264 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

I think Lord Baron John Dalberg-Acton summarized it perfectly when he said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

He never provided  method or reasoning or logic to how he was inherently right. I do in fact believe opposite of him.

I find the very idea of the ubermensch theory to be utterly repulsive and idiotic, but that's your opinion, I can't argue with that. However I'll say this: Sure, a benevolent ruler with absolute power can greatly benefit everyone. However, not only will a failure on his/her part bring extreme consequences, but he or she can easily abuse and misuse that power to the fullest. Centuries of monarchy in Europe have proven that.

He can, but it his perogative. And if you value your own life or happiness, you will resist. I'm not one who believes that power can be abused or misused.

That implies that there is some kind of benevolent duty that the ruler is obligated to. Simply put I don't believe in that. I believe the obligation lies only to the use of power, and the capability to use it effectively. 

[AresKeith]

I liked the idea behind Spectres

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is it a special case? What makes everyone else innocent compared to Reapers. It's a special exclusion fallacy. 

As for my idea of the ubermensch, it isn't based on race or gender or ethnicity. Some people have what I'm talking about, and it really doesn't matter who they are.

I destroy the Reapers, though not out of any horror or disgust at their 'crimes'.

I destroy them because the alternative is to be destroyed by them. I kill them, but I don't hate them. I don't find the value or logic to the other decisions to appeal appropriately to the long-term destruction of the Reapers or the sense and evidence behind their explanation to be valid.

You said it yourself, the Reapers as a collective are hostile to us and since they are only synthetic and are programmed to do so, can not be stopped in their destruction. 
No other genocide, ever has had the same situation. While I feel nothing but utmost disdain for collective punishment, it's undeniable that the Reapers are collectively at fault for their crimes and will always continue witht them. In any other case collective punishment, genocide can not be justified.

[RangerSG]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Aratoht you're acting as Alliance, not as a Spectre. Repercussion are from the Alliance as well.

I'm assuming Tuchanka refers to sabotaging the cure, which is no more genocide than deploying the genophage was in the first place. As far as krogan extinction goes, it's clearly stated they're doing it to themselves.

Rannoch maybe, though again they're doing it to themselves. Having just replayed the Rannoch arc, my blood is still boiling at the stupidity and waste of it all. And I can't even have Shepard yell at them for that. But that's another issue.

Exactly, Aratoht isn't 'genocide' in any case. It's an extreme act of pseudo-terrorism. But it may even be less than that, if you go paragon and tried to warn them. Really, it's just a series of disasters that ends in a no-win scenario.

Tuchanka doesn't have anything to do with genocide. Shepard didn't start the genophage. The Salarians (and tacitly the Asari) APPROVE of the genophage, the Turians did until they needed the Krogan. And I doubt the Primarch would really have minded if you took the Salarian deal and got the Krogan. Their death was long before Shepard ever showed up. 

Rannoch is on the warring parties. The Geth opened themselves up to the Reapers. The Quarians started a war at the worst possible time imaginable. Either one of them can be justly held responsible for their own actions. Nothing STOPS them from standing down if you choose one side or the other. Other than their own stupidity and insistence on the war. Either side could transmit a surrender. Neither side chooses to do so. This is again, a problem of THEIR making. Shepard's not committing genocide by any rational definition.

The Spectres (as described in ME1) are a good idea, because while laws may exist, they mean nothing to those who live beyond your borders or hide in the areas the law cannot reach to wreak havoc on the unfortunate. Special Operatives are always a better choice than full military in such situations, because they can solve the problem with less bloodshed and blowback than full-scale war. Nations will always play dirty politics against one another. And anyone who refuses to be ready for such tactics invites their own destruction. 

What Spectres ultimately become in the game? Meh. They're essentially neutered and become a 'Get out of jail free' card for a handful of unnecessary actions. This goes back to the problem of shoehorning Shepard back into the Alliance so they could have N7 be a brand name. 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Am I the first MP player who has posted in here about how he thought this was an MP thread about something completely different? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is it a special case? What makes everyone else innocent compared to Reapers. It's a special exclusion fallacy. 

