| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Beecham
Wind In The Grass
Joined: 20 May 2005
Post Count: 988
Location: Zexen Forest
33221 Potch
75 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:48 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Black Fang wrote: |
Revenge is a normal human trait brought about by a mix of sadness and anger. I don't think revenge is ever associated with satisfaction but rather simple compensation for something lost.
You really cannot say the whole of the US or any nation deals with problems in the same way as it really depends on the specific person. Unfortunatelly even nowadays when individual people tell one another that we are smart beings that can think for ourselves deep down they know it isn't the case. People are very smart, but humanity as a whole is extremelly stupid. Most (possibly all) of us bend to the rules of society and try to fit in following others like lost little sheep so a mass audience enjoying revenge shouldn't really be much of a shock. Another thing that makes revenge stand out so is its uncalm nature. Revenge isn't just something that happens every day (well in the older times it wasn't), so it has that edge to it. That little excitement that we all would like to see.
I personally chop off Karze's head every time I play the game. The reason being is......why not? You ask why and I reply with why not? A game (especially RPGs) are like books or movies in that they play with our emotions on many levels. I doubt you'd really see a heartless person playing video games. I kill Kraze because it fits in with the story of the game better. I also save before the Milich scene and kill him/load a few times then continue as normal. :mrgreen: |
Minor point, I don't think I've ever killed Millich. While Kraze, I feel, is irredeemable, by his own actions, Millich was being controlled, which becomes obvious before the option comes up to kill him. Even in my most vengeful fit, I would find no satisfaction in avenging my friend's death if his killer didn't understand -why- it was happening. Millich didn't even remember killing Gremio; how can you justify killing him for the crime, when he wasn't the one responsible?
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Shrew wrote: |
| Revenge is not always evil itself, but revenge without considering the consequences is. |
This is very arguable in itself as who is to say what is evil and what is not. It is morally wrong but evil is a heavy word that should be used with caution (along with other such words as right/wrong, love/hate...). |
Not sure what to say here, except that I think on the whole I agree with Shrew more. But half this thread is debating this general point [as opposed to the Kraze scenario in specific] so there's little more I can say that hasn't been said.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Nutflush wrote: |
| McDohl I think is a very understanding person who hates killing (from what can be gathered from the story). |
Heh, yet he ends up killing all those poor lil monsters and Scarlet Moon soldiers hehe. :P |
*grins* It's hard to claim that McDohl is either understanding -or- hates killing. What part of his personality has told you this? He kinda doesn't have any dialog by which to measure him, and his actions are abstractly your own. I agree with Black Fang, here; he has chosen to lead a rebellion at -war- with his Empire. War means death; that is the path he has chosen. He has decided that the lives of thousands are lighter than the need to stop the Empire's corruption. That is not, and never should be thought of as, an easy decision.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| You say Kraze is evil and will only create more misery if left to his own devices, but who are you to make such a judgement. |
You seem to have some sort of philosophy/psychology/sociology background so I guess you know that noone can morally make that judgement, but saying that Kraze had no right to do things he did either. Its a touchy topic that really has many angles to it but it really comes down to a simple little thing, if a vicious dog attacked you, would you drop down and let him kill you or would you boot him in the head like a football (soccer) ball as hard as you could. It wouldn't heal your wounds but that lil bugger would be sure to keep attacking if you didn't do anything about it. It can be said that it is morally wrong but its also within every living creature's nature to protect itself. The way I see it thats what all of them were doing, because Karze would surelly have gone back to Gregminster. |
I'm not sure I could have argued Mad Mage's point any better. On one hand you have it that no human being holds the -right- of life and death over another human being. We are, or should be, equal. But there are times when taking another life becomes necessary to protect life. As I believe I said before on this very thread, sometimes the act is necessary, and you must be prepared to pay the consequences of the act. This is never a light decision, any more than the choice to go to war, no matter that it is on a smaller scale.
