969 réponses à ce sujet

[nos_astra]

leonia42 wrote...
Jowan didn't encourage the demon to possess Conner ...

But he poisoned the Arl (one lever forthe demon) and was in possession of certain books, I think.

leonia42 wrote...
At the very least, she could have found a
more competent mage to train Conner than the man who tried to poison her
husband (not that I would approve of that either but it may have helped
Conner control his power and avoid the demon situation). She could have
done a *little* more research into Jowan before hiring him on.

According to the lore apostates willing to teach a boy secretly aren't exactly easy to find.

Isolde does what many mothers would do. She even does something that is wrong in the eyes of most of the Fereldan people, but that should net her the praise of the players (who are mostly anti-chantry and pro-mage).

But obviously Isolde following her heart is something completely despicable in the eyes of many players.

Modifié par klarabella, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
But obviously Isolde following her heart is something completely despicable in the eyes of many players.

Something I don't fully understand to be honest. I mean I understand why some feel horrified by her actions, but I don't fully understand the amount of hatred she engendered.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

It is not Isolde protecting her son that is despicable, it is her hypocrisy. She's happy to tow the Chantry line, and allow everyone else's family to be subject to Chantry law and dogma, and having children torn from their families and labeled with stigma.



But somehow, she and her own child are exempt from such laws. That's what's offensive, especially if you are playing a mage, who, depending on how you RP it, was taken from their family/life at a very young age and imprisoned.

[Leonia]

I don't begrudge a mother for wanting to protect her child, but I just feel like she does it so.. blindly and without thinking of the consequences. That is the part I have a hard time dealing with.

But that's the beauty of the characters in this game isn't it? No two players are going to the same exact opinions about them. They all have strengths and weakness, tragic flaws and loving characteristics. They're so.. human. That probably sounds strange but I absolutely love that even the NPCs in Origins are fully fleshed out people that would make realistic decisions.

Isolde can't know how trusting Jowan will impact her child's life or the lives of the villagers and I can appreciate that she does have good intentions. But sometimes good intentions aren't enough to redeem a character. Maybe it's good enough for some players, but not for me.

EDIT: I'll just add that Isolde's actions regarding Conner are not solely why I dislike/hate her (maybe hate is too strong a word, let's go with strongly dislike). It's just one of many things. I also sort of hold her responsible for the crappy childhood that Alistair got and the fact that Maric isn't fond of her sends up a red flag as well. That's my Theirin bias talking though. It also doesn't help that she has such an annoying voice and I don't like how.. close she seems to want to be with Teagan (who in my mind is a fairly innocent, good-natured character that wouldn't want to have an inappropriate relationship with his sister-in-law). She just checks all the wrong boxes for me.

Modifié par leonia42, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:29 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

For me, it's really her willingness to sacrirfice her life to undo what she helped create that redeems her in my eyes, and not only intentions. Sure, she might have wanted to sacrifice herself for Connor's sake only and not for the villagers (I wouldn't agree with that interpretation, but I would agree that Connor seems to be her main priority).

Had Isolde said that a villager ought to be sacrificed to save Connor, I would have disliked her quite a bit (whether I would have done it is another matter, not sure). But it's really her strength of will at the end that I respect. Although she might be accused of hypocrisy yet again for accepting blood magic as a means, despite her piety but that's something tfor the Maker to judge, I don't really care.

Oh and welcome here leonia42 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[nos_astra]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It is not Isolde protecting her son that is despicable, it is her hypocrisy. She's happy to tow the Chantry line, and allow everyone else's family to be subject to Chantry law and dogma, and having children torn from their families and labeled with stigma.

When is her opinion about the Chantry or mages ever revealed? Are you sure this is based on facts, not assumptions?

And Alistair's childhood, well, I'm sure he had it better than many orphans in Ferelden.

Modifié par klarabella, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[Leonia]

*waves to KoP*

It's time I broke out of the DA 2 forums

I'm more than happy to let Isolde make the sacrifice for Jowan's ritual and I do see that as her chance for redemption (and she willingly volunteers, if she didn't willingly ask I'd certainly never make her do it). I don't.. feel any malice for that decision and I've always weighed it carefully before deciding (some playthroughs I will do the "third option" of going through the Circle of Magi if I want to avoid the backlash from Alistair at camp for killing Isolde). I imagine some people sacrifice her because it's their way of getting back at her or something (that seems to generally be why people kill anyone off in the game, simply disliking them seems to warrant their demise) but despite my feelings regarding her, I don't do it for that reason.

Modifié par leonia42, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:41 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

klarabella wrote...

When is her opinion about the Chantry or mages ever revealed? Are you sure this is based on facts, not assumptions?

It is stated by Teagan she is a very religous person. She also tells you, if you ask her why magic is so bad, that her grandfather was a mage, and mages are very wicked people.

