1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Maximilien Robespierre

You mean the greatest dictator France ever had? Quite a nice example of a idealist ruler.

But, it´s a fact: Everyone claiming NOT to think primarily of himself is a Liar.

Then I am a liar, I certainly did support Bhelen as king to the dwarves while being a dwarf noble out of my selfish needs. I certainly cured the werewolves out of spite, I certainly helped Redcliff and the Circle of Magi for my own selfish needs.

Quite so.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 janvier 2010 - 04:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Maximilien Robespierre

You mean the greatest dictator France ever had? Quite a nice example of a idealist ruler.

I do not know if you are being sarcastic. But Robespierre was the idealist par excellence. But in the circumstances that he was put in, he changed and started resorting to things he was once opposed to (he was a very strong opponent to the death penalty and the guillotine).
And so it's very easy to be an idealist when not having power or responsability. But when confronted by circumstances that are beyond your control (the reality of life and politics in general, plus the particularities of the situation), you will be quite surprised at what you are capable of doing.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 janvier 2010 - 04:29 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Precisely the point, idealists like him have no place in leading countries. I think Harrowmont is like him.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 janvier 2010 - 04:33 .

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

But, it´s a fact: Everyone claiming NOT to think primarily of himself is a Liar.

Then I am a liar, I certainly did support Bhelen as king to the dwarves while being a dwarf noble out of my selfish needs. I certainly cured the werewolves out of spite, I certainly helped Redcliff and the Circle of Magi for my own selfish needs.

Quite so.

Of course. I did ALL those things myself on my Playthrough, lol.............. Except for Bhelen, I supported him as elf on account of not yet being in Orzammar with my dwarf....


Think like that: Bhelen = stronger leader = more soldiers for you

Mages = more useful than templars (and I played mage so I would hurt my own cause by killing them)

Dalish = more reliable than sh*thead werewolfes who try to kill me

Redcliff = gives me sympathy, money and easier access to the castle.

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Precisely the point, idealists like him have no place in leading countries. I think Harrowmont is like him.

Only idealists should rule. People without ideals will f*ck everything up. Just look at the likes of Stalin..........

Or rather, noone should rule.

Modifié par Tirigon, 15 janvier 2010 - 04:39 .

[Sabriana]

Who cares about your play-through, Tirigon. Don't be impolite. Your PC matters not to anyone. If you have nothing else to contribute, please stay out of this thread.

Some people are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses. Intriguing, that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Precisely the point, idealists like him have no place in leading countries. I think Harrowmont is like him.

Only idealists should rule. People without ideals will f*ck everything up. Just look at the likes of Stalin..........

Or rather, noone should rule.

Stalin without ideals? Are you kidding me?
Stalin was an ardent communist who believed in his communist cause and ideals. Just like Mao. Just like Robespierre.
He just happens that he doesn't share your  ideals. But Stalin was an idealist, but with more pragmatism than Trotsky for instance.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 janvier 2010 - 04:43 .

[Tirigon]

Sabriana wrote...

Who cares about your play-through, Tirigon. Don't be impolite. Your PC matters not to anyone. If you have nothing else to contribute, please stay out of this thread.
Some people are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses. Intriguing, that.

Costin seemed to care, else He / she would not have told about the choices he took. I responded to that to prove that you can do "good" things with selfish reasons, too. I was NOT talking to a ****** like you who is obviously incapable of bringing arguments without flaming.

[Woman Warden 118]

tell it like it is Tirigon!!! lolz

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin without ideals? Are you kidding me?
Stalin was an ardent communist who believed in his communist cause and ideals. Just like Mao. Just like Robespierre.
He just happens that he doesn't share your  ideals. But Stalin was an idealist, but with more pragmatism than Trotsky for instance.

Stalin was NOT a communist. Communists don´t kill or imprison people. Marx did never want to do that kind of thing. He didn´t want a single ruler, too. Marx wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat, not of a single man. Therefore Stalin (or every other dictator) is not a communist by nature but someone who perverted a once good or at least acceptable theory.

[Tor_pedo]

Hail to Loghain, I say, for being such an interesting character.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin without ideals? Are you kidding me?
Stalin was an ardent communist who believed in his communist cause and ideals. Just like Mao. Just like Robespierre.
He just happens that he doesn't share your  ideals. But Stalin was an idealist, but with more pragmatism than Trotsky for instance.

