606 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahriman]

You run away screaming like a little girl

So that's what being good guy is.

[SolNebula]

You talk them, they say "go way". Then what?

 

You should then have a great line before engaging combat like

"Well f. that I tried!"

 

After combat you should have also this remark

"They just didn't want to listen reason so I had to put them down"

 

That's how a good guy reason . A nice catch phrase could be "If you don't want to come to reason then reason comes to you!"

[Medhia_Nox]

And again - this thread makes me want to side with the Reapers.

 

I'm confident nobody is going to be conquering the Andromeda Galaxy.  And making that story isn't somehow "deep and meaningful" just because it's the epitome of human douchebaggery.

Why humans settle for how debase they can be is... disheartening.

[SolNebula]

And again - this thread makes me want to side with the Reapers.

 

I'm confident nobody is conquering to be conquering the Andromeda Galaxy.  And making that story isn't somehow "deep and meaningful" just because it's the epitome of human douchebaggery.

Why humans settle for how debase they can be is... disheartening.

 

ehhh can I shoot some more aliens while you philosophize over human condition?

 

tbh I just hope we have a situation where we get a flamethrower weapon and a planet infested by bug-alien nests. Bust them out of their hiding places. Ahhh such a nice pleasure.

[Medhia_Nox]

@SolNebula:  Ahh, is that the supreme storytelling of Bioware's past I always hear about? 

 

You're still going to get plenty of pew pew... don't you worry.

[NuclearTech76]

IDK about conquering but if we're a displaced civilization and we move into a universe that is already inhabited, then there will be conflict. Look at almost every story in human history. An invading civilization competing for resources with a native civilization is the recipe for a conflict. 

[XMissWooX]

Well we really don't know enough about the game yet to tell which side we're on. Perhaps a faction from Andromeda attacks us first, and we're sent to go dismantle them from the inside.

Also, I'd argue that if you're the one who found the planet, and you're the one who poured all your resources into it, and you're the one who built it up from nothing to become something, then you have a better claim to it than the guy from across the way who sat on his backside the entire time and now demands you hand it over because "it's in my space".

[Former_Fiend]

Well we really don't know enough about the game yet to tell which side we're on. Perhaps a faction from Andromeda attacks us first, and we're sent to go dismantle them from the inside.

Also, I'd argue that if you're the one who found the planet, and you're the one who poured all your resources into it, and you're the one who built it up from nothing to become something, then you have a better claim to it than the guy from across the way who sat on his backside the entire time and now demands you hand it over because "it's in my space".

 

If you go out into the desert and dig a hole and find gold, and some guy stumbles onto you and reveals that he owns that patch of desert, then it's his gold, so long as he can back that up.

[Computron2000]

It would be hilarious if the game actually had the player being an andromeda native trying too fight off strange aliens known as hoomans. You would gather companions to stop this galactic threat and go on a suicide mission against one of their main base ships 

[XMissWooX]

If you go out into the desert and dig a hole and find gold, and some guy stumbles onto you and reveals that he owns that patch of desert, then it's his gold, so long as he can back that up.

 

Imagine you find an uninhabited, undiscovered and unclaimed bit of land. You decide to build a house there because its a nice spot and nobody else is around for you to disturb. You call together your friends and family members and you all spend a lot of time, effort and money on building a lovely house, which you live happily for a short time.

 

Then, one day a stranger comes to your house and tells you that he has recently purchased that bit of land from the local government, and now owns not only the land but everything on it, including your house. He wants you all to leave immediately so he can live in it instead.

 

That is not 'morally right', nor is it meritocratic, because the person who contributed precisely nothing to the development of the house is the one who gets to live in it.

[Computron2000]

Imagine you find an uninhabited, undiscovered and unclaimed bit of land. You decide to build a house there because its a nice spot and nobody else is around for you to disturb. You call together your friends and family members and you all spend a lot of time, effort and money on building a lovely house, which you live happily for a short time.

 

Then, one day a stranger comes to your house and tells you that he has recently purchased that bit of land from the local government, and now owns not only the land but everything on it, including your house. He wants you all to leave immediately so he can live in it instead.

 

That is not 'morally right', nor is it meritocratic, because the person who contributed precisely nothing to the development of the house is the one who gets to live in it.

 

This is a known RL situation

https://en.wikipedia...title=Squatting

 

However, it is not so simple when something actually happens.

 

Lets say your house is improperly built and burns down, causing a bushfire that kills a few hundred people. Who is responsible? Can you even be traced if you ran away? Can the land owner then deny responsibility because it was due to someone else who built a house on the owner's land? Then why did the owner not chase the squatter away? Can this lack of action then place responsibility of the deaths on the owner?

 

What if the house is not wanted at all. For example, what if the house was actually built on an oil field. Who bears the cost of demolition that would be required? 

[Former_Fiend]

Imagine you find an uninhabited, undiscovered and unclaimed bit of land. You decide to build a house there because its a nice spot and nobody else is around for you to disturb. You call together your friends and family members and you all spend a lot of time, effort and money on building a lovely house, which you live happily for a short time.