Black Fang is, one hundred percent, correct in that you're going to do what you can to stop that dog from killing you. Unless you're an adherant to the Way of the Leaf, of course [*grins at anyone who catches the reference*], and even then you'll at -least- run away. But sometimes running away isn't an option. The only option is to die, or fight back. Or in Tir's case, let others suffer, or kill. Kill, when he already has the blood of thousands on his hand, each individually far less justified than Kraze's blood shall be.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| A reason our real world is filled with so much pain and suffering is because most people feel themselves worthy of making harsh judgements even though they are only looking at matters from the reality they deem true. But we are not worthy. |
Please refrain from saying people are not worthy. Most have never thought of these situations in depth but humanity has proven that we can accomplish just about anything if we try. We are definatelly worthy of making decisions, even heavy ones such as this, because in the end we are the ones that will have to protect and nurture this planet and everything on it (heck humans are trying to bring Mammoths back from extinction). |
The cop who falls in the line of duty trying to stop a killer from taking more lives. The one who in turn kills the killer to protect not only other lives, but his own. The judge who condemns another killer to death, because he has escaped before and has and will kill again. These men are not worthy? Careful when you think that humankind is not worthy to judge the worth of another human's life. Sometimes, it is necessary.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| SARSadmin wrote: |
Revenge becomes destructive when you become so focused on it that you start to neglect anything else, such as your family, friends, your own health, etc. Then, you end up losing more even if you are able to exact your revenge.
As with any other emotion, you have to control your desire for revenge. People who can't control love can become possessive or obsessed--people who can not control their joy may become annoying or lose their sense of compassion. Similarly, those who can not control their compassion may end up becoming depressed and suicidal. |
I'll go on and agree with all of this. It is however VERY hard to control all your emotions and a lot of the times they get the best of us. Some people are capable of completelly killing off their emotions (such as sadness, jellaousy, happiness) and those people usually become the most efficient (big money makers) as they set a goal in life and they only use the emotions they need to get to the top. I personally see this type of life pointless as by the time their life is at an end, all they've achieved is a high status position. Not my idea of the meaning of life. |
There is a difference between controlling your emotions - that is, preventing them from controlling you, I believe is what he is saying - and turning off all emotion. A huge difference.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Harukaze wrote: |
| He's small time, but even if he gets just one more town under his jurisdiction again, that's another town full of people who suffer because you let him go. Why? Why take that chance? |
Actually leaders and strategists should not let their emotions get in their way (as Leon points out in Suikoden II) if they wish to be successful. Its true that this is not always the case, but leaders and strategists are responsible for many lives and as such need to be efficient, which a lot of the times can completelly disregard personal emotion. Its easy for us to say it is morally unjust to execute revenge sitting on some computer miles away with no bullets flying right past our heads or no swords swinging in front of our eyes. You must remember that emotions get heavily amplified on the battlefield. |
I do not see how your comment here springs from mine. Please explain?
| Black Fang wrote: |
| St.Ajora wrote: |
| You tell that to a rapist, or a murderer and they'll laugh. You forget that many people walk around with a lack of morals and appreciation for life, despite if they commit crimes or not. You can't expect everyone to behave saintly, or angelic, and make the "right" choices, since nobody can agree on what's right. That's humanity. |
I just had to point out that this was simply beautiful *dramatic tear* :mrgreen: |
Agreed.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| That's exactly my point! Since the game does not provide you with enough material to determine if Kraze lives or dies, it is unjust imo to kill him |
Its unjust in my opinion not to kill him. :mrgreen: |
Precisely! Mad Mage, if you feel there's not enough information to justify his death, you need to A) go play the game again and B) really put yourself -in- the world. This is not modern day first world. This is a reflection of ancient China. Literally so. Men are dying by the thousands, many at Tir's own hands, most at his commands, and you think he should let Kraze go? You're metagaming here too, when you point out that letting him go doesn't affect the game. As Tir, you have no dea what Kraze will do when freed. None. It is your duty to your people to protect them. And if you let him go, you have failed utterly.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| One more thing I noticed is that a lot of you wrote that killing in form of revenge can be justified.......well it can't and it never will be. It'll always be morally wrong (unless the official meaning of that word changes :P ). Men kill for land, power, money, love and many more reasons all which seem morally wrong. Animals kill for food but even that is not justified (think of the poor little gazelle getting chewed up by the big hungry lion). Its just the way this world works. Its unfair and unjust in many ways, but it also has many beautiful things that make it all worth while. |
Forgetting for the moment whether revenge can be justified... how can you say animal predations aren't justified? What, do you expect the lion to starve? Or do you expect him to try leafy greens? His stomach won't digest those, you know; carnivores aren't going to take nuitrition from that sort of thing. They -need- meat to survive. Mankind as an omnivore might be able to subsist without meat, but a lion or any other carnivore cannot. You at least say it's a beautiful thing how the world works, but I disagree with your assessment that it's unfair. There is no question of fairness in the animal kingdom. There merely is what is and what is not.
