I’m sure you have heard of the philosophical doctrine of utilitarianism. It states that the most moral action is the one that creates the most total happiness in the world.
I’m also sure you know that the goal of a game designer is to maximise player enjoyment.
Now, how does random-killing, also known as griefing or ganking, create the most total happiness in the world and maximise player enjoyment? Let me introduce you to a concept in ethics I intelligently founded known as the SadoMultiplier, and with it the branch of utilitarianism known as Schadenfreude Utilitarianism.
What is Schadenfreude Utilitarianism, I hear you ask? Let me pose some hypothetical scenarios:
Let me introduce to you Player A, a sadistic ganker. He randomly meets Player B, a new player who doesn’t like PvP. They play the game for the story and PvE. Player A currently has 3 enjoyment points (EP). While Player B is fishing, doing the story or whatever, they have 10 EP. Suddenly, Player A jumps in and instantly kills them. Player B’s EP is reduced by 5, and it’s equivalently transferred to Player A. Player A: 3EP → 8EP
Player B: 10EP → 5EP
Total EP gain: 0
So, you’d then believe RKing is a morally neutral action, neither good nor bad. However, this is where the SadoMultiplier comes in. The SadoMultiplier rule in ethics states that when EP is transferred from person to person by way of griefing, it’s multiplied. Player A: 3EP + 5EP * 1.5SM = 10.5EP
Player B: 10EP - 5EP = 5EP
Total EP in the world: +2.5
Therefore, ganking is the morally superior action. But we can take this further
Scenario two. Player B (who has positive renown) has saved up all their drachma in order to go on a maxed ketch cargo run to double their drachma. Again, they’re a new player so they need it to buy a brig, better gear, all that stuff. Now here comes Player A. A is smart, he’s a moral philosopher who knows exactly how to min-max morality to produce the absolute most ethical outcome. So he defends Player B while they’re loading their ketch with cargo! What a nice guy. He even talks to Player B and makes friends with them. Once Player B finishes loading their ketch, they sail off and OH how wonderful, Player A sails with them to guard them their whole journey. Player B gains more and more enjoyment the further they sail, and then… Player A strikes at the perfect moment. Ketch blown up, “ez” spammed, Player B loses ALL of their enjoyment. Player B: 30EP → 0EP
Player A: 5EP + 30EP * 1.5SM = 50
Total EP gain: +20 due to the nature of multiplication
It’s only zero sum if you don’t keep the SadoMultiplier in mind. Even if it was zero sum, that’d mean griefing would at least be a morally neutral action.
This is the same arguement as saying that we logically have to kill ourselves and donate our organs because it will save more lives than the one life lost but in reverse, in that it only holds up under a purely utilitarian standpoint and uses subjective logic to justify it, while framing said subjective logic as a universal truth in favor of your argument and completely ignoring the further implications and other consequences of your actions.
For example:
Player C is a player interested in arcane odyssey, but doesnt play due to the rampant ganking. The potential enjoyment gained by player c from ao is effectively lost due to player a’s actions, thus decreasing net enjoyment
Player A has succesfully made everyone quit the game, and has thus harvested all the possible enjoyment from it. Instead of continous new enjoyment being generated players b and c dont play the game and thus get zero enjoyment, while player a doesn’t get to gank anyone and thus doesnt get any enjoyment, since this is an alternative to all players continuing to play and generating more net enjoyment over the long term, there is an arbitrarily large loss of enjoyment that couldnt possibly be justified by the enjoyment gained over the short term by player a.
Now lets say hypothetically vetex implements some kind of pvp toggle next update:
Player a quits the game. This leads to a net loss in enjoyment over the short term, but as shown in the though experiments above over the long term the net enjoyment of arcane odyssey changes from being purely gained by a small fraction of people for an amount of time limited by willing players, to one only limited by the lifespan of the game from updatess. The opportunity cost of enjoyment from random gankers (shownbt multiple surveys to be at most less than 10 percent of the playerbase, meaning that even under your flawed logic will be less total than the enjoyment from the other players who play the game normally) is vastly outweighed by the existing players continuing to enjoy the game without sapping said enjoyment from the suffering of others and the new ones attracted by the atmosphere of welcoming as opposed to other rpgs on roblox notorious for random ganking.
Do i think you’ll accept my logically consistent argument as a truth? No im not stupid im just bored and have nothing better to do than utterly crush the whimpers of some loser who cant understand that his opinions under all purviews of philosophy will be considered objectively wrong
i just read this, you literally listed some scenarios and put some meaningless, made-up “measurements” to “try” and justify your utilitarianism claim?
if you want to live by actions that will provide the most benefit, you just so happen it disregard the physical (motor skills to kill the victim) and more so emotional cost of ganking, and in those fleeting moments of euphoria, do you ever realize you can’t quantify human emotions? (not that you have any tbf)
-TREE(3)/10 ragebait, especially when i look at this:
Negatory. When I gank someone and they suffer immensely, the feeling could be described as euphoria beyond euphoria. My body rocks and shivers, twitching and pulsing with the sheer amount of joy I feel when someone cries to me
