969 réponses à ce sujet

[Masquerade]

I think if you start out as a mage you might feel responsible to a certain degree too, after all you did assist Jowan's escape from the Mage Tower.

Even if you chose to report it to the First Enchanter it results in you aiding Jowan's escape and that makes it partly the First Enchanters fault too.

Plenty of blame to go around whichever way you look at it.

[Ryzaki]

Sarah1281 wrote...

She is just one of many responsible for that and I think Jowan and his blood magic books and poisoning of Eamon thus prompting Connor to make a deal with a demon in the first place was much more responsible than Isolde. Had she gone with, say, the Mage's Collective to tutor her son than things would probably have ended less tragically.

And if Isolde hadn't hid the fact that Conner was a mage Jowan would've never had the opporuntity to do what he did. As Teagan says "her secrecy made it all possible."

Even with the Mages Collective there still could've been a chance of things going wrong. Though taking Conner to the circle however would've kept Redcliffe safe from him. (Now Loghain might've decided to crush it anyways but they wouldn't have been killed by skeleton creatures).

That said I place more blame on her because she had more choices than anyone else. Jowan was given a choice between living and dyingand choose to live (of course he ends up dying for it later anyways), Isolde chose between her reputation and the safety of far more people than just herself. No I don't consider Conner being taken away from her a horrible choice. He wasn't being sent off to die. Conner is a child and wasn't aware of what he was doing but despite this faces up to his actions, while Isolde insists that everything evolves around her, uncaring about the lives that have been wasted off because of her secrecy. Instead she demands that you obey her even after (possibly) the whole village has been slaughtered.

Edit: On mage's responsibility. That's an interesting thought.

Granted I am bias on Isolde because of everyone there she's the only one who doesn't seem to show remorse until it personally effects her.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 décembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[Esbatty]

Okay who would you rather open mouth/tongue kiss... Eamon immediately after awaking from his weeks/months long coma or a Broodmother?

[Leonia]

Good points there, Ryzaki.



I just thought of yet another reason to add to my anti-Isolde list: the knights of Redcliffe weren't there to protect the village because of Isolde's faith in the Urn. Granted, she was trying to cure her husband but the whole "seek out this mythical Urn" quest seemed a real grasp at straws, the action of a desperate but overly faithful woman. If the knights had never been sent on the silly quest (and lucky for her the Urn did exist but guess who got stuck retrieving it: a desperate Warden who has to go completely out of their way, leaving Ferelden to the potential mercy of the darkspawn while they climb a mountain and run the Gauntlet). Anyway if the knights hadn't been sent out on the errand, the Warden wouldn't have had to bail Redcliffe out of its compromising situation. So.. in addition to all of the villagers potentially dieing, she's sent several knights to their deaths as well. She seems to have no qualms wasting lives to protect herself/her family.

[Leonia]

Esbatty wrote...

Okay who would you rather open mouth/tongue kiss... Eamon immediately after awaking from his weeks/months long coma or a Broodmother?

Broodmother, obviously.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ryzaki wrote...

That said I place more blame on her because she had more choices than anyone else. Jowan was given a choice between living and dyingand choose to live (of course he ends up dying for it later anyways), Isolde chose between her reputation and the safety of far more people than just herself. No I don't consider Conner being taken away from her a horrible choice. He wasn't being sent off to die.

You don't know that. The Harrowing could have killed him (the epilogue slides make it clear that he passes with flying colours due to his experiences in Redcliffe, which he would not have had without Jowan/Isolde). And if we want to metagame, it's possible that Isolde sending Connor to the Circle would have ended with his death when Uldred took over.

Isolde might not know of the Harrowing considering how secret it's kept, but she does know mages are generally hated and feared, locked away in towers for most of their lives and *always* watched by the Templars, whose job it is to stick swords in mages or turn their brains to emotionless goo if they put a foot wrong. It's not an easy choice sending your only child to a place like that. Some parents would argue it's no easy choice to send their only child away at all.

[Wulfram]

Genitivi is a credible guy, going by how much of the codex he's written. If he says the ashes can be found, it's not unreasonable to take notice.

