207 réponses à ce sujet

[Star fury]

DRTJR wrote...

In Fallout 3 The Pitt has the more grey choices of Freedom paired with Anarchy or Oppression paired with the very real promise of progress for the region.

I think it was oppression or opression.  Wernher looks like he doesn't differ much from Ashur.

[EmperorSahlertz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Maybe. It reminded me a lot of my friend's trip to a poverty-striken nation, the guide told them to not give anything to the people begging for food because they'd likely be killed by someone else who wanted it. It's probably why I like that scene so much.

Amusingly enough, that scenario doesn't claim that the people begging for food could get through the struggle on their own either.

She's taking a simple fact of life--that people are scum--and turning it into, "helping people at all lets them keep being scum." It doesn't work that way.

That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

Though, this suggests the beggars weren't thinking through their actions, either.

Why ask for handouts, if getting a handout will only get you killed?

While I appreciate the appeal to foresight, I wonder why we should presume that the beggars don't have any.

[Enigmatick]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Maybe. It reminded me a lot of my friend's trip to a poverty-striken nation, the guide told them to not give anything to the people begging for food because they'd likely be killed by someone else who wanted it. It's probably why I like that scene so much.

Amusingly enough, that scenario doesn't claim that the people begging for food could get through the struggle on their own either.

She's taking a simple fact of life--that people are scum--and turning it into, "helping people at all lets them keep being scum." It doesn't work that way.

That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

Yet the game in that situation gives you no chance to do that just so that you can listen to her her preach, you can't even ignore the guy.

[Rotward]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

Though, this suggests the beggars weren't thinking through their actions, either.

Why ask for handouts, if getting a handout will only get you killed?

While I appreciate the appeal to foresight, I wonder why we should presume that the beggars don't have any.

Because they'll stave or freeze without help. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

Though, this suggests the beggars weren't thinking through their actions, either.

Why ask for handouts, if getting a handout will only get you killed?

While I appreciate the appeal to foresight, I wonder why we should presume that the beggars don't have any.

Obviously, as has been pointed out, the beggars didn't possess the best foresight, sicne they are now in a posistion of begging. If they had good foresight, one would assume that they had been capable of making decisions in life that wouldn't lead to begging.

That being said, recieving a hand out is probably not a surefire way of ending up dead. However the one the Exile helped, just ended up that way.

EntropicAngel wrote...
How am I, a Jedi amnesiac, supposed to predict an outcome of thugs beating up a beggar, when I have no knowledge of that ever happening before? Or even me as a player, when I personally don't have any concept of that at all IRL? I really didn't, until Dave mentioned his friend.

To someone who's never visited a poverty-stricken city where that's possible, the game's reaction seems utterly and completely over the top. And further, if I or the Exile has no concept of that even happening, then she's incorrect to vilify me: I'm ignorant, not a simpleton who doesn't analyse outcomes.

And even IF I did have a concept of that--he's one begger, with no one anywhere near him. If there were a pair of thugs behind him, in game, looking all shabby and threatening, it would obviously be considered differently. However, as I said, no one in sight (with the possibility of that one spy). How did these magically-appearing thugs see him? They didn't.

I can pick it apart all day. It's quite weak.

I can understand the idea of the "good" thing not always being the right thing, but too often it's portrayed with unrealistic results.

You cannot ignore the beggar no, but you can not be nice to him. If you chose the dark side path, it shows an alternate ripple effect, in that an evil action also has ramification beyond the original inteded purpose.
It is simply one of the points the game wished to make, so it is forced on all the players. It is a tool to force the player to think about their actions even if it makes them uncomfortable (perhaps especially if so).

The thugs did not have to see him recieve money. All they had to do was see him spend his money, or hear him mention it. Lots of different ways for him to wind up dead in the ghetto of Nar Shadaa.

You havn't picked anything apart, all you have managed to do is showcase you are uncomfortable about the quest. You evidently did not appreciate the notion that your good actions did not only bring good, and you therefore lash out at the game, even though the lesson it gives is valid.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 11 janvier 2014 - 11:57 .

[dragonflight288]

I actually really enjoyed that dialogue, as Kreia pretty much forces the Exile to think long-term affects of helping people, rather than the immediate.

Case in point from a real life example. I used to live in a very large city, and downtown I saw beggars constantly. I gave one of them money, when into a corner-store to buy me a Powerade, and saw that same beggar buying cigarettes with the money I just gave him, even though the sign he had said he was trying to get food.

Ever since then, when I tried helping a beggar, I offered to take them to a McDonalds or something and buy them food. More often than not, they turn it down, wanting money instead.

I think the Exile helping or spurning that beggar on Nar Shadda was done really well.

[In Exile]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

The lesson as written is still stone cold stupid. Ignoring how contrived it is in terms of its consequences, as an actual analysis it fails to consider things like circumstance. It's just a platform for the writers to force a particular philsophy down the player's throat. With the same scenario, they could just have the beggar share with others and leave us with an Aesop of one kind act inspires all of society. 

