311 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree in the case of social interactions. Otherwise I maintain my statement.

 

When it comes to decisions, this is how I proceed:

 

-> What is my goal : save the most people possible (which is the point of stopping the blight, so stopping the blight is really just the method used to accomplish my primary goal)

 

-> What are the options

 

-> Which one fulfills my objective the best, or failing that, which one comes the closest

 

Anything else is disregarded, I'll kill 1000 to save 1001, given of course that those individuals are all of equal value, saving 10 000 peasants only saves 10 000 lives, while saving 1000 wardens will most likely save many 10s of 1000s. As for the question of souls and afterlife, nothing so far in the series has given me reason to think those things are any less non-existent than they are in reality. 

 

Though I do equate a life and a consciousness so in my opinion you're not dead if who you are still exists. So to me the ancient elf in the flask who teaches you the Arcane Warrior specialization is alive, while I consider a brain dead patient whose body is sustained by a machine to be a corpse. Or a pseudo-zombie at best.

Which is nice as far as it applies to you, but only as it applies to you. The problem with objectivity is that different people have different standards and viewpoints on what goals and objectives are (or should be). Critiques of objectivity and rational decision-making often run into the problem of people projecting their standards onto others and believing others should logically come to the same conclusions.

 

To take a recent real-world example, there was a huge and fundamental disconnect between Western foreign policy makers and the Russians during the Russian intervention in Ukraine. When Russia was sending forces into the Crimea, European and American policy makers were scrambling to provide a means for de-escelation. This was the much vaunted 'off-ramp', the objectively superior way to let Russia back down without losing face and bringing forth sanctions. It was an argument born and presented of terms of objectivity and rationality: that if the West could give Putin a superior outcome to annexing Crimea, he wouldn't. It was, policy makers were trying to assure everyone, an obvious and ideal solution, a mixture of carrots and sticks.

 

Except, of course, Putin completely ignored the off-ramp and annexed Crimea anyway. Maybe it was because the carrots were too small, or the sticks too small, or maybe it was because Putin in this case was a friggen bear with a taste for meat. An objectivity analysis tailored towards a rabit isn't going to work well if applied to a bear.

 

 

There's more to the limits of abstract consequentialism, of course. Non-numeric measures of value, social legitimacy and values, concepts of diminishing returns and so on. But that's all besides the point- the point is that even consequentialism (which you are valuing here) is not an objectively objective thing. It still depends on what you consider consequential or not.

[Ieldra]

You say 'principled zealot' like it's a bad thing.

This is a character who will stick to his principles even where that will have a bad outcome. Yeah, I do think it's a bad thing.

[Dean_the_Young]

This is a character who will stick to his principles even where that will have a bad outcome. Yeah, I do think it's a bad thing.

 

In the extreme, sure. Extremism through absurdity. But in the moderate?

 

People who don't stick to their principles even when they have bad outcomes don't have principles. They have preferences, but ultimately stand for nothing.

[KainD]

-> What is my goal : save the most people possible (which is the point of stopping the blight, so stopping the blight is really just the method used to accomplish my primary goal).

What a meaningless goal.

[KainD]

People who don't stick to their principles even when they have bad outcomes don't have principles. They have preferences, but ultimately stand for nothing.

Wise people.

[Ieldra]

In the extreme, sure. Extremism through absurdity. But in the moderate?

 

People who don't stick to their principles even when they have bad outcomes don't have principles. They have preferences, but ultimately stand for nothing.

They stand for better outcomes regardless of principles. Also, it's different if you accept bad consequences only for yourself. Obviously that's your choice and your sacrifice to make. But sticking to your principles when it causes suffering for others is different, if by bending a little you could've avoided it.

 

Edit:

Also, I am a consequentialist but I still have principles. I stick to them where I am unable to evaluate the consequences of my actions, which is, unfortunately, most of the time. However, if I can evaluate the likely consequences, I will act to bring out the best outcome.

[Dean_the_Young]

They stand for better outcomes regardless of principles. Also, it's different if you accept bad consequences only for yourself. Obviously that's your choice and your sacrifice to make. But sticking to your principles when it causes suffering for others is different, if by bending a little you could've avoided it.

 

 

And... now you're walking it back. Caveat it all you'd like, but you're stepping further and further away from what you started off claiming.

 

Unsurprising, really. No one admires the moral aspects of a person who acts purely off of what benefits them.

[Sir DeLoria]

Wise people.

Nope, irrelevant, petty people.

What a meaningless goal.

Goals are subjective.

[Incantrix]

There was the same tendency to marry the pragmatic with the evil in ME, namely in the Collector Base decision. Quite obviously there was a huge potential for abuse if you saved it, but you'd need to be a principles zealot to see any evil in the action itself. Yet the story appeared to insist that you should see it as evil, and reinforced that by forcing you to give it to man you could be pretty sure would abuse it.

 

Oh, I did absolutely hate that choice. I wanted that collector base so bad, but I just couldn't leave it to cerberus. That's one choice where I believe bioware messed up, you could have easily given it to the Alliance or the Citadel for research. Instead, you were forced to give it the guys you know would mess up.

[Schreckstoff]

I stick to principles often.. and meet bad outcomes.

I wouldn't recommend it really. lol. I can't help myself sometimes, but you'd be wise not to imitate.

Even my most ruthless, cynical and pragmatic characters have 1 or 2 principles they won't relinquish under any circumstances, one of them usually slavery.

