122 réponses à ce sujet

[Pipboy3billion]

About the highest rating I would give to any human society in the last 50,000 years is chaotic neutral.

LOL...brilliant!

About the only thing modern western society draws the line at is child abuse and, supposedly, drug addiction.

With the medicalization of deviance, drug addiction isn't even over the line, it's merely a medical condition. Actually, the same is true for pedophilia though most people (rightly) think that's a load of crap.

Well, maybe he's not "home", but for example Tranzig is in his hotel - not looking for you. Others sit peacefully in the Iron Throne mines.

I don't attack Tranzig. I question him about his leaders and he chooses to attack. When be begs for his life, I let him go. As for the Iron Throne, they're behind all the assassins being sent the party's way. IRL, that's Murder One, a capital offense. If you could turn them in and have them face a legal judgement, I'd pursue that path. However, aren't they all just a bunch of dopplegangers trying to overthrow the legitimate government anyway? But, in any event, their involvement equates to a capital offense, which is punishable by death in most of the lower 48 states.

I didn't want to start this discussion of right and wrong...

...so long as people remember the MST3K mantra: "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do agree that it is just a game. Still, if I knew of anyone who played a mod like that, I wouldn't leave such a person alone with my children, if I had any.

I didn't think this topic would get so far off point, but it's an interesting conversation so I figured I'd roll with it.

Fact is, that is the age of majority, or if you prefer, adulthood in much of the Sword Coast and Savage North. It's not a carbon copy of our society in several extreme ways...

I'm not disagreeing about how the mod's dev rationalized such a relationship in the context of the fictional setting. I'm just saying that doing something like this is in poor taste and skeevy, once again, not in the context of the setting, just in the real world.

That's also to say nothing of the fact you can burn children alive and melt the flesh off their mothers' bones with horrid wilting

I'm pretty sure you lose some serious rep for doing that, though. Certainly, the devs didn't put a lot of effort into enforcing any kind of morality in this game. The alignment system is basically just flavor text, and the reputation system is way too loose to be effective.

It would be nice if there was a game that really tried to implement morality into the design, but ethics doesn't sell, blowing up sh*t with fancy pretty fx does. C'est la vie.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
With the medicalization of deviance, drug addiction isn't even over the line, it's merely a medical condition. Actually, the same is true for pedophilia though most people (rightly) think that's a load of crap.

Of course, the choice whether to give in to this medical condition is the point where they are tested (and where their responsibility as humans lies) - still, pedophilia in itself is a medical condition (and not applicable to this situation, as I have said before).

IRL, that's Murder One, a capital offense. If you could turn them in and have them face a legal judgement, I'd pursue that path. However, aren't they all just a bunch of dopplegangers trying to overthrow the legitimate government anyway? But, in any event, their involvement equates to a capital offense, which is punishable by death in most of the lower 48 states.

You know another capital offense? Taking the law into your own hands and going on a killing spree.
I said that what they are doing is wrong. That doesn't change the fact though that you are hunting and killing them.
(even if your personal PC seems to be leaving some evil doers alive - you have never expressed any disgust at those of us who don't)

That's by the way what I like about paladins. They are pretty much the only class that has the morals of the settings laid out very clearly as their guidelines (unless you know too much about the different kinds of paladins and come up with some non-violent ones).

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I do agree that it is just a game. Still, if I knew of anyone who played a mod like that, I wouldn't leave such a person alone with my children, if I had any.

Did you know that over 90% of all rapes (as you seem scared of that) happen in the family? It's usually not an outsider, but the uncle.

I'm pretty sure you lose some serious rep for doing that, though. Certainly, the devs didn't put a lot of effort into enforcing any kind of morality in this game. The alignment system is basically just flavor text, and the reputation system is way too loose to be effective.

It would be nice if there was a game that really tried to implement morality into the design, but ethics doesn't sell, blowing up sh*t with fancy pretty fx does. C'est la vie.

