222 réponses à ce sujet

[Mnemnosyne]

I tend to just let him do his research as he pleases. It's useful information and once he comes up with something that can be used by lots and lots of Wardens it will probably save far more lives than it costs. As keeps being hammered into us, Wardens do anything it takes to win.

The one thing I found sad is that Avernus never comes up again, so technically your choice is made irrelevant. It would have been nice if he had shown up say, before the final battle to give you one additional ability or something cool like that. Or even in Awakening, maybe receive a letter and a package from him with additional potions or something to give to the other Grey Wardens.

[Ashaman X]

I always save the guy, despite his crimes in the past. It's easy enough to persuade him, and he seems to show genuine remorse. Also, even though I've told him to do research ethically, I am hoping that he makes some sort of breakthrough before he dies. My mage would very much like to live longer than the 30 odd years, she wants to be happy with Leli. Besides, it could offer hope to other Wardens as well.

[frostajulie]

Question: If Avernus was in the tower with surviving wardens after the battle and the veil was torn and the demons were running amuck in the tower, do you think it is possible that the surviving wardens submitted to Avernus' research?



My thinking is that the surviving wardens knew the veil was torn and needed to be closed and Only Avernus could extend his life long enough to hang on until someone arrived to help him close the tear. What if the surviving wardens allowed Avernus to perform his experiments on them, to help the wardens cause rather than dying as ghouls. Imagine the self hatred Avernus would feel as he cuts into his brothers who willingly submit to him for the good of the order. Im not saying thats how it happened but it does present an interesting spin.



I always allow Avernus to live because he has found a way to keep the taint at bay for centuries. I want that knowledge and I want to share it with the order. It enrages me that this information and this choice ends right here with no followthru at all.

[errant_knight]

Acharnae wrote...

Well I think ethically he should be killed for his crimes (although there was a sense of necessity about them). I did that in my first playthough.
In my second, I first conveinced him (persuasion) that what he did was wrong. Then we went off to the portal and then he was like do what you want. First I chose to kill him but he didn't fight back, my PC just went there and stabbed him. That was not cool. So I reloaded and bid him to use his knowledge to come up with something good. Try and redeem himself. He seemed to be genuinely remorseful for what he did.
In my second playthrough I also killed the demon first too. (BTW the "presentation" of the demon was one of the best choreographed scenes in the game in my opinion).
The only instance where my PC coldly  assassinates someone is brother geviniti (sp?). Can't have the chantry gain anymore power whatsoever.

That's not an assasination, it's an execution for his crimes. You just let him delay it until he'd made a small amount of restitution by closing the veil that he tore in the first place. You can kill a gentle old scholar, but not a murdering blood mage? Just leave the High Dragon alive if you want to stymie the Chantry and play a PC who doesn't believe in execution. From a roleplaying persective, it's not illogical to assume the the dragon would make any Chantry plans difficult to implement.

Modifié par errant_knight, 25 octobre 2010 - 05:44 .

[AnniLau]

Caak7i wrote...
I do not make deals with demons so the demon in Sophia's rotting corpse gets destroyed (I do not play with fire).

I like to tell demon-Sophia that I'll help her, make her seal the Veil first, go kill Avernus, come back and coerce her to tell Levi what he wants to know, and then kill her too.
"This house is clean!" 

[pudi0072000]

AnniLau wrote...
I like to tell demon-Sophia that I'll help her, make her seal the Veil first, go kill Avernus, come back and coerce her to tell Levi what he wants to know, and then kill her too.
"This house is clean!" 

I do the exact same thing.

I gladly gut Avernus every time. I don't care if his research might benefit my PC or other Wardens; he's a murder and he deserves to die. I tend to destroy all of the research, too. Sometimes I feel bad that those Warden's died for nothing, but it leaves me feeling sick to think that I'm gaining power through their deaths.

I let Avernus live once, but it didn't sit right with me, so I reloaded and killed him.

[LupusYondergirl]

My cannon mage always looked at it as one of the ugly decisions that would be expected of any Warden. If his experiments ended up making people less likely to die in the Joining, delaying/eliminating the Calling, or even just made Wardens more powerful and thus more effective at their job, it would be worth it.

