Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 23 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 22 23
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
I love it when the Illiad comes up in a Minthara thread smile @KillerRabbit <3
For the Greeks, Achilles choosing to fight that battle is a tragedy. Greek heroes are ones who are forced to destroy themselves in order to preserve their own honor, this need to preserve honor extends even to the Gods who are willing to allow terrible things happen for the same reasons, Hector killed (unwittingly) Patroclus so he is technically as culpable as Achilles. Another facet of the Illiad that you don't typically get is just how long the Greeks have been waging war, After the focus of Achilles' slighted honor turns from Agamemnon to the Trojans, he is no longer behaving like an honorable Greek, killing Trojans who surrendered, unthinkable at the start of the war, now happens, as the Greeks find themselves resenting having to fight for so long to appease the pride of one of their Kings. And don't forget what becomes of Agamemnon either.

Exactly right. I think the film did a good job with by showing Achilles' dragging Hector's corpse for so long. Such is the tragedy of the war mad man -- he cannot find satisfaction even in victory. There is a very Greek warning about the dangers of excess in that part of the tale -- Achilles has become drunk on war and it's a horrible sight. I'd like to see another adaptation that focuses on the elements you mention. That this war has gone on forever and really emphasizing how tragic it see Achilles captured by a single passion. It's time to drink and have sex why won't he let the battle end . . .

Quote
Spot on about the saber fights in Star Wars and Jedi, though another thing people seem to forget about Luke is that he is forging his own path here, both Obi-Wan and Yoda believe Vader unredeemable and council Luke to kill Vader, good thing he listens to the Force and not some ghosts.

Good point!

Yeah, I do agree there is some messaging in Episode III which was the best of the prequels. I think among other things Lucas had just lost his fondness for eastern philosophy and thus the ability to weave an interesting tale about the force.

(the let go Padme advice that Yoda gives is very Buddhist but the audience leaves that scene thinking that Yoda screwed by recommending such bitter medicine)

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Could you provide to me rational and logical arguments that would suggest that objective morality can exist in the real world? Because I can provide such arguments for it's absense.

I am (sincerely) sorry to disappoint Sozz but in real life I, as I do suspect you, believe that morality is a socio-historical construct and not the instantiation of divine or natural forces.


(although I do believe that morality has some naturalistic bases -- the ability to mentally reverse and put ourselves into the position of other and I'm at least open to possibility that the feeling of empathy has evolutionary origins. Humans are dependent (and annoying) for a very long time and something keeps most parents from tossing the little ones the cliff)

So do I have you right, are you a social constructionist? If so what gives you the confidence that you have an objective view of what morality is like in our world?

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 22/01/21 11:45 PM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by fylimar
I didn't want to get off the trail with the alignment discussion, which seems to be pretty lively atm.
I think to not give the companions alignment tags is not a bad thing. Let their actions speak for them.

I think the problem with just letting their actions speak for them is that there are gods watching the humans and trying to influence what they do. So use a phrase that I often hear against alignment (not from you) "why do you need labels"? "why put things into boxes"?

For me the answer to that goes back to the gods. Different gods control different aspects of the morality and want you act in a certain way. Shadowheart's story is interesting to me because her head and her heart are at odds. For a Sharran, the slaughter of the grove is good thing. One step closer to ending all life and bringing about eternal night.

Likewise Minthara likely worships a lawful evil deity (authority . . . Obey the drow . . . Obey Dror Ragzlin . . ) and so her decision to spare your life puts her at odds with deity.

Playing a cleric or paladin become less interesting when alignment is out of the picture.

And yeah, I'm like you. Had to youtube it. No way I'm going to play "slaughter the innocents"

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by fylimar
It's a verytraditional worldview, that does not hold much truth. Gladly in modern media the vulnerability and damsel in distress trope is used less and less. I think in BG 3 they do a pretty good job with the female companions so far in that regard (in other games too). Ironically I can't say much about Minthara, I only watched her scenes on YouTube, but she doesn't seem fall into that trope either.

It's not a traditional view, it's just an aspect of femininity. I've said this before, femininity =/= female, a male can also have vulnerability and that will be a feminine trait.

