The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
I do not think it is certain that it will cause an eighth Blight. It may be the fact that the Old Gods were imprisoned that caused them to call out to the darkspawn. The freed Old God in the child might not.
Fine then.
It's evil because if you do it, there are good reasons to believe that an eighth Blight would be likely, but if you don't, and nobody else does it later, there certainly will be no more than seven.
Happy?
I mean, if we're talking certain, it's not even certain that there will be another Blight at all. Maybe the remaining dragons aren't as corruptible. Maybe only the ones that were already Blighted were 'calling.' Maybe there were only five dragons in the first place, and everyone got it wrong. Maybe the next Blight will have happy bunnies instead of darkspawn. Maybe Morrigan was bullshitting about the sex part of the ritual and the child and just wanted to get into your/Alistair's/Loghain's pants. Maybe a dingo ate your Baby of Doom.
You just never know, right?
Its not evil because you're saving the soul of an Old God from corruption.
Say that you, for whatever reason, have a fortune cookie in your pocket, and you know that this fortune cookie contains, not a fortune, but the nuclear launch codes to the US arsenal, including instructions for their use. You are walking down the street, and you see (hear) a homeless-looking person. He is ranting about the evils of some nation he believes is evil, or how all the jews and gays in Hollywood are taking over the world, or some such paranoid nonsense. He also looks very hungry.
You give him the cookie, naturally. He's hungry. It's the right thing to do. It's not evil to feed a hungry person, right? Never mind that you're knowingly and willingly putting millions of innocent lives in danger.
Right, and we should kill every German baby because they might grow up to be the next Hitler?
Edit: Slight correction: Austrian baby.
Er, that's exactly what I'm talking about. There is good in the act (you'll surely get rid of at least one bad person!), but that doesn't mean it isn't atrocious, just like JohnDoe's
'saving the old god soul from corruption'
is an atrocity because it also means
having that old god probably get corrupted again later and killing a whole ton more people via the eighth Blight.
I bet your the kind of guy that
purged the mage circle because of the possiblity of abominations, demons and blood magic.
purged the mage circle because of the possiblity of abominations, demons and blood magic.
Except I've just spent the last half hour or so explaining that doing that sort of thing is bad, that just because something has an outcome that is in some part good, it doesn't excuse any bad consequences, and it can't even counteract them unless you take a viewpoint that is of dubious moral value.
Not that I didn't do it once. It's an achievement, after all.
We need to kill babies because they contain nuclear launch codes that can wipe out all gay Jews?
:P
No, no, NO! Why is nobody paying attention to what I actually say and just saying that since I wrote about a theoretical situation that I am somehow endorsing that situation?
The codes are in cookies. Delicious cookies. We need to kill babies because if we don't, they might eat the cookies. Less babies means more cookies for us. Mmmm, cookies.
I do not think it is certain that it will cause an eighth Blight. It may be the fact that the Old Gods were imprisoned that caused them to call out to the darkspawn. The freed Old God in the child might not.
Fine then.
It's evil because if you do it, there are good reasons to believe that an eighth Blight would be likely, but if you don't, and nobody else does it later, there certainly will be no more than seven.
Happy?
I mean, if we're talking certain, it's not even certain that there will be another Blight at all. Maybe the remaining dragons aren't as corruptible. Maybe only the ones that were already Blighted were 'calling.' Maybe there were only five dragons in the first place, and everyone got it wrong. Maybe the next Blight will have happy bunnies instead of darkspawn. Maybe Morrigan was bullshitting about the sex part of the ritual and the child and just wanted to get into your/Alistair's/Loghain's pants. Maybe a dingo ate your Baby of Doom.
You just never know, right?
Its not evil because you're saving the soul of an Old God from corruption.
Say that you, for whatever reason, have a fortune cookie in your pocket, and you know that this fortune cookie contains, not a fortune, but the nuclear launch codes to the US arsenal, including instructions for their use. You are walking down the street, and you see (hear) a homeless-looking person. He is ranting about the evils of some nation he believes is evil, or how all the jews and gays in Hollywood are taking over the world, or some such paranoid nonsense. He also looks very hungry.
