308 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

maxernst wrote...

Do we actually know the circumstances under which this deal was made? Maybe Howe defeated Alistair and the only reason he's still alive is because Howe knows he needs him to defeat the Archdemon and protect Howe's interests.

Is being Howe's puppet is a better situation for Alistair than the previously assumed circumstances?

[Darkannex]

You misunderstand my point, Maxernst. I am pointing out that as we are discussing Alistair as a 'good guy' your scenario doesn't fit to make him blameless.

I already stated in the thread that allying with Howe as a political neccessity just throws his decision to kill Loghain regardless in greater relief of his childishness. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 18 mai 2010 - 07:01 .

[maxernst]

Yes, if his only other choice was to die and doom Ferelden.

[Darkannex]

Hanz - except that by the time of the landsmeet it is well known he has sacked highever.
Unless in this universe that is not known. But there's no reason it wouldn't be as that did not rely on the character alone reporting that. And the word was already passed to Cailan as you do not take the Joining until after you speak with the King. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 18 mai 2010 - 07:04 .

[Costin_Razvan]

He always had a choice: Side with Loghain. He is just a selfish ****** who doesn't take it.

[maxernst]

You only have the opportunity to side with Loghain if you beat him, otherwise he executes you.

[maxernst]

Darkannex wrote...

Hanz - except that by the time of the landsmeet it is well known he has sacked highever.
 

But if the Cousland recruit doesn't survive, there's nobody (except Fergus) to testify that the Cousland's weren't the traitors Loghain claims.

[Costin_Razvan]

maxernst wrote...

You only have the opportunity to side with Loghain if you beat him, otherwise he executes you.

And Alistair had that choice. He just refused to take it.

[Darkannex]

Why would Alistair believe anything Loghain would claim?
Or even trust Loghain's closest confidant?

The cousland has already spoken to the king by that time. ALSO, the knowledge is there even if you don't play a noble. 

So Alistair, who kills Loghain recklessly suddenly believes everything he said to be true?
Not buying that.

Modifié par Darkannex, 18 mai 2010 - 07:13 .

[Tirigon]

Darkannex wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

As for me? I'd prefer someone who was ultimately a good person, who understands that sometimes bad things have to happen, and that you cannot always choose the most morale path

Strangely enough. Machiavelli thought the exact same thing. And it is by this thinking that I play the game.

and of course, Im merely discussing my in game view In real life-I demand a somewhat more rigid set of rules to the governing body. But in a rp sense of mideval times? It's all Grey. 

In real life I´m anarchist because governments always suck.

In a medieval RPG setting it is truly all grey, but it´s quite common that you kill your opponents. That´s what you did back then.

In both aspects I do not think that sometimes bad things have to happen. A good ruler ought to work for his people, defend them from harm and rule without bad things happening, or die trying.

Just like Aragorn in LotR.

[phaonica]

I'm perfectly willing to give Alistair the benefit of a doubt on this Howe issue. Howe has not changed into a different person because the PC Warden is not there, but Alistair may or may not have come into contact with Howe often enough to have made a decision about Howe's nastiness. And furthermore, there is a chance that even if Alistair had spared Loghain, Alistair would have found himself allied with Howe anyway.

[Darkannex]

I agree your ideal is just that. (and I enjoy debating with it), but Aragorn was from a highly idealized society where most everything was black and white.



Also - Aragorn trod the paths of the dead and did a deal with those who had betrayed his line. And then he freed them.



Even Aragorn had to do things that were not morally 100% to win the greater war.

[Tirigon]

Darkannex wrote...

Why would Alistair believe anything Loghain would claim?
Or even trust Loghain's closest confidant?

The cousland has already spoken to the king by that time. ALSO, the knowledge is there even if you don't play a noble. 

So Alistair, who kills Loghain recklessly suddenly believes everything he said to be true?
Not buying that.

Again, you put too much importance on a "what if" scenario. As someone said before, both the ingame experience and the epilogue show that Alistair is ultimately a nice guy, even though he might be a bit childish.

[Costin_Razvan]

Just like Aragorn in LotR.

Aragorn did quite a good number of morally ambiguous things in the books.

 Again, you put too much importance on a "what if" scenario. As someone said before, both the ingame experience and the epilogue show that Alistair is ultimately a nice guy, even though he might be a bit childish.

Oh yes. Someone fully willing to kill a father before his only child just out of a sheer need for revenge is certainly a nice guy. I never believed that bull**** and DC proves my point further.

Seriously. Golems, Werewolves and Templars? Sure I take those routes myself but I do not consider them the good moral choice.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 18 mai 2010 - 07:27 .

