"Good" Charr = fail.

Spoiler? Well not really but safer to put this in here.

I think that the OP and some of the posters here who dislike the cutscenes have a valid point in that the story being told is not "theirs". We are players are merely a spectator for a play, and have no input as to the dialog and choices our in-game avatar makes during those cutscenes.

Although I do have to ask, what would cause them to expect that, based on past GW titles, that suddenly they would introduce branching conversational trees? I had no such expectation.

So, if their objection is to their avatar making choices that they would not, I can see that this would break their immersion. Nothing will be done about it, since changing to conversation trees would not be trivial, for voice acting, etc.

I find the cutscenes slightly jarring myself, but for different reasons. The whole point of the cutscenes seems to be to show you as a player being better than your Hero NPCs, such as Jora saying "that is why you lead", or whatever her line was, at Ogden's expense it seems, as he could not grasp the Norn culture. The same with your buddying up with the Charr, as if you understand Pyre and his culture and Gwen does not.

I'd put that in the superflouous category. I guess I do not want or need to be judged against the heroes, as they are plastic lifeless characters with no background that I find I do not get attached to in any way besides their role in combat.

Just my 2 copper.

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

Good and evil are always relative to the perspective of a society, nor matter the circumstances. I find it funny that people or whatever are classified evil because of the difference in morals or good for having the same morals as another society.

But you're correct, and I assume you have read Beyond good and evil?

I haven't, but Nietzsche is on my list. I probably should be reading this stuff instead of playing online RPGs, huh?

do u have anything else better to do?

Do you? At least he got all creative, all you've got is a whiny post and a quote.


Good and Evil are only relative at the margins, and there is definitely a fairly obvious absolute difference between the two. While we might argue pedantically about whether this or that action is evil, we can clearly delineate certain actions as obviously evil (torture, murder, theft). While some may seek to justify these actions, such justifications merely serve to remind us that individuals will do whatever it takes to achieve their ends, and will lie to themselves to make the choices they take more palatable.

While I would argue that evil is a digital (either one is, or one isn't evil) rather than an analogue (shades of gray), some others disagree in their attempt to provide a framework for those that need such a sop. Consider this: if an apple only has rot on one side, is it not a rotten apple? Similarly, a person who engages in only some evil is still evil. Whatever you think of apples or evil, you will agree that only by separating apple from rot can you achieve a good apple once more.

Pyre is evil. Gwen is a whiny tool epitomizing the worst of all that is teenage girl angst, created to satisfy fanboi lust. She should have remained in Ascalon as a young girl, serving to remind us that the most painful casualties of war are innocence and youth. Pyre should have told us where to stick it and gone after the Shamans alone, because Charr have big nuts and nobody tells them the odds.

...Evil and Good are not opposite sides of some karmic coin.
they are Moral values and judgments and thus pointless and ephemeral as they will only change and evolve in time.

A lot of people have their vision skewed due to their Western religiously influenced culture (Nietzsche saw beyond that but hey...) things like "murder" "torture" or whatever are not inherently evil actions as such, just like being charitable untowards a person in need is not necessarily a "good" action either.

Although the Domination line could really do with a skill like described in the OP (Enslave - Target non boss creature becomes an ally for X seconds and gains frenzy) i dont feel that such a drastic measure would have been necessary to make Pyre work with us because and heres the crux of it although Ascalonians perceive Char as sheer EVIL (and thus mindless and without purpose other than...erm...evil) they are not and therefore can be reasoned with. This is NOT my interpretation of it , its Anets.

Western style "pure" evil cannot be reasoned with, you cannot discuss or talk to it, you cannot comprehend it heck you can't even SEE it (except in the form of the devil/demons - and you never actually see those except "manifesting" themselves through other vehicles). Banished from heaven to the deepest pits of hell.
When talking about subject matter like this separating the two is well nigh impossible.

To get back to the point, The Char are not "good", they are not "evil" and they are most certainly NOT Ewoks either.

They are relatively crafty, physically powerful, warmblooded carnivores with a Clan like structure. They have been engaged in a war against ...well, Tyria for the past 7 or 8 years which they HAVE NOT WON, their religious system has just fallen flat on its face and internal power struggles are on the verge of breaking into an all out civil war. Pyre clearly knows this, Pyres warband knows this hell even the Stone Summit Knows this.

like Kang said : "only a fool fights in a burning house".

Kang wishes he was Chuck Norris. Nietzsche is the most over quoted hack on the planet. And right now, Pyre = Ewok.

If you don't like the Manichean viewpoint (a decidedly nonwestern origin for dualism in religion, learn some history), it is you who has the problem. Believing that people may have a special moral mandate to engage in wrongdoing is simply ridiculous. Consider the principle of universality in your guide to what is right and what is wrong. To whit, if you would not have the rest of the world engage in an act, then it must perforce be evil.

Would you have everyone smoke crack cocaine at all times? No, as this would cause (after the fifteen minutes of glory) horrible suffering the world over. Would you have the entire world engage in theft? Murder? Abusive speech? The slaughter of innocents?

