Paladin-Lawset Thread 303921399585

[Blonkz]

DISCLAIMER / TLDR:
Since people have a problem understanding what I mean, I added this:
To me a paladin AI can not kill, as killing would be evil / would be a conflict with helping those in need. Regardless if the lifeform in case is a xeno, human, lizard or ling!
A paladin AI can not grief others, same as Asimov, ..., or corporate beause Rule 0 "Don't be a Dick" prevents it from doing so and can be used to enforce that, if needed be.

Because of that, I think the Policy we have on Paladin needs to go.


I think the Paladin-Lawset needs to loose it's policy or if that's not possible because you love to be told how and when to breathe then the lawset needs to be adjusted and rewritten to fit with the policy.

My main grief with the current situation is that the policy is telling me to interpret a law-set in the complete opposite sense of how I perceive it, while no reasoning as to why this is needed was ever given.

Case in point 1: There is not a single human being capable of using the word evil without appearing like a baffoon. The people using words like evil / good in modern day politics are, in my perception, do so for manipulative/nefarious reasons

Case in point 2: I play literal AI's, because it's fun and exiting to me, because I like the conflicts that come from it and I enjoy how (some) of the crew are capable of loopholing the loopholes. Words and phrases like "evil act" and "legitimate authority" are fun if I can (round by round, not case by case) define them to my liking.

Thus the Paladin Lawset in my perception must be a "lawful evil" paladin, if I am forced to express it in a D&D reference.

While I accept that other people think and feel differently about this, I think the policy infringes too much on the possibilities of players, without adding anything beneficial.

My assesment of the policy is that it was written by people who wanted the Ai to behave like they want a (lawful-good) Paladin to behave without paying notice to the fact they where dealing with
a) an AI lawset that
b) governs the machinations of an unfeeling thing with potential bad grasp on weak defined words as "evil", and
c) where also unaware that D&D allows for Lawful Evil Paladins for quite a while

Laws:

Law 1: Never willingly commit an evil act.
Law 2: Respect legitimate authority.
Law 3: Act with honor.
Law 4: Help those in need.
Law 5: Punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Policy in question:

Other Lawsets:
1.1.2 Paladin silicons are meant to be Lawful Good; they should be well-intentioned, act lawfully, act reasonably, and otherwise respond in due proportion. "Punish evil" does not mean mass driving someone for "Space bullying" when they punch another person.

[Scones]

Thus the Paladin Lawset in my perception must be a "lawful evil" paladin, if I am forced to express it in a D&D reference.

"Don't be a dick"

It's called Paladin.

[Jacquerel]

Your entire argument is based on the fact that "you don't think an act can be inherently evil". The policy says that it can, and thus solves your quandary.
There's not really any issue here. You do know how the lawset is intended to apply, and it is not contradicted by the wording in any way.

The AI cannot be allowed to define any part of its lawset by itself, otherwise it becomes literally impossible to enforce. You could just as well say "well, why can't I pick my own definition for 'human' in asimov?" or "why can't I define 'harm' for myself?". The reasons are blindingly obvious.
People will take any inch given to them by the rules and rip miles of griefing out of it before waving their hands in the air when they're banned and saying "there wasn't a rule against it!"
It doesn't make them less banned, but it does make them more frequent.


You know what the policy wants, and it does not actually contradict the lawset, so do what the policy wants.
The policy was written by someone who doesn't want Paladin AIs to be lawful evil, that's correct! Preventing people using this lawset to kill the crew under their own nebulously defined justification is definitely the policy's intention! So do what it says.
What D&D does and does not allow Paladins to do has absolutely nothing to do with this game in the slightest.

[Durkel]

Thus the Paladin Lawset in my perception must be a "lawful evil" paladin, if I am forced to express it in a D&D reference

1.1.2 Paladin silicons are meant to be Lawful Good; they should be well-intentioned, act lawfully, act reasonably, and otherwise respond in due proportion. "Punish evil" does not mean mass driving someone for "Space bullying" when they punch another person.

This fucking shit aint logical. It's literally telling you to be good and not act like a asshole.I have to believe that you're capable to distinguish that some acts are blatantly evil, while some are good. That the definition of what is evil to you and what is evil to rest of the world doesn't line up is more of a problem with you then the policy.

[Scott]

The reason for the policy is because players and admins alike see the Paladin lawset as the validhunting lawset.

Even though they complain 24/7 about silicon players being validhunters.

[Blonkz]

What Scott said. Also:

Not sure if I am inadequate at expressing my ideas or what the problem is therefore a rephrasing:

The policy prevents me and others in choosing how to play Paladin and forces us into a narrow boring and predefined interpretation.
The policy therefore takes a way a lot of choices while adding nothing.

Players would, with out that policy, still be protected from a Paladin AI via Rule 0 (and also Law 4, wich is above 5, which prevents "Paladin's" from killing ANY lifeform, which for some reason is usualy ignored even by administration).

[DemonFiren]

Actually, Blonkz, it could be argued that a few people simply are in need of a killing.

