77 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

What should I do about the guy in Soldiers peak, the blood mage that did all those experiments on the surviving wardens? Should I bring high justice.. Would that be considered evil at all? Or should I just let him continue with his experiments as long as he doesn't hurt anyone?

I suppose killing him would be justice for the wardens he experimented on, but on other hand it would also be a pointless waste of an interesting opportunity. Killing Avernus won't bring those wardens back or change the past. If you let him continue his research, however, the grey wardens could benefit greatly.

Doesn't that serve the greater good more?

I agree. The darkspawn have taken over the lost dwarven kingdoms, an underground territory which spans the entire continent of Thedas. They need to be stopped, and Avernus can provide the means to defeat them with his discoveries about the taint. It's like the Anvil - the golems beat back the first Archdemon and gave the dwarves a hundred years of peace from the darkspawn. Should we discard it because golems are created from people, given that it can end up saving dwarven civilization from annihilation?

XxDeonxX wrote...

Yeah but my Warden is not willing to do any evil even if its for a greater good. Thats why he will probably pick Harrowmont over Bhelen unless I decide to just have him act ignorant to the papers being forgeries.

Im just trying to think really what Bailian would do

I mean he follows the same general concept, where he isn't willing to do little evil for greater good. He isn't willing to have Guy and his Knights executed so he can become King. Even though he knows if Guy becomes King he will lead jerusalem to ruin. He still allows it to happen however since he doesn't want to be responsible for the deaths of those knights

Would Bailian be aware of the situation with the casteless? And the forged documents do concern deals that Harrowmont made to get the votes from Dace and Helmi - which Lady Dace denies if you mention to her that Harrowmont trying to double-cross her so it's clearly not on the level. Neither canidate is really "good" - both of them are accused of killing King Endrin, Harrowmont and Bhelen both sent mercenaries to take you down in the Deep Roads if you side with one against the other. Dwarven politics don't really allow for anyone to side with the "good canidate" because none of them are really good. I can't imagine a "good" character (who is unwilling to do evil) would like the situation concerning dwarven politics at all.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree. The darkspawn have taken over the lost dwarven kingdoms, an underground territory which spans the entire continent of Thedas. They need to be stopped, and Avernus can provide the means to defeat them with his discoveries about the taint. It's like the Anvil - the golems beat back the first Archdemon and gave the dwarves a hundred years of peace from the darkspawn. Should we discard it because golems are created from people, given that it can end up saving dwarven civilization from annihilation?

True. Many people agree that the Anvil is very powerful, but destroy it because they don't trust Branka.  What do you think of that argument?

I don't get it. She may be crazy but her goal is to destroy the darkspawn and retake the Deep Roads. She's really only a threat to the darkspawn (well, unless Harrowmont lets her run amok).

Even if she does make a nuisanse of herself, she won't live forever. The Anvil has long term strategic value.

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree. The darkspawn have taken over the lost dwarven kingdoms, an underground territory which spans the entire continent of Thedas. They need to be stopped, and Avernus can provide the means to defeat them with his discoveries about the taint. It's like the Anvil - the golems beat back the first Archdemon and gave the dwarves a hundred years of peace from the darkspawn. Should we discard it because golems are created from people, given that it can end up saving dwarven civilization from annihilation?

True. Many people agree that the Anvil is very powerful, but destroy it because they don't trust Branka.  What do you think of that argument?

I don't get it. She may be crazy but her goal is to destroy the darkspawn and retake the Deep Roads. She's really only a threat to the darkspawn (well, unless Harrowmont lets her run amok).

Even if she does make a nuisanse of herself, she won't live forever. The Anvil has long term strategic value.

I admit that I had reservations about leaving Branka with the Anvil, but her goal is to destroy the darkspawn. The Anvil is the only means by which golems can be created, and as unsavory as it might seem, they were able to beat back the Archdemon Dumat and keep the dwarven kingdoms safe for a hundred years until Caridin kept his gift from saving the dwarven kingdoms that fell to the invading darkspawn - women being violated and turned into Broodmothers while others were being eaten and killed simply because Caridin didn't approve of how the Anvil was being used. 