Minthara does not fall into this trope.

Originally Posted by Sozz
I said true or efficient but I think in either case you're being a little obtuse. And coming up with a system of your own with out it being universally applicable is Existentialism, so there's some overlap with Nihilism.

Do you understand that there is no such thing as universal morality? It exists in the mind of humans, and is different depending on the individual, it does not exist on a cosmic scale in a vacuum. I'm not saying that people ought to do whatever they want, there are clearly right and wrong actions withing the system of rules we created, but it is a social construct.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I am (sincerely) sorry to disappoint Sozz but in real life I, as I do suspect you, believe that morality is a socio-historical construct and not the instantiation of divine or natural forces.

And that's all I am saying, and it is not a concept I want to be objective due to magic in video games.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I'm at least open to possibility that the feeling of empathy has evolutionary origins.

Yes, empathy is an evolved mechanism to keep species that are not loners together to work for the greater benefit of all.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
So do I have you right, are you a social constructionist? If so what gives you the confidence that you have an objective view of what morality is like in our world?

Logic and reason. I am all ears to the alternatives, if it sounds better and more logical I will change my mind.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
So do I have you right, are you a social constructionist? If so what gives you the confidence that you have an objective view of what morality is like in our world?

Logic and reason. I am all ears to the alternatives, if it sounds better and more logical I will change my mind.

Well that would take in a direction you've said you don't want to go. As social constructionists we know that one cannot separate subject and object and any 'objective' viewpoint is filtered through the lens by which it is seen. I think the 'grey morality' view is one that is allied with or an expression of political realism. Which believes that morality is either impossible or undesirable.

I would mention that there is one minor but significant difference between our constructionist viewpoint -- one that resonates with the nihilist / existentialist distinction @sozz brought up.
Quote
It exists in the mind of humans, and is different depending on the individual, it does not exist on a cosmic scale in a vacuum.

I think that's overstated. I think points of agreement are codified in documents like the universal declaration of human rights and other such documents. We don't need to think that morality is the expression of a cosmic force to see that certain ethical / moral principles are spelled out in certain historically constructed artifacts.

But the core of disagreement (and it's been fun) boils down to this:
Quote
it is not a concept I want to be objective due to magic in video games.

To me the world become less interesting the less magical it gets. I want the power of the gods to turn away evil undead, I want smite devils with divine power. I want holy swords to hum with the power of objective goodness.

Make way evil!

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want the power of the gods to turn away evil undead,.

Why can't undead be turned by Gods who just hate them and whos magic is their kriptonite?

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want smite devils with divine power.

You don't need alignment to do this.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want holy swords to hum with the power of objective goodness.

Why Goodness and not anti-devilness?

This all can happen without alignment. You can have a paladin in shiny armor fightning undead and devils, without the universe conformation that you are indeed objectively good.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
And that's all I am saying, and it is not a concept I want to be objective due to magic in video games.
Well, as much as I agree with you, BG3 is set in the D&D multiverse and good/evil & law/chaos IS an objective concept here - I don't exactly like that part, but it is what it is. So certainly the arguments for alignment are stronger here than in most other uni/multiverses. For instance, Raphael - a devil - is an essence of lawful evil, and actually must obey a very specific "truly lawful evil" morality - lawful evil mortals would generally have a much broader set of worldviews, behaviors and moralities than the devils and beings inherently connected to Baator.

So there are really no strict rules applying to mortals with free will, certainly not those races created by non-evil gods. And generally, in 5e, it is really not used much in mechanics, spells etc. Honestly, PC's alignment in 5e is a weird thing, e.g. read this rant if you have the time. The way alignment is handled in 5e makes me say: Screw alignment for all non-celestial/fiend characters, avoid if at all possible - but the objective nature of good, evil, law & chaos in the multiverse will manifest itself sometimes.

Last edited by DiDiDi; 23/01/21 12:36 AM. Reason: typo
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want the power of the gods to turn away evil undead,.

Why can't undead be turned by Gods who just hate them and whos magic is their kriptonite?

