885 réponses à ce sujet

[Maconbar]

fantasypisces wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...
Because unless you are a follower of the philosophy of the seven deadly sins, then greed and lust for power are not altogether evil. Disregard for others, hell I will admit, I sometimes have disregard for others whom I don't know. Does that make me a bad person, perhaps. But when I watch the news I don't get torn up about every death reported. Keep in mind that Dragon Age is a midieval fantasy setting, their values are different then ours today.

Occasional attacks of greed or disregard - I can get that.  I cna brush off people too when I'm in a bad mood (altough I dod regret it later).
But that's Morrigans default. It's not occasional. And I don't see any regret in her.

You're pulling specific aspects of her and telling that each one of them alone doesnot make a "truly" evil person. Yeah, when you have a cocktail of htem, that makes it rahter evil. And some of those "traits" have more weight than others.

You don't have to kick puppies and burn kitttens alive all the time to be a evil douchebag. Morrigan is following hte PC's lead, since she needs him for hte ritual and doesn't want to loose him, and agreed to follow his lead.
If you play the white knight, she protests against every good decision and you need to threaten her into shutting up. She's smart enough not to push the issue. So you basicly see her at her best behavior.

If you play an evil ****** she will gleefully do any evil deed in the game and agree to it. Kill children? Cool, lets do it! Turn dwarves into golems trough horrificly painfull methods? As long as it's not me, who cares' Hell yeah! POWAA!! Drain those stupid elves for more power? Yeah, lets.

Not evil? NOT EVIL? You got to be kidding me.


Allright..If you guys are so determined to follow this line of reasoning...a challenge. Pick someone you consider evil from the real world. A criminal, a mass murderer or someone like Stalin or something.

I will use your own logic to deny that persons evil.

Whoa dude, calm down and stop freaking out on me. The point is that they are not evil actions in themselves, it is the levity of the situation and the thought process that makes those characteristics evil.

Hitler killed Jews because he didn't like them --- Evil
Morrigan killed slave elves (or at least supported it) because there was a benefit to herself (whether she got the benefit or her leader did, either way it benefited her) --- neutral outlook. She didn't want to kill the slaves simply because she wanted to kill them, there was a benefit to her outside the boundaries of law (chaotic neutral)

Shale wants to kill Connor for no other reason then he simply thinks it would be easy and enjoyable --- evil
Morrigan thinks killing Connor is the best approach but also proposes going to the mage-tower to battle the daemon in the fade --- neutral.

I'm of the opinion that good and evil are hard to define, and that the world is mostly shades of Greys except for the extremes (i.e. Hitler vs a Paladin). Look at the world and you would see this is true.

I'm sorry you see everything as black and white only, which leads me to believe you are either very young, stuck in a fantasy, or very close-minded. By your defenition, all drug-dealers are bad. Are they? Well they certainly distribute something that is bad, often to kids, but often many of these proposed 'evil' drug dealers didn't have a choice. Either stay unemployed in a hostile environment and starve to death, or do something that many consider bad to survive. Do you begrudge them all and judge them because they are doing what they have to do? Yes a good number of drug dealers are bad people (most in fact) they do it for the greed not for the survival.

Counter that with Morrigan. Do you think she would be as greedy and powerhungry if she wasn't raised by Flemeth? As an apostate mage, living in the Korcari Wilds which is probably the most dangerous place in all of Ferelden? She was raised in a situation where survival meant everything, it is all she knows. She is like that one in a million drug dealer, she does what she does because she has no other choice. When the PC then remarks that she doesn't have to live that way any longer you can sense her stammer, because she does realize there is something else out there. It is the same with the one in a million drug dealer, once they have enough to survive on they begin searching for other (less illegal) things to do to get by, but that would not have been possible if they didn't take the morally grey option in the first place.

Morrigan is neutral because she is a product of her environment (need for survival) and as soon as she relizes it doesn't need to be that way, she changes.

She does not want to kill people simply because she enjoys killing people. There needs to be a reason for it.
Cold blooded murder (Hitler killing Jews) is evil. None can deny that.
Killing slaves (in a midieval fantasy setting) that mean nothing to no-one, are complete strangers to you, and you get something that benefits you is a morally grey area based upon the principles of the midieval fantasy setting. If it was present day times and she did that, then it's evil. If this was 1400's europe then no one would even bat a ****ing eyelash.