Stalin was NOT a communist. Communists don´t kill or imprison people. Marx did never want to do that kind of thing. He didn´t want a single ruler, too. Marx wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat, not of a single man. Therefore Stalin (or every other dictator) is not a communist by nature but someone who perverted a once good or at least acceptable theory.

Stalin was operating under the Leninist ideals and reform of the Marxist theory. I am not talking about Marx, I am talking about the Leninist interpretation of Marx (called bolchevisme) and that's what Stalin believed in. Stalin was a firm believer in bolchevisme. He was not without ideals.

Obviously Marx would disgaree with all of them since Russia is rural and not industrial, thus no revolution should have taken place in the first place.
But to say that Stalin had no ideals is ahistorical and false. All serious historians agree that Stalin was a firm and ardent bolchevik / communist.

[Costin_Razvan]

Tirigon wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Who cares about your play-through, Tirigon. Don't be impolite. Your PC matters not to anyone. If you have nothing else to contribute, please stay out of this thread.
Some people are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses. Intriguing, that.

Costin seemed to care, else He / she would not have told about the choices he took. I responded to that to prove that you can do "good" things with selfish reasons, too. I was NOT talking to a ****** like you who is obviously incapable of bringing arguments without flaming.

I brought them so I could prove I wasn't selfish, lol, but I see you took it the wrong way.

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin without ideals? Are you kidding me?
Stalin was an ardent communist who believed in his communist cause and ideals. Just like Mao. Just like Robespierre.
He just happens that he doesn't share your  ideals. But Stalin was an idealist, but with more pragmatism than Trotsky for instance.

Stalin was NOT a communist. Communists don´t kill or imprison people. Marx did never want to do that kind of thing. He didn´t want a single ruler, too. Marx wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat, not of a single man. Therefore Stalin (or every other dictator) is not a communist by nature but someone who perverted a once good or at least acceptable theory.

Marx was a Marxist. Stalin was acommunist/ Lenninist. See the difference?

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin was operating under the Leninist ideals and reform of the Marxist theory. I am not talking about Marx, I am talking about the Leninist interpretation of Marx (called bolchevisme) and that's what Stalin believed in. Stalin was a firm believer in bolchevisme. He was not without ideals.

Obviously Marx would disgaree with all of them since Russia is rural and not industrial, thus no revolution should have taken place in the first place.
But to say that Stalin had no ideals is ahistorical and false. All serious historians agree that Stalin was a firm and ardent bolchevik / communist.

That might well be the case. That´s why all anarchists and many communists hate bolchevism, even if they believe in Marx´s Communism. You should not see bolchevism and communism as the same thing. Bolchevism is loosely based on communism, but it stripped it from everything truly aiming at social improvement and made it an excuse for crimes as terrible - some even say worse - than Hitler´s, thus destroying every ideal or justification they might have had.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin was operating under the Leninist ideals and reform of the Marxist theory. I am not talking about Marx, I am talking about the Leninist interpretation of Marx (called bolchevisme) and that's what Stalin believed in. Stalin was a firm believer in bolchevisme. He was not without ideals.

Obviously Marx would disgaree with all of them since Russia is rural and not industrial, thus no revolution should have taken place in the first place.
But to say that Stalin had no ideals is ahistorical and false. All serious historians agree that Stalin was a firm and ardent bolchevik / communist.

That might well be the case. That´s why all anarchists and many communists hate bolchevism, even if they believe in Marx´s Communism. You should not see bolchevism and communism as the same thing. Bolchevism is loosely based on communism, but it stripped it from everything truly aiming at social improvement and made it an excuse for crimes as terrible - some even say worse - than Hitler´s, thus destroying every ideal or justification they might have had.

I know very well the ideological difference. That's not the point.
The point is, Stalin was an idealist, unlike what you said before.
Idealists have produced more atrocious tyrants than pragmatics have, historically speaking.

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


Costin seemed to care, else He / she would not have told about the choices he took. I responded to that to prove that you can do "good" things with selfish reasons, too. I was NOT talking to a ****** like you who is obviously incapable of bringing arguments without flaming.

I brought them so I could prove I wasn't selfish, lol, but I see you took it the wrong way.

Why did I take it the wrong way? All I did was showing that you can do exactly the same as a selfish person. Besides, if you care for yourself the most, this does not mean you need to be selfish. Unfortunately, Sabrinia is only flaming, so best ignore her.

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Stalin was operating under the Leninist ideals and reform of the Marxist theory. I am not talking about Marx, I am talking about the Leninist interpretation of Marx (called bolchevisme) and that's what Stalin believed in. Stalin was a firm believer in bolchevisme. He was not without ideals.

