Plunder

[DeletedUser35162]

i dont have anything constructive to say except sorry you are getting robbed daily.

 

[Agent327]

If you attack and do not plunder you miss out on the chance of getting a blueprint, so you are not facing a moral/ethical decision. The game has already taken that decision for you.

 

[DeletedUser31882]

An Ethics discussion on plundering and nobody called me? *Takes note of the names of all his new NON-freinds, but in an et

Algona, since plundering, or even attacking, is not required in this game, a player must make a choice to do so. If that choice affects others, then it is a moral/ethical decision that must be made. Rules and laws do not, necessarily, have anything to do with ethics or morals.

I'd argue that it's not even an ethical question in a game like this. It's just strategy. Else it's kind of like saying stealing a base in baseball involves a moral or ethical question. It doesn't.

I like that analogy, works well. I usually use a boxing one, that is, if you step into the ring you shouldn't be surprised to get hit. However I think there's always room to question via moral philosophy the presence of such things in our life experience.

So I think there is much to be said actually on the questions of what ought be as it pertains to plunder. Just as we can also question stealing bases in baseball or whether boxing is something we ought be doing at all.

Looks like some big points have already been set! I'll go right to the screed.

Everything can, and should be looked at with an ethical (or moral) lens. So I outright disagree with everyone who attempts to dismiss the ethical argument due to 'strategy', 'it's just a game', etc. That's cowardice, in my book, because it looks like the person is running away from the debate by throwing up a big hand-wave of 'No, I don't value and/or will not talk about ethics in this sacrosanct area of mine'. Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it's just a game, but to deny the ethics/morals is to deny the very reason why people get upset over plundering. I will only believe someone does not get upset over being plundered if they are a robot or some form of non-human.

The analogy of baseball, boxing and sports in general is a topical ground for ethics debates. SJS does a good job pointing out that there are expectations to a game, but we can still question ethics in the bigger picture. In baseball, is it really 'stealing' a base or a player successfully getting to the next base without being tagged out? We have an ethically loaded term of stealing being used, but we also know that what the player has done is 'not wrong' but a 'just way of playing the game'. A strategy, as Graviton states. In Boxing, the sport is to literally punch the other person into submission, so any strategy to win is going to involve doing something that most people agree should not happen on a daily basis. To zoom out further, look at the recent football 'controversy' over head injuries. Depending on how and where you look, you can find arguments that point to the harm being done and using that as a reason to push a specific agenda (Ban the sport, increase/improve safety equipment, change the rules, toxic something-or-another, etc). The point here being, the context and wording matter in how we treat the ethics of a thing.

Now to look at war and video games. War, what is it good for? An easy ethics point that doesn't need to be expanded on because I hope it is the biggest & most obvious human action that shows how complicated ethic discussions can be. Video games, like FoE/Call of Duty/Command & Conquer: Red Alert, glorify war by allowing us to be the supreme commander/soldier/actor/protagonist and implementing rewards for our successful conquests. Plundering, by it's very name, should elicit a 'this is not what a nice guy would do' response. Inno doesn't help matters with the Outlaw Achievement. Hopefully we see how a conflation, similar to the baseball 'stealing' of a base, can form here. Just because there is a strategy (War, Baseball & Boxing), doesn't mean ethical questions disappear. It's how we value those ethical questions. Not many of us will value the ethical question of "Is it wrong for player X to torture their Sims?", because none of us value the lives of a digitally produced, non-sentient being known as "That's player's Sim" and don't view it as a transgression in society. As FoE Players, we do value our city(ies) and it's productions. So when someone else plunders our city, becoming upset will be our first reaction. As Tenskwatawa points out, this transgression creates value in the ethics of the action, since it is a social interaction. The point being, all actions can be looked at through an ethical lens, but the value determines if we care. Social interactions are valued much higher than other actions, for, I hope, obvious reasons. Inno knows this as well, otherwise why bother with loaded terminology like Plunder, Sabotage & Outlaw?

