's equally right to do so for a friend or a stranger. Your moral responsibility is equal, regardless of who it is.

But it's not, a friendship is an unspoken oath. Saying that my responsibility to a friend is the same as my responsibility to a stranger is again like arguing that as a US Marine (which I was at one time) I should take orders from governments that are not my own.

In making a friendship you obligate yourself to somebody else, and they to you. That's why blood is thicker than water, because the bonds of friendship are not some paltry invented thing, they're a serious deal and sacrificing them is not done lightly, or shouldn't be.



And would those reasons be different than the reasons why you'd kill for an aquiantance? Oh, and what are sound reasons to kill someone? Just to get a picture of how likely it is to happen.


Yes, I would kill to protect the life of an acquaintance, but I would not kill to avenge the death of an acquaintance. I would not kill to avenge harm done to acquaintance, and I might for a friend. I've never come to a situation where I've had to, but in my life, particularly as somebody in the military I've had to think a lot more on the morality of killing than most people ever do.



So while supporting your friends in time of need, you're allowed to treat everyone else whichever way you like? Again, that is placing your friends' feelings above other people's, which is in a moral standpoint equal to placing your own feelings above other people's.

Not really because again, I have a greater obligation to my friends than to a stranger.



And you feel it's perfectly okay to disregard your feelings? That's certainly okay, but you can't assume everyone will feel the same way.


That's a normal social response, when there is a bad divorce (or a bad breakup), it's not unlikely that social groups will get split by it, this is an expected thing, while it would suck, it would be something I'd expect.



The right course of action for the friend has implications on what is the right course of action for the DM. It's not them can cannot play together, it's one person that cannot play with the other.

If one person cannot play with the other that is the same as them not being able to play together in practice, and not being able to be around somebody is not a problem to where you should kick somebody for it, not without considering the fullness of the problem.



And it will only ever be okay if that's something you've informed people in beforehand. Some rule of seniority isn't something you can assume will be in effect in all groups. Not everyone feel it is an implicit unwritten rule. Nor does everyone feel it's right for you to steal their car because your friend was depressed.

I'm pretty sure that I've said I wouldn't steal the car, unless you're counting as a lookout as stealing a car, I think you'll find that legally those are very different things. Protecting your friend is not stealing a car for them, it's making sure that because they're not able to make rational decisions for one night, they don't go to jail for 15 years and come out a hardened criminal. I think that going to jail for 15 years is worse than getting your car stolen. And again I have more responsibility towards my friend.

Since seniority is tantamount to commitment that is a normal assumption. At least in most groups in society that's pretty standard. The person that's been there longer has suffered more, bled more, sweated more for whatever it is that you've been doing, so if you rate them the same, you're undervaluing that blood sweat and tears.



What you really need to do, is to inform everyone who joins your groups that "at any point, if any single person who's been here longer than you wants you gone, you'll be kicked" and "if at point, a friend of mine wants you gone, I'll kick you". If you don't tell them that, you're going to end up treating a lot of people in an unfair manner.

I've never had the situation come up, and that's furthermore an unfair characterization of my viewpoint, since again the askance isn't what's in question. There is much more to the scenario, as we've pointed out even small changes in the scenario cause vastly different responses.



In this scenario, that's exactly what happens, you are putting his feelings over hers. Either it's okay to treat one persons feelings as more important than another, or it isn't. You can certainly say that you'd choose to preserve your friends happiness, but saying it's the right way to treat the ex? That's what confuses me.

I'm putting his seniority over hers. There is no right to be a part of my poker table, or my D&D group, or my party, there is no right to invitation. I can rescind invitations to things that I am responsible for, for any reason I choose. It's not a moral failing, because it's not a right to be invited. So my decision making process has less to do with morality and more to do with the social nature of the event.



The request is important. Without it, we wouldn't have this problem whatsoever. So, the person with the request is the one with an issue, and you're taking that problem out on someone else, that doesn't have the same issue.

Without the request, it was untenable to play as was pointed out, if there was an altercation, I would still keep the member that I felt was in the right, or who had the greater seniority.



I wouldn't be loosing anyone if it wasn't for this request. Why should I kick the one that doesn't have a problem? How is that fair?

Because he's been with the group longer. That's all, that's an important value. Because I value his friendship over having another player at my game. Full stop, it's the same as if I was playing a poker game and there was a row involving people that I was inviting, the person I'd keep would be my friend. That's the nature of the beast.



You keep giving me clues to what I'm trying to say. Under emotional duress, it is easier to make bad decisions. That's why you have to make sure to help your friends act in a proper manner, when the path isn't quite so clear to them. It's for this very reason we don't let family members investigate their childrens kidnappings or determine sentence for a murder. They can't be trusted to make moral decisions, so you have to make it for them, not let them go through with their vengeance. The friend is making a bad decision, morally wise, and you're just letting him go through with it instead of being a good friend and regulating his behavior.


He cannot play with her. It's not a bad decision, if she is there, he cannot play, it is emotional wracking for him, it's not a bad decision it's an emotional consequence, if I keep inviting her, to what is a social event, then I am saying that I don't want him there. I'm putting a stupid game over my friend's feeling, and he'd have every right to terminate a friendship over that.

It's not murder, it's not kidnapping, it's a game and it isn't worth losing a friend over.



The request is important and you can't just ignore it.

Seniority isn't implicit in most social organisations I've been in. And time isn't the only way to measure commitment and effort. So that's something that can't enter into the equation according to me. Unless it's been explicit.

It is fundamentally a part of every organization I have been part of. College has seniority rules, the military has seniority rules, the Civil Air Patrol, has seniority rules, every single organization I have been part of takes seniority into account.

And furthermore how else would you measure effort? There is no other objective way, since we don't have any real output outside of fun.



So people who are emotionally unstable should have more leniance compared to those who've worked hard to distance themselves from their emotions when they decide on a course of action? That seems horribly unfair to those people who've strived very hard their whole life to reign in their impulses and be prudent (also a virtue)

Yes. Emotions are not always controllable



It seems like what you're saying here is "It's okay to beat your wife as long as you were angry/upset".

It isn't "okay", any more than stealing a car is, but hitting your wife when you're angry, and irrational is more forgivable than a calculated assault when you aren't.



My ability to forgive isn't actually dependant on the emotional state of the person in question. I'm equally capable of forgiving both.


As am I, but I am more likely to overlook things done in the heat of emotion, because that usually is less a reflection of the person's viewpoint and intellectual standing.



And in this case, it's it more fair for the one that is suddenly unable to play with the other person to go as oppossed to the one that doesn't have a problem?

Because they both have a problem in this case. One person is now a trigger for the other, and so if you keep them both, you're losing your friend, and the senior player, that's tantamount to betraying both his seniority (he's been with the game for years) and his friendship. You're saying "those things don't matter" and that's pretty bad from my thinking.



Since you disagree on all accounts, does that mean you think it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't like to see you anymore so now you have to leave the group"? Or does it matter who says it? It's only okay for a senior member or a friend of the DM?

Yes. It's a social meeting that I am organizing, being invited to it is not a right. I could stop inviting somebody because they wore too much cologne, or made one too many Hitler jokes, or always rolled the same ridiculous bard. I probably wouldn't.

But it is a social meeting that I am organizing, it's not a right, and being asked not to come isn't that big a deal, since I'm organizing it, I get to decide who attends period. That's like chewing me out for not inviting somebody I don't like to a party at my house, it's the same principle.



It is? Letting someone leave who doesn't want to play with one member of the group is bad? So as soon as someone wants to leave because of one person, you'll kick someone else instead? Yes, I would let him leave. Although not after talking to her, to get her view of the issue and see how she felt and if it could be resolved some other way.

It can't be, the DM had already tried that option.



Well, it's certainly good to put others before yourself, but you're only putting some others over yourself, and also some others above other people and it's this second part I don't feel you have the right to do. You can put whoever you like above yourself, but the moment you put one person over another then you run into problems.

I'm people to him I have obligations as more important in regards to my time than those to whom I don't have obligations. I would think it would be a complete violation of your obligations to your friends to kick him and keep her. You have obligations, friendship is an obligation.



Also, I want to add a little paragraph to make sure you know exactly what you are saying here.

In essence, the message you want to give to your children is this:

No kids, it's not okay to steal or kill, unless you do it for a friend who's (properly?) upset. So, if you like doing those things, make sure to get some friends who are emotionally unstable and then you're in the safe!

I think you're vastly misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if my friend is stealing something, I'd keep an eye out for the cops, not that theft is okay in the case of emotional duress. I'm saying that I would try to shield my friend from negative things happening because they made poor decisions and were emotionally distraught. Because that's what friends do, protect each other, even when it's difficult.

That is the crux of the matter, I have an obligation to protect my friends, even when they are making poor decisions, by your logic you would turn them into the cops, and that's unacceptable, that's completely mistreating your friends.


I've had some big relationship problems, too. But I was never left incapable. Had a girlfriend of nearly two years leave me for somebody else I'd gamed with three days after we learned my dad was dying of cancer. I was devastated and hurt, but I was still capable of making decisions and didn't put it on anyone else. I would have been pissed if some well meaning friend started mucking about my personal life making decisions for me and decisions about how my life would now affect our mutual friends. I'm perfectly capable of maintaining my life even among turmoil, as are most people, I think.

Well that's a big deal. I'm glad it wasn't as rough for you as it has been for me and other people I've known. I don't like to get into "my struggle was worse" but if it affected me that way, then maybe it was worse than yours in this case. Sometimes it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, like when the person with PTSD has to drop everything to take care of paperwork for their ex-wife, that could be a minor thing normally, but in the end it could be the thing that pushes somebody over the ragged edge, and it's not your right to judge whether somebody should fall over the edge for something, because you've never felt exactly what anybody else is feeling.



Shoot, some people are really private about this stuff. My best friend in Denver didn't even know the last two times my relationships ended until weeks later. Some people are really open. Regardless, I think that choice is entirely up to them. And situations like this, they should have the first say to come up with whatever compromise/decision they want to.

Maybe some people aren't. But I will respect their ability to come to me and ask if they need that help, and assume they can make their own choices until they ask.

True, but not everybody does require privacy. And in this case certain things were brought to certain people in confidence.

[SowZ]

Not so, because my obligation changes based on my relationship to them. Blood is thicker than water and all that. My friends have a greater responsibility towards me and I towards them. That means that the moral situation is different than it would be for acquaintances.

The moral quandary is different, it's the same as doing something for a family member is a different moral standing, you have obligations to your friends or family that you don't have to strangers, and that shifts moral imperatives.



That's a much tougher scenario. Without as easy a solution, I would probably default to the seniority argument, or ask if I could bring it to a group vote. Since giving information to a stranger is tantamount to publicly announcing it, although I would ask first, since a vote from the group would be the best if there was no seniority.



Not so, making that argument is like saying that I as a US Marine should be willing to kill the enemies of the Government of Botwsana, while they may deserve to die, it isn't my responsibility and I have no moral imperative towards that. You have not the same obligations to a total stranger as you do to your friends and family.



It would depend, I've given people lifts when they had no working vehicle, even people I didn't know. I've let people I did not know use my phone or things that belonged to me. I've given people I had no relationship with gear when they needed to turn in gear in the military. Charity is a high virtue. And it's one I try to hold to.



I didn't say I'd be alright with it, or not inconvenienced, but it is a moral issue. Furthermore necessity does change the moral value of an action. If I steal bread because I am using it to smuggle cocaine, that's a lot worse than if I steal because I'm hungry. If I steal a knife to defend myself, because my life is in danger, it's much worse than if I steal one because it looks cool.

I disagree very strenuously that morality is the same in all circumstances, mitigating factors have to be considered in most cases. Otherwise you wind up with a bizarre Kantian morality. For example is it wrong to hit somebody on the street? But if they are hitting you, is it still wrong? If you'd say yes to both cases, then you can hold to that kind of morality, but otherwise you're invalidating self defense, or any charity that isn't the same for all people. Ergo if you give money to the poor it's good, but money to the rich is equally good. Circumstances matter.




I would have kicked her, if it was going to be uncomfortable for them. The DM intimated that he played one session and it was extremely uncomfortable, so I would have kicked her even if he hadn't asked. Since I would have been smart enough to evaluate the situation and then discern that they couldn't play together as the OP did.



But it's not, a friendship is an unspoken oath. Saying that my responsibility to a friend is the same as my responsibility to a stranger is again like arguing that as a US Marine (which I was at one time) I should take orders from governments that are not my own.

In making a friendship you obligate yourself to somebody else, and they to you. That's why blood is thicker than water, because the bonds of friendship are not some paltry invented thing, they're a serious deal and sacrificing them is not done lightly, or shouldn't be.



Yes, I would kill to protect the life of an acquaintance, but I would not kill to avenge the death of an acquaintance. I would not kill to avenge harm done to acquaintance, and I might for a friend. I've never come to a situation where I've had to, but in my life, particularly as somebody in the military I've had to think a lot more on the morality of killing than most people ever do.



Not really because again, I have a greater obligation to my friends than to a stranger.



That's a normal social response, when there is a bad divorce (or a bad breakup), it's not unlikely that social groups will get split by it, this is an expected thing, while it would suck, it would be something I'd expect.



If one person cannot play with the other that is the same as them not being able to play together in practice, and not being able to be around somebody is not a problem to where you should kick somebody for it, not without considering the fullness of the problem.



I'm pretty sure that I've said I wouldn't steal the car, unless you're counting as a lookout as stealing a car, I think you'll find that legally those are very different things. Protecting your friend is not stealing a car for them, it's making sure that because they're not able to make rational decisions for one night, they don't go to jail for 15 years and come out a hardened criminal. I think that going to jail for 15 years is worse than getting your car stolen. And again I have more responsibility towards my friend.

Since seniority is tantamount to commitment that is a normal assumption. At least in most groups in society that's pretty standard. The person that's been there longer has suffered more, bled more, sweated more for whatever it is that you've been doing, so if you rate them the same, you're undervaluing that blood sweat and tears.



I've never had the situation come up, and that's furthermore an unfair characterization of my viewpoint, since again the askance isn't what's in question. There is much more to the scenario, as we've pointed out even small changes in the scenario cause vastly different responses.



I'm putting his seniority over hers. There is no right to be a part of my poker table, or my D&D group, or my party, there is no right to invitation. I can rescind invitations to things that I am responsible for, for any reason I choose. It's not a moral failing, because it's not a right to be invited. So my decision making process has less to do with morality and more to do with the social nature of the event.



Without the request, it was untenable to play as was pointed out, if there was an altercation, I would still keep the member that I felt was in the right, or who had the greater seniority.



Because he's been with the group longer. That's all, that's an important value. Because I value his friendship over having another player at my game. Full stop, it's the same as if I was playing a poker game and there was a row involving people that I was inviting, the person I'd keep would be my friend. That's the nature of the beast.



He cannot play with her. It's not a bad decision, if she is there, he cannot play, it is emotional wracking for him, it's not a bad decision it's an emotional consequence, if I keep inviting her, to what is a social event, then I am saying that I don't want him there. I'm putting a stupid game over my friend's feeling, and he'd have every right to terminate a friendship over that.

It's not murder, it's not kidnapping, it's a game and it isn't worth losing a friend over.



It is fundamentally a part of every organization I have been part of. College has seniority rules, the military has seniority rules, the Civil Air Patrol, has seniority rules, every single organization I have been part of takes seniority into account.

And furthermore how else would you measure effort? There is no other objective way, since we don't have any real output outside of fun.



Yes. Emotions are not always controllable



It isn't "okay", any more than stealing a car is, but hitting your wife when you're angry, and irrational is more forgivable than a calculated assault when you aren't.



As am I, but I am more likely to overlook things done in the heat of emotion, because that usually is less a reflection of the person's viewpoint and intellectual standing.



Because they both have a problem in this case. One person is now a trigger for the other, and so if you keep them both, you're losing your friend, and the senior player, that's tantamount to betraying both his seniority (he's been with the game for years) and his friendship. You're saying "those things don't matter" and that's pretty bad from my thinking.



Yes. It's a social meeting that I am organizing, being invited to it is not a right. I could stop inviting somebody because they wore too much cologne, or made one too many Hitler jokes, or always rolled the same ridiculous bard. I probably wouldn't.

But it is a social meeting that I am organizing, it's not a right, and being asked not to come isn't that big a deal, since I'm organizing it, I get to decide who attends period. That's like chewing me out for not inviting somebody I don't like to a party at my house, it's the same principle.



It can't be, the DM had already tried that option.



I'm people to him I have obligations as more important in regards to my time than those to whom I don't have obligations. I would think it would be a complete violation of your obligations to your friends to kick him and keep her. You have obligations, friendship is an obligation.



I think you're vastly misinterpreting what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if my friend is stealing something, I'd keep an eye out for the cops, not that theft is okay in the case of emotional duress. I'm saying that I would try to shield my friend from negative things happening because they made poor decisions and were emotionally distraught. Because that's what friends do, protect each other, even when it's difficult.

That is the crux of the matter, I have an obligation to protect my friends, even when they are making poor decisions, by your logic you would turn them into the cops, and that's unacceptable, that's completely mistreating your friends.



Well that's a big deal. I'm glad it wasn't as rough for you as it has been for me and other people I've known. I don't like to get into "my struggle was worse" but if it affected me that way, then maybe it was worse than yours in this case. Sometimes it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, like when the person with PTSD has to drop everything to take care of paperwork for their ex-wife, that could be a minor thing normally, but in the end it could be the thing that pushes somebody over the ragged edge, and it's not your right to judge whether somebody should fall over the edge for something, because you've never felt exactly what anybody else is feeling.



True, but not everybody does require privacy. And in this case certain things were brought to certain people in confidence.


Sorry if I sounded like I was saying other people should be able to handle it. I recognize Im a fairly unemotional person, as a couple exes would likely be quick agree with. I suppose it doesn't even have to be a, "who had it worse," though I'm sure a divorce is quite a bit harder than a serious team up. But people handle things in different ways. Some people with relying on others, some people privately and by maintaining normalcy.

My point, though, was more why I don't feel my way of, "Ill let you handle it yourself," isn't a sign of less loyalty or not being there for my friends, as you might seem to view that behavior, but in you're friends shoes what I'd want is to sort it out myself. I was trying to say not everyone would appreciate that type of loyalty, and some may feel insulted by it. Its unfair of me to assume you would upset me were I in your friends shoes, since if we were friends you likely would know that I'm a more private person and may adjust your actions accordingly.

[Lorsa]

I've been spending most of the day, when I should be celebrating christmas with my family (in Sweden christmas eve is a big thing) thinking about these issues.


-lots of stuff I don't have time to answer independently sadly-

While I believe it should be mentioned that I do believe you should help your friends in need, there must be some limits for how far that should be stretched. I honestly can't see how "I was just helping a friend" is an excuse for all immoral actions.

I read up a bit on Kant, since you mentioned him, and while there's some issues with what he said and also some weird implementations on sexual morality, he does have some good points I believe.

It is true that there are circumstances where some behaviors that are normally immoral would be considered right, or at least morally defensible. Those circumstances have to be the same for everyone though, it can't matter what your name is, what your emotional state is, if they are directed towards a friend or a stranger or whatnot. All circumstances have to be external and possible to measure and apply to any equal circumstance.

This is why I keep saying that the scenario in this case is "one person suddenly has a problem with one other and doesn't want to play with that person". To me, things like friendships and seniority doesn't enter into the equation. Why? Because I believe I have an equal obligation to treat EVERYONE in a proper manner. Not just my friends, but everyone. To me, this moral obligation, to act in a proper manner, supersedes every other obligation I have.

I know you mentioned you wouldn't steal a car for your friend, but you did say you considered it okay for other people to do so.

You have no obligation to join the Botswana military, but what I was trying to say is that the circumstances where it is morally acceptable for a U.S. marine to kill are the same circumstances where it is morally acceptable for a Botswana marine to do so.

When your friends are emotionally distraught and are acting in a bad way, what you really should do is to stop them. If you can't stop them, then yes you SHOULD turn them in because if you know that a person has commited a crime the correct action IS to turn them in. Doesn't matter if they're a friend or not. If you think that 15 years is a horrible sentence for stealing a car, that should be equally bad for an aquiantance and then you really ought to change your judical system (and yeah, 15 years is really too long)

There are some circumstances where normally bad actions can be considered good. Those can never be based on emotional state however. Far too many times I've heard people say "I was upset" and an excuse for bad behavior. It isn't an excuse and it never will be. While you can't control your emotions you can always control your behavior, and you should. I don't see how you can say that people who have poor impulse control should be judged with more leniance than those who do. Or is that another lesson you teach your kinds? "You're upset? Well of course you can throw your toys around you and hit your friend and vandalise your neighbors house. That's perfectly reasonable!" Being able to moderate your behavior, control it and evaluate if your actions are right or wrong in a rational manner is pretty much one of the important lessons of my childhood. What you are saying is completely invalidating that and I don't see how that road leads to anything but utter chaos. Prudence is considered the highest virtue of them all for a reason.

When your friends can't make these judgements, you shouldn't just let them go through with whatever, you should make the judgements for them. That's one of the obligations I feel my friends have towards me, to stop me when I'm doing something wrong.

I just can't understand how you think it's acceptable to insult someone because you're upset, hit a someone because you're angry or burn down a house because you're depressed. Do you even realise what sort of society following that guideline would lead to?

All this being said, I do agree with you on one point, which is the one that's bringing me some issues. I do believe you have the right to invite whoever you want to a social event organised by you. Noone can force you who you want to spend time with or not. That wouldn't be right. So yeah, if you don't want to DM the ex, or don't want to DM without your friend present, then the only possible outcome is to kick the ex. You shouldn't be forced to DM for some people you don't want to or something similar. Both of those reasons are something I would find acceptable if I was the ex in question.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that lately I've been part of a gaming club that has a lot of roleplaying groups, where on many occassions there would be groups where there are varying degrees of friendships between the participants, and the games usually take place at a neutral location. I've also heard some people that avoid inviting a player's significant other to avoid this scenario from ever happening.

But to add in another thought, your way means you'd treat about a handful of people decently, whereas my way means treating over 6 billion people decently. Since you're more likely to find yourself amongst those 6 billion than the handful, it's more likely that you'll be treated well by me than that I'll be treated well by you?

[Tetsubo 57]

I've had to make this call as a GM. Two flatmates had an actual, knockdown, drag-out fist fight. They wanted me to pick which one to keep. I did. Sadly the one I 'kept' later joined a Christian religious cult and dropped off the face of the map. His family even contacted me looking for him. He gave me his gaming books and a pregnant cat. I kept two of the kittens at least. One grew to be my favorite animal. Well, other than my wife.

[hymer]

my favorite animal. Well, other than my wife.

Is that what they mean when they talk about animal husbandry? :smallwink:

[Knaight]

The scale and consequences is vastly different, but the core moral is the same. If you choose a position of authority over a group of people, you accept to do what is best for the group above your own personal bias.

The GM isn't in a position of authority. The discussion is about who is sitting down to play the game in the first place, and the "authority" only starts after people actually start playing. There is more authority in the host role than any of the others, on the basis of getting to choose who comes to one's house, but that isn't necessarily the GM.

At most, some amount of social influence exists as a GM if nobody else is willing to take the role, and thus the rest of the group is dependent upon the GM for a game at all. However, that doesn't mean that they are somehow owed you GMing for them. You can quit at any time and for any reason, including the presence of one person in the group you don't particularly want to GM for. Admittedly, there are certainly stupid reasons, but not wanting to GM for someone isn't one of them.

Taken in aggregate, the closest thing to GM authority that exists is that you can choose to only GM for a particular group that is the current group sans the one player. This isn't kicking anyone out of the group, as there's always the available counteroffer of somebody else GMing for everyone. Seeing as nobody is owed you GMing for them, this hardly seems like a problem.

[Toofey]

My prediction comes mostly from the fact that most of the group, including myself, never met her until he introduced us. I've decided though that i'm not going to ask either of them to leave... Maybe I can set up a sort of mediated chat(me being the mediator), get them to talk their problems through... She's saying that she "can't be friends with him" and he's angry... I do not know the full story, though.

He wants me to talk to her, and from what I know about her so far, she's a pretty rational person, maybe more so than him.

Maybe if I can get her to agree to this plan, then I could play the friend card with him to get him to try?

Hopefully someone has beat me too this, but this is a bad idea for staying friends with them (and for your own sanity) If you're not part of a break up you should stay out of the break up.

[AMFV]

While I believe it should be mentioned that I do believe you should help your friends in need, there must be some limits for how far that should be stretched. I honestly can't see how "I was just helping a friend" is an excuse for all immoral actions.[/Quote

It most certainly is not, and I never claimed it was. But sometimes helping a friend is a more important thing than preserving our own morality.

[QUOTE=Lorsa;16673496]
This is why I keep saying that the scenario in this case is "one person suddenly has a problem with one other and doesn't want to play with that person". To me, things like friendships and seniority doesn't enter into the equation. Why? Because I believe I have an equal obligation to treat EVERYONE in a proper manner. Not just my friends, but everyone. To me, this moral obligation, to act in a proper manner, supersedes every other obligation I have.

Now here we have the crux of our disagreement. You believe in equality as the best metric for judging people and in how you should act. I believe in fairness and obligation. The two metrics are at times incompatible, this is one situation where they can never be compatible, so any system of morality that rates equality higher is going to work towards the side of the girlfriend, and a metric that rates fairness and obligation higher is going to work to the other side.



You have no obligation to join the Botswana military, but what I was trying to say is that the circumstances where it is morally acceptable for a U.S. marine to kill are the same circumstances where it is morally acceptable for a Botswana marine to do so.


Said circumstance is "because my superiors ordered me to, and I had a contractual obligation to them", If a General from Botswana ordered me to kill somebody, I'd have no obligation to kill them, whereas if a Sergeant in the US military gave the same order I'd have an obligation to that effect, which is what I was trying to get across.



When your friends are emotionally distraught and are acting in a bad way, what you really should do is to stop them. If you can't stop them, then yes you SHOULD turn them in because if you know that a person has commited a crime the correct action IS to turn them in. Doesn't matter if they're a friend or not. If you think that 15 years is a horrible sentence for stealing a car, that should be equally bad for an aquiantance and then you really ought to change your judical system (and yeah, 15 years is really too long)

15 years is too long, and I'd feel bad for an acquaintance in that circumstance. But I'd not have an obligation to take on a personal risk to myself to protect them, like I would for a friend.



When your friends can't make these judgements, you shouldn't just let them go through with whatever, you should make the judgements for them. That's one of the obligations I feel my friends have towards me, to stop me when I'm doing something wrong.

Well this is a different metric again, and again we're back to the questioning, or the one friend being unable to play with the acquaintance. He's never going to suddenly be able to play, at least that would be a poor supposition, and forcing him to isn't "correcting his bad behavior" it's tantamount to emotional torture.



I just can't understand how you think it's acceptable to insult someone because you're upset, hit a someone because you're angry or burn down a house because you're depressed. Do you even realise what sort of society following that guideline would lead to?

It isn't acceptable, but it's more acceptable. Getting into an argument when you're drunk should be forgiven more quickly, but that doesn't mean it should have no consequences whatsoever.



All this being said, I do agree with you on one point, which is the one that's bringing me some issues. I do believe you have the right to invite whoever you want to a social event organised by you. Noone can force you who you want to spend time with or not. That wouldn't be right. So yeah, if you don't want to DM the ex, or don't want to DM without your friend present, then the only possible outcome is to kick the ex. You shouldn't be forced to DM for some people you don't want to or something similar. Both of those reasons are something I would find acceptable if I was the ex in question.

What I want in this case, takes a back seat to my obligations.



Perhaps it is worth mentioning that lately I've been part of a gaming club that has a lot of roleplaying groups, where on many occassions there would be groups where there are varying degrees of friendships between the participants, and the games usually take place at a neutral location. I've also heard some people that avoid inviting a player's significant other to avoid this scenario from ever happening.


Yes, having a player's significant other present can significantly alter a social dynamic, because they have an obligation to them.



But to add in another thought, your way means you'd treat about a handful of people decently, whereas my way means treating over 6 billion people decently. Since you're more likely to find yourself amongst those 6 billion than the handful, it's more likely that you'll be treated well by me than that I'll be treated well by you?

But this standpoint is again based on an equality metric. I want my friends to have the same sense of obligation to me that I have towards them. I believe in treating most people as well as is possible. But I believe that my obligations to my friends override that.

It's a question of fairness and obligation, your friends have already done more for you, so you should repay that behavior in kind. Also you have an unstated obligation to them, since blood is thicker than water. You have an obligation to their well-being, one that you don't have towards strangers.


The GM isn't in a position of authority. The discussion is about who is sitting down to play the game in the first place, and the "authority" only starts after people actually start playing. There is more authority in the host role than any of the others, on the basis of getting to choose who comes to one's house, but that isn't necessarily the GM.

At most, some amount of social influence exists as a GM if nobody else is willing to take the role, and thus the rest of the group is dependent upon the GM for a game at all. However, that doesn't mean that they are somehow owed you GMing for them. You can quit at any time and for any reason, including the presence of one person in the group you don't particularly want to GM for. Admittedly, there are certainly stupid reasons, but not wanting to GM for someone isn't one of them.

Taken in aggregate, the closest thing to GM authority that exists is that you can choose to only GM for a particular group that is the current group sans the one player. This isn't kicking anyone out of the group, as there's always the available counteroffer of somebody else GMing for everyone. Seeing as nobody is owed you GMing for them, this hardly seems like a problem.


I was originally in agreement, but then I've realized that the GM has a social responsibility as an organizer of a social event. One responsibility of this relationship is inviting people.


Hopefully someone has beat me too this, but this is a bad idea for staying friends with them (and for your own sanity) If you're not part of a break up you should stay out of the break up.

Not necessarily true, or possible in all cases. Sometimes helping a friend through a breakup involves talking about it, or giving them a place to stay.

In fact if you are a part of a break-up, and I can think of only a handful of ways that could happen, most of them fairly sordid, you should probably not be too involved in it. But if you aren't then you have the same obligation to your friends.

[SowZ]

The GM isn't in a position of authority. The discussion is about who is sitting down to play the game in the first place, and the "authority" only starts after people actually start playing. There is more authority in the host role than any of the others, on the basis of getting to choose who comes to one's house, but that isn't necessarily the GM.