She also tells you she will not lose her son to "magic" and says so with quite a bit of venom.

Isolde thinks magic and mages are sinful/evil.

[nos_astra]

Ah, that certainly adds to her character and makes her hypocritical. Doesn't change my mind about her. She's a good character, not the most likeable person but certainly no one I would hate (unless my own family died at Redcliffe, then I would hate her).

Edit: @hanz Good post!

Modifié par klarabella, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[Leonia]

Ah yes, I forgot how much Isolde despises magic (despite coming from a family with magical blood). Thanks for reminding me. You would think that someone who distrusts magic so much wouldn't want to keep it in her house and would be eager to give her son up to the Circle. But.. that's just not how she reacts.

[KnightofPhoenix]

leonia42 wrote...

Ah yes, I forgot how much Isolde despises magic (despite coming from a family with magical blood). Thanks for reminding me. You would think that someone who distrusts magic so much wouldn't want to keep it in her house and would be eager to give her son up to the Circle. But.. that's just not how she reacts.

Well that's a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation.

I am almost 100% sure that she would have been just as hated had she said:
"Get that cursed thing away from my house, I don't want to see it again".

[Leonia]

Heh, that's true. A bit of a Catch 22 situation.

Oh, just thought of another thing that bothers me about her. As much as I dislike Eamon, I disapprove of how Isolde tries to go behind his back and hide her son's magic affinity from his father. That's essentially teaching her child that lieing is ok. Surely if she had been open and honest from the beginning with her husband then Eamon could have made some sort of deal with the Circle that would have allowed both parents to see their child on a regular basis while he was being trained properly in a safe environment.

Did she really have to try to cover it up from her own husband? The man she loved so much and was willing to stay in Ferelden for? She doesn't trust Eamon yet she trusts a complete stranger (Jowan). Eamon wouldn't have made a big fuss over Conner's magic ability, he isn't the one coming from a family that distrusts magic.

Modifié par leonia42, 11 décembre 2010 - 04:54 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Hanz: Isolde did not just screw up. Her actions cost the lives of many, as well as the near destruction of the village she and her husband were in charge of.



I disagree also about hypocrisy. It is one of the reasons I dislike people who are ruled by strong religous/moral dogmas. History is full of isoldes, people who were willing to tow and promote a tyrannical, oppresive system, so long as it doesn't directly effect them. She displays the same typical arrogance that has defined the aristocracy of many societies for generations. "Do as I say, not as I do".



@klarbella: She is a well written character, which is why she evokes the sentiments of disgust and dislike in me. If she wasn't, I wouldn't have any opinions of her, good or bad, she'd simply be "meh".

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well that's a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of situation.

I am almost 100% sure that she would have been just as hated had she said:
"Get that cursed thing away from my house, I don't want to see it again".

Not really. Would certainly not evoke the same reaction in me. I'd still think she was a ****, but I would not have the same visceral reaction as I do now.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I disagree also about hypocrisy. It is one of the reasons I dislike people who are ruled by strong religous/moral dogmas.

Not to get this off-topic, but moralists and / or religious people who strongly uphold their beliefs don't have to be hypocritical.

I think it's mostly the aristocracy that promotes certain religious interpretations as a means of control, which they don't abide by to be hypocritical (and that's politics, you are bound to be hypocritical in one way or the other), even though some arisotcracies or aristocratic individuals did strongly abide by those same beliefs. I do not think priests for instance are hypocritical that often. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not to get this off-topic, but moralists and / or religious people who strongly uphold their beliefs don't have to be hypocritical.

They don't have to be, but it is not uncommon that they are, especially in positions of power or influence. Medieval Europe under the Church had plenty of examples.

I think it's mostly the aristocracy that promotes certain religious interpretations as a means of control, which they don't abide by to be hypocritical (and that's politics, you are bound to be hypocritical in one way or the other), even though some arisotcracies or aristocratic individuals did strongly abide by those same beliefs. I do not think priests for instance are hypocritical that often. 

I remember it said once, by some scholar/writer of medieval times, that there would be no room on hell for sinners because the priesthood had already filled it up. Though there were certainly many priests/religous people in the Middle Ages who did follow their rigid belief systems unerringly. But, it was also a fact that the clergy was fileld with inequity and sin, and got away with it, while others without power and position were punished.

It was the aristocracy that was the worst, I agree, and that is a big part of why I hold isolde with such contempt. From everything in game that I see of her, she is a very religious, dogmatic person, who thinks the Chantry is the highest authority, and supports their rather oppressive system. Except when it applies to her.

