Guessing Durkon is okay now! [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Xzenu

2014-01-20, 10:52 AM

Lately, there has been a lot of theories about the new-and-more-powerful Durkon is fake. An impostor with an Evil agenda. While that is certainly a possibility, let me bring to light an alternative hypothesis.

Durkon-that-was has always been a tragic character. The kind of self-denying, self-sacrificing kind of "good" that respects only duty at the price of disrespecting himself.

The priesthood treated him like ****. Not only exiling him for no discernible reason, but also doing so in an overtly humiliating fashion. He sucked it up and accepted his painful lot in life.

Being a very lonely person with no friends outside of his circle of adventurers, and rather emotionally distant with them as well, he did get one chance of love. He turned it down. Not because her narcissistic tendencies would have made her a bad lover in the long run. Which would have been a good reason, except that he probably never saw the mismatch between what she told her about her past and the flashbacks shown to the readers. No, he turned her down only for the sake of "duty" in the form of self-denial for self-denial's own sake.

Durkon-that-was probably had a lot of hatred in his heart, beneath the polite poker face. But instead of dealing with the misery of his own life, he projected it in the socially acceptable directions: Bigotry against trees and against the undead.

Except for the huge difference of Durkon being introvert and Miko letting her emotions run wild with her, Durkon-that-was and Miko may have been very much alike at heart. The same self-destructive brand of "lawful good", which may sadly be rather common in our reality as well.

All that has ended now. Durkon-that-was is no more. Instead, Durkon is free. He is okay at last, feeling "as right as Thor's rain" for the first time since he was unjustly driven from his homelands. As for the undead being "abominations", he has simply discarded that particular prejudice.

He is finally at peace with himself, and he is a better asset to the group now than before. Not only in a strategic sense, but also as a friend. Most likely, he doesn't have any agenda whatsoever. At least not yet.

Those are the good news.

The neutral news is that he will care more about himself now. Taking up a bit of space, instead of simply being everybody's grumpily friendly doormat. And also that he will be more ruthless in combat. The bloodthirst issue files under neutral as well, having been contained by Roy. As does the fact that he will NEVER consent to "ye olde stake & resurrect" bringing him back to his old miserable life.

The bad news is that there's a high risk that he will develop an allegiance to an Evil Deity, and from there on act in the interest of that Deity. And also that he will have a desire to indulge himself and just have some fun... slaughtering a population of dwarves, mayhaps?

As far as the plot itself is concerned (as opposed to whatever plans Burlew may or may not have for it), Durkon's future development hasn't happened yet.

He may grow into Lawful Neutral, or invest himself in the Lawful Evil position he was dumped into by the vamping. He may return to Thor. A bit more independent and distant than before, but still loyal. He may also remain non-theistic, or turn to a new Deity. Hel and Nergal has been mentioned, my bet is on Hel. How he will develop is up to him... and to some extent, also up to his friends in the order.

Them using Good methods to secure a blood supply for him was a great start, making a development into Lawful Neutral (or even True Neutral, but then he can't be a cleric of the Lawful Good Thor anymore) far more likely than it otherwise would have been.

This whole thing may end very well for Durkon as well as his team. And yes, it may also blow up very painfully in everyone's face.

hamishspence

2014-01-20, 10:54 AM

This is fairly consistent with "Durkon is getting character development".

HeeJay

2014-01-20, 11:04 AM

An excellent article, much welcome after all those "Durkon's old prejudices are sacrosanct!" comments.

Except this...

(..., but then he can't be a cleric of the Lawful Good Thor anymore)

Lawful Thor? Are you sure you're reading the same comic as the rest of us?

If The Order of the Stick's Thor is not Chaotic, then I'm the Emperor of China.

Mighty

2014-01-20, 11:12 AM

Very good article. Would he not be holding grudges against the priesthood though? Now that there's no duty on his part to stop him from telling them to die.

FujinAkari

2014-01-20, 11:19 AM

If The Order of the Stick's Thor is not Chaotic, then I'm the Emperor of China.

Greetings your Majesty!

((Thor is Neutral Good, with Chaotic tenancies when he gets drunk, which is most of the time.)) :P

Keltest

2014-01-20, 11:23 AM

Greetings your Majesty!

((Thor is Neutral Good, with Chaotic tenancies when he gets drunk, which is most of the time.)) :P

Is there an actual source for that or are you just basing it off of what weve seen in the comics?

FujinAkari

2014-01-20, 11:25 AM

Is there an actual source for that or are you just basing it off of what weve seen in the comics?

Basing it off what we've seen in the comics, and off of the fact that Durkon can't serve Thor if he (Thor) is Chaotic Good. While sure, Rich could simply be ignoring that rule, I tend to go with the exploitation that follows the rules whenever there is an option.

Forikroder

2014-01-20, 11:51 AM

Greetings your Majesty!

((Thor is Neutral Good, with Chaotic tenancies when he gets drunk, which is most of the time.)) :P

and his complete disregard for rules even while hes sober os because...?

seriously name one lawful trait Thor has shown

FujinAkari

2014-01-20, 12:11 PM

seriously name one lawful trait Thor has shown

I can think of two to three off the top of my head:

1) He argues with Hel over the destination of dwarven souls based upon a system, which is Lawful.

2) He accepts that he should not have altered Durkon's thunderbolt to deal Sonic Damage based on the non-intervention agreement he and all the gods agreed too, which is Neutral. (The act was chaotic, but the response shows a respect for Law)

3) His "ThorPrayer" system which Durkon uses to replenish his spells is extremely systematic and regimented, which is Lawful.

Forikroder

2014-01-20, 01:13 PM

1) He argues with Hel over the destination of dwarven souls based upon a system, which is Lawful

while completely ignoring the rules of said system a lawful person wouldnt argue theyd know the rules and follow them

2) He accepts that he should not have altered Durkon's thunderbolt to deal Sonic Damage based on the non-intervention agreement he and all the gods agreed too, which is Neutral. (The act was chaotic, but the response shows a respect for Law)

when does he accept he shouldnt have? if i remember he actually stares down the deva who pointed out that it doesnt work that way

3) His "ThorPrayer" system which Durkon uses to replenish his spells is extremely systematic and regimented, which is Lawful.

hardly powerful evidence being able to create a system (which didnt even work properly) is hardly a lawful trait

Loreweaver15

2014-01-20, 01:18 PM

while completely ignoring the rules of said system a lawful person wouldnt argue theyd know the rules and follow them

when does he accept he shouldnt have? if i remember he actually stares down the deva who pointed out that it doesnt work that way

hardly powerful evidence being able to create a system (which didnt even work properly) is hardly a lawful trait

They're not arguing that he's Lawful, they're arguing that he's Neutral. Yes, he stares down the Deva, but he does NOT stare down the Twelve Gods when they come a-calling. And, yes, generally, creating a bureaucratic hell of a system is indicative of a non-chaotic alignment.

Now, I can't speak for the others, but that I am arguing that Durkula is Evil and dangerous doesn't mean I don't like him better this way. He's a catalyst for change; if he really IS Durkon-plus-Vampire-template rather than a Buffyverse demonic entity, that change will take place in Durkon, and even if not, he's already showcasing Belkar's excellent narrative arc and character development. Durkon's beliefs are only sacrosanct in-comic, to Durkon, and those arguing about that are not arguing about Durkon--we're arguing about Belkar and his character development.

Yakk

2014-01-20, 01:22 PM

In D&D 3e, Vampires are *always* evil. They do not have a "choice" along the good-vs-evil spectrum.

So "evolving to lawful neutral" isn't possible, by default 3e D&D assumptions.

hamishspence

2014-01-20, 01:28 PM

3.5 MM specifically states that while beings of "Always X alignment" may start off that way - they can change.

Forikroder

2014-01-20, 01:30 PM

They're not arguing that he's Lawful, they're arguing that he's Neutral. Yes, he stares down the Deva, but he does NOT stare down the Twelve Gods when they come a-calling. And, yes, generally, creating a bureaucratic hell of a system is indicative of a non-chaotic alignment.

Now, I can't speak for the others, but that I am arguing that Durkula is Evil and dangerous doesn't mean I don't like him better this way. He's a catalyst for change; if he really IS Durkon-plus-Vampire-template rather than a Buffyverse demonic entity, that change will take place in Durkon, and even if not, he's already showcasing Belkar's excellent narrative arc and character development. Durkon's beliefs are only sacrosanct in-comic, to Durkon, and those arguing about that are not arguing about Durkon--we're arguing about Belkar and his character development.

1. not wanting to start an inter-god war over one cleric does not make him lawful last time the gods fought a pantheon got obliterated it makes sense he isnt interested in fighting Tiger

2. creating a non-functional system is also not lawful a lawful someone wouldnt stop until it was actually done not do the bare minimum (Again assuming that he even built it instead of just telling his devas too)

Thor has twice tried to (once suceeded) change the laws of magic just for fun, is known to get completey drunk and throw thunder around and has had casual sex with at least 2 people (getting one pregnant) and has no problem with the whole pregnant before marriage thing

Thor is undoubtably Chaotic good

Xzenu

2014-01-20, 02:26 PM

((Thor is Neutral Good, with Chaotic tenancies when he gets drunk, which is most of the time.)) :P

Okay!
In that case, Durkon would have to develop into True Neutral if he wants to server Thor again.

Remaining nontheistic or joining Hel sounds more likely.

Very good article. Would he not be holding grudges against the priesthood though? Now that there's no duty on his part to stop him from telling them to die.

Yep. Him going genocidal on them - either for revenge or simply for the fun of it - i sthe biggest risk. It is consistent not only with the prophesy but also with his current character development. This guy enjoys being ruthless, and he has good reason to hold a grudge.

hamishspence

2014-01-20, 02:28 PM

Okay!
In that case, Durkon would have to develop into True Neutral if he wants to server Thor again.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

"A cleric may not be Neutral unless his deity's alignment is also Neutral"

Harbinger

2014-01-20, 03:33 PM

In D&D 3e, Vampires are *always* evil. They do not have a "choice" along the good-vs-evil spectrum.

So "evolving to lawful neutral" isn't possible, by default 3e D&D assumptions.

That's not how "Always" works in D&D. Even if it was, Rich has always expressed dislike of that particular trope.

As for the theory presented in OP, I agree. Durkon has always been dutiful and selfless. Now that he's (most likely) Lawful Evil, I think he's going to be a bit more self-serving in the future, perhaps even trying to take revenge on the dwarves when he finds out why they sent him away.

Mighty

2014-01-20, 03:44 PM

As for the theory presented in OP, I agree. Durkon has always been dutiful and selfless. Now that he's (most likely) Lawful Evil, I think he's going to be a bit more self-serving in the future, perhaps even trying to take revenge on the dwarves when he finds out why they sent him away.

I doubt he'll need to have the reason first:
a) If he's evil, then the other dwarfs being jerks to him in the past should be reason enough.
b) The new High Priest of Thor doesn't even know the reason http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0375.html

Only people who might know is the High Priest of Odin and the Temple Brewmaster and we don't know whether they're still alive.

FujinAkari

2014-01-20, 10:37 PM

1. not wanting to start an inter-god war over one cleric does not make him lawful last time the gods fought a pantheon got obliterated it makes sense he isnt interested in fighting Tiger

True, but you must look at the accepted reason for not fighting. Thor accepts that he had agreed not to do that and doesn't, which is a lawful reason.

2. creating a non-functional system is also not lawful a lawful someone wouldnt stop until it was actually done not do the bare minimum (Again assuming that he even built it instead of just telling his devas too)

Creating ANY system, whether functional or not, is Lawful. Chaos does not operate in system.

Thor .. is known to get completey drunk and throw thunder around and has had casual sex with at least 2 people (getting one pregnant) and has no problem with the whole pregnant before marriage thing

Thor is undoubtably Chaotic good

Durkon was known to get completey drunk and throw thunder around and has had casual sex with at least 1 person (potentially getting one pregnant) and has no problem with the whole pregnant before marriage thing

Durkon was undoubtably Lawful good

Forikroder

2014-01-20, 11:06 PM

True, but you must look at the accepted reason for not fighting. Thor accepts that he had agreed not to do that and doesn't, which is a lawful reason.

but he still TRIED to which is a chaotic action he only backed down because he was forced to, if it was up to him he would ahve gone through with it

Creating ANY system, whether functional or not, is Lawful. Chaos does not operate in system.

from what i remember of ThorPrayer it didnt operate either

and i wouldnt say "he created a fancy answering machine" as proof hes neutral

Durkon was known to get completey drunk and throw thunder around and has had casual sex with at least 1 person (potentially getting one pregnant) and has no problem with the whole pregnant before marriage thing

Durkon was undoubtably Lawful good

1. i wouldnt call Hilgya casual at all id say he was serious considering a very serious relationship with her

2. hes only fine with preg before marriage because Thor is

Yep. Him going genocidal on them - either for revenge or simply for the fun of it - i sthe biggest risk. It is consistent not only with the prophesy but also with his current character development. This guy enjoys being ruthless, and he has good reason to hold a grudge.

its not consistant with anything, if anything he would simply assume he got thrown out because Thor wanted him to be where he wound up

alaalba_123

2014-01-20, 11:10 PM

True, but you must look at the accepted reason for not fighting. Thor accepts that he had agreed not to do that and doesn't, which is a lawful reason.

Creating ANY system, whether functional or not, is Lawful. Chaos does not operate in system.

Durkon was known to get completey drunk and throw thunder around and has had casual sex with at least 1 person (potentially getting one pregnant) and has no problem with the whole pregnant before marriage thing

Durkon was undoubtably Lawful good

This was everything I wanted to say to this thread. Thank you.

Amphiox

2014-01-21, 04:17 AM

In D&D 3e, Vampires are *always* evil. They do not have a "choice" along the good-vs-evil spectrum.

So "evolving to lawful neutral" isn't possible, by default 3e D&D assumptions.

Vampires are evil at the moment of creation. It says nothing about being unable to ever change. IIRC canonically, D&D lore has several vampires that turned some shade of Neutral eventually.

Socksy

2014-01-21, 05:13 PM

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

"A cleric may not be Neutral unless his deity's alignment is also Neutral"

Is that 3.0 or 3.5? Because the 3.5 PHB has rules that Neutral clerics of Good deities channel positive energy and those of evil deities channel negative energy, which would be pointless if there were no neutral clerics of non-neutral deities.

hamishspence

2014-01-21, 05:16 PM

In this context, I think it means "Neutral on both axes"

A LG deity can have LN clerics, LE deity can have LN clerics, but, only a N deity can have N clerics.

Is that 3.0 or 3.5? Because the 3.5 PHB has rules that Neutral clerics of Good deities channel positive energy and those of evil deities channel negative energy, which would be pointless if there were no neutral clerics of non-neutral deities.

So does the SRD (which is 3.5) further down the page:

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

Socksy

2014-01-21, 05:23 PM

In this context, I think it means "Neutral on both axes"

A LG deity can have LN clerics, LE deity can have LN clerics, but, only a N deity can have N clerics.

