253 réponses à ce sujet

[ssanyesz]

If they remove the system where we have to choose red/blue lines so we can choose more red/lines later in the game, i'm fine with that, but don't remove those dialogue options, just for the sake of more grey options. I'd like to see a lot of red/blue dialogue options without the color codes and without its restrictions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Show me a person who likes getting hit by buses.

What relevance does personal preference have? Is being hit by a bus a morally righteous act, or a wicked one?

[Seraphim24]

I disagree but to each their own opinion.
 

 

I'm pretty sure I just nailed it actually, it's pretty transparent really.

 

Obviously that doesn't stop other people from drowning in it though, I guess, just me.

[Mr.House]

I disagree: I see it more as George R. R. Martin not wanting to cheat to let the protagonists win and likewise he does not want to cheat to have the antagonists win. This means both feel the consequences of their character flaws and actions.

 

Take the Red Wedding and how in large part it came about;

 

Robb Stark was willing to dirty his own hands. His death was the fatal result of his flaw of honor: he felt honor bound to marry a woman whose virginity he'd taken when she consoled him about the death of his brothers. This lead to Walter Frey feeling spat on as Robb Stark had promised to marry a woman of Frey's house. As revenge, Walter Frey arranged the Red Wedding leading to the death of Robb Stark.

 

This pettiness was in turn the flaw of Walter Frey. As a consequence of what he'd done in betraying Robb Stark and breaking the rule of sacred hospility, people began targeting members of his house which had it's reputation utterly ruined. The exact opposite of what Walter Frey wanted had happened as now no one respects the Frey house and now even more people than before spits on it and considers it beneath them.
 

Robb did not get his hands dirty as he didn't marry the person he was meant to then had the gal to turn up to the Frey castle with no plan at all. Had Robb simply made his sacrifice and put away his honor for one second, the red wedding would have never happened and thus the Freys family would not have had their rep destroyed. Robb allowed the Lanisters a opening and they took it.

[Monster A-Go Go]

Wow, the heel-digging here is absolutely fascinating to watch.

 

Of course morality can be ambiguous.  It's a sliding scale. 

 

Case One:

-Is stealing wrong?  Yes. 

-Is letting someone starve to death wrong?  Obviously. 

-Is eating meat wrong?  Debatable. 

-Is stealing a chicken to feed a starving child wrong?  Well...

---It is stealing, which is wrong. 

---It is sacrificing an animal for food, which some would see as wrong. 

---It isn't letting a person die because of your lack of intervention.

-So, in a situation where these are your only options, which moral imperatives would you break?  Do you feel more strongly that stealing is wrong, that meat is murder, or that letting someone die through neglect is evil?

 

Case Two:

-Is murder wrong?  Yes.

-Is allowing death through inaction wrong?  Yes.

-Is a single life worth as much as multiple lives?  Maybe.

-Are different lives worth more than others?  Maybe.

-Scenario: A vehicle is stalled on the train tracks with a train barreling down upon it.  You are driving a commercial truck, easily able to push the vehicle out of the way, but there's a car between you and the trapped vehicle.  You can push the first vehicle off the tracks, but in doing so you put the second vehicle in the same peril.  You don't have time to push both vehicles.

-Do you:

---Sacrifice the person in the first car?

---Save the person in the first car and sacrifice the person in the second car?

-Have your answer?  Now, what if:

---The vehicle on the tracks has three people and the second vehicle has only one?

---The vehicle on the tracks is a school bus full of children?

---The vehicle on the tracks is nursing home shuttle full of the elderly and the second vehicle is a school bus full of children?

 

Have fun providing the unerringly moral answer! 

[Seraphim24]

What relevance does personal preference have? Is being hit by a bus a morally righteous act, or a wicked one?

 

You are faking ignorance as to people's discrete lack of "preference" as to getting hit by fast moving busses.

 

So.......

[Mr.House]

Show me a person who likes getting hit by buses.

Hard boiled Masochist and people who like attempting suicide.

[Shechinah]

I'm pretty sure I just nailed it actually, it's pretty transparent really.

 

Obviously that doesn't stop other people from drowning in it though, I guess, just me.

