1092 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one.

I wouldn't call Eamon pure hearted but he certainly didn't deserve to be poisoned. He was not a cruel or evil man. He was much to into tradition and that whole blood line thing but he seemed to be a good ruler who was well liked by his subjects.

Just listen to him if you dont put Alistair on the throne, and see if you still like him.

I don't think Eamon is all that altruistic, but he's up front about thinking that a son of the Theirin bloodline needs to take the throne. He even mentions that it's good a Warden will stay in the capital to help influence events. Considering his history with Alistair, I can imagine he would be upset.

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one.

I wouldn't call Eamon pure hearted but he certainly didn't deserve to be poisoned. He was not a cruel or evil man. He was much to into tradition and that whole blood line thing but he seemed to be a good ruler who was well liked by his subjects.

Just listen to him if you dont put Alistair on the throne, and see if you still like him.

I don't like him. But that doesn't mean I think he deserves what happened to him during Redcliffe.

Well, that's good. No one's said he deserved what happened to him. I don't know whether Giggles feels that he does or not but it hasn't been said.

[Giggles_Manically]

I dont think Eamon deserved what he got, merely was saying that he is not a pure goody goody that some people like to claim.

Dude is a politican plain and simple.

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one.

With all due respect to you (And I like you, trust me),

Unless there is something I am missing from TST, your statement makes you sound very vulturous.

Refer to the first person to respond to you. He may not have been pure hearted, but he was a nice man, and did not deserve to be poisoned. I suppose you disagree?

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 03:08 .

[Giggles_Manically]

jln.francisco wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Dude is a politican plain and simple.

That he is.

When I brought those slave trade papers to him that incriminated Loghain his response left me like 'Dude, really? Is that all you can think about?'

He actually is disgusted by it, and says" Maker forgive me, that I am glad you have evidnece that Loghain is in the slave trade and you caught him."

[Giggles_Manically]

I like Tegan, Wolfe, and Alfstansa way more than the others.



The fact that Alfstansa is a 9 dosent factor either.

[Sarah1281]

Bahlgan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one.

With all due respect to you (And I like you, trust me),

Unless there is something I am missing from TST, your statement makes you sound very vulturous.

Refer to the first person to respond to you. He may not have been pure hearted, but he was a nice man, and did not deserve to be poisoned. I suppose you disagree?

 It does? I don't feel he deserved to get poisoned. Owing to the fact he's a politician, a horrible guardian for Alistair, shipped him off to the Chantry to appease his wife and possibly to keep him from being a threat to Cailan's rule, might have known the truth about Connor, ect. I don't feel he is pure-hearted. There aren't many pure-hearted people in the world And no one who has more than a few lines of dialogue qualifies. That doesn't mean I think they all deserved to get poisoned. Why is not thinking someone is pure-hearted a sign I think he deserved to be poisoned, anyway? I don't think Alistair, Wynne, Leliana, anyone in DA is pure-hearted (though I'm sure not everyone agrees) and I'm not about to suggest we kill them all.

@Giggles: What Eamon actually says is the less-flattering 'Maker forgive me: I should be appalled that such a thing could exist here, but I'm overjoyed you can implicate Loghain.'

[maxernst]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont think Eamon deserved what he got, merely was saying that he is not a pure goody goody that some people like to claim.
Dude is a politican plain and simple.

I can't recall ever seeing anybody claim Eamon was a pure goody-goody.  But he's no monster.  What's the big deal about the comments he makes to you after putting Anora on the throne?  Fine, he disagrees with you.  You still get to stay at his estate in Redcliffe when gathering the army and he went toe-to-toe with the Archdemon for most of the battle on the roof for me.  I think his wanting Alistair on the throne has far more to do with wanting to increase his influence than blood, but so what?

Then again, I don't have major issues with Anora, either, so I guess politicians don't bother me.  I'll take diplomats over warlords any day.

[Giggles_Manically]

Thanks Sarah, been a while since I got there, so my memory garbled it.



But in Dragon Age not one person is "good' or pure. Which makes it awsome.

[Sarah1281]

maxernst wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I dont think Eamon deserved what he got, merely was saying that he is not a pure goody goody that some people like to claim.
Dude is a politican plain and simple.

