1396 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

I agree with Skadi. Some of the most brutal and bloody dictators in history when they came into power were not those that were hungry for power, but rather devoted idealists. Robospeirre (sp?) of revolutionary France is a classic example as well.



-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

IanPolaris wrote...

I agree with Skadi. Some of the most brutal and bloody dictators in history when they came into power were not those that were hungry for power, but rather devoted idealists. Robospeirre (sp?) of revolutionary France is a classic example as well.

-Polaris

Maximilien Robespierre.

[yesnomaybe]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

I read a study a few years ago where researchers assigned subjects different jobs in a simulation of society and gave them problems to solve, and the people with the more important or powerful positions were generally more hypocritical than those with lesser positions.

I'd be more likely to say that people are just generally a little corrupt, but don't necessarily act on it when they aren't in a position to get away with it, just because it's been my experience that people jump at the opportunity to get what they want as soon as they get the chance, even when other people might suffer from it. However, my generation is supposedly the least empathetic in history and cares the least breaking laws, so maybe I'm just biased and if you take older people into account humanity is not so bad.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I also remember a study about career politicians/persons in power were smore likely to show sociopathic tendancies than the average person. They ranked moderately high on the scale.



Of course, a sociopath is a person who generally lacks empathy towards anything, and has a much lower conscience threshold than others. They are also prone to use and manipulate people more for their own gain or feeling of entitlement. Now, to the average person, these are not traits in someone you want living in your house, or even your neighborhood. But in the case of governance and politics, these are actually desirable traits to have, if one hopes to be successful or accomplish anything, good or ill in the general sense. In fact, it is almost preferable in certain situations that a person be reasonably sociopathic.



So again, whether power corrupts, or those of corrupt tendancies seek power, is really a matter of perspective on whether or not they are even fully corrupt. From the point of view of those with power, it is often the ruled that are derrelict and mentally ill.

[yesnomaybe]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I also remember a study about career politicians/persons in power were smore likely to show sociopathic tendancies than the average person. They ranked moderately high on the scale.

Of course, a sociopath is a person who generally lacks empathy towards anything, and has a much lower conscience threshold than others. They are also prone to use and manipulate people more for their own gain or feeling of entitlement. Now, to the average person, these are not traits in someone you want living in your house, or even your neighborhood. But in the case of governance and politics, these are actually desirable traits to have, if one hopes to be successful or accomplish anything, good or ill in the general sense. In fact, it is almost preferable in certain situations that a person be reasonably sociopathic.

So again, whether power corrupts, or those of corrupt tendancies seek power, is really a matter of perspective on whether or not they are even fully corrupt. From the point of view of those with power, it is often the ruled that are derrelict and mentally ill.

That's really interesting.

But could you explain what you mean by "fully corrupt"? Like straight-jacket crazy, or just fully realized use and manipulation of people?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I also remember a study about career politicians/persons in power were smore likely to show sociopathic tendancies than the average person. They ranked moderately high on the scale.

I think the succesful great leaders have more empathy than most people. But it's empathy vis a vis the big picture (which the masses don't care about) and not necessarily on an individual level. It might be equated with vision and sense of purpose.

But the Top 1 leader of all times in my personal list displays a high level of empathy both towards the big picture, with a vision that impacted human history like no other, and on an individual basis.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 décembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@yesnomaybe: The latter. A straight-jacket crazy couldn't really run a government or manage successfully in such a situation. And sociopathy isn't a mental illness per se, but a personality disorder, so they can function in day-to day society



@KoP: That's not empathy. Empathy is being able to share and understand the feelings of people or creatures. The bigger picture is not a living, feeling entity, it is a concept. Visionaries often lack human empathy because they are more heavily focused towards their bigger picture, with the exception of the founders of many religions or philosophies.



Successful leaders have vision and scope, which often comes at the cost of being able to connect and share with their fellow human on a very basic, personal level. Not really sharing in the pain or distress of those who might suffer because of one's policies is often helpful if one feels it is necessity to inflict such suffering to achieve a bigger or long term goal.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
@KoP: That's not empathy. Empathy is being able to share and understand the feelings of people or creatures. The bigger picture is not a living, feeling entity, it is a concept. Visionaries often lack human empathy because they are more heavily focused towards their bigger picture, with the exception of the founders of many religions or philosophies.

The bigger picture can represent the fate of many living beings. Communities, like nations and peoples, can be percieved as "organic living entities". Empathy literraly means passion.
But whatever you want to call it, the greater leaders usually care about something other than themselves quite profoundly and they do not have to be detached from reality by doing so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 décembre 2010 - 04:29 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I didn't say detached from reality. I said detached. As in detached from humanity.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Depends on how one defines "humanity". My definition of it is very limited.

[sleepingbelow]

Skadi's right. I've got an older friend who spent decades doing special forces work. Guy now makes BANK doing security work around the globe (EDIT: well, close to two decades or maybe a full two, I'm not sure). Part of what qualified him for it was a diagnosis of being a "functional sociopath." What that means is that certain triggers allow him to assume sociopathic behavior. It gives him sort of a weird vibe that made me really not like him at first, but he grew on me. "Sheep hate the wolves," and all that. Well, I think I prefer to think of myself as some sort of goat rather than a sheep. Anyway. Super wolfy vibe, but also a smart, funny dude.

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 17 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Depends on how one defines "humanity". My definition of it is very limited.