At most, some amount of social influence exists as a GM if nobody else is willing to take the role, and thus the rest of the group is dependent upon the GM for a game at all. However, that doesn't mean that they are somehow owed you GMing for them. You can quit at any time and for any reason, including the presence of one person in the group you don't particularly want to GM for. Admittedly, there are certainly stupid reasons, but not wanting to GM for someone isn't one of them.

Taken in aggregate, the closest thing to GM authority that exists is that you can choose to only GM for a particular group that is the current group sans the one player. This isn't kicking anyone out of the group, as there's always the available counteroffer of somebody else GMing for everyone. Seeing as nobody is owed you GMing for them, this hardly seems like a problem.

Except that the assumption has been that the GM has been kicking them out. If there's no authority, and there's a vote, and some people decide to leave based on the decision of that vote, that's a different thing.

[Knaight]

Except that the assumption has been that the GM has been kicking them out. If there's no authority, and there's a vote, and some people decide to leave based on the decision of that vote, that's a different thing.

I'm not seeing that assumption. There was an assumed removal of the offer to GM for one player, but this conversation all makes just as much sense in the context of one person deciding what to propose to a group regarding the situation.

After all, if the GM is just the GM, and not also a host or similar it's not like they can order someone to leave. That would likely get a response of "Yeah, no" or similar, unless the rest of the group agreed to it as well.

[NichG]

I'm not seeing that assumption. There was an assumed removal of the offer to GM for one player, but this conversation all makes just as much sense in the context of one person deciding what to propose to a group regarding the situation.

After all, if the GM is just the GM, and not also a host or similar it's not like they can order someone to leave. That would likely get a response of "Yeah, no" or similar, unless the rest of the group agreed to it as well.

How often have you seen a GM ask someone to leave and that person say 'yeah, no, I'm staying whether you like it or not?' IME, there is a tacit assumption that the GM has change of who is in the group, whether or not that assumption is actually supported by secondary considerations like who is hosting. Perhaps that assumption is unfounded, but its still very common.

[Knaight]

How often have you seen a GM ask someone to leave and that person say 'yeah, no, I'm staying whether you like it or not?' IME, there is a tacit assumption that the GM has change of who is in the group, whether or not that assumption is actually supported by secondary considerations like who is hosting. Perhaps that assumption is unfounded, but its still very common.

Exactly as often as I've seen a GM ask someone to leave. Which is all of once, and the GM duties transferred to somebody else at the time as the GM didn't want to deal with them as a player. I've also seen a GM kicked out of a group.

[Lorsa]

It most certainly is not, and I never claimed it was. But sometimes helping a friend is a more important thing than preserving our own morality.

Sometimes is obviously something I could agree with, but my problem is that you seem to think that sometimes is happening often enough for me to think you don't consider morality important at all.


Now here we have the crux of our disagreement. You believe in equality as the best metric for judging people and in how you should act. I believe in fairness and obligation. The two metrics are at times incompatible, this is one situation where they can never be compatible, so any system of morality that rates equality higher is going to work towards the side of the girlfriend, and a metric that rates fairness and obligation higher is going to work to the other side.

The question then is which of the systems that leads to a better and more civilized society. If everyone was acting in the way you propose, what would the world look like, and how would the laws work based on those values?


15 years is too long, and I'd feel bad for an acquaintance in that circumstance. But I'd not have an obligation to take on a personal risk to myself to protect them, like I would for a friend.

Do you honestly go to prison for 15 years for car theft? That seems horribly excessive to me.


Well this is a different metric again, and again we're back to the questioning, or the one friend being unable to play with the acquaintance. He's never going to suddenly be able to play, at least that would be a poor supposition, and forcing him to isn't "correcting his bad behavior" it's tantamount to emotional torture.

Correcting his bad behavior doesn't force him to play, it forces him to leave, as that would be the right thing to do for him (now we're talking for him and not for me).


It isn't acceptable, but it's more acceptable. Getting into an argument when you're drunk should be forgiven more quickly, but that doesn't mean it should have no consequences whatsoever.

Well, I've seen people use the "but I was upset" card to excuse just about any behavior one too many times, and the "I am depressed so I can behave childish without you demanding any consequences" reason towards aquiantances. You say it isn't acceptable, and if it isn't acceptable it isn't acceptable end of story. You're responsible for you being drunk in the first place so any actions you take while drunk is your responsibility as well. There ARE certain, very few, situations where you might not be responsible for your own actions, but otherwise the only ones that generally aren't are children.


But this standpoint is again based on an equality metric. I want my friends to have the same sense of obligation to me that I have towards them. I believe in treating most people as well as is possible. But I believe that my obligations to my friends override that.

It's a question of fairness and obligation, your friends have already done more for you, so you should repay that behavior in kind. Also you have an unstated obligation to them, since blood is thicker than water. You have an obligation to their well-being, one that you don't have towards strangers..

I want my friends to have the same sense of obligation to me that I have towards them as well. Or actually, screw sense of obligation, I don't want to be a bad friend myself and will be happy with whatever small things my friends help me with. I don't want to be an "obligation", I want to be someone they help because they like me and feel like doing things for me is worth the cost of self-sacrifice.

I've spent the christmas talking a little with my family and friends about these issues, and what they would expecr from me and how they would act themselves. Luckily for me it turns out they are more on my side of the metric than on yours. Perhaps not as strange though since a strong sense of morality is something I value in those that I would consider my friends.

[Knaight]

Do you honestly go to prison for 15 years for car theft? That seems horribly excessive to me.

It's pretty routine in some places, yes. To the point of not even being commented on in most cases (whereas individual cases such as the guy who got life in jail for stealing a piece of pizza at least get heavy media attention).

[AMFV]

Sometimes is obviously something I could agree with, but my problem is that you seem to think that sometimes is happening often enough for me to think you don't consider morality important at all.

I do consider morality important, I just have a different opinion as to how moral behavior functions under certain circumstances. Again you place equality as a highest metric, to you, morality is treating everyone the same, to me moral behavior is acting with integrity and honesty. The problem here is that as far as moral quandaries goes there is no having your cake and eating it too, there are systems of morality that cannot be in agreement.

I don't consider theft to be as immoral as betraying a friend, certainly calling the cops on a friend is worse than theft for me. We can't agree because we have a different metric for what is important. I might even be willing to consider bending my moral obligations to myself in order to fulfill my moral obligations to my friends.



The question then is which of the systems that leads to a better and more civilized society. If everyone was acting in the way you propose, what would the world look like, and how would the laws work based on those values?


There have been systems where honor cultures dictated laws, and they worked for hundreds of years. In the US there is an idea of a cultural responsibility to that effect particularly in rural or highly urban areas. Supporting your friends is culturally important in many places.

Better is a terrible metric to use to judge a society, because it is indefinable, what I would consider to be better, things like adherence to tradition, respect for friendship, preservation of honor and obligation. You would consider to be less important than equality and the focus on the self as a moral entity. Neither is wrong, but they are not always compatible morally.



Do you honestly go to prison for 15 years for car theft? That seems horribly excessive to me.

Yep.



Correcting his bad behavior doesn't force him to play, it forces him to leave, as that would be the right thing to do for him (now we're talking for him and not for me).

I don't think that losing something he clearly cares about is the best thing for him. And I believe that moral heavy-handedness is probably not the right way to treat your friends.



Well, I've seen people use the "but I was upset" card to excuse just about any behavior one too many times, and the "I am depressed so I can behave childish without you demanding any consequences" reason towards aquiantances. You say it isn't acceptable, and if it isn't acceptable it isn't acceptable end of story. You're responsible for you being drunk in the first place so any actions you take while drunk is your responsibility as well. There ARE certain, very few, situations where you might not be responsible for your own actions, but otherwise the only ones that generally aren't are children.


It isn't acceptable, it's mitigated. There isn't a removal of consequences from the scenario, because nothing does that. But there is perhaps a lessening of judgement one should have. Legally this is certainly true, a crime of passion is much less severe than one that is premeditated.

It should be the same in how you judge your friends. Yes somebody who loses control emotionally and says or does something inappropriate has still done something inappropriate, but you should judge that action in light of the factors that led up to it. If I say something insanely stupid when I'm drunk, that's different than if I said it when I was sober.



I want my friends to have the same sense of obligation to me that I have towards them as well. Or actually, screw sense of obligation, I don't want to be a bad friend myself and will be happy with whatever small things my friends help me with. I don't want to be an "obligation", I want to be someone they help because they like me and feel like doing things for me is worth the cost of self-sacrifice.

But you are an obligation, the obligation you feel towards your friends should be the same as the obligation they feel towards to you. Of course not all friendships are fairly distributed, but one should try for that. I think that fulfilling obligations is the moral thing, your obligation to your friends, to your family, to your traditions than your moral imperative towards yourself. It's rating a different moral imperative higher.



I've spent the christmas talking a little with my family and friends about these issues, and what they would expecr from me and how they would act themselves. Luckily for me it turns out they are more on my side of the metric than on yours. Perhaps not as strange though since a strong sense of morality is something I value in those that I would consider my friends.

Well the difference is that I would consider fairness and obligation to be above equality in terms of a strong sense of morality. Also since this is culturally normative, it's not surprising that your friends and family would agree with you. Ideas regarding what is moral and what is not.

Again since we have a different idea of what is moral, it is impossible for us to come to an agreement on this issue, your course of action will always seem less moral to me, as will mine to you. But it doesn't make either of us wrong, although it is my belief that you are, and it is simply a difference of moral opinion.

[Lorsa]

It's pretty routine in some places, yes. To the point of not even being commented on in most cases (whereas individual cases such as the guy who got life in jail for stealing a piece of pizza at least get heavy media attention).

That's just insane.


I do consider morality important, I just have a different opinion as to how moral behavior functions under certain circumstances. Again you place equality as a highest metric, to you, morality is treating everyone the same, to me moral behavior is acting with integrity and honesty. The problem here is that as far as moral quandaries goes there is no having your cake and eating it too, there are systems of morality that cannot be in agreement.

I would say that there are moral systems that are wrong and some that are right. If morality is completely subjective there's no point in having it whatsoever.


I don't consider theft to be as immoral as betraying a friend, certainly calling the cops on a friend is worse than theft for me. We can't agree because we have a different metric for what is important. I might even be willing to consider bending my moral obligations to myself in order to fulfill my moral obligations to my friends.

There have been systems where honor cultures dictated laws, and they worked for hundreds of years. In the US there is an idea of a cultural responsibility to that effect particularly in rural or highly urban areas. Supporting your friends is culturally important in many places.

But you didn't describe to me how a society like that would work. Give me specifics, and write down a set of laws that are based on it and consider the ramifications that would have on society.

For example, by your standard, it should be illegal to report a friend to the cops, so there needs to be a punishment for doing so. Also, while it's illegal to steal a car for yourself, it's not for your friend so you shouldn't be punished for that.


Better is a terrible metric to use to judge a society, because it is indefinable, what I would consider to be better, things like adherence to tradition, respect for friendship, preservation of honor and obligation. You would consider to be less important than equality and the focus on the self as a moral entity. Neither is wrong, but they are not always compatible morally.

Well, don't worry about better then, just describe to me how it would look like, because to me using these ideals as basis for a system of morality in a society can only lead to chaos. I could be wrong, but I can't prove myself wrong so you'll have to do it for me.


I don't think that losing something he clearly cares about is the best thing for him. And I believe that moral heavy-handedness is probably not the right way to treat your friends.

What is the best thing for a person and what is the right thing to do isn't always the same. The best thing for my friend might be for me to roofie a girl so he could have sex with her because he's a virgin and that's causing him a lot of distress. By your metric that's perfectly acceptable because I shouldn't care about the feelings of this stranger, and certainly not above my friend's.


It isn't acceptable, it's mitigated. There isn't a removal of consequences from the scenario, because nothing does that. But there is perhaps a lessening of judgement one should have. Legally this is certainly true, a crime of passion is much less severe than one that is premeditated.

And I don't understand how people who much more easily becomes "passionate" are judged by a different standard than those who've worked hard to retain their rationality under most circumstances, or perhaps are just naturally inclined not to become passionate. How is that fair according to any metric? Your letting people who's worked less get off more easily. Doesn't that even seem a bit contradictory with your own seniority argument?


It should be the same in how you judge your friends. Yes somebody who loses control emotionally and says or does something inappropriate has still done something inappropriate, but you should judge that action in light of the factors that led up to it. If I say something insanely stupid when I'm drunk, that's different than if I said it when I was sober.

Yes, I should judge those factors in light of what led up to it. But the emotional state really shouldn't enter into it, not only because it is incredibly hard to measure, but because it means that under equal circumstances, a person with presence of mind isn't allowed to do the same thing as someone who's lost their wits. That just seem weird to me (and very unfair).


But you are an obligation, the obligation you feel towards your friends should be the same as the obligation they feel towards to you. Of course not all friendships are fairly distributed, but one should try for that. I think that fulfilling obligations is the moral thing, your obligation to your friends, to your family, to your traditions than your moral imperative towards yourself. It's rating a different moral imperative higher.

Let me ask you another scenario then, because I'm curious what exactly you would do for your friends. Since you've been in the military (the marines are part of the navy right?), if you had a close friend in your unit who wanted to desert, would you help him to do so?


Well the difference is that I would consider fairness and obligation to be above equality in terms of a strong sense of morality. Also since this is culturally normative, it's not surprising that your friends and family would agree with you. Ideas regarding what is moral and what is not.

Again since we have a different idea of what is moral, it is impossible for us to come to an agreement on this issue, your course of action will always seem less moral to me, as will mine to you. But it doesn't make either of us wrong, although it is my belief that you are, and it is simply a difference of moral opinion.

I think fairness is a bit of a strange word to apply to your side, because it holds the same problem that you had with "better". It is highly subjective and what seem fair to you might not be fair to me.

I do believe that one of us have to be wrong. If there isn't a right way to treat people then I might as well go and shoot those I disagree with to make the world more to my liking.

My point is that I want to understand how you think, what sort of world it would lead to, and also how you can think the way you do, because it seem so alien to me. If you think I am wrong then convince me why you are right!

[AMFV]

I would say that there are moral systems that are wrong and some that are right. If morality is completely subjective there's no point in having it whatsoever.

True, but there are some pretty intense arguments as to exactly what moral systems are right and which ones are wrong.



But you didn't describe to me how a society like that would work. Give me specifics, and write down a set of laws that are based on it and consider the ramifications that would have on society.

Well there are sets of laws based around honor systems. Particular in tribal or more remote societies. But generally morality isn't the domain of laws, it's the domain of ethics, personal responsibility isn't usually the domain of laws. I don't believe that laws should regulate morality.



For example, by your standard, it should be illegal to report a friend to the cops, so there needs to be a punishment for doing so. Also, while it's illegal to steal a car for yourself, it's not for your friend so you shouldn't be punished for that.

I'm not sure you understand exactly what it is that I'm getting at. It wouldn't be illegal to report a friend to the cops, but it would be wrong... In a system of rules like that there wouldn't be a need for external regulation. Also I wouldn't steal a car for a friend without there being a significant need, I would protect a friend from going to jail as a result of their bad decisions though, in most cases at least.



Well, don't worry about better then, just describe to me how it would look like, because to me using these ideals as basis for a system of morality in a society can only lead to chaos. I could be wrong, but I can't prove myself wrong so you'll have to do it for me.

Well Afghanistan has a similar moral system, the Rural US has a similar morality system, the west in the US had a similar moral system. The idea that you have an inherent obligation to your friends and family generally doesn't lead to chaos, and it exists in many sub-cultures in the world.



What is the best thing for a person and what is the right thing to do isn't always the same. The best thing for my friend might be for me to roofie a girl so he could have sex with her because he's a virgin and that's causing him a lot of distress. By your metric that's perfectly acceptable because I shouldn't care about the feelings of this stranger, and certainly not above my friend's.


Now that's a pretty egregious stretch of what I said. I said that I would try to protect my friend, from jail, because jail is pretty bad. Not that I would allow my friend to rape a woman. In that case your obligation to a stranger would be greater than your obligation to a friend.



And I don't understand how people who much more easily becomes "passionate" are judged by a different standard than those who've worked hard to retain their rationality under most circumstances, or perhaps are just naturally inclined not to become passionate. How is that fair according to any metric? Your letting people who's worked less get off more easily. Doesn't that even seem a bit contradictory with your own seniority argument?


I'm thoroughly confused as how that has anything, and I mean anything to do with the seniority argument. Or with fairness. I'm not saying that acting in a fit of passion removes the consequences for your actions, only that it is a mitigating factor, and since most of the world agrees that it is a mitigating factor, since the law almost everywhere reflects this. So I would say that while this might be an appeal to authority, your argument that its a ridiculous metric is likely difficult to prove.



Yes, I should judge those factors in light of what led up to it. But the emotional state really shouldn't enter into it, not only because it is incredibly hard to measure, but because it means that under equal circumstances, a person with presence of mind isn't allowed to do the same thing as someone who's lost their wits. That just seem weird to me (and very unfair).


While it may seem unfair to you, it is the way it is. Losing your temper is something that you can't always control.



Let me ask you another scenario then, because I'm curious what exactly you would do for your friends. Since you've been in the military (the marines are part of the navy right?), if you had a close friend in your unit who wanted to desert, would you help him to do so?

It would depend on why, they wanted to desert. I would say no though, since they are rejecting their own obligations.



I think fairness is a bit of a strange word to apply to your side, because it holds the same problem that you had with "better". It is highly subjective and what seem fair to you might not be fair to me.

Well I would say obligation, or at least my perspective on fairness.



I do believe that one of us have to be wrong. If there isn't a right way to treat people then I might as well go and shoot those I disagree with to make the world more to my liking.

There is a right way to treat people, but there is a right way to treat your friends and arguing that you should treat your friends the same way as everybody is devaluing your friendship.



My point is that I want to understand how you think, what sort of world it would lead to, and also how you can think the way you do, because it seem so alien to me. If you think I am wrong then convince me why you are right!

My point is that you can't understand why I think the way I do, or would have a difficult time understanding it. For me how one acts on one's obligations and commitments is one of the most important metrics to judge a person by.

[Knaight]

That's just insane.

Suffice to say that I have a very long and detailed rant regarding sentencing, and that being ludicrous is part of it. Sadly, getting any more detailed than that would involve breaking the politics line so often I might as well be riding a pendulum above it.

[SowZ]

Suffice to say that I have a very long and detailed rant regarding sentencing, and that being ludicrous is part of it. Sadly, getting any more detailed than that would involve breaking the politics line so often I might as well be riding a pendulum above it.

While I wholeheartedly agree that it's bananas, they won't do that without a criminal history. Doesn't make it right, of course. But still not as cuckoo as Britain trying to charge wrongly convicted prisoners for room and board. People are nuts everywhere. (I'm talking about the car thing here, not the pizza incident. That takes the cake for highest degree of nonsense ever.)

[andresrhoodie]

This has been talked to death here and then raised from the dead and beaten back down about 10 times in the name of the various geek social fallacies.

Its very easy.

Who do you want in the group? If one person absolutely has to go, who do you want to stay? Whose the better person in and out of game for your social activity?

Decide that. Thats all you need to decide. Their personal crap is on them, not you or any other gamer in the group.

Who do you want to stay?

Talk to that person, get them to stay and boot the other.

Its very simple.

[Lorsa]

True, but there are some pretty intense arguments as to exactly what moral systems are right and which ones are wrong.

I don't mind intense arguments. :smallsmile:


Well there are sets of laws based around honor systems. Particular in tribal or more remote societies. But generally morality isn't the domain of laws, it's the domain of ethics, personal responsibility isn't usually the domain of laws. I don't believe that laws should regulate morality.

I didn't say that laws should regulate morality, I said that morality should regulate laws. It should be allowed, under law, to act in a way that is morally right, and ideally you should be punished if you do not.


I'm not sure you understand exactly what it is that I'm getting at. It wouldn't be illegal to report a friend to the cops, but it would be wrong... In a system of rules like that there wouldn't be a need for external regulation. Also I wouldn't steal a car for a friend without there being a significant need, I would protect a friend from going to jail as a result of their bad decisions though, in most cases at least.

The need for extrenal regulation will always be there if people aren't acting morally. It's the same regardless of which system we use. I know you said what you wouldn't do it yourself, but you would understand if someone else did so it seemed like it was acceptable to you, or at least more acceptable than not helping your friend so there should be a law to allow that. If you don't want any form of external regulation or external legal system at all that's of course a valid opinion, but that isn't so much a society as a free-for-all whoever is the strongest or has the most friend or guns competition.



Well Afghanistan has a similar moral system, the Rural US has a similar morality system, the west in the US had a similar moral system. The idea that you have an inherent obligation to your friends and family generally doesn't lead to chaos, and it exists in many sub-cultures in the world.

I don't think that the idea of having an inherent obligation to your friends and family leads to chaos, it's the idea that this obligation supersedes everything that does. It's interesting though how you seem to imply that it works in sub-cultures, in tribal or rural places and the like. Don't you think there's a reason why most large-scale societies aren't using that system?

Let's take another example because one comes to mind. If a friend of mine gets drunk at a party and rapes your very hot teenage daughter and I find out about it, you would want me to keep quiet about the matter rather than turning him in since my obligation to my friend is stronger than that towards your daughter? Add in any arbitrary number of mitigating circumstances such as him being depressed and/or being dared/goaded by some aquiantances at the party.


Now that's a pretty egregious stretch of what I said. I said that I would try to protect my friend, from jail, because jail is pretty bad. Not that I would allow my friend to rape a woman. In that case your obligation to a stranger would be greater than your obligation to a friend.

This is where I get confused again. You're saying your obligation to your friends and family is the strongest... except when it isn't. Where's the line? Isn't jail usually even worse for a rapist? Under what situations and circumstances should you report your friend to the police?


I'm thoroughly confused as how that has anything, and I mean anything to do with the seniority argument. Or with fairness. I'm not saying that acting in a fit of passion removes the consequences for your actions, only that it is a mitigating factor, and since most of the world agrees that it is a mitigating factor, since the law almost everywhere reflects this. So I would say that while this might be an appeal to authority, your argument that its a ridiculous metric is likely difficult to prove.

Well, since most of the world has laws based around my moral system metric, I could say that most of the world agrees with me too and appeal to authority there. So let's agree that "authority" could be wrong (because it most definitely could) and argue for ourselves.

It has to do with your seniority argument because you said that a person who's been with a group longer should be valued higher due to the extra effort put into the group. A person who has worked very hard to retain their rationality in most circumstances is someone who's put in extra effort but is then valued lower.

This is one of the places where I think whatever legal system values acting in a fit of passion as "less bad" to be wrong. I think I've given you plenty of reasons why it is ridicilous, but so far you've only really appealed to authority.


While it may seem unfair to you, it is the way it is. Losing your temper is something that you can't always control.

Bull****. You can almost certainly control it. When I was a kid, I could sometimes get very angry when people did things to me, which in turn led me to become very violent (despite my very tiny stature). While I didn't seriously hurt anyone, I could have. So worked very hard to get rid of my anger, so that it wouldn't happen again and that I would end up doing something really bad. Nowadays I don't get angry, or "passionate" or the like. In the roleplaying club I've joined since I moved city, I've been told that I'm one of the calmest individual some of them have ever met and that they've never seen me upset. Because I don't get very upset anymore, and if I feel I am starting to, I make sure to fight the urge to give in and instead let go of those emotions. It is most definitely possible to work with it.


It would depend on why, they wanted to desert. I would say no though, since they are rejecting their own obligations.

So rejecting their own obligations is bad, but rejecting their moral obligation to aquiantances isn't bad. Got it!


Well I would say obligation, or at least my perspective on fairness.

And what is your perspective on fairness? What counts as fair to you?


There is a right way to treat people, but there is a right way to treat your friends and arguing that you should treat your friends the same way as everybody is devaluing your friendship.

I think what I've been arguing is that I believe that my friends should also treat everybody in the right way. That doesn't mean I wouldn't give more of my own time, money and resources to help a friend, something I'm not obligated to do to a stranger. All I'm saying is that me helping my friend can't be at the expense of a third person, and I consider that to be pretty fair.


My point is that you can't understand why I think the way I do, or would have a difficult time understanding it. For me how one acts on one's obligations and commitments is one of the most important metrics to judge a person by.

If I said that I have sworn an oath to treat people according to this equality metric I have, would that make it more okay? Haven't I clearly taken on this as an obligation then?

If I can't understand it, then you can't really explain your moral system to someone else, which seems a bit weird. Wouldn't you prefer if I changed and started acting in an (according to you), more moral fashion?

[AMFV]

I didn't say that laws should regulate morality, I said that morality should regulate laws. It should be allowed, under law, to act in a way that is morally right, and ideally you should be punished if you do not.

I disagree because what is moral is not always best for society. Morality is a matter of personal goodness, whereas laws ideally enforce social goodness. Also laws are something that must be able to be objectively enforced, whereas morality is not always objective, or at the very least is not always formulated based on factors that are obvious to the observer. This makes it impracticable at best, and terrible at worst to formulate a system of law.



The need for extrenal regulation will always be there if people aren't acting morally. It's the same regardless of which system we use. I know you said what you wouldn't do it yourself, but you would understand if someone else did so it seemed like it was acceptable to you, or at least more acceptable than not helping your friend so there should be a law to allow that. If you don't want any form of external regulation or external legal system at all that's of course a valid opinion, but that isn't so much a society as a free-for-all whoever is the strongest or has the most friend or guns competition.

Well noting that societies like that exist is one thing. Also the idea that laws should exist to support your personal system is ludicrous, laws must be universal, my obligations are not. That was part of the Botswana Marines argument, things that are obligative for me are not necessarily obligative for everybody. So you can't make a law based on a moral system like that, it just doesn't work, because my friend is not always everybody's friend.

It is for this reason that this section of morality is personal not legal. I've never heard anyone argue that morality should be legislative, it's a very interesting position, but unless you have a proven moral good, it's not a defensible one.



I don't think that the idea of having an inherent obligation to your friends and family leads to chaos, it's the idea that this obligation supersedes everything that does. It's interesting though how you seem to imply that it works in sub-cultures, in tribal or rural places and the like. Don't you think there's a reason why most large-scale societies aren't using that system?

There are cultures in large-scale societies that do use that same sort of system. Particularly those with tightly knit family and social units. As I said it's not a system that it workable in a large scale system, because it can't be legally enforced. However you see a similar culture in the US military.



Let's take another example because one comes to mind. If a friend of mine gets drunk at a party and rapes your very hot teenage daughter and I find out about it, you would want me to keep quiet about the matter rather than turning him in since my obligation to my friend is stronger than that towards your daughter? Add in any arbitrary number of mitigating circumstances such as him being depressed and/or being dared/goaded by some aquiantances at the party.

You police your own. I would take my friend and take care of it, particularly in a honor culture, where you wouldn't go to the police, but you would also want to take care of the matter, in a way that would probably result in my friend dying. It's the same as a military culture, you make sure that he will never repeat the offense. If he continues, then he ceases to be your friend, I'm not friends with rapists.

Also goading isn't a mitigating circumstance, extreme emotional reactions are, but goading is rarely considered to be such.



This is where I get confused again. You're saying your obligation to your friends and family is the strongest... except when it isn't. Where's the line? Isn't jail usually even worse for a rapist? Under what situations and circumstances should you report your friend to the police?

You should NEVER EVER report your friend to the police. You can't trust them, and that's betrayal. If your friend does something that is that bad, you can terminate the friendship and then inform him or her that you will report them the next time you hear about something similar, or the next time you suspect it. Of course, if you feel threatened by your former friend, then you should go to the police or to your friends.



Well, since most of the world has laws based around my moral system metric, I could say that most of the world agrees with me too and appeal to authority there. So let's agree that "authority" could be wrong (because it most definitely could) and argue for ourselves.

But that's simply not true... Most of the world has laws based around mitigating factors being a thing. Crimes of passion typically receive lesser sentences than crimes that are premeditated. Unless you're trying to make the argument about equality, which is also fairly untenable in a large scale.



It has to do with your seniority argument because you said that a person who's been with a group longer should be valued higher due to the extra effort put into the group. A person who has worked very hard to retain their rationality in most circumstances is someone who's put in extra effort but is then valued lower.

Yes, because they don't have whatever consequence there is for their problems, guilt for example, they don't have lesser jail sentences, loss of friendships. That is the reward, just because it should be a lesser consequence doesn't remove consequences.



This is one of the places where I think whatever legal system values acting in a fit of passion as "less bad" to be wrong. I think I've given you plenty of reasons why it is ridicilous, but so far you've only really appealed to authority.


Well as we've stated it's harder to control yourself, you may not intend to behave or act as you did, and intention matters. At least to me it does, and to those who write laws it does.



Bull****. You can almost certainly control it. When I was a kid, I could sometimes get very angry when people did things to me, which in turn led me to become very violent (despite my very tiny stature). While I didn't seriously hurt anyone, I could have. So worked very hard to get rid of my anger, so that it wouldn't happen again and that I would end up doing something really bad. Nowadays I don't get angry, or "passionate" or the like. In the roleplaying club I've joined since I moved city, I've been told that I'm one of the calmest individual some of them have ever met and that they've never seen me upset. Because I don't get very upset anymore, and if I feel I am starting to, I make sure to fight the urge to give in and instead let go of those emotions. It is most definitely possible to work with it.

Bull****. YOU can control it. That doesn't mean anything for anybody else. It means absolutely nothing in relation to anybody elses' self-control. It's kind of judgmental to assume that other people have the same level of emotive experience that you do. For all you know other people could have much more intense emotional experiences.

By your logic, those who are mentally deficient, or suffering from some kind of mental breakdown such as Schizophrenia should be treated the same as people who are thinking rationally. By your logic, Date-Rape doesn't count as rape because mitigating circumstances (she was drugged), do not counter the fact that she did not resist, or reject sexual advance (since legally silence is consent). Do you not see how ridiculous that is. Mitigating circumstances are certainly a thing, you may disagree about the cut-off but you must agree that they exist, or else as I've pointed out, date-rape ceases to be date-rape, it becomes sex.



So rejecting their own obligations is bad, but rejecting their moral obligation to aquiantances isn't bad. Got it!

No, you have a greater obligation to your friend than you do to your acquaintance in this scenario. You're not hurting your acquaintance, you're just not inviting her to a social event, the expectation that she has a "right" to be invited to a social event is absolutely ridiculous.