 

Then, one day a stranger comes to your house and tells you that he has recently purchased that bit of land from the local government, and now owns not only the land but everything on it, including your house. He wants you all to leave immediately so he can live in it instead.

 

That is not 'morally right', nor is it meritocratic, because the person who contributed precisely nothing to the development of the house is the one who gets to live in it.

 

And yet, this is very much how the system works, legally. Just because you're ignorant that the government owned the land and the guy who bought it was ignorant that you were there "first" doesn't matter. You built a house on land you didn't own.

 

Expanding that to planets; we have no idea how ownership works for the cultures of Andromeda or how the economy works. Just because the planet appears uninhabited and "undiscovered", it could well be that the locals own the cluster that planet is in. 

 

Look, I don't know how or if any of this is going to apply in the game. It is very much a wait and see. But I'm a big believer that when I'm in someone else's house, I ask permission before reaching in their fridge. 

 

When I'm in someone else's galaxy, I'm going to ask permission before settling one of their planets. Their house, their rules.

[Ahriman]

Then, one day a stranger comes to your house and tells you that he has recently purchased that bit of land from the local government, and now owns not only the land but everything on it, including your house. He wants you all to leave immediately so he can live in it instead.

 

That is not 'morally right', nor is it meritocratic, because the person who contributed precisely nothing to the development of the house is the one who gets to live in it.

And if he says, that you can take your house with you? What does it change?

Such questions are usually solved by higher authority, and if you move in without telling anyone that will be your fault.

Quarells between countries may be many years long and end up with wars or some trade offs. Right of discovery is respected only between countries on one law field, for everyone else there is Right of actual posession (i.e Power)

So what I'm talking about, I really doubt there will be authority which would be accepted by both andromedians and MW invaders colonists. Therefore it will be Right of Power until all sides decide that using one law is more profitable. Advanced colonists won't care about rights of local savages unless they integrate into colony or prove that they can defend their rights.

[Dark Helmet]

People really just need to keep calm and purge the Xenos filth.

 

I'm sure the more compliant races could be made into something useful.

 

And we can always grind the less compliant races up into paste and use them to build capital ships...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just make the aliens look like orcs so we don't feel uncomfortable genociding them.

Killing people because they have green skin and fangs, and we don't.

Moral justification by Belkar Bitterleaf.

[Iakus]

IDK about conquering but if we're a displaced civilization and we move into a universe that is already inhabited, then there will be conflict. Look at almost every story in human history. An invading civilization competing for resources with a native civilization is the recipe for a conflict. 

At best, we're the quarians.

 

At worst...the Qunari.

[Former_Fiend]

Surely you're used to it by now.

 

On the contrary. I get more frustrated and fed up with it each time. 

[XMissWooX]

Expanding that to planets; we have no idea how ownership works for the cultures of Andromeda or how the economy works. Just because the planet appears uninhabited and "undiscovered", it could well be that the locals own the cluster that planet is in. 

 

Look, I don't know how or if any of this is going to apply in the game. It is very much a wait and see. But I'm a big believer that when I'm in someone else's house, I ask permission before reaching in their fridge. 

 

When I'm in someone else's galaxy, I'm going to ask permission before settling one of their planets. Their house, their rules.

 

I don't dispute this - I don't believe that we should just start colonising any planet we want without any care for the native species who live in the area.

But nor do I believe we should have to turn over any colonies we did create to another species, conceding all of our hard work and resources, just because said species is native to the galaxy and we're not. Especially when they weren't even aware of the existence of the planet in question until we had already colonised it.

 

I suppose you could compare this to Skyhold in DAI. It doesn't technically have an owner, but since no one else was using it, and the Inquisition are the ones who put in the hard work and money to fix it and clean it up, I consider them to be the de facto owners.

[Vortex13]

And yet, this is very much how the system works, legally. Just because you're ignorant that the government owned the land and the guy who bought it was ignorant that you were there "first" doesn't matter. You built a house on land you didn't own.

 

Expanding that to planets; we have no idea how ownership works for the cultures of Andromeda or how the economy works. Just because the planet appears uninhabited and "undiscovered", it could well be that the locals own the cluster that planet is in. 

 

Look, I don't know how or if any of this is going to apply in the game. It is very much a wait and see. But I'm a big believer that when I'm in someone else's house, I ask permission before reaching in their fridge. 

 

When I'm in someone else's galaxy, I'm going to ask permission before settling one of their planets. Their house, their rules.

 

 

I hope BioWare keeps this in mind with ME:Andromeda. 

 

 

Rules, laws, and hierarchy of ownership rarely falls neatly into black and white morality. I would like to see such elements treated with a degree of balance and maturity, rather than appealing to the 'feels' and turning the landowners into evil, one dimensional villains and the homeowners into perfect paragons of justice and heroism. 

