311 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

I don't know if I'd call him that necessarily. Not in the typical sense. His social skills are lacking. He's especially rude to Ms. Hudson. He's definitely got morals, but the world tends to define "decency" and humanity with interpersonal skills as well.

 

And not just the modern incarnation. The book version was like that. The modern one might be worse. Especially that last episode where he blew that dude's brains out. "I'm not a hero. I'm a high functioning sociopath!"

 

I've read 100% of the stories Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes.  He was not rude to the landlady (although according to Watson he was a terrible tenant due to irregular hours, indoor chemistry experiments, and, on occasion, firing his pistol at the walls).  Mrs. Hudson was in awe of Holmes, though, and a devoted fan.  Heck, she maintains his rooms untouched for a couple of years while Holmes is supposed to be dead after his showdown with Moriarty, and she volunteers for the tricky job of repeatedly moving a bust that he uses as a decoy.  The only people Holmes is ever actively rude to are the few self-important bureaucrats who think they can get away with treating him like a servant.

 

A good part of Holmes' investigative prowess derives directly FROM exceptional social skills.

 

Most of the modern stuff tends to be less about Holmes' unique methods and mentality and more about him being all crazy and eccentric etc.  So they tend to play up that side in favor of destroying Doyle's core characterization. 

[dragonflight288]

his messenger, never once did he say "I am the King blah blah"

 

that's a whole other can of worms, Celene was hoping to bring Ferelden back into the fold through marrying Cailan and Loghain apparently knew about this, which is why he abandoned him

 

Actually that was an earlier version, and it was scrapped later. Take loghain to Ostagar in Return to Ostagar and he'll put the pieces together there.

[In Exile]

Doing good for your people is generally regarded as moral. Helping them, taking care of them, putting their safety and happiness above yours. Who you consider as "your people", that's up to you. If it's "all living beings", genocide is amoral. If it's a smaller group, killing people outside of it would not be seen as amoral, or at least less so.

 

Whether the end justifies the means, that's a good question. Does it depend on the means and the end? Was killing Orlesian chevaliers to free Ferelden good? If the warden kills a guard who's just doing his job to infiltrate a mansion, is it an evil action? If someone kills a friend or a family member, would it be evil to kill them too? When something is personal, people stop caring about the reasons behind actions. To put it coldly, there's a conflict of interest. If I were a human in the scenario you presented I would try to stop that elf, and probably end up doing some questionable things in the process. But I don't know if I would call that "good".

 

Morality is a dodgy and complex subject. I still don't have a defined opinion about it. My current take is what I wrote earlier: "From a philosophical point of view, I'd say evil people don't exist. Everyone is merely the product of their life experiences, and their own reactions are derived from these experiences too. From a practical point of view, there's a point where you have to draw a line, stop thinking about people's abusive childhood and plant a bullet in their head."

 

I don't think tribal definitions of social groups - in any modern moral theory - are really taken seriously anymore. While there are views (and people) that might argue that it's difficult to say that someone is "evil" if there is some very culture specific morality that they are adhering to (within reason), e.g. if there is a culture that's discriminatory (e.g. US in the 1930s) not very many scholars would argue that people in that society were evil for discriminating. But at the same time there's a huge moral difference between withholding a benefit and actively inflicting harm. 

 

And my question wasn't about ends justifying the means, though that's a thorny debate. It's that people intend ends as much as they intend their means, and if the standard for morality is "intention", then we have a serious problem about which intention we actually say counts. 

 

In terms of your italicized post, I don't see why the fact that someone is the product of their environment vs. a product of biology etc. matters, because those factors are outside of the control of the individual regardless. We should judge people on their actions and choices. Whether or not someone grew up in the 1950s South, if they made an intentional choice to join the KKK and intimidate civil rights activitist, whether or not they were "evil" from birth is irrelevant. 

 

People, IMO, confuse the fact that someone can be understandable (e.g. Dexter is a serial killer because he saw his mother chopped up in front of him) does not mean it's justifiable. 

[Doominike]

Dexter kills serial killers, how is he a bad person ?

[Doominike]

And they're also much less racist and sexist than they used to be

[Maria Caliban]

Personally, I'd like to think some cultures are simply "better". Not "different".
 
Most modern cultures have improved a bit from Bronze/Iron Age mass ritual sacrifice at least. Gotta give them props.

And to tie into In Exile's point, there was evidence that some older cultures knew that murdering a woman and wearing her skin was a bad thing to do, but they did it anyway because they thought their gods would be pleased and bless them.

