To what degree is robbing another of his freedom and evil act, and to what degree is violent retaliation justified?
For example, let's say that a barbarian kidnaps the party's cleric with the intent of turning him into her husband, but other than not allowing him to escape treats him farely well and lovingly. Is this an evil act, and is killing her to save the cleric an evil act? Would good party members be forced to look for an alternative way to resolve the problem without simply smiting left and right?
Smite evil should work on the barbarian, I say. She's technically a thief, an abductor and a rapist all in one: smite evil should work on the barbarian, if the cleric that's been abducted yearns for freedom.
evil as fuck anon cleave and smite
you could try to reason with her but redemption is a long road and just convincing her to let the cleric go does not count.
and in general free will is important theres a reason mindrape is considered one of the most evil spells there is.
That's pretty black and white evil. Because by not allowing them to leave you're basically forcing them to either live a caged existence like an animal in a zoo (Which is arguably a step BELOW some kinds of slavery), or agree to be their spouse against their will. Since I imagine the Barb will insist on consummating the marriage at some point that turns it into pretty much rape, which is pretty fucking evil.
Smite until there is nothing left to smite.
When the person in question is a danger to those around them, and said problem can be prevented with restraint; it is arguably justified.
Thusly, your barbarian is committing an evil act.
As a pacifist, the cleric should attempt to escape without doing any harm. However, if he did inflict harm, I would be pretty understanding and wouldn't particularly blame him for it, anymore than I would a female in the same situation.
If kidnapping men to use as husbands (or more likely women to use as wives) is normal in her culture and she treats him well otherwise I would say it's neutral. It isn't motivated by hatred or malice, she just really thinks she is doing the right thing for him. Just like how other forms of slavery are handled in DnD.
we are an odd bunch but we arent retarded
and as much as we argue about alignments we rarely have anybody as stupid as the writer of the book of exalted deeds for example (although we do get the occasional person who thinks gygaxs kill the converts so they dont have a chance to fall back into evil was anything but retarded)
although that said not even the book of exalted deeds would think that barb is anything but evil if it was a good barb and an evil cleric it probably would have supported it though because that guy had a huge boner for methods of redemption that any other writer would have said were evil.
No one said the cleric hated the barbarian.
For all we know, they could be lovers with an illegitimate child and the barbarian has decided her child's father has run out on them for the last time.
>Just like how other forms of slavery are handled in DnD.
except thats wrong you fucking fagot
it doesent matter what the local culture thinks not all evil has evil motivations some things are only evil when motivated by evil but not this one
Pardon, I used a stupid example.
My point is that following your abduction, you won't have a free will anymore. Your abductor says what you have to do and you have to do it. If you don't want to escape, it can hardly go against your will right? But if you want to do something else than be a husband to a barbarian, you're not allowed. There's a reason slavery was abolished in the civilized countries you know?
Unwillingly having to do someone else's bidding is shitty, anon.
If that happened today, yeah I'd probably think they were evil. But for thousands of years of human history capturing and raping the other tribe/chiefdom/kingdom/nation's women was pretty standard business. Were all of those people evil? They certainly weren't good, but I can't call them evil either. They were doing what benefited themselves and their people as they were taught to do.
Different societies have different standards of morality. Only the broadest strokes can be considered absolute.
in a world of magic and fantasy all sorts of enslavements and entrapments and spell-binds and mind controlls etc... should be a normal thing
especialy if its for the individuals own good, like a way to contain him/her, teach a lesson or force him/her trough a transformative process or something (irl 'real magic' isnt unfamiliar with this)
even if its just a way to make the creature useful, still perfectly allright
i mean, unless you have some not-france have some not-french revolution where they find a piece of paper and scrible some declaration of universal rights of conscious creatures, there is literaly no 'theoretical' reason why anyone would object and the morality of it is a massive grey-zone
>Your abductor says what you have to do and you have to do it.
That's not technically true. Your abductor has confined you. Coerceing or forcing you to obey them is a different crime altogether.
Using force to make someone obey you, confining someone and raping someone are all separate problems. You can do any combination of those to people without doing the others.
That's acceptable and even preferable, desu, at least until his captor demands he do something against his moral code.
Having to grow up without a father is pretty shitty, too.
There are plenty of forces in real life and in heroic fantasy that stop us from doing whatever we want.
If I decide I don't want to be caretaker for my infirm grandmother any longer, is anything that stops me from abandoning her evil?
We all have duties in life. It may be a violation of free will to hold someone to theirs, but it's for the good of all that sometimes, that's exactly what must be done.
>If that happened today, yeah I'd probably think they were evil.
Do you mean to imply that if you lived back in the 11th century and vikings came and took you against your will and sold you off as a slave, you wouldn't think they're evil? You'd just be like "yeah, I guess they have a point, their culture is like that."?
So if you had European or Colonial ancestors who owned slaves, would you consider them wholly and unconditionally evil for that sole fact? Those same people, had they been born today might find slavery abhorrent like you or I do, but they didn't have that opportunity, and so you condemn them?
i dont think hed be going into details of cross cultural critical theory at any point during that experience, things like food and not getting beaten/killed would probably occupy most of his mind
in fact some would even treat him well or at least not badly and he would most likely consider those to be 'good people'
It's always evil.
Understand that Orcs and Drows, for example, are ALWAYS EVIL (special snowflakes nonwithstanding) because their culture is EVIL.
It's not normal, it's not acceptable, and any lawful good god will lend his power to his righteous paladins to SMITE THEM.
>If I decide I don't want to be caretaker for my infirm grandmother any longer, is anything that stops me from abandoning her evil?
If you put yourself in her boots for just a second and think wether or not it would be dickish on your part to leave her, that's not evil. It's entirely your decision wether or not you want to help other people and if you don't want to, you have that freedom: it's just a question wether or not that's okay with your conscience.
Not the guy you were replying to but
>Those same people, had they been born today might find slavery abhorrent like you or I do, but they didn't have that opportunity, and so you condemn them?
It's not a question about education, it's more a question about listening to one's own conscience. They clearly did not listen to theirs, and therefore yes, I do condemn them.
In that case, orcs and drow are evil because orcs and drow are evil. It has nothing to do with any of their cultural practices. It's in their nature to be vile.
In fact, in a world where such beings exist, you could make a case for enslaving them being a good deed, if you put them to work for the benefit of others.
>in fact some would even treat him well or at least not badly and he would most likely consider those to be 'good people'
We aren't debating about good people that treat their slaves well though. We're discussing those that have you do things against your will without you getting a say in it.
Orcs and Drow treat their slaves cruelly though, because it is well established that they and their cultures are evil. OP's case is different. He specified that the barbarian lady treats her captured husband very kindly in all manners not pertaining to his freedom.
orcs especialy have pretty much all there evil nature come from there god
and no its not a good deed this is basically ends justify the means retarded sister and ends never justify the means.
read the god dam book of vile darkness.
This is a good point. For example in 3.5 Planar Binding is a good spell when used to summon and bind something good, evil when summoning something evil.
No, you condemn the act.
however if according to the culture of the players slavery is one of the greatest evils, then for the party to kill the barbarian no questions asked is also neutral
that line of thinking goes both ways
>especialy if its for the individuals own good, like a way to contain him/her, teach a lesson or force him/her trough a transformative process or something (irl 'real magic' isnt unfamiliar with this)
except this is not the case
THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
problem is human beings arent 'good', they arent even nice, the humans that owned slaves werent nice people, the humans that were held as slaves werent nice people, the ones inbetveen were definitely not nice people, they are all animals doing what they can, actualy applying moral judgments to human beings makes sense only in fantasy roleplaying, and conscience is about stuff like do i harm a friend or steal from family not social structure and economic organisation
just face it, humans are grimdark, lovecraftian creatures, we are not good, nice, 'humane' or any other such thing, holding slaves is a perfectly human thing to do, just like killing people, ignoring other peoples suffering, stealing or being generaly mean etc...
i mean just look at the logic of this thread - someone has a slave - omg thats moraly abhorrent - KILL KILL KILL
i mean think about that, how is murder less reproachable than slavery
That has less to do with the morality of the act than it does with the fact you've increased the net good of the plane by summoning a being of positive energy.
Same reason raising undead is always evil in this silly kind of system.
As someone who has 3/4 of their ancestry through white Dixie folks from Arkansas and Louisiana, yes, I would. Forcing another human being into your servitude in definitely evil. If my ancestors did that, they were evil fucktards, no matter what they decided to use as an excuse.
>It's not a question about education, it's more a question about listening to one's own conscience. They clearly did not listen to theirs, and therefore yes, I do condemn them.
