217 réponses à ce sujet

[R.U.N]

In Exile wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

But what of:  DR= One more Blight = lot more people dead.

We can't be really aware of what kind of arcane horror you are creating. According to Morrigan the ritual is supposed to preserve the old god, so what you would have is an old god that isn't blighted. Which could potentially do more good than not.

At that point in the game you have 3 Grey Wardens. The 3 die, and the Blight will ranged unchecked until the Grey Wardens in other lands can organize. Stopping the present apocalyse is more pressing than a future one, no?

Just because the child is born without the taint doesn't mean it cannot be tainted.
The old gods were pure too once and still got tainted.
Then again we don't know 100% for sure if in this case the child can actually be tainted as the Dragon counterparts.

Modifié par R.U.N, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:41 .

[soteria]

Hmm...I guess you're right. Though in-game, Morrigan's ritual is pitched to the Warden in terms of his/her own survival. Morrigan herself doesn't present it as a calculated risk, and neither Alistair nor Loghain seem to think of it that way either if you ask them to do it. As far as all of the NPCs are concerned, going through with the ritual is about ensuring the survival of the Warden. Of course, your character can have his/her own reasons which changes the picture, but what's in-game seems to present the ritual as a risky, selfish decision.

Well, it's true that Morrigan pitches the idea for pretty selfish reasons, but I think that's a reflection of her own personality. Remember, she thinks that death is the worst thing that can happen to you (you lose approval if you tell her "there are worse fates than death," if you remember that conversation). She uses the survival argument on you because she thinks it's the best possible argument. It would convince her, were your places reversed, after all.

[Ulicus]

The only time, in the first game, that I really thought "trying to save everyone" should have resulted in something bad happening as a result was when you left Connor behind to go round up the Circle of Magi. When I finally tried it out on my third playthrough, coming back to find absolutely nothing had gone wrong was surprising....

It'd have been interesting if siding against Cullen had resulted in a genuine maleficar getting loose and killing a score of innocents, too. Just so it wasn't quite so cut and dry.

In Exile wrote...

Once you perform the dark ritual, you don't have the taint anymore. Doing the ritual is basically the anti-Joining; you're no longer a Grey Warden. This is why it's a happy ending for you - no dying in 30 years. So when you kill the archdemon you technically aren't a Grey Warden.

Have you got anything that backs that up? It's an interesting idea, certainly... but I've never encountered anything to support it. Or even imply it.

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:51 .

[jpdipity]

SirShreK wrote...

Thus in effect possibly cause another blight IFF he is the devil! Trust me when I say this, A lawful good character (who is sane and not fanatic by popular lore) would not allow it...

EDIT:  And there is always the chance he will NOT want play the devil, but darkaspawn will be attracted to him anyway....

My “lawful, good” PC would have rejected Morrigan in Lothering because she is an apostate. However, I believe the same PC may justify the DR because a “lawful, good” PC will avoid killing whenever possible. Morrigan wants to preserve the essence of an old God which my PC has no evidence is a threat; so, he/she could reasonably consider the DR as a means to avoid destroying an innocent soul that will no longer be corrupted.

[Ulicus]

An alignment is not a straight jacket. Not every Lawful Good character would make the same decisions. You can even *GASP* get two Lawful Good characters in complete disagreement, or who hate each other.

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:54 .

[Saibh]

SirShreK wrote...

Saibh wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Pardon me for my ignorance, but there is something I have been meaning to ask for a long time but keep forgetting: Why does everybody think that ANYONE (besides GWs) can kill Archdemon after the DR?

Is there something that proves this statement? Or it is hope ( = foolish optimist)?

Because the reason you need a Grey Warden--the only reason, outside of experience with darkspawn--is because they can act as a vessel for the Archdemon that won't turn into a new one. Obviously the vesselitude doesn't work out so well for both parties, but that's the reason.

Morrigan says the reason the ritual works is because the soul is immediately attracted the the baby for some reason, and because the baby is in a...proto-soul form, it doesn't destroy either, but rather allows a merge or somesuch.

Therefore it doesn't matter who strikes the killing blow, since the soul will always go to Morrigan's child.

I am aware of what Morrigan says .... I am not aware of her saying that anyone can kill the Archdemon....

...Sometimes you have to make conjectures educated guesses. This is a case: we know that the only reasons Grey Wardens exist is to act as a mock-vessel for the Archdemon by killing them. The reason this works is because the Grey Wardens are tainted, and slowly turning into darkspawn, and can "trick" the Archdemon's soul into inhabiting them. Anyone can kill the body of the Archdemon itself--I think Riordan mentions that in the First Blight they killed it again and again to no avail, since a darkspawn would simply become the new Archdemon. Grey Wardens aren't the only ones capable of killing the body--once the body is destroyed, the soul attempts to find another vessel.