You give him the cookie, naturally. He's hungry. It's the right thing to do. It's not evil to feed a hungry person, right? Never mind that you're knowingly and willingly putting millions of innocent lives in danger.
In other words, there can be both good and evil in an act; one good aspect does not negate any evil aspect, and even if you want to try to claim that they 'balance,' such ethical calculus is generally defined as unacceptable by the 'good.'
I said "not evil", not "good". You're the claiming the act is completely evil. Your point of view is 'good'. Any other view is 'evil'.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think there is no possibility of good coming from having an uncorrupted Old God alive. What about the lives it could save or improve? The knowledge it could bring?
Your point of view is laughably naive. Never do anything with a risk. Better not have any children! They could turn out to be Hitler! Its happened once before, the only good option is to never let it happen again.
JohnDoe on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
In local news police reported to the seen of an alleged baby murder. Locals claimed a deranged man was threating a baby with a knife. When police arrived on seen they said the suspect was "belligerent and incoherent" and screaming, "The cookies! The cookies! The damn Jew babies will blow up all the cookies!"
The man was taken into custody, but later released. The cookie murdering baby remains in custody.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
I do not think it is certain that it will cause an eighth Blight. It may be the fact that the Old Gods were imprisoned that caused them to call out to the darkspawn. The freed Old God in the child might not.
Fine then.
It's evil because if you do it, there are good reasons to believe that an eighth Blight would be likely, but if you don't, and nobody else does it later, there certainly will be no more than seven.
Happy?
I mean, if we're talking certain, it's not even certain that there will be another Blight at all. Maybe the remaining dragons aren't as corruptible. Maybe only the ones that were already Blighted were 'calling.' Maybe there were only five dragons in the first place, and everyone got it wrong. Maybe the next Blight will have happy bunnies instead of darkspawn. Maybe Morrigan was bullshitting about the sex part of the ritual and the child and just wanted to get into your/Alistair's/Loghain's pants. Maybe a dingo ate your Baby of Doom.
You just never know, right?
Its not evil because you're saving the soul of an Old God from corruption.
Say that you, for whatever reason, have a fortune cookie in your pocket, and you know that this fortune cookie contains, not a fortune, but the nuclear launch codes to the US arsenal, including instructions for their use. You are walking down the street, and you see (hear) a homeless-looking person. He is ranting about the evils of some nation he believes is evil, or how all the jews and gays in Hollywood are taking over the world, or some such paranoid nonsense. He also looks very hungry.
You give him the cookie, naturally. He's hungry. It's the right thing to do. It's not evil to feed a hungry person, right? Never mind that you're knowingly and willingly putting millions of innocent lives in danger.
In other words, there can be both good and evil in an act; one good aspect does not negate any evil aspect, and even if you want to try to claim that they 'balance,' such ethical calculus is generally defined as unacceptable by the 'good.'
I said "not evil", not "good". You're the claiming the act is completely evil. Your point of view is 'good'. Any other view is 'evil'.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think there is no possibility of good coming from having an uncorrupted Old God alive. What about the lives it could save or improve? The knowledge it could bring?
Your point of view is laughably naive. Never do anything with a risk. Better not have any children! They could turn out to be Hitler! Its happened once before, the only good option is to never let it happen again.
In local news police reported to the seen of an alleged baby murder. Locals claimed a deranged man was threating a baby with a knife. When police arrived on seen they said the suspect was "belligerent and incoherent" and screaming, "The cookies! The cookies! The damn Jew babies will blow up all the cookies!"
The man was taken into custody, but later released. The cookie murdering baby remains in custody.
Was it Sten?
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I do not think it is certain that it will cause an eighth Blight. It may be the fact that the Old Gods were imprisoned that caused them to call out to the darkspawn. The freed Old God in the child might not.
Fine then.
It's evil because if you do it, there are good reasons to believe that an eighth Blight would be likely, but if you don't, and nobody else does it later, there certainly will be no more than seven.
Happy?
I mean, if we're talking certain, it's not even certain that there will be another Blight at all. Maybe the remaining dragons aren't as corruptible. Maybe only the ones that were already Blighted were 'calling.' Maybe there were only five dragons in the first place, and everyone got it wrong. Maybe the next Blight will have happy bunnies instead of darkspawn. Maybe Morrigan was bullshitting about the sex part of the ritual and the child and just wanted to get into your/Alistair's/Loghain's pants. Maybe a dingo ate your Baby of Doom.