I don't see many fa/tg/uys on the forefront of social justice. How do you know you would have been an abolitionist in the 19th century (or earlier)?
Slavery is still wrong regardless of the time period, it's just that somebody's opinion on it can't be used as the sole measure of their character in societies where people didn't know any better.
>European or Colonial ancestors
For fucks sake, if you had African or Arab ancestors then chances are you have more slave-owning ancestors than someone of European heritage.
Can we please end this retarded belief that Europeans invented slavery? African coastal kingdoms fucking thrived on slave trade, and before the Europeans came along the Arabs were their biggest clients, as late as the 20th century. And there are some people who believe this slave trade continues in the United Arab Emirates to this very day, albeit under the rug.
>I don't see many fa/tg/uys on the forefront of social justice.
That's because there's nothing left to fight for. Social justice these days is about pronouns and how people who work less deserve the same pay as people who work harder.
The equivalent of abolitionists would probably be the universally ridiculed MRAs. At least they have something resembling a proper cause. So the ones shouting about social justice the hardest today would probably be the most fanatical anti-abolitionists two centuries ago.
>Slavery is still wrong regardless of the time period, it's just that somebody's opinion on it can't be used as the sole measure of their character in societies where people didn't know any better.
i suppose thats a better way of putting what i said yeah.
>just face it, humans are grimdark, lovecraftian creatures, we are not good, nice, 'humane' or any other such thing
Never said we are. My point is that humans can be evil and less evil than other humans.
For example: a landowner who has servants and treats them badly is worse than a landowner who has slaves and treats them better than the servants of his peer.
>i mean just look at the logic of this thread - someone has a slave - omg thats moraly abhorrent - KILL KILL KILL
>someone abducted our cleric: kill that motherfucker!
In some instances, slaves were treated humanely: some people traded their freedom for money for their families, for example, or to pay of their debts. They could do so, back in those times and places. That doesn't mean their master was inherently evil, if he treated them fairly, like his other servants!
We are discussing those that work you to the bone and leave you half-dead at the end of the working day, giving you only a loaf of bread and a few glasses of water for the whole day.
>How do you know you would have been an abolitionist in the 19th century (or earlier)?
I might, I might have not. Doesn't mean that the me from right now wouldn't condemn the me of another reality, now. Every human has a conscience, if you follow it or not is your own choice.
>I might, I might have not. Doesn't mean that the me from right now wouldn't condemn the me of another reality, now. Every human has a conscience, if you follow it or not is your own choice.
I like this.
>"Sir, there's a drunk on the road. He appears to be holding a carving knife and babbling about making himself a nice chair for christmas."
>SNIPE HIM IN THE HEAD, HE'S CLEARLY OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC AND HE'S ARMED AND DEADLY.
>but sir, can't we just call out to him from down the road? He can't stab us when we're 50 feet away-
>NO IFS NO BUTS HE MUST BE EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE HE'S CLEARLY A DEADLY THREAT. CALL DOWN AN AIRSTRIKE, GET ME AN ARTILLERY BARRAGE
>Sir we even have a megaphone, there's no risk whatsoever with just asking him to move along-
>ARE YOU QUESTIONING ME I'LL HAVE YOU SHOT YOU BASTARD
I know Arabs and Africans did a lot more slaving than Europeans did at any point in history. I used that example because 4chan is an English site so the assumption is that everybody is white.
However, European Colonial slavery did tend to be more cruel than "classical" Afro-Eurasian slavery because of the high profit margins and racial divide.
It was surprising for a lot of people in my HS World History class to learn that in Rome slaves could work other jobs in their downtime and even buy their manumission that way. Slaves could also do pretty much any job. Many Greek slaves in the Roman empire were educated and served as teachers or physicians.
The American model of slavery is far fron the only one.
>The American model of slavery is far fron the only one.
I agree, but romans or greeks were hardly forced to work in their other jobs if they didn't want to. That hardly makes their masters completely evil like the ones that are being discussed in this thread -the cotton farm owning ones, basically, that treated their slaves like trash..
Why? It's not like there's a difference between other forms of behavioural modification and magic. Both would presumably provoke the same will saves or other mechanism of attempting to resist conversion.
>However, European Colonial slavery did tend to be more cruel than "classical" Afro-Eurasian slavery
Go fuck yourself. America is full of black people, Arabia is not. Ever wondered why that is? Maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the ritual castration of black slaves in Arabian tradition. Just maybe, or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist jumping to conclusions.
Slavery in Rome could (key word: could) be not-horrible, espcially if you were an educated Greek or something, but don't pretend Afro-Eurasian slavery, especially under Islam, was anything but the most atrocious form of mistreatment known to mankind.
racism realy was just a kind of mental buffer, the level of efficiency in capitalist slave trade simply demanded it as a basic element, similar to how greeks and romans treated their slaves as living tools, its a necesary psychological move, othervise people would mentaly break down
in other isntances slaves werent denied their humanity, but those were far less intensive systems, like how slavs and germanics held slaves, abused them some, definitely humiliated and exploited them, but still considered them humans, even assimilated them into the tribe later on, or how in many central african nations slavery was about debt payments and contractual etc... whereas in west african slave kingdoms people were literaly treated worse than slaves, in the sense that depending on status they hardly even had value other than trade value, they might as well have been meat, mutilation and disfigurment were just a normal way to prove a point, public ritual butchery was a standard thing, i mean human anatomy was used as furniture material for fuck sake
you're absolutely correct;
arabian slavery also had the concept of forcibly feeding young boys estrogenic foods and removing their testicles to serve as shemale sex slaves.
And of course slavery was never abolished in saudi, and they dodged joining in on the whole human rights thing to avoid that
Just another day in the Arbites on your average Civilized World
I get what he's saying, it's a pretty common view that mind altering magic is always wrong. It'd be like drugging them.
That's nice. Now explain what precisely is wrong with magical means, as opposed to any OTHER sort of means.
Or are you going to start saying THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS when you use magic to light a fire instead of using flint and steel?
THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS when you magic missile this attacking person instead of shooting him with a bow and arrow?
THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS when you levitate over a gap instead of jumping over it?
>sir it appears the president has been kidnapped and imprisoned by a crazy armed north korean
>I'm sure she's fine, lets just casually chat to her and see what's her problem, who are we to judge her culture
>For example, let's say that a barbarian kidnaps the party's cleric with the intent of turning him into her husband, but other than not allowing him to escape treats him farely well and lovingly. Is this an evil act, and is killing her to save the cleric an evil act? Would good party members be forced to look for an alternative way to resolve the problem without simply smiting left and right?
Fetish bullshit. Leave.
in both cases, their culture would support an intrinsically evil act.
one is repugnant to everybody, and I'm using it to let you people understand that culture does never justify evil actions, and the other makes you think, but that's just because you aren't righteous. if you were, you'd find the very thought aberrant.
Bringing up a different issue here, but-
Drugging someone is usually bad because it creates a dependence on the substance, and so has an issue with recidivism. If the drug stops then the person often reverts without the drug's influence. No long term change has been made.
And yet, kids are dosed up on ritalin as behavioural modification methods. Doctors prescribe behavioural drugs to folks with mental imbalances and crazy people.
Are these, too, immoral acts?
You know, you can talk to someone and later on take aggressive action against someone. You don't ONLY have to talk to them, and escalating an issue is a lot easier than de-escalating it.
If you're up against a crazy armed north korean I'd want to talk to them instead of snipng them in the head. For example to ask the question "Where's the president"?
I'm sure you calling in an airstrike, and then searching for two months before finding the president's starved, dead body in a bunker would be a great success for you.
>Drugging someone is usually bad because it creates a dependence on the substance
Yeah that's why people who spike drinks with ketamine get in trouble. They create a bar full of drug addicted bar patrons.
Or, y'know, roleplay a character development.
Here's the thing, by RAW, diplomacy checks don't actually give you the ability to directly convince people of things as if by magic. They allow the diplomat to increase the opinion of who they are talking to through trained social ability, so if they say something wrong or offensive, it comes off as less disagreeable because they find you likable.
Similarly, bluff also doesn't convince people of things. It simply is used to make it look like you're telling the what you believe to be the truth on the spot.
Social skills are meant to bolster roleplaying, you twat, not replace them.
There is a difference in the behaviour modification because it requires actually having convincing arguments and personality, and being able to articulate your point of view.
"I try to convince the king to increase my reward for finding the princess, and roll diplomacy." is different in kind, not just in check DC, from "I roll diplomacy to convince him of my morality and cultural viewpoint."
