90 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Mad Cat]

Hi all,

I'm on my first playthrough of DAO and I'm doing the Arl of Redcliffe as my very first quest out of Lothering.  I get to the part where I have to decide what happens to Connor.  Thankfully, since I let Jowan go, he shows up and offers to perform the blood ritual, so I have three choices:
a) kill the kid
sacrifice the mother to perform the ritual and defeat the demon
c) drop everything to do the Broken Circle quest and get the Circle's help

I ended up choosing ( since it seemed to be the lesser of all the evils.  Obviously (a) is bad and I figured that © would cause the village below to be destroyed by the undead hordes that keep coming every night.

But looking it up on the wiki, it appears that if I leave everyone at Redcliffe as is and do the Broken Circle quest (which, BTW, I have no idea what happens, so please, no spoilers) to get the Circle's help, I can resolve the entire situation with everyone alive.

Um, WTF?  Why?  The village was nearly overrun with undead just prior to me entering the castle.  The undead that is, I might add, being called up by the demon in Connor.  How exactly is leaving Redcliffe to fend for themselves for several days, if not weeks, while I do the Broken Circle quest not have any negative consequences?

[TheBlackBaron]

No doubt to appease people that would complain about there not being a way to resolve it that is 100% good, 100% bloodless, and carries no consequences.



I myself tend to ignore that it even exists.

[ejoslin]

I ignore it exists as well. You have a demon who can mind control, obviously (look what it was doing to Bann Teagan), even if it's not raising undead armies. It's a 2 day trip there, which means at bare minimum you will be gone four days. PLUS, if you haven't been to the tower yet, you probably have heard the rumors that it's overrun with demons, and if you have been there, you know the chaos it's in. I just cannot justify leaving for that long when there is something that evil there.



That's aside from the law of the land says abominations must die. Though normally I choose to sacrifice Isolde.

[RavenousBear]

When I chose to go to the Circle on my first playthrough, I expected that something bad would happen.  I could not trust Jowan whatsover with his blood ritual since he helped caused the chaos at Redcliffe and could be lying for all I knew at the time. I also refused to kill Connor for a situation he was taken advantaged of by the demon. Then I come back to find Redcliffe in the same state as it was when I left it.

In my opinion, I do not like any of the options for this quest. Each one has their flaws and risks. It is one of the reasons why I dislike the Redcliffe questline the most in this game.

[Elhanan]

Never had this problem as I have always done the Circle before heading to Redcliffe. I am guessing this is one of the factors as to why this path is recommended.

Still, I would have sacrificed Isolde given the same parameters, even knowing that most men generally prefer saving their spouses in such emergencies. Her stubborn pride and arrogance are at least a couple of reasons for this mess in the first place.

[Reika]

Elhanan wrote...

Never had this problem as I have always done the Circle before heading to Redcliffe. I am guessing this is one of the factors as to why this path is recommended.
Still, I would have sacrificed Isolde given the same parameters, even knowing that most men generally prefer saving their spouses in such emergencies. Her stubborn pride and arrogance are at least a couple of reasons for this mess in the first place.

I usually hit the circle first in my playthroughs to get a healer, it just seems to break character to give Morrigan healing abilities and poultices can only do so much. So it doesn't break immersion for me to race to the Tower and back.

But I am tempted to kill Isolde at some point to see what happens.

[Sarah1281]

Um, WTF? Why? The village was nearly overrun with undead just prior to me entering the castle. The undead that is, I might add, being called up by the demon in Connor. How exactly is leaving Redcliffe to fend for themselves for several days, if not weeks, while I do the Broken Circle quest not have any negative consequences?

The way I see possessions like those, it's not exactly one completely dominating the other, it's a merge of both traits with the demonic side admittedly having a stronger hold. Possessed Uldred was still talking about Uldred's goal to free mages and make them more powerful and possessed Connor still listens to his mother and refers to his family as their titles. Real Connor was probably frightened by the violence and then I see the demon as just sulking by Eamon's room for two days because the Warden isn't being very much fun and he's not allowed into Eamon's room.

Still, I would have sacrificed Isolde given the same parameters, even knowing that most men generally prefer saving their spouses in such emergencies. Her stubborn pride and arrogance are at least a couple of reasons for this mess in the first place.

They do? That's horrible.

[tool_bot]

I've been thinking about it and you're character can convince themselves the threat is over for now, at least. By this point you've cleared the castle of possessed bodies and have slain an entire village worth during the battle the night before. The bodies you destroyed were then burned to prevent any further possible possession by spirits. You can reason that their can't be all that many bodies left to possess (you can, doesn't mean you should. just that you can)



You've also seen the abomination flee when it could have joined in the attack against you. Whatever its intentions it doesn't seem to want to fight (choosing instead to send other beasts against you rather then do so itself)



Then there's when you've done the quest and random encounter's you've had. If you've done the Broken Circle quest and encountered those 3 mages battling darkspawn, you know the circle is already on their way to Redcliffe.



