But can you see the other side's point of view? That is the important part. I would say "killing another human is wrong, regardless of the situation," but I can still see the other side's point of view nearly as clearly and understand that is "makes sense." Or maybe I don't, and that is just my self-serving bias.

Hence why I said, "you give the impression that you believe," it was a suggestion that you pay attention more to the tone and content of your argument as to not come off that way, because you really do.

We cannot know for sure. Vivec claims that the Ordinators were out of control, but we have no reason to believe that he isn't lying. So it could go either way. I am of the opinion that it is more unlikely that he had no involvement.

Having to kill anyone at any time is bad, but to say that killing someone on the street because of just whatever, and killing someone in self defense during war are the same thing is non-sense.

Umm okay? Sorry for your impressions? I dunno

True we can not know for sure, but it just doesn't seem like Vivec's style to do something like that. Why would he care? He has a floating moon above his city which he placed there. That is proof enough of his god-hood.

The two choices in this pole represent opposite poles of morality, I cannot vote for I do not think the character is intended to be purely evil nor is he purely good.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Dagoth Ur is one of the many to succumb to this axiom, Couldn't vote on this however.

Vivec in his own words; he appears to be speaking candidly when he addresses the Nerevarine directly:

'persecute the Dissident Priests': "Suppression and persecution of dissent is just one of the standard tools of statecraft. I believe we erred in trusting the judgement of Berel Sala.... We mistook his misplaced zeal for energy and dedication...."

'suppress the Apographa': "Why did I suppress the Apographa? Because it was such an unfortunate mixture of truth, falsehood, and speculation that I couldn't afford to manage the confused reaction of our faithful.... In retrospect, perhaps we lost the faith of those we most needed while preserving the faith of the meek and indifferent...."

'war on the Nerevarine': "Why did I try to kill you? Because you threatened the faith of my followers, and I needed their faith to hold back the darkness. And I thought you were my enemy -- a pawn of the subtle Daedra Lord Azura, or a pawn of Emperor Uriel Septim...."

Temple persecution of the Dissident Priests, etc. may not have been done or ordered by Vivec himself but was carried out by the Ordinators with his approval or at least his connivance. And he did not put a stop to it until there was a proven Nerevarine with whom he had no choice but to deal.

[quote name='Athesdas of Indoril' post='8577221' date='Nov 13 2006, 05:06 PM']Having to kill anyone at any time is bad, but to say that killing someone on the street because of just whatever, and killing someone in self defense during war are the same thing is non-sense.[/quote]That would be a "no" then...Also, similar to what J?germeister later pointed out, keep in mind that the person doing the killing on the street isn't just doing it "because of just whatever." As humans, most of us have a tendency to give more personal attributions to other people's actions (in other words, we blame some inherent part of their character) rather than situational ones (putting more weight on aspects of the environment and situation for people's actions). We should indeed consider why the killer did what they did. Perhaps it was the result of some sort of horrible personal conflict and history? Or maybe the killer actually had some sort of logical "justification"? We may not necessarily agree with the killer's reasoning, but it does point out that it is highly unlikely that they were just "evil" or "crazy." There is almost always much more too it than that.

[quote name='Athesdas of Indoril' post='8577221' date='Nov 13 2006, 05:06 PM']Umm okay? Sorry for your impressions? I dunno [/quote]Again, just my observations and suggestions. Do with them what you will.

[quote name='Athesdas of Indoril' post='8577221' date='Nov 13 2006, 05:06 PM']True we can not know for sure, but it just doesn't seem like Vivec's style to do something like that. Why would he care? He has a floating moon above his city which he placed there. That is proof enough of his god-hood.[/quote]No it can't, but obviously we got different impressions of his style (which I'm sure was mostly intentional upon the developer's parts). Here are some parts from his speech that make such actions seem within character for him to me:

Perhaps they may seem evil but to me they seem to be of noble cause. I know it is popular to put this bad guy image of Vivec, and it is quite easy to do but every time someone does that it is easy to see how it was all for the better.

"What mortal scope of mind can comprehend that of a god?"




Then if jagermeister meant something more specific he should have written it so. Regardless my point stands either part or apart of Jagermeister's statement.

