115 réponses à ce sujet

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Your mom telling you yer Tea is oot.

[BabyPuncher]

Why exactly do you think Petrovski is so terrible? 

 

Well, his pretty much only two characteristics are being polite and being Cerberus. That's really the entirety of his character. The climax of Omega where he's confronted was really lame. 

[KaiserShep]

The encounter is better if you shoot him mid-sentence.

[BabyPuncher]

There are very few things that are universally agreed upon, because of a very simple reason: Our world is not painted in black-and-white, but rather in a million shades of grey. You could use the golden rule as a general directive, but when your personal survival and livelihood or your family's are on the line, nothing is ever that simple.

 

But my guess is that you know all of this yourself, and won't let the facts interrupt you in your crusade.

 

This is flatly nonsense.

 

Nearly every moral widely discussed and portrayed in fiction is something just about universally agreed upon across cultures. Murder is evil. Causing suffering is evil. Corruption is evil. Abuse is evil. Fiction doesn't bother discussing if masturbation is evil because it's a trivial and petty issue.

 

And even if that wasn't the case...so what? So some backwards culture thinks it's okay to mutilate people or something of the sort. Is that supposed to grant it legitimacy somehow? That makes it okay now?

 

See, that's the lovely thing about law. It really doesn't matter if people agree with it or not.

[The Heretic of Time]

...nothing like the reapers.

[Laughing_Man]

This is flatly nonsense.

 

Nearly every moral widely discussed and portrayed in fiction is something just about universally agreed upon across cultures. Murder is evil. Causing suffering is evil. Corruption is evil. Abuse is evil. Fiction doesn't bother discussing if masturbation is evil because it's a trivial and petty issue.

 

Indeed, those things and some others, are in the "few" things I mentioned.

 

On the other hand, what exactly is your definition of murder? Where does it begins and self-defense ends? Is it okay to torture a terrorist that planted a bomb that is going to kill many innocents in order to find the bomb so we can disarm it? Those are "slightly" controversial questions, no?

 

There is always a context and a background.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

What kind of villain I want depends on the story being told I suppose.

[DeathScepter]

a heroic paragon that is obsessed with universal balance and thinks that humans are the bad guys for moving too fast within Andromeda galaxy regardless of the state of the Milk Way. He has a cult following that is a mix of aliens and humans that believes the same as he does.

[BabyPuncher]

Indeed, those things and some others, are in the "few" things I mentioned.

 

On the other hand, what exactly is your definition of murder? Where does it begins and self-defense ends? Is it okay to torture a terrorist that planted a bomb that is going to kill many innocents in order to find the bomb so we can disarm it? Those are "slightly" controversial questions, no?

 

The first two questions have precise definitions under the law. So no, they're really not controversial. The third is mostly irrelevant nonsense since that sort of thing has proven to been horrendously ineffective anyway.
 

[dragonflight288]

 

She wanted to get rid of the Force, because she saw it as a sentient being, twisting people to it's own ends.

And she was right about that. In Star Wars universe, the main reason for all conflicts, or tragedies is the Force. Her own pupils, Nihilus and Sion were both destroyed (in spirit) by the Force. Nihilus was turned into an embodiment of hunger, without his own will, a slave to his own power and a blight on the galaxy. Sion was twisted by his pain and hatred, unable to die and forced to suffer. 

 

On the other hand, she herself was a slave to the Force, becuase without it she wouldn't be able to achieve her own goals (and she hated that perhaps most of all). That's why she disapproves every time, the Exiled Jedi complains about being cut away from the Force (she saw that as a blessing), she chastizes you every time, when you use the Force Persuasion (and yet approves every time you use regular persuasion - that's because she thinks that the Force is in fact limiting your mind and true capabilities, because you use it as a crutch). She does not consider herself neither a Jedi, not a Sith - she obviously is closer to the Dark Side, but sees that the Sith are enslaved by the Force, instead of being liberated by it. 

 

She was first disappointed by the Jedi Order, when they didn't react to the Mandalorian threat. Then, she fell to the Dark Side and joined the Sith - only to be disappointed (and betrayed) again, when her own pupils became slaves to the Dark Side. 

