68 réponses à ce sujet

[mr_afk]

I don't know.. I never really liked him that much. Wouldn't go as far to say I wanted to kill him but he did sort of irritate me. All those uncompromising beliefs and attitudes make him a bit of a douche. Plus he always acted like he had a stick up his backside. haha

It's probably because I never really could relate to their whole idea of duty etc. It's a really interesting concept and gives the qunari an interesting story lore-wise but it doesn't really make much sense to me - like sten needing his sword in order to not be killed or something. :/
I suppose it's meant to feel foreign so they succeeded in that part.

You could see the Arishok as been really profound/wise but also if you think about it, he basically lacked self-control. Sure, he did wait 5 years or so but that whole time instead of attempting to improve anything (or prove that the qun is a superior way to live) he just sat around growing more and more resentful of his situation. So when he did finally act what did he do? He just ran around killing people - how is that improving anything?

Social reform may require some elements of change but randomly attacking and killing the leader of the city who had (somewhat begrudgingly) hosted them for the past years is just rude! haha. Plus what did he hope to achieve? All the surrounding kingdoms/the Divine's armies could just wipe him - there weren't that many qunari after-all. This suggests he didn't even have a plan or any fore-sight really - and was just angry and lashing out with violence; A rather infantile and counter-productive way to demonstrate that his theology and method of living is 'superior'.

And finally (because I probably should be doing my essay), I don't even understand how that duel made sense. Isabela stole something = a crime. A crime = punishment. Hawke not wanting that punishment to occur = fight to the death?
It's not like Isabela was a prize or anything.. she was a criminal/thief. So firstly according to the qun's strict code of conduct they probably should have to drag her back to face justice no matter what - and if they are willing compromise and to break those rules after the duel/if they don't have those rules why did the arishok have to pick a fight with hawke? Seems a little contrived in a way - like the developers thought, 'hey a duel would be awesome' and dumped it in, even though it made the arishok appear even less in control/slightly stupid really.

haha hope you like my ad lib rant on the arishok


edit: Decided to do a quick summary:
So what I'm saying is that to me the Arishok is like a spoilt child/baby. He's used to been in control and in a world where everything made sense. Now that he is forced into a world he doesn't understand and can't take it. He think he has the right and the power to impose a change and does so, in much the same manner of a temper tantrum. There's no real thought of compromise, of trying to understand other people's culture and ideology - instead he looks down condendingly and finds examples of the human corruption etc.

I do feel that he didn't have the easiest time though - the qunari were feared and somewhat segregated; and stupid things like Varnell and Petrice happened. But even still... blehh back to my essay haha

Modifié par mr_afk, 12 mai 2011 - 04:00 .

[tonnactus]

mr_afk wrote...


You could see the Arishok as been really profound/wise but also if you think about it, he basically lacked self-control. Sure, he did wait 5 years or so but that whole time instead of attempting to improve anything (or prove that the qun is a superior way to live)

He was convincing enough for the son of the viscount and maybee hoped that this example would convince others to convert to the qun.But he was killed. He just thought after this it was time to cleanse the dirt,rotten city with some blood...
The viscount himself failed to even protect his son because of his weakness and not taken actions against the fanatics,he was a symbol of all what was wrong in kirkwall in his oppinion. So he killed him.
To hold still even after the most important convert was killed would have made the Arishok to something that the viscount was...

The viscount deserved their fate and the grand cleric too(in some way).Both had the power and influence to change/prevent things and they did nothing.(not want to take sides made it all worser,not better)

Modifié par tonnactus, 12 mai 2011 - 05:50 .

[ezrafetch]

mr_afk wrote...
edit: Decided to do a quick summary:
So what I'm saying is that to me the Arishok is like a spoilt child/baby. He's used to been in control and in a world where everything made sense. Now that he is forced into a world he doesn't understand and can't take it. He think he has the right and the power to impose a change and does so, in much the same manner of a temper tantrum. There's no real thought of compromise, of trying to understand other people's culture and ideology - instead he looks down condendingly and finds examples of the human corruption etc.

I do feel that he didn't have the easiest time though - the qunari were feared and somewhat segregated; and stupid things like Varnell and Petrice happened. But even still... blehh back to my essay haha

I don't see it as "spoiled child/baby," but as more of an extremely rigid set of beliefs that casts absolutely everything in terms of black and white.  It's also a set of views that promotes "social harmony" or "social cohesion" to its effective limit: anything acting against those goals is, at best, a grave offense and at worst, is treasonous.  Too bad for the Arishok, the whole game is a lesson in everything being in shades of gray and showcasing disharmony.

My 2c, though.  He's still easy to kill.

Modifié par ezrafetch, 12 mai 2011 - 06:49 .