As an actual philosophy, it's just junk philosophy like Objectivism, that ignores things like all of the contingent factors that are necessary conditions for success with this power fantasy that all achievement is entirely the product of the individual's own efforts, as if (for example) people fed themselves from the aether and taught themselves language just by existing. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 janvier 2014 - 03:16 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

How is the consideration of long term effects instead of immediate goals, a stupid lesson?

[DRTJR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

So the Prime Directive Philosphy. 

A directive that is ment to be broken. If one can help, and if one can save they should. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

DRTJR wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
That isn't at all what she is trying to teach. What she is trying to teach is, that you shouldn't always help, just because you are in a posistion to help. She wants you to analyse and predict the outcome of your actions, to make sure that helping is indeed the best thing you can do in the situation.

So the Prime Directive Philosphy. 

A directive that is ment to be broken. If one can help, and if one can save they should. 

But in this specific case, the act of helping did not save, in fact it damned.

[In Exile]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

How is the consideration of long term effects instead of immediate goals, a stupid lesson?

That wasn't the lesson. The lesson was a contrived and shallow way of pushing a particular philosophy down your thoat. The focus wasn't on this general idea of thinking your actions through, but on the moral consequences of your actions. 

But in this specific case, the act of helping did not save, in fact it damned.

For no other reason than the developers wanting to push this analytically empty philosophical notion. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 janvier 2014 - 05:48 .

[Dabrikishaw]

I have to agree that Kreia's lesson only works under specific circumstances.

[EmperorSahlertz]

In Exile wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

How is the consideration of long term effects instead of immediate goals, a stupid lesson?

That wasn't the lesson. The lesson was a contrived and shallow way of pushing a particular philosophy down your thoat. The focus wasn't on this general idea of thinking your actions through, but on the moral consequences of your actions. 

That was not at all what she was trying to teach. She was trying to teach you consequences OF your moral acts. She wanted you to realise that even what seems a kindness from your part, might lead to greater misery down the road. She wants you to think ahead, before you act.

In Exile wrote...

But in this specific case, the act of helping did not save, in fact it damned.

For no other reason than the developers wanting to push this analytically empty philosophical notion. 

Have you ever seen people kill eachother for some moldy bread? You might not think such things happen, but that just means you havn't been exposed to reality. What Kreia says in this case is solidly groudned in realism.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

How is the consideration of long term effects instead of immediate goals, a stupid lesson?

That wasn't the lesson. The lesson was a contrived and shallow way of pushing a particular philosophy down your thoat. The focus wasn't on this general idea of thinking your actions through, but on the moral consequences of your actions. 

That was not at all what she was trying to teach. She was trying to teach you consequences OF your moral acts. She wanted you to realise that even what seems a kindness from your part, might lead to greater misery down the road. She wants you to think ahead, before you act.

Totally agreed. Loved Kreia.

[In Exile]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Have you ever seen people kill eachother for some moldy bread? You might not think such things happen, but that just means you havn't been exposed to reality. What Kreia says in this case is solidly groudned in realism.

I was born and spent a significant amount of my childhood in one of the poorest countries in Europe. I saw a pack of starving rats eat a dog alive. I've seen the kind of poverty that most English-speaking countries can't imagine outside of the novelty of some trip to the third world. I know very well what reality is actually like for the poor. 

And that statement by Kreia is stupid. 

That was not at all what she was trying to teach. She was trying to teach you consequences OF your moral acts. She wanted you to realise that even what seems a kindness from your part, might lead to greater misery down the road. She wants you to think ahead, before you act.

I'm aware of the sort of pathetic aesop that was there. It's still expressed in an contrived example and described in the most facile philosophy possible. 

The so-called consequences of your moral action are that the developers wanted to say that kidness hurts others, and the explanation of it is a grade 4 understanding of objectivisim, which isn't a meaningful philsophy in the least. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 janvier 2014 - 10:27 .

[Ieldra]

In Exile wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Have you ever seen people kill eachother for some moldy bread? You might not think such things happen, but that just means you havn't been exposed to reality. What Kreia says in this case is solidly groudned in realism.

I was born and spent a significant amount of my childhood in one of the poorest countries in Europe. I saw a pack of starving rats eat a dog alive. I've seen the kind of poverty that most English-speaking countries can't imagine outside of the novelty of some trip to the third world. I know very well what reality is actually like for the poor. 

And that statement by Kreia is stupid. 

That was not at all what she was trying to teach. She was trying to teach you consequences OF your moral acts. She wanted you to realise that even what seems a kindness from your part, might lead to greater misery down the road. She wants you to think ahead, before you act.

I'm aware of the sort of pathetic aesop that was there. It's still expressed in an contrived example and described in the most facile philosophy possible. 

The so-called consequences of your moral action are that the developers wanted to say that kidness hurts others, and the explanation of it is a grade 4 understanding of objectivisim, which isn't a meaningful philsophy in the least. 

