199 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
Dont need to; hypotheticals serve the purpose of conveying ideas in the simplest manner possible. If you want an example of an event that has actually occurred, see the bombing of Hiroshima in WW2. Result: Ended the War Quickly. Means: Kill a plethora of innocent people. By the way, if you need to use lines like "you've already failed" without in any way explaining your position, you've already failed.

Well, the factual there is somewhat in dispute (not from me, mind). But the example works fine for this sort of debate anyway.

[Anarya]

I question why you're even interested in playing DA2 if you hated everyone in Origins.



And, DA is not a blank slate. You're playing a hero. You can be an anti-hero or a renegade hero, but you can't truly be a villain, and that's a design choice that you need to reconcile yourself with if you want to play the game.

[the_one_54321]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I don't think we can arrive at that conclusion logically without making a certain set of assumptions.

Yeah, isn't that almost exactly what I said?

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
For instance, you speak of rights. I'm aware that many have tried or have believed themselves to be successfully, but I've never seen any logical argument which proved that 'rights' (in the fundamental sense of the word) were objective.

It's incredibly more simple than you're giving it credit for. The problem is that people toss subjectivity into it all the time. One could easily make the argument that humans are simply, on some fundamental level, just incapable of being fully objective when reasoning these things. One needs to know all the facts to reach an accurate conclusion and one pretty much never can know all the facts.

The first line is "cannot be hindered or harmed unless first hindering or harming someone else." From there the possibilities explode into the infinite. And also explodes into include the subjective valuations of personal bias. This is why doing the right thing so hard all the time.

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
You talk as if this man not being innocent in certain circumstances would permit you the right to kill him. Why under any circumstances should you be permitted to take this man's life?

I simply do not make the assumption that there does not exist a situation where the forfeiture of his life would be just.

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I assure you that regardless of what you say, you shall arrive at a contradiction in having claimed that you wouldn't kill this man in order to extend the lives of others.

I said nothing about the reason or what the gains are. As I mentioned above, I simply refraned from assuming that there cannot exist a situation where the forfeiture of his life would be just.

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
That said, I don't believe that one can always clearly see what is right or wrong and that much is left up to interpretation.

The problem is that in order to make an accurate value judgement one must know all of the facts. In a thought expiriment like the hyothetical you posed above, one can. In real life there is a strong argument that one can never actually know all the facts.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[True Zarken]

Why not become the Champion?

[SnakeStrike8]

What's the point in becoming the ruler of any nation? I'll bet one can come up with dozens of reasons why Hitler wanted to be Furher of Germany. Or why Churchill wanted to become Prime Minister of England. Or why Tony Blair wanted to do the same. Or why Alexander the Great wanted to rule everything. Or why Gaius Julius Ceaser wanted to rule the Roman Republic.

It'll come down to personal reasons, and I suspect the writing team will give plenty of those for players to pick and choose from.

If none of those reasons appeal to you, then play some other game. Simple as that.

[Ziggeh]

Is DA2 not the story of how Hawke becomes the Champion?



Call me Captain Crazypants, but I'm sort of assuming that "why" might be a rather large part of the how. Unless it's just an accident. Maybe it's a lottery and they make a new Champion each year, it's just something they throw at you near the end of the game after ten years of smacking rats with a stick.

[the_one_54321]

Ok, Captain Crazypants.

[Ortaya Alevli]

First Angrypants, now Crazypants.

Just what the hell.

[the_one_54321]

It's all about the pants.

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's all about the pants.

Isabela would like to have a word with you!

[the_one_54321]

That's still about the pants. It's about the pants that she's not wearing.

[Ortaya Alevli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That's still about the pants. It's about the pants that she's not wearing.

Blah. Touche.

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That's still about the pants. It's about the pants that she's not wearing.

Potential pants.

[Maconbar]

Captain Underpants - the Champion of Kirkwall

[Wicked 702]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Wicked 702 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

[Ziggeh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

Indeed, they're concepts that rely purely on morality which is entirely subjective. Given that we're posting on a forum for a game built around exploring the sheer grey rainbow of the greyness of morality makes it an interesting debate, but a short one.

[the_one_54321]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I tend to disagree with "morality choices shouldn't be black-and-white" because I tend to believe rather strongly that morality actually is always black-and-white and that "gray areas" are a self-defense mental construct that people use to lend themselves justification in their actions.

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

She's about got it. You completely ignore the idea of morality, good, evil, etc. It's about ethics and objective valuation. You construct notions of right and wrong based on simple factual statements. But no one will every agree with this for at least the next 100X years. And so we will continue to have constant conflict.

ziggehunderslash wrote...
makes it an interesting debate, but a short one.

Oh, not at all. In fact it could easily be quite long and involved. The supposed grayness of morality crumbles rather quickly when approached the correct way.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 novembre 2010 - 12:36 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I mean really, just look at Ferelden. It's populated by idiots: Loghain,
Cailan, Lily, Jowan, Alistair, Maric, Isolde, Eamon, Murdock, Erlina,
Howe, Vaughn, Harrowmont, Bhelen, Branka, Oghren, Mithra, Zathrian,
Sarel, Cauthrien, Wynne, Velanna, Howe's Noble lackeys, Ser Guy,
Constable Aidan... 

What is your definition of an idiot, because you kind of indicated that the whole cast was a lame duck.

When I think of a lame duck cast, I think of Stargate: Universe. Why? Because the entire point of the show is that they are idiots.

[Wicked 702]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

Do I have to? I thought they didn't actually exist...

[Bryy_Miller]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

Do I have to? I thought they didn't actually exist...

Then how do you function in society if you don't label things?

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oh, not at all. In fact it could easily be quite long and involved. The supposed grayness of morality crumbles rather quickly when approached the correct way.

Ehh, true, you get into some very sticky territory and then everyone agrees to respect each other's beliefs.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

And I take the exact opposite viewpoint. Good and evil are just constructs...and they don't actually exist.

Interesting debate that would be.

And I think morality has nothing to do with good and evil.

*whistle*

Substitute "right and wrong" for "good and evil" maybe?

I mean, how else do you decide what things are morally proper? You have to label them somehow don't you?

Do I have to? I thought they didn't actually exist...

Then how do you function in society if you don't label things?

Who says I don't label things?

[the_one_54321]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Then how do you function in society if you don't label things?

You construct things definitively rather than labeling them based on individualized valuations.
See, each individual has a set of biased valuations based on their current sum of experiences through life. The first thing to do is to completely wipe that slate clear. Pretty much all existing moral systems are biased and corrupted in some way, but people adhere to them dogmatically. Religions, laws, philosophies. Everything has been corrupted over time by bias and subjectivity. You  begin with the simplest of starting points: don't harm things. And, as I said before, everything explodes into infinite possibilities from there. This is why laws are never perfect. There are too many possible situations and so no law will ever be without exceptions. But that does not imply that it is impossible to construct a set of perfectly objective ethics. You'll just never finish constructing it because there are an infininte number of possible scenarios.