So does the SRD (which is 3.5) further down the page:

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships a good deity) can turn or destroy undead creatures. An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) instead rebukes or commands such creatures. A neutral cleric of a neutral deity must choose whether his turning ability functions as that of a good cleric or an evil cleric. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric can cast spontaneous cure or inflict spells.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up! C:

Metahuman1

2014-01-21, 05:39 PM

King of Nowhere

2014-01-21, 07:25 PM

I think it was established that thor is CG, but he can have LG dwarven clerics because dwarves have both a tradition of worshipping thor and of being lawful, so he made an exception to the one-step rule for them (and hey, he's chaotic, making exceptions to rules is his style). Maybe I read it in some commentary, or maybe in the forum, or maybe I just made it up myself and become convinced that I read it somewhere. can't offer any good reference.

I also think this thread was derailed from the original argument: Durkon has always been strict and ascetic, vampirization may actually be good for him. His strong lawful and good tendencies may overcome the vampire inclination to evilness, leaving with a still LG (or at least LN) durkon who is less uppity and more open to the world.
It may certainly happen. Rich loves to play with expectation, and having a vampire become a better person by virtue of being vampirized is certainly one of the things he may try to pull off.
Or it may be something else entirely. I like the idea but there's really no way to tell where the durkon characterization will go in the next book.

HeeJay

2014-01-22, 03:20 AM

I think it was established that thor is CG, but he can have LG dwarven clerics because dwarves have both a tradition of worshipping thor and of being lawful, so he made an exception to the one-step rule for them (and hey, he's chaotic, making exceptions to rules is his style).

Thank you, that's a brilliant argument!
"I'm Chaotic, so I can't have Lawful worshippers, because that would be against the rules."

And for all those bowing down to me (thank you!): you can be Chaotic while committing Lawful acts.

Remember Elan? He's committing Lawful acts all over the place: not wanting to steal the lute in Azure City. Staying committed to Haley in the Therkla arc. But he's still very much Chaotic.

And Belkar's "hippie vision quest" - the whole point of it was to make him realize how to be Chaotic without being stupidly Chaotic.

And Lord Shojo, who ruled an entire nation...

Xzenu

2014-02-19, 04:07 AM

Never mind. As of strip 946 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0946.html), Durkon and Durkula are officially separate persons.

Finagle

2014-02-19, 04:57 AM

There are some real factual inaccuracies here which invalidate the entire point.

The priesthood treated him like ****. Not only exiling him for no discernible reason, but also doing so in an overtly humiliating fashion. He sucked it up and accepted his painful lot in life.
SoD spoilers:

The High Priest of Thor exiled Durkon due to a prophecy that said that Durkon would bring death and destruction to the dwarves. The exile was a futile attempt at averting the prophecy. While it didn't avert it, it certainly did delay it (in the best tradition of Odin who cannot avert Ragnarok but can delay it with his wisdom), and the dwarves got years of life out of the deal.

Being a very lonely person with no friends outside of his circle of adventurers, and rather emotionally distant with them as well, he did get one chance of love. He turned it down. Not because her narcissistic tendencies would have made her a bad lover in the long run. Which would have been a good reason, except that he probably never saw the mismatch between what she told her about her past and the flashbacks shown to the readers. No, he turned her down only for the sake of "duty" in the form of self-denial for self-denial's own sake.
Durkon can't associate with her because she's a dishonorable person who denied her own culture. How is an honorable dwarf supposed to marry a woman who dishonored herself? Plus there's the self-preservation aspect: Durkon knows that you can't trust the untrustworthy, but you can trust them to be untrustworthy. What happens when Hilgaya decides some years hence that she wants to murder him, too?

All that has ended now. Durkon-that-was is no more. Instead, Durkon is free. He is okay at last, feeling "as right as Thor's rain" for the first time since he was unjustly driven from his homelands. As for the undead being "abominations", he has simply discarded that particular prejudice.
Prejudice? Let's not inject real-world considerations into a fantasy comic. Undead are life-killing abominations, the enemy of all living things. The Tsukiko storyline took care of that one.

The neutral news is that he will care more about himself now. Taking up a bit of space, instead of simply being everybody's grumpily friendly doormat. And also that he will be more ruthless in combat. The bloodthirst issue files under neutral as well, having been contained by Roy. As does the fact that he will NEVER consent to "ye olde stake & resurrect" bringing him back to his old miserable life.
The being occupying Durkon's body isn't Durkon, it's something else. The most recent comic made that crystal-clear.

The bad news is that there's a high risk that he will develop an allegiance to an Evil Deity, and from there on act in the interest of that Deity. And also that he will have a desire to indulge himself and just have some fun... slaughtering a population of dwarves, mayhaps?
The entity-that-was-Durkon exists only to serve Hel. He explicitly says so, and she says, "duh, of course". There's not a "risk" of developing an allegiance to an evil deity, it's the entire reason for his existence.

Domino Quartz

2014-02-19, 04:59 AM

The being occupying Durkon's body isn't Durkon, it's something else. The most recent comic made that crystal-clear.

The entity-that-was-Durkon exists only to serve Hel. He explicitly says so, and she says, "duh, of course". There's not a "risk" of developing an allegiance to an evil deity, it's the entire reason for his existence.
In case you didn't notice, this thread was created before the current comic went up (nearly a month ago). That doesn't invalidate the first part of your post, though.

oppyu

2014-02-19, 05:04 AM

It was funny (and sad) to read 'Durkon is free now.' Poor Durkon.

Finagle

2014-02-19, 05:26 AM

In case you didn't notice, this thread was created before the current comic went up (nearly a month ago). That doesn't invalidate the first part of your post, though.
Oops. So, disregard that part. Stupid zombie threads.

Death Knight of

2014-02-19, 09:08 AM

Ye fools! Have ye nay read tha latest comic? Durkon is trapped with'n 'im self and 'is body serves as high priest o' hel.

factotum

2014-02-19, 11:33 AM

Ye fools! Have ye nay read tha latest comic?

No, they haven't, because they unaccountably failed to time travel forward from January 20th to read the latest comic before starting this thread. I know, inconsiderate of them, but what can you do? :smallannoyed:

Death Knight of

2014-02-19, 11:59 PM

Och, ah thought that thay would a read tha last comic?

Death Knight of

2014-02-20, 12:04 AM

Wait, 20 January?

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-02-20, 12:06 AM

Just a heads-up: rather than make another post, just edit your first post. :smallsmile:
Making multiple posts in a row is often frowned-upon here.

Death Knight of

2014-02-20, 12:16 AM

Just a heads-up: rather than make another post, just edit your first post. :smallsmile:
Making multiple posts in a row is often frowned-upon here.

Sorry, hey how do I get the magic the gathering color, new title (eg. Dwarf in the playground) and RPG role?

oppyu

2014-02-20, 12:21 AM

Sorry, hey how do I get the magic the gathering color, new title (eg. Dwarf in the playground) and RPG role?
No idea what you mean by the magic colour thing or rpg role, but you get new titles based on post count. I think Dwarf in the Playground is either 100 posts or 500 posts.

EDIT: 100 posts.

Southern Cross

2014-02-20, 12:25 AM

Thanks for the info!

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-02-20, 12:28 AM

If you are referring to those things in people's signatures, then for most of them you can click on them and it will bring to a site that will help you make one.

Death Knight of

2014-02-20, 01:28 AM

I know this isn't geek con, but my iPad is screwed what new model should I get?

Loreweaver15

2014-02-20, 08:11 AM

I know this isn't geek con, but my iPad is screwed what new model should I get?

Uh.

I have no idea, but this isn't the place to be asking.

Anyways, back on topic: Didn't the Giant say that Thor was Neutral Good or even Lawful Good? He at least said that Norse Mythology Thor had no connection to OOTS Thor.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-02-20, 09:15 AM

He mentions here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070220022000/http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7283) that OOTS Thor is his own creation, and seems to imply that he is Lawful. Nothing about Thor's goodness, but he works with angels (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0353.html), so that seems a reasonable assumption.

NerdyKris

2014-02-20, 11:36 AM

Ye fools! Have ye nay read tha latest comic? Durkon is trapped with'n 'im self and 'is body serves as high priest o' hel.

And this, folks, is why thread necromancy is frowned upon in this forum especially. Because this thread was only dead for a few weeks and is already outdated information that is confusing new posters.

Especially when someone feels the need to dredge up an already dead discussion just to point out that they know something people three weeks in the past had no way of knowing.

Aquillion

2014-02-20, 03:36 PM

Although I do think that this thread's history shows why it can sometimes be awkward and problematic to use fantasy creatures as a parallel for real-world racism; vampires have a lot of mythological baggage that doesn't map to anything in reality, so trying to view their treatment as a parallel for real-world racism can have unfortunate implications.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-02-20, 03:39 PM

It's certainly interesting to see this thread, given recent revelations.

(And no, it doesn't count as thread necromancy, it's only been a month! It was only mostly dead! :smallsmile: )

Xzenu

2014-02-21, 05:04 AM

It's certainly interesting to see this thread, given recent revelations.

(And no, it doesn't count as thread necromancy, it's only been a month! It was only mostly dead! :smallsmile: )

Yeah, thins are really different now compared to only a few strips ago. Seriously, what we have to deal with is Durkon before #946 versus Durkon after #946.

Before #946, the idea that Durkula might be a separate entity was certainly one of the options. Although not a very likely one. I do think that the "This is Durkon, free from the constraints of his previous life" option was very likely to be true. After #946, the "Durkula is a separate entity" option has been upgraded to hard-coded truth.

There are some real factual inaccuracies here which invalidate the entire point.

Your two claims are that:

1. Thor's high priest had reasons to exile Durkon.
2. Durkon had reason to banish Hilgya.

Both arguments are entirely missing my point. Of course the high priest and Durkon both had their valid reasons. However:

1a. Durkon was exiled in a humiliating way.
1b. Durkon was exiled without being told why.

2. As Durkon exiled Hilgya, his argument was ALL about the duty to sacrifice oneself at the altar of tradition. While it is certainly true that Hilgya would probably have hurt (or betrayed) Durkon in the long run, there is NO indication that Durkon understood that and broke up with her for his own sake. No, the way he argued and literally choked back his tears afterwards points 100% in the direction of him sacrificing a relationship he most dearly wanted. Sacrificing it as a matter of principle only. Sacrificing it for the sake of Duty, and only for the sake of Duty.

In conclusion, Durkon had very strong reasons to be fed up with himself and his life. If Durkula had actually been him, his new attitude would most likely have been a sign of him feeling "yay, I finally have the perfect excuse to not care about all that painful bull**** anymore".

Prejudice? Let's not inject real-world considerations into a fantasy comic. Undead are life-killing abominations, the enemy of all living things. The Tsukiko storyline took care of that one.

Redcloak and Tsukiko had an argument on this topic. The objective truth is that they are both delusional, self-serving psychos and that they are both completely unreliable as sources for unbiased information. The truth is also that Redcloak had the last word only by virtue of him murdering Tsukiko through applying his own supernatural magical powers.

Are all undead Evil? Does all intelligent undead have evil agendas that by any reasonable definition make them "the enemy of all living things"? The answer is "Maybe".

So far, we have encountered three kinds of free-willed undead:

1. The ones created by Redcloak for the purpose of being tools and pawns in Redcloaks Evil agenda. This group includes Xykon, The Huecuva and a few others.

2. Malack, who was the High priest of an Evil God. He was evil, just like a living priest of the same God would have been. He did have feelings with potential to develop in a non-evil way, but on the whole he was evil. We do not know whether his soul was evil by choice, or an inescapably Evil spirit birthed in Nergal's realm. (It should be noted that Malack stringly implies that he and his God are Neutral rather than evil. It should also be noted that this later turns out to be pure BS that he was merely trying to sucker Durkon into believing.)

3. Durkula, created by the Evil Godess Hel with some unwitting assistance from Malack. Durkula is not, as we were first led to believe, a child of Malack's selfish (and thus evil, with a very lowercase "e") desire to have a friend. Instead, he is a child of Hel's Evil (with a very uppercase E) scheme to bring ruin to the world.

To our Knowledge, Tsukiko never actually created any free-willed undead. Although she did have fantasies about doing so. All her minions appears to have been Thralls. Which makes perfect sense, given how deeply emotionally insecure she was.

Before we knew of Durkula serving Hel and being a separate entity from Durkon, we had reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. He could have developed into the comic's first non-Evil free-willed undead.

Will there be any non-evil undead in the future? Probably not, but we'll never know whether that is for cosmological or narrative reasons. Are ALL free-willed undead in the stick-verse Evil? Maybe, maybe not. It really varies from setting to setting. The only things that have been proven so far in this setting are:

A). That undead, including Free-Willed Undead, tend to be created for reasons that are either evil or Evil.

B). That some Free-Willed Undead are capable of asserting their own will and personality, at the expense of the purpose for which it was created. The only example we have seen thus far (Xykon) has used this freedom to be MORE Evil, not less. We have yet to see an example of an undead taking it in the other direction and distance itself from Evil. However, what we have seen thus far is a very limited and specialized selection of Free-Willed Undead. This is unlikely to change: Redcloak, Xykon and Durkula remains major characters, leaving very little room to squeeze any other characters who are undead and/or creators of undead into the plot.

Edric O

2014-02-22, 03:29 AM

Being a very lonely person with no friends outside of his circle of adventurers, and rather emotionally distant with them as well, he did get one chance of love. He turned it down. Not because her narcissistic tendencies would have made her a bad lover in the long run. Which would have been a good reason, except that he probably never saw the mismatch between what she told her about her past and the flashbacks shown to the readers. No, he turned her down only for the sake of "duty" in the form of self-denial for self-denial's own sake.
Okay, I'm going to argue with you here. What Durkon did with was absolutely the right thing to do. I would have done the same thing - mainly for a different set of reasons, but I agree with his reasons as well. You should always do your duty to society, and if that makes you unhappy, the thing to re-evaluate is your notion of happiness, not your duty.

Doing your duty might cause some short-term pain, but it will lead to happiness and a contented life in the long-term. Self-indulgence might feel good in the short run, but it is the road to depression, disappointment and regret.

The self-denying, self-sacrificing kind of Good that respects only duty at the price of disrespecting himself, is the best kind of Good. It's exactly the kind of person that I'd like to see more in real life.

What on Earth makes you think that Durkon would be fed up with himself or his life? Yes, he suffered after he left Hilgya, but he quickly got over it, we saw him smiling and being happy many times since then, and we have no reason to believe that any of it was an act. As he died in Malack's grip, he had no regrets. He didn't say "oh I wish I had enjoyed myself more". He said, "this is okay, I've done my duty and now I get the death I always wanted".

To be bound by duty is to be free of regret and self-doubt. It's not constraining, it's liberating.

hamishspence

2014-02-22, 03:38 AM

The self-denying, self-sacrificing kind of Good that respects only duty at the price of disrespecting himself, is the best kind of Good. It's exactly the kind of person that I'd like to see more in real life.