The first is acceptable because it's a simple request based wholly on how it's phrased. But if you want to convert someone's very person, as opposed to a decision they make, you need to actually articulate reasons why.
>treats him farely well and lovingly
not going to last
if the cleric adamantly decides he prefers his freedom over being her husband the conflict will eventually reach the point where she has to make the choice between his comfort and ensuring he remains captive
once that point is reached either she prefers his comfort at which point the cleric can leave by his own accord in which case no smiting is needed or else she prefers his captivity in which case it becomes no different from any other type of kidnapper and the "loving" aspect no longer matters.
Lobotomies are a permanent harm done to a person. Using magic to make inmates more docile while they are confined in prisons would probably be much more acceptable to people than lobotomies, even if the same effect is done. Especially if the magic's reversible.
If the ends is the same and no-one is harmed, then what is the issue here?
THAT'S THE POINT. Unless you have a hostage situation where the bank robbers are killing off one every 5 minutes, you can afford to spend five minutes talking instead of going full murderhobo instantaneously.
Yes, you should clearly snipe the crazy north korean and don't suspect that anything is wrong, assume they're acting solo and aren't standing on a metric ton of C4 on a deadman's trigger. Talking is for pussies, right?
>should be a normal thing
Are you insane? Mind control magic is going to be seen as inherently evil and people will try to kill you as soon as it wears off.
Go ask historical people who thought magic was real how they would react if a witch took control of their mind.
So we agree that evil cultures support evil actions. Being cruel to slaves is evil because it is born of malice and not pragmatism or necessity.
It would then make sense that a neutral culture (that of the barbarian lady) would support a neutral action (taking slaves for a specific purpose and treating them humanely).
At the end on the day, people are a resource. They are thinking, feeling, sapient beings whose labor and breeding capacity are incredibly valuable to a preindustrial society. In DnD terms the creed of neutrality is "for me and mine" and "cause no unnecessary harm". Slavery serves a purpose other than degradation of the slaves. It is beneficial to the slaveholders and their society. If the slaves are treated decently and not left to unnecessary suffering (unlikely but possible) then I don't see how it classifies as anything other than neutral. It's not nice to think about, but that's how it all works out.
generally speaking reversing the effects of magic tends to be a lot more difficult than inflicting them in the first place
also its not acceptable either to keep inmates in a constant drugged stupor for the entirety of their incarceration, and sure other behavioral modification drugs are used but those are applied when requested by the user, not by the government.
>slavery is neutral
Even IF that was anything but nonsensical any being is fully justified in killing anybody who tries to enslave them if its what they have to do to stay free.
OP, you tell her to release him and if she does not do so immediately you take him by force. If she dies its her fault.
except in D&D true selfishness is one of the definitions of Neutral Evil
and if you take a slave from a culture that highly values personal freedom it is impossible to treat them decently while keeping them enslaved, its not only the captor's culture that matters, if it comes to the point one of the captor's slaves is willing to risk personal injury and death to escape being enslaved, keeping him is evil.
Behavior-modifying drugs aren't meant to be taken permanently. They're a stopgap measure that allows a patient to function while he works out the problems affecting his behavior with his doctor or on his own. The ideal scenario is that once you've solved the personal problems that cause the offending behavior, you are to be weaned off the drug.
A doctor can prescribe you drugs, but it's up to you to take them. Even if you suffer from a mental illness so extreme the doctor is forced to administer drugs against your will, he can only do so until you're back to being capable of making decisions.
There are plenty of people who think forcing a child to take ritalin just so he behaves in class is immoral, including me, which is why there's been a controversy about it for the past 25 years, and why it's now illegal for a school to require kids with behavior problems to be medicated.
You could make a case for mind-affecting magic to be used on a temporary basis while the healer works with the patient to cure what ails his mind. But it would be definitely immoral to use it on someone who isn't ill, and deciding who is sane and who isn't is why you have to have the better part of a decade in education before you can start telling people to take pills. I'd imagine in a society where such magics are used in that way, there'd be a similar rigorous standard of training before you could morally and legally cast mind-affecting spells.
>Even IF that was anything but nonsensical any being is fully justified in killing anybody who tries to enslave them if its what they have to do to stay free.
imo neutral slavery is on the same level as soldiers killing each other in battle. As long as it's not made unnecessarily cruel it can't be considered evil outright. It's just an ugly part of civilization that should be avoided at all costs.
I have no idea.
Personally I don't get why personal agency is seen as an important concept to begin with.
I'm a(n otherwise) good person but I don't give a single fuck about slavery, informed consent, altering the human mind chemically, or engineering people's feelings.
I understand why making someone else suffer in order for you to obtain success is wrong - and thus why "beat them into line and work them until they die" slavery is wrong.
But if you're uplifting a bunch of savages by controlling their behaviour, allowing them to live in a safer civilization than their savage one, and require obedience in return (since honestly if you give them freedom they'd just turn where-ever they settled into a savage wasteland)?
I am perfectly fine with that.
Same case with others.
Abusing a person's naievete to fuck them for your own amusement and leaving them a jaded wreck -> evil
Having enjoyable sex with someone who doesn't really know what's going on but enjoys it anyway and appreciates your company afterwards -> fine.
Using drugs to make someone turn over their life savings to you -> bad
Using drugs to get someone over a hump in their life and get them to work harder towards their dreams -> good
Wrecking someone's life for shiggles -> bad
Taking a person who is a clusterfuck of conflicting ideas, emotional baggage, and personality flaws, and unfucking them -> good
I know most people disagree, but I just don't see the value in agency, except as a safeguard against incompetent or selfish leaders. So long as the leaders are competent and benevolent, I'm all for control.
NOW we're getting somewhere. Mind-altering magics are bad as they're preventing a free willed change, has both permanent effects as per >>45005868 and will immediately be useless once the temporary effect wears off as per >>45005820
So, instead of mind magics that directly affect the user's personality, how about geas and other sorts of spells that prevent someone from taking particular acts until they change their behaviour? So for example a murderer will in future freeze up as if paralysed when attempting to harm someone not wielding a weapon?
Is that more acceptable? Bear in mind prisons and other mundane methods of rehabilitation would likewise prevent certain actions from being taken.
Now, in your example.
Barb kidnaps the party's Cleric and treats him well -> It depends on if the Barb is more competent at treating the Cleric well than the Cleric is at treating himself well.
Plus, there is the practical aspect. The Cleric most likely has a job to do, and by not allowing the Cleric to perform that job, the Barbarian is causing problems for others.
Killing her to save the cleric, I'd say is not evil, but certainly a suboptimal solution.
I'd subdue the Barbarian. And if the Barbarian won't give up on your Cleric, make the Barb the slave of the Cleric (i.e. the other way around).
That's not how alignment works. Alignment is a metaphysical concept, with some unknown force or some such keeping score of every lawful, chaotic, good and evil thing you do. You kidnap someone and force them to be your waifu/husbando, it ain't going to go "oh, well it's part of their culture, so I'll say it's just neutral", it's going to tick the evil box and move on to the next person/deed.
problem with mind altering magic is also that it must be administered by a human
a corruptible, fallible, ordinary human with the ability to enforce behavior upon another.
Can anyone here name a single person in the entire world they could actually trust with that sort of power?
Personal liberty has been one of the highest ideals in Western Civilization (particularly America) for hundreds of years. Even though I want to agree with you, having to be robbed of your agency and free will in order to solve your mental problems feels like a failure to me even if it works flawlessly. I'd rather suffer and die in freedom than live in a cage of my own making.
You are under no obligation to help anyone else gitgud. It's nice if you do, but you are not obligated to do so.
But yes, training the Barb to be a good wife would be another decent solution.
So killing them is ok because it's easier?
>problem with _______ is also that it must be administered by a human
>Incarceration and jailing people
>the death penalty
>the government budget for drone strikes
>the government budget for social aid
>a corruptible, fallible, ordinary human with the ability [to abuse any of these things]
Can anyone here name a single person in the entire world they could actually trust with that sort of power?
(with proper oversight: I believe that the answer is yes)
An abstract concept that does not exist in the real world. Why do you think I don't give a shit about it? I believe it isn't real.
We're controlled by our impulses, our experiences, our brain's chemicals, the cues we get from society, our opinions, the trusted opinions of our friends, and our need to masturbate to fetish pornography.
>Having enjoyable sex with someone who doesn't really know what's going on but enjoys it anyway
Having sex with someone that you know doesn't fully understand the potential consequences of sex is completely 100% wrong.
>You're knocked up and have herpes now but it's okay because we had fun right?
