1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

Secondly, The Wardens are supposed to be glorious and heroic. They can´t fulfill this duty if they have a traitor as one of them.

Glorious and heroic? These are the same Wardens who have made deals with darkspawn, attempted a coup, mess around in politics habitually, and burned down an entire town in order to prevent possible darkspawn corruption from spreading?

[DragonRacer13]

Tirigon wrote...

2 reasons: Firstly, I KNOW Alistair will leave without metagaming because he says so if you don´t dismiss the idea outright. Secondly, The Wardens are supposed to be glorious and heroic. They can´t fulfill this duty if they have a traitor as one of them.
Lastly, it´s really dumb to trust Loghain at this point, and if Loghain would think a bit like me the Warden would die the first time he fights at Loghain´s side.

The bolded part made me cringe. Perhaps that's how Alistair views the Grey Wardens - like chivalrous knights -- but the Grey Wardens really are more of a "stop Blights by any and all means necessary" group... which is not necessarily glorious at all. Riordan flat-out says they have among their ranks: blood mages, carta thugs, traitors, bandits, kinslayers, etc.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
Maybe because 5 minutes ago he ordered his guards to execute you, Alistair, and Eamon?

Let me ask you this: Would YOU - not a badass warden who can´t loose due to reload but YOU - really trust a guy who is trying to get you killed since months and called for your execution shortly ago?

At this point in the game, when he's acknowledged that he's wrong, what does he have to gain by killing you, and how would he even do it? He'll be traveling with you and your companions. This isn't Zevran. This is a warrior in clunky armor. People can hear him. He knows how to be quiet, but he also has nothing to gain by your death. I know enough about Loghain to know that he's pragmatic. He knows you're right and he knows you spared him, for at least a little while longer. Even on my first playthrough I didn't want to kill him, so yeah, I'd trust him.

But the truth of the matter is that I shouldn't be looking at it as what I, the player, would do. If I'm roleplaying as I should I need to look at it as my character does. Sometimes one character has different motivations than other characters.

Modifié par Monica21, 17 août 2010 - 07:08 .

[DragonRacer13]

Elhanan wrote...

@ DragonRacer13 - Loved that film. But you have to prove to me that the many were saved. I postulate that only Loghain's own troops and that of his underlings were evacuated; not the majority of the army gathered. I am not tactician, but am guessing that it took more of the troops to draw the Darkspawn into a charge; not the few. And it would seem to be more difficult to withdraw the majority of an army, but not the few.

Yeah, I got nothing to back that up. Just my impression is that Loghain was more concerned about Ferelden as a whole. Cailan wanted Ferelden and Orlais to get in bed together, and he -- considering his incredibly bad past experiences with Orlesians -- was moving to make sure that didn't happen and cause the potential for re-occupation. Granted, I'm not saying what he did was right... just that I can understand where he was coming from perspective-wise. He ends up making some incredibly poor decisions that almost doom the very country he's trying to save and save again. My mindset by Landsmeet time is to basically slap some sense into him (figuratively and literally) and go, "Dude, you've screwed up big time. But you're getting one last chance to make things right." *shrugs*

Then again, I generally spare most folks that either a) surrender or seem to want to atone for past transgressions. I tend to let Jowan out every time and let him go into the Fade to save Connor. Let him atone before the Circle either executes him or Tranquils him. Probably stems from my attitude -- as a person -- to always see some type of good in people and to generally believe them when they've hit rock bottom and want to try and make things right. Has that bitten me in the butt in the past? You better believe it. But I'm a happier person, in my opinion, for not thinking the worst of everyone and everything. Even if they've given me every reason to. Makes it that much sweeter if they DO go on to make amends/do great things/be a better person.

My two cents. No more or less valid than anyone else's.

Modifié par DragonRacer13, 17 août 2010 - 07:23 .

[DragonRacer13]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Secondly, The Wardens are supposed to be glorious and heroic. They can´t fulfill this duty if they have a traitor as one of them.

Glorious and heroic? These are the same Wardens who have made deals with darkspawn, attempted a coup, mess around in politics habitually, and burned down an entire town in order to prevent possible darkspawn corruption from spreading?

