This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Evil quests?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
the ethics of hemit nessingwary is debateable, because is hunting really bad? does the life of an animal matter? when do your cross the line? i would probably say hemit is being bad, but there is no surefire rationale to prove this. where you draw the line is totally subjective, and i dont blame hemit for not caring about the animals.
Hemet isn't evil; he has a code of honour for when he hunts instead of what the crazed poachers do all across Tundra.
Post by
344679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
i am currently undecided on this issue, but this is irellavant.
here is my question, do you guys think there are enough blatantly evil quests in the game that allow your character to legitemately be good, or evil? because saving westfall from theives doesnt make you such a noble paladin because everyone and thier mother has done it, MR. Devilface Evil. Mcwarlockman has done it and his up to no good freind Roguey Mcstealfromyou has done it to, and they like you are all acting out of self intrest.
No. Sadly.
Post by
344679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
should a system then be implemented for this to be possible? prehaps a measured karma system, or just more quest variety? what do you guys think?
If they do it differently from Fable/KotoR.... and by differently, I mean not lame like Fable and not op like KotoR heh.
Post by
344679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
should a system then be implemented for this to be possible? prehaps a measured karma system, or just more quest variety? what do you guys think?
If they do it differently from Fable/KotoR.... and by differently, I mean not lame like Fable and not op like KotoR heh.
On an unrelated note: KoToR was a good game. A bit odd how, even after you've turned characters evil, they still respond to situation as if they were good, though.
On a related note: I don't think a karma system would happen. Something like that might get in the way of certain achivements.
Post by
hymer
If you really and truly believe in what your fighting for, you should have no qualms doing underhand trickery to get what you believe right. If you do not truly believe in what your fighting for, you should not fight for it. Your not trying to prove something to anyone, that's a duel. There you can have honor. But in war, where you fight for right, the greater good should be placed far before you looking like an ass.
Not likely to get picked up, but there's a point worth making here... I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In WW2, there was a time when the British wouldn't firebomb a forest that was helping supply the Wehrmacht, because it was private property.
But there's room for adding some thoughts and questions.
What if what you fight for includes principles that innocents should be unharmed? And what you fight against is that innocents be harmed?
What if you can only save the village by destroying it?
What if you can only defend your country by committing suicide, Mutually Assured Destruction?
Oftentimes, the process is more important than the outcome. Quoted from memory:
If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, history will remember not the ideals we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. Our methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally slew every last inhabitant of Persia.
- Hans Bethe
We talk in the West often about a 'just' war being the only acceptable one. After two world wars, we may have come to some temporary acceptance that war, however much you believe in it, will tend to destroy more than it defends.
And if
that
is a principle we will stand up in an assembly an argue passionately for, how then do we argue for a war?
Again from memory:
Wars are moral contests, won in the temples before they are even begun.
- Sun Tzu
You must have the people behind what you're trying to fight for, or you will never win.
But if the people believe in it, they will go to the ends of their lives, their families and their culture, as you said. Because they believe it is honourable to do so.
Finally, honour is a code that shows you how to behave in order to have pride. The code may differ from culture to culture, or individual to individual, but not the pride.
Post by
Orranis
If you really and truly believe in what your fighting for, you should have no qualms doing underhand trickery to get what you believe right. If you do not truly believe in what your fighting for, you should not fight for it. Your not trying to prove something to anyone, that's a duel. There you can have honor. But in war, where you fight for right, the greater good should be placed far before you looking like an ass.
Not likely to get picked up, but there's a point worth making here... I agree with a lot of what you're saying. In WW2, there was a time when the British wouldn't firebomb a forest that was helping supply the Wehrmacht, because it was private property.
But there's room for adding some thoughts and questions.
What if what you fight for includes principles that innocents should be unharmed? And what you fight against is that innocents be harmed?
What if you can only save the village by destroying it?
You clearly missed my post on this. Someone was using a WW II innocent civilians killed problem, and I responded that because they were trying to protect people from fascism and militaristic dictatorships, it was wrong to kill them because it goes against your ideals.
What if you can only defend your country by committing suicide, Mutually Assured Destruction?Then you should wonder if it's worth defending your country. I would need hell of a lot more context to make a decision.
Oftentimes, the process is more important than the outcome. Quoted from memory:
If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, history will remember not the ideals we were fighting for, but the methods we used to accomplish them. Our methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan, who brutally slew every last inhabitant of Persia.
- Hans Bethe
And my point is that you should not care how you were remembered, or how you will be seen, if the ends do actually justify the means. However, the nuclear bomb was wrong because we were trying to protect the innocent people from the cruelty of the Japanese government, so killing them was backwards. I'm not totally against the bomb being used, just against it being used on civilians.
We talk in the West often about a 'just' war being the only acceptable one. After two world wars, we may have come to some temporary acceptance that war, however much you believe in it, will tend to destroy more than it defends.
We have? Given that pretty much everyone waging war right now is western or of western origin, I would disagree. However, I do agree with your point. War should only be fought if there was truly something that needed fighting for.
And if
that
is a principle we will stand up in an assembly an argue passionately for, how then do we argue for a war?
Again from memory:
Wars are moral contests, won in the temples before they are even begun.
- Sun Tzu
You must have the people behind what you're trying to fight for, or you will never win.
But if the people believe in it, they will go to the ends of their lives, their families and their culture, as you said. Because they believe it is honourable to do so.
This is contrary to what you were just saying. You just said we could win wars with nukes. If people fight for honor, rather then morals, I do not hold much hope for our future.
Finally, honour is a code that shows you how to behave in order to have pride. The code may differ from culture to culture, or individual to individual, but not the pride.
That's what you say honor is, which has nothing to do with how it should be used.
