 Is there such a thing as a 'good' Dragon? |
  |
 Dec 21 2006, 10:41 PM
Post
#26
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
"Cheap cop-out"? Do you have a different suggestion? For this discussion let's throw aside the loaded term "selfish" and replace it with "a choice that can be evaluated to be good". The question of whether or not doing so is rational is another one. We're wired to self-sacrifice, does that make it good? ~J |
||||
 |
 
|
||||
|
Dec 21 2006, 10:51 PM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
it's not that it's untrue, understand. it's very true: every action a person takes, even self-sacrificial actions, are undertaken because the person believes he will derive benefit from the action. the thing is... so what? that's like saying the gasoline in your car is selfish because it's chemically predisposed to burn under certain conditions. people have motives; if they didn't, they'd be completely random. you have to judge the motive as well as the action, or you're just jerking off. a broad example of a bad motive would be doing something in order to hurt someone else, because making them hurt will make you feel better. a broad example of a good motive would be helping someone else, because making them feel good will make you feel good. both motives have, at their base, you feeling good. the difference is what it is that makes you feel that way.
edit: from your edit, you may be talking about something else. hm. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2006, 11:03 PM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Dragons aren't good. They aren't evil.
And it's not that they're predators and we're not -- because we are predators. We may be social predators, but that doesn't take away our predatory behavior. No, what dragons are is alien. They're big friggin' solitary nearly immortal sentient reptiles. They're about as different from a human as you can get. An immortal elf has a way different perspective than a mortal elf or human. Living for centuries and millenia will do that to you. Now take away their basic humanity. Take away all group/social instincts. And and then, their mammilian instincts. Add reptilian instincts, an extremely healthy appetite, permanent dual-naturedness, the ability to perform magic from birth, etc, etc. They're totally alien. While we may be able to judge them as good or evil, I would strongly suggest not attempting to attach such labels to them. These things are animals. They're intelligent, sentient animals, but for our purposes... still animals. Go to the SR3 companion. Read the section on shapeshifters. That's what I'm talking about, except they're reptiles, not mammals or birds. Trying to attach human values to dragons is pointless. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2006, 11:05 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
gonna leave my above post to stand on its own, since it's viable.
re: self-sacrifice, we're also wired for self-preservation. different people are wired more strongly towards one or the other. the term 'wiring' is misleading though, because it implies that people are helpless to alter their wiring. choosing to make yourself the sort of person who is wired more towards self-sacrifice is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 21 2006, 11:09 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Of course it does. The term "Good" is itself a loaded one grounded in the human state which includes the self sacrifice option. The very concept of the "Greater Good" involves the evaluation of Good integrated across the tribe rather than the individual. Dragons do not consider themselves to be part of a tribe with anyone - not even other dragons. As such, their actions make as much sense to them as our own actions make to ourselves - but they do not fit any human definition of Good. It is rational for a human to choose to not defect in the Prisoner's Dilemma because a better outcome for another member of the tribe is a better outcome overall just as a better outcome for one's self is. It is rational for a dragon to defect because the person on the other end of the choice is not part of the tribe and therefore their outcome is irrelevent. Dragons therefore are "Good" from the standpoint of the Dragon, but that's a viewpoint that is limited to the specific Dragon, not even the whole of Western Dragons or the collective Great Dragons. That's a definition so restrictive that it's meaningless. The Dragon is good only according to itself and not to any outside observer. Humans can be Good with respect to whatever their tribe happens to be, which for some people is a very very large set of (meta)humanity. These people can be generally agreed upon to be Good by many observers. So to the extent that Dragons are "good" it is only a trivial definition that is indistinguishable from the term "selfish" or even "total raging cock" that would be used to describe any other entity. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 21 2006, 11:14 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 530 Joined: 11-June 05 Member No.: 7,441 |
Is that really the kind of image you wanted to evoke? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 21 2006, 11:58 PM
Post
#32
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Shadowrun needs an Alignment system to help solve these dilemmas.
