2012-07-16: The One Where We Talk About D&D Next

[Lukkai]

there is nothing evil about killing a dumb animal for profit. mmm, steak...

Killing for food is something pretty much basic and has a clear reason. Sacrificing animals although the rogue next to you could have just as fast and without trouble simply disarmed that trap shows unnecessary cruelty and a certain disrespect towards life. Which the path to the evil side of the alignment it is.

Yeah, I'll stop channeling Yoda now.

And as for summon # line, those are conjurations. they create a magical simulacra not summon an actual creature.-

Do they now? I remember a description of the spell(s) that said those were actual creatures that are called for a short time (usually from as near as possible). At least for the natural ally variation. Haven't really taken a look at the exact text of the current editions for quite some time now though. Nor do I really remember, in what edition the aforementioned version was to be found.

[taltamir]

Sacrificing animals although the rogue next to you could have just as fast and without trouble simply disarmed that trap shows unnecessary cruelty and a certain disrespect towards life. Which the path to the evil side of the alignment it is.[/quote
Dumb animals deserve no respect and there is nothing wrong with sacrificing them either.

Yeah, I'll stop channeling Yoda now.

Yoda was a PETA member?

[Lukkai]

Dumb animals deserve no respect and there is nothing wrong with sacrificing them either.

Define dumb. I've seen enough animals acting more reasonable than humans or showing mental skills we couldn't dream of having to treat this classification as a difficult one to make. That is for animals or single races in general. Individual specimens being dumb as a brick, I've seen enough as well.

Yoda was a PETA member?

Bah. Showing healthy respect has nothing to do with being a PETA member or even agreeing with them. That's like saying every person believing in Christ is a member of the Spanish Inquisition (that nobody ever expects!).

[taltamir]

Dumb animals deserve no respect and there is nothing wrong with sacrificing them either.

Define dumb. I've seen enough animals acting more reasonable than humans or showing mental skills we couldn't dream of having to treat this classification as a difficult one to make. That is for animals or single races in general. Individual specimens being dumb as a brick, I've seen enough as well.

1. Dumb, not self aware, incapable of forming a language or coherent plans for the future.
2. Give one example of an animal being sentient.
3. Please stop confusing race and species. Those mean totally different things.

Bah. Showing healthy respect has nothing to do with being a PETA member or even agreeing with them. That's like saying every person believing in Christ is a member of the Spanish Inquisition (that nobody ever expects!).

Saying you become Evil with a capital E for sending a cow to trigger a trap is not "healthy respect" its insane fanaticism.

[Lukkai]

1. Dumb, not self aware, incapable of forming a language or coherent plans for the future.

Well, that leaves a lot of species still in the game. Several of our food animals being amongst them.

2. Give one example of an animal being sentient.

If having a language, being self aware, having created a social structure and using tools does count: Chimpanzee.
If language, self-awareness, planing in advance and using tools is enough: Several species of the Corvus genus.
And there are more, once you start looking. Especially with mammals and birds.

3. Please stop confusing race and species. Those mean totally different things.

Actually both are taxonomic terms. Race being one step lower than species.

Saying you become Evil with a capital E for sending a cow to trigger a trap is not "healthy respect" its insane fanaticism.

It's not if you start doing so just for fun, even if there would be other ways. That are not more complex or risky, yet usually more precise. You're not killing out of necessity here, but because you like killing or because you have an egocentric view of wanting to do anything by yourself, that the world must revolve around you. Depending on how hard you play it, it does not necessarily make the character evil yet, but it certainly doesn't qualify for good alignment anymore.
Mind you, I'm not judging real life behaviour here. Merely commenting on what qualifies, respectively disqualifies for good and evil alignment (and anything in between) according to the rulebook.

[taltamir]

1. Dumb, not self aware, incapable of forming a language or coherent plans for the future.

Well, that leaves a lot of species still in the game. Several of our food animals being amongst them.

