39010 réponses à ce sujet

[Glorfindel709]

Metternich was one of my favorites to discuss and write about. His work at the Congress of Vienna was one of the things my international relations teacher spent a month talking about in order to make sure we understood just why a balance of power was necessary between the competing interests of powerful nations

Of course he then went on to talk about the rising liberalism and Metternichs' refusal to acknowledge that a change was upon the world but *shrugs*

On that note, I'm off to bed. We'll talk later about the nuances of politics KoP

Will someone ToP me?

Modifié par Glorfindel709, 21 janvier 2011 - 07:19 .

[LadyDamodred]

Do you really like Morrigan is unchanged by her relationship with the Warden?  At all?  Each and every companion is changed by the Warden, including Morrigan.  You see it as both a friend and a lover.  It is, in fact, the reason I like her--that she is able to change when she in confronted by new things.  That doesn't mean she stops being Morrigan.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Alistair is being inconsistent, incoherent, immature and childish. No loyalty, no principles, no honor, no justice involved here. Nothing, except an emotional response without reason to regulate and control it.

See, here, I think you're getting Alistair just as wrong as you think I'm getting Morrigan.  But you have this image in your head that will never change, no matter what others say.  *shrugs*

For what it's worth, when I mention love, I'm not just referring to romantic love.  For me, a life without love is not a life worth living.  And I think you'll find that's true of almost every human being on the planet.  People who are alone, isolated, with no one else, tend to be a sad, depressed lot.  Is this true for every single person?  No, because there are always exceptions.  But I have yet to see any person who is truly alone be anything but a miserable bastard.

Here, Glor:


Edit:  School is cancelled!  Back to bed!

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 21 janvier 2011 - 12:25 .

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Butbutbut... I see Morrigan and Alistair as fairly alike in this.  Duty bound.  Alistair will leave his lover for duty in many of his outcomes.  Even breaking up with her over Loghain is, in a sense, inspired by his sense of loyalty to the Wardens.  I'm pretty sure that the writers meant both Alistair's and Morrigan's romances to have tragic outcomes for a lot of players.

*crying* no...ugh.
Morrigan remains consistent in her beliefs (concerning an issue larger than revenge, or honor, or any of that uselessness. I wouldn';t even define it as a belief. Just something that has to be done). Alistair doesn't and he outright says he isn't a warden anymore when hardened, so I see no loyalty to anything rivalling his loyalty to his own emotions. Killing Loghain is not the something that has to be done here, it's defeating the blight, which he purposely decides not to do because he thinks the former (and his own feelings) is more important.

But enough, don't want to get into that.
I just get ticky when the two are compared, wrongly.

Firstly can I say that the whole of this conversation has been awesome and all the contributors have made me reflect deeply on certain issues.

On the point above, obviously I am coming out to bat for Alistair.  This is clearly my bias. I don't think Addai is wrong in that Morrie and Ali's loyalty and sense of duty are comparable per se but I would not base this on the fact that they written by the same artificer. What differentiates them I think is the object of that loyalty.

Morrie is loyal above all to an ideal a project.  Alistair is above all loyal to people.  Ultimately it is a question of personal preference which brand of loyalty you find appealing. KoP prefers the former, Addai and myself the latter.  It is not the quality of the loyalty that should disparaged but the object.  I think KoP has said previously that Duncan would not approve of Alistair's actions which are notionally done in his name and I would agree.  I see Duncan as a character loyal to an idea as is Morrie, that is why Duncan may never have done the DR, Alistair did because he is loyal to Warden even though it is a betrayal of the ideal for which he is supposed to be fighting.

This is a two tribe issue which will always fundamentally divide people: Loyalty to the clan or loyalty to the ideal.  On many occassions the two types will end up fighting side-by-side but with a fundamental difference in motivation.  At crunch time such as the Landsmeet the divisions become apparent.  Graham Greene put it well: "I have always hoped that should I ever have to choose between betraying my country or my friends, I would have the courage to betray my country..." Obviously he was a loyalty to the clan type of guy.

As for love and changing.  Love does change you but it is involuntary.  As for changing for love, I agree with KoP it is a betrayal of the self that will end badly... On the fundamentals people have to accept you for what you are.

Having said that I should add that I am a weak vessal unlike KoP or Zjarcal I cannot imagine living without being loved...

As for hopefulness and Glor's point conflict is what makes us evolve love doesn't... I think I disagree to a certain extent.  But where I see hopefulness is that for most of us, the urge to give love is actually stonger than the urge to receive it.That's altruism and what may give us all a future...

Hugs to all...

Modifié par Maria13, 21 janvier 2011 - 12:50 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Meh. More appropriate to say that humanity as a species has a necessary and almost universal sex drive for reproduction, and them being social animals will inevitably lead to artificially constructed conceptions to define their interactions and relationship with their peers in the same group. 
....that killed the mood, didn't it?

But yes, I agree with what you are saying.
Hence why I think that kind of love is weakness.

KoP, don't ever change!

I tend to agree with you, for the most part.

