= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1254)
I got a very similar response when my Lawful Neutral Cleric wanted to set up a formal inquisition to root out the evil cultists in the city rather than go to the big bad's cave and whack them on the head. Also a barbarian of mine wanted to run a brothel after the party defeated the gang that controlled it before. It mysteriously burned down the following night.
In general some DMs have a hard time dealing with characters that want to weave baskets instead of going hack and slash.
A DM needs to improvise 95% of their session, I've found.
My lawful neutral character attacked the rest of the party when they assaulted a group of innocent (until proven guilty) goblins in the first encounter.
Did he win?
Aren't goblins almost exclusively Evil?
Assuming: any given goblin is Evil with p=0.95
Assuming: 80% of Evil creatures are guilty of a hanging offense according to an authority
Assuming: 5 randomly-selected goblins in the group
The probability that all members of the group deserved death according to authority should be (0.95*0.8)^5 = 0.254.
Of course, that last assumption is a bit problematic: they're not randomly selected. Still, depending on the laws, they might still be legally entitled to a trial. Or perhaps the law doesn't consider being a member of an Evil race reasonable suspicion of crime, and they wouldn't even have been tried by Lawful Authorities.
It seems like a coherent position to me to assign negative utility to the lives of "evil" creatures in the first place, even if they haven't committed something that would legally be a hanging offense.
You might say that you target evil creatures because they're likely to commit offenses that are punishable under law by death, but then, you might say that certain crimes are punishable by death because they show that the perpetrators are Evil.
As a moral theory, it may not make a very good legal foundation in our world, but when we're dealing with a world where you can actually cast Detect Evil, and look at people, or even magical objects, and tell if they're Evil, things may be kind of different.
In a world in which you can cast "Detect Evil", but don't know which of these two is true, the word "Evil" attached to your "Detect Evil" spell may not have the semantic weight you think it does.
All you know is that you have a particular sensory action that you can perform, which returns a quantitative result when applied to a given target. We have chosen to call this quantitative value "Evil". To be clearer, let's call it their EQ (for "Evil Quotient").
You happen to know, experimentally, that beings with a high EQ tend to commit actions that decrease general utility in the population whose utility you care about. Now, you have an important question to ask yourself: is high EQ causative of that net decrease in general utility, or is it merely correlative?
You then have a further philosophical question: Should the utility of high-EQ individuals be weighed the same as the utility of other individuals when aggregating your global utility function? (This will depend on many things, one of which is the potential for "false positives", but another of which is the base assumption of whose utilities are worth considering).
You know a lot more than that. You know that they go to different afterlives than Good or Neutral beings, that they can be affected by different spells and abilities, and that depending on their class their own abilities might be affected by their evilness.
A moral theory that supports the eradication of Evil beings need not be utilitarian. I don't think a conventional paladin would function as a utilitarian, for example.
And these afterlives tend to be less pleasant, as I understand it. As an added wrinkle, there are also Evil energies and spells, for example the energy animating a non-evil undead, or certain spells cast by a non-evil cleric.
No. That's not how alignment works in D&D, you're either Evil or you're not. If you are, then you will actively seek to perform Evil acts.
Even in core, there is some concept of quantitative evil. For starters, look up detect evil. Evil supernatural beings and evil clerics are notably more evil than the evil bartender. And you can expect the kind and amount of evil acts they perpetrate to be much worse. It's noted prominently in some sourcebook (though I can't remember if it was a core one) that normal evil people might opportunistically steal but probably won't eat your babies, in contrast to (say) demons.
Also, depending on the edition you should expect to see a scalar alignment chart somewhere in the Dungeon Master's Guide, commonly used for tracking alignment drift. A character can be obviously evil and in no danger of an alignment shift (say, 0 out of 100 good points in Neverwinter Nights terms) or right on the cusp of switching to neutrality (30 out of 100 good points).
Nevertheless, if you know that the target is Evil, then you know that they will actively try to perform Evil acts - which, if you're Lawful Good, should be against the law. If your resident legal system is letting off Evil goblins, then it is broken, if not actively evil itself. Lawful characters are not obligated to follow corrupt legal systems - although their means of soling this problem should itself be lawful. In this case, however, I got the impression that the player had assumed "innocent until proven guilty" was itself the Lawful Good attitude to take, when in fact it is merely stupid (and, of course, he knew full damn well those goblins were guilty of something and would go on to commit more crimes.)
