84 réponses à ce sujet

[exorzist]

I often hear of people who played through Origins a first time as a mostly good character. They tried to make decisions that were humane for the most part. In other words, they never became very good friends with Morrigan. For the second playthrough, they say something like, “Ok, this time I’m going to play someone evil.“

Continue here ...

Modifié par exorzist, 27 avril 2010 - 02:02 .

[Aisynia]

Good article, though of course the author is not highlighting the most "good" option: getting a group of mages come from the circle (after you save the tower) and performing a ritual which allows you to kill the demon in the fade. Connor lives, Isolde lives (maker help us), and the demon is dead with no blood magic involved.

[Patriciachr34]

This third option is always my default Connor option. It is tempting to let Isolde take the hit on this one, but I hesitate depriving Connor of a mother such as she is. Making a deal with the demon is just not a good idea. Even Morrigan does not recommend dealing with demons and she is truly amoral. Honestly, I would prefer to have sent Isolde to the Tower to become tranquil considering how much trouble she has caused, but alas this option is not offered. It still "chaps my hide" that she does not suffer any consequences for deceiving her husband, harboring an apostate, and endangering the entire province. Stupid, silly woman!

[Sarah1281]

The only way that decision is even remotely conscionable given its impractibility is if you head out to the tower with one or two companions in case you get ambushed and leave everyone else behind to kill Connor if the demon tries something. They should be able to stop the demon before it escapes to the village and there won't be a new corpse-army till he kills those in the castle so as long as Teagan and Isolde okay the risk it could be done.

[Aisynia]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

This third option is always my default Connor option. It is tempting to let Isolde take the hit on this one, but I hesitate depriving Connor of a mother such as she is.

It's a horrible thing to say, but it feels like I'm doing him (and all of Redcliffe) a favor.

[Aisynia]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

This third option is always my default Connor option. It is tempting to let Isolde take the hit on this one, but I hesitate depriving Connor of a mother such as she is. Making a deal with the demon is just not a good idea. Even Morrigan does not recommend dealing with demons and she is truly amoral. Honestly, I would prefer to have sent Isolde to the Tower to become tranquil considering how much trouble she has caused, but alas this option is not offered. It still "chaps my hide" that she does not suffer any consequences for deceiving her husband, harboring an apostate, and endangering the entire province. Stupid, silly woman!

She didn't just endager the region, her hubris and self-centeredness DOOMED many, many people in Redcliffe and the castle.

Eamon must really love her to let her get away with that ****. Jowan was a pawn, none of that was really his fault, he was just caught in the middle, getting played by Loghain and Isolde.

[Patriciachr34]

I agree with you on this one. I think Eamon has been thinking with the wrong head. I finally had the nerve to let Jowan go on my most recent play through. I've always hesitated before simply because he has such poor decision making skills I was worried he might accidentally do something worse, like blow up Denerim. I think in this case we really must choose between the better of a group of evils. Since Connor is the true innocent here, I do everything I can to save him.

[OldMan91]

It's a horrible thing to say, but it feels like I'm doing him (and all of Redcliffe) a favor.

It's not horrible considering her actions led to the deaths of probably other sons and daughters living in Redcliffe. The weight of the pain and suffering of the villagers is greater than her own, and therefore it would not be wrong or immoral to have Isolde executed or sacrificed to the blood ritual. The only reason she doesn't get executed (if you save her) is because she's a noble and the wife of Arl Eamon.

[Aisynia]

OldMan91 wrote...

It's a horrible thing to say, but it feels like I'm doing him (and all of Redcliffe) a favor.

It's not horrible considering her actions led to the deaths of probably other sons and daughters living in Redcliffe. The weight of the pain and suffering of the villagers is greater than her own, and therefore it would not be wrong or immoral to have Isolde executed or sacrificed to the blood ritual. The only reason she doesn't get executed (if you save her) is because she's a noble and the wife of Arl Eamon.

And she is never held accountable.

In fact, the ONLY way to get her to admit she was wrong IS to sacrifice her with Blood Magic.

[Tirigon]

Well, OP, you (I think you wrote the article, right?) forgot the option to enter the Fade with Circle help, that is without killing Isolde, and NOT make a deal with the demon.



And we should consider one more thing: Isolde, Eamon and Connor ALL SUCK. That´s why I prefer to sacrifice Isolde and then make deal with the demon - though it would be even better to kill both, and not cure Eamon.
Sadly, that´s impossible.

Modifié par Tirigon, 26 avril 2010 - 08:11 .

[Zy-El]

Back in those days, a single noble was worth any number of serfs. Take it in perspective. Yes, I tend to choose the option where everybody lives but that's just me.