I can't recall ever seeing anybody claim Eamon was a pure goody-goody.  But he's no monster.  What's the big deal about the comments he makes to you after putting Anora on the throne?  Fine, he disagrees with you.  You still get to stay at his estate in Redcliffe when gathering the army and he went toe-to-toe with the Archdemon for most of the battle on the roof for me.  I think his wanting Alistair on the throne has far more to do with wanting to increase his influence than blood, but so what?

Then again, I don't have major issues with Anora, either, so I guess politicians don't bother me.  I'll take diplomats over warlords any day.

Well, someone did. In fact, the discussion all started from this quote:

Bahlgan wrote...
Ok, whatever, it's not like he wasn't planning on poisoning Arl Eamon as well. Perfectly rational to poison a pure hearted man such as he who had no ill signs of taking part of ruling beside Alistair over Ferelden, eh?

And my problem is his lack of reaction if you have Alistair killed or executed. Yeah, he has one line but...seriously? You totally screwed over the kid he raised and who was only in a position to be screwed over because Eamon convinced him it was the only way and he doesn't tear you a new one? Alistair had a much more extreme reaction on his behalf over the Connor/Isolde death and that could be seen as far more necessary than killing/exiling Alistair.

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

That doesn't mean I think they all deserved to get poisoned. Why is not thinking someone is pure-hearted a sign I think he deserved to be poisoned, anyway?

Pardon me, but that is exactly how it sounded in the first place. If that is not your statement, then I suppose a "my bad" is in order. Still though, that's what happens when you say five words:

Pure-hearted? That's a good one!

See, your lack of embellishment fails to deliver your intention as to why you disagree. Anyway, sorry for accusing you of appreciating the deaths of pure-hearted good-willed people.

 

And my problem is his lack of reaction if you have Alistair killed or executed. Yeah, he has one line but...seriously? You totally screwed over the kid he raised and who was only in a position to be screwed over because Eamon convinced him it was the only way and he doesn't tear you a new one? Alistair had a much more extreme reaction on his behalf over the Connor/Isolde death and that could be seen as far more necessary than killing/exiling Alistair.

I never would do such a thing. Alistair deserved a better future, even if it was one that he had not predicted as King. Naturally, my good character promoted him to the ruler of Ferelden, it was the most fitting of circumstances, despite that he may be new. 

Now..... If you are under the impression (at least with my evil character) that I had him executed, you would be wrong. My evil character developed a somewhat honest respect for Alistair and wanted to make him King, but sparing Loghain turned a man with an honest soul into some drunkard, awesome isn't it? [/sarcasm]

 

I don't think Alistair, Wynne, Leliana, anyone in DA is pure-hearted (though I'm sure not everyone agrees) and I'm not about to suggest we kill them all.

Is anyone truly that pure hearted in the literal sense? If you wish to be very literal and "cut-you-in-the-throat for not being 110% precise with my diction", then I would say you are right; NO ONE, not even children, are pure hearted. There IS no pure hearted. Pure hearted describes intentions in my dialect, I thought you (or anyone really) to understand at least that. But it still doesn't change the fact that Eamon did not deserve his fate, no matter what he may have done in the past. He at least tried to visit Alistair in the Chantry, because he was a good "father". His will to keep his heart open and compensate for his sins is enough in my book. 

I'll agree with you on no one being entirely good but there are plenty of 'pure' characters, at least where their philosophy or faith is concerned. Morrigan, Sten and Gregoir come to mind.

Call me a brown-noser if you will, I care not, but my respect for you has just gone through the roof. There are few who refuse to abandon the good-willed character and we must stick together. The point in life is to learn from your mistakes, but it is also complemented by your ability to discern right from wrong and making sure not to make the wrong choice in the first place.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 05:26 .

[Sarah1281]

I hate the idea of a 'pure-hearted' character as, like you said, they're really a myth. When people refer to someone as pure-hearted, it kind of annoys me although, no, I don't expect anyone to stop using that term simply to accommodate me.