Still not necessarily true. Take Jim the reforming criminal. Jim already served his time, so should not be arrested just for having committed evil acts. And since he still detects as evil, he can still feel the evil impulses tearing at his soul at every turn. But he fights them every day, and (I'll stipulate) he manages to avoid doing anything evil for the next two weeks, after which 'detect evil' doesn't work on him anymore.
So when the cleric casts detect evil on Jim and the rest of the party decides to vigilante-slaughter him for his loot, what should our Lawful friend do?
Different DMs (and even different publications) might disagree with you. Moreso, if that is always true, then the addition of certain other sourcebooks and adventure modules produce an incoherent universe (regrettably I forget which ones) - which is part of my original point.
I was using the standard definition from Core. IIRC there are books specifically dedicated to alignment issues that contradict this, but those are optional and frankly have issues of their own. (The Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds spring to mind.)
Ok then, let's define this more rigorously, so we have something unambiguous to talk about.
If we're going with the idea that D&D "Good" and "Evil" are objective measures that follow your definition, then does the following make sense as a rigorous definition of them:
A being's 'Alignment' on the good-evil spectrum is a measure of how well its utility function is coupled to the utility functions of other beings in general.
A "Good" being is compassionate - that is, its utility function has a positive coupling constant (between 0.00 and 1.00, say) to the utility function of other beings in general; it seeks to maximize others' utility functions as a subset of maximizing its own.
Likewise, an "Evil" being is sadistic - that is, its utility function has a negative coupling constant (between -0.00 and -1.00, say) to the utility function of other beings in general; it seeks to minimize others' utility functions as a subset of maximizing its own.
Interestingly, once it becomes mathematically spelled out like that, the paladin's dilemma is just math - "slay evil" isn't a primary goal, it's just the only way to resolve the feedback oscillation inherent in wanting to maximize everyone's utility, including the utility of those whose utility is coupled to minimizing everyone else's utility.
It depends on the interpretation, which differs from setting to setting (and from GM to GM, of course). In some of settings, the Law/Chaos axis determines your behavior as much, if not more, as the Good/Evil axis does. A Chaotic character is practically compelled to perform Good/Evil acts; a Lawful character, on the other hand, will follow the Law as much as he's able, even when doing so would prevent him from achieving his short-term Good/Evil goals.
Furthermore, "Evil" is sometimes defined as something closer to "selfish", whereas "Good" is something closer to "altruistic". Under this model, an Evil character would seek to increase his own wealth and power, or possibly just sit in the tavern all day getting drunk and playing tricks on the other patrons -- depending on what he's into. A Good character, on the other hand, will seek to help the villagers to live better lives, according to his definition of "better".
This makes "Chaotic Good" a truly terrifying combination (f.ex. see Planescape Torment), because a Chaotic Good character will seek to reshape the world in his own image regardless of whether anyone asked him to do it or not. If a few villages (or towns, or nations) need to be burned to the ground for the Greater Good, then so be it.
True. If the law took that into consideration, and precedent indicated that creatures that are most likely Evil are deserving of death unless evidence indicates that they are Neutral or Lawful or Good, then his actions would not have been justified. However, Larks indicated that that is not the case: goblins are considered innocent until proven guilty. Larks' character thus, refusing to be an accessory to illegal vigilante justice, attacked their party in self-defense on the goblins' behalf. In the long-term, successfully preventing the goblin's deaths would cause more legal violations, yes, but legally, they're not responsible for that. (I assumed the legal system is relatively similar to that of modern America, based on the "innocent until proven guilty" similarity and Conservation of Detail.)
Of course, if they assigned negative utility to all violations of law in proportion to severity and without respect for when they occur or who commits them, the best position would be as you described, and their actions were incorrect.
I got the impression that he assumed this was the "Lawful" attitude to take.
Goblins are "usually Neutral Evil". What this means is up to the DM, but in my experience is generally taken to mean that, while they can of course be other alignments (perhaps if raised by humans or something) their "default" in this setting is Evil. In other words, killing them is OK as long as you don't have reason to suspect they're Good, but actual genocide is frowned upon. Remember, these are adventurers, killing monsters and taking their stuff is part of the job description.