But if the god-baby is there, it is the vessel. Ergo! Vis a vis! Concordently! I'm not sure if you're drawing the conclusions I am, since I'm a terrible debater and am horrific and putting my point across.

Modifié par Saibh, 20 juillet 2010 - 09:55 .

[Kimarous]

Maybe I'm just a deep role-playing type, but the way I view it is "how does my CHARACTER view it"? My original playthrough was with an elf mage who was Grey Warden through and through. To him, the Dark Ritual is bad because it risks an extra Blight and, as a Grey Warden, his job is to stop the Blight. My power-hungry a-hole of a human noble, however, will jump at the chance to increase his odds of survival, especially if the terms are getting some booty.

I haven't made any more, but there might be characters who think the Old Gods deserve to be preserved, want to bear Morrigan's kiddies, want to survive alongside Alistair, and so forth. The player and the player character may have wholly different views on what is good or not. That's just how grey the world is.

[jpdipity]

Ulicus wrote...

An alignment is not a straight jacket. Not every Lawful Good character would make the same decisions. You can even *GASP* get two Lawful Good characters in complete disagreement, or who hate each other.

Yes, that was my point.   

I was simply showing a way that a lawful/good character could justify the DR within their character.  I think that a lawful/good character could easily reject or accept the DR - it would simply be for different reasons. 

[Kenrae]

Ulicus wrote...

An alignment is not a straight jacket. Not every Lawful Good character would make the same decisions. You can even *GASP* get two Lawful Good characters in complete disagreement, or who hate each other.

Alignments aren't a good portrayal of human condition anyway. Too simple. Besides, good and evil are relative terms, what you consider good has been cosidered evil by someone, somewhere, and viceversa. Nobody considers himself "evil".

[Ulicus]

jpdipity wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

An alignment is not a straight jacket. Not every Lawful Good character would make the same decisions. You can even *GASP* get two Lawful Good characters in complete disagreement, or who hate each other.

Yes, that was my point.   

I was simply showing a way that a lawful/good character could justify the DR within their character.  I think that a lawful/good character could easily reject or accept the DR - it would simply be for different reasons. 

I wasn't really directing it at you, just the general idea of "LG characters do this, this and this".

As Sten would say, people are not simple.

Given how Morrigan explains the ritual -- simply in terms of "we'll introduce a beacon that takes precedence over other tainted creatures" -- a character might be tempted to agree because the implication is that anyone can land the final blow on the archdemon and put it down permanently.

Though whether that is true or not is, apparantly, up to us.

Kenrae wrote...

Alignments aren't a good portrayal of human condition anyway. Too simple. Besides, good and evil are relative terms, what you consider good has been cosidered evil by someone, somewhere, and viceversa. Nobody considers himself "evil".

I'm more or less in agreement. Still, the point is that even in settings where there is an absolute standard of Good and Evil (and I'm not saying Thedas is such a setting) it's not as clear cut as a fair amount of people believe.

Especially in regards to Primes, very few of which are utterly one alignment or another.

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:14 .

[tybbiesniffer]

Ulicus wrote...
Though whether that is true or not is, apparantly, up to us.

Thanks for the link.  I suppose this means that any rationale we use to make our decision (regarding who can slay the demon anyway) is valid. 

[Saibh]

Ulicus wrote...

jpdipity wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

An alignment is not a straight jacket. Not every Lawful Good character would make the same decisions. You can even *GASP* get two Lawful Good characters in complete disagreement, or who hate each other.

Yes, that was my point.   

I was simply showing a way that a lawful/good character could justify the DR within their character.  I think that a lawful/good character could easily reject or accept the DR - it would simply be for different reasons. 

I wasn't really directing it at you, just the general idea of "LG characters do this, this and this".

As Sten would say, people are not simple.

Given how Morrigan explains the ritual -- simply in terms of "we'll introduce a beacon that takes precedence over other tainted creatures" -- a character might be tempted to agree because the implication is that anyone can land the final blow on the archdemon and put it down permanently.

Though whether that is true or not is, apparantly, up to us.

Very grateful for the link--I always feel weird making guesses on this board since I'm sure the writers and developers are watching us fumble around from behind their computers, rubbing their hands gleefully together whilst laughing at us maniacally and singing "dance, monkey, dance!"

