219 réponses à ce sujet

[eschilde]

I didn't say he made the best decisions, I just said he's also a Grey Warden. My point is you can't make a blanket statement that all Grey Wardens will do things one way or another. Your responsibility as a Grey Warden is to kill the archdemon or die trying. Your methods can go any moral route you want.

[KnightofPhoenix]

eschilde wrote...

I didn't say he made the best decisions, I just said he's also a Grey Warden. My point is you can't make a blanket statement that all Grey Wardens will do things one way or another. Your responsibility as a Grey Warden is to kill the archdemon or die trying. Your methods can go any moral route you want.

No, your methods go on the most efficient route in order to defeat the blight. There is no morality here. Of course I was talking about the Grey Warden ideal (who are ultimate pragmatists), not individuals.

[Fishy]

Herr Uhl wrote...

The legion of the dead are not the dwarven army. The warrior caste is.

Yeah .. The legion of the dead are simply fallen Dwarf who want to rebuild the honor of their castes and name by fighting until death in deeproad.

[sagevallant]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

It's actually kinda sad that they made it so obvious Branka = Evil and Caridin = Good. The "Branka is completely bat****" kinda gives everything away.

I don't think Branka is evil, I think she is detestable. That's the problem. Bioware made Branka a person that is hard to sympathise with, not because of beliefs or even actions, but just by the way she talks. If they had presented Branka in a more mature, cmplicated way, then it would have been better. They should have shown a very aware and sad part of Branka that had difficulty sacrificing what she loves. Thats the very point of a sacrifice, that it's hard to perform. The problem with Branka is that you don't get the feeling of sacrifice with her.

In contrast, Saren from Mass Effect is a person I very much sympathised with. Even if I was 100% opposed to his afction (not his logic). On the otherhand, I hate Branka, don't sympathise with her at all, and yet still choose to save the anvil because it's that important.
Since Bioware did not create a sympathetic Branka, it would have been preferable to have more than 2 options (it's always better to have at least 3 options). I would have killed Branka and Caridin and kept the anvil, perhaps gave it to the Legion, as they show at least some concern to Orzammar's sovereignity.

The anvil doesn't do much good if you're gonna kill the only two people who know how it works. Plus, that IS THE POINT OF THE CHOICE; if you want to be moral, you choose to destroy the anvil and give up the golems. If you care more about getting golems than doing the right thing, you side with the crazy lady. She's not supposed to be sympathetic--even if she does argue that the golems are the only way to restore glory to the dwarven society and not, y'know, watch the dwarves slowly be exterminated by the darkspawn. End justifies means, amirite? What's a House compared to all dwarves, the entire world? Being a moralist, I disagree, but practical logic says Branka is right. Golems are the weapons that won the first Blight.

[eschilde]

Oh, pardon my misunderstanding then. On that note, I'm not sure there really is a 'Grey Warden ideal.' On the one hand, a Grey Warden's purpose is to defeat a Blight. On the other, if you're a Grey Warden who defeats the Blight, you might want the surrounding realm to be stable enough not to tear itself apart afterwards because of your moral decisions earlier.



I suppose now that it's mentioned I've been playing this game with a certain amount of detachment. There's something to knowing the world won't end while you're off sidequesting. Less guilt over not taking the most efficient route.

[westiex9]

jayheld90 wrote...

branka=evil way
caridan=good way

your choice, now.

i disagree Caridan had no qualms with making people into golems until he himself became one, after that he suddenly developed a conscience and sealed the anvil off. He condemned thousands of Dwarves and their thaigs to death just because he didnt feel good about what he was doing.

Siding with caridan is a good choice but it is a choice for the good of the few, so if your character wants to free people from their stone prisons it is definatley a noble choice

But....

however questionable her methods Branka has a rather strong point, Caridan removed orzammars best line of defense against the darkspawn and pretty much doomed the remainder of the thaigs with the exception of Orzammar.The dwarven people are struggling and losing ground every year to the darkspwan,If you allow branka to keep the anvil you will be condemning many to life as golems but you will help save dwarven kind from an almost certain extinction.Even with a strong king orzammar can never hope to beat the darkspawn without its golem regiments, essentially choosing branka is more questionable but is for the good of the dwarven people. 