Obviously Marx would disgaree with all of them since Russia is rural and not industrial, thus no revolution should have taken place in the first place.
But to say that Stalin had no ideals is ahistorical and false. All serious historians agree that Stalin was a firm and ardent bolchevik / communist.

That might well be the case. That´s why all anarchists and many communists hate bolchevism, even if they believe in Marx´s Communism. You should not see bolchevism and communism as the same thing. Bolchevism is loosely based on communism, but it stripped it from everything truly aiming at social improvement and made it an excuse for crimes as terrible - some even say worse - than Hitler´s, thus destroying every ideal or justification they might have had.

That is not the point. Knight's point was that Stalin firmly believed in these ideals. Stalin was true to Marx's ideal as far as he was concerned.

Modifié par Apophis2412, 15 janvier 2010 - 05:03 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I know very well the ideological difference. That's not the point.
The point is, Stalin was an idealist, unlike what you said before.
Idealists have produced more atrocious tyrants than pragmatics have, historically speaking.

This is unfortunately true. However, they have accomplished more, too. Every great leader was an Idealist, at least if you count people like Stalin as idealists.

[Tirigon]

Apophis2412 wrote...

That is not the point. Knight's point was that Stalin firmly believed in these ideals. Stalin was true to Marx's ideal as far as he was concerned.

If this is true, he misunderstood Marx badly.
He might have had his own ideals - he quite probably had some - but not Marx´s.
I read the Communist Manifest myself, and Marx is NEVER encouraging dictatorship of a single person but Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I know very well the ideological difference. That's not the point.
The point is, Stalin was an idealist, unlike what you said before.
Idealists have produced more atrocious tyrants than pragmatics have, historically speaking.

This is unfortunately true. However, they have accomplished more, too. Every great leader was an Idealist, at least if you count people like Stalin as idealists.

That is also true.
But I believe that those great leaders were a mix of idealists and pragmatics. Pure idealistis become fanatics, who can't see reason. Pure pragmatics lack vision.
Loghain and Bhelen would fit the mixed area imo. IT doesn't make Loghain the best leader available of course, that's my PC  

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That is also true.
But I believe that those great leaders were a mix of idealists and pragmatics. Pure idealistis become fanatics, who can't see reason. Pure pragmatics lack vision.
Loghain and Bhelen would fit the mixed area imo. IT doesn't make Loghain the best leader available of course, that's my PC  

Nice to see you accept reason. There is one thing wrong, however - the thing in bold print.

*Childish voice*: NO IT´S MINE!!!!!!!!!

[Sabriana]

Tirigon wrote...

Sabriana wrote...

Who cares about your play-through, Tirigon. Don't be impolite. Your PC matters not to anyone. If you have nothing else to contribute, please stay out of this thread.
Some people are incapable of seeing beyond their own noses. Intriguing, that.

Costin seemed to care, else He / she would not have told about the choices he took. I responded to that to prove that you can do "good" things with selfish reasons, too. I was NOT talking to a ****** like you who is obviously incapable of bringing arguments without flaming.

As I responded to someone else. Now, can we quit this merry-go-round and focus on the issues at hand? I realize it is very easy to take everything out of context, especially in this thread, but there is never a reason to lash out blindly.

[Apophis2412]

I've been browsing through Loghain's dialogue in the toolset and found some interesting lines:


Answer to the question 'Why do you hate Orlais so much?' : You won't believe me when I tell you this, but it doesn't matter. I never fought because I hated Orlais. This was for Maric and Ferelden.

Is he lying to the player or can't he see how much he hates Orlais?


Answer to the same question:
player: You fought Orlais, even when they weren't the enemy.
Loghain: I made... a tactical error.

Yet a few lines later:
player: All of that was in the past.
Loghain: The past is always with us. It's in our bones and our blood and we wear it on our skin. You can think otherwise, but you'll never get far without it.
Player: That doesn't justify what you did.
Loghain: No, it doesn't. I failed. Lives were in my hands, and I failed. Nothing excuses that.

And just before slaying the Archdemon, when the player refuses to sacrifice Loghain:
Loghain: But I have much to atone for, and if my death can serve some purpose here, then I would greet it gladly.

Does Loghain really think he did horrible things (ie is he repentent)  or did he just make some 'tactical errors'?

[Costin_Razvan]

I think he believes he made tactical errors that he considers horrible things.