| Black Fang wrote: |
| On a final note, I doubt you'd be able to tell much from a person making a single decision as that decision could have been influenced my millions of events through that specific persons life. They could be ruthless, they could be lazy, they could be curious, they could just feel that it goes with the story. Personally you can narrow it down to several different personality types but you can't tell much about a person from one simple A and B choice, especially in a video game. Hope this somewhat helps answer your questions. |
Agreed - though, I think, our -arguments- on this thread tells quite a bit about who we are.
| Mad Mage wrote: |
Well, a few people have mentioned that a simple A or B choice in an RPG doesn't say much about you. Of course it doesn't. I'm not someone who judges people based on their RPG decisions. It's true, I did say the choice you make determining Kraze's execution CAN say a lot about you. And I still think it can. This topic is partially living testament to that.
Suikoden is just game, but unlike 99% of games, it has an actual depth and intelligence to it. While there is no doubt referencing actual books would prove far more intellectual in this discussion on revenge, we all haven't read the same books like we would have of this were a college seminar. I wasn't as serious with this topic as I may have sounded; I simply think it's fun to try to read meaning into the game I love, even if that meaning isn't always there. Hey, you'd have a tougher time doing this with Mario Bros: "I think the reason Mario stomps on all those goombas is because he wasn't loved as a child. Discuss."
By the way, to all those who replied that they don't kill Kraze because they think it's wrong: thanks! It made me happy just to see that a few others share my beliefs on the matter. And to those who disagree with me: thanks for being respectful and providing good arguments. You normally wouldn't expect such a thoughtful discussion on the interent ('least I wouldn't). |
Heh, left the post open so long to think about it that three more posts came in.
I suppose that one of our largest differences here is that I, at the least, am looking at the situation as if I was truly in Tir's shoes living in Tir's world. It sounds, at least, that you still see this as a video game. I agree with your point that this sort of discussion couldn't be possible with most games [*smirks at the Mario analogy*], but I do take that one step further by trying to see this as a story, not a game, with a whole wide real world as its setting. I fashion myself something of an author and prefer to see things that way. And truly thrusting myself into that role, I know of only one option I could take. I think there is only one option the -real- Tir would take, were Tir real :)
Please understand that however harsh my words may seem online - it is so hard to read tone and intent, which is the very reason so many internet debates turn into flaming monstrosities - I do respect your opinion as your own even as I fully and utterly disagree with it. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, but I do feel very strongly on the matter.
Now, if you were to ask me about revenge in the modern day... I think you'd find my responses to be very different. But that's another topic altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Noot
Faithers of the Defend
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Post Count: 3748
Location: The Holy Kingdom of Harmonia
186551 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking about this some more, and I realized that Kanaan deserved vengeance more than Kraze. Kraze was just some low officer looking to move up, but Kanaan's actions directly led to the death of Ted. One can say that it was Fate that Ted die and McDohl receive the Soul Eater and Kanaan was merely the tool to put the wheel in motion. In that case, Kanaan's actions had "divine" purpose, whether he knew it or not. Just like Gollum's hunger for the Ring, when he finally got it in Mt. Doom he slipped in bringing about its destruction--quite the opposite of his intention, but the work of providence/fate. (Sorry I referred to Lord of the Rings twice in this same thread.) In the end, we can forgive Gollum just like we can forgive Kanaan, because even though their intentions were antagonistic to the hero's, their actions brought about the turn of events needed to end the conflict.