 

[The Capital Gaultier]

sagevallant wrote...

The anvil doesn't do much good if you're gonna kill the only two people who know how it works. Plus, that IS THE POINT OF THE CHOICE; if you want to be moral, you choose to destroy the anvil and give up the golems. If you care more about getting golems than doing the right thing, you side with the crazy lady. She's not supposed to be sympathetic--even if she does argue that the golems are the only way to restore glory to the dwarven society and not, y'know, watch the dwarves slowly be exterminated by the darkspawn. End justifies means, amirite? What's a House compared to all dwarves, the entire world? Being a moralist, I disagree, but practical logic says Branka is right. Golems are the weapons that won the first Blight.

Other Dwarves do figure out how to use the anvil later - so apparently it's not a dark secret.

I disagree in the long run.  The first Blight was desperate.  Nations didn't know what to do and the Grey Wardens didn't exist for a long time.  Turning to such a means was a desperation move.  The fifth Blight was a relatively small-scale affair.  Two are left, and the methods for ending them appear to be honed down to a science.  Using a dire shortcut like the Anvil leads to a power imbalance within Dwarven society and between Dwarves and other nations.  Better to use the learned methods for ending the two coming Blights than resort to using the Anvil.

[Fishy]

Sten + the best of the Best.

[KnightofPhoenix]

sagevallant wrote...
The anvil doesn't do much good if you're gonna kill the only two people who know how it works. Plus, that IS THE POINT OF THE CHOICE; if you want to be moral, you choose to destroy the anvil and give up the golems. If you care more about getting golems than doing the right thing, you side with the crazy lady. She's not supposed to be sympathetic--even if she does argue that the golems are the only way to restore glory to the dwarven society and not, y'know, watch the dwarves slowly be exterminated by the darkspawn. End justifies means, amirite? What's a House compared to all dwarves, the entire world? Being a moralist, I disagree, but practical logic says Branka is right. Golems are the weapons that won the first Blight.

I am not arguing against Branka's logic, I agree with her. But I don't like her nor trust her. So if Bioware wants to make it a 2 choices situation, they should have made it more complex, not the typical cold hearted **** who is supposed to represent logic vs idealistic naivety that is supposed to represent morality. To be honest, I wasn't sympathetic to either sides, I just wanted the anvil. And there could have been another blacksmith who can operate the thing....I nominate Garin!

My point is, The choice in this situation felt too manichean and forced for my taste. I dislike siuations with only 2 choices, especially when one side is being pushed to be "evil", while the other is being forced on us as "good". 

[Korva]

I don't think the Grey Wardens as a whole have the "ideal" to bey utterly amoral sh*twits who don't give a flying dead rat's fart about how much death, torture and slavery they cause if it can somehow be "justified" by fighting the darkspawn. Otherwise, the Architect's plan from The Calling would have been implemented long ago. I simply can't imagine that the entire organization consists of actual or wannabe sociopaths. Ruthless if need be, yes, but I bet most have lines they won't cross.

Of course the Anvil isn't evil, it's a soulless chunk of metal. But having such a thing at your disposal is as good as 100% certain to turn anyone evil. Power corrupts and all that. The same thing that happened in Caridin's time would happen again and again and again. Branka had already lost all regard for life, all sense of restraint or empathy. Considering what she did to her House and her own lover, I don't think she'd flinch at throwing anyone on the Anvil. Volunteer or not, dwarf or not, who cares. And thd dwarven ruling caste would be no better. Hell, humans wouldn't be any better. The likes of Loghain or Howe would wet themselves with glee at the thought of such a toy.

To those saying "well you don't need to make control rods so it's not really a big deal" -- do you honestly think even for a moment that anyone who is so amoral or immoral to use the Anvil would NOT make control rods? Expediency. Safety. Power. You gotta make sure that your cool new combat monsters don't turn around and crush YOUR head, after all ...

[cglasgow]

I might point out that you get a codex entry somewhere in Orzammar that points out that in the opinion of the Paragon Aeducan, the dwarves could have prevented the loss of the Deep Roads if the dwarves had actually rallied to fight it when it started instead of being busy backstabbing each other right up to the point where the darkspawn were at Orzammar's gates.



