147 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurelet]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But species are "designed" for self-preservation. Of course I would be impressed to see a darkspawn willing to end his race because he feels it's wrong to do what they do to women. But I can't say I expect any of them to do so, even if they are morally aware of what they are doing. When necessity comes into play, it's really hard to judge them morally, even if we rightfully find the practise revolting and horrifying beyond words.
@ Miri. First, thank you for your civility.
Of course, it is a can of worm and it's a very ugly solution. But the way I see it, the alternative will be a war with the darkspawn where they will be forced to take even more women to replenish their numbers in a war for survival. And they will do so indiscriminately. As much as I hate to say it, I prefer giving them a criminal then see innocent women being taken in a middle of a war. It's a less worse outcome (to avoid saying "better" because I really hate this). To make it less horrifying, perhaps those sacrificed could be made into tranquils. The experience would still be horrifying, but the emotional horror that would accompany it would be nullified.

Of course, since only those capable of magic can become tranquil....

I see the Apostate population sky rocketing

[Xandurpein]

Racial self-preservation and the urge to procreate are not the only needs that drives sentient beings. Our sense of justice and right is also an important need. There have been several psychological experiments done that indicate that humans, regardless of creed or country seem to be born programmed with certain tendencies towards what we consider morally right and wrong.

Consider these two alternatives:

Alternative 1. Humans and darkspawn has an uneasy truce. There are no major wars, but the darkspawn do on occassion raid human settlements and capture females. The human leaders decide that however horrible these raids are, a full scale war, causing widespread destruction and with a doubtful outcome cannot be risked.

Alternative 2. The human leaders strike a deal with the darkspawn to transfer an agreed number of females every year in return for peace between the races.

No one could argue that alternative 1 doesn't give a worse outcome from a purely logical point of view. In both alternatives a number of females are captured, violated and turned into broodmothers. The difference is that in alternative 1 there is a lot of collateral damage from the raids that leaves more death, hurt and misery.

And yet virtually no human being would advocate alternative 2 as an acceptable choice, even knowing the results. Because in alternative 2 we the humans become active parts in the destructive behavior. It doesn't matter if you point out that loooking at the outcome, alternative 2 is better, because it violates the inborn sense of justice and morality most humans have. I believe it is what we are hardwired to feel as human beings, just as with sex and procreation and has very little with logic to do.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 01 juillet 2010 - 01:29 .

[Aurelet]

Xandurpein wrote...

Racial self-preservation and the urge to procreate are not the only needs that drives sentient beings. Our sense of justice and right is also an important need. There have been several psychological experiments done that indicate that humans, regardless of creed or country seem to be born programmed with certain tendencies towards what we consider morally right and wrong.

Consider these two alternatives:

Alternative 1. Humans and darkspawn has an uneasy truce. There are no major wars, but the darkspawn do on occassion raid human settlements and capture females. The human leaders decide that however horrible these raids are, a full scale war, causing widespread destruction and with a doubtful outcome cannot be risked.

Alternative 2. The human leaders strike a deal with the darkspawn to transfer an agreed number of females every year in return for peace between the races.

No one could argue that alternative 1 doesn't give a worse outcome from a purely logical point of view. In both alternatives a number of females are captured, violated and turned into broodmothers. The difference is that in alternative 1 there is a lot of collateral damage from the raids that leaves more death, hurt and misery.

And yet virtually no human being would advocate alternative 2 as an acceptable choice, even knowing the results. Because in alternative 2 we the humans become active parts in the destructive behavior. It doesn't matter if you point out that loooking at the outcome, alternative 2 is better, because it violates the inborn sense of justice and morality most humans have. I believe it is what we are hardwired to feel as human beings, just as with sex and procreation and has very little with logic to do.

But with alternative 2 then you'll have to deal with the inevitable rebellion of the family and friends of those you decide to give to the darkspawn.

[Xandurpein]

Aurelet wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Racial self-preservation and the urge to procreate are not the only needs that drives sentient beings. Our sense of justice and right is also an important need. There have been several psychological experiments done that indicate that humans, regardless of creed or country seem to be born programmed with certain tendencies towards what we consider morally right and wrong.

Consider these two alternatives:

Alternative 1. Humans and darkspawn has an uneasy truce. There are no major wars, but the darkspawn do on occassion raid human settlements and capture females. The human leaders decide that however horrible these raids are, a full scale war, causing widespread destruction and with a doubtful outcome cannot be risked.

Alternative 2. The human leaders strike a deal with the darkspawn to transfer an agreed number of females every year in return for peace between the races.

No one could argue that alternative 1 doesn't give a worse outcome from a purely logical point of view. In both alternatives a number of females are captured, violated and turned into broodmothers. The difference is that in alternative 1 there is a lot of collateral damage from the raids that leaves more death, hurt and misery.

And yet virtually no human being would advocate alternative 2 as an acceptable choice, even knowing the results. Because in alternative 2 we the humans become active parts in the destructive behavior. It doesn't matter if you point out that loooking at the outcome, alternative 2 is better, because it violates the inborn sense of justice and morality most humans have. I believe it is what we are hardwired to feel as human beings, just as with sex and procreation and has very little with logic to do.

