166 réponses à ce sujet

[Wozza78]

nerdage wrote...

Welcome to my world, I've made about 5 characters with the intention of being evil, my last was a mage I made with the intention of being an evil, blood-mage, solo attempt, then I couldn't even bring myself to lie to Irving about stealing that staff from the repository... I suppose it's a compliment to the game itself that you find yourself compelled to make choices that you, presumably, would in real life. Especially the dark ritual, I was supprised that, even on characters who where otherwise benevolent saviours to all, I found it quite difficult to turn it down, quite a few didn't.

Know what you mean. Iv'e made several nasty looking characters and can't even bring myself to say the nasty things in conversation with the rest of the party. These characters inevitably got deleted along with their save files and new sickeningly benevolent ones born in their place. I really want to tap into my darker side but life is too damn good at the moment. It's so unfaire!

[UpiH]

Well, it's not my place to argue semantics with apparently native English speakers. Let's leave it at that. Neither am I willing to study ethics from a computer game.



If all values are relative, then cannibalism is a matter of taste, that's what I heard on the road anyhow.

[Apophis2412]

UpiH wrote...



If all values are relative, then cannibalism is a matter of taste, that's what I heard on the road anyhow.

If it happens with the consent of both parties, than yes, cannibalism is not evil.

Although not all values are relative, the world is not as black and white as most disney movies led you to believe.

Generally, what is evil  is defined by either the results of said action or if it happened with the consent of all involved parties.

[UpiH]

If you're afraid of being killed by zombies, how do you think, you're eligible for battling the Archdemon?



Btw, one last thing to be kept in mind: "Survival of the fittest" does not equate to survival of the best. But you use shoes that fits to you the best, no?

[Sabriana]

Maviarab wrote...

That still does not change the fact Sabriana, that you could all be killed helping the village, and to your knowledge, there is only you and Alistair as GW's....

It's a risk no one in the military would ever take....especially given they are irrelevent to you.

Yes, and there we have a fine dilemma for the Warden. She has to consider that they will all be killed if they do help out, that the village, the arl, and everyone she needs to counter Loghain will be killed if they don't help out, plus the added feature that apparently those creatures waylay people who try to flee.

As for military tactics, that may be right, but she has more than that to consider. Without Eamon, she has little to no chance to confront Loghain.

However, when it comes to Connor, she absolutely sticks to her guns. No wandering to the tower, Isolde will be allowed to make her sacrifice. There is just no way for my PC to know what demon-Connor will be up to. Saying that there were not many undead left is wrong in my personal opinion. How is my PC to know that the demon can't simply empty out grave-yards and crypts?

There were actual rage demons in the chapel, and a revenant in the court-yard. So the PC knows that demon-Connor can summon pretty ugly things, and doesn't necessarily need fresh corpses. So, even if the mage tower is freed, my PC will under no circumstances risk leaving the village she just risked her and her allies lives for. It isn't really feasable that the demon-Connor will bide its time and wait patiently for the PC to return with the agents of its own destruction.

[HappyStasis]

UpiH wrote...

If you're afraid of being killed by zombies, how do you think, you're eligible for battling the Archdemon?

Btw, one last thing to be kept in mind: "Survival of the fittest" does not equate to survival of the best. But you use shoes that fits to you the best, no?

Actually survival of the fittest does imply survival of the best. However, the term "survival of the fittest" is defined as the "ability to survive given a specific condition is met." So YES survival of the fittest implies being the best in a very defined manner. That could, for bacteria living in a hospital, be having a resistance to antibiotics. The very same bacteria may grow more slowly in nature, however, hospitals being places where you are likely to find antibiotics, that specific bacteria with the resistance will be the BEST growing bacteria in that hospital.

[UpiH]

Well, I wouldn't regard the bacteria or leeches or such the best things in this world. Maybe it's just me.

[Herr Uhl]

UpiH wrote...

If you're afraid of being killed by zombies, how do you think, you're eligible for battling the Archdemon?

Btw, one last thing to be kept in mind: "Survival of the fittest" does not equate to survival of the best. But you use shoes that fits to you the best, no?