You just never know, right?
Its not evil because you're saving the soul of an Old God from corruption.
Say that you, for whatever reason, have a fortune cookie in your pocket, and you know that this fortune cookie contains, not a fortune, but the nuclear launch codes to the US arsenal, including instructions for their use. You are walking down the street, and you see (hear) a homeless-looking person. He is ranting about the evils of some nation he believes is evil, or how all the jews and gays in Hollywood are taking over the world, or some such paranoid nonsense. He also looks very hungry.
You give him the cookie, naturally. He's hungry. It's the right thing to do. It's not evil to feed a hungry person, right? Never mind that you're knowingly and willingly putting millions of innocent lives in danger.
In other words, there can be both good and evil in an act; one good aspect does not negate any evil aspect, and even if you want to try to claim that they 'balance,' such ethical calculus is generally defined as unacceptable by the 'good.'
I said "not evil", not "good". You're the claiming the act is completely evil. Your point of view is 'good'. Any other view is 'evil'.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think there is no possibility of good coming from having an uncorrupted Old God alive. What about the lives it could save or improve? The knowledge it could bring?
Your point of view is laughably naive. Never do anything with a risk. Better not have any children! They could turn out to be Hitler! Its happened once before, the only good option is to never let it happen again.
Am I seriously typing through some kind of filter that causes my words to appear warped and insane to everyone else? People are saying I say things and I am not saying anything remotely resembling those things.
The act is not in any way not evil. It is also not in any way not good. It is both evil and good, as is the cookie example. (I certainly never said that it was not good; quite the opposite. I merely said that it was evil.)
1) Your point of view is laughably naive. We have evidence that Old Gods are directly correlated with Blights, and can be said with some accuracy to be their cause. We have evidence that even before they were corrupted, the old gods were dubious at best. Remember the huge blood magic ritual that killed hundreds of slaves and created the first darkspawn? At the Old Gods' behest. Historically documented.
All that said, it is still an act of good to de-corrupt an Old God's soul, because all living beings deserve a chance to choose, or a chance to repent, or a chance to do good, or whatever.
2) If one were to do ethical calculus, the near certainty of creating an entirely new Blight in the future is probably about equal to the good that an uncorrupted Old God could do, were said Old God to be a force for good. Whether or not the Old God will be a force for good is entirely unknown, and even unlikely, considering that Morrigan is running the show; by far the most likely situation is that it will become a relatively nonthreatening evil, like Flemeth.
3) And that's if you do ethical calculus. As previously mentioned, in the vast majority of cases, doing bad for good's sake (even if good is truly accomplished, and even if the good outweighs the bad) is still considered bad by the vast majority of people, including myself.
kurokaze on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
Maybe it is "Fuck with Kurokaze Day"?
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
So, back to about how Shale is cool: I haven't done the health-regen-while-paralyzed thing at all really. How does it scale?
It seems like if you had say, Shale + a couple ranged people, that could be a great way to keep them alive, maybe swapping to Rock Mastery when the fancy struck you. I don't trust it for melee help, though, since it actually makes Shale easier to kill without eliminating aggro.
It's all good. If this stopped I'd have no excuse to avoid going back to the Mage Tower and going through the fade dungeon.
I'm still not sure on the scaling, but the big minus I've noticed to Totem of Shale is that it seems to draw a buttload of aggro.
Two archers just gib stuff, though, and double scattershot yessssss so it hasn't been a problem. (Nightmare mode.)
The biggest problem with the Shale + 2 archers idea is that the actual ranged attack mode can get pretty dangerous because Hurl Rock has a tendency to not do what you tell it to (the rock can hit people/raised ground areas/random crap in the way and blow up in your face).
I do not think it is certain that it will cause an eighth Blight. It may be the fact that the Old Gods were imprisoned that caused them to call out to the darkspawn. The freed Old God in the child might not.
Fine then.
It's evil because if you do it, there are good reasons to believe that an eighth Blight would be likely, but if you don't, and nobody else does it later, there certainly will be no more than seven.
