242 réponses à ce sujet

[leaguer of one]

DrunkShepardFTW wrote...

To create a difficult moral problem would require the player to know the consequences of their decision before they make it; the black and white (or Paragon and Renegade) options need to be blurred for the player to stop and think. Ideally, a difficult moral choice should make the player choose between more selfish desires vs 'the greater good' i.e.: Priority: Tuchanka

To force a player to make a difficult decision doesn't necessarily require full knowledge of the situation; it can have some ambiguity to it. Priority: Rannoch did this best, because providing you have no insight into what happens after, letting Legion upload the Reaper code is itself a gamble, although necessary for the ideal resolution. But if the player is blind to the consequences, I personally wouldn't feel it's a moral decision.

On the point on renegade and paragon choiced morality being blurred more... You have to consider that fact that the player maybe the one automaticly dividing the morality in the game. ME point out that paragon and renegade are not good or evil but the player decides that on their own because that is what they are use to. They do that even with DA when there is no moral indicator on hand.
If we want somthing like that in game we need to tell, teach, and debate the issue with the player so they can think about it.  Kotor 2 does a great job of doing that.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

leaguer of one wrote...
No, Sorry. Blind logic can be a flaw. Read gulliver's travels. It a term meaning leaving total emotion and bias out of the equation.

Blind logic is an oxymoron. It is two words with two opposite meanings juxtaposed into a phrase that does not make sense. You cannot be 'blindly logical'. It simply is not something that can exist.

As for emotions, yes, you do leave those out of your judgement if you want to make a logical judgement. You don't allow your emotions to compromise your clarity on seeing what is. It's objective. Bias has to exist in both logic and judgement, bias towards a particular outcome or conclusion. What that bias is towards is the ideal solution to whatever your logic (which would require reasoning) stipulates is the ideal solution.

Blind logic can lead to things like causing physical conflict trying to impove a people who think is lesser just because you think it better.
Or Making laws that  that are so unbiased that it can harm innocent and guilty alike.
If you really want to see how that's like I suggest watching a show called Psycho Pass.

I suggest you read about logic. From philosophers such as David Hume, Machiavellia, Sun Tzu, or Descartes.

Or practical physics and natural science.

Or criminal law and military science.

Using an anime as a reference (while completely failing to elaborate on your position or reasoning behind it) does not make an argument credible.

This is a false attribution fallacy.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

leaguer of one wrote...

If the being was not locked into blind logic and was able to learn morals and understand organics, It would of been able to see that the question was flawed from the start.
Sorry, the reapers issue is blind logic and bad users.

There was no question. There was only a command within it's programming. It was hard-wired into it mechanically. It is not capable of seeing an alternate perspective. Yes, this is a flaw, but a mechanical one. Morality does not need to exist to understand a failure in logic. This was a failure in logic, built with a single perspective from a single organic species. 

Again, you're using that word. I take it you aren't going to argue seriously?

[Fast Jimmy]

^

One coule argue that with emotion, morality and sentiment, one would have thr drive to double check he logic in place to see if it was bad logic and avoid trillions being killed.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[Hazegurl]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
Also the way I see it the Warden NEEDS the Arl of Redcliffe's help it makes very little sense to me that a man who we are told repeatly really loves his wife and son by several different people would ever help the person who killed one of them and the fact if so kill one of them that Arl Eamon doesn't order the excutions of The Warden and their companions for killing his son or wife makes even less sense than The Warden going to Circle of Magi to get help to me. And if I was in simlar situtlation in the real world I would take do the third option every time (which I do in DA:O anyway) .

The Arl also needs the Warden's help. He could very well had ordered the execution of the Warden and his companions and throw puppet Alistair on the throne. But he doesn't have the power to just do that and he knows that Wardens are needed against the Blight. There is also a possibility he would be facing Loghain with no allies. At least the Warden and his/her allies (the treaties) could aid him against Loghain if needed. Which is why he didn't want to make a move until the Warden gathered his allies.

There is the possibility of not being able to gain allies among the nobles during the Landsmeet which means that he would be left siding with the man who sent someone to poison him and by then Loghain could very well had placed himself on the throne as King and have the Arl executed for treason. Mind you, I think the Arl could be a problem once everything is over, especially if you save Redcliffe, he might still feel raw about the Warden killing his son or wife but by then the Warden is the most powerful person in the country, especially if he is a human noble and married to Anora or a noble married to Alistair. In other words the best time to take revenge would be while the warden is a nobody yet he still needs that nobody. Seems better to make it all water under the bridge.