Which brings me to Stephen's point & amusing jab at "Nice Guys". Plunderers who use the mental gymnastics to say "I'm not stealing... you see I'm... word-word-snake-oil-word-words-salesman-word-word" are falling victim to worrying to much about their looks when it comes to the ethics of plundering. There would be no reason to create alternative terminology, or to not use the synonym of plunder(ransack, loot or stealing), otherwise. I now imagine a scene in Peter Jackson's Lord of the rings movies where Sam and Gollum get into an argument. Sam accuses Gollum of sneaking, Smeagol pleads that Sam is a bad person for assuming that, Sam then asks what Smeagol was doing & Gollum responds by saying "Sneaking...!". Other plunderers accept they are stealing and handle to consequences in other ways. The pillaged are still left hurting. Some cope by retribution, building an impregnable city or some other in-game solution. Others come to the forums to complain about the injustice and may even hope to end pillaging (war, sports, etc) forever! A lot of these types also fit into the "Nice Guys" mentality, except instead of the benevolent kind shown in the comic Stephen linked, this is the self-righteous (or malicious) kind attempting to enforce their "Nice Guy" ways on everyone else. The self-righteous also tend to ignore or dismiss the ethics debate because they 'know' what is morally right, and by golly you should too! The point here is, many already are affected by the ethical/moral reactions in FoE plundering and we should be wary of being infected with "Nice Guy Syndrome".

TL;DR: Ethics can always be discussed. It's fun, especially when nuanced. There is a difference between a nice person and being a "Nice Guy".

All this so I can say to @marinunesgvazava the following: While many players may leave due to the pillaging, others may stay for it. Go play Grepolis if you want to see how brutal a game can be when it comes to plundering. Follow @Agent327 's game suggestions if you want a more relaxed city building fare. Head to the "Help I'm being plundered!" thread, read the tips and feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you want to address specific game mechanics in FoE, you'll need to do some more research before so you can construct a proposal that will not be on the DNSL and assist the more subdued city builders. Regardless, I think pillaging makes FoE more immersive as a civilization/city type game as it makes no sense to have military if you do not have the option to use it on your neighbors. Something that we have recorded over and over in human history.

 

[Graviton]

Everything can, and should be looked at with an ethical (or moral) lens. So I outright disagree with everyone who attempts to dismiss the ethical argument due to 'strategy', 'it's just a game', etc. That's cowardice, in my book, because it looks like the person is running away from the debate by throwing up a big hand-wave of 'No, I don't value and/or will not talk about ethics in this sacrosanct area of mine'.

I'll ignore being called a coward by stressing that there is no ethical debate to be had in this context. To have an ethical debate one must first have a situation where the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are unclear. In the case of baseball, stealing a base is not "wrong" in any way, shape, or form. It's not only within the rules of the game but specifically spoken of and defined in the rules. It's not a gray area, it's not on the shady edge of immorality, it's simply a strategy to be employed. It is as much and as legitimate a part of the game as is throwing a pitch.

The same can be said of plundering in this game. Where people make a mistake, where people try to conjure an ethical question out of thin air, is when they equate this game with real-world plundering. In the real world, attacking one's neighbor and taking his stuff is indeed unethical and immoral. In this game it is not, it's part and parcel of the experience. It is specifcally allowed and defined by the rules, and even encouraged by elements of game play. There is no ethical debate to be had, it's over before it's begun.

There is no comparison between plundering in this game or stealing in baseball, with the same activities in the real world. To attempt to conflate these things is nonsense. It's drawing a comparison that does not and should not exist.

I'm open to debate ethics and morals in situations where they are applicable. Plundering in FoE ain't one of them.

 

[DeletedUser29166]

i dont have anything constructive to say except sorry you are getting robbed daily.

Proposal
Multiple Likes

Current System (if applicable)
You can only like a post once.

Details
Some posts need to be liked more than others

Abuse Prevention
None

Visual Aids
See above.

Conclusion
Loppyguy won this thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not many of us will value the ethical question of "Is it wrong for player X to torture their Sims?", because none of us value the lives of a digitally produced, non-sentient being known as "That's player's Sim" and don't view it as a transgression in society.

I completely disagree with this statement. Not that I value a digital "person", but because your scenario is the type of thing that does speak to the person's moral character. I have never played any of the "Sims" games, but it seems to me that that type of game is much more relevant to a person's character, because it could be viewed as literally acting out what's in your head in a digital real life type setting, which means the consequences for "bad" behavior are eliminated.