Read up for the Vivec thing^

We were arguing that these statements seem to make Vivec entirely capable of having been responsible for the Dissident Priests not whether the ideas stated in them or the killing were evil. Of course, I do disagree with you on that; to me the killing of dissidents was not "all for the better." It was murder.

I don't think Vivec is as different than us as he would like to pretend he is, and I think most any god has at least some "human" and "comprehensible" aspects. Can we ever truly know whether or not we really "understand" a divinity without becoming one? No, of course not.

Beyond what J?germeister said, I believe that what I said nearly always or always applies, so I think you have failed to answer my question there. Whose "justification" is better the "soldier"'s or the "killer"'s?

Oh i'm sorry I was not aware we where bound by that statement alone. I simply wished to venture around the park a little bit if that is ok. The killing of the dissident priests was needed because if they where left alone, people would have followed them and though their intentions where good if Vivec lost his believers "he would not be able to hold back the darkness".

Oh I know Vivec is a made up character written by several writers and isn't really a god. But within TES and the way TES is set up, the writers left room for little tid bits to be written here and there to justify everything to make it seem as if Vivec was truley devine.

I didn't fail to answer I think you skipped over it comrade. I stated that the soldier has better justification of defending himself over a killer more or less.

Which is incorrect. Little of his power seems to have been dependent on faith, his political power only in fact, is what I would argue. Even Vivec admits he may well have messed up, "In retrospect, perhaps we lost the faith of those we most needed while preserving the faith of the meek and indifferent. Perhaps a mistake was made. Who can say?"

In addition, I am just one of those types who cannot see physical security as weighing more important than morality and freedom of dissent. Obviously, you take the opposite perspective, "national security" over "freedoms," in a sense, and it doesn't seem that you can even understand mine. It is a part of why humans can never, and never should, actually (I think it would svck miserably if we all agreed on everything and had exactly the same world view...*shudders at the thought*), be totally reconciled.

Why?

But he still needed the people to hold back the darkness regardless and maybe not so much their power, but needed them as motivation or something more...him admiting he may have been wrong just shows a sign of maturity and humbleness. Reminds me of the story when he helped the farmer or whatever he was to plow his field.

Again you assume too much about me. Simply wanting to defend yourself does not lower your morality or freedom. (You are talking about the soldier/killer arguement here right?)

Surely you can see the difference between killing in self-defense and killing in cold blood?

Uhhh...sure...

If that is your moral viewpoint. It isn't mine, so therefore I could never possibility agree that the act of the soldier was more "right" than that of the other killer. I can understand why someone who finds them such a soldier would make such choices, though, and I would almost never consider them "evil." They can have many reasons of justification and maybe they really didn't want to, but the same can be said for the other killer, so I do not believe one is necessarily more justified than the other. So one may have more reasoning and can draw more empathy from me, but it would depend on the particular individual and circumstances not just whether or not they were a soldier or not.

As for the freedom bit, yes, killing people because they disagree with those in power is a vast infringement upon freedom of dissent.

EDIT: And to elaborate on what I meant before, for you whether or not someone is protecting themself or others seems to make a difference in whether or not you think what they did was "right." For me, it doesn't.

I can see a difference, but that difference does not necessarily matter in what is morally right or not.

Uhhh sure? Okay.

And this is what I mean. You sound just like a pastor I knew. Both killing in cold blood and killing in defense are the same thing by your logic right? This is what is a bit of a problem I think. Sure I agree the fact that either person died is bad, but there are reasons for either one and though we aren't high and mighty enough to judge which person in better, we can see the act itself and figure that much out by ourselves.

In theory if Vivec did not kill the dissident priests, the "darkness" (Dagoth Ur I imagine) would have won a victory of some sort causing hardship on the over all populace of Morrowind. Have to keep that in mind.


Edit: Back to the soldier/killer arguement. You think they are morally the same? So you either think of the soldier as a murderer or the murderer as justified in his killing.


=/

riiiiight

Noble and even necessary as the cause may have been, Vivec's methods are as Machiavellian as can be: he asserts as if it were well accepted that suppression of dissent by even murderous means is a proper tool of statecraft, then avails himself of what is nowadays called "plausible deniability" to escape responsibility for the actions of his subordinates.