Happy?
I mean, if we're talking certain, it's not even certain that there will be another Blight at all. Maybe the remaining dragons aren't as corruptible. Maybe only the ones that were already Blighted were 'calling.' Maybe there were only five dragons in the first place, and everyone got it wrong. Maybe the next Blight will have happy bunnies instead of darkspawn. Maybe Morrigan was bullshitting about the sex part of the ritual and the child and just wanted to get into your/Alistair's/Loghain's pants. Maybe a dingo ate your Baby of Doom.
You just never know, right?
Its not evil because you're saving the soul of an Old God from corruption.
Say that you, for whatever reason, have a fortune cookie in your pocket, and you know that this fortune cookie contains, not a fortune, but the nuclear launch codes to the US arsenal, including instructions for their use. You are walking down the street, and you see (hear) a homeless-looking person. He is ranting about the evils of some nation he believes is evil, or how all the jews and gays in Hollywood are taking over the world, or some such paranoid nonsense. He also looks very hungry.
You give him the cookie, naturally. He's hungry. It's the right thing to do. It's not evil to feed a hungry person, right? Never mind that you're knowingly and willingly putting millions of innocent lives in danger.
In other words, there can be both good and evil in an act; one good aspect does not negate any evil aspect, and even if you want to try to claim that they 'balance,' such ethical calculus is generally defined as unacceptable by the 'good.'
I said "not evil", not "good". You're the claiming the act is completely evil. Your point of view is 'good'. Any other view is 'evil'.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think there is no possibility of good coming from having an uncorrupted Old God alive. What about the lives it could save or improve? The knowledge it could bring?
Your point of view is laughably naive. Never do anything with a risk. Better not have any children! They could turn out to be Hitler! Its happened once before, the only good option is to never let it happen again.
Am I seriously typing through some kind of filter that causes my words to appear warped and insane to everyone else? People are saying I say things and I am not saying anything remotely resembling those things.
The act is not in any way not evil. It is also not in any way not good. It is both evil and good, as is the cookie example. (I certainly never said that it was not good; quite the opposite. I merely said that it was evil.)
1) Your point of view is laughably naive. We have evidence that Old Gods are directly correlated with Blights, and can be said with some accuracy to be their cause. We have evidence that even before they were corrupted, the old gods were dubious at best. Remember the huge blood magic ritual that killed hundreds of slaves and created the first darkspawn? At the Old Gods' behest. Historically documented.
All that said, it is still an act of good to de-corrupt an Old God's soul, because all living beings deserve a chance to choose, or a chance to repent, or a chance to do good, or whatever.
2) If one were to do ethical calculus, the near certainty of creating an entirely new Blight in the future is probably about equal to the good that an uncorrupted Old God could do, were said Old God to be a force for good. Whether or not the Old God will be a force for good is entirely unknown, and even unlikely, considering that Morrigan is running the show; by far the most likely situation is that it will become a relatively nonthreatening evil, like Flemeth.
3) And that's if you do ethical calculus. As previously mentioned, in the vast majority of cases, doing bad for good's sake (even if good is truly accomplished, and even if the good outweighs the bad) is still considered bad by the vast majority of people, including myself.
Bullshit. Every decision requires ethical calculus.
Your cookie example was an obvious example - feed a homeless person or kill millions. You went with that to prove your point was correct, by completely weighting one side of the argument. And your in game argument (near certainty of a new Blight... based on, what exactly? Your opinion?), again, used ethical calculus.
How about this one
Theres a group of a million people starving. They may survive for a reasonable amount of time, malnourished and fighting for every day. You have the ability to feed all of them, for no cost. But amongst the group, there is 1 serial killer. If hes healthy, he will spend his time killing people.
Do you feed the group? Or leave them alone? Both actions WILL have a bad outcome. I choose the decision (feeding) that I feel will cause the least harm. You, on the other hand will... not make a decision? Because you only make decisions which can ONLY have good outcomes?
Sorry to derail this lively ethical discussion, but is Shale a capable tank all the way through the game or would I just be better off planning for damage?
Strikor on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Sorry to derail this lively ethical discussion, but is Shale a capable tank all the way through the game or would I just be better off planning for damage?
