Debt to Sarevok

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:06 pm

Fezek-san,

A simple yes-no will *not* suffice. By playing BG, you are accepting the alignment system as written and thus the definitions of good and evil AS WRITTEN IN THE ALIGNMENTS.

Therefor your question is meaningless. You *have* to accept the western ethical PoV because you implicitly accept it by playing the game with the alignment system as presented.

Given the alignment system *as* *written*, BG is based solely on western ethics. That means the Solar was dead wrong. There just isn't much room for discussion...and therefor not much point *in* discussing it further.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:14 pm

I take it you don't want to discuss it anymore!

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:22 pm

Fezek,

I would LOVE to discuss this more....that is part of the problem here

However, what has needed to be said has been. Unless you can accept that by playing BG with WESTERN based alignments you are implicitly accepting a western ethical system, we really don't have much to say to each other.

Actually this is one important reason why I strongly DISLIKE alignment systems in RPGs (especially PnP). They FORCE a philosophical point of view down a character's (and player's) throat whether they agree with it or not. That doesn't detract from my prior point one iota though. By accepting the alignment system in BG (by playing the game), you are by default forced to accept western ethics as the basis of good or evil. If you do, then the Solar was wrong.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:33 pm

@Polaris-san..Well, off topic what I liked most about PnP was how we could interpret "rules" as guidelines. For example, other than Paladins, we didn't go for the alignment thing. Just too much bollocks. Secondly, in our games there were no race restrictions. Just didn't seem right playing that way. Smacked of racism. How about you? Did you ever "bend" the rules?

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:38 pm

Fezek-san,

Of course I bent the rules when I play an RPG (PnP) of any sort...they are called house rules.

As for alignment though, by NOT enforcing the alignment rules, you are in fact conceeding the point. In BG, however, you DON'T have the option of house rules. You have to accept the alignment system or refuse to play the game.

Clearer?

BTW, what if the GM did *not* wish to house-rule alignment? Would you still play? I would say if the answer is yes, then you are accepting (in the game) the GM's ethical PoV over your own. BG is no different in that regard.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Aug 07, 2001 11:52 pm

@Polaris-san..I thought this was off topic

To be honest, when I said we didn't enforce the alignment system, I mean I was twelve years old and we just wanted to lay traps, say the word "bastard sword" when my mum was around, and beat up on some orcs. We didn't enforce things because ,at twelve, it's too much messing about rather than " This is too Kantian for my liking, I prefer the Wankdorf philosophical setback". And with BG2, it's just an excuse for my lass and I to relive our youth. Alignment philosophy never comes into it. But, I'm sure you'll convince me otherwise

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:00 am

Fezek,

Ah yes...that brings back memories of when I started gaming in the late 70's....and it was much the same I am afraid

The problem I have with BG on this is severalfold:

1. Alignment doesn't make *any* game difference (other than what class you can play). OTOH, the entire DEFINITION of good and evil is the whole *point* of the story and the whole basis behind the alignment system.

2. A *game* should be consistant. If you have a set definition of good and evil in your world (whether you agree with it or not IRL), then the game out to be CONSISTANT about it. In this case (getting back on topic), the system of good and evil *in* Baldur's Gate is strictly western (Kantian in fact). That MEANS that the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of your answers to the Solar's questions should be made ON THE SAME BASIS IN THE GAME. [Games should be consistant right?]

3. [And this is my real beef] If you follow western ethical thought down the line (as *outlined* by the alignment system) then the Solar is *wrong* and you are unfairly branded with an evil test result. As near as I can tell this was a *gross* *error* on the part of Bioware. If you have set ethical definitions in a game (and BG does), then they need to be *consistant* in the game.

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:05 am

Ah, but the game is rarely consistent. It's just been designed to bash things about.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:10 am

Games *need* to be consistant ESPECIALLY when it comes to plot essential events (like the Solar tests).

My rule is this: If it is essential to the plot, then you MUST have absolute consistancy. In this case the ethical question *IS* essential to the plot.

If games were rarely consistant, then why bother having rules?

-Polaris

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:27 am

Sorry my fault. I brought this back on topic. I suppose I was more interested in how you messed about with the "rules" in the past. The words philosophy and Bg2/DnD just don't go together in my head. This thread is interesting because heated debates are always fun.
I think of BG2's rules as guidelines. The thing with the Solar is well, I haven't installed yet.

I just can't be convinced of the "black/white"-ness of it all. Sorry. You see it that way, I don't. Simple.

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Fezek ]

Path of Wind · Post by **Path of Wind** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:33 am

Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>1. Alignment doesn't make *any* game difference (other than what class you can play). OTOH, the entire DEFINITION of good and evil is the whole *point* of the story and the whole basis behind the alignment system.

2. A *game* should be consistant. If you have a set definition of good and evil in your world (whether you agree with it or not IRL), then the game out to be CONSISTANT about it. In this case (getting back on topic), the system of good and evil *in* Baldur's Gate is strictly western (Kantian in fact). That MEANS that the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of your answers to the Solar's questions should be made ON THE SAME BASIS IN THE GAME. [Games should be consistant right?]

</STRONG>

Polaris, I agree more or less with all this, but: You see how even we, people, all mixed up with different definitions of evil/good, and all that. To teach this computer... I think that if Bioware would try to implement the human factor of DM in PnP into computer scripts responsible for allignments (well apart from dialogues, which has nothing to do with computers), we would wait for BG series another 50 years.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 12:57 am

Path,

OK, I can see your point that it is simply not practical (yet anyway) to have the AI handle ethical questions with the flexibility a real DM could.