So yeah, Branka might believe that without golems the dwarves are doomed to extinction, but Branka's view of history is not entirely objective.



That's the thing about this game. No one's view of history is entirely objective. Every historical codex entry you get is from an in-game history book, and those books were written by the winners, or by people with an agenda, or just a certain way of looking at things. Some authors might be more objective than others, but no one is completely omniscient POV.

[Boeresmurf]

the anvil is like the inventuon of the Nuke... its a marvelous thing... untill its used.

it will be used to defend mankind but eventually it will detroy it.

better to let the anvil go down in a big boom.... to bad cairadin wanted to die, i could have used him

[cglasgow]

Well, its possible to make nukes without sacrificing a human soul on an altar...

[Herr Uhl]

The Capital Gaultier wrote...

I disagree in the long run.  The first Blight was desperate.  Nations didn't know what to do and the Grey Wardens didn't exist for a long time.  Turning to such a means was a desperation move.  The fifth Blight was a relatively small-scale affair.  Two are left, and the methods for ending them appear to be honed down to a science.  Using a dire shortcut like the Anvil leads to a power imbalance within Dwarven society and between Dwarves and other nations.  Better to use the learned methods for ending the two coming Blights than resort to using the Anvil.

A question, I haven't read the books, so I may have missed something. But why would the end of archdemons and blights mean the end of darkspawn? Nowadays, the dwarves get relieved by blights. And they are still fighting a losing battle.

And the imbalance thing, isn't two cities and an eternal struggle against the enemies that are oh so feared on the surface when they appear every odd century enough of a handicap against other races?

[The Angry One]

Thing about the Anvil is, if I'm going to choose between volunteers undergoing pure agony to become powerful automatons with the possibility of abuse in forcing people to do it and the damn darkspawn turnining people into ghouls and maggot queens, I'm choosing the Anvil.

[Herr Uhl]

The Angry One wrote...

Thing about the Anvil is, if I'm going to choose between volunteers undergoing pure agony to become powerful automatons with the possibility of abuse in forcing people to do it and the damn darkspawn turnining people into ghouls and maggot queens, I'm choosing the Anvil.

I approve of this message.

[kevinwastaken]

What sealed it for me was "Your nightmare is my every day."



I'm not particularly fond of the dwarves but that line really hit home that they were perhaps the best weapon against a Blight. Golems would possibly be the key to permanently eradicating Darkspawn.

[tmp7704]

The Angry One wrote...

Thing about the Anvil is, if I'm going to choose between volunteers undergoing pure agony to become powerful automatons with the possibility of abuse in forcing people to do it and the damn darkspawn turnining people into ghouls and maggot queens, I'm choosing the Anvil.

On the other hand when you consider the one person who is in position to make educated decision whether the goal of defeating the darkspawn makes being turned into a golem acceptable (Caridin) doesn't see it this way, while both your character and Branka can be mouthing off a lot about necessary sacrifice but that sacrifice generally boils down to someone else having to pick up the tab... well, it can make one wonder just why someone who is more ignorant about the matter at hand would make a better call about it. As long as they look at themselves with critical eye of course, and Branka clearly cannot. 

[Taerda]

kevinwastaken wrote...

What sealed it for me was "Your nightmare is my every day."

I'm not particularly fond of the dwarves but that line really hit home that they were perhaps the best weapon against a Blight. Golems would possibly be the key to permanently eradicating Darkspawn.

My characters saw the Golems as tools that fell under the "any means necessary" rule for the Grey Wardens, but recognized the huge amount of long term power and responsibility that it represented.

Another poster wrote that the anvil was like a nuclear weapon, which is ok, but to go further - the decision to use the anvil is like the decision to use the nuclear bomb faced by Truman. Do you unleash the genie and save countless lives NOW or sacrifice thousands to keep the potential danger bottled up?

Even if you destroy the anvil (which I did in all my play throughs so far) the quest for the knowledge in dwarven society continues and they go after it - so eventually it will be reactivated/recreated - with or without your help.