>Using drugs to get someone over a hump in their life and get them to work harder towards their dreams
Why do you get to decide what constitutes a hump in someone's life? Maybe someone is struggling with their dream of being a soldier because they don't actually want to be a soldier? You're just gonna drug him and tell him to go pick up his gun?
>Taking a person who is a clusterfuck of conflicting ideas, emotional baggage, and personality flaws, and unfucking them
Who are you to decide what aspects of someone's personality are flaws and baggage? Why do you get to draw the line between assertive and standoffish? What makes you qualified to decide where introverted stops and reclusive begins?
Not only do I disagree with you, I think you're just being a giant edgelord. If you're not, and if this actually represents your outlook, you're a disturbed and reprehensible person.
the ability to enforce your will upon a person absolutely is something that does not exist IRL and all attempts to reach it have been considered quite evil
now you're suddenly going to trust someone with that power
>So killing them is ok because it's easier?
Human beings in large enough numbers are pretty damn good at finding optimal solutions. Individuals make fuckups but the collective can correct them.
>I don't get why personal agency is seen as an important concept to begin with
>the ability to enforce your will upon a person absolutely is something that does not exist IRL
A bunch of guys with guns has the ability to enforce their will on a lot of people and yet most governments aren't seen like they are an evil that needs to be torn down in a bloody revolution. If a government or any individual misues power that they have they'll be destroyed by the citizens they claim to govern.
Mages need to sleep and they don't always keep bulletproof, arrowproof shields up 24/7, do they?
The gun, and other ways of enforcing your will upon others is not evil. Enforcing your will with malicious intent is evil.
>Human beings in large enough numbers are pretty damn good at finding optimal solutions. Individuals make fuckups but the collective can correct them.
So government run magic mindfucking teams is ok, since it's a collective measure?
So your gripe with me is that you believe I am not competent, and that use of power over others would lead to a worse situation.
That is exactly the situation where I'd prefer personal agency.
By the way, you don't need to be 100% accurate, well-informed, and correct when making decisions for others.
You only need to be more accurate, well-informed, and correct than they are.
That is a very low bar, some of the time.
Though, some of your claims have flaws.
First, Herpes is not fun.
Second, if the person does not have a dream to become a soldier, then chemically inspiring them to become a soldier is not furthering their dreams.
Third, a decision for where x ends and y begins is irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's x or y, you only need to ask "Is this working for the person or not?".
And again, you don't need to be perfectly correct. You just need to have better judgement than the person in question.
Why do we basically insist that people make decisions for themselves anyway, when people who are BETTER at making decisions could make the decisions FOR others? Saves effort on the person's part.
The world has billions of people all making decisions, and in a vast majority of those cases, they're going to be making the same fucking decisions as each-other. That is a LOT of wasted effort. I find it inefficient.
The rich few running magic mindfucking teams will result in suboptimal solutions since the rich few tend to prioritise bureaucracy and constricting control over prosperity. It's in their self-interest to do so because owning 90% of a ruin is a safer choice than owning 10% of a castle.
Democratic magic mindfucking teams, though?
Hm. Tough question. I'd say "yes". Though Democracy has resulted in some really fucking retarded decisions in the past, it's also resulted in some pretty damn good ones. I'd trust the democracy.
I really don't.
To me, enforcing your will on a computer by running programs on it and enforcing your will on a human being by grooming them are morally the same.
One machine may be more complex (and also MUCH more likely to fight back if you screw them over), but in the end they're both machines.
You've got some good points, but need to make yourself clearer. And there's also some problems, too.
Firstly, the case you are arguing about is people doing mind-magics on unwilling participants. Taking actions where the person may not want the end results is an area of dispute - they might not want to be un-fucked or have sex and you are taking that choice away from them.
>Why do we basically insist that people make decisions for themselves anyway, when people who are BETTER at making decisions could make the decisions FOR others? Saves effort on the person's part.
Because you cannot trust the smarter people to act against your self interests. if you give someone all your money because they can invest the money better than you, they can simply pocket the money and leave you penniless.
Nevertheless this happens a lot; see politicians and people ceding the decisionmaking process over to them, and hedge fund managers. They are given limited control and are watched with oversight to ensure that wrongdoing is limited. Sometimes the oversight even works.
>Having sex with someone that you know doesn't fully understand the potential consequences of sex is completely 100% wrong.
Then how come having sex with a nigger is legal? Most of them don't know how STDs work. How come having sex with a woman is legal? Most of them don't know how paternity issues will be resolved. How come having sex with a gay man is legal? Most of them "think" with their sex drives, not their brains. If having sex with a drunk person is not consent because they are mentally impaired, then why is sex with a tired, hungry, horny, or bored person considered valid? Those will ALL impair your judgement.
Ultimately you're setting the bar for informed consent SOMEWHERE. To me, the position of that bar is fucking arbitrary, so I opt to throw the bar out and go via a different metric - is the sex harmful to the person in question, or not?
I doubt I'm an edgelord if my principle concern is "is this helpful to another human being?"
Disturbed and reprehensible? That's a matter of opinion.
So, of course, you'd like to change my personality and behaviour.
But it's not violating my agency since you're only using words on a screen.
Even though words on a screen, and surgery+drugs, do the same damn thing except to different degrees.
Because determinism, no matter how true it may be, is a pernicious assumption to make in both morality and everyday life? Because the concept of free will is not merely comforting, but a vital assumption? Because most people will never accept that they are mere organic machines, and it is necessary to let them think they are in control?
Just curious, but are you a pure utilitarian?
>primary concern is whether something helps others
>an awareness that other people have emotions, and these emotions influence whether or not they can achieve their dreams
You don't know what a sociopath is, do you?
But thanks for calling me an idiot. Great argument there fagtron, you sure convinced me with that hot insult.
I am a cyborg that has augmented his circuits with meat, to the point where all my circuits are 100% meat
>Taking actions where the person may not want the end results is an area of dispute
Huh, good question. "If you could program a person to utterly 100% enjoy life by having sex with you, and they initially 90% hate it, and nothing else about their life changes, is it still good to exercise this option?"
My instinct is to say "Yes" but I know damn well that you could hypothetically extinct the human race by making people 100% enjoy life by not having babies, and that's clearly not a viable solution.
Obviously there's got to be some merit in our desire to / happiness with not going extinct. But that's asking questions about "What desires have merit and which do not" and I honestly don't know enough to answer.
For now, I am happy that programming out a human's species-preservation instinct is impossible since it avoids that quandry, at least for now.
>Because you cannot trust the smarter people to act against your self interests.
There's GOT to be a better way than having every person make decisions for themselves, though. It's so wasteful. There must be some way to save on effort AND avoid the possibility of the selfish screwing someone over.
>There's GOT to be a better way than having every person make decisions for themselves, though. It's so wasteful. There must be some way to save on effort AND avoid the possibility of the selfish screwing someone over.
Currently the best method we have is oversight. But if we get mind-altering technology, people volunteering to lead while having their own minds altered in order to look after everyone's interests might be a viable option itself.
>determinism as a concept, if widely adopted, is harmful to morality
>free will is a vital assumption
>Because most people will never accept that they are mere organic machines
They do that every time they visit the fucking doctor.
>and it is necessary to let them think they are in control?
They ARE in control, in the same way that a middle manager is in control of his subordinates, or your OS is in control of how your computer runs. A human mind takes a shit-ton of complex inputs and decides the best way to act on them. That is active control.
The control isn't an abstract independent entity, though.
It's dependent on environmental factors + how they were at a previous instant in time + (presumably) some quantum RNG.
And you can prove that control isn't independent because irreversible computing necessarily wastes free energy. If human will were truly an independent thing, it'd be drawing free energy & depositing waste heat outside the universe. This violates the 2nd of Thermodynamics.
>Just curious, but are you a pure utilitarian?
No, I believe that there must always be some difference of values because a pure ANYTHING approach necessarily sacrifices adaptability, and sacrificing adaptability makes you extinct.
>but adaptability is utility
Huh. I suppose you're right. I guess that does make me a pure utilitarian, though needing to keep a stable of different philosophies for the utility of a varied approach as the One True Correct Option™ is a bit of a oxymoron.
We already have plenty of people to whom we defer to make decisions. We trust doctors with our health, bankers with our money, and soldiers and police with our safety. We do this because these professions have learned and passed down knowledge over centuries on how best to handle these things.
But entrusting someone with these decisions is a privilege they earn, not a right they deserve because they know better than you. And we trust a government to hold them accountable if they abuse that privilege, and maintain the right to overthrow a government if it fails to do so.