What I expected you and everyone else to take from the words 'Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one' was that I don't see Eamon in as positive a light as you apparently seem to (though I still like him) and not that I wish him dead. I don't wish Loghain dead, for instance, and I defy ANYONE to tell me that he has a pure heart. I'm really hesitant on saying that anyone deserves to be poisoned much less someone who just fails the 'pure-hearted' test. Although I really don't think Eamon is particularly good-willed, either, he just happens to be on your side. Zathrian can be on your side. Bhelen can be on your side. Branka can be on your side. Are these people automatically good-willed?

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I hate the idea of a 'pure-hearted' character as, like you said, they're really a myth. When people refer to someone as pure-hearted, it kind of annoys me although, no, I don't expect anyone to stop using that term simply to accommodate me.

Look, I know how you feel alright? Some people who are pure-hearted can be very judgmental, CAN be, but not always. My mother, God rest her soul, was as close to a saint as secular people get. These are probably wasteful words to you (perhaps the next life you two could converse), but that doesn't mean that all pure-hearted people are snobby SOBs. Even if that is not what you mean, there is still the fact that pure hearted people in the world, there are saints, and there are those who aren't innocent and perfect, but people who really put others before themselves. If that isn't enough to convince you that there can be pure hearted people, you will then have to excuse and forgive me, for I was raised to be a "pure-hearted" person. Trust me, it's hard as ****, there are some moments I wanna jab my thumbs through the eyes of those who would seek ill will: greed, fraud, treachery, deception, malice. But that doesn't mean you should give in to those who would degrade the nice ones.

What I expected you and everyone else to take from the words 'Eamon? Pure-hearted? That's a good one' was that I don't see Eamon in as positive a light as you apparently seem to (though I still like him) and not that I wish him dead. I don't wish Loghain dead, for instance, and I defy ANYONE to tell me that he has a pure heart. I'm really hesitant on saying that anyone deserves to be poisoned much less someone who just fails the 'pure-hearted' test. Although I really don't think Eamon is particularly good-willed, either, he just happens to be on your side. Zathrian can be on your side. Bhelen can be on your side. Branka can be on your side. Are these people automatically good-willed?

Fair enough, you and I are eye to eye on this now. Case closed.:happy:

Edit: AHEM except for this:

Zathrian is not evil, I agree, but he HAS made a mockery of his own people by allowing the curse to persist through its veins. All for what? Vengeance for his family, who have been avenged sevenfold? Can you honestly call this rational thinking? I hope not 

Bhelen is the very definition of power-hungry ad tyrannical. You know this but: The only reason NOW that I lament not choosing him is because of his promise to promote the Castless. If my Warden could have ever convinced Harrowmomt to see the good that the Casteless had to offer, then Bhelen would be nothing more than expendable, especially for murdering his own brother.

Branka... I am more than certain she was a nice person, "pure-hearted", but she has gone crazy and her objection to the Anvil of the Void, let alone her attempt to kill my party was enough for her to be considered a rogue agent. If i had the option to tie her up, consider it done, but alas I had to make a decision, and I chose.

Point made, no I do not consider all characters good willed, CERTAINLY NOT BHELEN! The other two are fine, just turned and "corrupt" by their ambitions. And as far as your question goes, no, that doesn't make those three in particular necessarily good-willed, because my "good character" sided with none of them. Off the record, I decided what is good will in my game, and have been credited as a person who can see the good in an individual.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 05:10 .

[Sarah1281]

Bahlgan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I hate the idea of a 'pure-hearted' character as, like you said, they're really a myth. When people refer to someone as pure-hearted, it kind of annoys me although, no, I don't expect anyone to stop using that term simply to accommodate me.

Look, I know how you feel alright? Some people who are pure-hearted can be very judgmental, CAN be, but not always. My mother, God rest her soul, was as close to a saint as secular people get. These are probably wasteful words to you (perhaps the next life you two could converse), but that doesn't mean that all pure-hearted people are snobby SOBs. Even if that is not what you mean, there is still the fact that pure hearted people in the world, there are saints, and there are those who aren't innocent and perfect, but people who really put others before themselves. If that isn't enough to convince you that there can be pure hearted people, you will then have to excuse and forgive me, for I was raised to be a "pure-hearted" person. Trust me, it's hard as ****, there are some moments I wanna jab my thumbs through the eyes of those who would seek ill will: greed, fraud, treachery, deception, malice. But that doesn't mean you should give in to those who would degrade the nice ones.