Shale's constitution is pretty capable as a tank. However, he has so many great DPS moves that it is just better to go that route, imo.
Sorry to derail this lively ethical discussion, but is Shale a capable tank all the way through the game or would I just be better off planning for damage?
Shale is a remarkably good early-game tank, and should switch to damage/aura later on. He has too few tank abilities to keep up with a tank-specced warrior in tanking, but continues to deal some fun damage in damage mode.
Sorry to derail this lively ethical discussion, but is Shale a capable tank all the way through the game or would I just be better off planning for damage?
Shale is a remarkably good early-game tank, and should switch to damage/aura later on. He has too few tank abilities to keep up with a tank-specced warrior in tanking, but continues to deal some fun damage in damage mode.
>_> <_< anything can tank just fine in a Force Field.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Bullshit. Every decision requires ethical calculus.
Your cookie example was an obvious example - feed a homeless person or kill millions. You went with that to prove your point was correct, by completely weighting one side of the argument. And your in game argument (near certainty of a new Blight... based on, what exactly? Your opinion?), again, used ethical calculus.
How about this one
Theres a group of a million people starving. They may survive for a reasonable, malnourished and fighting for every day. You have the ability to feed all of them, for no cost. But amongst the group, there is 1 serial killer. If hes healthy, he will spend his time killing people.
Do you feed the group? Or leave them alone? Both actions WILL have a bad outcome. I choose the decision (feeding) that I feel will cause the least harm. You, on the other hand will... not make a decision? Because you only make decisions which can ONLY have good outcomes?
Obviously, you make a decision. Obviously, the decision is feeding them. But also obviously, you don't go around patting yourself on the back for being such a damn paragon of awesome. Rather, you regret that you had to make an unfortunate decision and that you have in some way caused harm to others by your actions.
My rejection of ethical calculus is actually an oversimplification, and I was aware of that when I posted it. That's because this is a Dragon Age thread, not an ethics thread, and in actual fact I can't give two shits about the intricacies of ethics, I just care about them inasumuch as they relate to Dragon Age.
Anyway... in extreme situations where the 'good' choice is ridiculously obvious (as in this one), or when there is no choice that does no harm (also as in this one), it is necessary. But when the good and evil are of remotely comparable size (the term 'order of magnitude' in the mathematical sense comes to mind), very few people are believers in 'the end justifies the means' and what-not. At least, judging by their words, not their deeds, as in actual deed most people are neutral rather than 'good.'
And how is
decorrupting an old god less harmful than inviting another Blight? It could potentially be, but the probability of that scenario is laughably low.
Oh, and some minor tweaks to your scenario show that even a seemingly clear-cut 'calculus' right decision can be something that's generally considered 'wrong':
- Instead of 'feeding a serial killer,' what if the serial killer has the food, and he'll only give it out if you kill people for him?
- Instead of there being a serial killer at all, what if the way of providing all that food was to sacrifice a few (the same number as the serial killer would kill) people to provide it, Soylent Green style? Not volunteers, naturally; if they turn you down, they might tell someone, and then there would be rioting and death and all sorts of ugly stuff.
The dry, mathematical point of view ('total amount of good done versus total amount of evil done') hardly registers these as different from the original. The visceral reaction, however (and the perceived ethical consequences to you as an individual) is that neither is something that can even be considered, whatever the benefit.
I seem to have had Wynne's Vessel of the Spirit since I got her. I've used it a bunch of times and figured it would be explained in dialog later. I finally got the talk about how she is spirit-protected and all that jazz and then the encounter with the Hurlock Omega where we all get pasted and then.... she unlocks the ability I've been using for ~5 levels.
Strange bug, I've never even heard of it until now.
Has anyone tried using Sunder Armor from the Two Hander tree in tanking? I've got just enough points left to get the important sword and shield talents and was thinking about using the rest for it. Sunder Armor's a very high threat ability in another RPG so I figured it might be pretty good in this game.
I'm in the midst of exams, and this game is occupying every single waking moment of my life
I got a strange bug with Shale. I don't know if it's because my Internet is wonky and sometimes I get disconnected, but now when I try to talk to Shale I get the "Activate Golem - Dulef Gar" conversation, as though I never activated it in the first place. Does this mean I can't get Shale's personal quest? If so, was it even worth it in the first place?
