| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 24 Dec 2012 : 22:49:56
I know that this is neither FR nor theological, as such, but since it's a moral question, I decided to post it here, since it doesn't really fit anywhere else.... And besides, in the spirit of the holidays ('tis the season for miracles, after all, LOL!) I thought this would be a fun topic for this forum! Ahem, and here it is....
Well, I was walking home from work today (it's about two miles, so I get plenty of time to think) and an odd holiday-themed thought occured to me. Okay, so I had "Frosty the Snowman" stuck in my head all day. (Several of the people I work with were singing X-Mas carols all day long, and thus I ended up singing a few myself) and I suddenly realized on the way home while still hearing it running through my brain, that there is an interesting moral question in it.
We all know the song "Frosty the Snowman", and most of us have probably seen the holiday animated movie. We know the story of how a magician's hat happened to be blown to where the kids were building the snowman, and they decided to put it on his head, and it brought him to life. And then Frosty proceeded to discover that unless he got himself to the North Pole post-haste, he would eventually melt.
So here's the question. Suppose that a person owns an item that happens to be magical (implausible, I know, but just run with it) and discards that item, either because it doesn't work properly, or they don't realize it is. The item gets found and brings an inanimate opbject to life (Frosty, in this case). Then the person who had it discovers the occurance, and decided they want the item back. Would they be morally justified to take it back, even though it would now deprive the newly- sentient being of life? Okay, there's the question- discuss! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 23:45:59
Gaming conventions are fine for simple hack-and-slash campaigns, but eventually you have to go beyond the simple explaination of "It's a monster, kill it!" Dragons are also "monsters", but many are benevolant and even helpful, and a few go so far as to join in the civilizations of smaller humanoid folk, often for decades or centuries at a time, out of simple curiosity, altruistic impulses, or boredom. A monster is only what the DM or world-designer makes of it. If that's all they are there for in your game-world, that's fine if that's the type of campaign you run/play, but what of gamers who want more? Many gamers have grown past that type of kill-first, ask questions later mentality. Those gamers want the game-world to have a sense of depth and realism that is usually lacking in a hack-and-slash campaign. They want to know WHY it's okay to kill the goblins in the mountains, or raid the dragon's lair. A deep, rich game-world can't be based on just killing anything that doesn't look "human". Adventurers don't have to be pacifists who are afraid to kill or loot monsters. They just need a valid reason for doing so- such as if that monster is truly a threat by ravaging the region and is itself killing/looting, etc.
Rights don't exist? That's a fallacy in itself. If you believe THAT, then you yourself have suddenly lost all "right" to exist, by that reasoning. Does that mean someone else can just kill you and loot your house? Of course not. That would violate your most basic "rights", which you claim don't even exist. Every cognizant being understands that it has the "right" to live, to try to procreate if it wishes, and to provide for itself and its offspring, if any. What most people fail to realize is that those rights ONLY extend to an individual's basic needs. The moment they infringe on the same rights of others, that is when problems occur. This is the ultimate basis of a society of any sentient beings, be it elven, human, dwarven, or even orc or robot! Civilization can ONLY exist when beings recognize and accept that every member has those rights, or that civilization crumbles. Without that concept, there IS no organized or coherent society, because then every member would be ultimately doing whatever it wants to every other member, simply because they can. Without rights, there IS no civilization, at all! Saying that there are no rights is simple arrogance, in the end. And since you appear to be in USA, I find it incredibly shocking that you would hold that view. Do the Consitution, Declaration of Independance, and Emancipation Proclamation mean nothing? Those works, while flawed, are the basis of our own soiety's values and code of ethics, without which the country we both live in would not stand. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 22:51:27
First, rights are a concept...not a real thing...they are simply a great idea. Nobody really has rights. If you believe anyone has a right, that is the first flaw.
Second, in the fantasy genre, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings and such are truthfully considered part of what is accepted in civilization (at least in most games). Some worlds may include Minotaurs (Krynn), Warforged (Ebbewhatsit), or any other...heck, in my own world of Aerk Lizardfolk and Goblins are part of "normal"...but on the edge of that are the Monsters. Monsters are for adventurers to kill and destroy.