Good and Evil are not so readily distinguished. There are many factors that go into the decision including historical setting, cultural setting, the thought processes of how everyone will perceive it, and the levity of the situation.

I'm sorry your shiny plate armor and blazing sword can't understand that the world is mostly a shade of grey.

How can you argue that killing people because there is a benefit to it makes the action neutral even using 1400s Europe? Morality at that time was defined primarily by the Catholic Church and the Church was opposed to the wanton murder of innocents. I am not defending the Church's position regarding heretics and apostasy. Yes there was significant injustice during this period but to take the leap to suggesting that back in the 1400s society believed that it was just to kill solely to get a benefit isn't supportable.

[Creature 1]

fantasypisces wrote...
As members of a modernized society, we would say that is evil. They have no need to kill that child. But to those people in the tribe they are doing nothing wrong, they are acting out of survival. Are you going to then begrudge a whole society of people because of this choice? Wouldn't that make you judgmental? A flaw that many people of a modernized world call evil within itself? No, it becomes a shade of grey and a respresentation of the culture and upbringing of these people.

I have zero problem being judgmental. 

Some actions are definitely wrong, the people doing the actions may not understand that this is so, but that does not make the action any less wrong.  Sometimes this makes our reaction less harsh.  But ignorance ultimately is not an excuse.  A sociopathic serial killer sees nothing wrong with multiple murder, but his failure to grasp right and wrong does not excuse his actions, and we remove these people from society--sometimes terminally. 

[Dark83]

I may be a cynic, but I think that tribe once had a gay pedo elder who talked everyone else into letting him get a lot of BJs, enforced with violence. <_<

[Creature 1]

Dark83 wrote...

I may be a cynic, but I think that tribe once had a gay pedo elder who talked everyone else into letting him get a lot of BJs, enforced with violence. <_<

I think you're right.  Have a cookie. 

[robertthebard]

Maconbar wrote...

How can you argue that killing people because there is a benefit to it makes the action neutral even using 1400s Europe? Morality at that time was defined primarily by the Catholic Church and the Church was opposed to the wanton murder of innocents. I am not defending the Church's position regarding heretics and apostasy. Yes there was significant injustice during this period but to take the leap to suggesting that back in the 1400s society believed that it was just to kill solely to get a benefit isn't supportable.

I'm sorry, what?  Who gets to define heretic or apostate?  They did.  So because after hours of torture, or even days of torture someone would admit to being a werewolf, saw this on the Discovery Channel the other day, then they were surely a werewolf and deserved the punishment they got?  That boat doesn't float.  There has been more blood shed in the name of some god or another than for any other reason.

[Dark83]

Subject696 wrote...
I will try to make short sentencis;)

Heh. Back in high school, my final exam for English was an essay. I lost a lot of marks for run on sentances. 

[DPSSOC]

Sialater wrote...

I do have a problem with people saying she was objecting because you're endangering the lives of the last Grew Wardens....

She sends you to fight her MOTHER who shapeshifts into a DRAGON. Where's the concern then?

There's a difference between the two situations.  She objects to endangering the lives of the last Grey Wardens when there's no benefit (immediate or otherwise) to her personally.  Let's face it Redcliffe Village is a thimble in the ocean that is the army you'll need to defeat the darkspawn.  Killing Flemmeth however has the immediate benefit of gaining the Grimoire and the long-term benefit of time to develope a defense against Flemmeth.  In the event

Skellimancer wrote...

Not to mention encouraging you to attack the bandits, a few moments after heading to Lothering.

You've fought and killed darkspawn, these were small time thugs picking on unarmed refugees, it's not unreasonable for her to assume you can take them.
 

[robertthebard]

Creature 1 wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...
As members of a modernized society, we would say that is evil. They have no need to kill that child. But to those people in the tribe they are doing nothing wrong, they are acting out of survival. Are you going to then begrudge a whole society of people because of this choice? Wouldn't that make you judgmental? A flaw that many people of a modernized world call evil within itself? No, it becomes a shade of grey and a respresentation of the culture and upbringing of these people.

