397 replies to this topic

[jester]

Khalid is just a placeholder name.

Yes domi, I reallyvalue your PoVs and the way you obviously stick to them during gameplay. I on the other hand want more variety in-game. I want Gromnir to be able to talk to me, I want Phaere to try to see things differently. If it was for me, I'd have everybody redeemed and corrupted up and down to extend my in-game choices. What succeeds and what goes awry is another matter.

My statement above all is to encourage people to get their version of the story out there and not to be put off like the bisexual Viconia discussion (ok, I know Grim isn't anyway ). Don't like it, don't use it, but I am prepared to eat this old sock even with JC's syrup all over it.

EDIT: A good point for not having guests post stuff.

Slobodan Milosevic would have been a winner.


info

Edited by jester, 28 March 2004 - 04:33 PM.

[jester]

And I am glad that Tazok got 0 votes. Heh, here it is personal for me.

Ok,I give you that. He really deserved to die in BG1 and should never have returned. Not very talkative anyways.

[Caedwyr]

...but what does "disqualifies" him in my eyes is that he sought to destroy his own people to ascend to godhood. For me, anyone who seeks power through genocide cannot be changed into anything but a madman if he does emote on a human level what he had done.

Last I checked, there is a scene in suldenesellar, where one of the invading forces (a drow I believe) makes a demand that everyone stay indoors, this throws a bit of doubt onto the idea that Jon was killing his own people as part the the method to fuel his ascension to godhood. Also, since Jon didn't kill everyone in Suldenessalar the first time he attempted to drain the tree of life and the fact that people in Suldenessalar (Dernim & Ellisime) act suprised about the corruption magics and parasites that Jon uses in the game it suggests that he used a different method the first time. Remember, Jon wasn't trying to become the new Lord of Murder, just a god.

[Kish]

Thank you. And BioWARE added insult to injury by bringing *him* back, but no Kivan.

At least Kivan's not dead, mm? If Bioware had brought him back for a cameo, you'd have to deal with people posting about how they killed him in inventive and poetic ways.

[Caedwyr]

the fact that people in Suldenessalar (Dernim & Ellisime) act suprised about the corruption magics and parasites that Jon uses in the game it suggests that he used a different method the first time. Remember, Jon wasn't trying to become the new Lord of Murder, just a god.

And Ellesime said that his first attempt "endangered us all" or something to that extent. From the legends scattered around Sul, it is obvious that Tree of Life is something that is vital for the survival of Sul...It is even called the Tree of Life...

A few quotes for in game NPCs, that may help clarify the fact that Jon's original ritual did not involve the deliberate genocide of the people of Suldanessellar:


From Demin:

Together they sought more than was possible; they wished the power of the gods, and they were not concerned about the consequences.

He of the Exiles performed a dark ritual, and committed a grave offense against the greatest symbol of our longevity: the Tree of Life.
He sought to merge his essence with the divine tree, draining it and stealing its energy. He failed, but there was a price to pay for the rest of us.
He disrupted the elven connection to land and nature. There was a great shock that ran through Suldanessellar, and many of our weaker citizens lay near death.
That he would endanger so many for he and his sister's selfish goals was one thing, but to threaten the very nature of what makes us who we are was unfathomable.

This sounds like Jon did attempt to merge his essence with the Tree of Life, and did not care about the consequences. His method did not involve the deliberate genocide of the Suldanessellar elves. Yes, his actions jepordized the lives of the weaker elves, but that is much different than a deliberate attempt to kill everyone. As Jon might say, it was an unfortunate consequence.

[Laufey]

...but what does "disqualifies" him in my eyes is that he sought to destroy his own people to ascend to godhood. For me, anyone who seeks power through genocide cannot be changed into anything but a madman if he does emote on a human level what he had done.

Last I checked, there is a scene in suldenesellar, where one of the invading forces (a drow I believe) makes a demand that everyone stay indoors, this throws a bit of doubt onto the idea that Jon was killing his own people as part the the method to fuel his ascension to godhood. Also, since Jon didn't kill everyone in Suldenessalar the first time he attempted to drain the tree of life and the fact that people in Suldenessalar (Dernim & Ellisime) act suprised about the corruption magics and parasites that Jon uses in the game it suggests that he used a different method the first time. Remember, Jon wasn't trying to become the new Lord of Murder, just a god.

Hm, I'd forgotten that scene...I must keep a look out for it next time around. As for me, I always thought that he was going on a nut-headed rampage while killing those people, doing it to get to revenge but not with any more purpose than that. If it's ever stated otherwise in the game, I must have missed it. And the first time around, I imagine that those unfortunate people died more as a side-effect of what he was callously doing rather than him methodically killing them.

Irenicus' actions in Chapter 6, I think demonstrate a pretty common behaviour. He has been defeated, exiled and humiliated, and so he wants his revenge, choosing to ignore the reason for why he was exiled in the first place. Instead he lashes out at the entire city, probably further enticed by the Bhaaltaint. I wouldn't be surprised if part of his motivation is that he wants to say something like 'You're all mean, and you'll be sorry for ignoring me!'. Not very mature, but then I don't think Jon was ever an exactly mature person. Intelligent, but not mature.

[Merja]

Edit: 3 votes only? Common, is that *all* TfV can master nowadays? Up it at least to 14, you, guys.

We actually didn't try

[Althernai]

It always annoys me when people talk as though all killing is morally identical--self-defense equivalent to killing for power, killing in defense of others just the same as killing for fun.  Yes, you have to kill thousands of people in BG; no, you do not have to murder any of them.