Yeah, we're not exactly knights in shining armor. Maybe some are, but my general impression is that we're more like The Dirty Dozen.

[Tirigon]

@ Sarah nd DragonRacer:



Sure, there are many bastard wardens who do horrible things, but honestly: Whenever I hear stuff like they destroyed an entire village I shortly agree with Loghain´s plan to wipe them out. There is no need to stop the Blight if it´s done by scum. Heroes must be heroic.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

@ Sarah nd DragonRacer:

Sure, there are many bastard wardens who do horrible things, but honestly: Whenever I hear stuff like they destroyed an entire village I shortly agree with Loghain´s plan to wipe them out. There is no need to stop the Blight if it´s done by scum. Heroes must be heroic.

They didn't do it to be 'scum', they did it because they wanted to prevent the spread of darkspawn corruption. It was a necessary evil. THAT is what Grey Wardens are, not whatever idealized version Wynne spews.

And are you really saying that you would rather the Blight rage on unopposed and kill everything rather than have the 'wrong' people stop it? Honestly, if Howe and Vaughan (widely considered the two biggest monsters in the game) were suddenly the only two people who could stop the Blight before it completely destroyed Ferelden I would be rooting for them to save everyone, not rejecting them for not being heroic enough and cheering for the darkspawn.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@ Sarah nd DragonRacer:

Sure, there are many bastard wardens who do horrible things, but honestly: Whenever I hear stuff like they destroyed an entire village I shortly agree with Loghain´s plan to wipe them out. There is no need to stop the Blight if it´s done by scum. Heroes must be heroic.

They didn't do it to be 'scum', they did it because they wanted to prevent the spread of darkspawn corruption. It was a necessary evil. THAT is what Grey Wardens are, not whatever idealized version Wynne spews.

And are you really saying that you would rather the Blight rage on unopposed and kill everything rather than have the 'wrong' people stop it? Honestly, if Howe and Vaughan (widely considered the two biggest monsters in the game) were suddenly the only two people who could stop the Blight before it completely destroyed Ferelden I would be rooting for them to save everyone, not rejecting them for not being heroic enough and cheering for the darkspawn.

Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.


And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

They didn't do it to be 'scum', they did it because they wanted to prevent the spread of darkspawn corruption. It was a necessary evil. THAT is what Grey Wardens are, not whatever idealized version Wynne spews.

Funny that, as I prefer her version; has griffins in it....

And are you really saying that you would rather the Blight rage on unopposed and kill everything rather than have the 'wrong' people stop it? Honestly, if Howe and Vaughan (widely considered the two biggest monsters in the game) were suddenly the only two people who could stop the Blight before it completely destroyed Ferelden I would be rooting for them to save everyone, not rejecting them for not being heroic enough and cheering for the darkspawn.

If the cure is as bad as the disease, Yep!

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@ Sarah nd DragonRacer:

Sure, there are many bastard wardens who do horrible things, but honestly: Whenever I hear stuff like they destroyed an entire village I shortly agree with Loghain´s plan to wipe them out. There is no need to stop the Blight if it´s done by scum. Heroes must be heroic.

They didn't do it to be 'scum', they did it because they wanted to prevent the spread of darkspawn corruption. It was a necessary evil. THAT is what Grey Wardens are, not whatever idealized version Wynne spews.

And are you really saying that you would rather the Blight rage on unopposed and kill everything rather than have the 'wrong' people stop it? Honestly, if Howe and Vaughan (widely considered the two biggest monsters in the game) were suddenly the only two people who could stop the Blight before it completely destroyed Ferelden I would be rooting for them to save everyone, not rejecting them for not being heroic enough and cheering for the darkspawn.

Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.


And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

In this scenario, Vaughan and Howe would be in your and Alistair's position. Either they end the Blight or you all die. Isn't presuming to decide to sacrifice all of Ferelden to the darkspawn because it seemed merely unlikely that the Blight could be stopped without Orlais something you guys blame Loghain for? And Howe and Vaughan, even if they've never done anything but torture and kill, could never ever in any way EVER be worse than the entire darkspawn horde destroying everything. They could be more malicious, certainly, but they lack the Blight's destructive abilities.

