This is my main point. There ARE consequences, just not for the player. You'll notice if you look back at my post, that I am commenting on an extreme and unrealistic example. In the absence of all personal consequences, people would likely treat real life the same way they treat their games. Its a philosophical argument, not a realistic one.
There's really no consequences in an imaginary world simulated to some extent by software, though?
I don't think you can have a situation absent of all personal consequences in the real world.
Some module designers have created NWN modules that have consequences for stealing, although it's often a matter of alignment shift more than anything.
The Elder Scrolls has more consequences with active guards and merchants who refuse to purchase stolen items.
This is my main point. There ARE consequences, just not for the player. You'll notice if you look back at my post, that I am commenting on an extreme and unrealistic example. In the absence of all personal consequences, people would likely treat real life the same way they treat their games. Its a philosophical argument, not a realistic one.
The Elder Scrolls has more consequences with active guards and merchants who refuse to purchase stolen items.
I always wondered about those merchants who won't purchase stolen items. How do they know the items are stolen? If you kill the owner and just take the item, that's ok. You can sell those items no problemo. Maybe the merchant is just afraid of being confronted by the original owner. If that person is dead then it's, "How much do you want for it?".
@BelleSorciere "There's really no consequences in an imaginary world simulated to some extent by software, though? "
Not for the player, no. In game there are npcs going hostile on your character, as well as loss of reputation. You charname gets consequences, which can be undone by reloading. You face no consequences, therefore any action is okay.
I always wondered about those merchants who won't purchase stolen items. How do they know the items are stolen? If you kill the owner and just take the item, that's ok. You can sell those items no problemo. Maybe the merchant is just afraid of being confronted by the original owner. If that person is dead then it's, "How much do you want for it?".
I've always wondered about that. Plus merchants in Morrowind who refuse to deal with you if you've got moon sugar or skooma in your inventory, but are fine if you drop them on the floor right in front of them.
Not for the player, no. In game there are npcs going hostile on your character, as well as loss of reputation. You charname gets consequences, which can be undone by reloading. You face no consequences, therefore any action is okay.
I think the point of this discussion was in reference to consequences for the character or lack thereof, and those are the consequences most of us are talking about.
I always wondered about those merchants who won't purchase stolen items. How do they know the items are stolen?
And in the Thunderhammy Smithy in Beregost of Baldur's Gate 1 there's locked chests that you can loot stuff and sell them and they don't count as stolen items.
The only way they can tell is if they put some magic on them to mark them. But then a remove curse spell should be able to remove it. It's like in stores they have these security devices on clothing that seem impossible to remove without it bursting and spilling ink, but if you've ever worked at such a store you see that simply a strong magnet can remove them.
Stolen items have a coded value on them but it doesn't come off with a remove curse spell.
There's really no consequences in an imaginary world simulated to some extent by software, though?
I don't think you can have a situation absent of all personal consequences in the real world.
Some module designers have created NWN modules that have consequences for stealing, although it's often a matter of alignment shift more than anything.
The Elder Scrolls has more consequences with active guards and merchants who refuse to purchase stolen items.
The games are simulations and nothing but math. The more they can simulate something realistic (even in a world with different laws of physics), the more involved the game is and the better the experience.
As for stealing from an NPC's home and doing it without being caught, a game has more quality if it shows the effect of it. If the NPC is rich they'll hire more guards. If the NPC is poor, then you see they got evicted for not being able to pay their rent.
There's actually several points in the game in which Max takes stuff, goes through other people's stuff and generally pries and steals. It may not be "standard RPG looting and pickpocketing"
If they made Life is Strange where Max starts out near a store and it has all kinds of fancy items she wants like: * Amulet: Allows reversing time without nosebleeds * Potion: Stops nosebleeds from reversing time etc.
And the only things she can afford are lockpicks and a book teaching her how to pick pockets. So she goes around and breaks into all the teacher's desks looking for money and picks everyone's pockets.