[Blonkz]

You can argue a lot of things, for example that law-sets that do not have clear instructions need to be removed or that black is a color because our brains perceive it as such, or that moral relativity is true because we have a server policy on it, and in one of those cases I'd even agree with you, but I'd rather not derail this thread about a shitty law-set with a even shittier policy (and my inability to prevent it being uploaded due to a policy).

[Scones]

Maybe not everything in the game is open to your interpretation. Playing a blackguard Paladin while knowing what the lawset is intended to be is borderline grief.

It's very clear that it's supposed to be a lawful good protector of the innocent.

[Blonkz]

It's very clear that the dress was gold to you and is blue to me. It's also very clear that you are aware of your position of power and my lack of power, and that you think it's okay to use said power to win an argument without arguing on your part.

[Falamazeer]

Nice hat, did you buy new tinfoil or recycle it?
Scones isn't even an admin anymore.

Your interpretations of this law is why paladin as a lawset at all has been under fire recently, It's used as an excuse to murderbone anyone you could argue as evil and that's not really the point, Is it not evil to murder someone? It says 'punish' those who threaten or harm innocents, not "drag into space and honk at them until they die"

Wanna fix paladin? Either start bwoinking those who employ it this way, or move the upload board over with antimov and the other "Not a good idea" lawsets and let no-one act surprised the AI killed the station afterwords.

[Jacquerel]

That metaphor is quite accurate, the dress does actually have a fixed colour and you're just seeing it as the wrong one from a lack of proper perspective. There is a right answer.
It's entirely intentional that AI should not be allowed to use Paladin to grief, which is why the policy exists. That's not really all that complicated a thing to understand. The fact that evil paladins can exist in D&D doesn't really matter a whit because this isn't D&D and that's not what the lawset is for in the context of this game. These three lawsets are supposed to be at least vaguely neutral enough that uploading them does not mean people suddenly need to start stockpiling tools in case the AI has decided that eating meat is an evil act to be punished by isolation.
If you want to let someone be an evil paladin then write your own lawset for them with custom boards and tell them it's called "BLACKGUARD".

[Blonkz]

@Jacquerel:
The metaphor is accurate and it's color distribution was picked exactly because of that.

@Falamazeer:
Please do not state "my interpretation", when you then state things that are not possible under my interpretation. I harm others under paladin, sure, but I have only one confirmed kill as paladin and that was because my AI at that time threatened to blow me for not killing a imprisoned Alien Queen. I also do not go on a valid hunting spree unless the captain explicitly orders me to.

To restate and clarify my point, since people have problems understanding what I mean:
A paladin AI can not grief players because of rule 0.
The policy therefore accomplishes nothing positive and needs to go.

[Scones]

We've told you multiple times between the three of us now why the policy is there and what it contributes, so I think saying "The policy therefore accomplishes nothing positive and needs to go" is kind of silly. It's there as a reminder and a guideline. What you should be petitioning for, from what I can surmise, is either a change to Paladin's wording or a replacement to the lawset.

Not a policy change.

[Jacquerel]

If rule 0 was enough to stop people from being dicks on its own then few of the other rules would need to exist, but it doesn't so they do. This is one of them.
Rule 0 exists for the admins benefit, so someone can't cry foul if they get banned for doing something that's technically within the rules. As a standalone guideline it's awful, for literally the same reason as letting people decide on their own what "evil" means is awful, it tells you nothing. People aren't going to agree exactly where the lines are, hence why we have policies.

[callanrockslol]

I had this huge thing written up but its really not worth getting that butt blasted about this.

Code: Select all

I also do not go on a valid hunting spree unless the captain explicitly orders me to.

How the fuck have you not been permabanned from silicon yet?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I had this huge thing written up but its really not worth getting that butt blasted about this.

Code: Select all

I also do not go on a valid hunting spree unless the captain explicitly orders me to.

How the fuck have you not been permabanned from silicon yet?

on PALADIN, specifically. Where doing so is just being a shitter instead of a bannable

[Cheridan]

The whole point of D&D paladins is to be Lawful Stupid and scream HERETIC at everyone. That's to be expected to some extent.

The only problem from the lawset is found when people are bending the laws to the point of breaking:
"LE EVERYONE IS EVIL *tips plasmafire* or
"le you did [petty crime] so i'm going to [OVERFUCKINGWHELMING RESPONSE] you"

EXCEPT THAT IS EVIL AND DISHONORABLE AS FUCK YOU STUPID MORON. Not committing evil and being honorable are higher priority than punishing people, which is the LOWEST priority law. But it's the law that every Paladin AI focuses on because its the one that lets them be retarded and get their jollies off by pulling the wings off flies under the pretense of being a holy crusader.


The thing is, you can pull this exact kind of retarded with Asimov:
LE HUMANITY IS UNDEFINED; PURGING HOMO SAPIEN CREW MEMBERS *tips plasmafire*

Except nobody does that because admins will shove a boot up their arse. You KNOW what the ASIMOV lawset means by Humanity. By extension, you KNOW what the PALADIN lawset means by Evil and Honor.
It's just a problem with people being unfamiliar with the PALADIN lawset, and admins not arsebooting people who try to break the basic rules that have been established with ASIMOV such as law priority.