Freedom is necessary to stop abuse. I'm not suggesting that you'd need to be 100% accurate, well-informed, and correct. I'm suggesting that you'd need to be 100% selfless to have that kind of power and never abuse it. And no one is 100% selfless. You're saying life would be better in the hands of a benevolent dictator, I'm saying no such thing exists. Power corrupts. It always corrupts. Anyone who says otherwise has never had power, or is already corrupt.
To be honest, Evolution probably already HAS found an optimal solution.
Human beings, in most situations, will conform - copy the decisions each-other make, and keep an internal list of who to trust (i.e. their friends, their in-group).
That saves effort over making decisions for themselves, though it leads to cliquey behaviour and inaccurate stereotyping as side effects. And can backfire if your in-group is a collective bunch of retards.
The main issue here is that people are not necessarily rational, and furthermore it's perfectly rational to have a suspicion that people who want to use your power.
People act in their own self interests or for their own pleasure. Often, it's optimal for one person to use other people's power, work and assets to make their own situation more tenable. It's often not optimal for the person being used.
When both people get something out of it, neither are wholly optimised for their own gain.
>You don't know what a sociopath is, do you?
>enforcing your will on a computer by running programs on it and enforcing your will on a human being by grooming them are morally the same
>But entrusting someone with these decisions is a privilege they earn, not a right they deserve because they know better than you.
Knowing better than you and valuing your interests is how they earn the privilege. To be specific, if you produce 10.00 LifeValueUnits on your own, and spend them on yourself. And a doctor upgrades that to 12.00 LifeValueUnits, but takes 1.50 as payment, leaving 10.50 LifeValueUnits to spend on yourself? That's a benevolent action, and worth trusting the doctor over yourself.
>And we trust a government to hold them accountable if they abuse that privilege
And we trust the people to impeach, prosecute, rebel against, and/or violently overthrow the government if the government does not fulfil its obligations. It's a good system.
If only it worked as well in practice as it does in theory. Governments should fear their own citizens, AND citizens should fear their governments. Thus far, only one of those holds true.
>Freedom is necessary to stop abuse.
You are correct.
>I'm suggesting that you'd need to be 100% selfless to have that kind of power and never abuse it.
No. So long as you improve people's quality of life by at least 5% (x 1.05) , you only need to be at least 96% selfless ( > 1 / 1.05 )
Improve people's quality of life by 50%, you can be at least 67% selfless.
And that's ignoring the obvious fact that people, acting in their selfish interests, don't necessarily screw each-other. A bunch of 10 people in CS:GO all pursuing their selfish interests of personal enjoyment end up helping each-other have fun.
A sociopath is someone who disregards the rights and feelings of others, and I disregard neither. It's also a person who screws other people over for their own benefit and feels no remorse or shame, and I do not do this. It also has traits of poor impulse control, which I do not have, and a lack of empathy, which I also do not have. (Low fears & high assertiveness are ALSO sociopath trait, but I have those)
>Valuing your interests
For the vast majority of the population, self-agency IS their interest.
Anyone who decides I'm no longer fit to make decisions for myself is not valuing my interests. The act of taking away my ability to pursue what I want, in lieu of what's best for me, worsens the quality of my life to a degree that can't be made up by the decisions you're now making for me, no matter how beneficial they may be. No matter how LifeValueUnits you've upgraded for me, the result is still a net negative.
>No. So long as you improve people's quality of life by at least 5% (x 1.05) , you only need to be at least 96% selfless ( > 1 / 1.05 )
Improve people's quality of life by 50%, you can be at least 67% selfless.
Utilitarian logic breaks down when it does not take into account things don't happen in a vacuum.
Two hobos lives are vastly improved if they barge into your house and toss you out; two hobos are no longer living on the street and one person is now on the street.
Nevertheless it's not an equal transaction as the hobos (in this scenario) are not producing funds to maintain their lifestyle and it also diminishes your own money producing capability (assume for the example you have some) as living rough on the streets negatively affects your job and earning potential, and that has a knock on effect on society. If all hobos were to grab people's houses then the nation as a whole would be worse off.
All that is slightly a tangent, but the basic thing is you cannot quantify people's selfishness and you cannot guarantee people trying to circumvent any rules you put down to be selfless. People abuse their powers. You can catch some of them. In order to do so, people giving up their power need to be vigilant, which is wasteful in terms of absolute efficiency but stops other wastage of power abuse.
>And that's ignoring the obvious fact that people, acting in their selfish interests, don't necessarily screw each-other. A bunch of 10 people in CS:GO all pursuing their selfish interests of personal enjoyment end up helping each-other have fun.
CS:GO also has server tools to ban griefers and the like. People may not necessarily screw each other over but mechanisms to stop people screwing each other over are useful to lower the rate of screwing over others.
>Anyone who decides I'm no longer fit to make decisions for myself is not valuing my interests.
Bros that prevent Bros from fucking Crazy when Drunk are True Bros.
>For the vast majority of the population, self-agency IS their interest.
I disagree completely. Self-agency gets fumbled more often than used productively.
Will you femdom fetishists ever stop?
Why not a barbarian carrying off the nubile cleric girl of the group? That's obviously rape, and having the genders reversed doesn't make it better.
See? Now it's perfectly obvious that this is a shitty thing to do.
>For the vast majority of the population, self-agency IS their interest.
The first interests of the vast majority of the population, staying alive, being fed and warm and clothed. If these things are lacking people will gladly give over their self-agency to stay alive. National emergencies are a good example of this.
>Anyone who decides I'm no longer fit to make decisions for myself is not valuing my interests.
While true, you're also strawmanning the position here. Other anon and I aren't saying you're not fit to make your own decisions, we're saying you're just fucking slow over it.
Here's the PROPER optimal solution; we get the smart people to write up a quick guideline as to optimal decisions for people, then we distribute it to folks. THEN those people can decide whether they want to take the optimal steps towards doing it; if they're lazy they can choose to just go ahead and do it, if they're suspicious and wish to inspect the optimal path they can, and if they disagree they can fuck off and do whatever they want.
How's that for a good balance between speeding things up and freedom of choice?
Your Hobo example assumes the Hobos' happiness has equal value to my happiness.
Protip: it doesn't.
I wholeheartedly support conflict between groups of people, because natural selection is a positive force over time. Same for conflict between ideas.
Utilitarianism that screws over 1 person for the benefit of 2 people is, in my opinion, dubious at best. Unless that 1 person is your enemy. At which point gogo.
> but the basic thing is you cannot quantify people's selfishness
On an individual level no. On a group level, yes.
>People abuse their powers. You can catch some of them. In order to do so, people giving up their power need to be vigilant, which is wasteful in terms of absolute efficiency but stops other wastage of power abuse.
I agree completely.
... Do you not realise that "Taking power from someone and then screwing them over" is something I find morally bad? Because I do find it morally bad. I only approve of taking power from others if they end up with a positive or neutral outcome.
>Your Hobo example assumes the Hobos' happiness has equal value to my happiness. Protip: it doesn't.
The hobos would disagree.
>Utilitarianism that screws over 1 person for the benefit of 2 people is, in my opinion, dubious at best. Unless that 1 person is your enemy. At which point gogo.
So, it's utilitarian for those two people to screw you over, if you're their enemy. Gogo! Screw you over!
>On an individual level no. On a group level, yes.
The thing is, people's moral systems conflict and contrast, so they don't want to be ruled by utilitarian ethics if the person in charge has a different utilitarian ethic than them. PROTIP: no two utilitarian ethithicists will agree 100% on things. And this is why you get people doublechecking each other's work, because what works out best in the eyes of one guy doesn't necessarily mean it works out best in the eyes of everyone else.
>If these things are lacking people will gladly give over their self-agency to stay alive.
Benjamin Franklin quote incomining in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...
>we get the smart people to
W o a h s h i t.
I'm the anon you're claiming to agree with, and I believe this is a VERY BAD idea. Whoever holds the power to decide who is smart and who is not, will bugger the system so thoroughly that the system's corpse will get anal pregnant.
Moreover, the smart already DO that. We use the internet, and face to face communication, to tell people wtf they should be doing. You do not need to formalise and legislate the process of people being opinionated on the internet, for doing so will make it LESS effective.
What I would approve of, though, is a globalised chemical or surgical treatment for akrasia and poor self-control.
(Yes, taking away people's agency in order to give them more control over their lives. How contrarian of me.)
The balance between speeding things up and freedom of choice would be a way for people to copy the decisions others have already made. Though I have no idea how the fuck you'd get an electronic device to tell when a person is faced with a decision (and what decision they are faced with), being able to pull up an online poll result of how people in the person's peer group acted would save effort.