[Dave of Canada]

Allow consequences for everything you do. Bam, done.

No more "let's save everybody" because consequences.
No more "let's kill everybody" because consequences.
No more "i'm going to get the happiest ending because I'm metagaming" because consequences.

Let the player pick and choose the consequences they can live with, can they live with the fact that their army is weakened due to them going on a reckless rescue mission to save the companion which was captured and tortured by the enemy faction? What if the weakened army means you can't save a city down the line due to not having enough manpower?

Meanwhile leaving your companion in the enemy's hands results in some of your plans being foiled because he spilled the beans after being tortured, leaving you to try and fix the affair and deal with the fallout of everything that's going on. Companion could be saved later (much to their chagrin) or killed off.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:43 .

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
No, Sorry. Blind logic can be a flaw. Read gulliver's travels. It a term meaning leaving total emotion and bias out of the equation.

Blind logic is an oxymoron. It is two words with two opposite meanings juxtaposed into a phrase that does not make sense. You cannot be 'blindly logical'. It simply is not something that can exist.

As for emotions, yes, you do leave those out of your judgement if you want to make a logical judgement. You don't allow your emotions to compromise your clarity on seeing what is. It's objective. Bias has to exist in both logic and judgement, bias towards a particular outcome or conclusion. What that bias is towards is the ideal solution to whatever your logic (which would require reasoning) stipulates is the ideal solution.

Blind logic can lead to things like causing physical conflict trying to impove a people who think is lesser just because you think it better.
Or Making laws that  that are so unbiased that it can harm innocent and guilty alike.
If you really want to see how that's like I suggest watching a show called Psycho Pass.

I suggest you read about logic. From philosophers such as David Hume, Machiavellia, Sun Tzu, or Descartes.

Or practical physics and natural science.

Or criminal law and military science.

Using an anime as a reference (while completely failing to elaborate on your position or reasoning behind it) does not make an argument credible.

This is a false attribution fallacy.

1.In the case of objectivity, how can you be truely bias? It's about finding a solution to a problem based on a value on what works and what works the least.
You're just looing for the best solution not a preferance.

2. I think you clearly need to watch that Anime. You don't know what you are talking about.

3. My point on the issue is that it lead to dealing with social issue with a hammer than scalple. You really are using a guy who stated it better to be feared then loved as apoint ageinst me?
I understand, the point of Law is to maintain order. It does not have to care about the wimes or cares of the people as long as order is maintained. But that type of think can lead to people with valid point, concepts, and ideals just because it goes ageinst the state of order on hand or even these people would be  crushed just because the state beleive that doing so will get them the best results to maintain order reguardless if these indivisual are having conflict with the state or not.

The point is logic has it's place but it's not a good idea to bring it to a state of a machine.
Hence why the reapers are an example of blind logic and how logic can be a flaw.

Sure it's an oxymoron, that does not mean thestatement  does notmake sense or has no meaning. Statement like Jumbo Shimp is an oxymoron as well and it still has meaning.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:42 .

[leaguer of one]

J. Reezy wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

DrunkShepardFTW wrote...

To create a difficult moral problem would require the player to know the consequences of their decision before they make it; the black and white (or Paragon and Renegade) options need to be blurred for the player to stop and think. Ideally, a difficult moral choice should make the player choose between more selfish desires vs 'the greater good' i.e.: Priority: Tuchanka

To force a player to make a difficult decision doesn't necessarily require full knowledge of the situation; it can have some ambiguity to it. Priority: Rannoch did this best, because providing you have no insight into what happens after, letting Legion upload the Reaper code is itself a gamble, although necessary for the ideal resolution. But if the player is blind to the consequences, I personally wouldn't feel it's a moral decision.

On the point on renegade and paragon choiced morality being blurred more... You have to consider that fact that the player maybe the one automaticly dividing the morality in the game. ME point out that paragon and renegade are not good or evil but the player decides that on their own because that is what they are use to. They do that even with DA when there is no moral indicator on hand.
If we want somthing like that in game we need to tell, teach, and debate the issue with the player so they can think about it.  Kotor 2 does a great job of doing that.

Lol what?

Im sorry. Are you one of the people who think all renagade actions are bad and paragon actions are good?

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

One coule argue that with emotion, morality and sentiment, one would have thr drive to double check he logic in place to see if it was bad logic and avoid trillions being killed.

