315 réponses à ce sujet

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

I will only say this again once.
Finn's argument was that a person that continued to believe something in spite of any argument was insane.
Therefore there must exist some argument, by which a sane person could be persuaded to abandon any belief.
My argument was that someone no argument exist that could persuade any truly religious person to abandon his or her belief (this come from the definition of faith).
Therefore according to Finn's argument, a person who is truly religious must be insane.
Now if you please, we have more red herring here then most aquariums.

I said in spite of substantial evidence. Evidence meaning "proof to the contrary".
Arguments are not evidence.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

My post has been edited to take that into consideration. It still stand, I think it's stronger this way

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

My post has been edited to take that into consideration. It still stand, I think it's stronger this way

Still got it wrong, though.. I said substantial, not any. By saying "any" you're implying any evidence at all is acceptable. "substantial" means "of high quality" or "true".

In the interest of trying to get the thread back on track;
I think it's very hard to do "evil" right.
Many times, "evil" turns into "I want to destroy the world even if that means destroying myself".
A lot of the time "evil" doesn't make an appropriate villain, anyway. I'd much prefer a "sinister" one over an "evil" one, especially if that means raising tough moral questions throughout the game.
Saren from ME, the Architect, and Loghain all followed the "sinister but well-meaning" concept and I think I preferred them over Malak from KotOR or, if examples from non-Bioware games are to be considered, Mankar Camoran from Oblivion who was a very, very weak villain and character in my opinion.

Modifié par finnugold, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[sandslayer76]

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

[Collider]

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

They are subjective, but it's more convenient to simply say evil.

[finnugold]

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

Except that you can be evil and still be lawful. There have been some dictators in human history who have killed many people or taxed them to death or such without breaking a single law, for the very reason that in some countries, laws don't apply to everyone.

[sandslayer76]

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

Except that you can be evil and still be lawful. There have been some dictators in human history who have killed many people or taxed them to death or such without breaking a single law, for the very reason that in some countries, laws don't apply to everyone.

A good point. Therefore, I vote that there be no such differentiation between good and evil. It's an outdated way of viewing things. ;P

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

finnugold wrote...

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

My post has been edited to take that into consideration. It still stand, I think it's stronger this way

Still got it wrong, though.. I said substantial, not any. By saying "any" you're implying any evidence at all is acceptable. "substantial" means "of high quality" or "true".

Sorry, I need to clarify the formal use of the word "any".

Finn's argument was that a person that continued to believe something in spite of any counter evidence was insane.

The word "any" here is used in the formal sense. it means any possible evidence.
To rephase this sentence unambiguously:
If a person A is insane, then there exist a believe B, such that for ANY POSSIBLE counter Evidence C, the argument will not result in A abandoning B.

Essentially this statement is a weaker of your original formulation, because it considers existence of all possible evidence.

In the interest of getting the thread back on track, I will no longer continue to argue.

[finnugold]

sandslayer76 wrote...

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

Except that you can be evil and still be lawful. There have been some dictators in human history who have killed many people or taxed them to death or such without breaking a single law, for the very reason that in some countries, laws don't apply to everyone.

A good point. Therefore, I vote that there be no such differentiation between good and evil. It's an outdated way of viewing things. ;P

Now there is only "logical" and "illogical". We shall also shed all emotions and become Space Elves.

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

Except that you can be evil and still be lawful. There have been some dictators in human history who have killed many people or taxed them to death or such without breaking a single law, for the very reason that in some countries, laws don't apply to everyone.

A good point. Therefore, I vote that there be no such differentiation between good and evil. It's an outdated way of viewing things. ;P

Now there is only "logical" and "illogical". We shall also shed all emotions and become Space Elves.

But space elves are hot.
On topic comment: I think it's best just not to have a kama meter.

Modifié par Merlin Dawnweaver, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:12 .

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

finnugold wrote...

sandslayer76 wrote...

Good and evil are subjective terms, thus should not be used as a reference to objective events. Lawful and unlawful are a bit better, as they don't apply morality to it.

Except that you can be evil and still be lawful. There have been some dictators in human history who have killed many people or taxed them to death or such without breaking a single law, for the very reason that in some countries, laws don't apply to everyone.

A good point. Therefore, I vote that there be no such differentiation between good and evil. It's an outdated way of viewing things. ;P

Now there is only "logical" and "illogical". We shall also shed all emotions and become Space Elves.

But space elves are hot.
On topic comment: I think it's best just not to have a kama meter.

We may be thinking of two different types of space elves.

And for once, I agree with you. Karma meters usually turn into a game of "FILL THE BLUE ONE AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!" for me.

Modifié par finnugold, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:15 .

[Merlin Dawnweaver]

I am SO guilty of that LOL.

[Dave of Canada]

finnugold wrote...

And for once, I agree with you. Karma meters usually turn into a game of "FILL THE BLUE ONE AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!" for me.

Pretty much. Before I do any of the plot missions in Mass Effect 2 I go to omega and drain out the most paragon / renegade points so I don't miss any intimidating options in the game itself.

[finnugold]

Merlin Dawnweaver wrote...

I am SO guilty of that LOL.

Tying charm/intimidae to karma in Mass Effect was pretty bad. I never once roleplayed Shepard the way I thought she should be, I was just trying to max my paragon level so I could max my charm so I could always get the best possible outcome.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Dragon Age doesn't really incoroprate good and evil, just choices. You can make any combination of choices you want. There aren't just two ways to play.

[Collider]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Dragon Age doesn't really incoroprate good and evil, just choices. You can make any combination of choices you want. There aren't just two ways to play.

When I say evil, I tend to mean actions that more commonly thoughts of as evil. Obviously there are no objective way to measure good and evil, as they themselves are subjective, but I do speak of "darker" choices. When the Warden acts selfishly, for example.