But with alternative 2 then you'll have to deal with the inevitable rebellion of the family and friends of those you decide to give to the darkspawn.

Exactly. It would be impossible to make people accept alternative 2 as a reasonable solution, even if it causes less damage and misery than alternative 1, because it would require humans to activly cooperate. It is I think an instinctive preference most humans would do. We morally find an outcome which causes more pain to be more acceptable, than an outcome that cause less pain, if it means that we are forced to be the active part in the second alternative.

[Xandurpein]

The psychological survey I am referring to confronted a number of people with two different scenarios. Like many psychological experiments these scenarios have no bearing on reality, but they do prove a point.

In scenario 1, a train is speeding along a track. Five people are caught on the track and will be killed unless the train is stopped or diverted. Your only option is to push a switch that will divert the train to another track, but one person is caught on that track too. Is it morally justified to divert the train?

In scenario 2 there is also a speeding train and five people caught on the track. You do not have the option to divert the train, but you have the option to push a person so he falls on the track, and this will kill him, but it will also slow down the train sufficiently so that the other five persons are saved.

The outcome of the choices in the above two scenarios are exactly the same, either one man dies or five men dies, but instinctively most people, regardless of religion or nationality, will find acting in scenario 1 acceptable, but not in scenario 2. In scenario 2 we feel that we actively kill someone and that feels wrong even if it is to save lives, but not in scenario 1.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 01 juillet 2010 - 09:25 .

[Corker]

Rudyard Kipling wrote...

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbor and say,
"We invaded you last night, we are quite prepared to fight
Unless you give us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld
As the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll be rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation
To puff and look important and to say,
"Those we really should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld
But we've proved it again and again
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You'll never be rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation
For fear they should sucumb and go astray
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested
You'll find it better policy to say:

"We never pay anyone Dane-geld
No matter how trifling the cost
For the end of that game is oppression and shame
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

[thesuperdarkone]

@AURLET: Is it ever stated that broodmothers are an intelligent species, as the broodmothers you face in origins and awakening are mindless breeding machines, and the Mothers was an accident so I don't see how intelligence in broodmothers could occur.

[Aurelet]

Exactly what do you think is going to happen if you let the architect live?

[Tirigon]

I let him live even before reading the books, and the books only confirmed my impression that the architect is right and should therefore not be killed.





On the other hand, it depends on your character. If I play a conservative, chantry-loyal knight, for example, the architect will be dead as soon as I can get him.

[Sarah1281]

I let him live even before reading the books, and the books only confirmed my impression that the architect is right and should therefore not be killed.

Really? But the books let you know he wants or at least wanted to turn everyone into ghouls. How is that convincing?

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I let him live even before reading the books, and the books only confirmed my impression that the architect is right and should therefore not be killed.

Really? But the books let you know he wants or at least wanted to turn everyone into ghouls. How is that convincing?

He wants to end the Blights once and for all. Considering that every Blight is quite close to getting every human killed or turned anyways it seems a worthy goal.

Also, I am on of the people who see being a Grey Warden (= being tainted) as pretty cool and useful and not bad.

[mousestalker]

Tirigon wrote...

I let him live even before reading the books, and the books only confirmed my impression that the architect is right and should therefore not be killed.


On the other hand, it depends on your character. If I play a conservative, chantry-loyal knight, for example, the architect will be dead as soon as I can get him.

I have the exact, opposite reaction to reading the books. The Architect's plan strikes me as yet another ill-conceived notion of his. He's the Riordan of Darkspawn, IMHO.

[thesuperdarkone]

@aurelet:

I believe that by sparing the architect, you are creating a new race of intelligent darkspawn that are willing to be good, as shown by the messenger, and you are helping to stop the blights. Even though there are only 2 left, who is to say that someone will be able to stop the blight in time, as codexes say that blights last for years and cost many lives, with the first one being 96 years. If the architect lives, then the blights will become a thing of the past, darkspawn sightings become rare as shown by the ending and thus this means that darkspawn are becoming rare and avoiding contact with others, which I see as a benfit and why I always spare him, unlike that idiot toegoff who deserves a fail award for failing.

[Tirigon]

mousestalker wrote...

I have the exact, opposite reaction to reading the books. The Architect's plan strikes me as yet another ill-conceived notion of his. He's the Riordan of Darkspawn, IMHO.

Riordan is a damned Orlaisian Assclon, BUT without him the Warden would not have been able to slay the Archdemon. So that is not exactly bad.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I let him live even before reading the books, and the books only confirmed my impression that the architect is right and should therefore not be killed.

Really? But the books let you know he wants or at least wanted to turn everyone into ghouls. How is that convincing?

He wants to end the Blights once and for all. Considering that every Blight is quite close to getting every human killed or turned anyways it seems a worthy goal.

Also, I am on of the people who see being a Grey Warden (= being tainted) as pretty cool and useful and not bad.

