Br3ad wrote...
"I have no wish to change the world. But nor can I stand by while men suffer and die on the whim of some select few. Do you truly believe you can change the world? Not even I am so naive as that."
Words to live by, I think.
Medhia Nox wrote...
@MassivelyEffective: And after all that - you still haven't gained an ally.
So, I suppose you need the fiction that your army is best trained and largest to disregard some pretend alliance with someone like myself.
Thedas is not the modern real world.
Ramza. It is certainly a good quote, even though I don't necessarily agree with it.Br3ad wrote...
Do you know where my quote comes from, Massively? It's not really comparable to the conversation that you are having. I'm talking about myself.
He's not saying that he won't change the world for the better, it is about not wanting to change the world. He has no desire to make the world the way that he wants it, but simply the way that everyone else wants it. They decide for themselves. I rather like the idea.eluvianix wrote...
Br3ad wrote...
"I have no wish to change the world. But nor can I stand by while men suffer and die on the whim of some select few. Do you truly believe you can change the world? Not even I am so naive as that."
Words to live by, I think.
To each their own, I guess. We technically change the world through our very existence, altering the fates of those around us by the choices we do and do not make. But to change the world in a greater way is not a bad or naive aspiration.
General Slotts wrote...
I have no idea.
Greylycantrope wrote...
Not to derail into a historical discussion or the rest of you explination but this little bit isn't accurate. If you're thinking of the Alliance system in place trust and friendship certainly weren't the ideals being used when it came about.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And yes, your idea's of trust and friendship between states are indeed what caused the First World War.
Br3ad wrote...
Do you know where my quote comes from, Massively? It's not really comparable to the conversation that you are having. I'm talking about myself.
dreamgazer wrote...
General Slotts wrote...
I have no idea.
To be honest, this. I have no idea what'll be thrown at us, thus I won't limit my behavior with pre-determined ideals.
Pretty much this.spirosz wrote...
dreamgazer wrote...
General Slotts wrote...
I have no idea.
To be honest, this. I have no idea what'll be thrown at us, thus I won't limit my behavior with pre-determined ideals.
Isn't this... supposed be the point? I honestly can't have a pre-determined PC without knowing what is going to happen. I have a certain mindset, but that is about it.
I'd say the closest we come to those ideals was Desert Storm, which hasn't been replicated because of just how hard it is to get the UN to agree to something. The nations involved in the WWI alliances were trying to establish a sort of balance of power amongst rival empires which had to maintain peace in Europe in the past was now falling apart do to how strained the relationships were. Britain and France certainly weren't friends they just felt Germany was a bigger problem. If anything it's actually an example of how the military mindset can get out of control as almost all of the militaries involved had little to no civilian oversight to reign them in(quite a few of them were also fairly incompetent officers).MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
More of tangling alliances to be sure, yes, but to be honest, its about the closest in the modern world we have to these kinds unilateral ideas of combined friendship and trust and its consequence as you're going to get.
I honestly can't think of any modern or historical relationship between any state power based off of trust and friendship as the core foundation of their foreign policy towards each other.
On the other hand, the incredibly overwhelming majority of all relationships between states is based off of the mutual benefit philosophy I am trying to describe. Trust and friendship are not the cornerstones to political relationships. They're side-effects, but they're never the foundation.
SergeantSnookie wrote...
Imagine if Conan the Barbarian, Genghis Khan, Trevor Philips and Iorveth had a kinky night and somehow spawned an insane elven woman.
Whereas my canon Dalish Warden was rather civil unless pushed, my Inquisitor is going to go out of her way to follow the 'they're a bunch of savages.' stereotype as much as possible. Basically, she'll show them savage when she's feasting on their entrails.
Modifié par Arppis, 21 décembre 2013 - 08:53 .
Hm? I'd say it's far more because everyone else had a common interest in not letting Saddam try and dominate the middle east. Very little idealism needed when a rogue actor is trying to roil global energy prices.Greylycantrope wrote...
I'd say the closest we come to those ideals was Desert Storm, which hasn't been replicated because of just how hard it is to get the UN to agree to something.MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
More of tangling alliances to be sure, yes, but to be honest, its about the closest in the modern world we have to these kinds unilateral ideas of combined friendship and trust and its consequence as you're going to get.
I honestly can't think of any modern or historical relationship between any state power based off of trust and friendship as the core foundation of their foreign policy towards each other.
On the other hand, the incredibly overwhelming majority of all relationships between states is based off of the mutual benefit philosophy I am trying to describe. Trust and friendship are not the cornerstones to political relationships. They're side-effects, but they're never the foundation.
Retour en haut