Well if they had that in the game, it would be really funny.
And then in order to progress she would have to wander through the bad part of town and gangsters/thugs would go and try to mug her and she would have to fight them off. And she would have to do this millions and millions of times to treadmill for experience points. And the gangsters would just keep respawning.
@BelleSorciere My understanding of the op's post, was that it was frustration at players who supposedly play good alignments and go about pillaging the general populace. My addendum is that people typically will abandon "their" morals without some outside force compelling them. Hence the lack of player consequences.
@BelleSorciere My understanding of the op's post, was that it was frustration at players who supposedly play good alignments and go about pillaging the general populace. My addendum is that people typically will abandon "their" morals without some outside force compelling them. Hence the lack of player consequences.
@BelleSorciere My understanding of the op's post, was that it was frustration at players who supposedly play good alignments and go about pillaging the general populace. My addendum is that people typically will abandon "their" morals without some outside force compelling them. Hence the lack of player consequences.
But isn't that a good thing overall?
There are many things nowadays that would be considered absolutely immoral, not even that long ago. But morality changes and we progress. Partly because the consequences of certain moralities have been removed.
@BelleSorciere My understanding of the op's post, was that it was frustration at players who supposedly play good alignments and go about pillaging the general populace. My addendum is that people typically will abandon "their" morals without some outside force compelling them. Hence the lack of player consequences.
But isn't that a good thing overall?
There are many things nowadays that would be considered absolutely immoral, not even that long ago. But morality changes and we progress. Partly because the consequences of certain moralities have been removed.
It depends. Some people say that humans are gifted with LOGIC. I disagree, and counter that humans are gifted with JUSTIFICATION. Things are definitely better now from a personal freedom and from a "lets not persecute people different than us as much" place. But no matter the age, people will always find a "good reason" to hurt others.
@BelleSorciere My understanding of the op's post, was that it was frustration at players who supposedly play good alignments and go about pillaging the general populace. My addendum is that people typically will abandon "their" morals without some outside force compelling them. Hence the lack of player consequences.
But isn't that a good thing overall?
There are many things nowadays that would be considered absolutely immoral, not even that long ago. But morality changes and we progress. Partly because the consequences of certain moralities have been removed.
It depends. Some people say that humans are gifted with LOGIC. I disagree, and counter that humans are gifted with JUSTIFICATION. Things are definitely better now from a personal freedom and from a "lets not persecute people different than us as much" place. But no matter the age, people will always find a "good reason" to hurt others.
History disagrees with you. As bad as you seem to think things are now, they were infinitely worse in the past. Progress may not be as fast as you want, but it can't be stopped. There will come a day when all people will be treated with dignity. That does not mean that all people will be equal. Unfortunately, people are not equal. There will always be some that are more talented, more athletic, smarter, more wise, more charismatic or have better opportunities than others (in other words, luckier). What I believe, or rather hope, is that no matter what a person can contribute, they will be valued regardless...
In a few millennia, people will look back on these days like we look at the Dark Ages. Call me an optimist if you want, but the serfs of 1000 years ago would never believe what even the poor folks have now.
Progress isn't and shouldn't be judged by whether it makes people nicer or behave better. Progress has only one measure, does it better enable you to survive for longer.
And logic is being abandoned to an extent because it clashes with "progressive" doctrine.
The notion that the current conditions in western "progressive" societies are always going to get better is a conceit. Eventually the conditions that allow the current thinking are going to change, and change drastically.
And everything being preached at the moment that is dressed up as "morality" will change.
So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them.
We are no better than our forefathers, we are no more "moral". And in a few millenia people are just as likely to look back and think we are immoral because we didn't do the things currently considered "immoral" because conditions then are so different.
Progress isn't and shouldn't be judged by whether it makes people nicer or behave better. Progress has only one measure, does it better enable you to survive for longer.