[naddaya]

Now, English isn't my first language and subtle semantic changes might be lost on me, so I'm summoning almighty Google for help:

 

Zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

 

Being fanatical doesn't look like the same as being passionate or believing strongly in something to me, which brings me to:

 

Fanatic: a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.

 

 

In the extreme, sure. Extremism through absurdity. But in the moderate?

 

People who don't stick to their principles even when they have bad outcomes don't have principles. They have preferences, but ultimately stand for nothing.

 

Looks bad enough to me. There is no such thing as a moderate zealot.

[Doominike]

What a meaningless goal.

Well it's pretty much the goal of the game so that's what I must work to fulfill. Personally I think absolutely everything is completely devoid of meaning or purpose excepting those you choose to apply to them. For exemple I think life is merely a biochemical accident and thus has no purpose, but I don't kill myself because I chose to apply a personal purpose to my own life, namely having fun and being happy. And I don't see the lives of others to be important unless they have to do with either my entertainment or my happiness. To clarify I don't regard other people as useless objects, it's that I only believe in subjective meaning so I think the lives of others are not my problem/business. They can do what they wish so long as they don't interfere with my personal purpose, and if they die I don't care because that's their problem. 

 

But that would make for a boring story in a game

[KainD]

Nope, irrelevant, petty people.


Goals are subjective.

Everybody are irrelevant petty people, some just have hard time facing it.


They are subjective indeed. I merely expressed my opinion

[KainD]

But that would make for a boring story in a game

Not at all. Take Nwn2 motb for example - completely personal story, yet epic and good written.

[Sir DeLoria]

Everybody are irrelevant petty people, some just have hard time facing it.

Irrelevant in what sense? Society? Humanity? People who stand for nothing and have no principles or morals don't change or influence anything.

Of course we're all irrelevant to the universe, but by that sense why even bother with anything anyway?

[Sir DeLoria]

People with morals don't necessarily change anything either. There are probably thousands of forgotten Indians during the British occupation, but we mostly just remember Gandhi. We're not all going to impact things like Gandhi. Or MLK Jr.. Or whoever. And go even further back in the past, and the world is full of the unmarked graves of soldiers and warriors and oppressed people who tried to make a stad, who thought they would change something.
 
Not to be a downer though. Things should be done anyhow, not necessarily because you might change things. It might take millions of people like you to die in order to wake others up.

Yeah of course not everyone is going to become famous for standing up for something, but like you said, every one of these people shaped history.

Whereas someone who just idly watches and supports whoever is winning can't be proud of anything.

[Ieldra]

And... now you're walking it back. Caveat it all you'd like, but you're stepping further and further away from what you started off claiming.

 

Unsurprising, really. No one admires the moral aspects of a person who acts purely off of what benefits them.

Not the point. If I value certain outcomes enough, then I will accept personal disadvantages to bring them about. If I value them even more, I will accept others being hurt by my actions as I bring them about. Pragmatism does not equal selfishness. My goals may or may not be designed to benefit others, and being pragmatic or not defines *how* I will work towards them rather than if.

[Doominike]

Not at all. Take Nwn2 motb for example - completely personal story, yet epic and good written.

I meant I would either just play around which means either no adventure or an adventure for it's own sake (so no endgame and stuff). Or a severe upset of the Status Quo. 

[Althix]

To take a recent real-world example, there was a huge and fundamental disconnect between Western foreign policy makers and the Russians during the Russian intervention in Ukraine. When Russia was sending forces into the Crimea, European and American policy makers were scrambling to provide a means for de-escelation.

you really don't want to go there, trust me.

 

i suggest you to study this situation more closely, unless you, like Jen Psaki, want to send 6th fleet to a country which have no access to the sea or ocean.

[KainD]

I meant I would either just play around which means either no adventure or an adventure for it's own sake (so no endgame and stuff). Or a severe upset of the Status Quo.

Have you played that campaign? Its not for adventure sake. You get caught in the crossfire between Gods and you have to save your soul or you die, and you fight all the way to heaven as a mortal and challenge a God. You CAN make a bigger statement about God unfairness and try to save other peoples souls, but the bottom line is YOU have to survive, and you can screw everyone else.

[duckley]

I dont think there is a backlash against "good" characters. I found Wynne and Leliana a bit preachy at times, so they annoyed me. I have a different take on Alistair 

 

I think Alistair  was alot more clever than he let on. He was great at  using the "lead from behind" approach. Ever notice how he would provide the Warden with just the right amount of information so that he/she could make a (his) decision. Alistair knew something about everything - obviously well read on the history, culture, nobility, religion etc. His self effacing humor made him loveable and engageable ( yes and whiny and insecure to some) , but I always found him very clear on what was right and wrong, what was his duty. He may not have wanted to rule, but once he  took it  the role, - even at the risk of losing the love of his life he did it well. Not that the prologues mean much, but apprarently he ruled well. His rousing speech to the troops, and his praise of the Warden were that of an articulate man.

 

Dont forget,  he knew his very existance would be seen by some as a threat to Cailin! When your life could be forfeit by someone who sees you as a threat - self-effacing, lead-them-from-behind is a good approach. I think he had all the making as a great leader - a leader with some compassion and humility can't be all that bad eh?

[Doominike]

No I haven't played NeverWinter Nights, I meant in Thedas