1. Your first argument is dumb.

2. What is your point, insulting people?

I agree that leaving the village to it's demise is dumb, but not because it is EVIL but because you need to get into that castle. How you would have a better chance to infiltrate a castle that is considered impenetrable when all of the zombies are there then trying to keep an defensive position for a night and then sneaking in the back-way to the now less manned fort is beyond me. If there was a way for you to make Teagan show you the back-route before the zombies attacked, so you could go in while they were out, that would be the more agreeable as the morally ambiguous option, since it wouldn't be as dumb.

Or if you could say "screw Eamon!".

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 05 avril 2010 - 02:59 .

[Wozza78]

I don't know. If you are playing a truly neutral Grey Warden, which they are supposed to be, then using Blood Magic is ok. But if you are also playing a "good guy" the moral dilema is all about allowing the ritual which is effectively an evil action as it requires a human life. I suppose it is slightly unrealistic to travel all the way back to The Circle Tower, and none of my characters would murder a child... hmmm

[Mirthadrond]

In truth, we can be only a little bit evil.

I recall with great fondness the ability in NVN to kill everyone in every town.



Now THAT is evil.

(after 18 hours of co-play with a friend, we were exhausted and semi-dilerious, and on a whim changed our characters from totally good, to totally evil. Oh... the rampage was so worth the eventual reload...)

[KnightofPhoenix]

The only 2 choices that I found make little sense are:

- leaving redcliff. In theory, that could have worked. But they way it's implemented makes little sense.

- Going to the circle to save Connor. I don't care if you think this is a "good" choice, it makes 0 sense. I did it once
and I had to deal with a strange pain in my stomach for 3 days. It just made me feel idiotic.

So all in all, there is one "evil" (usually seen as "evil", I see it as dumb) choice and one "good" (usually seen as "good", I see it as dumb) choice that I find idiotic. All other choices are reasonable.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 avril 2010 - 03:06 .

[soignee]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The only 2 choices that I found makes little sense are:
- leaving redcliff. In theory, that could have worked. But they way it's implemented makes little sense.
- Going to the circle to save Connor. I don't care if you think this is a "good" choice, it makes 0 sense. I did it once and I had to deal with a strange pain in my stomach for 3 days. It just made me feel idiotic.
So all in all, there is one "evil" choice and one "good" choice that I find idiotic. All other choices, I can find them reasonable.

I agree with both counts here. I am very angry the game doesn't seem to show that the sensible option -killing conner/isolde- is never shown any different then the Tower route.

[UpiH]

Or maybe it's just the game. Ever wondered, why a wimpy Jowan can do things that require several Circle mages? You could be in a possession of tons of lyrium potions by that point as well as having three mages, one of them a Circle mage in your active group. I think your camp is supposed to be right beside the village, so not much stretching needed, your team keeps vigil on the village.

[HappyStasis]

Sabriana wrote...

Maviarab wrote...

That still does not change the fact Sabriana, that you could all be killed helping the village, and to your knowledge, there is only you and Alistair as GW's....

It's a risk no one in the military would ever take....especially given they are irrelevent to you.

Yes, and there we have a fine dilemma for the Warden. She has to consider that they will all be killed if they do help out, that the village, the arl, and everyone she needs to counter Loghain will be killed if they don't help out, plus the added feature that apparently those creatures waylay people who try to flee.

As for military tactics, that may be right, but she has more than that to consider. Without Eamon, she has little to no chance to confront Loghain.

However, when it comes to Connor, she absolutely sticks to her guns. No wandering to the tower, Isolde will be allowed to make her sacrifice. There is just no way for my PC to know what demon-Connor will be up to. Saying that there were not many undead left is wrong in my personal opinion. How is my PC to know that the demon can't simply empty out grave-yards and crypts?

There were actual rage demons in the chapel, and a revenant in the court-yard. So the PC knows that demon-Connor can summon pretty ugly things, and doesn't necessarily need fresh corpses. So, even if the mage tower is freed, my PC will under no circumstances risk leaving the village she just risked her and her allies lives for. It isn't really feasable that the demon-Connor will bide its time and wait patiently for the PC to return with the agents of its own destruction.