Thank you.  That is my point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think there's such a thing as a difficult moral choice.

There are, however, interesting moral choices, and I'll agree BioWare has been adding them of late. I'm particularly fond of the choices in Redcliffe (save the town, save Connor).

I do, however, object to the suggestion that there can't be "save everybody" choices. As long as those aren't obviously the right answer, those choices can remain interesting. Furthermore, they create an incentive to draft a character who would make those choices on subsequent playthroughs, and that adds variety and replayability.

[Hazegurl]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allow consequences for everything you do. Bam, done.

No more "let's save everybody" because consequences.
No more "let's kill everybody" because consequences.
No more "i'm going to get the happiest ending because I'm metagaming" because consequences.

Let the player pick and choose the consequences they can live with, can they live with the fact that their army is weakened due to them going on a reckless rescue mission to save the companion which was captured and tortured by the enemy faction? What if the weakened army means you can't save a city down the line due to not having enough manpower?

Meanwhile leaving your companion in the enemy's hands results in some of your plans being foiled because he spilled the beans after being tortured, leaving you to try and fix the affair and deal with the fallout of everything that's going on. Companion could be saved later (much to their chagrin) or killed off.

+1

[Sylvius the Mad]

leaguer of one wrote...

Hence why the reapers are an example of blind logic and how logic can be a flaw.

In what way is the logic of the reapers a flaw?

[leaguer of one]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

If the being was not locked into blind logic and was able to learn morals and understand organics, It would of been able to see that the question was flawed from the start.
Sorry, the reapers issue is blind logic and bad users.

There was no question. There was only a command within it's programming. It was hard-wired into it mechanically. It is not capable of seeing an alternate perspective. Yes, this is a flaw, but a mechanical one. Morality does not need to exist to understand a failure in logic. This was a failure in logic, built with a single perspective from a single organic species. 

Again, you're using that word. I take it you aren't going to argue seriously?

1. Oxymoron statement do have meaning. It does not make the statement mean nothing if it's an oxymoron.

2.You would not see it was a flaw with out morality. Logic does not have ground for morilly right or wrong. It just looks for the best solution. With out morality it would not matter if that best solution killed millions and if a less susseccful solution was on hand that would not kill anyone was on hand, the choice would be made to use the best solution.

[9TailsFox]

leaguer of one wrote...

9TailsFox wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

For some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI. And don't forget cace.

It's not that people don't want the story to have a happy ending. We just want an ending with meaning with out ending so cliche or by the numbers.

And why meaningful means someone must die.

[leaguer of one]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Hence why the reapers are an example of blind logic and how logic can be a flaw.

In what way is the logic of the reapers a flaw?

It's not. That's the scary part. They completly for go the point that the beings they want to do this to may not want it done to them and force it because it is the best solution they have.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:55 .

[leaguer of one]

9TailsFox wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

9TailsFox wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why not both? Some missions are moral, others are questions of logic and resources.

What's the problem here?

For some reason some people hate the others get happy. So they don't want others to get happy ending protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI. And don't forget cace.

It's not that people don't want the story to have a happy ending. We just want an ending with meaning with out ending so cliche or by the numbers.

And why meaningful means someone must die.

More like "protagonist riding rainbow on unicorn with LI= most likly not meaning full."

[Muspade]

Hazegurl wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allow consequences for everything you do. Bam, done.

No more "let's save everybody" because consequences.
No more "let's kill everybody" because consequences.
No more "i'm going to get the happiest ending because I'm metagaming" because consequences.

Let the player pick and choose the consequences they can live with, can they live with the fact that their army is weakened due to them going on a reckless rescue mission to save the companion which was captured and tortured by the enemy faction? What if the weakened army means you can't save a city down the line due to not having enough manpower?

Meanwhile leaving your companion in the enemy's hands results in some of your plans being foiled because he spilled the beans after being tortured, leaving you to try and fix the affair and deal with the fallout of everything that's going on. Companion could be saved later (much to their chagrin) or killed off.

+1

Seconded.

[Jorji Costava]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I suggest you read about logic. From philosophers such as David Hume, Machiavellia, Sun Tzu, or Descartes.