[Aisynia]

Zy-El wrote...

Back in those days, a single noble was worth any number of serfs. Take it in perspective. Yes, I tend to choose the option where everybody lives but that's just me.

To the nobles sure. I doubt the serfs and vassals feel that way.

[OldMan91]

To the nobles sure. I doubt the serfs and vassals feel that way.

Yeah exactly. Saying "well, according to their cultural context and social relations..." isn't really an excuse to pardon Isolde's behaviour.

[Sarah1281]

And we should consider one more thing: Isolde, Eamon and Connor ALL SUCK.

What's wrong with Connor? Yeah he was tricked by a demon but he's what, ten? You're really going to hold the child responsible for all the adults around him being either stupid or oblivious?

[OldMan91]

Yeah, Connor isn't really to blame. Poor kid just wanted to help his father and made a deal with a demon to do that.



Of course, it wouldn't have happened at all if Isolde hadn't brought Jowan into the picture...

[Tirigon]

Zy-El wrote...

Back in those days, a single noble was worth any number of serfs. Take it in perspective. Yes, I tend to choose the option where everybody lives but that's just me.

This is like "In muslim society, women are less worth than men".

The fact that the majority of the people in charge in the (fortunately few) countries with this culture thinks so doesn´t make it true.

[Axekix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

The only way that decision is even remotely conscionable given its impractibility is if you head out to the tower with one or two companions in case you get ambushed and leave everyone else behind to kill Connor if the demon tries something. They should be able to stop the demon before it escapes to the village and there won't be a new corpse-army till he kills those in the castle so as long as Teagan and Isolde okay the risk it could be done.

Yeah, agreed.  This has always been my big issue with the "sunshine and rainbows" option.  I've never actually taken it in game.  It's kind of immersion breaking for me.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

And we should consider one more thing: Isolde, Eamon and Connor ALL SUCK.

What's wrong with Connor? Yeah he was tricked by a demon but he's what, ten? You're really going to hold the child responsible for all the adults around him being either stupid or oblivious?

Well, to be honest it´s more an irrational hate than based on reason. For me, Connor is one of the people whom you see and immediately think "F*ck off, ass". Sorry, can´t help it.

Though he isn´t completely innocent. I agree that Isolde is the one most to blame, but it was Connor who made a deal with the demon.
Sure, he´s just a child, but if a child would press a bomb trigger and blow up a town would you say: "But he´s only ten! It´s not bad!"
I mean, the people who died because of Connor aren´t less dead because of his age.

[OldMan91]

In a situation where one’s choice is either to submit to tyranny against principle or else be a turncoat to one’s own personally stated principles, one of those principles is going to come out on top, and one is going to fall. It isn’t about what is morally right. It’s about what is most useful and least regrettable, and that’s going to be different for everyone.

^This is a quote from the article.



The mistake the author makes is that she sort of paints every ambiguous decision with the same brush (is every decision about usefulness vs morality?). The case of Soldier's Peak is vastly different, and it was about fighting a tyrant. As Dryden said, "some injustices cannot be ignored". Though it can be argued that summoning demons wasn't the smartest option, at the time the Warden Commander Dryden was desperate. She has a reason which can justify her decision (in my eyes anyway).



The case of Redcliffe is different. We're talking about a mother who cared more for her child than for the villagers of Redcliffe. As touching as it is for a mother to do so much for her son, it is inexcusible. Besides the boy is innocent. The author apparently believes that sacrificing Connor is more "useful" rather sacrificing the mother (she mentions that the child would be sent to the circle, and having an unhappy life, etc). Is it really more useful? Can we say that this decision is the best one because of its usefulness? What happens to justice then? What precedent do we set exactly? The Warden then is acting like Loghain, sacrificing a lot for the sake of "usefulness".



I personally do not believe giving up the child's life is useful (I am assuming that the third option does not exist). Killing an innocent child rather than the person who is guilty (Isolde) is neither morally right nor useful (especially if you want Eamon's goodwill). If you must punish someone, then it must be Isolde.That option is far more useful (Eamon will be more understanding, as he knows that it was Isolde who willingly gave up her life for her son, so he is appreciate if you saving his son) and just. You are punishing the criminal and aiding your own cause.

[Patriciachr34]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

And we should consider one more thing: Isolde, Eamon and Connor ALL SUCK.

What's wrong with Connor? Yeah he was tricked by a demon but he's what, ten? You're really going to hold the child responsible for all the adults around him being either stupid or oblivious?

Well, to be honest it´s more an irrational hate than based on reason. For me, Connor is one of the people whom you see and immediately think "F*ck off, ass". Sorry, can´t help it.

