164 réponses à ce sujet

[Shophet Palaiologos]

DA:O gave the warden the opportunity to sacrifice a mother and proceed to flat-out murder her child (Isolde & Connor). Surely that playthrough path was evil, yes?

[Icy Magebane]

Angrywolves wrote...

Will be this time magebane.
Go read the developer interviews.
Heck, they even talk about that village that gets massacred, due to the player's choices.
First time for everything.
shrugs.

Oh, my...  I wonder if I'll enjoy that when I play as corrupt Inquisitors...   Guess I'll be finding out.

[Demx]

Shophet Palaiologos wrote...

DA:O gave the warden the opportunity to sacrifice a mother and proceed to flat-out murder her child (Isolde & Connor). Surely that playthrough path was evil, yes?

Depends on how you look at it. The alternatives weren't a guarantee; and the Warden had no way of knowing if he left for the Circle that Connor wouldn't turn around and kill the entire town before his return.

[KainD]

leaguer of one wrote...

It not that the protagonist can't be truely evil. It's you don't have just plain evil for evil sake choices. All choice are morally grey. It's what you intend that make you actions evil.

One day some of you people will understand that everything is ALWAYS morally grey and the only difference is opinion. 

[Icy Magebane]

Siradix wrote...

Shophet Palaiologos wrote...

DA:O gave the warden the opportunity to sacrifice a mother and proceed to flat-out murder her child (Isolde & Connor). Surely that playthrough path was evil, yes?

Depends on how you look at it. The alternatives weren't a guarantee; and the Warden had no way of knowing if he left for the Circle that Connor wouldn't turn around and kill the entire town before his return.

Which, IMO, is what should have happened anyway.  The player should have been required to leave several allies there to maintain order, and during the trip to the Circle, you'd be forced to battle demons in Castle Redcliffe with this group (like that one mission where you left people at the Denerim gates, but more difficult).  Once you've seen that absolutely nothing can go wrong, it's hard to avoid meta-knowledge in this situation...

[Demx]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Siradix wrote...

Shophet Palaiologos wrote...

DA:O gave the warden the opportunity to sacrifice a mother and proceed to flat-out murder her child (Isolde & Connor). Surely that playthrough path was evil, yes?

Depends on how you look at it. The alternatives weren't a guarantee; and the Warden had no way of knowing if he left for the Circle that Connor wouldn't turn around and kill the entire town before his return.

Which, IMO, is what should have happened anyway.  The player should have been required to leave several allies there to maintain order, and during the trip to the Circle, you'd be forced to battle demons in Castle Redcliffe with this group (like that one mission where you left people at the Denerim gates, but more difficult).  Once you've seen that absolutely nothing can go wrong, it's hard to avoid meta-knowledge in this situation...

I agree that Connor should have took advantage of the situation. However, I think it would have been an excellent decision if no one stayed behind, and the town was turned into zombies. That way you have to weigh your options even more.

Should you sacrifice a child to save the town?
Should you sacrifice a mother to save her child?
Should you sacrifice a town to save a mother and her child?

[Icy Magebane]

@Siradix - Yes, change "requirement" to something slightly hidden in the dialogue. If you simply say, "I'll risk it," you come back and the town is not only wiped out, but you have to fight your way back in. If you hesitate, maybe the party members or Teegan could suggest that you leave someone behind... Just some way of making you actually consider the risks of Jowan, Teegan, and a bunch of random knights standing watch.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 13 novembre 2013 - 04:15 .

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

It not that the protagonist can't be truely evil. It's you don't have just plain evil for evil sake choices. All choice are morally grey. It's what you intend that make you actions evil.

One day some of you people will understand that everything is ALWAYS morally grey and the only difference is opinion. 

Because tormenting someone for fun is some how morally grey.

[KainD]

leaguer of one wrote...

Because tormenting someone for fun is some how morally grey.

Yes it is, as is any other action. That was the point. 

[Icy Magebane]

KainD wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Because tormenting someone for fun is some how morally grey.

Yes it is, as is any other action. That was the point. 

Care to explain how, or should we just take your word for it?

[KainD]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Care to explain how, or should we just take your word for it?

The fact that you can take my word for it in the first place explains exactly how. Think about it. 

[Dave of Canada]

Estelindis wrote...

It's hard for me to see a greater good that someone might claim to justify such evil.

Revan ruling the Empire creates a militaristic society ready for combat, it'll defend itself against all threats by using every asset available and won't sit idle as worlds are slaughtered. The gain of the Star Forge--an incredibly powerful weapon--would put a stranglehold on anyone who opposes the Empire, be it Mandalorians/Republic/Jedi or True Sith.

That and Dark-side Bastilla > Light-side.

Haven't played Jade Empire.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 novembre 2013 - 04:25 .

[Icy Magebane]

KainD wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Care to explain how, or should we just take your word for it?

The fact that you can take my word for it in the first place explains exactly how. Think about it. 

"Morally gray" implies that an action can be viewed neutrally, and has both positive and negative aspects that render it neither purely good nor purely evil.  To call "tormenting someone for fun" morally gray takes this notion too far, and applies it where there is no "good," "beneficial," or "positive" aspect to provide an alternate viewpoint.  And don't try to say "well, it makes the tormentor happy, so that's beneficial..."  That can't possibly be your logic, which is why I asked.  Some actions are morally gray, some are not, unless viewed from a philosophical vantage that excludes human experience and perception.

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Because tormenting someone for fun is some how morally grey.

Yes it is, as is any other action. That was the point. 

I would love to here the reason why. That would be good for a laugh.

