[DF] Why not have some pure "bad guy" races in DF?

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Stone Dog

To an ogre a man is something that will scream and suffer when he is roasted alive and devoured.

Oh, like a lobster!

I'm not trying to be pedantic, I am a proud omnivore (albeit a conscientious one: I don't eat from factory farms that mistreat the animals while it's alive.)

But the question of whether or not it is wrong to kill for food is complex, and the answer, "it's okay as long as it doesn't have a very large prefrontal cortex" is arbitrary at best.

Personally I think that it is morally right to kill for food. It's perfectly natural.

As an intelligent, self-aware species we have a moral obligation to be humane about how we get our protein, but a "monster" that hunts and kills humans for food is probably more moral than a human who hunts monsters for glory or the princess's hand in marriage.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Evil Roy Slade

Appeal to authority! Nice!

The claim that dolphins are sapient or anywhere near it is a positive assertion of disputed fact and the responsibility for supporting it therefore rests with the party that made it.

Citing a science-fiction author that may be partially at fault for the prevailance of this fanciful notion admitting in print that the idea is more fiction than science is absolutely valid.

Personally, I eat pork rather than dolphin meat, but that's because dolphin meat is vile-tasting. If I had to pick the smarter creature, it's six-five and pick 'em.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Oh, like a lobster!
.

Like a talking lobster. Except I wouldn't eat a talking lobster.

But the question of whether or not it is wrong to kill for food is complex, and the answer, "it's okay as long as it doesn't have a very large prefrontal cortex" is arbitrary at best.

Who says it's arbitrary? The closer something comes to mental akinship to humanity the more wrong it is for humanity to prey upon it because the more the golden rule applies to it.

[Stone Dog]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Oh, like a lobster!

If people eat lobster because they believe that the lobster is afraid and is being tortured, then possibly yes. Many many people try to cut down on perceived lobster suffering when they prepare that food.

Like you say, you don't HAVE to cause gratuitous suffering just for the ability to eat.

As an intelligent, self-aware species we have a moral obligation to be humane about how we get our protein...

This is what I'm talking about. I don't mean that the ogre is killing people for food. I mean that the ogre is killing people for the pain and terror it causes and hey... might as well eat too. The monstrous ogre is willingly, knowingly and purposefully being inhumane about its eating habits.

[panton41]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Like a talking lobster. Except I wouldn't eat a talking lobster.

Wasn't there a "Tales of Interest" episode of Futurama where Leela eats Dr. Zoidburg?

Originally Posted by Stone Dog

To a tiger a man is just handy protein walking about and probably not being very careful about who is going to try to eat it. So tigers are incapable of comprehending the value of a moral argument. Even if you could magically "talk" to one of them, morality would be simply alien. They are amoral even if trained.

I've heard that logic extended to house cats, which is why many people prefer cats. It's also why in my DF game house cats are little balls of pure, purring, Evil with a capital "E". Not that they do anything Evil, just that they are Evil.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Oh, like a lobster!

I'm not trying to be pedantic, I am a proud omnivore (albeit a conscientious one: I don't eat from factory farms that mistreat the animals while it's alive.)

But the question of whether or not it is wrong to kill for food is complex, and the answer, "it's okay as long as it doesn't have a very large prefrontal cortex" is arbitrary at best.

Personally I think that it is morally right to kill for food. It's perfectly natural.

Sure, but if I was that food source it would be morally right for me to fight back and try to wipe out those eating my kind. That was a point I was trying to make about a game that didn't quite get off the ground. Vampires were not necessarily evil, they just viewed humans as food. As the game was about humans protecting humans they were not appropriate as player characters unless they were fairly strange and abnormal vampires and other supernatural denizens. Sort of like PETA for vampires. Say VETH, Vampires for the Ethical Treatment of Humans...

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

Wasn't there a "Tales of Interest" episode of Futurama where Leela eats Dr. Zoidburg?



I've heard that logic extended to house cats, which is why many people prefer cats. It's also why in my DF game house cats are little balls of pure, purring, Evil with a capital "E". Not that they do anything Evil, just that they are Evil.

Aren't cats very likely compared to dogs to eat a deceased owner?

[davidtmoore]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Who says it's arbitrary? The closer something comes to mental akinship to humanity the more wrong it is for humanity to prey upon it because the more the golden rule applies to it.

...and the golden rule is arbitrary.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good rule, for all sorts of reasons, but no less arbitrary or useful for a given individual than "Do whatever you can get away with, and to Hell with everyone else."

It's a rule that serves most useful when applied collectively, whereas the above is a rule that serves most useful when applied as an individual. The problem arises when one individual follows the above policy in a society that applies the Golden Rule.

But then, this whole debate is in danger of missing the point.

Evil races are predicated on a setting where there is such a thing as objective evil. Questions about moral relativity, intention and casuistry are relevant in an ethical debate, but in a "Good vs. Evil" fantasy world, there are wholly objectively defined good and evil actions, and wholly objectively defined good and evil factions endorsing the two codes. To some extent, the setting's authors and the campaign's GM decide what those actions are, and in that setting, that's what good and evil is.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by davidtmoore

...and the golden rule is arbitrary.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good rule, for all sorts of reasons, but no less arbitrary or useful for a given individual than "Do whatever you can get away with, and to Hell with everyone else."

Those are actually pretty much the same rule, subject to the constraint of repeat interactions.

The reason "evil" races that don't follow it are hard to make realistic is that the golden rule really does approach the optimum strategy for the prisoner's dilemma with repetitive play. It only needs a modifier that it does not apply to competitors with a proven record of treachery, which of course if everybody actually adopts the unmodified golden rule, never happens anyway.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Those are actually pretty much the same rule, subject to the constraint of repeat interactions.

The reason "evil" races that don't follow it are hard to make realistic is that the golden rule really does approach the optimum strategy for the prisoner's dilemma with repetitive play. It only needs a modifier that it does not apply to competitors with a proven record of treachery, which of course if everybody actually adopts the unmodified golden rule, never happens anyway.

Keep in mind that the prisoners dilemma is not necessarily the best model for all morals. But of course more altruistic situations are to everyone's benefit if everyone does them. Just because I have say extra camels right now and you have none does not mean that in 10 years time it might not be reversed, and I so I should give you some camels to get you back on your feet.

This is partially why it is harder to make social races who have no empathy that it is non social. If orcs are truly from a harsh climate they should be very giving to other orcs at least. They might have a strong prejudice against non orcs but they should have empathy and the ability to work together. Of course if you get more alien then you can have somewhat different basis's for social organization.