 

If you consider your statement to be fact then by all means, I'll be interested in discussing it as I would very much disagree with it being fact.

 

Are you claiming this as fact or as your opinion?
 

[Shechinah]

Robb did not get his hands dirty as he didn't marry the person he was meant to then had the gal to turn up to the Frey castle with no plan at all. Had Robb simply made his sacrifice and put away his honor for one second, the red wedding would have never happened and thus the Freys family would not have had their rep destroyed. Robb allowed the Lanisters a opening and they took it.

 

Oh, I thought you meant refusing to dirty hands as in the sense of in blood and dirt. The literal sense, basically.
 

[AlanC9]

How is not? Not getting your issue, although I guess this convo is with Hanako.

Yeah, I'm Just questioning the coherence of the positions. If you want to go straight-up utilitarian or something, there's no problem.

[Seraphim24]

Wow, the heel-digging here is absolutely fascinating to watch.

 

Of course morality can be ambiguous.  It's a sliding scale. 

 

Case One:

-Is stealing wrong?  Yes. 

-Is letting someone starve to death wrong?  Obviously. 

-Is eating meat wrong?  Debatable. 

-Is stealing a chicken to feed a starving child wrong?  Well...

---It is stealing, which is wrong. 

---It is sacrificing an animal for food, which some would see as wrong. 

---It isn't letting a person die because of your lack of intervention.

-So, in a situation where these are your only options, which moral imperatives would you break?  Do you feel more strongly that stealing is wrong, that meat is murder, or that letting someone die through neglect is evil?

 

Case Two:

-Is murder wrong?  Yes.

-Is allowing death through inaction wrong?  Yes.

-Is a single life worth as much as multiple lives?  Maybe.

-Are different lives worth more than others?  Maybe.

-Scenario: A vehicle is stalled on the train tracks with a train barreling down upon it.  You are driving a commercial truck, easily able to push the vehicle out of the way, but there's a car between you and the trapped vehicle.  You can push the first vehicle off the tracks, but in doing so you put the second vehicle in the same peril.  You don't have time to push both vehicles.

-Do you:

---Sacrifice the person in the first car?

---Save the person in the first car and sacrifice the person in the second car?

-Have your answer?  Now, what if:

---The vehicle on the tracks has three people and the second vehicle has only one?

---The vehicle on the tracks is a school bus full of children?

---The vehicle on the tracks is nursing home shuttle full of the elderly and the second vehicle is a school bus full of children?

 

Have fun providing the unerringly moral answer! 

 

Well your presumptions were all wrong. It should always be (legally of course, due process, something something) to "murder" someone who murders. (we call it the death penalty)

 

Like if someone is a hardened Nazi from WW2 going about Nazi policies or whatever it should (I'm just speaking in pure hypotheticals) legal to kill them or steal from them, etc. Honestly someone that goes that far forfeits all their rights to all sorts of things.

 

So I don't really need to get to the rest of your questions.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Wow, the heel-digging here is absolutely fascinating to watch.

 

Of course morality can be ambiguous.  It's a sliding scale. 

 

*snip*

 

Have fun providing the unerringly moral answer! 

Fair point. I retract my earlier statement. 

[Seraphim24]

If you consider your statement to be fact then by all means, I'll be interested in discussing it as I would very much disagree with it being fact.

 

Are you claiming this as fact or as your opinion?
 

 

 

Ok where would we start?

 

Tyrion is a jerk, Tywin is a jerk, The Red woman is... actually not as bad of a jerk. Iron Borne, all thugs. The Dornish, all thugs. The Freys, Boltons, all thugs and mafiosos basically... would take awhile to get to it all and not being the superfan as obvious I probably wouldn't be comprehensive.

 

The least violence are ironically the "conquerors" Targaryens, and even then they're still really messed up.

 

There's no "gray morality" it's just Sopranos in Middle Earth.

[Seraphim24]

Hard boiled Masochist and people who like attempting suicide.

 

Even if that were true, why would people gravitate towards such stories? They don't evince strength of heroism only weakness.

[Mr.House]

Even if that were true, why would people gravitate towards such stories? They don't evince strength of heroism only weakness.