This has been an awesome discussion to follow, on the nature of love. Love, like most everything, is quite an ambiguous thing, so it has difference in meaning to everyone. As well as difference in importance.

I remember reading that the brain's reactions/signals while in love are nearly identical to those produced when a person is insane or going through a psychotic episode. Love is certainly irrational, at the very least.

yet I find a rational world an incredibly dull, boring place. Sadly, about the only time people interest or amuse me is when they are being irrational.

So here's to love!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:wub:

[KnightofPhoenix]

LadyDamodred wrote...
Do you really like Morrigan is unchanged by her relationship with the Warden?  At all?  Each and every companion is changed by the Warden, including Morrigan.  You see it as both a friend and a lover.  It is, in fact, the reason I like her--that she is able to change when she in confronted by new things.  That doesn't mean she stops being Morrigan.

I never said Morrigan is completely unchanged. I said she remains unchanged on a fundamental level. Who she is, did not change. Her priorities did not change. Her main reason for doing everything that she did, did not change, just another reason got added into the mix.

You saying that her priorities got mixed up and that she thinks that her love for the Warden is now more important than what she wanted to do in the first place, is a fundamental change in her character. Because it presupposes that Morrigan reached the conclusion that love is above everything, a notion I reject utterly and she does too. That's a change I dislike and never wanted and a change that I did not see happening.

See, here, I think you're getting Alistair just as wrong as you think I'm getting Morrigan.  But you have this image in your head that will never change, no matter what others say.  *shrugs*

Because I've yet to see a convincing argument that convinced me otherwise.
Either he was a liar all the time, or his emotions got the best of him that made him do something he found abhorent at the beginning of the game. And for me, emotions getting the best of you, in a time like this, makes you immature and childish.

For what it's worth, when I mention love, I'm not just referring to romantic love.  For me, a life without love is not a life worth living.  And I think you'll find that's true of almost every human being on the planet.  People who are alone, isolated, with no one else, tend to be a sad, depressed lot.  Is this true for every single person?  No, because there are always exceptions.  But I have yet to see any person who is truly alone be anything but a miserable bastard.

This has nothing to do with anything. This does not make love above everything. Nor does it mean that love has to change you in ways you do not want to change.
I never said love is a thing that people ought to not even experience. That would be stupid. But rather, that it's not the most important thing in the world, nor isw it worth anyone changing who they are on a fundamental level. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 01:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...
Morrie is loyal above all to an ideal a project.  Alistair is above all loyal to people.  Ultimately it is a question of personal preference which brand of loyalty you find appealing. KoP prefers the former, Addai and myself the latter.  It is not the quality of the loyalty that should disparaged but the object.  I think KoP has said previously that Duncan would not approve of Alistair's actions which are notionally done in his name and I would agree.  I see Duncan as a character loyal to an idea as is Morrie, that is why Duncan may never have done the DR, Alistair did because he is loyal to Warden even though it is a betrayal of the ideal for which he is supposed to be fighting.

I snipped the rest of the post because I mostly agree. Great post.

Just this. See, is it loyalty to Duncan as a person? Or is it loyalty to the image of Duncan as the father he never had?
For me, true loyalty to a person has to include loyalty to what that person believed (not necessarily in everything, just THE main thing).

If it's the latter, which I strongly think it is, then it's targetted outwards, but at the core is self-centered. People have needs and sometimes they project their needs on people, sometimes fooling themselves in the process. And I think that's what Alistair is doing. He saw Duncan the father, but he didn't see Duncan as the man who would do anything to end the blight.

Loyalty to the former is fundamentally loyalty to the image he projected on him out of a self-centered need. And is purely emotional.

And just to be clear, when I say self-centered, I do not mean selfish nor do I say it as a negative connotation.
And I do not expect him to be anything but very angry at Loghain being spared. It's him leaving rather, going against everything he personally believed, to be an emotional reaction wiith no reason to govern it. He was being incoherent (and it's consistent with his character).

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I remember reading that the brain's reactions/signals while in love are nearly identical to those produced when a person is insane or going through a psychotic episode. Love is certainly irrational, at the very least.

It is irrational, but I do believe that reason can and should govern it and set priorities straight.

I prefer someone who's in love with me while being fully rational about it, then someone who is irrationally in love with me though I may find it flattering.

And now I gtg for a bit. And yes this has been a wonderful discussion!

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


It is irrational, but I do believe that reason can and should govern it and set priorities straight.

I prefer someone who's in love with me while being fully rational about it, then someone who is irrationally in love with me though I may find it flattering.

And now I gtg for a bit. And yes this has been a wonderful discussion!

I would agree, generally. I do not think love is the most important thing in life, nor is it a necessity. It certainly can be a nice thing, especially if some reason is applied. But the nature of love often excludes reason, beyond basic biological attraction and need to breed.

And certainly, if one is gunning for a long term relationship that is stable, one should go for partners with similar values and attitudes on the matter. However, in many instances, this is not the case, and frankly, it would be a terribly boring story without it.

