Curse

Sword Hammer Axe · May 10, 2010, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Chaotic is the guy that one moment is saving babies from orcs and the next moment is eating them. Both babies and orcs, using his own head as a plate.

Wanna see true Chaos? Try thinking of Britney Spear's voice of reason. It's gotta be pretty damn chaotic 0.0

Also if the whole discussion here about anarchy vs. dictatorship doesn't show that the situation with Mantle vs. SB isn't black and white then i don't know what does

Melkorium · May 11, 2010, 10:14 AM // 10:14

Yeah, polemics aside I think the story is losing alot of potential by making the Mantle cartoon bad guys. Woulda been far more interesting had their leaders simply been blinded by faith in the Unseen (since Saul's original cabal who have seen the Mursaat are now gone) rather than greedy folk knowingly exploiting the Mantle's power for profit.

As it is, there's no subtlety to the story-telling and so no real interest. Quests etc may still be good but I'm disappointed because in the past the devs have written some great little stories.

Amy Awien · May 11, 2010, 01:56 PM // 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

And without law and order, you have the libertarian's paradise: Somalia. I'll take a harsh administration over anarchy any day.

Really? That'd probably depend on whether you're on the approved side of the regime or not.

But that's two extremes, the White Mantle seem to want to take the road of the harsh administration, but lacking the manpower they hire anarchists (bandits) to do it for them, they're combining both extremes

Ariovist Lynxkind · May 11, 2010, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melkorium

Woulda been far more interesting had their leaders simply been blinded by faith in the Unseen (since Saul's original cabal who have seen the Mursaat are now gone) rather than greedy folk knowingly exploiting the Mantle's power for profit.

you do bring up a good point here, though it could be that the current inner sanctum were the last initiates to find out the full story

majoho · May 11, 2010, 06:56 PM // 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

"Good chaos" doesn't make any sense. There is no good in chaos. Just randomness.
Remember the two aligment meters in D&D? Evil/good and legal/chaotic.
"Chaotic" it's not the correct term in there. It should be "Legal/extralegal".
Chaotic is the guy that one moment is saving babies from orcs and the next moment is eating them. Both babies and orcs, using his own head as a plate.
Chaos is neither good or evil, it's just random.

And if you have to compare evil laws an good deeds outside the law, then I'm afraid good deeds are better, specially since evil laws are usually too arbitrary, senseless and directed to oppress, control, steal, and all other sorts of evil reasons.
Because, well.. good deeds are GOOD.

Actually that old alignment setup was really bad, the only good thing about the latest version of D&D is that they changed that.

It's now just

Good - Lawful Good
Unaligned
Chaotic Evil - Evil

It's much more appropriate since I really couldn't tell Lawful evil from neutral evil and such.

Skyy High · May 11, 2010, 07:19 PM // 19:19

Lawful evil: Hitler, Stalin, any evil dictator really.

The four corners of the alignment system were always easy, it was the "neutralities" that threw wrenches in the works. Closest I ever came to understanding "neutral" was "whatever benefits me the most".

I'd like to point out that we don't know yet if the leadership of the WM really have turned into crooks and thieves, or if they're just employing crooks and thieves out of desperation. It seems likely to me, at least, that they still believe their crock about the Unseen Ones and such.

majoho · May 11, 2010, 08:18 PM // 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Lawful evil: Hitler, Stalin, any evil dictator really.

Actually if you look at the explanations given, a lawful evil char would typically be an evil masterminds sidekick not the leader himself.

Lawful doesn't mean he makes the rules but rather that he positions himself so he can take advantage of whatever rules there are to do his evil.

Eragon Zarroc · May 11, 2010, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Kill the white mantle sympathizer! RAWR!!!!

....lol

Shasgaliel · May 11, 2010, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancing gnome

Am I the only one sick of reading about the amazingly one sided story telly how evil the White Mantle and their Peacekeepers are?

It seems in every single story written by Murro on the website, the "perfect" scenario to present the White Mantle as obvious bad guys is presented in each blog (I mean "perfect" in a bad way, you know in the fake made up too suspiciously perfect to be true). Why does it have to be so bluntly over the top bashed into our heads that these guys are less than good? Having a bit of a grey area or even just less than stupidly obvious writing is a good thing.

It might just be because I'm a journalist, but the feel I get from the War in Kryta story is a very strong propaganda campaign against the White Mantle. Instead of creating characters with interesting moral dilemmas or actual motivation, these guys feel like bad guys from a children's television show from the 80s who do bad for the sake of doing bad.

Not every White Mantle member is faceless soldier number xxxx. They all have families somewhere, they all have reasons for doing what they do. They don't just beat, murder and steal from random farmers every chance they get. Even the most corrupt armies have a few good eggs and the bad eggs usually have a reason for being bad, good story telling shows us that.

I understand they want us to side with the Shining Blade in the end, but that doesn't mean they have to dumb down the story so much that it's one sidedness begins to push people towards the White Mantle out of spite.

For me it all looks like war reports from Iraq. My apologies if this offended someone. I would like more moral dilemmas as well. They would additional dimension to the game.

Nerel · May 11, 2010, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

The four corners of the alignment system were always easy, it was the "neutralities" that threw wrenches in the works. Closest I ever came to understanding "neutral" was "whatever benefits me the most".

Congratulations on understanding Neutral Evil, only four more to go!

MithranArkanere · May 12, 2010, 01:08 AM // 01:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyy High

Lawful evil: Hitler, Stalin, any evil dictator really.

The four corners of the alignment system were always easy, it was the "neutralities" that threw wrenches in the works. Closest I ever came to understanding "neutral" was "whatever benefits me the most".

The problem comes when you see them as a 9 alignment, instead the mix of two values for two aligments.

You are neutral when you don't discard neither of the two opposites.
A good character won't do evil and viceversa, a legal character won't behave outside the law and vice-versa.

As I see t, you are not really 'neutral', but actually 'not definitely good or evil'. or "not definitely chaotic neither legal".
You can get there wither by not doing things (standing aside when you must choose) or by doing either things (sometimes good, sometimes evil), instead going just one way.

One thing I never liked of that system is that it doesn't take into account sanity. "Mad" characters are often portrayed as chaotic, but one person can be good, but mad, and do evil things without intention to harm. D&D cannot portray that in aligments.

Amy Awien · May 20, 2010, 11:55 AM // 11:55

On a side note, ANet seems keen on civil wars, we had Factions with the Luxons and the Kurzicks (and earlier the Jade Brotherhood and the Am Fa), Kournans and Sunspears in Nightfall and the internal Charr struggle (shamans vs Pyre and his warbrothers) in EotN. Curious how they'll use this theme in GW2.

zwei2stein · May 20, 2010, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by CronkTheImpaler

... There is good and there is evil, this is not a hard concept to grasp. Whether or not the shining blade or White Mantle are good or evil is irrelevent. This is a video game folks. ...

Actually it is quite hard concept to grasp.

See, AlwaysChaoticEvil is not really something that makes interesting stories, neither is CardCarryingVillain.

Every mantle member had to have reasons to join it. Real, beliveable and actually reasonable (for them anyway), staying in it and following orders, and if he is in position, for issuing orders. Not just ForTheEvulz.

Video game storytelling sucks, and portrayal of evil is one of things that makes that sucky.

Hell, it is even not that much fun to have preset "good" and "bad" guys http://www.youtube.com/user/kirithem.../0/6_KU3lUx3u0

---

Best you can make out of this is to assume that what you see/read is Shining Blade version of events as being told hundred or so years after "current events"; history-written-by-victor mixed with propaganda example.