And what is your perspective on fairness? What counts as fair to you?

Treating people as they should be treated. So you treat your friends as you would expect them to treat you, the same with acquaintances and anybody else.



I think what I've been arguing is that I believe that my friends should also treat everybody in the right way. That doesn't mean I wouldn't give more of my own time, money and resources to help a friend, something I'm not obligated to do to a stranger. All I'm saying is that me helping my friend can't be at the expense of a third person, and I consider that to be pretty fair.


Fair to your eyes, but maybe not to your friend, maybe your friend would help you at the expense of a third person and then you've got asymmetry in your friendship. And that's completely unfair.



If I said that I have sworn an oath to treat people according to this equality metric I have, would that make it more okay? Haven't I clearly taken on this as an obligation then?

Not really, that's kind of trying to game my system, and that's really how moral systems work in real life. The obligation is to whom? How strong is it? Why did you take that vow, those are all things that factor in.



If I can't understand it, then you can't really explain your moral system to someone else, which seems a bit weird. Wouldn't you prefer if I changed and started acting in an (according to you), more moral fashion?

I can explain it to somebody else. Just not to you, because the things that you value are different than the things that I value, as such the moral explanation breaks down, because my moral system is set to protect those things that I value whereas yours is set to protect your values.

For example you see my system as causing legal chaos, allowing me to steal for my friends, which is not what it winds up being in practice. I see your system as cold and impartial, permitting date rape, or drugging or all kinds of deep moral problems. Because our values systems are different we cannot see fully the merits of each others' arguments.

[Lorsa]

I disagree because what is moral is not always best for society. Morality is a matter of personal goodness, whereas laws ideally enforce social goodness. Also laws are something that must be able to be objectively enforced, whereas morality is not always objective, or at the very least is not always formulated based on factors that are obvious to the observer. This makes it impracticable at best, and terrible at worst to formulate a system of law.

You don't consider it at all a bit of a warning sign that a moral system isn't the best for society? How come you actually prefer a world where people are working against society?

I think the laws of society should allow for you to act in moral ways. There can be some outline circumstances where it becomes hard to measure of course but in basic principle I think any moral system should be able to be used as a basis for the laws in the society you live in. Otherwise you're encouraging people to act against the law which seems a bit counterproductive to me. I know that some laws are simply wrong, but actively seeking a legal system that doesn't correspond to the moral system seem very illogical to me.


Well noting that societies like that exist is one thing. Also the idea that laws should exist to support your personal system is ludicrous, laws must be universal, my obligations are not. That was part of the Botswana Marines argument, things that are obligative for me are not necessarily obligative for everybody. So you can't make a law based on a moral system like that, it just doesn't work, because my friend is not always everybody's friend.

The laws should then be "you should follow orders of your respective military command" or "you should act to support your friends by doing/not doing XYZ actions". Laws should absolutely be universal, but if you believe in your moral system you should wish that to also be universal. On a societal level, the best way to enforce certain behaviors is by using codified sets of laws, therefore it makes sense to use your moral system as a guideline for constructing the laws. If you can't do that for some reason, don't you consider that to imply that your system has some inner flaws?


It is for this reason that this section of morality is personal not legal. I've never heard anyone argue that morality should be legislative, it's a very interesting position, but unless you have a proven moral good, it's not a defensible one.

Part of morality is legislated. Assault is illegal, so is theft and killing etc etc. These are all actions that I consider immoral, and indeed I think these laws are based on a belief that they are morally wrong to do. I do believe that morality and in extension ethics should be used as basis for constructing laws. I wish there were a lot more actions that I consider to be immoral that were also illegal (like say personal insults). The more overlap there is between morality and legality the easier it becomes to act in a right manner in society.


There are cultures in large-scale societies that do use that same sort of system. Particularly those with tightly knit family and social units. As I said it's not a system that it workable in a large scale system, because it can't be legally enforced. However you see a similar culture in the US military.

The first culture that comes to my mind when thinking of the sort of system you are implying is the italian mafia. They certainly seem to value their obligations to family and friends very high.

Also, the military is sort of a necessary "evil" (because they do a lot of things society doesn't normally consider right such as killing) and as such a bit of an outsider to most of the rest of society. Thus it becomes very hard to take a moral system that works in the military and apply it elsewhere. Most people consider the ideal to be that we wouldn't need any military at all (unless they're the kind that likes to conquer other nations). So at least to my mind, comparing what is moral when you're serving in the military and applying it to ordinary civilian situations is going to be problematic at best. I could be wrong, so feel free to provide arguments for the other side.


You police your own. I would take my friend and take care of it, particularly in a honor culture, where you wouldn't go to the police, but you would also want to take care of the matter, in a way that would probably result in my friend dying. It's the same as a military culture, you make sure that he will never repeat the offense. If he continues, then he ceases to be your friend, I'm not friends with rapists.

I'm sorry, but part of this became a bit confusing to me. If my friend does something wrong to you, is it your or my obligation to correct the issue? Should I shoot my own friend or should you, or where you talking about castration in this case, and if so then who should do it?

If it's the family and friends of the victim's obligation to take care of moral wrongs done towards them, then society becomes a competition for who has the biggest guns or possibly the most friends. Usually this leads to decades or century long blood-feuds or one side being eliminated completely. Is this the sort of society you prefer?

Also, you mention that there are situations where you would no longer consid someone a friend. What actions does one need to do for that to occur? And is it allowed for me to have a higher bar than you do with my friends?


Also goading isn't a mitigating circumstance, extreme emotional reactions are, but goading is rarely considered to be such.

Well, goading can lead to extreme emotional reactions, can't it?


You should NEVER EVER report your friend to the police. You can't trust them, and that's betrayal. If your friend does something that is that bad, you can terminate the friendship and then inform him or her that you will report them the next time you hear about something similar, or the next time you suspect it. Of course, if you feel threatened by your former friend, then you should go to the police or to your friends.

You can't trust who? The police? That's another problem entirely. Also, if you've informed your friend that this would be your course of action, how is it betrayal? You're acting in accordance with your word?


But that's simply not true... Most of the world has laws based around mitigating factors being a thing. Crimes of passion typically receive lesser sentences than crimes that are premeditated. Unless you're trying to make the argument about equality, which is also fairly untenable in a large scale.

I meant that most laws are based more on my equality metric than your obligation metric, I thought that was clear and I'm sorry if it wasn't. I am well aware that crimes of passion are typically recieved lesser sentences with varying degrees around the world.


It has to do with your seniority argument because you said that a person who's been with a group longer should be valued higher due to the extra effort put into the group. A person who has worked very hard to retain their rationality in most circumstances is someone who's put in extra effort but is then valued lower.


Yes, because they don't have whatever consequence there is for their problems, guilt for example, they don't have lesser jail sentences, loss of friendships. That is the reward, just because it should be a lesser consequence doesn't remove consequences.

I'm sorry, but this was a very confusing answer to me. Why would a person who commits a crime without passion suffer any less guilt than those who do them with? And is guilt always a negative consequence? It is true that people who retain their presence of mind and commits a crime don't have lesser jail sentences than those who act in a fit of rage; but that's the inverse of valuing effort put into managing your basic urges. Lesser jail sentence is a priviledge, a reward, that you believe should be given to those that hasn't worked to attain better impulse control. That's not valuing work done. Whatever loss of friendship might occur in either scenario is something we simply won't know because we don't know what these people's friends consider acceptable.

The argument still stands; if you claim that acting in a fit of passion should have lesser consequences than doing the same thing with a clear and calm mind then you're rewarding those that have done less to work on their impulse control.


Well as we've stated it's harder to control yourself, you may not intend to behave or act as you did, and intention matters. At least to me it does, and to those who write laws it does.

Harder but certainly not impossible. If you hit someone in the head when you're angry your intention was clearly to hit them in the head, unless you're also arguing than being angry also make you less physically capable to aim. Whatever the basis was for your decision to, in that moment, hit someone or pull the trigger or whatever, it was most certainly your intention. Standing there afterwards and say "but I didn't mean to hit him in the head I promise!" seems a bit hollow to me when someone's lying on the ground bleeding from where your fist most obviously hit him. When you performed the act, you almost certainly intended to do just that. There are accidents obviously where you might push someone and then they fall and hit their head on a table and die or whatever, but claiming you didn't mean to push them? If you didn't mean to do whatever you did, then why did you do it? Are you just a walking machine of random actions?



Bull****. YOU can control it. That doesn't mean anything for anybody else. It means absolutely nothing in relation to anybody elses' self-control. It's kind of judgmental to assume that other people have the same level of emotive experience that you do. For all you know other people could have much more intense emotional experiences.

Considering that when I grew up, the one who usually became the most furious was me, I do assume that my emotional experience is at the very least above average. It's true that I don't know, and I'm going to accept that I could be wrong but it doesn't actually change anything.

People who can impossibly control their impulses are very much a danger to people around them and I belileve we should do something to restrict their interaction with the rest of society. We as a society have an obligation to protect the majority from a ticking time-bomb that can blow up in someone's face whenever. That is only if it is impossible. If it isn't impossible then it's possible. It could be varying degrees of difficult, but nature isnt fair. Either it's possible and then you can do it, and then you're responsible for your actions, or it's impossible and then the best thing you can do yourself is to limit your interaction with the rest of the world and its inhabitants to as little as possible.


By your logic, those who are mentally deficient, or suffering from some kind of mental breakdown such as Schizophrenia should be treated the same as people who are thinking rationally.

No, that's not according to my logic. People who are mentally deficient should absolutely be treated differently. They should be taken care of (as in the literal meaning, not the mafia "take care of them" meaning) and appointed a legal guardian to be responsible for them, as they're usually not considered legal adults themselves. They aren't responsible for their actions; someone else is. The two people I've met with Schizophrenia seem quite capable of taking care of themelves though, as long as they take their medication. But yes, they should definitely be treated different.

Mental deficiency is quite different from a failure to either work on your impulse control or accept the consequences of your inability to "control your actions". That's normal regular people who simply try to excuse bad behavior with "I was angry" and think that makes it all okay.


By your logic, Date-Rape doesn't count as rape because mitigating circumstances (she was drugged), do not counter the fact that she did not resist, or reject sexual advance (since legally silence is consent). Do you not see how ridiculous that is. Mitigating circumstances are certainly a thing, you may disagree about the cut-off but you must agree that they exist, or else as I've pointed out, date-rape ceases to be date-rape, it becomes sex.

I'm not certain how you got that to be my logic either. First off I said I believe in mitigating circumstances (more on that later) and secondly the disregarding emotional state argument only applies to those who are performing an immoral action. Being raped isn't doing something immoral, it's the one who's doing it to you who's in the wrong. What I said was that being drunk doesn't lessen the moral implications of you performing a rape. That's very different. Obviously consent should be present, and inability to give consent for whatever reason makes the action rape. That isn't interfering with my logic at all.

Yes, it's true that there are some circumstances that could be mitigating. For example, if you steal something because a person is holding a gun to your child's head and saying he'll shoot unless you do this is a mitigating circumstance. But it would be a mitigating circumstance for everyone equally, regardless of whatever emotional response you get from someone threatening to kill your child. As another example, if you were forcibly drugged by a halluciogenic drug then that's a mitigating circumstance. If you decide to take the drug yourself then it's really not.

It's all about accepting responsibility for the choices you make. If you decide to get drunk then that's your choice and you should take responsibility for whatever you do while drunk. If you decide to hit someone in the head then that's a choice and you should take responsibility for it. Mitigating circumstances should be equal for everyone, regardless of what emotional response they bring.


No, you have a greater obligation to your friend than you do to your acquaintance in this scenario. You're not hurting your acquaintance, you're just not inviting her to a social event, the expectation that she has a "right" to be invited to a social event is absolutely ridiculous.

But if I'm not hurting my acquaintance by not inviting her to a social event, then I'm not hurting my friend either? Either being pushed out of a campain is hurtful or it isn't. She has just as much right as my friend to be there, I told her she was an equal part of the group by allowing her to join. Also, my friend is trying to take out his personal issues on someone else, valuing his feelings higher than hers.

What if the two people involved where both acquaintances? How would you act then? And before you say seniority I am going to say again that not all people, as has been shown by this thread, believe it to be a thing in a roleplaying group, so using a value that they haven't agreed on is a bit unfair.


Treating people as they should be treated. So you treat your friends as you would expect them to treat you, the same with acquaintances and anybody else.

So basically the golden rule? Treating people as they "should" be treated is kind of a weird statement though unless you clarify exactly what that should means. Luckily for you then, that's what I do. I treat my friends as I expect them to treat me, so it's all good then?


Fair to your eyes, but maybe not to your friend, maybe your friend would help you at the expense of a third person and then you've got asymmetry in your friendship. And that's completely unfair.

Do you know this with all your friends? In fact, how do you know that some people you consider acquaintances don't consider you a friend? That would be the largest amount of unfairness right? Maybe the ex in this scenario believes that after playing with you, the nice and funny DM, for over 3 months, that you are now friends? Maybe she would in fact do far more for you than your older friend would?


Not really, that's kind of trying to game my system, and that's [not] really how moral systems work in real life. The obligation is to whom? How strong is it? Why did you take that vow, those are all things that factor in.

Well, I am trying to game your system, but at the same time it's an honest question. I said I want to understand the limits and boundaries and implications of your moral system. Let's assume I made this vow before God (or a god whom I believe in), or whatever you consider to be the highest authority one can make vows to.


I can explain it to somebody else. Just not to you, because the things that you value are different than the things that I value, as such the moral explanation breaks down, because my moral system is set to protect those things that I value whereas yours is set to protect your values.

For example you see my system as causing legal chaos, allowing me to steal for my friends, which is not what it winds up being in practice. I see your system as cold and impartial, permitting date rape, or drugging or all kinds of deep moral problems. Because our values systems are different we cannot see fully the merits of each others' arguments.

Actually I would argue that my moral system is set to protect the things other's value (which is themselves). Can't you explain it to me as if I was your child and you were trying to teach me why some things are right and others wrong and which these things are?

It isn't how it winds up being in practice? Sicily is very much an honor-driven family based culture and I thought most people in america definitely consider that legal chaos when applied inside their own borders (how they view it in Sicily itself I don't know). Also, if I am going to supply more examples of how it leads to chaos then I need to understand the limits and boundaries first.

I think I've already shown you why my system doesn't permit date rape. But when thinking of "my system", please remove the emotional argument and think more of the treating everyone in a decent way thing, because the passion discussion is sort of sidetrack discussion I think (and one where my mind is a lot more fluid if given good arguments).

[AMFV]

You don't consider it at all a bit of a warning sign that a moral system isn't the best for society? How come you actually prefer a world where people are working against society?

Because I don't tie morality in with social laws. I think that's impossible. I don't prefer a world where the laws disagree with my morality, but I think that one where they do is unachievable. Since for me intent is a big part of morality.



I think the laws of society should allow for you to act in moral ways. There can be some outline circumstances where it becomes hard to measure of course but in basic principle I think any moral system should be able to be used as a basis for the laws in the society you live in. Otherwise you're encouraging people to act against the law which seems a bit counterproductive to me. I know that some laws are simply wrong, but actively seeking a legal system that doesn't correspond to the moral system seem very illogical to me.

But it doesn't seem illogical to me... Which is the crux of the problem in comparing two differing world views. What you see as logical in this case isn't what I see as logical, primarily because we have differing base assumptions about a moral systems.

Since you assume that it must work for the laws of society that naturally makes many ethical systems completely flawed in your eyes. But they've been used for years, so there's a question of your morality must be so universal would it work. I say no, no universal moral system has ever been found to work.



The laws should then be "you should follow orders of your respective military command" or "you should act to support your friends by doing/not doing XYZ actions". Laws should absolutely be universal, but if you believe in your moral system you should wish that to also be universal. On a societal level, the best way to enforce certain behaviors is by using codified sets of laws, therefore it makes sense to use your moral system as a guideline for constructing the laws. If you can't do that for some reason, don't you consider that to imply that your system has some inner flaws?

I disagree completely. Society and morality are separate. I don't think that an inability to apply a personal moral system on a societal scale is a sign that the personal system is mistaken. I don't see why I'd have to believe that a moral system should be universal, again you're using your base assumptions here. Moral systems don't have to be universal to the level of being applied on a societal scale, this isn't economics you don't have to be able to scale things. Furthermore things that are moral on a societal scale (Just Preemptive War for example, I won't get more into that because it would hit real world religion) are not moral on a personal scale.

That by itself implies that a morality system does not need to be scalable, it's just a different set of rules for objects of different scale which is a natural consequence of them being fundamentally different.



Part of morality is legislate. Assault is illegal, so is theft and killing etc etc. These are all actions that I consider immoral, and indeed I think these laws are based on a belief that they are morally wrong to do. I do believe that morality and in extension ethics should be used as basis for constructing laws. I wish there were a lot more actions that I consider to be immoral that were also illegal (like say personal insults). The more overlap there is between morality and legality the easier it becomes to act in a right manner in society.

It is based on the thought that those are harmful to society. I don't think that assault, theft, or killing are always immoral for an individual, but they are generally always harmful to society. Which is why they are illegal.

It might be easier to act in a way that you perceive as moral if this were the case, but you admit that even now the laws are flawed for this case, suggesting that your ideas about morality are not universally accepted, else all laws would match it. Furthermore, a system that is easier to follow is not necessarily a system that is more morally correct.



The first culture that comes to my mind when thinking of the sort of system you are implying is the italian mafia. They certainly seem to value their obligations to family and friends very high.

They have a certain moral obligation to each other. They do have a culture based around honor principles, but I don't think they are the most moral example of a culture, I do respect that aspect of their culture though. Just as I respect the familial focus of the Afghan culture. I can respect certain moral elements of a culture without condoning all of them.



Also, the military is sort of a necessary "evil" (because they do a lot of things society doesn't normally consider right such as killing) and as such a bit of an outsider to most of the rest of society. Thus it becomes very hard to take a moral system that works in the military and apply it elsewhere. Most people consider the ideal to be that we wouldn't need any military at all (unless they're the kind that likes to conquer other nations). So at least to my mind, comparing what is moral when you're serving in the military and applying it to ordinary civilian situations is going to be problematic at best. I could be wrong, so feel free to provide arguments for the other side.

I disagree. Honor does not vanish because lives are not on the line. One's obligation to ones friends is not lessened by them not depending on your for their life. A friend should be tantamount to that, a friend should be somebody you can depend on to protect your life with theirs.

I don't think that the military is exactly a "necessary evil". Yes they kill, but there are not many systems of morality for which ALL killing is immoral, few systems reject self-defense completely. Few systems reject violence completely. So while the military is a painful truth, and that one I'll buy, it's not necessarily a microcosm of all negative things in society.

I think the other problem here is that you are looking at an idealized system, whereas I am looking at a real system. You're system of morals has NEVER and I repeat NEVER EVER been implemented in any real way in society, whereas mine has. So mine works, yours doesn't. Sorry, that's a pretty rough point, but morality in a college classroom is only as good as it is in a dark alley.



I'm sorry, but part of this became a bit confusing to me. If my friend does something wrong to you, is it your or my obligation to correct the issue? Should I shoot my own friend or should you, or where you talking about castration in this case, and if so then who should do it?

I was implying that I would attempt to punish my friend in some manner so you feel that justice has been done, in that case you wouldn't have to take justice into your own hands. Which I feel might even be right in this case. Although perhaps problematic. I would certainly stand up as a character witness for my friend in a courtroom in this case, even if he deserved to be indicted.



If it's the family and friends of the victim's obligation to take care of moral wrongs done towards them, then society becomes a competition for who has the biggest guns or possibly the most friends. Usually this leads to decades or century long blood-feuds or one side being eliminated completely. Is this the sort of society you prefer?

In some ways, yes.



Also, you mention that there are situations where you would no longer considering someone a friend. What actions does one need to do for that to occur? And is it allowed for me to have a higher bar than you do with my friends?

Maybe, although I feel that social arguments and minor misbehavior is right-out. I think that your bar is set unrealistically high, in a way that will inevitably cause your friends to fail to meet it, and that is immoral.



Well, goading can lead to extreme emotional reactions, can't it?


Not legally, no. "He made me do it" is not considered mitigating legal circumstances, unless the person had some kind of authority over the other, and often even not then.



You can't trust who? The police? That's another problem entirely. Also, if you've informed your friend that this would be your course of action, how is it betrayal? You're acting in accordance with your word?
[/Quote]

Because you are rejecting your friend for society, which is a negative. Your friend has more importance or should. Maybe I just have better friends, but I would trust my friends with my life, I can't trust the average person on the street that way, as such it behooves me to preserve my friendships.

I don't trust society as a moral arbiter, as you seem to, and I particularly don't trust governments in that respect. I don't trust the police to respond appropriately.



I meant that most laws are based more on my equality metric than your obligation metric, I thought that was clear and I'm sorry if it wasn't. I am well aware that crimes of passion are typically recieved lesser sentences with varying degrees around the world.






I'm sorry, but this was a very confusing answer to me. Why would a person who commits a crime without passion suffer any less guilt than those who do them with? And is guilt always a negative consequence? It is true that people who retain their presence of mind and commits a crime don't have lesser jail sentences than those who act in a fit of rage; but that's the inverse of valuing effort put into managing your basic urges. Lesser jail sentence is a priviledge, a reward, that you believe should be given to those that hasn't worked to attain better impulse control. That's not valuing work done. Whatever loss of friendship might occur in either scenario is something we simply won't know because we don't know what these people's friends consider acceptable.

They wouldn't suffer less guilt, in fact they'd probably suffer more guilt. Which is punishment and the consequence for their actions. The greater guilt is more punishment.



The argument still stands; if you claim that acting in a fit of passion should have lesser consequences than doing the same thing with a clear and calm mind then you're rewarding those that have done less to work on their impulse control.

Only true if all emotional responses for all persons have the same level of control required, I'll get to that later, but they don't.



Harder but certainly not impossible. If you hit someone in the head when you're angry your intention was clearly to hit them in the head, unless you're also arguing than being angry also make you less physically capable to aim. Whatever was the basis for your decision to, in that moment, hit someone or pull the trigger or whatever, it was most certainly your intention. Standing there afterwards and say "but I didn't mean to hit him in the head I promise!" seems a bit hollow to me when someone's lying on the ground bleeding from where your fist most obviously hit him. When you performed the act, you almost certainly intend to do just that. There are accidents obviously where you might push someone and then they fall and hit their head on a table and die or whatever, but claiming you didn't mean to push them? If you didn't mean to do whatever you did, then why did you do it? Are you just a walking machine of random actions?

Yes, people are just walking machines of random instinctive reactions. Look if you've never been angry enough to really lose control, and I can tell you haven't, then you have no perspective on it. You can't understand what it's like. I have on two occasions been that angry.



Considering that when I grew up, the one who usually became the most furious was me, I do assume that my emotional experience is at the very least above average. It's true that I don't know, and I'm not going to accept that I could be wrong but it doesn't actually change anything.

If you didn't lose control then you weren't really that angry. Period. It's empirical fact there. You may have believed you were, but if you didn't black out, if you didn't feel that real anger, then I have your experience was probably less intense.



People who can impossibly control their impulses are very much a danger to people around them and I belileve we should do something to restrict their interaction with the rest of society. We as a society have an obligation to protect the majority from a ticking time-bomb that can blow up in someone's face whenever. That is only if it is impossible. If it isn't impossible then it's possible. It could be varying degrees of difficult, but nature isnt fair. Either it's possible and then you can do it, and then you're responsible for your actions, or it's impossible and then the best thing you can do yourself is to limit your interaction with the rest of the world and its inhabitants to as little as possible.

So you believe that the mentally enfeebled and the emotively enfeebled should be barred from society. And you believe that there is no circumstance where losing emotional control is a reasonable and expected response. Just because you have never experienced a situation where you were unable to retain control does not mean others won't. I am frankly offended that you would suggest that in all situations maintaining control is possible.



No, that's not according to my logic. People who are mentally deficient should absolutely be treated differently. They should be taken care of (as in the literal meaning, not the mafia "take care of them" meaning) and appointed a legal guardian to be responsible for them, as they're usually not considered legal adults themselves. They aren't responsible for their actions; someone else is. The two people I've met with Schizophrenia seem quite capable of taking care of themelves though, as long as they take their medication. But yes, they should definitely be treated different.


So you're equality metric only applies until it doesn't. Convenient, eh?



Mental deficiency is quite different from a failure to either work on your impulse control or accept the consequences of your inability to "control your actions". That's normal regular people who simply try to excuse bad behavior with "I was angry" and thinking does makes it all okay.


There is no such thing as a "regular normal person" and a blind rage has much the same effect as a mental condition, similar chemical reactions, similar type of brain patterns. It's as much a temporary form of insanity as anything else is. Which is why it's a legal thing. Because it is a medically provable thing.



I'm not certain how you got that to be my logic either. First off I said I believe in mitigating circumstances (more on that later) and secondly it only applies to those who are performing an immoral action. Being raped isn't doing something immoral, it's the one who's doing it to you who's in the wrong. What I said was that being drunk doesn't lessen the moral implications of you performing a rape. That's very different. Obviously consent should be present, and inability to give consent for whatever reason makes the action rape. That isn't interfering with my logic at all.

I wasn't actually referring to that, I was referring in general to your earlier moral stance that there is no mitigating circumstance, that at no levels of anger can one be considered no longer fully responsible for their actions. Which is, of course, a mistake.



Yes, it's true that there are some circumstances that could be mitigating. For example, if you steal something because a person is holding a gun to your child's head and saying he'll shoot unless you do this is a mitigating circumstance. But it would be a mitigating circumstance for everyone equally, regardless of whatever emotional response you get from someone threatening to kill your child. As another example, if you were forcibly drugged by a halluciogenic drug then that's a mitigating circumstances. If you decide to take the drug yourself then it's really not.

I disagree, drugs can have unexpected effects. So what if the person doesn't really threaten you, he just implies it. And you're so afraid you consent? What then? It's still consent, you're not being directly threatened.



It's all about accepting responsibility for the choices you make. If you decide to get drunk then that's your choice and you should take responsibility for whatever you do while drunk. If you decide to hit someone in the head then that's a choice and you should take responsibility for it. Mitigating circumstances should be equal for everyone, regardless of what emotional response they bring.

But emotional response aren't equal for everyone, tolerance for certain drugs isn't equal for everyone, mitigating circumstances are not equal and therefore cannot be assumed to be equal. Either you can give people the benefit of the doubt, or you can lock up people that could not have behaved otherwise.



But if I'm not hurting my acquaintance by not inviting her to a social event, then I'm not hurting my friend either? Either being pushed out of a campain is hurtful or it isn't. She has just as much right as my friend to be there, I told her she was an equal part of the group by allowing her to join. Also, my friend is trying to take out his personal issues on someone else, valuing his feelings higher than hers.

You have a responsibility to include your friends in a social circumstance, or they're not your friends. And maybe your friend is incapable of understanding at this point, he's been through emotional trauma, he could be suffering from all kinds of trauma induced problems.



What if the two people involved where both acquaintances? How would you act then? And before you say seniority I am going to say again that not all people, as has been shown by this thread, believe it to be a thing in a roleplaying group, so using a value that they haven't agreed on is a bit unfair.


In my opinion it is a primarily universal metric, and furthermore you can use whatever unfair or fair metrics you choose in making a decision like this.



So basically the golden rule? Treating people as they "should" be treated is kind of a weird statement though unless you clarify exactly what that should means. Luckily for you then, that's what I do. I treat my friends as I expect them to treat me, so it's all good then?

But you don't treat them necessarily as they would expect you to treat them.



Do you know this with all your friends? In fact, how do you know that some people you consider acquaintances don't consider you a friend? That would be the largest amount of unfairness doesn't it? Maybe the ex in this scenario believes that after playing with you, the nice and funny DM, for over 3 months, that you are now friends? Maybe she would in fact do far more for you than your older friend would?

Well then again we have seniority, and furthermore people at my D&D groups while often my friends, are more typically acquaintances at least in a demonstrable sense.



Well, I am trying to game your system, but at the same time it's an honest question. I said I want to understand the limits and boundaries and implications of your moral system. Let's assume I made this vow before God (or a god whom I believe in), or whatever you consider to be the highest authority one can make vows to.

Why would you make the vow? That's more important than to whom the vow is made. In your case it represents trying to tie down a system to a circumstance where in the first case the vow is impossible. Nobody can treat all people equally.



Actually I would argue that my moral system is set to protect the things other's value (which is themselves). Can't you explain it to me as if I was your child and you were trying to teach me why some things are right and others wrong and which these things are?

I have, and you simply have refused to acknowledge that those metrics are acceptable to use. Different values systems make it impossible for me to fully explain it to you, as I've shown above you value a different moral system, you have different opinions as to how a moral system should be implemented, and different opinions about what it should it value. As such my moral system will never make sense to you, the same as yours sounds like complete insanity to me.



It isn't how it winds up being in practice? Sicily is very much an honor-driven family based culture and I thought most people in america definitely consider that legal chaos when applied inside their own borders (how they view it in Sicily itself I don't know). Also, if I am going to supply more examples of how it leads to chaos then I need to understand the limits and boundaries first.


America has a variety of cultures. Not all of whom believe that honor systems lead to chaos when applied in their own borders. The majority of the south feel differently in that regard, people in certain immigrant cultures feel differently, people in rural cultures feel differently. Also I am not America, my morals and metrics work differently than America, as I've pointed out a societal level moral system is very very very different from a personal one, something you'd be hard pressed to find a political theorist that disagrees with.



I think I've already shown you why my system doesn't permit date rape. But when thinking of "my system", please remove the emotional argument and think more of the treating everyone in a decent way thing, because the passion discussion is sort of sidetrack discussion I think (and one where my mind is a lot more fluid if given good arguments).

Your system already has been shown to not treat all people equally. So it fails, it's not an applicable system. The passion argument is mostly because you are assuming that all people's emotive responses are the same, and are as controllable. The problem is that you will not recognized a good argument because you are judging by a different metric. We have different values and as such see different problems with each others moral systems. It's like when people argue about abortion, their values systems are so different that they don't work for that circumstance.

