1396 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Sarah1281 wrote...
It's probably easier than trying to anticipate every problem one might have with Wynne or other companion's philosphies. But I do SO wish that you could tell Wynne, when you're asking her to butt out, that she's not a GW so she shouldn't presume to act like she knows better than you on that particular matter.

True that.

Alot of companions need to be told to buzz off at times.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
But I could've sworn I saw the word dislike in your post.

Dislike her as a video game character because I am indifferent to her as a person.
That's what I meant.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Sarah: Law doesn't necessarily mean laws of society or nation. Lawful Neutral can also mean a person who follows a very rigid, inflexible moral code personally, or someone who holds self discipline and control as higher values. In terms of the concepts of law and chaos in D&D, the apply to personal outlooks and practices as much as they do the relationship of a character or person within the greater framework of society. So one can find the many laws of society to be incredibly stupid, but still be lawful neutral if the place high value on the ideas of discipline, order, and routine.



@KoP: That sounds about right. One's alignment/outlook could change in certain circumstances, as I have always felt that the alignment system was more a guide than anything.



I'd have to say I'm pretty much Chaotic neutral in all things, even if I ended up persuing or gaining power. I'd instinctivekly be using it to subtly undermine the structure and fabric of government and society, since I've always had a natural aversion to any sort of structure or order. But if I were to lean towards any other alignment, it would be either true neutral or chaotic evil.

[Reaverwind]

Avilia wrote...

@Glaucon - if it helps your study of Wynne's supporters/non supporters. My canon choices are:

Help in Lothering
Recruit Leliana
Recruit Sten
Betray Kitty/recruit Shale
Annul the Circle
Crown Bhelen/destroy Anvil
Kill Avernus and Sophia
Cure the werewolves
Kill Connor
No defiling of ashes/no killing of high dragon
Alistair rules/marries Anora
Recruit Loghain/allow Loghain to kill the Archdemon

(Chaotic neutral btw - yay!)

Out of curiosity, when you annulled the Circle, did you do so by letting Irving die, or did you have the Templars take the mages in?

Majority of my playthroughs are as follows:

Recruit all NPC's
Help in Lothering
Give Cailin's body traditional send-off (RtO)
Kill Avernus
Kill Connor
Preserve Ashes
Crown Bhelen / Destroy Anvil
Cure the werewolves
Execute Loghain

Circle and Throne of Fereldan - varies depending on Origin

Modifié par Reaverwind, 16 décembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[Avilia]

Reaverwind wrote...

Out of curiosity, when you annulled the Circle, did you do so by letting Irving die, or did you have the Templars take the mages in?

Templars take the mages in.   Trying not to meta game it that seemed the best option to my DC.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
But I could've sworn I saw the word dislike in your post.

Dislike her as a video game character because I am indifferent to her as a person.
That's what I meant.

Ah I see.

[Addai]

I tested as a Neutral Good, which does sound about right, especially the part about respecting freedom and independence above all, and sometimes seeing "law and order" as a hindrance to the true good.  That's kind of what I was getting at upthread.  Someone with Stockholm Syndrome to the powers-that-be, like Wynne, is frustrating.  Keep your lectures and sermons, granny!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
@KoP: That sounds about right. One's alignment/outlook could change in certain circumstances, as I have always felt that the alignment system was more a guide than anything.

Yea, I think that's what most moralists / idealists / morality meters always fail to take into account. Circumstances.

Someone with political power is going to have a different perspective from those who don't. Of course, hence comes the cliched "power corrupts", when in reality it's more likely that power provides a whole new set of concerns, a different perspective and usually tends to slap realism into overly idealistic people (many of whom end up becoming tyrants because they stubbornly cling to their naive beliefs and don't adapt. Robespierre is the best example). Power forces smart people to adapt to its needs and adopt a different perspective.  

"Power corrupts" is just meeh.
For me, power gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on their greed. It doesn't corrupt them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:03 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I came out as neutral good as well.



Wynne on the whole is simply a preachy hypocrite who acts like she knows more about being a Grey Warden then you do.

I have a really hard time being near her though, she just grates on me the whole game.

[Zjarcal]

Stupid Alignment test is stupid. Apparently I'm Neutral Good, which doesn't sound too bad at first except for the description:

"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable."

NEVER! If anything, the Chaotic Good description is much more fitting for me.

Of course, the problem is that the choices you get for answers are very limited and don't really portray all the possible answers you could come up with, which is why I hate pigeonholing myself or a character I create into such alignments.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Wulfram]

It's not Wynne's fault we've heard her lectures 50 times.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

Stupid Alignment test is stupid. Apparently I'm Neutral Good, which doesn't sound too bad at first except for the description:

"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable."

NEVER! If anything, the Chaotic Good description is much more fitting for me.

Even if say, that king or magistrate happens to be me?

[Ryzaki]

Addai67 wrote...

I tested as a Neutral Good, which does sound about right, especially the part about respecting freedom and independence above all, and sometimes seeing "law and order" as a hindrance to the true good.  That's kind of what I was getting at upthread.  Someone with Stockholm Syndrome to the powers-that-be, like Wynne, is frustrating.  Keep your lectures and sermons, granny!

Heh I guess being Chaotic Neutral takes that to it's extremes.

I am not behoden to yor silly good or evil bindings.

Though I see your point somewhat better now.Wynne does nag.

I still like the women but she does *nag*.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For me, power gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on their greed. It doesn't corrupt them.

