173 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkDragon777]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Filament wrote...

It's defined as evil in Dragon Age by the Chantry, and most encounters with demons of pride tend to paint them in that light, yes. But there are some instances with demons (mostly desire demons) where there is some ambiguity injected into their motivations (where it might be more accurate to say amoral rather than immoral, at least).

In DA, the darkspawn seem to be the Chaotic Evil race and demons seem to be the Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral race. Qunari seem to be the Lawful Neutral race, with even the Tal-Vashoth playing out a per-assigned role.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Terrorism is attacking non-military targets with goal of spreading fear, in its distilled sense.

I think that's a sloppy definition of terrorism. Stoning women who don't wear proper attire or lynching blacks who try to go to white schools are acts now of terrorism.

I believe there's a difference between the violence a group uses on members of its own community and the violence a group uses against another community. I think there's a difference between the systemic use of violence and an angry mob.

Darkspawn are more of a Neutral Evil race.

[Twisted Path]

I don't understand why these threads always go into these obtuse philosophical debates about whether evil truly exists or whatnot. Morrigan was as straight up Dungeons and Dragons capital E evil as you can get. Whenever the option came up to murder some innocent person and take their stuff she'd approve of it. She got mad at you for saving a town from zombies. She's happy if you help some rampaging werewolves murder a clan of elves. She approves of you blood-sacrificing a bunch of elves to get an extra constitution point. She's pretty objectively evil, even if the game doesn't have a character alignment slot.

[Medhia Nox]

@Twisted Path: You are going to get it now.

[Fredward]

Twisted Path wrote...
I don't understand why these threads always go into these obtuse philosophical debates about whether evil truly exists or whatnot. Morrigan was as straight up Dungeons and Dragons capital E evil as you can get. Whenever the option came up to murder some innocent person and take their stuff she'd approve of it. She got mad at you for saving a town from zombies. She's happy if you help some rampaging werewolves murder a clan of elves. She approves of you blood-sacrificing a bunch of elves to get an extra constitution point. She's pretty objectively evil, even if the game doesn't have a character alignment slot.

The D&D alignment system is ridiculous when you put any thought into it at all. Like if you took Morrigan's actions UP FRONT just like that, with none of her backstory or experiences considered then yeah sure, but how can you judge somebody's actions if you know nothing about them? The same person could be "chaotic evil" in one situation and "neutral good" in another. Morality is like that color wheel thing (does that have a technical name?) but round and not flat there is WAAAAAY too much to consider to just slap a label on someone.

And wow. These conversations really do turn philosophic. xp

[Medhia Nox]

@Foopydoopydoo: Well, you've definitely explained why subway rapes happen.

"How could I possibly judge what they're doing!?"

====

But let's go to something a little less outrageous.

If you steal - no matter how you justify that the "Man" makes more than you... or you "deserve" it - or "nobody will miss it". You're still a thief.

If you lie - even if it's to save someone's feelings... or it's just "little and white" - or you know you'll get away with it. You're still a liar.

If someone catches you stealing - or lying - why does whether or not mommy and daddy were mean to you matter?

The "why" is purely academic.

====

@krul2k: that's complete BS and shows that even respected figures can be grossly ignorant.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 décembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[Fredward]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Foopydoopydoo: Well, you've definitely explained why subway rapes happen.

"How could I possibly judge what they're doing!?"

====

But let's go to something a little less outrageous.

If you steal - no matter how you justify that the "Man" makes more than you... or you "deserve" it - or "nobody will miss it". You're still a thief.

If you lie - even if it's to save someone's feelings... or it's just "little and white" - or you know you'll get away with it. You're still a liar.

If someone catches you stealing - or lying - why does whether or not mommy and daddy were mean to you matter?

The "why" is purely academic.

====

@krul2k: that's complete BS and shows that even respected figures can be grossly ignorant.

Wow bro. You just tanked the entire field of psychology!

The "why's" ALWAYS matter, they don't excuse the action, they just offer perspective.

[hoorayforicecream]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...
I don't understand why these threads always go into these obtuse philosophical debates about whether evil truly exists or whatnot. Morrigan was as straight up Dungeons and Dragons capital E evil as you can get. Whenever the option came up to murder some innocent person and take their stuff she'd approve of it. She got mad at you for saving a town from zombies. She's happy if you help some rampaging werewolves murder a clan of elves. She approves of you blood-sacrificing a bunch of elves to get an extra constitution point. She's pretty objectively evil, even if the game doesn't have a character alignment slot.

The D&D alignment system is ridiculous when you put any thought into it at all. Like if you took Morrigan's actions UP FRONT just like that, with none of her backstory or experiences considered then yeah sure, but how can you judge somebody's actions if you know nothing about them? The same person could be "chaotic evil" in one situation and "neutral good" in another. Morality is like that color wheel thing (does that have a technical name?) but round and not flat there is WAAAAAY too much to consider to just slap a label on someone.