FoE and similar games, however, are escapes from our reality. We literally enter a different world and our actions, for the most part, don't necessarily reflect our real life actions/values. I can only speak for myself, but I would never mount an unprovoked attack on my real life neighbors. I would never unfriend a real life friend simply because they haven't benefited me in a tangible way lately. I would never go around taking other people's stuff simply because they haven't protected it sufficiently. I would never deliberately sabotage another person's undertakings in real life. Here, in the make-believe and non-realistic world of FoE, I would and have done all of these things. And the fact that I have done these things here in this game says nothing about my moral character or ethics.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

Ahhh, if only Aristotle were here to show us our follies. I love moral philosophy so I think the exercise alone in this discussion is worthwhile. Many take "moral" arguments as a personal judgement upon them, they can't divorce themselves from the situation like a doctor operating. Like my first philosopher professor taught me, Moral Philosophy i.e. Ethics is "the science of ought", love that phrasing because that is the true and proper definition. So that's all this is, the science what ought be as it pertains to plundering in a game where there are real life consequences of one sentient human being's actions upon another sentient human being.

 

[DeletedUser31882]

I'll ignore being called a coward by stressing that there is no ethical debate to be had in this context.

Ignoring would require not making the first half of your statement. Doubling down that 'there is no ethical debate here' doesn't rebuke my initial argument. To be fair, coward was a bit aggressive of a word to use. Retreat & dismissal may more appropriate.

To clarify: I wasn't calling anyone specifically a coward, but rather, the individuals who use the logic, as I framed it, are exhibiting cowardly behavior. One retreat isn't enough for me to write the whole person off as some coward to be reviled or ridiculed.

Since we're in the murk of potential insulting each other I'll just quote some Biff: "What are you, Yella!?" and see if this is a McFly situation.

To have an ethical debate one must first have a situation where the definitions of "right" and "wrong" are unclear. In the case of baseball, stealing a base is not "wrong" in any way, shape, or form. It's not only within the rules of the game but specifically spoken of and defined in the rules. It's not a gray area, it's not on the shady edge of immorality, it's simply a strategy to be employed. It is as much and as legitimate a part of the game as is throwing a pitch.

We agree. My baseball point was to point out the conflation of language that many connect with right/wrong (Stealing, Bad! Win, Good!) with a rule sanctioned action (Taking a base under X circumstances). Also to connect to SJS Boxing example and sports as a whole in relation to ethics.

I may have needed to delve deeper on why 'official strategy' does not exempt something from ethical debate. My point with War is that it usually involves killing. Killing is ethically argued all the time (Manslaughter, Self-defense, Capital punishment, etc). War has strategies (asset denial, casualty maximization, shoot the other guys more then they shoot you, etc). We can ethically analyze strategies in war (How much innocent collateral damage is acceptable?; Dropping the A-bomb: did it save more lives or save specific lives?, etc). This connects with the ethics of allowing people to self-harm (Self-harm/mental issues, boxing, UFC, etc), which SJS alluded to in a more subtler way. Boxing's self-harm is 'okay' for many because the sport is literally about punching the other guy into submission. Violent strategies are expected and people decide to allow it in this context. Thus connecting all the way back to your baseball example, just because it is a strategy does not mean we cannot question the ethics. To be fair, I believe I forgot to point out that stealing a base in baseball has minimal 'harm' done to everyone involved, which is why the ethical value of looking at 'stealing a base' has little to no value. That's what I get for using 'stealing' as one springboard(Language & ethics) and baseball as another(Sports in general & Ethics) without separating the two threads.

The same can be said of plundering in this game. Where people make a mistake, where people try to conjure an ethical question out of thin air, is when they equate this game with real-world plundering. In the real world, attacking one's neighbor and taking his stuff is indeed unethical and immoral. In this game it is not, it's part and parcel of the experience. It is specifically allowed and defined by the rules, and even encouraged by elements of game play. There is no ethical debate to be had, it's over before it's begun.

