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?
>>45005209
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.
>>45005209
Evil.
thats about 90% of the justifications that abductor rapists make up for themself who keep women locked up in their basements.
>Is this an evil act
Yes
>Is killing her to save the cleric an evil act
No, but it's not an act of good, either.
>>45005246
I agree with this anon.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005269
Also, killing her to save the cleric is arguably an evil act if no other attempt at saving him is attempted.
>>45005242
>>45005246
>>45005260
>>45005267
>>45005269
I'm glad /tg/ doesn't think so differently from me.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005288
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.
>>45005306
So if someone you hated abducted you and raped you, you wouldn't think of them as evil, am I inferring correctly?
>>45005318
>2016
>Thinking cultural relativists can be reasoned with
>>45005318
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.
>>45005306
>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
>>45005334
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.
>>45005318
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.
>>45005209
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
>>45005278
nah, a cleric should accept his situation and actualy do his best to serve and obey and slowly bring his captor into the light of compassionate reason and good will
>>45005377
>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.
>>45005402
That's acceptable and even preferable, desu, at least until his captor demands he do something against his moral code.
>>45005377
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.
>>45005378
>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."?
>>45005335
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?
>>45005427
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'
>>45005306
Nope.
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.
>>45005443
yes
i will forgive them for being in a older time but that doesent make there act any less evil
and in d&d it in no way matters
>>45005425
>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.
>>45005209
She is not dressed properly and might catch a cold
>>45005402
>>45005423
seems like a good solution.
>>45005443
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.
>>45005458
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.
>>45005454
>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.
>>45005458
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.
>>45005281
she's a barbarian strong enough to successfully kidnap and restrain a cleric
lethal force is more than justified under any circumstance
>>45005481
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.
>>45005394
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.
>>45005443
No, you condemn the act.
>>45005306
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
>>45005394
>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
Thats actually my fetish.
>>45005522
We know anon, we know.
>>45005522
oh yeah its a fetish for a lot of us
still an evil act though.
>>45005471
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
>>45005508
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.
>>45005443
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.
>>45005471
>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)?
>>45005462
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.
>>45005443
>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.
>>45005536
the reasons given for why raising undead is an evil act always were a bit silly
in the end i just say its evil because thats just the way it is.
>>45005542
>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.
>>45005542
>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.
>>45005493
>talk to her about the problem
You're a pretty evil guy, anon.
>>45005561
>try to talk to her about the problem
>get axed in the face for trying to take her man away
Read the fucking alignment descriptions, retard. They're not complicated.
>>45005515
So preventative and rehabilitative imprisonment are always wrong, but retributive punishment may not be?
>>45005533
>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
No, it's
>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.
>>45005542
>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.
>>45005515
thats against basic principles of magic tho
ends justify anything and everything whatsoever, and often the means are the end itself
>>45005378
Cultural Moral Relativism Scum detected.
Go get eaten by primitive cannibal tribes with no internet access.
>>45005585
>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.
>>45005576
>"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
>>45005543
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.
>>45005580
its wrong if you use magic to cause that change.
>>45005611
>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..
>>45005623
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.
>>45005611
>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.
>>45005625
not as bad as the arabians treated european slaves, go home JIDF
>>45005611
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
>>45005600
See
>>45005514
I won't blame the cannibals for trying to eat me, but I won't hold back on them either. They understand as well as I that every animal has a right to defend itself.
>>45005647
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
>>45005635
say it with me anon
THE ENDS DONT JUSTIFY THE MEANS
>>45005647
I said it tended to be. I know almost nothing about Arab slavery, but it doesn't surprise me that the mudslimes would be awful about it.
>>45005605
Just another day in the Arbites on your average Civilized World
>>45005635
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.
>>45005694
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?
>>45005605
>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
>>45005209
>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.
>>45005635
using magic to change someone's behavior would be more akin to the government enforcing lobotomies on inmates to make them more docile
>>45005489
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.
>>45005704
>drugs
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?
>>45005721
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.
>>45005711
YOU AM PLAY GOD
>>45005735
>I'm using it to let you people understand that culture does never justify evil actions,
unless we're talking about 2e or 5e
>>45005738
>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.
>>45005659
I don't know how they treated them but it's moot since that is not the point of discussion.
>>45005635
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.
>>45005752
>>45005680
deus does not vult
>>45005745
You know that's actually how competent security forces operate, right? They try to negotiate and understand the perpetrators actions to better defuse the situation.
>>45005745
if you've got both the president and the crazy armed north korean in sight, that bitch is getting sniped by anyone with the authority to make that call and you know it
>>45005761
Alright..
>>45005209
>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.
>>45005729
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?
>>45005769
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.
>>45005771
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?
>>45005394
>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.
>>45005793
>>45005813
>Talking is for pussies, right?
That's what American pop-culture has taught me, yes.
>>45005735
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.
>>45005813
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.
>>45005843
>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.