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want smite devils with divine power.

You don't need alignment to do this.

Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
I want holy swords to hum with the power of objective goodness.

Why Goodness and not anti-devilness?

This all can happen without alignment. You can have a paladin in shiny armor fightning undead and devils, without the universe conformation that you are indeed objectively good.

Less interesting, innit? If you judge by memes / comics / mentions which do think is the more popular feature -- a ranger's favored enemy or divine smite?

Why do you think the big baddie is devil and an evil god? Why change gnolls from mutant hyenas to demonspawn? My answer is coolness. What's cooler -- an inherently evil book with forbidden knowledge that you should have read or that book that can't read because only nobles are allowed to read that stuff? I say the former.

Last edited by KillerRabbit; 23/01/21 12:34 AM. Reason: still kan't tipe
Joined: Oct 2015
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2015
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
So do I have you right, are you a social constructionist? If so what gives you the confidence that you have an objective view of what morality is like in our world?
I'm confused why you're addressing this question to Kadajko. I've been arguing this point much more strongly. lol.

It's social contract theory (cooperative self-interest). Basically, no one likes being murdered (ie killed without their consent), so we're all better off existing in a society that doesn't approve of murder. You can extrapolate an entire moral system from basic consequentialist social contract theory.

Of course, you can argue that if someone is in a position of power, like a king, then it would appear there is no social contract -- no consequences for him to be a tyrant. But if you change perspective and look at the perspective of the people who live in his kingdom, then they are compelled to overthrow a tyrant. As a consequence, a king ought to consider whether being a tyrant is in his best interest after all.

That said, just because there is an "objectively correct choice" based on social contract theory, that doesn't mean that you always have the information necessary to know which choice is the "objectively correct choice" and this is where we need to do our best within the limitations of our own subjectivity and risk-assessment.

What I object to is with a moral system in a game, it's almost always broken. For example:
  • You get good karma for doing an (stupid good) action like saving a murderer (who you know will murder again) and evil karma (normal good) for letting him die.
  • You get good karma for saving a town for money (normal evil), and evil karma (stupid evil) for burning it down for no reason.
  • You get good karma for eating your vegetables and bad karma for eating junk food. (Like WTF this isn't even really moral.)

Like, I think it's interesting to have "holiness" and "unholiness" points. This still allows for you to have things like "holy/righteous swords". But one of the things I enjoy is when holiness is explicitly shown not to be the same as morally good, and you're forced to make your own decisions instead of just having a code of ethics handed to you. smile

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
There have been no screenshots in this thread for a long time.
See how graceful and proud she is

[Linked Image from static1.srcdn.com]

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Well, as much as I agree with you, BG3 is set in the D&D multiverse and good/evil & law/chaos IS an objective concept here - I don't exactly like that part, but it is what it is.

I understand, I just express my vote for Wizards to move away from alignment, which they slowly are as I see.

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
For instance, Raphael - a devil - is an essence of lawful evil, and actually must obey a very specific "truly lawful evil" morality - lawful evil mortals would generally have a much broader set of worldviews, behaviors and moralities than the devils and beings inherently connected to Baator.

And you can very easily say that devils are just creatures in whos nature it is to keep their word, and that they lack empathy. Simple.

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Why do you think the big baddie is devil and an evil god?

It is for the player to decide who the big baddie is, and it does not have to be an evil god or a devil, you are free to make choices.

Regardless, like I said, we can agree to disagree, I get your point, we just have different opinions on what is fun and cool and what is not, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think we need to get back, on topic, before the mods ask us to do so, this was fun but the derail is real. lol

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
@OneManArmy

Minthara looks ok, but not going to lie, when it comes to appearence I am not the biggest fan, specially that hair, but I liked her character more so far.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
@OneManArmy

Minthara looks ok, but not going to lie, when it comes to appearence I am not the biggest fan, specially that hair, but I liked her character more so far.

I love her hair, but I'm interested to see how you see her hair. Are there examples? Perhaps, it really can be improved, show how you see it.

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I love her hair, but I'm interested to see how you see her hair. Are there examples? Perhaps, it really can be improved, show how you see it.