;) |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 12:01 AM
Post
#33
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445 |
Ah... No. :S
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 12:11 AM
Post
#34
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 571 Joined: 9-January 05 From: In the 9th circle of hell Member No.: 6,950 |
My thoughts exactly. I think this point was talked about somewhat earlier in the thread, (ants and people) but this is a very effective way of putting it. As far as ultimetly good? I think I can put Big D in this catagory. Yes, he did things that were bad. He was self serving just like every other dragon. But: [ Spoiler ]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 12:11 AM
Post
#35
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
It's possible to define what a "Good Guy" is Knasser. There's no assumption that good is an attribute -- it's not, it's an adjective that may or may not apply, and a subjective one at that. In general, my view on a "good guy" is someone who opposes needless suffering, torment, and misery. It is contributed to by the methods used -- they can't inflict needless suffering, torment and misery. It's entirely possible for someone to have a sense of "self" that extends to half the people on the planet, but that person be evil -- it depends all too much on how you deal with the other half. If you treat them worse then you would a dog... Now, since Shadowrun is the 6th world, and there is a coming onslaught of nasties that will, categorically, increase the degree of suffering, torment and misery in the world for no reason which we are aware of.. most of the major figures that try and build up something that could oppose them are at least partially good. That just leaves the methods to consider. Scheming? Neither good nor evil. Taking control of vast numbers of people? Neither good nor evil, provided it's not something like slavery in the South was. Eating the occassional aggravation, for various unknown reasons? Closer to evil, but depends on the aggravation really. It's over very quickly, for one thing, and mostly all you're doing is avoiding waste. (Snack vs ash) Waging war on other, similar beings in an attempt to establish dominance? Neither good nor evil. There are probably better ways, but it's a time-honoured technique. And since we are talking major war, it does make sense to have the best you've got at waging war in charge. Yes, dragons are alien, completely foreign to human understanding. But it's quite possible for dragons to be "good". It's quite possible for them to be otherwise. What dragons are, especially, is dangerous -- which is why you don't mess with them. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 22 2006, 01:21 AM
Post
#36
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
That'll be included in SR5 - D20! |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 01:26 AM
Post
#37
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 571 Joined: 9-January 05 From: In the 9th circle of hell Member No.: 6,950 |
I know you guys are kidding, but I swear if that happens I'm making a railgun that shoots d6s and going crazy. :wobble:
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#38
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
Shame on you. For shame *waggles finger* |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 01:44 AM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
isn't that what SR4 is? OOOHHH BURN |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 22 2006, 01:51 AM
Post
#40
|
|||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Kill two birds with one railgun and make it fire slugs of pure crazy. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 02:02 AM
Post
#41
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,577 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gwynedd Valley PA Member No.: 1,221 |
n odragon sees themselves as evil. They are working for their own good, just like everyone else and if that happens to help others, hey, nice. Hestaby and Dunkelzahn seem to be the best of the dragons for "not eating maidens."
But I'm sure all the dragons could justify their behavior as being for the overall good of metahumanity. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 02:08 AM
Post
#42
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
yeah but Hestaby has no problem with bringing the lunch apparently. She's my personal fav to make appear nice, then have PC's start seeing those little scary draconic bits peaking out from time to time from behind the facade. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 02:12 AM
Post
#43
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Only if they are copraphiles. The vast majority of dragons do not consider themselves to have friends. They don't consider the good of metahumanity at all. They are prime egoists, and that's all they know. Now, some of the newer dragons are different. The ones that imprinted on human culture rather than ancient dragon truths have an outlook that's pretty similar to a human. But the old named characters, the Great Dragons, they all grew up with a grounding in a philosophy that made them incapable of cooperating with each other without a specific beneft objective - something that made them fractious and weak in the face of the horrors. The new generation is smarter. But they won't be greats for... a long long time. -Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 02:16 AM
Post
#44
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
I disagree on "incapable", more "unlikely". As an example, I'd say Dunk and Hestaby had 'pure' motives. As in, thy really mean what they say. But as far as tehey are concerned, the ends do justify the means. They might had an outlook that certain things that we would consider "good" need to be done, like meta-equality, but they do it all in a draconian way.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 03:30 AM
Post
#45
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,657 Joined: 29-October 06 Member No.: 9,731 |
Um... what? The result in which rewards are maximized and/or losses minimized is the best result. QED. No offense, but... which universe are you living in, again? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Dec 22 2006, 03:47 AM
Post
#46
|
|||||||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