Anyway just my two bits.

[Zjarcal]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Still, I would have sacrificed Isolde given the same parameters, even knowing that most men generally prefer saving their spouses in such emergencies. Her stubborn pride and arrogance are at least a couple of reasons for this mess in the first place.

They do? That's horrible.

That's a rather subjective thing if you ask me. When confronted with a decision like that, neither choice should be categorized as horrible. Most people would do whatever it took to save both but if at some point they were forced to choose, whatever their decision was I think it's unfair to call it "horrible".

But I fear getting further into this topic could lead to a very nasty discussion so I'll just drop it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Oh don't get me started on how much I abhor that choice. So in my mind, it does not exist.

[Sarah1281]

Zjarcal wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Still, I would have sacrificed Isolde given the same parameters, even knowing that most men generally prefer saving their spouses in such emergencies. Her stubborn pride and arrogance are at least a couple of reasons for this mess in the first place.

They do? That's horrible.

That's a rather subjective thing if you ask me. When confronted with a decision like that, neither choice should be categorized as horrible. Most people would do whatever it took to save both but if at some point they were forced to choose, whatever their decision was I think it's unfair to call it "horrible".

But I fear getting further into this topic could lead to a very nasty discussion so I'll just drop it.

I didn't say 'If X was faced with the choice and picked his wife, he would be a horrible person for it', I just think that the thought that most people would pick an adult over a child is horrible. There's really no need to have a discussion about it, nasty or otherwise.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 I just think that the thought that most people would pick an adult over a child is horrible.

EDIT: wait. Do you mean pick as in kill an adult over a child?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 octobre 2010 - 03:36 .

[Sarah1281]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 I just think that the thought that most people would pick an adult over a child is horrible.

EDIT: wait. Do you mean pick as in kill an adult over a child?

No, I mean if you could only save one, saving the adult over the child.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
No, I mean if you could only save one, saving the adult over the child.

Well depends on the situation.
For instance, in a problematic childbirth situation, where one is told that either the child or the spouse would survive, is it horrible to pick the spouse over the child?  It would be an extremily hard choice, but I'd pick the spouse.

But in the Connor / Isolde situation, though I wouldn't say saving Isolde over Connor to be horrible perse, I do think it's unfair. Connor has no conception whatsoever of what he is doing and bears no responsability at all. Isolde, despite very understandable and sympathetic reasons, knew exactly what she was doing and she bears responsability.  

What I do find horrible however is that some people actually enjoy killing Isolde. Or make no effort in understanding her plight.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 octobre 2010 - 03:42 .

[Sarah1281]

Again, wasn't really talking about anything specific. It was just an offhand comment based on a rather vague statement.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
No, I mean if you could only save one, saving the adult over the child.

Well depends on the situation.
For instance, in a problematic childbirth situation, where one is told that either the child or the spouse would survive, is it horrible to pick the spouse over the child?  It would be an extremily hard choice, but I'd pick the spouse.

But in the Connor / Isolde situation, though I wouldn't say saving Isolde over Connor to be horrible perse, I do think it's unfair. Connor has no conception whatsoever of what he is doing and bears no responsability at all. Isolde, despite very understandable and sympathetic reasons, knew exactly what she was doing and she bears responsability.  

What I do find horrible however is that some people actually enjoy killing Isolde. Or make no effort in understanding her plight.

I agree with everything you said. Though I should also note that I have always been a person who doesn't share the common view that a child's life is more worth saving than that of an adult in a life or death situation. To me they're both equally valuable and worth saving.

I did kill Connor on my current playthrough, though it was an "accident" per se (my PC got too close to the Arl's room which as you know, triggers an unavoidable attack from the Demon).

As for Isolde, I have some sympathy for her in the sense that she did everything to try and save her son and husband. She obviously did a lot of stupid decisions, but I don't hate her (or enjoy killing her) in the same way other people do.

[Raiil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
No, I mean if you could only save one, saving the adult over the child.

Well depends on the situation.
For instance, in a problematic childbirth situation, where one is told that either the child or the spouse would survive, is it horrible to pick the spouse over the child?  It would be an extremily hard choice, but I'd pick the spouse.

But in the Connor / Isolde situation, though I wouldn't say saving Isolde over Connor to be horrible perse, I do think it's unfair. Connor has no conception whatsoever of what he is doing and bears no responsability at all. Isolde, despite very understandable and sympathetic reasons, knew exactly what she was doing and she bears responsability.  

What I do find horrible however is that some people actually enjoy killing Isolde. Or make no effort in understanding her plight.

I've never killed Isolde, but I have just about no sympathy for her either. Some for not wanting to lose her child- playing as a mage myself, my PC knows the other end of that- but because she doesn't exactly show remorse for her actions. Her child is precious. So was everyone else who died because she didn't do the right thing in these circumstances. So empathy yes, sympathy no.

