12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
I actually liked a Loghain better that didn't have so much "regrets". Maybe the definition I have of that word is too specific.

Same. There is a difference between feeling heavy and sad because of what you are doing, and feeling regret. I think Loghain is leaning more towards the former.

Exactly. I rather don't like hearing Loghain go on about regretting things (like in the RtO dialog that came up recently). If it "seemed necessary at the time" what's to regret?

Good thing that never was in the game. I like him like he is in RtO. He made a hard choice and he doesn't regret it and that's fine by me.

I agree that he doesn't seem like the regretful type. Having regrets (and he could have many) serves no purpose and just weighs you down. It keeps you trapped in the past and in "what ifs."

[phaonica]

Persephone wrote...

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
I actually liked a Loghain better that didn't have so much "regrets". Maybe the definition I have of that word is too specific.

Same. There is a difference between feeling heavy and sad because of what you are doing, and feeling regret. I think Loghain is leaning more towards the former.

Exactly. I rather don't like hearing Loghain go on about regretting things (like in the RtO dialog that came up recently). If it "seemed necessary at the time" what's to regret?

I think that dialogue was particularly well done. It's the most emotional he ever gets. And at the sight of Cailan's body....Maric's son.........his beloved's son too.....it would be understandable.

Oh, there are some really good lines in that dialog, I think. It's just how he goes on about having so many regrets that I'm not crazy about. He doesn't dwell on them, and that's good, but really so many?

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...

Everything that happened should not be considered shocking to anyone who's had even a passing interest in history. Sherman burned his way through Georgia and salted the fields as he went. You do what you have to do to win. That's war. It's not pretty, it's far from glorious, and it's not a shining example of humanity. It is what it is. You try to win.

And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

Hence my comment that set you off.  Loghain's regret is fine, it just doesn't change a damn thing.

/out

Modifié par Addai67, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Persephone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A Loghain defender blasting someone for being callous?

Oh, the irony.

Oh, now this I have to hear. I'm sure you'd be happy to explain why a) Being a Loghain defender is a bad thing and  just how that post added to the discussion, except fanning the flames?

a) How did I imply being a Loghain defender a bad thing? It was an identifier label, not a slanderous attack (or an attack of any sort).

Because the recognition of you, a unapologetic fan of a man who steps all over emotional qualms and the suffering of innocents and guilty alike to get what he believes is right, accusing someone else of being callous for a far lesser extent, is ironic.

A large part of Loghain's character is how he is callous. Callous's do not remove right or wrong, virtue or evil, they just reduce one's weakness to empathy, and Loghain succumbs to emotions all of... once? Twice?

The point is, Loghain is a very callous man, whatever you think of him. To be aghast someone else of the (not so) high crime of being callous... well, hopefully having that pointed out to you should be a bucket of cold watter on the flames.

Unless you have some sodium in there as well. That explodes at water. But I have faith in you.

a) Look at how you threw the two words together in THAT sentence. Nothing more to say to that.

 Yes, I am a fan of him. But I'll not be called unapologetic. I'm not a fanguuuuuurl. I like a character, virtues and flaws included. I detest b/w judgments. Think me callous for it. I'll proudly be callous then.

c) He is a lot of things. But hardly callous. Want callous? Arl Rendon Howe is your target.

a) I should have placed it as 'a defender of Loghain'? As if that would have been any more innocent in your mind? Or perhaps 'someone who interjects in the defense of Loghain'. Or 'a person who looks favorably upon Loghain and is coming to his defense.'

...fine? You are a fangirl (or fanboy, I neither want to confirm or care), but that isn't a bad thing. It simply means you are a fan and a girl. Unapologetic gets added because I've never seen you ashamed to make a defense of Loghain or ashamed that you like him. But being a fan doesn't mean you're obsessive about it.

c (and why expand to c?)) Nothing at all prevents Howe AND Loghain from being callous, and Loghain's ability (Sin? Ethical issues? Drive? Insanity? Pick whatever term you want.) to carry on despite not only suffering but dealing severe hardships (and atrocities) certainly does make him calloused. Loghain is a 'hardened' character, willing to do extreme and hard things for his goal without succumbing to emotional doubts, and that's exactly what callouses are representative are. A woodcutter doesn't have bleeding hands because he builds up callouses, and Loghain goes on with his crusade without flinching because he's built up metaphorical callouses.