Now I can just point to this.

Modifié par Saibh, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:14 .

[In Exile]

R.U.N wrote...
Just because the child is born without the taint doesn't mean it cannot be tainted.
The old gods were pure too once and still got tainted.
Then again we don't know 100% for sure if in this case the child can actually be tainted as the Dragon counterparts.

Exactly. We have random soul soup. It's not entirely clear what the thing will be.

Ulicus wrote..
Have you got anything that backs that up? It's
an interesting idea, certainly... but I've never encountered anything to
support it. Or even imply it.

That's what Morrigan tells you. Or at least, that was my understanding of it. That the taint is transfered to the child, and you are then free of it. As I gathered, that was the whole point of the dark ritual. Otherwise if all you're getting is a chance to save Alistair or Loghain's life (since both seemed more than happy to get themselves killed). Which is stupid; why should that be in any way convincing?

I always understood the Dark Ritual to be the anti-Joining.

SirShreK wrote...

On the contrary we have evidence of them
being untainted before darkspwan find them: The Architect tells us as
much.

About the retarted thing: It may not apply to Individuals
who are not yet born.

No, I meantwe don't know what processes it is that the darkspawn use to taint the archdemon. It could be proximity, but it could be their blood. Or something else entirely. 

Modifié par In Exile, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:28 .

[tybbiesniffer]

SirShreK wrote...

It means that no rationale is INVALID , as long it is rational, I guess.

Quibbler.  

Saibh wrote...

Very
grateful for the link--I always feel weird making guesses on this board
since I'm sure the writers and developers are watching us fumble around
from behind their computers, rubbing their hands gleefully together
whilst laughing at us maniacally and singing "dance, monkey, dance!"

Now I can just point to this. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Throw in a bunch of smirking and that's pretty much what I envision too.

[Saibh]

In Exile wrote...

That's what Morrigan tells you. Or at least, that was my understanding of it. That the taint is transfered to the child, and you are then free of it. As I gathered, that was the whole point of the dark ritual. Otherwise if all you're getting is a chance to save Alistair or Loghain's life (since both seemed more than happy to get themselves killed). Which is stupid; why should that be in any way convincing?

I always understood the Dark Ritual to be the anti-Joining.

While I don't want to sound like an ass if someone proves me wrong, I'm fairly pretty positive that that's not true at all. Morrigan says that the child will be born taint-less. Not you. According to the novels--or at least in Fiona's case--Wardens who give birth are somehow rendered taint-free. Morrigan never says or implies one thing about the DR freeing you from the taint.

[Ulicus]

In Exile wrote...

That's what Morrigan tells you. Or at least, that was my understanding of it. That the taint is transfered to the child, and you are then free of it.

I think she'd have been a bit more explicit if the taint was transferred instead of simply inherited, since it would have made the offer even more tempting.

In Exile wrote...
As I gathered, that was the whole point of the dark ritual. Otherwise if all you're getting is a chance to save Alistair or Loghain's life (since both seemed more than happy to get themselves killed). Which is stupid; why should that be in any way convincing?

Which is why Morrigan argues that even if Riordan/Alistair/Loghain has agreed to take the final blow, it could still fall to your character. She approaches it purely from the angle of avoiding death in the event that you have to slay the Archdemon.

In Exile wrote...
I always understood the Dark Ritual to be the anti-Joining.

Given Gaider is on the record as saying that it will be (nigh) impossible for King Alistair and Queen Cousland to have children by virtue of their being tainted Grey Wardens, I don't think that's the case.

Saibh wrote...

Morrigan says that the child will be born taint-less. Not you.

Actually (and interestingly) she says that "the child will bear the taint" -- but then explicitly states that the Old God's essence will be reborn "apart" from the taint. So it would seem that it's only tainted insofar as it acts as a beacon, and is then "purified" somehow.

Given the children of Grey Wardens are never born with the taint, maybe the "removal" of the taint is tied directly to antenatal development?

Saibh wrote...
According to the novels--or at least in Fiona's case--Wardens who give birth are somehow rendered taint-free.

Wasn't that more to do with Fiona conceiving while under the influence of the magic whatsit that was accelerating her taint? 

Modifié par Ulicus, 20 juillet 2010 - 10:41 .

[In Exile]

SirShreK wrote...

Whether it is proximity, blood or Flesh, the Old Gods are untainted before the rendez-vous.

The original claim was whether or not the child could become tainted. The answer to that is that we don't know - we would need to know it is than an old god becomes tainted in the first place.