523 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia_Nox]

When did self-mutilation not become "detrimental"? 

[Mirrman70]

From everything you have mentioned probably the only unstable person is Quentin, because a body made of different women doesn't bring his love back, everything else if perfectly fine, you just don't agree with their ways. 

 

So in your mind absorbing your fellow mages without their permission to become a flesh golem is a rational action? as is sacrificing thousands of slaves for a selfish attempt to take something from a god?

[KainD]

When did self-mutilation not become "detrimental"? 

 

You don't have to mutilate self, you can mutilate others, 

[KainD]

So in your mind absorbing your fellow mages without their permission to become a flesh golem is a rational action? as is sacrificing thousands of slaves for a selfish attempt to take something from a god?

 

Those fellow mages were dead corpses. There's nothing special in killing people you don't care about, specially if you don't need them.

[Jsixgun]

From everything you have mentioned probably the only unstable person is Quentin, because a body made of different women doesn't bring his love back, everything else if perfectly fine, you just don't agree with their ways.

All that's "perfectly fine".... I know it's a video game but seriously? Killing a 1000 slaves is perfectly fine? Poor word choice on your part. Yuck.

[Mirrman70]

Those fellow mages were dead corpses. There's nothing special in killing people you don't care about, specially if you don't need them.

 

alright the, give me an example of a sane blood magic user outside of the PC and Merrill and explain to me WHY they are sane.

[KainD]

All that's "perfectly fine".... I know it's a video game but seriously? Killing a 1000 slaves is perfectly fine? Poor word choice on your part. Yuck.

 

It's not perfectly fine, it's perfectly sane..  why are we arguing morals again? I'm arguing that nothing bad happens to the user. If you are evil it doesn't mean that something bad is going to necessarily happen to you. You don't go insane because you use blood magic, and there are no bad consequences for the user. 

[Mirrman70]

It's not perfectly fine, it's perfectly sane..  why are we arguing morals again? I'm arguing that nothing bad happens to the user. If you are evil it doesn't mean that something bad is going to necessarily happen to you. You don't go insane because you use blood magic, and there are no bad consequences for the user. 

 

the writer say differently.

[KainD]

alright the, give me an example of a sane blood magic user outside of the PC and Merrill and explain to me WHY they are sane.

 

Examples: Orsino, Grace, Avernus, Caladrius, Jowan, Alain, Danarius, Zathrian, Idunna, Decimus, Malcholm Hawke, Tarohne. Enough? 

I'm not gonna explain why they are sane, that's silly, there is only one explanation - they don't fit the medical term of insanity. 

 

Here's a few insane ones for comparison: Evelina, Huon, Quentin. 

Though can be sometimes arguable, these are the ones I personally consider to be nuts. 

[KainD]

the writer say differently.

 

When did writers say that being ''evil'' in DA setting means suffering some extra penalties? And what's the definition of evil in the setting? 

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD: And to you, mutilating others is the product of a healthy minded individual?

 

[Mirrman70]

When did writers say that being ''evil'' in DA setting means suffering some extra penalties? And what's the definition of evil in the setting? 

 

they never said evil was what caused the penalties. They said that Blood magic makes people some sort of insane/loco/unstable

[KainD]

@KainD: And to you, mutilating others is the product of a healthy minded individual?

 

Is world peace possible? No. What do we do during wars? Kill each other. Is every soldier ill-minded? 

[KainD]

They said that Blood magic makes people some sort of insane/loco/unstable

 

No they didn't. Plenty of sane blood mages I have provided for you as an example. 

[Mirrman70]

your sane examples are my insane examples. also there is no true medical definition of insane only legal. Charles Manson was never found to be insane but clearly he was.

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD:  1) That's not what I asked you. 2)  I believe every soldier who has seen genuine conflict has "baggage" and I believe any soldier who does not, might be someone to worry about allowing to spend time among the general population. 

 

As for the act of killing.  Killing is not always done for "power" - and it is never, in our reality, done to fuel extraordinary gifts. 

 

I find that you excuse killing for food, killing by accident and killing to fuel magical powers on the same level rather disturbing... and maybe even a little "ill minded".

 

As for "world peace" and "wars" - if you were to ask the man who wrote "The Art of War" he would say that every war is a failure of humanity and celebrating victory in war... was the sign of a blood thirsty individual not to be trusted.

[KainD]

also there is no true medical definition of insane only legal. 

