886 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

So you don't condone the actions that laed to the results, but you are happy those actions were taken? That seems like having your cake, and eating it to. to me.....

No. I'm not happy the actions were taken, but the results are now there, and they improved medical knowledge and helped saved people's lives. It's complicated but it boils down to I found their actions completely atrocious and detest that people can do such things to others, but I would rather worry about the living who need help now, and if there's knowledge in the world to improve their chances, then why not use it? If we throw away such knowledge because of where it came from, we would be limiting how much we can help the living who have loved ones worrying about them, friends, family, jobs, lives.

I have great respect for the dead and a very strong loathing of everything the royal buzzards of Germany in WWII did and stood for, but I would rather focus on helping the living because they are people that can be helped, here, now, today. I can't get in a time machine and help people long dead.

[TEWR]

So you don't condone the actions that laed to the results, but you are happy those actions were taken? That seems like having your cake, and eating it to. to me.....

I think it'd be more appropriate to say that condoning or condemning the actions are irrelevant to whether the results are beneficial to society in the future (and in the case of Avernus, it's exactly that. Condoning or condemning his methods are irrelevant).

What's done is done, but that doesn't mean something that could save many lives should be tossed aside. The methods taken may be horrific -- for the ****s, they more then likely were. I don't know what dragonflight was referring to specifically, but considering it was the ****s that did it I'm inclined to believe they were atrocious -- but all that says is that the lives sacrificed for it shouldn't be forgotten. Not that the results should be forgotten.

For Avernus, he's not like the na.zis in that his actions can be condoned or condemned because it's a unique situation. It's different. But his results should be used in the future. The na.zis on the other hand... well... I doubt anyone condones their actions.

And it's not like Avernus can't be made to ethically research ways to help the Wardens and society. He can.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mars 2012 - 03:45 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Yes, but that argument is basically "whatever we do, it will be justified in the eyes of future generations." That is a stance devoid of ethics. The core of our scientific knowledge may have been acquired in ways considered unethical, but that's why we repeat experiments according to current ethical standards. No one would take an experiment performed by Josef Mengele seriously these days purely because such practices were devoid of all ethics or scientific rigor.

[dragonflight288]

Yes, but that argument is basically "whatever we do, it will be justified in the eyes of future generations." That is a stance devoid of ethics. The core of our scientific knowledge may have been acquired in ways considered unethical, but that's why we repeat experiments according to current ethical standards. No one would take an experiment performed by Josef Mengele seriously these days purely because such practices were devoid of all ethics or scientific rigor.

Can't deny that...unless you're a follower of Thomas Hobbes. That philosopher outright said man in inherently evil. And Aristotle was very sexist in his beliefs....

If you truly study various philosophers, take any three and you'll have six different ideas on what's good and evil in the world. Some philosophers claim hedonism the only good in the world, while others claim being stoic and removing all emotion so rationality is the only thing of worth in the world....it can get quite dicey.

But can't deny what you said. I cannot, and will not condone anything anyone does in the name of progress if it hurts another person and destroys their inalienable rights and freedoms. I just won't. But my view is, I can't help the dead who were victimized by those who do that, but I can hope to help the living to the best of my ability. Ignoring any source of information that helps based on where its from is not the best idea if it helps people.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Well, here's the problem: ethics factor into scientific rigor. Scientists, if they engage in practices considered unethical, can have their research thrown out by any self-respecting publication, as well as to lose any funding. By publishing or promoting research that uses unethical standards, that entity or person is expressing their approval. That's why experiments performed unethically are repeat in according to standards. If not, the data is thrown out - it does not conform to ethical standards, and therefore cannot be considered scientific. The process matters just as much as the end goal, good intentions or not.

Back on topic, blood mages might have uncovered anatomical findings. Keep those. Repeat an experiment on cadavers without the blood magic. Then make a conclusion. Don't take the findings of a blood mage at face value.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 16 mars 2012 - 03:54 .

[dragonflight288]

That's true. But can the same be said of all scientists throughout the world? India, Russia, Iran, China, and one of how many dozen countries in Africa?

[CrimsonZephyr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

That's true. But can the same be said of all scientists throughout the world? India, Russia, Iran, China, and one of how many dozen countries in Africa?