It is the rational things that keep life going and turn the wheels of history, but it's the irrational that make it all technicolor and more interesting.

Hence, one of the reasons I love Alistair's romance. Because like real life romances, it is seldom rational, even if the Warden is, and has so many points where it can go wrong, or turn tragic. But I love the chaos. I love the expected and unexpected turns. I love Alistair's personal loyalties getting in the way of things. Even when I want to smack him. (even better )

IF my husband was rational, we would not be married. But he is not, and I love him for that all the more, even if my love and affection for him is far more rational.

Irrational love, to me, is no less or more than rational. And it certainly makes for a better story.

[Maria13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Maria13 wrote...
Morrie is loyal above all to an ideal a project.  Alistair is above all loyal to people.  Ultimately it is a question of personal preference which brand of loyalty you find appealing. KoP prefers the former, Addai and myself the latter.  It is not the quality of the loyalty that should disparaged but the object.  I think KoP has said previously that Duncan would not approve of Alistair's actions which are notionally done in his name and I would agree.  I see Duncan as a character loyal to an idea as is Morrie, that is why Duncan may never have done the DR, Alistair did because he is loyal to Warden even though it is a betrayal of the ideal for which he is supposed to be fighting.

I snipped the rest of the post because I mostly agree. Great post.

Just this. See, is it loyalty to Duncan as a person? Or is it loyalty to the image of Duncan as the father he never had?
For me, true loyalty to a person has to include loyalty to what that person believed (not necessarily in everything, just THE main thing).

If it's the latter, which I strongly think it is, then it's targetted outwards, but at the core is self-centered. People have needs and sometimes they project their needs on people, sometimes fooling themselves in the process. And I think that's what Alistair is doing. He saw Duncan the father, but he didn't see Duncan as the man who would do anything to end the blight.

Loyalty to the former is fundamentally loyalty to the image he projected on him out of a self-centered need. And is purely emotional.

And just to be clear, when I say self-centered, I do not mean selfish nor do I say it as a negative connotation.
And I do not expect him to be anything but very angry at Loghain being spared. It's him leaving rather, going against everything he personally believed, to be an emotional reaction wiith no reason to govern it. He was being incoherent (and it's consistent with his character).

Thank-you.

Obviously it's emotional loyalty to the father figure he imagines Duncan to be.  If he could identify with Duncan's ideals, he wouldn't be displaying loyalty to a person but to a cause. I am not sure I would call that self-centred, because for me being self-centred is putting yourself and your own physical well-being before that of anyone else and that is not what Alistair does.  He is very much prepared to die for those he thinks he loves. I would call it emotional loyalty. But I think this is just a question of terminology.

As for love and irrationality.  Well, there's a biggy...  I think it is possible to love rationally but it is not possible to be in love rationally... 

I think this also lies behind what you were saying previously about the sexual act.  If you think of it rationally it could be considered to be more nauseating or even comic than anything else... And indeed that is how it has been thought of by many Christian Saints (and I say Christian because that is the culture I'm most familiar with...), however it you are in love with the person in question then overall you cannot see it like that, from that distance...

[sevalaricgirl]

Morrigan remains consistent in her beliefs (concerning an issue larger than revenge, or honor, or any of that uselessness. I wouldn';t even define it as a belief. Just something that has to be done). Alistair doesn't and he outright says he isn't a warden anymore when hardened, so I see no loyalty to anything rivalling his loyalty to his own emotions. Killing Loghain is not the something that has to be done here, it's defeating the blight, which he purposely decides not to do because he thinks the former (and his own feelings) is more important.

***********************************************************************

How is killing Loghain defeating the blight.  The warden is a strong commander who's proven (herself) in this case.  I see killing Loghain as something that my warden does because he's committed crimes in which the sentence would be death anyway, hiring assassins, etc, pulling his troops away so his king would be killed, that's treason.  Loghain needs to die and I am happy to oblige.

Now onto Morrigan.  I adore her character because of her frankness.  She is bound to a cause and doesn't let anything get in the way of it but that's not who my warden is.  My warden is not bound to a cause because she was taken away from everything she loved and thrust into a position of authority.  She does what she thinks is right but if she falls for Alistair, she considers him part of her future.  Alistair and Morrigan are really nothing alike.  Morrigan is a strong women who is self serving.  Alistair is a man who believes in feelings, love, happiness all things that Morrigan finds unimportant to her existence. 

Since I always kill Loghain, I never got the Alistair leaves the wardens but since he is controlled by his emotions, I can understand why he leaves.  I would too.  Loghain has done everything against what Alistair and my warden believe in and my warden simply kills him just for sending assassins after her and making her life a living hell.  One man cannot stop the blight and as seen when you kill Loghain, he really doesn't matter.  The blight is stopped because armies are united behind the warden.

Is love, honor etc useless?  I don't believe so.  They are very human emotions and emotions determine what we do and who we are.  We all have emotions whether we want to believe that we are completely logical or not.  My warden would do everything she could to protect those she loves including killing and she'd certainly have no qualms about taking the life of a man who even in the landsmeet wants her dead and he only gives in because she defeats him in a duel. 