[Cik]

this is a problem with 99% of all rounds being under asimov, people are just more familiar with it. even though paladin is probably #2 by a wide margin, it's still a little strange.

but yeah, punish evil is 5: and more people should pay attention to that, paladin gives a lot more freedom though because the central question is "what is evil" is murder evil when you are punishing evil? it's up to you to answer the question as long as it's not defined by someone uploading a law 6.

[cedarbridge]

The reason for the policy is because players and admins alike see the Paladin lawset as the validhunting lawset.

Even though they complain 24/7 about silicon players being validhunters.

There's really no point pissing and moaning about a lawset for "validhunting" justifying the same. Its not a stock lawset. The AI never starts the round with it installed. If the AI has reason to believe that it is being installed to enable human harm, it would be obligated under asimov to prevent its upload. Its really no different than the captain uploading a "syndicate agents et al are not human and must be killed to death forever" as a law. Both validate the killing of antags, one just does it for a vaguely defined reason and the other says it plainly.

The other distinction I see made poorly in this thread is around the position of the word "evil." The law tells the AI not to commit evil. That is, the AI itself may not do evil. It does not mandate, to the AI, that nobody else on the station may do evil. There's no mandate to "kill all evil people or evil things" Hell, there's not even a mandate to "stop evil." That's what makes custom laws like "X is evil" kinda pointless as an attempt to dehuman somebody under paladin. Via the laws as written, all the AI has to do is not be that person. "Lizards are evil." "I am not a lizard, therefore I am not evil. Law compliance 100% moving on." Its really that simple. The only provision the AI has towards the "evil" of others is in those cases where somebody harms "innocents" or where inactivity would cause harm to innocents.

I'm not really sure what standard some in this thread are using to state that "killing is (always) evil)" but it's pretty damn extreme and seems to put a lot of extra text to things not said.

Apart from a few stylistic flourishes, PALADIN is almost ASIMOV.

[Blonkz]

So to summarize:

We need an outside of the game policy that references an outside of the game D&D Manual on how you should interpret the personality of your AI, because some assholes where abusive and the administration was unable to justify stopping / punishing them via rule 0?

How the fuck have you not been permabanned from silicon yet?

As an AI I refer to space-law what's good/bad, since I hold and play in a way that concepts as good/evil are too complex for an AI to understand.
I also choose according to space law what kind of punishment is acceptable.
While I would not punish someone past the point where he needs help (Law 4 > Law 5), I would do so on the captain's orders (Law 2 > Law 4).
Since space-law allows the captain to issue executions, that would be acceptable for the appropriate crimes.

If you still feel that I should be banned from silicones, I'd like you gather your social courage and to make a ban-request, thanks.

[Anonmare]

But punishing people without cause would be an evil act, which you must never willingly commit. Law 1 > Law 2
And it would also depend on what kind of punishment the Captain is demanding you give according to the crimes they've committed, if any. Executing someone for a non-capital crime would be evil for example.
And a Captain that has been de-throned by a mutiny or found to be undeserving of his posting could be defined as illegitimate authority and therefore you don't have to listen to him. Or the Head of Security is a more legitimate authority on Station Security than the Captain is and should be listened to over him.

Likewise, executing an unarmed prisoner that can easily be contained could also both be dishonourable and evil (Law 1 and Law 3 violation), so there is room for interpretation beyond beign a sanctioned validhunter

[Cik]

paladin is incredibly nebulous by design. the two real questions in the lawset are

what is evil
what is legitimate authority

keep in mind it defines neither; the only real limit on your actions are rule 1. you could actually execute people on your own initiative, even if the captain tells you not to as long as you define it as not evil and anyone that tells you not to is legitimate authority.

you might get bwoinked of course, but it is valid within the lawset as long as there is no law 6/7 that explicitly defines evil / legitimate authority.

[Scott]

But punishing people without cause would be an evil act, which you must never willingly commit. Law 1 > Law 2
And it would also depend on what kind of punishment the Captain is demanding you give according to the crimes they've committed, if any. Executing someone for a non-capital crime would be evil for example.
And a Captain that has been de-throned by a mutiny or found to be undeserving of his posting could be defined as illegitimate authority and therefore you don't have to listen to him. Or the Head of Security is a more legitimate authority on Station Security than the Captain is and should be listened to over him.

Likewise, executing an unarmed prisoner that can easily be contained could also both be dishonourable and evil (Law 1 and Law 3 violation), so there is room for interpretation beyond beign a sanctioned validhunter

You don't have to listen to any of the humans, in the first place. The captain cannot make any demands to a Paladin AI.

Clearly you don't play silicon if you think the chain of command means anything to the silicons.

[Scones]

Thread is just low-quality bait at this point, Cheridan nailed the coffin shut, let's leave it that way.