I'm really not sure why you're getting so worked up over this. I just said that I don't believe that there is such a thing as a pure-hearted person because my definition is, literally, someone pure of heart and free of any negative thoughts/feelings/impulses. They do exist in fictional mediums but not real ones.

You've said that your definition is less strict than mine. My definition is that if they're not innocent and perfect, they're not pure of heart. That doesn't mean they can't still be amazingly loving, kind, forgiving, ect. people. I'm not degrading nice people. It's just a term I don't like and we just have different working definitions. I don't think I said I knew any judgemental or snobby pure-hearted people and the mere fact that these hypothetical people would have these flaws stops them from being considered pure-hearted in my book.

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm really not sure why you're getting so worked up over this. I just said that I don't believe that there is such a thing as a pure-hearted person because my definition is, literally, someone pure of heart and free of any negative thoughts/feelings/impulses. They do exist in fictional mediums but not real ones.

It may come across as that, but it isn't the case. In fact I am actually enjoying this. I suppose you are far too literal though, so I will really have to remember to keep this in mind. 

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 05:23 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

When we're dealing with words and their definitions, shouldn't we be literal?



From a dictionary:



pure·heart·ed

–adjective

(of a person) without malice, treachery, or evil intent; honest; sincere; guileless.



In other words, at its extreme definition, non-existant. Someone could *try* to be pure-hearted, it is a fine ideal, but no one (save perhaps certain religious figures) is that flawless at the end of the day.



Eamon might be a good guy, but he's no different from many other good guys--fallible.

[Bahlgan]

I know few people who are so anal about literal translations. Call me poetic if you will, but sometimes with the way people take my diction it gets annoying. Here though no one is breathing down my neck and cutting my fingers and toes for every time I fail to be literal, so I am relatively happy.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

If you're only being poetic, then calm down. Many people here are creative writers and deal with words on a regular basis, and I'm a bit confused as to why you're defending your definition of 'pure-hearted' so strongly. You might want to try and find a word or term that says what you really mean, because 'pure-hearted' isn't it.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 07 août 2010 - 07:46 .

[Bahlgan]

Heh heh my avatar doesn't know what it means to calm down. I do, is that what you meant?



And I am not necessarily defending the term by itself, but my right not to be literal 24/7!

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
But he had the whole 'not light beacon if necessary' plan before he had finished trying to get Cailan off the front lines. In fact, in Loghain's ideal scenario of Cailan staying back where it was safer then not lighting the beacon would be a necessity as that way Cailan couldn't call Logahin on not charging and blame the loss on him when Loghain used the loss and Cailan's 'thirst for glory' against him to neutralize him as a political opponent and maybe get him off the throne. Leaving everyone to die just to get Cailan's plan of letting Orlesians into the country to fail is still a horrible thing to do but, again, I think the fact it wasn't a sure-fire plan but a contingency means that if Loghain felt they could win then they would have still charged and he would have found another way to get Cailan out of his way. Considering he just wanted Cailan to back down on the issue of the Orlesians, though, proving that they could stand on their own without Orlesian help by winning at Ostagar might have been enough to change Cailan's mind on that matter anyway.

I have to admit, I love the fact that you're defending a guy because his plan that inevitably would've led to the needless death of a lot of people, the king of Ferelden included, was only a contingency.  

If I had a plan to rob a bank and take hostages on the way out, in your world, I'm not outright guilty of planning to murder them because I'd only murder them on a contingency basis - if my plan went wrong, if the police tried to stop me, if something else forced my hand.  If there was evidence that I had a plan for killing them, even if it was only a contingency plan, I get moved from second degree crime-of-passion type murder to first degree premeditated murder. 

I honestly don't know why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  Loghain planned to abandon the army and the king at Ostagar, contingency or not.  When he chose to act on that plan is completely irrelevent.  He chose to act on it.  He could have not chosen to act on it. 

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
He was trying to have a permanent alliance before hearing of the Blight, however.

So what?  The Germans and the Japanese committed horrible atrocities during World War II, including those committed against Allied military personnel.  We did some craptastic stuff to the Vietnamese, and they to us.  We're not still bitter enemies with any of them.  The political landscape, the political leadership, etc. have changed.  Such is the case with Orlais.