And you think that 'fighting for what's right' involves letting the infected villagers spread their corruption all across Ferelden and infect and kill the rest of the nation? Not to mention that illnesses and the taint doesn't stop at a country border. They did what they had to do to prevent it from becoming an epidemic.

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.


And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

How do you manage to have this POV and then praise the awesome might of bloodmages?

[nos_astra]

Sarah1281 wrote...
And you think that 'fighting for what's right' involves letting the infected villagers spread their corruption all across Ferelden and infect and kill the rest of the nation?

Fighting for what is right could mean to grant the people who are infected a quick and clean death rather than burning down a village full of people (probably including the uninfected). To bother and check who is actually infected and who is not, even if it takes time or is a risky choice because someone could escape.

It's actually a very nice idea. I might have a use for this kind of decision.

[Giggles_Manically]

To quote David Eddings about this whole Wardens being heroic and not needing bastards:



Oh yes wont that be nice, you can wade hip deep in blood, all the while admiring your nice clean soul!



Duncan and Riordian both tell you that wardens recruit anyone who can fight darkspawn.

While some may be like Jory a normal person who is willing to fight, others will be Daveths or Anders who are criminals and outlaws.



Nothing is comparable to letting the darkspawn win, NOTHING.

Wardens do whatever it takes to win, even if it means taking Loghain, a Howe or a Vaughan to win.



What is worse sparing a person like Vaughan or watch as an entire nation is consumed to the last man, woman, and child?

[CalJones]

@ klarabella - well such a decision exists within Awakening, so...

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.

And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

That's completely irrational. You can fight the Darkspawn on your own but only until you die. If you're not a Warden you can't defeat the blight. If Howe was the last Warden in Ferelden I'd be doing everything I could to get him to the Archdemon so he could kill it.

It's not just smooth, funny criminals like Daveth who are Wardens, it's all the other kinds of criminals too.

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

They didn't do it to be 'scum', they did it because they wanted to prevent the spread of darkspawn corruption. It was a necessary evil. THAT is what Grey Wardens are, not whatever idealized version Wynne spews.

Funny that, as I prefer her version; has griffins in it....

And are you really saying that you would rather the Blight rage on unopposed and kill everything rather than have the 'wrong' people stop it? Honestly, if Howe and Vaughan (widely considered the two biggest monsters in the game) were suddenly the only two people who could stop the Blight before it completely destroyed Ferelden I would be rooting for them to save everyone, not rejecting them for not being heroic enough and cheering for the darkspawn.

If the cure is as bad as the disease, Yep!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how could the cure be considered as bad as the disease? If Howe and Vaughan are the only two people left who can stop the blight, you must understand that they're still people and not darkspawn, right? If no one stops the blight then there are simply no people left. Everyone dies. How is that better?

[nos_astra]

CalJones wrote...
@ klarabella - well such a decision exists within Awakening, so...

Never played Awakening, so ... what are you talking about?

[Sarah1281]

klarabella wrote...

CalJones wrote...
@ klarabella - well such a decision exists within Awakening, so...

Never played Awakening, so ... what are you talking about?

During Awakening, you're called away from the base of Vigil's Keep to the city of Amaranthine that is under attack by darkspawn. By the time you get there the situation looks grim and your military commander tells you that it's unlikely that there are survivors and that now the Keep is under attack as well. You have to choose to stay and try and save Amaranthine and leave the Keep to its own devices (which results in the situation not being as bad as initially feared and the casaulties being minimal but much death at the Keep and, if you haven't upgraded properly/leave the wrong companions behind then the Keep falls and/or you lose party members) or burn the city to the ground and go back to save the Keep.

You really have no idea that the situation isn't as bad as initially feared until after the attack is over so it's really the same kind of situation as referenced earlier by Ser Gilmore.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.


And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

How do you manage to have this POV and then praise the awesome might of bloodmages?

