301 réponses à ce sujet

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes she is. She had him with her for 6 years and never turned him into the slavers until that moment.

She's a douche.

Sorry.

That's not what this character would have done, though. If that were the case, then yes, she's a douche. But in this hypothetical, she's not limited by what the game allows her to do. She'd have turned in Fenris at the soonest opportunity, and she'd have kept trying to do so for as long as he insisted on involving her with his issues.

[Ryzaki]

makenzieshepard wrote...

I'd have to disagree with that.  The charcter is consistent.  A consistent douche.  Which is better than an inconsistent douche.  I suppose.

Douche.
Sorry the word is starting to lose all meaning at this point

LMAO. 

Nice. 

A very consistent douchebag. 

I like that word. 

Douche.  

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

That's not what this character would have done, though. If that were the case, then yes, she's a douche. But in this hypothetical, she's not limited by what the game allows her to do. She'd have turned in Fenris at the soonest opportunity, and she'd have kept trying to do so for as long as he insisted on involving her with his issues.

And she could've also you know not been a douche and simply told him she didn't want his help.  

Instead she decided to be a douche. 

DOUCHE. 

She's a douche.  

and frankly I would've left Kirkwall in act 2. I didn't though because the plot demands. 

And the plot demands your character be recongized as the douche she is. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 03:02 .

[mesmerizedish]

Okay, okay, guise. Let's try and settle it once for all. First, let's define, in no uncertain terms, the descriptor "douche."

And no, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is not a valid definition. It needs to applicable to all people in all circumstances. Which, in fairness, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is, but I think it leaves out a lot of douches by its specificity.

So, as generally but accurately as possible, what is a douche?

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 03:03 .

[Masako52]

Ryzaki wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So she would leave Shianni to be raped then?

Were that the law, more than likely. Remember, this is someone who values laws simply because they're laws. She doesn't make value judgments of the contents of the laws.

But, Ferelden doesn't have such a law, so the point is less valid. Not invalid, because the whole thing is "what if?" But the fact is that slavery is actually the law in the Imperium.

And that doesn't stop the action from being douchey. 

You're trying to argue that it's not. 

I don't care how lawful something is/isn't. It's a betrayal of Fenris' trust and is a douche move. 

I agree with this, if I'm following your guys' arguments. Laws do not reflect morality by definition. They can, but they don't always. Following a law, I believe, is still someone's personal choice - luckily, in our world usually this correlates pretty well with what is morally good. But it does not dismiss you morally if you follow an immoral law. Slavery is immoral, and selling out a companion who you have spent many years battling together with is definitely immoral whether you like them or not.

You can be a douche and "follow the law." If you support a law that allows slavery, you are definitely and without question a douche. I don't really get the argument but that "someone can value following laws and this doesn't make them a douchebag." I think if you follow immoral laws, you are a douchebag.

Anyway, I don't know Kirkwalls laws in returning slaves. Slavery is illegal, but I'm not sure if a master and slave from Tevinter travel to Kirkwall, the slave is automatically free? Or if a slave can legally be returned to a master if they are registered prior as slaves. I kind of doubt it, but it's a possibility - in which case returning Fenris to Danarius is "legal". It's not likely that's the case, and Fenris was living, albeit illegally, in Kirkwall, for years - so I would guess that he was, by Kirkwall's legal standards - unlawfully abducted and transported to Tevinter.

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Okay, okay, guise. Let's try and settle it once for all. First, let's define, in no uncertain terms, the descriptor "douche."

And no, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is not a valid definition. It needs to applicable to all people in all circumstances. Which, in fairness, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is, but I think it leaves out a lot of douches by its specificity.

So, as generally but accurately as possible, what is a douche?

Urbandictionary is your friend. 

Also what the cool person above me said. You can be lawful and be a douche. That's your character ishamel. A lawful douche. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 03:07 .

[mesmerizedish]

Masako52 wrote...

Anyway, I don't know Kirkwalls laws in returning slaves. Slavery is illegal, but I'm not sure if a master and slave from Tevinter travel to Kirkwall, the slave is automatically free? Or if a slave can legally be returned to a master if they are registered prior as slaves. I kind of doubt it, but it's a possibility - in which case returning Fenris to Danarius is "legal". It's not likely that's the case, and Fenris was living, albeit illegally, in Kirkwall, for years - so I would guess that he was, by Kirkwall's legal standards - unlawfully abducted and transported to Tevinter.

Dred Scott says the slaves are still slaves, but Dred Scot was decided by racist scumbags who wouldn't know the constitution if it sixty-nined with Isabela on the floor of the Supreme Court. I'd say that once Danarius leaves Tevinter, he's a criminal, because slavery is illegal, and he can be prosecuted and punished for it.

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Okay, okay, guise. Let's try and settle it once for all. First, let's define, in no uncertain terms, the descriptor "douche."

And no, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is not a valid definition. It needs to applicable to all people in all circumstances. Which, in fairness, "someone who turns in escaped slaves" is, but I think it leaves out a lot of douches by its specificity.

So, as generally but accurately as possible, what is a douche?

