308 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

Edit:
So how is killing these innocents or risking infecting others not "something bad that has to happen?"

Modifié par phaonica, 18 mai 2010 - 07:43 .

[Darkannex]

But I never kill Alistair. He leaves and chooses to go on a drinking binge and feeling sorry for himself ^.^

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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

And he is not allowed to do more, because the PC is the leader. Seriously, you are unfair. if he DOES take a stand, like at the landsmeet, you blame him for not accepting your leadership. And now you blame him for accepting it and not disagreeing more?!

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...


Edit:
So how is killing these innocents or risking infecting others not "something bad that has to happen?"

Of course it is bad. but it´s preferrable to a plague spreading (again, assuming we are talking about a really, REALLY BAD plague; if it´s a simple flu it´s of course different.)

So while the action you take might be bad if you look at it alone, it is the best solution in the context.

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 mai 2010 - 07:50 .

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...


Edit:
So how is killing these innocents or risking infecting others not "something bad that has to happen?"

Of course it is bad. but it´s preferrable to a plague spreading (again, assuming we are talking about a really, REALLY BAD plague; if it´s a simple flu it´s of course different.)

So while the action you take might be bad if you look at it alone, it is the best solution in the context.

But you just said that a good leader doesn't allow for "something bad that has to happen".

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...


But you just said that a good leader doesn't allow for "something bad that has to happen".

Then we are talking about different things.

When you say "something bad that has to happen" I imagine something like civilian casualties in a war, or reintroduction of slavery to pay the states debts etc...


The plague example you brought up is irrelevant since there is, as far as we know, no other possibilities.

It is also different since you choose the best outcome for those who are actually sick, while in the examples I gave you choose what you consider to be best for the greater good, but makes innocents suffer.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

And he is not allowed to do more, because the PC is the leader. Seriously, you are unfair. if he DOES take a stand, like at the landsmeet, you blame him for not accepting your leadership. And now you blame him for accepting it and not disagreeing more?!

No, they're saying if you are going to be a pushover the entire game, don't *demand* that I do something I don't want to later.

I realize it's a game decision that Alistair doesn't take a leadership stance, but the game is what it is. I'm not going to metagame Alistair as originally intended into the game any more than I'm going to say "oh, I just RP out that whole slavery thing." As a player, I can certainly do that, but it wouldn't help any of my arguments here.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

I realize it's a game decision that Alistair doesn't take a leadership stance, but the game is what it is.

Alistair says right at the start that he doesn´t think he´s able to lead / rule, repeats that when Eamon wants him as king and doesn´t change until the Landsmeet (and even then, not always).

Of course you can say "Alistair wants to rule, for gameplay purposes he doesn´t" but it´d be ridiculous.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

I realize it's a game decision that Alistair doesn't take a leadership stance, but the game is what it is.

Alistair says right at the start that he doesn´t think he´s able to lead / rule, repeats that when Eamon wants him as king and doesn´t change until the Landsmeet (and even then, not always).

Of course you can say "Alistair wants to rule, for gameplay purposes he doesn´t" but it´d be ridiculous.

I meant a game development decision, sorry. I was referring to that, because the developers wanted the PC to be in charge of the decision-making, Alistair was rewritten to be far less decisive, he surrenders the leadership position to you.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

When you say "something bad that has to happen" I imagine something like civilian casualties in a war, or reintroduction of slavery to pay the states debts etc...

It is also different since you choose the best outcome for those who are actually sick, while in the examples I gave you choose what you consider to be best for the greater good, but makes innocents suffer.

That's right. There are times when a leader has to choose whether protecting a few is worth risking the many. You can't say a good leader wouldn't get his/her people into that kind of situation in the first place, because sometimes the situation is legitimately out of his/her control. Such as a plague, or when an invasion is causing civilian casualties and debt. Once the leader is in that situation and being forced to deal with it, he/she still may have to make decisions regarding whether protecting a few is worth risking the many.

[Tirigon]

There is still a difference. Risking a few may be justified - purposefully harming them like Loghain did with the elves he sold as slaves is not.

[shedevil3001]

what loghain did was unforgivable and he deserves to be executed, but if the option to have him hanged had been given i may have prefered that, as appose to a public execution, as it was it was either him or alistair, and i trusted alistair more than loghain, so i chose to kill loghain rather than lose the man who had been loyal and trustworthy from the start, but that was how i rp'd my playthrough

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

There is still a difference. Risking a few may be justified - purposefully harming them like Loghain did with the elves he sold as slaves is not.

I'm not arguing that Loghain was a good leader, I was arguing what you said earlier that a "good leader" would never choose a pragmatic decision over a moral one.

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

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.

[phaonica]

shedevil3001 wrote...

what loghain did was unforgivable and he deserves to be executed, but if the option to have him hanged had been given i may have prefered that, as appose to a public execution, as it was it was either him or alistair, and i trusted alistair more than loghain, so i chose to kill loghain rather than lose the man who had been loyal and trustworthy from the start, but that was how i rp'd my playthrough

Did you also do the Dark Ritual? I'm curious.

[shedevil3001]

yeah i did the dark ritual with my hfn so she could stay with the man she loved, but my mage no i refused the dr

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...


I'm not arguing that Loghain was a good leader, I was arguing what you said earlier that a "good leader" would never choose a pragmatic decision over a moral one.

He may choose a pragmatic decision, bt not an evil one. There´s a difference.

Example: Retreating though that means a town will be captured by the enemy may be justified. Killing all citizens of this town and burning it so the enemy can´t get ressources is not.

[Costin_Razvan]

In war everything is justified as long as you win. When you lose you are held accountable.

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

In war everything is justified as long as you win. When you lose you are held accountable.

Unfortunately, this is the case at the moment.

However, the United Nations disagree, and it´s definitely NOT the way of a glorious leader but of a cruel ass.

[Massman123]

I completely agree that killing Loghain is the immoral thing to do. Yet if your PC is truly Alistair's friend, you stand loyal with him through the end, despite the brutality of the act.

[Costin_Razvan]

So if someone is your friend you should just let them murder someone? Great thinking!

 However, the United Nations disagree, and it´s definitely NOT the way of a glorious leader but of a cruel ass.

The same United Nations who only recognized the Holodmor in 2004?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 mai 2010 - 06:32 .

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The same United Nations who only recognized the Holodmor in 2004?

They try.

I do not disagree that, mostly, they fail.

[masseffectexpert94]

You can let him live and make alistar marry anora. Win win. I let alistar kill him

[K_Tabris]

I hate executing Loghain, and think he deserves a chance to redeem himself. But Alistair ruins it when he throws that *kingly* tantrum, so in most of my playthroughs, he dies.

The Landsmeet presented the most difficult gaming decision of my life! Very well done story.