If you want your analogy to work, you need to realize that the real world does specifically allow us to take our neighbors stuff. The 'rules' of life (Physics, I would argue) specifically defines rules on how we can accomplish this. We don't need to 'glitch/hack' life to give us that ability. Like FoE, we have the ability to attack and plunder our neighbors. Unlike FoE, we are much more vulnerable to retribution in real life because we have created a guild (government, law enforcement) that will exact life-crippling penalties to us if we routinely pillage. In both, we can discuss the ethics of an action. You say attacking and taking one's stuff is unethical and immoral, so I assume you haven't heard of the sick man's wife who must decide to steal medicine to save her? Life is grey and ethics are subjective. Only the self-righteous [and Sith, so I hear] paint the world in absolutes [I say, while making an absolute statement].

When the analogy is framed to have the ethical debate 'over before it has begun', then I assume the person is either being dishonest or the analogy has bias towards their argument. I'm assuming the later in this case.

On the Humorous side of the real world analogy: I always chuckle when FoE players complain to the devs to change pillaging. The Dev analogy equivalent in the real world is appealing to a higher power. Regardless of anyone's spiritual or religious flavor, I hope we can all manage a smirk at the idea of a FoE player pleading with a capricious Olympian God for the Gauls to stop sacking Rome(Rome being their unboosted goods building).

There is no comparison between plundering in this game or stealing in baseball, with the same activities in the real world. To attempt to conflate these things is nonsense. It's drawing a comparison that does not and should not exist.

Hopefully, I've illustrated reasons why your statement is false. I earnestly believe I am not spouting nonsense and have shown how plundering is, on a cursory level, able to be compared to stealing in baseball. Ethics, in a way, can be about questioning why a law or rule is in place and to evaluate if it is working as the spirit of the law intended. This can be the rules of stealing in real-life, stealing in baseball, plundering in FoE or potential rules like wearing white after labor day, stopping boxers from boxing and *insert political topic here*.

I'm open to debate ethics and morals in situations where they are applicable. Plundering in FoE ain't one of them.

What are you, Yella!?

I completely disagree with this statement. Not that I value a digital "person", but because your scenario is the type of thing that does speak to the person's moral character. I have never played any of the "Sims" games, but it seems to me that that type of game is much more relevant to a person's character, because it could be viewed as literally acting out what's in your head in a digital real life type setting, which means the consequences for "bad" behavior are eliminated.

FoE and similar games, however, are escapes from our reality. We literally enter a different world and our actions, for the most part, don't necessarily reflect our real life actions/values. I can only speak for myself, but I would never mount an unprovoked attack on my real life neighbors. I would never unfriend a real life friend simply because they haven't benefited me in a tangible way lately. I would never go around taking other people's stuff simply because they haven't protected it sufficiently. I would never deliberately sabotage another person's undertakings in real life. Here, in the make-believe and non-realistic world of FoE, I would and have done all of these things. And the fact that I have done these things here in this game says nothing about my moral character or ethics.

I had a feeling I shouldn't have cut the sentence declaring that it could allow us to gauge a person's sadism(and thus personal character). I'm confused on how you completely disagree with my statement, immediately highlight how you do agree with it and then make the argument that personal character can, but doesn't in your FoE case, be reflected in how a person plays a game. I don't recall making an argument that countermands it.

Unfortunately, two of your arguments are running counter to each other. If we assume that torturing a Sim is reflective of a player's moral character, when the game allows for it, then we must also judge the person in a similar manner who plays FoE. Like everything, context matters. Is the person torturing Sims as an a goofy, dark humor way to relax or are they acting out darker impulses? Is the FoE player who attacks and plunders neighbors, unprovoked, just playing the game or acting out their predatory, kleptomaniac impulses?

Regardless, you make the argument I would make if someone was making an ethical argument that video games create bad people(Similar argument of the one person with the quip about recent studies showing violent video games = bad!). I'm not arguing that plunder, plundering or plunderers are 'ethically or morally bad'. I'm making the argument that we can argue about the ethics of plundering.

Ahhh, if only Aristotle were here to show us our follies. I love moral philosophy so I think the exercise alone in this discussion is worthwhile. Many take "moral" arguments as a personal judgement upon them, they can't divorce themselves from the situation like a doctor operating. Like my first philosopher professor taught me, Moral Philosophy i.e. Ethics is "the science of ought", love that phrasing because that is the true and proper definition. So that's all this is, the science what ought be as it pertains to plundering in a game where there are real life consequences of one sentient human being's actions upon another sentient human being.