She didn't like thinking of it that way, but the 'any means necessary' bit made her think horrid behavior is acceptable if, ultimately, it serves the greater good.



The Wynne disapproval if you tell Avernus you won't be his judge always seemed to hammer home how completely in the dark she is about what Wardens are actually about. Killing innocents because it might save more lives in the long run, or even because it might just make the existing Wardens more effective, doesn't fit into her knight-in-shining-armor mental image. But then, her stories were always missing the part where the Wardens raze the village to the ground to prevent any survivors from spreading the darkspawn taint...

[errant_knight]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

My cannon mage always looked at it as one of the ugly decisions that would be expected of any Warden. If his experiments ended up making people less likely to die in the Joining, delaying/eliminating the Calling, or even just made Wardens more powerful and thus more effective at their job, it would be worth it.
She didn't like thinking of it that way, but the 'any means necessary' bit made her think horrid behavior is acceptable if, ultimately, it serves the greater good.

The Wynne disapproval if you tell Avernus you won't be his judge always seemed to hammer home how completely in the dark she is about what Wardens are actually about. Killing innocents because it might save more lives in the long run, or even because it might just make the existing Wardens more effective, doesn't fit into her knight-in-shining-armor mental image. But then, her stories were always missing the part where the Wardens raze the village to the ground to prevent any survivors from spreading the darkspawn taint...

And yet, they didn't even consider burning Denerim, and you can save Amaranthine without any objection, so individual wardens clearly draw the line in different places. One warden might think that Wynne and Alistair are completely correct, while another may not, without either being a failure as a warden.

[RavenousBear]

AnniLau wrote...

Caak7i wrote...
I do not make deals with demons so the demon in Sophia's rotting corpse gets destroyed (I do not play with fire).

I like to tell demon-Sophia that I'll help her, make her seal the Veil first, go kill Avernus, come back and coerce her to tell Levi what he wants to know, and then kill her too.
"This house is clean!" 

Nah, after she insults my dog and/or my companions during her little rant, she gets decapitated . Any chance of backstabbing her later gets tossed aside. I do not like rotting corpses mocking my minions.

[LupusYondergirl]

In either case, though, Wynne's belief that things like that would never happen, and are ultimately against some sort of warden code of ethics, is flawed. It isn't that acting in a completely pragmatic and/or ruthless fashion is the only way to go, it's that she's laboring under the delusion that it is somehow forbidden and attempting to impose this belief on a member of the order while she, herself, is an outsider. That's what bothers me.



Although really, I dislike the idea of warden as executioner. I wish there was an option to tell her "fine, you kill him, then," like when Alistair objects to bringing Zevran along.

[Giggles_Manically]

Is Wynne the most unpopular companion today or what?



I always spare him, and always kill Sophia.

Works out the best, even if Wynne cries about it.

[DWSmiley]

LupusYondergirl wrote...

The Wynne disapproval if you tell Avernus you won't be his judge always seemed to hammer home how completely in the dark she is about what Wardens are actually about. Killing innocents because it might save more lives in the long run, or even because it might just make the existing Wardens more effective, doesn't fit into her knight-in-shining-armor mental image. But then, her stories were always missing the part where the Wardens raze the village to the ground to prevent any survivors from spreading the darkspawn taint...

Avernus didn't just kill his fellow wardens, he tortured them.  And not because of an urgent crisis.  He tortured them, went to bed, got up the next day and did it again.  Day after day, unto death.  Then he started in on the next one, until they all were dead.  And when you meet him, he is smug about it. 

How much can one justify under the rubric of "anything it takes"?  DA:O is so good at presenting this question.

[dbfandillyjam]

I like the old bugger. I always side with him. When he asks what I want to do with him I tell him I won't be his judge. He shows remorse and asks to continue his research ethically.

[Avilia]

I usually kill him. He's a bit too much of a fanatical scientist to me. "Give me more bodies to experiment on! I may find something, some day, that might be, useful!"

