301 réponses à ce sujet

[Esoj16]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

If that is the case, then fine, you're not hypocritical. But I still think you're a bigger ****** than Anders in that situation, as the attitude "slavery is legal in Tevinter, so it's ok if I hand Fenris over to his former master, despite the fact that he's spent the last six years offering to help me" is still pretty douchey as far as I'm concerned.

Personal opinion though. None of my Hawkes are ok with slavery, so they wouldn't do it to anyone. Even Fenris.

Nor are mine, and they wouldn't either. But I'll still defend the roleplaying principle

You're roleplaying as a pro-slavery douche bag, ergo your character is still the biggest douche in the room, beating even Anders.  There's nothing wrong with that, but that Hawke would still be the biggest douche.

[Sjofn]

Link3521 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

If that is the case, then fine, you're not hypocritical. But I still think you're a bigger ****** than Anders in that situation, as the attitude "slavery is legal in Tevinter, so it's ok if I hand Fenris over to his former master, despite the fact that he's spent the last six years offering to help me" is still pretty douchey as far as I'm concerned.

Personal opinion though. None of my Hawkes are ok with slavery, so they wouldn't do it to anyone. Even Fenris.

Nor are mine, and they wouldn't either. But I'll still defend the roleplaying principle

You're roleplaying as a pro-slavery douche bag, ergo your character is still the biggest douche in the room, beating even Anders.  There's nothing wrong with that, but that Hawke would still be the biggest douche.

Yeah, I gotta agree, you're still the biggest douchebag in the party, although Denarius may TIE your douchebaggery, being the slave owner in the first place.

[mesmerizedish]

Link3521 wrote...

You're roleplaying as a pro-slavery douche bag, ergo your character is still the biggest douche in the room, beating even Anders.  There's nothing wrong with that, but that Hawke would still be the biggest douche.

Pro-slavery =/= douchebag. That's a fallacy in your thinking.

Danarius is only the second-biggest douche in the room. Anders is the biggest, of course, and Fenris himself is the third-biggest. Slaver!Hawke is the fourth-biggest.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 01:34 .

[Ryzaki]

Full stop. Betraying someone who put their trust in you, told you the horrible things that happened to them because of being in slavery, has been by your side for years is less douchey than someone who spewed hatred and insults at the person going "Glad I wasn't the only one thing that." 

...The mind boggles.

Sorry but your Hawke's the biggest douche in that room. 

Motivation, smotivation. You're betraying someone who put their trust in you. You're a douche. You're thebiggest douche there.

the others were at least honest about their douchebaggery. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 01:37 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Full stop. Betraying someone who put their trust in you, told you the horrible things that happened to them because of being in slavery is less douchey than going "HA!"?

...The mind boggles.

Chances are, if you're really handing him over, it's not much of a "betrayal."

And even if it were, "douchey" isn't the word I'd use to describe the behavior

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Full stop. Betraying someone who put their trust in you, told you the horrible things that happened to them because of being in slavery is less douchey than going "HA!"?

...The mind boggles.

Chances are, if you're really handing him over, it's not much of a "betrayal."

And even if it were, "douchey" isn't the word I'd use to describe the behavior

Yes it is. You're the one who said you would help him. That is a betrayal. 

Your PC is a douche for doing that. There's no way around it. 

And maybe not douchey. But you PC is a traitor and a snake. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 01:39 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes it is. You're the one who said you would help him. That is a betrayal. 

Your PC is a douche for doing that. There's no way around it.

My point is that the characters who give him to Danarius probably never said they'd help him. If Fenris has any brains at all, he'd have seen it coming a mile away, because those Hawkes likely made no attempt to hide it. Betrayal requires duplicity.

And being a bastard is different from being a douche.

[EDIT] Yes, they're traitors and snakes, if they tricked Fenris. Which they probably didn't.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 01:40 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
My point is that the characters who give him to Danarius probably never said they'd help him. If Fenris has any brains at all, he'd have seen it coming a mile away, because those Hawkes likely made no attempt to hide it. Betrayal requires duplicity.

And being a bastard is different from being a douche.

[EDIT] Yes, they're traitors and snakes, if they tricked Fenris. Which they probably didn't.

Except you know you can't get that quest without saying you'll help him.  

So yes you tricked him. You said you'd have his back and you didn't. 

Your PC is a traitor and a snake. Anders is just a jerk. Your PC is always worse in that situation. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Except you know you can't get that quest without saying you'll help him.  