As for my idea of the ubermensch, it isn't based on race or gender or ethnicity. Some people have what I'm talking about, and it really doesn't matter who they are.

I destroy the Reapers, though not out of any horror or disgust at their 'crimes'.

I destroy them because the alternative is to be destroyed by them. I kill them, but I don't hate them. I don't find the value or logic to the other decisions to appeal appropriately to the long-term destruction of the Reapers or the sense and evidence behind their explanation to be valid.

You said it yourself, the Reapers as a collective are hostile to us and since they are only synthetic and are programmed to do so, can not be stopped in their destruction. 
No other genocide, ever has had the same situation. While I feel nothing but utmost disdain for collective punishment, it's undeniable that the Reapers are collectively at fault for their crimes and will always continue witht them. In any other case collective punishment, genocide can not be justified.

What makes the Reapers actions a crime? I thought it was survival on my own part fighting back against them. I don't apply conventional morality to their actions. It simply doesn't apply. Would it be considered a crime that human sacrifice was allowed back in the days of the Aztecs?

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

He can, but it his perogative. And if you value your own life or happiness, you will resist. I'm not one who believes that power can be abused or misused.

That implies that there is some kind of benevolent duty that the ruler is obligated to. Simply put I don't believe in that. I believe the obligation lies only to the use of power, and the capability to use it effectively. 

Oh, so you think Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Tojo Hideki, King Leopold II, Ho Chi Minh and Chiang Kai-Shek were great men who never abused their power? They were never obligate to do anything good?

All of these men meet your requirements, they were all efficient and capable leaders and used their power effectively to meet their twisted and evil ideologies and self-interests. 

If that's what you believe then that's what you believe:mellow:

[MassivelyEffective0730]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That implies that there is some kind of benevolent duty that the ruler is obligated to. Simply put I don't believe in that. I believe the obligation lies only to the use of power, and the capability to use it effectively. 

Like you stated earlier in the thread, maybe we basically agree.. but I just happen to stand on the other side of power. We both believe that power is the main factor in things.. and the strong should rule the weak. I just happen to think that anyone is capable of strength. Not just "rulers". But as long as people have a weak mentality, they deserve to be dominated by "rulers". It's up to them. No one is strong by default or by just declaring it. You have to constantly fight for it.

Yes, you do. I do believe anyone is capable of strength. I believe that it must be refined to become a force however. The rulers are the ones capable of sharpening the blade into the razor. 

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

You said it yourself, the Reapers as a collective are hostile to us and since they are only synthetic and are programmed to do so, can not be stopped in their destruction. 
No other genocide, ever has had the same situation. While I feel nothing but utmost disdain for collective punishment, it's undeniable that the Reapers are collectively at fault for their crimes and will always continue witht them. In any other case collective punishment, genocide can not be justified.

What makes the Reapers actions a crime? I thought it was survival on my own part fighting back against them. I don't apply conventional morality to their actions. It simply doesn't apply. Would it be considered a crime that human sacrifice was allowed back in the days of the Aztecs?

If conventional morals can't be applied to the Reapers, then how can a conventional genocide be compared to the destruction of the Reapers? Personally, I don't even consider the Reapers living beings, to me they're just tools of destruction that need to be destroyed.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

Oh, so you think Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Tojo Hideki, King Leopold II, Ho Chi Minh and Chiang Kai-Shek were great men who never abused their power? They were never obligate to do anything good?

That is a strawman fallacy right there. I'm not going to address this until you clean up your point.

And 'good' is subjective. In their administrations, everything they accomplished was 'good'. It's just that we have different idea's of what 'good' is. To you and I, it isn't viewed as a good. 

All of these men meet your requirements, they were all efficient and capable leaders and used their power effectively to meet their twisted and evil ideologies and self-interests. 

I'd replace the words 'twisted' and 'evil' with ignorant, misguided, irrational, and illogical caused mostly by some form of mental illness and lack of reign or discipline. They wielded power, but they did not hone it.

If that's what you believe then that's what you believe:mellow:

As I said, you said it, not me.