Although the Anvil uses people to create their virtually impenetrable soldiers, I think of it this way - the dwarven kingdoms ran the entire span of the continent of Thedas, and virtually all of it is now in darkspawn hands. Only two Great Thaigs remain (another poster compared it to New York and LA being spared if the entire U.S. had fallen), and even counting the distance between Orzammar and Bownammar that can be reclaimed, it's a small fraction compared to the rest of the darkspawn dominated Deep Roads and fallen kingdoms.

King Bhelen uses the warrior caste, the casteless, and the golems to retake the lost thaigs and push back the darkspawn. Nearly all of dwarven civilization has fallen to the darkspawn, and destroying the Anvil could doom them to the enemy that the surface world ignores unless it's a Blight. The dwarves can only count on themselves to deal with the darkspawn, and I'd rather give them a fighting chance to defeat an enemy that's been a threat for over a milennia than allow a sense of morality to leave them with nothing and possibly condemn them all to fall to the darkspawn. It's going to take a long time and a serious army to retake an entire continent of lost thaigs, and the golems provide the dwarves the edge they need to beat back the darkspawn.

[Augustei]

Well Bailian would have known that Guy was working alongside Reynald de Chatillon in killing innocents travelling through The lands and would have guessed that this would have escalated if Guy got full command of the armies as king of Jeruselum especially with Reynald in his ear.. So he was not willing to let people be killed by his direct order if he became King. but he seems to have been fine with people suffering and dying for him not accepting the title.



Guy used the armies to march through the desert and lead them to their deaths and then with no army, The capital would have been completely vulnerable to attack by the Sarrasins... Guy seems to reflect traits from both Harrowmont and Bhelen however.



But Bailian was following the concept of being a good knight, So he could not have lied about the forgeries and he could not simply change his oath of feaulty.. Im guessing that he would have had to turn down Bhelens task but since he needed to unify the lands against the blight and needed to select one of them, And since Harrowmont does not ask the warden to do anything out of the code of morals Bailian follows... at least to my knowledge. I think he still would have picked Harrowmont.



He had to be a good knight so he would have been forced to do no evil even if it meant it would result in evil as a result of commiting no evil.. if that makes sense.



Im now a bit unsure about the stance to take on the Anvil. (I personally see how it could be very helpful and beneficial and good for the kingdom even if in the hands of a nutter) But with the charecter concept im following im not sure what course of action he would take.. I mean would helping Branka and stopping Caridin be considered an act of evil.. or an act that would not be considered evil but would have an evil outcome (Castless)



I mean, Since he is picking Harrowmont.. It indeed does have an evil outcome.. well both sides have evil outcomes but Harrowmonts is worse with the anvil. But to know that i'd be metagaming which I dont intend to do.



Damn now im stuck on what to do about the anvil... Thankis alot LobselVith.... =P

[Augustei]

Would Keeping the anvil be an act of immediate evil, or just long term evil?

[sylvanaerie]

Depends on how you view Slavery. Caridin realized how wrong it was when the king in his day started feeding his enemies to the anvil. Golems don't get any choice about what they do, they effectively become slaves at the whims of whoever holds the control rod.

By the same token, preserving it may make the difference between dwarven extinction and holding off the Darkspawn and I'm sure many a dwarf would volunteer if it meant a chance to save Orzammar. It's not an easy choice. And not black and white, good or evil. Well, to me it's evil but I abhor slavery of any kind. I do recognize for willing participants it's not that bad but who is responsible enough to use it responsibly? Branka is nucking futs.

[ddv.rsa]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Would Keeping the anvil be an act of immediate evil, or just long term evil?

Destroying the Anvil can be considered an act of evil. 

