62 réponses à ce sujet

[Godak]

I'm freakishly good. Even if I try to be evil, the most I ever end up with is "Good guy who can sometimes be a bit of an ass."

[Alodar]

So far I've played 3 different mages: An altruistic pragmatist, a what's in it for me kinda guy, and a a traditional noble warrior.

Even though I'm playing the same origin, I find that the writing in DA is so good and with so many choices and companions I've felt I've been able to play three entirely different games.

Alodar

[Kiwiya]

My Cousland was ridiculously good, straight as an arrow. Gave away tons of money and left Alistair soft and squishy inside.

My Amell was just goal-oriented. Or more, money-oriented (because I still needed the xp from doing all those pointless quests). Picked all the "So, how *much* are you thankful?" options. My Mahariel was racist and absolutely frigid and my Brosca was a huge dick.

Not sure if I want to go through with the totally evil character yet. It was hard enough just being unscrupulous. x);;

[wwwwowwww]

ChaoticBroth wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Define "good". Define "evil". Define "in between".

Good = morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

Evil = morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

In between = a little of both with one not being more than the other

Define "Moral," define "Virtuous," define "righteous," define "pious, " define "bad," define, "immoral," and define "wicked."

Morality is thoroughly subjective, so what may be good to me may be evil to you. And I don't really see what piety has anything to do with being good. An "impious" (but not sacreligious) person can be a "good" one.

I play through the game with whatever choices seem reasonable, falling into a grey area. I'm sure this is because of my policy that "the ends justify the means, but not to an extreme."

Moral = pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

Virtuous = conforming to moral and ethical principles

Righteous = morally right or justifiable

Pious = having or showing appropriate respect or regard for parents or others

Immoral = violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Anything else I need to clarify for you?

[KnightofPhoenix]

wwwwowwww wrote...
Moral = pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

Virtuous = conforming to moral and ethical principles

Righteous = morally right or justifiable

Pious = having or showing appropriate respect or regard for parents or others

Immoral = violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Anything else I need to clarify for you?

This is really amusing.

Define "principles or rules of right conduct". Defien "right". Define "wrong". 
Define "ethical and moral principles".
That's not what pious means. Piety is a form of religious devotion.

Philosophers have been debating and are still debating on all of these concepts for millenia. You think you can define them in a few words and literraly? That's a laugh.   

[wwwwowwww]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...
Moral = pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

Virtuous = conforming to moral and ethical principles

Righteous = morally right or justifiable

Pious = having or showing appropriate respect or regard for parents or others

Immoral = violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Anything else I need to clarify for you?

This is really amusing.

Define "principles or rules of right conduct". Defien "right". Define "wrong". 
Define "ethical and moral principles".
That's not what pious means. Piety is a form of religious devotion.

Philosophers have been debating and are still debating on all of these concepts for millenia. You think you can define them in a few words and literraly? That's a laugh.   

Have they been debating it? Sorry must of missed that episode o 60 minutes. Right now your simply debating to debate, no other reason.

Right/wrong, good/ evil, moral/immoral, all this things are defined by the society in which you live. Sure they can be different depending on where you live, but a truly moral person would respect the laws of the society in which they currently reside wether they are traditionally their views or not.

As for the word pious you do realize that words do have several meanings correct? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

wwwwowwww wrote...
Have they been debating it? Sorry must of missed that episode o 60 minutes. Right now your simply debating to debate, no other reason.

Right/wrong, good/ evil, moral/immoral, all this things are defined by the society in which you live. Sure they can be different depending on where you live, but a truly moral person would respect the laws of the society in which they currently reside wether they are traditionally their views or not.

That's not what many philosophers would say. Some say that morality is first and foremost individual and not defined by society. So, an individualist will tell you that if you think what a society is doing is "evil", then you can disobey it. Those who follow a religious belief will say that morality is doijg what God wants regardless of the society you live in and what they think. Others will say that a moral person is the one who makes the most happiness for the greatest number. Others say it's obtaining pleasure. Some define it as a human weakness that the ubersmench must transcend.

Your simplistic and overly vague definition is highly inadequate to define such loose concepts.

[SuperMaoriFulla]

My Cousland noble isn't spotless, I guess he's a little grey in the whole good/evil department.

[wwwwowwww]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...
Have they been debating it? Sorry must of missed that episode o 60 minutes. Right now your simply debating to debate, no other reason.