I find your analysis to be very good. Here's how I look at it. The protagonist is subject to a number of levels on which to make a choice: 

His ultimate goal is defeating the archdemon or else he and everybody else will die. That means gather an army. So far no moral issues.
Second goal is to be able to face the archdemon at all. Which means he can't risk his own life unless there is a significant benefit to it.  Here we have the calssical cost/benefit analysis. Is this really worth the time/effort/risk.
In addition to this however, the protagonist is also a human(or atleast a person). And here the moral issues start coming into play. Where does the persons loyalty lie? With the people? With someone he loves? Can he justify letting people die to boost his army with the more powerful ally? These issues comes down to philosophy and are defined by the philosophies of the people acting through the protagonist.

If the first objective is the most paramount then your analysis of Redcliffe holds true and the protagonist will confront the demon immediately, accepting the sacrifice of the Arls wife.
If the second objective, facing the archdemon alive was the dominant, indeed he would never go on any of the adventures except from maybe going to Redcliffe to get the support of the Arl. The most promising course of actions would probably be joining Teyrn Loghain despite his betrayal.
The human (or moral) part is a mixture of all the different personalities that exists in this world and will be in conflict with with objective 1 and 2 more often than not. Add to this the fact that objective one and two are in conflict from the very beginning and you have a cooking pot of odd descisions to make.

This is just my own attempt at describe the problems the protagonist face in detail. Putting things in boxes always make stuff more understandable to me.

[UpiH]

Herr Uhl wrote...


1. Your first argument is dumb.

2. What is your point, insulting people?

1. Apparently stating an unfounded opinion isn't. You may or may not have covered the issue on other threads, of course.

2. I don't mean to insult anyone. It's up to the person, what kind of outlook s/he takes, this is a game, afterall. I used "you" as a passive form, should probably have used "One uses the shoe that fits."

[HappyStasis]

UpiH wrote...

Well, I wouldn't regard the bacteria or leeches or such the best things in this world. Maybe it's just me.

Yes, it is just you. Bacteria are good for a lot of things. For example bacteria in your gut helps you digest your food. But that is besides the point just as your reply was.

Modifié par HappyStasis, 05 avril 2010 - 03:38 .

[Sabriana]

Team? What team? Wynne, Shale and Oghren might or might not be allies yet, depending on the PC choices. So we have the PC and three team-mates drudging off to the tower. That leaves.... Sten, Leliana, and perhaps Wynne/Zevran. Great. So now I not only leave the village to the demon, I also halve my team and risk their lives as well.

Besides, if the camp is actually that close, they are at great risk. According to Murdock, the creatures attacked the fleeing villagers and killed them. Plus, if they are that close, where the hell were they during the battle?

Alistair is very adamant that they go to Redcliffe asap. He mentions it several times. So you have Wynne if you already did the tower, and also Zevran (if you did the tower). Unless you sided with the templars, and killed Zevran, then you have neither. There's Morrigan, Alistair, Leliana, dog, and Sten.

Unless you left Leliana behind and decided that Sten's crime was too great to free him.

So any PC could end up with only Alistair, Morrigan and dog. So whom do you leave at camp to keep vigil?

Sandal of course! Doh, why didn't I think of that.

[UpiH]

The point being: you can't draw ethics or values from nature. Nature by itself isn't ethical and it does not involve values as humans do. If you value the stongest and regard them the best, it's just your outlook, not some divine (or scientific, given) truth.

[Apophis2412]

UpiH wrote...

The point being: you can't draw ethics or values from nature. Nature by itself isn't ethical and it does not involve values as humans do. If you value the stongest and regard them the best, it's just your outlook, not some divine (or scientific, given) truth.

Who of the people in this topic is taking their values from nature?  As far I can see everyone is rationally analysing each and every angle of morally grey situations, like Redcliffe. And isn't using reason what sets us apart from the animal kingdom?

[UpiH]

Sabriana wrote...

