222 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

DWSmiley wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I always drink his cocktail. In fact, my Warden drinks anything blood-related put in front of her (Joining blood, Avernus' blood, Andraste-the-magic-dragon's blood,,,).

LOL.  This thread needed a bit of comic relief, thanks!

Yeah, my wardens always drink his cocktail.  It's there and to not drink it rectifies nothing.

I'm surprised, given what you've written about moral drift and all that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
 Practically though I don't see the point in not letting Avernus continue his experiments. The people he already killed are dead and no one's going to miss a few peasants. (Particulary elves or dwarves...) I can only see it becoming a problem if he kills some nobility.

Though...his experiments...other than that blood does it give any other advantage later? Or even in Awakening? 

I didn't kill Avernus because I think it's a waste and I happen to believe that his experiments are useful and that Grey Wardens, instead of going to the deep roads to die for absolutely nothing, can serve a purpose in their inevitable death, with Avernus' experiments. In death, sacrifice.

That's my personal opinion and I know some if not many would consider me evil for it, but that's besides the point.
I can see rational reasons for not sparing Avernus. Mainly fearing that this would set a dangerous precedent and if discovered, might tarnish Warden reputation forever. So while I wouldn't kill him, I can see the validity of such a concern.

And that's what I love about the game, most choices have their pros and cons and have valid rational reasons that support them. So yes, I can definately see a point in killing Avernus. I wouldn't agree with the decision, because I think it's a waste and I hate waste, but I can see the validity of their reasoning and even agree with their concern (just try to find another way to deal with it). 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 octobre 2010 - 11:07 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I didn't kill Avernus because I think it's a waste and I happen to believe that his experiments are useful and that Grey Wardens, instead of going to the deep roads to die for absoluytely nothing, can serve a purpose in their death, with Avernus' experiments. In death, sacrifice.

That's my personal opinion and I know some if not many would consider me evil for it, but that's besides the point.
I can see rational reasons for not sparing Avernus. Mainly fearing that this would set a dangerous precedent and if discovered, might tarnish Warden reputation forever. So while I wouldn't with killing him, I can see the validity of such a concern.

And that's what I love about the game, most choices have their pros and cons and have valid rational reasons that support them. So yes, I can definately see a point in killing Avernus. I wouldn't agree with the decision, because I think it's a waste and I hate waste, but I can see the validity of their reasoning and even agree with their concern (just try to find another way to deal with it). 

Thanks for that. You're refreshingly reasonable on these boards.

Hm...how many people know about WK anyways? Doesn't what's his name only get there because someone was leading him there? 

[Addai]

Ryzaki wrote...

Hm...how many people know about WK anyways? Doesn't what's his name only get there because someone was leading him there? 

Avernus says he led him (Levi) there when he was exploring the tunnels as a boy.  Which is interesting, because apparently he still has mind control powers and is willing to use them.

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Hm...how many people know about WK anyways? Doesn't what's his name only get there because someone was leading him there? 

Avernus says he led him (Levi) there when he was exploring the tunnels as a boy.  Which is interesting, because apparently he still has mind control powers and is willing to use them.

Hm...so Avernus could lead victims to him with very little throughway traffic. That's pretty awesome but...why not use them on the Warden? 

[DWSmiley]

Addai67 wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

Yeah, my wardens always drink his cocktail.  It's there and to not drink it rectifies nothing.

I'm surprised, given what you've written about moral drift and all that.

The only person affected by drinking the cocktail is me and the effect is purely physical.  Well, I suppose one could be concerned about an aura attached to thing but my wardens aren't very mystical.

Avernus is different.  Punishing him changes naught of the past but may well have considerable effect on the future.  There is the sparkling practical effect of finding a safer, more potent use for the Taint.  And there is the murky effect of tolerating evil behaviour.

[Xilizhra]

Why are you worried about widespread moral decay from saving Avernus if no one but you knows about what he did?

[Sarah1281]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Torture is morally grey?

It can be, actually. The best example, of course, being if you know that the person you have in custody planted a bomb that will go off within a few hours but you don't know where it is. If he won't talk then the question of whether or not to try to torture the information out of him so as to save lives is certainly morally grey. You may decide that it's not worth it or that he'll lie to you but others may decide to take that chance as while you don't know if you'll get the time-sensitive information this way, you KNOW you won't get it in time without it.

Unless of course they lie. In which case you know...you have nothing. You probably have no way to verify if they're telling the truth, and what you might think is a lie might actually be the truth and vice versa.

You know, I could have sworn the bolded sections addressed that issue. He may lie but if he's not talking and you're running out of time then torture may be your only chance of getting the information. He may lie. You may have screwed up and he knows nothing. Torturing him is still the only way if you're running out of time and he's not talking that you stand any chance of getting the information in time.

DWSmiley wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Torture is morally grey?