[RangerSG]

StreetMagic wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

OK, your edit is close to the intended D&D model. I didn't buy your original statement either. A person can be lawful without being rigid as Ned Stark. Law doesn't abrogate the need for mercy or compassion. Nor does Law mandate that those cannot exist. As for Chaos, well, I've always been of the opinion that CG sounds good in a game setting, but in real life, would be the ultimate slippery slope. That much 'certainty' about what's right compared to everyone else will never end well. Assuming they're given the power to act on it.

I don't think my edit is that different. I'm just clarifying.

Lawful is never moral.. it's redundant to state it that way, since there is already a "Good" and "Evil" factor in D&D.

Evil/immoral characters can be very Lawful, so long as they have some kind of code or set of standards. Darth Vader is Lawful Evil. Most mafia bosses in movies are. Especially the oldschool kind. There's the Scarface types who go crazy and snort their own coke and kill their sisters. That's probably chaotic evil.

Sure they can. But Lawful does not necessitate inflexibly rigid. Paladins are LG, but it is only the worst charicature of the Paladin, the ones that forget the meaning and purpose of the Chivalric Code, that is 'stick up their butt'. Unfortunately, most players of paladins aren't put in real moral quandries that test the need for mercy and the protection of the weak by their DMs. And most players treat Paladins like Helmites: LAWFUL good (and if I had the inclination, I'd subscript the good to really make the point). Forgetting that Helm was in fact LN (the most destructive of alignments, IMHO). They should be glad I'm not their DM, because 90% of them would be Fallen Paladins. 

And yes, I'd agree that the list you gave above is LE. Except for Scarface, though he probably starts NE and slides to CE.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That implies that there is some kind of benevolent duty that the ruler is obligated to. Simply put I don't believe in that. I believe the obligation lies only to the use of power, and the capability to use it effectively. 

Like you stated earlier in the thread, maybe we basically agree.. but I just happen to stand on the other side of power. We both believe that power is the main factor in things.. and the strong should rule the weak. I just happen to think that anyone is capable of strength. Not just "rulers". But as long as people have a weak mentality, they deserve to be dominated by "rulers". It's up to them. No one is strong by default or by just declaring it. You have to constantly fight for it.

Yes, you do. I do believe anyone is capable of strength. I believe that it must be refined to become a force however. The rulers are the ones capable of sharpening the blade into the razor. 

Rulers often rig the game though. That's one thing I will sympathize about when it comes to the ruled. It's not always an equal playing field. But that doesn't prevent people from fighting back. They can still go ****ing crazy like the French Revolution. That's still better than living under tyranny.

It is rigging the game. It's basically social darwinism for leaders. The issue with the French Aristocracy was that they were't very economical with their power and resources. I'd honestly say the French Revolution led to a greater tyranny in the short term than what existed before. And that tyranny was an improvement under Napoleon. Prior to that was economic devestation.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

You said it yourself, the Reapers as a collective are hostile to us and since they are only synthetic and are programmed to do so, can not be stopped in their destruction. 
No other genocide, ever has had the same situation. While I feel nothing but utmost disdain for collective punishment, it's undeniable that the Reapers are collectively at fault for their crimes and will always continue witht them. In any other case collective punishment, genocide can not be justified.

What makes the Reapers actions a crime? I thought it was survival on my own part fighting back against them. I don't apply conventional morality to their actions. It simply doesn't apply. Would it be considered a crime that human sacrifice was allowed back in the days of the Aztecs?

If conventional morals can't be applied to the Reapers, then how can a conventional genocide be compared to the destruction of the Reapers? Personally, I don't even consider the Reapers living beings, to me they're just tools of destruction that need to be destroyed.

I'm not the one to ask. You're the one applying the conventional morals to the Reapers about their 'conventional genocide'. What is a living being? What really separates organic matter from non-organic matter? Seems like we're all made of the same fundamental building blocks. Is something alive because it has self-replacating molecules that move to acquire energy? What's so different (or special) about that over non self-replicating molecules that still hold and release energy? Is everything alive?