>>45005843
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.
>>45005738
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.
>>45005711
because your not giving them a real choice in there repentence
>>45005877
>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.
Well, yeah.
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.
>>45005209
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.
>>45005868
>>45005898
>>45005901
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.
>>45005813
>THAT'S THE POINT
I meant to reply to >>45005721
Whops.
>>45005928
>>45005209
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).
>>45005937
If the Barb is incompetent or malicious, though?
Kill her ass.
Kill her ass stone dead.
>>45005944
If she's incompetent, why not give her a self-help booklet?
>>45005306
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.
>>45005931
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?
>>45005928
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.
>>45005949
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.
>>45005962
The cage of your own making is called 4chan.
Home sweet home.
>>45005974
Then what is freedom?
>>45005928
Well done, you are exactly the kind of person who 'incompetent or selfish leaders' love.
>>45005963
So killing them is ok because it's easier?
>>45005952
>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
>taxation
>a gun
>a knife
>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)
>>45005984
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.
>>45006000
Lol no, they're always pissed off at me for being offensive.
>>45005928
>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.
>>45006005
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
>>45006005
>So killing them is ok because it's easier?
Yes.
>>45006005
Human beings in large enough numbers are pretty damn good at finding optimal solutions. Individuals make fuckups but the collective can correct them.
>>45005928
>I don't get why personal agency is seen as an important concept to begin with
>>45006025
>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.
>>45006028
>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?
>>45006021
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.
>>45006061
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.
>>45005246
Destruction of evil is an act of good, this is D&D, there is no moral relativism here.
>>45006084
Performing one evil act does not make you an evil individual.
>>45006053
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.
>>45006098
So you're not only a sociopath, but also really fucking dumb.
>>45006098
Anon, are you a cyborg?
>>45006066
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.
>>45006021
>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.
>>45005209
There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it…
>>45006098
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?
>>45005306
moral relativists are the cancer of the 20-21st century.
>>45006127
>sociopath
>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.
>>45006131
I am a cyborg that has augmented his circuits with meat, to the point where all my circuits are 100% meat
>>45006140
>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.
>>45005662
>human anatomy was used as furniture material for fuck sake
Not going to doubt you on this but plz moar info.
>>45006172
There is nothing wrong about being wrong either. Nothing that makes stronger better. The fruit of thy labor might as well rot or be eaten by others.
:^)
>>45006203
>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.
>>45006179
>determinism as a concept, if widely adopted, is harmful to morality
How?
>free will is a vital assumption
For what?
>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.
>>45006066
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.
>>45006231
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.
>>45006208
Edward Gein, made a bunch of furniture out of people
>>45006261
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.
>>45006203
>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
>>45006264
>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.
>>45006318
Everything you wrote is true but I don't understand how it refutes my point(s).
>>45006334
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)
>>45006353
>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.
>>45006353
>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.
>>45006455
>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.
>>45005209
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.
>>45006455
>For the vast majority of the population, self-agency IS their interest.
BZZT! Incorrect!
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?
>>45006511
We're discussing killing the barbarian. I'm pretty sure we all agree it's a shitty thing to do.
>>45006461
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.
>>45005402
> "He only hits me because he LOVES me."
>>45006511
>Why not a barbarian carrying off the nubile cleric girl of the group?
That's my fetish tho. I self-insert as thebarbarian _ _ _
>>45006511
but we are against it and calling it rape.
just because /tg/ fantasizes about this shit all the time does not mean they wont admit its evil when asked
>>45006521
>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.
>>45006513
>If these things are lacking people will gladly give over their self-agency to stay alive.
Benjamin Franklin quote incomining in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ...
>>45006513
>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...
>>45006575
>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.
>>45006530
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.
>>45006483
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.
>>45006513
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.
>>45006601
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.
>>45006642
That would be kind of amusing...
>>45006646
>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.
>>45006654
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."
>>45006707
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*
![2000px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/FQfzLpk.png "2000px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg[1].png")
>>45006601
>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.
>>45006646
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.
>>45006768
> 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.
>>45006769
Congrats, you've just described the system of benefits and penalties that results in sociopathic behavior rising to the top of society.
>>45006208
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
>>45005209
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)
>>45005209
> Is this an evil act,
Yes
>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
>>45005680
>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
>>45006203
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.
>>45006819
What, dominant sexbots turning everyone into cute traps?
>>45006511
>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
>>45006986
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
>>45007126
>What, dominant sexbots turning everyone into cute traps?
I am fine with a set up that encourages sociopathic behavior rising to the top of society if that's a side effect
>>45007133
And? That ALSO doesn't make it less rape.
Just, you know, rape fantasy is a thing that exists and is more common than fucking foot fetishism.
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.
>>45005306
>B-But it's their CULTURE!
>>45007182
Putting an evil person in prison is good. Raping them is not.
>>45007216
What if the raping is what turns them good?
