39010 réponses à ce sujet

[nos_astra]

LadyDamodred wrote...
(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.)

Really? Is it in the toolset? I've never heard it.

[LadyDamodred]

I believe I've heard it in the game as well. One second, digging in the toolset.

[Zjarcal]

He gives that line after you convince Anora to spare him. It's the one of the last three dialog choices you get. "You don't have to leave", "You'll always be welcome", "If you're leaving, leave".

EDIT: The way I interpret that line, it's that he's talking about simply walking out of the Landsmeet chamber while avoiding execution, not about leaving Ferelden.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 21 janvier 2011 - 07:14 .

[LadyDamodred]

AL: "Time for me to go. Good luck. You'll need it if he actually survives the Joining."
PC: "You don't have to leave."
AL: "You heard Anora. I do, or I get to join Duncan. Nice, huh?"

Slight

It's apparently just an unhardened line.  Interesting.

Edit:  See, Zjarcal, I don't know.  It's pretty ambiguous.  It seems like he's saying if he doesn't leave, she'll execute him anyway.  *frowns and ponders*

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 21 janvier 2011 - 07:16 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

It's not an opposition, but obviously it's not the ideal either or she would have tried to persuade all Wardens to come with her.

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.

Gah.  No.  I can't really discuss this because you have such a narrow view of Alistair that it's too frustrating.  What I mean by reading characters empathetically is to try to step into their shoes and see why in their view, the things they do are logical, justified and right.  To just dismiss Alistair as irrational and emotional is like saying Loghain is insane or Morrigan is evil.  A lot of people do that, too, and they are just as wrong as you are about Alistair.

[Zjarcal]

Yes, it's an unhardened line only.



I don't know. I suppose it could be left to interpretation. But I think if Anora meant that he had to leave Ferelden, she would've said so explicitly.



Hmm, I guess we'll never know.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

LadyDamodred wrote...

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.

Why is it the right thing to do? Why is it moral? To whom?

Animals do not do this, except in rare circumstances, and in the cases of some mother animals and their young. When danger threatens, they flee. They do so because of instinct. Pure logic. Self preservation.

So why do humans risk their own lives to save others? Why is the welfare of others more important than their own? What exactly is it that seperates humans from animals, that causes us to override the most basic instinct of all?

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.

The numbers isn't the issue from the point of view of the person sacrificing themselves. Self sacrifice, the person will not gain any benefit of their action. Their action ends their existance. Why do issues of morality emerge at all? What breaks the perfect logic of the survival instinct?

[Addai]

LadyDamodred wrote...
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.

I'm too distracted (by work, so annoying LOL) to do the discussion justice but just wanted to dip in and say I agree with you.  I think differing definitions of love may be at work.  KoP thinking of love as irrational/ emotional override, whereas I and I would guess that you are thinking of it as an internalized sense of attachment to a particular person or people that can then become a generalized well-being and care for others.  I'm influenced by the Greek (esp Greek Christian) idea of personhood.  To be a person is to be in relationship.  That is the essence of personhood and what distinguishes us from animals.  It's really not possible to talk about a human being without talking about love, it's only a matter of degree, object and whether it's more or less disordered.

[LadyDamodred]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

LadyDamodred wrote...

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.

Why is it the right thing to do? Why is it moral? To whom?

Animals do not do this, except in rare circumstances, and in the cases of some mother animals and their young. When danger threatens, they flee. They do so because of instinct. Pure logic. Self preservation.

So why do humans risk their own lives to save others? Why is the welfare of others more important than their own? What exactly is it that seperates humans from animals, that causes us to override the most basic instinct of all?

What I mean is that it is right to that person.  It will change from person to person.

Animals do do that, actually.  We spent a long time discussing it in my Darwin class.  One example was using birds.  If a flock is stationary and sees a predator, the first one to see it will sound an alarm, even though it signals them out.  Bees defend the hive at the cost of their own lives.  Alligators will respond the cry of a baby alligator in distress, even when they're not related.  Now, you can argue this is simply evolution, but it evolved because it was beneficial to the group.  Self-sacrifice becomes wired into behavior for some species. 

