Ethics Poll

[selenite0]

Between seeing Marie Antoinette and contemplating what I could do with a new D&D prestige class's abilities, I came up with a scenario that has serious ethical issues:
[Poll #882962]
Feel free to explain the inarguable correctness of your position in the comments.

Comments

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

hmmm. They are going to be rulers? Then who is making this decision? One of the current rulers? A meddlesome wizard?

Personally, I think a mutual respect potion would be more effective. Never seem to run across a vial of that, though.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Meddlesome guy with a talent for dropping stuff into people's drinks, if our Eberron campaign goes the way I hope.

And if I found a vial of that potion I'd probably keep it for myself. :)

[ironhammer.livejournal.com]

If they give informed consent, then whatever happens it's their own decision, thus your giving it to them is ethical. Although they may then make poor ruling decisions, that is then a repercussion of -their- poor decision making skills.

[archangelbeth]

While I picked Yes, with informed consent, that should be "Yes, with informed consent and if it won't reduce their ability to be good rulers." Although... If they want to be good rulers, they would take that into account when being informed of the consequences (if any, aside from artificial love), and refuse. If they're not planning to be that sort of ruler, then they'd be screwing up anyway, so that aspect doesn't really matter.

If they're actually trying to make a go of it, they might want to have the potions around as a fall-back position, mind. If they really can't stand each other and it's interfering with their ability to govern...

[joyeuse13.livejournal.com]

I see from the results that personal choice wins the day. :) Of course, it depends on the definition of "love potion." If it's a mere aphrodisiac, they're gonna need it, to ensure the next generation. If it actually messes with their emotions, that's a bit different, and kind of creepy.

Also, do they actually loathe each other, or are we just talking indifference? In the former case, either kind of artificial inducement strikes me as pretty horrid--how will they feel when it wears off? Ew.

[magycmyste]

of course, you want them to be good rulers, and love potions never end well, but i get the feeling that this would be a better storyline. maybe. hmmmm.......

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

D&D/Eberron, eh?

Okay, assuming the standard D&D 3.5 Elixir of Love, I see no real harm in dosing them. A 1d3-hour charm effect, where they feel friendly to each other and interpret each other's statements in the most favorable way possible might get them off to a good start, and while it is manipulative, it is also very short-term. I can't see how it could interfere with their rule, and their knowing about it in advance could only hurt its ability to get them off to a good start. So my best answer of the options is an unqualified "yes", which is how I voted.

If we go back to the D&D 3.0 Potion of Love is a bit dicier, with the long-term enamoring effect. Still, that's presumably a weaker degree of devotion than a charm effect (given the potion starts with 1d3 hours of charm, but the enamoring is permanent). Put this into informed consent.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Yep, one of the Dragonmarked houses has a poisoner prestige class. I'm trying to figure out if I can use the ability to play Cupid or other craziness rather than just off people.

Paging Tristram & Iseult

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

It all depends on whether you've got a scientific-fictional magic system world or a mythological, poetic one. In the latter case; attempting to escape one's wierd or doom or fate always ends badly. The nobles in question would be wiser to deal stoically with their fates, making offerings to their gods (or God) to grand them strength of will.

I'm just saying--!

On the other hand, as other writers have pointed out, a Magic System world would make this a highly helpful Marital Aid with these prerequisites:

(1) Informed consent on both sides
(2) Limited time of potency (to make heir-creation more palatable)
(3) No, or easily-dealt with side-effects.

Even then, nothing really quite trumps good will and self-discipline. If they're decent people to begin with, and the well-being of their people truly depends on pulling this off, they can probably make a go of it. Concubines might be involved... but they might not.

[callibr8]

If we were allowed multiple responses (i.e. checkbox rather than radio button), I'd be in the conditional-yes category. I'd prefer that *both* conditions listed apply, not just one or the other.

But then I've never liked multiple choice tests anyway. Except in mathematics, they almost always have questions that I want to answer as A-or-B, or B-and-C, or all/none of the above.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Some of the earlier discussion made a case for "informed consent" including the other, on the assumption that they wouldn't consent to being made incompetent.

December 7th, 1941

[o-2opine-o.livejournal.com]

Your icon says... "The future is worth fighting for"

But you didn't remember back to the last time this nation actually came together, and stayed the course, and really fought for and won... Freedom.

Re: December 7th, 1941

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I remember it well, with reminders from the President down to your journal to help in case I'd forgotten. The best post I saw on it was from randsimberg. This journal is not a calendar, or a news outlet, and I feel no obligation to jump on every bandwagon which comes along. If what I'm thinking has already been said by many other people I'm not going to bother posting it. And if I did have something original to say about Pearl Harbor I would've put it on my other journal. (http://libertarianhawk.livejournal.com/)

It's going to be a very long war. Let's spend our efforts wisely.