Goblins and the evolution of Gaming Morality

[danielxcutter]

Look, if you can't manage to be more effective with a bomb dropped on a city than a single sword that seems like a you problem, not a bomb problem.

Depends on the rulesets we’re using. Apparently nukes have surprisingly low damage. Think they’re in d20 Modern.

[Cazero]

Depends on the rulesets we’re using. Apparently nukes have surprisingly low damage. Think they’re in d20 Modern.

More importantly, a sword doesn't break after the first hit. You'll kill more people with it eventualy.

[Doug Lampert]

Bombs also can be directed at killing an open and violent enemy, and yet still kill innocents as a side effect. If I bomb a village that contains a deadly enemy and where bombs are the most effective/safest way to get him, and innocent children die, then I can reasonably claim that I was trying to kill the deadly enemy.

If I use a sword to kill the deadly enemy, and then go through the rest of the village killing children, that claim has a lot less credibility.

Use of human shields is more of a crime by the side using them than by the side dropping bombs on them. But it's much, much harder to use innocents as a human shield against a sword. Hence the presumption with a sword is that the person using the sword intended to kill the innocent, while that presumption is weaker with a bomb from 30,000 feet. [I'm pretty sure I've seen fiction where someone did use a human shield against a sword, and that it is consistently treated as a dastardly deed by the guy using the human shield, not by the guy using the sword.]

The profoundly anti-war TV show MASH once had an episode where someone put an ammo dump next to the hospital, and all of the good characters made the point that if the enemy tried to bomb the ammo dump and hit the hospital, that wasn't THEIR (the enemy's) fault, it was the fault of the people who put an ammo dump next to a hospital. And that if the army put anti-aircraft guns in to protect the dump, then that just made the area around the hospital an even more legitimate target for high altitude bombing or artillery. And just to make the point 100% clear, the character who chose to put the dump there claimed to have gotten the idea from something the Nazi's did in WWII.

[Edited to add] In theory it is still possible to declare a city "open", which means "We promise not to defend or fight in that city or to use it to directly support military operations, and we expect you not to bomb that city." Basically, you can metaphorically put a giant Red Cross flag over the entire city to make it not a legitimate target for bombs.

[Squire Doodad]

Basically, you can metaphorically put a giant Red Cross flag over the entire city to make it not a legitimate target for bombs.

I'm tempted to use this in a game now

[Doug Lampert]

I'm tempted to use this in a game now

Wikipedia has a page on Open Cities, they are in the Geneva Conventions, but there were similar rules much earlier than the Geneva Convention.

Early modern warfare had a rule where if a city's wall had a "practical breech" (basically, a hole big enough to send troops through without them being easily slaughtered) then the defenders could request the "honors of war", and if granted, then the garrison was allowed to march out with their weapons, and go somewhere else, and the city surrendered without a fight allowing the civilians to live (which most of them would not if the city was sacked by storming troops in through that breech).

Similarly, IIRC, defenders in some medieval wars had the right to make the best terms they could and simply surrender the fortress or city they were garrisoning if they were not relieved within a particular time period (usually 90 days IIRC) without it being considered dishonorable or a betrayal of their own side. Basically, a city wasn't required to starve itself to death on behalf of a king who couldn't defend it.

There should be some way in most settings to say, "We're not fighting over this city, if you can take the surrounding countryside, we'll give you the city without a fight". The attacker has little or no reason to ever say NO to such an offer if it's made prior to conducting an expensive siege and if he trusts the offer.

[pearl jam]

Please kindly gather all your military targets into clumps, preferably in open unforrested terrain away from civilian areas, so that we can feel morally unimpeachable as we drop bombs on them from airplanes.

We'll still drop the bombs either way, but then it will be your fault if you haven't moved. Unintended consequences.

[arimareiji]

Please kindly gather all your military targets into clumps, preferably in open unforrested terrain away from civilian areas, so that we can feel morally unimpeachable as we drop bombs on them from airplanes.