[errant_knight]

DWSmiley wrote...

LupusYondergirl wrote...

The Wynne disapproval if you tell Avernus you won't be his judge always seemed to hammer home how completely in the dark she is about what Wardens are actually about. Killing innocents because it might save more lives in the long run, or even because it might just make the existing Wardens more effective, doesn't fit into her knight-in-shining-armor mental image. But then, her stories were always missing the part where the Wardens raze the village to the ground to prevent any survivors from spreading the darkspawn taint...

Avernus didn't just kill his fellow wardens, he tortured them.  And not because of an urgent crisis.  He tortured them, went to bed, got up the next day and did it again.  Day after day, unto death.  Then he started in on the next one, until they all were dead.  And when you meet him, he is smug about it. 

How much can one justify under the rubric of "anything it takes"?  DA:O is so good at presenting this question.

And apparently the 'anything it take' is quite capricious, if it's not open to individual interpretation. If not, we'd slaughter all the refugees we meet in random encounters.

[Mnemnosyne]

DWSmiley wrote...

Avernus didn't just kill his fellow wardens, he tortured them.  And not because of an urgent crisis.  He tortured them, went to bed, got up the next day and did it again.  Day after day, unto death.  Then he started in on the next one, until they all were dead.  And when you meet him, he is smug about it. 

How much can one justify under the rubric of "anything it takes"?  DA:O is so good at presenting this question.

I would say that being trapped in a tower surrounded by demons that, even if you manage to escape, would only go free and wreak havoc on the world, is a rather urgent crisis.

What would the result have been if he hadn't conducted the experiments?  Either they would have slowly starved to death, or even worse, one of them might have gotten desperate and done something stupid that brings down the wards and allows the demons into the tower, thus releasing a horde of demons onto the world.  None of them were going to get out of there alive without his experiments.  On the other hand, if Avernus had been successful with the first or second subject, or he'd had a dozen more subjects, they may have defeated the demons and a few others might have survived.

[errant_knight]

Koyasha wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

Avernus didn't just kill his fellow wardens, he tortured them.  And not because of an urgent crisis.  He tortured them, went to bed, got up the next day and did it again.  Day after day, unto death.  Then he started in on the next one, until they all were dead.  And when you meet him, he is smug about it. 

How much can one justify under the rubric of "anything it takes"?  DA:O is so good at presenting this question.

I would say that being trapped in a tower surrounded by demons that, even if you manage to escape, would only go free and wreak havoc on the world, is a rather urgent crisis.

What would the result have been if he hadn't conducted the experiments?  Either they would have slowly starved to death, or even worse, one of them might have gotten desperate and done something stupid that brings down the wards and allows the demons into the tower, thus releasing a horde of demons onto the world.  None of them were going to get out of there alive without his experiments.  On the other hand, if Avernus had been successful with the first or second subject, or he'd had a dozen more subjects, they may have defeated the demons and a few others might have survived.

This line of reasoning scares the snot out of me.

[errant_knight]

sorry-double post....

Modifié par errant_knight, 25 octobre 2010 - 10:00 .

[DWSmiley]

errant_knight wrote...

And apparently the 'anything it take' is quite capricious, if it's not open to individual interpretation. If not, we'd slaughter all the refugees we meet in random encounters.

Slaughter the female refugees, at least.  Ought not risk any of them getting captured and turned into broodmothers.

Koyasha wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

Avernus didn't just kill his fellow wardens, he tortured them.  And not because of an urgent crisis.  He tortured them, went to bed, got up the next day and did it again.  Day after day, unto death.  Then he started in on the next one, until they all were dead.  And when you meet him, he is smug about it. 

How much can one justify under the rubric of "anything it takes"?  DA:O is so good at presenting this question.

I would say that being trapped in a tower surrounded by demons that, even if you manage to escape, would only go free and wreak havoc on the world, is a rather urgent crisis.