His book plan is really, really stupid, though. Not only would trying to make everyone a GW cause many more casualties than any outright war probably would but GW can't reproduce together so the non-darkspawn races would die off and that would lead ot the extinction of the darkspawn as well because then there wouldn't be any more broodmothers (it doesn't matter how many they already have as they aren't immortal).

[Aurelet]

thesuperdarkone wrote...

@aurelet:
I believe that by sparing the architect, you are creating a new race of intelligent darkspawn that are willing to be good, as shown by the messenger, and you are helping to stop the blights. Even though there are only 2 left, who is to say that someone will be able to stop the blight in time, as codexes say that blights last for years and cost many lives, with the first one being 96 years. If the architect lives, then the blights will become a thing of the past, darkspawn sightings become rare as shown by the ending and thus this means that darkspawn are becoming rare and avoiding contact with others, which I see as a benfit and why I always spare him, unlike that idiot toegoff who deserves a fail award for failing.

Even the Good Messenger has a tendancy to taint those that he helps.  Now take a whole bunch of "Good Messenger types" helping and tainting and tainting and helping......  Not a good future

[thesuperdarkone]

@aurelet:

But the taint is accidental and uncontrollable and thus not entirely the messenger's fault and the darkspawn are said the be rare if the architect is spared meaning that no darkspawn are seen and thus no taint. Additionally, the taint cases are said to be isolated and nothing major.

[LupusYondergirl]

Miri1984 wrote...

Splitting hairs I know, but the darkspawn are only sentient if the architect makes them into half wardens - before that they are mindless killers. So they are a race with the potential to become sentient who in the meantime go around destroying things and people, raping women and trying to loose huge dragons on the world who will destroy everything.

I would be happy to let the Architect live if he promised not to continue his experiments. And as someone else pointed out - only two more blights to go.

I think even the darkspawn under his control would still be a problem.  Most of the ones you meet in Awakening are affiliated with him or the Mother, and they were trying to drag Sigrun off when you first meet her.  And that's with the Mother, and the three (four?) broodmothers already in Kal'Hirol.  So, I think even making them intelligent wouldn't end their grabbing any female they could find.

Is the two blights thing confirmed?  I know that's the Chantry line, but it seems like there's never any confirmation if they're actually right about it.  The dwarves don't seem to believe it, and if you talk to Alistair at the very begining (between meeting him and returning to Duncan) he doesn't seem to, either.  He just says they're dragons who the Chantry claims are the Old Gods.

[Aurelet]

The architect likes to experiment. Making the Mother wasn't the accident. Having her go crazy was.



He won't stop unless he is dead

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

His book plan is really, really stupid, though. Not only would trying to make everyone a GW cause many more casualties than any outright war probably would but GW can't reproduce together so the non-darkspawn races would die off and that would lead ot the extinction of the darkspawn as well because then there wouldn't be any more broodmothers (it doesn't matter how many they already have as they aren't immortal).

No, his plan is to create a new, perfect race that combines the strengths of human and darkspawn and has the weakness of neither.

[mousestalker]

And he'll get it right any day now.



Far better and more practical to just slaughter any Darkspawn you encounter.



What I'd love to know is where they come from. My pet theory is that Darkspawn came from dwarves encountering an insect like species in the Deeps somewhere. The appearance of the Childer seem to suggest that.

[thesuperdarkone]

If the chantry thing isn't true, who is to say that there aren't more blights other than the other 2 allowed. Are people perfectly willing to risk massive casualties and destruction when there is an option that is possibly beneficial.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

His book plan is really, really stupid, though. Not only would trying to make everyone a GW cause many more casualties than any outright war probably would but GW can't reproduce together so the non-darkspawn races would die off and that would lead ot the extinction of the darkspawn as well because then there wouldn't be any more broodmothers (it doesn't matter how many they already have as they aren't immortal).

No, his plan is to create a new, perfect race that combines the strengths of human and darkspawn and has the weakness of neither.

And how does he propose to do that? Darkspawn cannot reproduce on their own and tainted humans cannot either.

[Sarah1281]

thesuperdarkone wrote...

If the chantry thing isn't true, who is to say that there aren't more blights other than the other 2 allowed. Are people perfectly willing to risk massive casualties and destruction when there is an option that is possibly beneficial.

Is it that controversial that the seven creatures that the Tevinter worshipped as Old Gods (whatever they really were) are the ones that have been turning into Archdemons? There are a set number.

[mousestalker]

Part of it boils down to whether you 1) believe the Architect and 2) think he is competent.



In meta game terms, he has good intentions.



The problem is that he isn't especially competent. He himself admits to not understanding people yet acting despite that awareness. The Blights are a known quantity. They're horrific, but they are known. The Architect can and does unleash horror all on his own, whether intentionally or accidentally. His track record in regards to interactions with other species is bad enough that he's best taken out of the picture.



Not to mention his plan is the end of elves. That's just unacceptable. Losing humans is a tragedy to be sure, but no elves means a sadly diminished world.