Since your system is already shown to be not universally applicable, since you're not treating those with schizophrenia equally... you've already compromised it's base principles. So therefore it doesn't work as a universal system. It might work as a personal metric, but it isn't universally applicable. So we both have different personal metrics? Many people have differing values. Since neither of ours are applicable all the time, then we must argue for their merits as a personalized system, something which I think I have done.

[NichG]

I could write a very long post about all these points, but instead I think I'll just ask some questions:

- If its moral for there to be a law 'everyone must drive on the right side' does that mean its immoral for there to instead be a law 'everyone must drive on the left side'?

- If there is a law 'everyone must drive on the right side' is it always immoral to drive on the left side? Is it ever immoral to do so?

- If there is a law in the army 'someone who disobeys orders will be sent to jail', does it make sense for the same law to apply at a company? A school? A household?

[Lorsa]

Because I don't tie morality in with social laws. I think that's impossible. I don't prefer a world where the laws disagree with my morality, but I think that one where they do is unachievable. Since for me intent is a big part of morality.

Is it impossible for intent to be part of societal laws then?


But it doesn't seem illogical to me... Which is the crux of the problem in comparing two differing world views. What you see as logical in this case isn't what I see as logical, primarily because we have differing base assumptions about a moral systems.

Since you assume that it must work for the laws of society that naturally makes many ethical systems completely flawed in your eyes. But they've been used for years, so there's a question of your morality must be so universal would it work. I say no, no universal moral system has ever been found to work.

What do you mean with "work" in this case? That society wouldn't work if everyone was acting according to it? That people aren't following it?

You don't find the statement "I don't want everyone to act in a way I consider to be moral" to be problematic? I do want everyone to act in a way I consider to be moral, and if I didn't I wouldn't really believe in my system.


I disagree completely. Society and morality are separate. I don't think that an inability to apply a personal moral system on a societal scale is a sign that the personal system is mistaken. I don't see why I'd have to believe that a moral system should be universal, again you're using your base assumptions here. Moral systems don't have to be universal to the level of being applied on a societal scale, this isn't economics you don't have to be able to scale things. Furthermore things that are moral on a societal scale (Just Preemptive War for example, I won't get more into that because it would hit real world religion) are not moral on a personal scale.

That by itself implies that a morality system does not need to be scalable, it's just a different set of rules for objects of different scale which is a natural consequence of them being fundamentally different.

You don't HAVE to believe that your system should be made universal, but if you don't you're saying that you don't want everyone to act in a way you consider to be moral. That seems a bit strange to me.

Even if you accept that there are different rules for different scales, don't you think that higher scaleability is an argument that speaks for one system over another? The more situations it can be applied to the better?

Also, what laws do you want society to follow? How do they differ from your moral code?


It is based on the thought that those are harmful to society. I don't think that assault, theft, or killing are always immoral for an individual, but they are generally always harmful to society. Which is why they are illegal.

There are plenty of situations where they aren't harmful to society. If I steal from someone who's filthy reach I haven't actually harmed society in any meaningful way. If I beat up a homeless bum on the street I haven't harmed society. If I kill someone who's mentally impaired in such a way that society has to spend a lot of money every year to take care of him, I'm actually doing society a favor. So not all laws are based on what is harmful to society but rather based on a belief that some actions are inherently wrong.

Yes, I do accept that there are, or could be, some situations where for example killing isn't immoral for an individual. The point was that the laws in this case isn't based on "what is best for society" but rather "this is wrong".


It might be easier to act in a way that you perceive as moral if this were the case, but you admit that even now the laws are flawed for this case, suggesting that your ideas about morality are not universally accepted, else all laws would match it. Furthermore, a system that is easier to follow is not necessarily a system that is more morally correct.

Not everyone is acting in an equally moral way or have as strong belief in the importance of it. I know that. Still, I think the fact that I could use my system as a baseline for creating working laws for society to be an argument in favor of my system. Isn't it better to have a system that is applicable under more circumstances?


They have a certain moral obligation to each other. They do have a culture based around honor principles, but I don't think they are the most moral example of a culture, I do respect that aspect of their culture though. Just as I respect the familial focus of the Afghan culture. I can respect certain moral elements of a culture without condoning all of them.

Well, by your system they ARE quite moral I would have thought? They honor their obligations above all else, isn't that being moral?


I disagree. Honor does not vanish because lives are not on the line. One's obligation to ones friends is not lessened by them not depending on your for their life. A friend should be tantamount to that, a friend should be somebody you can depend on to protect your life with theirs.

Yes, I agree that a friend should ideally be dependant on to protect your life with theirs. What I don't believe is that a friend should be dependant on to protect your life with someone else's.


I don't think that the military is exactly a "necessary evil". Yes they kill, but there are not many systems of morality for which ALL killing is immoral, few systems reject self-defense completely. Few systems reject violence completely. So while the military is a painful truth, and that one I'll buy, it's not necessarily a microcosm of all negative things in society.

Well, killing is illegal in society in general, so according to society, the military are doing things that are not normally allowed. It's not a microcosm of all negative things in society, of course not, but we say that they work under different rules compared to the rest of society. Thus what is moral in a military situation can't really be used to define morality outside of it.

And no, I don't reject self-defense. Just so that's clear.


I think the other problem here is that you are looking at an idealized system, whereas I am looking at a real system. You're system of morals has NEVER and I repeat NEVER EVER been implemented in any real way in society, whereas mine has. So mine works, yours doesn't. Sorry, that's a pretty rough point, but morality in a college classroom is only as good as it is in a dark alley.

So there's no value at all in trying to shape the world more into an ideal? That's a bit cynical. Also, I've been living with my system for all my life and it's been working fine so far, and if everyone did then dark alleys would be nothing to fear so that's another bonus point for me I think?


I was implying that I would attempt to punish my friend in some manner so you feel that justice has been done, in that case you wouldn't have to take justice into your own hands. Which I feel might even be right in this case. Although perhaps problematic. I would certainly stand up as a character witness for my friend in a courtroom in this case, even if he deserved to be indicted.

Alright. So there are some situations where you would punish your friends for their wrongdoings. Could you write me a list so I know the limits of acceptable behavior for your friends?



In some ways, yes.

Alright. I'm glad you're accepting the outcome of your ideals. Personally I think such a world would be very unfair and devaluing people who are born less strong, without a large family or access to guns.


Maybe, although I feel that social arguments and minor misbehavior is right-out. I think that your bar is set unrealistically high, in a way that will inevitably cause your friends to fail to meet it, and that is immoral.

Again, what is the acceptable list?

Also, if I can meet my own list, why would you assume that my friends would automatically fail to meet it?


Not legally, no. "He made me do it" is not considered mitigating legal circumstances, unless the person had some kind of authority over the other, and often even not then.

I wasn't talking about "he made me do it" as much as "he was goading me and then I had X emotional response and thus can't help but doing what I did".


Because you are rejecting your friend for society, which is a negative. Your friend has more importance or should. Maybe I just have better friends, but I would trust my friends with my life, I can't trust the average person on the street that way, as such it behooves me to preserve my friendships.

Well, I want the average person on the street to be able to trust me with his life. I want you, a stranger, to be able to interact with me and expect to be treated in a decent manner. When you're with me, I want you to feel safe. That I won't intentionally cause any physical or emotional harm to you, and that I would protect you from others doing the same towards you.

I think this is a good ideal, because it extends the same priviledges you give your friends to a larger demographic; the entire population of the world. Also, it means that the obligation I feel towards you is stronger than the one you feel towards me, which makes it unfair under your system and would cause you to treat me poorly even using your own code?


I don't trust society as a moral arbiter, as you seem to, and I particularly don't trust governments in that respect. I don't trust the police to respond appropriately.

I am saying that if you don't trust the society and it's law enforcement to respond appropriately then you should try to do something to change the society you live in or move to a part of the world where you feel more trust towards your neighbours. Being able to trust the police or not is a different problem than whether or not it's right to report your friends to them. If you don't trust the police then there's really no point in having it at all.


Yes, people are just walking machines of random instinctive reactions. Look if you've never been angry enough to really lose control, and I can tell you haven't, then you have no perspective on it. You can't understand what it's like. I have on two occasions been that angry.

That might be true.

I have been angry enough to hit a girl for cutting the line when in the food queue at school.

I have been angry enough to hit my sister with a metal stick.

I have been angry enough to bash my best friend's head towards the floor (but not strong enough to do any real harm).

I have been angry enough to push a guy into some metal thingies on the wall where people hang their jackets. If he hadn't been the largest guy in class and I the smallest I might have actually done some harm, because I certainly wanted to hurt him.

It's true that I've never been so angry as to not remember what I did afterwards.

In all these circumstances, everyone was very upset with me afterwards. They and their parents (and mine) said I had done something wrong. Logically I could understand them, because I don't think it's right to hit people with metal sticks, or bash someone's head in the floor or whatnot. So I realised that being angry makes me do things that are wrong and has since worked very hard to control and contain it to the point where I no longer get angry and certainly not in that way.

If I hadn't started working on, who knows where I would've ended up?


If you didn't lose control then you weren't really that angry. Period. It's empirical fact there. You may have believed you were, but if you didn't black out, if you didn't feel that real anger, then I have your experience was probably less intense.

I accept that my feelings might have been less intense. But that would still give me the right to speak about all emotions up to the intense I've felt myself, does it not?


So you believe that the mentally enfeebled and the emotively enfeebled should be barred from society. And you believe that there is no circumstance where losing emotional control is a reasonable and expected response. Just because you have never experienced a situation where you were unable to retain control does not mean others won't. I am frankly offended that you would suggest that in all situations maintaining control is possible.

What were the circumstances that lead up to these incidents? It's possible that I may agree that the response was appropriate to the situation, regardless of the feelings involved.


So you're equality metric only applies until it doesn't. Convenient, eh?

People who are mentally deficient in a way such that they cannot understand the consequences of their actions can't be held at a moral standard as others. I don't think that's a "convenient breech of my morality", I think it's a sad necessity or all moral systems.


There is no such thing as a "regular normal person" and a blind rage has much the same effect as a mental condition, similar chemical reactions, similar type of brain patterns. It's as much a temporary form of insanity as anything else is. Which is why it's a legal thing. Because it is a medically provable thing.

Yeah, but if you fall into a state of blinding rage and stab your wife because she asked you to take out the trash then I'm going to say that you lack emotional control and is unsafe for society. If you come home and find your son murdered by two people who are now in the process of strangling your wife and raping your daughter and you fall into blinding rage and kill them both I'm going to say "good riddance to them" and let you go without any punishment at all. Because the situation and circumstances where such that it's an appropriate response regardless of if you'd been furious or not.


I wasn't actually referring to that, I was referring in general to your earlier moral stance that there is no mitigating circumstance, that at no levels of anger can one be considered no longer fully responsible for their actions. Which is, of course, a mistake.

What if I alter it to "most levels of anger"?


I disagree, drugs can have unexpected effects. So what if the person doesn't really threaten you, he just implies it. And you're so afraid you consent? What then? It's still consent, you're not being directly threatened.

Yes, but you should know that drugs can have unexpected effects and as such experiment with them only in safe environments until you know what your reactions to them are. The situation with implied threat is a bit vague to judge. Was it an actual implied threat or is he just large and looks naturally imposing? What is an implied threat according to you?


But emotional response aren't equal for everyone, tolerance for certain drugs isn't equal for everyone, mitigating circumstances are not equal and therefore cannot be assumed to be equal. Either you can give people the benefit of the doubt, or you can lock up people that could not have behaved otherwise.

So if someone reacts with violent anger at the slightest minor incident then you're going to say "it's okay, this guy has just higher emotional response, so we can't punish him for it"? But if I do the same thing without being angry, I'm suddenly a bad person?


You have a responsibility to include your friends in a social circumstance, or they're not your friends. And maybe your friend is incapable of understanding at this point, he's been through emotional trauma, he could be suffering from all kinds of trauma induced problems.

Isn't it one of the geek social fallacies that says you have to include your friends in all social circumstances? I sometimes want to meet one friend without the other present. I don't feel that's morally wrong to do.

Yes, maybe my friend is incapable of understanding at this point. That's why I have to understand for him that on a basic level his request isn't right and thus say no. Hoepfully that will also save him from the guilt he could experience once's he's calmed down and found that he's been treating the poor ex unfairly without ever really wanting to.

If my friend is suffering from real emotional trauma (and not just acting immature), I am going to put the campaign on hold and spend time helping my friend through his issues, regardless of how long that might take and whatever it might involve (that doesn't hurt other people of course). Once he feels better, I am going to resume the campaign, invite his ex again and let him make the decision if he still can't be around her or if he finds it acceptable.


In my opinion it is a primarily universal metric, and furthermore you can use whatever unfair or fair metrics you choose in making a decision like this.

And I am telling you it isn't a universal metric, just as you were arguing that not everyone is following my moral code. You CAN use whatever fair or unfair metric you want when making a decision, but that doesn't make it right.


But you don't treat them necessarily as they would expect you to treat them.

That's not what you said though. You said as I would expect them to treat me. If you're arguing that you should treat your friends the way they expect you to treat them, then you have to walk around and ask all your friends how they expect to be treated.

Funnily enough I have done just that since starting this discussion, as I don't want to treat my friends unfairly.


Why would you make the vow? That's more important than to whom the vow is made. In your case it represents trying to tie down a system to a circumstance where in the first case the vow is impossible. Nobody can treat all people equally.

Maybe i took the vow because I feel treating all people equaly is a good ideal and I wanted to make sure that people that follow another system would still consider my actions correct?


I have, and you simply have refused to acknowledge that those metrics are acceptable to use. Different values systems make it impossible for me to fully explain it to you, as I've shown above you value a different moral system, you have different opinions as to how a moral system should be implemented, and different opinions about what it should it value. As such my moral system will never make sense to you, the same as yours sounds like complete insanity to me.

You haven't really told me the core value it is based on. Why are obligations to your friends this important? Why are obligations more important than not doing harm to strangers?

My system is based on a fairly easy to understand (I think) idea. My feelings are important to me, thus it is safe to assume other's feelings are important to them and that I should respect their feelings just as much as my own. I am important to me and feel that I have an intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with respect, thus it is safe to assume that other people are important to themselves as well and also want to be treated with respect.

Also, if they do not feel themselves or their feelings are important, or that they're worthy of respect, I don't cause any real harm by giving them higher value than they do themselves.

It's based around the core principle that everyone have an equal measure of intrinsic Value, beucase I myself feel I have Value and thus other people probably feel the same.


Your system already has been shown to not treat all people equally. So it fails, it's not an applicable system. The passion argument is mostly because you are assuming that all people's emotive responses are the same, and are as controllable. The problem is that you will not recognized a good argument because you are judging by a different metric. We have different values and as such see different problems with each others moral systems. It's like when people argue about abortion, their values systems are so different that they don't work for that circumstance.

Since your system is already shown to be not universally applicable, since you're not treating those with schizophrenia equally... you've already compromised it's base principles. So therefore it doesn't work as a universal system. It might work as a personal metric, but it isn't universally applicable. So we both have different personal metrics? Many people have differing values. Since neither of ours are applicable all the time, then we must argue for their merits as a personalized system, something which I think I have done.

I still consider people with Schizophrenia to have Value and I am going to treat them in the same manner as I do everyone. The problem with people who are mentally deficient in a way that they can't understand right and wrong, cause and effect or tell fantasy from reality is that they can impossibly live up to any moral code. Doesn't matter if it's mine or yours. So they have to be a special case regardless of what you value.

From what you've said, it seems that the merits of your system is "you'll be treated better if your a friend", whereas the merits of my system is "you'll be treated better if your not a friend". Since usually you have fewer friends compared to the rest of the world's population, there will be more people that benefit from my system and thus it is better for me if everyone around me was following my system as more people would be treating me better. Isn't that a net win in favor of my system if you look at it from a purely selfish viewpoint?


I could write a very long post about all these points, but instead I think I'll just ask some questions:

Long posts is the flavor of the month in this thread!


- If its moral for there to be a law 'everyone must drive on the right side' does that mean its immoral for there to instead be a law 'everyone must drive on the left side'?

No. It not being moral to have such a law doesn't automatically make the other law immoral. They could both be equally moral, you didn't specify the morality of the second law. If you said "the moral thing to do is to drive on the right side as oppossed to the left side" then in extension it would be moral to have such a law and immoral for its opposite as you're forcing a lot of people to act in a way that isn't moral. However, if driving on the right side is the moral thing to do, it doesn't necessarily make it immoral to drive on the left, so the second law is only immoral if you say that it's moral to have a law for driving on the right side AND immoral to have a law for driving on the left side.


- If there is a law 'everyone must drive on the right side' is it always immoral to drive on the left side? Is it ever immoral to do so?

No. Legality and morality are two different things. I think you can base legality on morality, but you can't base morality on legality.


- If there is a law in the army 'someone who disobeys orders will be sent to jail', does it make sense for the same law to apply at a company? A school? A household?

No. Absolutely not.

[AMFV]

You haven't really told me the core value it is based on it. Why are obligations to your friends this important? Why are obligations more important than not doing harm to strangers?

My system is based on a fairly easy to understand (I think) idea. My feelings are important to me, thus it is safe to assume other's feelings are important to them and that I should respect their feelings just as much as my own. I am important to me and feel that I have an intrinsic value and deserve to be treated with respect, thus it is safe to assume that other people are important to themselves as well and also want to be treated with respect.


This is the crux of the problem. I find your idea untenable and inapplicable, just as you find mine incomprehensible. I would recommend The Righteous Mind, as a read, while it focuses on American politics, it does manage to explain a lot of these issues.

The point is that we have different moral systems to the point that we can't even understand each other. I feel that obligations just are important. It's a deep fundamental truth for me. Without obligations society disintegrates, to my eyes. So the problem is that we have differing values metrics, we can't come to an understanding, because I cannot understand the way you think, and you probably cannot (I add the probably qualifier since I'm not sure if you can or not) understand the reasons behind my thinking.

Note: I'm not arguing that one way is better, but I am arguing that the difference in mindset makes coming to any kind of understanding tedious at best and impossible at worst. It's just like people with differing political opinions, you simply can't understand the other person, because their base assumptions are different.

[SowZ]

Note: I'm not arguing that one way is better, but I am arguing that the difference in mindset makes coming to any kind of understanding tedious at best and impossible at worst. It's just like people with differing political opinions, you simply can't understand the other person, because their base assumptions are different.

This hasn't been my experience, at all. Unless people are forming their political opinions purely from emotion and their whims, talking to people about areas of politics where we disagree helps each of us understand the other better. There is no reason I can't learn where someone else is coming from just because our core assumptions are different.

[The Grue]

Note: I'm not arguing that one way is better, but I am arguing that the difference in mindset makes coming to any kind of understanding tedious at best and impossible at worst.

Raise your hand if you reached that conclusion four pages ago.

[AMFV]

This hasn't been my experience, at all. Unless people are forming their political opinions purely from emotion and their whims, talking to people about areas of politics where we disagree helps each of us understand the other better. There is no reason I can't learn where someone else is coming from just because our core assumptions are different.

Well the problem is that different base assumptions about what is right or wrong lead to vastly different conclusions. I can't talk too much about it without violating forum rules with regards to real world politics, but suffice it to say that I have met staunch people on both political sides, who were very smart, who came to completely different conclusions due to differing base assumptions regarding how the world works.

There is a fundamental reason why most political positions have educated, intelligent supporters on both sides. Because they have differing base assumptions that lead to different conclusions.

Edit: And how many times have you been able to change somebody's mind when they formed it based on what was to their mind solid evidence?

[SowZ]

Well the problem is that different base assumptions about what is right or wrong lead to vastly different conclusions. I can't talk too much about it without violating forum rules with regards to real world politics, but suffice it to say that I have met staunch people on both political sides, who were very smart, who came to completely different conclusions due to differing base assumptions regarding how the world works.

There is a fundamental reason why most political positions have educated, intelligent supporters on both sides. Because they have differing base assumptions that lead to different conclusions.

Edit: And how many times have you been able to change somebody's mind when they formed it based on what was to their mind solid evidence?

That doesn't address what I said. I never talked about any of that. I was disagreeing with your statement that you can't understand each other because of different base assumptions.

I have changed people's minds countless occasions, and had my mind changed. Shoot, in one particularly enlightening debate, the other guy made some points that bugged me for months and ended with me registering for a totally different political party.

[NichG]

Well the problem is that different base assumptions about what is right or wrong lead to vastly different conclusions. I can't talk too much about it without violating forum rules with regards to real world politics, but suffice it to say that I have met staunch people on both political sides, who were very smart, who came to completely different conclusions due to differing base assumptions regarding how the world works.

There is a fundamental reason why most political positions have educated, intelligent supporters on both sides. Because they have differing base assumptions that lead to different conclusions.

Edit: And how many times have you been able to change somebody's mind when they formed it based on what was to their mind solid evidence?

'Convincing the other person' isn't the only possible goal of a debate though.

This is why its useful to have a goal in mind. You might realize e.g. that you can't convince someone else that your point of view is right, but you can understand their point of view in more depth by forcing them to argue for it. Which allows you to get at what those base assumptions are.

If someone's 'base assumption' is 'I want to help myself', they're not going to say 'I support this political agenda because I want to help myself', they're going to make a screen of socially acceptable reasons to support that agenda. The trick is, some people will actually support the agenda for those reasons, not just to help themselves. Some people will even support it for 'paradoxical' reasons - ones where the agenda actually acts against the reasons they say supports it.

Finding out what the specific case is allows you to know how future interactions with that person will go, and allows you to coach tangential discussion in terms that will make sense to the person. This is why in earlier discussion I switched from trying to convince AMFV to behave differently as DM to focusing on 'Do you understand the potential social consequences and accept them?'.

Another example: you might learn that someone is a staunch deontologist, so if (in the future) you're trying to argue a point about D&D alignment you can realize ahead of time that they're not going to be very responsive to any argument about utilitarianism in alignment or interpretive alignment. So you can avoid those side-conversations and instead focus on RAW interpretations or a meta-argument about the actual location of authority in D&D.

Or, if its a multi-poster thread and other posters are engaging in more of the conversation you find interesting/useful, you can figure out 'I should just ignore this guy's responses since he rejects the axioms of the debate but doesn't realize that that's whats going on'.

[AMFV]

That doesn't address what I said. I never talked about any of that. I was disagreeing with your statement that you can't understand each other because of different base assumptions.

I have changed people's minds countless occasions, and had my mind changed. Shoot, in one particularly enlightening debate, the other guy made some points that bugged me for months and ended with me registering for a totally different political party.

Well I disagree, I think that while understanding on a mental level may be possible, on an emotional level it never will be. I really can't get too much more into it without getting to politics sadly, but it is true. There are certain assumptions that would be completely contrary to each other. [Self-Scrubbed, if you want the example then PM me, since it is a real world political example and therefore is not really suitable for public posting]


'Convincing the other person' isn't the only possible goal of a debate though.


True.



This is why its useful to have a goal in mind. You might realize e.g. that you can't convince someone else that your point of view is right, but you can understand their point of view in more depth by forcing them to argue for it. Which allows you to get at what those base assumptions are.

But there must still be a point where you concede that neither side is really developing any understanding of the other side, and both sides are repeating the same arguments over and over again. There has to be not just a goal but a point of concession.



If someone's 'base assumption' is 'I want to help myself', they're not going to say 'I support this political agenda because I want to help myself', they're going to make a screen of socially acceptable reasons to support that agenda. The trick is, some people will actually support the agenda for those reasons, not just to help themselves. Some people will even support it for 'paradoxical' reasons - ones where the agenda actually acts against the reasons they say supports it.

That's not necessarily true. I've known somebody who "voted their pocketbook" every election and was proud of that fact. In some cultural frameworks self-support is a completely socially acceptable goal, not in all cultural frameworks but in many of them, so its important to recognize that while people may be disguising their actual motivations, it may not be for the reasons that you'd expect or with the motivations disguised that you would expect.



Finding out what the specific case is allows you to know how future interactions with that person will go, and allows you to coach tangential discussion in terms that will make sense to the person. This is why in earlier discussion I switched from trying to convince AMFV to behave differently as DM to focusing on 'Do you understand the potential social consequences and accept them?'.

True, and the debate did shift that way, I think our debate ended fairly well, with the me accepting the social consequences as such, however there again must be a concession point, where you realize that neither side is really budging.



Another example: you might learn that someone is a staunch deontologist, so if (in the future) you're trying to argue a point about D&D alignment you can realize ahead of time that they're not going to be very responsive to any argument about utilitarianism in alignment or interpretive alignment. So you can avoid those side-conversations and instead focus on RAW interpretations or a meta-argument about the actual location of authority in D&D.

True but De-ontology and Utilitarianism are really definable stances. The problem is that not all stances are definable philosophically in that rigid a framework. For example stating, 'I value tradition' which is a belief framework, which informs most beliefs that an individual may have, is not always a definable thing, and somebody for whom tradition is not important, it may not even be a recognizable baseline.



Or, if its a multi-poster thread and other posters are engaging in more of the conversation you find interesting/useful, you can figure out 'I should just ignore this guy's responses since he rejects the axioms of the debate but doesn't realize that that's whats going on'.

True, however that's not always the case in an actual debate, It may not be rejecting the axioms of the debate, so much as having a different understanding of the fundamental axioms of the debate, since we're dealing with a tricky social issue that becomes more of a factor. There are baseline social assumptions that are extremely different for even slight cultural differences. And so it becomes difficult to explain or even understand the other persons point of view.

For example in this debate, I don't understand Lorsa's point of view, not in any real sense, it sounds like something that's completely inapplicable in real-world society, to me. Also her stance that the government should regulate morality, is alien to me. I can't understand why somebody would come to those conclusions. Now I don't know if they're right or wrong, but I can't understand them, and from what she's posting she can't understand my viewpoint either, none of us have any real understanding. We can respect the other person much further than we could throw them, but we're not coming to any real understanding here, neither of us can, as far as I can tell. Maybe if somebody who understand the viewpoints could reframe them, that might help, but I doubt it.

[SowZ]

Well I disagree, I think that while understanding on a mental level may be possible, on an emotional level it never will be. I really can't get too much more into it without getting to politics sadly, but it is true. There are certain assumptions that would be completely contrary to each other. [Self-Scrubbed, if you want the example then PM me, since it is a real world political example and therefore is not really suitable for public posting]



True.



But there must still be a point where you concede that neither side is really developing any understanding of the other side, and both sides are repeating the same arguments over and over again. There has to be not just a goal but a point of concession.



That's not necessarily true. I've known somebody who "voted their pocketbook" every election and was proud of that fact. In some cultural frameworks self-support is a completely socially acceptable goal, not in all cultural frameworks but in many of them, so its important to recognize that while people may be disguising their actual motivations, it may not be for the reasons that you'd expect or with the motivations disguised that you would expect.



True, and the debate did shift that way, I think our debate ended fairly well, with the me accepting the social consequences as such, however there again must be a concession point, where you realize that neither side is really budging.



True but De-ontology and Utilitarianism are really definable stances. The problem is that not all stances are definable philosophically in that rigid a framework. For example stating, 'I value tradition' which is a belief framework, which informs most beliefs that an individual may have, is not always a definable thing, and somebody for whom tradition is not important, it may not even be a recognizable baseline.



True, however that's not always the case in an actual debate, It may not be rejecting the axioms of the debate, so much as having a different understanding of the fundamental axioms of the debate, since we're dealing with a tricky social issue that becomes more of a factor. There are baseline social assumptions that are extremely different for even slight cultural differences. And so it becomes difficult to explain or even understand the other persons point of view.

For example in this debate, I don't understand Lorsa's point of view, not in any real sense, it sounds like something that's completely inapplicable in real-world society, to me. Also her stance that the government should regulate morality, is alien to me. I can't understand why somebody would come to those conclusions. Now I don't know if they're right or wrong, but I can't understand them, and from what she's posting she can't understand my viewpoint either, none of us have any real understanding. We can respect the other person much further than we could throw them, but we're not coming to any real understanding here, neither of us can, as far as I can tell. Maybe if somebody who understand the viewpoints could reframe them, that might help, but I doubt it.

I doubt I'd agree with your example, honestly. I think any opinion, political or religious or what-have-you, is worth discussing. And the emotional root of that belief is something that can be identified and talked about. Sure, maybe you can't explain quite why you think it is better that the universe exists than doesn't exist, but we can examine that belief and say, "If that's true, wouldn't X be true?" and all kinds of things.

There's an emotional basis for most opinions when you get down to the root of them, but that shouldn't mean you can't explain or communicate that opinion. If you can't express and help others understand that basis, it's either because the opinion wasn't arrived to from logical thought but that's just how the person feels, (in which case I assign very little value to that opinion and don't know why the person is even presuming to argue in the first place if 'feeling it' is as valid as any other reason,) or it is because the person has a personal problem communicating that idea.

That doesn't mean the idea can't be communicated, and it certainly doesn't mean the idea can't be understood except by those who already believe it.

[AMFV]

I doubt I'd agree with your example, honestly. I think any opinion, political or religious or what-have-you, is worth discussing. And the emotional root of that belief is something that can be identified and talked about. Sure, maybe you can't explain quite why you think it is better that the universe exists than doesn't exist, but we can examine that belief and say, "If that's true, wouldn't X be true?" and all kinds of things.

There's an emotional basis for most opinions when you get down to the root of them, but that shouldn't mean you can't explain or communicate that opinion. If you can't express and help others understand that basis, it's either because the opinion wasn't arrived to from logical thought but that's just how the person feels, (in which case I assign very little value to that opinion and don't know why the person is even presuming to argue in the first place if 'feeling it' is as valid as any other reason,) or it is because the person has a personal problem communicating that idea.

That doesn't mean the idea can't be communicated, and it certainly doesn't mean the idea can't be understood except by those who already believe it.

Like I said, you should PM me if you want the example, because trust me, there is no middle ground for anybody in that particular example and there is no communication between sides. I can't continue this debate without much of the example. Suffice it to say that both sides characterize the other side as being evil in probably an irredeemable way, and that's not something you can resolve.

[NichG]

You can understand someone you think is evil though. To bring it back to tabletop games and away from RL examples, as a DM you do that every time you present a believable villain. You have to simultaneously conceive of someone who is entirely justified in their own mind and feels they have good reasons for doing what they do, while having those decisions be unacceptable to the rest of the world. Furthermore, they have to be sufficiently well-constructed so that they can't simply be convinced to stop by a few minutes of dialogue.