Post by
hymer
Thanks, I read your second post. My own just would not have been complete without that point in there, so I added my own.
I'm not contradicting you. I'm just saying
there's room for adding some thoughts and questions.
In WW2, there was a time when the British wouldn't firebomb a forest that was helping supply the Wehrmacht, because it was private property.
This is me agreeing with you that
In WW II they were trying to protect innocent people from dictatorships and fascism, thus bombing civilians (Which I disagree with) was backwards.
The British officers making this decision had a code of honour that told them to keep from actively targeting a civilian target. But as long as you bomb civilians by mistake, it was ok.
What I wanted to do was to perspectivize (if that's a word) your statement, adding those thoughts and (rhetorical) questions. Merely because to me it seems there's a lot more to it than "fight for what you believe in with everything in your arsenal, because if you believe it how can you not?". I'm saying that there's a lot of truth to it, but that you must accept an amoral argument to do so; Macchiavelli, as I think Skreeran or Adamsm mentioned just after your post.
Post by
Monday
In WW II they were trying to protect innocent people from dictatorships and fascism, thus bombing civilians (Which I disagree with) was backwards.
The British officers making this decision had a code of honour that told them to keep from actively targeting a civilian target. But as long as you bomb civilians by mistake, it was ok.
They probably just wanted to avoid trouble with their home country, as fighting citizens is generally frowned upon. Most wouldn't give a crap and would target them, but the threats of their officers held them in line.
Post by
283679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
In WW II they were trying to protect innocent people from dictatorships and fascism, thus bombing civilians (Which I disagree with) was backwards.
The British officers making this decision had a code of honour that told them to keep from actively targeting a civilian target. But as long as you bomb civilians by mistake, it was ok.
They probably just wanted to avoid trouble with their home country, as fighting citizens is generally frowned upon. Most wouldn't give a crap and would target them, but the threats of their officers held them in line.
Your statement comes off as soldiers just kill anybody unless stopped by an officer. Actually, most British Officers and soldiers of the time had a strange view of honor that most people wouldn't recognize today. Best way I can help to explain this is if you watch/have watched.
The Highest Honor
or
Zulu
.
Evil Quest! -
Princess Must Die!
You kill a prize-winning pig because Ma Stonefield claims the pig is eating her vegetables. You don't hide in wait for the pig on the Stonefield's farm. You go to the Brackwell farm and kill it.
Basically a jealous lady tells you to kill somebodies prize winning pig in exchange for a piece of armor and +250 Stormwind faction.
In WW2 probably they would.
And that pig happens to be under control of the Defias so...
Post by
Rankkor
And that pig happens to be under control of the Defias so...
still is just a poor pig, it's not like princess has self-awareness that what she's doing is wrong.
if a dog-trainer tames a dog to be a bred killer, and then orders that dog to rip to shreds an old lady and a young child, would that make the dog evil? nope, the dog had no reason to atack the old woman or the child, he did it because it's master ordered it to doit.
it's the master in this case who's evil, not the dog itself, because the dog isn't aware that what he is doing is wrong, from his mind he just wishes to be an obedient pet.
if the quest "Princess must die" had asked you instead to kill the defias owners of the pig, and then set the pig free, now that's a diferent tale, but no no, this woman is jealous and takes her frustration on an inocent animal.
P.E.T.A. has to look at some of these quests xD
w00t 1000 posts :D
Post by
Monday
And that pig happens to be under control of the Defias so...
still is just a poor pig, it's not like princess has self-awareness that what she's doing is wrong.
if a dog-trainer tames a dog to be a bred killer, and then orders that dog to rip to shreds an old lady and a young child, would that make the dog evil? nope, the dog had no reason to atack the old woman or the child, he did it because it's master ordered it to doit.
it's the master in this case who's evil, not the dog itself, because the dog isn't aware that what he is doing is wrong, from his mind he just wishes to be an obedient pet.
if the quest "Princess must die" had asked you instead to kill the defias owners of the pig, and then set the pig free, now that's a diferent tale, but no no, this woman is jealous and takes her frustration on an inocent animal.
P.E.T.A. has to look at some of these quests xD
w00t 1000 posts :D
But the dog is still vicious and needs to be put down. Same with the pig, it attacks you if you fight one of the other pigs.
Post by
Rankkor
But the dog is still vicious and needs to be put down. Same with the pig, it attacks you if you fight one of the other pigs.
in the example I gave you the dog is not vicious, he atacked only because he was told to do so, if the order hand't been given he would had been peacefull, a dog that atacks only when someone else orders him to do it can't be considered evil, or vicious, he's just trying to please his master, it's theone who gave the order the one who's responsible.
princess if my memory serves (If I'm wrong correct me) is passive, she's not a hostile pig, she fights only to defend herself, and while her owners are evil, the pig itself is bening, with a diferent set of masters she would had acted diferently.
you can't judge an animal by human (or sentient) standards, because animals are not self-aware of what's right or wrong, domesticated animals just try to please their masters.
Post by
Skreeran
And that pig happens to be under control of the Defias so...P.E.T.A. has to look at some of these quests xDI would be very happy if we got to kill D.E.H.T.A. druids instead of animals.
Post by
Morec0
And that pig happens to be under control of the Defias so...P.E.T.A. has to look at some of these quests xDI would be very happy if we got to kill D.E.H.T.A. druids instead of animals.
And eat them!
Post by
Rankkor
I would be very happy if we got to kill D.E.H.T.A. druids instead of animals.
I would be happier if we could tame the D.E.H.T.A. druids in bear lion and bird form rather than kill them.
there is already a hunter in-game that was able to do so (is on one of the 3 zangarmarsh instances, I think it was underbog, it's a broken draenei hunter, actually taming a druid in bear-form.
now THAT is an epic hunter.
Post by
344679
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.