If the game forces it's morality onto you, then you have no choice anymore, but the point of the game (it being a RPg), is to give you this choice (and many more). In reality it is usually the immoral guys who make it big (and unless they become really big, they are also in higher danger, but your protagonist is known to be able to handle that sort of thing), so why should one try to pretend in a game that evil never pays and that only by being a good human will you have any success?
I fear that once you have educated children this way they may believe that the reason they should be doing good things is that everything else is doomed to fail (while they should be doing them for a completely differnt reason) and when they notice that they do not immediately get punished for some minor wrongdoings, they may just become criminals.

[Flamedance]

It would be nice if there was a game that really tried to implement morality into the design, but ethics doesn't sell, blowing up sh*t with fancy pretty fx does. C'est la vie.

There are. Planescape: Torment for one. If you don't mind outdated graphics, try the later parts of the Ultima-series (starting with Ultima IV). They're all available on GOG.

[morbidest2]

Just a footnote: BG2 certainly does enforce a bit of morality on your party. You usually learn in your first run not to use mass effect spells in Athkatla, since killing innocents gives your Rep. a 10 point hit, with a subsequent rise in store prices, and a number of other consequences if your Rep. was scuzzy to begin with.

[jaxsbudgie]

Soooooo ..... Lawful Good Paladins are kiddy fiddlers?
I knew it!

[Pipboy3billion]

You know another capital offense? Taking the law into your own hands and going on a killing spree.
I said that what they are doing is wrong. That doesn't change the fact though that you are hunting and killing them.

I'm not sure what game you're playing, but my party isn't hunting or killing anyone. They are investigating. The goal isn't to kill the baddies, just bring them to justice. However, none of the baddies are interested in that course of action. Instead, they want to kill my party to keep them from investigating further. My party has not attacked a single creature in this game. Every single combat has been in self-defense. And, sure, you could make the argument that the party could just run away and leave the country. However, as Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

What the party does is not a capital offense. Every single "crime" would have to be judged individually (i.e. the fight with Bassilus, the one with Tranzig, etc.) and the evidence will show that the party was not the aggressor in any case, nor would there be any evidence to support intent. No mens rea means no crime.

Did you know that over 90% of all rapes (as you seem scared of that) happen in the family? It's usually not an outsider, but the uncle.

Once again, you're being the dramatic one. First of all, I'm not worried about my kids getting raped, especially since I don't have any. I said what I said earlier to illustrate that while it is just a game, I wouldn't want someone around my kids who thought that being an adult and RPing a romance with a child was acceptable. Also, I never said anything about rape, I just don't think that such a person would be a good influence on my kids.

And, not to nit again, but your stats are a little off, or at least need to be clarified. In 90% of rapes, the victim knows the attacker. Also, this number is a little inflated being that date rape is almost always included in these stats, which by its very nature requires the victim to know the attacker. Of course, there isn't just rape, but also sexual assault. injury or impairing morals to a minor, indecent exposure, and so on. The lesser charges usually involve less of a relationship to the victim.

There are. Planescape: Torment for one. If you don't mind outdated graphics, try the later parts of the Ultima-series (starting with Ultima IV).

Honestly, I think that PS:T might just be the greatest game ever, IMO. Oddly enough, I haven't been able to replay it, only because the experience was so conclusive and definitive, it would have felt weird to replay it.

I should check out Ultima. I've only vaguely heard about it previously.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
I'm not sure what game you're playing, but my party isn't hunting or killing anyone. They are investigating.

Going to places where people they know to be hostile are residing, then entering combat instead of leaving and finally killing them instead of disabling them.

Every single combat has been in self-defense.

There are ways to disable an opponent in Baldur's Gate. (and even if there weren't it wouldn't change the fact that there are ways in reality)

But of course, you are evading my point. It's not "You are a bad person for killing lots and lots of people". It's "You have accepted the fact that in a game it's okay to kill lots and lots of people".

And, sure, you could make the argument that the party could just run away and leave the country. However, as Edmund Burke once said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Hm, smart lines on the subject of violence against evil...
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
— Bernard of Clairvaux
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
— Friedrich Nietzsche
"You think I am a monster, but you're no different from me, Drake. How many men have you killed? How many, just today?"
—Lazarevic: Uncharted 2

What the party does is not a capital offense. Every single "crime" would have to be judged individually (i.e. the fight with Bassilus, the one with Tranzig, etc.) and the evidence will show that the party was not the aggressor in any case, nor would there be any evidence to support intent. No mens rea means no crime.

