75 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Having the Tevinter Slaver sacrifice the city elves so that he can give you one Stat Point clearly fits into black.

 

Why? 

[SerCambria358]

Why? 

Are you questioning how sacrificing innocent lives for your own benefit is a dark thing?

[Kimarous]

Drinking the mixture Avernus made from the Grey Wardens - white, grey, or black? I drank it not from approval for Avernus' actions, but because I didn't want their sacrifices to have been in vain.

[KainD]

Are you questioning how sacrificing innocent lives for your own benefit is a dark thing?

 

Innocent of what in particular, and why is that relevant? Benefits are good, yes. 

[SerCambria358]

Innocent of what in particular, and why is that relevant? Benefits are good, yes. 

Innocent of wrong doing obviously, its relevant because he was making the point that it is a dark path. 

 

I dont see why thats hard to understand

[KainD]

Innocent of wrong doing obviously, its relevant because he was making the point that it is a dark path. 

 

I dont see why thats hard to understand

 

Wrong doing by who's standards, yours? And why should that influence my actions? And what is dark, ''wrong''? 

[SerCambria358]

Wrong doing by who's standards, yours? And why should that influence my actions? And what is dark, ''wrong''? 

By the general populaces standards, most people would agree killing innocent people for your own benefit is among the biggest forms of evil you can commit. 

 

If you cant understand that, then you're showing signs of psychopathic tendencies 

[KainD]

By the general populaces standards, most people would agree killing innocent people for your own benefit is among the biggest forms of evil you can commit. 

 

Right:

1) Opinion of the majority is not the criteria for truth. 

2) One more time - you can be innocent of something in particular, not JUST innocent, because that makes no sense out of context. If you are talking about law abiding people then:

a ) How do you know all people there were completely law abiding? 

and

b ) Why should that influence my actions in particular? Do I know these people? Are we friends? Do we share a common goal in life? 

[SerCambria358]

Right:

1) Opinion of the majority is not the criteria for truth. 

2) One more time - you can be innocent of something in particular, not JUST innocent, because that makes no sense out of context. If you are talking about law abiding people then:

a ) How do you know all people there were completely law abiding? 

and

b ) Why should that influence my actions in particular? Do I know these people? Are we friends? Do we share a common goal in life? 

1)That does not apply to morals

2)You can describe people as "innocent" if they have committed no crimes or wrong acts in general

 

a) Because they would've been jailed otherwise and also, you cant make the assumption that every single person there committed some crime to justify killingthem

b)because killing is universally considered to be wrong when it is done towards people who are innocent, saying that this doesnt apply to you because it is opinionated is a common tendency among psychopathic individuals.

[Ryzaki]

I hope we can play a manipulative, cruel bastard.

I'm so tired of being forced into good goody or stupid evil. You can be evil and intelligent.

Though BW hasn't had me forced into being goody goody in the DA series still I just want to be manipulative and fake friends. Not actual friends. (Sort of how in NWN2 you could pretend to get along with Dove? Or whatever feather chick's name was. And she was dancing on your strings the whole time).

[KainD]

1)That does not apply to morals

2)You can describe people as "innocent" if they have committed no crimes or wrong acts in general

 

a) Because they would've been jailed otherwise and also, you cant make the assumption that every single person there committed some crime to justify killingthem

b)because killing is universally considered to be wrong when it is done towards people who are innocent, saying that this doesnt apply to you because it is opinionated is a common tendency among psychopathic individuals.

 

1) Yes it does.

2) Wrong doings are subjective, each see different things as right or wrong. 

 

a ) Yeah because crime always pays, everybody always gets caught.. And I don't need any justification beside my will.

b ) Uhh, no. Everybody is killing everybody all the time, that's how the world works. You kill for food, for survival, for luxury and for many other reasons.

[SerCambria358]

1) Yes it does.

2) Wrong doings are subjective, each see different things as right or wrong. 

 

a ) Yeah because crime always pays, everybody always gets caught.. And I don't need any justification beside my will.

b ) Uhh, no. Everybody is killing everybody all the time, that's how the world works. You kill for food, for survival, for luxury and for many other reasons.

1)How does that apply to morals?

2)Yup but that doesnt apply to killing innocent people, thats one of the few things that really isnt debated because its a universal crime

 

a)crime always paying doesnt make it right, you dont need justification to do anything in life, that doesnt mean its acceptable or "right"

b)Survival and moral right and wrongs, are two different things

[OctagonalSquare]

By the general populaces standards, most people would agree killing innocent people for your own benefit is among the biggest forms of evil you can commit. 

 

If you cant understand that, then you're showing signs of psychopathic tendencies 

He's merely recognizing that morality is subjective.

[KainD]

1)How does that apply to morals?

2)Yup but that doesnt apply to killing innocent people, thats one of the few things that really isnt debated because its a universal crime

 

a)crime always paying doesnt make it right, you dont need justification to do anything in life, that doesnt mean its acceptable or "right"

b)Survival and moral right and wrongs, are two different things

 

1) Morals are subjective 100%. ( Edit: ninjad )

2) Ok, third time - ''innocent people'' is a meaningless expression. Innocent of what? Everything is debatable, but subjective things are not worth debating for the most part. 

 

Crime is not about right or wrong, it's about law. 