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Care to explain how, or should we just take your word for it?

The fact that you can take my word for it in the first place explains exactly how. Think about it. 

No it does not work like that.

[KainD]

Icy Magebane wrote...
And don't try to say "well, it makes the tormentor happy, so that's beneficial..."  That can't possibly be your logic, which is why I asked.  

But it totally is, tormented suffers while the tormentor is having a good time. And if I view it as a third party ( neither the tormentor or the tormented ) then there no positive nor negatives to the situation, as it doesn't concern me. 

[KainD]

leaguer of one wrote...
No it does not work like that.

It does, because morality is completely and utterly subjective. 

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
No it does not work like that.

It does, because morality is completely and utterly subjective. 

It's subjective to a point that an arguement can be made were the action can be seen in a positive or negative way. Where is the positive in torrmenting someone for fun? 
Not all actions are subjective, especially if the action was to harm some one for personal enjoyment.

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...
And don't try to say "well, it makes the tormentor happy, so that's beneficial..."  That can't possibly be your logic, which is why I asked.  

But it totally is, tormented suffers while the tormentor is having a good time. And if I view it as a third party ( neither the tormentor or the tormented ) then there no positive nor negatives to the situation, as it doesn't concern me. 

That still makes it not grey. That just makes the person a sociopath.

[dragonflight288]

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I think the closest thing Bioware has done recently to make a true villain to play as was Jade Empire (written by Gaider and Laidlaw, ) if you choose to follow the path of the closed fist.

To date, that is the only game that has made me feel truly dirty and like scum after beating it on the Closed Fist ending.

Close fist is not totally evil. There two levels of it. One of the tyrant and one of the servivalist. Open palm also has a tyrant path as well.

Really? I've played it through maybe 6-7 times, most of them on Open Palm. How on earth do you get the tyrant's path on Open Palm?

Look at you're master and you'll see how. A good explination:
http://www.youtube.c...hnHJS_K-o#t=176

You're master falls to the tyrany part of open palm added if you figure that freeing the water dragon will restart the drought you my go that path too to stop it from happening.

The video isn't loading, but I'm going to make some guesses as to what it's about.

It's going to play Smiling Mountain giving the overview of the different philosophies and how the path of the Open Palm has the risk of Tyranny from within.

And perhaps the tyranny path on the Open Palm route comes from keeping Death Hand alive to seek atonement, or something like that?

[KainD]

leaguer of one wrote...

It's subjective to a point that an arguement can be made were the action can be seen in a positive or negative way. Where is the positive in torrmenting someone for fun? 
Not all actions are subjective, especially if the action was to harm some one for personal enjoyment.

The problem is that it is imposible to make such an argument without it being a subjective opinion of one individual.
You said it yourself - fun. 
All actions are indeed subjective. 

[KainD]

leaguer of one wrote...

That still makes it not grey. That just makes the person a sociopath.

A sociopath is nothing more than a person that doesn't agree with the opinions of the majority on the morality. 

[leaguer of one]

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I think the closest thing Bioware has done recently to make a true villain to play as was Jade Empire (written by Gaider and Laidlaw, ) if you choose to follow the path of the closed fist.

To date, that is the only game that has made me feel truly dirty and like scum after beating it on the Closed Fist ending.

Close fist is not totally evil. There two levels of it. One of the tyrant and one of the servivalist. Open palm also has a tyrant path as well.

Really? I've played it through maybe 6-7 times, most of them on Open Palm. How on earth do you get the tyrant's path on Open Palm?

Look at you're master and you'll see how. A good explination:
http://www.youtube.c...hnHJS_K-o#t=176

You're master falls to the tyrany part of open palm added if you figure that freeing the water dragon will restart the drought you my go that path too to stop it from happening.

The video isn't loading, but I'm going to make some guesses as to what it's about.

It's going to play Smiling Mountain giving the overview of the different philosophies and how the path of the Open Palm has the risk of Tyranny from within.

And perhaps the tyranny path on the Open Palm route comes from keeping Death Hand alive to seek atonement, or something like that?

That and more. You know the reason why the emperor trapped the water dragon, that action is also the tyrant path of open palm. Also if you factor in the fact that the drought my come back once you free the water dragon, let many people die, one my want to help others by trying to stop the chance for the drought from happening again, which would lead you to doing the same thing as the emperor.

[leaguer of one]

KainD wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

That still makes it not grey. That just makes the person a sociopath.

A sociopath is nothing more than a person that doesn't agree with the opinions of the majority on the morality. 

No, a Sociopath is on that lacks empathy and place one self as most important. 

[Icy Magebane]

leaguer of one wrote...

KainD wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...
And don't try to say "well, it makes the tormentor happy, so that's beneficial..."  That can't possibly be your logic, which is why I asked.  

But it totally is, tormented suffers while the tormentor is having a good time. And if I view it as a third party ( neither the tormentor or the tormented ) then there no positive nor negatives to the situation, as it doesn't concern me. 

That still makes it not grey. That just makes the person a sociopath.

Unfortunately, this is really the best way to explain it.  A philosophy that ignores even the most basic principles of human perception and cognition is irrelevant to humanity.  If you can't see that harming someone simply because it makes you feel good is the very definition of evil, then I don't know what else there is to say.

Edit:  leaguer of one speaks the truth.  Sociopaths view other humans as objects and do not place value on the emotions of others.  They only see them as tools or parts of their environment.  The pain or pleasure another human may feel is irrelevant and alien to the mind of the sociopath.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 13 novembre 2013 - 05:05 .