Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit www.planescape.com to purchase and check for details. Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition Official Soundtrack is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

ok, so what's up with that Nietzsche quote at the beginning of the game?? [BG1 Spoilers]

2»

Comments

  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 116
    tbone1 said:

    tbone1 said:

    As for what Nietzsche meant in general...nothing that pertains to this game for sure.

    Nietzsche' writings are not politically correct, butmthat doesn't mean they are not correct. If nothing else, his "Be hard!" is something that a lot of people these days would do,well to accept.
    Nietzsche died in the year 1900. He was himself not trying to be involved in politics. Some twenty years after his death his writings were *interpreted* to fuel political propaganda. Thus his name got sullied. This is not to defend his philosophy but just to state historical facts. In this he suffered a similar fate as Richard Wagner, who by the way was a friend for many years.
    Yes, I knew that but decided not to follow that path. If nothing else, it just shows what politics does to ideas. Heck, the French took the American libertarian ideals for the American revolution: freedoms of speech, property rights, self-determination, plus limited government and religious influence ... and turned them into socialism. The hell?
    Yep, because they were smart. The French Revolution was the most glorious revolution in the history of revolutions. It was a Total Revolution because it sought to bury the old ways and build a wonderful new nation with new principles and ideals.

    Socialism > Libertarianism any day. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was the motto of the French Revolution. That's a message you can get behind. Libertarian motto would be something like "stay out of my business!"

    Not quite the same ring to it, is it?
    Artona
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 921


    Yep, because they were smart. The French Revolution was the most glorious revolution in the history of revolutions. It was a Total Revolution because it sought to bury the old ways and build a wonderful new nation with new principles and ideals.

    Socialism > Libertarianism any day. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was the motto of the French Revolution. That's a message you can get behind. Libertarian motto would be something like "stay out of my business!"

    Not quite the same ring to it, is it?

    There are so many things here to respond to (like how does Reign of Terror = glory), but I will just say this: socialism is not sustainable. It depends on taking wealth from people. Either 1) those people use their wealth to control the government to keep it protected, 2) they move their wealth elsewhere, 3) they stop creating wealth because it will just get taken anyway, or 4) wealth has to come from outside.

    In truth, there probably isn't a true libertarian society out there today.There have been in the past, and they were quite successful, but over time, authorities built their power and blame the problems of their own making on those they stole from. And used appealing rhetoric to convince people of it.
    ThacoBell
  • ArtonaArtona Member Posts: 700
    In truth, there probably isn't a true libertarian society out there today.There have been in the past, and they were quite successful, but over time, authorities built their power and blame the problems of their own making on those they stole from.


    Could you name those "true libertarian societies"?
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 4,329
    edited July 13
    I don't think it's good to romanticize the French Revolution. While it inspired a new epoch of aspiration to freedom and democratic representative government, it also inspired chaos, a lynch mob mentality, a witch hunt for "counterrevolutionaries", and the guillotine. It left a power vacuum that allowed Napoleon to take control by faking allegiance to the new revolutionary government, and then declaring himself emperor, leading directly to the Napoleonic Wars where he tried to turn Europe into a new French Empire, and darn well nearly succeeded at first. As a musician, I find the Napoleonic Period of special interest, because Napoleon was a contemporary of Beethoven, who famously dedicated his "Eroica" Symphony to Napoleon as a champion of freedom, then retracted the dedication in disgust when Napoleon declared himself emperor.
    ThacoBell
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 116
    edited July 13
    The fact that the French Revolution didn't work out as planned has nothing to do with the fact that it was an attempt to overhaul everything and make France into a beacon of light. It was noble in spirit. As for the Terror - well, there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes.

    @tbone1 I presume you're American. Only Americans are libertarians, it seems to be something unique to that country alone. Unlike Europeans, you have not learned to work together, and it creates a hostile and tense atmosphere, which came spilling out after the election. Because you guys are always so paranoid about your own government, it has split your nation into warring factions. Socialist aspects are great within a society - and yes, they do require taking some wealth from other people. So what?? No man is an island, and you are living in part of a community with others. I have no idea why people expect to be little autonomous nations unto themselves within their own country. They don't want to pay taxes yet they enjoy government services when they need them. Libertarians want to live and work in a country, get rich, reap all the benefits, and then share it with no one. It is pure selfishness. Socialism is about getting along in a society.

    I wouldn't trade my free healthcare and education for all the "liberty" in the world (what liberty is there anyway in being left to your own devices - talk about a paranoid and sad life). True liberty is in working together. True liberty is relying on others to help when you need them and helping them when they need you. True liberty is being able to go to school for free and educate yourself. Socialism is rooted in working together, whereas libertarianism is a lone wolf mentality, every man for himself. It is the worst ideology bar none.
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,241
    @Wandering_Ranger

    "there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes."