[Sarah1281]

Isolde chose between her reputation and the safety of far more people than just herself. No I don't consider Conner being taken away from her a horrible choice. He wasn't being sent off to die. Conner is a child and wasn't aware of what he was doing but despite this faces up to his actions, while Isolde insists that everything evolves around her, uncaring about the lives that have been wasted off because of her secrecy. Instead she demands that you obey her even after (possibly) the whole village has been slaughtered.

It may not be the worst thing that could happen, but it did involve him being taken from his family and locked in a tower for years on end. That is pretty horrible even if it could have always been worse and Isolde does not want that for her child and doesn't want to lose him. That's really not her reputation she's concerned about.

I just thought of yet another reason to add to my anti-Isolde list: the knights of Redcliffe weren't there to protect the village because of Isolde's faith in the Urn.

Well, had Connor not been possessed by a demon who started a zombie apocalypse then the knights wouldn't have been needed. Why, exactly, is Isolde expected to have been able to predict that hiring Jowan to teach her son would lead directly to a zombie apocalypse? The knights were sent out before he was even possessed. This to me seems like blaming Bryce Cousland for allowing everyone in Highever Castle to be slaughtered because if he hadn't insisted on sending troops to Cailan, they would have been there to stop Howe's attack. There was no reason to think that the troops would have been desperately needed to protect people in either situation.

[ejoslin]

The problem I have with Isolde is AFTER the slaughter, she shows no concerns at all for the people killed, the children orphaned, etc. It's still all, "Please protect my boy!"

yes, as a parent she wanted to protect her child. however, she has a responsibility at that point to her Arling as well. think about how many sons died so hers could live. And how many more she apparently was willing to sacrifice.

Modifié par ejoslin, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

She tells Connor "please, don't kill anyone". She might not have expressed concern as explicitly and loudly as her concern for Connor, but I never got the impression that she didn't give a damn.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 décembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[ejoslin]

She may have cared, but not nearly enough IMO. She didn't want him killing people (and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise), but still, afterwards, when she had a chance, she did NOT go far enough outside of the castle. I didn't hear her say, "My son is an abomination. please, it must be stopped. There must be no more death. Please go to the chantry so it can be ended." Instead, she begs Teagan to go to the castle with her, completely unthinking of anyone but herself and her child.

[Addai]

leonia42 wrote...

Esbatty wrote...

Okay who would you rather open mouth/tongue kiss... Eamon immediately after awaking from his weeks/months long coma or a Broodmother?

Broodmother, obviously.

LOL Didn't someone post a young Eamon somewhere?  It wasn't half bad.  I'm not a dedicated Eamon hater and he IS a Guerrin, which is a pretty awesome noble family, and he's generally noble himself.  He's even a bit of a romantic, playing Romeo and Juliet.

Eamon, definitely.  Would prefer clean shaven.

[Sarah1281]

ejoslin wrote...

She may have cared, but not nearly enough IMO. She didn't want him killing people (and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise), but still, afterwards, when she had a chance, she did NOT go far enough outside of the castle. I didn't hear her say, "My son is an abomination. please, it must be stopped. There must be no more death. Please go to the chantry so it can be ended." Instead, she begs Teagan to go to the castle with her, completely unthinking of anyone but herself and her child.

That's not no more death. That's the death of her child. Regardless of what the law says, I don't see how people can blame her for not wanting her son to die. What she did in the course of keeping him alive, sure, but for not having the templars come in and murder him? Really? Remember, it's not like she knows that the Circle or a blood mage can save Connor through a ritual.

[ejoslin]

Sarah1281 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

She may have cared, but not nearly enough IMO. She didn't want him killing people (and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise), but still, afterwards, when she had a chance, she did NOT go far enough outside of the castle. I didn't hear her say, "My son is an abomination. please, it must be stopped. There must be no more death. Please go to the chantry so it can be ended." Instead, she begs Teagan to go to the castle with her, completely unthinking of anyone but herself and her child.