[Monica21]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
c (and why expand to c?)) Nothing at all prevents Howe AND Loghain from being callous, and Loghain's ability (Sin? Ethical issues? Drive? Insanity? Pick whatever term you want.) to carry on despite not only suffering but dealing severe hardships (and atrocities) certainly does make him calloused. Loghain is a 'hardened' character, willing to do extreme and hard things for his goal without succumbing to emotional doubts, and that's exactly what callouses are representative are. A woodcutter doesn't have bleeding hands because he builds up callouses, and Loghain goes on with his crusade without flinching because he's built up metaphorical callouses.

I think the problem I have is with the word itself. By definition, it means someone who doesn't care. Loghain does care. These are things he doesn't want to do but feels like he has to do. If Loghain had other options or was aware of other options, then he would have taken them, but he doesn't so he can't. It doesn't mean that he is indifferent or unfeeling.

[Persephone]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A Loghain defender blasting someone for being callous?

Oh, the irony.

Oh, now this I have to hear. I'm sure you'd be happy to explain why a) Being a Loghain defender is a bad thing and  just how that post added to the discussion, except fanning the flames?

a) How did I imply being a Loghain defender a bad thing? It was an identifier label, not a slanderous attack (or an attack of any sort).

Because the recognition of you, a unapologetic fan of a man who steps all over emotional qualms and the suffering of innocents and guilty alike to get what he believes is right, accusing someone else of being callous for a far lesser extent, is ironic.

A large part of Loghain's character is how he is callous. Callous's do not remove right or wrong, virtue or evil, they just reduce one's weakness to empathy, and Loghain succumbs to emotions all of... once? Twice?

The point is, Loghain is a very callous man, whatever you think of him. To be aghast someone else of the (not so) high crime of being callous... well, hopefully having that pointed out to you should be a bucket of cold watter on the flames.

Unless you have some sodium in there as well. That explodes at water. But I have faith in you.

a) Look at how you threw the two words together in THAT sentence. Nothing more to say to that.

 Yes, I am a fan of him. But I'll not be called unapologetic. I'm not a fanguuuuuurl. I like a character, virtues and flaws included. I detest b/w judgments. Think me callous for it. I'll proudly be callous then.

c) He is a lot of things. But hardly callous. Want callous? Arl Rendon Howe is your target.

a) I should have placed it as 'a defender of Loghain'? As if that would have been any more innocent in your mind? Or perhaps 'someone who interjects in the defense of Loghain'. Or 'a person who looks favorably upon Loghain and is coming to his defense.'

...fine? You are a fangirl (or fanboy, I neither want to confirm or care), but that isn't a bad thing. It simply means you are a fan and a girl. Unapologetic gets added because I've never seen you ashamed to make a defense of Loghain or ashamed that you like him. But being a fan doesn't mean you're obsessive about it.

c (and why expand to c?)) Nothing at all prevents Howe AND Loghain from being callous, and Loghain's ability (Sin? Ethical issues? Drive? Insanity? Pick whatever term you want.) to carry on despite not only suffering but dealing severe hardships (and atrocities) certainly does make him calloused. Loghain is a 'hardened' character, willing to do extreme and hard things for his goal without succumbing to emotional doubts, and that's exactly what callouses are representative are. A woodcutter doesn't have bleeding hands because he builds up callouses, and Loghain goes on with his crusade without flinching because he's built up metaphorical callouses.