And logic is being abandoned to an extent because it clashes with "progressive" doctrine.
The notion that the current conditions in western "progressive" societies are always going to get better is a conceit. Eventually the conditions that allow the current thinking are going to change, and change drastically.
And everything being preached at the moment that is dressed up as "morality" will change.
So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them.
We are no better than our forefathers, we are no more "moral". And in a few millenia people are just as likely to look back and think we are immoral because we didn't do the things currently considered "immoral" because conditions then are so different.
So, no progress in the last millennia? Should we go back to the days of slavery, then? How about going back to monarchy and endless wars for spits of land? How about slaughtering entire cities and villages because they're not the same race, or religion? Maybe we should go back to the glory days of feudalism. That would be grand, would it not? I simply cannot agree that mankind hasn't made progress. Morality to me is humankind rising above animal nature, taking a long view instead of living in the moment, and not just survival but leaving a legacy. To that end, I think humans have been and are moving forward. Perhaps not as individuals but certainly collectively...
Progress isn't and shouldn't be judged by whether it makes people nicer or behave better. Progress has only one measure, does it better enable you to survive for longer.
And logic is being abandoned to an extent because it clashes with "progressive" doctrine.
The notion that the current conditions in western "progressive" societies are always going to get better is a conceit. Eventually the conditions that allow the current thinking are going to change, and change drastically.
And everything being preached at the moment that is dressed up as "morality" will change.
So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them.
We are no better than our forefathers, we are no more "moral". And in a few millenia people are just as likely to look back and think we are immoral because we didn't do the things currently considered "immoral" because conditions then are so different.
So, no progress in the last millennia? Should we go back to the days of slavery, then? How about going back to monarchy and endless wars for spits of land? How about slaughtering entire cities and villages because they're not the same race, or religion? Maybe we should go back to the glory days of feudalism. That would be grand, would it not? I simply cannot agree that mankind hasn't made progress. Morality to me is humankind rising above animal nature, taking a long view instead of living in the moment, and not just survival but leaving a legacy. To that end, I think humans have been and are moving forward. Perhaps not as individuals but certainly collectively...
Hang on, why would any of what you mentioned as progress be in opposition to survival?
Slavery, that's not an efficient use of resources once you get past a level of automation/machine. Endless wars, how does that benefit survival when you get to the level of mass slaughter of civilian population, your own included?
I don't believe humans have risen above animal nature, they simply have a large brain and are able to encompass consequences, cause and effect.
And who are you looking at when you measure your progress? Entire cities/villages are being slaughtered. Slavery is still happening. Feudalism has never been replaced in some places, titles different, outcome the same. In fact there's a hell of a lot positive to be said about feudalism if the responsibilities of those at the top are taken seriously unlike the wholly exploitative practices of despots and warlords.
Are the people carrying out these things not human?
Progress isn't and shouldn't be judged by whether it makes people nicer or behave better. Progress has only one measure, does it better enable you to survive for longer.
And logic is being abandoned to an extent because it clashes with "progressive" doctrine.
The notion that the current conditions in western "progressive" societies are always going to get better is a conceit. Eventually the conditions that allow the current thinking are going to change, and change drastically.
And everything being preached at the moment that is dressed up as "morality" will change.
So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them.
We are no better than our forefathers, we are no more "moral". And in a few millenia people are just as likely to look back and think we are immoral because we didn't do the things currently considered "immoral" because conditions then are so different.
So, no progress in the last millennia? Should we go back to the days of slavery, then? How about going back to monarchy and endless wars for spits of land? How about slaughtering entire cities and villages because they're not the same race, or religion? Maybe we should go back to the glory days of feudalism. That would be grand, would it not? I simply cannot agree that mankind hasn't made progress. Morality to me is humankind rising above animal nature, taking a long view instead of living in the moment, and not just survival but leaving a legacy. To that end, I think humans have been and are moving forward. Perhaps not as individuals but certainly collectively...