D&D rules are mostly combat rules. If somebody says they want to play D&D, most people assume they want to play in such a way that the D&D rules are relevant. This isn't a safe assumption, because the name "Dungeons and Dragons" is famous enough that some people will claim they want to play it without knowing what it involves. DMs should clarify to new players that D&D is heavily combat focused, and point out more suitable systems if the player isn't interested in that.
The DM could let the elves attack during plowing. Should be a strong incentive to get into a fight.
It's not really about combat, but rather about the GM's narrative. In any game, the GM usually has some story designed, with pre-determined events, locations, characters, etc. When the players deviate too far from the plot, the GM is in trouble, because he's got nothing prepared. He can improvise up to a point, but the overall gaming experience will suffer.
A good GM will gracefully handle whatever crazy thing the players want to do, and channel them back toward the prepared plot tree in a way that feels seamless. A bad GM (such as, sadly, myself) will flail around for a while, employing increasingly desperate measures to get the players back on track. A truly terrible GM will flat out tell his players, "no, you can't do this, for no better reason other than that I told you so".
Sometimes players like to feel they've stymied the DM, for instance by using a loophole to bypass a whole series of obstacles and jump straight to the win. As DM I would sometimes set up situations like that, hoping that they would think of the loophole, and then acting all chagrined when they did. :) But of course the win came with complications of its own, which led to the main plot I was actually trying to get to. (Or if they don't win, I'd have another way to get them there.) Anyway, the point is that it can be fun for the players to feel like they have a big impact on the plot. And hey, sometimes they actually do--players going off on tangents has led to some really cool plots that I had not planned for. Like when my plan was for them to defeat some druglords, but the swordmage decided to get addicted to the drug instead.
There's a delicate tradeoff on the effect on the experience - on the one hand, the players will feel more involved in a story that goes the direction they want it to go, but on the other hand there will have been less preparation for the content they encounter - so the result can be an improvement in the gaming experience.
Which effect is stronger can depend of whether the rules covert he desired action with an interesting mechanic, whether the DM planned for diversions (through world building, lists of things that can be injected in to get things back on a track), and how good at improvisation the DM is.
I played an excellent game that was all about improvisation and going off tangents, but it was with a pretty good DM who could handle whatever we sent his way. I'm much worse at that (I'm a bad DM and haven't DMed for a few years now).
Agreed, though again, the rules are a secondary problem at best. Almost every game has catch-all rules that can be applied to any situation, even D&D. For example, if my players wanted to plow the field successfully, I'd have them roll "Knowledge: Nature" or, if they don't have it, "Knowledge: Local". If they just want to fix the plow, it'd be a "Craft" check... etc. The problem is not with the rules, but with the plot and the setting. As the GM, I probably have a detailed map of the Drow caves and an org chart of their social structure; but I know squat about growing wheat. I could find out on Wikipedia, of course, but taking the time to do so would break the flow of the game.
I may be an outiler here, but while combat being a minor part of the overall campaign I want to play I'm incredibly annoyed if its broken or simplistic.
Roleplay never struck me as the kind of thing that needed rules as detailed as combat. Say negotiating with someone in game is already complex enough since you can do nearly anything you can in a real conversation including optimizing body language or having other people to suggest the same idea as you have.
I disagree -- up to a point.
Roleplaying is all about playing a character who is different from yourself. In real life, I can't wield a two-handed battleaxe (or a shotgun, for that matter). Almost no one can. However, many people can do other things I can't, such as seducing enemy spies, lying convincingly to a room full of people, or piecing together esoteric knowledge gleaned from ancient texts written in seven dead languages. Therefore, I cannot realistically roleplay a character who does these things.
This is where the rules come in. Instead of "optimizing body language", which I can't do in real life, I roll a d20 and add my Charisma modifier along with my Bluff rank. If the result is high enough, then everyone in the room is convinced that I am the Grand Vizier and they should do what I say. This includes the NPCs, who are controlled by the GM, as well as the PCs, who are not convinced in real life, but pretend to be for the purposes of the game.
This way, I can play the character I want to play, who is different than my real-world self -- and I can do so fairly, because everyone follows the same rules.