Kagetenshi is arguing from the stance that only the effects on the actor matter to a rational actor. That is that regardless of whether the other player chooses to defect or not, you (the individual) get a better outcome if you defect. That's a very real philsophical position that people (who are not me) actually have. The fact that in actual analagous situations people who choose to not defect get a substantially better outcome is quite troubling to some people. --- See, the theory goes that the other player can't know whether you're going to defect or not, and thus since you serve less time/ get better rewards if you defect, it is logical for you to do so. However, in practice, people who defect serve more time/ get less rewards than people who don't. And the answer is simple: the other player in fact has a pretty good idea as to whether you are going to defect. Certainly you make a choice that is not revealed to the other player before the end and they can't know your thought processes and blah blah blah... but come on, reading peoples' intentions is not that hard. Being a person who wouldn't defect and coupled with anther person who wouldn't defect is the best outcome for both people - and both people know what the other person is going to do with a fair degree of reliability. The key is trust. In order to get the best result you have to be trusted by the other player. And the only way to actually earn that trust is to be trustworthy enough that you actually aren't going to defect yourself. --- That degree of social second guessing and altruism engineering is beyond the ancient dragons. And Kagetenshi. -Frank |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dec 22 2006, 04:20 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Ok, I'm not going to say you know nothing about game theory, because you obviously do know something about it, but somewhere in there a lot of "just plain wrong" got mixed in. After some sleep I'll try to evaluate what you said out of the context of the prisoner's dilemma, but for now I'm just going to say that it has to be evaluated out of that context, because what you're talking about has essentially nothing to do with the prisoner's dilemma. That or you're working at a completely different scope of abstraction from me, which I doubt accounts for all of it, but like I said, too tired to evaluate.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 07:12 AM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 732 Joined: 1-December 06 Member No.: 10,116 |
Not exactly what I was trying to say there, what I was pointing out (and I did) is that Peri was in a way... I suppose seemingly at least 'more human' in a way. Not necessarily good or evil exactly (though you could argue more towards the evil side since he -is- a hitman) but the thing is he does things many runners do. Just.. he's alot better at it, being a dragon and all and likely does it on a far larger scale. He also obviously specializes in wetwork, but theres quite a few runners who do as well. And Rhonabwy seems to have given in to the primal urge of lust brought on by his love of the Sea Dragon's song or some such. There was certainly a mention along those lines that that was a prime motivator. Its the sort of motiviation one could easily connect up with human activity. I suppose what I'm really getting at is are Dragons -all- looking at us as humans view insects? Or do some of them actually give a damn as to what happens to us while the others view us as mere pawns and things to be used and discarded? One could argue that the ones trying to understand us and actually give a damn are 'good' (or at least good intentioned, the things that the path to hell are paved with), or 'bad' in that they are decidedly indifferent etc. I mean thats one thing I love about SR. It's hard to tell, and quite frankly theres many shades in between. A character I've played who effectively specialized in wetwork as a sniper, would, and often did, kill completely innocent people for money. He however also cared a great deal for most children, worked for 'worthy' causes etc. So in a way he was almost neutral, though normal society would brand him as a complete psychopathic killer not to mention probably highly sociopathic as he didnt give much actual thought to the fact that by geeking that wageslave guard, he was depriving some family of a potentially very caring and loving father who was just doing what he knew best to bring food to the table. So I suppose in a way I'm also trying to in at least my own mind, quantify certain dragons into one area or another . Dion for example to me comes across as not exactly good or bad, he wants to have fun, and he doesnt exactly simply 'use' people. He certainly seems to enjoy interacting with metahumanity in general and it may just be that he's trying to 'get' the whole metahuman socialization thing because it may well be utterly alien to dragonkind. And at the same time if he can have a great deal of fun while he's at it what's the harm? This doesnt make him inherently 'good' or 'bad'. But likely somewhere inbetween. Lofwyr on the other hand strikes me as 'decidedly bad' thus the devil comment. Afterall you may well be making a deal with him in complete faith that he'll keep his end of the bargain, and he might well do so.. for a time. ANd then he's out to set you up as his next patsy becuase he couldnt care less about you, your just a tool or an insect to be used and discarded in his latest power play. I mean to me, it seems thats all he cares about, personal power. Which is a 'bad' or 'evil' thing by most peoples viewpoint. AFterall he's doing it for entirely selfish reasons, and diliberately misleading others. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Dec 22 2006, 09:56 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Mystery Archaeologist Group: Members Posts: 2,906 Joined: 19-September 05 From: The apple tree Member No.: 7,760 |
@Kesslan - I was being picky I admit...
On Lofwyr, this may sound to some a little controversial, but i think he's closer to a good guy than a bad guy. Why? Simply put he judges everyone by their ability rather than their species. He like all dragons believes the strongest should survive and rule the lesser beings, but unlike most dragons he doesn't see only dragons as the strong. Anyone who can compete with dragons is considered a worthy opponent by him. Okay I suppose that doesn't make him good as such but it does make me like him as a character better than some other wyrms. I suppose the idea of a big guy like Lofwyr being capable of respecting humans strikes me as a positive in a dragon. |
|
|
|
|
Dec 22 2006, 10:10 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
i wouldn't call Lofwyr good, but he's definitely a pure example of what he is. he exemplifies what he is; you can't get leaner and meaner than Lofwyr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th November 2025 - 02:59 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.