I'm not sure where to put the line exactly, but I'm pretty certain that with the first thousand dead guys on your tally you are no longer able to use the "self-defense" card to get out of prison free.

I said earlier to illustrate that while it is just a game, I wouldn't want someone around my kids who thought that being an adult and RPing a romance with a child was acceptable. Also, I never said anything about rape, I just don't think that such a person would be a good influence on my kids.

I personally would have more problems with somebody who doesn't see anything wrong with leaving a trail of blood all over the country than with somebody who can imagine a romance with a digital minor.

And, not to nit again, but your stats are a little off, or at least need to be clarified. [...]

Okay. Sorry.

[morbidest2]

On the old forums we used to have postings from people who deliberately tried to play a minimally violent game. H_T, if you feel so strongly about the issue, how about figuring out the rules for a LOW KILL challenge. Off hand you'd think that some people have to be bumped off (Sarevok, Jon I,), but perhaps a band of thieves making maximum use of stealth and invisibility could come up with a "crafty and cunning plan" to make it through the trilogy with only hundreds of deaths instead of thousands. It might be a little hypocritical since I suspect that various summons would do a lot of the dirty work for the PC and friends, but I think it would be as epic as any Solo or NoReload challenge. But someone would need to define which sidequests are in and which are out in a "Quaker Challenge". Do you want to try DMing it?

[Humanoid_Taifun]

morbidest2 wrote...
On the old forums we used to have postings from people who deliberately tried to play a minimally violent game. H_T, if you feel so strongly about the issue, how about figuring out the rules for a LOW KILL challenge.

But I don't. I have no qualms about killing some fictional enemies (though I may develop some when I get to know them too much).
If I have been misunderstood, let me make my point clear:
I find it a double standard to play a game where you kill people left and right (which is against modern laws) and then try to argue that having a relationship with a 15 year old girl in the same game is bad on grounds of modern laws. It is certainly something where you note the discrepancy between the real world and the fictional, and it may go against your individual tastes - but it is nothing to get up in arms against.

[Pipboy3billion]

I find it a double standard to play a game where you kill people left and right (which is against modern laws) and then try to argue that having a relationship with a 15 year old girl in the same game is bad on grounds of modern laws.

Frankly, I think you're painting with some broad strokes here. The party is contending against a hostile, violent, and murderous group attempting a takeover of an entire nation (two, actually). Are all the free people of Amn and BG supposed to run off to some other country? And how do you enforce legal sanctions against a group that has no interest in engaging on that level, and whose only response to any attempts at such is violence? You can't blame the players for that, only the devs who created such an unidimensional, evil antagonist with no hope for redemption. If anything, it's more like war than a killing spree. I mean, it's not like you're playing Postal (a game that I hated, found horribly disturbing, and even returned to the store).

I personally would have more problems with somebody who doesn't see anything wrong with leaving a trail of blood all over the country...

Well, I agree there. However, not all games with killing are killing spree games. It would be rather obtuse to put games like BG and Civilization in the same category as games like Postal or GTA. You must really think Pac-Man is sick. I mean the guy goes around killing things that are already dead.

It is certainly something where you note the discrepancy between the real world and the fictional, and it may go against your individual tastes - but it is nothing to get up in arms against.

Well, I'm hardly saying that people who RP romances with minors should be put on the registry. It's just pretty damn creepy and these are people I would keep at arms length, approximately the same length I'd keep people who got their rocks off on games that revolve around mindless violence.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Frankly, I think you're painting with some broad strokes here. The party is contending against a hostile, violent, and murderous group attempting a takeover of an entire nation (two, actually). Are all the free people of Amn and BG supposed to run off to some other country? And how do you enforce legal sanctions against a group that has no interest in engaging on that level, and whose only response to any attempts at such is violence?

If such an organisation exists in reality (and this is not really an if - search for a few minutes and you'll find one) will you go out and kill them all?
That is my question. Do you see no problem with taking up some Heckler & Koch merchandise, and starting to kill evil people?

You can't blame the players for that, only the devs who created such an unidimensional, evil antagonist with no hope for redemption.

By the laws of my country (and any country without the death penalty), the typical punishment for such a person would still be prison - not death.