 Why in all of the Nine Hells should I be ASHAMED for defending him (Not in all things) OR be ASHAMED that I like him? And it seems whe have different definitions of "fangirl" & "fanboy".

c) He does flinch. He does feel regret. But what's the use? If I say more my due shame would probably be too much to bear.

Modifié par Persephone, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
...fine? You are a fangirl (or fanboy, I neither want to confirm or care), but that isn't a bad thing. It simply means you are a fan and a girl. Unapologetic gets added because I've never seen you ashamed to make a defense of Loghain or ashamed that you like him. But being a fan doesn't mean you're obsessive about it. 

In the context of a discussion / debate, the word "fanboy/girl is derogatory. Even if you didn't mean it that way, it would be best to avoid calling anyone such.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

And that is a better reason than all the labels, ideals and whatever else human beings can manage to come up with.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
...fine? You are a fangirl (or fanboy, I neither want to confirm or care), but that isn't a bad thing. It simply means you are a fan and a girl. Unapologetic gets added because I've never seen you ashamed to make a defense of Loghain or ashamed that you like him. But being a fan doesn't mean you're obsessive about it. 

In the context of a discussion / debate, the word "fanboy/girl is derogatory. Even if you didn't mean it that way, it would be best to avoid calling anyone such.

This.

I admit that I can be very enthusiastic about Loghain. Sometimes I am too hard on Alistair because of it, I guess. But I do not worship him blindly. He fascinates me, moves me, makes me gnash my teeth in frustration and go "AWWWWWWWWWW" a moment later....

[Persephone]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

And that is a better reason than all the labels, ideals and whatever else human beings can manage to come up with.

That's even sadder then the Loghain compliment thing.

This thread is just so depressing. Maybe I'll go watch kittens die instead.

I love cats. And that so was NOT necessary. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...
That's even sadder then the Loghain compliment thing.

This thread is just so depressing. Maybe I'll go watch kittens die instead.

Dwarf captain: "Yes you should"

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

And that is a better reason than all the labels, ideals and whatever else human beings can manage to come up with.

Well I don't know if I agree with that.  
It sounds too absolute, for me.

[Persephone]

phaonica wrote...

Persephone wrote...

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
I actually liked a Loghain better that didn't have so much "regrets". Maybe the definition I have of that word is too specific.

Same. There is a difference between feeling heavy and sad because of what you are doing, and feeling regret. I think Loghain is leaning more towards the former.

Exactly. I rather don't like hearing Loghain go on about regretting things (like in the RtO dialog that came up recently). If it "seemed necessary at the time" what's to regret?

I think that dialogue was particularly well done. It's the most emotional he ever gets. And at the sight of Cailan's body....Maric's son.........his beloved's son too.....it would be understandable.

Oh, there are some really good lines in that dialog, I think. It's just how he goes on about having so many regrets that I'm not crazy about. He doesn't dwell on them, and that's good, but really so many?

My dear late Grandpa used to say that mistakes, errors and regrets teach us and form us in many ways. But he too advised against dwelling. Knowing his life (Small tragedies and big ones, so little happiness), I cannot blame him.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

And that is a better reason than all the labels, ideals and whatever else human beings can manage to come up with.

Well I don't know if I agree with that.  
It sounds too absolute, for me.

Twas said half jokingly.
I said before that for me the great leader is one who can turn enemies into allies.

But I prefer this kind of reasoning than over-simplying politics into labels and punchlines.

[Dean_the_Young]

Persephone wrote...

 Why in all of the Nine Hells should I be ASHAMED for defending him (Not in all things) OR be ASHAMED that I like him? And it seems whe have different definitions of "fangirl" & "fanboy".

Where are you getting that you should be ashamed? Especially after I have already reassured that it was not an insult of any sort?

Don't be ashamed. Or rather, I don't think you should, nor have I in the least implied I cared one way or the other. Being unapologetic means you have conviction. (Of your beliefs. Not that you should/have been convicted.) Conviction in your likes and dislikes is, to an extent, an admirable thing.

c) He does flinch. He does feel regret. But what's the use? If I say more my due shame would probably be too much to bear.