2. Give one example of an animal being sentient.

If having a language, being self aware, having created a social structure and using tools does count: Chimpanzee.
If language, self-awareness, planing in advance and using tools is enough: Several species of the Corvus genus.
And there are more, once you start looking. Especially with mammals and birds.

People have been looking for a long time for that and scientists are seriously trying to do so with various high potential animals (primates, dolphins, elephants, etc)...
Making noises at each other is not a language. If it was we could communicate with them by making those same noises. Instead its mostly posture to "communicate" simplistic concepts such as "RAAAAAAAH".
And last I checked there was no chimpanzee meat at walmart or mcdonnalds.
Also, AFAIK all "tool using" animals use a stick or a rock, potentially stripping the stick of leaves and bark first (the birds). Show me an animal that actually assembles a tool from multiple components (eg: tie a rock to a stick).

Elephants I suspect might actually qualify (or at least some elephants) based on some video clips I have seen but what the fuck do elephants have to do with cows? I said "dumb animals"... that excludes smart animals (like humans)

3. Please stop confusing race and species. Those mean totally different things.

Actually both are taxonomic terms. Race being one step lower than species.

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."
Being "one step lower" is a huge difference. Different races are by definition members of the same species.

Saying you become Evil with a capital E for sending a cow to trigger a trap is not "healthy respect" its insane fanaticism.

It's not if you start doing so just for fun, even if there would be other ways. That are not more complex or risky, yet usually more precise. You're not killing out of necessity here, but because you like killing or because you have an egocentric view of wanting to do anything by yourself, that the world must revolve around you. Depending on how hard you play it, it does not necessarily make the character evil yet, but it certainly doesn't qualify for good alignment anymore.
Mind you, I'm not judging real life behaviour here. Merely commenting on what qualifies, respectively disqualifies for good and evil alignment (and anything in between) according to the rulebook.

1. We were talking about using them because it was expedient not for FUN. You completely changed the argument now
2. Even if you DO slaughter dumb animals for fun it doesn't in of itself make you Evil... it might, potentially, cause erosion of your respect towards sentient as well, which could in turn lead to evil. But it is possible for it not to

[Lukkai]

Making noises at each other is not a language. If it was we could communicate with them by making those same noises.

Actually, as soon as these noises (and/or gestures by the way) have clear meanings and there is a certain amount of them, it is! And we can communicate with certain species by emulating them. Point made.

They may be rather simple. But that we can't translate Shakespeare into those languages, does not disqualify them.

And as a matter of fact, chimpanzees have long been hunted for food. And still are, although it is now prohibited by laws in most places (them being an endangered species). Just that you don't find them in your local supermarket does not mean they're not considered a food animal in other cultures.

And it's a bit funny. You demand proof and examples. I deliver. And suddenly you are making distinctions not made before and demand animals to be more sophisticated technology-wise than early humans for them to be considered intelligent...

Actually both are taxonomic terms. Race being one step lower than species.

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."
Being "one step lower" is a huge difference. Different races are by definition members of the same species.

Which has no influence whatsoever on what I wrote. Your criticism upon this was my reaction only ever made sense if it was wrong to use race in the context of animals. Which it isn't, as written above. Making your remarks completely nonsensical. The term "species" never even fell in the whole thread until you suddenly accused me of confusing it with race!

1. We were talking about using them because it was expedient not for FUN. You completely changed the argument now.

I did not do so. You started the argument with the statement or at least strong implication that it was generally preferable, even with other solutions at hand that are just as or less laborious. That is not expedient anymore. It's either playing with lives for fun or being so self-absorbed that you can't stand someone else to shine as well. Both traits that are usually related to evil alignement. At the very least, it disqualifies you for good alignment.

[taltamir]

Making noises at each other is not a language. If it was we could communicate with them by making those same noises.

Actually, as soon as these noises (and/or gestures by the way) have clear meanings and there is a certain amount of them, it is!