Well, I agree there. However, not all games with killing are killing spree games. It would be rather obtuse to put games like BG and Civilization in the same category as games like Postal or GTA. You must really think Pac-Man is sick. I mean the guy goes around killing things that are already dead.

Are you reading my posts at all?

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...
my point. It's not "You are a bad person for killing lots and lots of people". It's "You have accepted the fact that in a game it's okay to kill lots and lots of people".

Humanoid_Taifun also wrote...
I have no qualms about killing some fictional enemies (though I may develop some when I get to know them too much).

I am not scared of a person because that person plays first-person-shooters or any other kind of game with violent content. I've played some myself, and I know they can't turn me into a mindless killing machine. I believe the same goes for other people.
"I personally would have more problems with somebody who doesn't see anything wrong with leaving a trail of blood all over the country..." is not a sentence that describes any of my current feelings. I added the "would" on purpose, trying to convey the message that something is required for these feelings to actually take place. The if-clause to the sentence, if you actually need to read it, would go "If I thought that video games dictated how you live your life"

Modifié par Humanoid_Taifun, 23 septembre 2011 - 08:04 .

[HoonDing]

I'm thinking the creator of the Saerileth mod is maybe a fan of Japanese RPGs? In those RPGs, the world/universe if almost always saved by teenagers who despite their age are already elite mages/soldiers/warriors/commandoes/so on and such like.

I can find no other logical explanation for why someone would include a 15-year old Paladin of Tyr.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

To my knowledge, the creators of the Saerileth mod actually live in Japan (though they are not Japanese themselves).

[Pipboy3billion]

By the laws of my country (and any country without the death penalty), the typical punishment for such a person would still be prison - not death.

I thought you said you were an American? Most of America has the death penalty. Your specific state might not, but most of the others do.

I get what you're saying, but you're not getting what I'm saying. BG isn't a rampage, it's war, and if the choice boils down to fighting back or laying down and dying, I'm fighting. What you're doing is like lumping WWII in the same category as Columbine or the VA Tech massacre.

Are you reading my posts at all?

The if-clause to the sentence, if you actually need to read it, would go "If I thought that video games dictated how you live your life"

You've got it backwards. I'm saying that how you live dictates the video games you play. For someone to play and enjoy Postal, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find killing sprees to be distasteful. For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful. For someone to play BG, they have to be someone who doesn't find war distasteful. And, for someone to play the Saerileth mod, they have to be someone who doesn't find relationships between adults and minors distasteful.

Modifié par Pipboy3billion, 23 septembre 2011 - 01:33 .

[Grond0]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful.

I assume this refers to Grand Theft Auto.  I've never played it myself, but my son has (and enjoyed it), although he has absolutely no inclination towards violent behaviour.  I think this is because he treats the events portrayed as comic book violence rather than a reflection of real life and sees no connection between them (he would not fall into the camp that says Tom & Jerry cartoons should be banned because of their excessive violence). 

I would not discount the possibility that playing such a game a lot could affect behaviour in people already pre-disposed in a certain way.  However, the point is that they would already be pre-disposed that way.  The same argument could be advanced over a game like Baldur's Gate (which requires mass slaughter unless played in a quite extreme way) and I would not like to see that banned to 'protect' people from themselves.

[AnonymousHero]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
For someone to play and enjoy Postal, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find killing sprees to be distasteful. For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful. For someone to play BG, they have to be someone who doesn't find war distasteful. And, for someone to play the Saerileth mod, they have to be someone who doesn't find relationships between adults and minors distasteful.

If you're actually going to pursue this unbelievably ludicrous argument, define "distasteful" rigorously, please.

Hint: There is a difference between real life and fantasy. EDIT: ... and most people have no trouble distinguishing between the two.

Modifié par AnonymousHero, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:42 .

[HoonDing]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

You've got it backwards. I'm saying that how you live dictates the video games you play. For someone to play and enjoy Postal, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find killing sprees to be distasteful. For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful. For someone to play BG, they have to be someone who doesn't find war distasteful. And, for someone to play the Saerileth mod, they have to be someone who doesn't find relationships between adults and minors distasteful.

