301 réponses à ce sujet

[Jean]

Ryzaki wrote...

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. 

Ooh, what does Aveline say about it?

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

And your character is still a douche to me.

So I can throw it around all I want.

Yes, you can. It doesn't make it fact.

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! {smilie}

I've already addressed this.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I've already addressed this.

By throwing around the murder word? Once again it's legal where he's from. So the murder is overridden by it being his sacred duty.  

So what he's doing is perfectly aligned with law as well. 

Batteries wrote...
Ooh, what does Aveline say about it?

She tell him not to go and to let the parents mourn in peace. (He pokes at it like he didn't kill the girl but Aveline calls him out on that real fast). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[Miri1984]

@ishmaeltheforsaken No, it was an argument of semantics on YOUR side. On my side, it was a discussion of why, in my opinion, a Hawke who turns Fenris over to slavers is a bigger dick than Anders, who says some pretty offensive things, but still doesn't sell his companions into slavery. I was trying to tie it back to the original post, which was discussing the relative offensiveness of Anders compared to other characters, and you were trying to pin down the definition of a word. Which means it wasn't an argument at all, because we were arguing different things.

[Masako52]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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

 I feel like your argument is assuming that morality is relative. I argue that, though there is gray, morality is not always relative. Murder, rape, etc. are always morally wrong, whether or not a society encourages them. Someone can believe that they are doing a good thing by murdering people, but I argue that they are not. They are doing immoral things, and at best have good intentions but that doesn't negate the immorality of their actions.

Obligatory slippery-slope argument - would Hitler be "not a douche" if he truly believed eradicating the Jewish people was the best thing to do for all the people of Germany? Obviously not. He murdered a lot of people, he is a douche.

As far as the law goes - your law-abiding character believes that she is upholding laws in which it is not her call to question, and respects the institution of slavery. She therefore regards Fenris as stolen property in which ought to be returned to his master. She would have been upfront about her intentions from the start, and therefore not betrayed him - simply gone through with what Fenris would have known she would do from the start. Barring the unlikely circumstance that Fenris wouldn't just kill her on the spot or at very least leave her. Your character is consistent.

But this is why she's a douche: her actions, though "lawful", show a complete disregard for human life. Generally, morality is relative until someone is in danger and your actions harm someone else. Her choice was to either give Fenris over to Danarius, and thus seriously harm Fenris's well-being - and do so knowingly and acceptingly, or to protect Fenris against someone that disregards his well-being and humanity.

I don't think everyone in Tevinter is by definition a douche just because they don't start an uprising to free the slaves. But these kinds of choices are what define douchery, imo. putting way too much thought into this, lol. Anyway, respect other people, yo! Don't sell 'em out into slavery! word up, etc.

[Esoj16]

Can we just agree that the vast majority think that turning in Fenris to danarius makes your character a douche bag, I only see one person disagreeing with that statement but I think the rest of us can agree that in that situation Hawke is a bigger douche than Anders, which is why this debate started in the first place.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I've already addressed this.

By throwing around the murder word? Once again it's legal where he's from. So the murder is overridden by it being his sacred duty.

No, by saying that it was irrelevant unless the law stated that normal citizens were required to kill any gay person they saw.

You're trying to find some point at which I will say "yes, that's douchey regardless of motivation." You will not find that point. Every act is defensible somehow. There is no exception. There is always some circumstance, some situation in which I can say "That person is not a douche."

I will likely not say "That person is justified," or "That person is right," or even "That person is sane." But anything can have a reason.

[Ryzaki]

Miri1984 wrote...

@ishmaeltheforsaken No, it was an argument of semantics on YOUR side. On my side, it was a discussion of why, in my opinion, a Hawke who turns Fenris over to slavers is a bigger dick than Anders, who says some pretty offensive things, but still doesn't sell his companions into slavery. I was trying to tie it back to the original post, which was discussing the relative offensiveness of Anders compared to other characters, and you were trying to pin down the definition of a word. Which means it wasn't an argument at all, because we were arguing different things.

And this is why I want my time back. I thought the same thing. Instead of some hypotetical tevinter mook whose skull I probably smashed in while going through the holding pins. 

[Ryzaki]

Edit: screw this I'm not arguing semantics. 

Link3521 wrote...

Can we just agree that the vast majority think that turning in Fenris to danarius makes your character a douche bag, I only see one person disagreeing with that statement but I think the rest of us can agree that in that situation Hawke is a bigger douche than Anders, which is why this debate started in the first place.

Agreed. Hawke is a bigger douche in that situation than Anders. 

