230 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Wow, insults and name calling.  How original for an internet discussion.

 

One suggestion. It might help if your target actually understands to what you're referring, otherwise it doesn't mean much.  I can only tell what you intend by the general tone of your post, which adds nothing to the conversation going on in the first place.  Do you really wish to drop this to grade school level immaturity and have name calling altercations over the internet? 

 

No one wins in that scenario, and I really don't feel like obliging you so how's about we keep this civil?

 

Xil(zhara, if I spelled that right) is a user here who is prone to obtuse arguments, including that one: if it did not happen in my game, it does not happen!

 

It is just a poor excuse for tunnel-vision.

 

Her account should really be audited to ensure it's not being run by a Ted Cruz staffer, given the amount of dishonest assertions it produces.

[sylvanaerie]

Xil(zhara, if I spelled that right) is a user here who is prone to obtuse arguments, including that one: if it did not happen in my game, it does not happen!

 

It is just a poor excuse for tunnel-vision.

 

Her account should really be audited to ensure it's not being run by a Ted Cruz staffer, given the amount of dishonest assertions it produces.

 

And yet you hit the "like" button on the comment I quoted which was in a similar vein of "Alistair leaves" in his games.  That's just as "tunnel-vision" as saying "he never leaves in my games", since both are very singular circumstances.  Unfortunately I responded in a short, sarcastic way to his comment, but sarcasm doesn't carry well in typed response.  I have since expounded on my point of view in other posts when I felt less irritated and could continue the discussion civilly.

[Aren]

For some, the sparing of Loghain may be seen as an 'evil' act.  It depends on your morality regarding capitol punishment 

Which clearly represent the core base difference of our point of view since sparing someone can't be considered an evil or malevolent act in any event.

 

 It can't be said that executing him for multiple crimes is an 'evil' act, nor would I say it's a 'good' one, but I wouldn't demonize the warden doing either.   

 

It depends on the value which is attributed to life,if it is considered as sacred then capitol punishment  is an outright evil act.

 

 

And saying "I recruit him to toss him under the archdemon" is using metagame knowledge since, at the time of the landsmeet, the warden is unaware of what happens when the archdemon is slain.

 

 

The whole archdemon sacrifice bit is surrounded by a plot hole intrinsically tied with the dark ritual reveal that force the narrative to introduce it (the sacrifice) nearly at the end stage of the game.

Having said that i don't happily feed Loghain to the archdemon,i took no joy in this because there is none, his  life isn't less valuable than the one of others.

 

You site Alistair's -100 approval score as simply 'a game mechanic' or 'plot relevant', but in roleplay terms it can be equated in the game as "He hates your guts yet he's doggedly committed to the extermination of the darkspawn till you push his button". 

 

A purely mechanical limitation of the game cannot be equated to roleplay terms and even if you are gonna consider that as a non mechanical limitation

(despite i already pointed out that up to that point he is necessary for the plot)than Alistair behavior at the landsmeet become insane troll logic.

Alistair will stand by the warden despite  severe atrocity are being committed,kill his uncle's son,sell ferelden citizens as slaves to tevinter,kill children at the tower ,insult Duncan's and so on and so forth.

So if you're gonna not consider it as a purely mechanical limitation that it is to convey that he behave on the prospect of insane troll logic on Loghain since regardless of his approval +100 o -100 he leave as a GW committing a severe act of desertion.

 

  All the other companions you apply excuses for their behavior, but Alistair doesn't rate a break in your book because he protests the one thing you want to do (recruit Loghain) which you have even said in multiple threads across this forum you do all the time since you prefer the Redemption ending. 

 

Because of this your argument smacks of 'double standards' and makes it very hard for me to credit much veracity to it.

If you're gonna push me into being strict and cynical by using technical oaths and bounds then i can just as easily say that Alistair does not possess the luxury to leave since he is a Warden ,this should end any further discussion you may wish to arise.

I didn't make any excuses for the others companions  since there's a whole lot of "if you go out of your way to be an ass, this can happen"  in your logic

So you created a lot of scenarios where it's possible for comps to turn/leave, and then point out that they'll turn/leave for some atrocities committed by the warden??

 

ah of course they are committed for the sake of the greater good.......