Hang on, why would any of what you mentioned as progress be in opposition to survival?
Slavery, that's not an efficient use of resources once you get past a level of automation/machine. Endless wars, how does that benefit survival when you get to the level of mass slaughter of civilian population, your own included?
I don't believe humans have risen above animal nature, they simply have a large brain and are able to encompass consequences, cause and effect.
You're speaking of collective survival then? I thought you were talking about individual survival. Maybe we're not in as much disagreement as I thought then. An individual's survival CAN be enhanced by warfare when resources are scarce. Rape and pillage can also benefit individuals if they're on the winning side. Long term thinking is required to counteract the short term benefits of immorality. That is where I think progress has been made. Law and government have made great strides in the last few hundred years. When individuality is protected, conflict is reduced. I look back at when I was younger and I can't believe how much things have changed. Mostly for the better...
It's all about balance isn't it? (you've got me channeling bloody Jaheira now)
Individual versus the collective. Collective versus everyone outside the collective. And somewhere in there there has to be responsibilities.
The problem with "identity politics" is that it breaks down the collective from within, and does nothing about the threat of those outside the collective who have never wanted to be a part of it in the first place. They want their own collectives to triumph.
"When individuality is protected, conflict is reduced."
No it isn't because some individuality impacts on other individuals. Responsibility has to be a part of it.
I'd say that most changes for the better for the vast majority are down to technological progress rather than anything else. And also what's changed for the worse is down to the same cause.
@Balrog99 Better for who? The people in North Korea weren't always in the state they are in now. How about Afganistan? Iraq? We certainly didn't make their lives better. Even the US is dealing with the consequences of blind nationalism right now. The world is in a pretty constant state of "Some people are doing really well, others are experiencing a low point for their country." There is no static "things are better now than they ever were before."
@UnderstandMouseMagic "So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them."
Kinda proving my point here. If there is no true right and wrong, and morals are simply fluid, then ANYTHING can be justified. We may as well be debating that genocide and mass slaughter are the more right than fostering understanding and respect for each other.
@ThacoBell The people in North Korea are not much worse off than when they were owned by Japan. That wasn't very long ago really. Maybe the Russians would have treated them better, but I doubt it. Iraq was somehow better under Sadam Hussein? I seem to recall a long bloody war with Iran and the killing of his own subjects. Afghanistan? When were they better off? When the Soviets invaded? When they were under British rule? Which other countries have been better off in the past than they are now? I'm talking about their general populace, not their leaders, priests or merchants. Please tell me when it was that any African nation was better off than now. The Stone Age maybe? Perhaps you're right but general survival wasn't any easier for them back then. If they're so bad off how can their population be increasing so quickly? If your sole criterion is survival then surely they're far better off now than any time in history.
@ThacoBell The people in North Korea are not much worse off than when they were owned by Japan. That wasn't very long ago really. Maybe the Russians would have treated them better, but I doubt it. Iraq was somehow better under Sadam Hussein? I seem to recall a long bloody war with Iran and the killing of his own subjects. Afghanistan? When were they better off? When the Soviets invaded? When they were under British rule? Which other countries have been better off in the past than they are now? I'm talking about their general populace, not their leaders, priests or merchants. Please tell me when it was that any African nation was better off than now. The Stone Age maybe? Perhaps you're right but general survival wasn't any easier for them back then. If they're so bad off how can their population be increasing so quickly? If your sole criterion is survival then surely they're far better off now than any time in history.
Any benefit is down to technology and scientific advances. But there are costs, which should be seen as responsibilities.
Africa is going to destroy itself if it doesn't sort out the birth rate. So at this present time, the population maybe better off, give it fifty years, possibly less, and those same people may all be dying. What will your judgement be then?