[Abispa]

Since this is a role-playing game, I'd say ROLE-PLAY. Assume you are the character making the decision at that moment in time and then live with the consequences. Nothing bugs me more than RPG players would constantly replay games NOT because they love the game so much on its own, but because they want the "perfect" save for the sole purpose of getting the most goodies in the sequels. My favorite Warden and Specter are the first ones I took through the game, and in each case I made "incorrect" choices that my character had to live with and missed out on some subplots and Easter eggs. That makes the game more real for me. I'm not going to make a character just so I can have sex with every character, see every dialogue option, or Fed Ex every important NPC package.

[ddv.rsa]

Abispa wrote...

Since this is a role-playing game, I'd say ROLE-PLAY. Assume you are the character making the decision at that moment in time and then live with the consequences. Nothing bugs me more than RPG players would constantly replay games NOT because they love the game so much on its own, but because they want the "perfect" save for the sole purpose of getting the most goodies in the sequels. My favorite Warden and Specter are the first ones I took through the game, and in each case I made "incorrect" choices that my character had to live with and missed out on some subplots and Easter eggs. That makes the game more real for me. I'm not going to make a character just so I can have sex with every character, see every dialogue option, or Fed Ex every important NPC package.

I agree generally, but it's hard to have the willpower not to reload when something turns out badly. Especially if you've invested a lot of time and thought into the game.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 11 février 2011 - 08:58 .

[sylvanaerie]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Abispa wrote...

Since this is a role-playing game, I'd say ROLE-PLAY. Assume you are the character making the decision at that moment in time and then live with the consequences. Nothing bugs me more than RPG players would constantly replay games NOT because they love the game so much on its own, but because they want the "perfect" save for the sole purpose of getting the most goodies in the sequels. My favorite Warden and Specter are the first ones I took through the game, and in each case I made "incorrect" choices that my character had to live with and missed out on some subplots and Easter eggs. That makes the game more real for me. I'm not going to make a character just so I can have sex with every character, see every dialogue option, or Fed Ex every important NPC package.

I agree generally, but it's hard to have the willpower not to reload when something turns out badly. Especially if you've invested a lot of time and thought into the game.

Sometimes, yes.  The larky playthroughs can be fun too, just doing a bunch of things you wouldn't normally if you actually thought it through. 

[Augustei]

Would killing surrendering opponents be considered evil . Like the bandits at lothering or the blood mage in the circle.. Even though they killed innocents?

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 12 février 2011 - 07:04 .

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Would killing surrendering opponents be considered evil . Like the bandits at lothering or the blood mage in the circle.. Even though they killed innocents?

The bandits attacked innocent people while the female blood mage was trying to free her people; apples and oranges. I send the bandits to the Fade, and I recruit the blood mage into my army to fight darkdpawn.

[Augustei]

Damn just got up to whether or not I should destroy the anvil.. Am....So....Confused.



I mean its not really considered an act of immediate evil?

I mean we know it enslaves people and we know Branka is crazy. But we are really just preserving an object that would be used for evil later.. It could also be used for great good though.. I mean we know Branka hates the Darkspawn and would certainly use the golems to fight against the Darkspawn and it would help reclaim lost thaigs and we even know the golem process is reversable since shale becomes a dwarf again... But that requires metagaming.



Idk.. This anvil bit would have to be the most confusing decision in the game for me

[HolyAvenger]

Power corrupts. I have seen nothing in Orzammar which lets me trust anyone with the kind of power the Anvil will provide. Its almost absolutely guaranteed to be a colossal f*ck-up given dwarven society.

[ddv.rsa]

You can be certain that some people will be put on the Anvil against their will. But considering the rewards, keeping the darkspawn at bay and potentially saving Orzammar, I personally think it's worth the price.



The darkspawn are an infinitely greater evil than any corrupt noble in Orzammar.

[HolyAvenger]

That's certainly one valid interpretation.

[Augustei]

I decided to destroy it but I have a feeling in my gut it was wrong.

[ddv.rsa]

It shouldn't be a big problem unless you particularly care about the fate of Orzammar. Especially if you choose Bhelen, in which case having golems is just a bonus.