We can't get too complicated with "who is allowed to be left alone..." or suddenly we are surrounded by pacifist adventurers who are afraid to kill any monsters and take any loot! |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 19:00:14
Fantasy, of course. But that sounds like a rather paranoid mind-set, to point out the obvious. How is an "artificial life-form" (a la Data, as an example) a threat to humanity? Then again, how do we define "humanity"? Human beings are one species among many in the fantasy genre, and by that logic, ANY other race/species is a threat! So does that mean that humans should kill off all elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc? Or vice-versa? If we were going from a dwarven perspective, would that mean killing off all the humans? The reasoning is flawed.
Humanity isn't just the state of being A "human" (or elf, dwarf, whatever). It means being HUMANE, and being able to show compassion, empathy, and tolerance for another living being, no matter what it is or looks like. It's the reason there are laws against animal cruelty, harming children, or racially-motivated violence.... The list goes on. Those things are violations of basic accepted behaviors of human beings. (Or, again, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings and all the rest.) When we write about different races living together and sharing the same world, we are exploring the beliefs and practices that are inherant in that situation, the tolerance and acceptance that come with having more than one intelligent, feeling species on the same world. Star Trek has always been good at exploring these issues. When Kirk was assigned to escort the Klingon Ambassador, even though Starfleet knew his feelings about Klingons, it was with the understanding that he would not act on those feelings, however justified he might have been in having them. Klingons HAD BEEN a threat to "humanity" prior to that, and the two races had been at war numerous times. But they managed to make peace, and even put aside their differences enough to become allies.
They explored the issue of artificial life throughout the ST: TNG series, not only with Data, but his "brother" Lore, Data's "daughter" Lal, and again in Voyager with the Doctor EMH. In the end, the understanding of what "humanity" means was expanded to include those beings, who were all self-aware, intelligent, capable of moral and ethical decicions, etc. Notice I did not say "feeling" as Data spent the better part of his existance with no emotions at all. He was incapable of them, and therefore could not understand basic human emotions. However, he did ATTEMPT to learn and understand them, to the best of his ability. That made him at least somewhat "human', as far as he was able to be. Like Pinochio, he was built/made with a concience, never mind that it was a cumputer chip! Does this make him a threat? Was Lal a threat? What about the Doctor? He became fully sentient over the course of his existance, and even wrote a book on the issue he faced of not being allowed to have basic rights of freedom, happiness, and even "life". Starfleet treated him as a simple tool, even though he had demonstrated that he'd gone FAR beyond his original programming as a holographic construct. He had even made alterations and additions to his own programming to better enable him to perform his job and help the crew in times of crisis- even going so far as to have Janeway give him command protocols in case the bridge crew was incapacitated and unable to do their duty!
Arguably, the only example among those characters who was ever a threat, was Lore, but that was a product of his "human" emotions. He was jealous and resentful of Data, and attempted more than once to kill him- along with the Enterprise crew. He even tried to kill their creator out of anger and jealousy. But it was the emotions that made him a threat- not the fact that he was an AI life-form. Humans themselves kill each other all the time, without it being an issue of threatening humanity as a whole. So which is the greater threat? A single artificial life that becomes jealous of his own brother, or humans (or any other race you could name in fantasy/Sci-Fi) who attepmt to systematically stamp out the rights of other races/species to live? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 15:53:48
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
So your assessment is that an artificial life-form has less right to live than a human (or whatever other race one happens to be)? Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical? Or speciesist? Does it matter if the life-form was "built" (like Warforged were) and given life later, instead of born? (Or hatched! Can't forget the lizardfolk and others who come from eggs and such...)
Speciesist????
We are still talking fantasy right?
If fantasy, then it would depend on the character I'm playing...