I have zero problem being judgmental. 

Some actions are definitely wrong, the people doing the actions may not understand that this is so, but that does not make the action any less wrong.  Sometimes this makes our reaction less harsh.  But ignorance ultimately is not an excuse.  A sociopathic serial killer sees nothing wrong with multiple murder, but his failure to grasp right and wrong does not excuse his actions, and we remove these people from society--sometimes terminally. 

However, you will at least admit to being judgemental.  I can't say I approve of the example given either.  It kinda makes me cringe to think about it, but I understand that people that live primitively have primitive ideas, and that social moars don't apply across the board.  Most people would condemn canabilism, but go to church on Sunday and partake of communion.  The blood and body of their god.  We all know it's wine, probably watered down, and even grape juice, and saltines, but it's the symbolism.  Ritual canabilism.  This is the blood and body of...yech.

[fantasypisces]

I think I should add for my support wrong =/= evil. Someone may do something morally and ethically wrong but they are not necessarily evil for it. I don't know, i should probably just stop because it is getting to the point of arguing semantics.

Modifié par fantasypisces, 21 décembre 2009 - 08:31 .

[fantasypisces]

robertthebard wrote...

and that social moars don't apply across the board. 

And that is exactly my point.

[Creature 1]

robertthebard wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...
As members of a modernized society, we would say that is evil. They have no need to kill that child. But to those people in the tribe they are doing nothing wrong, they are acting out of survival. Are you going to then begrudge a whole society of people because of this choice? Wouldn't that make you judgmental? A flaw that many people of a modernized world call evil within itself? No, it becomes a shade of grey and a respresentation of the culture and upbringing of these people.

I have zero problem being judgmental. 

Some actions are definitely wrong, the people doing the actions may not understand that this is so, but that does not make the action any less wrong.  Sometimes this makes our reaction less harsh.  But ignorance ultimately is not an excuse.  A sociopathic serial killer sees nothing wrong with multiple murder, but his failure to grasp right and wrong does not excuse his actions, and we remove these people from society--sometimes terminally. 

However, you will at least admit to being judgemental.  I can't say I approve of the example given either.  It kinda makes me cringe to think about it, but I understand that people that live primitively have primitive ideas, and that social moars don't apply across the board.  Most people would condemn canabilism, but go to church on Sunday and partake of communion.  The blood and body of their god.  We all know it's wine, probably watered down, and even grape juice, and saltines, but it's the symbolism.  Ritual canabilism.  This is the blood and body of...yech.

I'm not convinced cannibalism is wrong, as long as you didn't kill the person (gross, yes  , and potentially leading to prion diseases or other contagion).  It doesn't hurt the person because they're dead.  Whether it's an offense against human dignity I suppose depends upon the attitude taken. 

My position is that in most cases you can determine whether something is wrong or acceptable based upon whether it harms other people.  Getting killed--definitely harmful.  Being raped--also harmful.  There are more iffy questions like regarding cannibalism, but the major questions are pretty easily answered. 

[Maconbar]

robertthebard wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

How can you argue that killing people because there is a benefit to it makes the action neutral even using 1400s Europe? Morality at that time was defined primarily by the Catholic Church and the Church was opposed to the wanton murder of innocents. I am not defending the Church's position regarding heretics and apostasy. Yes there was significant injustice during this period but to take the leap to suggesting that back in the 1400s society believed that it was just to kill solely to get a benefit isn't supportable.

I'm sorry, what?  Who gets to define heretic or apostate?  They did.  So because after hours of torture, or even days of torture someone would admit to being a werewolf, saw this on the Discovery Channel the other day, then they were surely a werewolf and deserved the punishment they got?  That boat doesn't float.  There has been more blood shed in the name of some god or another than for any other reason.

I wasn't arguing that the Church (and other organized religions) hasn't been guilty of horrific crimes in history. That is why I said that I am not defending their treatment of heretics/apostates. I am not defending it because I think that it is indefensible. Societies throughout time have generally been very effective at demonizing outsiders. There is probably a genetic basis for this. 

All I was arguing is that during the 1400s the wanton killing of people was generally believed to be wrong because a previous poster had argued that killing someone was acceptable as long as there was a benefit to the killer.