Team? What team? Wynne, Shale and Oghren might or might not be allies yet, depending on the PC choices. So we have the PC and three team-mates drudging off to the tower. That leaves.... Sten, Leliana, and perhaps Wynne/Zevran. Great. So now I not only leave the village to the demon, I also halve my team and risk their lives as well.
Besides, if the camp is actually that close, they are at great risk. According to Murdock, the creatures attacked the fleeing villagers and killed them. Plus, if they are that close, where the hell were they during the battle?
Alistair is very adamant that they go to Redcliffe asap. He mentions it several times. So you have Wynne if you already did the tower, and also Zevran (if you did the tower). Unless you sided with the templars, and killed Zevran, then you have neither. There's Morrigan, Alistair, Leliana, dog, and Sten.
Unless you left Leliana behind and decided that Sten's crime was too great to free him.
So any PC could end up with only Alistair, Morrigan and dog. So whom do you leave at camp to keep vigil?
Sandal of course! Doh, why didn't I think of that.

Indeed, in that case, it's not a feasible option. I tend to agree with Phoenix on that one. As I said, imho the game mechanics come into the play.

But whats a problem some serious enchanting cannot resolve?

[UpiH]

Apophis2412 wrote...

UpiH wrote...

The point being: you can't draw ethics or values from nature. Nature by itself isn't ethical and it does not involve values as humans do. If you value the stongest and regard them the best, it's just your outlook, not some divine (or scientific, given) truth.

Who of the people in this topic is taking their values from nature?  As far I can see everyone is rationally analysing each and every angle of morally grey situations, like Redcliffe. And isn't using reason what sets us apart from the animal kingdom?

If equating survival of the fittest to survival of the best isn't blatant sociobiology, I stand corrected.

[Apophis2412]

UpiH wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...

UpiH wrote...

The point being: you can't draw ethics or values from nature. Nature by itself isn't ethical and it does not involve values as humans do. If you value the stongest and regard them the best, it's just your outlook, not some divine (or scientific, given) truth.

Who of the people in this topic is taking their values from nature?  As far I can see everyone is rationally analysing each and every angle of morally grey situations, like Redcliffe. And isn't using reason what sets us apart from the animal kingdom?

If equating survival of the fittest to survival of the best isn't blatant sociobiology, I stand corrected.

There is a large difference between nature's survival of the fittest and what the people in this topic were doing.

What Darwin coined as survival of the fittest is an inanimate natural proces. It has little to do with ethics or what is right or wrong. Like the laws of gravity, evolution is just there.

In the past some people thought that a similar proces was happening between human nations or races. But I haven't come across any mention of social darwinism in this topic.

What the people in this topic were doing is rationally analyse a situation, weigh the pros and cons, and decide what would save more people in the end; defending Redcliffe or abandoning it.

[HappyStasis]

Apophis2412 wrote...

UpiH wrote...

Apophis2412 wrote...

UpiH wrote...

The point being: you can't draw ethics or values from nature. Nature by itself isn't ethical and it does not involve values as humans do. If you value the stongest and regard them the best, it's just your outlook, not some divine (or scientific, given) truth.

Who of the people in this topic is taking their values from nature?  As far I can see everyone is rationally analysing each and every angle of morally grey situations, like Redcliffe. And isn't using reason what sets us apart from the animal kingdom?

If equating survival of the fittest to survival of the best isn't blatant sociobiology, I stand corrected.

There is a large difference between nature's survival of the fittest and what the people in this topic were doing.

What Darwin coined as survival of the fittest is an inanimate natural proces. It has little to do with ethics or what is right or wrong. Like the laws of gravity, evolution is just there.

In the past some people thought that a similar proces was happening between human nations or races. But I haven't come across any mention of social darwinism in this topic.

What the people in this topic were doing is rationally analyse a situation, weigh the pros and cons, and decide what would save more people in the end; defending Redcliffe or abandoning it.

I think I should intrude upon the discussion here. I believe it is my statements that UpiH is commenting on. With regards to that, UpiH, I was merely trying to inform you about the underlying definitions of "survival of the fittest" because you seemed to use the term in a field where it did not belong.