This is interesting ....
This professor is seeking to create an avatar (named "E") of evil.
At the end of the article he says that he would like to loose "E" into say Second Life, but that "E" would have programed into him things like the robotic laws.
However, doing that would ultimately cripple "E"'s potential evil, thus skewing the whole experiment. It's the "Clockwork Orange" question? Should a person who's inclination is counter productive to society be controlled to fit in the society, does that make them "good" or merely something else?
I must admit this whole attempt to explore "evil" is fascinating. Being a DM, I have to come up with ... and then play ... truly despicable evil of a variety of sorts. Using the D&D matrix of Lawful Evil, Neutral (or True Evil), and Chaotic Evil ... I've played all three. In creating Chaotic Evil, I've focused on a specific urge (power, greed, lust or some other 7 deadly) and that determined the "whim" of their motivation. Neutral evil, I focused on plots and reasons of say the alien (aboliths, illithid, or other Cthuluian beings). My favourite though has always been Lawful Evil. I even had a group in late High School who applauded and lauded their benefactor, who was a paragon of Law. This Baron, however, delighted in some nefarious activities that he put onto various dupes. The group never figured out (we didn't get to play it out to the conclusion) that most of the "evil" being done in the region was not only encouraged but set up by this fiendish Baron.
Let's just say I truly questioned my own morals and ethics on how much I *enjoyed* playing out the various plots of this Baron.
When the new D&D setting of Eberron came out, I was reading about the various leaders of the various countries ... and they almost universally were Lawful Evil. My partner Jason pointed out that it made perfect sense. Look at our own politicians actions, look at our CEOs, and other such folk. Can the manufacturers of Enron be called anything *but* evil by modern standards? Can the various groups that trip trapped along into this Financial crisis (both on the government side and "Wall Street's" side) be defined as anything but sinister?
Are the actions of Cheney, Bush, Rove, and such not text-book Lawful Evil?
So does "E," even with his "robotic laws" look more like someone we know than someone we don't? Is "E" a Chaotic Evil (which it sounds like they are heading) or motivated in a direction someone thinks is evil?
I know the D&D "alignments" are not real but it helps us frame the argument. Is there real evil? Is it essential? Does it obfuscate or be obvious, or both if necessary?
Yep ... I am fascinated ... and is the very fascination ... something to be concerned about? Is it looking into the abyss, per the famous poem?
At the end of the article he says that he would like to loose "E" into say Second Life, but that "E" would have programed into him things like the robotic laws.
However, doing that would ultimately cripple "E"'s potential evil, thus skewing the whole experiment. It's the "Clockwork Orange" question? Should a person who's inclination is counter productive to society be controlled to fit in the society, does that make them "good" or merely something else?
I must admit this whole attempt to explore "evil" is fascinating. Being a DM, I have to come up with ... and then play ... truly despicable evil of a variety of sorts. Using the D&D matrix of Lawful Evil, Neutral (or True Evil), and Chaotic Evil ... I've played all three. In creating Chaotic Evil, I've focused on a specific urge (power, greed, lust or some other 7 deadly) and that determined the "whim" of their motivation. Neutral evil, I focused on plots and reasons of say the alien (aboliths, illithid, or other Cthuluian beings). My favourite though has always been Lawful Evil. I even had a group in late High School who applauded and lauded their benefactor, who was a paragon of Law. This Baron, however, delighted in some nefarious activities that he put onto various dupes. The group never figured out (we didn't get to play it out to the conclusion) that most of the "evil" being done in the region was not only encouraged but set up by this fiendish Baron.
Let's just say I truly questioned my own morals and ethics on how much I *enjoyed* playing out the various plots of this Baron.
When the new D&D setting of Eberron came out, I was reading about the various leaders of the various countries ... and they almost universally were Lawful Evil. My partner Jason pointed out that it made perfect sense. Look at our own politicians actions, look at our CEOs, and other such folk. Can the manufacturers of Enron be called anything *but* evil by modern standards? Can the various groups that trip trapped along into this Financial crisis (both on the government side and "Wall Street's" side) be defined as anything but sinister?
Are the actions of Cheney, Bush, Rove, and such not text-book Lawful Evil?
So does "E," even with his "robotic laws" look more like someone we know than someone we don't? Is "E" a Chaotic Evil (which it sounds like they are heading) or motivated in a direction someone thinks is evil?
I know the D&D "alignments" are not real but it helps us frame the argument. Is there real evil? Is it essential? Does it obfuscate or be obvious, or both if necessary?
Yep ... I am fascinated ... and is the very fascination ... something to be concerned about? Is it looking into the abyss, per the famous poem?