And ideally, if you do your job as a DM well, your players understand the villain by the end too.

[AMFV]

You can understand someone you think is evil though. To bring it back to tabletop games and away from RL examples, as a DM you do that every time you present a believable villain. You have to simultaneously conceive of someone who is entirely justified in their own mind and feels they have good reasons for doing what they do, while having those decisions be unacceptable to the rest of the world. Furthermore, they have to be sufficiently well-constructed so that they can't simply be convinced to stop by a few minutes of dialogue.

And ideally, if you do your job as a DM well, your players understand the villain by the end too.

But in real life it's much more complex since usually they think you are evil, because of differing base assumptions. That's part of the problem.

[NichG]

But in real life it's much more complex since usually they think you are evil, because of differing base assumptions. That's part of the problem.

This comes back to having alternate goals for a debate than convincing the opponent. If the goal is understanding, its not an issue - and if you achieve understanding you can better steer things in productive directions. If the goal is to convince the listeners, then it can actually help if they think you're evil - you can basically get the audience in your favor by taking the high road, while if the opponent refuses to also try to understand you they may find that such refusal reflects poorly on them in the eyes of the audience.

Even in the dubious position where your point is to get the other person to concede something to you despite the fact that they think you're evil, you can 'tack against' their opinion of you, the way you'd sail a boat into the wind - allow them to believe they're convincing you that you're evil but force them to accept certain things they had not previously believed in order to 'win the fight'.

[AMFV]

This comes back to having alternate goals for a debate than convincing the opponent. If the goal is understanding, its not an issue - and if you achieve understanding you can better steer things in productive directions. If the goal is to convince the listeners, then it can actually help if they think you're evil - you can basically get the audience in your favor by taking the high road, while if the opponent refuses to also try to understand you they may find that such refusal reflects poorly on them in the eyes of the audience.

Even in the dubious position where your point is to get the other person to concede something to you despite the fact that they think you're evil, you can 'tack against' their opinion of you, the way you'd sail a boat into the wind - allow them to believe they're convincing you that you're evil but force them to accept certain things they had not previously believed in order to 'win the fight'.

The problem is that "winning" is not always possible in a real life situation. Sometimes the base points are too disparate for any agreement to be reached between sides. In those cases concession is the only option, since you can't win, you can't change their mind, and damned if it'll change yours. That's what I'm saying, at this point, neither of the two main parties in the previous discussion can figure out why the other person holds the views that they do, ergo, any discussion is going to be fairly futile, because it extends beyond our (well at least my, and her stated) understanding.

[SowZ]

The problem is that "winning" is not always possible in a real life situation. Sometimes the base points are too disparate for any agreement to be reached between sides. In those cases concession is the only option, since you can't win, you can't change their mind, and damned if it'll change yours. That's what I'm saying, at this point, neither of the two main parties in the previous discussion can figure out why the other person holds the views that they do, ergo, any discussion is going to be fairly futile, because it extends beyond our (well at least my, and her stated) understanding.

I've never seen an example of that between two people who share a language. Sometimes they don't want to communicate, sometimes they lack the ability to communicate what they are feeling, sometimes they think the communication is too hard. But I think communication is possible, and that people can understand other people's ideas even when they lack the most fundamental base assumptions.

[AMFV]

I've never seen an example of that between two people who share a language. Sometimes they don't want to communicate, sometimes they lack the ability to communicate what they are feeling, sometimes they think the communication is too hard. But I think communication is possible, and that people can understand other people's ideas even when they lack the most fundamental base assumptions.

I disagree, understanding an idea on an intellectual level isn't the same as understanding it on a real level. Even understanding on an intellectual level is impossible with different principles, if I understand the words you are saying, it doesn't mean that I am understanding of the idea behind them, my interpretive capacity cannot extend to your ideas in all cases, because there cases where differing base assumptions present vastly different conclusions. And if you have the other assumption you'll be immoral, crazy, or worse to the other side. That's the problem is that certain arguments depend on their base assumptions for morality.

For example in the preceding argument. If we are judging by an equality based metric where treating all persons the same is paramount, my solution is vastly immoral and inappropriate, as has has been pointed out. If we are judging the preceding scenario suggesting that social obligation is paramount, then my scenario is the only really moral option. So basically once we have those base assumptions, then the other person is immoral, and neither of us can move away from that position without changing the base assumptions, and since those base assumptions are part of our greater moral framework that's easier said than done.

[NichG]

The problem is that "winning" is not always possible in a real life situation. Sometimes the base points are too disparate for any agreement to be reached between sides. In those cases concession is the only option, since you can't win, you can't change their mind, and damned if it'll change yours. That's what I'm saying, at this point, neither of the two main parties in the previous discussion can figure out why the other person holds the views that they do, ergo, any discussion is going to be fairly futile, because it extends beyond our (well at least my, and her stated) understanding.

Then your goal should not be to convince the other person, obviously. You should examine 'what do I want out of this conversation that I can achieve in a practical manner' then take steps to achieve it.

Know your goal, then you can tell if there's a reason for you to continue debating or not. If you have nothing to achieve, then its fine to step away. If you don't step away, you're implying that you have something left to achieve.

Take your conversation with Lorsa - its clear you have very different viewpoints, and a good portion of it does seem to be cultural. That doesn't mean 'it can't be understood', that means it has to be understood from the viewpoint of the origins of that culture and how that integrates into larger structures. You can try to consider 'why does this culture have these values?' and 'what purpose do these values serve?' and even 'what are the social consequences of these values?'. You can even examine your own views, from the point of view of 'why might someone else have a problem with this?' and 'what are the consequences of my views for other people?'. That doesn't mean changing your views, but it does lead to greater understanding.

Anyhow, my advice for the current conversation would be, don't respond to every two sentences of the other person's post; instead, pick the 'core point' and respond only to that, letting the rest get discarded. Its hard to hold a rational, useful discussion when it has subdivided itself into 10 parallel arguments.

[The Grue]

Anyhow, my advice for the current conversation would be, don't respond to every two sentences of the other person's post; instead, pick the 'core point' and respond only to that, letting the rest get discarded. Its hard to hold a rational, useful discussion when it has subdivided itself into 10 parallel arguments.

That, and it tends to balloon the thread pages into unwieldy sizes. I start with a paragraph, you respond to three parts of it with a paragraph each, I split your paragraphs into two parts and write a paragraph for each, etc...

[SowZ]

I disagree, understanding an idea on an intellectual level isn't the same as understanding it on a real level. Even understanding on an intellectual level is impossible with different principles, if I understand the words you are saying, it doesn't mean that I am understanding of the idea behind them, my interpretive capacity cannot extend to your ideas in all cases, because there cases where differing base assumptions present vastly different conclusions. And if you have the other assumption you'll be immoral, crazy, or worse to the other side. That's the problem is that certain arguments depend on their base assumptions for morality.

For example in the preceding argument. If we are judging by an equality based metric where treating all persons the same is paramount, my solution is vastly immoral and inappropriate, as has has been pointed out. If we are judging the preceding scenario suggesting that social obligation is paramount, then my scenario is the only really moral option. So basically once we have those base assumptions, then the other person is immoral, and neither of us can move away from that position without changing the base assumptions, and since those base assumptions are part of our greater moral framework that's easier said than done.

I can understand more than just the words, but the ideas behind someone else's viewpoint no matter how far removed it is from my own opinion.

[Lorsa]

@AMFV:

The crux of the problem, for me, is that I can't really understand you and part of what you last said to me is part of that reason. You said obligations just are important. If you can't explain why to me then how can anyone ever understand you? I'm fairly good at understanding but you're making it very difficult.

Since people were talking about goals, I've had 3 goals in this conversation. To understand a very different point to view, to evaluate whether or not I am the one in the wrong and to get you to think about the consequences of your morality.

This issue has been on my mind for the past week. I've been discussing it with some family and friends. It's been keeping me up at night. It takes me between 1-2 hours to write a reply. Matters of morality is very important to me and as I said several times I want to understand.

What bothers me is that you don't seem to take it quite as seriously. You can reply fairly quickly after a post in some cases, and you fail to answer many questions that I ask such as "what will a society based on your morality look like?" and "what actions will cause you to stop being friends with someone?". There are many more that you didn't really answer and by not doing so it makes it difficult for me to understand the complete viewpoint of yours.

To me, it seems that you really haven't given your morality any thought. I don't think you truly know the implications they have for the world and for yourself. Also, I think you hold some contradictory viewpoints, or at least things that don't make logical sense. I could be wrong, indeed I hope I am, but quite often your answer to an argument is "but this is wrong" without really explaining why or engaging in the actual argument.

I've started to think this is partly due to a difference in personality type. A friend of mine has been a bit obsessed lately with The Enneagram, she says it's one of the largest and most accepted psychological division of people. They have 9 main types, a few subtypes, and every type is guided by one "emotional center". There are bodytypes, hearttypes and braintypes. Based on this I came to think you are a bodytype. In the body center things like intuition, wrath and even morality is based.

I am a brainperson. To me understanding is very important, and when I don't understand something I get very upset. I judge thinsg by their logical merit and can quite easily see implications of various statements and opinions. While everyone is mainly dominate by 1 center, they have the other two centra on various levels. My problem is that I don't really have any intution at all. I don't understand what people mean when they say "gut feeilng" or "it just is, I can feel it". It's very alien concepts to me. My friends reason that this problem probably occured because as I said, I worked very hard when I was young to completely divorce myself of all anger, thinking it never led to any good and causing me to do all sorts of horrible actions. Indeed, during the times I was angry, killing seemed like a perfectly acceptable action. Since wrath is based in the body, my friends think that when I got rid of it I also lost other things that go with it such as intution. That somehow I lost the connection to my body.

To a bodyperson, someone such as myself can seem very cold and detached, something you did accuse me of if I remember correctly. Now the obvious thing of course is that neither centra is better than the other. For a person to be complete their needs to be balance. The point is that we have to learn from eachother.

So in a way that's what I'm hoping you can do for me. Help me understand and get in contact with the intution that makes you say that things "just are". Now your instincts can be wrong too, that's why it's important to explore them rationally and see where they lead you.

Whether or not you believe the personality types of the Enneagram, I think it's quite obvious that we are approaching this problem not from very different viewpoints but in very different ways. It's quite possible that the true answer to "what is moral" in this case lies somewhere between the two of us. But for us to gain any understanding of each other and meet somewhere, you need to try and understand what I am saying and logically examine your own views and also help me with this feeling of intution that you're basing your view of.

As I hope you might have noticed, I am very concerned with wanting to be a good person. I want to be the most moral person I can possible be, so when you tell me that I'm a horrible person that's treating people around me in immoral ways, it's causing me to evaluate what I am doing.

Oh, and about the "there can never to understanding", I think there can be, maybe not always though and I would much welcome the example you had about real world politics in a PM. Please send it to me if you want!

[AMFV]

@AMFV:

The crux of the problem, for me, is that I can't really understand you and part of what you last said to me is part of that reason. You said obligations just are important. If you can't explain why to me then how can anyone ever understand you? I'm fairly good at understanding but you're making it very difficult.

It's a base assumption for me, the obligations are important because they are. Why is equal treatment important? Particularly more important than other things. For me obligations are both a root of a working society, and they are a matter of integrity, which is paramount to my value as a person, so that is why those things are important to me, if obligations lose their value then society ceases to function properly, and chaos ensues.

Now you may not agree with that value, or even understand it, if you don't place the same value on obligation that is likely to be the case, but as to my part I can't understand why equal treatment would be so important.



Since people were talking about goals, I've had 3 goals in this conversation. To understand a very different point to view, to evaluate whether or not I am the one in the wrong and to get you to think about the consequences of your morality.

This issue has been on my mind for the past week. I've been discussing it with some family and friends. It's been keeping me up at night. It takes me between 1-2 hours to write a reply. Matters of morality is very important to me and as I said several times I want to understand.

What bothers me is that you don't seem to take it quite as seriously. You can reply fairly quickly after a post in some cases, and you fail to answer many questions that I ask such as "what will a society based on your morality look like?" and "what actions will cause you to stop being friends with someone?". There are many more that you didn't really answer and by not doing so it makes it difficult for me to understand the complete viewpoint of yours.

They're important to me as well, the reason why my answers seem to be so quick is because I've already thought most of this out. I also presented you with several societies with similar viewpoints. In fact obligation is a root in most societies. Honor is a root in many societies as well. Look at business transactions, many of them are carried out on a handshake, shaking hands can be used as a formal agreement in a legal sense, that's the importance that's placed on personal integrity even in today's society.

I didn't answer most of that, outside of providing examples, because you're asking for a doctoral dissertation, and I simply don't have time to write that level of response, it would be a doctoral dissertation, and that's beyond the scope of a forum debate, I can provide you with societies that work in a similar fashion, but to be honest there is no society that works exactly on my personal morality. For a variety of reasons, the first of which, is that for me personal and societal morality are vastly separate, so it's a non sequitur question, because for me to evaluate societal morality produces different responses, so I can't present a society like that, I can give examples of sub-sections that work sort of like that.

But demanding that I produce a society that works like that, only works if I believe that morality on a society or government level is the same as personal morality, and I don't. Personal morality is vastly different than the morality of a society, for a number of reasons, some of which I've already outlined. First and foremost, you know your intentions as a person, that allows you to measure the integrity and honesty in what you're doing, a society can never have that, therefore integrity cannot be a society metric, not in any real sense, but it can be a personal one. Respect, another moral metric of mine is incredibly difficult to translate into a societal level, at least in any way that makes sense, since it is difficult to tell the difference between deliberate disrespect and poor judgement. So those are two metrics that work on a personal but not a societal level, so you can't take my sort of morality at a societal level, it could be a weakness of it, but I think it's not, since it demands a greater degree of personal morality than a impartial societal system might.

Also I respond quickly because I tend to respond immediately, reading and responding almost as soon as you post, because I'm interested in the debate.



To me, it seems that you really haven't given your morality any thought. I don't think you truly know the implications they have for the world and for yourself. Also, I think you hold some contradictory viewpoints, or at least things that don't make logical sense. I could be wrong, indeed I hope I am, but quite often your answer to an argument is "but this is wrong" without really explaining why or not engaging in the actual argument.

I have given my morality a lot of thought, thank you very much. I've had to consider whether I thought it was moral to kill or help to kill other people, have you? That's about the most intense thinking with regards to your own personal morality as a person can get. I don't see any of my viewpoints as contradictory, perhaps difficult to explain but not directly contradictory.

This is the same as you don't see the contradictory parts of your own examples, like the logical conclusion of not making any allowances for impairment, or the fact that you wind up not treating friends as well as they are owed, it's because you and I have differing metrics, since our base assumptions are different, of course, our conclusions are going to appear nonsensical to each other.

If we had the same base assumptions about how a moral system could and should work, then we'd be able to see our conclusions through, but as we don't the whole matter is very difficult. For example you believe moral systems are universal, and societal. I believe that moral systems are personal, and traditional. Those base assumptions produce simply very different conclusions. I'd get into it more, but I really really don't want to write a dozen page paper on philosophy at this point in time.



I am a brainperson. To me understanding is very important, and when I don't understand something I get very upset. I judge thinsg by their logical merit and can quite easily see implications of various statements and opinions. While everyone is mainly dominate by 1 center, they have the other two centra on various levels. My problem is that I don't really have any intution at all. I don't understand what people mean when they say "gut feeilng" or "it just is, I can feel it". It's very alien concepts to me. My friends reason that this problem probably occured because as I said, I worked very hard when I was young to completely divorce myself of all anger, thinking it never led to any good and causing me to do all sorts of horrible actions. Indeed, during the times I was angry, killing seemed like a perfectly acceptable action. Since wrath is based in the body, my friends think that when I got rid of it I also lost other things that go with it such as intution. That somehow I lost the connection to my body.

That could be the case, but it should be noted that identifying yourself as the "rational" person in the debate is inherently accusing the other side of being "irrational", and that's at least a little bit poor form.

Again, my viewpoint is rational, if you have the same starting point, we're starting at different points, so even with the same exact scenario, our answers are going to be completely different. And we're never going to be able to understand each others' starting point completely, it's just how it is. It's like two people looking at the same painting and it saying completely different things to them, since you aren't inside my head it's impossible for you to completely understand the framework that I'm using to make the decisions I'm making.



To a bodyperson, someone such as myself can seem very cold and detached, something you did accuse me of if I remember correctly. Now the obvious thing of course is that neither centra is better than the other. For a person to be complete their needs to be balance. The point is that we have to learn from eachother.

I didn't accuse you of being cold and detached, I accused you of being unrealistic, it's a very different thing. I said that I could not see your system of ethics being applicable in a real world sense, which is in and of itself a detached assessment.



So in a way that's what I'm hoping you can do for me. Help me understand and get in contact with the intution that makes you say that things "just are". Now your instincts can be wrong too, that's why it's important to explore them rationally and see where they lead you.

Very little of my moral system is based on my instincts, a lot of it is based on tradition and my interpretation and study of those traditions, a lot of it is based on hundreds of hours of reading philosophy when I was younger and questioning what I should believe. None of it is reached without lots of thought. The problem is that these posts are already of an obscene length, and to communicate my entire moral system, it would be a thesis level, and that's beyond the amount of work I am willing to commit to this, although only just.



Whether or not you believe the personality types of the Enneagram, I think it's quite obvious that we are approaching this problem not from very different viewpoints but in very different ways. It's quite possible that the true answer to "what is moral" in this case lies somewhere between the two of us. But for us to gain any understanding of each other and meet somewhere, you need to try and understand what I am saying and logically examine your own views and also help me with this feeling of intution that you're basing your view of.

I have logically examined my own views. The problem is that because we have differing ideas about what a moral system is and should be, we naturally come to different logical conclusions. We could both be the most rational people in the world, but since we have different constraints we have different answers.

I've tried to explain that, and I've briefly tried to explain what I thought a moral system should and should not be, but I think you somewhat brushed that aside. I've tried in this post so hopefully it will be at least more clear there.



As I hope you might have noticed, I am very concerned with wanting to be a good person. I want to be the most moral person I can possible be, so when you tell me that I'm a horrible person that's treating people around me in immoral ways, it's causing me to evaluate what I am doing.


By my standards you would be behaving immorally, yes. Or at the very least in a less right way by my standard of what is right. It's a complex issue though. I will give you that.

Here I will try to lay this out more forward like. Note, I will be attempting to summarize what I've understood of your beliefs, so if I misinterpret them I apologize.

Your take on the situation, is that the friend who asked you, is behaving wrongly by asking you to remove another person from a social situation.

On this point, we are in agreement, that is placing an undue pressure on the host, when it is phrased as a direct question. However, I can understand that since I've been in a similar scenario, so it's not quite an unexpected thing.

Since you do not qualify emotional duress as a mitigating factor, you don't believe that this should be ignored.

Here we differ, I qualify emotional duress as a mitigating factor, although it shouldn't remove all the consequences for bad behavior, in this case the consequence would be me telling my friend off, and I'm not going to do that when he's in a bad place, so it does mitigate the consequence in this case

You believe that is your responsibility to encourage your friend to act in a moral fashion.

I believe that morality is entirely a personal matter, my friend's morality (and society's) for that matter isn't really my business. So here we have a pretty formidable break in viewpoints. Since you believe that you are responsible for your friend's morality, not acting to correct him is immoral, since I believe differently, that makes his poor behavior not a factor in my decision while it is a factor in yours.

You believe that all of the people have an equal right to be a part of this social function and that seniority, if not stated previously should not play a part.

I'm a traditionalist, as such I believe that seniority, always plays a role in most social events, the same way as you should always differ to the most experienced person in almost any situation. So here we have a different stress on traditions, since I believe that respect of the senior and more experienced is paramount, I can never discount seniority in a situation. Since you don't share that belief, you come to a clearly different conclusion

You believe that the only course of action is then to kick the guy.

If I agree with all of your assumptions along the way, that you are responsible for your friend, that emotions don't mitigate his poor behavior, that seniority isn't a factor if not stated previously, then I come to the same conclusion. Since my assumptions are fundamentally different however, I come to a very different conclusion. But yes given your assumptions, it would be logical, as would my conclusion given my assumptions, and I slightly resent being accused of having a less intellectual viewpoint, when we have a differing framework.



Oh, and about the "there can never to understanding", I think there can be, maybe not always though and I would much welcome the example you had about real world politics in a PM. Please send it to me if you want!

It's an American politics example. So it may or may not be something you'd be familiar with, if you want to hear it, then PM me and I'll send it to you.

[Lorsa]

I never meant to imply any irrationaly on your part. That wasn't really the point, rather that it's been pointed out to me that I need to connect more with something I don't really understand and that I thought you might understand that something better. As always, you know yourself best.

I am glad to hear you have given these things a lot of thought. As I said, it only seemed that way to me, I wasn't stating an objective truth. It is very welcomed to hear that I was wrong.

While part of me would like to get into thesis-long discussions about these subjects, I understand why it isn't possible. It would be nice if we could discuss these things face-to-face as well, I think it always help.

What I meant with the society-example is that I don't really know what it is like to live in Afghanistan, or parts of rural US or the like that you were referring to. Unless given some explanation as to how it works I can't really envision what it is like. I am sure you understand that, just as I understand if you don't have the time or energy or simply don't want to explain it in more detail. You have no obligation to write me a thesis after all.

Oh, and as I said, my equality argument is based on not being able to answer the question "who's feelings are more important?". One could argue that my own feelings should always be more important to me, but then the world turns into a selfish race for whoever is the strongest and can abuse others the most. One could argue that my friend's feelings should always be the most important to me, and someone else's feelings are most important for their friends. The problem is that not everyone has the same amount of friends, in some cases none at all, which means some people will end up being unfairly devalued. That's why the only satisfying answer I've come up with thus far is "noone's feelings are most important". Everyone has an equal value. The ideal that everyone has an equal value is also something that seem very alluring to me because it means that under whatever circumstances I was born, I would be equally important.


By my standards you would be behaving immorally, yes. Or at the very least in a less right way by my standard of what is right. It's a complex issue though. I will give you that.

Here I will try to lay this out more forward like. Note, I will be attempting to summarize what I've understood of your beliefs, so if I misinterpret them I apologize.

Your take on the situation, is that the friend who asked you, is behaving wrongly by asking you to remove another person from a social situation.

On this point, we are in agreement, that is placing an undue pressure on the host, when it is phrased as a direct question. However, I can understand that since I've been in a similar scenario, so it's not quite an unexpected thing.

Since you do not qualify emotional duress as a mitigating factor, you don't believe that this should be ignored.

Here we differ, I qualify emotional duress as a mitigating factor, although it shouldn't remove all the consequences for bad behavior, in this case the consequence would be me telling my friend off, and I'm not going to do that when he's in a bad place, so it does mitigate the consequence in this case

You believe that is your responsibility to encourage your friend to act in a moral fashion.

I believe that morality is entirely a personal matter, my friend's morality (and society's) for that matter isn't really my business. So here we have a pretty formidable break in viewpoints. Since you believe that you are responsible for your friend's morality, not acting to correct him is immoral, since I believe differently, that makes his poor behavior not a factor in my decision while it is a factor in yours.

You believe that all of the people have an equal right to be a part of this social function and that seniority, if not stated previously should not play a part.

I'm a traditionalist, as such I believe that seniority, always plays a role in most social events, the same way as you should always differ to the most experienced person in almost any situation. So here we have a different stress on traditions, since I believe that respect of the senior and more experienced is paramount, I can never discount seniority in a situation. Since you don't share that belief, you come to a clearly different conclusion

You believe that the only course of action is then to kick the guy.

If I agree with all of your assumptions along the way, that you are responsible for your friend, that emotions don't mitigate his poor behavior, that seniority isn't a factor if not stated previously, then I come to the same conclusion. Since my assumptions are fundamentally different however, I come to a very different conclusion. But yes given your assumptions, it would be logical, as would my conclusion given my assumptions, and I slightly resent being accused of having a less intellectual viewpoint, when we have a differing framework.

It's a fairly accurate representation, not much misinterpretation there! I'm sorry if you took offense by anything I said, I didn't mean to cause any. You know yourself far better than I do.

I am a bit curious what you thought of my latest idea though, to disregard that specific campaign for a while to spend time with my friend and whoever he wants to spend time with, roleplaying or whatever it entails and then at a later date, when he feels more emotionally stable, resume the previous campaign without him. Doesn't that mean I support him in a time of need but still treat his ex in a decent manner?

The questions I still have are what sort of consequences various emotional states remove and which they don't. How do I know the difference?

My idea that I should look after my friend's morality is because it's what I want my friends to do for me. I want to do what's right so when I'm not I want you to stop me, becuase it will be better for me than the guilt I will feel when I've calmed down and realise the outcome of my actions. In fact, to use your own words, I think I have an obligation to prevent my friends from doing something that they don't really want to do. This is something my friends have requested from me even.

It's true that I'm not much of a traditionalist. I also wonder what traditions you are talking about? Don't they change all the time? Or if you by traditionalist mean always looking to the one most senior, well I'm not much of that either obviously. My parents for example, despite being older than me, are wrong on some issues and I'm not going to listen to them just because their my parents.

Using your premise, I can also understand why you'd arrive at the conclusion you do. The problem for me is that you keep saying that there are exceptions, cut-off lines etc for when your obligations end but without giving me a list it's hard for me to live according to your moral rules or use them as a basis for other scenarios. Perhaps that's what we need, some other scenarios to discuss to see where our opinions differ and when they give the same answer.

It's not like I completely disregard my friends, thinking of them as unimportant or think I have no obligations to them at all. I haven't always treated them well, but that's mostly due to lack of communication between our parts and after talking about it they've understood and forgiven me, juat as I do with them.

[NichG]

Personally I like 'my feelings are most important, but its important for me to cultivate feelings that are stable with respect to the realities of the world and the realities of life'. In other words, a moral system where you don't force yourself to do the right thing in spite of yourself, but where you try to adjust your natural state to derive pleasure/happiness/etc from actions that are harmonious with the rest of the world.

I think that also allows more balance between the individual and society than a rule of 'only universal ethics matter', and avoids certain silly ethical extremes like 'if I don't spend every moment of my life in service to others, I am a terrible person' that can arise from society-dominant ethical systems. Essentially, your future happiness (that 'selfish' motive) is not only dependent on how you feel about things now, but also on the consequences of your choices in the long run.

Does it work if everyone does it? Well, it could be yes, it could be no. It depends on the context in which it is applied. If there's a dense enough population, then that population has to exert social pressures in order to shape the behavior of the individuals - pressures that do not originate from a moral prerogative (in this system at least), but rather originate from a practical need to regulate the behavior of the society and make things function.

Society has its needs, and it is in society's benefit to make filling those needs align with the inclinations of individuals. Individuals have needs and wants, and it is in the benefit of individuals to attempt to pick and choose needs and wants that align with existing societal pressures. Its a partnership of sorts.

[AMFV]

I never meant to imply any irrationaly on your part. That wasn't really the point, rather that it's been pointed out to me that I need to connect more with something I don't really understand and that I thought you might understand that something better. As always, you know yourself best.

I am glad to hear you have given these things a lot of thought. As I said, it only seemed that way to me, I wasn't stating an objective truth. It is very welcomed to hear that I was wrong.

Well a lot of this, is stuff that I've thought over before.



While part of me would like to get into thesis-long discussions about these subjects, I understand why it isn't possible. It would be nice if we could discuss these things face-to-face as well, I think it always help.

True, that sort of conversation is best had face to face. And thesis long definitions are often needed for this sort of thing, but I don't have time for that, I don't have time to write a graduate level thesis on this, especially since I've already committed extensive time to it.



What I meant with the society-example is that I don't really know what it is like to live in Afghanistan, or parts of rural US or the like that you were referring to. Unless given some explanation as to how it works I can't really envision what it is like. I am sure you understand that, just as I understand if you don't have the time or energy or simply don't want to explain it in more detail. You have no obligation to write me a thesis after all.

Well it's not even that, in this case, if you haven't experienced it, nothing I could do would effectively translate it for you. Since social baselines and mores and norms are so ingrained it would be very difficult for me to explain it to you without your initial biases shifting it, it's the same as me trying to understand a different culture, there are a lot of places where my biases shift the meanings of things.

If you want you could PM me with various scenarios and I could try to explain how those would be interpreted under those particular moral systems. That might help, since it's difficult to explain outside of a scenario system, and because there are places where the rules involvement judgement calls, as with any moral system taken into the real world.



Oh, and as I said, my equality argument is based on not being able to answer the question "who's feelings are more important?". One could argue that my own feelings should always be more important to me, but then the world turns into a selfish race for whoever is the strongest and can abuse others the most. One could argue that my friend's feelings should always be the most important to me, and someone else's feelings are most important for their friends. The problem is that not everyone has the same amount of friends, in some cases none at all, which means some people will end up being unfairly devalued. That's why the only satisfying answer I've come up with thus far is "noone's feelings are most important". Everyone has an equal value. The ideal that everyone has an equal value is also something that seem very alluring to me because it means that under whatever circumstances I was born, I would be equally important.

Well I don't think that feelings play into it in an important way here. I'm not as concerned for my friend's feelings as I am for preserving his well-being. It's not really my job to avoid hurting people's feelings, and it's overall a futile endeavor.

I think we've hit another difference in overall baseline. For me avoiding hurt feelings is a nice side benefit, but not really a factor that informs my moral decisions. That's almost certainly cultural having come from the culture of the US Military, where those sort of feelings are not put a premium. I've found that trying to prevent hurt feelings is generally impossible, so I put other factors as more significant.

Furthermore, I accept that people are going to have emotional reactions to things that I do, and I accept that that's their right. But emotional reactions are fundamentally unpredictable and often close to random, so basing a system around something random unpredictable and random is to my mind a dangerous idea.



It's a fairly accurate representation, not much misinterpretation there! I'm sorry if you took offense by anything I said, I didn't mean to cause any. You know yourself far better than I do.

I am a bit curious what you thought of my latest idea though, to disregard that specific campaign for a while to spend time with my friend and whoever he wants to spend time with, roleplaying or whatever it entails and then at a later date, when he feels more emotionally stable, resume the previous campaign without him. Doesn't that mean I support him in a time of need but still treat his ex in a decent manner?

