phaonica wrote...
It would have been awfully nice if I could somehow have been allowed to graciously lose the Landsmeet instead of just killing everyone to get my way.
Loghain doesn't give you that option, obviously, but it would have been nice if the developers had come up with some other way.
I would love stuff like that. I'd also love a chance that Loghain dies in the Joining, so you can end up losing Alistair AND Loghain.Xandurpein wrote...
Maybe a modd, that let's you surrender and then a cut scene where the headsman lops your head off.phaonica wrote...
It would have been awfully nice if I could somehow have been allowed to graciously lose the Landsmeet instead of just killing everyone to get my way.
Loghain doesn't give you that option, obviously, but it would have been nice if the developers had come up with some other way.
Modifié par klarabella, 09 mai 2010 - 07:08 .
LadyDamodred wrote...
Tirigon wrote...
LadyDamodred wrote...
There is a differnce between killing bad dudes and killing people who have committed no crime except doing their duty.
I disagree, because it´s the winner who decides who´s good and who´s bad.
...no.
Winning has nothing to do with good or bad. Nothing. If Hitler had won WWII, does that make him a good guy? If the Americans had lost the revoltion, does that make George Washington, Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, etc...bad guys?
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 09 mai 2010 - 07:10 .
Xandurpein wrote...
Maybe a modd, that let's you surrender and then a cut scene where the headsman lops your head off.
That wouldn't work because technically Alistair and the PC don't have the authority to execute Loghain either.phaonica wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Maybe a modd, that let's you surrender and then a cut scene where the headsman lops your head off.
Or one where the Landsmeet tells Loghain that despite being Regent he doesn't have the authority to execute Wardens would be fine. The Landsmeet has decided that Loghain remains Regent, so you'd better figure out how to work together.
Modifié par klarabella, 09 mai 2010 - 07:12 .
Now these would be interesting. And then a cutscene with the Orlesian chevaliers riding into Denerim and just shaking their heads because Ferelden is a smoking char.klarabella wrote...
I would love stuff like that. I'd also love a chance that Loghain dies in the Joining, so you can end up losing Alistair AND Loghain.Xandurpein wrote...
Maybe a modd, that let's you surrender and then a cut scene where the headsman lops your head off.phaonica wrote...
It would have been awfully nice if I could somehow have been allowed to graciously lose the Landsmeet instead of just killing everyone to get my way.
Loghain doesn't give you that option, obviously, but it would have been nice if the developers had come up with some other way.
Which is part of the reason I don't like executing Loghain. The Landsmeet agrees on whether or not Loghain is removed as Regent, not on whether or not Loghain is to be executed. The PC and Alistair don't have any right to do that.klarabella wrote...
That wouldn't work because technically Alistair and the PC don't have the authority to execute Loghain either.phaonica wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Maybe a modd, that let's you surrender and then a cut scene where the headsman lops your head off.
Or one where the Landsmeet tells Loghain that despite being Regent he doesn't have the authority to execute Wardens would be fine. The Landsmeet has decided that Loghain remains Regent, so you'd better figure out how to work together.
Modifié par phaonica, 09 mai 2010 - 07:22 .
phaonica wrote...
Which is part of the reason I don't like executing Loghain. The Landsmeet agrees on whether or not Loghain is removed as Regent, not on whether or not Loghain is to be executed. The PC and Alistair don't have any right to do that.
Edit: Actually I take that back... Anora does specifically mention Loghain's execution when you talk to her before the Landsmeet, so that does seem to be part of the deal. So perhaps Alistair and the PC do have the authority to execute Loghain...
LadyDamodred wrote...
Tirigon wrote...
LadyDamodred wrote...
There is a differnce between killing bad dudes and killing people who have committed no crime except doing their duty.
I disagree, because it´s the winner who decides who´s good and who´s bad.
...no.
Winning has nothing to do with good or bad. Nothing. If Hitler had won WWII, does that make him a good guy? If the Americans had lost the revoltion, does that make George Washington, Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, etc...bad guys?
Tirigon wrote...
No. But history would have remembered them the way you said.
History is always written by the winner.
If Mister H had won we would surely learn in school what an awesome hero he was.
And if the American Revolution had failed we would remember Washington, Franklin etc as dirty traitors who got the death they deserved for rebelling against the rightful leaders.
phaonica wrote...
Tirigon wrote...
No. But history would have remembered them the way you said.
History is always written by the winner.
If Mister H had won we would surely learn in school what an awesome hero he was.