It can be, actually. The best example, of course, being if you know that the person you have in custody planted a bomb that will go off within a few hours but you don't know where it is. If he won't talk then the question of whether or not to try to torture the information out of him so as to save lives is certainly morally grey. You may decide that it's not worth it or that he'll lie to you but others may decide to take that chance as while you don't know if you'll get the time-sensitive information this way, you KNOW you won't get it in time without it.

That doesn't make it moral; it makes it a necessary evil.  The only way I'd place a smidgen of trust in someone to make that decision is if they accepted severe repercussions on themselves as a consequence - clear acknowledgement of both the evilness and their conviction of necessity.

I didn't say it made it moral. Morally grey decisions are, by their very definition, NOT moral decisions. They are decisions that fall between good and evil and 'necessary evils' like that count as grey decisions.

[Ryzaki]

If your only resource is torture I'd find it to be morally void. My previous position was incorrect. There would be nothing wrong with torturing someone if you wanted something from them no matter what it was.

And this has given me the idea for a perfect playthrough. ...Alas you can't just go "whatever" on many of DA's major decisions. But I'll play it the most I can.

So i suppose a decision like that would be fundamentally nothing. Just a decision one made. Saving lives was just a part of that decision and wouldn't have to be a deciding factor. The importance of whatever is going to blow up and the usefulness of those people as means for another cause would be just as important.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 octobre 2010 - 11:47 .

[DWSmiley]

Xilizhra wrote...

Why are you worried about widespread moral decay from saving Avernus if no one but you knows about what he did?

My companions know and the Drydens know.  It may get out.  But admittedly the societal impact is likely a lot less than, say, announcing the discovery of Andraste's ashes.  There is also my own moral decay and I am becoming a person of great importance in Ferelden.  To think one can tolerate evil and not be changed by that decision is delusion.

[KnightofPhoenix]

DWSmiley wrote...
To think one can tolerate evil and not be changed by that decision is delusion.

Only if you believe it's "evil". Sure.

All decisions, in particular hard ones, have an impact on the one making that decision. There is no necessary corrolation between that and the moral implications of the act, unless you deem morality to be based, or ought to be based, on feelings and sentiments (aka positive sentiments result from "good" acts and negative sentiments result from "evil" acts), which many including myself would disagree with.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 octobre 2010 - 11:57 .

[Bruddajakka]

I always let him live. He's too valuable a resource to just throw away. I mean hell the man has had two hundred years to prefect his craft. Just disregarding it because of the means he used to obtain it is pointless. Plus it pisses off Wynne if you do spare him.

[DWSmiley]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Morally grey decisions are, by their very definition, NOT moral decisions. They are decisions that fall between good and evil and 'necessary evils' like that count as grey decisions.

What colour of socks to put on is not a moral decision.  But how you treat people is always a moral decision.  Whether to torture them or not is an extremely moral decision.  Your theoretical situation is one where I agree the immorality is outweighed by other factors but there is a price to pay, starting with one's own degradation.

[DWSmiley]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...
To think one can tolerate evil and not be changed by that decision is delusion.

Only if you believe it's "evil". Sure.

All decisions, in particular hard ones, have an impact on the one making that decision. There is no necessary corrolation between that and the moral implications of the act, unless you deem morality to be based, or ought to be based, on feelings and sentiments (aka positive sentiments result from "good" acts and negative sentiments result from "evil" acts), which many including myself would disagree with.

If I have nightmares about actions I've taken, that's a bad sign in addition to being unhealthy.  But moral drift is my concern.  It may seem simple minded to declare some acts off limits, ever, but it is hazardous not to do so.   There is a moral continuum on decisions to make - not personally, always, but certainly societally.  And if an action is deemed acceptable in one circumstance, how is the slippery slope avoided?  That hazard is more easily overlooked than the benefits of the act.

[ejoslin]

DWSmiley wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Morally grey decisions are, by their very definition, NOT moral decisions. They are decisions that fall between good and evil and 'necessary evils' like that count as grey decisions.

What colour of socks to put on is not a moral decision.  But how you treat people is always a moral decision.  Whether to torture them or not is an extremely moral decision.  Your theoretical situation is one where I agree the immorality is outweighed by other factors but there is a price to pay, starting with one's own degradation.

Until quite recently, rape was viewed very differently.  Rape was a way to get a wife -- an unmarried woman would be given as a wife to her rapist, provided he was willing to pay the bride price.  If a married woman was raped, she would be stoned to death as an adulteress.  Husbands could not rape their wives, and in fact, it was considered immoral for a woman to not have sex with her husband whenever he asked.

This is very clearly spelled out in the Bible.

So yes, I would say morality does shift.  And evil is a matter of perception rather than basic truths.

Modifié par ejoslin, 28 octobre 2010 - 12:25 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

DWSmiley wrote...
If I have nightmares about actions I've taken, that's a bad sign in addition to being unhealthy. 