Not to mention Danarius gives you 5 Sovereigns. WTF is 5 sovereigns at that point in the game? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:26 .

[mesmerizedish]

Masako52 wrote...

 I feel like your argument is assuming that morality is relative. I argue that, though there is gray, morality is not always relative. Murder, rape, etc. are always morally wrong, whether or not a society encourages them. Someone can believe that they are doing a good thing by murdering people, but I argue that they are not. They are doing immoral things, and at best have good intentions but that doesn't negate the immorality of their actions.

I agree. But this character doesn't. And even if I think she's wrong, I don't think she's a douche.

Obligatory slippery-slope argument - would Hitler be "not a douche" if he truly believed eradicating the Jewish people was the best thing to do for all the people of Germany? Obviously not. He murdered a lot of people, he is a douche.

Less slippery slope, more reducto ad absurdum, which is what Ryzaki has been trying to do too. But I'm consistent. Hitler was evil and insane. He did truly believe that it was the best thing for Germany. And no, I don't think he was a douche. He was by the definition you're using, but not by the one I am. Which is why it's a semantic discussion.

As far as the law goes - your law-abiding character believes that she is upholding laws in which it is not her call to question, and respects the institution of slavery. She therefore regards Fenris as stolen property in which ought to be returned to his master. She would have been upfront about her intentions from the start, and therefore not betrayed him - simply gone through with what Fenris would have known she would do from the start. Barring the unlikely circumstance that Fenris wouldn't just kill her on the spot or at very least leave her. Your character is consistent.

Yes.

But this is why she's a douche: her actions, though "lawful", show a complete disregard for human life. Generally, morality is relative until someone is in danger and your actions harm someone else. Her choice was to either give Fenris over to Danarius, and thus seriously harm Fenris's well-being - and do so knowingly and acceptingly, or to protect Fenris against someone that disregards his well-being and humanity.

Her choice was to uphold her ideals or ignore them.

I don't think everyone in Tevinter is by definition a douche just because they don't start an uprising to free the slaves. But these kinds of choices are what define douchery, imo. putting way too much thought into this, lol. Anyway, respect other people, yo! Don't sell 'em out into slavery! word up, etc.

Word up indeed.

Miri1984 wrote...

No, it was an argument of semantics on
YOUR side. On my side, it was a discussion of why, in my opinion, a
Hawke who turns Fenris over to slavers is a bigger dick than Anders, who
says some pretty offensive things, but still doesn't sell his
companions into slavery. I was trying to tie it back to the original
post, which was discussing the relative offensiveness of Anders compared
to other characters, and you were trying to pin down the definition of a
word. Which means it wasn't an argument at all, because we were arguing
different things.

Until that word is defined it can't be applied. Until it can be applied, nothing can be argued.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Miri1984]

@Ishmaeltheforsaken And this is why I defined it. Twice.

[ThatDancingTurian]

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.

Wut.

Every time I think DA2 Anders has already maxed out my disapproval bar I find out something that makes me dislike him more.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

When did I say he was a normal citizen? He's a cop. He's supposed to uphold the law of his land. Anders broke it. So he kills him. That's all.

That's not what cops do. Cops investigate and arrest. And then lawyers prosecute, and judges sentence. Your character sounds like a douche.

And no I'm not trying to have you say it's douchey. I'm trying to get you to realize it's in line with your hypotical slaver.

But it's not. I already described the circumstances under which it would be.

Just like if Cullen decided to run Merrill through. She's a bloodmage. She should be killed according to templar law.

I agree. I don't think Wesley was a douche for being all "The Order dictates!" A little silly, and ignorant of circumstance, to be sure. But not douchey.

Every act is not defensible.There are shades of grey of course but there are some absolutes as well. Very few. But they still exist.

Shooting someone in the head for no reason isn't defensible. You killed someone for no reason.

That's true. It also has nothing to do with what I said. Every act can have a reason. If you shoot someone in the head for literally no reason (as in, not because you wanted to, not because you thought it'd be funny, not because the demons told you to, but for truly no reason at all), then you're not a douche. You're an entirely new kind of insane that I hope never to encounter, because it's terrifying.

But "shooting someone in the head for no reason" isn't an act. "Shooting someone in the head" is. And you can have a reason to shoot someone in the head.

You can alter the scenario to justify it. Shooting them because they had a highly contagious virus or something. But the original scenario can't be justified.

I think that's pretty much what I said above.

Agreed. Hawke is a bigger douche in that situation than Anders.

In that situation, probably. But in absolute terms, I still think Anders is the bigger douche.