[Laughing_Man]

And yet, this is very much how the system works, legally. Just because you're ignorant that the government owned the land and the guy who bought it was ignorant that you were there "first" doesn't matter. You built a house on land you didn't own.

 

Expanding that to planets; we have no idea how ownership works for the cultures of Andromeda or how the economy works. Just because the planet appears uninhabited and "undiscovered", it could well be that the locals own the cluster that planet is in. 

 

Look, I don't know how or if any of this is going to apply in the game. It is very much a wait and see. But I'm a big believer that when I'm in someone else's house, I ask permission before reaching in their fridge. 

 

When I'm in someone else's galaxy, I'm going to ask permission before settling one of their planets. Their house, their rules.

 

I don't think that this is very reasonable. An entire galaxy is suddenly equal to a fridge inside a private house?...

 

You can't reasonably be expected to account for cultures you don't know, and even on Andromeda, there are probably many cultures, and very little is universally accepted.

 

I think that as long as you are reasonable, don't act like a drunken bully, try not to step on too many toes, and make sure that those you meet know that "we come in peace" - you are in the clear as far as morality is concerned.

 

Someone comes and claims that the pirate infested piece of rock you just cleared out and started using as a base belongs to him?

Well, that's what negotiations are for. If he's unreasonable, either defend yourself or run away.

 

You can't fail if you don't do anything, but if you do nothing than you are nothing.

In the same manner, if you never act and just hide under your bed, it is likely that you will never harm anyone or commit any evil - directly that is.

 

However, saying that acting according to your survival instincts, trying to preserve your civilization and start it anew is inherently evil, is probably the most self-righteous and idiotic claim I have heard in my entire life.

[Joseph Warrick]

1. Genocide the Andromedans.
2. Blame the Krogan.
3. The Council reinstates the genophage.
4. You do this to Wrex for all eternity.

[Former_Fiend]

I don't think that this is very reasonable. An entire galaxy is suddenly equal to a fridge inside a private house?...

 

You can't reasonably be expected to account for cultures you don't know, and even on Andromeda, there are probably many cultures, and very little is universally accepted.

 

I think that as long as you are reasonable, don't act like a drunken bully, try not to step on too many toes, and make sure that those you meet know that "we come in peace" - you are in the clear as far as morality is concerned.

 

Someone comes and claims that the pirate infested piece of rock you just cleared out and started using as a base belongs to him?

Well, that's what negotiations are for. If he's unreasonable, either defend yourself or run away.

 

You can't fail if you don't do anything, but if you do nothing than you are nothing.

In the same manner, if you never act and just hide under your bed, it is likely that you will never harm anyone or commit any evil - directly that is.

 

However, saying that acting according to your survival instincts, trying to preserve your civilization and start it anew is inherently evil, is probably the most self-righteous and idiotic claim I have heard in my entire life.

 

Ok, expanding this beyond the fridge analogy; if I was up on what appears to me to be a deserted island and build a house on it and live there peacefully, only to later find out that the island is privately owned when the owner shows up, the owner of the island has every right in the world to kick me off that island. Doesn't matter if he's using it or not, doesn't matter if he only shows up there once every ten years. It's his property and if he doesn't want me on it, I don't have a right to be there. 

 

I don't know. I just think that when you're imposing on someone else's hospitality, their opinion of what is and isn't reasonable matters a little bit more than yours does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Imagine you find an uninhabited, undiscovered and unclaimed bit of land. You decide to build a house there because its a nice spot and nobody else is around for you to disturb. You call together your friends and family members and you all spend a lot of time, effort and money on building a lovely house, which you live happily for a short time.

Then, one day a stranger comes to your house and tells you that he has recently purchased that bit of land from the local government, and now owns not only the land but everything on it, including your house. He wants you all to leave immediately so he can live in it instead.

That is not 'morally right', nor is it meritocratic, because the person who contributed precisely nothing to the development of the house is the one who gets to live in it.

In the absence of a relevant legal framework, whether you ever owned that house you built is a matter worthy of debate.

And the possibility further exists that there was a relevant legal framework of which you were unaware. If the crown owned the land initially, it was never yours.

[In Exile]

In the absence of a relevant legal framework, whether you ever owned that house you built is a matter worthy of debate.

And the possibility further exists that there was a relevant legal framework of which you were unaware. If the crown owned the land initially, it was never yours.

Absent legal frameworks there's no notional idea of property rights. Ownership is not in issue.

Although perhaps the country that the poster was from does not have the framework whereby the Crown (or government) owns the land with your "title" just being a grant from the Crown.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Absent legal frameworks there's no notional idea of property rights. Ownership is not in issue.

Although perhaps the country that the poster was from does not have the framework whereby the Crown (or government) owns the land with your "title" just being a grant from the Crown.

"The nature of ownership in the absence of a relevant legal framework" was actually the subject of my proposed masters thesis.

If an imperialist power arrives somewhere that didn't previously have a concept of ownership, do the existing inhabitants have any claim to the land under the imperialists' laws?