79 réponses à ce sujet

[Reiella]

Mummolus wrote...

I think one thing people have broadly missed is that they're called the "Grey Wardens". Not the "White Wardens", not the "Light Wardens", but the "Grey Wardens". Grey, as in the color that comes between black and white. In most ways the Wardens stand between the darkness (darkspawn) and the light (civilization), using elements of both to keep things from going to hell.

They're an organization performing an essential service the only way they can, and to continue performing this service they are required to shed the trappings of normal civilization. They're not a morally good or evil group, but an ambiguous "the ends justify the means" type of organization. Their actions have to be considered in this light, and any judgement based on results, not methods. The Wardens stop the Blights, therefore the Wardens are justified.

No, you do not have to judge a person's actions by their own moral code.  Social relativism is a dangerous path to tred .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Dragon Age is not the game in which to be worrying about righteousness or fairness either. The slavery and mistreatment of the elves? Not fair. The well-nigh imprisonment of the mages? Not fair. The crapshoot that is the dwarven commoner's life? Really not freaking fair. If you and your PC spend all your time fretting about fair, your head would explode. There's no way for one person to fix everything that's wrong in Thedas, including the problems with the Grey Wardens--you just have to deal with it.



Then again, that may be because I played the mage origin story. Tossing a kid to the wolves with no armor or weapons and asking her to resist a pride demon? REALLY NOT FAIR. But things like this happen in DA.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Grey Wardens are badass. When Duncan killed the knight, I was in a bit of a shock, but felt right at home. The Grey Wardens are Specter like from MAss Effect. Whatever it takes to get the job done. That's how I like it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Reiella wrote...
No, you do not have to judge a person's actions by their own moral code.  Social relativism is a dangerous path to tred .

Moral absolutism is potentially even worse, as all classical liberal philosophers stress on.

[Hizuka]

Reiella wrote...

Mummolus wrote...

I think one thing people have broadly missed is that they're called the "Grey Wardens". Not the "White Wardens", not the "Light Wardens", but the "Grey Wardens". Grey, as in the color that comes between black and white. In most ways the Wardens stand between the darkness (darkspawn) and the light (civilization), using elements of both to keep things from going to hell.

They're an organization performing an essential service the only way they can, and to continue performing this service they are required to shed the trappings of normal civilization. They're not a morally good or evil group, but an ambiguous "the ends justify the means" type of organization. Their actions have to be considered in this light, and any judgement based on results, not methods. The Wardens stop the Blights, therefore the Wardens are justified.

No, you do not have to judge a person's actions by their own moral code.  Social relativism is a dangerous path to tred .

No more so that moral absolutism.  The idea that one's one beliefs are the only right ones has been behind such wonderful ideas as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. 

[Theist]

I believe he was justified in killing Jory. If I remember correctly, didn't he draw his sword first?



Duncan was acting under the fact you are conscripted into the service of the Wardens(if I remember hearing/reading correctly). It is not actually voluntary. It is a service that you are drafted into. The knight was acting against his duty to the Grey Wardens.



I believe it was justifiable to kill him.



What I think is a bigger issue, why did he feel the need to attempt and recruit such a person? Duncan should have foreseen him acting like this, despite his presumed fighting prowess.

[Flamin Jesus]

Reiella wrote...

Flamin Jesus wrote...
Not to mention that the entire noble caste of Orzammar does their darndest to make sure the poor stay poor, with the express intent of guaranteeing the Legion doesn't run out of new recruits (As evidenced by a number of documents which can be found there), and if you play through the entire questline of A Paragon of her Kind (Especially with Shale) you'll also see what happens if the army doesn't get enough volunteers.
So really, keeping a secret to ensure that the Wardens get recruits who at least know that joining the Wardens will eventually lead to their death, or telling everyone and ensuring that come the next blight, thousands of soldiers will be put through a forced mass-joining to have cannon-fodder against the arch-demon, it's the lesser of two evils.
Duncans actions were entirely justified, killing someone to ensure the survival of the order that sacrifices their lives so that no one else has to (Which, by the way, is indeed a widely known fact, even though the mortality rate of the joining and some other details are unknown to the general public) may not be strictly necessary (After all, he *might* have kept the secret, even though I doubt it), but the risk is too great.

Erm, I think your example of the golems works against you.  The nature of golems was a secret.  It is not at all dissimilar to the Right of Conscription.