If we are talking "real life" then anything that would be a threat to humanity as a whole, then a threat is a threat. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 04:18:10
So your assessment is that an artificial life-form has less right to live than a human (or whatever other race one happens to be)? Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical? Or speciesist? Does it matter if the life-form was "built" (like Warforged were) and given life later, instead of born? (Or hatched! Can't forget the lizardfolk and others who come from eggs and such...) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 30 Dec 2012 : 02:59:34
I don't see it as pulling the plug on someone helpless...and aside from that, I'm not a cold hearted fiend...but few in my family would want to live on a machine...especially not me!
The true question is simply this in game terms that we are talking about: does the wizard have a right to his hat if he threw it away?
My answer would be no.
However, since Frosty is an automoton (sp?); then I wouldn't blink if the wizard took it back. Would I help stop him? Yeah, sure; but I wouldn't be heart-broken if Frosty stopped being... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Dec 2012 : 05:15:52
More to the point, it would be the magical equivilant of pulling the plug on a person on a breathing machine. |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 29 Dec 2012 : 04:09:59
If Frosty will turn to evil, it will be effort of many evil deeds he sees that may break his hope in humanity. It all would depend on humans.
And about dragon taking Mithral Halls. He attacked with overpowering strength and a lot of allies, ruthlessly and without any care for spilled blood. Dwarves defended well, but facing death in battle that could not be won is just plain idiocy, even for stubborn dwarves. It would only make sense to run away for another recapture in future. However, moral was very low with their true king lost in depths and dragon taking their only home, so few would return.
What exactly makes the ones who kill dragon wrong in this situation?
About Frosty, it still would be very wrong to kill it just for 'what if' motive. Just like killing a puppy because it may turn in human eater in three years. You would not kill a puppy, would you? |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 18:04:11
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Okay, that's taking it a bit far, isn't it? I can see him maybe being pro-green, but come on! This was a guy whose first words were "happy birthday"! He was just out playing and having fun with some kids, for heaven's sake! And now he's a threat to humanity because he might decide to make the whole world COLD??!! Funny, that doesn't sound like the fun-loving jolly soul from the song. I'd honestly have pegged him as a very child-like being. And what was his main goal? Oh yeah- getting to the North Pole. Y'know, so he wouldn't MELT.... And he promised he'd return to the kids, too (And if anyone recalls Frosty 2, he did indeed do just that!) YEah- osunds like a REAL threat!
Everyone who is, was once a child...but children become adults.
Before I go on...Frosty is a sweet guy...I'm not saying all new life is going to be violent or anything.
Having said that: Being a unique life, we have an instance in fact that in our culture shows what humanity might even be like in our future when we discover unique life = Data from Star Trek.
There were HUGE measures in place to prevent Data from replicating himself...and when he did in fact try, it was monitored oh so closely from fear. And THAT is the mythical future of Star Trek...which would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
The human animal can idealize great things...but it is our application of our ideas that we invariably fail at! Like ALL organisms (plants included) we are hard-wired to flourish and multiply at the expense of those in our way. Even once we force out all organisms that are unlike us, we then turn on each other to eliminate even those similar to, but not exactly like, us.
This is contrary to what humans accept about their animal nature (as many believe they are not animals obviously); but it applies to every other single form of life we know of on earth...
So yeah, perhaps sentience is hard-wired with "I have to survive, what threatens my survival must be pushed aside/perish"...and if that is the case, then even Frosty the Snowman could perhaps eventually turn into Frosty the Abominable Snowman.
OR
I could be full of bologna and disregard everything I just said. 
And to again, take this back to game a little bit.... what if someone got ahold of a handful of say Elminster's flesh and made a simulacrum of him..... and that simulacrum then began making an army of other simulacrums (because even at half its level, it can still cast the simulacrum spell) and other constructs. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 17:58:51
Ok, bringing this back to game terms more.... a simulacrum is a magical automaton made from snow which displays intelligence, problem solving capabilities, and can even sometimes perform magic. If its destroyed, is it murder? Note, in this case, I would be satisfied if people debated "in X country it might be, but in Y country I don't think so". |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 17:32:10
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Those reckless, irresponsible life-giving kids!