Hume may not be a great example to cite as a bastion for the authority of logic/reason. He was deeply distrustful of the powers of reason to do, well much of anything, really. For instance, he thought that our belief in the existence of objects we're not directly perceiving does not arise from reasoning of any sort, but "custom and habit." In the domain of action, Hume argued that reason is the "slave" of the passions; an act can only be criticized as irrational to the extent that it is based on false or irrational beliefs. With respect to morals, Hume believed that moral thinking ultimately derived from sympathy/empathy, yet he hardly dismissed all moralizing on that basis.

Dave of Canada wrote...

Allow consequences for everything you do. Bam, done.

No more "let's save everybody" because consequences.
No more "let's kill everybody" because consequences.
No more "i'm going to get the happiest ending because I'm metagaming" because consequences.

Let the player pick and choose the consequences they can live with, can they live with the fact that their army is weakened due to them going on a reckless rescue mission to save the companion which was captured and tortured by the enemy faction? What if the weakened army means you can't save a city down the line due to not having enough manpower?

Meanwhile leaving your companion in the enemy's hands results in some of your plans being foiled because he spilled the beans after being tortured, leaving you to try and fix the affair and deal with the fallout of everything that's going on. Companion could be saved later (much to their chagrin) or killed off.

Seems like a sensible approach to me. Making one decision have a clearly better outcome than the other can come across as a tacit judgment that that decision was the 'correct'; better to aim for a relative balance, in my view.

An alternative might be to try and achieve that balance over the long term. So for instance, a more 'ruthless' act might have clearly better consequences in one situation, while in a later situation, playing things in a more moralistic manner has the better result. Over the long term, you'd have relative balance between the more ruthless and the more moralistic styles of play. Optimizing would require you to play as Monty Python's man who is alternately rule and polite, which might go some way towards discouraging metagaming.

EDIT: Fixed quotes.

Modifié par osbornep, 27 novembre 2013 - 05:56 .

[Star fury]

If Bioware want a really tough moral choice then let us choose between something important like a fate of the world and a life of child or even better kitty. Fallout 3 DLC "the Pitt" had a cheap but very effective trick.

Modifié par Star fury, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:02 .

[Muspade]

If tough decisions were a matter of quantity, it'd be pretty easy making them.

Modifié par Muspade, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[leaguer of one]

Star fury wrote...

If Bioware want a really tough moral choice then let us choose between something important like a fate of the world and a life of child or even better kitty.

.........
*Shoot's the child.
*Kicks the kitty.
*Sleeps peacefully for the rest of his life.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

@MassivelyEffective0730 ,
If we exclude both morals and emotions out of my hypothetical moral decision (in previous page), we shall have 100 people who are going to become cursed and semi-undead vs one LI that is going to be sacrificed (but she's expandable and can be replaced later)!

Therefore it's logically better to keep those men and train them for a battle or something useful, rather keeping an expandable LI!

[CronoDragoon]

osbornep wrote...
An alternative might be to try and achieve that balance over the long term. So for instance, a more 'ruthless' act might have clearly better consequences in one situation, while in a later situation, playing things in a more moralistic manner has the better result. Over the long term, you'd have relative balance between the more ruthless and the more moralistic styles of play. Optimizing would require you to play as Monty Python's man who is alternately rule and polite, which might go some way towards discouraging metagaming.

This is the better option in my opinion since it adds tension to the choice absent from even interesting choices like the geth heretic mission, which functions largely as a philosophical point (although Rannoch somewhat incorporates unpredictability by using one choice as a point towards peace and not the other).

The ideal for me is Dragon Age 2, actually. In DA2, I was taught early that my decisions could go REALLY WRONG by bringing Bethany to the Deep Roads (without Anders. This is the one and only decision I've reloaded in a BW game because I thought Bethany had a lot of character potential that I didn't want to miss my first time through). Looking back retrospectively, this informed the rest of my DA2 experience. When Isabella left with the tome I genuinely thought she was gone and not returning, assuming I had done something during the course of my playthrough leading to this. Thus my elation when she returned with the tome. On the other hand, my trust in Anders was rewarded with becoming an unknowing accomplice to mass murder, and I ultimately chose to kill him.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:14 .

[Hazegurl]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Hence why the reapers are an example of blind logic and how logic can be a flaw.

In what way is the logic of the reapers a flaw?

The only thing I can say that imo would make their logic flawed is that they have no concept of what it means to be an organic species and approach our survival with the same logic as a Geth would approach their own survival, by being a part of a consensus.  

And also this:



disclaimer: just having some fun, please don't go all BSN on me.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 27 novembre 2013 - 06:18 .