Not always, but the interconnectedness of the world and the scientific community has made it so that such standards are upheld, or at least observed tacitly, elsewhere. Not saying it's perfect, but it's not like bog-standard foreign experimentation procedures involve wanton butchery. You still have to describe what you did, and lying about that is serious business.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 16 mars 2012 - 03:58 .

[Rorschachinstein]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

That's true. But can the same be said of all scientists throughout the world? India, Russia, Iran, China, and one of how many dozen countries in Africa?

Not always, but the interconnectedness of the world and the scientific community has made it so that such standards are upheld, or at least observed tacitly, elsewhere. Not saying it's perfect, but it's not like bog-standard foreign experimentation procedures involve wanton butchery. You still have to describe what you did, and lying about that is serious business.

This seems on track with first world countries. But say countires like Comabodia where the Khmer Rouge built their "standards" from scratch. Where wanton butchery was considered Science.


Also. Blood mages are a blight on the land.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Rorschachinstein wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

That's true. But can the same be said of all scientists throughout the world? India, Russia, Iran, China, and one of how many dozen countries in Africa?

Not always, but the interconnectedness of the world and the scientific community has made it so that such standards are upheld, or at least observed tacitly, elsewhere. Not saying it's perfect, but it's not like bog-standard foreign experimentation procedures involve wanton butchery. You still have to describe what you did, and lying about that is serious business.

This seems on track with first world countries. But say countires like Comabodia where the Khmer Rouge built their "standards" from scratch. Where wanton butchery was considered Science.


Also. Blood mages are a blight on the land.

Khmer Rouge...you're about 30 years behind the times, pal. Besides, scientific standards by politically-motivated organizations in dictatorial countries tend to be so deviant, they're not considered worthwhile by the community at large.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So you don't condone the actions that laed to the results, but you are happy those actions were taken? That seems like having your cake, and eating it to. to me.....

I think it'd be more appropriate to say that condoning or condemning the actions are irrelevant to whether the results are beneficial to society in the future (and in the case of Avernus, it's exactly that. Condoning or condemning his methods are irrelevant).

What's done is done, but that doesn't mean something that could save many lives should be tossed aside. The methods taken may be horrific -- for the ****s, they more then likely were. I don't know what dragonflight was referring to specifically, but considering it was the ****s that did it I'm inclined to believe they were atrocious -- but all that says is that the lives sacrificed for it shouldn't be forgotten. Not that the results should be forgotten.

For Avernus, he's not like the na.zis in that his actions can be condoned or condemned because it's a unique situation. It's different. But his results should be used in the future. The na.zis on the other hand... well... I doubt anyone condones their actions.

And it's not like Avernus can't be made to ethically research ways to help the Wardens and society. He can.

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

[dragonflight288]

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

That's true and no one is arguing that point (although it may sound like I am when discussing using the results.) My whole stance is strongly against any such barbarism or immoral brutality in anything. But if there's knowledge out there that can help people, we can use it humanely.

This seems on track with first world countries. But say countires like Comabodia where the Khmer Rouge built their "standards" from scratch. Where wanton butchery was considered Science.

Weren't those the teenage nuts following Pol-Pot? Pol-Pot didn't like history or certain aspects so he gave teenagers weapons while they feel they are on top of the world and invincible, and committed genocide on his own country so he could literally rewrite history in his image....

Those guys?

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

That's true and no one is arguing that point (although it may sound like I am when discussing using the results.) My whole stance is strongly against any such barbarism or immoral brutality in anything. But if there's knowledge out there that can help people, we can use it humanely. 

Just because the results are useful doesn't mean you can't condemn that the research were being done in the first place. Especially if there are alternative ways to achieve the results. That is why I take issue with TEWR's "condoning" of Avernus' research.

[TEWR]

Just to be clear here, the only reason I condone what Avernus did is because of the situation he was placed in.

Had he just been in the Keep without the looming threat of a demonic invasion on the other side of the Tower and he had still done what he did, I would probably condemn his actions.