[sevalaricgirl]

Xilizhra wrote...

Choosing Bhelen isn't doing evil. Helping him get away with his kinslaying would be, but with the evil already done, all you can do is make the choice that's better for the dwarves.

If you do want to go fully ME-Paragon, you'll need to do the lyrium ritual.

The dark ritual isn't evil in my own opinion.

I haven't played Awakening so I can't assess that. But the rest seems all right.

Ah, but you don't know what choice is better for the dwalves without metagaming.  This is my 16th playthrough and this time I selected Harrowmount because I listened and asked everyone what they thought, anyone who would talk to me, and I asked the shaper about the papers, approached Varrick about them and he was nasty.  I also asked about him and found out where his allegiances are and why.  I also spoke a lot to Harrowmount.  I believe a weak king is a better king than a tyrant and I felt that Bhelem would end up a tyrant and when I made Harrowmount king, Bhelem tried to kill us all which left me to believe that he'd kill anyone who got in his way.  He, without metagaming, is not the best choice.

Also, Bhelem doesn't really do what's right for Orzammar.  The only thing he does do is open the doors to outsiders and allowed the casteless to fight but who's to say that's right for Orzammar.  He did away with the assembly and Orzammar turned into a dictatorship with a murdering tyrant on the throne.  I think Morrigan is right.  The dusters allow themselves to live in the state that they do and could easily to go the surface and make a better life for themselves. 

I do agree that the DR isn't evil.  To me, sacrificing Alistair was more evil or sacrificing yourself when there was another option available.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 14 février 2011 - 10:36 .

[Augustei]

Yeah I made Harrowmont King with no Anvil.. So heres to 100 years of nothing changing =D still im very unsure about whether or not the Anvil is evil so idk.



Yeah I dont think the dr is necessarily evil but it could be, its very mysterious and not enough known about it atm.. But yeah I think allowing Loghain to sacrifice himself in the name of redemption is good

[rft]

I don't know why but i upgraded Vigils Keep and closed the tunnels yet it still said that many died including Nathanil and Vellana. (Although there was no body) Is this a glitch or did I miss something?

[rft]

answer???

[Augustei]

I went and studied the knights code, and the studied the concepts of a perfect Knight. My charecter is not at all violating the Knights code.. but i think he would be violating the perfect knight virtues.. One of them being to show mercy to you enemies.. This would suggest sparing Marjolene, The Maleficar in the circle tower and the bandits.. However the maleficar thing conflicts with the faith virtue because the chantry would want her dead and So I would be upholding my faith by killing her.

The Problem with the perfect knight virtues however. Is that alot of them conflict, alot especially would in Dragon Age.

Under the knights code though, I would have to kill Loghain because an Authority figure (Alistair) Rightful Heir to the throne and King of Ferelden demands it. So I cannot disobey when I am in fact a Knight within his realm

Destroying the anvil could conflict with the wise virtual as well.
Damn its to hard to uphold the Perfect Knight Virtues.. Think i will just stick with the Knights code. lol

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 23 février 2011 - 10:22 .

[LobselVith8]

rft wrote...

answer???

The entries initially say that everyone died, but the Epilogue shows otherwise as long as you upgraded everything for the Keep (and you should have received an Achievement to verify this).

[sevalaricgirl]

Xilizhra wrote...

Problem with Bhelen is he is a very cruel man. Harrowmont seems to be sticking up for Tradition which is not a good thing but you cannot really determine he is an evil or bad person unless you give him the anvil.

I wouldn't say "cruel." Ruthless? Murderous? Yes. But do we ever see him enjoying someone else's pain? I can't remember any instances.

You witness his henchmen killing someone as soon as you enter Orzammar, his right hand man has papers that are forged, without metagaming, it's not logical to select him for the throne.  When you make Harrowmount king, Bhelem attacks you which is even more proof that he's a bastard and that Harrowmount was the right choice, without metagaming of course.