There is a reason that youth often go to a special court, it is because they are children. It though is important to remember they did not intend to create life. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 17:25:51
Those reckless, irresponsible life-giving kids! |
| Mystic Lemur |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 08:00:38
Even in a society where there are (poorly) defined gradations of "person"hood, it's still illegal to kill children. It's still illegal to be cruel to animals or to kill them just for killing's sake. If the hat is the only thing keeping Frosty alive, then it would be murder to remove it. Of course, it goes back to "Is the sentience in the snow or the hat?" If you put the hat on a new snowman, would it be Frosty, or a completely new "life"? What about helping Frosty go North? Are you a murderer if you don't help him?
Going to a further extreme, what are the moral implications of bringing Frosty to life in an area that can only support his kind for a small part of the year? Were those children "evil" for making something that they knew would soon melt? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 03:34:19
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Okay, that's taking it a bit far, isn't it? I can see him maybe being pro-green, but come on! This was a guy whose first words were "happy birthday"! He was just out playing and having fun with some kids, for heaven's sake! And now he's a threat to humanity because he might decide to make the whole world COLD??!! Funny, that doesn't sound like the fun-loving jolly soul from the song. I'd honestly have pegged him as a very child-like being. And what was his main goal? Oh yeah- getting to the North Pole. Y'know, so he wouldn't MELT.... And he promised he'd return to the kids, too (And if anyone recalls Frosty 2, he did indeed do just that!) YEah- osunds like a REAL threat!
Everyone who is, was once a child...but children become adults.
Before I go on...Frosty is a sweet guy...I'm not saying all new life is going to be violent or anything.
Having said that: Being a unique life, we have an instance in fact that in our culture shows what humanity might even be like in our future when we discover unique life = Data from Star Trek.
There were HUGE measures in place to prevent Data from replicating himself...and when he did in fact try, it was monitored oh so closely from fear. And THAT is the mythical future of Star Trek...which would be nice, but I don't see it happening.
The human animal can idealize great things...but it is our application of our ideas that we invariably fail at! Like ALL organisms (plants included) we are hard-wired to flourish and multiply at the expense of those in our way. Even once we force out all organisms that are unlike us, we then turn on each other to eliminate even those similar to, but not exactly like, us.
This is contrary to what humans accept about their animal nature (as many believe they are not animals obviously); but it applies to every other single form of life we know of on earth...
So yeah, perhaps sentience is hard-wired with "I have to survive, what threatens my survival must be pushed aside/perish"...and if that is the case, then even Frosty the Snowman could perhaps eventually turn into Frosty the Abominable Snowman.
OR
I could be full of bologna and disregard everything I just said. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 01:09:48
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
If Frosty were able to replicate himself...and eventually plunge the world into an icy hell so that he and all his progeny were "safe to live"...
Sounds like Mr. Freeze from the Batman comics.
More like the old pre-New 52 Freeze, I think. The New 52 Mr. Freeze operates somewhat differently, now... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 27 Dec 2012 : 01:09:18
Okay, that's taking it a bit far, isn't it? I can see him maybe being pro-green, but come on! This was a guy whose first words were "happy birthday"! He was just out playing and having fun with some kids, for heaven's sake! And now he's a threat to humanity because he might decide to make the whole world COLD??!! Funny, that doesn't sound like the fun-loving jolly soul from the song. I'd honestly have pegged him as a very child-like being. And what was his main goal? Oh yeah- getting to the North Pole. Y'know, so he wouldn't MELT.... And he promised he'd return to the kids, too (And if anyone recalls Frosty 2, he did indeed do just that!) YEah- osunds like a REAL threat! |
| BEAST |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 17:46:37
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
If Frosty were able to replicate himself...and eventually plunge the world into an icy hell so that he and all his progeny were "safe to live"...
Sounds like Mr. Freeze from the Batman comics.