Combat works the same way, except that it can be even more fun if done properly. Of course, if you aren't a fan of turn-based strategy games such as X-Com or even chess, then you might want to stay away from detailed combat rules and stick to something more cinematic.
Of course, some combat (as well as social) systems are simply way too complicated (f.ex., Rifts and Earthdawn, IMO). I shouldn't need to consult three different tables just to swing my sword or tell a convincing white lie. But that's a problem with specific dice systems, not with dice systems as a general category.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I want to see a system that explicitly timeskips combat encounters. Like maybe do fights like Risk, with perhaps charts for who got injured and how badly. Ideally, fighting would be generally bad for all involved.
I've always wondered what it would be like to have a timescaled combat system, where you spend as much time playing out combat vs simulated battle time as you would playing out "scenes" vs simulated scene time. Most battle systems work on some assumption that e.g. 1 turn = 3 seconds of "world time". This system would have similar strategic conscious player-control over outcomes to that of a real fight: very little beyond shifts in intent and the rest just game-simulations of instinct, body movement, applications of martial training, etc.
Throw initial conditions (e.g. initial intent of first action, like "hold ground and overpower incoming enemies" vs "charge and slash at any opening in this enemy's guard"), plug in training and reflexes and trained reactions for the combatants, compute results, wham, five or ten seconds of combat have elapsed and the computer tells you that you just broke your arm while killing two goblins (possibly generating an epic recounting of your spectacular exploits, à la Dwarf Fortress). Ideally a computer would be doing all the heavy lifting, of course, which implies making software on top of designing rules, which implies way more time and effort than I've ever been motivated to put into something like this.
Thanks, this matches my impressions of D&D perfectly but I haven't actually been able to articulate it before.
In general, a system needs rules for resolving disputes about what is going to happen, and that's mostly combat. The roleplaying part doesn't need a 'system' at all.
It bloody well does need a system! It's just that often the "system" doesn't take pages of rules, it may be "the Dungeon Master has the last say on everything", or even not be an implicit assumption.
Some roleplaying systems are made to encourage the players to take a major hand in the world building, especially their character's relationship to it. Not only "what town does my guy come from", but also things like "is the mayor of that town a villain?", "Why did the Gods abandon the world?", etc. Those aspects are important, especially when you have creative players that want to do that kind of stuff - good rules around that can prevent it from getting out of hand. Check out this for more specific examples.
It doesn't sound like you're actually disagreeing with me. I said:
The concept of the Dungeon Master having "last say" doesn't even come into question until there's a dispute.
See also SpookyBeans, which nicely refines all dispute resolution into a single mechanism.
I may not be disagreeing with you! More like, bouncing off your comment to go on a rant!
But I am disagreeing with the notion that game rules should be essentially about determining the success of the players' actions (combat, picking locks, climbing walls, seducing the guard); they can also be about collaborative world building and storytelling - not only "what happens?", but also "what kind of world are we living in?", "what kind of story is this?", "What are this guy's dreams and weaknesses?".
Framing things as "dispute resolution" may carry the implication that the rules are mostly about disputes between characters (playing and non-playing) - for example, "My guy thinks the Sheriff should publicly resign now that his sins have been brought to light; he thinks he's not taking any bullshit from nosy strangers" - wham, dispute! You're going to need rules to handle intimidation, wit, maybe fistfights or gunfights, and maybe even escalation. But a dispute can also be "Bob wants the story to be about a band of outcasts going from town to town looking for thrill and adventure; Joe wants the story to be about the guilt and redemption of a pastor who made some mistakes" - often the "game rules" may not even frame that as a dispute and the resolution will be "The Dungeon master says fuck'em, today's story is about killing dark elves in the forest and if you try to go muckin' around the fields you'll be fighting dark elves anyway!".
(I checked out SpookyBeans, but didn't see much in terms of rules, I guess you have to buy it :P)
Aha. SpookyBeans used to be a 1-page download. The dispute resolution mechanism is extremely simplistic and flexible, and is more about disputes between players rather than characters, like the kind you mentioned. Basically, anything can happen if anyone says it happens, and then the rules come into play when people disagree about what happens.
I agree that meta-level disputes about "what the story should be about" and such are outside the scope of the D&D rules. But I still haven't seen anything that addresses those better than "have the players work that out somehow".
THANK you. Role-playing theory is awesome.