216 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Analyzing the events and choices of the Dragon Age series, I've come to the conclusion that siding with Meredith in The Last Straw is, to use a somewhat poetic phrase, the act of blackest depravity capable of a player character in the series. Not only that, it's pretty high up on the list of acts of black depravity in the series, period.

For the first point: it being the most evil thing possible to do in DA2 is pretty damn clear, at least to me. Relatively speaking, the game isn't that dark. Most of the evil you can do is, well, siding with the templars through the rest of the game, aside from a few instances of helping criminals. And, arguably, siding with the Red Irons at the beginning. But that's practically nothing compared to what can be done in The Last Straw.
Now Origins? There, things are darker. You can murderknife plenty of people for no reason and support the efforts of some quite nasty folks. However, none of them seem to be quite as bad.
-Preserving the Anvil: What Bhelen or Harrowmont does with this is their business. You may be enabling them, but you're also doing that by nominating them as king. The act just doesn't seem direct enough to qualify.
-Defiling the Ashes: Only counts if you're a devout enough Andrastian to really believe that the Maker will punish everyone for it, or even exists. I, quite frankly, am neither.
-Annulling the Ferelden Circle: This is pretty bad, I have to admit. However, accomplishing it requires so much fewer deaths: only the unturned survivors in the Harrowing Chamber.
-Slaughtering the Dalish: The only thing that comes close, and it's definitely a solid candidate. The main reason I don't list it as being as bad is, once again, scale; the clan here seems to be rather smaller than the Kirkwall Circle.

As for the second point, the only thing that immediately leaps out to me as a worse act committed by an NPC is Rendon Howe's combined slaughter of the Couslands and purge of the Alienage. Howe is worse than any PC gets to be. Of course, there are other strong candidates, but few seem as strong.
-Loghain: Has been done to death. I'll just say that I don't think he counts.
-Vaughn: Obviously a terrible person, but the scale is so vastly much smaller; only five people are hurt directly by him.
-Branka: Would count, and might actually beat a Meredith-siding Hawke, but I'm not certain she's in full control of her faculties, or totally responsible for her actions. So it's hard to say for certain.
-Zathrian: In terms of sheer scale of suffering caused, he probably wins. But it wasn't actually caused by a single act, so much as the repercussions of it throughout the centuries. So like Branka, he's hard to place.
-DA2 cast: It's overall a less dark game, so there aren't as many candidates here. Ser Alrik tried to be one, but the Tranquil Solution never became a reality. Tarohne wouldn't even be considered if it weren't for her choice of general innocents as her targets; you could argue differently, but her actions were undertaken against an aggressive military organization. Quentin's degree of insanity makes him difficult to place, like Branka, and again, the scale is so very much smaller.
 

[88mphSlayer]

i completely disagree that the annulment of the circle is morally worse than slaughtering the dalish clan - which imo is the most deprave thing you can do in the game regardless if you meant to do it or not

[Xilizhra]

Well, that's a close thing.

[jlb524]

I agree...I think it's pretty bad and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Unless you meta-game it a lot.

Also, when you are speaking of killing the Dalish, you mean in DA:O right? Not DA2 (which was an act of self-defense)...

[Cutlass Jack]

Killing the Dalish in Origins was a depraved act. Killing the Dalish in DA2 was more a demented act by the Dalish themselves as they lept onto your swords.

Also siding with the Templars isn't precisely the same as siding with Meredith and supporting the Rite of Annulment. You could validly pick that route to perform damage control. In fact you save more mages on the Templar path than the Mage route. Mostly due to the mages drinking from the same water as the demented Elves above.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 01 mai 2011 - 05:48 .

[Xilizhra]

jlb524 wrote...

I agree...I think it's pretty bad and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Unless you meta-game it a lot.

Also, when you are speaking of killing the Dalish, you mean in DA:O right? Not DA2 (which was an act of self-defense)...

Of course. If the Dalish in DA2 are dead, it's their own damned fault.