@ThacoBell The people in North Korea are not much worse off than when they were owned by Japan. That wasn't very long ago really. Maybe the Russians would have treated them better, but I doubt it. Iraq was somehow better under Sadam Hussein? I seem to recall a long bloody war with Iran and the killing of his own subjects. Afghanistan? When were they better off? When the Soviets invaded? When they were under British rule? Which other countries have been better off in the past than they are now? I'm talking about their general populace, not their leaders, priests or merchants. Please tell me when it was that any African nation was better off than now. The Stone Age maybe? Perhaps you're right but general survival wasn't any easier for them back then. If they're so bad off how can their population be increasing so quickly? If your sole criterion is survival then surely they're far better off now than any time in history.
Any benefit is down to technology and scientific advances. But there are costs, which should be seen as responsibilities.
Africa is going to destroy itself if it doesn't sort out the birth rate. So at this present time, the population maybe better off, give it fifty years, possibly less, and those same people may all be dying. What will your judgement be then?
My judgment will be as irrelevant then as it is now. Maybe more so as I'll likely be dead.
Technological advances also lead to education of the masses. Look at what the printing press started. The internet is almost as ignorance shattering as the printing press. Maybe more so since it's easier to access it than to buy or borrow a book. All you need is a smart phone or to know somebody who does. The amount of information at our fingertips is absolutely staggering. Education can solve the birth rate problem. At least given time.
Information overload and the ability to sort through the massive amount of data, stories, and anecdotal evidence, choosing what to believe or who to follow, has become a problem, as I see it. The problem is not so much that we don't have the knowledge, but how to judge and apply what we see an find. This applies to information as well as the general way in which people interact with each other and their surrounding environment.
@Balrog99 Afganistan wasn't always under Taliban rule, look it up around the 60s, children in the middle east also weren't afraid of clear sunny days before we started bombing them.
@Balrog99 Afganistan wasn't always under Taliban rule, look it up around the 60s, children in the middle east also weren't afraid of clear sunny days before we started bombing them.
Perhaps not. I'm no expert on Afghan history. The other countries you mentioned though...
I really don't think clear sunny days make much difference anymore. It's long past WW2 where a few clouds would stop an airforce from flying. Unless there's a thunderstorm (likely not many in Arabia) drones can fly 24/7.
I'm sure you're sincere in your concern for the Middle East. Unfortunately, the alternative to doing something in the Mid-East is waiting until they decide to do something here. I believe in the future of humanity but that doesn't mean I'd trade American lives for theirs. I'm honestly sorry about that but it's the truth regardless. Education of the masses can't happen fast enough for my liking.
BTW: @ThacoBell & @UnderstandMouseMagic This thread is fast becoming another politics thread. Perhaps we should continue our conversations there.
Comments
I don't think you can have a situation absent of all personal consequences in the real world.
Some module designers have created NWN modules that have consequences for stealing, although it's often a matter of alignment shift more than anything.
The Elder Scrolls has more consequences with active guards and merchants who refuse to purchase stolen items.
Not for the player, no. In game there are npcs going hostile on your character, as well as loss of reputation. You charname gets consequences, which can be undone by reloading. You face no consequences, therefore any action is okay.
There are many things nowadays that would be considered absolutely immoral, not even that long ago. But morality changes and we progress. Partly because the consequences of certain moralities have been removed.
In a few millennia, people will look back on these days like we look at the Dark Ages. Call me an optimist if you want, but the serfs of 1000 years ago would never believe what even the poor folks have now.
I both agree and disagree with both of you.
Progress isn't and shouldn't be judged by whether it makes people nicer or behave better. Progress has only one measure, does it better enable you to survive for longer.
And logic is being abandoned to an extent because it clashes with "progressive" doctrine.
The notion that the current conditions in western "progressive" societies are always going to get better is a conceit. Eventually the conditions that allow the current thinking are going to change, and change drastically.
And everything being preached at the moment that is dressed up as "morality" will change.
So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them.
We are no better than our forefathers, we are no more "moral".