Right/wrong, good/ evil, moral/immoral, all this things are defined by the society in which you live. Sure they can be different depending on where you live, but a truly moral person would respect the laws of the society in which they currently reside wether they are traditionally their views or not.

That's not what many philosophers would say. Some say that morality is first and foremost individual and not defined by society. So, an individualist will tell you that if you think what a society is doing is "evil", then you can disobey it. Those who follow a religious belief will say that morality is doijg what God wants regardless of the society you live in and what they think. Others will say that a moral person is the one who makes the most happiness for the greatest number. Others say it's obtaining pleasure. Some define it as a human weakness that the ubersmench must transcend.

Your simplistic and overly vague definition is highly inadequate to define such loose concepts.

ok

1) I really don't care what phlosophers would say.

2) The definiton given was not vague, however I'm not going to sit and write a 10k page thesis just to entertain you.

3) You asked for definitions, they were given how you choose to take the information is up to you, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

4) I highly doubt that your as naive as your making out to be, and if you were asked if you believed that a man who slaughtered millions, raped thousands, and drop kicked babies on a regular, cut up your family and fed them to the dog was evil, your answer would be a resounding yes, regardless of wether or not "he" felt it was morally acceptable.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just reading your first point makes me not wish to waste my time on you any longer.

[wwwwowwww]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just reading your first point makes me not wish to waste my time on you any longer.

Or it could be that you got down to #4 and realized you had no valid retort, and went back up to point #1 to save face.

Or are you a business manager for today's great philosophers, and refuse to do business with anyone who doesn't care what they think because they are perfectly capable of making up their own mind on a subject?

[KnightofPhoenix]

wwwwowwww wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just reading your first point makes me not wish to waste my time on you any longer.

Or it could be that you got down to #4 and realized you had no valid retort, and went back up to point #1 to save face.

Or are you a business manager for today's great philosophers, and refuse to do business with anyone who doesn't care what they think because they are perfectly capable of making up their own mind on a subject?

I do not think the guy in number 4 is evil. He might be stupid. Inefficient. Foolish. Lacks vision. Bloodthirsty. Insane. Deserves to be killed. But no, "evil" is not a word I would use to describe him. Or anything.

 Morality deals with purely philosophical concepts. To say that you do not care about what philosophers say is utter arrogance. You can always develop your own thoughts, but not while ignoring what those who are intellectually superior to you have said.

[wwwwowwww]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Just reading your first point makes me not wish to waste my time on you any longer.

Or it could be that you got down to #4 and realized you had no valid retort, and went back up to point #1 to save face.

Or are you a business manager for today's great philosophers, and refuse to do business with anyone who doesn't care what they think because they are perfectly capable of making up their own mind on a subject?

I do not think the guy in number 4 is evil. He might be stupid. Inefficient. Foolish. Lacks vision. Bloodthirsty. Insane. Deserves to be killed. But no, "evil" is not a word I would use to describe him. Or anything.

 Morality deals with purely philosophical concepts. To say that you do not care about what philosophers say is utter arrogance. You can always develop your own thoughts, but not while ignoring what those who are intellectually superior to you have said.

How is it utter arrogance? Because I choose not to be influence by what others say, but instead decide for myself? Especially when the philosophers debating this subject can't even come to some sort of conclusion or middle ground after how many 100's of years of debating this? 

No I'll instead pay attention to a philosopher such as emerson who believed self reliance was a starting point not a goal.

Philosophers in general may be wise men/women but that in no way makes them inellectually superior to anyone.

[InvaderErl]

I usually play sensible good.

On my first Human Noble playthrough people who attacked me usually ended up dead though.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 13 janvier 2010 - 05:22 .

[Skellimancer]

Chaotic Neutral.

[Gilsa]

I would say 70% good. I don't care for being the judge and the jury rolled in one so even if someone has done loathsome things in the past, if they present a strong case for me to stay my sword and show me redemptive benefits to releasing them, I do so. (Cases in point: Loghain and Avernus.) I can always theoretically come back and finish the job anyway.

I take care of my crew, but for everyone else, I may get crass if they don't get to the point fast enough. People who have fallen on hard times and are not soldiers/villains get the maximum coin (except for those damn alienage beggars) because they will pay it forward.

[Kimarous]

My elven mage (my avatar) strongly leans towards good. Although he strongly believes in the good in people / chances for redemption (he'll spare Loghain down the road), he isn't afraid to mete out vengeful justice for his race and home.