Because bloodmagic doesn´t need to sacrifice innocents. You can use your own blood at first, and after you have used your power to capture a few enemies you can use their blood.

To be honest, I find it incredibly stupid if a bloodmages uses his ally´s lifeforce while there is plenty of enemy life around. I mean, these enemies´ life needs to be removed anyways, so why not use it first?

[Tirigon]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

While some may be like Jory a normal person who is willing to fight, others will be Daveths or Anders who are criminals and outlaws.

Funny you mention them. A pickpocket (Daveth) and a person whose only crime is not to follow a law that is just as cruel as the fascist´s anti-jewish laws in real life and a crime in itself (Anders), that is rather a freedom-fighter than a criminal.

I don´t know about your morality but I wouldn´t compare their "crimes" with the mass torture and murder, rape, treason etc... which are Howe´s and Vaughan´s crimes.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how could the cure be considered as bad as the disease? If Howe and Vaughan are the only two people left who can stop the blight, you must understand that they're still people and not darkspawn, right? If no one stops the blight then there are simply no people left. Everyone dies. How is that better?

They´re monsters worse than the Darkspawn. "Man´s hearts hold shadows darker than any tainted creature". Probably the wisest sentence a video game character has ever said.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but how could the cure be considered as bad as the disease? If Howe and Vaughan are the only two people left who can stop the blight, you must understand that they're still people and not darkspawn, right? If no one stops the blight then there are simply no people left. Everyone dies. How is that better?

They´re monsters worse than the Darkspawn. "Man´s hearts hold shadows darker than any tainted creature". Probably the wisest sentence a video game character has ever said.

Please explain to me how Vaughan and Howe's crimes are worse than the darkspawn ravaging the land, tainting everything, killing indiscriminately, capturing men to be eaten, and capturing women to be raped and forcefed tainted flesh to become broodmothers.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Please explain to me how Vaughan and Howe's crimes are worse than the darkspawn ravaging the land, tainting everything, killing indiscriminately, capturing men to be eaten, and capturing women to be raped and forcefed tainted flesh to become broodmothers.

Because Darkspawn are poor, enslaved creatures forced to commit all these atrocities against their own will - the Architect and his awakened Darkspawn have shown that much - while Vaughan and Howe were born as free humans (and humans in a very good position, what with being noble and all) and decided to become monsters just for the sake of their own joy and power.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Please explain to me how Vaughan and Howe's crimes are worse than the darkspawn ravaging the land, tainting everything, killing indiscriminately, capturing men to be eaten, and capturing women to be raped and forcefed tainted flesh to become broodmothers.

Because Darkspawn are poor, enslaved creatures forced to commit all these atrocities against their own will - the Architect and his awakened Darkspawn have shown that much - while Vaughan and Howe were born as free humans (and humans in a very good position, what with being noble and all) and decided to become monsters just for the sake of their own joy and power.

I'm not talking about who is more evil here. The part I'm having a hard time grasping is why it would be preferable to let the poor enslaved darkpsawn rape or kill everyone in Ferelden and ruin the land if your only other option was Vaughan and Howe saving the day. Just because the darkspawn aren't necessarily malicious doesn't mean that what they do is any less horrible or real.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Well I wouldn´t. Personally I would rather fight the Darkspawn on my own than to rely on criminal monsters like Vaughan as saviours.


And there is no "necessary evil". There is only the decision between fighting for what is right and taking the easy way out while sacrificing innocents.

How do you manage to have this POV and then praise the awesome might of bloodmages?

Because bloodmagic doesn´t need to sacrifice innocents. You can use your own blood at first, and after you have used your power to capture a few enemies you can use their blood.

To be honest, I find it incredibly stupid if a bloodmages uses his ally´s lifeforce while there is plenty of enemy life around. I mean, these enemies´ life needs to be removed anyways, so why not use it first?

Okay, based on the bolded sentence, what you're essentially suggesting, by denying someone like Howe or Vaughan the opportunity to save everyone from darkspawn, is willfully choosing to sacrifice innocents. Everything is dying around you and your first concern is who's "good enough" to save you? Even more irrational.