While self-sacrifice is characterised as "the ultimate act of good" - it should generally be for something worthy of the sacrifice:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Should a paladin sacrifice herself to save others? In the broadest sense, yes, since doing so is the ultimate act of good. However, she must also have enough respect for her own life and ability to make sure that her sacrifice brings about a significant benefit for others. A paladin who holds the only key to saving the world should not sacrifice herself needlessly against an orc horde. As long as the paladin keeps the greater good in mind, she is adhering to her code.

oppyu

2014-02-22, 03:40 AM

2. As Durkon exiled Hilgya, his argument was ALL about the duty to sacrifice oneself at the altar of tradition. While it is certainly true that Hilgya would probably have hurt (or betrayed) Durkon in the long run, there is NO indication that Durkon understood that and broke up with her for his own sake. No, the way he argued and literally choked back his tears afterwards points 100% in the direction of him sacrificing a relationship he most dearly wanted. Sacrificing it as a matter of principle only. Sacrificing it for the sake of Duty, and only for the sake of Duty.
Wait a second... you're right, Durkon didn't know that Hilgya's husband was a good dude. For all he knew, her husband really was a cruel and terrible man.

And he told her it was her duty to return to her cruel and terrible husband.

...

Wow, screw Durkon.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 07:37 AM

Okay, I'm going to argue with you here. What Durkon did with was absolutely the right thing to do. I would have done the same thing - mainly for a different set of reasons, but I agree with his reasons as well. You should always do your duty to society, and if that makes you unhappy, the thing to re-evaluate is your notion of happiness, not your duty.

Doing your duty might cause some short-term pain, but it will lead to happiness and a contented life in the long-term. Self-indulgence might feel good in the short run, but it is the road to depression, disappointment and regret.

The self-denying, self-sacrificing kind of Good that respects only duty at the price of disrespecting himself, is the best kind of Good. It's exactly the kind of person that I'd like to see more in real life.

What on Earth makes you think that Durkon would be fed up with himself or his life? Yes, he suffered after he left Hilgya, but he quickly got over it, we saw him smiling and being happy many times since then, and we have no reason to believe that any of it was an act. As he died in Malack's grip, he had no regrets. He didn't say "oh I wish I had enjoyed myself more". He said, "this is okay, I've done my duty and now I get the death I always wanted".

To be bound by duty is to be free of regret and self-doubt. It's not constraining, it's liberating.

That just means that you adhere to the kind of Lawful Good that believes in subsumation of the self to the needs of others at all times, but also believes that those who tend to their own needs and freedom and desires above that duty to be selfish and unpleasant, which is not what Durkon believes. Durkon's sense of duty is for Durkon, and he only gives people grief about it when they try to take him away from it, because it's at the core of his being, his decisions, his choices, and his happiness.

For somebody who is Chaotic Good, being told "you should always do your duty to society, being bound by duty is liberating" honestly has the immediate reaction of making me laugh or retch; not because your choice is wrong--you've chosen how to live your life, and that's for you and you alone to decide--but because it speaks to a belief that anybody who doesn't agree with you needs to conform to your worldview (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), or be worthless. For somebody Chaotic, to be bound by duty is to be suffocated, to be stifled; the duties a Chaotic person takes on are those that person chooses, and none others.

So, sorry, I have to disagree that capital-L Lawful Good is the only way to be happy. :P

Edric O

2014-02-22, 02:34 PM

Wait a second... you're right, Durkon didn't know that Hilgya's husband was a good dude. For all he knew, her husband really was a cruel and terrible man.

And he told her it was her duty to return to her cruel and terrible husband.

...

Wow, screw Durkon.
Well, in the same conversation, Hilgya cheerfully admitted to trying to kill her husband, showing no remorse about it. That should cast serious doubts on the accuracy of her characterization of other people. Durkon didn't need to see the flashback panels to realize that something was amiss.

That just means that you adhere to the kind of Lawful Good that believes in subsumation of the self to the needs of others at all times, but also believes that those who tend to their own needs and freedom and desires above that duty to be selfish and unpleasant,
Yes, that is what I believe. But - as an aside from the main conversation here - does this actually count as Lawful Good? I ask because I've never been able to figure out where I stand on the Law-Chaos axis. On the one hand, I strongly believe everything I said about duty and subsumation of the self. But on the other hand, I don't believe in following tradition or customs, or in the legitimacy of established authority. If the law of the land is unjust, I have absolutely no qualms about breaking it. I admire the character of Robin Hood, the archetypal "Chaotic Good" hero.

I suppose you could sum up my beliefs as, "Give society what it needs, not what it asks from you." So... what does that make me? And don't say real life is more complicated that the simplistic Law-Chaos axis. That's just crazy talk. :smalltongue:

For somebody who is Chaotic Good, being told "you should always do your duty to society, being bound by duty is liberating" honestly has the immediate reaction of making me laugh or retch; not because your choice is wrong--you've chosen how to live your life, and that's for you and you alone to decide--but because it speaks to a belief that anybody who doesn't agree with you needs to conform to your worldview (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html), or be worthless. For somebody Chaotic, to be bound by duty is to be suffocated, to be stifled; the duties a Chaotic person takes on are those that person chooses, and none others.
But, as mentioned above, I do agree that, to a certain extent, everyone should choose their own duties. I am very, very opposed to the idea that you should be assigned your station in life by some external force (be it tradition, some kind of deciding authority, or anything else). No, you should choose your own path. However, (1) that path should be one of service, in the broad sense of "using your abilities for the good of others", and (2) once you've chosen it, it becomes your duty to stick to it.

So, for example, in a medieval society where tradition says that women should just get married and be good housewives, I would absolutely and totally support a woman deciding to rebel against this oppressive custom and be a warrior or scholar or doctor instead. Indeed, I might even say that rebelling is a duty when tradition doesn't allow you to put your abilities to good use in the service of others (for instance, if tradition tells you to cook and clean when you have the ability to do so much more for society as a scientist).

What I would oppose is rebelling against tradition for the sake of personal enjoyment (so, for example, running off to marry someone that you're not supposed to be marrying). But rebelling for the sake of better serving society - even if you have to trample on the law to do so - is a great and noble calling.

What Juliet did was wrong (and stupid), but what Joan of Arc did was right and heroic.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 02:58 PM

I would argue that what Juliet did was wrong because it was stupid--she'd just met the idiot, six people died in three days--not because it was rebelling. Marriage--joining yourself to someone for (the idea is to be) the rest of your lives--is one of those things that is not for some external force to decide for you. And that, really, is where your insistence that other people abide by your moral code breaks apart; you've just said that people should not be bound by external forces, but then said that rebelling against those external forces because they make you unhappy is wrong. What, then, makes rebelling against those external forces right?

And yes, I'd characterize your ideals there as very, very capital-L Lawful. You're insisting that, like Durkon, people follow their external duties to the exclusion of their internal duty to lead a happy and fulfilling life, the sort of duty most people balance against their duties to the people around them. The difference is that that was a standard Durkon held himself (and the person attempting to draw him away from it) to, while you're holding everyone to it; I won't say that it's right or wrong, but I will say that one of the primary differences between the Lawful and Chaotic is that the latter would find that life empty and unfulfilling.

(And Robin Hood was, indeed, rebelling against an illegitimate authority on behalf of the abused citizenry; he was using Chaotic means--banditry--to fulfill a Lawful obligation, which was returning the stolen money and property and freedom to that citizenry. I imagine you'd like him a lot less if he took a percentage like Haley or Ian did.)

Edric O

2014-02-22, 04:14 PM

you've just said that people should not be bound by external forces, but then said that rebelling against those external forces because they make you unhappy is wrong. What, then, makes rebelling against those external forces right?
Serving the greater good. It is right to rebel against external forces if this rebellion is done in the service of society.

Example: It is right to murder Tarquin, in cold blood, by any means necessary, for political reasons (e.g. to end his tyranny and liberate the people). But it would be wrong to do the same thing for purely personal reasons (e.g. he tortured and imprisoned your father).

Having said that, it's okay to use personal reasons as an extra motivation for yourself while you're pursuing a righteous cause for the greater good (e.g. you're on a mission to kill Tarquin for the cause of justice and freedom, but you get scared or have doubts from time to time, and at those times you remind yourself of what he did to your father in order to go on).

And yes, I'd characterize your ideals there as very, very capital-L Lawful. You're insisting that, like Durkon, people follow their external duties to the exclusion of their internal duty to lead a happy and fulfilling life, the sort of duty most people balance against their duties to the people around them.
Not "to the exclusion" - not necessarily. There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking personal happiness or satisfaction alongside doing your duty. It's only wrong when personal happiness or satisfaction becomes your only reason for doing something, or when it interferes with doing your duty.

So, if you can be happy AND do your duty, great! Do that. If there are two different ways to do your duty equally well, and only one of them makes you happy, then pick the way that makes you happy. But if you absolutely MUST choose between personal fulfillment and duty, you should choose duty.

The difference is that that was a standard Durkon held himself (and the person attempting to draw him away from it) to, while you're holding everyone to it; I won't say that it's right or wrong, but I will say that one of the primary differences between the Lawful and Chaotic is that the latter would find that life empty and unfulfilling.
According to this, you would say that I am more Lawful than Durkon, because I hold everyone to my ideals. But on the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with telling a flat-out lie for the greater good (something Durkon refuses to do), and I hold the belief that the end sometimes justifies the means (Durkon would say it never does). So, for instance, I'd be perfectly happy sticking a dagger in Tarquin's back when he wasn't looking. I don't think Durkon would go along with that.

For these reasons, I doubt your claim that my ideals are very, very capital-L Lawful.

(And Robin Hood was, indeed, rebelling against an illegitimate authority on behalf of the abused citizenry; he was using Chaotic means--banditry--to fulfill a Lawful obligation, which was returning the stolen money and property and freedom to that citizenry. I imagine you'd like him a lot less if he took a percentage like Haley or Ian did.)
Of course. Well, taking a small percentage would be acceptable, since he presumably needs some amount of money to continue running his operation. But taking any more than strictly necessary would be wrong, and if he kept most of the loot for himself then he would be little better than a common bandit.

Needless to say, I also prefer my rebellions structured and organized and run with military efficiency. :)

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 06:01 PM

NihhusHuotAliro

2014-02-22, 06:10 PM

oppyu

2014-02-22, 06:13 PM

Example: It is right to murder Tarquin, in cold blood, by any means necessary, for political reasons (e.g. to end his tyranny and liberate the people). But it would be wrong to do the same thing for purely personal reasons (e.g. he tortured and imprisoned your father).
Why is it wrong? Whether you're killing Tarkie because he's a tyrant, or because his tyranny included torturing and imprisoning your father, you're still killing a tyrant. Should someone purely motivated by revenge decide that, since they don't really care about the social good, they should just move on and let the tyrant live?

JennTora

2014-02-22, 06:27 PM

Well, in the same conversation, Hilgya cheerfully admitted to trying to kill her husband, showing no remorse about it. That should cast serious doubts on the accuracy of her characterization of other people. Durkon didn't need to see the flashback panels to realize that something was amiss.

If it weren't for the flashback panels, the way she describes her husband would make you think he beat her on a daily basis or something. In which case, that she wouldn't show any remorse at trying to kill him wouldn't exactly be surprising.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 06:28 PM

Groups are made of individuals. Any collective is made of individuals.

Sentient/sapient/self-aware/intelligent/whatever-the-term-is-now individuals tend to form groups from what I have seen.

No man is an island, but everyone is an important person. You're the only person who can be you.

There doesn't need to be opposition between community and individualism. Both are valuable, and (nearly) everyone exists as an individual and as part of a group/family/society/circle-of-peers.

You don't get harmony when everyone sings the same note. You can't make a homogenous orchestra. But acting in concert, with each person improvising an contributing to a melody, makes an awesome jazz beat.

So, when asked "collectivism or individualism" I say, why not a mixture of both?

That's entirely fair. It's the pure, oppressive kind of collectivism that I hate, the idea that you must sing your assigned note or else. It doesn't allow for individuals, only for cogs in the machine, and is as much anathema to the mixed philosophy as it is to pure individualism (which is also untenable, extremes are bad :P)

Emanick

2014-02-22, 06:37 PM

Why is it wrong? Whether you're killing Tarkie because he's a tyrant, or because his tyranny included torturing and imprisoning your father, you're still killing a tyrant. Should someone purely motivated by revenge decide that, since they don't really care about the social good, they should just move on and let the tyrant live?

If revenge is a wholly meritless reason to kill someone (and I think that may be somewhat contestable; myself, I'm not convinced either way), then killing Tarquin out of revenge is not really any better than stabbing him because he cut you in line, possibly without any knowledge that he's a bloodthirsty tyrant. I think we can all agree that that would be wrong, even as we would also agree that it would make the world a better place in the long run - because the morality of an act of killing hinges on why it was committed, not whether or not, in the grand scheme of things, it produced more good than harm.

If you kill Tarquin for your own selfish ends in the full awareness that it's helping the world but without being remotely motivated by that awareness, then no, you're not performing a Good act, not in the least. Should you still kill him? Well, if you care about the answer to that question, you're probably not the subject of the first sentence in this paragraph.

Jaxzan Proditor

2014-02-22, 06:49 PM

So, by that logic, before learning about the gates, Roy was on an evil quest to wrongfully kill Xykon?

JennTora

2014-02-22, 06:52 PM

So, by that logic, before learning about the gates, Roy was on an evil quest to wrongfully kill Xykon?

non-good acts are not necessarily evil acts. there's a whole other alignment between those two.

King of Nowhere

2014-02-22, 06:53 PM

You should always do your duty to society, and if that makes you unhappy, the thing to re-evaluate is your notion of happiness, not your duty.

Or, you could take a third option and manage to do your duty without being miserable in the process. It's what we do everyday when we juggle our jobs, chores, and hobbies.
Such third option may or may not be available; in the case of durkon and hylgia, the obvious third option would have been to take hylgia into the party. That's a valid option for me because I don't recognize a forced marriage as morally binding, but wasn't a valid option for durkon because he did (we're skipping the part were hylgia was a horribly selfish person here, and go with the best interpretation durkon could have given to her words). So, to me she had no duty to her husband and clan so she could have joined durkon, who had a duty with the party. But to durkon, she had a duty to her husband and he had a duty to his party, so they had to split. Good for him, cause it wouldn't have worked anyway.
Also, while individuals have a duty to society, to uphold and make it work, society also has a duty to individuals, to protect them and give them their chance to be happy. If doing one's duty consistently leave one's miserable more than the alternatives, then there's something wrong with society.

EDIT:

So, by that logic, before learning about the gates, Roy was on an evil quest to wrongfully kill Xykon?
No, because even if roy didn't knew about the gates, he still knew Xykon was a muss murdered who was a treath to everyone. He also knew that he killed a man to steal something. So it wasn't a revenge that does more harm than good. It was a revenge that overlapped with stopping an evil from doing more harm. Still, stopping xykon for the gate stuff was a more good action than stopping him cause he was dangerous, which was a more good action than stopping him for pure revenge.