[mr_afk]

bleh, that was my speed run of an analysis. I figured there must be some reason why I don't really like him - I can't be that shallow to dislike him on appearance alone can I?
Maybe i just don't like seeing everything in black and white - that's blinding yourself to the whole spectrum/the real world.

But yeah,
@tonnactus I thought that was Ashaad, not the arishok who effectively converted Saemus. I don't dislike the qunari in general, just don't think the arishok is worthy of all the respect that people like to attribute to him. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions, i just find it strange.

Also, cleansing the city is all well and good if you have a plan afterwards. As it is, I can't see any way out of the mess he created other than either running back to par vollen (stealing some ships) having practically started a war - or sitting tight in Kirkwall and facing the armies e.g. another war. So either way he seems to have been somewhat impulsive (unless the plan all along was for him to randomly start wars) and such actions do seem a little silly to me/make him lesser to me.

but I agree that if all the power figures weren't so weak they wouldn't have needed hawke to step in and save the day - but hey, where would the story be without the need for hawke?

[Jack-Nader]

There was a lot of wisdom in what he was saying but, like in all things I think he and the Qun only had it part right.

an example of this:
The qun was really about bringing order and control to a chaotic world. What they failed to realise is that their idea of order is actually chaos. The real world is order on a scale that the individual cannot fathom, like a single cell cannot understand the machinations/ workings of the entire body. Everything in nature is balanced in such a way that the "poles" are never destroyed. Good and evil must exist in equal measure. Without the two extremes providing continuous interaction, nothing is learned, nothing is gained. So as you can see, the Qun as it seeks to control will inevitable doom itself because it seeks to stamp out the countering pole. The natural system will inevitably counter by balancing the equation. In this case, the Arishok died because he failed to grasp this concept. He heaped vengence upon the opposing pole and as such, the natural system countered by heaping vengence upon him.

It is also interesting to note that in human society, nearly everything is backwards or has been skewed to the negative side.  If you've ever sat and pondered this, it has some serious ramifications.  There is always a price to be paid.

Modifié par Jack-Nader, 12 mai 2011 - 07:34 .

[mr_afk]

wow, that's profound.
reminds me of something I read somewhere but can't remember.

Hmm I agree with most of that besides how good and evil aren't the same as order and chaos..?
While the d&d system likes to categorise people into these spectrums I normally see it more like nature is naturally chaotic, wild and free. Mankind imposes order on this chaos, in part to understand it and in part to retain some sense of control - as nature will resist such control. Thus you get the ordered 'civilised' world we live in. Anything free from rules and laws will slip towards chaos, as the drive for survival creates a new set of chaotic 'rules'.

Good and evil are merely social constructs, ethics and morals developed and permeated throughout society via religion, philosophy and culture. What might be evil to one people might be perfectly acceptable to another. Activities that promote social harmony are usually viewed as good and those which disrupt as evil.

The Qun seems to be avoiding the concept of good and evil and social harmony simply by creating a system where things either are done that way or not done that way. Their primarily goal seems to be one of order. Which is why the Arishok is so upset at the chaos of human society.

I also don't really think there's such a thing as karma/a balancing between these ends of the spectrum. It is quite possible for one side to completely overpower the other.
edit: Ah, i just saw your addition. And yes, if society continues along the path what could happen is a flip, a reversal as such - or everything stagnating and dying.
Like if you upset the balance and disrupt ecosystems by chopping down all the trees and killing all the wildlife you can get the spiral into unsustainability where nothing can survive and it turns into a desert, unusable by everyone. Until many years in the future nature will reclaim it. Or if you have a society with too many bad people robbing the farmers then nobody will want to be a farmer/all the farmers will die and everybody starves.

/attempt to sound profound. It's too late and my brain hurts too much to come up with anything more. haha

Modifié par mr_afk, 12 mai 2011 - 07:52 .

[Jack-Nader]

Human definition of good is not good at all, but is actually evil. The proper definition of good is "something that does not seek to control." The proper definition of evil is "something that seeks to control." They are polar opposites and both required in order to bring about purpose/growth. There is no such thing as good in human society. It is always evil mascarading as good. Ever wondered why "peace keepers" are called peace keepers? Is it possible to keep the peace by bringing the sword?

Video games provide a perfect example of this. You can play through an entire game selecting only good choices. At the end of the game, pull up your character profile and look at your kill count

The word truth is another one of my favourite examples to illustrate how everything has been skewed. The proper definition of the word truth is "Everything that ever was, is, or will be." It is simply all the peices of the puzzle put together into a gigantic picture. The truth is that picture. Each peice of this picture is a fact. Any fact that does not fit the picture is a lie. Anything short of not being able to see the whole picture is to be in ignorance of it. Therefore to know only the lie.

During our lifespans we all inevitably seek truth. We never find it, but the the more facts we collect the closer we get to it. IMO it is our purpose for being. The meaning of life itself.

mr_afk wrote...

