243 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Considering the game is catered to modern audiences with supposedly modern moral questions, I think it;'s valid.

-Polaris

No, it's not. When arguing about something ingame, modern ideals fall into metagame territory. Though it does bring all your arguments and "YOU'RE A MONSTER / RACIST / PRO-RAPE / ****" comments into perspective.

I see.  I must have imagined all the openly same-sex relationships, powerful female knights, openly expressed political disagreements and even public assemblies to redress grievances.......couldn't have happened in such a genuinely midaevel game.

I am so sorry.  My mistake.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

openly same-sex relationships, powerful female knights

Homosexuality and female rights existed, though it was frowned upon by some cultures it isn't a modern ideal for same sex relationships or for women to have rights. Considering Thedas is a bunch of historic cultures from various times blended together, it isn't a sudden shock and reveal that same-sex and female rights exist in some form.

The "innocent until proven guilty" ideal of yours was coined in the 1700-1800s. Do we have a representation of that culture in Thedas? All the people blamed for crimes they might or might not have commited and then thrown into prison or executed, does the ideal exist for them in Thedas? How do the guards in Denerim deal with complaints? They don't mind slaughtering the people, so it must be such a wonderful modern world!

openly expressed political disagreements and even public assemblies to redress grievances.......

And it's considered treason and people get killed / imprisoned / tortured for it.

Oh wait, you meant that as supporting your point. My mistake.

couldn't have happened in such a genuinely midaevel game.

Did I say "midaevel" ideals? My apologies, I thought I just said not modern ideals.

I am so sorry.  My mistake.

-Polaris

First time you apologized for being wrong, thank you. At least you're self aware and I know I'm not arguing with a wall.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 06 mai 2011 - 11:12 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

openly same-sex relationships, powerful female knights[/quote]

Homosexuality and female rights existed, though it was frowned upon by some cultures it isn't a modern ideal for same sex relationships or for women to have rights. Considering Thedas is a bunch of historic cultures from various times blended together, it isn't a sudden shock and reveal that same-sex and female rights exist in some form.
[/quote]

The way it is presented in Thedas is absolutely modern and you know it.  Not even the Ancient Greeks had both and so openly.

[quote]
The "innocent until proven guilty" ideal of yours was coined in the 1700-1800s. Do we have a representation of that culture in Thedas? All the people blamed for crimes they might or might not have commited and then thrown into prison or executed, does the ideal exist for them in Thedas? How do the guards in Denerim deal with complaints? They don't mind slaughtering the people, so it must be such a wonderful modern world!
[/quote]

It is also considered wrong to do so.  The concept of human rights where leads to innocent until proven guilty is very much in evidence all over Thedas INCLUDING your "day of court' when you are Arl of Amaranthine.  In short, yes people do mind nobles slaughtering commoners 'just because' in Thedas.  It might happen, but there are consequences and the mindset against it is thoroughly modern....this is so a MODERN PLAYER can relate to the world.

[quote]

[quote]openly expressed political disagreements and even public assemblies to redress grievances.......[/quote]

And it's considered treason and people get killed / imprisoned / tortured for it.

Oh wait, you meant that as supporting your point. My mistake.
[/quote]

No one is thrown in prison for assembling.  Not even Orsino although Meredith wants that to happen.  Nothing happens to the assembled crowd.   Absolutely modern.

In a REAL midaeval world, Meredith's templars would have hacked the crowd to pieces and then sent the survivors (if any) to the gallows for summary judgement.

[quote]

[quote]couldn't have happened in such a genuinely midaevel game.[/quote]

Did I say "midaevel" ideals? My apologies, I thought I just said not modern ideals.

[quote]I am so sorry.  My mistake.

-Polaris[/quote]

First time you apologized for being wrong, thank you. At least you're self aware and I know I'm not arguing with a wall.
[/quote]
[/quote]

In your dreams.  Thedas is like most other fantasy worlds.  It's a MODERN world fitted on a pastiche of pseudo-Medaeval backdrops and cultures for flavor.  That's not a knock against Thedas.  Almost all modern fantasy worlds are this way going all the way back to Middle-Earth.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Isn't it hilarious when people resort to "but it's not fair to use MODERN morality!" because their ideals can't be defended with logic?  What's right and what's wrong has never changed, just the level of society's stupidity.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Huh? Whats right and what is wrong is not universal. It is all defined by the culture of the people in question. Some cultures find it morally defendable to have multiple wives, others find it morally undefenable to have many wives. Which of the cultures are right?
Some cultures find it okay to enslave the people they defeat, rule of the jungle, the mighty rules the weak. Other cultures find it morally apprehensible. But you in your arrogance claim that all other beliefs than your own are wrong?