Someone who turns in escaped slaves is a douche, according to moi.  That said the douche in questions background, history, upbring etc. etc. does modify the level of douchiness to some extent.  Even to the point that in the event they recant their douchey ways that they can be forgiven for following them.  Does it help if I say your hypothetical character is only a small time douche?

[Maugrim]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Masako52 wrote...

Anyway, I don't know Kirkwalls laws in returning slaves. Slavery is illegal, but I'm not sure if a master and slave from Tevinter travel to Kirkwall, the slave is automatically free? Or if a slave can legally be returned to a master if they are registered prior as slaves. I kind of doubt it, but it's a possibility - in which case returning Fenris to Danarius is "legal". It's not likely that's the case, and Fenris was living, albeit illegally, in Kirkwall, for years - so I would guess that he was, by Kirkwall's legal standards - unlawfully abducted and transported to Tevinter.

 wouldn't know the constitution if it sixty-nined with Isabela on the floor of the Supreme Court.

*runs off to the DA kink meme*

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Urbandictionary is your friend.

I looked it up. They're all subjective, and many of them still don't apply to my character.

Also what the cool person above me said. You can be lawful and be a douche. That's your character ishamel. A lawful douche. 

That's entirely possible. And if we can agree on an objective definition of "douche," then I can say for sure whether or not she is indeed LD.

But, the definition that I'm currently holding to requires mens rea and a degree of malice, neither of which can be said to apply to my character.

[mesmerizedish]

makenzieshepard wrote...

Someone who turns in escaped slaves is a douche, according to moi.  That said the douche in questions background, history, upbring etc. etc. does modify the level of douchiness to some extent.  Even to the point that in the event they recant their douchey ways that they can be forgiven for following them.  Does it help if I say your hypothetical character is only a small time douche?

I don't care if my character is a douche. I'm not attached to her in any way. I care about truth. Someone who turns in escaped slaves is a douche. Okay. Defend that position. What is a douche that makes it applicable to that person?

I think that motivation is paramount. Someone who turns in an escaped slave because "slavery lol" and because she just really doesn't like the slave and because she thinks it's cool to express her superiority is a douche.

But, someone who turns in an escaped slave because she truly believes it's the right and just thing to do isn't. I may not like her, and I may not like her values, but I can't honestly say I think she's a douche just because I disagree with her. She's doing the right thing according to her belief system.

And, as much as I may dislike the fact that slavery is included in her belief system, it's one that I can admire and find value in.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 03:14 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I looked it up. They're all subjective, and many of them still don't apply to my character.

She's still a douche to me. 

That's entirely possible. And if we can agree on an objective definition of "douche," then I can say for sure whether or not she is indeed LD. 
But, the definition that I'm currently holding to requires mens rea and a degree of malice, neither of which can be said to apply to my character.

So she's just woefully ignorant then? 

So she's lawful stupid.  

And a douche. 

A lawful stupid douche.   

Well she's pretty douchey to me. I mean handing a slave over to their master when they're begging you not to. That's a douche move. 

That said it's your character. She's just a douche to me.   A stupid naive douche. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 03:23 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

So she's just woefully ignorant then?

Her values are different from yours.

So she's lawful stupid.  

And a douche. 

A lawful stupid douche. 

I'm 100% certain that by whatever definition you use for "douche" that she is a douche

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 03:22 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...


Her values are different from yours.

Again that doesn't make her less of a douche. Vaughn had different values from me. He's still a douche. So did Bhelen (though Bhelen was at least a competent douche). 

If she hands Fenris over fully aware of what Danarius will do to him she's a douche. 

If she hands over Fenris not believing Fenris was abused she's woefully naive and facepalm worthy. (And following that lining of thinking I'd wonder how much she actually listened to what came outof Fenris mouth).

Either way she doesn't look good. 

I'm 100% certain that by whatever definition you use for "douche" that she is a douche

Oh she is. Handing a slave over to their owner to me is a douche move.  Especially when said slave talks about how his Master leashed him and how Hadriana hounded his sleep. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 03:33 .

[Miri1984]

Let me rephrase, then, since "douche" is an American term that I don't use in everday conversation in any case, a character who thinks that obeying the law of another country is more important than letting an escaped slave stay escaped, is, in my opinion, morally bankrupt and not-someone-I'd-invite-around-for-tea.

Also, less someone-I'd-invite-around-for-tea than someone who, say, waits until their friend decides to turn in a slave before saying that they've thought of doing the same thing, but not actually done it.

In other words, in this situation, I like Anders a LOT more than I like your Hawke.

[ejoslin]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh yes she is. She had him with her for 6 years and never turned him into the slavers until that moment.

She's a douche.

Sorry.

That's not what this character would have done, though. If that were the case, then yes, she's a douche. But in this hypothetical, she's not limited by what the game allows her to do. She'd have turned in Fenris at the soonest opportunity, and she'd have kept trying to do so for as long as he insisted on involving her with his issues.

Insisted?  Why recruit him to begin with then?  You don't have to.

Edit: The only time you get involved with his issues is if you take him along with you.  And I have to agree that turning him over to slavers is a crappy thing to do.  It's not lawful anything -- you're going against the laws of the land that you're in.

