510 réponses à ce sujet

[Harelda]

I'm with KnightofPhoenix on this one; evil is subjective. You'll have to live a pretty charmed life to never have to make a decision that could hurt or harm another person, even if it's only in a minor way.



I'm not arguing that Loghain is a good guy either, but he definately doesn't fit my idea of evil.

[Ultenth]

That's a pretty evasive excuse KoP. If you want to get that theoretical then there really isn't any point continueing the debate. I had assumed you wanted a real conversation about the character, but if you're going to start pulling out BS trump cards like that, which difuse any argument for or against anything, then there really isn't much point debating it at all. Way to be a ruiner.

People are calling him evil, you are disagreeing, trying to say he's just misunderstood and ruthless. But the word people are using to describe him, someone who brings misfortune and harm to others, is very accurate, by the accepted current connotation of the word.  I'd even go futher and say the definition should be bringing harm or misfortune to others who have not instigated it, IE "innocents" and even by that definition he fits it quite nicely.

And no, evil is not always subjective.  Someone who takes a 6 month year old child, kills and eats it, is always evil, and anyone who thinks it isn't is evil themselves.  Someone who puts out hits on defenders of the realm that were just doing their job and tries to blame them for everything is pretty damn evil in my book as well.  He was at ostragar, he was frightened enough of the blight to leave his king in the lurch, he should understand that the GW were right, and seek their aid, not try to kill them.

Modifié par Ultenth, 24 février 2010 - 07:44 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ultenth wrote...

That's a pretty evasive excuse KoP. If you want to get that theoretical then there really isn't any point continueing the debate. I had assumed you wanted a real conversation about the character, but if you're going to start pulling out BS trump cards like that, which difuse any argument for or against anything, then there really isn't much point debating it at all. Way to be a ruiner.

People are calling him evil, you are disagreeing, trying to say he's just misunderstood and ruthless. But the word people are using to describe him, someone who brings misfortune and harm to others, is very accurate, by the accepted current connotation of the word.

It's not evasive, nor is it a BS trump card. Rather, your attempt to impose a definition of evil as fact is. Evil is subjective, to argue otherwise is simply empty and pointless. And extremily simplistic.

If you call philosophy and the debate about ethics as BS, then perhaps it's best if we don't continue. 
Discussions about morality will never close. So why attempt to do that?
Besides, I wasn't the one who brought ethics into this.

The debate was about the actions that Loghain did and didn't do. The way we judge him ethically is and will always be subjective. Only a 12 year old could think otherwise.  You can think I am evil, and I would tell you that I don't give a dman about your opinion on this matter.
The Wardens were right, but they never said why and how they are necessary. Loghain didn't know their secret. IT wasn't his fault that he didn't know.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 février 2010 - 07:46 .

[Harelda]

Ultenth wrote...
And no, evil is not always subjective.  Someone who takes a 6 month year old child, kills and eats it, is always evil, and anyone who thinks it isn't is evil themselves.  Someone who puts out hits on defenders of the realm that were just doing their job and tries to blame them for everything is pretty damn evil in my book as well.  He was at ostragar, he was frightened enough of the blight to leave his king in the lurch, he should understand that the GW were right, and seek their aid, not try to kill them.

 Oh now this is BS. You're seriously using eating children as an example? Want to invoke Godwin's law while you're at it? In no way, shape or form is eating a child for the laughs the same as making hard decisions based on the defence of the country without having all the information.

Edit: Excuse/Example

Modifié par Harelda, 24 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[Ultenth]

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

[Ultenth]

Harelda wrote...

Ultenth wrote...
And no, evil is not always subjective.  Someone who takes a 6 month year old child, kills and eats it, is always evil, and anyone who thinks it isn't is evil themselves.  Someone who puts out hits on defenders of the realm that were just doing their job and tries to blame them for everything is pretty damn evil in my book as well.  He was at ostragar, he was frightened enough of the blight to leave his king in the lurch, he should understand that the GW were right, and seek their aid, not try to kill them.