[Creature 1]

Maconbar wrote...
All I was arguing is that during the 1400s the wanton killing of people was generally believed to be wrong because a previous poster had argued that killing someone was acceptable as long as there was a benefit to the killer.

I'm trying to do some reading on this.  I really doubt it was considered unworthy of mention to slaughter large numbers of slaves without them having done something forbidden.  If anything else I think it would be thought of as wasteful and condemned because of that.

[fantasypisces]

Maconbar wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

How can you argue that killing people because there is a benefit to it makes the action neutral even using 1400s Europe? Morality at that time was defined primarily by the Catholic Church and the Church was opposed to the wanton murder of innocents. I am not defending the Church's position regarding heretics and apostasy. Yes there was significant injustice during this period but to take the leap to suggesting that back in the 1400s society believed that it was just to kill solely to get a benefit isn't supportable.

I'm sorry, what?  Who gets to define heretic or apostate?  They did.  So because after hours of torture, or even days of torture someone would admit to being a werewolf, saw this on the Discovery Channel the other day, then they were surely a werewolf and deserved the punishment they got?  That boat doesn't float.  There has been more blood shed in the name of some god or another than for any other reason.

I wasn't arguing that the Church (and other organized religions) hasn't been guilty of horrific crimes in history. That is why I said that I am not defending their treatment of heretics/apostates. I am not defending it because I think that it is indefensible. Societies throughout time have generally been very effective at demonizing outsiders. There is probably a genetic basis for this. 

All I was arguing is that during the 1400s the wanton killing of people was generally believed to be wrong because a previous poster had argued that killing someone was acceptable as long as there was a benefit to the killer.

I find myself mostly backtracking, apologies, apparently I can't say everything I need to in one post. But I never said killing someone so long as you get something is acceptable. I simply said it is a neutral (Grey outlook). It is certainly wrong to do, but not necessarily evil. The whole wrong =/= evil thing.

But anyway, if there is a neutral approach, then there is most certainly a defined 'good' approach, and the good approach is always the better. The neutral approach is not always acceptable, but nor is it always criminalized, hence why it is neutrality.

Good approach is acceptable.
Neutral approach is neither acceptable nor unacceptable. it could be wrong or not depending on the myriad of factors.
Evil approach is unacceptable.

[Rainen89]

First and foremost the "heretics" was a label thrown on anyone who wasn't of their religion, not necessarily evil at all. For all the church's praise on life they've been responsible for more genocide than any other organized group of people. You're told killing is wrong because we're also taught that life is sacred so yes you can argue that from our perspective, killing is evil and anyone who does it, is in fact evil. Were that the case however, every single PC and party member is an evil SOB. (Don't throw in self defense, self defense is only excusable to excessive force, rarely is death excusable.) Let alone wanton destruction of hundreds of people.

Morrigan from my perspective is not evil, at best she's a selfish, despicable self serving mabari who only cares about her, and her own personal pursuits, but that does not constitute as evil. People are by definition self serving people, she's just a tad darwinian at it. Her view is weak die, strong prosper, not evil it's just not organized and governed by social laws and conventions. She's chaotic and her background reflects this.

As far as the self preservation argument for redcliffe went, yes she does eventually send you out to Flemmeth but she won't make you, you can skip the quest, she asks you do this for her as a personal favor and only after she thinks you're a true friend. You knew no one in the village, at best Alistair knew Teagan, but you can choose not to bring him anyway. Also army > one dragon. As far as the bandits, I'm sure this was satirical, however they were in your way threatening you, so nature demands self defense I don't condone it as evil, I also don't see why people are selectively using the "life is sacred" argument.

You cannot and should not stratify life. Whether that's the life of connor, who was used as an instrument to kill hundreds of people and place him more important than all those lives who died, and those who die as you go to the circle tower gathering mages. Or whethers it's the life of all those abominations we kill with no regard to their situation. Did anyone bat an eye when we slaughtered hundreds on our way to save three freaking people?

Modifié par Rainen89, 21 décembre 2009 - 08:52 .

[fantasypisces]

Creature 1 wrote...

