Sarah1281 wrote...
However, the Warden's decision at this point is pretty clear to me, no matter how you plan to play the game. Mages are very powerful and are clearly capable in most instances of living demon-free lives. So unless you plan on playing your character as a religious zealot, sparing the circle is both the smart and the right decision.
Not true. You can also play your character as someone who realizes that some of the 'survivors' may be blood mages and don't want to risk it so the Templars try and screen them all.
Zjarcal wrote...
Uhhh, no.
I sided with the Templars on this playthrough with a Dalish character who couldn't give a toss about the Chantry, but who wasn't about to trust any potential abomination after the Connor debacle in Redcliffe.
Kill em all, she said!
Fair enough.
Sarah1281 wrote...
Easily. The only way the DR could be considered evil is if the child grows up to cause evil on a massive scale. If that doesn't happen and they're just a typical-if-powerful mage or even benevolent then at best you just did a pointless sacrifice and at worst you robbed the world of a powerful protector. Until we have confirmation that the child grows up to be evil or that Flemeth/Morrigan uses it for great evil then you can't just go around claiming that it's an evil act. All you do is create a child and what giving it the soul of an OG does has yet to be revealed. Maybe we'll find out next week.
Also, while it has been confirmed that a GW still needs to kill the Archdemon as the OG soul goes into you and then is pulled out and into the baby (weird), there is no indicaiton of that anywhere in game so if you're talking about maximizing success, the belief that should you, Riordan, and Alistair/Loghain fall that doing the DR would be enough to give Ferelden a chance to end the Blight without you is a very non-evil reason to do it.
Zjarcal wrote...
Evil playthrough... because the outcome of the DR is necessarily evil?
We don't know what are the implications of the DR, that's true (we'll find out next tuesday), but to call it flat out evil is just plain wrong. For all you know, the OGB will be nothing but a powerful mage. Plenty of those running around in Thedas already.
You may also believe that the OGB can be a benevolent force. Not that it has to be true (who knows), but your character may believe so. If they believe it, how can their actions be described as evil?
I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm arguing. I am not saying that the dark ritual in and of itself is evil. What I'm saying is that if you have played through the game with the mindset that no sacrifice is too great in order to stop the blight; you are willing to live with the cost of golem technology, an eternal werewolf curse, the death of a child or his mother, Bhelen's murders and the release of potentially dangerous mages, but when faced with your own mortality you fold, that is an evil playthrough to me. You have signaled that you are willing to sacrifice anyone but yourself for the greater good. Given the reasoning displayed above, the fact that the baby has the
potential for evil is enough to eliminate it as a possible choice. I reiterate, I do not think that the dark ritual is an inherently evil act, there are potentially noble reasons to go through with it. But if you look at it in the context of all of your other decisions it certainly looks selfish at the very least.
Sarah1281 wrote...
Do you at least accept the fact that plenty of people in-game comment on how anti-tradition Bhelen is and how traditional Harrowmont is points to Harrowmont respecting dwarven traditions? He does talk about respecting them, in fact. If you go to the Shaperate, you can ask about dwarven traditions. They aren't very pleasant where the casteless are concerned. The fact that Bhelen has had a child with a casteless woman (you don't find that out as a non-DC until you put Bhelen on the throne but you at least hear he's involved with her from both criers) points to him not looking down on them quite as much as tradition requires. Who cares if he doesn't particularly respect them? The fact that he's their only hope and there are a LOT of them means that he's not really going to ever decide that they're a burden, particularly as all his other reforms are pissing off the King's traditional noble and warrior allies. He can't afford to do that if he doesn't have the casteless. Sure, if he had to then he'd cut them loose but he WON'T.
I accept that the propaganda spewing town criers comment on how anti-tradition Bhelen is. There is likely some truth to what they say but I would hardly consider them reliable sources of information. Lord Helmi seems to recognize the inherent flaws of the dwarven system and yet he still manages to support Harrowmont. To assume that the shaperate represents every thought and intention Harrowmont has with the casteless is a precarious position. Harrowmont himself never made a position clear. You can infer that this is the case, if it makes you feel better about siding with a power hungry despot, but it doesn't make it any more definitive.
I care if Bhelen doesn't actually respect the casteless. The intentions of his actions matter. As I said before, intentions predict future behavior. If Bhelen found a better alternative to achieve his goals the casteless would be quickly abandoned. How can I be expected to support, and thus take responsibility for, someone I know has no qualms with using any means necessary to achieve his goals? I maintain that Harrowmont's failure is due to his unwillingness to use a firm hand and Bhelen's virtue is his strength. Harrowmont can be trusted to accomplish nothing, which is less risky than Bhelen's potential to ruin everything for personal gain.
Sarah1281 wrote...
I don't actually see how it's possible for the lives of the casteless to get any worse (unless you count the Harrowmont anvil ending where golems enforce the caste system more strictly). And it's not an 'unintended consequence' either. If Bhelen plans on dissolving the Assembly, which we know he asked about prior to his father dying even, then he knows he's going to be pissing off the nobles. The nobles and warriors don't get that pissed at him until he starts giving casteless rights. He does this because he wants them to fight in the Deep Roads and push back the darkspawn so he doesn't have to worry about them destroying Orzammar and so he can reclaim land and power. That sounds very deliberate and not at all unintended.
Their lives could be worse by virtue of them not living at all? =P My point is, if Bhelen was confronted with a situation that meant sacrificing the casteless to save himself he would do it in a heartbeat. I called castless rights an 'unintended consequence' because I believe that if Bhelen could achieve his goals without providing those rights he would definitely do that. Many of the arguments thus far have portrayed Bhelen's revolution as a noble pursuit that creates equality for all when in reality that is completely incidental. Bhelen's only goal was to remove everyone who stood in his way in order to cement his rule. He's hardly the kindly humanitarian motivated by his desire for equality for all dwarves.
Sarah1281 wrote...
I do hope, then, that you hold yourself equally responsible for the countless deaths the rebellion that springs up the minute Harrowmont is declared the winner causes because you're just as if not MORE responsible for those.
I do feel responsible for those, but they were hardly defenseless and were, in fact, the aggressors. They refused to acknowledge their crowned king to their own detriment. I recognize that their rebellion is likely a consequence of Harrowmont's overt weakness, but even compassion comes with a price.
Retour en haut