I think the vast majority of people that play video games are able to separate fiction from reality.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
I thought you said you were an American? Most of America has the death penalty. Your specific state might not, but most of the others do.

Again, good thing you are actually reading my posts.

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...
Oh, so you live in the US. That makes 1 of the 2 of us.

1. Not 2. I do not live in the US.

I get what you're saying, but you're not getting what I'm saying.

And that makes it so much easier to just ignore everything I say...

BG isn't a rampage, it's war, and if the choice boils down to fighting back or laying down and dying, I'm fighting.

1. You do not need to die just because you are unwilling to fight. Sarevok's assassins cannot follow you everywhere you go. In the game you are making the decision to confront the enemy rather than run away. You are doing this time and time again. The Nashkel mines didn't even involve you in the slightest, from what information you had, yet you decided on your own, that that's where you would be going.

Let me rephrase your supposed choice: If the choice boils down to fighting back and likely dying to your betters because you don't know the first thing about combat yet or running away, you're fighting.

2. The same level of connection that your character has to the Nashkel mines, you may have to Syria. Thousands of people are dying there. (tens of thousands are dead already) Do you feel inclined to help them through force of arms? Why are you not on your way yet? You cannot push the responsibility away from you either, because nobody else seems willing to do the job.

Suddenly you choose not to fight.

And yet, when somebody chooses to romance a 15 year old girl in a computer game, you assume that naturally he will attempt the same thing in reality as well.

You've got it backwards. I'm saying that how you live dictates the video games you play. For someone to play and enjoy Postal, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find killing sprees to be distasteful. For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful. For someone to play BG, they have to be someone who doesn't find war distasteful.

Ooh, that's some really bad generalisations (and accusations).
Can I say that I am a pacifist and that I find the lethal use of arms distasteful? In reality, I mean?
And you are saying that because I've enjoyed certain games, I must be a pro-violence kind of guy.
There is a difference between the real world and fantasy.
All humans have certain urges (violence is as much part of our nature as the drive to reproduce) and in so far your statement would be a self-fulfilling prophecy (albeit an empty one, sort of like saying: people who wear shirts can breathe oxygen), but further than that? No. No and no way.

And, for someone to play the Saerileth mod, they have to be someone who doesn't find relationships between adults and minors distasteful.

Not only are you, despite not knowing the mod at all, equating Saerileth to a real 15 year old girl, this is also the same mistake as above (that somebody enjoys something in a make-believe situation doesn't mean that they'll be able to enjoy the same thing in reality as well).

[Pipboy3billion]

The ability to separate fiction from reality is an entirely different conversation. This discussion isn't about that.

Let's put it another way. Imagine there was a game where you played a member of the KKK and somehow the game was all about being a racist pr*ck. There are people who find the KKK to be offensive, so any game where the KKK is the protagonist is not likely to appeal to people who are not into racism. Likewise, people who do choose to play such a game are not necessary KKK supporters, but are at the very least desensitized to racial issues and/or are comfortable with racist attitudes. Both the people who choose to play the game, and those who don't, generally can tell fantasy from reality, but there's something to be said about the character of a human being based on the "fantasies" they have, even if they would never indulge in them.

...a game like Baldur's Gate (which requires mass slaughter unless played in a quite extreme way)...

It's not mass slaughter, it's a war. Mass slaughter is what Hitler did to the Jews (and gypsies, and so on). War is what the Allies did in response. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that war is pretty, or even noble in a lot of cases, but it's a completely different situation.

I assume this refers to Grand Theft Auto. I've never played it myself, but my son has (and enjoyed it), although he has absolutely no inclination towards violent behaviour.

I'm not implying that your son, or people like him, have violent tendencies just because he plays GTA. Hell, I've played almost all the games in the GTA series when I was younger, and I'm far from violent. However, and this isn't my opinion but the product of many studies, repeated exposure to violent situations (even simulated) desensitizes a person to violence. So, take two people with identical lives, except that one has a long history of playing violent video games. Neither is likely to be more violent than the other, but the gamer is less able to empathize when exposed to real violence happening to others IRL.

But this is all a digression from my original statement, which was to the effect that there is something disturbing about a dev who fabricates a romance between an adult and a minor when there is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever the same mod could have been done with both characters being adults. Likewise, it doesn't say anything good about people who chose to play such a mod.