>>45007224
Chaotic neutral at best. Definitely not good though.
>>45007208
Yes?
>>45007242
Alignment doesn't give a shit about "muh culture" or there wouldn't be any evil cultures, you fucking idiot.
![5362281i[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GxQHD7g.jpg "5362281i[1].jpg")
>>45007236
What about initially unwanted headpats?
>>45007271
Too lewd. Get out of here you degenerate!
>>45006769
>Still using the pyramid
What the fuck? You know it's XXI century for some time already, right? Were you frozen in an iceberg for all this time or something?
>>45007331
I know, after looking at your lifestyle I replaced "love" and "sexual intimacy" for "arguing on the internet" and "porn and your right hand" on the chart to keep it up to date.
>>45007362
No one uses the pyramid anymore, you dipshit. You might as well talk about Freud or pixies spoiling the milk.
>>45007168
>>45007216
>>45007224
>>45007236
>>45007271
So this?
http://pastebin.com/4Nz5Q9DN
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 itdepends on the setting.
>>45005209
Depends on how "modern" the setting is, but I'd guess it's slightly evil to keep him prisoner (and annoying for breaking up the party), and evil if you just kill her
>>45007400
>hand-holding
>>45007431
Not really.
>>45007394
Really, now?
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?
>>45007469
Forceful, aggressive, non-consensual handholding
>>45007451
>It's "slightly" evil to keep a man who's not broken any laws prisoner
No shit sherlock!
>>45007499
The end doesn't justify the means. Especially not in this case!
![7abcf7bd885a912a478dc8d2feb8b18e[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ePQHlon.jpg "7abcf7bd885a912a478dc8d2feb8b18e[1].jpg")
>>45007499
>>45007535
?
>>45007486
>pretends to know shit about sociology
>needs google to learn that pyramid is outdated
>>45007558
Do I have to smite a bitch? Cease and desist immediately!
>>45005209
> To what degree is robbing another of his freedom and evil act, and to what degree is violent retaliation justified?
Huh, interesting
>That example
Oh... that's... rape.
>>45007580
The premise is pretty good though. I have a few new ideas for my background now.
>>45007569
>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
>>45007535
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
>>45007558
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?
>>45007580
>Oh... that's... rape.
OP said nothing about rape, for all we know she's just now allowing him to leave
>>45007618
Nothing justifies hand holding. Have you no shame?!
>>45005306
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.
>>45007618
>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?
>>45007569
So what's a better model?
>>45005306
An evil barbarian doing things that's considered acceptable by an evil culture is still evil.
>>45005306
by d&d rules doing something according to her cultural traditions would be a lawful act not a good one
>>45007677
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.
>>45007692
>"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
>>45007750
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.
>>45007943
>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."
ITT people opposing snu-snu.
>>45007242
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.
>>45007943
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.
>>45007965
Shh, adults are talking.
>>45007964
You. I like you.
>>45008006
>implying women can possibly rape men in a fantasy setting
>not LITERALLY snusnu
Cleric should have snuck off while out having his post-snusnu tobacco pipe
>>45007964
>>45007985
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.
>>45008070
Women can't rape men, period. It's not how rape works.
>>45007943
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
>>45005209
>To what degree is robbing another of his freedom and evil act,
FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT OF ALL SENTIENT BEINGS.
DENYING ANY BEING HIS OR HER FREEDOM IS AN EVIL ACT BY DEFINITION.
>>45008155
This bait is stale and crumbly
>>45007974
How about you fuck off back to /pol/?
>>45008155
This is the most moronic thing I've heard all night.
>>45008147
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.
>>45005246
Pretty much.
>>45007645
We have invented censorship for a reason god damnit!
>>45008169
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?
>>45008373
Could be.
>>45008477
In my opinion the answer is an obvious "yes it does".
>>45008373
Yes
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
>>45008591
It exists already. Iit's called prison. It can be for life aswell.
>>45008591
>kidnap her and force her to be the cleric's wifeShe 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.
>>45005533
Why don't you go back to watching Gantz and fapping about how flawed and evil people are? We're working on being better than that in here.
>>45008348
This shitty joke is too old.
>>45008917
no it isn't
>>45008968
It absolutely is.
>>45008988
nu-uh
>>45005278
>Jesus as a deserter
Nope, Agony in the Garden.
>Jesus as a pacifist
Nope, Cleansing of the Temple
>>45008622
>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.
>>45009085
House arrest then.
>>45008999
trips o'truth!
>>45005209
>Is this an evil act,
No, morality is intention based you retard
the fact that you can't see that makes me worry about your emotional age
>>45009601
Not OP, but can you give me an example where holding a person captive who's done nothing to deserve imprisonment is not evil?
>>45009635
>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
>>45009635
It's dangerous outside, and the cute little cleric boy needs a big strong amazon to protect him
>>45009650
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.
>>45009686
Casters are overall more powerful than martials.
>>45009739
>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.