And what if someone does the exact same act and doesn't have any nightmares? Which I am sure you realize this is very possible. So wouldn't that come back to morality being highly if not solely subjective? Or is that person "evil in nature" then?

DWSmiley wrote...
And if an action is deemed acceptable in one circumstance, how is the slippery slope avoided?  That hazard is more easily overlooked than the benefits of the act.

There are ways to avoid it that does not involve outright banning. It could be via legal and institutional mechanisms that support exceptions depending on circumstances. It could be via personal convinction and self-regulation.  None of those ways are perfect and have a guaranteed positive result. And your concern over setting a dangerous precedent is certainly valid. 

But I think forbidding acts in absolute, is simly the quickest and simplest way to deal with potential "moral drifts" or as I call it, setting a dangerous precedent (and perhaps less risky, until the sh*t hits the fan at least), and that there can be alternatives to this.  Alternatives that could allow us to make a calculated risk and go through with it.

I don't think either position is "wrong" really. I just do not believe that it is *necessary* that forbidding an act in absolute is the only way to avoid making it a precedent.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 octobre 2010 - 12:34 .

[Sarah1281]

DWSmiley wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Morally grey decisions are, by their very definition, NOT moral decisions. They are decisions that fall between good and evil and 'necessary evils' like that count as grey decisions.

What colour of socks to put on is not a moral decision.  But how you treat people is always a moral decision.  Whether to torture them or not is an extremely moral decision.  Your theoretical situation is one where I agree the immorality is outweighed by other factors but there is a price to pay, starting with one's own degradation.

I think you somehow misunderstood what I said.

By 'morally grey decisions are, by their very definition, NOT moral decisions' I did not mean that morality did not enter the equation. If you walk by a pond and see a drowning baby and save it, that is a moral decision. If you walk up to a stranger and stab them in the neck for the lulz then that is not a moral decision. It is not a decision where morality is not involved. It is a decision that is immoral.

In that same vein: if something were a moral decision then it would be called moral. If something is NOT a moral decision then it is called either immoral or a shade of grey between moral and immoral. That's really all I'm saying here, I'm not claiming that acts that contain some element of immorality are not a decision involving morality.

[Ryzaki]

^the above poster

But who are you to say what's moral and immoral? And what's immoral for one person may actually be a decision of morality for others.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 12:42 .

[DWSmiley]

ejoslin wrote...

So yes, I would say morality does shift.  And evil is a matter of perception rather than basic truths.

I agree and that is precisely my concern.  I do not want to cause morality to shift the wrong way; no one does.  I also agree that "wrong way" (evil) is a matter of perception but it's a shared perception and very important.  In a society than can provide for basic needs, nothing influences quality of life more.  But it does get complicated in a society threatened by a Blight.

[Sarah1281]

@Ryzaki: Who are you addressing?

Modifié par Sarah1281, 28 octobre 2010 - 12:41 .

[DWSmiley]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think you somehow misunderstood what I said. 

Agreed.

[DWSmiley]

Ryzaki wrote...

^the above poster

But who are you to say what's moral and immoral? And what's immoral for one person may actually be a decision of morality for others.

We all say what's moral or immoral.  Anyone who is self-aware cannot avoid it.  But of course there is no universal consensus.

[Ryzaki]

DWSmiley wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

^the above poster

But who are you to say what's moral and immoral? And what's immoral for one person may actually be a decision of morality for others.

We all say what's moral or immoral.  Anyone who is self-aware cannot avoid it.  But of course there is no universal consensus.

That's what I was getting at per the sentence. There are people who find very few things immoral and those things may not include what most people would judge as immoral. (For me personally killing someone (child or adult) isn't immoral. Never has been. Neither is stealing or beating someone to a pulp for an insult. That said I am against taking someone's freedom without just cause.) I am however not the end all and be all of morality. Neither is anyone else.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 octobre 2010 - 12:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I wouldn't say moral nihilists necessarily lack self-awareness. They would in fact say that they alone have self-awareness and know the world as it is, while we are the ones coming up with artificial ideas. I don't agree with them, but I wouldn't necessarily call all of them not self-aware.

[Sarah1281]

Ryzaki wrote...

^the above poster

But who are you to say what's moral and immoral? And what's immoral for one person may actually be a decision of morality for others.

I see.

I'm not really trying to. I think the two examples I used (rescuing a random drowning baby for a moral one and randomly stabbing a stranger in the neck as an immoral one) are pretty non-controversial. If you can tell me why that might be an immoral and moral thing to do respectively then that would be great. I suppose you could argue with me about whether a decision that is called a shade of grey (not any in specific, just any one that earns that name) is moral or immoral but I believe that if these 'shades of grey' decisions can so easily be put into either category then they aren't really a shade of grey decision but are, instead, moral or immoral.