squee365 wrote...
Yeah but you don't have to make other people miserable in the process, especially when this was a negative topic from the start...I was trying to look on the bright side, and you just had to completely turn it around and try and make me look silly.
DiebytheSword wrote...
AnsinJung wrote...
I see no reason to be hung up on the game's definitions of what's paragon and what's renegade. I care more about whether I like the choice and following consequences than how the game tells me I should feel, including squad mates' opinions as well as the Council's or Cerberus's. Fortunately, the game usually provides consistent direction and hints as to nature and consequences of your actions, and that's all I consider the morality system in game: a guide.
Well said.
Il Divo wrote...
DiebytheSword wrote...
AnsinJung wrote...
I see no reason to be hung up on the game's definitions of what's paragon and what's renegade. I care more about whether I like the choice and following consequences than how the game tells me I should feel, including squad mates' opinions as well as the Council's or Cerberus's. Fortunately, the game usually provides consistent direction and hints as to nature and consequences of your actions, and that's all I consider the morality system in game: a guide.
Well said.
Agreed. I often feel like the Paragon-Renegade meters lead to very artificial role-playing, where we become more concerned with maxing the bar than with what our Shepard might do in any given situation.
Laser Beam wrote...
squee365 wrote...
Yeah but you don't have to make other people miserable in the process, especially when this was a negative topic from the start...I was trying to look on the bright side, and you just had to completely turn it around and try and make me look silly.
Don't tell me you're going to let a forum make you sad.
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
per·fect [adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] adjective 1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman. 2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect. 3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes. 4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime. 5. accurate, exact, or correct in every detail: a perfect copy.AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
LOL! No, just no.
Lets look at the definition of the word 'perfect' shall we?
perfect: something or someone without defect or flaws
You cant draw a square circle. You can't be a meat-eating vegetarian and you certainly cannot be a perfect person with flaws.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 janvier 2012 - 04:59 .
But they are still not objectively perfect. To this person they might appear perfect, but objectively they are still flawed, and therefore not perfect.AlexXIV wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
LOL! No, just no.
Lets look at the definition of the word 'perfect' shall we?
perfect: something or someone without defect or flaws
You cant draw a square circle. You can't be a meat-eating vegetarian and you certainly cannot be a perfect person with flaws.
If you like someone because of his flaws, then the flaws may be the very thing that makes you like him ... or her. Hence, they are what makes him/her perfect.
As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is perfection I guess.Firesteel7 wrote...
But they are still not objectively perfect. To this person they might appear perfect, but objectively they are still flawed, and therefore not perfect.AlexXIV wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
LOL! No, just no.
Lets look at the definition of the word 'perfect' shall we?
perfect: something or someone without defect or flaws
You cant draw a square circle. You can't be a meat-eating vegetarian and you certainly cannot be a perfect person with flaws.
If you like someone because of his flaws, then the flaws may be the very thing that makes you like him ... or her. Hence, they are what makes him/her perfect.
Beauty, yes. Perfection no. Incase you have forgotten, there is no such thing as perfection, which is why nothing is perfect. No matter how perfect something might seem, there are always flaws, however minute they may be.AlexXIV wrote...
As beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, so is perfection I guess.Firesteel7 wrote...
But they are still not objectively perfect. To this person they might appear perfect, but objectively they are still flawed, and therefore not perfect.AlexXIV wrote...
Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Your flaws can be part of your perfecion.BlueMagitek wrote...
No, no you can't. You can be a perfect warrior, but a horrible person (as the two are not mutually exclusive). But you cannot be a perfect person and a horrible person at the same time.
LOL! No, just no.
Lets look at the definition of the word 'perfect' shall we?
perfect: something or someone without defect or flaws
You cant draw a square circle. You can't be a meat-eating vegetarian and you certainly cannot be a perfect person with flaws.
If you like someone because of his flaws, then the flaws may be the very thing that makes you like him ... or her. Hence, they are what makes him/her perfect.
DiebytheSword wrote...
It happens in tabletop games with better defined alignments, I always feel that they are rudamentary guard rails used to corral players and remove agency.
I agree that anything labling morality is loaded. I try to think of them as poles, and the grey area in between is where us imperfect humans reside, some being more paragon, others being more renegade.Il Divo wrote...
DiebytheSword wrote...
It happens in tabletop games with better defined alignments, I always feel that they are rudamentary guard rails used to corral players and remove agency.
Exactly how I feel. Plus you get DM situations like the Paladin falls scenarios, which seem designed purposely to affect the player in a manner against his choosing. I think alignments work as an initial guideline, but they quickly become irrelevant once players realize how much restrictions they result in. Good and evil are loaded in terms, as are Paragon and Renegade.
Well perfection exists on a small scale. Like if you shoot at something 10 times and hit 10 times it is a perfect score. But in the grand scheme of things as you said everything is flawed and supposed to be flawed which makes them the way they should be. If something is exactly how it should be by having flaws then it is exactly what perfection is all about. In my opinion anyway.Firesteel7 wrote...
Beauty, yes. Perfection no. Incase you have forgotten, there is no such thing as perfection, which is why nothing is perfect. No matter how perfect something might seem, there are always flaws, however minute they may be.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 janvier 2012 - 05:15 .
Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.Il Divo wrote...
DiebytheSword wrote...
It happens in tabletop games with better defined alignments, I always feel that they are rudamentary guard rails used to corral players and remove agency.