So is mine, for that matter. But I am not speaking from a personal perspective, but a general one. I am also not condeming per se, from a general perspective, the sociopathic tendancies of those wielding or seeking to wield power, just pointing out a relatively common aspect to those people. There are varying levels of sociopathy, and not all sociopaths are completely heartless bastards, either. And there are probably some in power completely devoid of sociopathic tendancies. But in general, politicans and people of power to display this behavior/personality type more frequently than the general population as a whole.

@sleepingbelow: You gave a very good example. Certain intelligence or special forces positions do actively seek functional sociopaths for recruitment, as such personality types are often considered necessary for the type of work in question. Not having a conscience, or having a very limited one, helps when you get up to some of the things they do. Wolf amongst the sheep....a very good analogy.

Edit to add: Sociopaths are often very charming, charismatic people. Though lacking empathy or having a limited capacity for it, they are very good at reading other people's emotions, and thus, are good at manipulating them. They can imitate genuine empathy quite well without actually feeling it, in order to blend in better, as well as get what they want from people. In fact, it's this mimicing talent that makes sociopaths so dreaded and dangerous in certain situations, because they can imitate and charm so well. Contrary to what some people might think, they are not cackling madmen running around going "RAWR! I'm gonna kick puppies, mwahahahaha!"

Quite the opposite, in fact. Ted Bundy was a pretty good example.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 17 décembre 2010 - 12:00 .

[LobselVith8]

Zjarcal wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Oh good so people can post here instead of the support thread.

Although without hate the support thread may die pretty quickly... that's been the fate of every other Wynne fan thread.

Anyway...



@Addai:

Sticky thread!!!! 

Too bad I wasn't around when Melkhati was active. A creator of such a divine thread must have been a really fun guy. 

I'm surprised this didn't happen when Wynne told Aneirin that he should go back to the Circle. The same Circle that tried to murder him.

RPGmom28 wrote...

I find Wynne to be a comforting presence in the group. She's witty, and she's a very good addition to any group with her skills. Of course, all of my characters are on the good end of the spectrum, so nothing I do upsets her except for my warden's insistence on dallying about with hot men. Which I won't apologize for, and will never, ever stop doing. But she gets over it.

Wynne does offer to go with Shale to Tevinter, which I respect, but I can't stand all her sermons, and she starts them from the moment you meet her, and she never stops giving them. For all the talk about how in tune she is with the Fade, she can't even realize that she's been ensnared by a Sloth Demon until the Warden knocks some sense into her. I can't stand that she excuses the oppressive system that the mages are forced to endure - they keep mages from having rights, from raising their children (including Wynne's own son), and have the right to kill you without evidence (like when the templars went to kill Wynne's apprentice, or even the case of the fake mage, the Magnificent D'Sims, who was killed for "healing" people).

She has no problem killing the Warden simply for agreeing with Morrigan's assessment of the Circle, or murdering the Warden if the ashes of Andraste are ruined, despite how fundamentally important the Warden is to saving Ferelden from the Blight. She tries to persuade her apprentice to return to the oppressive, dogmatic system that tried to murder him years ago. She's heading off to Cumberland to dissuade mages from trying to emancipate themselves across Thedas from being slaves of the Chantry. I can't stand how she can acknowledge that the Chantry would murder every mage if they tried to emancipate themselves from Chantry control, but does nothing to change the system she's a part of.

Reaverwind wrote...

Tigress M wrote...

Reading about Wynne and RTO reminded me of last playthrough where I took Loghain with me to Ostagar. After picking up the quest, he highly suggested I leave the circle mage at camp for that trek. I thought that was incredibly funny!

Really? Does he say why?

I think it's evident when you bring Wynne along with you why Loghain wouldn't want her along for the ride. She harps on him throughout the quest. She berates him when you acquire the armor pieces. Loghain does call her on her b.s., though, and points out the idoicy of Cailan tossing Anora aside to be with the Empress of Orlais once you find Cailan's letters. If nothing else, Loghain calling Wynne on her crap is reason enough to spare him.

[danerman]

Why all the hate for good old granny bloodmage? I know Wynne can get preachy, even turn on the Warden, but give the old lady a break. Built as a bloodmage she's the most powerful companion you can have in the game,more useful than Morrigan who starts off with that aweful shapeshifter specialization and very little healing ability. If I have one mage in my party(assuming the PC is not a mage), that mage is Wynne. When Wynne is built as a bloodmage it makes what she's says really hypocritical but it makes you almost feel sorry for her. Wynne built as granny bloodmage is almost certainly possessed by a desire demon or pride demon and probably thinks her blood magic is some more helpful magic given to her by the "benevolent" spirit possessing her and not actually blood magic.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

After seeing what happened with Justice and Anders in DA2, I wonder if something similar happened or will happen with Wynne: a benevolent spirit possesing a mage, but becoming corrupted by some strong, negative aspect of the mage and becoming a spirit/demon hybrid.

In this case, a spirit of faith becoming corrupted into the spirit of self-righteous delusion or something.

[Zjarcal]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In this case, a spirit of faith becoming corrupted into the spirit of self-righteous delusion or something.

Now that IS scary... 

[ejoslin]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

After seeing what happened with Justice and Anders in DA2, I wonder if something similar happened or will happen with Wynne: a benevolent spirit possesing a mage, but becoming corrupted by some strong, negative aspect of the mage and becoming a spirit/demon hybrid.

In this case, a spirit of faith becoming corrupted into the spirit of self-righteous delusion or something.

That would explain a LOT!

[Giggles_Manically]

Or... win could just be a stuck up ****...
Easiest explanation.