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

@Ishmaeltheforsaken And this is why I defined it. Twice.

And I told you that your definitions were meaningless. Which they are.

[MorningBird]

Guys, I think it pretty much comes down to this:

You are more than welcome to think Hawke is a douche for turning in Fenris.

That doesn't automatically make a Hawke who turns in Fenris a douche. You may find his/her actions douche worthy, others may not.

For example, what if I play a Hawke whose fine with Fenris hanging around, but hesitant to support him against Danarius because he's a Tevinter Magister? An important political figure in Tevinter (a country not known for it's niceties.) What if my Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, doesn't want to cause further political strife by murdering a Magister in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses? Kirkwall doesn't have a Vicount. It has a crazy Knight-Commander and brewing civil unrest between mages and templars.

Let's face it, Kirkwall is not at it's best when Danarius rolls on into town.

Are you welcome to think my Hawke is a douche? By all means! However, while I might not necessarily agree with my Hawke's actions (allowing Danarius to reclaim his 'property') I wouldn't consider him a douche in such circumstances.

Once again, you're more than welcome to disagree =D and if all you're saying is, "I consider this brand of Hawke a douche" then that's more than fair.

Doesn't mean everyone is going to see the situation that way.

Modifié par MorningBird, 05 avril 2011 - 05:34 .

[Miri1984]

@ishmaeltheforsaken ... I don't even...



To you they were meaningless. To me they made perfect sense. And at this point I think I might be better off eating a plateful of crushed glass. So farewell thread. Have a lovely life.

[Lucy Glitter]

Anders can be a huge phallus in this game.

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 05 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[Crocodiles]

Ryzaki wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
I've already addressed this.

By throwing around the murder word? Once again it's legal where he's from. So the murder is overridden by it being his sacred duty.  

So what he's doing is perfectly aligned with law as well. 

Batteries wrote...
Ooh, what does Aveline say about it?

She tell him not to go and to let the parents mourn in peace. (He pokes at it like he didn't kill the girl but Aveline calls him out on that real fast). 

It would have been really awesome if you know, she arrested him. She is the captain of the guard afterall, and he committed murder

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

That's not what cops do. Cops investigate and arrest. And then lawyers prosecute, and judges sentence. Your character sounds like a douche.

Cops kill fleeing criminals if they can't make an arrest. Also there's nothing saying cops in his country aren't allowed to execute certain criminals if a trial isn't deamed necessary.

So no my character isn't a douche. 

Just a cop doing his job. 

But it's not. I already described the circumstances under which it would be.

Which circumstances are that? 

I agree. I don't think Wesley was a douche for being all "The Order dictates!" A little silly, and ignorant of circumstance, to be sure. But not douchey.

Agreed. 

That's true. It also has nothing to do with what I said. Every act can have a reason. If you shoot someone in the head for literally no reason (as in, not because you wanted to, not because you thought it'd be funny, not because the demons told you to, but for truly no reason at all), then you're not a douche. You're an entirely new kind of insane that I hope never to encounter, because it's terrifying.

But "shooting someone in the head for no reason" isn't an act. "Shooting someone in the head" is. And you can have a reason to shoot someone in the head.

So what was your tevinter mooks' (assuming s/he isn't killed right away) reason for turning Fenris over to Danarius? For enslaving Fenris? 

In that situation, probably. But in absolute terms, I still think Anders is the bigger douche.

Sure he is. I love my douchey Anders. 

But that said Hawke can be a much bigger douche than anyone in game. Easily. 

Handing Fenris over to Danarius is one of those moments. 

Killing what his name...the annoying dwarf is another. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:51 .

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

@ishmaeltheforsaken ... I don't even...



To you they were meaningless. To me they made perfect sense. And at this point I think I might be better off eating a plateful of crushed glass. So farewell thread. Have a lovely life.

No. You can't apply a descriptor absolutely when you attribute to it subjective terms. You're saying "I feel that the color blue is ugly. Therefore, everything that looks blue is universally ugly, and if you disagree, you're wrong, because it's objective truth."

[Addai]

MorningBird wrote...
For example, what if I play a Hawke whose fine with Fenris hanging around, but hesitant to support him against Danarius because he's a Tevinter Magister? An important political figure in Tevinter (a country not known for it's niceties.) What if my Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, doesn't want to cause further political strife by murdering a Magister in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses? Kirkwall doesn't have a Vicount. It has a crazy Knight-Commander and brewing civil unrest between mages and templars.

Since when is it murder to defend yourself when attacked?

The law abiding argument falls apart, too, since slavery is illegal in the Free Marches.  So you're actually breaking the law by helping slavers.