We'll still drop the bombs either way, but then it will be your fault if you haven't moved. Unintended consequences.

All right, Durkula (panel 1^*). (^_~)

_{* - But the rest is worth a read anyway, since the last panel may be Roy's single greatest crowning Moment of Awesome. Either that, or panel 7 of the next strip.}

[Worldsong]

Please kindly gather all your military targets into clumps, preferably in open unforrested terrain away from civilian areas, so that we can feel morally unimpeachable as we drop bombs on them from airplanes.

We'll still drop the bombs either way, but then it will be your fault if you haven't moved. Unintended consequences.

If the alternative is every settlement and hospital turning into a warzone because military units keep trying to use these places as shields against attacks I'll take the idea that the defensive side has some responsibility in where they set up their barricades. It may seem unfair, but fairness appears to not have the power to turn those smoking ruins back into buildings and living people.

[Mariele]

IMO, if put into a situation in which they were allowed to massacre children with no negative consequences, the biggest factor that would keep a lot of people from participating would be plain laziness, not morality.

That's the most horrific point of view I've come across in a long time, and I'm completely serious.

No. No. No. Very, very few, extremely disturbed, people would kill or hurt children if given the option without consequences. Even people who "don't like" kids don't want them harm, they just don't want to be around them. If I could do it without consequences, yes, I would massacre a number of criminals. I wouldn't massacre random adults. And I certainly wouldn't harm children, much less massacre them. The fact that you think that "a lot" of people would do it is nothing short of terrifying.

And don't give me that "but you've never been in that situation so how could you knooooow" BS. I've done a lot of crap in my life, not all of it legal or moral, and I can tell you right now that I know I wouldn't hurt a kid any more than I would drop a bomb on a city if given the opportunity. If I can't know that much about myself, then I have no identity, period.

[pearl jam]

If the alternative is every settlement and hospital turning into a warzone because military units keep trying to use these places as shields against attacks I'll take the idea that the defensive side has some responsibility in where they set up their barricades. It may seem unfair, but fairness appears to not have the power to turn those smoking ruins back into buildings and living people.

Not killing people and not destroying buildings is pretty effective at preventing that situation.

Each side in a conflict is responsible for its own means and methods.

Attempts to free one side from responsibility for the consequences of its actions by using the actions of the other side as an excuse are rationalizations.

[Worldsong]

Not killing people and not destroying buildings is pretty effective at preventing that situation.

Each side in a conflict is responsible for its own means and methods.

Attempts to free one side from responsibility for the consequences of its actions by using the actions of the other side as an excuse are rationalizations.

Either rationalizations or the realization that if it's purely the attacker's fault for hitting innocents, soldiers are just going to tie civilians up and drag them onto the battlefield so the other side can't do anything to them.

A world where both sides have responsibility for the well-being of their own civilians, even if any present danger is caused by the presence of enemy forces, is infinitely better than one where defenders can just say it's the fault of the enemy forces for being present in the first place.

EDIT:
Also, I didn't claim that the attacker is completely devoid of responsibility, just that if a military unit settles in a spot where civilians are present while knowing that enemy forces are approaching and intending to fight with such enemy forces when advantageous they can't just angrily shake their fist at the enemy forces when said forces consider civilian casualties preferable over being attacked by a military unit they can't strike back at.

[arimareiji]

Not killing people and not destroying buildings is pretty effective at preventing that situation.

Each side in a conflict is responsible for its own means and methods.

Attempts to free one side from responsibility for the consequences of its actions by using the actions of the other side as an excuse are rationalizations.

Either rationalizations or the realization that if it's purely the attacker's fault for hitting innocents, soldiers are just going to tie civilians up and drag them onto the battlefield so the other side can't do anything to them.

A world where both sides have responsibility for the well-being of their own civilians, even if any present danger is caused by the presence of enemy forces, is infinitely better than one where defenders can just say it's the fault of the enemy forces for being present in the first place.