    And this is why you fail. And will always fail.
    ThacoBellJoenSo
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 116
    edited July 13
    I have no idea what you mean by "you."

    And anyway, it's clear you put as little thought into your post as possible. Fighting against Nazis is good. Fighting against oppression is good. The American revolution was violent as well. Should people just tolerate injustice in silence? The next time someone beats you up, don't fight back. The moment you do, you are accepting my view of "there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes" as truth.

    Please think before you post. It will save us both time.
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 1,241

    I have no idea what you mean by "you."

    And anyway, it's clear you put as little thought into your post as possible. Fighting against Nazis is good. Fighting against oppression is good. The American revolution was violent as well. Should people just tolerate injustice in silence? The next time someone beats you up, don't fight back. The moment you do, you are accepting my view of "there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes" as truth.

    Please think before you post. It will save us both time.

    But that's not what you said, you said "violence".

    Fighting against Nazis is not good, it happens when reason has failed. That doesn't make it "good", it makes it necessary.

    Who decides "the right purposes", you?

    And I'd appreciate you keeping the discussion civil.
    ThacoBell
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 921
    Artona said:

    In truth, there probably isn't a true libertarian society out there today.There have been in the past, and they were quite successful, but over time, authorities built their power and blame the problems of their own making on those they stole from.


    Could you name those "true libertarian societies"?
    The closest I can think of off the top of my head: the Dutch at the peak of theirctrading empire; Hong Kong between 1945 and 1999; Iceland before being subject to the Danish/Norwegian crowns; Quebec under French rule (they basically told the royal officials to bugger off and did their own thing); the Iroquois confederation was pretty close; the northern US (particularly the frontier areas) were quite libertarian, nearly how Alexis de Tocqueville described them.

    There have been some others that I am missing, but that's off the top of my head.
    ArtonaThacoBell
  • DorcusDorcus Member Posts: 71
    @JuliusBorisov, feel free to close the thread if this turns into a dumb flamewar! TIA!
    JuliusBorisov
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 921
    edited July 13

    The fact that the French Revolution didn't work out as planned has nothing to do with the fact that it was an attempt to overhaul everything and make France into a beacon of light. It was noble in spirit. As for the Terror - well, there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes.

    But ultimately it failed. Just as it failed in Cuba, Eastern Europe, India, many African states, etc etc etc.


    @tbone1 I presume you're American. Only Americans are libertarians, it seems to be something unique to that country alone.

    I am. And I am a libertarian. But so is the mayor of Johannesburg. reason.com/archives/2016/11/12/meet-johannesburgs-new-liberta So is Thomas Sewell, an African-American. So is Walter Williams, also an African-American. And what of all the (mostly) Chinese citizens of Hong Kong who created a pretty darn free society? Or the Native American tribes who were a source for a lot of libertarian ideas that developed after 1492? Or the people of Japan following 1945?

    Unlike Europeans, you have not learned to work together, and it creates a hostile and tense atmosphere, which came spilling out after the election. Because you guys are always so paranoid about your own government, it has split your nation into warring factions.

    Government forcing people to do the same thing is coercion, not cooperation. And believe me, there are reasons we don't trust the US government. A ten minute perusal of anybhistory book will show you why.

    And remember, this country was founded by people who were, for the most part, European. To be honest, I don't think Europeans have learned to cooperate. Look at the headlines about the EU (not even counting Brexit), or a true socialist country like Russia.


    Socialist aspects are great within a society - and yes, they do require taking some wealth from other people. So what?? No man is an island, and you are living in part of a community with others. I have no idea why people expect to be little autonomous nations unto themselves within their own country. They don't want to pay taxes yet they enjoy government services when they need them. Libertarians want to live and work in a country, get rich, reap all the benefits, and then share it with no one. It is pure selfishness. Socialism is about getting along in a society.

    In theory. Just as, in theory, only the honest people run for office, all children are special, and so on. Socialism is really about control of your life in the hands of people who want the maximum scope for corruption and control. They want power and wealth, and that is the alpha and omega of it.


    I wouldn't trade my free healthcare and education for all the "liberty" in the world (what liberty is there anyway in being left to your own devices - talk about a paranoid and sad life). True liberty is in working together. True liberty is relying on others to help when you need them and helping them when they need you. True liberty is being able to go to school for free and educate yourself. Socialism is rooted in working together, whereas libertarianism is a lone wolf mentality, every man for himself. It is the worst ideology bar none.