In the end, they are just as dead. If you break into a castle and kill all of the guards who try to stop you, what gives you the right to call it self-defense? The fact that the guards attacked you rather than standing aside? Think of it this way: suppose a heavily armed person with unbelievable combat skills walks into the White House (or the equivalent in your nation) and proceeds to kill the president (or equivalent leader) and everyone who stands between them. Are all of the deaths of the security personnel classified as 'self-defense'? Would they be classified so if the leader happened to be really evil from the warrior's perspective?

The protagonist has no choice except to go through this breaking and entering routine -- and more than once.

[Kish]

It always annoys me when people talk as though all killing is morally identical--self-defense equivalent to killing for power, killing in defense of others just the same as killing for fun.  Yes, you have to kill thousands of people in BG; no, you do not have to murder any of them.

In the end, they are just as dead. If you break into a castle and kill all of the guards who try to stop you, what gives you the right to call it self-defense?

Nothing gives you the right to call it self-defense, which is why I wouldn't try. Nice try, though.

[jester]

@ Althernai In the end, they are just as dead. Thanks for putting this in obviously more fitting words than I have.

@ Kish Nothing gives you the right to call it self-defense, which is why I wouldn't try. Nice try, though.

You are all about semantics in this case. That is ok. No, need to be defiant.

@Tazok: Sadly mentioning his name attracted unwanted attention.

An interesting thought from above would be what kind of god Jon would have become. Or is your portfolio up to you once you ar a god?

[Kish]

You are all about semantics in this case.

Naturally if you are determined to believe that all killing is morally identical, arguments to the contrary are going to seem "all about semantics" to you.

[BobTokyo]

It always annoys me when people talk as though all killing is morally identical--self-defense equivalent to killing for power, killing in defense of others just the same as killing for fun.  Yes, you have to kill thousands of people in BG; no, you do not have to murder any of them.

In the end, they are just as dead. If you break into a castle and kill all of the guards who try to stop you, what gives you the right to call it self-defense? The fact that the guards attacked you rather than standing aside? Think of it this way: suppose a heavily armed person with unbelievable combat skills walks into the White House (or the equivalent in your nation) and proceeds to kill the president (or equivalent leader) and everyone who stands between them. Are all of the deaths of the security personnel classified as 'self-defense'? Would they be classified so if the leader happened to be really evil from the warrior's perspective?

The protagonist has no choice except to go through this breaking and entering routine -- and more than once.

That's funny, I can't remember a single non-optional quest in BG1 or 2 where you had no choice except to break into someones home and kill them except in response to a threat against your own life or the life of another. You seem to have been playing a different game.

[BobTokyo]

@ Althernai In the end, they are just as dead. Thanks for putting this in obviously more fitting words than I have.

@ Kish Nothing gives you the right to call it self-defense, which is why I wouldn't try. Nice try, though.

You are all about semantics in this case. That is ok. No, need to be defiant.

@Tazok: Sadly mentioning his name attracted unwanted attention.

An interesting thought from above would be what kind of god Jon would have become. Or is your portfolio up to you once you ar a god?

The moral and legal distinction between the use of force in self defense or the rightful defense of another and murder is not semantic.

[jester]

You are all about semantics in this case.

Naturally if you are determined to believe that all killing is morally identical, arguments to the contrary are going to seem "all about semantics" to you.

Let's just agree to disagree on that like others in this thread have. There is no way I can sway you with my arguments or the other way round as I see it.

Our definitions of murderer differ greatly that is why I say it is about semantics.
Anyone who kills someone else willingly and on purpose would be my definition.
If it is only valid for interrace killings is up to debate however.

'The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.' This is the one from a web page, yet unlawful is a matter of circumstances and 'premeditated malice' is a matter of reach in terms of foresight.


EDIT: @ Bob: To be legally granted a right does not make it morally acceptable per se. The context for self-defense is rather limited. I wholeheartedly subscribe to self-defense in the personal context, but this argument has been abused for far to many preemptive actions by larger groups which are debatable.

Edited by jester, 29 March 2004 - 01:31 AM.

[BobTokyo]

OK, all I am saying is that Jon's atrocities are by no means greater than many other killing sprees. It is not like he could be rightfully banned from redemption IMHO, because he killed Khalid.

I thought that this rated a slightly lengthier reply;

It was actually a reference to something said about the game mechanics and the whole fantasy setting a couple of pages ago.

I don't claim to know where the line is beyond which spiritual redemption becomes impossible, or when it has been crossed. The argument that some people's lives are vastly more valuable in a cosmic sense than the lives of others is accurate from the point of view of xenophobes, self justifying thugs and hack authors;

In the real world, yes, absolutely, and I never doubted this for a second nor argued against it. I was going for headcount, kish for semantics and morals. The way the game is designed there is no peaceful solution to the game, sadly. Besides there are some who think of history in 'what if' terms and some people might have made a difference IMHO, but I am neither of your three mentioned categories.

it's not an argument I find appealing in fiction, and it fuels quite a lot of violence in the real world.

100% agreed upon. Not part of the argument though. This is not about the real world.

A story that takes Irenicus on the path to redemption as he realizes the depth of the atrocities he has committed might be worth reading;

That is personal development which hopefully occurs. I was arguing about a principle of fairness.

allowing him and those around him to write off his victims as "no one of importance" is not redemption of any sort at all.

I am sure dorotea took care of this and it does not happen. Insight into your wrongdoings are paramount for the process.

Irenicus and those around him do not know that they are fictional characters. Any discussion of the moral and ethical issues of Irenicus' redemption that proceeds from the idea that they are only fictional characters and that in their world only named characters matter strikes me as meaningless, unless Redemption is intended as a comedy mod.

[jester]

How many dwarves have been killed and resurrected in Georgia this year? I am saying that it is a fantasy setting. This has been debated in this thread around the pages 3-5 somewhere IIRC. Read more of this thread and you may still disagree with me, but on a more justified basis.