The fact that he was trapped -- and the large unknown on whether his acolytes were blood mages as well -- changes the situation for me. If his acolytes weren't blood mages, they would've only lived for about 30 years maximum, depending on when they took their Joining. Avernus was trapped for 2 centuries, only able to keep himself alive because of blood magic.

But if they were blood mages, then it changes the game a bit and I might condemn his actions. It means that they all could've stayed alive by doing the same research on one another with fairly ethical means, if the research required pain to unlock the power of the Taint.

But if the other Wardens weren't even mages to begin with, then it goes back to me condoning him and his actions.

So I only condone his actions based on the knowledge that I do have and the unusual/extraordinary situation he was placed in. Were more knowledge to come into play on how he did his experiments, my stance might change. All I know is that the other Wardens were all dead by the 90th day or so and that they were going to die anyway eventually because of the situation they were in. It's not like the Wardens could ask anyone for help at that time. They were anathema in the country and possibly from the rest of the Order.

That said, being a Warden automatically casts points in Avernus' favor because of the looming threat of the Darkspawn. They subscribe to a motto of "We do what we must to defeat the Blights. They change the very world we live in when they occur, and thus if we must bear guilt for our deeds then so be it."

Based on his notes however, it seems that he could only achieve results by causing a great deal of pain in the subjects. Like, that was really the only way to get access to the Taint's true powers. So I guess the power of the Taint can only be achieved -- and really awakened -- by pain.

Which makes sense, given that the alchemical concoction says that pain wracks the Warden's body and as a result he's given access to new powers.

So however horrific the methods may be in a person's mind, it seems like they really were the only way to move forward. And as a result, Avernus is justified.

That's why I'm going to have Xanthos Aeducan send him cages and cages of Darkspawn. Better Darkspawn then any more Wardens.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 16 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

Since the grey wardens are the only ones that stand between humanity and extinction means they are always justified.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

The world of Dragon Age has to live with the reality of the Blight, an event with the potential to quite literally destroy the entire world.  In that environment, the ends do justify the means.  Its practically the Grey Warden theme.  You're talking about a group of people who won't hesitate to kill the few to save the many. 

When the fate of the world is at stake, that changes the stakes.  The possible end of the world is exactly the sort of absolute worst-case scenario that makes "any means necessary" a reality that must be faced.

Actually this is one of my favorite things about the idea of the Wardens:  a group of people who willingly take on the burden of responsibility--and guilt--for making monstrous but necessary choices, so that others don't have to.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All I am arguing is that whatever the end result, the actions towards the achievement can be highly immoral, downright atrocious even. Avernus' actions were highly immoral, and despicable even, despite his results. Sure the results may be useful, but that does not lessen his crime. The end simply doesn't always justify the means.

The world of Dragon Age has to live with the reality of the Blight, an event with the potential to quite literally destroy the entire world.  In that environment, the ends do justify the means.  Its practically the Grey Warden theme.  You're talking about a group of people who won't hesitate to kill the few to save the many. 

When the fate of the world is at stake, that changes the stakes.  The possible end of the world is exactly the sort of absolute worst-case scenario that makes "any means necessary" a reality that must be faced.

Actually this is one of my favorite things about the idea of the Wardens:  a group of people who willingly take on the burden of responsibility--and guilt--for making monstrous but necessary choices, so that others don't have to.

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

[dragonflight288]

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

No, but him doing that does help prevent an army of demons capable of possessing anyone whether they're a mage or not (like Sophia) from ever leaving the area and attacking, possessing, or outright destroying other parts of the world.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

You are wrong on that. Knowledge is power and by unlocking the power within other grey wardens the order is now a step closer to solving the darkspawn problem.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

No, but him doing that does help prevent an army of demons capable of possessing anyone whether they're a mage or not (like Sophia) from ever leaving the area and attacking, possessing, or outright destroying other parts of the world.

As I recall, his research into the taint, and rhe wards he had set to hold the demons, were not connected at all. His research into the taint was merely how he passed the time.

[Urzon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

We don't know if the Wardens he experimented on gave their consent or not. Because after so many weeks/months they must have known there was no help coming for them., and even if there was; the king would block any and all attempts at rescue. So that only leaves them with how they are going to choose to die.

They could either...