[KainD]

Personally, I'd like to think some cultures are simply "better". Not "different".

 

I'd like to think that too, unfortunately it isn't so, and it's just different. 

[Doominike]

I'd like to think that too, unfortunately it isn't so, and it's just different. 

I'd like to refute that but my argument could be considered derigatory of other's religion and culture, and thus probably be against forum rules

[Maria Caliban]

I don't know if I think some cultures are better than others, but I'm comfortable saying that lack of human sacrifice is better than human sacrifice. I'm sure the Mexica were wonderful people but that whole cutting people open and wearing their skin thing is just not what I look for in a religion.

There's a difference between a culture and a specific cultural practice.

[naddaya]

In terms of your italicized post, I don't see why the fact that someone is the product of their environment vs. a product of biology etc. matters, because those factors are outside of the control of the individual regardless. We should judge people on their actions and choices. Whether or not someone grew up in the 1950s South, if they made an intentional choice to join the KKK and intimidate civil rights activitist, whether or not they were "evil" from birth is irrelevant. 

 

People, IMO, confuse the fact that someone can be understandable (e.g. Dexter is a serial killer because he saw his mother chopped up in front of him) does not mean it's justifiable. 

 

I used "justify" as in "find reasons for" an action, whether this action is acceptable or not. I agree.

 

And my question wasn't about ends justifying the means, though that's a thorny debate. It's that people intend ends as much as they intend their means, and if the standard for morality is "intention", then we have a serious problem about which intention we actually say counts.

 

I think it's a matter of ends and means. Sometimes you just have to go with the lesser evil.

 

Is killing someone an evil action per se? Killing a man to defend yourself or a friend is different from killing him to steal his stuff. I had the Connor situation in mind when I wrote about intentions, because on my first playthrough I made my Warden kill Connor. Killing a child seems like an evil action, and it's been described as the evil route to solve the Redcliffe quest in these forums. But if you take everything into consideration: he was possessed, he might have started killing again if left alone, my Warden needed Eamon's army, she was weary of blood magic and didn't trust Jowan with the ritual, especially in that thin veiled area. Doesn't seem that evil anymore.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't want you to disparage biblical cultures, I want you to disparage specific cultural practices.

My point was that you can criticize an aspect of a culture without simply going 'my culture is better than theirs.'

[KainD]

My point was that you can criticize an aspect of a culture without simply going 'my culture is better than theirs.'

 

No you can't. 

[Maria Caliban]

No you can't.

Perhaps this is beyond the mental capacity of Kain D, but thankfully I am not so limited.

[KainD]

Perhaps this is beyond the mental capacity of Kain D, but thankfully I am not so limited.

 

Lol. On the contrary, being limited is not beyond my mental capacity, but I choose not to be. 

[Former_Fiend]

Well he ain't exactly long living but yeah Obould the 1st was pretty awesome.

 

Well, now he's an immortal demi-god, so I'd say he won in the long run.

[Schreckstoff]

Well, now he's an immortal demi-god, so I'd say he won in the long run.

Sadly his efforts were in vain and he's probably not happy of what 4E is doing to his kind, spoilers from recent works.

 

Spoiler

but according to Cattie-Brie who speaks with the words of Mielikki Orcs are irredeemably evil, even more so than Drow who can be saved. The drow are going to use the kingdom of many-arrows to wage war on the surface in the name of the resurrected house Do'Urden (with Dahlia as Matron Mother)

[Jorji Costava]

No you can't. 

 

Sure you can. For instance, I might criticize another culture for a certain practice I find distasteful or abhorrent, and also criticize my own culture for some practice I also find to be seriously wrong; when I do this, I'm not saying that my culture is simultaneously better than and worse than some other culture.

 

Also, this article by Amanda Lange might be of some tangential reference to the original post: It's about how in games with binary moral choice systems (i.e. Mass Effect, Fable, etc.), the majority of players actually choose the traditionally "good" options most of the time; the article itself notes that in games without explicit morality systems like Dragon Age, the breakdown might be different.

[Augustei]

If he does, I'll probably get tired of him too, I guess. If I have a main beef with anything here, it's just idealists in general. I'd rather point out crappy things for what they are. And in the course of life, if I have to, I'll wade through crap myself. But I'm never going to tell myself the crap smells good.