Actually, YOU DIDN'T CONTRADICT ME! I hate it when people say "actually, here is a statement agreeing with you stated in a superior smug manner as if I am correcting your mistake".
Yea, noises that have a SPECIFIC MEANING is a language. But no real animal language has ever been discovered. Closest thing we have to to one is dolphins and that wasn't conclusively proven.

They may be rather simple. But that we can't translate Shakespeare into those languages, does not disqualify them.

If its only capable of communicating a few basic concepts in an extremely vague manner then it fails some of the aspects in the definition of language.
hominid centric definition aside, humans speak countless languages and yet no human language was taught to an animal or vice versa. This divide is only because animal noises are not an actual language but a unique set of simplistic noises where communication is contextual.

And as a matter of fact, chimpanzees have long been hunted for food. And still are

And there are cannibal tribes that have long eaten other humans, what the fuck does that have to do with my arguments?
And as a matter of fact, I knew that already. Stop being so smug as you "educate your lessers" with factoids everyone fucking knows.

And it's a bit funny. You demand proof and examples. I deliver. And suddenly you are making distinctions not made before and demand animals to be more sophisticated technology-wise than early humans for them to be considered intelligent...

Did not

Which has no influence whatsoever on what I wrote. Your criticism upon this was my reaction only ever made sense if it was wrong to use race in the context of animals. Which it isn't, as written above. Making your remarks completely nonsensical. The term "species" never even fell in the whole thread until you suddenly accused me of confusing it with race!

Of course I am the first to use the term species here, you were the one who couldn't understand how it differs from race.
The statement

Define dumb. I've seen enough animals acting more reasonable than humans or showing mental skills we couldn't dream of having to treat this classification as a difficult one to make. That is for animals or single races in general. Individual specimens being dumb as a brick

Is nonsense if using the word race but coherent if using the word species.

I did not do so.

Did too, and then you proceeded to ignore the second line

2. Even if you DO slaughter dumb animals for fun it doesn't in of itself make you Evil... it might, potentially, cause erosion of your respect towards sentient as well, which could in turn lead to evil. But it is possible for it not to

Finally, again I must ask how does all this nonsense with chimps being a maybe protosentient species who is eaten by africans a reason why killing a DUMB animal like a cow or a chicken for the sake of expedience a bad thing?
"You can't kill this cow!"
"Why?"
"Because chimps are really smart! Like people! And they eat them in Africa!"

I am the first for equal rights and protections to non hominid sentients, be they extra terrestrial or artificial in nature.
But a creature needs to be an actual sentient for this to qualify.

And honestly, the dumbest humans are not even sentient (especially considering the definition of the word)

[Graybeard]

Ahem. Your friendly forum administrator here. I would just like to remind everyone that "does not play well with others" is the name of a webcomic, not part of the behavioral code that Impy set up for these boards. A good argument is a fun thing that is well within the forums' terms of service. Ad-hominem attacks are not.

I name no names, but try to keep the personal part of things down to a low background rumble, okay? And then continue to have fun discussing DNPWWO. Thanks.

[RGE]

2. Give one example of an animal being sentient.

sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.

I'm pretty sure most animals we eat were sentient before they died. It's kind of the big thing that separates animals from plants, at least as far as I know. (I am but a layperson in these matters.) I used to think that it had something to do with "intelligence", but apparently creatures don't need to be intelligent to be sentient. I think we've been tricked. I think some smarty-pants bleeding heart used fancy words to get us to agree that sentient species should have rights, when we only would've agreed to intelligent beings having those rights. And only if they were intelligent enough!

Making noises at each other is not a language. If it was we could communicate with them by making those same noises.

You mean like spambots communicate with humans by using the same words that we use? My point: Just because we're so much smarter than the other animals doesn't mean that we would know how to properly communicate with them. It's not as if we live the same lives as they do, so we lack the context that would be necessary to turn useless mimicry into something that could actually have some meaning for them.