Lord British's Open Challenge...

From Least Worst (1) to Most Worst (5):

1. Wimpy: the Least Wost deed of them all, because he could have provided the boat ride, but then again, Olive could have chosen to not sleep with Brutus, negotiated another deal with Brutus, or waited for Popeye to cross the river
2. Popeye: he spurned Olive despite her sacrifice; for all we know, he could have been in the process of getting to Olive, but her impatience (combined with her love) led to the situation that manifested.
3. Olive: in the middle because she did a desperate act out of love, though it ultimately compromised Popeye's trust in her.
4. Chris: Defended Olive by beating up Popeye, but involved himself as a self-appointed avenger; also, why didn't he beat up Brutus since he exploited the situation?
5. Brutus: the Most Worst deed of them all, since he exploited the situation to get what he wanted; and, in turn, if we assume the role of the cartoon character (adversary to Popeye), he probably added that stipulation KNOWING it'd cause the split, and he'd get what he wanted & more from it.

 

Worst to least worst:

Chris - Took violent action against another where the victim had no choice in the matter regarding the bashing, and he didn't consider popeyes position/feelings. To be honest popeye breaking up with olive shouldn't even have made him angry, and he raged up on this??

Brutus - All he did was offer a choice, but he knew the situation and it was a despicable choice to offer, trying to take advantage of another persons disadvantage.

Olive - Slept with Brutus as a means to an end, but was honest with popeye. Consulted in a friend, unfortunately the catalyst of the story but far from the worst offender in it

Wimpy - did nothing, but his name gives this away as his persona. Was he scared of popeye? Maybe he was scared of Chris?!

Popeye - took his own action of breaking up which tbh Olive has to deal with, an innocent victim in the bashing

 

I'm still trying to put together a list of the actual virtues each person followed to assign a numerical value of how much virtue each person accumulated.

Although I need to go back to ultima 6 to pay more attention to the gargoyle virtues because they didn't come to mind when I thought of ultima virtues. Also I wonder if I should assign a value to each virtue based on the principles that make each virtues. Although that would assign greater value to some virtues over others based upon math rather than a heart felt bias for each virtue.

So I'm still pondering how to evaluate these people from an ultima perspective.

 

Well, Olive was honest.. you could argue Chris was valorous.. but apart from that.. maybe Popeye was Just? I don't see where Brutus or Wimpy followed any virtue..

 

Brutus might not have been morally correct according to our social standards. I don't think Brutus is probably on the path of virtue according to ultima either. However I honestly like Brutus because he was honest about his desires and felt no shame about being the person he is (Truth and Honor). This to me is far better than selfloathing or judgment of others (a judgment based upon your personal "beliefs").

I don't judge Brutus as far as righteousness is concerned, although I would encourage my daughter to be aware of people like him because they aren't "socially mature". However if he got drunk or tried to get her drunk and then used physical means to force her to do his will, then I would not like Brutus too much, and would call the cops and let the courts judge if his actions were criminal or not.

 

See here's the dilema I see with being lealistic about virtues or anythign else. Some say it is dishonorable to loot the dead. Maybe so. However for those of us who believe the dead are dead, and to honor the dead is a superstion since the soul (the mind) is not in the body. The dead person doesn't care one way or another. I agree with the miracle worker in the princess bride. If they are all dead, I search through their pockets for loose change, they aint commin back. I have no guilt and I don't care how another person judges me in regard to special treatment of the dead which is based upon human superstition.

Culture and traditions shape our understanding of what is right and wrong, and makes a broad spectrum of right and wrong that is open to debate.

 

I hardly find any means of coercion to force someone into the sack an honorable act. Is simply being true to oneself the same as honesty? You could then claim a pathological liar was following the truth for being true to one's self and lying all the time.

 

In this scenario I would argue that honor has nothing to do with it.. as honor in Ultima is truth plus courage. What does either have to do with looting the dead? and what if you had real need?

 

What is truth?

Jesus told Pontius Pilot that he came to testify about the truth. He replied, "what is truth?" Jesus remained silent.

Now I mention this not because of the religion, but I mention it because this is something most people who are brought up in "christendom" having our moral teaching and bacground just assume Pilot was asking this to be "dismissive" and having no understanding nor ability to recognize the truth. That might be very true he couldn't recognize Truth at this moment, but his question isn't wrong or dismissive, and it was very honest. I think he was more humble than any of Jesus' own disciples, because he at least knew he didn't know and his greek teaching adds depth to his question since to know or testify to Truth was not something mortal man could do since our understanding is flawed.

Considering Jesus and Pilot knew full well what their words ment "in their culture" the conversation is different than we understand it in ours.

So since brutus wasn't lying he was being honest. As for truth and Truth... I don't know, if you know Truth then you might be claiming to be God.

 

That would be an assumption with no basis in what little is actually said about the guy. In fact, you're the first person I've ever heard even make such a suggestion.