A. Lead a final assault against the demons, even though it's doomed to fail. They would have been sufferring from starvation and/or dehydration for weeks. No to mention the demons can just get reenforcements from the tear in the Veil, and their dead bodies would only get possessed by demons afterwords.

B. Die of starvation and dehydration.

C. Them all coming down with a bad case of cabin fever (or influenced by the demons whispering in their ears). Which might lead to them killing each other.

D. Kill themselves.

or

E. Allow Avernus to experiment on them, hopefully making their death meaningful somehow, and them hopeing and praying that Avernus survives long enough to pass on the information.

While Avernus' experiments were brutal and horrific (and all around ethically bad in everyway), nobody knows if those Wardens gave their consent or not. 

Modifié par Urzon, 17 mars 2012 - 11:20 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Urzon wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The fate of the world did not depend on Avernus killing his sworn battle-brothers for the sake of some school project....

We don't know if the Wardens he experimented on gave their consent or not. Because after so many weeks/months they must have known there was no help coming for them., and even if there was; the king would block any and all attempts at rescue. So that only leaves them with how they are going to choose to die.

They could either...

A. Lead a final assault against the demons, even though it's doomed to fail. They would have been sufferring from starvation and/or dehydration for weeks. No to mention the demons can just get reenforcements from the tear in the Veil, and their dead bodies would only get possessed by demons afterwords.

B. Die of starvation and dehydration.

C. Them all coming down with a bad case of cabin fever (or influenced by the demons whispering in their ears). Which might lead to them killing each other.

D. Kill themselves.

or

E. Allow Avernus to experiment on them, hopefully making their death meaningful somehow, and them hopeing and praying that Avernus survives long enough to pass on the information.

While Avernus' experiments were brutal and horrific (and all around ethically bad in everyway), nobody knows if those Wardens gave their consent or not. 

If they gave consent, Avernus wouldn't need to put them in cages.. Sure you can come up with some convulted reason as to why he might have done so, but that simply doesn't work from a storytelling perspective. He put them in cages, which simply means that they didn't. And he is also very defensive about his actions, implicating that what he did was immoral. If they had given consent, he wouldn't have been so defensive. Simply put, the Wardens didn't give consent.

[dragonflight288]

As I recall, his research into the taint, and rhe wards he had set to hold the demons, were not connected at all. His research into the taint was merely how he passed the time.

Let me quote Avernus directly here.

Avernus: Blood magic comes from demons, they could counter every bit or lore I knew. But the darkspawn taint! That is alien to them,

Sounds like he was trying to use the taint to gain an advantage over the demons to me.

[Urzon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If they gave consent, Avernus wouldn't need to put them in cages.. Sure you can come up with some convulted reason as to why he might have done so, but that simply doesn't work from a storytelling perspective. He put them in cages, which simply means that they didn't. And he is also very defensive about his actions, implicating that what he did was immoral. If they had given consent, he wouldn't have been so defensive. Simply put, the Wardens didn't give consent.

Depending on the after effects of his experiments, he might have have to. He was looking into drawing the strength for the Taint. He was messing with the Taint itself in the blood of the Warden. When you are messing around with and experimenting on something are unknown as the Taint, who knows what could happen to the person when you are messing around with their very blood.

Of course he is going to be defensive. The Warden basically says "How can you do this to your own brothers? You're a monster!". Wouldn't you be the least bit defensive if someone you don't know (and just met) comes up to you can says that? Must less, if they said that without knowing the full story behind it?
 
Heck, we the players don't even know the full story. We have what Avernus said, and a couple of notes in his research journals. That's it. Sure, you can look at a room and say that it implies something, but if that is the true or not is unknown. Just like any of us can think its implies something different. It's all an matter of opinion. Only the storywriter and the developers of the game knows that really happened.

[hitenchi]

I am going to be honest i would like for the limitation and restrictions of learning and using blood magic to be shown more in depth in Dragon age 3. One of the main problems is the fact that blood magic is available to any mage who wants it, at a risk, and desperate mages are the ones who are most likely to be possessed.

[vixvicco]

I know this sounds weird, but I like it. The rebellious nature of it seems enticing. Plus, it can be controlled within reason, I think.