[Wulfram]

Annulling the tower is an atrocity - but it gets annulled whatever Hawke does. The question for Hawke is what can he do to keep casualties to a minimum, and there's an argument that siding with the Templars is the pragmatic course for that.

This is unlike massacring the dalish in Origins, where the werewolves want to try for peace and you persuade them otherwise.

[Xilizhra]

Yes, but they aren't annihilated if Hawke sides with the mages. I'm not counting templar casualties because they're the aggressors.

[88mphSlayer]

jlb524 wrote...

I agree...I think it's pretty bad and have yet to be convinced otherwise.

Unless you meta-game it a lot.

Also, when you are speaking of killing the Dalish, you mean in DA:O right? Not DA2 (which was an act of self-defense)...

and would the Templars not also claim self-defense? Merrill brought danger on the clan and the response is that she's more important than the clan eh? and i'm sure Anders could claim self-defense too for blowing up the chantry if he wasn't so prepped for martyrdom

everything Orsino did basically justified annulment, the circle failed and the Templars were getting corrupted left and right (and we're not talking about the moderate Templars like Thrask who got killed by extremist mages anyways, even Cullen who does not believe in Meredith's extremist view and will draw his sword to protect you even if you're a rebel mage still supported annulment)

the real problem anyways is that the circle and templars brought civil war upon themselves through complacency, just how many bloodthirsty templars and insane apostates need to wreck Kirkwall before anybody does anything? inevitably if i have to pick a side it's going to be the side that ensures law and order is maintained the city populated by charles manson type murderers on every corner

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

Annulling the tower is an atrocity - but it gets annulled whatever Hawke does. The question for Hawke is what can he do to keep casualties to a minimum, and there's an argument that siding with the Templars is the pragmatic course for that.

This is unlike massacring the dalish in Origins, where the werewolves want to try for peace and you persuade them otherwise.

No.  Siding with Meredith is an atrocity period.  I wish people would stop sugar-coating genocide and making it seem nicer than it is.  Siding with Meredith is an act of genocide that includes the slaughtering of little mage children.  They just don't do it on screen is all.

If you side with the mages, you do manage to save many, and even if you don't, at least you can honestly say you tried to defend the innocent.

Siding with the Templars is helping a madwoman slaughter people for a crime they DID NOT COMMIT!

-Polaris

[jlb524]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Also siding with the Templars isn't precisely the same as siding with Meredith and supporting the Rite of Annulment. You could validly pick that route to perform damage control. In fact you save more mages on the Templar path than the Mage route. Mostly due to the mages drinking from the same water as the demented Elves above.

I just wonder what kind of mindset Hawke would need to come to that conclusion.  Talking about damange control, I can't see how siding with one side is necessarily better than the other as there's going to be a lot of damage regardless and I think a lot of the responsibility for that is on Meredith and those that follow her (plus Anders of course).

[Rifneno]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Killing the Dalish in Origins was a depraved act. Killing the Dalish in DA2 was more a demented act by the Dalish themselves as they lept onto your swords.

You took the words right out of my mouth.  Except for "Lemmings."  Ever heard of "suicide by way of cop?"  It's where some coward doesn't have the balls to kill themselves so they trick a cop into thinking they're pulling a weapon so the cop does it for them, and half the time is never the same afterwards.  The Dalish is a lot like that.  Suicide by way of Hawke.  Fortunately, Hawke doesn't give a damn.

Speaking of elves, I almost took one of the evil options by trying to be good once.  Playing the city elf origin, Vaughn offers the bribe and says the alienage will be purged if you kill him.  I almost let him walk not because of the bribe but because of the threat of purging.  Wound up going to the wiki for spoilers before gleefully painting the walls with his innards.  Kind of curious if anyone else found themselves in the same dilemma?

Annnyway, yeah I completely agree the RoA is the worst thing you can do in DA2, and the Dalish slaughter is the worst in DAO.  They both amount to the same thing: small-scale genocide for the actions of a few.  There's a reason Hitler always gets brought up in debates about evil characters.  Because genocide is the most evil act possible.  At least in the real world, in fantasy worlds like this there is possibilities for horrors that don't exist in the real world.  I haven't seen any in DA that are worse though.  Maybe the Countress, if the Warden didn't deal with her (relatively) soon afterwards.