Though he isn´t completely innocent. I agree that Isolde is the one most to blame, but it was Connor who made a deal with the demon.
Sure, he´s just a child, but if a child would press a bomb trigger and blow up a town would you say: "But he´s only ten! It´s not bad!"
I mean, the people who died because of Connor aren´t less dead because of his age.

Yes, but Connor did not fully understand the ramifications of his actions.  He was never taught that demons are bad and deals with demons even worse; and was not aware that the demon would use him to pursue such horrific actions.  You must remember that it was the demon who murdered those people. It was the demon who created the undead.  The demon was simply using Connor's body as a bridge into our world.  The child cannot be responsible for the entity that usurped his physical being to purse it's own evil agenda.

You also have forgotten what it was like to be a child. Children, especially younger children, do not have the capacity to comprehend the complete moral implications of their actions.  They depend on their parents to be their moral compass until the can understand these subtleties and can act independently with full comprehension.

[Tirigon]

Patriciachr34 wrote...

Yes, but Connor did not fully understand the ramifications of his actions.  He was never taught that demons are bad and deals with demons even worse; and was not aware that the demon would use him to pursue such horrific actions. 

In Ferelden, every Child knows that.

You must remember that it was the demon who murdered those people. It was the demon who created the undead.  The demon was simply using Connor's body as a bridge into our world.  The child cannot be responsible for the entity that usurped his physical being to purse it's own evil agenda.

But Connor DID allow it. To employ my bomb once more: If a Child pulls the trigger, the actual deaths are caused by the bomb. But it would have done nothing without the Child.

You also have forgotten what it was like to be a child. Children, especially younger children, do not have the capacity to comprehend the complete moral implications of their actions.  They depend on their parents to be their moral compass until the can understand these subtleties and can act independently with full comprehension.

I haven´t; That´s why I agree that Isolde is more responsible.
But you do also have to look at it like that: The people who lost their families won´t mourn their loss any less because Connor didn´t plan to kill them. Connors young age doesn´t resurrect the fallen.

[Zy-El]

Tirigon wrote...

Zy-El wrote...
Back in those days, a single noble was worth any number of serfs. Take it in perspective. Yes, I tend to choose the option where everybody lives but that's just me.

This is like "In muslim society, women are less worth than men".

The fact that the majority of the people in charge in the (fortunately few) countries with this culture thinks so doesn´t make it true.

I don't agree with Eamon's behaviour - I just understand it.  I'm a Grey Warden; it's not my job to change society or rewrite morality.  My mission is to destroy the darkspawn.  Just staying in character.  Remember, this is an RPG (not a rocket-propelled grenade)! 

[Patriciachr34]

No. Not every child in Ferelden knows this. Why would they? Its not exactly a discussion topic for the dinner table. And it was not Connor who did these awful things. It was the demon. Connor did not kill these people. The demon killed these people. If Connor had a choice in the matter, no one would have died. The fact of the matter is that Connor had no control over what the demon did with his body. Tell me, if an adult said to a child, "I can save your father if you let me drive your car.", and then proceeds to run people down on the street, is the child responsible for the murder of those people? No he is not. The stranger is responsible. Your analogy is flawed. You assume Connor had full understanding and full control when he did not. He is no more responsible than a child who lends his family's car to a stranger in hopes of saving someone he loves only to have that stranger do terrible things with the vehicle. He has no choice as to who is killed or how they are treated and no way to stop the events from occurring.



One other point. Who gave your mythical child this bomb to begin with?

[Radahldo]

In Ferelden, every Child knows that.

Even if he knows Demons are bad, as a child, he most likely didnt understand that under no circumstances would any individual demon be benevolent, and will always have an ulterior ruinous motive.
His judgement and moral reasoning aren't that developed.

But Connor DID allow it. To employ my bomb once more: If a Child pulls the trigger, the actual deaths are caused by the bomb. But it would have done nothing without the Child.

In your example the bomb would've needed to be placed and manufactured by someone other than the child-- that person is more accountable...which would be the Demon in Connors case.

Modifié par Radahldo, 26 avril 2010 - 09:42 .

[Zy-El]

Children do not always realize the consequences of their choices.

All Connor knew was that his father was dying and this was the only solution presented to him. From his point of view, had no choice. I'm not saying he's blameless, I'm just saying he's a child and cannot fathom the full consequences of his actions - he lacks the maturity to do so. Connor would not understand the need to sacrifice his father for the greater good - that is a very mature concept and there are some adults who would not understand that either.

Modifié par Zy-El, 26 avril 2010 - 09:46 .