It really wasn't, at least to the Warrior Caste and the king of Orzammar who provided volunteers and "volunteers" respectively. The specifics of how to create golems were even passed down to the Paragon's apprentices (Who turned him into a golem), and they obviously survived/made it back to Orzammar and managed to rediscover how to create control rods (Which he mentions himself if you have Shale with you), there is also a document in the abandoned Ortan Thaig that describes the process of creating golems in some detail. The only thing truly secret about the entire deal was how the Anvil of the Void was created in the first place. The knowledge of what was needed to create golems was obviously lost to the general public at some point, but originally at least the ruling class was completely aware of what was going on and actively supported it. So while they may not have advertised the golems as stoney dwarf-cookies, that one fact about golem creation was widely known among everyone who provided the "resources", or at least the connection between "dwarf goes in, golem comes out" should have raised a few eyebrows.

Modifié par Flamin Jesus, 12 novembre 2009 - 02:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ok, the fact that the game is spawning exquisite philosophical debate is the testemony of how brilliant it is!



Oh and high 5 Hizuka!

[elikal71]

Taleroth wrote...

I planned for my original playthrough to be an avenging hero who seeks to put down anyone who abuses or murders others for petty or selfish reasons. I could describe him as The Punisher meets Admiral Adama ("It's not enough to survive, one must be worth of survival.")  When Duncan killed that knight, I wanted to see Duncan dead for it.

Yes, I felt much the same. Duncan was quite clever coercing people to be tools for his crusade. Maybe being a Pagan in RL I fail to see this very Christian connection of devils and dragons of evil that apparently seems to justify everything. *shrug*

[Boeresmurf]

ser jory was a sissy he deserved to die, i see it as my first lesson in :

how fight without hesitation and how to handle a sword



explained and practiced by duncan himself

[Randir Nuithannen]

I found that knight to be a coward. I preferred Daven.

Modifié par Randir Nuithannen, 12 novembre 2009 - 06:48 .

[Boeresmurf]

yeah daveth was cool .. really crap he died

[_____o_O___]

They are conscripted into military service. Penalty of not accepting is death. Grey Wardens can demand any person they want to serve by law. Of course creating enemies is not smart so I imagine it is not standard practice amongst the elites of society. What is the penalty for desertion? What was Jory doing? Exactly.

[Reiella]

Hizuka wrote...

Reiella wrote...

No, you do not have to judge a person's actions by their own moral code.  Social relativism is a dangerous path to tred .

No more so that moral absolutism.  The idea that one's one beliefs are the only right ones has been behind such wonderful ideas as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. 

Social relativism is a form fo moral absolutism that lies to itself.  Consider just the case you examine, you are condemning another system of beliefs because it doesn't match a specific criteria.  Oddly enough, it's also the only criteria that keeps social relativism from degenerating into anarchy.

Although the Crusades were more so about wagging the dog and diverting popular attention away from the rather grotesque failings of domestic policy at the time, only justified through a holy campaign.

tl;dr : Moral Absolutism creates a situation, while social relativism permits it.

[Hizuka]

Reiella wrote...

Hizuka wrote...

Reiella wrote...

No, you do not have to judge a person's actions by their own moral code.  Social relativism is a dangerous path to tred .

No more so that moral absolutism.  The idea that one's one beliefs are the only right ones has been behind such wonderful ideas as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. 

Social relativism is a form fo moral absolutism that lies to itself.  Consider just the case you examine, you are condemning another system of beliefs because it doesn't match a specific criteria.  Oddly enough, it's also the only criteria that keeps social relativism from degenerating into anarchy.

Although the Crusades were more so about wagging the dog and diverting popular attention away from the rather grotesque failings of domestic policy at the time, only justified through a holy campaign.

tl;dr : Moral Absolutism creates a situation, while social relativism permits it.

Wow, you have quite the career in politics ahead of you.  Calling relativism the same as absolutism is very, very simlar to

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You feel the correct path is to force your beliefs upon others whereas I do not.  I would not be arrogant enough to assume I know The Correct Way In All Things.

[Reiella]

Hizuka wrote...

Wow, you have quite the career in politics ahead of you.  Calling relativism the same as absolutism is very, very simlar to

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You feel the correct path is to force your beliefs upon others whereas I do not.  I would not be arrogant enough to assume I know The Correct Way In All Things.

No you do not, nor do I, nor does anyone else.  This means other views, even my own, can be wrong.  I see a point of internal conflict with your initial example condemning the actions of another entity.

[Hizuka]

Or to translate what you're saying into regular English, I disagree with you, therefore you are morally bound to try to prove me wrong.



There is no internal conflict in saying that no one has the right to force their beliefs on others. The tragedy in THAT has been shown repeatedly through human history, and it is unfortunate that you feel differently.