Edric O

2014-02-22, 07:02 PM

You're framing your argument in such a way that says 'doing things for your own improvement is wrong; you are only of value as a cog in the wheel of society, and nothing more.' You're right, I mislabeled that philosophy--it's Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good :P
"Overthrow the tyrant by any means necessary, including lying and backstabbing if required"... is Lawful Neutral? :smallconfused:

If anything, I thought it pushed me in the direction of Neutral Good - or I suppose True Neutral if you disagree with the "Good" part, although it would be a very strange kind of True Neutral.

Collectivism is an inherently dehumanizing philosophy, and to those of Chaotic bent--and, let's face it, quite a lot of the Lawful ones too--that makes it heinous and placeless.
Dehumanizing? No, on the contrary, it is an expression of rationality. If a human being has value, then logically a hundred human beings have more value than one. A collective is made up of individuals, like NihhusHuotAliro pointed out, so if the individuals have any value at all, the collective does too - and furthermore, it has more value than any single one of its members.

If a tree is good, the forest is better. If a flower is beautiful, an entire field in bloom is splendid. If an individual is valuable, the collective is priceless.

To place the collective on the same level as the individual - or worse, to say that the individual is more valuable than the collective - is utterly irrational. It's like saying a grain of sand is bigger than the desert, or a drop of water is larger than the ocean, or a tree is more important than the forest. Individualism is madness.

And when the individual placed on such a ridiculous pedestal is yourself, then individualism is a particularly egocentric and self-absorbed madness. To say that your happiness is more important than the good of society is to say that you are worth more than hundreds, or perhaps thousands or even millions of other human beings. What gives you the right to such arrogance?

Now don't get me wrong, of course all people have a certain instinctual tendency to consider their own desires more important than those of others. I have it just as much as anyone else. But this is a darkness that must be fought and defeated.

I apologize for my hostile tone; I'm trying to frame this in the context of polite discussion, but very little raises my hackles like a collectivist argument.
Well, then, I completely disagree. Collectivism is an expression of reason, which is the highest faculty of humankind. Individualism is an emotional and childish affliction - and one that, sadly, affects too many people in the world today.

Why is it wrong? Whether you're killing Tarkie because he's a tyrant, or because his tyranny included torturing and imprisoning your father, you're still killing a tyrant. Should someone purely motivated by revenge decide that, since they don't really care about the social good, they should just move on and let the tyrant live?
Someone purely motivated by revenge shouldn't go around killing people at all. It is wrong to kill purely out of revenge.

Let me make an analogy here: It is wrong to kill people because you hate the first letter of their name. Now suppose someone decided to kill people whose names started with the letter T, and began by killing Tarquin. Would you say this person did the right thing? No, because even though they killed someone who deserved to die, they killed him for all the wrong reasons.

Edit: Ninja'd by a person with the same avatar as me: (:smalleek:)

If revenge is a wholly meritless reason to kill someone (and I think that may be somewhat contestable; myself, I'm not convinced either way), then killing Tarquin out of revenge is not really any better than stabbing him because he cut you in line, possibly without any knowledge that he's a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 07:07 PM

To clarify: My position isn't that I am more valuable than the collective; it's that each of us is more valuable than the collective, that we are starstuff, brightly shining and with endless potential. A small distinction, but a necessary one, I think.

And no, your willingness to murder the tyrant however possible isn't the aspect of the philosophy I'm labeling Lawful; it's the emphasis on the good of the structure over the good of the people it's supposed to benefit.

Edric O

2014-02-22, 07:09 PM

To clarify: My position isn't that I am more valuable than the collective; it's that each of us is more valuable than the collective, that we are starstuff, brightly shining and with endless potential. A small distinction, but a necessary one, I think.
But that is utterly absurd. The collective is us. Your statement sounds to me as if you had said, "each country in Europe is bigger than the European continent as a whole." Or, more generally, "the whole is smaller than each one of its parts." That isn't merely factually incorrect, it's logically impossible.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-22, 07:15 PM

But that is utterly absurd. The collective is us. Your statement sounds to me as if you had said, "each country in Europe is bigger than the European continent as a whole." That isn't merely factually incorrect, it's logically impossible.

It's just different ways of looking at the problem of 'how do we maximize the good of the people'. You look at it as the structure being the sum of the parts, the goal, and a healthy structure benefiting the most people some of the way being the ideal. I look at it as the structure being the servant of the parts, the engine which we each, as individuals, have the right to use to maximize the health and happiness of ourselves and those we wish to benefit. It's my contention that the individual is the point, that each individual is the point, and not seeing the trees for the forest is, in a word, dehumanizing.

Here's an uncomfortable truth, though: most people, on either side of this or most other arguments, are trying to help. You want to help; I want to help; we agree on the what but not the how. I absolutely believe your intentions are good ones, but I find your proposed methods abhorrent, just as you find mine incomprehensible.

NihhusHuotAliro

2014-02-22, 07:25 PM

If it weren't for the flashback panels, the way she describes her husband would make you think he beat her on a daily basis or something. In which case, that she wouldn't show any remorse at trying to kill him wouldn't exactly be surprising.

O thought we weren't counting the first hundred strips.

If we are, we get Elan blowing up a dungeon containing extremely rare second edition monsters and all the females in the last panel of 87 (word of the Giant is that everyone got out, but nothing ever showed that). We get Redcloak trying to get rid of the demon roaches. Belkar is only mean because of his low wisdom, which makes him a nonviolent nice person if raised. In comic 52, Durkon says Aboot like a canadian. In comic 50, Nale doesn't understand genre conventions or think that his father would act by the rules of drama. We had spiked tentacles of forced intrusion. Eugene wants Roy to use Speak With Dead to let him and Roy's mom know how Roy is doing. Also, fruit pie the sorcerer. I don't think the first hundred strips count as canon.

NihhusHuotAliro

2014-02-22, 07:39 PM

Maybe the collective and individuals are like one of those huge pictures made of lots of little pictures. Each individual is a picture, but each of those also, in a way, forms a really really big picture.

An individual has infinite worth. A collective of individuals is a bunch of infinite worths, but has infinite worth. Infinity is weird like that, how for every positive whole number X there is 1\x, and (except in the case of x=1), 1\x is between zero and one. So, logically,there must be as many rational numbers between zero and one as there are numbers above one. In another example, there are as many numbers divisible by three as there are numbers divisible by six, because for every number X divisible by three there is a number 2x divisible by six.

Infinity is wieeeeeerrd. Logic gets king of strange at that point,even in a normally consistent system like math. Basic things like X = X or "absolute value of (X+X) is more than the absolute value of (X)" don't work.

Because every number Y divisible by six is divisible by three. But every number Y divisible by six has a number (Y+3) that is divisible by three. So, for every number divisible by six, there should be two numbers divisible by three. But as I said above, the number of numbers divisible by six is the same as the number of numbers divisible by three. But it's also half.

Rationality doesn't work once you start working with infinity.

I'm not saying that the collective has the same value as an individual, or that one of the two is more valuable than the other. I'm saying that logic breaks down at that point, and I can no more compare the infinite worths of individuals and a collective than I can weigh the direction north. I can't say anything of meaning on the relative values.

JennTora

2014-02-23, 01:58 AM

O thought we weren't counting the first hundred strips.

If we are, we get Elan blowing up a dungeon containing extremely rare second edition monsters and all the females in the last panel of 87 (word of the Giant is that everyone got out, but nothing ever showed that). We get Redcloak trying to get rid of the demon roaches. Belkar is only mean because of his low wisdom, which makes him a nonviolent nice person if raised. In comic 52, Durkon says Aboot like a canadian. In comic 50, Nale doesn't understand genre conventions or think that his father would act by the rules of drama. We had spiked tentacles of forced intrusion. Eugene wants Roy to use Speak With Dead to let him and Roy's mom know how Roy is doing. Also, fruit pie the sorcerer. I don't think the first hundred strips count as canon.

... So... I'm not allowed to mention the first 100 strips even if someone else does and uses them in an argument? actually... I can't come up with a sufficiently sarcastic response to point out how absurd that is.

Domino Quartz

2014-02-23, 03:15 AM

... So... I'm not allowed to mention the first 100 strips even if someone else does and uses them in an argument? actually... I can't come up with a sufficiently sarcastic response to point out how absurd that is.

Was NihhusHuotAliro the one who brought up the first 100 strips?

Xzenu

2014-02-23, 05:43 AM

Now don't get me wrong, of course all people have a certain instinctual tendency to consider their own desires more important than those of others. I have it just as much as anyone else. But this is a darkness that must be fought and defeated.

A person who keeps fighting that battle against himself may feel liberated by getting an excuse to stop caring and just indulge.

My argument was never about Durkon being right or wrong, but instead about Durkon exhausting himself as a person by focusing on collectivism. You and I both think that "all people have a certain instinctual tendency to consider their own desires more important than those of others". To uphold collectivism, like you and Durkon favors, is a struggle. And struggles can be exhausting as well as emotionally draining. That is all that is relevant to this thread's original topic.

As for the new topic that is your argument that collectivism is morally superior to individualism, Loreweaver15 has already nailed why you are wrong. As for your counter-argument...

But that is utterly absurd. The collective is us. Your statement sounds to me as if you had said, "each country in Europe is bigger than the European continent as a whole." Or, more generally, "the whole is smaller than each one of its parts." That isn't merely factually incorrect, it's logically impossible.

You are mistaken, because there is no such thing as THE collective. Every human being is part of MANY collectives, not just one. And none of these collectives include all aspects of the individuals who are included.

We are born into collectives such as nationalities, races, genders, families, religions and ideologies. Many of us leave some collectives to join others: Move to another country, leave the religious congregation or political party their parents told them that they should live for, maybe even go through gender reassignment surgery. Either way, the collectives are PART of us, not ALL that we are.

To continue your analogy, continents primarily geographical areas while countries are primarily cultural and political areas. Your quote implies that the cathedrals of Spain, philosophy of France and political struggles of Greece cannot possibly be larger than the physical area between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. That is where the absurdity comes in.

And now to something completely different...

O thought we weren't counting the first hundred strips.

If we are, we get Elan blowing up a dungeon containing extremely rare second edition monsters and all the females in the last panel of 87 (word of the Giant is that everyone got out, but nothing ever showed that). We get Redcloak trying to get rid of the demon roaches. Belkar is only mean because of his low wisdom, which makes him a nonviolent nice person if raised. In comic 52, Durkon says Aboot like a canadian. In comic 50, Nale doesn't understand genre conventions or think that his father would act by the rules of drama. We had spiked tentacles of forced intrusion. Eugene wants Roy to use Speak With Dead to let him and Roy's mom know how Roy is doing. Also, fruit pie the sorcerer. I don't think the first hundred strips count as canon.

Of course the first 100 strips counts. Yes, they are canon. However, the characters have matured and leveled up quite a bit since then. And please note that retroactive continuity is an actual force in the stickverse. Remember how Belkar got XP for expanding his backstory? That's also canon.

This kind of antics is not restricted to the first book. Note how Haley uses her rogue skills to sneak away from the comic itself and climb over to the cast introduction page because she needs to steal a diamond from herself there! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0649.html). Yes, that is canon too. The characters know that their world is a comic book. And that doesn't make their struggle to save the world any less valid, because it's still the only world they have and the world that everyone they care about live in.

Also:

1. Elan destroyed the castle stupidly, not maliciously. And yes, if The Giant sayd that everyone made it out safe then everyone DID make it out safe. Simple as that.

2. Spells having strange effects on belkar indicates that the spells actually have effects beyond the number crunching. Owl's Wisdom sometimes make you WISER, rather than merely increasing your wisdom score. Besides, Belkar's reaction is probably more about the spell temporarily shifting the balance of his subconcious internal struggle rather than being a static effect.

3. The spiked tentacles are probably a low level or situational spell that V simply haven't had any need to cast again since then. After all, s/he has LOTS of spells in the spellbook!

4. What Nale actually says about his father in strip 50, is that Tarquin believes the bard character class to be underpowered. This statement is not inconsistent with anything we have seen later. And even if it had been, we shouldn't take Word Of Nale as gospel. :-D

5. Eugene could have taken for granted that if Roy don't contact him, he don't contact mom either. It could also have been a figure of speech, or an attempt to cover up the fact that he split up with mom - counting on her to not reveal it either.

6. Redcloak being violent to non-goblins, what's special about that?

NihhusHuotAliro

2014-02-23, 03:24 PM

Edric O

2014-02-23, 10:20 PM

A person who keeps fighting that battle against himself may feel liberated by getting an excuse to stop caring and just indulge.
Maybe. Or maybe they relish the battle. It depends on the person. And Durkon is a person who fights monsters for a living and worships a warrior god. That doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would be looking for an excuse to fight less (internally or externally).

Someone who enjoys fighting external battles probably enjoys fighting internal ones too, or at the very least does not wish to run away from them.

My argument was never about Durkon being right or wrong, but instead about Durkon exhausting himself as a person by focusing on collectivism. You and I both think that "all people have a certain instinctual tendency to consider their own desires more important than those of others". To uphold collectivism, like you and Durkon favors, is a struggle. And struggles can be exhausting as well as emotionally draining. That is all that is relevant to this thread's original topic.
Sure, but all life is struggle, and most people (perhaps even all people) enjoy struggle of some sort. We play sports. We play competitive computer games. We push ourselves to do better at work. We make great efforts to find a romantic partner. We argue on internet forums. All these are struggles. Most people enjoy at least one of the above, and do not find it particularly exhausting or emotionally draining.

Some people even risk their lives climbing mountains or racing cars or exploring the ocean floor, for no other reason than "because it's there." Struggle can be exhilarating, empowering, and a source of self-confidence and emotional stability.

So yes, while it's certainly possible for struggle to be exhausting or emotionally draining, that depends on the person (and the type of struggle). Durkon does not strike me as that kind of person.

You are mistaken, because there is no such thing as THE collective. Every human being is part of MANY collectives, not just one. And none of these collectives include all aspects of the individuals who are included.
No such thing as THE collective? Sure there is. There is Humanity - the sum total of all human individuals and all their achievements.

You can also have collectives that are subsets of Humanity. But ultimately, Humanity-as-a-whole is the collective that I really have in mind.

We are born into collectives such as nationalities, races, genders, families, religions and ideologies. Many of us leave some collectives to join others: Move to another country, leave the religious congregation or political party their parents told them that they should live for, maybe even go through gender reassignment surgery. Either way, the collectives are PART of us, not ALL that we are.
Those are not the kinds of collectives that I'm talking about. Those are abstract concepts, often without any clear-cut boundaries or definitions ("nations" are subjective constructs that often overlap, religions and ideologies have massive grey areas containing people who may or may not be members depending on your definition of membership in that religion/ideology, and so on).

