1069 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

There are opinions and there are people who are objectively wrong.

 

Right and wrong are subjective, always. 

[AresKeith]

And many others you mean? You are one of the old ones and I have seen too much of it to make a mistake or "put words in your mouth". You never defended mages nor tried to see their side. Don't get me wrong your arguments were logical but were not neutral. I've never seen you arguing against pro Templars. For example you allowed warder's defending of Alrik go unchallenged but I've seen you attack people who defend Adrian and Anders etc... Its important to note I was defending my reasons of liking anders, I was not defending Anders himself. There is a huge difference. Warder was defending Alrik himself.

 

And this is not the first time, I've seen it many times. You are silent when something like this happens but go out of your way to argue with mage counterpart of this. The bias is clear. Not that I remotely care. I just wanted to put it put there

 

Except I have argued against him with Alrik in the past, as well against Templars in-general on certain aspects since I started posting on the DA forums

 

And "attack people who defend Adrian and Anders"? Really? How dare I expressed a different opinion on a character

[Former_Fiend]

Opinions can't be wrong, but this isn't an opinion, this is a fact that is being debated.

 

Someone says that Iron Bull is more attractive than Solas; that's not wrong, that's an opinion.

 

Someone says that Solas is bigger and more muscular than Iron Bull, that's not an opinion, that's blatantly wrong.

 

Someone saying that Alrik isn't a monster isn't stating an opinion, they are denying the truth staring them in the face.

[MisterJB]

Since morals are subjective, one can't be objectivelly wrong when discussing them.

 

Regardless, Alrik should have been better written. First, scrap the sexual abuses entirely. Keep his plan intact but make his motivations be saving both normal people and mages. He saw Meredith calling for the Annulment and realized it was only a matter of time until Templars and mages used Kirkwall as a battleground. Therefore, in order to avoid this and save lives, he took actions deeply rooted in the belief that Tranquility is preferable to mass execution.

 

More defensible? Maybe not but he doesn't sound like a cartoon anymore.

[MisterJB]

Right and wrong are subjective, always. 

Can't believe I'm ****** agreeing with KainD on something.

[KainD]

Opinions can't be wrong, but this isn't an opinion, this is a fact that is being debated.

 

Someone says that Iron Bull is more attractive than Solas; that's not wrong, that's an opinion.

 

Someone says that Solas is bigger and more muscular than Iron Bull, that's not an opinion, that's blatantly wrong.

 

Someone saying that Alrik isn't a monster isn't stating an opinion, they are denying the truth staring them in the face.

 

You are correct about opinions and facts. However to the very word ''monster'' is filled with emotion and as such is an emotional subjective stance. When you are talking monsters you are talking morality and morality is subjective. 

[Hellion Rex]

Since morals are subjective, one can't be objectivelly wrong when discussing them.

 

Regardless, Alrik should have been better written. First, scrap the sexual abuses entirely. Keep his plan intact but make his motivations be saving both normal people and mages. He saw Meredith calling for the Annulment and realized it was only a matter of time until Templars and mages used Kirkwall as a battleground. Therefore, in order to avoid this and save lives, he took actions deeply rooted in the belief that Tranquility is preferable to mass execution.

 

More defensible? Maybe not but he doesn't sound like a cartoon anymore.

I disagree. The way he was written and Meredith's outright dismissal of his plan, further cemented, in my mind, the difference between moderates and more extremes.

[Former_Fiend]

Since morals are subjective, one can't be objectivelly wrong when discussing them.

 

Regardless, Alrik should have been better written. First, scrap the sexual abuses entirely. Keep his plan intact but make his motivations be saving both normal people and mages. He saw Meredith calling for the Annulment and realized it was only a matter of time until Templars and mages used Kirkwall as a battleground. Therefore, in order to avoid this and save lives, he took actions deeply rooted in the belief that Tranquility is preferable to mass execution.

 

More defensible? Maybe not but he doesn't sound like a cartoon anymore.

 

Like I said, you're missing the point. The point of Alrik was to create a character who could come as close as physically possible to being labeled "objectively wrong and evil." He isn't supposed to have any moral ambiguity in him, he's supposed to act as a counterbalance to all the blood mages. He's supposed to be undeniable evidence that however you feel about the mages, the templars abuse their authority.

 

The validity of Alrik's actions aren't meant to be debated. He's meant to be a point that can be used by pro-mage fans in debates about the topic as an example of a templar who has gone too far.