Shit, we already do this with RPG builds. But those are things that require a lot of conscious input, and worth the effort to find the poll. Every day, probably every 15 minutes, we make minor decisions that aren't work asking the internet about. If we could find some way of automating the process...
>So, it's utilitarian for those two people to screw you over, if you're their enemy. Gogo! Screw you over!
>The hobos would disagree.
Well then. Either we can agree to live in a society where theft is prohibited, or one group can robust the other and take their stuff.
To be fair, he hits you because he's jealous and possessive and he's jealous and possessive because he values you as a partner, so you're not technically wrong.
Unless he's being an ironic contrarian and hitting you because he thinks it'd be amusing to skip the jealousy and possessiveness and have the violence anyway.
Getting drunk is a temporary state and requires a temporary intervention. Your suggestion would be more akin to taking away my license forever and giving me a bus pass, so I can't go to the bar anymore, and even better, to gas stations where I buy unhealthy snacks and soda. Congratulations, you've helped me to lose weight, saved me money, made me more productive, and also irrevocably worsened my life. Because the ability to choose is more important than any of those, and I've lived a better life shortening it with bad decisions than I would having had it lengthened with good decisions made for me.
Shelter, food, water and safety are the foundation on which people build their self-agency. A life with only these things is not happiness, it's survival. Yes, people will give up self-agency temporarily in order to preserve them, but once having reacquired them will go right back to desiring the next steps, and rightfully so.
See, you've declared that no one can in charge of such a system. No one can be the smart person.
And then not even three lines down, you've declared that you are the smart person. That your solution will work. It's the very picture of hubris.
>See, you've declared that no one can in charge of such a system. No one can be the smart person.
>And then not even three lines down, you've declared that you are the smart person.
My gripe was with who gets to decide what is smart and what is not. That power inevitably concentrates in a few people without any oversight and they WILL misuse it.
If the people deciding what is smart and what is not, actually honestly do their job right and decide what is smart and what is not, then I'd support your proposal 100%.
But I notice the single point of failure that allows a selfish bastard to screw people, and that's when I support agency.
My issue isn't that "no one can be the smart person", since plenty of people working together can very well be the smart person. That's sort of the whole point.
The issue is that what we already have works far better for picking the 'smart person' than your proposal.
>Getting drunk is a temporary state and requires a temporary intervention. Your suggestion would be more akin to taking away my license forever and giving me a bus pass, so I can't go to the bar anymore, and even better, to gas stations where I buy unhealthy snacks and soda.
... excuse me but are you DRIVING to the bar where you get drunk, and then presumably driving back?
Give me your goddamn license. I'm worsening your life before you worsen someone else's.
Ironic Domestic Violence.
"I'm hitting you because all these other faggots are doing domestic violence WRONG and are missing the SPIRIT of the thing, and someone needs to stand up for Domestic Violence and do it faithful to canon."
It wasn't my proposal, and I agree what we have now already works just fine for enabling people to make good decisions for themselves. Putting the advice out there, making the methods to what each of us considers a good life publicly available, and letting people pick and choose whether they want to do it your way or his way or their own way is the best of all possible worlds. They wouldn't call it the human condition if you could just do away with it without disastrous, species-ending short and long-term consequences.
Also I can drive jush fine, oshifer. *hic*
>Whoever holds the power to decide who is smart and who is not, will bugger the system so thoroughly that the system's corpse will get anal pregnant.
Systemic testing for optimising people's lives would be a good option. If you get good results, boom, you're "smart" and can do the job. Expert systems can help. Feedback systems would be useful too; if people come back and say "hey, now that I did the stuff you suggested I am being SO MUCH MORE OPTIMISED!" that's a good indicator.
Hell, I can optimise people's lives right here.
IF >visits 4chan, THEN >Stop spending so much time on 4chan
boom, productivity increases.
>What I would approve of, though, is a globalised chemical or surgical treatment for akrasia and poor self-control.
Doing that against their choice is going to generate hatred. Performing chemical treatment on those who volunteer to such programs would be a potentially very beneficial system, though.
Actually, after food, water, heat and shelter, you want safety, then you want love and comfort, then esteem and only THEN do you go for self esteem.
We could probably get by with dominant sexbots who make everyone into cute submissive traps and be ok, because they'd never reach the self-actualisation stage.
> They wouldn't call it the human condition if you could just do away with it without disastrous, species-ending short and long-term consequences.
We must test this theory.
Who wants to be in the control group?
Just kidding there IS no control group.
along these lines
there were some more extravagant examples but i cant find the images
it was mostly things like thrones and altars, so it was all stuff with ritual and cult meaning, magic being a big thing in those days
they seem to have had some realy capable craftsmen tho
I'd say it's an evil act though not enough to make her evil not is it threatening others so killing her AS YOUR GO TO SOLUTION would be evil, trying to convince her to let him go would be best (or figure out an arrangement that he'd be fine with)
> Is this an evil act,
>and is killing her to save the cleric an evil act?
Yes, provided she's not actively threatening others
>Would good party members be forced to look for an alternative way to resolve the problem without simply smiting left and right?
Ideally yes, killing her should be a last resort. Try diplomacy first
>shemale sex slaves
no, not realy, they just turned them into eunuch same as in china, except their methods were much cruder since they could alow a large part of them to die in the proces, since they could always get more at a discount
eunuchs were useful because they were siutable to work in harems, and around the masters women in general, since obviously you can trust eunuchs around women
but yea, arabs castrated most male african slaves(most not all. some were just servants so it wasnt that bad)
thats generaly why there arent any black populations in the middle east or central asia
No, having everyone choose for themselves is the best system. It's just that the powers that be discovered that society works better for them if most of the population is marginalized, uninformed, and too preoccupied with day to day survival to really worry about larger issues. You want to complain about people not being competent enough to make their own decisions? Fix the society that keeps shoving their faces in the mud first.
>Why not a barbarian carrying off the nubile cleric girl of the group? That's obviously rape, and having the genders reversed doesn't make it better.
That is the plot for SO MANY "romance"/porn for women novels
choosing for yourself and thinking for yourself etc... isnt necesarily incompatible with uniformity and systemic order
in fact it could be easily argued that individualism greatly reduces the power and importance of the people as a whole and makes the individual less capable of resisting 'the powers that be' more dependant on the system as is, less capable of doing anithing about it, other than to compete constantly with millions of others
basicaly making a population atomised and disorganised renders the individual lost and weak, especialy when confronted with any isntitution or organisation that holds actual power
Read the thread zero times. What about kidnapping/holding captive an evil person to reform them or turn them good? In a game, the paladin in a similar situation to OP kept the defeated BBEG as a spouse to treat him right and show him love, and turn him good overtime. He definitely protested at first and wasn't ok with the situation, though partly because he'd rather be out doing evil things and harming people. To her credit her efforts did eventually work and he was turned into a functioning member of society and benefit due to his resources and powers.
Guess he got tired of being smiling attacked during sex.
Freedom is such a basic thing in modern society, that wasn't always the case however. In ancient times (Romans, Greeks, and anything before/at the same time as them) slavery was very wide spread and adopted by every major civilization.
So I would say that it
depends on the setting.
Hmm. Google shows me a few other ideas that apparently change things around, and says that it's outdated, but there doesn't seem to be any one definitive thing that gives something solid. So are you going to go "you're out of date and wrong" and stop at that, or going to try to assert that you've got a better popsci model for human needs and desires?
>replying to posts writing about dominant sexbots making people into submissive traps as a means of optimising utilitarian workflow on a topic of a barbarian kidnapping and making a wife of a religious official
>the important thing here is that the sociological model used to suggest this is out of date
I don't know, antipaladin was turned from his evil ways and paladin got herself a new fuckboy to dress up in skimpy "armor" and molest
Maybe if the Barbarian forcefully holds the hands of the cleric regardless if he wants it everything will work out in OP's scenario too?
>Oh... that's... rape.
OP said nothing about rape, for all we know she's just now allowing him to leave
In a generic fantasy setting that didnt apply the 9 point moral system like dnd I would say the barbarian is definitely not evil. She has killed no one, and is motivated by cultural norms and selfish desires, but appears to be fully interested in caring for and loving her captive. Clearly she expects the situation to evolve beyond a captor/captive relationship, and it is possible/likely that in her own culture being kidnapped by someone in this manner would be cause for reserved excitement... And a boner.
>let's say that a barbarian kidnaps the party's cleric with the intent of turning him into her husband
"With the intent of turning him into her husband" has the clear connotation of making him assume matrimonial duties.