[Xilizhra]

and would the Templars not also claim self-defense? Merrill brought danger on the clan and the response is that she's more important than the clan eh? and i'm sure Anders could claim self-defense too for blowing up the chantry if he wasn't so prepped for martyrdom

Since the templars were attacking, if they claimed it, they would be wrong. And the clan there simply attacked Merrill and Hawke for telling the truth about Marethari.

everything Orsino did basically justified annulment, the circle failed and the Templars were getting corrupted left and right

The Circle failed because of the templars and because of Kirkwall's shredded Veil.

[Wulfram]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, but they aren't annihilated if Hawke sides with the mages. I'm not counting templar casualties because they're the aggressors.

There's collateral damage to think off too - this is a large city and these idiots are having a battle in the middle of it.

[Xilizhra]

Yes, so it's best to end the fight as fast as possible. Which work with either side. I simply don't choose the repugnant one.

[Rifneno]

Wulfram wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, but they aren't annihilated if Hawke sides with the mages. I'm not counting templar casualties because they're the aggressors.

There's collateral damage to think off too - this is a large city and these idiots are having a battle in the middle of it.

I very much doubt this.  Almost all the mages are in the Gallows, not the city itself.  The ones that are out in the city are likely there illegally and would be attacked regardless.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, but they aren't annihilated if Hawke sides with the mages. I'm not counting templar casualties because they're the aggressors.

There's collateral damage to think off too - this is a large city and these idiots are having a battle in the middle of it.

Very minimal and ONLY caused by Meredith's declaration of the Rite of Annulment.  You can't blame a person for fighting back after they've been attacked for no cause which is essentially what you're trying to do.  Remember the Gallows is on an island and the mages were already under lockdown which means there were very few mages outside the Gallows (and the passages out including the secret ones were did not permit mass numbers to leave all at once).

Capt Aveline says that the Guard is capable and able to maintain public order.

-POlaris

[jlb524]

88mphSlayer wrote...

and would the Templars not also claim self-defense?

I'm not sure how they could, given that they were in no immediate danger from mages or anyone...they were the aggressors.

88mphSlayer wrote...

Merrill brought danger on the clan and the response is that she's more important than the clan eh?

Any threat Merrill possibly posed wasn't obvious or immediate and can't be compared to Templars hunting down mages with big swords...now that's an obvious immediate threat to life.  I also don't find the Merrill fear justified and I think most of it was due to demon-possessed Marethari whipping them into a frenzy.

88mphSlayer wrote...
everything Orsino did basically justified annulment, the circle failed and the Templars were getting corrupted left and right (and we're not talking about the moderate Templars like Thrask who got killed by extremist mages anyways, even Cullen who does not believe in Meredith's extremist view and will draw his sword to protect you even if you're a rebel mage still supported annulment)

Most of this occurs after Hawke's decision....

88mphSlayer wrote...
the real problem anyways is that the circle and templars brought civil war upon themselves through complacency, just how many bloodthirsty templars and insane apostates need to wreck Kirkwall before anybody does anything? inevitably if i have to pick a side it's going to be the side that ensures law and order is maintained the city populated by charles manson type murderers on every corner

Which is a fine goal, but I think the OP is questioning the morality of the means used to achieve that end.

[GavrielKay]

I think things are skewed here in a big way by Kirkwall itself and the bits you can find out about how weak the Veil is there. If Hawke can find out this information by wandering around for a few years, certainly those folks with access to official records should know. There should never have been a circle in Kirkwall in the first place.

Keeping order doesn't work for me as an excuse to kill an undetermined number of innocent mages who've been kept against their will for most of their lives. Meredith's attitude that it's better to kill innocents than to spare the guilty is to blame for a lot of what's happening. Annulling the circle to gain an illusion of safety for the rest of Kirkwall doesn't feel right to me.