You just know that Frosty would be the most militant, egregious, anti-Global-Warming eco-Nazi ever! 
"And what is your carbon footprint? Hmm? Ah hah. And now you must die!" |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 05:00:14
Don't kill something before it becomes a threat? Humans do it all the time...every day in fact...all over the world. Foxes, wolves and others are exterminated before they can cause a problem...same goes for other "hostile" creatures in the Forgotten Realms.
If Frosty were able to replicate himself...and eventually plunge the world into an icy hell so that he and all his progeny were "safe to live"...
Thinking of fantasy worlds filled with different sentient species is great...but humans can barely stand the variety within their own species...a lifetime of seeing racism and genocide at work in my world doesn't make me much of a "truster" of humanity's willingness to give another sentient race a chance.
|
| Tyrant |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 04:07:01
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I'm no "better" than a lion...but if a lion is a threat to me, then it has to die.
If a robot/computer became "self aware" I would see that as a threat of epic proportions...and it would have to go!
You see, I'm an admitted animal with the primary goal of continuing my species...anything a threat to that needs to be gone. Ideology contrary to that, I guess just isn't in me. It is fine to debate "what if" situations...and even take "moral high ground" in such...though morals aren't real, they are cultural inventions.
To me, the kindness one shows to another is because we have an instinct to continue our species...but if that same individual who showed kindness to another was in turn threatened by that one...then the individual motivation to survive might dictate a harsh course of action.
Animal that I am, I have to accept that.
In the Forgotten Realms, there are really few races that have the "we have to survive...so everyone else is an enemy" mentality except perhaps orcs and other goblinoids. In general of course, and not an "absolute" at all.
There is an intro to a movie I recently watched called The Experiment I think...with Forest Whitaker (awesome actor!) and Adrien Brody. Watch the intro to that movie...then you will better understand my viewpoint on the whole thing I've been blabbering about.
If the computer becomes a threat (or Frosty, for argument's sake), I am in total agreement. Wipe it out. But until it becomes one, or it appears it is on the verge of becoming one, I don't see the point in destroying it. A lone, isolated computer sitting in a room somewhere is a threat to no one and nothing. It's only a threat when a human does something remarkably stupid like connect it to the internet or give it the launch codes. Until that point I don't think we can rightfully say that just because it might be a threat we should destroy it. I don't think the logic of "it might be a threat later so we should kill it now" is one that should be endorsed when dealing with other intelligent things because that is the start of a potentially very dark road that won't end with destroying computers.
I also wouldn't be too quick to call it a what-if situation. It may be decades from becoming reality but there are fairly talented people being backed by other people with pockets that have virtually limitless depth attempting to bring about this what-if.
This would be like someone in the Realms somehow getting their hands on a creation forge (I believe that's what they are called) from Eberron and starting to produce Warforged with the intent to just let them out into the world. No outright hostile intent and no intention to train them to be soldiers, just some bizarre desire to add diversity to the Realms. Are the assorted nations justified in systematically wiping out the Warforged without them having made any hostile move? Or, to use something that has happened, we have the Dragonborn suddenly dropped into the Realms. I don't think the other nations decided to kill them on sight. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 03:14:45
I'm no "better" than a lion...but if a lion is a threat to me, then it has to die.
If a robot/computer became "self aware" I would see that as a threat of epic proportions...and it would have to go!
You see, I'm an admitted animal with the primary goal of continuing my species...anything a threat to that needs to be gone. Ideology contrary to that, I guess just isn't in me. It is fine to debate "what if" situations...and even take "moral high ground" in such...though morals aren't real, they are cultural inventions.
To me, the kindness one shows to another is because we have an instinct to continue our species...but if that same individual who showed kindness to another was in turn threatened by that one...then the individual motivation to survive might dictate a harsh course of action.
Animal that I am, I have to accept that.
In the Forgotten Realms, there are really few races that have the "we have to survive...so everyone else is an enemy" mentality except perhaps orcs and other goblinoids. In general of course, and not an "absolute" at all.
