alignments in abstract environments

[Icefalcon]

This is a thin line to walk. On the one hand, it is a matter of perception. If there are rules to using this virtual environment, then maybe "killing" is not allowed and therefor evil. If anything goes (such as a game of Halo or any other video game) then killing in the virtual environment would not be considered killing.

[The Dark Elf]

Can the vitual world be recreated?

Offsetting an action sometimes enables one to qualify it as as acceptable.

[Killer Cyborg]

Picture this:

Player party stubles into a virtual world. They are digital copies of themselves and will only encounter copies of other characters while within this area. Killing a copy does not kill the character, but it would "kill" the copy, or rather, killing somthing will delete it from the system,

From a practical standpoint, the copy does die. A character could call this murder or just deleting an unwanted program.

This situation is a bit abstract, but my question requires it:

How do alignments react to this change in definition in "killing?"

Is a Good Alignment character able to "kill" character's copy? Or does this still find itself restricted? Does it matter if the character percieves the world as real or not?

On similar note, hallucinations, dreams, visions, or travels into another's mind? At what point does the "killing" become killing?

It all would seem to come down to how real the copies are, whether or not they're actually sapient enough to be considered "alive."

And on another similar note, does killing break alignment if the character does not believe the real world is actually real?
-Pax

Probably.
Most psychopaths, I believe, tend to think of themselves as the only "real" people, or at least the only ones that are important.
And especially in Palladium, it seems that effect is at least as important as cause when it comes to alignment. The mechanoids probably don't think of themselves as Evil; they think that humanity is Evil.
But their alignments are clear-cut.

[TiekoSora]

Do the characters know they are in a virtual world, and that killing the avatar does not harm the real person? That will change the dynamic immensely. For example, I will kill the crap out of other players in CoD, yet I would only kill a real person under specific and limited circumstances. No change in alignment, so long as they know the real person cannot be harmed in my opinion.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Picture this:

Player party stumbles into a virtual world. They are digital copies of themselves and will only encounter copies of other characters while within this area. Killing a copy does not kill the character, but it would "kill" the copy, or rather, killing something will delete it from the system,

From a practical standpoint, the copy does die. A character could call this murder or just deleting an unwanted program.

This situation is a bit abstract, but my question requires it:

How do alignments react to this change in definition in "killing?"

Is a Good Alignment character able to "kill" character's copy? Or does this still find itself restricted? Does it matter if the character perceives the world as real or not?

On similar note, hallucinations, dreams, visions, or travels into another's mind? At what point does the "killing" become killing?

And on another similar note, does killing break alignment if the character does not believe the real world is actually real?
-Pax

There are some scientists today that theorize that this reality is just a vast computer simulation. This would make all of us just simulations, so your questions are basically "is it alright to kill each other when we believe the other is not 'real'?" This is an excuse that many humans have rationalized to kill/murder other humans since there were humans.
Good chars will avoid killing any.
If they rationalized that since everyone is a copy, that it is okay to kill them, then they are not good chars.

(mental: astral, dreamstream, telepathy) If they have the intent to kill the other char, it is killing them in their own mind.

Now, some questions for you to ponder.
-are they transferred intel's?
-when you end this scenario, are they going to remember what happened in the digital world?
-are they going to let them keep the exp. gotten there?
-is what they experience in the digi-world going to effect their real bodies?
-how did they really get to the digi-world?
-what is happening to their real bodies while in the digi-world?
-do the chars know they are in a digi-world?
-how much time in the real world will pass from the time they inter and the time they exit the Digi-world?

Some possible answers to the above questions.
-if they are TI's then if they die there they are dead.
-if they remember, they will be changed as if they were really there.*
-will depend if you have angry players or not.*
-
-did a mad scientist capture them and put them into his server as part of one of his experiments.
-
-if the chars do not know they are in a digi-world, then they will act as if the world is real.
- the time that passed and that experienced are one to one, or the time passing in the real world is just a blinking of an eye.
-----------------------
Was watching Through the Wormhole and the science presented was that Psychopaths are those that can turn off their sense of empathy.

[Colt47]

Well, a character is often defined partially by their actions, so wonton killing of anything regardless of the area is going to speak of the characters alignment. The scenario is not making it clear if it is a video game or if they are in some kind of altered dimension, so the actions of the individual still carry the same weight as if they were running around in real life.

[TiekoSora]

The scenario is not making it clear if it is a video game or if they are in some kind of altered dimension, so the actions of the individual still carry the same weight as if they were running around in real life.

This is actually kinda the point. Is it up to the perspective of the character, or up to those witnessing their actions, which creates their alignment?

A few more example scenarios:

Mad Scientist invents a shooting video game, which secretly controls robots which are actually killing the people that the game's players kill in-game. Players are unaware that their actions are really killing real things, but they are aware that they are killing things in-game. Does the fact that the players think the deaths are fictitious even matter for alignment? In a certain respect, players are actively trying to kill other players, whether they think death is permanent or not is not specified in the alignments.

A serial killer is tried and convicted of being a serial killer. He is put to death. Is the act of killing the serial killer an evil action? Does it matter if the law allows such an action?

Insane character kills his imaginary friend with a premeditated plan. Imaginary friend never existed to any except the insane character, but it was premeditated murder. Is this evil?
-Pax

I would imagine that it would be like the Matrix then. A constructed world where the inhabitants believe they are living a normal life under normal societal rules. A single instance of an alignment changing action inside in my opinion would only be temporary if they were able to leave the artificial world within a reasonable amount of time. They would realize afterwards that their actions were not real, the circumstances were artificial, and they would likely value human life even more.