But if you don't believe in Fate (and you want to look at it straight from a moral standpoint) Kanaan should have gotten it much worse than Kraze.
But I still have this thought in my head that Kraze intended to rape Eileen, and that for the longest time was my justification for killing him. But I don't know, I still have to check.
_________________
~~Harmonian Tenhei Star~~
It's hard to bargle naudle zauss with all these marbles in my mouth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Horned Loa
Guardians of the Merchant
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2214
Location: Ceresfjellet
96000 Potch
1000 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anton Misri wrote: |
| How do you know this? Are you moral authority? There is clear distinction between one person opinion and "truth." As Plato say, "There is no Truth, only myriads of interpretation." |
Yes that is true but morality is a feeling that we as humans have (which distinguishes us from other animals) yet we cannot describe. Rather like love "Noone can tell you you are in love; You just know it" - Oracle in Matrix (heh, had to quote someone :P ). I know its morally wrong to kill someone as do you and anyone on this forum. We can't describe why and its not a fact but rather a nature born feeling. Even little kids know that hurting others is morally wrong (bad to them).
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| Well, a few people have mentioned that a simple A or B choice in an RPG doesn't say much about you. Of course it doesn't. I'm not someone who judges people based on their RPG decisions. It's true, I did say the choice you make determining Kraze's execution CAN say a lot about you. |
Well seeing as I was the one that started the A or B choice thing, I think this is somewhat directed at me hehe. I never said you judge people based on a single choice neither. Its clear that one choice can tell something about a person but only if there are several other sequences and choices to give a strong comparisson in answers and zoom in on the personality traits. The word I was objecting to was a "LOT". It can't say a LOT about anyone, maybe just give a hint as to what they could be like. :P
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| "I think the reason Mario stomps on all those goombas is because he wasn't loved as a child. Discuss." |
His mommy didn't hold him when he was a baby!!! :P It could always be argued that he has no parents....lol
| Mad Mage wrote: |
| You normally wouldn't expect such a thoughtful discussion on the interent ('least I wouldn't). |
Well you provided such a clear cut debatable question at the beginning so people were bound to take sides heh. Not to mention that this is a Suikoden community here hehe. I believe that understanding some of the concepts within Suikoden require a rather advanced way of thinking (so to speak), thus I don't find it too strange that the fans would have something thoughtful to say. Thanks for posting the question up here though. Its thoughtful, gives strong points to both sides and is generating some good discussions in here.
| Harukaze wrote: |
| Millich didn't even remember killing Gremio; how can you justify killing him for the crime, when he wasn't the one responsible? |
Because of that funky costume, that speach style and that damn annoying music. Trust me, if I could, I'd off Vincent too. Those guys both deserve a good beating. :mrgreen:
| Harukaze wrote: |
| Not sure what to say here, except that I think on the whole I agree with Shrew more. But half this thread is debating this general point [as opposed to the Kraze scenario in specific] so there's little more I can say that hasn't been said. |
What I meant there is that evil is just an over used word. Its very VERY hard to judge wether something is evil or not. Evil for me is someone that hurts others and actually ENJOYS it.....Luca Blight for example. I know people hurt others for whatever reasons, but may hate it deep down inside. I don't think anyone got kicks out of skinning Kraze, but rather a swift strike to end his life and stop him from harming others.