Would "Each person/side is responsible for their own actions, with others' actions being mitigating at best" be a common point of agreement?

Spoiler: for the sake of example

Show

0) B makes an egregious error.
1) A humiliates B in front of coworkers.
2) B asks C to invent a false reason to get A fired.
3) C invents an obviously-false reason.
4) D (who didn't like A much) pretends not to notice, and fires A.
5) A physically harms D.
Who's ultimately responsible for each line? The first letter. The rest provides background that may be important, but not justification per se.

True coercion is a lot more rare than most of us like to think, and even under those extreme circumstances we do still technically have a choice.

[Worldsong]

Would "Each person/side is responsible for their own actions, with others' actions being mitigating at best" be a common point of agreement?

Spoiler: for the sake of example

Show

0) B makes an egregious error.
1) A humiliates B in front of coworkers.
2) B asks C to invent a false reason to get A fired.
3) C invents an obviously-false reason.
4) D (who didn't like A much) pretends not to notice, and fires A.
5) A physically harms D.
Who's ultimately responsible for each line? The first letter. The rest provides background that may be important, but not justification per se.

True coercion is a lot more rare than most of us like to think, and even under those extreme circumstances we do still technically have a choice.

If a village or other innocent target gets destroyed because one military force decided to set up camp in/around said target while there were enemy forces present in the area and hostile activity was very likely to commence both sides are at fault, but the important part is that it's unambiguous that the defending force is also at fault because otherwise, it's a certainty that military units are going to try and use human shields as a form of defence.

EDIT:
So yes, everyone carries their own responsibility but the defending side carries the responsibility of setting up camp in an area where civilians could get involved in predictable hostile activity.

[pearl jam]

Either rationalizations or the realization that if it's purely the attacker's fault for hitting innocents, soldiers are just going to tie civilians up and drag them onto the battlefield so the other side can't do anything to them.

A world where both sides have responsibility for the well-being of their own civilians, even if any present danger is caused by the presence of enemy forces, is infinitely better than one where defenders can just say it's the fault of the enemy forces for being present in the first place.

EDIT:
Also, I didn't claim that the attacker is completely devoid of responsibility, just that if a military unit settles in a spot where civilians are present while knowing that enemy forces are approaching and intending to fight with such enemy forces when advantageous they can't just angrily shake their fist at the enemy forces when said forces consider civilian casualties preferable over being attacked by a military unit they can't strike back at.

Both sides can and very likely will say whatever they want to justify their own positions. That has no impact on the moral implications.

Maybe dropping bombs and remaining morally untarnished at the same time is just really hard to do.

[arimareiji]

If a village or other innocent target gets destroyed because one military force decided to set up camp in/around said target while there were enemy forces present in the area and hostile activity was very likely to commence both sides are at fault, but the important part is that it's unambiguous that the defending force is also at fault because otherwise, it's a certainty that military units are going to try and use human shields as a form of defence.

If it helps clarify, I'd say the attackers are responsible for shelling near enough to a target that strays are going to hit it. The defenders are responsible for putting the target in harm's way to try to protect themselves. Each can claim that they "had to" do what they did because of the other, but in the end those are mitigating circumstances. Each is responsible for their own actions, with "fault" for the entirety of the incident being far too nebulous and subject to selective interpretation depending on which side you like.

[Worldsong]

Both sides can and very likely will say whatever they want to justify their own positions. That has no impact on the moral implications.

Maybe dropping bombs and remaining morally untarnished at the same time is just really hard to do.

Yes, but the important part is that it's also very difficult to remain morally untarnished when you know the enemy is dropping bombs and you, as a military unit, go sit somewhere where civilian targets could get hit by the bombs which are aimed at you.