There is an intro to a movie I recently watched called The Experiment I think...with Forest Whitaker (awesome actor!) and Adrien Brody. Watch the intro to that movie...then you will better understand my viewpoint on the whole thing I've been blabbering about. |
| Tyrant |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 02:53:00
I think in the case of the computer if it achieves human level sentience then it is no longer "property" and is deserving of some rights if not all human rights. To me, the tricky part is does the company who created it have to keep paying the electric bill or in any way provide support to it once it is "alive"? Does it have to find a way to support itself like every other living being or is the company (or government, individual, whatever) responsible for it like a child since whoever created it is in essence it's parent?
Edit to add: And likewise is the entity who created it somehow entilted to any kind of compensation for the materials that now make up the "living" computer as they in fact were property? I don't mention the expense or time spent creating it as creating it was the likely goal to begin with.
|
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 02:18:52
I don't think it devalues our own state of being at all. It's one of those questions that makes us think about what really makes us "human", IMO. When the definition of humanity is not so clear and distinct, then we have to ask ourselves at what point a being is treated as "human"- in the sense of having basic rights like those of a human being. I, Robot, Short Circuit, and otehr movies and books have touched on this question numerous times. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 01:54:30
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Weren't the Jem'Hadar warrior race from Star Trek bred to fight hard, die hard, live fast? I vaguely recall them having a hatred of their older members, and considering it more of an honor to be a young, reckless, hard-charging hellion than an experienced, wiser survivor.
Some of the Jem'Hadar -- particularly those among the "Gamma Quadrant" stock -- did revere their more experienced kin, to a degree, by awarding each of them with the title of "Honoured Elder." Though that was rare in and of itself, since so few Jem'Hadar warriors survived beyond the "age" of 20.
The "Alphas," though [those Jem'Hadar bred in the Alpha Quadrant], tended to look at these Honoured Elders as failures. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 26 Dec 2012 : 01:15:39
You'll have to excuse me...I'm a bit of a pot-stirrer...sometimes I say contrary things simply to see what thought can be provoked from others.
My real issue with this is simple: if a self-aware computer came to be (much like our Frosty fellow); would it be wrong to turn it off?
Simple answer is no...it is a computer.
To me, the moment we equate machines or automotons of any sort really with life; we devalue our own state of being.
To me, were I to live in the Forgotten Realms and encounter the Frosty the Snowman issue...I wouldn't be heartbroken to see him lose his hat. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 20:00:50
Wow. I'm seeing some very interesting views on this topic- some of which I never expected (Looking at you here, Dalor.) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 16:52:07
Nope...lets not kill Frosty the Snowman...but that Dragon with the treasure needs to be cut into tiny draco-chunks with the vorpal sword...or those orcs need to be eradicated so that they don't raid us any longer (never mind their now starving children).
Ethics is a sweet idea...but has little practical application in a game designed on violence, intrigue and monsters.
Take your hat and go home... |
| MrHedgehog |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 16:12:20
Is the sentience in the snow or is the sentience in the magic hat? Maybe if you put the hat on a pile of leaves it will make them sentient, too. You'd have to ask the owner of the hat...unless he doesn't know.
But I would think it is immoral to kill a sentient being so I would not let the owner of the hat kill the sentient snow man. But maybe that is Star Trek Voyager's hologram rights influencing my thinking... |
| BEAST |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 16:06:28
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Suppose I found out I am dying of some incurable disease, but my heart is perfectly fine (and disease-free). Some kid might be a perfect match for me as donor, but they need the heart NOW. If it were legal to do so, would I be morally obligated to give up the rest of my short life so that they may live their's? What if I have no disease - I'm still 49. The kid will probably get far more mileage out of that heart then I will.
At what point does the value you place on something outweigh the value it has to someone else?
I am reminded of sci-fi and horror shows which have depicted evil children who felt that the universe was theirs, and that grown-ups had forefeited all their rights because they had wasted their lives and grown old. The children could (theoretically) enjoy resources longer, and get more out of them, so why waste those resources on old people who would just die sooner?