Good gad. That means my arguments are "There ought be thought to the science of ought"?

 

[DeletedUser31498]

This actually evolved into a fascinating discussion! good job OP!

I'm honestly on the fence here.

Questions:
1) Let's say I offer 10 Iron in return for 20 Granite, hoping to confuse someone into thinking it's 2:1 the other way. Is that moral?
2) This game has a HUGE communal aspect to it. Sports are a ridiculous analogy, as there's a clear directive to "win." "winning" in FOE has an entirely different meaning imo. In this game you "help" way more than you "hurt" others. Given that, does plundering "strangers" feel different than helping "friends"?

 

[DeletedUser26965]

ethics are subjective

oh, you were doing so well, Subjectivism is a moral framework yes, so ethics CAN be so but it is not so that ethics ARE so. You know soon we'll get one of these anyway and all of this will be mute;

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm confused on how you completely disagree with my statement, immediately highlight how you do agree with it and then make the argument that personal character can, but doesn't in your FoE case, be reflected in how a person plays a game.

Your statement is that we would not value it as an ethical question because we don't value the life of a digital character. My point is that the fact that it's a digital character is irrelevant to whether it's an ethical question. Imagine a child who takes glee in disfiguring a baby doll. I don't care about the doll, but the actions of the child are nonetheless disturbing.

If we assume that torturing a Sim is reflective of a player's moral character, when the game allows for it, then we must also judge the person in a similar manner who plays FoE. Like everything, context matters.

Yes, context matters, which is why i explained how the difference in the character of the games is crucial to the difference in whether gameplay reflects moral character/ethics. You seem to skip right over that and treat the games as exactly the same.

Regardless, you make the argument I would make if someone was making an ethical argument that video games create bad people

Nothing outside a person makes them bad. Evil comes from within.

 

[DeletedUser9930]

Analogies with baseball, boxing, and the other games cited are flawed in that all those games/sports have definite objectives, which, in general, are to win the contests. This game has no particular objective, each player makes one of his/her own. There are no winners or losers in this game except in reference to the objective of an individual or group of individuals with similar goals. However, most of the objectives require the acquisition of coins, supplies, goods, or forge points. Hence, when one removes any of these from another player without consent, one has made a moral/ethical choice. (Please note that I've not said that is always wrong to do so. There are cogent arguments for plundering, e.g., in another thread, I think, someone -- sorry, don't remember who -- said that he donated plundered goods to his guild treasury, which is the beginning of a moral/ethical argument in favor of plundering.) Like Titus, I'm saying that the decision to plunder should not be taken lightly.

And, Algona, if what I've said has made you feel bad, it's likely because you recognize that you're on shaky moral/ethical ground. Those who are confident of the rightness of their actions/views usually are unconcerned if others stand in opposition, except when it is necessary to garner support from others in order to begin or continue such actions.

 

[DeletedUser30900]

Why this kind of thread never get old? Plunders gonna take your stuff away if you are weak. and if you are weak, you get plundered. That's how this game works. stick with it or be gone.

 

[Graviton]

Ignoring would require not making the first half of your statement.

That was a an acknowledgement that I was called a coward, and to let you know I wasn't going to dwell on it. Call it passive-aggressive if you must label it.

Doubling down that 'there is no ethical debate here' doesn't rebuke my initial argument.

The rest of my post does.

To be fair, coward was a bit aggressive of a word to use. Retreat & dismissal may more appropriate.

Which is another mischaracterization. Ironically, it's apparently meant to dismiss the argument that there is no ethical dilemma here. I retreated from nothing, obviously, but spelled out why there's no debate to be had: because there is no fundamental question of right or wrong involved in this context. I'd also like to point out that if there's any insulting going on, it's decidedly one-way.

We agree. My baseball point was to point out the conflation of language that many connect with right/wrong (Stealing, Bad! Win, Good!) with a rule sanctioned action (Taking a base under X circumstances).

That's the heart of the matter here: semantics. It's called plundering, so people want to believe there's something immoral about it. But in this context there isn't, no matter how hard somebody tries to find it.

