301 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Oh, no. You understood me before, and now you're just jumping on the bandwagon.

What bandwagon?THe bandwagon of ripping your PC's "lawful" nature apart? 

You can't cherry pick what laws you want to follow. That's not being lawful.

MorningBird wrote...
FENRIS LEAVES WILLINGLY!  HAWKE JUST REFUSES TO TAKE SIDES!  IT'S NOT SLAVERY TILL HE GETS BOSSED AROUND IN TEVINTER, RIGHT, RIGHT? *is shot*

Lmao. 

Nope. Hawke very clearly says "Take him." 

That's picking a side. 

Refusing to take sides would've been screw both of you I'm outta here. And leaving the Hanged Man. And Hawke certainly wouldn't have accepted Danarius money. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:38 .

[MorningBird]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

FENRIS LEAVES WILLINGLY!  HAWKE JUST REFUSES TO TAKE SIDES!  IT'S NOT SLAVERY TILL HE GETS BOSSED AROUND IN TEVINTER, RIGHT, RIGHT? *is shot*

*takes the bullet for MorningBird*

NOHOWCANILIVEWITHOUTYOU? *weeps*

[Esoj16]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I already have, all throughout this thread. I don't really feel like recapping for you if you don't want to read what I've already written.

You're right, I didn't read through all your arguments just a few, though one thing's for sure, your hypothetical character would not be a Lawful type, that's all I'm saying since I saw you use that excuse in some of your posts.


@ Crocodile  I never knew he did that, wow that's a new low for Anders

Modifié par Link3521, 05 avril 2011 - 04:43 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

What bandwagon?THe bandwagon of ripping your PC's "lawful" nature apart? 

You can't cherry pick what laws you want to follow. That's not being lawful.

You absolutely can. We've already established that this character, born and raised in Tevinter, and possessed of the conviction that Tevinter laws, not any other laws, are what define "justice." She believes that justice knows no jurisdiction, that it's applicable everywhere. What the law is in Kirkwall is irrelevant, because justice is Tevinter law and justice is everywhere.

That was established pages ago.

[Ryzaki]

Crocodiles wrote...

I love Anders and all, but if he kills the mage girl in the dissent quest, he tells you that he is going to go to the girls funeral and hopes that her family thinks a templar killed her instead of him, you know the girl who he just impaled with his staff as she begged for her life.

Yeah I was kind of like "urgh" at that part too. Thankfully Aveline sets him straight. 

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

What bandwagon?THe bandwagon of ripping your PC's "lawful" nature apart? 

You can't cherry pick what laws you want to follow. That's not being lawful.

You absolutely can. We've already established that this character, born and raised in Tevinter, and possessed of the conviction that Tevinter laws, not any other laws, are what define "justice." She believes that justice knows no jurisdiction, that it's applicable everywhere. What the law is in Kirkwall is irrelevant, because justice is Tevinter law and justice is everywhere.

That was established pages ago.

If she was born and raised in Tevinter Fenris wouldn't have been traveling with her in the first place so this is no longer an arguement to begin with. You have no leg to stand on about him being forced on her because he isn't. He's not forced on anyone and he only travels with Hawke. 

So you're complaining about something your character would never experience. Thanks for successfully wasting my time. <_<

Your hypotical character isn't Hawke, wouldn't have met Fenris and would have no way to turn him over. If you're going to throw this out there. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Your hypotical character isn't Hawke, wouldn't have met Fenris and would have no way to turn him over. If you're going to throw this out there.

I never said any of that was true. That's the point of it being a hypothetical, and unconstrained by the circumstances forced by the game.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

So you're complaining about something your character would never experience. Thanks for successfully wasting my time. <_<

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just defending my position, that a very particular character could hand Fenris to Danarius without being what I'd call a douche. But... you're welcome? I thought we were having fun

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

What bandwagon?THe bandwagon of ripping your PC's "lawful" nature apart? 

You can't cherry pick what laws you want to follow. That's not being lawful.

You absolutely can. We've already established that this character, born and raised in Tevinter, and possessed of the conviction that Tevinter laws, not any other laws, are what define "justice." She believes that justice knows no jurisdiction, that it's applicable everywhere. What the law is in Kirkwall is irrelevant, because justice is Tevinter law and justice is everywhere.

That was established pages ago.

Justice.

Game. Set. Match.



Slavery would always be an exception.

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 05 avril 2011 - 04:50 .

[Miri1984]

No matter WHAT hypothetical situation your character comes from, giving an escaped slave back to his former master still makes your hypothetical character a right royal ******. Which I believe was the starting point of this argument. Doesn't matter if he/she was a lawful ******, or a chaotic evil ******, or a neutral ******, they're still a ******. And in my opinion, a bigger ****** than Anders, in that situation.

Also, I didn't know that bit about Anders going to the girl's funeral, but it's another example of his total failure at self editing. I know if I'd been in his situation I would probably have THOUGHT that, but I wouldn't have SAID it.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So you're complaining about something your character would never experience. Thanks for successfully wasting my time. <_<

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just defending my position, that a very particular character could hand Fenris to Danarius without being what I'd call a douche. But... you're welcome? I thought we were having fun

This particular character can not hand over Fenris PERIOD. 
This particular character has a high chance of being phase punched at first meeting. 

This particular character would've gotten killed for trying to hand Fenris over. 

This particular character is still a douche. 

A lawful douche but still a douche. 

Which was my beginning point.  

That said this particular character wouldn't be a douche for betrayal but for being a slaving bastard with no empathy. Especially if he/she came from Tevinter and should be fully aware of what happens to slaves there. (So that whole doesn't think he was abused excuse rings hollow). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:54 .