I just wish there was a way to keep Grey Warden control over the anvil itself ... that would have been for the best after all (according to my characters )

[Korva]

I agree that the dwarves themselves are their own biggest problem. IF they actually pulled together instead of wasting an obscene amount of lives and resources playing "who's the biggest a**hole" with each other, they could be much better off. Ditch the rigid caste system, especially the casteless and the ban on dwarves returning from the surface. Recruit warriors from all walks of life, not just from one privileged, purely hereditary caste and outcast kamikazes. Forge better relations with the surfacers and get help in patrolling the Deep Roads to keep an eye on signs of an impending Blight or "just" rising numbers.

With the Anvil, I think the problems in dwarven society would only get worse. The temptation of abuse would be obscene, the opportunities for abuse endless.

I'm seriously tempted to support Bhelen at some point, based on what people say his epilogue is (without the Anvil that is). My problem is that I can't really justify it because there's no indication from what I've seen in my first game that he is actually doing anything for the benfit of his people, rather than his own. It'd require massive metagaming to choose him for the throne, and I don't like to do that.

[Herr Uhl]

Harrowmont seems to be so full of crap, and wants nothing changed (aka, caste system). It is not peacetime for the dwarves, heck it has not been that since the first blight, and then an unscrupulous bastard might be just what it takes, compare Churchill with Chamberlain. It is not like he plans to attack the surface (why bother) or to torture people for fun.



And they WERE united under the old king, pulling towards the same goal. It is just an unusually turbulent time. When they were united they still lost.



And the surfacers don't seem to give a **** about dwarves. The darkspawn are their problem, until it threatens them. At least that is what I am led to believe by reading the codex about previous blights, I might be wrong. It isn't like they don't accept help (grey wardens, topsider).

[Realmzmaster]

The problem with keeping the anvil is that power corrupts. In the end you will find that both dwarven rulers will use the anvil to make more golems by grabbing surface dwellers not volunteers. In another ending if you destroy the anvil, both rulers try to re-construct the science and succeed in creating a new anvil. The catch is that all golems created on the new anvil go insane and have to be destroyed.

[The Capital Gaultier]

Herr Uhl wrote...

A question, I haven't read the books, so I may have missed something. But why would the end of archdemons and blights mean the end of darkspawn? Nowadays, the dwarves get relieved by blights. And they are still fighting a losing battle.

And the imbalance thing, isn't two cities and an eternal struggle against the enemies that are oh so feared on the surface when they appear every odd century enough of a handicap against other races?

It isn't the end of the darkspawn.  However, it does end their effective leadership.  Think of them as an army.  The sergeants (alphas and emissaries) direct small units to small gains, but they lack any sort of organizational drive.  The Archdemon act as the general officers through some psychic ability.  Without his or her drive and coordination, the darkspawn are a much more manageable problem.  It also appears that the expansionism of the darkspawn is directly tied to the Archdemons' influence.  Without that, they may stop even trying to reproduce.  Who knows?

I didn't read the books, personally.

[Barleyman74]

Guys, the Wardens have 50% mortality on their initiation. And about 20 year lifespan after signing in if they're very lucky. They would never turn down such a potent weapon against the spawn. After all, their axiom is victory by any means necessary.

If such weapon would be abused or used in morally questionable means should be no concern whatsoever to wardens. As long as the men of steel march against the spawns its mission accomplished.

That's my opinion anyways.

[Taritu]

One of the scenarios where you keep the anvil leads to an exalted march against the Dwarves. Not a good outcome.

As for Branka not being evil, if forcing someone to become a broodmother doesn't qualify as evil, nothing does. She's evil, and probably insane, and cannot be trusted with the power the anvil represents.

If you want to keep the anvil, the best option (not offered as best I can tell) is to side with one of the two paragons, kill the other, get the crown, then kill the remaining paragon, take the crown back and crown your king, give him the key to the anvil, as it were.

Whatever the gray wardens as a group would do, you're the gray warden on the spot, have been a gray warden for less than a day when you're thrown on your own resources, and in most of the origins, didn't exactly grow up wanting to be an warden but took it because the other alternative was dying. You make the decision and you do it on your morality, which may include considerations like "not giving an insane power mad woman who is evil enough to turn people into darkspawn that sort of power". Darkspawn aren't the only evil in the world.

And I think it's unlikely other Gray Wardens might not make the same decision. Branka really did cross the line when she consorted with darkspawn.

Modifié par Taritu, 05 décembre 2009 - 08:22 .