I really don't get what your issue is about this.

Callosed doesn't mean you don't feel regret or never flinch at all. It does mean, however, that you feel less of it, carry through with it despite the pain, have learned to deal with the pain, and that it doesn't hurt you as much as when you were uncalloused. It means nothing about your virtue: 'hardening' Alistair is giving him callouses, but it hardly makes him a bad person.

If Loghain were uncalloused, he would be an absolute monster for being able to carry one with what he did. It would mean it barely affected him. But it does affect him, and that emotion is what proves him not a total monster. But his ability to carry on with such things despite the regret does identify him as one with callouses.

[phaonica]

Persephone wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Oh, there are some really good lines in that dialog, I think. It's just how he goes on about having so many regrets that I'm not crazy about. He doesn't dwell on them, and that's good, but really so many?

My dear late Grandpa used to say that mistakes, errors and regrets teach us and form us in many ways. But he too advised against dwelling. Knowing his life (Small tragedies and big ones, so little happiness), I cannot blame him.

I suppose Loghain's probably not just referring to in-game regrets, either.

[Persephone]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Persephone wrote...

 Why in all of the Nine Hells should I be ASHAMED for defending him (Not in all things) OR be ASHAMED that I like him? And it seems whe have different definitions of "fangirl" & "fanboy".

Where are you getting that you should be ashamed? Especially after I have already reassured that it was not an insult of any sort?

Don't be ashamed. Or rather, I don't think you should, nor have I in the least implied I cared one way or the other. Being unapologetic means you have conviction. (Of your beliefs. Not that you should/have been convicted.) Conviction in your likes and dislikes is, to an extent, an admirable thing.

c) He does flinch. He does feel regret. But what's the use? If I say more my due shame would probably be too much to bear.

I really don't get what your issue is about this.

Callosed doesn't mean you don't feel regret or never flinch at all. It does mean, however, that you feel less of it, carry through with it despite the pain, have learned to deal with the pain, and that it doesn't hurt you as much as when you were uncalloused. It means nothing about your virtue: 'hardening' Alistair is giving him callouses, but it hardly makes him a bad person.

If Loghain were uncalloused, he would be an absolute monster for being able to carry one with what he did. It would mean it barely affected him. But it does affect him, and that emotion is what proves him not a total monster. But his ability to carry on with such things despite the regret does identify him as one with callouses.

He isn't an "absolute monster". That's the whole point.

And:
Definition of CALLOUSa[/i] : feeling no emotion b[/i] : feeling or showing no sympathy for others :

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And the victor takes the head of his opponent, both as retribution and to end the dissent once and for all.

And that is a better reason than all the labels, ideals and whatever else human beings can manage to come up with.

Well I don't know if I agree with that.  
It sounds too absolute, for me.

Twas said half jokingly.
I said before that for me the great leader is one who can turn enemies into allies.

But I prefer this kind of reasoning than over-simplying politics into labels and punchlines.

Understood.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Amidst all this, I think the thread could use a pic or two

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hmph! A great leader is one who turns his enemies into gourmet cat food. Publically. So all lesser mortals shall know for certain their place in my divinely sanctioned food chain.



Which is why I, not KoP, shall rule the world someday.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Which is why I, not KoP, shall rule the world someday.

Can I be your second in command? Pwease?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Which is why I, not KoP, shall rule the world someday.

Can I be your second in command? Pwease?

Naturally! You fathered The Beard! I'd be a fool to allow such a remarkable feat of awesomeness go to waste!

[CalJones]

@ Persephone -

He means a callus, as in the hard skin you build up in places that get a lot of wear and tear. Manual workers have them and I have them on my hands because I lift weights. In Loghain's case, he has built up a callus on his feelings, so to speak. Or in terms we understand, he has become hardenend.

I don't believe he meant that Loghain is callous (as in cold and unfeeling).

Modifié par CalJones, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:43 .