Maconbar wrote...
All I was arguing is that during the 1400s the wanton killing of people was generally believed to be wrong because a previous poster had argued that killing someone was acceptable as long as there was a benefit to the killer.

I'm trying to do some reading on this.  I really doubt it was considered unworthy of mention to slaughter large numbers of slaves without them having done something forbidden.  If anything else I think it would be thought of as wasteful and condemned because of that.

maybe 1400's was wrong, I don't know, it was just something I pulled out of butt. It was just supposed to be a reference to the long past before our 'modernized' viewpoints.
It could be the 1400's, or the 1100's, or BC. It was just used to reference different morale systems.
Throughout history, knights "or warriors of some important noble, could be samurai" were technically allowed to do whatever they wanted, for the most part. If a knight raped a women, well in some parts of history he was perfectly within his bounds to do that if she was on the property of the knight's lord's lands (erm, that was wrong gramatically). That's more what I was getting at.

Ok here we go (a subject I know well). Ancient Rome. A slave owner could kill all his slaves, whether they be dozens or hundreds, and no one would bat an eyelash. There we go! Today that is wrong, very very wrong, but back then no one cared, it was his right to do so. In the game, the owner of the 'now' slaves offers to kill them all and give you something in return. If it was ancient Rome you character would say "hellz yeahhh!". But in todays society we would be like "wait? Slaver? Die!". I think that illustrates it better. You have to have the cultural and historical references available.

[Dark83]

fantasypisces wrote...

I find myself mostly backtracking, apologies, apparently I can't say everything I need to in one post. But I never said killing someone so long as you get something is acceptable. I simply said it is a neutral (Grey outlook). It is certainly wrong to do, but not necessarily evil. The whole wrong =/= evil thing.

So... murder for money isn't evil? Hmm...

[Rainen89]

Depends, are you killing them just to kill them, or are you killing them so that you don't end up on the street and die because you have no money?

[ZuZuDanaae]

Wow! 30 pages of agument about whether it is bad writing that a character in a game doesn't approve of you. LOL



BTW, a village being near the castle is actually historically correct. Castles typically had villages associated with them. The relationship is symbiotic. Like the blacksmith's daughter being a maid at the castle.... Bann Teagan, in his connection to the Arl, had a responsibility to the people.



Of course, this is one game where the writers (google the game on 'net) have made it a feature of the game that you will have to make some difficult choices that may test your own morals and ethics. They say upfront your NPCs are independent personalities and sometimes disapprove of what you do.



In real life, I would have a talk with Morrigan. But have to admit that, in real life, I also allow people to be themselves and also I do not expect they will always agree with me or understand that my motives are the best.... go figure. If the developers put in every possible way for the PC to act in every circumstance none of us would have the computer-power to run the game.



Im in the obvious minority that actually likes Morrigan. I understand where she is coming from and, although Im not like her, I enjoy her difference. Sometimes she approves of me, sometimes not. I think many of the things she says are really funny. Some are shocking like when she tells how her mother had her sleep with Chasind men for Flemeth's benefit.



I couldnt spend 30 pages of reading to find out... I really spend more time in the game than some, obviously. LOL.... but I dont think anybody mentioned that you dont have to help the villagers. If you start the quest, then leave .... like go back to camp.... and you come back.... the villagers are all dead.



After all, regardless of their number, they are no more adept at fighting than I would be irl. And we learn, if we stay to help, their weapons are no good after fighting night after night. So, we know, off the top, these folks like the quiet life. They cant help it that now they have to fight the undead night after night. They dont know how and if we dont help them move that fridge somebody was talking about then they are going to die. They know it and we do too. So, whether Morrigan likes it or not I make up my own mind.



I freaked, btw, when I found out they all died when I just went back t the camp to sell some stuff.... I re-loaded the last save. and I really didnt care if Morrigan approved. LOL So I dont know what happens to the castle after that if you let them die. I suspect that, if you allow the village to die, Bann Teagan survives and the scene with the Arlessa happens anyway.



Morrigan, whether you like her or not, has a personality. If every NPC had my own personality then I might as well use the toolset and make my own game. Part of the game is that these characters are not us and do not always believe as we do. It is actually part of the game (omg!) that you have to make some choices that might not appeal to members of your party. The hard ones are the ones that dont appeal to you, yourself. Re-gaining the at-least neutral approval of your party is not so hard when you consider you can bribe them with gifts.