OTOH, can you see my point? In limited sections of the script where the ethical quesitons are *really* *important* to the plot, don't you think that being consistant with the alignments as written in the manual should be at least within our reasonable expectatations? In the alignment system as prsented (based on western ethics) the Solar is *wrong*. I don't think that is in dispute. Shouldn't we expect better from bioware than this?

-Polaris

Path of Wind · Post by **Path of Wind** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:02 am

Originally posted by polaris:
<STRONG>Path,

OK, I can see your point that it is simply not practical (yet anyway) to have the AI handle ethical questions with the flexibility a real DM could.

OTOH, can you see my point? In limited sections of the script where the ethical quesitons are *really* *important* to the plot, don't you think that being consistant with the alignments as written in the manual should be at least within our reasonable expectatations? In the alignment system as prsented (based on western ethics) the Solar is *wrong*. I don't think that is in dispute. Shouldn't we expect better from bioware than this?

-Polaris</STRONG>

Right.That is why in my post I put in brackets: except dialogues, which has nothing to do with AI.

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Path of Wind ]

Path of Wind · Post by **Path of Wind** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:07 am

As for if we should expect better from Bioware... Well, they are all humans, BG2 is a definit improvement over BG1, and next games probably will be better. We all learn on mistakes, do we? And there is no limit to perfection.

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:14 am

Path,

You are certainly right about Bioware being human and thus prone to mistakes (and also about BGII being an improvement over I).

Having said that, however, I would at least like to see someone from Bioware *admit* that they made an error and then fix it (patch it). This not only applies to the Solar question, but a bunch of other glaring bugs and mistakes (many simply inexusable since they bungled things that *weren't* wrong before....I am refering to ToB of course) that Bioware seems to have no intention of either fixing or even commenting on.

I also would like to add that it doesn't take much effort to fix a script. IMO that little extra effort should have been made.

-Polaris

Path of Wind · Post by **Path of Wind** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 1:20 am

Yes, all those bugs. I still wait for an official ToB patch (after all, beta was released).Well, the hope is all we have. Somehow I believe they will fix at least something, and the patch will be their public answer. Well, my experiment in the lab is over, and it is 4.30 am here in Montreal. Gotta have some sleep. See you tomorrow, err... later today.

TecnoPaladin · Post by **TecnoPaladin** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 2:10 am

Actually, I thought I'd just point out my signature tag to everyone here, and ask how they see it relating to this topic... especially Polaris, since I actually agree with him overall, lol. By the way, I'm fairly certain that the author of my quote was Thomas Paine... pretty western, I'd say.

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 2:26 am

@Polaris-san. Just one more thing

Is your concern with the Sarevok/Gorion/debt thing that the wording of the question and answers;

Solar asks: "Would Sarevok be in your place, now, if but for the smallest twist of fate? Is there a debt between you, then, that is yet unpaid?"

The possible answers were:

"If there was a debt, then it was Gorion's...and it has been paid."

"There is no debt. Gorion had no choice...and I wouldn't have ended up like Sarevok."

"Sarevok made his own fate. Neither Gorion nor I are responsible for it."

"Sarevok paid for what he did...as for now, I don't know...perhaps there is a debt."

"Yes, there is a debt. I could have just as easily have had his life, and he mine."

[ 08-06-2001: Message edited by: Sojourner ]

....(continues)is too non-Kantian, which is how you describe the rule/alignment system and therefore F@#$'s everything up? What I mean is that the wording of the questions and answers is (legs it for cover) Karmic in nature rather than "Western". This is more a question of incongruency in plot line.

TecnoPaladin · Post by **TecnoPaladin** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 2:31 am

Fezek - the actual Inigo Montoya quote is "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

polaris · Post by **polaris** » Wed Aug 08, 2001 2:33 am

Interesting quote there.

What Paine was getting at (and there is a wide spetrum of opinion on this) was that a person's moral character could be judged by what they 'failed' to do as well as by what they did. Many schools of western philosophy reject that I might add so it is not universally accepted.

This is not the same as the Solar test, however. The essential difference is this:

If you were to aknowledge a debt in the solar test, then you would be denying the freewill of both Gorion and Sarevok and THEIR right to make a moral choice. In short you can not have a debt for a choice someone else made (the rational differs from school to school but the point is universal in western philosophy).

Paine's argument (as I understood it in philsophy) was somewhat different. Given that you don't owe a debt for someone else's actions, don't you owe a debt to *yourself*? That is to say that by doing nothing, you are *failing* to help others...and thus you are *failing* to help yourself. That is quite a different question with no clear cut answer. [To the philosophers out there, I apologize if I have stated this rather badly, but I hope I got the idea across.]

My *take* on this (and this /is/ only an opinion) is this: You can be held accountable for what you do and *fail* to do ONLY to the point where someone *else* has to make a choice of their free will. Then you are not accountable.

For example: Suppose there was a hostage situation, and the gunman told you to drop your weapon or he would shoot a hostage.

Suppose you refused and the gunman did shoot the hostage. Question: Are you morally responsible for the death of the hostage? [This was what Paine was getting at.]

Some would argue yes, since by not dropping the weapon, you caused the hostage to die.

IMO, the answer is a *firm* NO. You are ONLY responsible for forcing the gunman to go through with his threat or give himself up. You are *not* responsible for the death. Why? The GUNMAN had freewill too. He *could* have chose not to fire the weapon. Since he did, he is responsible.

Does this make any sense?

-Polaris