Enough, though, there's little point in talking to fanatics. You go your way feeling your way is right and must be applied to all others, I'll go my way thinking that's unforgivably arrogant and dangerous.

[Reiella]

Hizuka wrote...

Or to translate what you're saying into regular English, I disagree with you, therefore you are morally bound to try to prove me wrong.

There is no internal conflict in saying that no one has the right to force their beliefs on others. The tragedy in THAT has been shown repeatedly through human history, and it is unfortunate that you feel differently.

Enough, though, there's little point in talking to fanatics. You go your way feeling your way is right and must be applied to all others, I'll go my way thinking that's unforgivably arrogant and dangerous.

You have defined a point where it is no longer acceptable to tolerate other beliefs.  Presumably, that being when they no longer tolerate other beliefs.  That is an absolute moral condition.  Not sure how more blatant stated it can be.  Your last sentence all but says the same.

[nub5]

Good or Bad, Right or Wrong. I enjoyed Jory's death very much as it proved to me that DA is the gritty fantasy setting.

[Notthisguyagain]

It was surprising. My jaw dropped. But again, I mean Daveth had died in the attempt, and Jory was a bit squeamish from the start, Duncan's real fault was conscripting such a pansy.



You feel for him, yeah, but if he goes home, the odds are pretty high that his story cripples the Grey Wardens and he and his beautiful wife are killed by darkspawn.



The big picture goal of the Grey Wardens is to constantly battle the blight. Ever vigilant. It seems there are no other orders/organizations out there holding this task, which is an important one, and a terrible one. Immediately after I saw Jory killed, I felt the seriousness of the task at hand. It was pretty heavy. (and I kinda think that was the point, no?)



You, and your character, don't have to like it. How your character, and you, feel about this action don't have as large an impact on the world as the action itself. And from what I can guess, this wasn't the first time Duncan had to do that.

[Notthisguyagain]

To further expand: Sure, murder is evil.



So, the question you have to ask is: What does the life of one man weigh against the lives of all men?



In the moment, it is an awful act of unspeakable evil (Betrayal?), But along the arc of possibilities presented, if this man's death helps save even two people, it is a net gain for humanity (or for Ferelden... i guess, don't want to be racist.) Let's say, he can go home, but darkspawn will kill his pregnant wife if he goes home, and he will be able to help push back the darkspawn if he mans up and drinks.



It was not Jory's death, but Daveth's that could have made me cry. (They will miss that guy back in Glencracken) Jory's death was surprising and it touched me somewhere but even as my character went to step forward there was no remorse or distrust, but a promise my character had made to his dying father.

[RazorrX]

Maria Caliban wrote...

RazorrX wrote...

It is not blood magic, it is a sudden, massive exposure to the taint. (Per The Calling)

Done through blood magic.

It is not blood magic.  It is chemistry.

There is blood involved, yes, but not like you would use in blood magic.  There are no spells, etc.  You are not trying to use lifeforce (Blood Magic) for power.  You are using the 'taint' that is in the blood.  Totally different.  The 'other' things mixed with it are to accelerate the contamination (The archdemons blood, Lirium,etc).  

The idea is that EVERYONE who is infected by darkspawn die.  If you go above the kings tent in Ostigar they are having that discussion over the body of a Darkspawn.  The blood is poison, if it gets in a wound, etc. you die.  They get the 'taint' and die. 

The Grey Wardens learned (somehow) that *if* you exposed someone on a MASSIVE level all at once - not all die.  And the ones who live are resistant to the taint from then on.  They also end up sensing the darkspawn, etc.  but ALL of that is because of the 'Taint' that is slowly trying to turn them into darkspawn.  Thus the calling after about 30 years, that is when the taint is starting to win and they are starting to convert over.

Blood magic is about using the life force in the blood to feed magic.  There is a difference.  Ritual is using the Taint in the blood to infect the host on a massive level.  Think of the taint as a germ or virus.  The archdemons blood has Massive amounts of it, Lirium is used to accelerate its growth, etc.  Then you infect someone with it.  The body fights the virus and either builds antibodies/immunity or dies.

[Mutant Dwarf]

It's 'magic' in that it's supernatural. It deals with blood, because you're drinking blood. It may not be blood magic, but it is magic that deals with blood. A lot of people will equate 'magic that deals with blood' with 'blood magic'.

[Reiella]

RazorrX wrote...

The idea is that EVERYONE who is infected by darkspawn die.  If you go above the kings tent in Ostigar they are having that discussion over the body of a Darkspawn.  The blood is poison, if it gets in a wound, etc. you die.  They get the 'taint' and die. 

Just to be contrary, how long do you think the [non-human noble] wardog has?