I mean, if the Chantry is so wonderful and right in it's attitudes and laws regarding mages, then certainly sending her son to the care of the Circle would not be such a horrible thing, right? I mean, she could visit him and send him cookies and all that crap, where most families are discouraged from maintaining relationships with a child that is taken to the Circle. So sending Connor shouldn't be that terrible for someone of her faith and social standing.

yet this does not happen. She fears Connor being taken to the Circle. One reason being she is afraid of what everyone else will think, and fears some sort of ostacism from her social circles because her son is a mage. But another reason, I think, is because she knows that Circle life is not that pleasant, and that life for Connor in the Circle will be unpleasant.

Knowing this, she still supports the Chantry's line when it comes to everyone else's kid's, not really caring that it is devastating to the families involved. But her and Connor? Oh, no, they're special.

It's those double standards of status and position that I find revolting.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hanz54321 wrote...

But there is a piece missing to this puzzle - do you think she still clings to those beliefs AFTER what happened with Connor.  I don't mean in the days that followed, but in the weeks and months and years that followed.  Do you think she still believed in, "towing that tyranical system," as you put it?

In game there is no way to know.  But some people do realize they were WRONG and change their point of view after they are affected by the very thing they were so staunchly in support of.

I understand your point. However, given what I see of isolde in game, and of her character and attitudes, I do not forsee her attitudes changing. She does not strike me as a person who could develop the sort of self-awareness/introspective nature required to have such a change of attitudes. Especially when you return with the Sacred Ashes to heal Eamon, if anything, her beliefs might end up stronger.

A person, after a crisis or major event in their life, can change their outlook, and many people do. But it takes a willingness to admit one's beliefs/outlook was fatally flawed in the first place, and the willingness to change beliefs, both inside and how one sees the world. Which, in terms of religous beliefs, is far more difficult than it seems,  since religous beliefs are not rooted in everyday objective reality, but something very intangible and deep-seated.

[IanPolaris]

Glaucon wrote...

I saw sacrificing Isolde as a means for her to redeem herself. She makes mistakes due to her emotional state, and that state is not so surprising. But she fails to ever show enough remorse for her own actions; something that Connor bravely offers even though he is more innocent.

I agree.  I was favorably impressed with Conner that one playthrough when I had to kill him.  His mother....not so much.

Conner seems to know and understand that to save his family, he has to die.  I don't think he wants to die, but is willing to face up to it and even tries to help you as much as he can.  This nugget of info makes me determined when my mage characters enter the fade, they do so with four ranks of coercion.  That's the level needed to intimidate the demon into doing what you want and letting Conner go with no strings attached.

My biggest complaint about Isolde is the same as the others.  She is a class AAA hypocrit.  Sentencing childing to the circle is fine for the common folk, but not her precious.  I find her death very satisfying and if I choose to kill Conner, I get almost as much satisfaction in making HER do the killing blow.  She deserves worse.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Sacrificing Isolde, I think, is the most satisfactory option/ending in that situation, even above going to the Circle and getting them to help. Because it does allow her to both be punished for her crimes and to right the wrong she herself committed. And because she volunteers, even insists that she be the one to be sacrificed makes it that much more satisfactory, because at least on some level, it shows she does know what she did to be wrong, and wishes to make up for it.



I agree Connor is a neat kid, and I believe him to be completely a victim in this case. He is a young boy born with a powerful talent his mother thinks as evil or sinful. He doesn't understand the full consequences or implications of his state, and even less about the Fade. He made the deal with the demon as a little boy who saw his daddy dying, and wanted to save him. Yet he did not understand exactly what a demon was. He states that when he originally came in contact with the demon, she seemed like a nice lady who wanted to help. Sadly, he did not understand just what the demon required of him.



So again, I do not think he is even responsible for being possesed, as he is simply too young to really understand the implications and consequences. Yet despite this, he is really the only person in Castle Redcliffe and in his family who shows any semblance of personal honesty and willingness to accept the consequences of his actions on a very personal level.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am discovering more and more how different I am than most. I really see absolutely no satisfaction in punitive actions at all, unless they provide a clear practical benefit (like deterrence). In such a case, I really do not get any satisfaction in killing her child, or making her kill her child, for her "failure", as if I am breaking a toy or implying that the death of an innocent child is supposed to be punishment.

But that's just me. Ignore it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:32 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Though making Isolde kill Connor can be considered a fitting punishment/quick resolution to the Redcliffe disaster, it is not the reasoning behind doing so for me, when I choose that route.



I let Isolde do it really on grounds of mercy for Connor. If my Warden has decided that Connor must be killed, for whatever reason, I find it much kinder to let his mother do, because if anything, she can be trusted to make it as quick and painless as possible. Plus, it allows Connor to spend his final moments in his mother's arms, which for any child, is the safest, most comforting place to be.



That it also serves as a ftting punishment for Isolde is simply extra.