So yes you tricked him. You said you'd have his back and you didn't. 

Your PC is a traitor and a snake. Anders is just a jerk. Your PC is always worse in that situation. 

Really? You can't blow him off and have him force you to come along anyway?

Then that's a fault of the game. That quest restricts roleplaying.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Really? You can't blow him off and have him force you to come along anyway?

Then that's a fault of the game. That quest restricts roleplaying.

Not sure. My PC isn't enough of a jerk to refuse him. 

Oh please your PC is just a jerk in that situation. There's no way to make yourself look good in that quest. None. 

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Not sure. My PC isn't enough of a jerk to refuse him. 

Oh please your PC is just a jerk in that situation. There's no way to make yourself look good in that quest. None. 

That's entirely possible. I've never done it. But if there isn't, it's the game's fault. You can absolutely roleplay a non-evilassdouche character who turns Fenris in. All it takes is a healthy respect for the law, and a healthy disrespect for jurisdictional borders.

[Miri1984]

You don't have to do the quest, no. So yes, your character is a douche if you do it and then betray him.

[mesmerizedish]

Miri1984 wrote...

You don't have to do the quest, no. So yes, your character is a douche if you do it and then betray him.

As I said, I wasn't sure what the exact game mechanics in play were. But you're a douche because the game forces certain circumstances, not because you give Fenris to Danarius.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Not sure. My PC isn't enough of a jerk to refuse him. 

Oh please your PC is just a jerk in that situation. There's no way to make yourself look good in that quest. None. 

That's entirely possible. I've never done it. But if there isn't, it's the game's fault. You can absolutely roleplay a non-evilassdouche character who turns Fenris in. All it takes is a healthy respect for the law, and a healthy disrespect for jurisdictional borders.

Except for you know the law being that Fenris was very likely imprisoned illegally to begin with. Tevinters get their slaves through trickery and by stealing them from other countries. 

As for healthy disrespect for juridictional borders. I find that odd if you're going to have ahealty respect for all law. It should be all law including that of where you are currently. 

And sorry but turning over someone who placed their trust in you to someone who is abusive and cruel is jerkass. It's quite possible to be a douche and be lawful good. Heck most lawful types are jerks. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 01:55 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Miri1984 wrote...

You don't have to do the quest, no. So yes, your character is a douche if you do it and then betray him.

As I said, I wasn't sure what the exact game mechanics in play were. But you're a douche because the game forces certain circumstances, not because you give Fenris to Danarius.

Once again. Following the law doesn't make you any less of a douche. 

That's like saying if Vaughn could legally rape Shianni leaving her there for him to play with wouldn't be a douche move. 

Yes the hell it would. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Except for you know the law being that Fenris was very likely imprisoned illegally to begin with. Tevinters get their slaves through trickery and by stealing them from other countries.

Fenris talks to his sister about playing with their mother watching or something... it made me think that their parents were slaves as well.

As for healthy disrespect for juridictional borders. I find that odd if you're going to have ahealty respect for all law. It should be all law including that of where you are currently.

That's why roleplaying it would be so much fun! "I'm not in Tevinter, but I'm not going to let that stop me from getting justice! The law might care where I am, but justice doesn't!"

And sorry but turning over someone who placed their trust in you to someone who is abusive and cruel is jerkass. It's quite possible to be a douche and be lawful good. Heck most lawful types are jerks.

Not if you never gave him any reason to trust you. And where is it ever said that Danarius is abusive? It's very possible to be lawful good and a douche, but it's also possible to be lawful evil and not-a-douche.

[Sjofn]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Pro-slavery =/= douchebag. That's a fallacy in your thinking.

I feel pretty dang secure in saying pro-slavery people are douchebags, period. 

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Fenris talks to his sister about playing with their mother watching or something... it made me think that their parents were slaves as well.

I believe they were.

That's why roleplaying it would be so much fun! "I'm not in Tevinter, but I'm not going to let that stop me from getting justice! The law might care where I am, but justice doesn't!"

...That logic is so odd. You should've turned him over to the slavers from the jump in that case. It makes no sense that you'd have him follow you around for 6 years and then decide "oh time to follow the law now!" 

Not if you never gave him any reason to trust you. And where is it ever said that Danarius is abusive? It's very possible to be lawful good and a douche, but it's also possible to be lawful evil and not-a-douche.

Embedding him with lyrium that gave Fenris excruitating pain didn't tip you off?  

And please point out lawful evil no douche characters. 