Exactly how I feel. Plus you get DM situations like the Paladin falls scenarios, which seem designed purposely to affect the player in a manner against his choosing. I think alignments work as an initial guideline, but they quickly become irrelevant once players realize how much restrictions they result in. Good and evil are loaded in terms, as are Paragon and Renegade.
And to meet this standard it need be flawless?Dean_the_Young wrote...
Beauty is subjective opinion. Perfection, by its nature, is an on objective standard by some measure. If you do not meet a standard, you do not qualify.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 janvier 2012 - 05:18 .
On the extreme small scale yes, but people will never be perfect. Yes flaws are part of human nature, but just because that's the way it is, that doesn't mean the status quo is perfect.AlexXIV wrote...
Well perfection exists on a small scale. Like if you shoot at something 10 times and hit 10 times it is a perfect score. But in the grand scheme of things as you said everything is flawed and supposed to be flawed which makes them the way they should be. If something is exactly how it should be by having flaws then it is exactly what perfection is all about. In my opinion anyway.Firesteel7 wrote...
Beauty, yes. Perfection no. Incase you have forgotten, there is no such thing as perfection, which is why nothing is perfect. No matter how perfect something might seem, there are always flaws, however minute they may be.
Firesteel7 wrote...
I agree that anything labling morality is loaded. I try to think of them as poles, and the grey area in between is where us imperfect humans reside, some being more paragon, others being more renegade.
Guest_Luc0s_*
AlexXIV wrote...
Well perfection exists on a small scale. Like if you shoot at something 10 times and hit 10 times it is a perfect score. But in the grand scheme of things as you said everything is flawed and supposed to be flawed which makes them the way they should be. If something is exactly how it should be by having flaws then it is exactly what perfection is all about. In my opinion anyway.
Dean_the_Young wrote...
Part of the problem is on the player's part as well, however. Many players don't actually want to stick to any alignment: they call themselves lawful good, but then proceed to be neither lawful nor particularly good. They just like the title.Il Divo wrote...
DiebytheSword wrote...
It happens in tabletop games with better defined alignments, I always feel that they are rudamentary guard rails used to corral players and remove agency.
Exactly how I feel. Plus you get DM situations like the Paladin falls scenarios, which seem designed purposely to affect the player in a manner against his choosing. I think alignments work as an initial guideline, but they quickly become irrelevant once players realize how much restrictions they result in. Good and evil are loaded in terms, as are Paragon and Renegade.
Alignment-restrictions do have a place for anything that's supposed to be unique to exceptional people. It's always a tradeoff no matter what you do, but there's a very real case for it. Compare it to, say, speach checks: those can be so broken and overpowered mechanics that someone with enough charisma can simply break a game by buffing their speach checks. Tying persuasive ability to a consistent tone of character does factor in reputation and remove the abuse of a neutral, open-ended stat.
Guest_EternalAmbiguity_*
Didn't you want to stop arguing with me? Honeslty, you always get so agitated as if I ate your last cookie. If a flawed item is perfect for your purpose then it is perfect for you. In this situation. If you give someone a gun but you don't want him to shoot someone but want the weapon explode in his hand instead it is the perfect weapon for that purpose if it actually explodes in his hands.Luc0s wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
Well perfection exists on a small scale. Like if you shoot at something 10 times and hit 10 times it is a perfect score. But in the grand scheme of things as you said everything is flawed and supposed to be flawed which makes them the way they should be. If something is exactly how it should be by having flaws then it is exactly what perfection is all about. In my opinion anyway.
What the f*ck do you smoke man? Flawed when it's supposed to be flawed? Give me ONE example of this. When is something ever SUPPOSED to be flawed and how can something SUPPOSED to be flawed and still be actually flawed?
A flaw is by it's very definition a shortcoming, an imperfection. Something cannot be flawed and perfect at the same time.
I would agree. I also like Bethesda's system. Yes it lables you, but doesn't really judge you any other way, it says you are on a spectrum of it. No labling is the best system, no system telling you how good or bad you are, just your mind telling you. In more open games, like Bethesda's, I do think you need to lable actions to give consequences for them, but Bethesda's games also let you play virtually however you want, morally anyways.Il Divo wrote...
Firesteel7 wrote...
I agree that anything labling morality is loaded. I try to think of them as poles, and the grey area in between is where us imperfect humans reside, some being more paragon, others being more renegade.
And that's where (I think) the best role-playing resides. For all its flaws, I think Dragon Age: Origins really hit this perfectly. It's the only Bioware RPG which doesn't feature any kind of moral alignment or scale, and the game didn't suffer one bit (imo). Instead of framing the issue as "what would a good character do?" it was simply "What would my character do?", without the added baggage.
Firesteel7 wrote...
I would agree. I also like Bethesda's system. Yes it lables you, but doesn't really judge you any other way, it says you are on a spectrum of it. No labling is the best system, no system telling you how good or bad you are, just your mind telling you. In more open games, like Bethesda's, I do think you need to lable actions to give consequences for them, but Bethesda's games also let you play virtually however you want, morally anyways.Il Divo wrote...
Firesteel7 wrote...
I agree that anything labling morality is loaded. I try to think of them as poles, and the grey area in between is where us imperfect humans reside, some being more paragon, others being more renegade.
And that's where (I think) the best role-playing resides. For all its flaws, I think Dragon Age: Origins really hit this perfectly. It's the only Bioware RPG which doesn't feature any kind of moral alignment or scale, and the game didn't suffer one bit (imo). Instead of framing the issue as "what would a good character do?" it was simply "What would my character do?", without the added baggage.
Retour en haut