[Tirigon]

Darkannex wrote...

I agree your ideal is just that. (and I enjoy debating with it), but Aragorn was from a highly idealized society where most everything was black and white.

Sometimes I think in truth everything IS black and white. Today, we tend to see shades of grey everywhere, even though they aren´t there.

Also - Aragorn trod the paths of the dead and did a deal with those who had betrayed his line. And then he freed them.

Even Aragorn had to do things that were not morally 100% to win the greater war.

And how exactly is giving someone the chance to fulfill their promises and then lifting the curse after they earned their redemption amoral?

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Seriously. Golems, Werewolves and Templars? Sure I take those routes myself but I do not consider them the good moral choice.

Funnily, except for templars that´s all the choices Alistair disagrees with if you have him in the party. Whoever wrote the story in DC did seriously screwed up, it seems.

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 mai 2010 - 07:29 .

[Costin_Razvan]

He disagrees with Templars, should you choose to agree with Cullen in the last moment, and no the writter did not screw up. Even though he is against them in the main story he does not have big comments about them, such as Zevran/Wynne do against Werewolves and Wynne against Golems.

In fact the only decisions he has big issues with is giving Jowan a chance, killing Connor/Isolde and sparring Loghain. He is a jerk hiding behind a good facade of humor.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 18 mai 2010 - 07:33 .

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

In both aspects I do not think that sometimes bad things have to happen. A good ruler ought to work for his people, defend them from harm and rule without bad things happening, or die trying.

I think your version of a good ruler is only going to happen in an imaginary utopia. In real life things just aren't that easy.

If a plague breaks out in your village, is it wrong to kill the innocent carriers so that the entire village isn't wiped out? How many more people are going to be infected and die while you try to figure out how to contain the carriers because it's wrong to kill them? Is it better for the whole village to die?

[nos_astra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
He disagrees with Templars, should you choose to agree with Cullen in the last moment, and no the writter did not screw up. Even though he is against them in the main story he does not have big comments about them, such as Zevran/Wynne do against Werewolves and Wynne against Golems.

What does big comments mean?

[Darkannex]

Tirigon wrote...

Darkannex wrote...

I agree your ideal is just that. (and I enjoy debating with it), but Aragorn was from a highly idealized society where most everything was black and white.

Sometimes I think in truth everything IS black and white. Today, we tend to see shades of grey everywhere, even though they aren´t there.

Also - Aragorn trod the paths of the dead and did a deal with those who had betrayed his line. And then he freed them.

Even Aragorn had to do things that were not morally 100% to win the greater war.

And how exactly is giving someone the chance to fulfill their promises and then lifting the curse after they earned their redemption amoral?

How is giving Loghain the chance to fulfill his vow to protect Ferelden after all he has done for it (before Origins) amoral?

What I meant is basically Aragorn took a group of people that are essentially betrayers and used them for his war against Sauron. Noone can claim the Oathbreakers are pristine and moral knights to fight such a war. 

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

In both aspects I do not think that sometimes bad things have to happen. A good ruler ought to work for his people, defend them from harm and rule without bad things happening, or die trying.

I think your version of a good ruler is only going to happen in an imaginary utopia. In real life things just aren't that easy.

True, that´s why I´m anarchistB)

If a plague breaks out in your village, is it wrong to kill the innocent carriers so that the entire village isn't wiped out? How many more people are going to be infected and die while you try to figure out how to contain the carriers because it's wrong to kill them? Is it better for the whole village to die?

That depends. If the plague is 100% lethal within a very short time, I think it is ok to kill them because you only minimize their suffering in addition to protecting others.

If their is the slightest chance to cure them, you may not kill them because it´s still murder (in this case even Real Life laws agree with me:police:). So you have to isolate and quarantine them.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

Sometimes I think in truth everything IS black and white. Today, we tend to see shades of grey everywhere, even though they aren´t there.

If every single person in the world was an anarchist who believed in natural law, then that argument would probably work. But that is an imaginary utopia, not real life.

[Costin_Razvan]

What does big comments mean?

The fits he gives you after killing Isolde/Connor. The one he gives you when you want to leave Cailan where he is in RTO. The one he gives you at the Landsmeet?



His other comments are like: "Oh this is bad, and you might not want to do this."

[Tirigon]

Darkannex wrote...

How is giving Loghain the chance to fulfill his vow to protect Ferelden after all he has done for it (before Origins) amoral?

It´s not. But killing Alistair for that is. As said, if you could convince Alistair to see reason I would recruit Loghain without too much doubt.

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 mai 2010 - 07:39 .