And have you actually done the betrayal scene? Hawke's being a jerkass in that scene. 

Never gave him any reason? You helped him fight off slavers, stop Hadriana, and had a decent relationship with him. All that time you never turned him over to slavers or betrayed him. Of course he had reason to trust you! 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

I believe they were.

Then Fenris was legally obtained.

...That logic is so odd.

It's not. It's the exact same logic that would be used by anyone else to justify freeing Tevinter's slaves. You only think it's odd because you don't like the position that slavery is a law worth enforcing

Embedding him with lyrium that gave Fenris excruitating pain didn't tip you off? 

Fenris asked for it

And please point out lawful evil no douche characters.

The Arishok.

And have you actually done the betrayal scene? Hawke's being a jerkass in that scene. 

Never gave him any reason? You helped him fight off slavers, stop Hadriana, and had a decent relationship with him. All that time you never turned him over to slavers or betrayed him. Of course he had reason to trust you!

Again, this is because the game forces those circumstances.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 02:06 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's not. It's the exact same logic that would be used by anyone else to justify freeing Tevinter's slaves. You only think it's odd because you don't like the position that slavery is a law worth enforcing 

 
No actually it's not. I wouldn't hide behind law to justify freeing slaves. I don't need a law to tell me to do something I feel is right. 

Fenris asked for it 

 Sorry can't use that excuse seeing as when you betray him you do not know that. 

The Arishok.

The Arishok is a douche to me so...no. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:07 .

[Beerfish]

lol, The Arishok was a MAJOR douche, He just hid behind the Qun to justify all that he said and did.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote..
Again, this is because the game forces those circumstances.

And the game forcing those circumstances means the decision is still a douche move. 

You could tell Fenris to go. You didn't have to keep him in your party. 

I'm forced to try to save Shianni in the CE origin. That doesn't stop me from (potentially) leaving her with Vaughn from being a douche move. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:10 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

No actually it's not. I wouldn't hide
behind law to justify freeing slaves. I don't need a law to tell me to
do something I feel is right.

But I'm not talking about you.

Sorry can't use that excuse seeing as when you betray him you do not know that.

What Hawke does or doesn't know is irrelevant. Reality is relevant. The reality is that Danarius likely wasn't "abusive."

The Arishok is a douche to me so...no.

I disagree. I don't think anything the Arishok did could be called "douchey."

And the game forcing those circumstances means the decision is still a douche move.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The circumstances of the move make it douchey, not the move in and of itself.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
But I'm not talking about you.

Was that question not towards everyone in general? 

What Hawke does or doesn't know is irrelevant. Reality is relevant. The reality is that Danarius likely wasn't "abusive."

*rubs temples*

Please play the game again and listen to Fenris the second time. Just...do that and then say "likely wasn't abusive". 

I disagree. I don't think anything the Arishok did could be called "douchey."

Indeed. Sacking a city, being rude to it's leaders, planting himself in said city without an invitation. Plenty of what he did was douchey. 

That's exactly what I'm saying. The circumstances of the move make it douchey, not the move in and of itself.

And I disagree. Handing a slave back to their master especially when said slave is begging you not to do it is a douche move. 

So I suppose leaving Shianni to Vaughn isn't douchey then? Let's just say Fereldan had a law that stated that human nobles could do whatever they wanted to the elves under their care. Is it then okay? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 02:18 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Was that question not towards everyone in general?

Absolutely. And at no one in particular. Specific individuals are irrelevant, because I'm talking about a collective.

]*rubs temples*

Please play the game again and listen to Fenris the second time. Just...do that and then say "likely wasn't abusive"

You're right. I can't. He clearly wasn't abusive. The branding was consensual.

Indeed. Sacking a city, being rude to it's leaders, planting himself in said city without an invitation. Plenty of what he did was douchey.

All of which was dictated by the Qun. He didn't put himself in Kirkwall, he was shipwrecked. Their enclave in Lowtown was a gift from the city. If you want to think that it's somehow douchey, feel free. But I disagree.

And I disagree. Handing a slave back to their master especially when said slave is begging you not to do it is a douche move.

And turning in a thief to the guards when the thief is begging you not to is a douche move too? Because the two situations are identical to my hypothetical character, who doesn't make value judgments about the merits of the law.

So I suppose leaving Shianni to Vaughn isn't douchey then? Let's just say Fereldan had a law that stated that human nobles could do whatever they wanted to the elves under their care. Is it then okay? 

Of course not. It's Tevinter law that's important.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 02:27 .