| Harukaze wrote: |
| There is a difference between controlling your emotions - that is, preventing them from controlling you, I believe is what he is saying - and turning off all emotion. A huge difference. |
Actually there is a further difference still. Controlling your emotions means that you can bring out whatever you want, whenever you want. You could cry at a drop of a hat, or go from angry to happy in an instant. This can usually make for a very deceptive person (con artists) and is extremelly hard to achieve. I don't think I've ever met anyone who can control all their emotions. Shutting down your emotions is a trick many soldiers, generals in particular would use to ease the guilt and pain of what they must do. It makes for some of the best efficiency machines but these people are also limited in a number of ways. For the most part I think most of us struggle not to let our emotions control us (which is a third one for those of you not counting :P ), even thought its apparent that a lot of us fail much of the time. This is usually apparent with outbursts of anger, tears of sadness...
| Harukaze wrote: |
| Black Fang wrote: |
| Harukaze wrote: |
| He's small time, but even if he gets just one more town under his jurisdiction again, that's another town full of people who suffer because you let him go. Why? Why take that chance? |
Actually leaders and strategists should not let their emotions get in their way (as Leon points out in Suikoden II) if they wish to be successful. Its true that this is not always the case, but leaders and strategists are responsible for many lives and as such need to be efficient, which a lot of the times can completelly disregard personal emotion. Its easy for us to say it is morally unjust to execute revenge sitting on some computer miles away with no bullets flying right past our heads or no swords swinging in front of our eyes. You must remember that emotions get heavily amplified on the battlefield. |
I do not see how your comment here springs from mine. Please explain?
|
Hmmmm, me thinks I should have quoted a larger section heh. I was just backing up your argument though. We both obviously agree that if Kraze was let go he would go back and cause a further problem to Tir and Mathiu (even thought it woldn't show in the storyline).....thats where my comment sprung from.
| Harukaze wrote: |
| How can you say animal predations aren't justified? What, do you expect the lion to starve? Or do you expect him to try leafy greens? His stomach won't digest those, you know; carnivores aren't going to take nuitrition from that sort of thing. They -need- meat to survive. Mankind as an omnivore might be able to subsist without meat, but a lion or any other carnivore cannot. You at least say it's a beautiful thing how the world works, but I disagree with your assessment that it's unfair. There is no question of fairness in the animal kingdom. There merely is what is and what is not. |
Aite, back to Philosophy 101 LoL. First I'm going to go on record here that I'm following the Darwinian Theory of Evolution here *lifts up and opens my 2inch philosophy book*. :mrgreen:
I'm sure you've heard of the statement "Survival of the Fittest", which means that those on top survive and those below perish. The case is obviously morally unfair to the little guys, but in your example the big man gets stiffed, so in both cases someone loses out, which is why I said mother nature is unfair.
| Harukaze wrote: |
| Agreed - though, I think, our -arguments- on this thread tells quite a bit about who we are. |
Well it isn't really A and B any more now is it, heh :P
| Harukaze wrote: |
| Please understand that however harsh my words may seem online - it is so hard to read tone and intent, which is the very reason so many internet debates turn into flaming monstrosities - I do respect your opinion as your own even as I fully and utterly disagree with it. I do not expect to change anyone's mind, but I do feel very strongly on the matter. |
I agree completelly. It is sometimes very hard to show the tone (let alone sarcasm) on the internet. I try and soften the situation with a "heh" or a smily or something but even so sometimes people take things too serriously. Hopefully noone sees this as a flamefest but rather a common outburst of ideas being put on a forum for others to view, question and discuss. For the most part many of us never even thought of half of these ideas until they were brought to our attention yet we still seem to pick a side in an instant.