[sylvanaerie]

 

 

I already know how the others companions behave to some decisions and most of them to me are blameless, not because they aren't grey wardens so they are not tied to an oath but for the whole set up of their critical condition which is generated by a morally questionable  if not an outright evil warden:

 

 

-Sten is one of the few characters that can't leave due to approval status because he always fulfill his oaths as it is to expect from a Qunari

He do not attack the warden with the purpose to kill him/her but with the purpose to see and understand if the leader still retain strength and lucidity

(go on the search of an urn on the top of a mountain during a blight seem to be a little trivial at first and not wise, in fact i dislike that part of the plot because it seem detached from the game) if he win nothing bad happens.

I see that as a good moment in which one of the companions has the strengths to test the protagonist without undermining the quest.

 

 

-Shale is committed to help the warden with the sole reason to try to find more insight about herself is kinda like a mutual partnership.

What we know about the character is that she despise slavery since she was forced ino being one by her former master and she was paralyzed for thirty years.

A warden who is willing to kill his friend(in front of her) thus deprive her of a reliable source of information with the sole purpose to promote slavery via the anvil of the void and trust Branka  (the same woman who killed them all as baits for the traps) should expect this reaction.

However i will admit that her leaving the warden at camp does not make sense because she couldn't possibly know or remember Caridin.

 

 

-In order to force Oghren to start a fight at camp the warden should bash him with several insults since those are the dialogues that trigger the great disapprovals and the fight,so it is clearly an  evil  warden that wanted that fight in the first place to the point that Oghren will comment that the protagonist is no better than the archdemon and should die along with him.

 

 

-Wynne harbor a spirit of faith that saved her while unharden Leliana is very faithful,faith is an important aspect for them both.

A Warden who is unwilling to respect others belief and dessacreate historical relics in front of believers clearly demonstrate a lack of compassion,especially if all of this is done  to absolve the task of someone who tried to kill them all like Kolgrim.

Not only their reaction is more than predictable but i  do not understand as for why they should not stand against a warden who destroyed a piece of history harbored in sorrow for a thousands of years.

 

-On Zevran i already said that he can be seen as untrustworthy from the start,even if most of his disapproval are built upon the decision of an evil warden (being willing to kill all the mages and the children,being will to enslave all the elves,or betray the Dalish ecc..)

 

 

 

My point, the bolded is excuse after excuse after excuse finding the others 'blameless' for their actions because , as you put it, "it's in response to 'evil' actions by the warden" or just to "test if the warden retains strength and lucidity"--as if that's any kind of excuse considering the crime he committed to get put in that cage in Lothering.  My counterargument was to show how this can all still happen with a warden who isn't evil. 

 

If you're gonna push me into being strict and cynical by using technical oaths and bounds then i can just as easily say that Alistair does not possess the luxury to leave since he is a Warden ,this should end any further discussion you may wish to arise.

I didn't make any excuses for the others companions  since there's a whole lot of "if you go out of your way to be an ass, this can happen"  in your logic

So you created a lot of scenarios where it's possible for comps to turn/leave, and then point out that they'll turn/leave for some atrocities committed by the warden??

 

 

I said nothing of the sort.  My examples show how its possible to do it without committing atrocities, without "going out of your way to be an ass".  In the case of Zevran and Sten, you are required to do nothing at all to them (except bring Sten to haven).  If anything, it's you who's describing a warden going out of his way to be 'evil' causing these things to happen.  

 

I get the feeling we are suffering from a wide, wide gulf of miscommunication here and we are just spinning around in circles getting no where and adding nothing to the debate/conversation.  

 

The only thing I think we can agree on is Alistair's behavior at the Landsmeet is deplorable.  Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I condone it, however I don't think it's the entirety of his characterization, either.  

 

And I think it's unfair to characterize any of the companions based on a singular moment in the game that may never turn up.  Alistair always leaves in your games because you always recruit Loghain, he doesn't leave in any other instance.  Zevran only turns on you if he doesn't trust you.  Leliana will turn only if you defile the ashes.  Sten only questions your leadership if he doesn't like/know you.  These are all 'this condition must be met' situations which don't happen every game or to every player playing the game unless they play the same way every single time.  Nor do i believe (or argue even) that this is the entirety of their characterization.  They all have more than just that one aspect to their personalities than just that singular moment.

 

You have your opinion.  I disagree with you.  Let's just leave it at that and move on, shall we?