Oh, and does anyone know how to figure out what staves do what kind of damage? It's frustrating to blast undead with your stuff and see little "Immune!" signs laughing at you, before realising that your staff probably does Nature damage or some rubbishy-immune-damage like that.
I'm in the midst of exams, and this game is occupying every single waking moment of my life
I got a strange bug with Shale. I don't know if it's because my Internet is wonky and sometimes I get disconnected, but now when I try to talk to Shale I get the "Activate Golem - Dulef Gar" conversation, as though I never activated it in the first place. Does this mean I can't get Shale's personal quest? If so, was it even worth it in the first place?
Oh, and does anyone know how to figure out what staves do what kind of damage? It's frustrating to blast undead with your stuff and see little "Immune!" signs laughing at you, before realising that your staff probably does Nature damage or some rubbishy-immune-damage like that.
there doesn't seem to be any way to tell from the item stats, but you can usually figure it out based on the name/description.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Has anyone tried using Sunder Armor from the Two Hander tree in tanking? I've got just enough points left to get the important sword and shield talents and was thinking about using the rest for it. Sunder Armor's a very high threat ability in another RPG so I figured it might be pretty good in this game.
It is a good ability, but I doubt it is worth the points for you. You would have to switch from sword and shield to a two-hander every time you wanted to use it. Switching would turn off Shield Wall or whatever defensive sustain you were running and start the cooldown. I guess you could start fights sundering with the 2h then switching. You would probably get more use filling out the warrior tree or specializations, if you have not already.
Has anyone tried using Sunder Armor from the Two Hander tree in tanking? I've got just enough points left to get the important sword and shield talents and was thinking about using the rest for it. Sunder Armor's a very high threat ability in another RPG so I figured it might be pretty good in this game.
It is a good ability, but I doubt it is worth the points for you. You would have to switch from sword and shield to a two-hander every time you wanted to use it. Switching would turn off Shield Wall or whatever defensive sustain you were running and start the cooldown. I guess you could start fights sundering with the 2h then switching. You would probably get more use filling out the warrior tree or specializations, if you have not already.
Oh wow, I actually thought you would be able to use Sunder Armor with a regular one hander. Why did they only make it useable with two handers? That's a pretty strict requirement. The tooltip didn't say anything about it requiring a two hander. Maybe they assumed that it being in the two hander tree would be enough, but I dunno, that seems like a trap. Sundering with a one hander doesn't seem like an impossibility, does it? Well, thanks for the info. You're right, its better to fill out the warrior tree.
Also, this character creator sucks. I can't make another elf that I don't hate for the life of me.
That's because elves are dirty people. And they steal.
Seriously why do I find it so easy to adopt the racism of this game-world? My first playthrough, I was good, and still wanted to fuck over elves. They look annoying. They are annoying.
Goddamn elves. The female city elf origin is ridiculously awesome though.
Mouschi on
Gamertag: Cunning Hekate // League of Legends: FeroxPA
Oh, here's something I've been thinking about for a while...
Is anyone else shocked that they didn't get Jennifer Hale to voice anything in this game? She's been their go-to girl for quite a few games now... Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate: Ultimate Alliance, Baldur's Gate II, KOTOR, Mass Effect... it just feels wrong not to hear her again. I'll admit, I've become quite enamored with her performances over the years. Not that the voice actors for Morrigan and Leliana do a bad job, not at all. They've been quite good. But Jennifer Hale and BioWare games, they're just two great tastes that taste great together. Or something like that.
Maybe she was just unavailable because of her duties on Brutal Legend. If so, that's a real shame.
Posts
More deep roads adventuring for me apparently, fantastic.
I bet your the kind of guy that
Except I've just spent the last half hour or so explaining that doing that sort of thing is bad, that just because something has an outcome that is in some part good, it doesn't excuse any bad consequences, and it can't even counteract them unless you take a viewpoint that is of dubious moral value.
Not that I didn't do it once. It's an achievement, after all.
No, no, NO! Why is nobody paying attention to what I actually say and just saying that since I wrote about a theoretical situation that I am somehow endorsing that situation?
