216 réponses à ce sujet

[Serza]

"Commander Ryder" is too much of a mouthful...I can't help but to stress the two "Rs" so very much.

 

That's exactly why you blend the words by ending "Commander" with a schwa, and start "Ryder" with the corresponding aproximant.

[Larry-3]

In Dragon Age, there was Diplomatic, Sarcastic, and Renegade Hawke... that is what they were called, right? It has been so long, I cannot fully remember.

Regardless, give us those options for Mass Effect.

[Medhia_Nox]

Spotted the libertarian.

 

The government IS the people. Or at least, it's meant to be. This is obviously not the case with the US today. But under Bernie Sanders, it could be again.

I would probably be one if I cared enough about human social conventions.  What I actually am is an apathetic misanthrope... I loathe humans on principle, but don't care enough to actively do so.  

 

As it is, I simply accept whatever is being made up at the time - fortunately, I am not in a political environment where I would feel compelled to rebel against said government - as it is, the US is close to the best of the worst (the worst being all governments)... and right now, as you seem to agree, the US government is not "the people". 

 

I would of course assert that no government in history has ever genuinely been about "the people" and to think there has been is an almost enviable naivety. 

 

But, as I said... the views of a misanthrope.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I understand you, but that´s something I play P&P for.

P&P is multiplayer. The advantage of CRPGs is that they are single-player.

A CRPG should strive to reproduce the gameplay of a tabletop RPG without the need for other players.

[Ahglock]

Whoa dude.

It's my Renegade Interupt.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Spotted the libertarian.

The government IS the people.

When has that ever been true? And even if the government were the people in the aggregate, the people as individuals don't all agree. Inevitably, the individuals in the government will have to make decisions that affect individuals outside the government without those affected individuals' explicit consent.

The only way to empower individuals is to get the government to interfere as little as possible.

[KaiserShep]

Spotted the libertarian.

 

The government IS the people. Or at least, it's meant to be. This is obviously not the case with the US today. But under Bernie Sanders, it could be again.

Eh, what's the difference? New hood ornament, same dark forces at work underneath

[Medhia_Nox]

@Sylvius the Mad:  And I loathe the individual almost more than I loathe the community. 

 

At least with a community you have a series of poorly designed checks and balances to keep the follower in check and mitigate the damage of the incompatible humans who are incapable of operating within the parameters of any reasonable community.

 

Individuals develop their reality in a vacuum and consider it to be valid... hence, you get moral relativists who really are nothing more than self-serving egoists. 

 

The problem with groups like Templars and Seekers and CIA's... is that they aren't part of the check's and balances.  They are subservient to forces beyond the jurisdiction of the populace. 

Even so called "public servants" sadly break the rules of the community they are supposed to be maintaining law in and are not held accountable to the people they are "supposedly" serving.  

 

No human group is worthy of any real trust - not even, ultimately, the family.  Any specific family might be, and that needs to be determined by the individuals who are part of that group (I'd still say they've only bought into a mass delusion propagated by that small group).. but, for example, my family I would describe as reptiles... and I certainly would not show weakness of any sort around them lest I lose my social standing in that group and be devoured.  

[KaiserShep]

@Sylvius the Mad:  And I loathe the individual almost more than I loathe the community. 

 

At least with a community you have a series of poorly designed checks and balances to keep the follower in check and mitigate the damage of the incompatible humans who are incapable of operating within the parameters of any reasonable community.

 

Individuals develop their reality in a vacuum and consider it to be valid... hence, you get moral relativists who really are nothing more than self-serving egoists. 

 

The problem with groups like Templars and Seekers and CIA's... is that they aren't part of the check's and balances.  They are subservient to forces beyond the jurisdiction of the populace. 

Even so called "public servants" sadly break the rules of the community they are supposed to be maintaining law in and are not held accountable to the people they are "supposedly" serving.  

 

No human group is worthy of any real trust - not even, ultimately, the family.  Any specific family might be, and that needs to be determined by the individuals who are part of that group (I'd still say they've only bought into a mass delusion propagated by that small group).. but, for example, my family I would describe as reptiles... and I certainly would not show weakness of any sort around them lest I lose my social standing in that group and be devoured.  

 

Sounds like you'd throw the best Xmas parties. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@KaiserShep:  I'm very popular with all the Whos down in Whoville. 

 

But in reality - I'm just a fantastic liar with a whole bevy of facades for whatever occasion I need to get humans to think what I want about me.  

[SlottsMachine]

They're only bland if you design them that way.

 

Funny. Everyone in the industry seems to design them that way (at least recently), especially with voiced protagonists. 

[Arcian]

When has that ever been true? And even if the government were the people in the aggregate, the people as individuals don't all agree.

Yeah, it's called "democracy". Everyone gets a vote. Equal representation no matter if you make minimum wage or more than 350 bucks an hour.
 

Inevitably, the individuals in the government will have to make decisions that affect individuals outside the government without those affected individuals' explicit consent.

Their vote is both their explicit consent and rejection, depending on who or what they cast it at. If you object to the government's decisions, build a public majority consensus against it. That's how democracy works.
 

The only way to empower individuals is to get the government to interfere as little as possible.

Weak governments only empower whose who are already empowered. They create enormous gaps in wealth, political influence and standards of living, regressing society to a state of feudalism where the rich govern the poor and the poor have no rights or influence to speak of.
 