And when one thinks men by their very nature are capable of greed they don't want any single person getting enough power to act on it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For me, power gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on their greed. It doesn't corrupt them.

And when one thinks men by their very nature are capable of greed they don't want any single person getting enough power to act on it.

I believe some can resist the temptation. And if they are smart enough to get power, then they earned the "right" to satisfy their greed, so long as they don't forget their responsabilities. People who have only greed as a motivator tend to be very bad leaders anyways and seldom get power, but inherit it (people like that usually defer to Viziers to rule for them, because they are too busy acting like children). 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Even if say, that king or magistrate happens to be me?

LMAO!! Sorry KoP, but this is one of those things where I'm inflexible. Politics, power, laws... all that stuff is SO not for me in the slightest.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:19 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For me, power gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on their greed. It doesn't corrupt them.

And when one thinks men by their very nature are capable of greed they don't want any single person getting enough power to act on it.

I believe some can resist the temptation. And if they are smart enough to get power, then they earned the "right" to satisfy their greed, so long as they don't forget their responsabilities. People who have only greed as a motivator tend to be very bad leaders anyways and seldom get power, but inherit it (people like that usually defer to Viziers to rule for them, because they are too busy acting like children). 

And that's where you and I differ. I don't believe in one being able to resist that temptation for very long nor that anyone has any "right" to be greedy.

That said that's just me.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Even if say, that king or magistrate happens to be me?

LMAO!! Sorry KoP, but this is one of those things where I'm inflexible. Politics, power, laws... all that stuff is SO not for me in the slightest.

Hmmm, I'll have to come up with something to make you less inflexible

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Even if say, that king or magistrate happens to be me?

LMAO!! Sorry KoP, but this is one of those things where I'm inflexible. Politics, power, laws... all that stuff is SO not for me in the slightest.

Hmmm, I'll have to come up with something to make you less inflexible

Bring Leliana into real life and Z would do whatever it is you asked her to.

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:23 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Bring Leliana into real life and Z would do whatever it is you asked her to.

I was thinking something along those lines, yea.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...
And that's where you and I differ. I don't believe in one being able to resist that temptation for very long nor that anyone has any "right" to be greedy.

That said that's just me.

I think there were many leaders that, while greedy (let's assume for the sake of argument. There is a fine line between greed and ambition imo), improved the wellfare of their communities and peoples a lot. So in that sense, I really don't mind.

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I think there were many leaders that, while greedy (let's assume for the sake of argument. There is a fine line between greed and ambition imo), improved the wellfare of their communities and peoples a lot. So in that sense, I really don't mind.

Gah my comp ate my post.

Anyways I agree on the fine line.

But the greed of my leader would always bug me, as it is the greed of my country bothers me but I can't do anything about it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:28 .

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Bring Leliana into real life and Z would do whatever it is you asked her to.

I was thinking something along those lines, yea. 

Well, a bribe of that nature would pretty much make the rest of the world futile so yeah, that would work!

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 décembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, I think that's what most moralists / idealists / morality meters always fail to take into account. Circumstances.

Someone with political power is going to have a different perspective from those who don't. Of course, hence comes the cliched "power corrupts", when in reality it's more likely that power provides a whole new set of concerns, a different perspective and usually tends to slap realism into overly idealistic people (many of whom end up becoming tyrants because they stubbornly cling to their naive beliefs and don't adapt. Robespierre is the best example). Power forces smart people to adapt to its needs and adopt a different perspective.  

"Power corrupts" is just meeh.
For me, power gives corrupt men the opportunity to act on their greed. It doesn't corrupt them.

I would tend to agree. The most frightening people to me are not the corrupt and greedy with power, but the total idealists who fully and inflexibly believe in their ideals to the point of fanaticism.

Your stereotypical "corrupt" politican does not bother me. Such a person is a self-interested pragmatist. They can be bought, manipulated, or intimidated into doing what you want, or will abandon a policy or agenda, given the right incentives or pressures. Pure idealists and fanatics can't, and will take the whole country with them clinging to dangerous inflexible ideals or beliefs.

Adolf Hitler was a good example. Disregarding his obviously unscientific and idiotic beliefs on race and destiny, he was fanatically idealistic, and ended up clinging to dreams and legends to the detriment of his entire country, tyrannically demanding obiedience to death of his nation, and dragging his country into near annihilation.

Those are the people in power who scare me. The ones who actually believe unswervingly in whatever idea posseses them, even when doing so is incredibly retarded and impracticle.

I personally have no problems with power, so long as it is not power being exerted over me. My own personal and political belief is in total anarchy. However, I am also aware that such a system is anethema to most of the human population, and tolerate the existance of government and control as what I consider a necessary "evil", similar to the need for religion and dogma. I simply choose to live outside such a set up, and accept whatever consequences result.

[IanPolaris]

For what it's worth, I think it's possible for certain rare and extraordinary individuals to be able to handle near absolute power with impunity and not be corrupted by it.  However, note the heavy emphasis on rare and extraordinary.  When looking at humanity as a whole and especially a situation such as primogeniture inheritance inherent in an aristrocracy, a position of such power can quickly become problematic because most people are not capable of resisting the corrupting nature of power.

So if talking abouit humanity as a whole, I do think it's fair to say as a basic rule that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and so division of power is almost always a good thing.  However, I do think there can be extraordinary individual exceptions.

-Polaris