[Pipboy3billion]

1. Not 2. I do not live in the US.

Sorry, I misread that.

And yet, when somebody chooses to romance a 15 year old girl in a computer game, you assume that naturally he will attempt the same thing in reality as well.

I never said that. I just said that a person that's cool with that isn't a terribly good example, in my opinion.

Seriously, you're just twisting my words around and crediting me with statements I never even said. This is all I'm going to say about it and I'm done:

1) There's no excuse for relationships between adults and minors.
2) Mass murder is one thing.
3) War is a another thing.
4) BG is not mass murder.
5) I think that people who are cool indulging #1 or #2, even in a video game, are not implicitly child molesters or mass murderers, but I still find them to be a little disturbing.

Period.

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Imagine there was a game where you played a member of the KKK and somehow the game was all about being a racist pr*ck. There are people who find the KKK to be offensive, so any game where the KKK is the protagonist is not likely to appeal to people who are not into racism. Likewise, people who do choose to play such a game are not necessary KKK supporters, but are at the very least desensitized to racial issues and/or are comfortable with racist attitudes.

I don't know a KKK game, but I do know a game with terrorists. Counterstrike.
Nobody really thinks about what side they should play on based on ideology or anything like that. The players don't even think about these issues. But do you think that just because of that they are desensitised towards the victims of (for example) 9/11?
It's simply something completely different.

there's something to be said about the character of a human being based
on the "fantasies" they have, even if they would never indulge in them.

Hoi, now we're entering Freud's domain. I must admit that I have never studied psychology. Have you?

It's not mass slaughter, it's a war. Mass slaughter is what Hitler did to the Jews (and gypsies, and so on). War is what the Allies did in response. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that war is pretty, or even noble in a lot of cases, but it's a completely different situation.

And you still fail to answer to me whether or not you would be comfortable with actually doing what you do in Baldur's Gate. Your response is the logical fallacy called Ignoratio elenchi, which means you are giving a completely correct argument, just not one that adresses the situation at hand.

I'm not implying that your son, or people like him, have violent tendencies just because he plays GTA.

For someone to play GTA, they have to be the kind of person who doesn't find gang warfare distasteful.

Isn't this what implying something means?

this isn't my opinion but the product of many studies, repeated exposure to violent situations (even simulated) desensitizes a person to violence.

The nice thing about such studies is that there are so many of them that it's possible to find a supporting one no matter what you need supported.
I've watched (on TV) and read (on the internet) about 4 studies which "proved" the opposite.

But this is all a digression from my original statement, which was to the effect that there is something disturbing about a dev who fabricates a romance between an adult and a minor when there is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever the same mod could have been done with both characters being adults.

Besides the point of the mod being that both of them are adults, just with one of them being a slightly younger adult.
But it's not really digressing in so far as the topic really is "Why is one kind of questionable content a-okay while the other is not?"

Likewise, it doesn't say anything good about people who chose to play such a mod.

Again with the implications... (either you are implying, or you are not)

[Humanoid_Taifun]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

And yet, when somebody chooses to romance a 15 year old girl in a computer game, you assume that naturally he will attempt the same thing in reality as well.

I never said that. I just said that a person that's cool with that isn't a terribly good example, in my opinion.

You know, either you are wary of him because of his tendencies towards younger girls, or I fail to see a reason to be wary of him. What else is there to be wary about?

Seriously, you're just twisting my words around and crediting me with statements I never even said.

Where exactly do I do that. Please give me examples, so that, if need be, I can rectify things.

[AnonymousHero]

Pipboy3billion wrote...

The ability to separate fiction from reality is an entirely different conversation. This discussion isn't about that.

Yes it is. You made it such by your ridiculous assertions.

Pipboy3billion wrote...
Imagine there was a game where you played a member of the KKK and somehow [... pointless blather]

Stop moving the goalposts and injecting even more "hot button" issues into the discussion. You lost the argument, just admit it and move on.

Further hint: BG is nothing like "war". I haven't ever been in one, but from the depictions I've read (written by people who actually have been in them)... surpise! It's nothing like BG.