He killed the begging Blood Mage; although he does believe in free mages (his eventual post-Blight request), he was sickened by the damage done to both the tower and the odds of said dream coming to fruition. However, he chose to spare Avernus after the aging mage was convinced that he had done wrong.



He also drank Avernus's concoction; as wicked as the creation of it was, he is fiercely anti-Blight and, like Duncan, believes in stopping it "by any means" (although not to the extreme of being an a-hole). For that reason, he will not do Morrigan's ritual, believing it would only lead to another Blight, and will convince Loghain to make the final blow as part of his views on redemption.



As a final note, he is also very faithful to his beloved, Leliana, and has not pursued relations with any other woman with the exception of a single kiss with Morrigan before their (his and Leliana's) relation was forged.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
This is really amusing.

Define "principles or rules of right conduct". Defien "right". Define "wrong". 
Define "ethical and moral principles".
That's not what pious means. Piety is a form of religious devotion.

Philosophers have been debating and are still debating on all of these concepts for millenia. You think you can define them in a few words and literraly? That's a laugh.   

You know, you're not funny?
We've been trough this discussions before. We already established your sociopathic tendencies and we already established that morality is a foreign concept to you or that you dont' acknowledge it as other people. Whyyou insist on starting discussions on morality as often as possible is beyond me.

Either way, this discussion about semantics is off topic, so either start a new thread in GeneralDisc, or psot something relevant.

***


Me, I just don't have it in me to play evil characters. Tried, but I find no joy in playing that way. I'm goody two shoes, but up to a point. Think Mal Reynolds. A nice guy that will give you a second chance...ONCE

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
This is really amusing.

Define "principles or rules of right conduct". Defien "right". Define "wrong". 
Define "ethical and moral principles".
That's not what pious means. Piety is a form of religious devotion.

Philosophers have been debating and are still debating on all of these concepts for millenia. You think you can define them in a few words and literraly? That's a laugh.   

You know, you're not funny?
We've been trough this discussions before. We already established your sociopathic tendencies and we already established that morality is a foreign concept to you or that you dont' acknowledge it as other people. Whyyou insist on starting discussions on morality as often as possible is beyond me.

Either way, this discussion about semantics is off topic, so either start a new thread in GeneralDisc, or psot something relevant.

***


Me, I just don't have it in me to play evil characters. Tried, but I find no joy in playing that way. I'm goody two shoes, but up to a point. Think Mal Reynolds. A nice guy that will give you a second chance...ONCE

Name calling and ridiculous arguments like "we have already established..." is not very funny either.

[Kalfear]

My first play through in any Fantasy based game is ALWAYS human paladin type. Its what comes the most natural to me!

Honorable
Loyal
Dedicated
Charitable
Womanizer

Yup, that pretty much sums me up!

I will pick the goodie option every time, I will listen patiently to anyones problems, will help where ever I can, be it fight a demon or give a couple gold, and if there be good looking (must be attractive, others need not apply) lasses to bed, welp Ill do that to

After that play through ill roleplay abot trying other options but none of them are ever as fun as that first play through as myself! LOL

For playing evil. One of my most favorite memories in AD&D paper and pen games was playing a Lawful Evil Cleric/Mage/Fighter of super high level! But that was a thinking persons evil. I put up fronts of being the kindly lord and helping the pesants and what not to futher my evil activities behind the scenes. That was fun.

This be rude, insult people, hurt for the sake of hurt, kick the dog evil you get in computer games, I just cant get into that nonsence! Thats just no mind bully evil and bullies always loss in the end IMO!

Probably why Im a fan of Flemeth and Morrigan, they were not "STUPID" evil. They were scripted well. To bad you never get that deep of "THINKING EVIL" for the main character in games.

But Ill still give DA:O credit, Im going to play Evil once just to let loose as many demons as I can into the world just to see its effects come expansion or DA:O 2 time! Should be fun! 

[internaty inmortelaty]

nvm

Modifié par internaty inmortelaty, 13 janvier 2010 - 11:42 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
Name calling and ridiculous arguments like "we have already established..." is not very funny either.

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm just irritated by KoP's repeated morality rants.

[jsachun]

It's sad how Bioware didn't address the moral component in DAO like they did in Mass Effect.

[jsachun]

But then what is moral to a Grey Warden, when all is permitted & nothing is forbidden?

[Costin_Razvan]

As a former paladin of World of Warcraft, I always make the choices that are good for people as a whole in the end, for that is what a paladin has to do.Not taking the personal revenge path ( as many do ) or the righteous crusade path ( as many others do ) or selfish path.