I don't think that would be immoral by my particular system, a bit clunky perhaps, and you really are making yourself a slave to the desires of your friend, which may be impracticable particularly in this case. But if you have the time and are willing to make that commitment I see no problem with it.

The danger is that that is a commitment at a much higher level than simply running a game, you are actively committing yourself to your friend's well-being in a way that is beyond even a regular commitment to it. So you can't let him down at that point since you've committed more to it.



The questions I still have are what sort of consequences various emotional states remove and which they don't. How do I know the difference?


For me it mostly has to do with forgiving social faux pas. I'll forgive a friend if he goes into drunken racist tirade, because drunk talk isn't something that should be used to damage a friendship. I'll forgive a friend more readily if he disrespects me or our friendship when he's asngry, or forgive him insults more readily when he's angry.



My idea that I should look after my friend's morality is because it's what I want my friends to do for me. I want to do what's right so when I'm not I want you to stop me, becuase it will be better for me than the guilt I will feel when I've calmed down and realise the outcome of my actions. In fact, to use your own words, I think I have an obligation to prevent my friends from doing something that they don't really want to do. This is something my friends have requested from me even.

Well that's a completely different paradigm. I would also want my friends to inform me when I'm doing something inappropriate, maybe even stop me. But you're saying you'd punish somebody after the fact. Which is not your responsibility to my belief, you're not supposed to punish your friends. You could inform them that what they are doing is wrong, or "dude, not cool." that sort of behavior, but punishment isn't your responsibility, unless you are directly responsible for their behavior, which you are not.

I have pretty strong views on this, I've been in charge of people, and I've had to punish people, because their behavior was my responsibility. So I understand exactly what that entails, and it's definitely not something that I'd want for a friend, it is not my responsibility to control anyone's behavior over whom I do not have direct authority, it's not even possible to do so, trust me.



It's true that I'm not much of a traditionalist. I also wonder what traditions you are talking about? Don't they change all the time? Or if you by traditionalist mean always looking to the one most senior, well I'm not much of that either obviously. My parents for example, despite being older than me, are wrong on some issues and I'm not going to listen to them just because their my parents.

Well traditions change, but very very slowly, by consensus of many many people. I would definitely look to the most senior person in a scenario, even if I think they're dead wrong I would listen to them. It's the same with my parents. I've been around the block, and I've found that it's a good idea to pay attention when somebody with more experience suggests something, it doesn't mean they're always right, but I've found of the things that inspire correctness, experience is the biggest one.



Using your premise, I can also understand why you'd arrive at the conclusion you do. The problem for me is that you keep saying that there are exceptions, cut-off lines etc for when your obligations end but without giving me a list it's hard for me to live according to your moral rules or use them as a basis for other scenarios. Perhaps that's what we need, some other scenarios to discuss to see where our opinions differ and when they give the same answer.

Well it's hard to provide you with a list of cut-offs for things like that. The exceptions are mostly bad behavior to the point that it violates friendship so that there is no way to return to a friendship with that person. Without specific scenarios it is difficult for me to provide you with that sort of thing, if you want again, you can either here, or in a PM provide me with scenarios and I will explain what exactly the moral reasoning behind my reactions to those scenarios would be.



It's not like I completely disregard my friends, thinking of them as unimportant or think I have no obligations to them at all. I haven't always treated them well, but that's mostly due to lack of communication between our parts and after talking about it they've understood and forgiven me, juat as I do with them.

Yes, and that's due to the way things work. If no hurt feeling are your goal, you're going to have problems as I said, or at least I assume you would. Although to be honest my moral paradigm doesn't place that high a valuation on feelings.

[Stephen_E]

I've never seen an example of that between two people who share a language. Sometimes they don't want to communicate, sometimes they lack the ability to communicate what they are feeling, sometimes they think the communication is too hard. But I think communication is possible, and that people can understand other people's ideas even when they lack the most fundamental base assumptions.

I would note that people can technically share a language, as in "they both speak English", but their definitions of concepts and beliefs are so different that for the purpose of some political or philosophical discussions they are speaking two different languages. I think this is what AFFV is talking about.

[SowZ]

I would note that people can technically share a language, as in "they both speak English", but their definitions of concepts and beliefs are so different that for the purpose of some political or philosophical discussions they are speaking two different languages. I think this is what AFFV is talking about.

That's part of it, but he also seems to believe that it is a waste of time to try and understand ideas fundamentally different then your own. I believe the opposite.

[AMFV]

That's part of it, but he also seems to believe that it is a waste of time to try and understand ideas fundamentally different then your own. I believe the opposite.

I don't believe that it's a waste of time to try to understand ideas fundamentally different than my own. I believe that trying to fundamentally shift my belief structure in any way beyond a thought exercise is difficult and probably futile. I cannot simply change my perception of the world because I envision that to be so. Studying how other people perceive the world is useful, but there is a point where there is no merit to further argument against somebody, because fundamental precepts are preventing the information from ever really being conveyed, it quickly becomes a pointless moment where everybody is repeating themselves and wondering why the other person can't understand.

[SowZ]

I don't believe that it's a waste of time to try to understand ideas fundamentally different than my own. I believe that trying to fundamentally shift my belief structure in any way beyond a thought exercise is difficult and probably futile. I cannot simply change my perception of the world because I envision that to be so. Studying how other people perceive the world is useful, but there is a point where there is no merit to further argument against somebody, because fundamental precepts are preventing the information from ever really being conveyed, it quickly becomes a pointless moment where everybody is repeating themselves and wondering why the other person can't understand.

And here is our disagreement. You don't have to change your perception on the world to understand someone else's perception, no matter how different. Otherwise, how could a writer or actor effectively write or portray a character with totally different beliefs and values?

[AMFV]

And here is our disagreement. You don't have to change your perception on the world to understand someone else's perception, no matter how different. Otherwise, how could a writer or actor effectively write or portray a character with totally different beliefs and values?

Being able to portray and being able to understand are completely different things. In the long run, method acting has not been proven to be superior to regular acting, because understanding and portraying is a different thing. I've been around enough and met enough smart people with views very contrary to mine, and views that many would consider immoral and offensive to believe that I can really understand everyone's perspective.

Maybe it's having been exposed to so many different cultural impetus, from when I traveled and meeting different people in the military, and experience that particular difference of culture that led me to my current understanding. This is purely my experience, but people that have not really experienced something for themselves can never really understand it. I can tell this any time I talk to somebody who has been in the military, and somebody who hasn't. If you haven't had those feeling and that experience you can't understand it, you never will, it's just how it is. I will never be able to understand certain viewpoints, because I don't hold them, no matter how I try to shift to look at them, I will never really have a good understanding of them. That's how it is, in my experience. The fact that you refuse to understand that viewpoint that I have, is seemingly proof or least supportive of my assertion.

And again understanding from an intellectual perspective is one thing, but because your base assumptions are different other viewpoints will be wrong, unless you can change your base assumptions certain viewpoints will always be wrong to those base assumptions.

[SowZ]

Being able to portray and being able to understand are completely different things. In the long run, method acting has not been proven to be superior to regular acting, because understanding and portraying is a different thing. I've been around enough and met enough smart people with views very contrary to mine, and views that many would consider immoral and offensive to believe that I can really understand everyone's perspective.

Maybe it's having been exposed to so many different cultural impetus, from when I traveled and meeting different people in the military, and experience that particular difference of culture that led me to my current understanding. This is purely my experience, but people that have not really experienced something for themselves can never really understand it. I can tell this any time I talk to somebody who has been in the military, and somebody who hasn't. If you haven't had those feeling and that experience you can't understand it, you never will, it's just how it is. I will never be able to understand certain viewpoints, because I don't hold them, no matter how I try to shift to look at them, I will never really have a good understanding of them. That's how it is, in my experience. The fact that you refuse to understand that viewpoint that I have, is seemingly proof or least supportive of my assertion.

And again understanding from an intellectual perspective is one thing, but because your base assumptions are different other viewpoints will be wrong, unless you can change your base assumptions certain viewpoints will always be wrong to those base assumptions.

What about a writer? It takes serious effort, but getting into the mindset of a character who has totally different values than me and completely different approaches to morality and decision making is a talent I pride myself in. I don't need to actually change my personal opinions. I can separate myself from the equation when I want to examine a new line of thinking. Saying, "Okay, I may believe X is true, but what if Y were true?" And then do a whole thought experiment where I assume Y is true and re-examine my old paradigms.

And I think most people are capable of that. Maybe not everyone to the same degree, but still.

And just because you haven't been in the military doesn't mean you haven't seen other cultures. I've live in Denver now, but I've also lived in the woods of West Virginia and bush Alaskan islands. I'd be willing to guess that the cultural differences between a native Alaskan island in the bush and, say, Denver or Lincoln County, West Virginia are nearly as big as anything I'd have seen were I able to go military.

[AMFV]

What about a writer? It takes serious effort, but getting into the mindset of a character who has totally different values than me and completely different approaches to morality and decision making is a talent I pride myself in. I don't need to actually change my personal opinions. I can separate myself from the equation when I want to examine a new line of thinking. Saying, "Okay, I may believe X is true, but what if Y were true?" And then do a whole thought experiment where I assume Y is true and re-examine my old paradigms.

But you can't just rewrite your beliefs. You can't just change what you believe, you can speculate to kingdom come, but your speculation will be tainted, just like somebody imagining what being in the military would be like, you could get some of the base details right, but the emotive reality of it, that has to be experienced. And beliefs are a much more intense and personal thing than the experience of being in the military, so if that can't even really be simulated, and humans are notoriously poor at simulation, how could you simulate a belief in any real way.



And I think most people are capable of that. Maybe not everyone to the same degree, but still.

Again, it's the same thing as assuming you understand what it means to be in the military or to be a parent if you haven't experienced, at best it's a pale shade and at worst it's a conceit.



And just because you haven't been in the military doesn't mean you haven't seen other cultures. I've live in Denver now, but I've also lived in the woods of West Virginia and bush Alaskan islands. I'd be willing to guess that the cultural differences between a native Alaskan island in the bush and, say, Denver or Lincoln County, West Virginia are nearly as big as anything I'd have seen were I able to go military.

True, but you must then admit that there are experiences that others cannot simulate. I've never been to Alaska, I have no idea what culture there is like, even with study I could never understand it to the same degree that you do. And that's just baseline culture, we're not even near philosophical viewpoints yet. I could reason or attempt to simulate in my head what it might be like, but there's a very good chance I'd be wrong, and very little chance I'd be right, I'd be willing to wager that there is a near zero chance of a complete understanding based on my poor simulation.

If I can't even simulate what it's like to live in Alaska, and you can't even simulate what it's like to be in the military... how can we possibly expect to understand the intense baggages and emotive stuff that comes in with beliefs? I think to suppose that you can understand what somebody else truly feels or has experienced is at best a conceit, because in my experience its not the case. I can tell when somebody's been in the military, usually within minutes of talking to them, without any other information, because of shared experiences. It's a much deeper thing than a simple understanding, and beliefs are even more than that.

[SowZ]

But you can't just rewrite your beliefs. You can't just change what you believe, you can speculate to kingdom come, but your speculation will be tainted, just like somebody imagining what being in the military would be like, you could get some of the base details right, but the emotive reality of it, that has to be experienced. And beliefs are a much more intense and personal thing than the experience of being in the military, so if that can't even really be simulated, and humans are notoriously poor at simulation, how could you simulate a belief in any real way.



Again, it's the same thing as assuming you understand what it means to be in the military or to be a parent if you haven't experienced, at best it's a pale shade and at worst it's a conceit.



True, but you must then admit that there are experiences that others cannot simulate. I've never been to Alaska, I have no idea what culture there is like, even with study I could never understand it to the same degree that you do. And that's just baseline culture, we're not even near philosophical viewpoints yet. I could reason or attempt to simulate in my head what it might be like, but there's a very good chance I'd be wrong, and very little chance I'd be right, I'd be willing to wager that there is a near zero chance of a complete understanding based on my poor simulation.

If I can't even simulate what it's like to live in Alaska, and you can't even simulate what it's like to be in the military... how can we possibly expect to understand the intense baggages and emotive stuff that comes in with beliefs? I think to suppose that you can understand what somebody else truly feels or has experienced is at best a conceit, because in my experience its not the case. I can tell when somebody's been in the military, usually within minutes of talking to them, without any other information, because of shared experiences. It's a much deeper thing than a simple understanding, and beliefs are even more than that.

If we are talking about an emotional level, sure, I can't really understand it. The best I could to do to, say, try and understand what it is like to be in combat is to take experiences where I nearly lost my life, take fights I've been in, talk to people who have experienced it and try to combine all that in my head. I may get something vaguely similar, and I may not.

But that's emotional stuff. As for culture, sure, nothing beats living somewhere and talking to the people in person. There's no real substitute, and books can only get you so far.

So if by understand, you mean understanding how people feel emotionally and what it is like to be them, sure. There is an impassable wall and that wall is higher the less similar two people's lives have been. Some people, I like to think I have developed a skill for it myself, are pretty decent at imagining what it is like to be someone they aren't. But they still can't really know.

I won't argue that.

But I don't think that you need to understand someone on that deep of a level to understand their point of view or opinion. Sure, you might not know all the reasons why that particular person feels a certain way on a given issue. You might not know all the emotional baggage that caused them to come to that conclusion.

But I can still understand the viewpoint itself. (I'm about to give a silly example to avoid politics. Fill in the following example with any sincere, opinionated topic.) If I believe that bears are the coolest animal, and someone else thinks lions are the coolest, I can understand why someone would think that. I can get inside the mindset of why a person would think lions are so cool and not be confused as to why someone would settle on that conclusion. The more people who love these lions that I talk to, the more thoroughly I understand the sub-set of people who claim lions are the coolest.

[AMFV]

If we are talking about an emotional level, sure, I can't really understand it. The best I could to do to, say, try and understand what it is like to be in combat is to take experiences where I nearly lost my life, take fights I've been in, talk to people who have experienced it and try to combine all that in my head. I may get something vaguely similar, and I may not.

But that's emotional stuff. As for culture, sure, nothing beats living somewhere and talking to the people in person. There's no real substitute, and books can only get you so far.

So if by understand, you mean understanding how people feel emotionally and what it is like to be them, sure. There is an impassable wall and that wall is higher the less similar two people's lives have been. Some people, I like to think I have developed a skill for it myself, are pretty decent at imagining what it is like to be someone they aren't. But they still can't really know.

I won't argue that.

But I don't think that you need to understand someone on that deep of a level to understand their point of view or opinion. Sure, you might not know all the reasons why that particular person feels a certain way on a given issue. You might not know all the emotional baggage that caused them to come to that conclusion.

But I can still understand the viewpoint itself. (I'm about to give a silly example to avoid politics. Fill in the following example with any sincere, opinionated topic.) If I believe that bears are the coolest animal, and someone else thinks lions are the coolest, I can understand why someone would think that. I can get inside the mindset of why a person would think lions are so cool and not be confused as to why someone would settle on that conclusion. The more people who love these lions that I talk to, the more thoroughly I understand the sub-set of people who claim lions are the coolest.

But you can't ever really understand it, you can say "Lions have these positive points", but to your mind they will never outweigh those of bears, so you're biased and unable to understand why somebody would choose a bear over a lion, because for you it's not even a choice it's how it is. For them it's the same. You can make assumptions about the group of people, you can say "people that like Lions are likely to be from X group", because stereotyping and cataloging are fundamental human talents. But you still won't be able to understand why they would pick Lions over Bears.

As such you'll never be able to understand the fundamental part of what makes them Lion people instead of Bear people, all of your stereotypes and conclusions will not be able to account for the fact that you fundamentally believe that they've all made a wrong turn somewhere, that you can't follow. At worst, you'll believe that they're all misinformed and its your job to correct them, at best you'll never be able to understand them, for you being a Lion person is like a kind of insanity, because they are willingly clinging to a belief that you find irrational and poorly conceived.

It's part of the reason why when I've met people who are of the Lion variety, I've had trouble with it, I've met people who loved Lions who were much smarter than I am, and figuring why somebody would pick the wrong option when they are smarter than I am, is extremely challenging. Fundamentally I realize that we have to be looking at different things, and while I may and there's a very weak may be able to make some assumptions about those things, I will never be able to understand their choice.

[SowZ]

But you can't ever really understand it, you can say "Lions have these positive points", but to your mind they will never outweigh those of bears, so you're biased and unable to understand why somebody would choose a bear over a lion, because for you it's not even a choice it's how it is. For them it's the same. You can make assumptions about the group of people, you can say "people that like Lions are likely to be from X group", because stereotyping and cataloging are fundamental human talents. But you still won't be able to understand why they would pick Lions over Bears.

As such you'll never be able to understand the fundamental part of what makes them Lion people instead of Bear people, all of your stereotypes and conclusions will not be able to account for the fact that you fundamentally believe that they've all made a wrong turn somewhere, that you can't follow. At worst, you'll believe that they're all misinformed and its your job to correct them, at best you'll never be able to understand them, for you being a Lion person is like a kind of insanity, because they are willingly clinging to a belief that you find irrational and poorly conceived.

It's part of the reason why when I've met people who are of the Lion variety, I've had trouble with it, I've met people who loved Lions who were much smarter than I am, and figuring why somebody would pick the wrong option when they are smarter than I am, is extremely challenging. Fundamentally I realize that we have to be looking at different things, and while I may and there's a very weak may be able to make some assumptions about those things, I will never be able to understand their choice.

That's not how my brain works, at least. There are plenty of opinions I disagree with that when someone explains to me why they think the other way, I go, "Yeah, I get that, that makes sense." I don't split people up into right and wrong about every issue, either. Some things I do, but there are many more things that I accept there are valid reasons to believe one of a dozen different ways on a topic and so one isn't necessarily wrong or right.

I encounter people who I disagree with who have rational and well conceived arguments for their opinion. I don't think it of them as a type of insane at all, but can respect that belief as a possibility of being right even if I don't agree. To me, bears may be cooler. But I can still see the reasons to say lions are cooler and acknowledge there is validity in those arguments.

[AMFV]

That's not how my brain works, at least. There are plenty of opinions I disagree with that when someone explains to me why they think the other way, I go, "Yeah, I get that, that makes sense." I don't split people up into right and wrong about every issue, either. Some things I do, but there are many more things that I accept there are valid reasons to believe one of a dozen different ways on a topic and so one isn't necessarily wrong or right.

I encounter people who I disagree with who have rational and well conceived arguments for their opinion. I don't think it of them as a type of insane at all, but can respect that belief as a possibility of being right even if I don't agree. To me, bears may be cooler. But I can still see the reasons to say lions are cooler and acknowledge there is validity in those arguments.

But you can't... Because if you thought those arguments were really valid you'd be on their side. Saying: "Your argument is as valid as mine, but I'm still staying over here on my side," is tantamount that there is no real validity to it, because to you it isn't valid. You can say "there a dozen reasons to believe differently about X topic." but if you have a stance, then you've concluded that there is one way to believe that is correct, or else you don't believe your own stance.

If I believe that Bears are cooler than Lions, I have to believe that Lions are less cool, it's absolutely the way it is. I might say, "Well I can see how you might think that Lions are cooler," but I'm still thinking that they're mistaken, and worse yet you're now patronizing them by pointing out things you think have merits in their argument when you feel that even with those things its insufficient.

If you have formulated an opinion about something, then you must have reasoned that other opinions are incorrect, that's all there is to it. Bears V. Lions for example, there is no middle ground, you can say Bears are cool, but Lions are cooler, but that doesn't matter, because you've picked a side, and that means that you don't agree with anybody on the other side, so either their logic is flawed, which is possible, they've been misinformed, also possible, or you are wrong. Without somebody changing your mind with regards to the issue there is no way you can understand them. Because you're assuming that they're operating on faulty logic, or are ignorant. Because you have a different conclusion and likely a different base of assumptions you can't really ever understand where they're coming from, you can think you do, but again that's patronizing, since you still think they're wrong, there's no magic "I like your arguments but you're still wrong as ****." That doesn't exist, you might as well say, "your arguments are ****," because that's what you're saying. That the reasons that they believe are insufficient, so you can't understand them if they came to that belief rationally, because you have ruled different things to have different degrees of reasonability.

[SowZ]

But you can't... Because if you thought those arguments were really valid you'd be on their side. Saying: "Your argument is as valid as mine, but I'm still staying over here on my side," is tantamount that there is no real validity to it, because to you it isn't valid. You can say "there a dozen reasons to believe differently about X topic." but if you have a stance, then you've concluded that there is one way to believe that is correct, or else you don't believe your own stance.

If I believe that Bears are cooler than Lions, I have to believe that Lions are less cool, it's absolutely the way it is. I might say, "Well I can see how you might think that Lions are cooler," but I'm still thinking that they're mistaken, and worse yet you're now patronizing them by pointing out things you think have merits in their argument when you feel that even with those things its insufficient.

If you have formulated an opinion about something, then you must have reasoned that other opinions are incorrect, that's all there is to it. Bears V. Lions for example, there is no middle ground, you can say Bears are cool, but Lions are cooler, but that doesn't matter, because you've picked a side, and that means that you don't agree with anybody on the other side, so either their logic is flawed, which is possible, they've been misinformed, also possible, or you are wrong. Without somebody changing your mind with regards to the issue there is no way you can understand them. Because you're assuming that they're operating on faulty logic, or are ignorant. Because you have a different conclusion and likely a different base of assumptions you can't really ever understand where they're coming from, you can think you do, but again that's patronizing, since you still think they're wrong, there's no magic "I like your arguments but you're still wrong as ****." That doesn't exist, you might as well say, "your arguments are ****," because that's what you're saying. That the reasons that they believe are insufficient, so you can't understand them if they came to that belief rationally, because you have ruled different things to have different degrees of reasonability.

I can still understand their reasons for thinking lions are cooler. Heck, maybe I used to think Lions are cooler and so understand their mind set perfectly. There's always the chance that I'm wrong, and both sides have good and valid points. The bear arguments ended up swaying me, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the arguments for lions. Those arguments didn't do it for me, but I don't think less of someone who does. I want to understand why they thin lions are cooler, and who knows, maybe they will change my mind?

[AMFV]

I can still understand their reasons for thinking lions are cooler. Heck, maybe I used to think Lions are cooler and so understand their mind set perfectly. There's always the chance that I'm wrong, and both sides have good and valid points. The bear arguments ended up swaying me, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the arguments for lions. Those arguments didn't do it for me, but I don't think less of someone who does. I want to understand why they thin lions are cooler, and who knows, maybe they will change my mind?

But they won't, this debate is in fact a microcosm of that. I have changed my mind on many issues, but once I do, then I lose my previous understanding of the other side, because "if they only understood what I now understand they'd change too", because we cannot accept two contradictory positions at once, either I am right, or I am not, but I can't accept both. The problem is that you can never really understand other people's positions, this is a big problem in debating and in politics, fundamentally you can only understand your own thinking and position, never really anybody elses', even if their thinking and yours is similar.

Edit: Furthermore this particular debate is exactly that sort of thing. Because you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you don't have my particular set of experiences. I've had several experiences that have convinced me that understanding other people is difficult to impossible under the best of circumstances, so now it defaults to a question of exhaustion, because neither of us, has been presenting new information, at all. Not for many posts, we've represented a similar scenario to the one we discussed earlier. As such the question is, can you understand my position? Do you understand my reasoning? Do you see any of us changing our position with only the same evidence reproduced, that seems unlikely to me. It seems like we've taken our stances and are at the point where our respective understandings won't allow us to move any closer or compromise any more.

What is ironic is that none of us have changed our stance at all, not even a little bit, which I think supports my argument in some small fashion.

[SowZ]

But they won't, this debate is in fact a microcosm of that. I have changed my mind on many issues, but once I do, then I lose my previous understanding of the other side, because "if they only understood what I now understand they'd change too", because we cannot accept two contradictory positions at once, either I am right, or I am not, but I can't accept both. The problem is that you can never really understand other people's positions, this is a big problem in debating and in politics, fundamentally you can only understand your own thinking and position, never really anybody elses', even if their thinking and yours is similar.

I don't lose my previous understanding of why I used to think a certain way. I can still remember and acknowledge the reasons why I used to think something. My mind doesn't work the way you are saying, and I don't think everyone else's does, either. You said earlier I must think people who don't agree with me are ignorant or insane. I don't think that. I think they have a different viewpoint, and either of us could be correct.

[AMFV]

I don't lose my previous understanding of why I used to think a certain way. I can still remember and acknowledge the reasons why I used to think something. My mind doesn't work the way you are saying, and I don't think everyone else's does, either. You said earlier I must think people who don't agree with me are ignorant or insane. I don't think that. I think they have a different viewpoint, and either of us could be correct.

But you don't think that way, you may assume that you understand, but you believe that the former you was misinformed. The only reason he believed that way is because he hadn't learned what you now know, ergo, he was ignorant. Once you learned whatever information you learned it was enough to convince you, so knowledge is equal to developing your current viewpoint and the reason the former you held that viewpoint is that he was not as well informed or as knowledgeable, or as experienced.

If he had your information, or maturity, or emotional content then he would have the same viewpoint as you since that's the correct viewpoint, at least to your mind. Unless you don't believe the things you believe. Which is really probably insane in and of itself.

For you this could be a truth, but... saying this about somebody else is fairly patronizing, at best.

Edit: And that's even a further difference in that the former you can be predicted somewhat by you, you can be aware of what he would have concluded given certain information, you can't have even that awareness of somebody else.

[SowZ]

But you don't think that way, you may assume that you understand, but you believe that the former you was misinformed. The only reason he believed that way is because he hadn't learned what you now know, ergo, he was ignorant. Once you learned whatever information you learned it was enough to convince you, so knowledge is equal to developing your current viewpoint and the reason the former you held that viewpoint is that he was not as well informed or as knowledgeable, or as experienced.

If he had your information, or maturity, or emotional content then he would have the same viewpoint as you since that's the correct viewpoint, at least to your mind. Unless you don't believe the things you believe. Which is really probably insane in and of itself.

For you this could be a truth, but... saying this about somebody else is fairly patronizing, at best.

Edit: And that's even a further difference in that the former you can be predicted somewhat by you, you can be aware of what he would have concluded given certain information, you can't have even that awareness of somebody else.

Or he may just value different types of evidence then me. Two people with the same data can come to different conclusions. I'd be curious to know his line of thinking that lead him to his conclusion, as it is bound to be a different line of thinking from mine.

[AMFV]

Or he may just value different types of evidence then me. Two people with the same data can come to different conclusions. I'd be curious to know his line of thinking that lead him to his conclusion, as it is bound to be a different line of thinking from mine.

Yes, but you can't understand why he came to that conclusion because you, yourself haven't reached it. There is a fundamental difference in assumption, or in emotion, or in cognition, that you can't understand. Because he might have the same sort of thinking, the same degree of rationality, and come to a different conclusion, and you can't understand it.

You can't even understand really why you would have thought a certain way, as we've provided, the only explanation for you thinking differently when you were younger is that you had less information, or emotional content, or experience. Since you know feel differently, meaning that in your mind, the previous you was wrong. So he believed something incorrectly, for whatever reason. That means the closest you can now come to understanding somebody with the previous viewpoint is, "they believed the same thing that I did, till I learned, or experienced whatever, or grew older," which means that you put the same degree of wrongness as you did to the previous you, since that's your context for this.

Edit: You can't say you're giving somebody else's viewpoint equal validity, while stating that yours is right.

[SowZ]

Yes, but you can't understand why he came to that conclusion because you, yourself haven't reached it. There is a fundamental difference in assumption, or in emotion, or in cognition, that you can't understand. Because he might have the same sort of thinking, the same degree of rationality, and come to a different conclusion, and you can't understand it.

You can't even understand really why you would have thought a certain way, as we've provided, the only explanation for you thinking differently when you were younger is that you had less information, or emotional content, or experience. Since you know feel differently, meaning that in your mind, the previous you was wrong. So he believed something incorrectly, for whatever reason. That means the closest you can now come to understanding somebody with the previous viewpoint is, "they believed the same thing that I did, till I learned, or experienced whatever, or grew older," which means that you put the same degree of wrongness as you did to the previous you, since that's your context for this.

Edit: You can't say you're giving somebody else's viewpoint equal validity, while stating that yours is right.

I state that I believe my viewpoint to be right, not necessarily that it is right. That mine not seem like a difference, but it is a big one. My viewpoint could be wrong. Saying, "I believe X to be true," is far from saying "X is true."

Also, I don't need to understand all the emotions and history behind an opinion to understand the reasoning behind it. The line of thinking and the logic behind it is what I care about, not the other persons emotions.

[AMFV]

I state that I believe my viewpoint to be right, not necessarily that it is right. That mine not seem like a difference, but it is a big one. My viewpoint could be wrong. Saying, "I believe X to be true," is far from saying "X is true."

Also, I don't need to understand all the emotions and history behind an opinion to understand the reasoning behind it. The line of thinking and the logic behind it is what I care about, not the other persons emotions.

But if you can't understand the base assumptions you can't follow the opinion. Also you believe your viewpoint to be right, meaning that you believe others to be wrong. Functionally for you believing something to be true is tantamount to it being true. Just because you've changed your opinion on something doesn't mean that it's more or less true.

Furthermore, you can't always understand the reasoning behind an opinion, because... we could have disparate conclusions from the same evidence. Which means that one of us is wrong, naturally most people will accept that they could be wrong, but they aren't going to believe that, they're going to believe that they're right and that the alternative is wrong. So while you may think you understand somebody's reasoning, you can't replicate it, if you can't replicate something you don't understand it, if you can't explain something, you don't understand it, because you can neither replicate or explain the other person's reasoning, you don't understand it. Furthermore, since you have to suppose that your reasoning is correct, that means that even if you do try to simulate someone elses reasoning you are starting at the base assumption that there must be some point where it is flawed or mistaken.

[SowZ]

But if you can't understand the base assumptions you can't follow the opinion. Also you believe your viewpoint to be right, meaning that you believe others to be wrong. Functionally for you believing something to be true is tantamount to it being true. Just because you've changed your opinion on something doesn't mean that it's more or less true.