The collectives I'm talking about are concrete groups of people. Example: All human beings currently living today (a subset of Humanity). This collective does have people entering and exiting it all the time (through births and deaths), but it is not merely part of us. It expressly contains all that we are.

To continue your analogy, continents primarily geographical areas while countries are primarily cultural and political areas. Your quote implies that the cathedrals of Spain, philosophy of France and political struggles of Greece cannot possibly be larger than the physical area between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. That is where the absurdity comes in.
No, you're just switching from one analogy to another and comparing apples and oranges in order to argue that it's possible for one apple to be more valuable than two oranges. Sure, that's true, but it is not possible for one apple to be more valuable than two apples.

Analogy 1: The geographical area of Spain cannot possibly be larger than the geographical area of Spain plus the geographical area of France held together.

Analogy 2: The cathedrals of Spain cannot possibly be more important than the cathedrals of Spain plus the philosophy of France put together.

If you had to choose which one to give up: (a) the cathedrals of Spain, or (b) the cathedrals of Spain plus the philosophy of France, only a madman would choose (b). Obviously (b) is more valuable than (a), because (b) contains (a).

Whenever (b) contains (a), (b) is more valuable/important than (a). And collectives - at least as I define them - do indeed contain individuals, rather than just aspects of individuals.

Edric O

2014-02-23, 10:36 PM

It's just different ways of looking at the problem of 'how do we maximize the good of the people'. You look at it as the structure being the sum of the parts, the goal, and a healthy structure benefiting the most people some of the way being the ideal. I look at it as the structure being the servant of the parts, the engine which we each, as individuals, have the right to use to maximize the health and happiness of ourselves and those we wish to benefit. It's my contention that the individual is the point, that each individual is the point, and not seeing the trees for the forest is, in a word, dehumanizing.

Here's an uncomfortable truth, though: most people, on either side of this or most other arguments, are trying to help. You want to help; I want to help; we agree on the what but not the how. I absolutely believe your intentions are good ones, but I find your proposed methods abhorrent, just as you find mine incomprehensible.
Agreed. That is to say, I agree that you have described our differences very well.

Also, in my experience, philosophical stances are a poor predictor of what people will actually do/advocate in practice. That's why I usually prefer to discuss politics rather than philosophy (though of course politics is off limits on this forum, and for good reason). I've seen people with the same philosophy taking utterly opposed stances on practical questions, and I've seen people with completely different philosophies agree on the best course of action.

...just like it is possible for two Lawful Good people to disagree so strongly that they come to blows, while both have perfectly logical reasons to believe they are upholding The Law and The Good. Not all LG people are necessarily on the same side, and (assuming I am in fact LG) I care a lot more about people being on my side than about them sharing my philosophy.

Xzenu

2014-02-24, 04:18 AM

What I mean is that a joke like "spiked tentacles of forced intrusion" probably wouldn't happen in strips that come out this year.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16650343#post16650343

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16654310&postcount=621

Rich himself has stated that he regrets the Spiked Tentacles joke.

Judging from those two posts, it wouldn't surprise me if the tentacle spell gets mentioned in the next book... but if they do, it will be as a part of V's character growth process and newfound sense of morality. NOT as a "haha, lets laugh at the victims who are currently getting raped" joke.

Of course manslaughter is worse than sexual harassment, and murder is worse than rape. In themselves. But jokes about manslaughter and murder does not risk sending a message that such crimes are okay. Jokes about sexual harassment and rape does, when the punchline is at the victim's expense.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and I apologize.

Huh? I disagreed with your analysis, nothing more. I don't find your post offensive in any way, nothing to apologize for.

oppyu

2014-02-24, 05:36 AM

If anyone's thinking of debating which horrifying crime is objectively worse... please, please don't. Just let the topic pass quietly into the forum ether. Nobody needs to argue about this. I know this forum kind of specialises in arguing about absolutely everything, but come on. Be cool :smallsmile:.

As for Evan's Tentacles Of Hahahaha I Made A Rape Joke, I don't think they'll ever be showing up again. Much like the above topic, they can fade quietly into the comic ether without ever being brought up again.

ti'esar

2014-02-24, 05:46 AM

As for Evan's Tentacles Of Hahahaha I Made A Rape Joke, I don't think they'll ever be showing up again. Much like the above topic, they can fade quietly into the comic ether without ever being brought up again.

Don't think, know. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16654310&postcount=621)

So yeah, they're definitely never showing up again, and we're all probably better off for that. And I hope the same can be said for this topic.

Seto

2014-02-24, 05:52 AM

Dehumanizing? No, on the contrary, it is an expression of rationality. If a human being has value, then logically a hundred human beings have more value than one. A collective is made up of individuals, like NihhusHuotAliro pointed out, so if the individuals have any value at all, the collective does too - and furthermore, it has more value than any single one of its members.

If a tree is good, the forest is better. If a flower is beautiful, an entire field in bloom is splendid. If an individual is valuable, the collective is priceless.

To place the collective on the same level as the individual - or worse, to say that the individual is more valuable than the collective - is utterly irrational. It's like saying a grain of sand is bigger than the desert, or a drop of water is larger than the ocean, or a tree is more important than the forest. Individualism is madness.

And when the individual placed on such a ridiculous pedestal is yourself, then individualism is a particularly egocentric and self-absorbed madness. To say that your happiness is more important than the good of society is to say that you are worth more than hundreds, or perhaps thousands or even millions of other human beings. What gives you the right to such arrogance?

The point (I don't know if it was Loreweaver's, but it's mine) is that "the collective" very soon becomes nothing more than an abstraction, and that's especially true when you're talking about as big a collective as Humanity.
My individualism is theoretical : it does not mean that everyone should help themselves and disregard others, but that the individual is the accurate unit to study when you want to look at what humanity is. It is also practical : meaning that I think every relationship you have with "your country" or "the collective" is ultimately with yourself, since those are interiorized abstractions ; the one way to break free of your inner world is to look an individual in the eyes.
This does not mean that individuals exist independently of others, and can be understood without a reference to others. Neither can they fully fulfill themselves without others. I think that you are not yourself when you are alone, but only when you reach through to others. Society is what happens when individuals reunite with one another. I agree with your argument than society is more than the sum of the individuals that make it. However, that's not because it's something that's above each of these individuals, but because it's an essential part of what an individual is. An individual comes to their achievement through society ; not "the collective", mind you, but the fact of having a relationship to others. A Mitsein phenomenon, if you prefer. Society is first and foremost part of the individual, rather than the individual part of society.

But ultimately, everything that is due to others, is due to every other man, individually. Not to "the collective" or "the country". "The collective" is a depersonalized abstraction that takes away from others, from the individual that you have in front of you, your rightful devotion. Hence the reason it can be called "deshumanizing". Hence the reason individualism is fully compatible with selflessness. Ethics enter into play when the relationship is a face-to-face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas#Philosophy), the only fundamental society upon which any "collective" has to be built.
There's no such thing as a "common good" of humanity as a whole, other than the "common good" of each and every individual taken as such. Human beings are not numbers that you can add up to determine that 30 are worth more than 15. They're individuals, which is precisely why they're irreducible to mathematical operations.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-24, 05:57 AM

Agreed. That is to say, I agree that you have described our differences very well.

Also, in my experience, philosophical stances are a poor predictor of what people will actually do/advocate in practice. That's why I usually prefer to discuss politics rather than philosophy (though of course politics is off limits on this forum, and for good reason). I've seen people with the same philosophy taking utterly opposed stances on practical questions, and I've seen people with completely different philosophies agree on the best course of action.

...just like it is possible for two Lawful Good people to disagree so strongly that they come to blows, while both have perfectly logical reasons to believe they are upholding The Law and The Good. Not all LG people are necessarily on the same side, and (assuming I am in fact LG) I care a lot more about people being on my side than about them sharing my philosophy.

I say that you are Lawful, extremely so; it's not my place to judge whether you're Good or not unless you actually tried to take the freedom of choice away from others. As it is, you just look down on people who don't share your very narrow choices; it's kind of like a bad paladin stereotype.

And, really, you don't see how reducing people to numbers, to cogs in a larger machine, to essential pointlessness is dehumanizing rather than life-affirming for a lot of people? You're telling them that they don't matter, that their struggles aren't worth anything except as a way to benefit the whole, that they don't matter unless they benefit the hive.

EDIT:

The point (I don't know if it was Loreweaver's, but it's mine) is that "the collective" very soon becomes nothing more than an abstraction, and that's especially true when you're talking about as big a collective as Humanity.
My individualism is theoretical : it does not mean that everyone should help themselves and disregard others, but that the individual is the accurate unit to study when you want to look at what humanity is. It is also practical : meaning that I think every relationship you have with "your country" or "the collective" is ultimately with yourself, since those are interiorized abstractions ; the one way to break free of your inner world is to look an individual in the eyes.
This does not mean that individuals exist independently of others, and can be understood without a reference to others. Neither can they fully fulfill themselves without others. I think that you are not yourself when you are alone, but only when you reach through to others. Society is what happens when individuals reunite with one another. I agree with your argument than society is more than the sum of the individuals that make it. However, that's not because it's something that's above each of these individuals, but because it's an essential part of what an individual is. An individual comes to their achievement through society ; not "the collective", mind you, but the fact of having a relationship to others. A Mitsein phenomenon, if you prefer. Society is first and foremost part of the individual, rather than the individual part of society.

But ultimately, everything that is due to others, is due to every other man, individually. Not to "the collective" or "the country". "The collective" is a depersonalized abstraction that takes away from others, from the individual that you have in front of you, your rightful devotion. Hence the reason it can be called "deshumanizing". Hence the reason individualism is fully compatible with selflessness. Ethics enter into play when the relationship is a face-to-face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Levinas#Philosophy), the only fundamental society upon which any "collective" has to be built.
There's no such thing as a "common good" of humanity as a whole, other than the "common good" of each and every individual taken as such. Human beings are not numbers that you can add up to determine that 30 are worth more than 15. They're individuals, which is precisely why they're irreducible to mathematical operations.

Quite!

Edric O

2014-02-24, 02:53 PM

And, really, you don't see how reducing people to numbers, to cogs in a larger machine, to essential pointlessness is dehumanizing rather than life-affirming for a lot of people? You're telling them that they don't matter, that their struggles aren't worth anything except as a way to benefit the whole, that they don't matter unless they benefit the hive.
Just because the truth hurts your sensibilities, that doesn't make it any less true. We are cogs in a larger machine whether we admit it or not. Refusing to admit it just makes us delusional cogs.

Now, I will grant you that sometimes it may be better to be delusional than to accept a truth that makes you unhappy - the famous red pill/blue pill choice in The Matrix - but that's another topic altogether. To make a long story short, I see myself as the person giving you the red pill. We can argue about whether it's a good or bad thing to push people to take the red pill (I'm not sure).

In any case, for all this talk about how it's "dehumanizing" to reduce people to numbers, the fact is that reducing people to numbers is the only good and rational way to handle real life-or-death situations, and everyone admits that. I bet even you would admit it, when push comes to shove - when faced with a concrete choice in a life-or-death situation.

For example, let's say you have to choose between many different ways to organize hospitals. How else are you going to choose the best way, if not by looking at the numbers of people that it saves (perhaps together with a whole bunch of other relevant numbers, like quality-of-life measures for the patients and so on)? How else are you going to choose the best way to organize the education system, or the best location for a new highway, or the best way to create jobs, or the best way to fix traffic congestion in a city - if not by looking at people and their needs as numbers? In the real world, don't we make EVERY practical big-picture decision by treating people as numbers? Yes we do. And we should.

Treating people as numbers in order to make sure that you save the most lives or feed the most people - or, in general, satisfy the needs of the greatest number - is not "dehumanizing". It's the most compassionate and humane thing to do. It's the only rational course of action. To do otherwise would be criminal negligence.

Seto

2014-02-24, 03:17 PM

In any case, for all this talk about how it's "dehumanizing" to reduce people to numbers, the fact is that reducing people to numbers is the only good and rational way to handle real life-or-death situations, and everyone admits that. I bet even you would admit it, when push comes to shove - when faced with a concrete choice in a life-or-death situation.

For example, let's say you have to choose between many different ways to organize hospitals. How else are you going to choose the best way, if not by looking at the numbers of people that it saves (perhaps together with a whole bunch of other relevant numbers, like quality-of-life measures for the patients and so on)? How else are you going to choose the best way to organize the education system, or the best location for a new highway, or the best way to create jobs, or the best way to fix traffic congestion in a city - if not by looking at people and their needs as numbers? In the real world, don't we make EVERY practical big-picture decision by treating people as numbers? Yes we do. And we should.

Who says rational = good ? There is no good way to deal with this sort of thing. And yes, I'll probably decide according to numbers (though, until that happens, there's no way to really know how you're gonna act), but it can and will be dehumanizing. Pragmatism and ethics sometimes differ. We were discussing morality and theory here (you talked about Tarquin, revenge, right and wrong, selfishness and selflessness...); you're making us enter the realm of politics. Politics and ethics are vastly different, and often opposed, domains.
So, sure, if you have to make this kind of decision, make the less crappy decision you can. Make a choice according to your conscience, and in the follow-up, arrange to make it right or wrong. But don't pretend that, just because you used a rational method or a logical approach, it's good.
Reason is an extremely important and useful thing to have - it allows human beings to communicate with each other and to find common, rational, abstract, shareable ground. It allows someone not to be too arbitrary, and to make complex and sensible choices. But it doesn't hold the criteria for morality. The only thing reason can tell you about murder is "if I do that, I'll be shunned by society and probably sentenced to a lifetime of jail, so maybe I'd be better off not doing it", not "it's wrong". A jerk relying on sole reason, even if he's the most rational jerk alive, will never cease to be a jerk. It's all in choices.

Treating people as numbers in order to make sure that you save the most lives or feed the most people - or, in general, satisfy the needs of the greatest number - is not "dehumanizing". It's the most compassionate and humane thing to do. It's the only rational course of action. To do otherwise would be criminal negligence.

Sure, if what you have in mind is a number of individuals. Then they stop being numbers to be people, your judgment stops being quantitative and is qualitative. The key-word in your first sentence here is "people". Once we are cogs in a machine, we're not people. Thus your last paragraph reverses your stance in that the collective is now serving the individuals : "in order to". Try "treating cogs as numbers in order to make sure that you save the most efficiency or oil the most cogs", your sentence now looks a lot less moral.

Hecuba

2014-02-24, 05:20 PM

Sure, if what you have in mind is a number of individuals. Then they stop being numbers to be people, your judgment stops being quantitative and is qualitative. The key-word in your first sentence here is "people". Once we are cogs in a machine, we're not people. Thus your last paragraph reverses your stance in that the collective is now serving the individuals : "in order to". Try "treating cogs as numbers in order to make sure that you save the most efficiency or oil the most cogs", your sentence now looks a lot less moral.

There is no machine, there are no cogs.
Why would doing math on people to improve the benefit you can provide diminish their person-hood?
There are only people, whether you are dealing with 1, 2, or 2 million.