[Seraphim24]

Oh my god these threads got really busy... ok well fundamentally it's not that hard to see how you can at least see (grasp on some level) Loghain's perspective i.e. "sympathize" in a way. Ok, so he clearly hates Orlais with a passion due to previous and earlier experiences, is a major Fereldan fanboy, is a big Maric fanboy, and those two things kind of blind his perspective at times and otherwise torment him to perhaps overreact or otherwise recklessly endanger those very things he wants to protect most of his all.

 

It's kind of like, you know, lots of people, with, lots of things.

 

Honestly, if you took out the stoicism and the kind of curtain-drawing with his character (his insights revealed at the very end) he's basically a ramped up version of the "misbegotten passion" character archetype in media everywhere (means well but does wrong).

 

I don't think you need to get to "what is the appropriate reaction or what to do with Loghain or how bad was this or that thing that he did or seemed to approve and/or blunder etc" to just get that far.

 

For some reason lots of people read  a lot blind sociopathy into his character a lot which is really odd considering the amount of effort put into justifying his actions from a game perspective (and his perspective) is far and away more substantial than what you find for the typical "means well" character you come across.

 

And even more odd when characters straight up intended to fit that precise stereotype completely evade the natural connotations

 

Spoiler

 

 

And like I said, you don't even need to weigh and balance these things to just conclude that much.

[Aren]

My point, the bolded is excuse after excuse after excuse finding the others 'blameless' for their actions because , as you put it, "it's in response to 'evil' actions by the warden" 

They are not since i already pointed out that in order to force certain companions to have the critical moment the warden has to commit misdeeds and even if you're not gonna consider them as such they do.

It is true for Oghren,Wynne and Leliana and since they are not bound by any oath to the warden they are more than free to stand by their belief in total respect of their freedom.

or just to "test if the warden retains strength and lucidity"--as if that's any kind of excuse considering the crime he committed to get put in that cage in Lothering.  My counterargument was to show how this can all still happen with a warden who isn't evil. 

 

The warden is more than free to leave him in that cage for the crimes he committed, i'm unable to recognize where i said the contrary.

At Heaven the warden is challenged by Sten who put the warden into a test which does not involve any killing,so i do not understand how this should be compared to the death request of Alistair?

 

 

 

I said nothing of the sort.  My examples show how its possible to do it without committing atrocities, without "going out of your way to be an ass".  In the case of Zevran and Sten, you are required to do nothing at all to them (except bring Sten to haven).  If anything, it's you who's describing a warden going out of his way to be 'evil' causing these things to happen.  

 

 

Incorrect as i pointed out several times that Zevran actions if he ally with Taliesen is a form of betrayal since the oath is  broken.

Sten never try to kill the warden.

 

 

 

 

The only thing I think we can agree on is Alistair's behavior at the Landsmeet is deplorable.  Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I condone it, however I don't think it's the entirety of his characterization, either.  

 

And I think it's unfair to characterize any of the companions based on a singular moment in the game that may never turn up.  Alistair always leaves in your games because you always recruit Loghain, he doesn't leave in any other instance. 

I don't characterize Alistair based on what he did at the landsmeet,however i do recognize that is an act of treachery and indiscipline towards his uniform.

He is not allowed to leave in any event and in any world state and saying that he didn't left in yours as a paramount base of a critical discussion is not a solid argument.

 

Zevran only turns on you if he doesn't trust you.  Leliana will turn only if you defile the ashes.  Sten only questions your leadership if he doesn't like/know you.  These are all 'this condition must be met' situations which don't happen every game or to every player playing the game unless they play the same way every single time.  Nor do i believe (or argue even) that this is the entirety of their characterization.  They all have more than just that one aspect to their personalities than just that singular moment.

 

You have your opinion.  I disagree with you.  Let's just leave it at that and move on, shall we?

Did i argued that the entirety of their characterizations is summarized by their critical moments?

However i do separate critical moments which are not a betrayal of any sort from those who are which are mostly dictated on the base of legal oaths or arguably high interpersonal relationship.

 Alistair may be right to accuse the warden of betrayal if he was romantically involved or maybe with high friendship status(which is my case),but then again he is demanding death penalty which is not a mere favor so he should recognize that his pretense if denied is not in itself a betrayal.