[Kimarous]

Whenever I hear the term "killing innocents", it generally seems to translate into "killing people who are disassociated with the conflict at hand." Let's say the village of Crestwood is being caught in the battle between the Inquisition and the Red Templars - they're not so much "innocents" in the sense that the various citizens have done nothing wrong ever, but in the sense that "They're neutrals whose home is serving as our battleground, so attacking them is nothing but cruelty." That's my assessment, at least.

[Zatche]

@kaind. It's killing people for your own gain. It's wrong because it goes against our natural instinct to have empathy towards one another. That empathy matters, because it's vital to how we function as a society, as a civilization. When you say they're not innocent to any specific crime, you're being pedantic and completely missing the point.

[DeathScepter]

what if the point of gray if there is no black or white to contrast it?  Gray is always in the middle of black and white. For example, there is a difference in killing and murder. Murder is often un justice able and always intentional. Killing like murder is always the death of another unlike murder, it can have several potential reasons including self defense, protecting another and war time situations(yes i am aware in war time situations, it can be sticky)

[SerCambria358]

1) Morals are subjective 100%. ( Edit: ninjad )

2) Ok, third time - ''innocent people'' is a meaningless expression. Innocent of what? Everything is debatable, but subjective things are not worth debating for the most part. 

 

Crime is not about right or wrong, it's about law. 

That in itself is debatable, as Kimarous pointed out, if an "innocent" person (someone disassociated with the conflict at hand) is killed intentionally, it is universally accepted as a "bad" thing to do, murderers know that what they're doing is unacceptable but that doesnt need to affect their decision in killing that person.

 

Breaking a law does not conclude that youve done something most people consider morally bad but some laws restrict what we would consider evil things, from occuring, such as killing an "innocent" person. Regardless to how you define the word, it is widely accepted as a term to define someone who is again, disassociated with a particular conflict or scenario.

 

Morals may be subjective but there are certain acts that will almost always be considered wrong, killing people who have done nothing to you, for your own benefit, will always be considered a wrong thing to do 

[KainD]

@kaind. It's killing people for your own gain. It's wrong because it goes against our natural instinct to have empathy towards one another. That empathy matters, because it's vital to how we function as a society, as a civilization. When you say they're not innocent to any specific crime, you're being pedantic and completely missing the point.

 

That's not how our today's society works. Also you can have empathy and still kill for your own gain. 

 

 

if an "innocent" person (someone disassociated with the conflict at hand) is killed intentionally, it is universally accepted as a "bad" thing to do.

 

No. Then again you did put the words in quote marks which makes sense, so not sure where you are going there. 

 

murderers know that what they're doing is unacceptable

 

Err, no. That also kinda sounds pathetic, silly even, if you do something you yourself consider wrong. Why would you even do it? 

 

 

Regardless to how you define the word, it is widely accepted as a term to define someone who is again, disassociated with a particular conflict or scenario.

 

The particular conflict is called ''life'' and everybody is involved. 

 

 

killing people who have done nothing to you, for your own benefit, will always be considered a wrong thing to do 

 

By whom? 

[SerCambria358]

 

No. Then again you did put the words in quote marks which makes sense, so not sure where you are going there. 

 

Err, no. That also kinda sounds pathetic, silly even, if you do something you yourself consider wrong. Why would you even do it? 

 

The particular conflict is called ''life'' and everybody is involved. 

 

By whom? 

What?

 

Because they want to, plenty of people know their actions may be bad, but they do it anyway because it benefits them. Using the example from earlier, plenty of people consider killing those elves, a bad thing, but it doesnt always stop people from committing the act because they want the extra strength.

 

Lol who are you to dictate that? 

 

Most rational thinking individuals who recognize the impacts of killing innocents.

[KainD]

Because they want to, plenty of people know their actions may be bad, but they do it anyway because it benefits them. 

 

How is it bad doing something that benefits you? 

 

 

Lol who are you to dictate that? 

 

Participant. 

 

 

Most rational thinking individuals who recognize the impacts of killing innocents.

 

What impacts? 

[SerCambria358]

How is it bad doing something that benefits you? 

 

 

 

Participant. 

 

 

 

What impacts? 

Because it negatively impacts others, according to societies standards, doing something that only benefits you doesnt conclude that it is a morally good thing

 

So because you say it is so, that makes it true?

 

The emotional impacts of killing a human being that did nothing to warrant their death, you dont need to personally feel those impacts in order for them to exist

[KainD]

Because it negatively impacts others, according to societies standards, doing something that only benefits you doesnt conclude that it is a morally good thing

 

The standards could be different. Living while doing only actions that benefit everybody is impossible, unfortunately. 

 

 

So because you say it is so, that makes it true?

 

No, I'm just observant. That's how it is from my perspective. 

 

 

The emotional impacts of killing a human being that did nothing to warrant their death, you dont need to personally feel those impacts in order for them to exist

 

Those impacts are meaningless then.

[SerCambria358]

The standards could be different. Living while doing only actions that benefit everybody is impossible, unfortunately. 

 

 

 

No, I'm just observant. That's how it is from my perspective. 

 

 

 

Those impacts are meaningless then.

No one said anything about only performing actions that benefit everyone, im speaking about actions that only benefit you while taking innocent lives

 

Your perspective doesnt speak for the general populace

 

Meaningless to you, again thats one perspective vs the world