I may have needed to delve deeper on why 'official strategy' does not exempt something from ethical debate.

But you're again making the mistake of drawing a comparison to real-life situations. This is a game where nobody is harmed, no real property is damaged nor stolen. There are no consequences. If you want to have a moral debate about war or robbing one's neighbor, we can do that, but there are no parallels with this game other than the word "plunder".

Thus connecting all the way back to your baseball example, just because it is a strategy does not mean we cannot question the ethics. To be fair, I believe I forgot to point out that stealing a base in baseball has minimal 'harm' done to everyone involved, which is why the ethical value of looking at 'stealing a base' has little to no value.

That there is no true harm done is only one reason we can determine that ethics are not involved. I could argue that there is harm done in the context of the game, so that's not enough. There's harm done by plundering, in the context of the game, so that alone does not exempt it from ethical standards. What really renders the moral question moot is that stealing a base is a rules-defined play just an intentional walk or bunting to move the runner over. There is no ethical component because it's an intentional part of the game design.

If you want your analogy to work, you need to realize that the real world does specifically allow us to take our neighbors stuff.

No, you are not allowed to attack your neighbor and steal his property. You can petition the government if you believe your neighbor has wronged you, and perhaps receive an order of compensatory damages. But you've got to prove your neighbor harmed you first. You can defend yourself against your neighbor, but then you aren't attacking him at all, he's attacking you. In no case does the real world allow you to attack your neighbor and take his things.

Like FoE, we have the ability to attack and plunder our neighbors. Unlike FoE, we are much more vulnerable to retribution in real life because we have created a guild (government, law enforcement) that will exact life-crippling penalties to us if we routinely pillage.

Now we're ignoring the morality and ethics involved and appealing to authority, or societal norms. This seems to be the argument that if you won't be punished, then it's okay. That completely ignores any moral component.

Again, this is not analogous to plundering in FoE even if we accept your argument, because the governing body sanctions and in some ways encourages us to attack our neighbor and take his stuff. It's not merely tolerated or something that is ignored, it's part of the inherent design of the game and actively encouraged.

You say attacking and taking one's stuff is unethical and immoral, so I assume you haven't heard of the sick man's wife who must decide to steal medicine to save her?

Of course I have. Just because somebody believes they need something more than the guy who owns it doesn't mean stealing it is suddenly okay. I'm reminded of Rocket Raccoon in Guardians of the Galaxy:

When the analogy is framed to have the ethical debate 'over before it has begun', then I assume the person is either being dishonest or the analogy has bias towards their argument. I'm assuming the later in this case.

Rather, you're attempting to dismiss my argument by assigning a motivation to it and then arguing against that. I said the debate was over before it's begun because, as I subsequently explained, there is no morality involved in this context, unlike the same action in the real world. I believe I've sufficiently laid out why plundering in FoE, and stealing a base in baseball, have no moral nor ethical component at all, unlike plundering and stealing in the real world.

Hopefully, I've illustrated reasons why your statement is false.

A solid attempt, I'll give you that. I'll let others decide where they fall, but in my opinion you've failed.

 

[Algona]

Algona, if what I've said has made you feel bad, it's likely because you recognize that you're on shaky moral/ethical ground

My fault. I made the mistake of arguing by analogy, always a silly thing to do. My apologies for confusing the conversation.

No, I have no qualms whatsoever about what you said aside from the implication that others should share it, which is fine, I made the exact same 'emotionally imperialistic' mistake. My apologies for that as well.

You want to believe that you face moral and ethical questions playing a game, that's your decision. It does lead to a question:

If you believe there are moral or ethical implications, issues, problems, or questions playing a game within the rules of the game, how can you do anything in the game that may have any negative effect on another player?

 

[DeletedUser31882]

oh, you were doing so well, Subjectivism is a moral framework yes, so ethics CAN be so but it is not so that ethics ARE so. You know soon we'll get one of these anyway and all of this will be moot;

View attachment 10058

Some people bait with insults, I prefer baiting with absolutes. Pseudo-Contrarian Philosopher on the outside, wannabe-benevolent Machiavellian on the inside.