But what an interesting topic.  I wouldn't want Alistair to change.  I love who he is as a character.  I also wouldn't want Morrigan to change.  I found it very touching when she said that she considered my warden a sister.  My warden understands her because she took the time to get to know her.  My warden likes her more than Lelianna or Wynne and in truth, my warden agrees to the DR because she doesn't want to die and she doesn't want Alistair to die.  She is controlled by her emotions and is also self-serving in her own way, perfect for Alistair.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 21 janvier 2011 - 03:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Maria13 wrote...
Thank-you.

Obviously it's emotional loyalty to the father figure he imagines Duncan to be.  If he could identify with Duncan's ideals, he wouldn't be displaying loyalty to a person but to a cause. I am not sure I would call that self-centred, because for me being self-centred is putting yourself and your own physical well-being before that of anyone else and that is not what Alistair does.  He is very much prepared to die for those he thinks he loves. I would call it emotional loyalty. But I think this is just a question of terminology.

That's why I stressed, the way I use the word "self-centered" is different from "selfish". For me, self-centered is taking everything personally, thinking that it's about him and his feelings, when there are larger and more important things at stake here and I see Alsitair doing that several times. The cunning option in the Redcliffe scenario shows this best, when you tell him that it's all about what Eamon would think of him, not the much larger and important reason, that he is worrying about and he quasi-admits it.

Duncan was pretty much inseperable from the cause.
To give a hypothetical example. Say you love someone very much, but something happens to forces people to be polarized into two opposing sides and you two happen to be seperated by it (God forbids). If you choose to follow your cause / belief instead of being with that person you love, you are saying that your loyalty to that cause / belief supercedes your loyalty to that person who identifies himself with that cause.

Alistair abandoning  the fight against the blight is not something he thought out, it's an impulse and emotional reaction he couldn't control (for me, a sign of weakness and immaturity). But in doing so, he is saying that his loyalty to the idea of Duncan the father, supercedes his loyalty to Duncan the person who identified himself with the Warden cause and who would not have hesitated to kill Alistair if he thought it was helpful to end the blight.

Maria13 wrote...
As for love and irrationality.  Well, there's a biggy...  I think it is possible to love rationally but it is not possible to be in love rationally... 

I think this also lies behind what you were saying previously about the sexual act.  If you think of it rationally it could be considered to be more nauseating or even comic than anything else... And indeed that is how it has been thought of by many Christian Saints (and I say Christian because that is the culture I'm most familiar with...), however it you are in love with the person in question then overall you cannot see it like that, from that distance...

It could be explained rationally. It produces pleasure.
But that's not really that significant. It's the case for loveful and loveless sex and that's primarily due to the human sex drive.

Believing that sex is an expression of something deeper, like I do, might be irrational or a constructed belief, yes. But I do not think that this will mean that I am in love irrationally. Even I admit, I can't be rational all the time, I just think that I am able to be rational when I have to be. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:21 .

[Addai]

Excellent points, Maria, and saying what I was trying to say but in much better words. However I do think that both Morrigan and Alistair can begin to see duty in a different light through their experiences with the Warden. Morrigan begins to personalize it, and Alistair learns to see it more objectively and less idealistically when hardened.



@KoP, you have a tendency to put characters on a pedestal and others into the dustbin. Since they are both written by the same person, how do you figure that that is going to ever get you to a true view of the characters? Gaider writes all his characters in complex fashion and empathetically. If you aren't reading them empathetically, you're missing something. Just like the people who dismiss Morrigan as "evil."

[KnightofPhoenix]

sevalaricgirl wrote...
How is killing Loghain defeating the blight.  The warden is a strong commander who's proven (herself) in this case.  I see killing Loghain as something that my warden does because he's committed crimes in which the sentence would be death anyway, hiring assassins, etc, pulling his troops away so his king would be killed, that's treason.  Loghain needs to die and I am happy to oblige.

Irrelevent to the point at hand. I am not disputing the reasons why one would want to kill Loghain.

But other than that, I agree with most of your post, that Morrigan and Alsitair are nothign alike. If they were, I would have respected her less.
I might be biased, but its to my preconceptions before I played the game, not to the character of Morrigan herself. If she ends up becoming something I didn't think she was, my opinion will change.

I would really love to write a phylosophical dissertation about emotion and reason, and the fundamental difference between passion and emotion, and how I view the former as what gives reason a purpose, and the latter on its own as what holds it back. But that might be wandering off too much. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
@KoP, you have a tendency to put characters on a pedestal and others into the dustbin. Since they are both written by the same person, how do you figure that that is going to ever get you to a true view of the characters? Gaider writes all his characters in complex fashion and empathetically. If you aren't reading them empathetically, you're missing something. Just like the people who dismiss Morrigan as "evil."

You are assumign that I think Alistair is a garbage of a character, which I don't. If I thought so, I wouldn't bother talking about him.