    First, it's not free. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And one of the payers is the US working man. In 2015, the US paid half of the defense bill for NATO countries. The budget for the US was less than one tenth of one percent difference; i.e., the noise. So part of why we can't afford "free" healthcare is because we have to pay for half of your defense against Russia. If you had to pay that, you couldn't afford it, either. And given the last 500 years of European history, I don't know that Europe can be trusted with armies.
    ThacoBellUnderstandMouseMagicBalrog99
  • JuliusBorisovJuliusBorisov Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 12,217
    edited July 13
    Ok, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to discuss Politics, please, do that in the Politics thread.
    ThacoBell
  • DorcusDorcus Member Posts: 71
    edited July 13
    @JuliusBorisov ok so now that I got your attention, do you have any dev insights to the choice of the quote? was it part of a master plan from the getgo to tie into the 3 games? I haven't read any design documents if such a thing exists for public consumption. and, yeah, I play a lot more BG1 than BG2...
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 116
    edited July 13

    I have no idea what you mean by "you."

    And anyway, it's clear you put as little thought into your post as possible. Fighting against Nazis is good. Fighting against oppression is good. The American revolution was violent as well. Should people just tolerate injustice in silence? The next time someone beats you up, don't fight back. The moment you do, you are accepting my view of "there is nothing wrong with violence if it is done for the right purposes" as truth.

    Please think before you post. It will save us both time.

    But that's not what you said, you said "violence".

    Fighting against Nazis is not good, it happens when reason has failed. That doesn't make it "good", it makes it necessary.

    Who decides "the right purposes", you?

    And I'd appreciate you keeping the discussion civil.
    1) Indeed. Fighting against anything is violence. Ergo, violence for the right purposes is fine.
    2) Yes, I never said otherwise. Don't get caught up in semantics.
    3) Reason does, as above. When it is necessary, you fight. Just as the French revolutionaries did, making all of their violence completely justified.
    4) You don't get to say "that's why you will always fail" (again, not clarifying if your commentary was aimed at me or at Socialists in general) and then ask for the discussion to be kept civil. Start off on the right foot if you want the discussion to be kept civil, rather than leaving a hostile and vague one-liner as a response.


    tbone: I am. And I am a libertarian. But so is the mayor of Johannesburg. reason.com/archives/2016/11/12/meet-johannesburgs-new-liberta So is Thomas Sewell, an African-American. So is Walter Williams, also an African-American. And what of all the (mostly) Chinese citizens of Hong Kong who created a pretty darn free society? Or the Native American tribes who were a source for a lot of libertarian ideas that developed after 1492? Or the people of Japan following 1945?

    Okay, the South African guy is the only one you've got. I don't know why you brought up the African-Americans - they are still Americans, which proves my point, not yours. Hong Kong managed a free society, yes. I don't know why you think freedom = libertarianism. It's Socialism that guarantees freedom, where everyone gets the basic needs provided for and then can live and work well with everyone else. As for Japan, it certainly is not a libertarian country. It is heavily rooted in its own culture, which is all about working together, making Japan an EXTREMELY socialist country in its mindset. They view each other as part of a collective and work towards the greater good of Japan - the total antithesis to a country like America where everyone is out for themselves only.


    In theory. Just as, in theory, only the honest people run for office, all children are special, and so on. Socialism is really about control of your life in the hands of people who want the maximum scope for corruption and control. They want power and wealth, and that is the alpha and omega of it.

    I am not even saying that total socialism is perfect. I said that aspects of socialism within a society are good (such as free education and healthcare). As for "there is no such thing as a free lunch" you are correct. There isn't. Someone has to pay for it. That "someone" is society as a collective, via their taxes. Whereas libertarians are not interested in working with others, socialists are. Which is why no one in Sweden minds the the huge taxes they pay - it all comes back around. Healthcare and education are the most basic of human rights, and these need to be free at all times (free for the person getting them when they need them). People will pay it back anyway over the course of their lives via their work. That's how a society functions, not with each person viewing themselves as an individual but as part of a collective.

    Government forcing people to do the same thing is coercion, not cooperation. And believe me, there are reasons we don't trust the US government. A ten minute perusal of anybhistory book will show you why.

    And remember, this country was founded by people who were, for the most part, European. To be honest, I don't think Europeans have learned to cooperate. Look at the headlines about the EU (not even counting Brexit), or a true socialist country like Russia.


    Russia is very authoritarian, not true socialist. I am talking about countries like Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, which all have aspects of socialism to them which make them the greatest countries on Earth to live in - far removed from the self-serving America. Although, socialism seems to finally be making some headway in America, so this is great. This is progress and good to see.

