Guest_StreetMagic_*
The choice that makes the most sovereigns.
After all of the DLC in DAO (Reaper's Cudgel, for example), and all my Fortune rune tactics in DA2, I don't need any more sovereigns. I end the games with too much money actually. I don't know what to spend it on.
After all of the DLC in DAO (Reaper's Cudgel, for example), and all my Fortune rune tactics in DA2, I don't need any more sovereigns. I end the games with too much money actually. I don't know what to spend it on.
I blow all of my money on powerful rings from the Black Emporium, much in the same fashion Bleeding Gums Murphy went broke buying Faberge eggs.
There is no right or wrong choice in anything.
Real world or Thedas. On a cosmological scale the entire existence of civilizations are there for only a brief insignificant instance in the grand scheme of things. Every instance of choice - in whatever direction - is equally meaningless. When the world destroys itself, or the sun goes supernova, or catastrophe occurs - no one is left to judge or remember anything.
Moral nihilism http://en.wikipedia..../Moral_nihilism
In the dark cold space where countless decisions once took place. Not a single one is left to remember any of these. No one is left to judge. There is only darkness. In the futility of our insignificant existence, we desperately try to apply meaning to things in daily life.
If a glass falls from a rooftop towards the ground. Then it matters not if the glass was empty, half-full, or full. The glass and its contents will shatter. The content inside this brief moment of falling, have no value.
/thread
So I know this is a bit tangent-y, but while this sort of argument does make a good talking point for movie villains, I've just never been able to figure out how it's supposed to work. Adapting a line of reasoning from Thomas Nagel, if we were actually very large in comparison to the universe, or if our lives were of infinite duration, would that somehow make our lives have moral value? If not, then what exactly is supposed to be the connection between the finitude and smallness of our lives and the conclusion that morality is an illusion?
Considerations like these make me strongly suspect that if there is any case to be made for nihilism, it will have nothing to do with the size of the universe in proportion to us. This is generally borne out in the writings of authors who do defend a kind of moral error theory (J.L. Mackie, Richard Joyce, etc.); they generally appeal to considerations having to do with moral disagreements, the nature of moral reasons, etc. and not anything having to do with the smallness of our existence in proportion to the cosmos.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Considerations like these make me strongly suspect that if there is any case to be made for nihilism, it will have nothing to do with the size of the universe in proportion to us. This is generally borne out in the writings of authors who do defend a kind of moral error theory (J.L. Mackie, Richard Joyce, etc.); they generally appeal to considerations having to do with moral disagreements, the nature of moral reasons, etc. and not anything having to do with the smallness of our existence in proportion to the cosmos.
I think the only case that can be made for nihilism is the same one that can made for morality.
Power.
You can't just declare there is no morality (or is a morality) and think it's going to be settled at that. The sad truth is the high ground is gained by crushing everyone else who opposes you. There is no default victor. I hate the kind of arrogance that just declares it wins and that "This is how the world works and that's that."
There might be some metaphysical truth out there somewhere on the nature of morality (or nihilism), but we don't have the luxury of it. All we have to make something "true" is power. Talk is cheap, unfortunately.
Trust me, I never make the wrong choice I'm always right!
I think the only case that can be made for nihilism is the same one that can made for morality.
Power.
You can't just declare there is no morality (or is a morality) and think it's going to be settled at that. The sad truth is the high ground is gained by crushing everyone else who opposes you. There is no default victor. I hate the kind of arrogance that just declares it wins and that "This is how the world works and that's that."
There might be some metaphysical truth out there somewhere on the nature of morality (or nihilism), but we don't have the luxury of it. All we have to make something "true" is power. Talk is cheap, unfortunately.
I blow all of my money on powerful rings from the Black Emporium, much in the same fashion Bleeding Gums Murphy went broke buying Faberge eggs.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
If there are objective moral truths, then "power" does not change whether they are truths or not, any more than it changes whether 1 + 1 = 2. It has nothing to do with arrogance.