So, to answer the question and jump into this silly talk, this is not bad writing. This is great writing. Why? First, it was so interesting that it inspired this long, long discussion of 30 pages and that it digressed into some very philosophical discussion. But, second, it points out a problem within ourselves maybe--that for some of us there is no room in the world for people who are not like us. Unfortunately I have seen too much of this in real life. Perhaps some might learn how to accept others, or at least understand that not everyone agrees with us, by playing a game.

[robertthebard]

Maconbar wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

How can you argue that killing people because there is a benefit to it makes the action neutral even using 1400s Europe? Morality at that time was defined primarily by the Catholic Church and the Church was opposed to the wanton murder of innocents. I am not defending the Church's position regarding heretics and apostasy. Yes there was significant injustice during this period but to take the leap to suggesting that back in the 1400s society believed that it was just to kill solely to get a benefit isn't supportable.

I'm sorry, what?  Who gets to define heretic or apostate?  They did.  So because after hours of torture, or even days of torture someone would admit to being a werewolf, saw this on the Discovery Channel the other day, then they were surely a werewolf and deserved the punishment they got?  That boat doesn't float.  There has been more blood shed in the name of some god or another than for any other reason.

I wasn't arguing that the Church (and other organized religions) hasn't been guilty of horrific crimes in history. That is why I said that I am not defending their treatment of heretics/apostates. I am not defending it because I think that it is indefensible. Societies throughout time have generally been very effective at demonizing outsiders. There is probably a genetic basis for this. 

All I was arguing is that during the 1400s the wanton killing of people was generally believed to be wrong because a previous poster had argued that killing someone was acceptable as long as there was a benefit to the killer.

I won't disagree in principle, but prior to the Civil War here, a slave could be gunned down in the street and nobody would bat an eye.  A sad but true comment on American History.  They were considered less than human.  This attitude to slavery is not unique, nor did it start here.  It was widely accepted that slaves were not human, but property, and people could do whatever they wanted with their property.  Thus, if you chose to burn down your slave quarters, in any time period where it was relevant, nobody would care, it was your property you burned, including the slaves that may have been in it.

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...
(Don't throw in self defense, self defense is only excusable to excessive force, rarely is death excusable.)

How do you figure?  I think when it comes to self defense, you should get the job done (or, as they say, aim for center of mass and keep pulling the trigger until the attacker is incapacitated or you run out of ammunition).  Since it can be very difficult to neutralize someone without causing severe damage--especially for someone untrained in combat and caught by surprise--requiring nonlethal force alone is an unfair burden.  Plus there is the question of whether it's moral if someone attacks you with intend to kill or cause severe harm to leave that person alive and loose to do the same to another unsuspecting person.  My party can't exactly call 911 for police to pick up a band of brigands while they're days' travel from the nearest city.  If you're going to be attacking other people, death is an occupational hazard. 

[Dark83]

Rainen89 wrote...

Depends, are you killing them just to kill them, or are you killing them so that you don't end up on the street and die because you have no money?

I kill to get paid, so I can buy Dragon Age.
Hypothetically.

[Creature 1]

Rainen89 wrote...

Depends, are you killing them just to kill them, or are you killing them so that you don't end up on the street and die because you have no money?

Because then it's ok?    That can only be so if you are more valuable than they, and since all people have the same inherent value, that can't be. 

[Sialater]

Creature 1 wrote...

Rainen89 wrote...

Depends, are you killing them just to kill them, or are you killing them so that you don't end up on the street and die because you have no money?

Because then it's ok?    That can only be so if you are more valuable than they, and since all people have the same inherent value, that can't be. 

Sorry, Jonas Salk was probably one of the more valuable people on the planet during his day.

[Rainen89]

Because if it's honestly your life or theirs, self preservation makes you live if that means killing so be it. I'm not saying it's better I'm saying it's not good, or evil it's gray and chaotic. I'm not saying it's okay, but it does not make someone evil.

Also if it's your life I doubt you hold some stranger with more wealth than you equal to your own.

Modifié par Rainen89, 21 décembre 2009 - 09:26 .