[mesmerizedish]

makenzieshepard wrote...
Justice.

Game. Set. Match.

Pulling out Picard is just mean-spirited and cheating.

But I never said that my character was right, either. I think she's wrong and more than a little frakked in the head. But I don't think she's a douche.

[Myusha]

Anders is critically brutal and mean spirited as the story goes on. It's not the real Anders.

Anders is being influenced by Justice's/Vengeance's beliefs. He's more critical, he spares no one's feelings, calls out mistakes, is hypocritical and will do anything to accomplish his goal of freeing mages.

Justice is being influenced by Ander's hatred and became Vengeance. Justice used to be nice, curious of the world, knew of the dark and good that crept in every corner and gave everyone chances when it had the opportunity.

Now he's a possessive demon, who has deluded himself into thinking he holds fragments of his old former Justice, and wants to accomplish his goal and destroy the templars forever.

These changes are small at first but they're being influenced by each other. The bad elements added to Anders via Justice are becoming more noticeable as Justice becomes Vengeance, and Justice's transition to Vengeance is due to Anders extreme hate of the templars that gets fueled by the bad elements Anders have. He's basically crumbling over the years, where at first he's nice to a jackass who blew up the chantry.

The Varric and Anders dialogue almost shows a good transition of this.

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

No matter WHAT hypothetical situation your character comes from, giving an escaped slave back to his former master still makes your hypothetical character a right royal ******. Which I believe was the starting point of this argument. Doesn't matter if he/she was a lawful ******, or a chaotic evil ******, or a neutral ******, they're still a ******. And in my opinion, a bigger ****** than Anders, in that situation.

Until you objectively define "right royal ******," we're not even having a debate.

[Ryzaki]

Ishamel your character sounds like the mooks whose face I smashed in while freeing Fenris.

So yeah. DEAD.

Your character is a dead douche.

Congrats.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:55 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ishamel your character sounds like the mooks whose face I smashed in while freeing Fenris.

So yeah. DEAD.

Your character is a dead douche.

Congrats.  

I don't undestand why you're getting so upset

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I don't undestand why you're getting so upset 

Because your arguement went everywhere and you didn't bother saying from the jump your character wasn't Hawke.

So 90% of Fenris arguements don't apply to your character because they would never be in that situation. The only thing that they would probably see is the edge of Hawke's blade / Fenris phase punch.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:59 .

[Miri1984]

@ishmaeltheforsaken An arrogant, ignorant, morally repugnant, ****. .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Because your arguement went everywhere and you didn't bother saying from the jump your character wasn't Hawke. 

My argument was only ever in one place. "Act A doesn not necessitate a douche actor." I proceeded to describe an actor who would commit Act A without being (in my mind) a douche.

From the getgo I stated very clearly that the circumstances the game forces (such as being Hawke) do in fact make whatever character you play, in the game, a douche. I always agreed to that. But, it's those circumstances that make it douchey, not the act itself. Because, as I've said, a different actor can commit the act without being a douche.

You disagree. So, the question "what is a douche?" was of course asked. I provided some points that are required for someone to be a douche, as I use the term. But no one provided any counter to that definition. So, you're using a word that you refuse to define.

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

@ishmaeltheforsaken An arrogant, ignorant, morally repugnant, ****. .

She's clearly neither arrogant nor ignorant, and "morally repugnant" is a value judgment that has no use in a definition of a term

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
My argument was only ever in one place. "Act A doesn not necessitate a douche actor." I proceeded to describe an actor who would commit Act A without being (in my mind) a douche.

Except your character is still a douche. Just a instiutionalized douche. 

He/She is fully aware of what'll happen to Fenris and doesn't care. 

From the getgo I stated very clearly that the circumstances the game forces (such as being Hawke) do in fact make whatever character you play, in the game, a douche. I always agreed to that. But, it's those circumstances that make it douchey, not the act itself. Because, as I've said, a different actor can commit the act without being a douche.

You disagree. So, the question "what is a douche?" was of course asked. I provided some points that are required for someone to be a douche, as I use the term. But no one provided any counter to that definition. So, you're using a word that you refuse to define.

The act itself is douchey. As is the circumstances. And no you can't hand Fenris over to Danarius without being a douche. 

Douche = Jerk***, cruel, morally repugant, stain, insignificant, disgusting. 

It means everything insulting to someone to me. 

And your character is a douche. 

You may think your character isn't. But in my view (and apparently others) s/he's a douche. 

I have a jerk*** with a heart of gold. He's still a jerk***. His surrondings turned him into one but he's still a jerk***. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:07 .

[Miri1984]

We can descend into semantics if you like, but I made it quite clear that this was a personal opinion of what your character does. The argument isn't an argument. I want my five pounds back.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Douche = Jerk***, cruel, morally repugant, stain, insignificant, disgusting.

You can throw around terms like that all you want. I can say those things about you. I don't, because I don't believe that any of them are true. But the point is that they can't be objectively applied to anyone. They're useless adjectives.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Douche = Jerk***, cruel, morally repugant, stain, insignificant, disgusting.

You can throw around terms like that all you want. I can say those things about you. I don't, because I don't believe that any of them are true. But the point is that they can't be objectively applied to anyone. They're useless adjectives.

And your character is still a douche to me. 

So I can throw it around all I want. 

Again I guess my character that would kill Anders for his relationship with Karl isn't a douche either. After all he's from the country that kills legally for said relationships!  He's doing a noble and just thing! 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:11 .

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

We can descend into semantics if you like, but I made it quite clear that this was a personal opinion of what your character does. The argument isn't an argument. I want my five pounds back.

This has, from the very start, been an argument of semantics. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that.