As a character, he's great. As a person, I am almost his polar opposite. Why can't I say what I think about him as a person? That's different to what I think about him as a character and I do look on the character empathetically and with interest. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:20 .

[Addai]

Lady Jess wrote...

OMG Addai has a Loghain sig!! The world is ending!

/passes out

You haven't been around much lately, have you. 

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
@KoP, you have a tendency to put characters on a pedestal and others into the dustbin. Since they are both written by the same person, how do you figure that that is going to ever get you to a true view of the characters? Gaider writes all his characters in complex fashion and empathetically. If you aren't reading them empathetically, you're missing something. Just like the people who dismiss Morrigan as "evil."

You are assumign that I think Alistair is a garbage of a character, which I don't. If I thought so, I wouldn't bother talking about him.

As a character, he's great. As a person, I am almost his polar opposite. Why can't I say what I think about him as a person? That's different to what I think about him as a character and I do look on the character empathetically and with interest. 

I tend to see these characters as closer together than they seem on the surface.  Another is Maric and Loghain.  They make for some nice contrasts, but if you assume Maric is the idealistic/ emotional one and Loghain the pragmatic one, you miss the boat.  I think Gaider always looks for the personal motivation.  It's why he's so good at drawing out emotions.  Loghain is motivated just as much by personal loyalties and emotion, and in certain situations Maric is the principled one.

Likewise with Morrigan and Alistair, I see them as different characters but very much from the same pen.  Morrigan is not really an abstract pragmatist.  She is driven first by her relationship to her mother- something we don't understand well because so much is still under wraps about Flemeth- and then the relationship to the Warden can begin to change her motivations.  Why else would she agree to take her lover with her into the mirror?  Obviously that can't be part of the master plan, since she only does it for a lover and with other Wardens only tries to gain them as an ally.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
 Why else would she agree to take her lover with her into the mirror?  Obviously that can't be part of the master plan, since she only does it for a lover and with other Wardens only tries to gain them as an ally.

This does not constitue an opposition to her "master plan". Us being with her is not going to ruin it.
It's a convergence of interests, even if she might have feared it before. Do you think she would have accepted to stay with the Warden she loves if he told her to? Never.
That means that what she is doing is more important to her than being with her love.

I am not saying that Morrigan is the pragmatist, though she comes close, but I see extremily little similarity with Alistair who is for the most part irrational and emotional. Morrigan's relationship with Flemeth on the otherhand is governed by reason and we see her many times questioning Flemeth and what she taught her.

And I see no change in her motivations at all. A new motivation was added into the mix, but it does not constitute a divergence of motivation or a re-prioritization of things. She says that the fact it would save our life makes her even more determined. That implies she was already determined before and didn't really needed the extra determination.
That's not a change in motivation. That's a slight, if important, addition.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:35 .

[LadyDamodred]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I never said Morrigan is completely unchanged. I said she remains unchanged on a fundamental level. Who she is, did not change. Her priorities did not change. Her main reason for doing everything that she did, did not change, just another reason got added into the mix.

 
Then I obviously misunderstood what you were saying, because that seemed to be exactly what you were saying, that she doesn't change at all, and no one should expect her to.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You saying that her priorities got mixed up and that she thinks that her love for the Warden is now more important than what she wanted to do in the first place, is a fundamental change in her character. Because it presupposes that Morrigan reached the conclusion that love is above everything, a notion I reject utterly and she does too. That's a change I dislike and never wanted and a change that I did not see happening.

 
You say mixed-up.  I do not.  I see it as Morrigan becoming deeper and more complex.  We're going in circles here.  Just as you choose to believe Alistair is always a certain way, I will always believe that Morrigan does do it to save the life of the Warden and that she hates leaving because that's what her choices demand.  *shrugs*  We're both wrong.  Hooray.

Can I see it the way you see it?  Absolutely.  I just think less of Morrigan for it.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because I've yet to see a convincing argument that convinced me otherwise.
Either he was a liar all the time, or his emotions got the best of him that made him do something he found abhorent at the beginning of the game. And for me, emotions getting the best of you, in a time like this, makes you immature and childish.

 
You have seen convincing arguments, you just refuse to be convinced.  Your world view conflicts directly with Alistair's and thus you reject it.  Your suppositions about Duncan rest on a rather large fallacy--that at the Landsmeet, Alistair looked at it as an issue of being loyal to Duncan vs being loyal to Duncan's ideals.  I will say that's not true.  Alistair never truly understood Duncan's ideals since Duncan never explained them outside of general Warden goals, ie defeating the Blight, stopping the darkspawn, etc....  Alistair is emotional, yes.  Emotion is what passion comes from.  He is passionate about the things he believes in, be they right or wrong.

At the Landsmeet, he is confronted with something his nature cannot accept because it violates what he believes to be true and right.  Yet you would have him change his fundamental nature for it because you rationally think it's the right thing to do.  (Obviously, there are those of us who find it an incredibly irrational thing to do.)  It doesn't work both ways.  Either people shouldn't have to change on a fundamental level, even for those they love, or they should, and do it even for those people they don't love.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Lady Damodred wrote...
For what it's worth, when I mention love, I'm not just referring to romantic love.  For me, a life without love is not a life worth living.  And I think you'll find that's true of almost every human being on the planet.  People who are alone, isolated, with no one else, tend to be a sad, depressed lot.  Is this true for every single person?  No, because there are always exceptions.  But I have yet to see any person who is truly alone be anything but a miserable bastard.