| Nutflush wrote: |
| I was thinking about this some more, and I realized that Kanaan deserved vengeance more than Kraze. Kraze was just some low officer looking to move up, but Kanaan's actions directly led to the death of Ted. |
Actually Sir Nutflush, I believe it was Windy that directly killed Ted in the end :P . Kanaan was also trying to get a higher position and was doing exactlly what Kraze ,and more importantly, Windy were telling him to. Windy would surely have told them all to look out for suspicious or powerful runic magic and report to her. O and please tell me why I'm not suprised you used Lord of the Rings again hehe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anton Misri
Mages of Cups
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Post Count: 1910
Location: Valley of the Winds
165978 Potch
6363 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yes that is true but morality is a feeling that we as humans have (which distinguishes us from other animals) yet we cannot describe. Rather like love "Noone can tell you you are in love; You just know it" - Oracle in Matrix (heh, had to quote someone Razz ). I know its morally wrong to kill someone as do you and anyone on this forum. We can't describe why and its not a fact but rather a nature born feeling. Even little kids know that hurting others is morally wrong (bad to them). |
What you say remind me of René Descartes, a great Mathematician; his ethical corrollaries not very good however. First thing, your argument based on assumption that morality is unique to human. This have no proof; animal behaviorologists would tell you contrary, that animals display sense of "right" and "wrong." Otherwise, how can you train dog or dolphins tricks? Second, your selection to compare between love and morals is an incongruent analogy. Love is described in systematic logic as categorically illogical while morals are described logical system. A logical system by virtue have established cause and effect, while illogical systems have no observable cause and effect relationship. If morality based on illogical system like love, we no longer need justification for moral action; no more need for law because we simply will know, yes? However, that is not nature of morality, we see how it work in real world. This is not question of truth or false; it is question of diction.
Third, the idea of "killing another is wrong" is not natural, instinctual feeling. It is acquired social behavior human acquire through process of reinforcement. Animals learn similar thing; that is why beast of same species kill each other rarely. The opposite is entirely possible; you can raise boy or girl tell them "it is okay to kill other boy and girls with blonde hair." If you raise children like this, they would feel nothing wrong to kill boy and girls with blonde hair. This is exactly what Nazi did in Germany; turn normal citizen into killer. Same thing happen in my country (Estonia) when Soviet rule our nation.
Lastly, if anyone claim "there is universal morality," that certainly shock Hagel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and even Plato! They may come back to life from shock!
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Horned Loa
Guardians of the Merchant
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2214
Location: Ceresfjellet
96000 Potch
1000 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LoL. I suppose I am somewhat mathematical and scientific in many of my methods and like Descartes I too did study Classics, logic and philosophy among other things so I'm not surprised we share some similar views. His ethical corollaries are arguable as are everyone elses.
It is true that my argument is based on an assumption because I do not believe in anthropomorphism. It is also an assumption to say that animals and humans do share the same traits. The term 'rape' is used to describe forced copulation in ducks for example which is inaccurate in my opinion and that of many other experts. It all matters from what angle you look at it as well as what you chose to believe. There is no right and wrong answer as no one really knows the truth (noone can read the minds of humans nor animals), so all we can do is speculate and theorise.
Morality is no prerequisite for an animal to perform tricks. It is an automated process that can be learned and needs no sense of morality. They learn not to do things because they get punished otherwise.
| Anton Misri wrote: |
| Second, your selection to compare between love and morals is an incongruent analogy. Love is described in systematic logic as categorically illogical while morals are described logical system. |
I always use to disagree with this. Even back when I first started philosophy. There is no direct evidence for either and I've noticed people say stupid things when it comes to the subconscious. This is a whole new point entirely and I'd rather not clog up a few pages to explain. :mrgreen:
| Anton Misri wrote: |
| Animals learn similar thing; that is why beast of same species kill each other rarely. |
Actually animals would kill each other more often than you think. There are a few reasons they don't: Enviromental reasons - they live in different areas of the world so they have no contact; Hidding out - smaller critters usually find a way to hide or evade predators or any other animal for that matter; Many animals are territorial - so many of them feel content within their borders (no need to kill stuff outside its lands); well you get the picture. There are many reasons animals don't kill other animals all the time. Simply because they have no need to.