Modifié par ejoslin, 05 avril 2011 - 03:59 .

[Esoj16]

If we're talking about a character that follows the Law to the letter, said character would not turn Fenris in because the law in the Free Marches, and Ferelden, its home country, forbids slavery. Ergo a Lawful character is under no obligation to turn in an escaped slave, in fact, it is its obligation to help the slave evade capture so that said slave can have the freedom that is inherited in the Law of the Free Marches. Unless, of course, if the Free Marches has a Law that requires that escaped slaves be returned to their masters in Tevinter which is a foreign Country, but no indication of such a law was given in the game, ergo this whole debate is pointless and ANY and ALL characters that return Fenris to Denarius are either douches or evil douches.

BTW this thread is totally derailed, it went from talking about Anders and his douchy phrases to the definition of what a douch is and how it pertains to Fenris' quest:huh:

Modifié par Link3521, 05 avril 2011 - 04:12 .

[mesmerizedish]

ejoslin wrote...

Insisted?  Why recruit him to begin with then?  You don't have to.

I... think maybe you're confused? This isn't an actual character I have any intention of ever playing.

Edit:
The only time you get involved with his issues is if you take him along
with you.  And I have to agree that turning him over to slavers is a
crappy thing to do.  It's not lawful anything -- you're going against
the laws of the land that you're in.

You obviously don't understand my character.

Link3521 wrote...

If we're talking about a character that follows the Law to the letter, said character would not turn Fenris in because the law in the Free Marches, and Ferelden, its home country, forbids slavery. Ergo a Lawful character is under no obligation to turn in an escaped slave, in fact, it is its obligation to help the slave evade capture so that said slave can have the freedom that is inherited in the Law of the Free Marches. Unless, of course, if the Free Marches has a Law that requires that escaped slaves be returned to their masters in Tevinter which is a foreign Country, but no indication of such a law was given in the game, ergo this whole debate is pointless and ANY and ALL characters that return Fenris to Denarius are either douches or evil douches.

Neither do you.

BTW this thread is totally derailed, it went from talking about Anders and his douchy phrases to the definition of what a douch is and how it pertains to Fenris' quest:huh:

Pfft. As if any thread ever has a "rail"

[Ryzaki]

Okay then let's use this. (Non politically before any jumps down my throat). In certain places it's illegal to be a certain orientation.  And people are killed for practicing it. 

My character then decides to kill Anders for his relationship with Karl. It's nothing presonal. He's just following the laws of the land. There is no malice in his actions.

So...my character is just lawful then? He's not at all douchey?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:25 .

[Esoj16]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...


You obviously don't understand my character.

Care to elaborate then?  It's obviously not a lawful character, whether good, neutral or evil.  A lawful character follows the law of the land, and turning people in to slavers is definately breaking the law in the Free Marches.

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

Okay then let's use this. (Non politically before any jumps down my throat). In certain places it's illegal to be a certain orientation.  And people are killed for practicing it. 

My character then decides to kill Anders for his relationship with Karl. It's nothing presonal. He's just following the laws of the land. There is no malice in his actions.

So...my character is just lawful then? He's not at all douchey?

Has the government of whichever land your character is from authorized him to do so?

Even if they were in whatever nation it's illegal to be gay in, for the character to kill Anders would be murder*.




[EDIT] *Ostensibly. If you tell me that normal citizens are legally required to kill any gay people they see, well... that'd just be contrived. And it'd probably cause a crisis of faith for this character. But, if she's consistent to the last, she'd do what she saw as what she had to.

Link3521 wrote...

Care to elaborate then?  It's obviously
not a lawful character, whether good, neutral or evil.  A lawful
character follows the law of the land, and turning people in to slavers
is definately breaking the law in the Free Marches.

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.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 05 avril 2011 - 04:30 .

[Ryzaki]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
Has the government of whichever land your character is from authorized him to do so?

Even if they were in whatever nation it's illegal to be gay in, for the character to kill Anders would be murder.

That's not what you're arguing. 

In Kirkwall Slavery is illegal. Fenris being a slave is illegal. So you have no legal standing to turn him in. 

And again. What happened to law? It's illegal to enslave someone in Kirkwall. For you to hand Fenris over is enslaving him.   

And murder would be legal in that case. So...it still is lawful. (In one country but not another much like your handing Fenris over to Danarius issue). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 avril 2011 - 04:31 .

[mesmerizedish]

Ryzaki wrote...

That's not what you're arguing. 

In Kirkwall Slavery is illegal. Fenris being a slave is illegal. So you have no legal standing to turn him in. 

And again. What happened to law? It's illegal to enslave someone in Kirkwall. For you to hand Fenris over is enslaving him.  

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

[MorningBird]

Ryzaki wrote...

That's not what you're arguing. 

In Kirkwall Slavery is illegal. Fenris being a slave is illegal. So you have no legal standing to turn him in. 

And again. What happened to law? It's illegal to enslave someone in Kirkwall. For you to hand Fenris over is enslaving him.   

And murder would be legal in that case. So...it still is lawful. (In one country but not another much like your handing Fenris over to Danarius issue). 

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

[Crocodiles]

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.

[mesmerizedish]

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*