This has nothing to do with anything. This does not make love above everything. Nor does it mean that love has to change you in ways you do not want to change.
I never said love is a thing that people ought to not even experience. That would be stupid. But rather, that it's not the most important thing in the world, nor isw it worth anyone changing who they are on a fundamental level. 

And I think it has everything to do with everything, hence why this arguing goes no where.  Out of all human experiences, I think love is absolutely the most important.  I find a life without love to be a sad, hollow existance, and I'll tell you now, nothing you ever say can convince me otherwise.  Does this mean love must absolutely rule every single instance?  No, but I think it should rule most of them.

You pride yourself on saying love isn't necessary for you, and that you are who you are without love.  That is absolutely baffling to me.  Had your parents never loved you, you would not be the person you are today.  And not that I ever wish it on anyone, since it's very nearly the most horrific thing I think could happen to a person, if you suddenly lost everyone who loved you and who you loved, I think it would change you on a fundamental level.  I would hope it would.

Perhaps my experiences are colored because they reflect involvement with people who think they've driven everyone who loves them away.  It is an agonizing existance, and the relief that comes with knowing it's not true, that people still love them, is overwhelming.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LadyDamodred wrote...
Then I obviously misunderstood what you were saying, because that seemed to be exactly what you were saying, that she doesn't change at all, and no one should expect her to.

Nope, that she doesn't change on a fundamental level for the sake of love.

You say mixed-up.  I do not.  I see it as Morrigan becoming deeper and more complex.  We're going in circles here.  Just as you choose to believe Alistair is always a certain way, I will always believe that Morrigan does do it to save the life of the Warden and that she hates leaving because that's what her choices demand.  *shrugs*  We're both wrong.  Hooray.

Can I see it the way you see it?  Absolutely.  I just think less of Morrigan for it.

No one says she doesn't hate leaving. That doesn't mean she considers that saving the Warden's life is now her primary objective. Nothing at all in what she says and does in Origins and WH implies that, even remotely so. She is determiend to get what she set out to do done, regardless of whether the Warden accepts, rejects, understands, joins her...etc. 

And that's the way she is, so think less of her.

You have seen convincing arguments, you just refuse to be convinced.  Your world view conflicts directly with Alistair's and thus you reject it.  Your suppositions about Duncan rest on a rather large fallacy--that at the Landsmeet, Alistair looked at it as an issue of being loyal to Duncan vs being loyal to Duncan's ideals.  I will say that's not true.  Alistair never truly understood Duncan's ideals since Duncan never explained them outside of general Warden goals, ie defeating the Blight, stopping the darkspawn, etc....  Alistair is emotional, yes.  Emotion is what passion comes from.  He is passionate about the things he believes in, be they right or wrong.

At the Landsmeet, he is confronted with something his nature cannot accept because it violates what he believes to be true and right.  Yet you would have him change his fundamental nature for it because you rationally think it's the right thing to do.  (Obviously, there are those of us who find it an incredibly irrational thing to do.)  It doesn't work both ways.  Either people shouldn't have to change on a fundamental level, even for those they love, or they should, and do it even for those people they don't love.

Lol ok, obviously it's my fault for not being convinced.
I will remind you that the thread did convince me to have a different perspective on Alsitair, who before I pretty much saw as insignificant and a whining idiot. I changed. So don't resort to this.

Stopping the Blight is Duncan's ideal. That's it. That's what he says in the Mage Origin "all I know is that the Blight must be stopped. That's as far as my opinion goes". Alistair knows this fully well, he just chooses to focus on his self-centered projections. I cannot see a genuine loyalty to Duncan, while going against everything he defined himself as. This is mroe than just not doing what he wants. It's outright doing the exact opposite. 

Passion is more than emotion. Emotion is a reaction, passion is an active pursuit governed by reason (otherwise it's uncontrollable lust / desire).

And I never said that fundamental change is necessarily bad. Only a fool who thinks he attained ultimate wisdom, thinks himself above change.
But there is change for the wrong reasons (love, emotions, aka things that are outside of your control and are loose and volatile), and there is change for the right reasons (reason, larger perspective, things that are in your control). Knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity imo and that's why Alsitair is immature. He cannot bring himself to realize that his feelings (whether they be revenge, or what he thinks is "right" that nobody else shares in the Landsmeet) are compeltely insignificant in the larger scheme of things and what's at stake in that situation.