While Vivec is gracious in accepting that his policies have failed, a rare enough trait in the pig-headed breed known as politicians, his regrets are that they have been ineffectual, not that they have been criminal.

I too sympathize with Vivec. He is not wholly or irredeemably bad, and it is his plan that the Nerevarine follows to victory. Anyone of merely mortal wisdom put in the same situation would have fared far worse, ending either in still more vicious persecution or total failure.

Oh no, I am preaching now...

Huh? If you think we can't judge which person is better than how can you believe the soldier is more justified?

With my point of view, death of a few to protect the many cannot justify the killing of those few. For me, the greater point is freedom, in both cases, people die, but only in one are they oppressed, as I see it.

No, neither are justifiable, entirely anyways, in truth, I can see why a person may commit either act and have varying degrees of empathy for them (depending on the particular case, I cannot say whether or not I would empathize more with a soldier or other "killer"). I would say that neither act should have been committed, though.

EDIT: heh heh heh. This reminds me of a discussion we had in my Western Civilizations class. We had reading a play by Sophocles, Antigone, about the king not allowing the body of Antigone's brother to be buried, because he was a "traitor," but Antigone went about and did it anyways and the king feels he cannot back down on his decision now, and must punish her (the punishment is being buried alive). My TA aptly summarized the different points of view on this view with descriptions each side presented of him, "'Strong king' vs. 'obstinate bastard.'" It was rather humorous.

I have my sympathy for him, for all that I disagree with what he did.

You can't judge which person is better by that act alone, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about judging the act. There is a difference.

"Freedom is a cheap word thrown around to justify ignorance and has long lost its meaning." Ever hear that quote before? Killing a few Dissident priests as oppose to having millions of Dunmer dead is different. Both acts are bad, but picking between the "lesser of two evils" one would come up that the death of a few is better then the death of many.

How can the soldier defending himself not be justifiable? That makes no sense what so ever. Sure the situation shouldn't have happened, war is bad, but it does happen and I am thankful there aren't soldiers that think by your logic concerning that situation.

If both of these acts are the same to you, following your logic both the [censored] of a 7 year old and a 27 year old are the same. "Follow the yellow brick road."

Athesdas of Indoril, attempting to explain my thoughts and reasonings to you would be like attempting to describe color to someone who cannot see or sound to someone who cannot hear. The way we absorb information, process it, and then output our own opinions aren't comparable. We're simply worlds apart, for good or for ill. I am wasting my time and patience working with you and you are wasting your time and patience working with me. I will continue to read your posts, but I will not reply to them anymore as I simply can't get you to understand what I mean. I would suggest that for the duration of this topic you just ignore me. We'll both be happier, the others will be happier, the moderators will be happier. Everyone wins.

Please know that I am not saying I am better than you in any sense; however, I am not acknowledging you are better than me in any sense. I am stating that we simply aren't compatible. I see things in many layers and each layer has subtle tones that make them unique. You see black and white. Again, which is better? Neither! My inability to see information and make hard and fast decisions has been a harsh mistress to me, just as your own inability to see things in every aspect and every possible facet has been/will be a hang-up for you.

You may say that I am dodging your questions. I will never be able to satisfactorily explain my reasoning to you, so I am.

You may say that I do not have a valid point. I do, but you are incapable of processing it.

You may say that I am stupid. In your own mind you have already made that assumption and cannot be turned from it.

I have already plotted out every single possible thing you might say and I have already prepared replies to them all. It would take me much time to post all of them, but that is time I would rather spend doing something I consider more important, such as getting my teeth drilled or my eyes gouged. In any case you'd be too stumped to reply and where would be the fun in that?

No hard feelings here or ever.

- DJ

I personally don't feel that he is evil. From a certain point of view (and arguably the morally correct one) he is making rash diciseons. but in his mind and in the minds of many of the dumner what he is doing is righteous. Therefore he is just misunderstood by many IMO.

Dagoth Ur or Vivec?

If Dagoth Ur, which Dunmer feel he is doing righteous work? Even the ashlanders hate him and they're not biased by Tribunal propaganda (but they are biased). If you mean they agree with the work he is doing and not with him himself then I think that might be considered agreeable.