[EmissaryofLies]

Since morals are subjective, one can't be objectivelly wrong when discussing them.

 

Regardless, Alrik should have been better written. First, scrap the sexual abuses entirely. Keep his plan intact but make his motivations be saving both normal people and mages. He saw Meredith calling for the Annulment and realized it was only a matter of time until Templars and mages used Kirkwall as a battleground. Therefore, in order to avoid this and save lives, he took actions deeply rooted in the belief that Tranquility is preferable to mass execution.

 

More defensible? Maybe not but he doesn't sound like a cartoon anymore.

 

That certainly would have been much more interesting and would provide greater depth to the issue. 

[Former_Fiend]

You are correct about opinions and facts. However to the very word ''monster'' is filled with emotion and as such is an emotional subjective stance. When you are talking monsters you are talking morality and morality is subjective. 

 

Morality is subjective up to a point. Alrik's actions are beyond that point.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Technically I wouldn't call it rape no. Rape is when you resist with all your might and still fail. But that's imo. Semantics really. 

/me looks around baffled and backs away slowly

[Lulupab]

I disagree. The way he was written and Meredith's outright dismissal of his plan, further cemented, in my mind, the difference between moderates and more extremes.

 

Meredith isn't so bad in Act 2. Later the game forces her to lose her mind cause of idol and be beyond any sort of redemption. Same goes for Orsino. I would have forgiven Meredith of she stood down but no she had to have one of the most horrifying death scenes in the game (forced).

 

But Karras and Alrik? They are the ones who should feel Justice's burn.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Since morals are subjective, one can't be objectivelly wrong when discussing them.

 

Regardless, Alrik should have been better written. First, scrap the sexual abuses entirely. Keep his plan intact but make his motivations be saving both normal people and mages. He saw Meredith calling for the Annulment and realized it was only a matter of time until Templars and mages used Kirkwall as a battleground. Therefore, in order to avoid this and save lives, he took actions deeply rooted in the belief that Tranquility is preferable to mass execution.

 

More defensible? Maybe not but he doesn't sound like a cartoon anymore.

That's not necessarily "better written". It's just written in a way that makes your bias more defensible.  

[MisterJB]

I disagree. The way he was written and Meredith's outright dismissal of his plan, further cemented, in my mind, the difference between moderates and more extremes.

An extremist Templar may suggest mass Tranquilization in an attempt to protect the people; maybe this includes the mages (magic is dangerous even for mages), maybe not; but adding the sexual abuse goes against everything the Order stands for and disqualify him from representing the more extremists Templars.

Rather, he becomes an opportunistic creep than took advantages of the dictames of the Order that were created with noble intentions in mind.

[KainD]

Morality is subjective up to a point. Alrik's actions are beyond that point.

 

No, there is no point. It's impossible to create a non-morally ambiguous character. The only way to do that is to create a fantasy setting that has inbuilt objective rules about good and evil that are true for that world while not comparable to RL. Such are usually fairy tales where for example they have some magical power of ''love'' that can shape or heal things, even though love is a subjective thing in RL.  

[EmissaryofLies]

Morality is subjective up to a point. Alrik's actions are beyond that point.

 

I suppose if Thedas was filled with Alriks and such behavior was the norm and morally acceptable he'd have something of a point. 

 

Thankfully it is not, and he does not. 

 

To be purely technical, he is not wrong. But once you add in the human element it all comes crashing down quite violently. Which is why ultimately, the defending of this monster is not credible, nor acceptable. 

[Former_Fiend]

No, there is no point. It's impossible to create a non-morally ambiguous character. The only way to do that is to create a fantasy setting that has inbuilt objective rules about good and evil that are true for that world while not comparable to RL. Such are usually fairy tales where for example they have some magical power of ''love'' that can shape or heal things, even though love is a subjective thing in RL.  

 

Alright, by what standard of morality can one judge Alrik's actions of rape and mass lobotomy to not be evil? By the standards of the fantasy society he lives in, they are evil. By the standards of modern society, they are evil.

 

So explain to me how any reasonable person can rationalize or justify what the man does?

[KainD]

To be purely technical, he is not wrong. But once you add in the human element it all comes crashing down quite violently. Which is why ultimately, the defending of this monster is not credible, nor acceptable. 

 

My God, that is only your opinion, get it through your head. 

[EmissaryofLies]

My God, that is only your opinion, get it through your head. 

 

It must be my common sense and enjoyment of civilized society getting in the way.