And if the American Revolution had failed we would remember Washington, Franklin etc as dirty traitors who got the death they deserved for rebelling against the rightful leaders.
Well it's pointless to debate morality or law or justice with someone who thinks none of those things matter, so long as you kill everyone who disagrees with you.
phaonica wrote...
Well it's pointless to debate morality or law or justice with someone who thinks none of those things matter, so long as you kill everyone who disagrees with you.
Xandurpein wrote...
Can we maybe just invoke "Godwin's law" on this and move on
Tirigon wrote...
phaonica wrote...
Well it's pointless to debate morality or law or justice with someone who thinks none of those things matter, so long as you kill everyone who disagrees with you.
Oh how I love it to see people whose reason fails (because they´re wrong) coming up with personal insults instead.
I´m actually a very idealist person. I´m just saying that what is good and bad is always decided by the winner, and that is a historical fact.
You may or may not like it - I don´t like it either - but unfortunately that doesn´t make it wrong.
Xandurpein wrote...
I guess that technically, the duel is there to settle the question whether Loghain is the lawful regent or a usurper and that killing him is deemed acceptable as punishment if you win, or at least the Landsmeet buys it, but there are a lot of things that are missing during the Landsmeet, like a clear explanation of what the duel is actually about.
phaonica wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
I guess that technically, the duel is there to settle the question whether Loghain is the lawful regent or a usurper and that killing him is deemed acceptable as punishment if you win, or at least the Landsmeet buys it, but there are a lot of things that are missing during the Landsmeet, like a clear explanation of what the duel is actually about.
I don't quite understand the dual either, but I haven't played it in a while. A dual seems like an odd way to determine right and wrong... but then Ferelden doesn't have all the time in the world to work this out either. It seemed mostly like the developers were writing around an excuse to have a boss battle.... which is fine, players like combat, after all. I personally prefer the politicking in this game over the combat, but that's just me
Modifié par Xandurpein, 09 mai 2010 - 08:40 .
phaonica wrote...
I don't quite understand the dual either, but I haven't played it in a while. A dual seems like an odd way to determine right and wrong... but then Ferelden doesn't have all the time in the world to work this out either.
Xandurpein wrote...
That is actually a simplistic description. It only holds true during the brief time the victor can control the publication of history. Do you suggest that history books lists all winners a wonderful people and all loosers as evil bastards. Not where I come from at least.
Tirigon wrote...
phaonica wrote...
I don't quite understand the dual either, but I haven't played it in a while. A dual seems like an odd way to determine right and wrong... but then Ferelden doesn't have all the time in the world to work this out either.
Duels were common to solve an argument that couldn´t be solved otherwise. It might be that the justification is - like it was for the Vikings, for example - that the winner is favoured by the Gods (or the Maker in Ferelden´s case) or it might be justified by some other tradition, but in any case duels were the favoured method to determine right and wrong for quite a long time.
Tirigon wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
That is actually a simplistic description. It only holds true during the brief time the victor can control the publication of history. Do you suggest that history books lists all winners a wonderful people and all loosers as evil bastards. Not where I come from at least.
Not anymore, but it used to be so quite often. Forgive me to bring the Na.zis up again, but if you have ever seen a schoolbook from that time you know what I mean. You could read that Jews are worth less than animals AS IF IT WAS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!! And I could find countless other examples if I´d search.
It´s called Propaganda, and it´s quite common......
Modifié par Xandurpein, 09 mai 2010 - 08:48 .
Xandurpein wrote...
In barabaric times, like among the vikings and homeric greeks, duels could settle conflicts and even wars, but in more civilized times (relativly speaking) it typically settles matters of personal honor. They didn't to my knowledge ever settle political decisions with duels.
Xandurpein wrote...
Not even during the nineteenthirties was Genghis Khan considered a good person, even if he won.
Tirigon wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
In barabaric times, like among the vikings and homeric greeks, duels could settle conflicts and even wars, but in more civilized times (relativly speaking) it typically settles matters of personal honor. They didn't to my knowledge ever settle political decisions with duels.
I´m not entirely sure, but I think you´re right. It doesn´t matter much, however - Ferelden is definitely NOT civilised, not even relatively speaking.
Xandurpein wrote...
Then let's hope they don't place DA2 in Orlais then, I want a Boss battle!
Tirigon wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Not even during the nineteenthirties was Genghis Khan considered a good person, even if he won.
Because his victory didn´t last.
If the Mongols had written history books he´d surely be the greatest hero the world has ever seen.
Retour en haut