The codes are in cookies. Delicious cookies. We need to kill babies because if we don't, they might eat the cookies. Less babies means more cookies for us. Mmmm, cookies.
Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think there is no possibility of good coming from having an uncorrupted Old God alive. What about the lives it could save or improve? The knowledge it could bring?
Your point of view is laughably naive. Never do anything with a risk. Better not have any children! They could turn out to be Hitler! Its happened once before, the only good option is to never let it happen again.
The man was taken into custody, but later released. The cookie murdering baby remains in custody.
Anyone know what that reason was? Is it because the old gods are evil, or was the maker just the jealous type?
I'm just asking, please don't "exalted march" my ass.
Was it Sten?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Am I seriously typing through some kind of filter that causes my words to appear warped and insane to everyone else? People are saying I say things and I am not saying anything remotely resembling those things.
1) Your point of view is laughably naive. We have evidence that Old Gods are directly correlated with Blights, and can be said with some accuracy to be their cause. We have evidence that even before they were corrupted, the old gods were dubious at best. Remember the huge blood magic ritual that killed hundreds of slaves and created the first darkspawn? At the Old Gods' behest. Historically documented.
All that said, it is still an act of good to de-corrupt an Old God's soul, because all living beings deserve a chance to choose, or a chance to repent, or a chance to do good, or whatever.
2) If one were to do ethical calculus, the near certainty of creating an entirely new Blight in the future is probably about equal to the good that an uncorrupted Old God could do, were said Old God to be a force for good. Whether or not the Old God will be a force for good is entirely unknown, and even unlikely, considering that Morrigan is running the show; by far the most likely situation is that it will become a relatively nonthreatening evil, like Flemeth.
3) And that's if you do ethical calculus. As previously mentioned, in the vast majority of cases, doing bad for good's sake (even if good is truly accomplished, and even if the good outweighs the bad) is still considered bad by the vast majority of people, including myself.
It seems like if you had say, Shale + a couple ranged people, that could be a great way to keep them alive, maybe swapping to Rock Mastery when the fancy struck you. I don't trust it for melee help, though, since it actually makes Shale easier to kill without eliminating aggro.
I'm still not sure on the scaling, but the big minus I've noticed to Totem of Shale is that it seems to draw a buttload of aggro.
Two archers just gib stuff, though, and double scattershot yessssss so it hasn't been a problem. (Nightmare mode.)
The biggest problem with the Shale + 2 archers idea is that the actual ranged attack mode can get pretty dangerous because Hurl Rock has a tendency to not do what you tell it to (the rock can hit people/raised ground areas/random crap in the way and blow up in your face).
Your cookie example was an obvious example - feed a homeless person or kill millions. You went with that to prove your point was correct, by completely weighting one side of the argument. And your in game argument (near certainty of a new Blight... based on, what exactly? Your opinion?), again, used ethical calculus.
How about this one
Theres a group of a million people starving. They may survive for a reasonable amount of time, malnourished and fighting for every day. You have the ability to feed all of them, for no cost. But amongst the group, there is 1 serial killer. If hes healthy, he will spend his time killing people.
Do you feed the group? Or leave them alone? Both actions WILL have a bad outcome. I choose the decision (feeding) that I feel will cause the least harm. You, on the other hand will... not make a decision? Because you only make decisions which can ONLY have good outcomes?
Shale's constitution is pretty capable as a tank. However, he has so many great DPS moves that it is just better to go that route, imo.
Shale is a remarkably good early-game tank, and should switch to damage/aura later on. He has too few tank abilities to keep up with a tank-specced warrior in tanking, but continues to deal some fun damage in damage mode.
Because fucking with Kurokaze is both a good and evil act at the same time.
>_> <_< anything can tank just fine in a Force Field.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Didn't you get the memo?
Nah, I am in between secretaries at the moment.
Obviously, you make a decision. Obviously, the decision is feeding them. But also obviously, you don't go around patting yourself on the back for being such a damn paragon of awesome. Rather, you regret that you had to make an unfortunate decision and that you have in some way caused harm to others by your actions.
My rejection of ethical calculus is actually an oversimplification, and I was aware of that when I posted it. That's because this is a Dragon Age thread, not an ethics thread, and in actual fact I can't give two shits about the intricacies of ethics, I just care about them inasumuch as they relate to Dragon Age.