If it helps clarify, I'd say the attackers are responsible for shelling near enough to a target that strays are going to hit it. The defenders are responsible for putting the target in harm's way to try to protect themselves. Each can claim that they "had to" do what they did because of the other, but in the end those are mitigating circumstances. Each is responsible for their own actions, with "fault" for the entirety of the incident being far too nebulous and subject to selective interpretation depending on which side you like.

Well, yeah, both sides are at fault in such a scenario.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's vital that the defending force is also held accountable because if they're not held accountable human shield tactics become the norm.

[arimareiji]

Well, yeah, both sides are at fault in such a scenario.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's vital that the defending force is also held accountable because if they're not held accountable human shield tactics become the norm.

I think we may just be splitting hairs: I wholeheartedly agree that the defending force is at fault for their own actions. They're knowingly putting the village/whatever in harm's way. But the attacking force is at fault for attacking, knowing they'll catch innocents in the crossfire.

All I'm saying is that what they're responsible for is "their own actions".

[pearl jam]

Yes, but the important part is that it's also very difficult to remain morally untarnished when you know the enemy is dropping bombs and you, as a military unit, go sit somewhere where civilian targets could get hit by the bombs which are aimed at you.



Well, yeah, both sides are at fault in such a scenario.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's vital that the defending force is also held accountable because if they're not held accountable human shield tactics become the norm.

You keep insisting to me that this is more important than the choice to drop bombs and I simply don't agree with you.

[Worldsong]

I think we may just be splitting hairs: I wholeheartedly agree that the defending force is at fault for their own actions. They're knowingly putting the village/whatever in harm's way. But the attacking force is at fault for attacking, knowing they'll catch innocents in the crossfire.

All I'm saying is that what they're responsible for is "their own actions".

I think it's mostly a difference in priority at this point.

You keep insisting to me that this is more important than the choice to drop bombs and I simply don't agree with you.

Yeah, that's why I keep hammering on it. Of course, we could just acknowledge that we hold different opinions.

[Dion]

That, and/or the Official Blessing of Authority.

The most interesting thing today about the Milgram experiment isn't that about 65% of people would just flat out kill a guy if they were told to do it by someone in a labcoat.

We've had 60+ years to come to grip with the idea that the of majority people will do what they're told, even if they're told "shock this innocent guy to death because I said so".

The most interesting thing is that before the experiment, even Yale psychologists thought "oh, there's no way an average person is going to kill a guy because someone in a labcoat told them to. At most, 3% of people would kill the guy."

[danielxcutter]

The most interesting thing today about the Milgram experiment isn't that about 65% of people would just flat out kill a guy if they were told to do it by a person in a labcoat.

We've had 60+ years to come to grip with the idea that the majority people will do what they're told, even if they're told "shock this innocent guy to death because I said so".

The most interesting thing is that before the experiment, even Yale psychologists thought "oh, there's no way an average person is going to kill a guy because a person in a labcoat told them to. At most, 3% of people would kill the guy."

You know, once I had heard of this I basically made a promise to myself to never do such a thing.

I just hope I never have to choose whether to keep it, but if I must I hope I will. Knowing about it probably does make it a bit easier.

[arimareiji]

The most interesting thing today about the Milgram experiment isn't that about 65% of people would just flat out kill a guy if they were told to do it by someone in a labcoat.

We've had 60+ years to come to grip with the idea that the of majority people will do what they're told, even if they're told "shock this innocent guy to death because I said so".

The most interesting thing is that before the experiment, even Yale psychologists thought "oh, there's no way an average person is going to kill a guy because someone in a labcoat told them to. At most, 3% of people would kill the guy."

We're all storytellers who have to be the 1) Good Guy and 2) protagonist in control. Break down most of the well-known systematic logical fallacies, and you'll find one or the other at the root.

• I am a human.
• Humans' intelligence and "souls" are far superior to all other beings.
• It would be rare for a noble, intelligent creature with a "soul" to make hideous, irrational decisions.
• Electrocuting someone for simple mistakes on the word of someone in a lab coat is a hideous, irrational decision.
• Therefore, it would be rare for any human to do so.
• And even if it's repeatedly replicated up by a variety of experimenters and methods, showing that a majority of humans will readily do what Authority tells them to, there's not enough evidence to prove it.
• There will never be enough evidence to prove it.