And in a few millenia people are just as likely to look back and think we are immoral because we didn't do the things currently considered "immoral" because conditions then are so different.
Slavery, that's not an efficient use of resources once you get past a level of automation/machine.
Endless wars, how does that benefit survival when you get to the level of mass slaughter of civilian population, your own included?
I don't believe humans have risen above animal nature, they simply have a large brain and are able to encompass consequences, cause and effect.
And who are you looking at when you measure your progress?
Entire cities/villages are being slaughtered.
Slavery is still happening.
Feudalism has never been replaced in some places, titles different, outcome the same. In fact there's a hell of a lot positive to be said about feudalism if the responsibilities of those at the top are taken seriously unlike the wholly exploitative practices of despots and warlords.
Are the people carrying out these things not human?
It's all about balance isn't it? (you've got me channeling bloody Jaheira now)
Individual versus the collective. Collective versus everyone outside the collective.
And somewhere in there there has to be responsibilities.
The problem with "identity politics" is that it breaks down the collective from within, and does nothing about the threat of those outside the collective who have never wanted to be a part of it in the first place. They want their own collectives to triumph.
"When individuality is protected, conflict is reduced."
No it isn't because some individuality impacts on other individuals. Responsibility has to be a part of it.
I'd say that most changes for the better for the vast majority are down to technological progress rather than anything else. And also what's changed for the worse is down to the same cause.
@UnderstandMouseMagic "So I have a real problem being lectured about morals when really they are nothing but the expression of what people think at a particular time because they have been allowed or forced by survival/conditions to follow them."
Kinda proving my point here. If there is no true right and wrong, and morals are simply fluid, then ANYTHING can be justified. We may as well be debating that genocide and mass slaughter are the more right than fostering understanding and respect for each other.
The people in North Korea are not much worse off than when they were owned by Japan. That wasn't very long ago really. Maybe the Russians would have treated them better, but I doubt it. Iraq was somehow better under Sadam Hussein? I seem to recall a long bloody war with Iran and the killing of his own subjects. Afghanistan? When were they better off? When the Soviets invaded? When they were under British rule? Which other countries have been better off in the past than they are now? I'm talking about their general populace, not their leaders, priests or merchants. Please tell me when it was that any African nation was better off than now. The Stone Age maybe? Perhaps you're right but general survival wasn't any easier for them back then. If they're so bad off how can their population be increasing so quickly? If your sole criterion is survival then surely they're far better off now than any time in history.
Jaheira may have a point. I'm not sure a balance between good and evil is desirable but between law and chaos, definitely.
Africa is going to destroy itself if it doesn't sort out the birth rate. So at this present time, the population maybe better off, give it fifty years, possibly less, and those same people may all be dying.
What will your judgement be then?
Technological advances also lead to education of the masses. Look at what the printing press started. The internet is almost as ignorance shattering as the printing press. Maybe more so since it's easier to access it than to buy or borrow a book. All you need is a smart phone or to know somebody who does. The amount of information at our fingertips is absolutely staggering. Education can solve the birth rate problem. At least given time.
@Balrog99 Afganistan wasn't always under Taliban rule, look it up around the 60s, children in the middle east also weren't afraid of clear sunny days before we started bombing them.
I really don't think clear sunny days make much difference anymore. It's long past WW2 where a few clouds would stop an airforce from flying. Unless there's a thunderstorm (likely not many in Arabia) drones can fly 24/7.
I'm sure you're sincere in your concern for the Middle East. Unfortunately, the alternative to doing something in the Mid-East is waiting until they decide to do something here. I believe in the future of humanity but that doesn't mean I'd trade American lives for theirs. I'm honestly sorry about that but it's the truth regardless. Education of the masses can't happen fast enough for my liking.
BTW: @ThacoBell & @UnderstandMouseMagic This thread is fast becoming another politics thread. Perhaps we should continue our conversations there.
@semiticgod Would you agree?