And wow. These conversations really do turn philosophic. xp

The D&D alignment system works within the setting because there are literal deities who embody these principles and become stronger when people commit these acts in their names and worship them. These deities then grant their worshipers powers based on their influence. There are people who literally gain divine power that is granted to them by their deities for performing these evil acts. When you run the risk of losing these powers you gain for performing acts that aren't evil, you're a lot less likely to do them.

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...
The "why" is purely academic.

You're competely wrong. If you want to design a working system of rules that govern behaviour, the why is crucial, unless you want to create a horribly unfair police state. And morality (as an academic idea) flows from the more practical question of how/why we should punish behaviour.

If you steal - no matter how you justify that the "Man" makes more than you... or you "deserve" it - or "nobody will miss it". You're still a thief.

Let's say we penalize theft. Okay, anyone who is a "thief" automatically gets 3 weeks in jail. Oh, but wait, we've got problems. Let's say someone has an identical laptop as mine. I take their instead of mine. Am I a thief? What if I intentional take their laptop? Suddenly mens rea matters (i.e. the why). Let's go further. Let's say that two people intentionally steal. Should they be punished the same? What if one steals an apple from a wealthy farmer, and another steals medication from a sick, elderly woman?  Should they be treated the same?

If you lie - even if it's to save someone's feelings... or it's just "little and white" - or you know you'll get away with it. You're still a liar.

What if you believe the statement is false, but the statement is really true? Are you a liar? There - the why matters here as well.

If someone catches you stealing - or lying - why does whether or not mommy and daddy were mean to you matter?

Because we want to treat equivalent wrongs equivalently, and saying that the resulting act itself is wrong is dumb, because that doesn't let us tell apart analytically distinct categories.

[shirespartan]

Would like to have a really bad ass Rogue female companion, a real black widow with a real shady past, only in it for her self and will use anything and anyone to get what she wants.

Just please no female warrior companions ;(

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Twisted Path wrote...
I don't understand why these threads always go into these obtuse philosophical debates about whether evil truly exists or whatnot. Morrigan was as straight up Dungeons and Dragons capital E evil as you can get. Whenever the option came up to murder some innocent person and take their stuff she'd approve of it. She got mad at you for saving a town from zombies. She's happy if you help some rampaging werewolves murder a clan of elves. She approves of you blood-sacrificing a bunch of elves to get an extra constitution point. She's pretty objectively evil, even if the game doesn't have a character alignment slot.

The D&D alignment system is ridiculous when you put any thought into it at all. Like if you took Morrigan's actions UP FRONT just like that, with none of her backstory or experiences considered then yeah sure, but how can you judge somebody's actions if you know nothing about them? The same person could be "chaotic evil" in one situation and "neutral good" in another. Morality is like that color wheel thing (does that have a technical name?) but round and not flat there is WAAAAAY too much to consider to just slap a label on someone.

And wow. These conversations really do turn philosophic. xp

The D&D alignment system works within the setting because there are literal deities who embody these principles and become stronger when people commit these acts in their names and worship them. These deities then grant their worshipers powers based on their influence. There are people who literally gain divine power that is granted to them by their deities for performing these evil acts. When you run the risk of losing these powers you gain for performing acts that aren't evil, you're a lot less likely to do them.

It works for divine casters in the setting. Now what about my artificer*? For that matter, IIRC Kossuth advocates being anything but Chaotic Evil, and Oghma doesn't care about your alignment even that much, so not even divine casters need to worry about this in all cases.

* His alignment is "No, thank you." My DM loved that one.

[Shadow Fox]

shirespartan wrote...

Would like to have a really bad ass Rogue female companion, a real black widow with a real shady past, only in it for her self and will use anything and anyone to get what she wants.

Just please no female warrior companions ;(

May I ask why?

[In Exile]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
May I ask why?

I'm betting this thread implodes in 3... 2...

[Shadow Fox]

Well even in D&D good and evil aren't binary terms considering there are 3 different types of each.

[Medhia Nox]

@In Exile: Dude, I'm not going to argue with you about whatever excuses you might want to tell yourself to excuse whatever behaviors you might want to partake in.

If I steal paper from work - I've stolen sheets of paper from work. It is not - "not stealing" because my boss won't miss it - it isn't even "not stealing" if I feel I "deserve" that paper because I brought in donuts this morning.

I said nothing about severity - impact - or consequence. I merely stated that if you perform an action - that action is not negated depending on the "Why" - even if it is excused by others.

Excusing yourself from actions is - for me - the first step into every manner of base impulse.

===

And since we've gotten to the quoting phase:

I have gained this by philosophy: I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.
-Aristotle

=====

We really should get back on track though.

I think the real problem is when you have a diverse cast of NPCs. It's natural to want them all in your party.

I think Bioware should focus on giving more freedom of selection. ((Even though I know it takes more resources))

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 10 décembre 2012 - 08:44 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

It works for divine casters in the setting. Now what about my artificer*? For that matter, IIRC Kossuth advocates being anything but Chaotic Evil, and Oghma doesn't care about your alignment even that much, so not even divine casters need to worry about this in all cases.