This is similar to herd animals protecting the young or injured.  The entire group will rally around to fend off predators, not just the parent(s).  This behavior is especially true in what we see at the more intelligent species, the ones capable of emotion:  dolphins,elephants and apes.  We also have the reports of dolphins defending people from shark attacks.  Even animals like dogs.  They will defend the people they love to the death.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
The numbers isn't the issue from the point of view of the person sacrificing themselves. Self sacrifice, the person will not gain any benefit of their action. Their action ends their existance. Why do issues of morality emerge at all? What breaks the perfect logic of the survival instinct?

Because like I mentioned, for some people and species, survival of the group is more important for survival of the self.  When a parent sacrifices themselves for a child, there is benefit to that action, from an emotional, group and evolutionary view point.  When a stranger does it for another stranger, those reasons are still there.  But as humans, we also attach meaning to that sacrifice.

There is no perfect logic to the survival instinct.  It varies wildly from species to species, sub-group to sub-group, person to person.

[LadyDamodred]

Addai67 wrote...

LadyDamodred wrote...
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.

I'm too distracted (by work, so annoying LOL) to do the discussion justice but just wanted to dip in and say I agree with you.  I think differing definitions of love may be at work.  KoP thinking of love as irrational/ emotional override, whereas I and I would guess that you are thinking of it as an internalized sense of attachment to a particular person or people that can then become a generalized well-being and care for others.  I'm influenced by the Greek (esp Greek Christian) idea of personhood.  To be a person is to be in relationship.  That is the essence of personhood and what distinguishes us from animals.  It's really not possible to talk about a human being without talking about love, it's only a matter of degree, object and whether it's more or less disordered.

Very close, I think.  If you are completely isolated, who are you?  We define ourselves through the people and things around us and our relation to them.  I'm not saying that the hermit who lives alone in a cabin in the woods is not a person.  But that hermit touches no one and nothing.  Who is he, and does it matter?

I should probably define how I see love.  Let me try.

Love is when someone else is more important than yourself.  When their well-being, their survival, their hopes and dreams are more important than your own.  It is when bringing them joy brings you joy, and when they grieve, you grieve with them.  Love is having those same feelings returned, and I cannot stress that enough.  If they aren't, then I don't know if what you truly feel is love because I don't know why you love the other person.  Love is allowing other people in and making them a part of yourself and vice-versa.  It's when losing that person hurts because they take with them a piece of yourself.  <--- Edited for English fail.

Now, this is extended to other people as a more general sense of empathy, of being able to understand others and how they feel.  It's why we cry at sad movies and books over fictional characters.  We empathize with their grief or happiness.  It's why an image of suffering will produce such a visceral reaction--we envision our own loved ones in that situation and grieve for what their loved ones are going through.

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 21 janvier 2011 - 08:09 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

LadyDamodred wrote...

What I mean is that it is right to that person.  It will change from person to person.

Animals do do that, actually.  We spent a long time discussing it in my Darwin class.  One example was using birds.  If a flock is stationary and sees a predator, the first one to see it will sound an alarm, even though it signals them out.  Bees defend the hive at the cost of their own lives.  Alligators will respond the cry of a baby alligator in distress, even when they're not related.  Now, you can argue this is simply evolution, but it evolved because it was beneficial to the group.  Self-sacrifice becomes wired into behavior for some species. 

This is similar to herd animals protecting the young or injured.  The entire group will rally around to fend off predators, not just the parent(s).  This behavior is especially true in what we see at the more intelligent species, the ones capable of emotion:  dolphins,elephants and apes.  We also have the reports of dolphins defending people from shark attacks.  Even animals like dogs.  They will defend the people they love to the death.

Interesting. I am glad you brought up the last point, because that's what I was angling for: love.

Love itself seems to be hardwired into most species of higher animal. And if it is something that is hardwired in, then by nature, there must be a logical reason it exists. It must be essential to the survival of the species.