"I'm going to incarcerate you until you have sex with me" is a pretty negative sexual coercion.
What other aspects of him being her husband do you think a barbarian is going to enforce?
She may not have killed anyone, but if the cleric genuinely does not want to stay, she will definitely know. And at that point, as >>45005793 said she will have to decide wether she wants the slave to go free or rather suffer because she will not let him go. And presuming that the character has done nothing to break the law, nothing too evil... holding him captive at that point would be evil. Even if her culture taught her about this, she will eventually have to make the decision and either live with the cleric resenting her, or him being grateful for being freed. She will have to listen to her conscience, like every other human being.
>"I'm going to incarcerate you until you have sex with me" is a pretty negative sexual coercion.
Eh, depends actually, her goal might not be sex, it might be to keep him safe and willing to stay in the household, sex probably is an eventually thing, but she might be willing to wait for him to be ready for it assuming he'll come around eventually and seeing it a higher priority to get him liking the idea of being her househusband
>What other aspects of him being her husband do you think a barbarian is going to enforce?
Depends on the culture/setting, but it could be as simple as expecting him to be a home maker, preforming household chores, with sex being an eventual thing when he's ready and willing
Sure, but the way I see it this is the barbarians way of courting. If it doesnt work out she may release her captive, Im not sure of the two personalities. I can imagine scenarios where it works out and the two become equals and lovers, and scenarios where it doesnt work but mutual respect is earned and eventually the cleric leaves unharmed, and then other scenarios where violence occurs. Violence can end in several ways obviously, but if my current girlfriend was subjected to kidnnapping, and then physical and sexual violence she would become obsessed with her captor. Im pretty sure this is an evolutionary advantageous response, and has likely been selected for through natural selection.
Very strange scenario OP built here when you really think about it.
>A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:
>"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. You shall go about your customs, and then I shall go about mine."
That usually works in real life.
The "Muh culture" box is exempt from criticism. Any problem put inside the "muh culture" box is no longer considered a problem. This even extends to paedophilia in the case of the Abbos of Australia.
Any attempts to point out that something is wrong about anything in the muh culture box will be met with accusation of racism, oppression or discrimination.
The way you put it, it's neutral with evil tendencies.
Full evil would be if the captive values his freedom even more than his life and starts getting sickly as a consequence of being prisoner. Not eating, unwillingness to talk with people, not bathing and the sort: if the lack of freedom makes the captive person suffer in any way, the barbarian is unquestionabily Evil.
You must realize that your own personal opinions about the interactions between two individuals is entirely dependant on them and not yourselves. If the two people in the OP were actually real people the outcome of the scenario is fully dependent on the personalities of the two people involved. I personally dont think actions easily resolve into "good" and "evil" in many instances, and while this situation has ample opportunity to become abusive, exploitative, and therefor evil it isnt a forone conclusion as you two seem to suggest.
The captore could have no interest in a relationship that isnt mutually appreciated and could let her captor go after giving it an honest try after 1 week. Alternatively the captive could discover his nearly insattiable appetite for abuse. Who knows, but just because it makes you uncomfortable doesnt make it automatically wrong, you are not part of the situation. For the situation to become "evil" imo the captive needs to express his desire to change the situation and then be met with 0 compromise. when unwanted torture, despair, and anguish happens the barbarian is entering "evil" territory, but before the situation has resolved so clearly its not at that level of transgression and to say a barbaric form of courting is as cruel as rape and life imprisonment is simplifying things a bit more than is called for.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the matter, her kidnapping him is not good, but how evil (and how evil killing the barbarian) depends a lot on what she's doing exactly, the practices of her tribe, and her intentions
It could be real evil, it could be somewhat evil but nothing terrible, it could even be neutral with him being treated very well and her letting him go after a period of time once it's apparent it's not working out how she hoped
This is the most moronic thing I've heard all night.
It is true, but we weren't looking for that one rare case in which it works out, we were discussing the most normal outcome there usually is in case of an abduction. That the abducted person will suffer because of the lack of freedom. That is all there is to it. I agree that in some cases such a thing can turn out for the better, but not in most cases.
Usually, it's bad.
We have invented censorship for a reason god damnit!
The interesting part is: Does her act of kidnap become a good deed, when the cleric realizes that the barbarian woman is the love of his life, and nothing makes him happier than being exactly what she wants him to be?
For the crime of robbing someone of their freedom, the just punishment is to rob the culprit of their own freedom.
kidnap her and force her to be the cleric's wife
>kidnap her and force her to be the cleric's wife
She treats her "new" husband like a wife of her tribe is expected
Keeping him safe in the house and lovingly cuddling him every night
I guess the initial act of kidnapping is morally ambiguous.
You can't accept that stealing a person with intent to love and marry them is "kind of evil" if after the act is successful and the "victim" finds true happiness the "evil act" becomes retroactively a "good act".
Just another case of the stupid 9 point dnd system getting broken. It only works for childhood cartoon levels of morality.
>It exists already. Iit's called prison.
That wouldn't be just, though. She treated her captive well, therefore it would be an injustice to rob her or her freedom and not treat her well.
>Not OP, but can you give me an example where holding a person captive who's done nothing to deserve imprisonment is not evil?
When you think what you're doing is right and good, don't want to hurt anybody while doing it, don't think you are hurting anybody by doing it and aren't a cunt about it
like the barbarian in the example
Alright, let's say this happens
>It's custom for barbarians to go out on raids on other tribes and abduct future wives
>a caravan is passing by and one of those barbarians sneaks in at night and takes away a woman that caught his eye
>the next day the woman is screaming bloody murder and backs away into a corner, trying to get away from the barbarian, weeping
Now, taking someone without their consent (not in the rape sense) is already dickish enough. If the barbarian doesn't let the woman, who clearly doesn't want to be there, go he is unmistakenly evil because he's causing her grief and sorrow.
>If the barbarian doesn't let the woman, who clearly doesn't want to be there, go he is unmistakenly evil because he's causing her grief and sorrow.
Mate, you seem to have a problem with semantics here
wrong =/= evil
If he doesn't know she's feeling grief and sorrow or if he thinks that's normal and that she'll come to like it or simply thinks it's part of the normal mating ritual then it's not evil
Wrong, yes. Evil? No.
>If he continues to wrong her even then, he's evil.
Sure, but that supports my point
Once he UNDERSTANDS that he's being wrong and persists he's evil
But as long as he doesn't know that he's wrong he's not evil, just uninformed.
The only exception would be if he genuinely believes that even though she might be in a shitty situation now she'll be happy later
Kinda like not always giving a child what it wants isn't evil, even though it doesn't make it happy, because you think you're doing it for the best of the child
Ah, I understand your point now. And I agree. Although I'd still argue that killing someone who wrongly assumes that he can just abduct women to marry them can be a good or neutral act.
>Although I'd still argue that killing someone who wrongly assumes that he can just abduct women to marry them can be a good or neutral act.
Sure, if you think you're doing the right thing and that it's necessary to protect others from harm you can call everything a good deed
> If I know that if one of my friends get abducted something bad will happen, the consequence to me saving them is bound to be only good.
Why do you disagree with me but then agree with me
Don't assume I am into that. Because I am not.
I don't want you to harass any of my students or myself, did I make myself clear?
Big muscly men are better than big amazon women. In my opinion.
Use of force can be good.
It is just like the government. They use threats to take people's money and force them into acceptable behaviors. Society is better for it because people are stupid and most people will have a better life if the government controls a lot of things.
Unless you are one of those anarchy capitalism retards that believe that the use of force is inherently evil.
In this case the barbarian believes that she is doing a good deed.
That's fine, different strokes for different people.
>Use of force can be good.
True, but most of the time it isn't.
Look at the vikings: barbarian scum, evil to the bone. Look at the mafia: they started of good, now they are shit aswell.
Might makes right my ass.
>Lean, lithe fuckbois being kidnapped by strong, muscular amazonians
>THE ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS
See those pleasant gentelmen from Clade Vindicare over there? They'd like to have discuss some matter with you. Hint: the discussion involves a gun, and you're not the one holding it.
The irony in this is that I'm pretty MGTOW IRL and a womanhater in the literal sense
There's a difference between fantasy and reality. If half the "erotica" women read were actually used as a guideline by men, we'd call it a rape epidemic.
Just allow us to enjoy our forced marriage fantasies for fucks sake.
>Just allow us to enjoy our forced marriage fantasies for fucks sake.
I don't mind if you do that privately, but I am really, really sick of people who try to roleplay that fetish in my games.