It's all like, our opinion, Man~

Serious Note: Does cultural relativism derive from Subjectivism? I suppose I could google it... but I find it unethical to feign ignorance to continue a discussion. Moral relativism versus Moral absolutism may be the root of all ethical debates(disregarding nihilists, as they would desire I suppose), but I don't expect the typical FoE forum goer to have high level learning of ethics or terminology. I go in expecting varying degrees of knowledge and differing life experiences shaping the viewpoints. Probably part of the 'why' on my default to relativism.

Your statement is that we would not value it as an ethical question because we don't value the life of a digital character. My point is that the fact that it's a digital character is irrelevant to whether it's an ethical question. Imagine a child who takes glee in disfiguring a baby doll. I don't care about the doll, but the actions of the child are nonetheless disturbing.

Ahh, That makes sense. I did intend the digital character statement to show that their digital suffering was a low value ethical question. I see the blind spot on my argument's example thanks to your doll analogy. I'll have to come up with a better example to illustrate my point. I probably should have used Graviton's baseball stealing, as that covers personal character intent & would show it as I meant to as a low value ethical question, but I was gunning for a ethical ambiguous example, which stealing a base isn't.

Yes, context matters, which is why i explained how the difference in the character of the games is crucial to the difference in whether gameplay reflects moral character/ethics. You seem to skip right over that and treat the games as exactly the same.

True, I do treat all games the same, in relation to if we can treat actions being performed as ethical or not. Sounds like we are on parallel tracks. I'm hitting at how all actions can be analyzed with an ethical/moral lens. If I understand you right, your hitting at how the actions of the player can inform us of their internal leanings on ethics & morals. I got too fixated on the 'completely disagree' and what I saw as conflicting arguments.

To add to your point: I argue that Plundering behavior can be reflective of a person's ethics/morals. I believe that is why some plunderers get stuck in cognitive dissonance when it comes to the accusation of stealing. As Graviton states, most of us find stealing in real-life to be unethical/immoral the general rule. There is always the 'grey' areas that give us pause to think, but it is easier to default to an absolute (stealing = bad). This is why I used Graviton's argument on stealing a base as an argument showing how the word itself can muddle the ethical discussion. Is stealing a base bad? No, we argue, because the rules allow a player to 'steal'. Is stealing other peoples stuff bad? Yes, says the absolutist. Thus plunderers frame the stealing as a fault of the city owner and/or not a transgression on their part. It's also why 'retribution' pillaging(or any retribution action, I suppose) can be viewed or framed as Just, even though the language shows how people are saying 1) pillaging is bad or a transgression action & 2)MY pillaging wasn't bad because of X reason (They pillaged first, They are my GvG enemy, etc). My point is, if there was truly no ethical question, there would be no need to defend one's Just action.

Argued from my understanding of your point of view, this 'explanation of why the transgression action is okay' shows that the person cares about their moral/ethical character. The sociopath has no guilt, a nice person does. So a plunderer who argues that it is 'okay because the rules allow it' is an ethical argument in my book. It also shows that they care about social order, or at least their appearance in following it. Since we have no way to know or physically measure a plunderer's intent, we have to observe how they act in regards to other things in the game/forum to have more clues their moral character. My framework is to see if someone has more constructive posts versus deconstruction. Snarky/biting remarks are balanced out by giving information that can help another player, I view these kind of people as net moral positive(Positive Karma, if you'll allow the misuse of the term). If someone just argues on how terrible X is and then talks down to everyone with a counter-argument, I start leaning towards darker judgments(Troll, arrogant idiot, what I see in the mirror, lemurs). So, I agree with you, just because one plunders, or performs some other transgression, does not mean they are morally bankrupt or would perform similar actions in real life.

But it is interesting how many more of these actions occur from a platform of anonymity on the internet(I'm speaking to gaming on the whole). Take the differences in crymail and what kind of effort people put in to obtain it, for instance. I hope it is a common belief that there is a difference between the personal character of someone someone who passively receives cry mail versus someone who actively antagonizes someone to receive more. We can go further and analyze the different methods of antagonizing behavior as indications of personal character (For me, 'The Taxman' approach feels like a fitting, usually of good-nature, jab that can reveal the ugly nature of the plundered. If I got paid, I'd stamp those as "Free Range, Ethical crymails'. Those that resort to excessive vulgarity or personal attacks, not so ethical in my book). Anywho, I've done my usual screed within a screed, so I guess my point here is: There can be honor among thieves.