The fact that one would act upon many people instead of one person when attempting to deprive others of that which they value (theft vs large scale fraud) does not make the act less immoral.

Why then should we assign greater moral force to helping one person 10,000 times than to helping 10,000 people one time?

That is not to say that there are not problems imposed by scale: we are ultimately slaves to our brains, and it is quite difficult to apply the same moral standards to an abstract number of people than to one person you can see (cf. Dunbar's number and the Monkeysphere).
Larger systems also tend to be more susceptible to corruption (either directed or systemic, depending on the model of the system).

But these are ultimately questions of execution, not value.

Which leads us back to the question:
Why should an acts with the same moral objective and the same outcome have different moral force merely because one happens to be executed on a larger scale?

TLDR?: If we accept that there is institutionalized evil, why in Thor's name would there not also be institutionalized good?

Loreweaver15

2014-02-24, 05:48 PM

There is and should be institutionalized good. It is Good, after all. The question is, however, one of choice; it is Edric's choice to devote Edric's life to the greater good, and that is a choice that I inherently respect. Edric, however, is arguing that that choice is for everyone. Edric is arguing that no other life is fulfilling or really worthwhile. Edric is arguing that making any other choice makes you morally deficient.

The greatest thing about sapient life is the uniqueness and individuality of each and every person. You make your choices; you have your values; and unless you're hurting someone else, what you do with yourself is your business. This is a basic right for everyone, the right to have your own life and tend to your own happiness, and in Edric's ideal world, this is a right that would not exist.

Just because the truth hurts your sensibilities, that doesn't make it any less true. We are cogs in a larger machine whether we admit it or not. Refusing to admit it just makes us delusional cogs.

Now, I will grant you that sometimes it may be better to be delusional than to accept a truth that makes you unhappy - the famous red pill/blue pill choice in The Matrix - but that's another topic altogether. To make a long story short, I see myself as the person giving you the red pill. We can argue about whether it's a good or bad thing to push people to take the red pill (I'm not sure).

In any case, for all this talk about how it's "dehumanizing" to reduce people to numbers, the fact is that reducing people to numbers is the only good and rational way to handle real life-or-death situations, and everyone admits that. I bet even you would admit it, when push comes to shove - when faced with a concrete choice in a life-or-death situation.

For example, let's say you have to choose between many different ways to organize hospitals. How else are you going to choose the best way, if not by looking at the numbers of people that it saves (perhaps together with a whole bunch of other relevant numbers, like quality-of-life measures for the patients and so on)? How else are you going to choose the best way to organize the education system, or the best location for a new highway, or the best way to create jobs, or the best way to fix traffic congestion in a city - if not by looking at people and their needs as numbers? In the real world, don't we make EVERY practical big-picture decision by treating people as numbers? Yes we do. And we should.

Treating people as numbers in order to make sure that you save the most lives or feed the most people - or, in general, satisfy the needs of the greatest number - is not "dehumanizing". It's the most compassionate and humane thing to do. It's the only rational course of action. To do otherwise would be criminal negligence.

Cripes, I am having an argument with a bad paladin stereotype.

Look, people are more than the numbers you use to count them up. I agree that figuring out who you can save and how many is a rough situation with only one solution: save as many as you can--which is why I think it's an unwinnable situation, in which you can only do as much good as you can. Were you expecting me to disagree? Did you think that I would say that you should damn the rest and save only those you care about? No. But when you think of people as nothing but numbers, you've taken the people out of the equation, and if people only lived their lives for the good of the Hive with themselves as a secondary or tertiary consideration at best, you wouldn't have people anymore, you'd have fleshy puppets that pretend to free will.

So, yeah, dehumanization all around.

To be bound by duty is to be free of regret and self-doubt. It's not constraining, it's liberating.

You said this earlier, and I wanted to bring it back up, because it bears discussing:

Anybody who does not fear making an incorrect choice, who does not doubt themselves because they're sure they know their duty, is a fool set to do more harm than good. Question yourself. If you have other people's lives in your hands, question yourself constantly. All you're doing is liberating yourself from consequence or responsibility. You were just doing your duty; you were just following orders, except those orders came from within yourself. It should be hard to make the choices you're talking about, because you're not dealing with numbers, you're dealing with people.

Edric O

2014-02-24, 07:54 PM

There is and should be institutionalized good. It is Good, after all. The question is, however, one of choice; it is Edric's choice to devote Edric's life to the greater good, and that is a choice that I inherently respect. Edric, however, is arguing that that choice is for everyone. Edric is arguing that no other life is fulfilling or really worthwhile. Edric is arguing that making any other choice makes you morally deficient.
Yes, I am arguing that. And I make no apologies about it. I am actively opposed to the individualism and relativism that dominate our present-day culture. People are too scared of offending others by telling them that what they are doing is wrong. It's destroying our ability to correct each other's negative behavior.

Note, however, that there is a difference between culture and law. To say that you are morally deficient for doing something is not the same thing as saying that I want the force of the law to punish you for doing that thing. Lots of morally deficient behaviors are and should remain legal - but I wish they were culturally taboo.

The greatest thing about sapient life is the uniqueness and individuality of each and every person.
No, the greatest thing about sapient life is our capacity for reason and our ability to shape the world around us. Our greatest achievements are the scientific and technological marvels we have created.

You make your choices; you have your values; and unless you're hurting someone else, what you do with yourself is your business.
First of all, I flat-out disagree with this kind of silly relativism. There is Good and there is Evil, there is right and there is wrong, there are correct values and there are incorrect values.

But secondly - and more importantly - you're contradicting yourself here. Apparently, we each have our values and no one can tell us they're wrong... unless we cross over a certain line ("hurting someone else" - a very fuzzy concept by the way), at which point even Loreweaver agrees that it's time to bring on the Smite Evil. So, uh, if values really are relative, then why can't we hurt other people, exactly?

See, even you draw the line somewhere and want to restrict people's choice of values to some extent. I just want to restrict it more.

Cripes, I am having an argument with a bad paladin stereotype.
Well, then, look on the bright side: From now on you can have characters of this type in your stories/campaigns without being accused that they are unrealistic. :smallbiggrin:

Look, people are more than the numbers you use to count them up. I agree that figuring out who you can save and how many is a rough situation with only one solution: save as many as you can--which is why I think it's an unwinnable situation, in which you can only do as much good as you can.
Ummm... if you really believe that "you can't save everyone" = "unwinnable situation", then I guess ALL life-and-death situations are unwinnable in your worldview. Because real life isn't a Hollywood movie. You can never actually save everyone. Some people will die. Some people will suffer. We cannot completely eliminate pain and suffering from the world. The best we can do is minimize them. "Do as much good as you can" is the BEST you can do. It's not a mark of an unwinnable situation, it's a mark of reality.

Doing as much good as you can = being Good. That is what I believe. And since doing as much good as you can requires crunching numbers to figure out the best course of action, I also believe that being Good requires crunching numbers to figure out the best course of action. Thus, "treating people as numbers".

Anybody who does not fear making an incorrect choice, who does not doubt themselves because they're sure they know their duty, is a fool set to do more harm than good. Question yourself. If you have other people's lives in your hands, question yourself constantly. All you're doing is liberating yourself from consequence or responsibility. You were just doing your duty; you were just following orders, except those orders came from within yourself. It should be hard to make the choices you're talking about, because you're not dealing with numbers, you're dealing with people.
Wait, who ever said otherwise? I agree completely. Did you think my concept of duty was some kind of Justicar's Code with two thousand pages of detailed instructions covering every possible situation that one may encounter in life, and listing the correct response?

Of course not. Of course I fear making incorrect choices. I know my duty, but that's a broad philosophical concept. It doesn't mean I automatically know what to do in every given situation. Applying this concept of duty to specific concrete situations is not easy or simple. It does require constant questioning:

"Which choice is in keeping with my duty, A or B?"
"Given that I don't have all the information I need in this situation, what is my best guess of the Good thing to do?"
"This course of action has uncertain results, is the risk worth taking?"

Remember Miko, the official bad-paladin-stereotype of the Stickverse? She wasn't wrong because she was fanatical, she was wrong precisely because she never asked herself questions like the above. She was wrong because she was irrational and ultimately acted on impulse.

oppyu

2014-02-24, 09:06 PM

First of all, I flat-out disagree with this kind of silly relativism. There is Good and there is Evil, there is right and there is wrong, there are correct values and there are incorrect values.

But secondly - and more importantly - you're contradicting yourself here. Apparently, we each have our values and no one can tell us they're wrong... unless we cross over a certain line ("hurting someone else" - a very fuzzy concept by the way), at which point even Loreweaver agrees that it's time to bring on the Smite Evil. So, uh, if values really are relative, then why can't we hurt other people, exactly?

See, even you draw the line somewhere and want to restrict people's choice of values to some extent. I just want to restrict it more.
Because the core tenet is freedom. Not just freedom to do whatever you want, but freedom from harm, freedom from fear, freedom to go on living life without worrying that someone will impose their will on you in a harmful fashion. I can do what I want regarding myself, but when my choices start affecting other people beyond the point of inspiring feelings of sanctimonious disapproval, then I'm impeding the freedom of others and need to start carefully considering my actions.

"Which choice is in keeping with my duty, A or B?"
"Given that I don't have all the information I need in this situation, what is my best guess of the Good thing to do?"
"This course of action has uncertain results, is the risk worth taking?"

Remember Miko, the official bad-paladin-stereotype of the Stickverse? She wasn't wrong because she was fanatical, she was wrong precisely because she never asked herself questions like the above. She was wrong because she was irrational and ultimately acted on impulse.
No, Miko asked those questions. She believed everything she did was in keeping with her duty, she acted on her best guesses, and she always considered the risks she took worth taking. It's just that she believed that there were right beliefs and there were wrong beliefs, and that anyone that didn't act according to her right beliefs were morally deficient. Add to that her black and white view of Good and Evil and her notion that duty superseded all other concerns, and you have a Miko Miyazaki cocktail of disaster.

Edric O

2014-02-24, 09:30 PM

Because the core tenet is freedom. Not just freedom to do whatever you want, but freedom from harm, freedom from fear, freedom to go on living life without worrying that someone will impose their will on you in a harmful fashion. I can do what I want regarding myself, but when my choices start affecting other people beyond the point of inspiring feelings of sanctimonious disapproval, then I'm impeding the freedom of others and need to start carefully considering my actions.
Why? Why should you care about the impact of your choices on other people?

Is it because other people matter? Is it because you should care about the happiness and well-being of other people? But, then, if that's the case, why does your caring about their happiness and well-being stop at the "don't hurt them" stage? If their well-being actually matters, then don't you in fact have a duty to take some action to promote that well-being? Don't you have a duty to - in some capacity - serve Humanity?

I think you do. I think we all do. If we are serious about caring for other people, then we have a duty to serve Humanity to the best of our abilities.

No, Miko asked those questions. She believed everything she did was in keeping with her duty, she acted on her best guesses, and she always considered the risks she took worth taking. It's just that she believed that there were right beliefs and there were wrong beliefs, and that anyone that didn't act according to her right beliefs were morally deficient. Add to that her black and white view of Good and Evil and her notion that duty superseded all other concerns, and you have a Miko Miyazaki cocktail of disaster.
Miko took a tiny crack in a prison cell bar as indisputable evidence that the gods wanted her to escape from prison and punish the Order of the Stick. That's not the behavior of someone who seriously takes the time to figure out what is the best way to follow her duty. That kind of attitude - also displayed in long list of other similar actions - is the reason for the Miko Miyazaki cocktail of disaster. She was not capable of correctly identifying friend and foe, she was not capable of devising a strategy more complex than "attack attack attack", and she was not capable of making careful decisions based on a rational analysis of the evidence before her.

Miko wasn't seriously asking any of the questions I listed. She made up her mind based on impulse and then later invented excuses to convince herself that she was actually following her duty and the will of the gods.

Xzenu

2014-02-24, 09:49 PM

Please distinguish between Miko before and after hearing Shojo (her lord and master, who she had obeyed - and sacrificed all chance of personal happiness for - ALL HER LIFE) confess that he had played her for a fool all along.

That's when she went sort of crazy. Before that, she was merely very stuck up and self-righteous. Which, by the way, is a VERY common side-effect of discarding yourself in favor of trusting that some specific analysis ("number-crunching" or otherwise) is The True Path To The Greater Good For All Mankind. :smallconfused:

WSLaFleur

2014-02-24, 09:50 PM

People are too scared of offending others by telling them that what they are doing is wrong.

Yes, this mentality is imposed and upheld by the collective; the majority is over-sensitive, therefore it becomes your objective duty to prioritize feelings before facts, since - in this situation - it is exactly synonymous with being the greatest good for the greatest number. Unless of course you've changed your mind.

First of all, I flat-out disagree with this kind of silly relativism. There is Good and there is Evil, there is right and there is wrong, there are correct values and there are incorrect values.

Just that you don't know what they are? And you're pretty sure that nobody else does either; so you could be mistaken, except about there being an absolute and arbitrary moral code, out there somewhere. You couldn't be wrong about that, of course.

"I would sooner label opposing views as evil than admit that to having as little authority on the matter as they do."

But secondly - and more importantly - you're contradicting yourself here. Apparently, we each have our values and no one can tell us they're wrong... unless we cross over a certain line ("hurting someone else" - a very fuzzy concept by the way)

Much less fuzzy than your position of "There are arbitrary morals somewhere and even though I can't be sure what they are, I'm sure as hell going to cast aspersions of righteous judgement down onto anyone who thinks that the antiquated philosophical notion of greatest good for the greatest number might be, in any way, a flawed concept."

(Had to check, to make sure that this was allowed, but here's a link you might find interesting, and potentially educational on the origins and history of the Greatest Good For the Greatest Number philosophy: http://www.justiceharvard.org/)

Applying this concept of duty to specific concrete situations is not easy or simple. It does require constant questioning:

Constant questioning of this sort can only be done by autonomous individuals, who don't automatically defer to a dogma, and who aren't by default subjugated to the will of the whole, or obligated by some arbitrary law to make altruistic decisions. So, clearly, autonomy and individualism are quintessential to your ideals. Yet you would readily, callously sacrifice them for security (the collective good)?

Sounds like a malevolent rationalization, wrapped in casuistry. Have it your way, though - if you like. I'll prep the brainwashing device, you 'round up the anarchic masses.

oppyu

2014-02-24, 10:21 PM

Why? Why should you care about the impact of your choices on other people?

Is it because other people matter? Is it because you should care about the happiness and well-being of other people? But, then, if that's the case, why does your caring about their happiness and well-being stop at the "don't hurt them" stage? If their well-being actually matters, then don't you in fact have a duty to take some action to promote that well-being? Don't you have a duty to - in some capacity - serve Humanity?