* His alignment is "No, thank you." My DM loved that one.

The point wasn't that characters can't be nuanced. The point was that there exists an actual in-game justification for purely chaotic evil characters to perform chaotic evil acts that is lacking in a setting without actual tangible rewards for performing such acts, and do not need to sacrifice nuance for it like they tend to do when there is no tangible reward.

[Realmzmaster]

Good and evil can be very subjective depending on situation, culture and other factors. The problem with terrorism is that there are roughly 109 accepted definitions of the term.

The quote "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter by Gerald Seymour" comes to mind. It depends on which side is viewing the attack.

The Boston Tea Party members saw their act as one of proclaiming freedom. Therefore an act of good. The British saw it as an act of terrorism. The British saw it as an evil act and defiance to the crown.

Back on topic. If the LI loves the PC then the LI cannot be truly evil unless the LI is simply using the PC as a means to an end.

If the LI is willing to defend the PC and roll with the PC through all sorts of danger then the LI cannot be truly evil.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Good and evil can be very subjective depending on situation, culture and other factors. The problem with terrorism is that there are roughly 109 accepted definitions of the term.

*snip*

Back on topic. If the LI loves the PC then the LI cannot be truly evil unless the LI is simply using the PC as a means to an end.

If the LI is willing to defend the PC and roll with the PC through all sorts of danger then the LI cannot be truly evil.

According to the Christian, Biblical definition of evil, or at least any that makes sense in context of the whole thing, they can be. "Even sinners love those who do them right." It's a paraphrase, but I think it gets the point across.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 10 décembre 2012 - 08:50 .

[In Exile]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@In Exile: Dude, I'm not going to argue with you about whatever excuses you might want to tell yourself to excuse whatever behaviors you might want to partake in.

Dude, this is how the legal system works. If you got a problem with it, take it up with your government.

If I steal paper from work - I've stolen sheets of paper from work. It is not - "not stealing" because my boss won't miss it - it isn't even "not stealing" if I feel I "deserve" that paper because I brought in donuts this morning.

Whatever made up person you're arguing with now isn't me.

I said nothing about severity - impact - or consequence. I merely stated that if you perform an action - that action is not negated depending on the "Why" - even if it is excused by others.

Except it totally is. Legally. You are just objectively wrong about this. Seriously, check it out:

http://en.wikipedia....Colour_of_right

You. Are. Wrong.

[Fredward]

In Exile wrote...

I said nothing about severity - impact - or consequence. I merely stated that if you perform an action - that action is not negated depending on the "Why" - even if it is excused by others.

Except it totally is. Legally. You are just objectively wrong about this. Seriously, check it out:

http://en.wikipedia....Colour_of_right

You. Are. Wrong.

When has that ever stopped anyone on the internet? XD

And yeah. This thread has now stepped on two very, very volatile topics, gender stereotypes and religion. Quickly! FIND THE POPCORN!

[Realmzmaster]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Good and evil can be very subjective depending on situation, culture and other factors. The problem with terrorism is that there are roughly 109 accepted definitions of the term.

*snip*

Back on topic. If the LI loves the PC then the LI cannot be truly evil unless the LI is simply using the PC as a means to an end.

If the LI is willing to defend the PC and roll with the PC through all sorts of danger then the LI cannot be truly evil.

According to the Christian, Biblical definition of evil, or at least any that makes sense in context of the whole thing, they can be. "Even sinners love those who do them right." It's a paraphrase, but I think it gets the point across.

Then there is love in their hearts and they are not truly evil because "He that loveth not knowth not God; for God is love"  1 John 4:8

I think the verse you are trying to paraphrase is Matthew 5:46 "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?".

If you wish to go to a religious perspective of good and evil then you do have a dividing line between the two. But remeber that  in Romans 3:23 "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

But that depends on if you believe in a God. Everyone does not believe in the same God so therefore do not adhere to that definition of good and evil.

Back on topic. There are very few truly evil characters. Some of the most evil characters in world history (as society has define them) had their soft spots.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 décembre 2012 - 09:08 .

[Todd23]

Can I attempt to change them and fail?

[frostajulie]

Vilegrim wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

Oh - I hope I can beat my love interest... cause that's "evil."

Maybe force them into sexual situations - so "evil".

Or have a spiraling tour de force across Thedas hurting each other with cheating, jealousy and lies. SO evil!

.... wait what? The "other" kind of evil?

Oh - my bad.

I hope we can warm ourselves by the screaming form of a cruxified and burning Chanter, while her Templars are forced to eat the excrement of abominations by our soldiers, and the congregation has to choose which if them live, and which die, they make this choice by who is willing to murder the templars when their meal is done.

I also want to portray a charcter who would be storming to the rescue, different playthrus, different extremes.

As options go that sounds really fun, what could motivate your PC to reach the breaking point where such extremes would become acceptable and desirable?  I would like to play such a game.