Anyway... in extreme situations where the 'good' choice is ridiculously obvious (as in this one), or when there is no choice that does no harm (also as in this one), it is necessary. But when the good and evil are of remotely comparable size (the term 'order of magnitude' in the mathematical sense comes to mind), very few people are believers in 'the end justifies the means' and what-not. At least, judging by their words, not their deeds, as in actual deed most people are neutral rather than 'good.'
And how is
Oh, and some minor tweaks to your scenario show that even a seemingly clear-cut 'calculus' right decision can be something that's generally considered 'wrong':
- Instead of there being a serial killer at all, what if the way of providing all that food was to sacrifice a few (the same number as the serial killer would kill) people to provide it, Soylent Green style? Not volunteers, naturally; if they turn you down, they might tell someone, and then there would be rioting and death and all sorts of ugly stuff.
The dry, mathematical point of view ('total amount of good done versus total amount of evil done') hardly registers these as different from the original. The visceral reaction, however (and the perceived ethical consequences to you as an individual) is that neither is something that can even be considered, whatever the benefit.
Wynne spoilers
Strange bug, I've never even heard of it until now.
I got a strange bug with Shale. I don't know if it's because my Internet is wonky and sometimes I get disconnected, but now when I try to talk to Shale I get the "Activate Golem - Dulef Gar" conversation, as though I never activated it in the first place. Does this mean I can't get Shale's personal quest? If so, was it even worth it in the first place?
Oh, and does anyone know how to figure out what staves do what kind of damage? It's frustrating to blast undead with your stuff and see little "Immune!" signs laughing at you, before realising that your staff probably does Nature damage or some rubbishy-immune-damage like that.
I guess I should have saved before heading out, but either way, I'm definitely done for the night...
That was really damn hard. She hits like a truck.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
there doesn't seem to be any way to tell from the item stats, but you can usually figure it out based on the name/description.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Is there a story consequence for pulling that off, at least? It seems like there would have to be.
Gamertag: Cunning Hekate // League of Legends: FeroxPA
Nope. It's never mentioned as far as I know.
Also, this character creator sucks. I can't make another elf that I don't hate for the life of me.
It is a good ability, but I doubt it is worth the points for you. You would have to switch from sword and shield to a two-hander every time you wanted to use it. Switching would turn off Shield Wall or whatever defensive sustain you were running and start the cooldown. I guess you could start fights sundering with the 2h then switching. You would probably get more use filling out the warrior tree or specializations, if you have not already.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
The DLC is Return to Ostagar.
This confounds me.
Yes, you can only use a talent if you're using the weapon type it belongs to.
Why would you think otherwise?
Oh wow, I actually thought you would be able to use Sunder Armor with a regular one hander. Why did they only make it useable with two handers? That's a pretty strict requirement. The tooltip didn't say anything about it requiring a two hander. Maybe they assumed that it being in the two hander tree would be enough, but I dunno, that seems like a trap. Sundering with a one hander doesn't seem like an impossibility, does it? Well, thanks for the info. You're right, its better to fill out the warrior tree.
because not all of the talent descriptions specify the weapon type required?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That's because elves are dirty people. And they steal.
Seriously why do I find it so easy to adopt the racism of this game-world? My first playthrough, I was good, and still wanted to fuck over elves. They look annoying. They are annoying.
Goddamn elves. The female city elf origin is ridiculously awesome though.
Gamertag: Cunning Hekate // League of Legends: FeroxPA
Too bad I can't see it with a character that doesn't look like crap.
Is anyone else shocked that they didn't get Jennifer Hale to voice anything in this game? She's been their go-to girl for quite a few games now... Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate: Ultimate Alliance, Baldur's Gate II, KOTOR, Mass Effect... it just feels wrong not to hear her again. I'll admit, I've become quite enamored with her performances over the years. Not that the voice actors for Morrigan and Leliana do a bad job, not at all. They've been quite good. But Jennifer Hale and BioWare games, they're just two great tastes that taste great together. Or something like that.
Maybe she was just unavailable because of her duties on Brutal Legend. If so, that's a real shame.