 Oh now this is BS. You're seriously using eating children as an example? Want to invoke Godwin's law while you're at it? In no way, shape or form is eating a child for the laughs the same as making hard decisions based on the defence of the country without having all the information.

Edit: Excuse/Example

The point was to illustrate that evil is not always subjective. And often times the supposedly subjective nature is only due to lots of other people who have evil in their hearts trying to justify the evil of someone else, who then is able to convince themselves that of course they aren't evil.

[Kantarath]

So mother mice are evil eh?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ultenth wrote...

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

It wasn't started by Loghain supporters. Naturally, people come in and the only contribution they can make is "Loghain is evil because because". This isn't everyoen of course, some who argue against Loghain at least attempt to explain why they think those acts are evil or unjustified.
So we, including myself, responded as to why we think his actions are justified, providing a detailed exlanation as to why we think so.
But we, or at least I, never claimed that our / my opinion is truth. I said time and time again that Loghains' actions were justified in my opinion. And I have also said that the other opinions are just as valid as mine.

You on the otherhand come along, try to impose a very vague definition as truth, and thus effectively saying that everyone not agreeing with you is wrong. Moore would call that the "naturalistic fallacy".
You are always entitled to your opinion on a purely subjective matter. Just don't try to impose them as truth.

[Harelda]

Ultenth wrote...

Harelda wrote...

Ultenth wrote...
And no, evil is not always subjective.  Someone who takes a 6 month year old child, kills and eats it, is always evil, and anyone who thinks it isn't is evil themselves.  Someone who puts out hits on defenders of the realm that were just doing their job and tries to blame them for everything is pretty damn evil in my book as well.  He was at ostragar, he was frightened enough of the blight to leave his king in the lurch, he should understand that the GW were right, and seek their aid, not try to kill them.

 Oh now this is BS. You're seriously using eating children as an example? Want to invoke Godwin's law while you're at it? In no way, shape or form is eating a child for the laughs the same as making hard decisions based on the defence of the country without having all the information.

Edit: Excuse/Example

The point was to illustrate that evil is not always subjective. And often times the supposedly subjective nature is only due to lots of other people who have evil in their hearts trying to justify the evil of someone else, who then is able to convince themselves that of course they aren't evil.

 I give up. If you can't see the difference between eating children and what Loghain did then we're never going to find any common ground whatsoever. Also, nice call on saying anyone trying to defend Loghain or explain their sympathies for him is evil too. Really, awesome.

[casedawgz]

Could it not be said that executing a guy, who has already yielded to you, in front of his daughter is pretty despicable in itself?

[Harelda]

casedawgz wrote...

Could it not be said that executing a guy, who has already yielded to you, in front of his daughter is pretty despicable in itself?

 So blood splashes across her face, while she looks on in anguish.

[goofygoff]

casedawgz wrote...

Could it not be said that executing a guy, who has already yielded to you, in front of his daughter is pretty despicable in itself?

Thank you.

Every time someone expresses outright glee at seeing Anora's blood-splattered face, I weep a bit for humanity.

[Ultenth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ultenth wrote...

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

It wasn't started by Loghain supporters. Naturally, people come in and the only contribution they can make is "Loghain is evil because because". This isn't everyoen of course, some who argue against Loghain at least attempt to explain why they think those acts are evil or unjustified.
So we, including myself, responded as to why we think his actions are justified, providing a detailed exlanation as to why we think so.
But we, or at least I, never claimed that our / my opinion is truth. I said time and time again that Loghains' actions were justified in my opinion. And I have also said that the other opinions are just as valid as mine.

You on the otherhand come along, try to impose a very vague definition as truth, and thus effectively saying that everyone not agreeing with you is wrong. Moore would call that the "naturalistic fallacy".
You are always entitled to your opinion on a purely subjective matter. Just don't try to impose them as truth.