Thus, it must not be totally illogical. Or, logic itself is imperfect.

There is no perfect logic to the survival instinct.

Exactly my point. Yet it is the most rational thing to follow. Pure logic itself is flawed, and must be tempered with other things.

[Lady Jess]

@LadyD and Addai The ones committed by cold hearted individuals are unbelievable. The guy that whacks his wife in the head with a flashlight, freezes the body, and puts it through a woodchipper for example, ignoring the fact that he's now left his three children without a mother, and eventually without a father once he was convicted (If you lived in Connecticut in 1986, true story). People without the ability to love are terrifying really. And how many criminals out there ARE kids that suffered from emotional neglect? Abuse? Lack of love in their lives from parents?



Ask a cop, a fireman, a soldier, etc why they do it. Each of these professions voluntarily put THEIR lives on the line for others, and I think most of us are thankful for it.

[Lady Jess]

I'm sure he has something profound to say, unfortunately the game won't let him...

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Lady Jess wrote...

I'm sure he has something profound to say, unfortunately the game won't let him...

That's ok. His fan girls are tuned in enough that its really meant for our ears alone.

[Maria13]

Nature is interesting isn't it? I was reading up on the behaviour of horses for my FF. I am an urbanite I know nothing of horses but apparently stallions are the most antsy to ride but in a natural setting the horse herd tends to be actually directed by an experienced female whereas the stallions hang behind to defend the herd and support the lead female.

Okay, I mean no insult but some men and a few women are most fulfilled when they are carrying out a similar role in human society. I see Alistair as one of those too, he aspires mainly to be a protector, not a leader. That is a very noble calling. And as Lady Jess says we should all be thankful for such people.

Modifié par Maria13, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:00 .

[LadyDamodred]

*giggles*  Oh, lord, Maria, you've just compared Alistair to a stallion.

I love you!

[Addai]

Lady Jess wrote...

@LadyD and Addai The ones committed by cold hearted individuals are unbelievable. The guy that whacks his wife in the head with a flashlight, freezes the body, and puts it through a woodchipper for example, ignoring the fact that he's now left his three children without a mother, and eventually without a father once he was convicted (If you lived in Connecticut in 1986, true story). People without the ability to love are terrifying really. And how many criminals out there ARE kids that suffered from emotional neglect? Abuse? Lack of love in their lives from parents?

Ask a cop, a fireman, a soldier, etc why they do it. Each of these professions voluntarily put THEIR lives on the line for others, and I think most of us are thankful for it.

Yeah I don't mean that there is no such thing as a sociopath or insane person.  Not even that Gaider doesn't write such characters, since Meghren qualifies.  It's just you can tell when he's not as interested by a character.  Meghren was pretty flat.  If he's writing a main character, there is more depth there, and I always see him drawing out the personal.  Orson Scott Card is like this, too.  GRRM does it, as well.  The primal heart strings are always their target, not just the abstract plot and setting.

[Giggles_Manically]

Can somebody post some nice pictures or something.



I have been huddled into a ball and sobbing after watching the Cannibal Holocaust.

I should have been here last night but I watched that instead.



Nothing ever posted on BSN will ever top that film.

[rak72]

Why are you watching those things, Giggles!!

[Lady Jess]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Can somebody post some nice pictures or something.

I have been huddled into a ball and sobbing after watching the Cannibal Holocaust.
I should have been here last night but I watched that instead.

Nothing ever posted on BSN will ever top that film.

Ok that might top my having to write a case summary on woodchipper guy...

[Schratty]

Aww, Giggles Have little bunny rabbit




...and for topicness

Modifié par Schratty, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

LadyDamodred wrote...
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.

Alistair is the one who tells us "The wardens do whatever is necessary to defweat the blight" and he stresses it. So either he is stupid enough not to understand basic words, or just doesn't want to understand.
And him saying taht they can't leave Ferelden is him talking, not from a warden perspective. He just can't see himself abadoning Ferelden, until the Landsmeet, hence the inconsistency.

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.