What would the result have been if he hadn't conducted the experiments?  Either they would have slowly starved to death, or even worse, one of them might have gotten desperate and done something stupid that brings down the wards and allows the demons into the tower, thus releasing a horde of demons onto the world.  None of them were going to get out of there alive without his experiments.  On the other hand, if Avernus had been successful with the first or second subject, or he'd had a dozen more subjects, they may have defeated the demons and a few others might have survived.

He's been at it for a century, that's not very urgent.  If any of his fellow wardens volunteered to have their "pain threshhold tested" then fine - and I am in awe at their dedication and fortitude.  But I really, really doubt it.

Morality cannot be reduced to arithmetic.

[Sarah1281]

And yet, they didn't even consider burning Denerim, and you can save Amaranthine without any objection, so individual wardens clearly draw the line in different places. One warden might think that Wynne and Alistair are completely correct, while another may not, without either being a failure as a warden.

I don't see how Wynne and Alistair can be completely correct that there is a Grey Warden code of morality. Individual Wardens can draw the line wherever they want and don't have to have anywhere near an 'anything it takes' morality but just begins individual Wardens have different systems of morality doesn't mean that there's any order policy that would prevent sparing Avernus, sparing Loghain, performing Avernus' experiments, leaving Ferelden to its fate, whatever. When they try to claim that things are against Grey Warden policy, they are wrong. Wynne has no business trying to decide any GW's policy and Alistair can only decide his individual policy as an individual Warden and not speak for what the entire order would do.

Edit: And even if you play a Warden that completely agrees with Wynne and Alistair, that still doesn't make it an order policy. It makes it your policy and Alistair's policy as two individual Wardens.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 25 octobre 2010 - 11:46 .

[TJPags]

I'm not sure we're ever told what the "Grey Warden rules of behavior" are.  That kind of means, they are whatever you think they are.

I'm pretty sure we're told they allow Blood Magic, which is against Chantry/Circle rules.  We also know they conscript criminals.  So, I'd say we're not talking about the most chivalrous or law abiding of orders here.

Since there are only two wardens in Ferelden, and since Alistair gives over leadership to you, that basically means, it's your choice of what to do in EVERY situation.  If you're okay - morally, ethically, whatever - with letting Avernus keep working, then that's the Ferelden Warden rule.  If you let him use people to experiment, then that's good.  If you set the no people experimenting limit, that's the rule.

I'm not sure making this a universal "right v. wrong" issue is the way to go.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

I'm not sure we're ever told what the "Grey Warden rules of behavior" are.  That kind of means, they are whatever you think they are.

I'm pretty sure we're told they allow Blood Magic, which is against Chantry/Circle rules.  We also know they conscript criminals.  So, I'd say we're not talking about the most chivalrous or law abiding of orders here.

Since there are only two wardens in Ferelden, and since Alistair gives over leadership to you, that basically means, it's your choice of what to do in EVERY situation.  If you're okay - morally, ethically, whatever - with letting Avernus keep working, then that's the Ferelden Warden rule.  If you let him use people to experiment, then that's good.  If you set the no people experimenting limit, that's the rule.

I'm not sure making this a universal "right v. wrong" issue is the way to go.

The Grey Warden policy, to me, seems to be 'End Blights, fight darkspawn, don't get yourself kicked out of your country, and don't tell anybody anything about us. Other than that, we don't care what the **** you do.'

So are you saying that if you choose to play a saint Warden then the overall GW policy is that of your saint Warden whereas if you choose to play a socipathic Warden than the overall policy is that of the sociopath? I disagree. I think that you can set your own policy, yes, and you can even get grandiose and claim that it's now the 'Ferelden policy' but your personal opinion does not effect the GW policy. You can't say 'Avernus, I'm going to kill you because what you did goes against GW policy.' (Well, you can but you'd be wrong) You can say 'Avernus, as a fellow GW I feel that you've gone too far am going to kill you.'

Edit: So I'm not trying to say that there is a right or wrong way for your Warden to behave, just that your own personal policy cannot possibly just automatically be the policy of all GWs and Wynne or Alistair (or anyone else, even the Warden) trying to claim that their system of morality is the GW policy is incorrect.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 26 octobre 2010 - 12:05 .