No matter how you put it, you cannot say Alistair leaving was a pragamatic or rational decision (whether sparing Loghain is rational or not is irrlevent), it was an emotional reaction that he couldn't control because he is immature. And guess what. He regrets it very much, as DG said. Because he realized what he did was phenominally stupid and a betrayal of everything he personally believed. He couldnt' even consider leaving Ferelden to call for reinforcements, so I find it hard to believe that he genuinely and rationally thought that the Landsmeet not agreeing with his opinion / feelings now make it acceptable all of a sudden. In either case, he would be immature and childish, but if you are saying it was a rational position that he took, I'll add that it was stupid.  And I will start questioning the reason why he didn't want to leave Ferelden before (aka, he only wants to stay to kill Loghain). I doubt it, but that's what you are making him sound like.

You pride yourself on saying love isn't necessary for you, and that you are who you are without love.  That is absolutely baffling to me.  Had your parents never loved you, you would not be the person you are today.  And not that I ever wish it on anyone, since it's very nearly the most horrific thing I think could happen to a person, if you suddenly lost everyone who loved you and who you loved, I think it would change you on a fundamental level.  I would hope it would.

The way a person is raised is going to be crucial to the development of his character, be it with love or without. So no, this doesn't show the all encompassing importance of love. Many people happened to be raised without love, and that didn't prevent them from being normal and / or succesful people. Many orphans who never saw love made something out of themselves.

Is it sad? Yes and that's not the point. The point is, a person can forge him/herself with or without it. Is it preferrable with it. Absolutely. Is he obliged to change himself for it or solely for it? I think that's a betrayal of his character and a sign of a weakness. Is he obliged to think taht love is more important than what his reason dictates? Not at all.

And if everyone I know and love die, I will be deeply affected. I will however remain who I am. It will not break me. I will mourn for three days and then go back to my life. If it does break me, I will not hide the fact that I am being weak and that I should deal with it.

EDIT: gtg, cheers!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:07 .

[LadyDamodred]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Stopping the Blight is Duncan's ideal. That's it. That's what he says in the Mage Origin "all I know is that the Blight must be stopped. That's as far as my opinion goes". Alistair knows this fully well, he just chooses to focus on his self-centered projections. I cannot see a genuine loyalty to Duncan, while going against everything he defined himself as. This is mroe than just not doing what he wants. It's outright doing the exact opposite.

I don't think he does.  We see nothing in the game that says Alistair knows exactly the lengths Duncan would go to stop the Blight.  In fact, that Alistair says they can't abandon Ferelden explicitly shows he doesn't know, since we know from DG that Duncan would high-tail it back to Orlais in a heartbeat and leave Ferelden to fall.  I will maintain that Duncan sheltered Alistair from the harsher aspects of what being a Warden means, and instead was breaking it to him slowly.  This plan backfired when he got killed before he could finish Alistair's education.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Passion is more than emotion. Emotion is a reaction, passion is an active pursuit governed by reason (otherwise it's uncontrollable lust / desire).

 
We're obviously working with different definitions of passion.  To me, passion has nothing to do with being governed by reason.  Hence the term "a crime of passion."  It's specifically used to reference someone doing something without thinking or reason of foresight.  A passion in life is something you love, often excessively.  Look at the all the harm people will put themselves in to pursue their "passions" like mountain climbing or racing cars or caving.  That's hardly rational.  They don't do it because it makes logical sense.  They do it because of the emotions those things engender within them.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And I never said that fundamental change is necessarily bad. Only a fool who thinks he attained ultimate wisdom, thinks himself above change.
But there is change for the wrong reasons (love, emotions, aka things that are outside of your control), and there is change for the right reasons (reason, larger perspective, things that are in your control). Knowing the difference is what constitutes maturity imo and that's why Alsitair is immature. He cannot bring himself to realize that his feelings (whether they be revenge, or what he thinks is "right" that nobody else shares in the Landsmeet) are compeltely insignificant in the larger scheme of things and what's at stake in that situation.

 
This is where we disagree, since I don't find those to be wrong reasons.  I would find making a decision solely without taking into account love and emotions to be wrong.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
No matter how you put it, you cannot say Alistair leaving was a pragamatic or rational decision (whether sparing Loghain is rational or not is irrlevent), it was an emotional reaction that he couldn't control because he is immature. And guess what. He regrets it very much, as DG said. Because he realized what he did was phenominally stupid and a betrayal of everything he personally believed. He couldnt' even consider leaving Ferelden to call for reinforcements, so I find it hard to believe that he genuinely and rationally thought that the Landsmeet not agreeing with his opinion / feelings now make it acceptable all of a sudden. In either case, he would be immature and childish, but if you are saying it was a rational position that he took, I'll add that it was stupid.  And I will start questioning the reason why he didn't want to leave Ferelden before (aka, he only wants to stay to kill Loghain). I doubt it, but that's what you are making him sound like.

 
I never said he was pragmatic and rational in that moment.  Clearly, he wasn't--it's the crux of the Landsmeet dilemma, that others are able to look at it that way and he isn't.  What I have said in the past is that his feelings at that moment were understandable and justified to him.  He was presented with something he could not accept and reacted accordingly to his feelings.  That does not make one immature.  He's not doing it to spite the Warden, he's doing it because he cannot be any other way.  But taking the throne to kill Loghain?  That I'll grant you is an immature action, but not the rest.