A person who disregards universality, and who acts to deprive his fellow of life, liberty, property, or even happiness, without due process and just cause, is acting in an evil manner. A person who acts in an evil manner is, perforce, evil. This is so elementary that it boggles the mind to think that any human could be confused with it.

Kang wishes he was Chuck Norris. Nietzsche is the most over quoted hack on the planet. And right now, Pyre = Ewok.

just on this you fail. However i will engage in momentary discussion with you solely to point out the gross error in your tirade.

Right and Wrong, Good and Evil as we perceive them today are most certainly Western concepts. you bringing in Manchenisim into this has no relevance whatsoever. I am talking about TODAY not 500AD and in case you have not noticed the worlds PERCEPTION of what is right and wrong/evil and good has changed since then.

take your example. What "due process" are we talking about? on whose law and judgment? what is "just cause" ? what would be a good, morally juste reason to punish someone? murder? rape? GBH? stealing a loaf of bread? sitting in the wrong bus seat?

Moral values are not fixed, we are TAUGHT them. what is right and wrong or good and evil today will not be so tomorrow.

Now one last thing, i never said it was a problem. It just IS. Before you go out and tell me to learn some history i suggest that you pick up a few books or maybe if its too hard talk to someone with a little experience in life.

On the other hand i don't expect you to understand ANY of this. After all i am talking to someone who is confusing Char with Ewoks.

edit said my piece, so I'll pull out of this one. Aeon is obviously set in his mind, no point taking it further.

Have fun.

OMG LOOK WHAT I LEARNED IN DEBATING CLASS!!!!11!!

-_-'

Seriously, debating the philosophy of a computer game is just sad. Go play or go discuss real philosophy.

I think I'm just going to tag team you. Here's my pal, Plato. He kicked relativism's ass back in the Classical era. But feel free to continue spouting idiocy, just like a naked, lubed up orphan with no money.

Not that I think you can actually read, or do much of anything else, what with being busy worrying if your breathing is against any other people's belief systems (mine, as it happens, so you'd best stop).

And I'm not sure where you get off with this whole right and wrong is a western concept thing. Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism... these all seem pretty clear on the whole doing right thing.

Your real issue is your anti western bias. How inane of you to think that west = bad. Your argument there sinks to the level of Austin Powers: "There's only two things I can't stand. People who can't tolerate other people's cultures. And the Dutch!"

What due process and what rule of law am I talking about? How about, I dunno, that which exists in every state on the planet? In the United States, the Black Panthers had no hope of ever removing the crushing weight of racism Malcom X was eventually murdered by his own movement for recognizing this simple fact. Yet Martin Luther King, who worked through the system and exercised his rights, was able to bring about such change that the word lynch has fallen out of the general consciousness. Nelson Mandela? Ghandi? Freakin Canada?

I get my kicks out of taunting the mouth breathers on this forum. The moron above didn't even realize he spelled his hero's name wrong, causing me to confuse it with a real killer (Caine, from Kung Fu). Who the hell cares what some retard from Star Trek said?

Anyway, this thread is getting boring, so peace, love, and the paladin way.

edit you are right wilderness its ultimately futile.

trolls are bad mkay?

Having thought on this matter...

It could be a question of perspective. The Charr in the Realm of Torment have a complete understanding of just how badly they got served by the Titans - tricked into doing their bidding, essentially sacrificed by the thousands in the world of the living to complete the corruption of the Vizier, and then narrowly escaping having their souls devoured by the minions of Abaddon after finding that they're doomed to the Realm of Torment in the afterlife. That has to be a pretty humbling experience.

The still-living Charr, on the other hand... just have the awareness that the Titans weren't gods after all. From Pyre's comments, they still seem to believe that the Cataclysm was an act of desperation on the part of the Vizier rather than a part of Abaddon's plan all along. Pyre and his allies may not like the idea into being tricked into worship, but they haven't had the full ramifications of that trickery rammed home like those in Torment did - they still have their pride and even those who ally with humanity feel the need to assert their superiority. The revelation may even have made it worse - after all, humans weren't tricked into worshipping false gods, so the Charr need to work harder to estabolish themselves as being higher in the pecking order.

In short, the Charr in Torment have had their proverbial nose rubbed in it so much that they've left their superiority complexes behind, while the still-living Charr have not.

Stupid post `Well.... just that.
Kane I have noticed, most of your lately posts are useless spams....

Well seeing as how I hate Gwen. She should be the one forced with a mark in her head to shut her the hell up.

Besides that the Charr in Torment realy didnt have much choice. If they where to survive the only option was to ally with the forces there that opposed abbadon, wich where mostly Forgotten. Neccecity forced them to give up their views.

It dous however, prove the theory that all charr are evil whrong, they are not evil at their core as they are capable of good. And i dont see why Pyre would not be capable.

I have no idea what you are talking about :P Who is my socalled hero?

Absolutely.

Good point. And it shows how badly the story and the writing is done.

While the concept of evil implies a universal law, it has nothing to do with whether anyone can do it at all times or such things as talking would be evil.