I don't know the circumstances of the original in KotOR2, but that's not what I would take away from the scene, against what Kreia probably intended. It's rather the message that you don't control others's reactions to your actions. All you can do is to consider the projected consequences to the best of your knowledge, act according to that and hope for the best. If sometimes there is a bad outcome, that shouldn't prevent you from acting. If your actions were ruled by the principle of avoiding bad outcomes at any cost, you'd never do anything at all.

It's the same in politics. If you make decisions that affect many people, there will always be some who will end up worse off than before. The only way to avoid that would be to make no decisions at all, yet rather often that would get a worse outcome overall. 

[Ziegrif]

Depends on the NPC.
If I hate the NPC I'll take the greedy way out.

If I like the NPC I'll keep them alive.

If I'm neutral towards the NPC I'll keep them alive for potential later quest flags.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't know the circumstances of the original in KotOR2, but that's not what I would take away from the scene, against what Kreia probably intended. It's rather the message that you don't control others's reactions to your actions. All you can do is to consider the projected consequences to the best of your knowledge, act according to that and hope for the best. If sometimes there is a bad outcome, that shouldn't prevent you from acting. If your actions were ruled by the principle of avoiding bad outcomes at any cost, you'd never do anything at all.

It's the same in politics. If you make decisions that affect many people, there will always be some who will end up worse off than before. The only way to avoid that would be to make no decisions at all, yet rather often that would get a worse outcome overall.  

Her lesson is, that if you wish to help a person, you should be certain taht what you are doing is ACTUALLY going to help him instead of just making you feel better about yourself.

In Exile wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Have you ever seen people kill eachother for some moldy bread? You might not think such things happen, but that just means you havn't been exposed to reality. What Kreia says in this case is solidly groudned in realism.

I was born and spent a significant amount of my childhood in one of the poorest countries in Europe. I saw a pack of starving rats eat a dog alive. I've seen the kind of poverty that most English-speaking countries can't imagine outside of the novelty of some trip to the third world. I know very well what reality is actually like for the poor. 

And that statement by Kreia is stupid. 

I have seen people kill eachother over even the tiniest, most disgusting scraps of food, or even the chance of food. What Kreia tries to impart is VERY relevant to the conditions for the beggars of Nar Shadaa.

In Exile wrote...

That was not at all what she was trying to teach. She was trying to teach you consequences OF your moral acts. She wanted you to realise that even what seems a kindness from your part, might lead to greater misery down the road. She wants you to think ahead, before you act.

I'm aware of the sort of pathetic aesop that was there. It's still expressed in an contrived example and described in the most facile philosophy possible. 

The so-called consequences of your moral action are that the developers wanted to say that kidness hurts others, and the explanation of it is a grade 4 understanding of objectivisim, which isn't a meaningful philsophy in the least. 

They wanted to tell you that it CAN hurt others. In this particualr instance, giving money to a beggar on a moon as dangerous as Nar Shadaa, is one of the WORST things you could possibly do.
It is almost as stupid as giving 10 dollars to a Somalian in Mogadishu. And trust me, if you were to do that, the Somalian would NOT live through the hour.

If there is one thing that Kreia most certainly isn't then it is an absolutist or objectivist. She is all about the relativism. She tries to show you that your actions, though considered good and just, might not be what is best, and that in this case having ignored the beggar might have been better.

[L. Han]

Debates about whether something is right or wrong is frustrating. Too many paradoxes.

[The Six Path of Pain]

This topic reminds me of the end of the movie "Unthinkable". The welfare of two innocent kids vs the lives of millions of people...what would you do in that situation? Being put in situations like that in DAI would be awesome.

[Martyr1777]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Have you ever seen people kill eachother for some moldy bread? You might not think such things happen, but that just means you havn't been exposed to reality. What Kreia says in this case is solidly groudned in realism.

The point you are missing is that if you predict a 'good' deed resulting in such a negative outcome as standard then society is a lost cause anyway and hense this is all moot.

Sometimes an act of kindness turns to something bad, sometimes it it results in somehing better then expected, and sometimes its just meaningless.

Examples: I've seem people risk their life in a swollen river to try   to save a drownding dog. Because they didn't think it through and just acted they almost died themselves in the undertow. Luckily the river just happened to be in downtown Denver and enough people helped that all were saved.

Then there is the 'give beggar money for food and the get smokes or booze' thats the general outcome really. The no effect result.

Then ive seen people that were homless surviving in a shelter. They struggle through those time with the help of oters and got back to work, a home, and eventually their own business. When they were then successful that same shelt had a food drive and this person they helped brought them a whole palet of food.

To asume the worst is stupid, this is why this game 'lesson' is indeed stupid because it predefined. Different world states dont alter the outcome. The same is quite simply not possible in real life. Different situations have different outcomes and its impossible to consider every possible outcome to base your actions on. You should just base them on your heart and experience, and not over analyze.