- DJ

But you didn't really attempt anything before. You just gave an example which i disected and used with Lorus and you left for a while. =/ I don't see why you are getting all worked up for posting a big reply to me trying to explain yourself. How do you know you can't get me to understand what you mean? Maybe you don't evek now what you mean who knows? Anyway it's kind of a waste to post a big page like that about you saying you aren't going to talk to me. Quite frankly the size of the statement says more then the content by a lot. How do you know i see black and white? And how can you know what I will say to your points? It's kind of like how kids in grade school would tell their friends "well if i get in a fight with this kid, he'll do this and i'll just knock em out!" You don't really know what is going to happen and i find it funny that you think you know how i think to such an extent. I'm not losing patience nor time, though you seem to be lacking a little bit of both, (or maybe a lot, i don't know, i won't say i can read your mind.)

Basicly all your post simply said "im actually too smart for you and you can't understand me so let's quit debating."

=/ You don't have to post anything you know.

If you actually thought you had something better to do you wouldn't be trying to explain yourself to me.

"In any case you'd be too stumped to reply and where would be the fun in that?"

This last statement is childish, arrogant, and all together useless.


I have two suggestions for you comrade. Either insult me directly if you feel the way you do, or say nothing at all. But trying to insult me and pretending to "have no hard feelings" is a joke.

"In any case you'd be too stumped to reply and where would be the fun in that?"


I don't think I called you stupid like this, though you yourself said that you imagined it:

"You may say that I am stupid. In your own mind you have already made that assumption and cannot be turned from it."

I won't comment on your own opinion of your ability to think. You seem to know what I would say regardless.

Edit: Anyway i'm sure i'm not the only one that would prefer you should just PM me if you have a reply. I shouldn't have posted here off topic regardless and for that much I am sorry. Go ahead PM me though. Let's not spam the thread.

The Cammona Tong support him for one, and IIRC Nerevar is like a hero of the ashlanders so since Dagoth Ur is like Nerevars archenemy then of course theyre not gonna like him.

In his mind no, he was a victim of his own loyalty. If it wasnt for his dedictation to Nerevar the heart of Lorkhan wouldnt have corrupted him. In others eyes, yes.

I know, I wasn't talking about empathy for the person alone but empathy and understanding for why they did the act, of course their personal history and struggles do come in to play in this, naturally, but you can never entirely separate the person from the act, I think. As far as the act itself, painfully ignoring so many other considerations, yes, both are morally unworthy.

I disagree with that statement with every fibre of my being.

Do you get J?germeister's point now? Neither one of us is going to change our minds about this, because we come from two different viewpoints, we just see the world differently, it is perfectly natural and wonderful. I generally discuss things with people to try and get them to see my point and understand me, not to get them to come to my side.

If you are of the Utilitarian philosophical perspective, yes. There can be made a lot of arguments against that school, though, I'm not competant enough to do so, suffice to say that it is a point of view no more correct than any other's as far as we can tell. For me, it isn't so much the number of deaths that matters, to me physical safety is of little importance, it comes after other considerations, so, as I explained, I weighed two other differences. In one, people are allowed to freely believe and say what they will without fear of reprecussions, in the other people are oppressed. Freedom matters to me more than life. My viewpoint may well be (in fact, more than likely is) naive and simplistic, but I do hope I manage to build upon it and improve it. I think I would be upset if there ever came a point in my life where I could not adjust my viewpoint to any extent. I hope to always be willing to change and grow.

One or the other is going to die in this case. If is truly numbers that matter, like you said, the soldier shouldn't mind just dying, should he? Why defend himself?

Of course, that wouldn't be my viewpoint, anyways. My view is about supporting the idea that people should not (even though they always will, more likely than not) kill each other, so a person should not contribute to it, even if it means there own death. Now, of course I don't have time to more fully explain what I think (I do indeed realize what a difficult decision this is to make and that there are more difficult decisions out there, ones I'd probably even only say killing wasn't justifiable with very great difficulty if at all), so this just sounds stupid. But, indeed, for me survival really doesn't matter much. Maybe I'd feel differently if I was in a dangerous situation or had a hard life unlike the easy one I have now where death is often not in my face, who knows?