I think you do. I think we all do. If we are serious about caring for other people, then we have a duty to serve Humanity to the best of our abilities.
There's nothing wrong with serving humanity. I freely admit that I would be a better person if I spent more time serving humanity. My issue is when it starts going from 'I should spend more time helping people' to 'everyone has a duty to help people and people who don't feel that way are morally deficient'. I suppose that would be because I also value individuality and personal autonomy. Everyone has a right to live their life with personal autonomy, and as long as they don't infringe anyone elses personal autonomy then I don't have the right to judge them with notions of objective morality.

Edric O

2014-02-25, 02:32 AM

Yes, this mentality is imposed and upheld by the collective; the majority is over-sensitive, therefore it becomes your objective duty to prioritize feelings before facts, since - in this situation - it is exactly synonymous with being the greatest good for the greatest number. Unless of course you've changed your mind.
There is such a thing as persuasion, you know. If the majority of people believe something, my options aren't limited to "agree with them" or "stop caring about the collective and its opinions". I also have the option to try to persuade people (and, thus, "the collective") to change their minds.

Just that you don't know what they are? And you're pretty sure that nobody else does either; so you could be mistaken, except about there being an absolute and arbitrary moral code, out there somewhere. You couldn't be wrong about that, of course.
Uh, what? When did I say that?

It's true that I don't make any claim to have any kind of infallible knowledge of The Good and The Evil in the abstract. That is to say, I don't claim to be able to provide you with a clear and always-correct definition of The Good or The Evil.

So, if I can't provide you with a clear definition of The Good or a nice written list of The Moral Rules That Everyone Should Follow, how do I know that such things exist? How do I know that Good and Evil are absolute and not relative?

Well, because in practice, everyone acts as if Good and Evil were absolute and not relative. We can sit here and argue about philosophy all day long, and you can claim that Good and Evil are relative, but when it comes down to it, you don't really believe that. No one really believes that. We may not be able to precisely define Good and Evil, but, in many cases, we know them when we see them. I can show you pictures of Evil - things that every person in their right mind would recognize as Evil. And I can show you pictures of Good.

I have never met anyone who can look at pictures of atrocities and still claim that evil is relative, a matter of perspective or opinion. No, it isn't. Capital-E Evil is a thing that exists. And capital-G Good exists as well, although it's not usually as shocking or spectacular as Evil.

Furthermore, the very fact that you're arguing with me right now proves that you think I'm wrong. You don't think I have an opinion and you have an opinion and they're both equally valid. No, you think I'm wrong. So you believe in objective morality too - you just happen to think that your views on the matter (even if those views are limited to "Edric is wrong") are objectively correct.

Constant questioning of this sort can only be done by autonomous individuals, who don't automatically defer to a dogma, and who aren't by default subjugated to the will of the whole, or obligated by some arbitrary law to make altruistic decisions. So, clearly, autonomy and individualism are quintessential to your ideals. Yet you would readily, callously sacrifice them for security (the collective good)?
...say what? This entire paragraph is a non-sequitur. It begins with a blatant falsehood and then just gets worse.

As a matter of fact, constant questioning of this sort can be done by people who automatically defer to a dogma, or who are by default subjugated to the will of the whole, or who feel obligated to make altruistic decisions. Indeed, some of the greatest philosophers in history were precisely people like that! People like Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and many others (Immanuel Kant comes to mind as a secular example), have been at the same time deeply dogmatic and among the greatest philosophers of the Western world. I don't agree with them, by the way - I'm just pointing out that you are dead wrong to assume that opponents of "autonomy and individualism" are somehow unable to ask deep questions.

I'll prep the brainwashing device, you 'round up the anarchic masses.
An old moral dilemma goes like this: If you could press a button and instantly brainwash everyone on Earth into never wanting to do anything evil (whatever that means to you, even if it's just limited to not wanting to hurt others) - would you do it?

I would.

In fact, if such a button existed, it would be a crime not to use it. All your precious "autonomy and individualism" isn't worth the suffering of one single starving child.

Edric O

2014-02-25, 03:09 AM

There's nothing wrong with serving humanity. I freely admit that I would be a better person if I spent more time serving humanity. My issue is when it starts going from 'I should spend more time helping people' to 'everyone has a duty to help people and people who don't feel that way are morally deficient'. I suppose that would be because I also value individuality and personal autonomy. Everyone has a right to live their life with personal autonomy, and as long as they don't infringe anyone elses personal autonomy then I don't have the right to judge them with notions of objective morality.
I'm generally opposed to judging people. I judge actions and hypothetical situations ("if you were to do X in situation Y, you would be objectively wrong and doing an evil thing"), but I'm not going to tell you that you're a good or bad person in general, because there's no way I could possibly have the necessary information to make that judgment. Even if you were a close friend of mine rather than someone I just met on the internet, I would still only get to see a very small fraction of your life. So how could I, on the basis of that small fraction, make a fair judgment of you? I couldn't.

So let me clarify where I stand: Yes, I absolutely do believe that everyone has a duty to help people, and those who don't feel that way are morally deficient. However, I do not know who those morally deficient people are - I don't know any of their names - and I have no interest in finding out. I don't think it's even possible to find out, and it would be a waste of time to try. What I condemn is a certain individualistic attitude and outlook on life, not any specific persons.

I'm not saying "you - yes YOU, John Smith - you're morally deficient!" What I am saying is "those who live primarily for personal enjoyment are morally deficient; if you are reading this and you live primarily for personal enjoyment, please consider changing your outlook."

Please distinguish between Miko before and after hearing Shojo (her lord and master, who she had obeyed - and sacrificed all chance of personal happiness for - ALL HER LIFE) confess that he had played her for a fool all along.

That's when she went sort of crazy. Before that, she was merely very stuck up and self-righteous. Which, by the way, is a VERY common side-effect of discarding yourself in favor of trusting that some specific analysis ("number-crunching" or otherwise) is The True Path To The Greater Good For All Mankind. :smallconfused:
Fair enough, although Miko believed the Order to be in league with Xykon without any real evidence long before the Shojo Incident. As Roy said (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html), "it's like she has that Monk class ability that lets you jump as far as you want, only for her, it applies to conclusions."

Miko's jumping to conclusions was not a result of her philosophical or moral outlook. Neither was her "slash slash slash" approach to problem-solving. Presumably, Hinjo holds the exact same moral beliefs as Miko, but he did not act the way she did.

Also, for the record - had I been in Shojo's place, I would have done exactly what he did. In fact, Shojo is close to being my favourite OOTS character. He openly says, "I admit I made some questionable choices, but it's all been for the greater..." (greater good, I assume). And then of course there are his penultimate words, "Everything I did, I did for my people."

Seto

2014-02-25, 03:50 AM

There is no machine, there are no cogs.
Why would doing math on people to improve the benefit you can provide diminish their person-hood?
There are only people, whether you are dealing with 1, 2, or 2 million.

The fact that one would act upon many people instead of one person when attempting to deprive others of that which they value (theft vs large scale fraud) does not make the act less immoral.

Why then should we assign greater moral force to helping one person 10,000 times than to helping 10,000 people one time?

That is not to say that there are not problems imposed by scale: we are ultimately slaves to our brains, and it is quite difficult to apply the same moral standards to an abstract number of people than to one person you can see (cf. Dunbar's number and the Monkeysphere).
Larger systems also tend to be more susceptible to corruption (either directed or systemic, depending on the model of the system).

But these are ultimately questions of execution, not value.

Which leads us back to the question:
Why should an acts with the same moral objective and the same outcome have different moral force merely because one happens to be executed on a larger scale?

TLDR?: If we accept that there is institutionalized evil, why in Thor's name would there not also be institutionalized good?

The "machine" and "cogs" were in response to Edric O. My point was that when you treat people as nothing more than numbers or cogs in a machine, you're dehumanizing them. When you use numbers to save them, then the nature of what you're doing completely changes, even if you're objectively doing the same thing. You can act morally according to a code or a duty, without being involved in an ethical relationship with the other. Well, to me, the ethical relationship is the most important thing. You have a duty to people, individual people, not Humanity or the collective. It makes a hell of a difference. And I think that, even using numbers and large-scales (I am indeed doubtful about the efficiency of the execution you mentioned), you should do it while keeping in mind that these are individuals you're saving.

Emmanuel Levinas : "The others that obsess me in the other do not affect me as examples of the same genus united with my neighbor by resemblance or common nature, individuations of the human race, or chips off the old block... The others concern me from the first. Here fraternity precedes the commonness of a genus. My relationship with the Other as neighbor gives meaning to my relations with all the others." (from the Other's wikipedia page).

Meaning that if we admit the possibility of institutionalized good, while forgetting the difficulties of its execution, the "good" should always prevail over the "institution" (making effectively abstraction of the fact that you're operating in an institution) : and indeed, IMO good lies within actions and ethical relationships rather than in a system.

@Edric O : About duty and the subjectivity of morality in general : by different contracts, implicit or explicit, I have several duties. To my country, to God if I believe in God, to my family, etc. The question here is, how do I prioritize them ? You're going to answer : by looking at their objective importance. Now ask yourself that : does their objective importance precede your choice, or does your choice give them a subjective importance that you then mistake for objective and justify with reasons ?
To me, the one duty that prevails is the one that makes me exist as an individual, that precedes any possible contract : the duty to the other. But my justifying it and my Levinassianism are all a posteriori : it has become my duty because I have chosen to take it on, not the other way around. That's to say, I won't consider that it's everyone's duty.

As for what you said about capital Evil and Good, yeah ok. I agree. You know them when you see them. But they only exist practically. (That's what I was saying earlier about rationality not holding the criteria for morality). Meaning you cannot derive a theoretical duty or code from them.

Souhiro

2014-02-25, 04:49 AM

An excellent article, much welcome after all those "Durkon's old prejudices are sacrosanct!" comments.

Except this...

Lawful Thor? Are you sure you're reading the same comic as the rest of us?

If The Order of the Stick's Thor is not Chaotic, then I'm the Emperor of China.
Hail, Emperor!

Do anybody here played ever VtM? You have "Nature" and "Demeantor": One is what you are, and the other is what you allow to be seen about you in public.

I think that Thor's nature is chaotic good, and Thor's demeantor is lawful good.
More like most of you, readers, that have a "[email protected]" that you use for your facebook, talking with your friends, sharing the photos of your last party and all the such, and "Joseph.Smith.1987@gmail" that you use for your job.

WSLaFleur

2014-02-25, 06:07 AM

As a matter of fact, constant questioning of this sort can be done by people who automatically defer to a dogma, or who are by default subjugated to the will of the whole, or who feel obligated to make altruistic decisions.

You're confusing people who ARE autonomous individuals and happen to hold dogmatic beliefs with your post-brainwashing flock, as I described them earlier (who would, in-theory, NOT have a choice to begin with.)

There is such a thing as persuasion, you know. If the majority of people believe something, my options aren't limited to "agree with them" or "stop caring about the collective and its opinions". I also have the option to try to persuade people (and, thus, "the collective") to change their minds.

Sure, and this makes you individualistically motivated - more concerned with your own, personal ideas of right & wrong than with the collective democracy. Fly that rebel flag.

Well, because in practice, everyone acts as if Good and Evil were absolute and not relative.

Not me (sociopath: pleased to make your acquaintance), and the world keeps spinning regardless of our scruples.

EDIT: Also, even if this were good enough to resolve our pragmatic discourse, it would still NOT be enough to prove that arbitrary moral laws exists. Your consequentialism assumes that good and evil are measurable quantities, so ignoring the fact that this has been refuted time-and-time-again in modern philosophical debate, You've still got to prove it.

An old moral dilemma goes like this: If you could press a button and instantly brainwash everyone on Earth into never wanting to do anything evil...

I would.

In fact, if such a button existed, it would be a crime not to use it. All your precious "autonomy and individualism" isn't worth the suffering of one single starving child.

I've said it before, and I'm no expert on the subject, but... it sounds like malevolence wrapped in casuistry to me, except this time with a bit more contempt. You've also twisted the arm of your original argument from "You're obliged to be good" to "Just don't be bad". So, yes, starving children do suffer, and it's still no reason (objective, justified) to institute a regime of benevolent tyranny.

Loreweaver15

2014-02-25, 07:37 AM

An old moral dilemma goes like this: If you could press a button and instantly brainwash everyone on Earth into never wanting to do anything evil (whatever that means to you, even if it's just limited to not wanting to hurt others) - would you do it?

I would.

In fact, if such a button existed, it would be a crime not to use it. All your precious "autonomy and individualism" isn't worth the suffering of one single starving child.

And therein lies the core of your argument, really, the center of this whole morass of reprehensible erasure and dogmatic dismissal of the individual: the fact that if you were given the choice, you would commit the worst act of mass murder in history. Seven billion people, gone in the blink of an eye.

We are not people without autonomy. We are nothing more than fleshy sock puppets--your fleshy sock puppets, in this instance--without individual will. You talk a big game about preserving the dignity and well-being of all the trees in your forest, and then burn them all down to prevent them from growing any twists or knots--and proudly proclaim afterwards, "Look, look how pristine my forest of blackened smoking stumps is! Not a single defect in sight!"

Shojo would be ashamed of you. Shojo was Chaotic as hell. He chose to serve the greater Good, and never forced the common citizenry of Azure City to follow in lockstep.

You know, I thought it would be a triumph getting you to admit that you'd erase anyone who disagreed with you, Miko, but I find it's just kind of disappointingly predictable.

oppyu

2014-02-25, 07:57 AM

Rakoa

2014-02-25, 08:27 AM

Whoa, this debate got scary! :smalleek: if I wasn't on Loreweaver's side from the beginning, I am now. Though I was in the first place, being pretty chaotic myself. I would have jumped in earlier if he wasn't already saying everything I would have (and better to boot). Fight the good fight! :smallbiggrin:

halfeye

2014-02-25, 09:58 AM

There is an objective standard of good and evil? I disagree.

When a lioness kills a gazelle is the lioness Evil?

The gazelle is put through pain, and it's life ends, which is all bad from the point of view of the gazelle, but from an objective point of view if you can find one, would the lion starving be less evil?

There is a shortage of resources, and not enough for both the lion and gazelle to live.

There are limited resources in the world because the world is not infinite. The universe is monumentally, gargantuanly huge, but so far as we can tell it's is not infinite, so eventually, even in the entire universe, resources are limited.

The non-infiniteness of the universe is the source of all necessary conflicts. There are unnecessary conflicts, because sometimes beings find they enjoy conflicts, but if you limit evil to those, which maybe some people would, it still leaves you with necessary conflicts, and those aren't going away, ever, in this universe.

Edric O

2014-02-25, 11:23 AM

And therein lies the core of your argument, really, the center of this whole morass of reprehensible erasure and dogmatic dismissal of the individual: the fact that if you were given the choice, you would commit the worst act of mass murder in history. Seven billion people, gone in the blink of an eye.
What I actually said was that, given the choice, I would press a button that would make people stop wishing to do evil.

This doesn't erase anyone's personality, unless you believe that the desire to do evil is so central to people's personality that to take it away from them is tantamount to killing them and replacing them with entirely new people. Do you actually believe that? I certainly don't.