Humans are definatelly disctinct in the way that we can be taught to believe just about anything (including what history, philosophical and psychological books tell us :P ), but we're also capable of thinking of ourselves, even if so only in rare cases. People are easily brainwashed as a whole because thats what we were brought up to be since the beginning of any governemnts and leaderships, but we still have the individual strength to resist.
| Anton Misri wrote: |
| Lastly, if anyone claim "there is universal morality," that certainly shock Hagel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and even Plato! They may come back to life from shock! |
Heh, it'd be fun to actually state this just to see the reactions lol, mind you I know I'm not one for it so I'll wait for an opposing candidate. By the way Misri, I don't know about the others but there is no way you haven't read up about philosophy haha and if you want to continue this discussion (off topic) then just PM me, unless other members would rather like to participate in which case I can seperate this into a new topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Filipe
The Executors of Harmonian Order
Joined: 10 Jul 2004
Post Count: 2030
Location: Montmittel
35712 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I usually go with whatever mood I am in at the time the times that I have gone through the game and beaten it. Most times I usually just show mercy but I have on occasion just for the heck of it shown none and moved on with the game since I could really care less. Now the only thing that I am wondering is will I be able to hold off in Suikoden 4 if there is any situations just like that. I dont know since I havent played it yet but I guess i'll just have to wait and see.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kobold
Joined: 20 May 2004
Post Count: 481
Location: Holy Kingdom of Harmonia
35491 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Goblin Phonologist wrote: |
All of that stuff that you're saying towards the end, I believe that is the work of Karma.
That's why I don't need to punish a person like Kraze; Karma would take care of that.
And that's what I love about her... she can either be loving, or a cold b___h. And if you're someone like Kraze, me thinks that person will try to avoid her as long as possible. |
Note that YOU are not the one killing Kraze. This is a game, and within the storyline of the game, Tir is the one that kills Kraze. Now if you talk about Karma, it IS Kraze's karma that ends up with him being killed by Tir.
And like i said, it isn't vengeance that Kraze would die. It is by moral justice. Kraze has to die. If you talk about killing for vengeance, people who try to kill Milich are the ones who potray the urge for vengeance. I think if the topic is on vengeance, this topic should be asking "Who would have killed Milich if he wasn't one of the 108 Stars, and wouldn't affect your game play at all by killing him?" This would be a better criteria and comparison to talk about revenge and vengeance, because Milich isn't exactly an evil person, but he caused the death of Tir's loved one. Kraze himself was a bastard. So Kraze really isn't that good of an example to illustrate vengeance...
_________________
Kobolds are great! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goblin Phonologist
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Post Count: 48
Location: Oakland, CA
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Note that YOU are not the one killing Kraze. This is a game, and within the storyline of the game, Tir is the one that kills Kraze. |
Yes, I know I'm not killing Kraze. Tir does. By the way, good point about Kraze's karma. I wanted to get into that, but I don't want to be too technical.
I just wanted to point out that we, the players, are the ones that control Tir, so i suppose that, technically, makes us decide if Kraze lives or not. But I'm sure you know that already. :)
For me, here's the tricky part: If you're saying whether or not Tir himself would kill Kraze (minus the player controlling him), that I am not sure of. Unless there is a manga of Suikoden which shows Tir killing off Kraze, then that would answer my question in a hurry.
For the rest of what you said, I agree. Except for this part:
| Quote: |
It is by moral justice. Kraze has to die.
|
I don't know about that. I feel that justificating someone to die because of moral justice does not make it moral justice anymore.
_________________
Goblin Phonologist readies Bomb Toss.
Goblin Phonologist is defeated.
You find a Silver Beastcoin.
You find a Stack of Old Records.
You find a Broken Turntable.
You find 12 pieces of Goblin Chocolate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeonMouko
Fierce Tigers
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Post Count: 248
Location: Tatara Mountains
116367 Potch
419 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a note, if I recall correctly, Kraze DID intend to rape her. When Tir and Lepant showed up, he ranted about how Tir not only interfered with his job but his PLEASURE as well.
Meaning, I don't think he kidnapped her to force Lepant to do anything - he kidnapped her because he wanted her and he gets what he wants. The fact that it brought Lepant down on his head was an oversight, as he expected his status in the Empire to protect him as it always had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