[SavageWombat]

Getting a little "real worldy" in here again...

[Vahnavoi]

That's the most horrific point of view I've come across in a long time, and I'm completely serious.

No. No. No. Very, very few, extremely disturbed, people would kill or hurt children if given the option without consequences.

I love it how many people reduce dps's opinion to a strawman. The argument was not that most people would kill children if there were no negative consequences to them - it was that most people would stop merely due to laziness, rather than morality.

This was in response to my call to "not confuse lack of ability or opportunity with morality".

Think of it this way: suppose humans have a strong, in-built aversion to killing babies, to the extent most of them cannot kill a baby if they can see it suffer.

What's that gotta do with morality, huh?

They aren't making a choice to not kill, they are just unable to make a choice to kill.

Suppose then that a direct order from an authority figure can be used to override this aversion.

Hence, most people will be disgusted by the idea of killing a baby, they will be emotionally anquished when asked to do it, they will verbally resist and claim they won't do it, won't go any further... but they will still kill a baby if the authority figure insists.

What's that gotta do with morality, huh?

They aren't making the choice to kill, they are just unable to resist the choice being made for them.

Suppose, now, that a human is in a situation where they can kill a baby with no negative consequence. They just have no reason to. They are not hungry, so the baby does not register as food. The baby is silent and content, so it is not annoying them in any shape or form. They do not see any pleasure in harming the baby.

So on and so forth.

What's that got to do with morality, huh?

Is there any reason to consider "I had no reason to kill a baby so I didn't" as an indicator of morality?

What theory of morality are you injecting into these equations which bridges that gap created by Hume's quillotine and allows you to turn the statement "most people wouldn't kill babies if there were no consequences" into "most people people wouldn't kill babies if there were no consequences because it's immoral"?

If I can't know that much about myself, then I have no identity, period.

Identity - or at least, most of things people consider to be their "identity" - is a lie your brain tells itself. Fairly minor physical and psychological shocks can cause identity crises and the most common form of getting over those is for people to forget details that conflict and challenge their self-image.

So as far as I'm concerned, you don't have an "identity". Discussing anyone's identity on an anonymous internet forum continues to be supremely uninteresting.

[Yirggzmb]

That's definitely getting into "what even is morality?" territory, which has been debated to the ends of the earth and back by philosophers.

My opinion is that, even going from "there is no objective morality because it's something that humans made up", it doesn't actually matter. We are subjective humans living in a world filtered by our limited senses, so why wouldn't a subjective human-invented morality still be important to those subjective humans? Ditto for things like identity. It doesn't matter if they're objectively real because none of us experience the world in an objective manner anyway.

That said, it's also valuable to learn more about the ways our subjective brains lie to us so that we can be more informed when making choices. One of the interesting things about the human brain is this weird meta thinking we have about ourselves and our world. And if a person who thinks "X is terrible, I would never" learns that "a high percentage of people will do X in Y situation even if they would tell you they think it's terrible", then it's not so bad a thing if the person then decides to be more mindful so that they're less likely to end up in a Y-like situation without realizing it.

I'm trying to keep this away from actual real world situations since that goes bad road really easily.

[Worldsong]

If we're entering the territory of "Killing/Not killing children is not an immoral/moral act because people are instinctively inclined towards obeying orders to kill children/protecting children" I counter with "All living beings are biological machines whose behaviour is entirely predictable and based on how stimuli activates the part of the machine that controls the rest of the machine, therefore free will doesn't exist and morality as a whole also doesn't exist."

Unless you've got hard proof that one's biology simply disallows them from performing a certain action (such as flight) you shouldn't just dismiss that particular action as disconnected from morality because it's more convenient.