[Sir DeLoria]

Is it really a strawman though? All of those men(and hundreds more) prove that single men are all to often incapable of ruling. Some of the men I listed were very efficient rulers, who were simply so ruthless that they gladly sacrificed millions of lives for the benefit of a few individuals(like king Leopold II of Belgium). Perhaps there were great rulers throughout history, but your totalitarian ideology is impossible to apply in real life. After all who is to select your so called "übermenschen"?

[Invisible Man]

i had hoped at some point that me-next would be about a group of spectres turning on the citadel council over their inaction against the reaper threat. and the story would be about tracking them down & trying to stop them at first, though at some point you decide either they are right and the council needs to die (figuratively or literally), or if said spectres are wrong & the council is still needed. (the citadel dlc seems to suggest that the council was aware that sovie was a reaper by the end of me1, if shep could find this out simply by being a spectre and being in the archives why couldn't others too?)

[RangerSG]

StreetMagic wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
And yes, I'd agree that the list you gave above is LE. Except for Scarface, though he probably starts NE and slides to CE.

Fair enough. Yeah, he's more of a negotiator and player in the beginning (NE), but CE later (that's either chaotic evil.. or cokehead evil :happy:).

lol

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It is rigging the game. It's basically social darwinism for leaders. The issue with the French Aristocracy was that they were't very economical with their power and resources. I'd honestly say the French Revolution led to a greater tyranny in the short term than what existed before. And that tyranny was an improvement under Napoleon. Prior to that was economic devestation.

Of course the post-revolution years were bad, because no clear form of government had been established yet and the revolution was slowly eating its own children. Ultimately, the French Revolution set a milestone in modern political development and helped abolish one of the most unjust political systems in history.

[Sir DeLoria]

StreetMagic wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Is it really a strawman though? All of those men(and hundreds more) prove that single men are all to often incapable of ruling. Some of the men I listed were very efficient rulers, who were simply so ruthless that they gladly sacrificed millions of lives for the benefit of a few individuals(like king Leopold II of Belgium). Perhaps there were great rulers throughout history, but your totalitarian ideology is impossible to apply in real life. After all who is to select your so called "übermenschen"?

Nobody selects an ubermensch. By definition, it's the man (or woman) who tries to transcend the world's notions on claims to power or morality or correct-ness. They select themselves. It's Conan and the Queen of Hearts. Or maybe just Conan. The queen was diposed fairly quickly.

Funny how almost every man who believed himself to be such an übermensch and rose to such political power ended up as an utter tyrant. I can't honestly think of a single good leader in the 20th century to match your description. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...
Is it really a strawman though? All of those men(and hundreds more) prove that single men are all to often incapable of ruling.

Yes it is a strawman. A Godwin strawman. You compared my ideal to theirs without necessary evidence to make such a claim.

And your philosophy has its own inverse does it not? That fettered populations are just as incapable of ruling as the individual? Is there really anyone you can trust with your own ideal of leadership?

Some of the men I listed were very efficient rulers, who were simply so ruthless that they gladly sacrificed millions of lives for the benefit of a few individuals(like king Leopold II of Belgium). Perhaps there were great rulers throughout history, but your totalitarian ideology is impossible to apply in real life. After all who is to select your so called "übermenschen"?

There you are, strawmanning my argument again, comparing it to totalitarianism. I'm not interested in cultivating a police state centered around a cult of personality.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It is rigging the game. It's basically social darwinism for leaders. The issue with the French Aristocracy was that they were't very economical with their power and resources. I'd honestly say the French Revolution led to a greater tyranny in the short term than what existed before. And that tyranny was an improvement under Napoleon. Prior to that was economic devestation.

Of course the post-revolution years were bad, because no clear form of government had been established yet and the revolution was slowly eating its own children. Ultimately, the French Revolution set a milestone in modern political development and helped abolish one of the most unjust political systems in history.

Brought forth by the people themselves no less. And I thought it became more of a totalitarian system after the Revolution, which was hardly just. Necessary, but not just. It's kind of my personal idea on why populism is worthless.

Again though, what is justice?