That's not no more death. That's the death of her child. Regardless of what the law says, I don't see how people can blame her for not wanting her son to die. What she did in the course of keeping him alive, sure, but for not having the templars come in and murder him? Really? Remember, it's not like she knows that the Circle or a blood mage can save Connor through a ritual.

No, she knows exactly what it means to call in the templars. That means a death to her son, who is now an abomination.  You are right, she does not know of any rituals or such to save her son.  what she knows is her son is now possessed by a demon who has killed hundreds of people and has plans to build an army by killing more, raising their bodies, then sending them out to the world to make more destruction.

the fact that she doesn't know that there are alternatives should be more reason why she would call for the chantry.  She is a mother, but she is also an Arlessa.  Killing the demon will mean the death of her son and may mean the death of her husband -- letting the demon live means continued death and destruction for so much more.  

Edit: many husbands and sons have died because of this, and she is willing to let many more husbands and sons die to try and save her own.  At what point should she be held accountable for her choice to protect her son, and by extension, the demon in him?

Modifié par ejoslin, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:15 .

[Sarah1281]

I don't think it's a very medieval mindset that a noble child should be killed so that commoners can live. That really feels more like a case of values dissonance.

Edit: And what do you mean "No she knew exactly what calling the templars would mean"? When did I dispute that? I'm pretty sure I said something about her knowing that calling them would mean the death of her son. Sure, for all she knew there was no way around killing him but she's not the most sensible person in the world and she did have proof that Connor wasn't gone for good in that she saw him break through on more than one occasion.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Addai]

ejoslin wrote...

She may have cared, but not nearly enough IMO. She didn't want him killing people (and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise), but still, afterwards, when she had a chance, she did NOT go far enough outside of the castle. I didn't hear her say, "My son is an abomination. please, it must be stopped. There must be no more death. Please go to the chantry so it can be ended." Instead, she begs Teagan to go to the castle with her, completely unthinking of anyone but herself and her child.

Agreed.  She's definitely not noble in the higher sense.  Probably why the people of Redcliffe were not eager to have Eamon back as arl.  He seems to have more of that noblesse than she does, e.g. he'll say "you did what you had to, it could have been much worse."

[KnightofPhoenix]

It is true that Isolde was acting like an Orlesian noble, without a "noblesse's oblige" mindset. Evidently Eamon is much more reasonable and objective.

[ejoslin]

sarah, i didn't mean anything when I said, "no, she knew exactly..." other than i was agreeing that she knew exactly what calling in the templars meant. I'm from Michigan, we talk funny here It didn't occur to me that putting that "no" in would make it seem like i was arguing, especially in the context of what i said.

Edit; and while it may not be a medieval mindset that a noble child dies so that the people the arlessa should protect may live, it is QUITE the mindset in that land that abominations must die.

Modifié par ejoslin, 12 décembre 2010 - 06:14 .

[Ryzaki]

Well I admitted to be being bias *shrugs* It's not something I'm willing to argue about because I"m not changing my mind on it.

And also the fact that mages are still walking around suggests that all mages aren't killed along with the fact that I doubt the average person knows about the Harrowing. (Duncan doesn't even know what a Phalarctry (spelling is wrong) is.)

And yeah she goes "Conner don't kill anyone." but all she does is stand there. She lies and schemes and places Teagan and the PC in more danger and then at the end of it all she still has the nerve to start screeching about her status instead of realizing that other mothers have lost sons, people have lost family and friends because of the incident. But none of that seems to matter to her.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[Leonia]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It is true that Isolde was acting like an Orlesian noble, without a "noblesse's oblige" mindset. Evidently Eamon is much more reasonable and objective.

Indeed *adds the first check to the "positive" column on Eamon's list of character traits*

[Sarah1281]

How is Isolde killing Connor personally 'the option that protects her the most'?

[Sarah1281]

Glaucon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

How is Isolde killing Connor personally 'the option that protects her the most'?

It allows her to do what she does best: revise.

So Isolde knows that she can't stop you from killing her child and requests that at least she do it so a stranger doesn't kill him and hopefully it will be easier on Connor and you're turning this into Isolde trying to protect herself? Why can't people dislike her without trying to twist all her actions into being solely about protecting herself?