He seems to be A deluded idealist, as evidenced in his letter about the blight "We Wardens are Orlesian by address only, yet that doesn't seem to matter to Fereldens leaders"
Were that the case then why the hell did the Wardens help Emperor Drakon spread chantry influence in the north? Why is it that i'm told that "The Orlesian Empress only sent 12 wardens" to me when I needed them in Amaranthine dispite The First Warden wanting to send more?
 

[Jaison1986]

Hmm, it seems to be rather repetitive for Blackwall to be an carbon copy of Alistair. But if were that the case I don't think he would bother me as much as Alistair, after all, the turning point with Alistair is that I was an warden as well. It was personal. And then I was forced into service to this horrible order while that guy over there could only sing praise to them. That was what pissed me off the most. So even if Blackwall is like that, it shouldn't be as annoying. I'm not a warden as far as I know, I don't have the same resentment, so, the most reaction Blackwall would get from me is an "eh, if that's how you feel about them, that's how you feel, carry on".

[Ieldra]

Regarding the topic:

It's not so much "good" characters I tend to find fault with. As long as there is a diverse set of NPCs, I'm fine with them. Usually, the way Bioware writes them, most "good" characters have edges that prevent them from being boring. Was Wynne "good"? As a rule, I don't put labels on npcs that way. As a person, she was annoying and preachy in an overbearing way, she was dedicated to the existing Circle system, she was a healer. You don't need to be "good" to fight the Blight, that need was visible to anyone not from the moon, and whether you see it as a grim necessity or a sacred duty doesn't make you any less or more "good". There was rarely a lack of interesting characters in Bioware's games, enough so that I didn't mind the occasional stereotypical goody-two-shoes.

What I *do* find fault with - and this has been rather frequent in Bioware's stories - is if the story itself appears to have an opinion, and it's one I find completely delusional. Namely, that good actions always have good outcomes, and that pragmatism never pays off. May I repeat that this is delusional? I like a good balance of idealists and cynics or whatever the scale is these days, and I don't mind the complete absence of any outright evil companions, but I would like the stories to be less delusional. Pragmatism is pragmatic because it usually pays off, and for anyone with real power, while aiming for good results is usually seen as being highly desirable, sticking to principles rather than being expedient in the means used to achieve said good results is all too often a liability that has unforeseen consequences of a usually bad nature. There are actually studies about such things.

Which means that people of good intentions usually realize their intentions best if they can leave their principles aside here and there. I would like my stories to be not so far away from reality in this that I can't suspend my disbelief anymore without feeling stupid.

[Xilizhra]

Regarding the topic:

It's not so much "good" characters I tend to find fault with. As long as there is a diverse set of NPCs, I'm fine with them. Usually, the way Bioware writes them, most "good" characters have edges that prevent them from being boring. Was Wynne "good"? As a rule, I don't put labels on npcs that way. As a person, she was annoying and preachy in an overbearing way, she was dedicated to the existing Circle system, she was a healer. You don't need to be "good" to fight the Blight, that need was visible to anyone not from the moon, and whether you see it as a grim necessity or a sacred duty doesn't make you any less or more "good". There was rarely a lack of interesting characters in Bioware's games, enough so that I didn't mind the occasional stereotypical goody-two-shoes.

What I *do* find fault with - and this has been rather frequent in Bioware's stories - is if the story itself appears to have an opinion, and it's one I find completely delusional. Namely, that good actions always have good outcomes, and that pragmatism never pays off. May I repeat that this is delusional? I like a good balance of idealists and cynics or whatever the scale is these days, and I don't mind the complete absence of any outright evil companions, but I would like the stories to be less delusional. Pragmatism is pragmatic because it usually pays off, and for anyone with real power, while aiming for good results is usually seen as being highly desirable, sticking to principles rather than being expedient in the means used to achieve said good results is all too often a liability that has unforeseen consequences of a usually bad nature. There are actually studies about such things.

I would like my stories to be not so far away from reality in this that I can't suspend my disbelief anymore without feeling stupid.

I would not agree, as pragmatism can be just as subjective as idealism, and what one person calls pragmatic may not be called pragmatic by another. And I especially don't see this issue arising in Dragon Age, as virtually no bad consequence from what may have been a pragmatic decision could not have been foreseen: for instance, saving the Anvil of the Void leaves it under the control of a complete lunatic, and this fact isn't exactly hidden. To defile the Urn of Sacred Ashes has easily foreseeable consequences among your party alone. Siding with the werewolves means that they remain bestial and ill-controlled. And in DA2, no decision ever seems to have fully optimal consequences, so I don't entirely see why you're concerned with this coming into DAI.