I disagree with the premise that it's purely subjective. While humans generally are held prisoner by previous experiences and their specific societal morals, that doesn't mean that the world is only viable to debate upon from our perspective alone.  For me it's quite simple math, if you look at the quality and existence of the lives of people, then anyone who takes an inordinate number of those lives and lowers their quality or eliminates them altogether is "evil".  No big moral debates about "it's okay because ____" just very simply someone that makes other's lives harder to live, or takes from them the chance to live, is someone that is not a good person.  Intentions and perspectives aside, in the end to humanity as a whole, that's really all that matters, people want to just live their lives as best they can, someone preventing that is evil.

[casedawgz]

Ultenth wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ultenth wrote...

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

It wasn't started by Loghain supporters. Naturally, people come in and the only contribution they can make is "Loghain is evil because because". This isn't everyoen of course, some who argue against Loghain at least attempt to explain why they think those acts are evil or unjustified.
So we, including myself, responded as to why we think his actions are justified, providing a detailed exlanation as to why we think so.
But we, or at least I, never claimed that our / my opinion is truth. I said time and time again that Loghains' actions were justified in my opinion. And I have also said that the other opinions are just as valid as mine.

You on the otherhand come along, try to impose a very vague definition as truth, and thus effectively saying that everyone not agreeing with you is wrong. Moore would call that the "naturalistic fallacy".
You are always entitled to your opinion on a purely subjective matter. Just don't try to impose them as truth.

I disagree with the premise that it's purely subjective. While humans generally are held prisoner by previous experiences and their specific societal morals, that doesn't mean that the world is only viable to debate upon from our perspective alone.  For me it's quite simple math, if you look at the quality and existence of the lives of people, then anyone who takes an inordinate number of those lives and lowers their quality or eliminates them altogether is "evil".  No big moral debates about "it's okay because ____" just very simply someone that makes other's lives harder to live, or takes from them the chance to live, is someone that is not a good person.  Intentions and perspectives aside, in the end to humanity as a whole, that's really all that matters, people want to just live their lives as best they can, someone preventing that is evil.

Sounds like Duncan's pretty evil then. You know, making Jory's kid grow up an orphan and all.

[Ultenth]

casedawgz wrote...

Ultenth wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ultenth wrote...

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

It wasn't started by Loghain supporters. Naturally, people come in and the only contribution they can make is "Loghain is evil because because". This isn't everyoen of course, some who argue against Loghain at least attempt to explain why they think those acts are evil or unjustified.
So we, including myself, responded as to why we think his actions are justified, providing a detailed exlanation as to why we think so.
But we, or at least I, never claimed that our / my opinion is truth. I said time and time again that Loghains' actions were justified in my opinion. And I have also said that the other opinions are just as valid as mine.

You on the otherhand come along, try to impose a very vague definition as truth, and thus effectively saying that everyone not agreeing with you is wrong. Moore would call that the "naturalistic fallacy".
You are always entitled to your opinion on a purely subjective matter. Just don't try to impose them as truth.

I disagree with the premise that it's purely subjective. While humans generally are held prisoner by previous experiences and their specific societal morals, that doesn't mean that the world is only viable to debate upon from our perspective alone.  For me it's quite simple math, if you look at the quality and existence of the lives of people, then anyone who takes an inordinate number of those lives and lowers their quality or eliminates them altogether is "evil".  No big moral debates about "it's okay because ____" just very simply someone that makes other's lives harder to live, or takes from them the chance to live, is someone that is not a good person.  Intentions and perspectives aside, in the end to humanity as a whole, that's really all that matters, people want to just live their lives as best they can, someone preventing that is evil.

Sounds like Duncan's pretty evil then. You know, making Jory's kid grow up an orphan and all.

Seems you missed a phrase in there, the stuff about math, and inordinate amounts.

[Cutlass Jack]

goofygoff wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Could it not be said that executing a guy, who has already yielded to you, in front of his daughter is pretty despicable in itself?

Thank you.