I also don't really think there's such a thing as karma/a balancing between these ends of the spectrum. It is quite possible for one side to completely overpower the other.
edit: Ah, i just saw your addition. And yes, if society continues along the path what could happen is a flip, a reversal as such - or everything stagnating and dying.
Like if you upset the balance and disrupt ecosystems by chopping down all the trees and killing all the wildlife you can get the spiral into unsustainability where nothing can survive and it turns into a desert, unusable by everyone. Until many years in the future nature will reclaim it. Or if you have a society with too many bad people robbing the farmers then nobody will want to be a farmer/all the farmers will die and everybody starves.

You also just countered your own intitial conclusion It is exactly as you wrote in your example. Karma is the term we humans gave to this balancing force. In nature it is everywhere if you open your eyes. Everything is balanced.. It is order on a scale we can only see glimpses of with our minds. When any one thing attempts to stamp or succeeds in stamping out any other thing, a balancing must occur to restore the equation. Are you familiar with cycles? Energy sharing etc? A breathe is a perfect example. For us to survive we must breathe in oxygen. In turn we must exhale carbon dioxide to complete the equation. If we hold our breathe and try to keep hold of that energy we die, and the other half of the equation also dies. The two must give and take in equal measure for both to exist. They must also give and take in a perfect cyclic pattern. This is a fundamental constant. It is prevelent everywhere and in all aspects of the universe.

Our monetary system is an example of an unatural system.  To put it simply, it was designed by a select few individuals to transfer the wealth of the entire planet into the hands of the few.  In effect it is just like sucking in as much air as possible and then trying to hold your breath.  It is a doomed system.  The natural laws will balance it and when this occurs you will see the human civilisation crumble and decay along with it.  Corporations are another example of unnatural systems.  Picture two tanks of money.  The first tank represents the people.  The second tank represents the corporation.  For the corporation to survive it must draw money from the people.  For the people to survive they must draw money from the corporation.  Anytime the corporation achieves a "profit,"  it is really a fancy way of saying that the corporation has sucked more cash out of the peoples tank and stored it within its own coffers.  Now the question remains, what happens when the peoples tank is empty?  It's amusing that in this day and age people care so much about corporate profits.  In actuality these people are heralding their own destruction.

Modifié par Jack-Nader, 12 mai 2011 - 08:45 .

[Chugster]

just wondering...those of you who have troubles with this guy...did you try to fight him toe to toe...or did you run around like a headless chicken and kite him?

ive soloed him as a 2h warrior (normal) and rogue archer (hard), both times there was a lot of running, especially while CDs were up

Modifié par Chugster, 12 mai 2011 - 08:32 .

[p95h]

On Nightmare level, I believe Arishok has 5 heal potions. The hit and run fight lasts about 30-40 mins, unless you have a +dmg vs. Qunari weapon/staff. Long, boring, but effective.

[mr_afk]

hmm debatable. what definitions are you using?
Most definitions of good and evil are about morals you know...and morals are quite different from seeking control. You seem to be defining good and evil by the desire for power.
So what would be a 'good' king by your definition?
A king who doesn't want to be king? one who doesn't exercise his power/control over his subjects? Who doesn't tax them and lets them do their own thing? That wouldn't necessarily be a good king to me. That would be an irresponsible king. Same deal with governments. They are given power and 'control' and have a duty to use that power in a way that benefits all. Of course in this example abusing their power is obviously 'evil'.

In general terms, good and evil refers to what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. When we hear about someone saving a person from a burning building or protecting a person from danger they are presented as heroes, paragons of 'good'. Helping people is considered good. When we hear about a person drowning cats in rivers or murdering people we see that as evil. It's instilled into us from the moment we join society.

It is by this definition that we have morality presented to us in games. Good characters will try to be helpful and won't kill people unless it is justified by justice or by merit of protecting themselves or others. Evil characters will be less helpful and tend to just kill things for selfish gain. Dragonage isn't the best example of a good and evil choices in the game; something like maybe fable could be more clear-cut. Even still, it presents an interesting ambiguity in what is right and wrong. For example look at the grey wardens. The order doesn't claim to be good or evil, it has a duty and purpose and will go by any means possible to achieve it. Their purpose is for the greater 'good' but does that really justify doing things considered 'evil' (like burning villages so the darkspawn..get bored?)

Also, truth does not necessarily refer to 'everything'. it usually has to be grounded in some context. And anyway, the truth is always subjective making anything but 'a truth' impossible to obtain. And whats the point anyway? I mean trying to understand everything there is to understand is a noble goal but it's hardly a raison d'etre. If anything, trying to discover our purpose may be the purpose in life- and as we grow older and are able to look back maybe one day we'll see what our purpose was and be fulfilled in knowing we completed it. Of course this is discounting the possibility that there is no meaning or purpose so we might as well not think about it - in which case life is about experiencing all there is to experience and creating your own purpose.


haha I know
I was actually referring to the shorter term, not everybody looks into the distant future for apocalypses you know haha (though I for one do my fair share of that). In the short term there is the possibility of great imbalances and great injustices have lasted for many many years without any mighty balancing force coming down to smite us all. As for your theory on cycles....