I mean it's arrogance to simply say one is right about nihilism (or whatever else).. and then ending the post with "/thread"
It's like a child saying they're right about something "just because". Or a parent saying "just because", for that matter. lol
It's a half-baked claim to power. If you started killing people, causing holy wars and holocausts, I might call it something other than arrogance though. Something uglier, but not mere arrogance.
If you want to define reality, then expect a lot of bloodshed. You don't just win by saying so.
Well idk what 'right choice' is for what person but I went with choices that would benefit world...not me or my personal feelings.For example:
Dragon Age Origins/Awakening
-I hate guts of Bhalen but I always leave him as ruler.Simple reason is he is efficient ruler while Harrowmont mabye noble,nice,good and all he is horrible ruler.
So I went with politics irl...would we rather have leader that is good and noble but is incompetent and makes people and it's country suffer for his incompetence or would we have leader that is not that nice and is scumbag by all means but he is competent and both country and people gain a lot with no losses plus condition is greatly improved?Well I would rather have personally leader that knows what to do rather then leader full of ideals that he can't complete.That is why Bhalen gets my vote to be king always despite my personal feelings for him.
-I hate Anora as well but I make her and Alistair married and yes I leave Loghain alive as well.Why?Anora as much as I dislike her is good ruler and once again she is competent one in here and Alistair has only claims to throne by his blood but doesn't know at thing about ruling.Reason why I bring them together is...Alistair is Marric's son and lot of people respect that while Anora is competent leader and has experience...if I leave Alistair as alone king or even marry my warden to him we get king that doesn't know how to lead and warden that despite being hero and all she is still not Anora(as much as I hate to admit that)which means she is symbol people respect her but hey "to rule contry" is what is needed of king/queen plus two wardens can't have kid which each other which means that possibility of having heir to throne which is key...is impposible.Or if we leave only Anora problems when it comes to government won't be problem for her in fact there will be no problems but lots of people respect Marric's bloodline and to have Anora alone in what Marric built...doesn't seem right.That is why I get Anora and Alistair together since it's best political move...as for why Loghain is alive well you have to understand while he is traitor he is is/was Ferelden's greatest hero plus he is best military brain...besides honestly if we will go "by our emotion decision" I don't have reason to want to kill Loghain.Cailen I never liked he seems like some random brat fool that has his head stuck up in clouds rather then reality while he was 'playboy' around Anora was left with dealing with country.Duncan I did liked but still I didn't know him like Alistair to go 'rampage' over his death...and honestly let's just say Duncan's "Join Wardens now or I won't save you" kinda made me wanting to give him good punch as much as I was in love with that guy 
.So angry for Duncan's death...yes...angry for Cailen...no in fact I wanted to give Loghain personal thanks for that one 
-Other minor decisions were:let urn be,everyone alive and well,mages get to live Cullen becomes lunatic it seems 
,werewolves's curse is broken,connor/isoled,Morrigan had baby,and in DLC's I got both keep/city protected in short everyone is alive.
As for DA2 only decision that was most mayor for me at least(beside side with templars/mages and decided what fate awaits your sister/brother) was should I give Isabela to qunari or no.First I don't have problems giving her at all but if I do wench will escape and steal tome again...while if I save her and kill Arishok(after long embarrassing battle) at least qunari get tome back...so as much as I hate myself for doing this...I end up saving Isabela 
because as I said I don't let my personal feelings to get involved I do what I feel it would be best and qunari with tome rather with none is better.As for brother/sister I make them Grey Wardens and side with mages unless I want to be viscount then I'm forced to be with templars 
Still that is how I play/chose and think and this is world state I plan to have when I start playing Inquisition.Were my decisions right or wrong,good or bad...I don't care how someone else sees them but in my opinion my decisions were perfect for me.
greater good choices are the GOAT
I usually tell myself, if he wanted to die, he wouldve said so or committed suicide already. Its not like he's in a vegetative state, he's still conscious and aware
There is no difference he will die few days later , smashed by an horde of Darkspawn with Urthemiel.
All choices have good reasons to choose them, therefore none are wrong by your definition.
There is one choice really and completly EVIL in this game, evil by definition.
KILL a poor mabari at ostagar 
Retour en haut