There's the whole "real life != fantasy" thing again.

[Zaxares]

My personal stance on paladins is as follows:

1. A paladin exists to promote the cause of Good through Lawful means. Even paladins who worship stricter deities of law such as Helm or St. Cuthbert still aim to bring about the greatest benefit to the many with a minimum of harm.

2. If there exists a peaceful, non-violent resolution for a problem that satisfies the majority of parties, the paladin will always take it. Violence and battle are used only as a last resort if diplomacy and mediation fail.

3. Even when facing evil beings, the paladin will always accept an offer of surrender. Since Good is ultimately about kindness, selflessness, and forgiveness, if the possibility exists that an evil being can be redeemed, the paladin must take it unless he has good reason to suspect that the evil being is lying. (And even so, if the paladin can see that the evil being is currently in no state to cause further harm, they must take the evil being into custody rather than just kill them outright.)

4. Paladins can make mistakes; they're mortal, like anybody else. But if they do, they must immediately seek atonement and make restitution once they realise their mistake. This applies even if a paladin is forced into a situation where they have to choose the lesser of two evils. They may be justified in doing what they did, but that still doesn't excuse them from punishment for what they have done. Most Lawful deities would reward a paladin for stopping an evil army on the one hand and punish them with the other for having sacrificed a unit of their soldiers to hold the army in a valley where a triggered avalanche could utterly destroy the invaders.

---

I actually had no inkling that Imoen was the Bhaalspawn's half-sister in the first game, and I was bitterly disappointed by the revelation in the second game. :/ I'm not ashamed to say that yes, I had this whole story about Imoen and my PC falling in love thought up in my head, since I saw their relationship as being closer to that of, say, the Spirit Monk and Dawn Star in Jade Empire, than of a true adopted siblings situation. (The PC was raised by Gorion, after all, while Imoen was raised by Winthrop.)

I do not mean to excuse the actions of pedophiles, of course, but it's worthwhile noting that for a majority of human history, it was considered perfectly acceptable for humans to start having sex as soon as they hit puberty. You know the story of Romeo and Juliet? One of the most famous love stories ever, and yet I imagine most people don't realise that Juliet is only FOURTEEN years old in the story. My own grandmother, who lived in China shortly before the Communist revolution, was married to my grandfather when she was only 15 years old. (And I believe she had my uncle at just age 16.) The belief that 18 is the magical number when it's suddenly acceptable to think of somebody in a sexual sense is a relatively recent invention in human society, and it's not necessarily shared by all cultures.

That said, do I think it's a GOOD IDEA for people younger than 18 to be having sex (and consequently children)? No, because I believe they're still too young to completely grasp the consequences of what having a child would do to their lives.

[morbidest2]

Zaxares wrote...

I do not mean to excuse the actions of pedophiles, of course, but it's worthwhile noting that for a majority of human history, it was considered perfectly acceptable for humans to start having sex as soon as they hit puberty. You know the story of Romeo and Juliet? One of the most famous love stories ever, and yet I imagine most people don't realise that Juliet is only FOURTEEN years old in the story. My own grandmother, who lived in China shortly before the Communist revolution, was married to my grandfather when she was only 15 years old. (And I believe she had my uncle at just age 16.) The belief that 18 is the magical number when it's suddenly acceptable to think of somebody in a sexual sense is a relatively recent invention in human society, and it's not necessarily shared by all cultures.

That said, do I think it's a GOOD IDEA for people younger than 18 to be having sex (and consequently children)? No, because I believe they're still too young to completely grasp the consequences of what having a child would do to their lives.

One historian did a study of English church record books - which in some cases go back to the 13th century since England was relatively peaceful compared to the rest of Europe - and concluded that the average girl in medieval England married at the age of 20! A lot of the early marriages were in the upper classes and had more to do with political alliances, or trading merchantile rights - between the families than with the two people getting married.
Similarly, a lot of Jews in rural czarist Russia married very young (15 and 13) to try to keep boys from being drafted into the Russian army for a 20 year stretch.
In ancient Rome a rich senator would tend to marry off his daughters at 18 for political alliances; doing it earlier was considered a bit vulgar.

Modifié par morbidest2, 25 septembre 2011 - 01:00 .