Now, leaving Ferelden entirely?  That's different.  In that scenario, he allowed his anger to override what he knew to be right.  And that's what I believe he comes to regret.  Not leaving the Warden.  Not that he couldn't accept Loghain as a brother.  He regrets abandoning his duty utterly and leaving those he was supposed to save in harm's way.

(Note:  There's a line where you tell Alistair he doesn't have to go, and he says he does or else he ends up like Duncan.  I wonder if the Landsmeet dialogue maybe held something else where he was required to leave Ferelden if he wanted to live.)

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The way a person is raised is going to be crucial to the development of his character, be it with love or without. So no, this doesn't show the all encompassing importance of love. Many people happened to be raised without love, and that didn't prevent them from being normal and / or succesful people. Many orphans who never saw love made something out of themselves.

Is it sad? Yes and that's not the point. The point is, a person can forge him/herself with or without it. Is it preferrable with it. Absolutely. Is he obliged to change himself for it or solely for it? I think that's a betrayal of his character and a sign of a weakness. Is he obliged to think taht love is more important than what his reason dictates? Not at all.

Go work with kids who have been raised with emotional neglect and then tell me it's not crucially important to the development of a human being.  There's one little boy I work with who went through an extreme case of that and it has taken years to get him to the point where he appears to be a normal child.  I have literally broken down into tears over him because he's so damaged and it's utterly heartbreaking.

There are exceptions, yes.  There always are.  There are those who survive that and eventually learn to heal their scars, to become fully fucntioning people who are emotionally healthy.  But the number of people who are able to overcome that is vastly smaller than the ones that never do.  You need only to look at prisons and inner cities to see that.

This is why I argue so strongly as love being such an important factor.  I've seen what not having it does to people.  If there are some people who can get along just fine without, bully for them.  It's an existance that horrifies me.

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:16 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

A question.



Why is it irrational to put the welfare of someone you know and love above that over a faceless mass of people, or something as abstract as an idea?

[LadyDamodred]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

A question.

Why is it irrational to put the welfare of someone you know and love above that over a faceless mass of people, or something as abstract as an idea?

I would say it's not, at least not to that person.  For me, my personal relationships are more important than most ideas or a faceless mass of people.  Granted, I've never been in a position where some of my core beliefs are pitted against someone I love.  I'm not sure where I would come down of that if it ever happened.  I can say right now that I'd side with those I love, but in the stress of the moment, reality might be different.

In the case of Alistair, it's not quite that simple.  Duncan is dead and gone and nothing Alistair does will change that.  He wants justice for what happened to Duncan and the other Wardens.  But he also believes it's his duty to stop the Blight.  It bothers him to just abandon people to their fate (hence the regret and guilt later).  The idea isn't that abstract and the people aren't that faceless.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

LadyDamodred wrote...


I would say it's not, at least not to that person.  For me, my personal relationships are more important than most ideas or a faceless mass of people.  Granted, I've never been in a position where some of my core beliefs are pitted against someone I love.  I'm not sure where I would come down of that if it ever happened.  I can say right now that I'd side with those I love, but in the stress of the moment, reality might be different.

In the case of Alistair, it's not quite that simple.  Duncan is dead and gone and nothing Alistair does will change that.  He wants justice for what happened to Duncan and the other Wardens.  But he also believes it's his duty to stop the Blight.  It bothers him to just abandon people to their fate (hence the regret and guilt later).  The idea isn't that abstract and the people aren't that faceless.

But everyone he has ever loved in Ferelden are dead or have betrayed him. Why would he care about the fate of people he never met, and would just as soon attack or hurt him? The rational thing to do would be count his lucky stars and be happy to bail on that sinking ship.

Complete self-preservation is the most rational possible ideal, as it is the number 1 instinct. To look out for number one is the most logical thing to do at any point. Yet even those who favor pure logic argue the Blight needs to be defeated, otherwise millions will die. It is not logical to care about the fate of millions of unrelated people of no use to you. They can either flee or die.

So, then, why do we think that the death of millions of people would be reason enough to overide our most basic instinct, and the basic instinct of all life? Why is self-sacrifice rational?

My bigger question is: why is the collective/the bigger picture rational?

[Lady Jess]

Addai67 wrote...

Lady Jess wrote...

OMG Addai has a Loghain sig!! The world is ending!

/passes out

You haven't been around much lately, have you. 

lol no, no I haven't. And apparently from the last few pages it's right where I left off too!

[LadyDamodred]

Survival when there's no one else at risk is the most primal of drives. When there are others involved, however, we have seen time and time again people will die to save others, especially those they love. But there are those who will do it for complete strangers because it is the right thing to do.

For Alistair, once he'd lost everyone, the only thing he had left was duty. When you abandon even that, most people come to regret it keenly.

As for why the bigger picture if rational, I can see that if you're simply arguing numbers. Giving your own life to save more of the species would be rational, but people don't work like that.

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 21 janvier 2011 - 06:52 .