What does your question have to do with liking more darker and tragic work? If it was not for people liking dark or tragic work many plays, stories, fairy tales ect would not exist and thus lots of inspiration would be gone, which is a fact.

[Seraphim24]

It's kinda like the rigamarole about DA2 being "gray" when really it was just like Neo-religious race war party.

 

Anyway like ok such people like exist that doesn't contradict "universal morality" though.

[ArchangelN7]

I think its cool because rather than have the game judging and telling you whats morally good or evil you'll now have to decide if your choices and decisions are by your standards morally right or wrong.

[Seraphim24]

What does your question have to do with liking more darker and tragic work? If it was not for people liking dark or tragic work many plays, stories, fairy tales ect would not exist and thus lots of inspiration would be gone, which is a fact.

 

I don't think that was the point of this thread though, we were talking about objective right and wrong.

 

I said GRRM Is wrong, is a degenerate, is messed up, if I ever came across him personally I'd probably have to resist the urge to barf.

 

BUT obviously people can read and commiserate with his stories, those things don't need to coincide with each other. Besides in between every massacre there's usually a moment where GOT demonstrate that they are capable of basic things like giving water to a prisoner before mutilating their genitals or whatever.

 

Just don't expect everyone to go swooning over that or chalk it up to "different tastes" when they don't.

[Monster A-Go Go]

Well your presumptions were all wrong. It should always be (legally of course, due process, something something) to "murder" someone who murders. (we call it the death penalty)

 

Like if someone is a hardened Nazi from WW2 going about Nazi policies or whatever it should (I'm just speaking in pure hypotheticals) legal to kill them or steal from them, etc. Honestly someone that goes that far forfeits all their rights to all sorts of things.

 

So I don't really need to get to the rest of your questions.

 

Wow.  Strawman argument, Godwin's law, affirming a disjunct, false equivalence, and support for the Hammurabi code all in one post.

 

Good job!

[AlanC9]

Because it is still an evil, thus isn't genuinely good.

But then isn't moral ambiguity a thing? Choices can have varying levels of evil and good in them, right?

Might be just a language thing. What do you mean when you say "moral ambiguity"?

[Mr.House]

I don't think that was the point of this thread though, we were talking about objective right and wrong.

 

I said GRRM Is wrong, is a degenerate, is messed up, if I ever came across him personally I'd probably have to resist the urge to barf.

 

BUT obviously people can read and commiserate with his stories, those things don't need to coincide with each other. Besides in between every massacre there's usually a moment where GOT demonstrate that they are capable of basic things like giving water to a prisoner before mutilating their genitals or whatever.

 

Just don't expect everyone to go swooning over that or chalk it up to "different tastes" when they don't.

Yes because GRRM MUST be sick in the head because of what he writes. Great strawman.

[Seraphim24]

Wow.  Strawman argument, Godwin's law, affirming a disjunct, false equivalence, and support for the Hammurabi code all in one post.

 

Good job!

 

That's all just intellectual psychobabble concocted by failures.

 

Hammurabi was a waste of humanity, he was just ripping off what came before, and so were the Romans who came up with all your precious "logical fallacies."

 

Sorry if I don't view the words of slavers and scum as worth the paper their printed on.

 

The Romans didn't "persuade" anyone neither did the "Greeks" they killed those that disagreed and claimed the remainder "agreed" because they were sub-degenerate animal grade "humans."

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But then isn't moral ambiguity a thing? Choices can have varying levels of evil and good in them, right?

Might be just a language thing. What do you mean when you say "moral ambiguity"?

As I said above to Monster A-Go Go's post, I retract that statement. I was wrong. 

 

I just hope there is still genuinely good choices in this game, rather than all being grey choices. 

[AlanC9]

Wow.  Strawman argument, Godwin's law, affirming a disjunct, false equivalence, and support for the Hammurabi code all in one post.
 
Good job!

The man's a pro.

[Seraphim24]

Would someone at least explain why we worship what Rome thinks about everything? They did fall and collapse you know, like, they aren't around anymore for a reason.

 

I just don't like being the side of losers but I guess you guys feel differently about it, which is fine, if you guys are masochistic that way.