Furthermore, you can't always understand the reasoning behind an opinion, because... we could have disparate conclusions from the same evidence. Which means that one of us is wrong, naturally most people will accept that they could be wrong, but they aren't going to believe that, they're going to believe that they're right and that the alternative is wrong. So while you may think you understand somebody's reasoning, you can't replicate it, if you can't replicate something you don't understand it, if you can't explain something, you don't understand it, because you can neither replicate or explain the other person's reasoning, you don't understand it. Furthermore, since you have to suppose that your reasoning is correct, that means that even if you do try to simulate someone elses reasoning you are starting at the base assumption that there must be some point where it is flawed or mistaken.

I can understand the base assumptions of viewpoints I disagree with sometimes, other times I can't. Just because I came to a different conclusion doesn't mean I can't follow their logic. If someone step by steps why they believe something, and I think they made a logical leap, it doesn't mean I didn't follow their logic. It may be I followed it perfectly, but they had flawed logic in the first place. I can replicate the reasoning, especially if it is poor reasoning.

I make a habit of intentionally making logical trails that lead to a conclusion I disagree with. I will find an opinion that isn't mine and try and think up ways to reach that conclusion. As such, I am often very conflicted. I enjoy putting myself in a state of mind where I become my own Devil's Advocate. I don't necessarily think others are wrong, because I see both sides of most issues. I have a few strong opinions, but a lot more weak ones. Not weak for lack of reasoning, weak because I know good arguments on both sides.

Further, even if you are right this whole time, I would have the opposite attitude. If you are right, I wouldn't use that as an excuse to say, "Well, we can't understand each other and can't change each others minds, so it is a waste of time." I would do the opposite, and try even harder to understand at last as much as I can.

[AMFV]

I can understand the base assumptions of viewpoints I disagree with sometimes, other times I can't. Just because I came to a different conclusion doesn't mean I can't follow their logic. If someone step by steps why they believe something, and I think they made a logical leap, it doesn't mean I didn't follow their logic. It may be I followed it perfectly, but they had flawed logic in the first place. I can replicate the reasoning, especially if it is poor reasoning.

So you concede that you can't always understand other viewpoints?

Or it could be that you're wrong. Who knows, leaps in logic are difficult to follow for anybody, and the most logical way isn't always the most correct in conclusion. Without being able to follow the base assumptions you can't possibly replicate the reasoning, since all of the reasoning will flow from that.



I make a habit of intentionally making logical trails that lead to a conclusion I disagree with. I will find an opinion that isn't mine and try and think up ways to reach that conclusion. As such, I am often very conflicted. I enjoy putting myself in a state of mind where I become my own Devil's Advocate. I don't necessarily think others are wrong, because I see both sides of most issues. I have a few strong opinions, but a lot more weak ones. Not weak for lack of reasoning, weak because I know good arguments on both sides.

Every intelligent person believes this about themselves. It's never really true, at least not in any real sense, you can examine and think about the other side all you want, but you won't have their base assumptions, and if you do wind up changing your mind, you'll be hard pressed to replicate your previous assumptions. Believing that you are right changes a fundamental assumption, and that's something you can't counter.

I used to think this way, that I understood both sides of issues, but I've realized that I really don't, I can theorize about what somebody might say or might think to arrive at an opposite viewpoint, but I'm creating flawed logic in my head, I can obviously discover flaws in my own logic this way, and potentially flaws in other people's, so it isn't a useless exercise, but I can't understand why they think the way they do.

I will never be able to understand the Nazis (hopefully that's far enough back to be a historical example rather than a political one, in any case I'm referring to the historical party, not any current party), I can't fathom what would make them believe that way. Many of them were as intelligent as I am, many of them more intelligent, now I could believe that I have some kind of insight they lack, but that's hubris of the worst kind, I should just accept that whatever their reasons for believing as they did, it's beyond me. I don't agree with it, and I can theorize about motivations of one sort or another, but I can't have real understanding without being able to genuinely hold those positions and I can't, and I wouldn't imagine you could either, you can play devil's advocate, but you aren't a devil's advocate, you're playing it, its a representation, in the same way that an author or an actor represents something (to use your earlier examples), and in that sense it is removed from reality.



Further, even if you are right this whole time, I would have the opposite attitude. If you are right, I wouldn't use that as an excuse to say, "Well, we can't understand each other and can't change each others minds, so it is a waste of time." I would do the opposite, and try even harder to understand at last as much as I can.

Well at this point it is a waste of time, no offense, but I've been repeating myself for a good two pages, and you have also been repeating yourself, with no progress made, and as far as I can tell nothing learned about the other person, it's rote repetition at this point, neither have new information or anything that would enlighten the other person or inform a change in opinion, ergo we're just going in circles now, it's not that we can try harder to understand each other, it's that we've both hit the point where we are no longer willing to move in either direction and no new information is being presented. We've reached the end point, we have conclusions that are disparate, we have the same information, and neither one of us is wrong to our own devices. So it is in a sense a representation of what I was discussing.

[SowZ]

So you concede that you can't always understand other viewpoints?

Or it could be that you're wrong. Who knows, leaps in logic are difficult to follow for anybody, and the most logical way isn't always the most correct in conclusion. Without being able to follow the base assumptions you can't possibly replicate the reasoning, since all of the reasoning will flow from that.



Every intelligent person believes this about themselves. It's never really true, at least not in any real sense, you can examine and think about the other side all you want, but you won't have their base assumptions, and if you do wind up changing your mind, you'll be hard pressed to replicate your previous assumptions. Believing that you are right changes a fundamental assumption, and that's something you can't counter.

I used to think this way, that I understood both sides of issues, but I've realized that I really don't, I can theorize about what somebody might say or might think to arrive at an opposite viewpoint, but I'm creating flawed logic in my head, I can obviously discover flaws in my own logic this way, and potentially flaws in other people's, so it isn't a useless exercise, but I can't understand why they think the way they do.

I will never be able to understand the Nazis (hopefully that's far enough back to be a historical example rather than a political one, in any case I'm referring to the historical party, not any current party), I can't fathom what would make them believe that way. Many of them were as intelligent as I am, many of them more intelligent, now I could believe that I have some kind of insight they lack, but that's hubris of the worst kind, I should just accept that whatever their reasons for believing as they did, it's beyond me. I don't agree with it, and I can theorize about motivations of one sort or another, but I can't have real understanding without being able to genuinely hold those positions and I can't, and I wouldn't imagine you could either, you can play devil's advocate, but you aren't a devil's advocate, you're playing it, its a representation, in the same way that an author or an actor represents something (to use your earlier examples), and in that sense it is removed from reality.



Well at this point it is a waste of time, no offense, but I've been repeating myself for a good two pages, and you have also been repeating yourself, with no progress made, and as far as I can tell nothing learned about the other person, it's rote repetition at this point, neither have new information or anything that would enlighten the other person or inform a change in opinion, ergo we're just going in circles now, it's not that we can try harder to understand each other, it's that we've both hit the point where we are no longer willing to move in either direction and no new information is being presented. We've reached the end point, we have conclusions that are disparate, we have the same information, and neither one of us is wrong to our own devices. So it is in a sense a representation of what I was discussing.

Oh, I'll readily admit I can't always understand the other person's views. More often than not, probably, but not usually for a lack of trying. That doesn't mean that understanding is incapable, or that I never achieve it.

Yeah, we are talking in circles, kind of.

[AMFV]

Oh, I'll readily admit I can't always understand the other person's views. More often than not, probably, but not usually for a lack of trying. That doesn't mean that understanding is incapable, or that I never achieve it.

Yeah, we are talking in circles, kind of.

Well if you can't understand in some cases how can you reason that understanding is possible in all cases? That seems like a logical leap to me.

[SowZ]

Well if you can't understand in some cases how can you reason that understanding is possible in all cases? That seems like a logical leap to me.

Understanding doesn't happen in some cases because either I didn't put in the effort, the other person didn't communicate well enough, or one or both of us have some other limitation preventing communication. It's not because communicating the idea itself is inherently impossible. A different pair of people may succeed in communicating an idea where I and this other theoretical person failed.

[AMFV]

Understanding doesn't happen in some cases because either I didn't put in the effort, the other person didn't communicate well enough, or one or both of us have some other limitation preventing communication. It's not because communicating the idea itself is inherently impossible. A different pair of people may succeed in communicating an idea where I and this other theoretical person failed.

But that's not exactly following from the evidence as presented, you're supposing a flaw in communication or effort rather than a flaw in the process or understanding. There is equal likelihood of both, but your presupposition prevents you from agreeing with you my viewpoint, when the evidence could lead as easily to it as it could to yours.

[SowZ]

But that's not exactly following from the evidence as presented, you're supposing a flaw in communication or effort rather than a flaw in the process or understanding. There is equal likelihood of both, but your presupposition prevents you from agreeing with you my viewpoint, when the evidence could lead as easily to it as it could to yours.

No, because I can understand sometimes. Your assertion is that I can understand none of the time, which is not consistent with my experience.

[AMFV]

No, because I can understand sometimes. Your assertion is that I can understand none of the time, which is not consistent with my experience.

My assertion is that true understanding is impossible. You assert that understanding is always possible, which you, yourself, have admitted is not the case.

Edit: Furthermore you still can't simulate something that is completely alien to reality as you perceive it, while you might believe you can, you really can't, as such it's impossible to simulate your own precepts being really false.

[NichG]

Understanding is not the same as belief, or agreement. At its core, understanding can be tested by asking 'can you accurately predict the thing you think you understand?' You can predict a person without agreeing with them, believing the same things they do, etc. If you're really good, you can even translate between incompatible belief sets and figure out where they can compromise and where they can't - thats basically what any good mediator, diplomatic, or politician does for a living.

In the bears and lions example, the preference for bears or for lions is going to stem from some inherent character aspects. Perhaps I like bears because I like the woodlands, or even just because at some point in my life I saw a mama bear with her cubs and it as a transformative experience. Or because my school mascot was a bear.

Perhaps someone else likes lions because they like cats of all sorts. Or because at one point they went to a petting zoo and got to pet a lion cub. Or because they value laziness, and lions are lazier than bears.

But these are all 'factors'. I may not be able to guess that someone in particular got to pet a lion once and thats why they like lions, but if they tell me about why they like lions and bring that up, I can understand 'what that must have been like'. Even if I haven't had their particular formative experience, I've had other formative experiences. I know what it is like to have a sudden insight or revelation or appreciation for something new - for me, maybe it was listening to Les Miserables and realizing for the first time that music could interweave with an actor's portrayal to create something greater than both. Or understanding Noether's Theorem. Or reading my first book. But I can draw on that to understand how a single experience could form someone's opinions for years later.

And even if I didn't have those things to draw on, even if the other person was 'truly alien' in a way that no person you're going to meet on Earth will be, I can construct a model, look at correlations, look at records of previous behavior. The result won't be visceral - at first at least, though the more you work with models the more intuition you develop - but it may well still be predictive. This is basically what every physicist, chemist, biologist, etc must do to understand the fundamental units of matter or life - we study things for which we have no frame of reference until gradually we develop an intuition for the realities of their existence and interactions, to the point where we can not only predict them mathematically, but we can heuristically guess at what sorts of experiments might have interesting or useful results - at the end of the day, we teach ourselves to understand something alien.

[AMFV]

Understanding is not the same as belief, or agreement. At its core, understanding can be tested by asking 'can you accurately predict the thing you think you understand?' You can predict a person without agreeing with them, believing the same things they do, etc. If you're really good, you can even translate between incompatible belief sets and figure out where they can compromise and where they can't - thats basically what any good mediator, diplomatic, or politician does for a living.

In the bears and lions example, the preference for bears or for lions is going to stem from some inherent character aspects. Perhaps I like bears because I like the woodlands, or even just because at some point in my life I saw a mama bear with her cubs and it as a transformative experience. Or because my school mascot was a bear.

Perhaps someone else likes lions because they like cats of all sorts. Or because at one point they went to a petting zoo and got to pet a lion cub. Or because they value laziness, and lions are lazier than bears.

But these are all 'factors'. I may not be able to guess that someone in particular got to pet a lion once and thats why they like lions, but if they tell me about why they like lions and bring that up, I can understand 'what that must have been like'. Even if I haven't had their particular formative experience, I've had other formative experiences. I know what it is like to have a sudden insight or revelation or appreciation for something new - for me, maybe it was listening to Les Miserables and realizing for the first time that music could interweave with an actor's portrayal to create something greater than both. Or understanding Noether's Theorem. Or reading my first book. But I can draw on that to understand how a single experience could form someone's opinions for years later.

And even if I didn't have those things to draw on, even if the other person was 'truly alien' in a way that no person you're going to meet on Earth will be, I can construct a model, look at correlations, look at records of previous behavior. The result won't be visceral - at first at least, though the more you work with models the more intuition you develop - but it may well still be predictive. This is basically what every physicist, chemist, biologist, etc must do to understand the fundamental units of matter or life - we study things for which we have no frame of reference until gradually we develop an intuition for the realities of their existence and interactions, to the point where we can not only predict them mathematically, but we can heuristically guess at what sorts of experiments might have interesting or useful results - at the end of the day, we teach ourselves to understand something alien.

You can't model individual people, it's not possible to do so. You can vaguely model the actions of large groups of people, and even sociology isn't really a predictive science. The problem being that in a Bear v. Lion scenario you are making stereotypical assumptions, but the problem is that you can't understand their behavior or thinking, because it is different from your own. And therefore alien, the only way that you could is by employing deliberately flawed logic, according to you, now to assume that everybody that likes Bears over Lions has flawed logic, is probably a poor assumption.

Besides humanity is really not that predictable in the long run, you can make base predictions, but they're not usually very good, and there are far too many outliers for sociology or political science to be predictive in its models, it's not a hard science that way. Hard sciences make predictive models. Hell, biology doesn't really have good predictive models, you can make assertions but they aren't 100% even in biology, as far as something as complex as belief goes, that's absolutely impossible.

And you can't understand what it must have been like, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED IT you're saying, well I will take a similar experience and simulate how that must have felt. But you're just guessing at that point, first of all not everyone can like or appreciate Les Miserables, so everybody's experience at that moment is profoundly different, even those that do are likely to have an experience profoundly different from yours, and that's with the same thing. You're taking that and claiming you can model and simulate the behavior of somebody who has come to what you believe is a defective conclusion.

Edit: You can never understand what petting a lion and having your opinion changed by that would be like, unless it happens to you, and then you can't comprehend what petting a lion and not having your opinion changed would be like. You might be able to try to intellectually reproduce that, but in the end you are creating a simulation that leads to a conclusion you think is wrong. So it can't be an accurate simulation of that experience, because the end result is that the other person believes the conclusion to be right.

[NichG]

You can't model individual people, it's not possible to do so. You can vaguely model the actions of large groups of people, and even sociology isn't really a predictive science. The problem being that in a Bear v. Lion scenario you are making stereotypical assumptions, but the problem is that you can't understand their behavior or thinking, because it is different from your own. And therefore alien, the only way that you could is by employing deliberately flawed logic, according to you, now to assume that everybody that likes Bears over Lions has flawed logic, is probably a poor assumption.

Besides humanity is really not that predictable in the long run, you can make base predictions, but they're not usually very good, and there are far too many outliers for sociology or political science to be predictive in its models, it's not a hard science that way. Hard sciences make predictive models. Hell, biology doesn't really have good predictive models, you can make assertions but they aren't 100% even in biology, as far as something as complex as belief goes, that's absolutely impossible.


What does understanding people have to do with logic? In the question of whether you like bears or lions, there isn't one 'right answer' that all people attempt to derive from first principles, and some are 'doing it right' and others are 'doing it wrong'. Its going to be an emotional response to one's context, situation, and personality.

You and I predict people every day. Any time we talk with someone, we are making thousands of implicit predictions. Most of these are not challenging predictions - I can be comfortable talking with a friend about sensitive issues because I predict that they won't judge me, berate me, or stop being my friend about it. I can be comfortable walking into a room full of people I don't know because I predict that they will not suddenly decide to kill me. They're easy predictions.

Hard predictions are the ones where very little swings in the balance. Will you ask for vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream for dessert? But if you know someone well, you can guess those things. Someone who knows me well would be able to predict that, about 75% of the time I'll start my morning with a Trader Joe's powdered Chai, even though I have an entire cupboard full of different teas.

Even as a GM and as a player, you can see all sorts of examples of human predictability. I've been in campaigns where I knew it was safe to go up to the zombies and try to start a conversation, because I knew that the GM liked playing against type and liked social games and tricksy scenarios that tried to get you to make the wrong move, over 'smash its head in' type games. I've had players guess campaign twists with a fair degree of accuracy because 'it seems like a Nich-y plot to have the city be a living organism'



And you can't understand what it must have been like, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED IT you're saying, well I will take a similar experience and simulate how that must have felt. But you're just guessing at that point, first of all not everyone can like or appreciate Les Miserables, so everybody's experience at that moment is profoundly different, even those that do are likely to have an experience profoundly different from yours, and that's with the same thing. You're taking that and claiming you can model and simulate the behavior of somebody who has come to what you believe is a defective conclusion.

The first rule of understanding another person is, throw out your own preconceptions. If I'm so obsessed with declaring the other person's mind defective, no, I won't be able to understand anything at all about them. Once I've said 'they're just defective' then I've basically dismissed them - I won't understand them because subconsciously I don't care to or want to, and if I then try to build understanding I'll be working against that subconscious predjudice.

Instead, I have to avoid thinking of their viewpoint from my point of view entirely. It doesn't matter what I believe, I have to think 'what is the origin of their belief?'.



Edit: You can never understand what petting a lion and having your opinion changed by that would be like, unless it happens to you, and then you can't comprehend what petting a lion and not having your opinion changed would be like. You might be able to try to intellectually reproduce that, but in the end you are creating a simulation that leads to a conclusion you think is wrong. So it can't be an accurate simulation of that experience, because the end result is that the other person believes the conclusion to be right.

Logic isn't the right tool, but if you insist on logic then it does actually explain how you can do this - you and the other person do not share axioms.

If you give me the axiom 'pride is the most important virtue' then I can work outwards from that and determine what is logically consistent with that axiom. I can do that even if I personally do not hold that axiom to be true. I can then perform the same analysis for an axiom like 'pride is the worst sin', and come to different conclusions.

Being able to arrive at those conclusions doesn't mean I believe either of them - it means I'm able to apply logic to a set of axioms and derive what those axioms imply.

Here's a simple, stupid example. You were (or are) a soldier. If I told you 'imagine that there's a sniper on the roof of that building, how would you proceed across this area?' you would hopefully be able to come to a certain set of actions that would let you cross the area without being killed by the sniper. But I doubt you would then go and apply that assumption to your life as if it were true, because you understand it to be a hypothetical. Under the knowledge 'there is a sniper there' you would behave one way, but you can simultaneously process that and also know that there isn't really a sniper there.

[AMFV]

What does understanding people have to do with logic? In the question of whether you like bears or lions, there isn't one 'right answer' that all people attempt to derive from first principles, and some are 'doing it right' and others are 'doing it wrong'. Its going to be an emotional response to one's context, situation, and personality.

You and I predict people every day. Any time we talk with someone, we are making thousands of implicit predictions. Most of these are not challenging predictions - I can be comfortable talking with a friend about sensitive issues because I predict that they won't judge me, berate me, or stop being my friend about it. I can be comfortable walking into a room full of people I don't know because I predict that they will not suddenly decide to kill me. They're easy predictions.

Hard predictions are the ones where very little swings in the balance. Will you ask for vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream for dessert? But if you know someone well, you can guess those things. Someone who knows me well would be able to predict that, about 75% of the time I'll start my morning with a Trader Joe's powdered Chai, even though I have an entire cupboard full of different teas.

Even as a GM and as a player, you can see all sorts of examples of human predictability. I've been in campaigns where I knew it was safe to go up to the zombies and try to start a conversation, because I knew that the GM liked playing against type and liked social games and tricksy scenarios that tried to get you to make the wrong move, over 'smash its head in' type games. I've had players guess campaign twists with a fair degree of accuracy because 'it seems like a Nich-y plot to have the city be a living organism'


Social prediction is very separate from the ability to actually understand another person's viewpoint. You can say I think Timmy will tend to pick Chocolate over Vanilla, and that's a preference choice it isn't even a belief choice. But you can't understand why Timmy likes chocolate better, if the answer is "because he does," or "because that's his preference." Then you have no understanding of that preference. You can use knowledge about what people believe to suggest that they might act a certain way, but you can't understand how they fundamentally arrived at that knowledge.



The first rule of understanding another person is, throw out your own preconceptions. If I'm so obsessed with declaring the other person's mind defective, no, I won't be able to understand anything at all about them. Once I've said 'they're just defective' then I've basically dismissed them - I won't understand them because subconsciously I don't care to or want to, and if I then try to build understanding I'll be working against that subconscious predjudice.

Removing your own preconceptions is impossible in practice, nice in theory though. Because everything you think is colored by your preconceptions. You can make an active effort to fight against that, but the problem is that when presented with the same set of data, you made a different decision, so either they have to be wrong in what factors influenced their decision or you are. You can't understand the factors in any real way without coming to the other decision.

Furthermore, because all of our thinking demands that we use our prior preconceptions, language, culture, all of those are not removable, the notion that you could remove your preconceptions is a conceit at best, you simply cannot remove your base assumptions and continue to operate, in any real way. You may theorize but you're still acting within your own assumptions.



Instead, I have to avoid thinking of their viewpoint from my point of view entirely. It doesn't matter what I believe, I have to think 'what is the origin of their belief?'.

And you can't understand that, you can say, maybe they misunderstood X, or maybe the interpreted Y, a certain way. Maybe they placed greater weight on Q. But you can't really understand it, if two people look at the same painting and have different emotional reactions, and therefore beliefs about the painting and its author, you can't determine why the reactions were different beyond a base speculation, which is colored by your preconceptions, and worse still colored by your stereotypes and preconceptions about the person.



Logic isn't the right tool, but if you insist on logic then it does actually explain how you can do this - you and the other person do not share axioms.

If you give me the axiom 'pride is the most important virtue' then I can work outwards from that and determine what is logically consistent with that axiom. I can do that even if I personally do not hold that axiom to be true. I can then perform the same analysis for an axiom like 'pride is the worst sin', and come to different conclusions.

Well that's true if you're looking at a scenario where logic can only come to one conclusion, but that's hardly all scenarios. Real world logic tends to be more finicky than academic logic in most cases. It's why real world philosophy runs such a wide gamut.

You still can't explain why two people with the same stated axiom, would have differing conclusions, and that happens in the real world. Sometimes in startling or surprising ways. Without being able to access the fullness of their decision making, you're using an incomplete and flawed model.



Being able to arrive at those conclusions doesn't mean I believe either of them - it means I'm able to apply logic to a set of axioms and derive what those axioms imply.

Here's a simple, stupid example. You were (or are) a soldier. If I told you 'imagine that there's a sniper on the roof of that building, how would you proceed across this area?' you would hopefully be able to come to a certain set of actions that would let you cross the area without being killed by the sniper. But I doubt you would then go and apply that assumption to your life as if it were true, because you understand it to be a hypothetical. Under the knowledge 'there is a sniper there' you would behave one way, but you can simultaneously process that and also know that there isn't really a sniper there.

The problem is that there are dozens of ways I could respond to "there's a sniper on that roof," since we're talking about belief, I could disbelieve you, that happens, you could be lying to me. After all we've not set the scenario in such a way that this is not an option. Furthermore, this is a question of actions, which are much more predictable than beliefs or opinions are. For me the closer question would be, "Is it right to kill the sniper?" That's one that would get a variety of different answers based on different preconceptions and for different reasons, unless you understand the other person's full belief system, which is really impossible, you can't understand how they arrived at a particular decision.

[NichG]

The belief that a prediction must have 100% accuracy to be useful is a fundamentally flawed one. Your entire argument is based on 'well you can't be 100% sure'. But I don't need to be 100% sure of anything to function in life, and that includes understanding - and predicting - other people.

Your argument at this point consists of repeating 'but you can't really know'. That isn't an argument, its an assertion. But lets examine that more closely.

What does it mean in practice? If I can predict how someone will respond to something, predict what they might do in a situation, etc, then it doesn't really matter whether or not that ability comes from your arbitrary threshold for 'true' understanding or what you're calling 'flawed' understanding. Basically, its a conceit on your part that you get to define some 'true' level that you can deny others tautologically without reference to the practical use of what you're calling 'flawed'.

The question then is, why do you insist on this distinction if it doesn't actually have a real consequence as to the predictive power of a person's mental model?

[AMFV]

The belief that a prediction must have 100% accuracy to be useful is a fundamentally flawed one. Your entire argument is based on 'well you can't be 100% sure'. But I don't need to be 100% sure of anything to function in life, and that includes understanding - and predicting - other people.

Your argument at this point consists of repeating 'but you can't really know'. That isn't an argument, its an assertion. But lets examine that more closely.

What does it mean in practice? If I can predict how someone will respond to something, predict what they might do in a situation, etc, then it doesn't really matter whether or not that ability comes from your arbitrary threshold for 'true' understanding or what you're calling 'flawed' understanding. Basically, its a conceit on your part that you get to define some 'true' level that you can deny others tautologically without reference to the practical use of what you're calling 'flawed'.

The question then is, why do you insist on this distinction if it doesn't actually have a real consequence as to the predictive power of a person's mental model?

Because it is an important distinction, we're not trying to predict or model behavior here. We're trying to state a correct or morally beneficial line of behavior. If we were modelling behavior then it wouldn't matter, but since we're modelling belief it does. There is no way to model belief in any real sense, you can have fundamental precepts and the like, but modelling a belief system as it affects an individual person is very close to impossible.

Again if we were looking at "would Charles get one brand of Ice Cream over another?" that's a behavioral question and it can modeled, not well of course, individuals are impossible to model, it's only when you have a large group that you can really develop a good model as any sociologist will tell you, but that is a model-able scenario, you can say, "how is X group likely to react if you ask them for Chocolate or Vanilla ice cream?" But you can't say "Why does X group believe that Chocolate or Vanilla is better," since we're talking about belief scientific modeling kind of falls flat on its face at the best of times.

This isn't something that can be modeled by a sociological model, it's not behavioral, and for that matter sociological models do not generally apply to individuals since there are outliers, and I've worked with some Poly Sci and Social Science people, very very few of them use even close to a statistical degree of rigor in their material. Since that's not a tenable goal in a model that is that complex, individuals become even more complex than societies in general, while one might suspect the opposite, modelling a small element of a system is actually harder than modelling a system. But that's neither here nor there.

We're not discussing behavior we're discussing belief, which can't be modeled and really can't be understood if its not shared. Why do you think there are so many arguments over it, not because its something that people are passionate about, but because people believe that if only the other side had the right maturity or the right information, they'd believe the same. So the problem is that you can't really understand belief, I will cede that some behavior can be modeled, although possibly not well.

[NichG]

For now I think I'll leave aside questions as to whether belief can be understood or not - we disagree there and if you'll excuse a bit of analysis, I think you're strongly invested in the conclusion - your view on the transferability of belief seems to actually be part of your beliefs. So I'm probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

But your last post did bring up an interesting question:



Why do you think there are so many arguments over it, not because its something that people are passionate about, but because people believe that if only the other side had the right maturity or the right information, they'd believe the same.


I think this is insightful, and probably pretty accurate. Personally, though, I find it to be sort of depressing. I think you're right - in general, people tend to think 'there is one truth in the world' and everything for them has to flow through that lens. The problem is that this leads to bickering and basically pointless conflict. It seems to be so difficult for people to comprehend that 'this other person doesn't want the same things as I do'. The thing that'd be interesting to me is, how do you teach people to think more broadly?

Whether or not you agree that its possible to 'truly' understand others, building some form of understanding and, ultimately, acceptance of others would help alleviate a lot of conflicts. Even teaching people to look upon someone who does things differently/believes things differently as being 'right in their context' as opposed to 'wrong in my context' would be a good step forward.

Now, this is straying dangerously close to politics/religion, so I'll frame this in the context of something more topical for these boards - look at how people behave with respect to 'one-true-wayism' in RPGs.

Very often, you encounter people who argue that e.g. 'there is only one kind of D&D campaign that makes sense - the game is about murderhobos looting dungeons, and if you aren't playing that you're doing it wrong' or 'the role-play is all that matters, and if you focus too much on the system you're doing it wrong' or so on. But if I compare the frequency of that on these forums with other forums, its much reduced here in comparison (especially when I compare with, e.g., video-game forums and the 'hardcore vs casual' divide). The people here, for whatever reason, are better at putting themselves in other people's shoes and understanding that what they want from a game system is not the same as what the other person wants.

So, why do you think that is? How have people here managed to overcome this problem?

[AMFV]

For now I think I'll leave aside questions as to whether belief can be understood or not - we disagree there and if you'll excuse a bit of analysis, I think you're strongly invested in the conclusion - your view on the transferability of belief seems to actually be part of your beliefs. So I'm probably not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

But your last post did bring up an interesting question:



I think this is insightful, and probably pretty accurate. Personally, though, I find it to be sort of depressing. I think you're right - in general, people tend to think 'there is one truth in the world' and everything for them has to flow through that lens. The problem is that this leads to bickering and basically pointless conflict. It seems to be so difficult for people to comprehend that 'this other person doesn't want the same things as I do'. The thing that'd be interesting to me is, how do you teach people to think more broadly?

Whether or not you agree that its possible to 'truly' understand others, building some form of understanding and, ultimately, acceptance of others would help alleviate a lot of conflicts. Even teaching people to look upon someone who does things differently/believes things differently as being 'right in their context' as opposed to 'wrong in my context' would be a good step forward.

Now, this is straying dangerously close to politics/religion, so I'll frame this in the context of something more topical for these boards - look at how people behave with respect to 'one-true-wayism' in RPGs.

Very often, you encounter people who argue that e.g. 'there is only one kind of D&D campaign that makes sense - the game is about murderhobos looting dungeons, and if you aren't playing that you're doing it wrong' or 'the role-play is all that matters, and if you focus too much on the system you're doing it wrong' or so on. But if I compare the frequency of that on these forums with other forums, its much reduced here in comparison (especially when I compare with, e.g., video-game forums and the 'hardcore vs casual' divide). The people here, for whatever reason, are better at putting themselves in other people's shoes and understanding that what they want from a game system is not the same as what the other person wants.

So, why do you think that is? How have people here managed to overcome this problem?