Not everyone makes a distinction. To me.. truth and fact are the same. Nothing more and nothing less. Perception of truth is another thing entirely..

Not telling a lie is not the same thing as being honest. You can easily mislead people by not telling the entire truth and letting them arrive at the wrong conclusion. Also, not telling a lie doesn't mean he's an honest person. In Olive's case she felt she needed to tell the Popeye the truth.. she didn't have to. Brutus in this scenario didn't confess to anything afterwards.. how do we know he's honest? The only person in this scenario who shows an honest nature is Olive. We just don't know enough about Brutus to say one way or another except that he's a creep.

 

If we are under the assumption that any one person is speaking the truth then we are susceptible to being mislead. It is very likely that no one person knows Truth except maybe they accept their heart as a noble truth that guides them individually. Perhaps the less external influence we have on internal motivation might lead us to being ourself.

There's a lot of adults who struggle with the concept of just being themselves. I know this misery well. Toddlers not so much.

As for me being the only person to say something doesn't mean I'm wrong. Most of the biggest revolutionary ideas came from a small group or one brave individual who bucked the system. Emperor's new clothes.

 

So i know we should avoid religion in this conversation but as one who studied the law of moses in great detail and tried my damnedest to follow it, I have to say I see a great deal of influence in how we view morality in our culture because of old school Catholic doctrines still influencing the morality in our cultures.

Even those who claim to be non religious are following religious law and they don't know it. Even athiests who claim to hate religion fight tooth and nail to keep some of these traditions alive. While some are benificial others have zero value. (Unless judgment is actually on its way).

In most cases it really doesn't matter unless a harsh judgment is tied to it, but these days people fear genetics. They think we should be careful to keep things "natural"... my question is what is unnatural in the universe? Where are they getting this. Others go so far as to say we are "playing god"... hmmm. Where do they get the idea we are playing god? Why is that an issue to play god? Fear? Fear of the wrath of God? Whatever... It might be good to question these codes of conduct one by one and see if it applies to us at all. So we really cannot deal with this honestly if we cannot openly question religion or politics.

For example, I'm not for eugenics for the purpose of creating a master race but if we can use it to make better foods and enhance our memory and quality of life... and maybe it is just the natural progression of evolution that a race evolves to such a point that it can mindfully choose ots next major evolution. If it is within our power to do something and there is no supernatural judgment of God on us, then we just might in fact be the one true God, or nothing we do makes any difference. If earth becomes desolate how much of the universe will care? If we are God then we also have the right to do whatever we want. The only limitation is are we willing to work together and are we free to think creatively to come up with new ideas?

 

I know that these blunt statments can offend people but there isn't much that can be said these days that doesn't offend.
Our culture is coming to a breaking point. What is going to break is either our unity or our beliefs. If our unity is broken then the world is in danger. If our beliefs become plyable then maybe unity will come easier.

It takes a brave soul to change their beliefs. It is frightful.

 

~Inside and Out are Always 2 Contending Viewing Points~

Inside view and outside view, both of these contend with each other. From the outside view point, we as humans tend to take a viewpoint unknown to us and assumed. To assume harmony can be maintained, or all truth can be known, is to say that we have been to a place, or are viewing from a place known which can be described as heaven. "Yet we are not in heaven", therefore anything viewed from such a vantage point by us is an assumption being made and then applied in our judgments which are made not in heaven, thus true truth will always evade our reasoning and therefore always contend among us "because we all make such judgments based on those assumptions".

With the above in mind, then each character within the scene could say, "Now you and I are roaming in a realm that is in the interior of the physical body, and yet you are making demands on me in terms of the exterior of the physical body. Isn't that a mistake?" Unity of agreement will always evade us because we are all different points from which the scene can be viewed. Thus, this is an inner choice we make which is as individual as we all are. So, there is no right or wrong answer, there is only a right answer for one's own self. All of the characters did not all take actions that we ourselves may have chosen to take and therefore the question of "worst to least worst" applies quite well to the subject of judging them all as individuals from our own personal standpoints.

Here's a nice story about 2 outsiders that screwed up heaven pondering on outside assumptions...

The lord of the south sea was Abrupt; the lord of the north sea was Sudden. From time to time Abrupt and Sudden got together in the territory of Primal Unity, and Primal Unity treated them very well. Abrupt and Sudden planned to repay Primal Unity's kindness. They said, "People all have seven openings, through which they see, hear, eat, and breathe; Primal Unity alone has none. Let us make openings in Primal Unity." So every day they gouged out a hole. After seven days, Primal Unity died.

Assumptions are always not whole truths, so within our Popeye story in question, "by what fault within their individual assumptions did each character possibly make?"

Maybe that holds some key to where their faults lie ?'
~Time Lord~

 

No way is Popeye the bad guy in this...

 

Oh please. Don't tell me he's the victim.

 

I think he's the "bystander"
She's the one that can't wait right?