Nothing outside a person makes them bad. Evil comes from within.

Agreed. I'd add:

The environment around a person will have an affect on how much evil is drawn out.

Why this kind of thread never get old? Plunders gonna take your stuff away if you are weak. and if you are weak, you get plundered. That's how this game works. stick with it or be gone.

That's how life works too! I plan to stick with it, in FoE life at least! I think it never gets old, because arguing "What is Just?" never gets old.

Analogies with baseball, boxing, and the other games cited are flawed in that all those games/sports have definite objectives, which, in general, are to win the contests. This game has no particular objective, each player makes one of his/her own. There are no winners or losers in this game except in reference to the objective of an individual or group of individuals with similar goals. However, most of the objectives require the acquisition of coins, supplies, goods, or forge points. Hence, when one removes any of these from another player without consent, one has made a moral/ethical choice. (Please note that I've not said that is always wrong to do so. There are cogent arguments for plundering, e.g., in another thread, I think, someone -- sorry, don't remember who -- said that he donated plundered goods to his guild treasury, which is the beginning of a moral/ethical argument in favor of plundering.) Like Titus, I'm saying that the decision to plunder should not be taken lightly.

Eh, sorry to split from the herd and all our hairs, but I feel the need to say that I am not arguing that the decision to plunder should not be taken lightly. I am arguing we can look at plundering as an ethical 'dilemma' and I could argue many do not take it lightly for multiple reasons. Personally, I do take plundering lightly and do it often. Especially when I have the time and after suppressing the Jiminy Cricket who keeps popping up saying "That's stealing! OMG! Another 24/48 hour production taken? THINK OF THEIR CHIL". I feel like I just contradicted myself somehow. huh.

More Seriously: I believe that FoE not having a definitive objective(Or rules, rather), similar to boxing/sports, is part of the reason the analogies can be viewed as flawed. There are definitive objectives a plunderer & plundered have, one robbing the other of said objective (collecting one's stuff), but the only 'rules' for the game are listed somewhere in a ToS or the like. So like no harassing other players or having multiple accounts and all that jazz. Hrmmmm... Maybe that's a missing conflation. "Objective game rules" versus "Hidden social rules". *shrugs*

I ran out of time today @Graviton . I'll hit back tomorrow if I snag the time(I will, who am I kidding?). But I feel the need to at least get this first part out tonight:

That was a an acknowledgement that I was called a coward, and to let you know I wasn't going to dwell on it. Call it passive-aggressive if you must label it.

I attempted to diffuse my words, which I acknowledge could also be interpreted/labeled as passive aggressive, into something more humorous while maintaining civility and the somewhat serious discussion. I believe I failed in my juggling act. My apologies and I will leave that specific horse alone from here on.

 

[DeletedUser8428]

TITRIS ... LOVE IT!

 

[DeletedUser34893]

I was sniped on a GB reward today and someone offered a better deal in the market than I had posted. This is wrong, immoral and unethical also. Do you people think you can play as you wish and make me have to adjust for your game preferences?
Seriously, such a whiney post, I am surprised the responses sparked a debate.

 

[DeletedUser30900]

I was sniped on a GB reward today and someone offered a better deal in the market than I had posted. This is wrong, immoral and unethical also. Do you people think you can play as you wish and make me have to adjust for your game preferences?
Seriously, such a whiney post, I am surprised the responses sparked a debate.

When you try to talk to a whiner with logic, you lost. Better just mark them on the ignore list and move on

 

[DeletedUser32009]

I understand how someone can take the aspect of plundering in a game and turn it into a philosophical discussion on morality.
I don't understand why they feel the need to do so. If morality was an issue regarding every aspect of life and every decision had a perceived moral impact, we never would have survived past the stone age. So, now someone is going to wonder, when did man develop morals? Are they inherited or are they taught? In my opinion they are an aspect of our civilization and culture.
I play a game. That game is not my civilization or culture. I do not live in the game.
Therefore whether I plunder or not has nothing at all to do with morality.
Edited to remove a snarky comment, lol