Every time someone expresses outright glee at seeing Anora's blood-splattered face, I weep a bit for humanity.

I felt no joy at the act, personally. And I would have spared her from witnessing it if I could. But if Anora truly wants to be queen, she should be willing to see justice done.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ultenth wrote...
I disagree with the premise that it's purely subjective. While humans generally are held prisoner by previous experiences and their specific societal morals, that doesn't mean that the world is only viable to debate upon from our perspective alone.  For me it's quite simple math, if you look at the quality and existence of the lives of people, then anyone who takes an inordinate number of those lives and lowers their quality or eliminates them altogether is "evil".  No big moral debates about "it's okay because ____" just very simply someone that makes other's lives harder to live, or takes from them the chance to live, is someone that is not a good person.  Intentions and perspectives aside, in the end to humanity as a whole, that's really all that matters, people want to just live their lives as best they can, someone preventing that is evil.

That's your opinion. You are entitled to it.
Kant would disagree with you, results do not matter in the morality of an act.
Utilitarians would disagree with you. If an act ends up doing the greater good, even if it harms people, then the act is justified.
My religion would disagree with you, we believe God judges the intentions.
And I can go on.
You don't want "big moral debates". I do, I think ethics is a very interesting subject.

At least you said "For me", showing that it's your opinion.
So in your opinion Loghain is evil. Good for you.
I do not think he is and I have argued why before.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 février 2010 - 08:15 .

[_Aine_]

People should take a look on their stats pages -- just how many kills have you wracked up in the name of YOUR cause in DA? Easy to hate the other side because they did wrong, but looks to me like we are all a bunch of killers, only difference is who we claim to like and naturally we all like our own causes best. Still, killers. Probably liars and thieves too. Some are kid killers in the name of what was "right". But of course, some lives are worth more than others right? Or it's your cause that makes it just? Let's line up the ones we think are more evil than us and then brag we will beat and behead them, because we are right so the cause is justice, not cruelty or torture. pffft. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but some of the hypocrisy around here is downright astounding.

[Kantarath]

Ultenth wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ultenth wrote...

If the debate was purely about what he did and didn't do, why are people argueing about if what he did was evil or not? Poisoning, assassinations, slavery, torture and executions, people are spending a lot of time trying to justify those acts ethically, including yourself. Now suddenly though it's all subjective and thus my points are bunk? I call shenanigans.

It wasn't started by Loghain supporters. Naturally, people come in and the only contribution they can make is "Loghain is evil because because". This isn't everyoen of course, some who argue against Loghain at least attempt to explain why they think those acts are evil or unjustified.
So we, including myself, responded as to why we think his actions are justified, providing a detailed exlanation as to why we think so.
But we, or at least I, never claimed that our / my opinion is truth. I said time and time again that Loghains' actions were justified in my opinion. And I have also said that the other opinions are just as valid as mine.

You on the otherhand come along, try to impose a very vague definition as truth, and thus effectively saying that everyone not agreeing with you is wrong. Moore would call that the "naturalistic fallacy".
You are always entitled to your opinion on a purely subjective matter. Just don't try to impose them as truth.

I disagree with the premise that it's purely subjective. While humans generally are held prisoner by previous experiences and their specific societal morals, that doesn't mean that the world is only viable to debate upon from our perspective alone.  For me it's quite simple math, if you look at the quality and existence of the lives of people, then anyone who takes an inordinate number of those lives and lowers their quality or eliminates them altogether is "evil".  No big moral debates about "it's okay because ____" just very simply someone that makes other's lives harder to live, or takes from them the chance to live, is someone that is not a good person.  Intentions and perspectives aside, in the end to humanity as a whole, that's really all that matters, people want to just live their lives as best they can, someone preventing that is evil.

What if lowering the quality or eliminating the lives of people would allow myself to live the best life I can?
Personally I think anything that increases my quality of life is justified.
Good and evil are not real things. What you seem to be talking about is more a arguement of Selfishness and Selflessness.