On another note. Thedas is most certainly NOT a modern morals world. The very notion that it is, just shines of ignorance, and selective usage of evidence.
Polaris is quick to use the Amaranthine court scene, as a shining example of the inrefuteable use of modern morals. Yet he fails to mention that you can, in the very same scene, condemn men to death based on no evidence, and overtake property from lesser nobles, just becasue you can. All of which wouldn't happen in our day.
To continue in the vein of wodnerful and noble Amaranthine. You can violently put down a peasant rabble. Like in killing the whole lot of them, jsut to show the rest who is in charge. Yeah... Shinning example of modern ideas.
We go further into the political climate of Ferelden, and see that a nation changing decision, is decided by a duel............ Very modern, yeah. I seem to recall that happening in our time.

Thedas is inspired by both modern and medieval ideals, but it fits into neither perfectly. That is the long and short of it. To try and shoehorn it into either is doomed to fail. Instead one should base all the judgements on what is present within Thedas. The Thedas morality.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 06 mai 2011 - 12:07 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Huh? Whats right and what is wrong is not universal. It is all defined by the culture of the people in question. Some cultures find it morally defendable to have multiple wives, others find it morally undefenable to have many wives. Which of the cultures are right?

I am a deantologist (sp?).  I utterly reject moral relativism.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

The former doesn't really involve causing harm in and of itself.
Also, I'm not sure why something being popular doesn't mean it's not evil.

[Wulfram]

What is right and wrong certainly is universal. It's just working out what they are which is difficult.

[Xilizhra]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Huh? Whats right and what is wrong is not universal. It is all defined by the culture of the people in question. Some cultures find it morally defendable to have multiple wives, others find it morally undefenable to have many wives. Which of the cultures are right?

I am a deantologist (sp?).  I utterly reject moral relativism.

-Polaris

I'm a consequentialist, but the templar ending is certainly badly damaging to the greatest good.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Huh? Whats right and what is wrong is not universal. It is all defined by the culture of the people in question. Some cultures find it morally defendable to have multiple wives, others find it morally undefenable to have many wives. Which of the cultures are right?

I am a deantologist (sp?).  I utterly reject moral relativism.

-Polaris

Deontologist, I believe. But isn't that the school of thought that judges an action based on its adherence to rules and law?

Anyway. Your own dedication to your ideals, is also what blinds you to others'. And that makes you no better than the ignorance you are trying to cure.
A closed mind is as dangerous as ignorance.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Huh? Whats right and what is wrong is not universal. It is all defined by the culture of the people in question. Some cultures find it morally defendable to have multiple wives, others find it morally undefenable to have many wives. Which of the cultures are right?

I am a deantologist (sp?).  I utterly reject moral relativism.

-Polaris

I'm a consequentialist, but the templar ending is certainly badly damaging to the greatest good.

And how is the mage ending any better? As I recall it, they are more or less the same. At least if you side with the Templars, the violence in Kirkwall has a quick end.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Deontologist, I believe. But isn't that the school of thought that judges an action based on its adherence to rules and law?

Anyway. Your own dedication to your ideals, is also what blinds you to others'. And that makes you no better than the ignorance you are trying to cure.
A closed mind is as dangerous as ignorance.

No.  That is only one version of Deontology.  A Deontologist merely asserts that there are univeral accepted standards by which moral and immoral actions may be judged (but determining what those standard are can be difficult).

A Deontologist is one that rejects moral relativism.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And how is the mage ending any better? As I recall it, they are more or less the same. At least if you side with the Templars, the violence in Kirkwall has a quick end.

I have an answer for that and it's from Sister Petrice of all people.  "You do what is right and hope the rest will take care of itself."

Basically the only thing you can and should be judged for morally is what you can do.  You may not be able to help the overall outcome much, but you CAN do what you can to protect the innocent and hope it's enough.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ah well, havn't read philosophy for many years. But it is a form of absolutism, or at least shares some traits, yes?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ah well, havn't read philosophy for many years. But it is a form of absolutism, or at least shares some traits, yes?

Vice versa.  Absolutism is a form of Deontology.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 mai 2011 - 12:41 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And how is the mage ending any better? As I recall it, they are more or less the same. At least if you side with the Templars, the violence in Kirkwall has a quick end.

I have an answer for that and it's from Sister Petrice of all people.  "You do what is right and hope the rest will take care of itself."

Basically the only thing you can and should be judged for morally is what you can do.  You may not be able to help the overall outcome much, but you CAN do what you can to protect the innocent and hope it's enough.