Analogy: What if there was a button that would take away some other desire that people have - say, for example, the desire for eating dessert. Now suppose that someone pressed it for some reason (in case you're wondering, of course I wouldn't). Would that be tantamount to killing everyone on the planet? Of course not. I would still be me even if I never wanted to eat cake or ice cream again. It would be a change to my personality, of course, but a change, not an erasure. And it's a change that could happen naturally, under the right circumstances.

It's the same with the anti-evil button. It would change people, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the individual (for some people, the change would be very small). But it's a change that could happen naturally, and people would still be themselves.

And by the way, I will absolutely put my money where my mouth is: If there was a button that you could press to remove my evil desires - just mine, no one else's - I would insist that you press it. I would press it myself if I could. I apply the same standards to myself as to everyone else.

We are not people without autonomy. We are nothing more than fleshy sock puppets--your fleshy sock puppets, in this instance--without individual will.
Right... which is why I never said anything about removing autonomy. I wasn't talking about a button that would make everyone perfectly Good according to my particular interpretation of the term. I was explicitly talking about a button that would remove the desire to do evil. There's a big difference, and the difference is important.

Also, just to clarify: If I could press a button to instantly brainwash everyone on Earth into always wanting to do only good things... I would absolutely not press it. That would be going too far.

Shojo would be ashamed of you. Shojo was Chaotic as hell. He chose to serve the greater Good, and never forced the common citizenry of Azure City to follow in lockstep.
Really? Because the last time I checked, he was a chessmaster who skillfully manipulated everyone into doing what he wanted. Sure, he didn't force them... he just lied to them so that they would want to do his bidding out of their own volition.

Are you seriously suggesting that lying, cheating and manipulating is somehow more respectful of people's autonomy than pressing the anti-evil button? Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. At least the anti-evil button isn't trying to direct them into following any specific path - it's just telling them which path NOT to follow.

But anyway, nice to meet you, Girard. I didn't expect we'd see eye to eye. :smallsmile:

factotum

2014-02-25, 11:32 AM

Loreweaver15

2014-02-25, 11:46 AM

What I actually said was that, given the choice, I would press a button that would make people stop wishing to do evil.

This doesn't erase anyone's personality, unless you believe that the desire to do evil is so central to people's personality that to take it away from them is tantamount to killing them and replacing them with entirely new people. Do you actually believe that? I certainly don't.

Analogy: What if there was a button that would take away some other desire that people have - say, for example, the desire for eating dessert. Now suppose that someone pressed it for some reason (in case you're wondering, of course I wouldn't). Would that be tantamount to killing everyone on the planet? Of course not. I would still be me even if I never wanted to eat cake or ice cream again. It would be a change to my personality, of course, but a change, not an erasure. And it's a change that could happen naturally, under the right circumstances.

It's the same with the anti-evil button. It would change people, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the individual (for some people, the change would be very small). But it's a change that could happen naturally, and people would still be themselves.

You're missing the point. The point is that screwing with anyone's mind is a heinous crime, that reaching into their brain and changing it to the way you want them to be removes them, as a person, from the equation; they just become an extension of you, like the puppets of the Mule.

And by the way, I will absolutely put my money where my mouth is: If there was a button that you could press to remove my evil desires - just mine, no one else's - I would insist that you press it. I would press it myself if I could. I apply the same standards to myself as to everyone else.

And I would refuse.

There would be no greater horror I could inflict upon you than to screw with your autonomy. I can talk to you, try to change your mind, restrain you, murder the hell out of you if it's really necessary, but performing that kind of...of rape of the soul would be something you'd have to press me absurdly damn hard to do. For example, if you were threatening the entire rest of humanity, I guess I could bring myself to do that to you to save them, and then spend whatever remains of my life being tortured and broken inside because I'd done the very worst thing imaginable to you.

It'd be cleaner to just kill you, in that event.

Right... which is why I never said anything about removing autonomy. I wasn't talking about a button that would make everyone perfectly Good according to my particular interpretation of the term. I was explicitly talking about a button that would remove the desire to do evil. There's a big difference, and the difference is important.

Also, just to clarify: If I could press a button to instantly brainwash everyone on Earth into always wanting to do only good things... I would absolutely not press it. That would be going too far.

That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying, oh, no, I wouldn't force them to do good things, I'd force them to stop doing evil things! Totally different!

Nobody except the extremely mentally ill wants to "do evil." They want things, and they do things, and those actions are good or evil.

Really? Because the last time I checked, he was a chessmaster who skillfully manipulated everyone into doing what he wanted. Sure, he didn't force them... he just lied to them so that they would want to do his bidding out of their own volition.

Are you seriously suggesting that lying, cheating and manipulating is somehow more respectful of people's autonomy than pressing the anti-evil button? Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. At least the anti-evil button isn't trying to direct them into following any specific path - it's just telling them which path NOT to follow.

But anyway, nice to meet you, Girard. I didn't expect we'd see eye to eye. :smallsmile:

He dealt with individuals, manipulating those actively seeking harm to himself or to the populace. He lied and cheated and manipulated, but never was he privy to the kind of mind rape that you're suggesting.

So, yes, I do believe that lying and manipulation is more respectful than reaching into someone's brain and forcing them to obey, because at the least it's an even playing field.

And I'll thank you to understand that Girard's problem was that he refused to acknowledge the merits of the Lawful, that the Lawful could even be, in fact, Good. Something rather similar to your approach to Chaos. If you seriously think that neither Shojo nor Soon Kim himself would stick a blade in your gullet for trying to brainwash the masses, you've seriously misunderstood the characters.

Again I say: if you reach into someone's head and forcibly change the way they think, you've removed their autonomy. You've removed their ability to even be moral, because they're just obeying the directives that have been planted in their brains. Morality is based on choice; it's the why of it, not the what. We've already discussed how murdering Tarquin for his pocket change would be an evil act in spite of all the good it led to. If you force someone to be what you want them to be--whether they agree with you or not--you've removed the person and substituted an empty machine.

Edric O

2014-02-25, 01:02 PM

You're missing the point. The point is that screwing with anyone's mind is a heinous crime, that reaching into their brain and changing it to the way you want them to be removes them, as a person, from the equation; they just become an extension of you, like the puppets of the Mule.
If you'll recall, the Mule was eventually stopped by the Second Foundation - a legion of mind-controllers on a holy mission to direct the course of human history in order to make it achieve their desired result - reaching into his brain and reprogramming him to be their puppet. By doing so, they brought his tyranny to an end, put the Seldon Plan back on track, and probably saved billions of lives.

I love the Foundation series. Asimov is my favourite author, and R Daneel Olivaw is probably my favourite character in all of fiction. And I know that R Daneel would be on my side, because the last time we saw him he was in the process of... well... turning Humanity into a literal Hive Mind. That's a lot further than I am willing to go, but there you have it.

And since R Daneel was the central hero of the Robots-Foundation universe, I'm quite confident that Asimov himself would also agree with me.

"A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

And I would refuse.

There would be no greater horror I could inflict upon you than to screw with your autonomy.
But the thing is, I firmly believe that it's NOT any kind of horror to screw with my autonomy - in fact I want you to. So, does your respect for my autonomy also extend to respect for my firm belief about the (relative lack of) importance of my own autonomy? Or do you know what's bad for me better than I know it myself?

How does your own moral relativism deal with giving people something they want (in this case, giving me my brainwashing), but which YOU - not them - consider to be "the greatest horror you could inflict upon them"?

I want to be a better person. I want this. Press. The. Button.

It'd be cleaner to just kill you, in that event.
Whoa, so you are now the judge of whether it is in fact better to kill me than to give me what I want?

You're turning out to be quite the paladin for the holy cause of autonomy. Maybe you and I are no so different after all, hmmm?

That's a distinction without a difference. You're saying, oh, no, I wouldn't force them to do good things, I'd force them to stop doing evil things! Totally different!
Actually, yes, it is totally different, in the same way that giving you a list of orders you must carry out is different from giving you a list of things to avoid doing. The former is a much greater violation of autonomy than the latter. "Do what I tell you" and "Do whatever you want except the things I forbid you" are definitely not the same thing.

Again I say: if you reach into someone's head and forcibly change the way they think, you've removed their autonomy. You've removed their ability to even be moral, because they're just obeying the directives that have been planted in their brains. Morality is based on choice; it's the why of it, not the what. We've already discussed how murdering Tarquin for his pocket change would be an evil act in spite of all the good it led to. If you force someone to be what you want them to be--whether they agree with you or not--you've removed the person and substituted an empty machine.
So here we are, with you thinking in terms of black and white and me telling you that there are shades of gray. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Yes, there are shades of gray. Of course there are. Reaching into your mind to - I don't know, change your favourite color - is absolutely not the same as a Mind Flayer making you his thrall. The extent of the change in your mind makes all the difference in the world. Removing a few desires does not make you an automaton. To go back to my earlier example, suppose I reached into your mind and changed your food preferences. Would that be "removing your ability to even be moral, because you're just obeying the directives that I've planted in your brain"? Uh, no. Not even close.

Likewise, suppose I reached into your mind to add such compassion that it would pain you to cause any kind of harm to another human being. Would that be "removing your ability to be moral"? Absolutely not. You'd still be making all your own choices, just under the influence of different emotions.

Rakoa

2014-02-25, 01:07 PM

But anyway, nice to meet you, Girard. I didn't expect we'd see eye to eye. :smallsmile:

Okay I want to interject once more to say that, although I don't agree with you at all, that line there was hilarious! :smallbiggrin:

Loreweaver15

2014-02-25, 01:32 PM

If you'll recall, the Mule was eventually stopped by the Second Foundation - a legion of mind-controllers on a holy mission to direct the course of human history in order to make it achieve their desired result - reaching into his brain and reprogramming him to be their puppet. By doing so, they brought his tyranny to an end, put the Seldon Plan back on track, and probably saved billions of lives.

I love the Foundation series. Asimov is my favourite author, and R Daneel Olivaw is probably my favourite character in all of fiction. And I know that R Daneel would be on my side, because the last time we saw him he was in the process of... well... turning Humanity into a literal Hive Mind. That's a lot further than I am willing to go, but there you have it.

And since R Daneel was the central hero of the Robots-Foundation universe, I'm quite confident that Asimov himself would also agree with me.

Interesting. The last Foundation book I'd gotten ahold of was the one where the Mule was introduced, and followed a group of people in their (ultimately futile) attempts to end his reign. I'd always had the Mule strike me as one of the most vile entities I'd ever encountered in fiction, and to find out that he's eventually beaten by people doing to him what he did to others--and then aiming to do that to the rest of the universe, instead of the passive manipulation of the rest of the Seldon Plan--frankly horrifies me. I'll have to give the rest of the Foundation series a read, if I can stomach it, but by your accounts, evil was paid unto evil to "save" those billions of lives for a fate even worse.

But the thing is, I firmly believe that it's NOT any kind of horror to screw with my autonomy - in fact I want you to. So, does your respect for my autonomy also extend to respect for my firm belief about the (relative lack of) importance of my own autonomy? Or do you know what's bad for me better than I know it myself?

How does your own moral relativism deal with giving people something they want (in this case, giving me my brainwashing), but which YOU - not them - consider to be "the greatest horror you could inflict upon them"?

I want to be a better person. I want this. Press. The. Button.

It deals with it by having you be only one part of the equation. You're asking me for it, you're begging me for it, but what I believe is that if I do this thing to you, then I have become a horrible monster, and thus it is not right for me to take this action.

Whoa, so you are now the judge of whether it is in fact better to kill me than to give me what I want?

You're turning out to be quite the paladin for the holy cause of autonomy. Maybe you and I are no so different after all, hmmm?

Please. If championing a philosophy makes you a 'paladin', sure. There are plenty of sane paladins capable of accepting that people with differing viewpoints exist and have the right to coexist peacefully; it's when that coexistence ceases to be peaceful that the swords come out.

You'll notice that Haley has made several judgment calls as to whether it's better to kill someone than to let them continue trying to hurt people, and she's absolutely Chaotic.

Actually, yes, it is totally different, in the same way that giving you a list of orders you must carry out is different from giving you a list of things to avoid doing. The former is a much greater violation of autonomy than the latter. "Do what I tell you" and "Do whatever you want except the things I forbid you" are definitely not the same thing.

They're both violations of autonomy and freedom. As was said earlier:

Because the core tenet is freedom. Not just freedom to do whatever you want, but freedom from harm, freedom from fear, freedom to go on living life without worrying that someone will impose their will on you in a harmful fashion. I can do what I want regarding myself, but when my choices start affecting other people beyond the point of inspiring feelings of sanctimonious disapproval, then I'm impeding the freedom of others and need to start carefully considering my actions.

There's a certain level of awfulness above which it ceases to matter how much more or less evil an action is than another action.

So here we are, with you thinking in terms of black and white and me telling you that there are shades of gray. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

Kind of makes you question your assertion that individualists are the moral relativists, doesn't it? It's almost like deciding things about people based upon some "collective" they belong to is foolish :P

There are some things that are black and white, and a lot more things that are gray. If you weren't somebody who'd already said that ambition was evil, that focusing on the betterment of the self over servile devotion to the vague, nebulous supercollective you posit was evil (which conveniently disregards all those real, smaller collectives that make it up, almost all of which disagree with each other on what makes for the Greater Good!) I wouldn't be arguing that you were trying to take a part of people's souls away by removing your idea of "evil".

Yes, there are shades of gray. Of course there are. Reaching into your mind to - I don't know, change your favourite color - is absolutely not the same as a Mind Flayer making you his thrall. The extent of the change in your mind makes all the difference in the world. Removing a few desires does not make you an automaton. To go back to my earlier example, suppose I reached into your mind and changed your food preferences. Would that be "removing your ability to even be moral, because you're just obeying the directives that I've planted in your brain"? Uh, no. Not even close.

Likewise, suppose I reached into your mind to add such compassion that it would pain you to cause any kind of harm to another human being. Would that be "removing your ability to be moral"? Absolutely not. You'd still be making all your own choices, just under the influence of different emotions.

Yes, yes, changing something as meaningless as favorite food or favorite color would have relatively negligible effects on their personality (though if I knew you'd done that to, say, my best friend, I'd never be able to trust that you hadn't screwed with other stuff in his head while you were in there), but that's not what we're talking about here. You're not positing the removal of something ridiculous like people's enjoyment of the color pink; you're positing the removal of impulses and impetus that is not from some commonly agreed version of the "greater good", but is rather your version of the greater good.
And before you toss more insults at me about my sharing a single alignment modifier with a paranoid jerk with trust issues, Lawful people are individuals. You are not other Lawful people; that you're capable of something so heinous doesn't change that my best friend shares your spot on the Law/Chaos axis, that literally dozens of other Lawful people in my life would be fighting you right alongside me. That Girard Draketooth and I share Chaos is about as relevant as the fact that we share a Y chromosome.