Sometimes forum discussions are just silly.  There are decisisions in the game which are black and white evil.  As long as there aren't too many, I don't see the problem, and this certainly fits the bill as one of them.

[Ryzaki]

MorningBird wrote...

Guys, I think it pretty much comes down to this:

You are more than welcome to think Hawke is a douche for turning in Fenris.

That doesn't automatically make a Hawke who turns in Fenris a douche. You may find his/her actions douche worthy, others may not.

For example, what if I play a Hawke whose fine with Fenris hanging around, but hesitant to support him against Danarius because he's a Tevinter Magister? An important political figure in Tevinter (a country not known for it's niceties.) What if my Hawke, the Champion of Kirkwall, doesn't want to cause further political strife by murdering a Magister in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses? Kirkwall doesn't have a Vicount. It has a crazy Knight-Commander and brewing civil unrest between mages and templars.

A. Kirkwall and Tevinter aren't likely to get along by default. 

B. A tevinter magister that came to get his escaped slave? How is someone coming into slavery free country and being killed by the Champion of Kirkwall (in self defense) going to cause further political strife? 

C. With said Crazy Knight Commander any mage coming into Kirkwall would be out of their minds (and if they say anything about their Magister being in her cityshe'll blow a gasket. They don't want the whole Chantry on them again. They're not invicible by any means. 

Let's face it, Kirkwall is not at it's best when Danarius rolls on into town.

Are you welcome to think my Hawke is a douche? By all means! However, while I might not necessarily agree with my Hawke's actions (allowing Danarius to reclaim his 'property') I wouldn't consider him a douche in such circumstances.

Once again, you're more than welcome to disagree =D and if all you're saying is, "I consider this brand of Hawke a douche" then that's more than fair.

Doesn't mean everyone is going to see the situation that way.

Kirkwall wasn't at it's best sure. But it certainly wasn't going to bow to the Imperium. They aren't just one lone city state if the Imperium attacked. The Chantry in all of the Free Marches and most likely everywere but Tevinter would back them up. You underestimate people's fear of mages. 

That said I'm fine with not helping Fenris fight Danarius. But handing the guy over when he begs you for help? Sorry that's just douchey. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 05:47 .

[MorningBird]

Addai67 wrote...

Since when is it murder to defend yourself when attacked?

Is Tevinter going to care who struck first?  Maybe, maybe not.

Addai67 wrote...
The law abiding argument falls apart, too, since slavery is illegal in the Free Marches.  So you're actually breaking the law by helping slavers.

This isn't an argument I made?  And either way, it's a grey area at best.  What Hawke does is about the equivilent of turning a blind eye to the situation.  It's like saying, "I'm not going to help you fight them, Fenris.  Hey Magister, take him if you want, I 'm not getting myself involved."

Heck, Hawke's very words are, "You're on your own, Fenris."

Which is followed up shortly by Fenris leaving the Hanged Man 'of his own free will.'  He doesn't put up a fight or cause any kind of disturbance that would indicate he was being dragged off somewhere against his will.

Unless you were dropping some eaves, there'd be no indication that he was returning to a life of slavery.

Addai67 wrote...
Sometimes forum discussions are just silly.  There are decisisions in the game which are black and white evil.  As long as there aren't too many, I don't see the problem, and this certainly fits the bill as one of them.

I agree.  Sometimes people take posts way too seriously when a comment may only be dropped in light jest, or to just simply point out that not everyone sees things in stark black and white.

Heck, Ish's only real point was that Hawke doesn't necessarily have to be a douche to turn in Fenris depending on motivation.

Is it still a morally ambiguous decision?  I believe so, but plenty decisions are morally ambiguous.  Doesn't make someone a douche when they make the less favorable decision, depending on reasoning.

For the recond: from the standpoint of all of my characters, turning in Fenris would be a douche move.

That is, however, just my (and their) opinion, and NO ONE is under any obligation to share it.

[LadyBri]

I enjoy Anders, warts and all, but the one comment of his I truly can't stand is in All That Remains when you enter the Foundry.

"I hope we don't find another bag of bones" or whatever the exact line was. Thanks for the support, buddy! Way to keep Hawke calm and focused in a life-or-death situation, bravely trying to rescue a beloved mother;)

[mesmerizedish]

MorningBird wrote...

That is, however, just my (and their) opinion, and NO ONE is under any obligation to share it.

But I do, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T TOLD YOU I LOVE YOU ENOUGH YET.

*sexily tosses MorningBird her stripper-cop badge*

*was only wearing her stripper-cop badge*