    In 2015, the US paid half of the defense bill for NATO countries. The budget for the US was less than one tenth of one percent difference; i.e., the noise. So part of why we can't afford "free" healthcare is because we have to pay for half of your defense against Russia. If you had to pay that, you couldn't afford it, either. And given the last 500 years of European history, I don't know that Europe can be trusted with armies.

    It's America who cannot be trusted. Laughably, Americans view themselves as "world heroes," while the rest of the world snickers at what a total mess America is, and completely un-heroic. Nothing heroic about invading weaker countries and imposing your will on them. That's imperialism. In a good and just world, America would be stripped of its right to have both armies and nuclear weapons, as it is the only nation to ever have used them (and used them against innocent CITIES, to boot), then claim itself as the moral police on the matter. America is the greatest cause of conflict in the world today. It can never keep its nose out of other people's business. So in this way, maybe I do understand libertarianism and why it seems to be a strictly American phenomenon. I wouldn't trust the American government either if I lived there, nor do I trust it living abroad. It is about as corrupt as you can get.

    @JuliusBorisov I didn't realise there was a thread specifically for this, and I was addressing the points brought up here. In any case, that thread seems huge and unorganised, so I am not interested in moving the discussion over there. I think I will just leave it as is. Nothing else needs to be said anyway. The people here, if they are interested in discussing it further, can take it to PM. Everyone has more or less presented their side already. Thank you, I won't be responding on this thread further.
  • DorcusDorcus Member Posts: 71
    To be fair, the thread got Godwin'd pretty quick. I blame myself. :'( I just wanted to know why the quote was chosen because murder seems a pretty central theme to the game, and it's hard to justify the idea of CHARNAME not being a monster when you're pretty much just murdering (manslaughtering?) constantly.
    tbone1
  • Wandering_RangerWandering_Ranger Member Posts: 116
    I thought it was a great question. I just replied to a political commentary instead, because it was there and also because others had already put in great ideas in terms of your Nietzsche question.
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 921
    Regarding the quote itself, it's a good line on its own. It's related to the comment about power "you always become the thing you hate". And then, in the game, you do a lot of killing (some by choice, some not) and if you survive, must choose whether or not to [become something which I shall not spoil] at the end of ToB. Seems an appropriate quote.
  • ZaghoulZaghoul Member Posts: 1,376
    I always thought the quote was pretty straight forward but as I can also understand it from a RL perspective, depending on what one does and/or studies, maybe that made it a little easier for me personally. It was a good question to ask and bring up for the game I believe @Dorcus .B)
    JuliusBorisov
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 921
    And may I just say that having [certain serious health issues] gives you new perspective on that quote as well.
    Zaghoul
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,393

    Dorcus said:

    @JuliusBorisov ok so now that I got your attention, do you have any dev insights to the choice of the quote? was it part of a master plan from the getgo to tie into the 3 games? I haven't read any design documents if such a thing exists for public consumption. and, yeah, I play a lot more BG1 than BG2...

    I think your best bet would be to ask people who worked on original BG1 on Twitter ;)

    One of our developers gives this perspective. The quote, while it does refer to your murderous heritage, also refers to how you choose to handle that heritage. It's not the literal definition of "Fights with Monsters" that you're reading it as. Yes, D&D Heroes "fight with monsters", but the monster being referenced here is not the Kobolds and Ogres you face on your journey, it's CHARNAME's heritage itself.  The quote refers to CHARNAME coming from murder and having to be careful that because of the power he/she wields, he/she doesn't become another lord of murder.

    The quote basically references your ability to play the game as either an evil character or a good character and to be famous or infamous across Faerun...and from that perspective, it's a viable quote from the moment you start the game (how you reference the first character you talk wtih) all the way to the closing credits of BG2 TOB.
    So, its not some vague warning that I'll be turned into a kobold if I keep playing? :sweat_smile:
    tbone1
  • billy_pilgrimbilly_pilgrim Member Posts: 96
    So what Nietzsche was saying, in order to truly understand evil, or monstrosity you need to be able to become one. Like (gogo nazi reference) being able to see and understand that you, and everyone, has an inner nazi, a monster.
  • DurenasDurenas Member Posts: 486

    So what Nietzsche was saying, in order to truly understand evil, or monstrosity you need to be able to become one. Like (gogo nazi reference) being able to see and understand that you, and everyone, has an inner nazi, a monster.

    No, or at least, not with that quote. It's a warning that you do not become as bad or worse than the evils that you are fighting.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.