164 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Then there are those utterly selfish jerks, those with no
consideration for anything that doesn't benefit them. While I wouldn't
object to a game that accommodates such a playstyle, I think most
stories, especially in RPGs, don't make sense with that kind of
character, since among other things, they'd be averse to taking personal
risks. It might be possible to play DA2 with such a mindset, but DAO is
already stretching it.

You should play this game.

This is an RPG where you do play a completely selfish berk on a quest to save the world....sort of. This game is a satire of all RPG's, and it's absolutely hilarious and I highly recommend it.

Ahh... the neutral ending really does prove what happens if you send an utterly selfish person to clean up the world.

[esper]

leaguer of one wrote...

pdusen wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You tell me 'People don't consider killing wrong.'

And yet juries, when given the complete and total power to punish or release a murder with no fear of penalties or retribution, still find murderers guilty. Could you explain that for me?

You make a lot of weird logical leaps in this thread, but this is the one that sticks out the most.

Juries punish people for murder because they think it will discourage people from murdering, therefore decreasing the chance of themselves being murdered. It's totally decoupled from their personal perception of whether murder is right or wrong, and has everything to do with trying to condition the behavior of society so that their chances of survival go up.

Wrong. Jury generaly are made of people who think killing is wrong.

Juries a generally made of people who think that killing is against the law. 

In fact aren't jury members in your country told to not vote with their emotions, but simply judge if a person have been proven to have broken a law?

In fact I am pretty sure you as a jury member is encourged to leave personal emotions and morals at home.

[Medhia Nox]

Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

I'm rather a moral non-cognitivist. Also, I don't care whether something is hip. I see no justification at all for moral realism or cognitivism, and that people don't like that fact doesn't change it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 novembre 2013 - 07:02 .

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

I'm rather a moral non-cognitivist. Also, I don't care whether something is hip. I see no justification at all for moral realism or cognitivism, and that people don't like that fact doesn't change it.

Out of curitosy what kind of moral relativists are you talking about?

Those who merely point out that moral is a product of your culture and personal experience or those that think we should tolerate all kinds of behaviour because there is no evil?

[Ieldra]

esper wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

I'm rather a moral non-cognitivist. Also, I don't care whether something is hip. I see no justification at all for moral realism or cognitivism, and that people don't like that fact doesn't change it.

Out of curitosy what kind of moral relativists are you talking about?

Those who merely point out that moral is a product of your culture and personal experience or those that think we should tolerate all kinds of behaviour because there is no evil?

Medhia Nox started to use the term, not I. Non-cognitivism asserts that statements like "murder is wrong" are not truth-apt, i.e. they can't be true or false. One reason is because truth-apt statements must be descriptive of some reality. "Wrong" in the absolute moral sense isn't descriptive of anything rather then prescriptive, as opposed to, say, something like "undesirable for a species whose survival depends on co-operation, presupposing that it values its own survival." There can be no "right" or "wrong" without a value qualifier, and while some values are common to almost all humans and recognized in all existing cultures, albeit in different degrees, and so you can't say that all values or their denial are equal without abstracting from the human viewpoint, neither can you say they're objective. 


BTW: OP: Are there any non-evil villains? Your title appears tautological. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 novembre 2013 - 07:54 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Well, OP made me stop and ponder. DA strive for some kind of real-life applicability (like Tolkien books) and in real life you don't have evil for the sake of evil. Evil is side effect of fulfilling one's personal desires. Although there's psychopathic evil, but that's just another side of it.
I think best option to play a truly evil character in a Bioware game was Jade Empire (as many mentioned before me). Some cliches aside, you were given the option to commit horrible crimes and inflict much suffering on others to gain wealth, power and eventually status of God Empress/Emperor.
Now, as for DA... I'll just brush fail that DA2 is aside and will tell that in DAO you can play as an evil character. Now, there's no option to play as a psychopath. Every character is forced to be sane. But you are given the option to commit numerous atrocities all for the sake of eventually gaining wealth and power.
Hm, well, for example - sacrificing your own father to improve your own health through blood magic is very evil. Stabbing people in the street for no reason is psychopathic. DAO allowed for some very evil deeds. I would like them to take it to 11 though. You know, so when I end DAI playthrough I can clearly see that my character has became the most morally rotten, selfish, sadistic and perverse tyrant imaginable.