Weren't the Jem'Hadar warrior race from Star Trek bred to fight hard, die hard, live fast? I vaguely recall them having a hatred of their older members, and considering it more of an honor to be a young, reckless, hard-charging hellion than an experienced, wiser survivor.
Meanwhile, back in the RW, with most people thinking that a person has to achieve a certain age or level of maturity to warrant full legal/moral rights, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of folks think that non-humans would fail to qualify.
So for such critics, all that would matter would be the value of the magic item to humans, and not to a non-human.
As far as throwing such a magic item away and then wanting it back, I say, "No way." Forfeiture of possession/ownership of the item also entails forfeiture of the right of control of the item. When Frosty was given said item, he had possession/ownership, and therefore the right of control. It was his, at that point--not the original magician's. (This sounds a little like Cinderella, with her wicked step-sisters' cast-off clothing and jewelry--except for the whole life-and-death angle.)
To try to relate this to the Realms, recall how the shadow dragon Shimmergloom and his minions drove out the dwarves of Clan Battlehammer from Mithral Hall, and the dwarves fought back to try to regain control, but eventually the dwarves gave up and moved on to Icewind Dale (Streams of Silver). At some point in all of this turmoil, did the dwarves forfeit their rights to the Hall? I mean, they had the chance to fight until every last member of the Clan was dead, continuously asserting their rights, but they didn't do that. Instead, they gave up--they forfeited.
Is that in any way like the magician throwing away his magic hat? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 16:01:45
Kind of an obscure way to tie this to the Realms:
When a few of us were working on the Utter East over on the WotC boards*, we had decided that the first 5 Bloodforges were originally called Lifeforges, and were "gifts of the (Vedic) Gods". After a cataclysm further east (the fall of Tempat Larang) the Mar folk had to migrate across the Yehimals, which is pretty lethal. In the valley of Langdarma the Vedic pantheon created a 'paradise-on-Earth', and gifted their faithful with the lifeforges, to help them on their journey. These major artifacts did several things, including providing sustenance, eternal youth, and bringing the dead back to life (and in retrospect, I realize now that I may have had the Ark of the Covenant in mind while writing that).
Once the Mar reached the Utter East the five artifacts were dispersed amongst the five tribes, and eventually three of them wound-up under the capitals of the Five Kingdoms. Later on they were used to stave-off the Imaskari (who studied them form afar and used that knowledge to create the 'lesser Bloodforges' - the ones from the video game, which had far less power) by creating magical golem servants (which they used as fairly basic warriors). All of the above is homebrew, based very loosely on psuedo-canon and even more loosely on real canon (what few scraps we had).
There was more to it and them, but what I am getting at is that these things were designed with pure intentions, and later their nature was corrupted to fight wars and what-not. In each case the controlling group thought that their need was greater then everyone else's (but it was usually just greed). There are certain implications with a magical device that 'creates life' that have be considered, beyond whether the creature created has a right to its life. If we had a device in our RW that could simply create 'people', would it be okay to do so? What if you cloned yourself a dozen times... who owns your stuff? How would we feed the sudden population explosion? Sure, Frosty is just one guy, but what happens when we are suddenly faced with an army of 'snowmen'?
* I reiterate, most of that was hombrew, based loosely on the Blood & Magic VG and the Double Diamond series, which are both considered non-canon (despite carrying the FR logo). Canonically the Utter East has very little detail. This was a case of putting together a 1000 piece puzzle with only 10 pieces or so.
|
| Kentinal |
Posted - 25 Dec 2012 : 14:05:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm really iffy on this topic that doesn't even tangentially relate to the Realms...
I also don't think we should denigrate theories simply because we don't believe in them.
Well this might be moved to well met shelve.
Though to tie to the Realms, there is connection to earth and as such scribes might discuss myths of Earth as a moral question. Yes I know is reaching a little, however can be a link to the Realms and the magic of Frosty. Maybe the hat came from the Realms. |
|
|