To be honest I think it's mostly the forum rules and their very rapid and strict enforcement, which makes reacting to other people's playstyle untenable. As a note, this isn't criticizing forum rules, since that would be against those rules, I'm merely commenting that the enforcement of said rules is very uniform and efficient. I've been on some other forums recently and have certainly seen that sort of thing there. Also as far as the 3.5 subforums here go there are a few very prolific posters and it's kind of working like a closed system where differences are smoothing out over time.

I do find that this board is pretty good at avoiding the one-true-wayism, but most people still have their own ways, many of which are incomprehensible to me.

[SowZ]

My assertion is that true understanding is impossible. You assert that understanding is always possible, which you, yourself, have admitted is not the case.

Edit: Furthermore you still can't simulate something that is completely alien to reality as you perceive it, while you might believe you can, you really can't, as such it's impossible to simulate your own precepts being really false.

Understanding is possible under the right circumstances. It isn't always possible in every circumstance.

Also, I just plain don't think people who think differently than I do lack maturity or knowledge. They may know just as much as I do on that topic, but I don't think that makes them immature. They have different modes of thinking and different mind-sets/experiences. Why does that necessitate they are immature? When someone disagrees with me with good reasons, nothing resembling what you say goes through my head actually goes through my head.

I don't think, "Oh, if only they could hear all of my arguments or have my intelligence, surely they would change their mind!" I just don't, and no amount of insisting that I do think that way will make me think that way.

[AMFV]

Understanding is possible under the right circumstances. It isn't always possible in every circumstance.

Also, I just plain don't think people who think differently than I do lack maturity or knowledge. They may know just as much as I do on that topic, but I don't think that makes them immature. They have different modes of thinking and different mind-sets/experiences. Why does that necessitate they are immature? When someone disagrees with me with good reasons, nothing resembling what you say goes through my head actually goes through my head.

I don't think, "Oh, if only they could hear all of my arguments or have my intelligence, surely they would change their mind!" I just don't, and no amount of insisting that I do think that way will make me think that way.

Either you believe that you are correct or you don't. But if you believe that you are correct that means that by definition if there are other answers they must not be the correct answers. It is a particular kind of thinking that leads people to believe that they can give credence to other viewpoints while still clinging to the correctness of their own, in my opinion it's a poor line of thinking, since again you are still going to be looking at things through your own lines.

I'm not suggesting that you believe that people who disagree with you are immature, but I am suggesting that you believe that they are wrong, maturity of experience may play into this, or logic, or any number of things, but if you believe something different you have to believe that something has drawn them to the wrong conclusion, since you can't believe that you and they are simultaneously right without being capable of some very insane logic and doublethink.

[NichG]

Either you believe that you are correct or you don't. But if you believe that you are correct that means that by definition if there are other answers they must not be the correct answers. It is a particular kind of thinking that leads people to believe that they can give credence to other viewpoints while still clinging to the correctness of their own, in my opinion it's a poor line of thinking, since again you are still going to be looking at things through your own lines.

I'm not suggesting that you believe that people who disagree with you are immature, but I am suggesting that you believe that they are wrong, maturity of experience may play into this, or logic, or any number of things, but if you believe something different you have to believe that something has drawn them to the wrong conclusion, since you can't believe that you and they are simultaneously right without being capable of some very insane logic and doublethink.

Given that you claim you can't understand other people, I think its a bit much for you to claim you can tell other people how their own beliefs work.

Suffice to say, it is possible to believe you are right, and that someone else who believes differently from you is also right - for them. This may not be how you function, but its certainly how I and other people function.

I don't want to be a surgeon; I would much rather be a programmer. Someone else might want to be a surgeon but hates programming. I am right to decide to be a programmer; they are right to decide to be a surgeon; I can understand how their decision is right for them but would not be right for me.

I don't like the taste of meat. Other people do. I can understand why eating meat makes sense for them, even if it doesn't make sense for me. I don't believe that somehow they can be 'enlightened into understanding that meat tastes bad' any more than I could be 'enlightened into understanding that meat tastes good'. We are both right - meat tastes bad to me and good to them. There is no conflict.

[SowZ]

Either you believe that you are correct or you don't. But if you believe that you are correct that means that by definition if there are other answers they must not be the correct answers. It is a particular kind of thinking that leads people to believe that they can give credence to other viewpoints while still clinging to the correctness of their own, in my opinion it's a poor line of thinking, since again you are still going to be looking at things through your own lines.

I'm not suggesting that you believe that people who disagree with you are immature, but I am suggesting that you believe that they are wrong, maturity of experience may play into this, or logic, or any number of things, but if you believe something different you have to believe that something has drawn them to the wrong conclusion, since you can't believe that you and they are simultaneously right without being capable of some very insane logic and doublethink.

Often I'm not as interested in discovering why they must be wrong as I am in discovering their line of thinking. The vast majority of opinions are uncertain. Talking to people is a kind of research and opens one up to reevaluating their opinions.

By your logic, I can never in good faith research an opinion other than mine to see if it is valid. The whole time I am reading a paper or study with a different conclusion, I am thinking about how wrong it is and if only the writer knew what I knew. This is blatantly false. It is not the mind set I go into reading a paper with, or else I'm just wasting my time. I try and go into most discussions with the same attitude. I don't always succeed, but sometimes I do.

[AMFV]

Often I'm not as interested in discovering why they must be wrong as I am in discovering their line of thinking. The vast majority of opinions are uncertain. Talking to people is a kind of research and opens one up to reevaluating their opinions.

By your logic, I can never in good faith research an opinion other than mine to see if it is valid. The whole time I am reading a paper or study with a different conclusion, I am thinking about how wrong it is and if only the writer knew what I knew. This is blatantly false. It is not the mind set I go into reading a paper with, or else I'm just wasting my time. I try and go into most discussions with the same attitude. I don't always succeed, but sometimes I do.

That's not exactly true, I think you're conflating being able to understand why somebody believes something with being able to recognize merits of an opinion. Which are different things. If you haven't examined a position before you can certainly look to see if it has merit... But the thing I'm talking about is trying to further understand why somebody believes something that you don't believe, not examining something that you're not sure about, it's a very different type of thought process.


Given that you claim you can't understand other people, I think its a bit much for you to claim you can tell other people how their own beliefs work.

Suffice to say, it is possible to believe you are right, and that someone else who believes differently from you is also right - for them. This may not be how you function, but its certainly how I and other people function.

I don't want to be a surgeon; I would much rather be a programmer. Someone else might want to be a surgeon but hates programming. I am right to decide to be a programmer; they are right to decide to be a surgeon; I can understand how their decision is right for them but would not be right for me.

I don't like the taste of meat. Other people do. I can understand why eating meat makes sense for them, even if it doesn't make sense for me. I don't believe that somehow they can be 'enlightened into understanding that meat tastes bad' any more than I could be 'enlightened into understanding that meat tastes good'. We are both right - meat tastes bad to me and good to them. There is no conflict.

Those aren't beliefs, those are preferences, you keep talking about preferences not about values decisions. And even preferences cannot be understood on any real level if they're not your own. I like chocolate for example, I don't know why, I just do, I can't fathom why somebody might not like chocolate. I understand on an intellectual level that there are different tastes for different people, but not on any visceral level.

Furthermore, you are making the assumption that beliefs are tantamount to preferences, and they aren't, if something informs all of my moral decisions, it isn't tantamount to a preference about whether I like surgery or not, whether I like programming or not. It's a much bigger deal, and it's equally unfathomable to people who lack my belief structure.

I'm not talking about things where you agree to disagree, I'm talking about things where you assert the other side isn't correct. For example if I think that there's only one way to play D&D that means for me all other ways are wrong, and people are wrong for enjoying them, or at least incomprehensible to me at that time, if somebody picks vanilla over chocolate they're wrong, to my mind. Again, if you hold a preference you have to believe on some level that it is at least a tiny bit superior to other options, and then belief systems are even more complex.

This is due to the fact that if somebody orders vanilla I can still have all the chocolate I want. But if somebody believes that the things that I believe are morally wrong, then in their eyes I'm a bad person, and that's much more difficult thing to deal with, just as in my eyes somebody that violates my moral system is a bad person, or has bad character. That's why this is so important, not because it's a simple preferential matter, but because it completely informs my opinions about the world

[SowZ]

That's not exactly true, I think you're conflating being able to understand why somebody believes something with being able to recognize merits of an opinion. Which are different things. If you haven't examined a position before you can certainly look to see if it has merit... But the thing I'm talking about is trying to further understand why somebody believes something that you don't believe, not examining something that you're not sure about, it's a very different type of thought process.

And they may believe it because their brain works differently, they have different experiences, they value different types of evidence, etc. These are not signs of ignorance or less intelligence or less logic or less maturity. Just differences in people. You seem to believe there is a conflict in disagreeing with an opinion and also seeing it as valid. I don't see a conflict, there.

Not to say I think all truth is subjective. But some things are. As for morality, while I believe there are universal moral truths, I can't perfectly assess what those are/interpret them faultlessly so objectively speaking, another person has equal chances of being right as I do. Even something as charged as politics. There are tons of different approaches to, say, government. And it is possible multiple approaches could create equally stable societies. There isn't always a single best answer.


But if somebody believes that the things that I believe are morally wrong, then in their eyes I'm a bad person, and that's much more difficult thing to deal with, just as in my eyes somebody that violates my moral system is a bad person, or has bad character. That's why this is so important, not because it's a simple preferential matter, but because it completely informs my opinions about the world

Do you look at life this black and white? If someone holds different values to you, they must be a bad person? If someone disagrees with you on a moral issue, it follows they must think you are a bad person?

I've never actually met someone who thinks this way outside of attitudes that everyone is a bad person. I'm sure some people do look at life that way, but pretty much everyone I know can admit that people who have different moral outlooks then them can still be equally good people. This attitude is absolutely not something everyone as. If I'm going to judge your character, it is going to be based far, far more on what you do then what you believe. This is a very narrow way to look at life, I think. That anyone who doesn't have exactly your morals must be bad, and they must view you as bad, too.

I can't see how this attitude can breed anything but hatred and an 'us vs. them' attitude. Shoot, any person of authority who feels this way is more than likely to start a cult, I'd imagine, since such a, "If you disagree with me, you are a bad person," mind-set is one entirely consistent with a cult-like mentality and, I think, disparate from rational thought.

[AMFV]

And they may believe it because their brain works differently, they have different experiences, they value different types of evidence, etc. These are not signs of ignorance or less intelligence or less logic or less maturity. Just differences in people. You seem to believe there is a conflict in disagreeing with an opinion and also seeing it as valid. I don't see a conflict, there.

Not to say I think all truth is subjective. But lot of things are. There are tons of different approaches to, say, politics. And it is possible multiple approaches could create equally stable societies. There isn't always a single best answer. a

I disagree strongly. I don't think that there is a subjectivity to truth. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. You could have a different approach to mine and claim that it will work, but I am invested in my approach because I have to be, to believe its right I have to be invested in it.

I don't think that you can believe that something is a little bit true. That's not how the mind works, either something is true or it isn't. You might say, I can see how you can come to that point of view, but you're still going to think it's objectively less right, because you have to believe what you, yourself believe, either you believe something or you don't, and if you believe something it does preclude other people being right.

It doesn't mean that I demonize people who believe differently, or that I can't respect them, but it does mean that I can't understand the fullness of their belief, I can certainly understand the systems that they use to develop it. Or at least their stated precepts, but that doesn't mean I understand their belief.



Do you look at life this black and white? If someone holds different values to you, they must be a bad person? If someone disagrees with you on a moral issue, it follows they must think you are a bad person?

I've never actually met someone who thinks this way outside of attitudes that everyone is a bad person. I'm sure some people do look at life that way, but pretty much everyone I know can admit that people who have different moral outlooks then them can still be equally good people.

Sometimes yes. I believe in objective morality, how else could I look at the world. I'm stunned that you've never met anybody who has an objective system of morality. I don't believe that all other moral systems are incompatible with mine, or that all people who believe differently are terrible people.

But there are systems of morality that permit things which I consider to be objectively wrong, there are systems of social ethics that encourage things that I consider to be objectively wrong.

[SowZ]

I disagree strongly. I don't think that there is a subjectivity to truth. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. You could have a different approach to mine and claim that it will work, but I am invested in my approach because I have to be, to believe its right I have to be invested in it.

I don't think that you can believe that something is a little bit true. That's not how the mind works, either something is true or it isn't. You might say, I can see how you can come to that point of view, but you're still going to think it's objectively less right, because you have to believe what you, yourself believe, either you believe something or you don't, and if you believe something it does preclude other people being right.

It doesn't mean that I demonize people who believe differently, or that I can't respect them, but it does mean that I can't understand the fullness of their belief, I can certainly understand the systems that they use to develop it. Or at least their stated precepts, but that doesn't mean I understand their belief.

But see, even if all truth is objective, I am not the source of that truth. So in a few ways, to me, it may as well be subjective. Even if every possible question has one right answer, I don't know all those answers. So I think the most rational thing to do is admit that other answers could just as easily be right.

If I can prove some other view is illogical, I can think it is much less likely to be correct. If I can't, then I can see a lot of validity in it even if I don't accept it.


I disagree strongly. I don't think that there is a subjectivity to truth. Perhaps that's where our disagreement lies. You could have a different approach to mine and claim that it will work, but I am invested in my approach because I have to be, to believe its right I have to be invested in it.

I don't think that you can believe that something is a little bit true. That's not how the mind works, either something is true or it isn't. You might say, I can see how you can come to that point of view, but you're still going to think it's objectively less right, because you have to believe what you, yourself believe, either you believe something or you don't, and if you believe something it does preclude other people being right.

It doesn't mean that I demonize people who believe differently, or that I can't respect them, but it does mean that I can't understand the fullness of their belief, I can certainly understand the systems that they use to develop it. Or at least their stated precepts, but that doesn't mean I understand their belief.



Sometimes yes. I believe in objective morality, how else could I look at the world. I'm stunned that you've never met anybody who has an objective system of morality. I don't believe that all other moral systems are incompatible with mine, or that all people who believe differently are terrible people.

But there are systems of morality that permit things which I consider to be objectively wrong, there are systems of social ethics that encourage things that I consider to be objectively wrong.

I've met tons of people with objective morality systems, but almost no one who would say that anyone who doesn't have the exact same moral system is by consequence someone of low character. You're assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must think you a bad person is an insecure, irrational one. Because most people don't think that way,and your assumption they must think you to be unethical is incorrect.

People I've met with objective morality systems that I consider to be rational people would never say everyone who thinks differently or wrongly must be bad people. I don't follow that logic at all.

[AMFV]

But see, even if all truth is objective, I am not the source of that truth. So in a few ways, to me, it may as well be subjective. Even if every possible question has one right answer, I don't know all those answers. So I think the most rational thing to do is admit that other answers could just as easily be right.

If I can prove some other view is illogical, I can think it is much less likely to be correct. If I can't, then I can see a lot of validity in it even if I don't accept it.

What if it is contradictory to your truth though, there is a point where objective truth needs to matter, or where you need to make a stand. There's a viewpoint in current thinking that all perspectives other than your own need to be fully understood on an emotional level, and that believing that somebody who holds to certain thinking is wrong, is in and of itself bigoted, or wrong. That's a significant problem, because as I've said, it's patronizing to the people that don't believe the same things as you, "Oh, so you give my idea validity, but you're gonna go a different way, that mean's so much to me, that you think my idea is valid but wrong" because it has to be wrong to you, for you to have picked a different idea, and worse than patronizing it holds a position that there is no right or wrong when it comes to moral issues, meaning that it's all a matter of opinion which is nice, until you run into somebody with a genuinely abhorrent opinion, and that happens.

For example, to use a historical example, would you have thought that Hitler was morally right? In the whole holocaust deal? Would you say, "Well I don't agree with your position but I can really see how you got there."? Because that is the eventual logical conclusion of the stance that there is no real objective truth, you have no moral ground to stand on, even when it matters.

Or take the Rome debate from the other thread, if there is no objective moral truth, then slavery could be good in real life in a real way. It'd just be a matter of me coming to a different conclusion than you. That's the danger in that line of thinking.

[SowZ]

What if it is contradictory to your truth though, there is a point where objective truth needs to matter, or where you need to make a stand. There's a viewpoint in current thinking that all perspectives other than your own need to be fully understood on an emotional level, and that believing that somebody who holds to certain thinking is wrong, is in and of itself bigoted, or wrong. That's a significant problem, because as I've said, it's patronizing to the people that don't believe the same things as you, "Oh, so you give my idea validity, but you're gonna go a different way, that mean's so much to me, that you think my idea is valid but wrong" because it has to be wrong to you, for you to have picked a different idea, and worse than patronizing it holds a position that there is no right or wrong when it comes to moral issues, meaning that it's all a matter of opinion which is nice, until you run into somebody with a genuinely abhorrent opinion, and that happens.

For example, to use a historical example, would you have thought that Hitler was morally right? In the whole holocaust deal? Would you say, "Well I don't agree with your position but I can really see how you got there."? Because that is the eventual logical conclusion of the stance that there is no real objective truth, you have no moral ground to stand on, even when it matters.

Or take the Rome debate from the other thread, if there is no objective moral truth, then slavery could be good in real life in a real way. It'd just be a matter of me coming to a different conclusion than you. That's the danger in that line of thinking.

You are taking me out of context. I've clarified multiple times that I only lend validity to an opinion if I find it consistent and rational. As I said, I discount something if I see severe logical flaws in a line of thinking. I'll still try and understand how someone came to that conclusion, but I may not respect the attitude. Also, as I've said, it is not that I don't believe there are universal truths. It's just that there is no absolute way to find out what they are. That doesn't mean I can't condemn ideas that seem so irrational I find it highly, highly unlikely they are correct.

On the Rome issue. I will readily admit someone else could be right on that issue. Also, I talk about objectivity a lot and how sometimes I succeed in that and sometimes I fail. I bowed out of the Rome discussion because I realized I had failed to live up to that ideal in said thread.

I still wonder why you assume that people who disagree with you on moral issues must assume you are a bad person.

[AMFV]

I still wonder why you assume that people who disagree with you on moral issues must assume you are a bad person.

Well in the case of this thread? Because they said so, I was told that my line of thinking and decisions would lead to something they thought was immoral and wrong. The thing that we discussed in PM is certainly a case where people that disagree tend to think the other side are bad people and for good reason.

There are disagreements on moral issues that would make me a good person in the eyes of some people, but there are moral issues that are simply incompatible with each other, for example if I believe that sacrificing your first born son to Ba'al after you build a house is right and proper, then you're going to have a hard time thinking that I'm a good person, I could have all the reasons in the world for my beliefs, which were passed down from Ba'al himself through his priestess, but it's going to be very hard for a 20th century person to believe that I am a good person, particularly if I hold those viewpoints in the 20th century long after that religion has died.

There are too many real world examples here but suffice to say that many moral disagreements have to reflect back on the character of those who are disagreeing, because there is no way for it not to, after all not performing the proper sacrifices to Ba'al could hurt the whole community, cause drought and famine. As a side-note I'm not analoging any real religion here, I'm mostly trying to find examples that don't violate the forum rules that I can use, and this is hopefully one of them, since the religion is a dead one.

[SowZ]

Well in the case of this thread? Because they said so, I was told that my line of thinking and decisions would lead to something they thought was immoral and wrong. The thing that we discussed in PM is certainly a case where people that disagree tend to think the other side are bad people and for good reason.

There are disagreements on moral issues that would make me a good person in the eyes of some people, but there are moral issues that are simply incompatible with each other, for example if I believe that sacrificing your first born son to Ba'al after you build a house is right and proper, then you're going to have a hard time thinking that I'm a good person, I could have all the reasons in the world for my beliefs, which were passed down from Ba'al himself through his priestess, but it's going to be very hard for a 20th century person to believe that I am a good person, particularly if I hold those viewpoints in the 20th century long after that religion has died.

There are too many real world examples here but suffice to say that many moral disagreements have to reflect back on the character of those who are disagreeing, because there is no way for it not to, after all not performing the proper sacrifices to Ba'al could hurt the whole community, cause drought and famine. As a side-note I'm not analoging any real religion here, I'm mostly trying to find examples that don't violate the forum rules that I can use, and this is hopefully one of them, since the religion is a dead one.

There are extreme examples like that which would make me think less of you, but mostly not. People saying, "I think your opinions would lead to something that is immoral," is not at all the same as saying, "If you think that way, I think you are a bad person." They are totally different.

I've talked to racist people who've told me that my ethnicity is mostly traitors to the country and not thought they must be bad people. I have thought less of them, and I would say they are bad people if they act on that belief by hurting people, but even a radical disagreement like that doesn't make someone a bad person. Actions do.

Shoot, if you said you don't think human sacrifice is necessarily wrong and think the worshipers of B**l weren't wrong for doing it, I'd disagree strongly, but as long as I didn't think you would ever participate in such an act it would only affect my opinion of you somewhat. It wouldn't mean you must be a bad human being.

[NichG]

AMFV, you are claiming some very strong things about other people while simultaneously claiming its impossible to understand people. You can't actually have it both ways.

Either you can't understand people, and so any conclusions you draw about how your own brain and beliefs work aren't transferable to others, or you can in fact understand people after all.

But you can't say 'we can't understand people, but I know better than you how your thought processes work'. At least not without being self-contradicting.

I would posit that are in some sense demonstrating your point about not understanding people at least when it comes to your own perceptions; you're explaining how your own beliefs work, but at the same time you aren't allowing for your own (claimed) lack of understanding of how other people's beliefs work.

You may just have to accept that other people do not operate in as absolutist a way as you suggest that all people operate in, even if you cannot actually understand that.

[AMFV]

There are extreme examples like that which would make me think less of you, but mostly not. People saying, "I think your opinions would lead to something that is immoral," is not at all the same as saying, "If you think that way, I think you are a bad person." They are totally different.

I've talked to racist people who've told me that my ethnicity is mostly traitors to the country and not thought they must be bad people. I have thought less of them, and I would say they are bad people if they act on that belief by hurting people, but even a radical disagreement like that doesn't make someone a bad person. Actions do.

Shoot, if you said you don't think human sacrifice is necessarily wrong and think the worshipers of B**l weren't wrong for doing it, I'd disagree strongly, but as long as I didn't think you would ever participate in such an act it would only affect my opinion of you somewhat. It wouldn't mean you must be a bad human being.

The problem is that once you get down to it, beliefs fundamentally lead to actions. And supposing that somebody won't act on their beliefs is probably a mistaken assumption.

You have to assume that people are going to act in ways that are tantamount to what they believe, unless they make a conscious effort not to, and even then probably not.


AMFV, you are claiming some very strong things about other people while simultaneously claiming its impossible to understand people. You can't actually have it both ways.

Either you can't understand people, and so any conclusions you draw about how your own brain and beliefs work aren't transferable to others, or you can in fact understand people after all.

But you can't say 'we can't understand people, but I know better than you how your thought processes work'. At least not without being self-contradicting.

I would posit that are in some sense demonstrating your point about not understanding people at least when it comes to your own perceptions; you're explaining how your own beliefs work, but at the same time you aren't allowing for your own (claimed) lack of understanding of how other people's beliefs work.

You may just have to accept that other people do not operate in as absolutist a way as you suggest that all people operate in, even if you cannot actually understand that.

I disagree with you. I think that all people operate in some of the fundamentally similar respects with respects to the truth. Because for all people that I have ever met there are truths that they believe on an absolute moral level.

Moral relativism is certainly a thing and there people that believe that, but because moral relatives tend to believe that moral absolutists are absolutely wrong, it is to my mind a mistaken belief.

What I'm saying is that while I don't understand your belief, it does not get to cease being a belief because I don't understand it. You can't knowingly simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs, without being insane, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think anybody in this debate is insane, so I suspect that you believe things that are rational and more or less consistent.

Whether I can understand your belief structure, doesn't mean that you get to dodge out of having beliefs that way. Also for my particular viewpoint, I can completely believe that you're entirely wrong, and I do in this case.

[SowZ]

The problem is that once you get down to it, beliefs fundamentally lead to actions. And supposing that somebody won't act on their beliefs is probably a mistaken assumption.

You have to assume that people are going to act in ways that are tantamount to what they believe, unless they make a conscious effort not to, and even then probably not.



I disagree with you. I think that all people operate in some of the fundamentally similar respects with respects to the truth. Because for all people that I have ever met there are truths that they believe on an absolute moral level.

Moral relativism is certainly a thing and there people that believe that, but because moral relatives tend to believe that moral absolutists are absolutely wrong, it is to my mind a mistaken belief.

What I'm saying is that while I don't understand your belief, it does not get to cease being a belief because I don't understand it. You can't knowingly simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs, without being insane, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think anybody in this debate is insane, so I suspect that you believe things that are rational and more or less consistent.

Whether I can understand your belief structure, doesn't mean that you get to dodge out of having beliefs that way. Also for my particular viewpoint, I can completely believe that you're entirely wrong, and I do in this case.

Tons of people have views I think are evil but wouldn't take actions I'd consider evil. Most racist people would never assault the target of their bigotry, in my experience. Or at the very least a large number wouldn't. Most moral relativists who wouldn't blame an ancient people for human sacrifice wouldn't kill someone themselves.

Anyway, we're straying a bit from the original assertion that irked me. The logical steps were, "These people claim that I have a belief that is morally wrong, therefor they must think me an immoral person." That is a big logical leap, and more than just that is actually a diagnosable neurosis. I realize there is no way to say this without being offensive, so sorry, really, but if you actually do believe that anyone who thinks a view of yours is immoral must think you a bad person I'd suggest you speak to a counselor about it.

Whether or not you think it is a logical imperative that people must have correct moral views or be bad people, most people still don't actually think this way and will not think you are a bad person for disagreeing with them. Assuming they do is a form of paranoid social anxiety and I can only see it as something that could have a negative impact on your relationships if it hasn't already.

[AMFV]

Tons of people have views I think are evil but wouldn't take actions I'd consider evil. Most racist people would never assault the target of their bigotry, in my experience. Or at the very least a large number wouldn't. Most moral relativists who wouldn't blame an ancient people for human sacrifice wouldn't kill someone themselves.

Anyway, we're straying a bit from the original assertion that irked me. The logical steps were, "These people claim that I have a belief that is morally wrong, therefor they must think me an immoral person." That is a big logical leap, and more than just that is actually a diagnosable neurosis. I realize there is no way to say this without being offensive, so sorry, really, but if you actually do believe that anyone who thinks a view of yours is immoral must think you a bad person I'd suggest you speak to a counselor about it.

Whether or not you think it is a logical imperative that people must have correct moral views or be bad people, most people still don't actually think this way and will not think you are a bad person for disagreeing with them. Assuming they do is a form of paranoid social anxiety and I can only see it as something that could have a negative impact on your relationships if it hasn't already.

There are certain moral views where that is the case. In a non-neurotic way, again if I support sacrificing children to Ba'al, that's going to make me a bad person on many moral systems. If I support selling caffeine, that's going to make me a bad person in some moral systems (straight edge for example). The problem is that advocating for a belief is tantamount to acting on it. If I'm trying to convert other people to the same belief or spread my viewpoint then it becomes an issue.

Also if your threshold for hostile racism is "violent assault," then yes few people are going to do that, but they're going to do other things such as favor other employees more, refuse to employ people based on race, not tip as well to servers of different races. I'm getting to smaller and smaller problems here, but you're talking a system of belief that informs how other people act, most of their actions will be informed by this system of belief.

Saying somebody is morally bad or good isn't as bad a thing as you suggest. There are people who disagree with my moral views and believe I'm a bad person. For example, I went to war, I contributed, possibly, to the death of other people, I'm not touching whether that's bad or good, but there are moral systems that would suggest that I am a bad person because of that. I can't even fathom them, but they exist, and that's a moral position, if you're a complete pacifist that should inform many of your actions, how you vote, how you treat other people, what sort of international politics you agree with.

The problem is that your moral system is fundamentally a big part of who you are, so disagreement on that level, could paint somebody as a bad person. Since a moral system is fundamentally a part of you, it informs (or should) inform most of your actions.

[SowZ]

There are certain moral views where that is the case. In a non-neurotic way, again if I support sacrificing children to Ba'al, that's going to make me a bad person on many moral systems. If I support selling caffeine, that's going to make me a bad person in some moral systems (straight edge for example). The problem is that advocating for a belief is tantamount to acting on it. If I'm trying to convert other people to the same belief or spread my viewpoint then it becomes an issue.

Also if your threshold for hostile racism is "violent assault," then yes few people are going to do that, but they're going to do other things such as favor other employees more, refuse to employ people based on race, not tip as well to servers of different races. I'm getting to smaller and smaller problems here, but you're talking a system of belief that informs how other people act, most of their actions will be informed by this system of belief.

Saying somebody is morally bad or good isn't as bad a thing as you suggest. There are people who disagree with my moral views and believe I'm a bad person. For example, I went to war, I contributed, possibly, to the death of other people, I'm not touching whether that's bad or good, but there are moral systems that would suggest that I am a bad person because of that. I can't even fathom them, but they exist, and that's a moral position, if you're a complete pacifist that should inform many of your actions, how you vote, how you treat other people, what sort of international politics you agree with.

The problem is that your moral system is fundamentally a big part of who you are, so disagreement on that level, could paint somebody as a bad person. Since a moral system is fundamentally a part of you, it informs (or should) inform most of your actions.

But being straight edge doesn't necessitate thinking that people who drink caffeine or alcohol are bad people. Being anti-war doesn't necessitate thinking soldiers are bad people. Being vegetarian doesn't necessitate thinking meat eaters are bad people. I am sensing an inability to remove bad actions from bad people. What it truly takes to be a bad person is going to be a different line for everybody and very few people draw that line at, 'people who have different beliefs than I do.'

[NichG]

I disagree with you. I think that all people operate in some of the fundamentally similar respects with respects to the truth. Because for all people that I have ever met there are truths that they believe on an absolute moral level.


And yet, as you said, you can't understand beliefs. Basically, you're being a hypocrite here - either you have to accept that you can't actually understand my beliefs or SowZ's beliefs and must admit that it is possible that we think as we claim that we do, or you have to accept that it is actually possible to understand someone's beliefs (and then claim that you understand our beliefs better than we do, which is a stretch). You can't have it both ways.

Basically your statement, as it stands, is equivalent to conceding the debate about whether it is possible to understand the beliefs of another.