[88mphSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

and would the Templars not also claim self-defense? Merrill brought danger on the clan and the response is that she's more important than the clan eh? and i'm sure Anders could claim self-defense too for blowing up the chantry if he wasn't so prepped for martyrdom

Since the templars were attacking, if they claimed it, they would be wrong. And the clan there simply attacked Merrill and Hawke for telling the truth about Marethari.

everything Orsino did basically justified annulment, the circle failed and the Templars were getting corrupted left and right

The Circle failed because of the templars and because of Kirkwall's shredded Veil.

if rogue mages from the circle were destroying the templars from the inside out long before the right of annulment is called then that's self-defense, no matter how extremist the solution may be

and the clan attacked because Merrill basically killed Marathari with her desire to restore the mirror against wisdom and the wishes of the clan, if you were put in the shoes of the Dalish you might want to reply to that act as well, Merrill was not above the clan

and the templars did their duty, that the circle couldn't handle any unforeseen threats to their establishment is the circle's problem, that it spun so out of control as to corrupt both sides means there's no morally superior choice

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 01 mai 2011 - 06:10 .

[Rifneno]

88mphSlayer wrote...
if rogue mages from the circle were destroying the templars from the inside out long before the right of annulment is called then that's self-defense, no matter how extremist the solution may be

And in turn, those rogue mages could claim self detense because the templars are condemning them to life in prison in a haunted slave prison because they were born wrong.  Thanks for playing, better luck next time.  

[Xilizhra]

if rogue mages from the circle were destroying the templars from the inside out long before the right of annulment is called then that's self-defense, no matter how extremist the solution may be

Well, I did kinda kill them all long before The Last Straw.

and the clan attacked because Merrill basically killed Marathari with her desire to restore the mirror against wisdom and the wishes of the clan, if you were put in the shoes of the Dalish you might want to reply to that act as well, Merrill was not above the clan

Regardless, they were the aggressors and killing them was self-defense, as none of them surrendered.

[Wulfram]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, so it's best to end the fight as fast as possible. Which work with either side. I simply don't choose the repugnant one.

Except the repugnant side is the stronger one - the one which in fact ends up winning whatever Hawke chooses.

I usually side with the mages.  It's certainly the heroic choice, and also IMO the moral one.  But while my one Hawke who backed the Templars took the Viscount's crown with hands stained with the blood of innocent, she was not to my mind evil or depraved - only ruthless and concerned more, in the moment of crisis, with the protection of the people of Kirkwall than with questions of justice.

[Maria Caliban]

It's Right of Annulment.

[Beerfish]

Meredith was crazy, could and did cause the death of many/all mages.
Orsino was crazy, could and did cause the death of many/all citizens, guards etc.

For some unknown reason in these arguments people always pit the mages vs the chantry/templars or qunari vs kirkwall law enforcement and the champion all of whom are totally outnumbered by average joe citizen.

At the point in the game where it is time to make a hard choice it is hardly an easy choice for me unlike the many that only see poor persecuted mages ala Anders. Mages have done enough vile, ambitious, crazy things up to that point to give a person a real pause in thinking. As unfortuante as it is for the normal mages, every mage and his dog is a blood mage.

Now the wail from the pro mage side is that "It isn't their fault! The chantry and the templars made all of us use blood magic and do bad things!"

At that point in the game it is irrelevant because the gates have been tossed open and there are tons of mages using blood magic roaming around. Yeah, lets wipe out the bully templars and then just let this legion of blood mages settle into whatever local village they like.

No, by that point in the game there is a very good reason to side with the crazed templar, whether the situation was the mages fault or not it is out of hand now.

Further to that it could be argued that annulment could overall benefit more mages than it destroys. The rest of Thedas is watching, if annulement takes place and the mage threat (like it or not a mage blew up the chantry) is contained then it is less likely that the Divine will send an army to wipe Kirkwall and that whole area clean. It also lessens the likelyhood for all mages being pariahs in all areas of Thedas.

It is never an easy decison for me in game, both sides are cuckoo and there are consequences to going either way.