I'd disagree.Not really.
Dead communists used to be something 90% of the world could agree on.
:/
I'd disagree.Not really.
Stalin was a fiend, but he helped save the world from a worse one (not out of altruism, but some of the things he did, like the industrialization program, were vital).
That's true - the devil you know and all that. I think no one denies that the Russians were important allies during WWII and that Stalin was way better than the alternative to letting the Germans roll over everyone, but Stalinist-era pogroms, Stalin's treatment of the scientific establishment during his rule, and his general brutality weren't exactly positives.
I suppose everyone should get back to discussing Cullen, though. ![]()
I'd disagree.
Dead communists used to be something 90% of the world could agree on.
:/
Well, it's your Fatherland that got pissed on harder because of it.
I'd disagree.
Dead communists used to be something 90% of the world could agree on.
:/
Pfft.That was a world of black and white, a mentality one would hope that few uphold nowadays.
Well, it's your Fatherland that got pissed on harder because of it.
Pfft.
Right.
I'm going to have a shot to bygone ideals then.
Eh...only half father land.
Those dirty communists never touched Oslo with their army.
Which is good for them.
Were next to a ocean.
Why would they have? Norway was no friend of Germany's.
Why would they have? Norway was no friend of Germany's.
things I hope you never teach... think of the younglings lolGlobal communist revolution.
The purpose of that accused regime.
Honestly what do they teach kids these days
Global communist revolution.
The purpose of that accused regime.
Honestly what do they teach kids these days
Global communist revolution.
The purpose of that accused regime.
Honestly what do they teach kids these days
Well, less in the way of Red Scare propaganda.
What I learned from history was something along the lines of the West overreacting to claims for global revolution
things I hope you never teach... think of the younglings lol
He leaves the templar order because they weren´t doing anything worth it after the Kirkwall´s circle fell, so with the inquisition he feels he can help the world more, i´m fine with him leaving temporarily to resolve the crisis. I´m talking more about when the game ends.
He says that some of the harsh stuff he saw as a templar disturbs him, and that "i want nothing to do with that life". To me that sounds a lot like a grey warden seeing a broodmother or ogre and going "****, this is too scary for me, i´m leaving the order. wait i´m still tainted.."
That´s the thing with Cullen, if he cures his lyrium addiction then he is no longer a templar, he effectively left the order because he no longer liked it in there, and got away with it. Do you think that sets a good precedent? Should templars be able to quit when they decide they had enough? In the military, that would be deserting.
It sounds like the lyrium addiction is what keeps them on the job, even when it becomes hard to bear, same way that the wardens put up with a lot of crap because they must - if the taint was cured, most would quit like Fiona, and do something else that fight darkspawn until they themselves become a ghoul.
I see a lot of similarities between these two orders, like both being warriors who make sacrifices, and who endure hard things normal soldiers could not. It cheapens the sacrifice if someone can just decide to quit when they no longer like it.
What do you think about Cullen and his decision to both quit the templars and taking lyrium?
I think you're using the wrong word. As I understand it, desertion in the military world is leaving without permission or some sort of formal resignation, and with the intention of avoiding danger/obligations.
Cullen's codex suggests a rational and conscious decision to resign from the Order. He didn't abandon anyone (if he did do something so disgraceful, I think Cassandra would've changed her mind lol) Having been a knight-commander, and currently an upstanding military figure, surely he picked a replacement for his position.
Aside from the formal definition of desertion, I kind of see where you're coming from. But it needs to be pointed out that there's a different in quitting because you've 'had enough' and quitting because of fundamental differences between what you wanted out of said organization and what the said organization actually accomplishes.
Cullen quit because of the latter. I wouldn't equate it with 'desertion', certainly not in the military sense of the word. He left the Order because it wasn't the Order he believed it to be, and he certainly didn't leave because it was too dangerous.
Imagine if Cullen was a member of an American police force, and decided to quit because of the insidious amounts of ongoing police brutality and corruption, and turned to a different path for another means of protecting society. To me, that's not desertion, but simply switching careers because your old job had betrayed its original purpose.
I'd disagree.
Dead communists used to be something 90% of the world could agree on.
:/
Especially those who were persecuted for "counter-revolutionary activities" because they practiced their religion.
Like some in my family.
I'm not saying the USSR, or perhaps more generally communism, didn't have a part to play but rhetoric isn't the same as action.Oh so that was a overreaction.
Heh
Oh dear....I do volunteer at the local kindergarten...
Well rhetoric isn't the same as action.
Oh dear....
It wasn't rhetoric.
Just ask south east asia, south america, and western europe.
@Sifr Sorry, but I need to ask: Why do you end all of your sentences in question marks? Is your period button broken? ![]()
Because nobody in those areas wanted communism?