That's probably why she admired Revan so much (Revan never truly gave into either side of the Force, he served himself, and not the Sith, or the Jedi, or the Force). And the Exiled Jedi - in the final conversation, if you follow the Dark Side, she says you never were a true Sith (because a 'true' Sith is a slave to the Dark Side, like Nihilus, Sion, Malak... or from actual canon, Vader and arguably Sidious and Tyrannus).

 

Yeah, I got that much when I played the game, but the logic behind trying to destroy the Force itself, a thing that binds all life in the galaxy together, and thus indirectly committing galactic genocide because of her hatred of the Force itself is what I don't get. 

 

She's touted as a great villain, and she is, and she goes really, really deep in conversations, but the whole essence of her plan would still have destroyed all life, and she knew it. 

 

I guess what bothers me most about her is her utter disregard for how free-will also affects how the Force influences people. Yes, she questions and makes you question the nature of the Force itself, but even those who grow corrupted by the dark side of it can also be redeemed through it and make amends, like Bastila or Juhanni, or Darth Vader. Or how people can willingly sacrifice themselves to the dark side like Revan did. 

 

That's what gets me about her motivations that I don't agree with or even understand I guess.

 

Although, while we're on the subject, Atris was pretty comical as a villain, and she barely qualifies as one, yet was a perfect tool for Kreia.

[Laughing_Man]

The first two questions have precise definitions under the law. So no, they're really not controversial. The third is mostly irrelevant nonsense since that sort of thing has proven to been horrendously ineffective anyway.
 

 

Law does not equal Morality.

 

Regarding torture, flat out claiming that torture will be ineffective always is an idiotic claim that stinks of liberal wishful thinking. (especially considering that some claim otherwise) In any case, the discussion should be on the morality of the issue, not effectiveness, since this changes from case to case and subject to subject.

[Vazgen]

A squadmate. Someone the player grows attached to, sheds blood together. And then - betrayal, followed with the discovery of underlying motives and plans. Have the betrayal to take place at one of the several plot points, based on the player/antagonist interactions. He/she should be likable, someone that players might show mercy to. Cunning, strong, competent. Someone you can respect. 

 

Bonus points for the option to side with him/her in the end and shape the game world in a unique way.

[Ahriman]

 

 

Our world is not painted in black-and-white, but rather in a million shades of grey.

I'm getting tired of such sentences on BSN, but at least it helps people feel wiser when they say this.

Murdering, stealing, raping is bad. Helping each other and avancing humanity is good. And all these things happen every day in every corner of the world, the fact that there are more discussion about morality of abortion then morality of murder, doesn't mean that these play bigger role in people's lives.

You say definitions themselves are subjective and you are right, but this takes away not only black and white, but grey as well, because colouring and judging is subjective itself.

[Laughing_Man]

I'm getting tired of such sentences on BSN, but at least it helps people feel wiser when they say this.

Murdering, stealing, raping is bad. Helping each other and avancing humanity is good. And all these things happen every day in every corner of the world, the fact that there are more discussion about morality of abortion then morality of murder, doesn't mean that these play bigger role in people's lives.

You say definitions themselves are subjective and you are right, but this takes away not only black and white, but grey as well, because colouring and judging is subjective itself.

 

If you bothered to read my responses above, you would have been able to see that I agree that some things are simply immoral.

The question is when it's not a simple story about a rapist or a murderer, but something more complicated.

[BabyPuncher]

You really are making a laughably ridiculous strawman. You do realize that, yes?

 

Nobody has claimed or has attempted to claim that murderers are murderers because they have evil souls of pure evil evilness which drive them to evil. Who do think you're speaking to that is claiming such a thing, exactly?

 

Yes, things are not 'that simple' as evil actions being the result of evil souls being evil. You speak as if you're somehow announcing a radical revelation that turns morality on it's head.

 

We all understand that evil is more than just evil people being evil. It's simply that's it's irrelevant.

[BioWareMod01]

This thread is being closed because the discussion has become hostile.