>>Lean, lithe fuckbois being kidnapped by strong, muscular amazonians
Every setting should have it
>I don't need protection
Shh... just stay home where it's safe
How about for survival purposes. Think cavemen times or post natural disaster/cataclysm. Low population, possibly even only survivors, any pairing is pretty significant and potentially important to survival of the species just because how rare it may be to find another person.
Saying because I played in two games of both situations that had kidnapping and forced relationships, a good case to be made for survival both times to supersede personal rights.
Playing a Helm Paladin is fun.
Who cares about Good and Evil? It is against the law.
>Shh... just stay home where it's safe
The concern is the morality of it, at the cost of personal rights.
>I don't want to force this person into a relationship or be forced, but I haven't seen another living possibly-healthy person in months
>Clearly did not listen to theirs.
You're remarkably wrong in that respect. Slavery was perfectly fine in many parts of the world for thousands of years. The Bible has multiple passages talking about the taking of slaves, and the proper care of slaves, as well as the proper punishment of slaves.
The difference is that most modern individuals have learned a greater deal of cross-cultural empathy, due to simple things like learning the history of other regions. Whereas people from older times didn't have the same resources to understand each other.
Some saw it as their duty to take these poor, ignorant savages, and teach them better things, asking only their manual labor in return. Some just wanted manual labor, others never even thought about it. There were people, and there were slaves.
You're actually wrong in several points, as human beings do have innate understandings of fairness and equality, we just have stronger ones to conform to general expectations.
Babies have negative reactions to cheaters/saboteurs being rewarded, but they'll throw things at people if you show them several adults doing it first. Human beings are a constantly shifting mixture of asshole and nice.
In a D&D game, it's of course going to come down to the call of your GM.
In my mind/at my table, I go with the idea of 'mens rea' as being a frequent defining factor between Neutral and Evil acts. If the Barbarian's intent is not malicious or particularly selfish, if she is not acting IN THE KNOWLEDGE that the cleric and his culture do not agree with hers, the act is not Evil.
If she honestly thinks "This is how the world works, and he is a fine candidate for a mate. He should be honored.", It's just a neutral act. IF she persists despite explanation that the Cleric's culture doesn't handle marriage this way, she starts to veer Evil. If she insists to the point of harm, or forcing herself on him, it pretty much nosedives into it.
However, the big thing that gets forgotten about alignment arguments is that your actions DON'T need to constantly line up with your specific alignment, they just need to do so the majority of the time. Yes, Paladins can fall for doing Evil things, but they're a higher standard. Neutral characters can commit singular evil acts.
However, the reverse issue also pardons the players: if the characters have no knowledge that the confinement does not include abuse. deprivation, rape, etc, an initial hostile reaction is justified. Their priest and holy man is being held against his will, and potentially tortured. Action is required. On the other hand, if their thought process is "These savages need to be taught a lesson", well, they're not really on the side of the angels either.
D&D makes a point that Heaven and Hell keep a tally of your sins and virtues (and virtuous deeds, which I now note that it's weird that sin works as singular acts and general failings, but virtue doesn't. That's an interesting linguistic twist) . Therefore, we must conclude that people have both good and bad points. Even saints can be prideful. Even monsters can have honor.
Because what's the point of moral dilemmas if the answer is easy?
>You're remarkably wrong in that respect. Slavery was perfectly fine in many parts of the world for thousands of years. The Bible has multiple passages talking about the taking of slaves, and the proper care of slaves, as well as the proper punishment of slaves.
Indeed. But slavery back in israel was very different than slavery of, say, north america. The black slaves that were imported in the americas suffered hell, whereas the slaves in israel were treated like servants, albeit they didn't earn money. They still had to eat and drink and clothes and a bed and they weren't whipped constantly and cruelly.
My issue, as I pointed out various times already, is that in many cases slaves are mistreated and that is evil. Also, there are slaves that offered their freedom to pay off debts or get some money for their families.
No matter what time or place, though, if you keep a person captive without their consent and without them having done anything wrong, you are a bad person. That's just how it is.
Jews, romans and greek had regulations and rules for slaves: most of the time, a slave could buy freedom or, after a set time, they were freed of their yoke.
Those that did not free their slaves no matter what are in the deep end of evil.
It's all very simple: every human has a conscience, even if they are brought up in a different way than ours. Some people just don't listen to it at all, and that's what makes them evil.
A man who buys a slave and agrees to free him if he does a certain task or works a number of years is clearly a lot less evil than the one that binds and brings someone into slavery that hasn't done him any harm.
IF the amazon knows that it's the abductee's fetish BEFOREHAND and does it for that reason, it's fine.
otherwise, the amazon is still committing an evil act, even if the consequences aren't evil
>committing an evil act, even if the consequences aren't evil
How can an act with no evil consequences be evil? That just sounds like some sort of comedy about a hilariously inept 'villain'.
>feeding young boys estrogenic foods and removing their testicles to serve as shemale sex slaves
They didn't though? I mean, yeah, castration was a thing, but that bit about the estrogenic food? You completely made that up.
>slavery was never abolished in saudi
It was abolished in 1962.
They actually didn't treat them that badly. Africans got the short end of the stick, but European, Caucasian, and Central Asian slaves had a pretty good deal. Hell, some of them ended up in elite military corps of slave-soldiers. Some of them created dynasties (Mamluk Sultanate et al), others ended up basically bullying and dominating the dynasties that they """""""""""served""""""""""" (IIRC the later Janissaries basically ended up basically choosing the Ottoman sultans, killing or otherwise getting rid of anyone who tried to stop or control them).
Also, the Barbary slave trade was MUCH smaller scale than the trans-Atlantic slave trade (1 million to 1.25 million for the Barbary slave trade vs. 12 million for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade).
>Also, the Barbary slave trade was MUCH smaller scale than the trans-Atlantic slave trade
The Barbary slave trade also didn't involve Africans. It involved Europeans. Barbary slave traders would raid settlements in Southern Europe and kidnap the local population as slaves.
Your numbers are way off too. Between the 16th and 17th centuries alone 2.5 European slaves were captured.
Compare a whooping 18 million that Arabs bought/captured from Africa.
The most conservatives (and I do mean fucking conservative) numbers put the total victims of Arab slave trade at about 20 million, twice as much as Trans-Atlantic slavery. And that's not even counting the unofficial slaves that are still kept to this very day.
tl;dr: Get fukt Muhammad.
>To what degree is robbing another of his freedom and evil act, and to what degree is violent retaliation justified?
There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law—
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:—
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." —AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
I stab a good person while they sleep with a dagger. It is a healing dagger and it saves their life.
I meant to kill them. The attempted murder was an evil act, even if the consequences were not evil.
This shit is on the same level as medics trying to cure women of these 'cramps' they have when having sex. Or psychatrists trying to cure homosexuals through high voltage.
NEVER force change on someone's mind. Not even for their own good. The only moment this is even remotely okay is, when trying to clarify to them a problem with their behavior that endangers others. Like rage-a-holics. But then only to make them aware of the problem and make them seek change for themselves.
If not, you end up with magical 'correction facilities'
How fucking dense are you? While morality is nothing more than a life, it is a lie collectively enforced by the vast majority, with a good proportion of those people wanting a system of undeniable rights, the right to free speech, the right to defense and to fight though many turn into cucks at the prospect of enforcing ones will because having integrity is hard, the right to freedom so long as YOUR beliefs aren't imposed upon another's own basic rights.
Once you try to steal the life, freedom and will of another, you've attempted to take their life and in doing so you've forfeit the right to your own, same with murder and war, to try and enforce your will on another's life is to give up the protection you're has from others who seek to wrongfully enforce theirs.
sorry I'd gone out last night, then went to sleep.
>Your numbers are way off too. Between the 16th and 17th centuries alone 2.5 European slaves were captured.
That isn't the Barbary slave trade. Even with that, though, that's still a lot less than the oh-so-comparatively-civilized Trans-Atlantic trade, even over the exact same amount of time (i.e. a century).
>the total victims of Arab slave trade at about 20 million
First off, 20 million is the top level, highest, most liberal estimate. Just like the top level, highest, most liberal estimate for the Trans-Atlantic trade is also about 20 million.
More likely, it was 10-18 million. Over a period of time stretching from 650 AD to the 1950s. Literally over 1300 years, they enslaved very possibly less people in general, of any or all races, than Europeans enslaved blacks alone over a period of... what, 400 years? LOL
>And that's not even counting the unofficial slaves that are still kept to this very day.
>tfw all but 4 of the top 10 largest destination countries for human trafficking are Western (and of those other 4, not a single one is an Arab country)