Also (and I'm placing myself firmly in this category), a lot of people don't like Isolde because of her behaviour towards Alistair. Dislike him as an adult all you want, being shoved into the Chantry because some woman has a hair up her bottom over the paternity of a child was not nice, and in many people's eyes, not the correct thing to do.

With the original question, I've never killed Connor or Isolde. I honestly chalked it up to 'I just destroyed most of the demon's personal army and it knows I can kick it back into the Fade if need be, so  I have a little time to spare'. It helps that my mage has no sense of strategy aside from yelling charge and joining the fray; she just wants to save Connor and not kill the wife of the guy who can potentially help her raise an army. Not all Wardens have great critical thinking skills, so it made sense for her.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
I agree with everything you said. Though I should also note that I have always been a person who doesn't share the common view that a child's life is more worth saving than that of an adult in a life or death situation. To me they're both equally valuable and worth saving.

Wel if you want to be completely rational, in life and death situations, the lives of women and children are more valuable then men.

Children eventually become adults that can procreate. And, if 10 female adults and one male adult survive, they can still have 10 kids in one year. If 5 women and 5 men survive, they can only give birth to 5 children in a year.
Of course in those numbers, this is only relevent in you're a small tribe.

But the basic idea is still relevent for us if confronted with large amounts of death and I know I might get flammed for it. But in this particular choice, it makes little difference. One may try to save Isolde to keep Eamon's line alive (and it would be a valid reason), but that doesn't end well. 

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
I agree with everything you said. Though I should also note that I have always been a person who doesn't share the common view that a child's life is more worth saving than that of an adult in a life or death situation. To me they're both equally valuable and worth saving.

Wel if you want to be completely rational, in life and death situations, the lives of women and children are more valuable then men.

Children eventually become adults that can procreate. And, if 10 female adults and one male adult survive, they can still have 10 kids in one year. If 5 women and 5 men survive, they can only give birth to 5 children in a year.
Of course in those numbers, this is only relevent in you're a small tribe.

But the basic idea is still relevent for us if confronted with large amounts of death and I know I might get flammed for it. But in this particular choice, it makes little difference. One may try to save Isolde to keep Eamon's line alive (and it would be a valid reason), but that doesn't end well. 

I admit KoP, that kind of thinking never passes through my mind. I'm just different that way.

[tool_bot]

Yay! Job logic!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
I admit KoP, that kind of thinking never passes through my mind. I'm just different that way.

I am not saying I would think that way either necessarily. I think I would value my adult brother more than some unknown kid, as horrible as that may sound.
Just saying.

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
I admit KoP, that kind of thinking never passes through my mind. I'm just different that way.

I am not saying I would think that way either necessarily. I think I would value my adult brother more than some unknown kid, as horrible as that may sound.
Just saying.

Why should that sound horrible? He's your brother, of course you'd want to save him over a stranger.

[ejoslin]

Zjarcal wrote...

As for Isolde, I have some sympathy for her in the sense that she did everything to try and save her son and husband. She obviously did a lot of stupid decisions, but I don't hate her (or enjoy killing her) in the same way other people do.

See, I don't have any sympathy for Isolde.  She knew the price of saving her son's life was the lives of many other people -- she also knows the laws of Ferelden and of the Chantry, and as a pious woman, supposedly agrees with them.  Do you think she would have hesitated to kill anyone else's son who was an abomination?  Do you think she would hesitate to send any other child to the mage circle?  Hell, she was responsible for Alistair being sent to the chantry; no, she has a completely different set of rules for herself than she does for everyone else.

A stupid decision is hiring a mage to hide your son's magic abilities from everyone.  An evil one is not reaching out to the templars, no matter how painful, after possessed son orders the ears cut off the elves in the castle.  An evil decision is to continue to plea for the life of your son even after seeing the demon within him kill countless people whom you are sworn to protect.  

You see the demon mind control Bann Teagan.  Even without its army, isn't this enough of a threat?  Presumably, it didn't start out with an army -- it had to kill a lot of people to create it.  What would stop it from killing a few more villagers to start it again.

And we're not talking a couple hour walk -- it's a couple of days.  So you will be gone for at the very least 4 days.  That gives that demon a LOT of time to recover.

I do hate the happy joy option

[Sarah1281]

And we're not talking a couple hour walk -- it's a couple of days. So you will be gone for at the very least 4 days. That gives that demon a LOT of time to recover.

I thought it was just two days round trip?

[KnightofPhoenix]

ejoslin wrote...

 She knew the price of saving her son's life was the lives of many other people

Did she? She assigned him a tutor precisely to try and avoid him getting out of control and to learn how to hide and control his power. Yes, it wasn't the smartest decision and yes, it's hypocritical and tragically ironic considering how pious she is. But to say she knew all this would have happened? I think that's stretching it.

And yes, she is desperate for saving her son even after everything, but that's because, I think, she knows it's not his fault at all this happened but hers. She gladly and without any hesitation offers her life to fix the mistake. Isn't that enough of a penance? It is for me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 octobre 2010 - 04:16 .