-Polaris

See, this is where I disagree. If by killing one innocent, I could save a hundred innocents. I would do so.
But then again, I do not believe in Good or Evil, so such nagging ideas, do not trouble me.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

See, this is where I disagree. If by killing one innocent, I could save a hundred innocents. I would do so.
But then again, I do not believe in Good or Evil, so such nagging ideas, do not trouble me.

The fact you don't believe in good and evil in the social context explains a great deal.  I'll leave it at that.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

See, this is where I disagree. If by killing one innocent, I could save a hundred innocents. I would do so.
But then again, I do not believe in Good or Evil, so such nagging ideas, do not trouble me.

The fact you don't believe in good and evil in the social context explains a great deal.  I'll leave it at that.

-Polaris

They are ideas that makes for great debates, but they have little bearing when the actual deeds has to be done. I believe in choice and consequences. I'm ultimately out to make myself happy. How anyone achieves this is completely individually decided. Some gains happiness from brining joy to others, others get their happiness from doing their job to the best of their ability. Some less desireable elements get their happiness from leeching on others.
None of the above is explicitly good or evil in my eyes. I can understand all of them. While I don't agree with the ways some uptain their happiness, I can understand that they do it.

Good and Evil are just labels we put on actions, to try an justify them to ourselves and eachother.

[IanPolaris]

Justify it all you want, but the fact you don't care about moral and immoral actions (what most call good and evil) speaks for itself.

-Polaris

[88mphSlayer]

Rifneno wrote...

Isn't it hilarious when people resort to "but it's not fair to use MODERN morality!" because their ideals can't be defended with logic?  What's right and what's wrong has never changed, just the level of society's stupidity.

the problem with using modern morality is that we don't actually have x-men mutants running around

[88mphSlayer]

IanPolaris wrote...

Justify it all you want, but the fact you don't care about moral and immoral actions (what most call good and evil) speaks for itself.

-Polaris

so... do you think the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was unjustified since it's likely some innocents died with him? he was unarmed as well

[IanPolaris]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Isn't it hilarious when people resort to "but it's not fair to use MODERN morality!" because their ideals can't be defended with logic?  What's right and what's wrong has never changed, just the level of society's stupidity.

the problem with using modern morality is that we don't actually have x-men mutants running around

Actually we do.  Any one of us can do far more damage just by going to the hardware store and getting some ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesal oil.  Heck pretty much anyone can DL the Anarchist's cookbook.  Give me a Jerry-Can of Diesel and a bag of High Grade Ammonium Nitrate, and I am more dangerous than any DAO mage I promise you.  So is ANY modern person that took (Iand passed) high-school chemistry and has access to the internet.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

88mphSlayer wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Justify it all you want, but the fact you don't care about moral and immoral actions (what most call good and evil) speaks for itself.

-Polaris

so... do you think the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden was unjustified since it's likely some innocents died with him? he was unarmed as well

UBL was a declared enemy of the US and everyone that lived with him knew it.  That makes their deaths unfortunate but not evil.  DIfferent thing completely.  It's called War.  You may have heard of it.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I don't care if he was in bed naked servicing one of his wives.  All the better frankly.  (ed)He(/ed) was an enemy combatant who signed his own death warrent long ago.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 mai 2011 - 01:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

One does not have to be a moral absolutist to reject Meredith's act and question it's usefulness and necessity. I reject moral absolutism and believe "good" and "evil" are but mere labels to qualify a set of rules that humans as social / political animals need in order to regulate social relations.

That does not prevent me from saying Meredith is the primary actor responsible for the mess due to her incompetence and power mongering, that there was no clear evidence that the Circle needed to be annulled (Orsino's insanity is no clear evidence that many in the Circle were like him), and that the entire system is wasting a crucial resource which is magic.

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

One does not have to be a moral absolutist to reject Meredith's act and question it's usefulness and necessity. I reject moral absolutism and believe "good" and "evil" are but mere labels to qualify a set of rules that humans as social / political animals need in order to regulate social relations.

That does not prevent me from saying Meredith is the primary actor responsible for the mess due to her incompetence and power mongering, that there was no clear evidence that the Circle needed to be annulled (Orsino's insanity is no clear evidence that many in the Circle were like him), and that the entire system is wasting a crucial resource which is magic.

And I can respect that. Because you don't claim everyone who disagrees with you to be wrong. I can understand why you would disagree with Meredith, and her justifications, even the Circle system in itself. But just becasue you disagree with it, does not mean it is wrong. Merely that there is a difference of opinion.

In this case, the difference of opinion costs lives though (virtual lives anyway).