Basically, what you're talking about is homeostasis. In order for life, we must maintain equilibrium as energy always tends to drop to a steadier state and life isn't very stable. Gives a whole new meaning to life been fragile. Our bodies can't survive without oxygen as we need to oxidise glucose and form ATP - without which our bodies won't be able to maintain homeostasis and cells will begin to die. And yes, there's also laws of energy conservation in physics so everything should be able to cycle around forever right? But unfortunately that is not the case - until we discover a way to convert mass into energy anyway. At the moment we are relying on the sun for energy - and that is a finite source. Though interestingly I suppose that using waves from the moon's gravitic pull could enable some sort of energy production to still go on (though wind will die and the water cycle would become pretty messed up and with the surface cooling down the core would eventually lose it's heat and waves/oceans won't provide any energy when theyre forzen..). WOW that was a huge tangent I just went off in. My brain is literally turning off now. Sorry.

Any other time I would be happy to maintain a deep and meaningful discussion on philosophy but actually doing work (that friggin essay) seems to have drained me more than I thought :/
But yeah, I don't actually believe that all these cycles you speak of are as perfect as you think. They are well designed but they still are finite.

Till next time/ going off to crash now.
edit: Wooww didn't realise my post was so long until i just saw it  No wonder my brain is turning off. Sorry for the wall of text


@Chugster - depends if you want to employ bugs/glitches. Without using them you basically have to kite as the arishok simply has more life, more armour/defense, and a greater ability to stab you through the chest and pick you up on it, squirming like a worm or something

Modifié par mr_afk, 12 mai 2011 - 09:26 .

[brazen_nl]

ZOMG! Is this going to be part of the essay you're (supposed to be) writing? 

[mr_afk]

No..
Well actually, my essay is on procrastination and I think I have just proved that I'm an expert on that subject

Modifié par mr_afk, 12 mai 2011 - 09:34 .

[Jack-Nader]

Definitions are from very ancient texts. Read things like corpus hermetica, very old but very wise document. It will probably take you many many readthroughs before you start to get it. As with all things, you have to understand that everything has be skewed and for a reason. Find out what that reason is and you will begin to see things as they are, not as you were told they are. A good book to read, totally unrelated to this but will give you an understanding of just how it was done. John taylor Gatto, Underground history of american education. Basically shows you who created the education system and the reasons why (plenty of quotes from the most influencial people involved in its creation.) I guarantee that it will raise your eyebrow

[brazen_nl]

Oh, the irony ...

[Jack-Nader]

I don't think your procrastinating at all. There is a big part of you that doesn't want to do it. That part of you is telling you something. You're just not listening. Reminds me of when I first started going to college 10 years ago. Difference is.. I listened to it

[mr_afk]

Haha no i'm pretty sure that I'm doing what i want to do. I'm one of the lucky ones who managed to find a course leading to something which fits into my idea of a meaningful occupation.
Of course study isn't always fun though.

Hermetica huh? Sounds... interesting
anyhow, I think i'm off now. not sure what time it is over where you are but over here any sane person should be sleeping - or doing the essays they're supposed to be doing haha

Modifié par mr_afk, 12 mai 2011 - 09:45 .

[Jack-Nader]

Another one you might want to check out is Albert Pikes Morals and dogma.

[TGiNcRySiS]

I hate the fact that Isabella is gone now because of my choices. So sucks.

[ezrafetch]

Chugster wrote...

just wondering...those of you who have troubles with this guy...did you try to fight him toe to toe...or did you run around like a headless chicken and kite him?

ive soloed him as a 2h warrior (normal) and rogue archer (hard), both times there was a lot of running, especially while CDs were up

If you have Spirit Healer, it's a cakewalk.  Healing Aura + minimal kiting >>> his DPS (Arishok has high burst damage, low DPS).  Gravitic Ring will glitch him out, as will Decoy for Rogues.

Mages have the easiest time, followed by Rogues and then followed by Warriors.  Warriors have no CC and are meant to deal with multiple threats at once.  When it's only one threat, Warriors are not good, especially the Arishok who has a good armor rating.  Rogues are better, but a lot of running is needed to keep your distance as a squishy.  Mages have tons of CC options (Gravitic Ring, Petrify, Winter's Grasp, Glyph...not sure if Glyph works though, never used it), so it's a cakewalk.  You could even just torment him with Hexes  (up'd Misdirection Hex for ultra slow) and make the Arishok weep in facing his utter futility.