Hmm...see, I think you need to work on seeing things from other people's points of view. Indeed, we can never fully understand each other, but we can still gain some valuable insights about other people's thinking. Saying "That makes no sense what so ever," does not demonstrate the kind of understanding between people I'm trying to achieve.

Soldiers with my logic? Only ones that were drafted, generally, or those who never expected to actually see combat...And what would it matter? It is their life they are sacrificing, not yours.

That would be simplifying it, but, yes, essentially. [censored] is such a cruel and wrong act to me that the age difference doesn't have so much significance. When you are talking about suffering on such a level it just becomes impractical to try and actually measure it; it was absolutely horrendous and should not have happened, not matter if you are 27 or 7. There is a difference, I'll admit, but I still would have trouble telling a 27 year old that they did not suffer as much as a seven year old. I dunno, it just seems cruel to me. They were both inexcusable and to say one did not go through as much pain as another seems also as if one is dismissing the suffering of the one. To me it just seems like something that wasn't meant to be measured or compared.

Essentially how I feel, but as I am not here to change anyone's position, just to try and get people to understand each other and to understand other's myself, I don't mind continuing if I feel it is necessary. I'm sure I'll get bored and stop soon, though.

I think you misread the intent and tone of Jag's post. He was just saying that neither side will ever agree with the other side simply because we come from two different viewpoints. There are certain things we fundamentally take as "truth" that form our perspectives and that contradict the other side's. Neither are inherently more correct than the other.

He said "may."

Painfully ignoring something doesn't change the fact of what it is and what it is not.

Jagermeister said more then we can't understand each other.

My logic in the TES world does not reflect my logic in the real world. Take it with a grain of salt what i said about the dissident priests. In that world, i would agree with Vivec, in this world, maybe not so much.

You're view point is well aimed, the way you express and perhaps react to it is the only thing that could be naive. My grand father was a Lt. Colonel in a Soviet Bloc country and he was suppose to take an old man in a cabin and beat the crap out of him until he told the communists where the "Legion" was (a resistance group) and he said he couldn't do it. He left the cabin and said that there is nothing more important then freedom in this world. Don't think of me as being so different then you.

Just saying someone's logic is non sense does not mean I do not see your point of view. I don't have to agree with you to see your point of view. Victimizing yourself with phrases like "you just don't understand" doesn't actually confirm or deny my understanding of your logic.

I think if someone who thinks them being [censored] at 27 years old is just as bad as 7 years old is being petty. Sure it's a disgusting act to happen to any person, but someone who is [censored] at 7 is probably going to be a lot more damaged then one who is [censored] at 27.

___

I think it's interesting to note people's reactions because I say things that make people kind of turn their heads and perk up their ears and I know what they want to say more or less but they have no ground to say it. It's just interesting to see them slip up sometime. Just my observation.

Just to put in my 2 cents on the matter, Dagoth Ur was neither a "good guy" or a "bad guy" The same goes for the Nerevarine, Vivec, and the rest of the Tribunal.

Dagoth Ur had a goal that went beyond, to some extent, his own powerlust. He wanted to return Morrowind to it's original owners, the Dunmer. He just had terrible methods of going about it. He's more evil than good, obviously, but his goals aren't entirely selfish, as is with most classic villians, which I think puts him above just a generic evil label.

And if you think about it, it isn't that evil of a goal, Morrowind WAS seized by the Imperials from the native Dunmer, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to want to return the land to it's people. The way Dagoth Ur saw it, was that the only way to truly return the land to the Dunmer was to eliminate all other races, because they could never truly live there in peace, and have the Dunmer in control.

Dagoth Ur speaks clearly and with no illusions. He realizes that war is inevitable, and it is basically still going on, the tide has just slowed for now.



I'd almost venture to say he's more of a good guy than a bad guy, but he still needs to be stopped due to the methods he's using to go about this goal. You can see by this he doesn't necessarily want the bloodshed, but he's smart enough to realize, that, to return the land to the Dunmer, bloodshed is inevitable.

Dagoth Ur isn't someone you can place in a "good" or "bad" catagory. He's a very dynamic, alive character which is what I absolutely loved about Morrowind. He's not a stereotypical "it's all about me" villian.