EDIT:
Unless of course, the author of the story is openly messing about with the notion of free will, but in OotS's case I think the author is pretty much on the side which says that assigning certain habits or tendencies to one's nature rather than one's choices as an individual is probably a bad idea since that's a slippery slope into racism/speciesism.

EDIT2:
Although now that I think about it Redcloak's speech about how undead are basically unholy automaton could be seen as exploring the notion of free will although I doubt Rich expects anyone to seriously defend Xykon's actions. Best you've got there is that he's a murderous machine which has to be turned off.

[Lemarc]

If I could do it without consequences, yes, I would massacre a number of criminals. I wouldn't massacre random adults. And I certainly wouldn't harm children, much less massacre them. The fact that you think that "a lot" of people would do it is nothing short of terrifying.

I disagree with the point of view you're arguing against more vehemently than I disagree with you, but I do not think "If I could do it without consequences, yes, I would massacre a number of criminals" is an acceptable attitude.

[arimareiji]

I disagree with the point of view you're arguing against more vehemently than I disagree with you, but I do not think "If I could do it without consequences, yes, I would massacre a number of criminals" is an acceptable attitude.

"X is wrong, but in Y case it can be rationalized" is how good intentions can eventually lead to a very bad place.

[Kish]

I disagree with the point of view you're arguing against more vehemently than I disagree with you, but I do not think "If I could do it without consequences, yes, I would massacre a number of criminals" is an acceptable attitude.

Quoted to second every keystroke of this.

[Vahnavoi]

That's definitely getting into "what even is morality?" territory, which has been debated to the ends of the earth and back by philosophers.

That's a platitude with no value. There may be no consensus, but that's not the same as there being no answers. Pick a side and follow through.

My opinion is that, even going from "there is no objective morality because it's something that humans made up", it doesn't actually matter. We are subjective humans living in a world filtered by our limited senses, so why wouldn't a subjective human-invented morality still be important to those subjective humans? Ditto for things like identity. It doesn't matter if they're objectively real because none of us experience the world in an objective manner anyway.

So which human-invented subjective morality system are you using to answer these questions? Which side or whose side are you picking?

---

If we're entering the territory of "Killing/Not killing children is not an immoral/moral act because people are instinctively inclined towards obeying orders to kill children/protecting children" I counter with "All living beings are biological machines whose behaviour is entirely predictable and based on how stimuli activates the part of the machine that controls the rest of the machine, therefore free will doesn't exist and morality as a whole also doesn't exist."

That would be a counter, but it's the wrong counter if it's not what you actually believe in.

Unless you've got hard proof that one's biology simply disallows them from performing a certain action (such as flight) you shouldn't just dismiss that particular action as disconnected from morality because it's more convenient.

"We can't prove they had no choice, so we must assume they did have a choice" is good enough for a courtroom, but it still leaves the fundamental question open: you say we shouldn't dismiss it, but you have not said which system to evaluate it by.

EDIT:
Unless of course, the author of the story is openly messing about with the notion of free will, but in OotS's case I think the author is pretty much on the side which says that assigning certain habits or tendencies to one's nature rather than one's choices as an individual is probably a bad idea since that's a slippery slope into racism/speciesism.

We know for fact that an individual's choices are not detached from their nature. For example, your ability to form coherent sentences is reliant on you having a specific mutation of the FOX2P gene. So while you can say that we shouldn't assume habits and tendencies are in one's nature, you still have to deal with all those cases where they are and decide what moral worth, if any, to ascribe to them.

Put differently, even if a specific story, like OotS, is not dealing particularly with problems of free will, to apply lessons of a story to real world you still need to address those problems.

EDIT2:
Although now that I think about it Redcloak's speech about how undead are basically unholy automaton could be seen as exploring the notion of free will although I doubt Rich expects anyone to seriously defend Xykon's actions. Best you've got there is that he's a murderous machine which has to be turned off.

Why would Xykon being an unholy automaton not having free will defend any of their actions?