 

Insanity is when ones brain doesn't function the right way, when emotions are unstable and abnormal, when you see hallucinations, hear and feel things that aren't there, when basic physical patterns aren't present. That's insanity. 

[Mirrman70]

Insanity is when ones brain doesn't function the right way, when emotions are unstable and abnormal, when you see hallucinations, hear and feel things that aren't there, when basic physical patterns aren't present. That's insanity. 

 

those are symptoms of psychosis and neurosis. insanity is most commonly defined as a violation of societal norms. given peoples reactions to most of the blood mages actions I would say they are violating societal norms.

[KainD]

@KainD:  1) That's not what I asked you. 2)  I believe every soldier who has seen genuine conflict has "baggage" and I believe any soldier who does not, might be someone to worry about allowing to spend time among the general population. 

 

As for the act of killing.  Killing is not always done for "power" - and it is never, in our reality, done to fuel extraordinary gifts. 

 

I find that you excuse killing for food, killing by accident and killing to fuel magical powers on the same level rather disturbing... and maybe even a little "ill minded".

 

As for "world peace" and "wars" - if you were to ask the man who wrote "The Art of War" he would say that every war is a failure of humanity and celebrating victory in war... was the sign of a blood thirsty individual not to be trusted.

 

I find that people always kill for a reason, and any single one will do. Norms come into play when enough like-minded individuals come together. 

 

Here's more: There are things worse than death to most people, something that they have in life that makes them tick, something they are willing to die for. Some people don't want to live poor, or disabled etc. 

Logically if it's acceptable to kill in self preservation, then it's 2x more acceptable to kill for something that you want to have in your life, since life wouldn't even have value without it. 

 

War is the way of life, everything in nature fights for survival and destroys what threatens it. People are more advanced so we also fight for ideals and power. 

 

And why are we still talking morals when this sub-topic of specialization is consequences of blood magic, and why it wasn't included? Which has nothing to do with morals.

[KainD]

those are symptoms of psychosis and neurosis. insanity is most commonly defined as a violation of societal norms. given peoples reactions to most of the blood mages actions I would say they are violating societal norms.

 

Social norms are subjective and vary from individual to individual and from society to society. Arguable every single person is insane, and insanity has no meaning outside of branding outcasts in a particular society. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD:  Still didn't answer my question.  Just sophistry.  Are you in college perchance?

 

And I didn't say anything about the moral implications of killing.  I said I may, or may not, find you disturbing.

 

My point is that self-mutilation... or the mutilation of others - are both detrimental to the psyche.

 

That you do not think so is your perogative of course - but that does not make it a fact in game.

 

Note:  War is "a way" of life - not "the" way of life.  Animals do not "war" - that is anthropomorphism and grossly unscientific.

[KainD]

@KainD:  Still didn't answer my question.  Just sophistry.  Are you in college perchance?

 

And I didn't say anything about the moral implications of killing.  I said I may, or may not, find you disturbing.

 

My point is that self-mutilation... or the mutilation of others - are both detrimental to the psyche.

 

That you do not think so is your perogative of course - but that does not make it a fact in game.

 

Note:  War is "a way" of life - not "the" way of life.  Animals do not "war" - that is anthropomorphism and grossly unscientific.

 

I am in Uni. 

 

I seriously don't see any problem with harming things that I don't care about if I have the power to and if I benefit from doing so. Why the hell not? 

 

Animals are too primitive for war, I guess yes. 

[Mirrman70]

@KainD:  Still didn't answer my question.  Just sophistry.  Are you in college perchance?

 

And I didn't say anything about the moral implications of killing.  I said I may, or may not, find you disturbing.

 

My point is that self-mutilation... or the mutilation of others - are both detrimental to the psyche.

 

That you do not think so is your perogative of course - but that does not make it a fact in game.

 

Note:  War is "a way" of life - not "the" way of life.  Animals do not "war" - that is anthropomorphism and grossly unscientific.

 

off topic but packs of chimps will fight each other for territory.

 

I am in Uni. 

 

I seriously don't see any problem with harming things that I don't care about if I have the power to and if I benefit from doing so. Why the hell not? 

 

Animals are too primitive for war, I guess yes. 

 

lack of empathy is a sign of being a sociopath. just FYI

[KainD]

lack of empathy is a sign of being a sociopath. just FYI

 

I have empathy, the fact that I don't care about someone doesn't mean that I don't understand them, or what it means to be in their shoes. Also that again doesn't mean everybody, there are people that I DO care about. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD:  Understanding is not empathy.