[esper]

Ieldra2 wrote...

esper wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

I'm rather a moral non-cognitivist. Also, I don't care whether something is hip. I see no justification at all for moral realism or cognitivism, and that people don't like that fact doesn't change it.

Out of curitosy what kind of moral relativists are you talking about?

Those who merely point out that moral is a product of your culture and personal experience or those that think we should tolerate all kinds of behaviour because there is no evil?

Medhia Nox started to use the term, not I. Non-cognitivism asserts that statements like "murder is wrong" are not truth-apt, i.e. they can't be true or false. One reason is because truth-apt statements must be descriptive of some reality. "Wrong" in the absolute moral sense isn't descriptive of anything rather then prescriptive, as opposed to, say, something like "undesirable for a species whose survival depends on co-operation, presupposing that it values its own survival." There can be no "right" or "wrong" without a value qualifier, and while some values are common to almost all humans and recognized in all existing cultures, albeit in different degrees, and so you can't say that all values or their denial are equal, neither can you say they're objective.     

Well... Let's just say that Media Nox is not a moral relitivist and leave it at that. (Or if they are they have certianly chance their stance since last time we discussed).

When you say truth-apt do you mean in the verifiable scienectific sense? As I read your statement I think you do.

If not we need a longer discussion on what 'truth' is which involves things like perception and objectives truths and then we will never get finished.

As for me I am a moral relitivist. I simply that 'moral' is relative to each indivual and depends on numrous facts such as their culture and personal experiences. Each person, I believe, have their own moral codex, which is properly similair, but not exactly so, to the other people they engage in normal life.

For example: I have my belief in what is right and wrong, they are mine, but not the same as yours. If I act against what I believe is good, I commit an evil act, but you might not see it as such if our moral codex differ enough.


As for law, they are not about good and evil, they are about creating a society and agreeing on rules that we all act for. Some of the laws might have been made with a moral intent from the law-makers, but the laws themself are simply the rules we all have agreed to play by in order to co-exist,

[Medhia Nox]

@esper: You would be correct, Medhia Nox is absolutely not a moral relativist.

[dragonflight288]

esper wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Then there are those utterly selfish jerks, those with no
consideration for anything that doesn't benefit them. While I wouldn't
object to a game that accommodates such a playstyle, I think most
stories, especially in RPGs, don't make sense with that kind of
character, since among other things, they'd be averse to taking personal
risks. It might be possible to play DA2 with such a mindset, but DAO is
already stretching it.

You should play this game.

This is an RPG where you do play a completely selfish berk on a quest to save the world....sort of. This game is a satire of all RPG's, and it's absolutely hilarious and I highly recommend it.

Ahh... the neutral ending really does prove what happens if you send an utterly selfish person to clean up the world.

Yup. Not only that, saving the world, or condemning is, is completely outside of his considerations for the good or bad ending's. It's simply a side-effect of him trying to achieve his goal from the beginning, that is rescue the princess so he can marry her and claim all her riches. He cares nothing about her personally, or even about the state of the world as his quest goes on, just her wealth, and this is made clear throughout the entire game.

[leaguer of one]

@esper 
Where would you lable a Sociopath with this?

[Ieldra]

@dragonflight:
That sounds fun! I'll try it some of these days. Thanks for the recommendation.

[dragonflight288]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@dragonflight:
That sounds fun! I'll try it some of these days. Thanks for the recommendation.

No problem.

I owned it on the original xbox...the controls there were really clunky. The controls are much better on the PC, so combat doesn't feel clumsy at all like it did on the xbox.

On a side note, it has a rather crappy tutorial (still funny though,) you'll have a lot more luck pushing the TAB key and looking at your character and the controls screen than learning all the options through the brief tutorial.

[KainD]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Being a moral relativist sounds SO hip.

It's not about it being hip, it's just that the part that states that different people have different morals is true. How you act upon this knowledge is up to you, you don't have to tolorate it for example. Just while you kill those that are different from you ( sociopahts for example ) for your comfort, you still have to realise that they are people just like you, and realise how the system works, and that you can receive the same treatment. 

Modifié par KainD, 13 novembre 2013 - 10:16 .

[KC_Prototype]

My Human Male Mage wasn't necessarily evil but he was a womanizing, power hungry, kick ass, self-centered, ****. He in reality was saving the world from the blight but he is commiting selfish acts as well. The evilest act was when in DA:A, I took a reward from the guy in the cage and then kick the cage to let him fall to his death.