I am using the philosophical definition used by David Hume.
Semantics.  The desirable and healthy kind of passion is the one governed by reason, let's just say.

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.

I never said one shouldn't take them into account. But they shouldn't govern a person, for they are outside of our control and are basic reactions. It's reason that should govern them and not vice versa.

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.

Still immature for me, even if understandable. Understandable does not negate immaturity. a major reason as to why Alsitair is immature is because of how he was raised, so I know he isn't solely responsable for it.

His rejection of Loghain is not something I care about. It's his abandonning of Ferelden that I am talking about.

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.

Hence me saying that he couldn't control his emotions and that was my point. And that is immaturity and incoherence.

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.

Again, I never dismissed its importance. I dismiss the notion that is it the most important thing. Important enough to override reason. Important enough to make me go against everything I believe.
For me a life when you are just content with loving and being loved without any sense of purpose in life that transcends your basic emotions that you have no control over and nothing to look forward to, to be an even more horrifying existence. One that I cannot imagine myself living. Nor do I imagine myself loving someone who is content with that kind of existence.

And I stil lfail to see how the loss of loved ones now, is going to alter me fundamentally. Neither do I see how if I fall in love right now, I would change fundamentally just for that reason. Who I am, is much stronger to be swept away by basic feelings.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:54 .

[inquartata02]

That rabbit is one of the most adorable things I've ever seen.

[Elysis]

Maria13 wrote...

Nature is interesting isn't it? I was reading up on the behaviour of horses for my FF. I am an urbanite I know nothing of horses but apparently stallions are the most antsy to ride but in a natural setting the horse herd tends to be actually directed by an experienced female whereas the stallions hang behind to defend the herd and support the lead female.

I remember the first time I did some Liberty work with a 2 year old Stallion, he literally charged me 
(if you need info for your FF I'll be happy to help! I studied Horse Ethology and can share some experiences if you'd like)

Okay, I mean no insult but some men and a few women are most fulfilled when they are carrying out a similar role in human society. I see Alistair as one of those too, he aspires mainly to be a protector, not a leader. That is a very noble calling. And as Lady Jess says we should all be thankful for such people.

This. A thousand times!

I get very sick of people praising the fact that people are/should be self-preserved and that it's a natural behavior. Whatever resemblances we have with animals, if you study our (human) brain one thing raises us above these instincts : the neocortex, which gives us a conscience.
If people stopped being self-centered and individualists, I truely believe the world would be a better place. But that's just me.

Modifié par Elysis, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
It's not an opposition, but obviously it's not the ideal either or she would have tried to persuade all Wardens to come with her.

Or maybe she doesn't trust them enough.
Point is, she doesn't go against her plan for the sake of love, she finds a way to accomodate her love into the plan.

Gah.  No.  I can't really discuss this because you have such a narrow view of Alistair that it's too frustrating.  What I mean by reading characters empathetically is to try to step into their shoes and see why in their view, the things they do are logical, justified and right.  To just dismiss Alistair as irrational and emotional is like saying Loghain is insane or Morrigan is evil.  A lot of people do that, too, and they are just as wrong as you are about Alistair.

Many Alsitair fans, including skadi, agrees with the conclusion (that he is emotional).

I am not saying it's horrible, I perfectly understand why he is irrational and emotional. He was abadonned by his father, thinking him to be a playboy bastard, was thrown to Eamon who he wanted to see as a father, but apparently Eamon wasn't that generous. This small semblance of a family was taken away from him when he was thrown to the Templars. All this because of something he didn't choose or want to have, royal blood.  And finally, the person he saw as his liberator and the father he never had (so he thinks) dies and when he lived and in anger, he blamed someone else.

Understandable. Sympathetic even.
But immature. And I am not using the word as an insult. It's that he perhaps never had the chance to mature. Perhaps his innate nature, coupled with the environment he was put it without his say so, made it impossible.

I understand perfectly. But there is nothing logical about saying one thing and then doing the opposite a few seconds later. That's just emotions at work, not Alsitair's logic at work.    

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 09:53 .