You have two excellent examples just in the last 100 years, one in 1929, the Great Depression, and in 2009, the Great Recession. Both preceeded by weak, non-interfering governments, both causing tremendous economic and personal suffering to the people. It took the election of FDR and the formation of a stronger federal government to stymie the corruption of the wealthy elite and repair the damage caused by the Great Depression, which led to a 40 year period of booming growth the likes of which the US have never seen, either before or since. It was ended with the election of Ronald Reagan, who sat in the lap of Wall Street and the wealthy elite, slashing taxes for the rich and making up the difference by undermining the state's vital social programs and the US industry.
 
If you prefer a society that favors those who already have everything, that's fine, but don't pretend like a weak government is going to benefit anyone except the super rich.
 

Eh, what's the difference? New hood ornament, same dark forces at work underneath

Not quite.

@Sylvius the Mad:  And I loathe the individual almost more than I loathe the community. 
 
At least with a community you have a series of poorly designed checks and balances to keep the follower in check and mitigate the damage of the incompatible humans who are incapable of operating within the parameters of any reasonable community.
 
Individuals develop their reality in a vacuum and consider it to be valid... hence, you get moral relativists who really are nothing more than self-serving egoists. 
 
The problem with groups like Templars and Seekers and CIA's... is that they aren't part of the check's and balances.  They are subservient to forces beyond the jurisdiction of the populace. 
Even so called "public servants" sadly break the rules of the community they are supposed to be maintaining law in and are not held accountable to the people they are "supposedly" serving.  
 
No human group is worthy of any real trust - not even, ultimately, the family.  Any specific family might be, and that needs to be determined by the individuals who are part of that group (I'd still say they've only bought into a mass delusion propagated by that small group).. but, for example, my family I would describe as reptiles... and I certainly would not show weakness of any sort around them lest I lose my social standing in that group and be devoured.

[KaiserShep]

Not quite.

 

It was sort of a Hitchhiker's Guide reference, with the President of the Galaxy being just a figurehead. 

[Guitar-Hero]

Nyte Ryder 

 

Ass. Ryder

 

Sunday Ryder

[N7M]

Ryders on the storm. 

[Medhia_Nox]

@Arcian:  I was edgy before it was cool.

 

I have the poorly fitting, grease stained T-shirt to prove it.  

 

Also - not really edgy - misanthrope, we've been over this.   

[Han Shot First]

 

The FBI, CIA and NSA serve "the government" not - "the people".

 

As someone who used to work for the federal government of my country, I didn't find that to be the case at all. Obviously the Department of Defense and the various law enforcement or intelligence agencies all take their orders in one form or another from politicians, but it would be wrong to view the individual people who make up those agencies as being loyal to their government, but not their country. 

 

Military personnel and employees of the various intelligence agencies are bound to follow their orders and go where their country sends them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they always support their government's foreign policy. They aren't free to express dissent in the same manner as many of their fellow citizens...they can't march in protests or criticize the White House on Facebook for example, but they can still voice dissent at the ballot box.

 

I find it highly unlikely that the people involved in waterboarding were concerned about the interests of the Suit in the Oval Office and not about another 9/11 happening on their watch. That is a rather cartoonish and inaccurate view of the people who work for the CIA, who may not even necessarily belong to the same political party currently in control of the White House or Congress.

 

There is no question that the government has not always used those agencies in a manner that best serves the interests of the country, but that ultimately is the fault of the politicians who create policy, and not the foot-soldiers who have to carry them out. The best remedy for that sort of thing is free and democratic elections. 

 

For the record, I don't support the use of waterboarding. Not because I care one iota for the suffering of terrorists...barbaric 12th Century throwbacks who gleefully participate in the beheadings of civilians aren't worthy of pity...but because is its not very effective, undermines U.S. credibility abroad, and serves as propaganda for the jihadists. It does far more harm than good.

 

On a side note...I should have looked for a clip from a James Bond movie to use an example of renegade should look like, rather than something from Zero Dark Thirty. The latter was bound to derail into a politicial discussion, so it was a poor choice on my part.

[KainD]

Also - not really edgy - misanthrope, we've been over this.   

 

Since you identify as one.. Tell me what's the difference between being a misanthrope and say being racist? 

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

Since you identify as one.. Tell me what's the difference between being a misanthrope and say being racist? 

That's a stupid question. One's antisocial, the other hates people's skin color/ethnic background.

[Laughing_Man]

Since you identify as one.. Tell me what's the difference between being a misanthrope and say being racist? 

 

A misanthrope hates everyone equally, so that's okay. (at least in some people's twisted logic)

[NKnight7]

For the personality I'd be alright with something similar to past Bioware games. Three options: the top being the diplomatic/paragon, the middle being the more neutral or 'funny' option, and the bottom the renegade/ruthless. The options mold and form the characters personality and how others around him/her interact with them.

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD:  Easy... I'm a speciest.  

 

@Tzeenchian Apostrophe:  Any appeal to "twisted logic" coming from you is pretty humorous... but I will say, "hate" is not required for misanthropy. I would never give humanity so much credit as to actively hate it. 

[KainD]

That's a stupid question. One's antisocial, the other hates people's skin color/ethnic background.

 

I'm not asking about the difference in the demographic that the hate affects. 

 

A misanthrope hates everyone equally, so that's okay. (at least in some people's twisted logic)

 

I didn't ask the question to discover whether it is ok or not. 

[KainD]

@KainD:  Easy... I'm a speciest.  

 

Ok, so it actually is the same, just the demographic is bigger? 

[Medhia_Nox]

@KainD:  Again, hate is not required... you're inventing that for your little soap box. 

 

Aren't you one of those moral relativist folks.  You should support my radical world view and "out of box" thinking!

 

EDIT:  Keeping on topic!  I hope this Ryder character can be a misanthrope... though, perhaps there would be a different term for someone who has a distaste for all sapient individuals rather than just humans.