I'll have to mod it first, and I am not in a habbit of modding EA like a lot of people out there. lol

I understand the logic behind her hair, but I would prefer something less generic. I can show you the kind of hairstyles I like in CC if you want.

Edit: Actually never mind, I forgot that I downloaded the NPC heads mod. BRB.

Last edited by Kadajko; 23/01/21 12:56 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Ayvah
I'm confused why you're addressing this question to Kadajko. I've been arguing this point much more strongly. lol.

Apologies, I had fun with Kadajko in another thread and that's probably why smile I'm going to chicken out a bit on social contract theory because I have lots of problems with it (see Carol Pateman if you want to know why) and that will get us waaaay off topic.

But to your examples:

What I object to is with a moral system in a game, it's almost always broken. For example:
  • You get good karma for doing an (stupid good) action like saving a murderer (who you know will murder again) and evil karma (normal good) for letting him die.
  • You get good karma for saving a town for money (normal evil), and evil karma (stupid evil) for burning it down for no reason.
  • You get good karma for eating your vegetables and bad karma for eating junk food. (Like WTF this isn't even really moral.)

Like, I think it's interesting to have "holiness" and "unholiness" points. This still allows for you to have things like "holy/righteous swords". But one of the things I enjoy is when holiness is explicitly shown not to be the same as morally good, and you're forced to make your own decisions instead of just having a code of ethics handed to you. smile[/quote]

Sure we can disagree with how well it's done but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. People disagree, disagreements lead to forum discussions and that's bad . . . why?

If you think the implementation is bad you ask the devs to change. Right now I've asked the Solasta devs to add a chaotic good option to list of responses. In the game you are deputized as council representative and you invade the castle of a necromancer to ask for a part of an artifact. When you finally make to the end boss you only have lawful good, lawful neutral and neutral responses. In the logic of the setting, getting the necromancer to hand over the artifact peacefully is lawful good because that's your mandate from the council. But I don't get to say "your evil ends here necromancer" even if that leads to greater evil down the road. My toon doesn't care about the council she is forced to deal with or their stupid laws, she wants to see evil get a smack down.

So I posted a request on the forums of devs. I want my option but I'd be even more upset if the only options left to me were grey morality ones. Because grey is dull color.

With any video game options are handed to you -- if you want to make up your own morality / own stories that's best done in a game without any dialogue options at all. Then you are free to make up any story you like about your toons. But I think we both agree that that would be boring, right?

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
OP Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
I love her hair, but I'm interested to see how you see her hair. Are there examples? Perhaps, it really can be improved, show how you see it.

I'll have to mod it first, and I am not in a habbit of modding EA like a lot of people out there. lol

I understand the logic behind her hair, but I would prefer something less generic. I can show you the kind of hairstyles I like in CC if you want.

Edit: Actually never mind, I forgot that I downloaded the NPC heads mod. BRB.

Come on. Show me, what hairstyle from the editor would you use for Minthara?

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
And you can very easily say that devils are just creatures in whos nature it is to keep their word, and that they lack empathy. Simple.
Yeah, no. There is Blood War - an actual clash of (evil) Law and (evil) Chaos - the whole cosmology stuff etc.

You can certainly do away with alignment itself, many DMs using 5e actually already did just that (and I completely agree with it), but not the actual cosmology and the objective nature of g/e/l/c. Devils are evil manifestations of Law, always will be.

Joined: Mar 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Kadajko
I think we need to get back, on topic, before the mods ask us to do so, this was fun but the derail is real. lol

True. But the OP got to increase page numbers and there's that.

On topic. Umm. I like that ring mail?

(but truth be told I prefer to smack her down and take her mace)

Joined: May 2016
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Originally Posted by OneManArmy
Come on. Show me, what hairstyle from the editor would you use for Minthara?

Something like this:

[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]

Her head btw. A bit more elegant/proud and drow-like. Though like I said, I understand why her hair is messy, when she lives in a goblin camp.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Paladin smite in 5e does not require target to be evil (or any other alignment).

Page 16 of 23 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 22 23

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5