[Dethanos]

casedawgz wrote...

Sounds like Duncan's pretty evil then. You know, making Jory's kid grow up an orphan and all.

Well, there is a reason they're not called the White Wardens.

[Cutlass Jack]

shantisands wrote...

People should take a look on their stats pages -- just how many kills have you wracked up in the name of YOUR cause in DA? Easy to hate the other side because they did wrong, but looks to me like we are all a bunch of killers, only difference is who we claim to like and naturally we all like our own causes best. Still, killers. Probably liars and thieves too. Some are kid killers in the name of what was "right". But of course, some lives are worth more than others right? Or it's your cause that makes it just? Let's line up the ones we think are more evil than us and then brag we will beat and behead them, because we are right so the cause is justice, not cruelty or torture. pffft. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but some of the hypocrisy around here is downright astounding.

Not precicely a fair comparison. Most of the kills on my stat page tried to kill me first.

[Harelda]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

goofygoff wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Could it not be said that executing a guy, who has already yielded to you, in front of his daughter is pretty despicable in itself?

Thank you.

Every time someone expresses outright glee at seeing Anora's blood-splattered face, I weep a bit for humanity.

I felt no joy at the act, personally. And I would have spared her from witnessing it if I could. But if Anora truly wants to be queen, she should be willing to see justice done.

 Anora is one of the few characters I can't work up any sympathy for. I'm far fonder of Loghain, Bhaelen and Zathrias than I am her. I can rationalise in my head that she's probably not as cold hearted and power hungry as she initially seems and that she's just lost her husband and is about to watch her father die in front of her eyes but... Nope, nothing. Apart from Howe I really can't think of another character I just plain couldn't care less about being hurt or dead. Not even Uldred and he was a right git.

[casedawgz]

Dethanos wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

Sounds like Duncan's pretty evil then. You know, making Jory's kid grow up an orphan and all.

Well, there is a reason they're not called the White Wardens.

Exactly my point. One shouldn't look at Loghain in terms of black and white if one is unwilling to turn this gaze on all the other characters. Nobody really leaves DA:O with completely clean hands, and it seems a bit unfair to localize all the hate on one character simply because its a little easier to do so.

[goofygoff]

shantisands wrote...



People should take a look on their stats pages -- just how many kills have you wracked up in the name of YOUR cause in DA? Easy to hate the other side because they did wrong, but looks to me like we are all a bunch of killers, only difference is who we claim to like and naturally we all like our own causes best. Still, killers. Probably liars and thieves too. Some are kid killers in the name of what was "right". But of course, some lives are worth more than others right? Or it's your cause that makes it just? Let's line up the ones we think are more evil than us and then brag we will beat and behead them, because we are right so the cause is justice, not cruelty or torture. pffft. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but some of the hypocrisy around here is downright astounding.

But that was totally different! I sacrificed others, allied myself with someone who'd murdered an entire family, consorted with a blood mage, and meddled in politics in order to save the land from a grave threat!



Oh, wait... >.>

[Cutlass Jack]

Harelda wrote...

 Anora is one of the few characters I can't work up any sympathy for. I'm far fonder of Loghain, Bhaelen and Zathrias than I am her. I can rationalise in my head that she's probably not as cold hearted and power hungry as she initially seems and that she's just lost her husband and is about to watch her father die in front of her eyes but... Nope, nothing. Apart from Howe I really can't think of another character I just plain couldn't care less about being hurt or dead. Not even Uldred and he was a right git.

Honestly I love Anora. Not because she's perfect and wonderful, but because she plays out so differently based on who you are and the actions you take when dealing with her. My wife and I were doing our first playthroughs at the same time. In mine, Anora was this great woman who completely delivered on every promise she made to me and always had my back. Including executing her father for his crimes. On my wife's game she was a conniving wench who betrayed her at nearly every opportunity.

It was really funny. We both replayed our Landsmeets with the different Anoras and were just floored at the difference.