134 réponses à ce sujet

[Whailor]

I see no question here. Demon - smack it. Templar there, well, he's just a collateral damage. Smack one fool to save many, where's the problem? Leaving demon around is much more of an issue then saving one sad mislead tin can.

Had no second thoughts there whatsoever. Told to demon to beat it, she didn't, down she went. Templar there was inconsequential. Evil, good - that's just semantics.

Modifié par Whailor, 27 novembre 2009 - 01:12 .

[Tenshinhan91]

And even if you could banish the demon, the templar would probably suffer consequences anyway...

[Lianaar]

OrtRestave wrote...
This is bizarrely selective reading. As I said, evil requires a will to do harm.

OrtRestave wrote...
It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if their intent is
righteous to them, or even to others if it were known. It may perhaps
slightly lessen the evil of the Blight, but the consequences of
the Blight are still a monstrous evil.

OrtRestave wrote...
Wait, what? Killer bees? Killer bees can't be evil, because they are
not self-willed. Like the car accident. Once again I'm not entirely
sure that you're reading me clearly. Killer bees can certainly do harm,
as can car accidents, hurricanes, and all sorts of natural phenomena.
But none of these things are evil, because they possess no will. A
swarm of killer bees killing a person is not evil; a person killing a
person is evil.

As long as I do not know why the Blight happens I have no way to say the intent behind is to harm. It might be just a swarming group of darkspawn without any free will or intent. We simply have no way of knowing. That is my exact point. 

I am so glad you brought this up, because slavery is a perfect example of evil done by those who do not consider it evil. It's also very clear that you don't understand what I'm saying. Of course slavery was not wrong in the eyes of those who practiced it, though most see it as a grave evil today. It is not that slavery wasn't evil when it was practiced by those who had no moral disagreement with the practice, nor is slavery evil today because now it is morally repugnant to us. The morality of the act to a given people is irrelevant. It is always evil. It is the practice of people willfully denying the freedom of others, and whether the practitioners consider it right or wrong it is still evil.

I am sorry, but this only tells me that you think your morality is the only correct morrality, which is a normal human trait in people, I simply don't think that my own morality is the only valid one. I guess I somewhat hold it arrogant to think that what you believe to be right is the only option for right. Or what I believe to be right. There are perspectives. Mine, or yours is not the only one.
Evil is defined in the morality. History is to be viewed in its own setting. You can not define the evil factor of an action with your own morality as the event took place in a totally different setting. You can not validly apply your own morality to people who lived 2000 years ago. Just like I can not (nor do I wish to) apply my character's morality into RL. Because my character faces totally different surroundings and events.

Their actions are evil. They're not "flagged" as evil, because evil isn't a state that something either is or is not.

Evil is something you define as such or not. Your definition of evil might not match with that of others. And yet you claim it as evil. Just like your deffinition of pale green might be not the same as someone else's deffinition of pale green. If you go into linguistics you can follow that through words which don't have translation in other languages. Defining the word and the use of additional meaning is dependent on many factors. Thus when you say evil, you might think on something entirely different then when someone else says evil.

There is no essence of evil except in the consequences of actions.

OrtRestave wrote...
As I said, evil requires a will to do harm.

We're talking about observable phenomena here, and the theoretical possibility that either the demons or the Blight could do something which is not evil is once again irrelevant. They have done and are doing evil.

They have done things which my characters deem undesirable. You call the same as evil. Some of my characters call it evil. Some of my characters just wonder: why? And how can it be altered? If? Is it worth it? etc. I, as player claim this has nothing to do with RL and us such is good for a good chat but has no effect on my morality, it can not even be measured by my own morality.

Just to show where I come from: continental law claims that an action is then the most punishable if there was a harmful consequence, there was a will that was directed toward the consequence and an action that is leading from the will to the consequence. Everything else is weaker in regards of 'must be punished'.
Thus if there was a consequence and there was a knowledge that the action might be leading to the consequence, then it is less punishable.
Even milder is if you have the will toward the consequence but something (no matter what) stops the events from becoming the consequence.
Milder is if you have no will toward the consequence, but you cause it.
And least mild is if you have a will toward the consequence but you do nothing to reach it, unless you have an obligation to stop it.

I would think on being evil (with the regards of the era, customs, general beliefs, moral and other structures of the society the event takes place in, with the ability of the character to change things) in a similar fashion.
Harm that is linked with the wish of harm and which comes from the wish of harm is the most evil (however eg. executing Loghain is in this version evil. Just like the execution of Alistair is evil. )
I do consider certain cases to be evil when there is no wish to harm, but there is a negligence toward inspecting the events and their possible consequence and the result is harmful (Branka is a clear example. However because she never wished her dwarves to be dead, and because her intent is to help all dwarves in the end, I can see some people validly arguing that her actions were not evil per se.)
In a way Loghain never wishes to harm. He only wishes to help the country and all people within. He might harm some, but the intent is to save all, with the killing of few. Quite noble actually. But still in some people's eyes he'll be ultimately evil. Would it be that the warden's failed to stop the Blight and Loghain killed the darkspawn and just hold a tied up Riorden near him while killing the archdemon... then maybe he would ahve stopped a Blight and he would have gone through history as the true hero and a good man.

As Aristotel and people before him already stated, we have no means to see the idols behind the words, such as evil and good. We only have a shadow of the true meaning that is already full of flaws and persepctives. We don't possess the true definition of "the evil". We compose it, we create it, while we futilely hope to give back the original meaning of the word.

Modifié par Lianaar, 27 novembre 2009 - 04:04 .

[salbine]

I had a problem taking this situation seriously. The desire demon says something along the lines of, "Where's the harm? He's happy with me." In response, Wynne says something along the lines of, "Happiness and other emotions usually occur in response to real people and events." This, in a game that tries oh so hard to manipulate the player emotionally with computer characters. It reduced the whole scenario to a laugh out loud moment for me, so I didn't have any qualms about killing the demon and the templar. They're not real. lol.

[W1slicer_carolina]

Probably been said before. But no matter how happy that guy is in the moment, he's going to end up starving to death, getting hacked to pieces by the Templars, or dying in some other painful or exotic way. Though maybe he won't know about it.....

[Soldatto Rosso]

I think that there is a difference between the demons/spirits of the Fade and the abominations. The abominations, from what I was able to see in the storyline, are a sort of fusing of both human host and demon/spirit. They become one life form, and for as long as the two are joined they influence each other. Many characters state that the demons control the host. I don't think this is true at all; I think the human host influences the demon as much as the demon influences the host. They both merge into one being, and as seen from the abominations in-game, each behaves in a nature that reflects both the demon's will (pride, desire, wrath, etc) and the character's personality whom they had possessed.



The Connor abomination was definitely childish. He mind controlled Bann Teagann, raised an army so he could play general, and slaughtered the villagers like a child killing ants with a magnifying glass. He struck out when he was bored, and wanted nothing but to have fun.



The demon possessing Uldread was most likely a demon of pride, reflecting the mage's own megalomania. He was a condescending twit, creating a "race" of abominations which whom he believed to be the ultimate form a mage can become.



Although some may disagree, it is heavily hinted at that Wynn herself is an abomination. Although the spirit possessing her is not malicious, she still matches the definition of an abomination as she herself questions the changes within her.



The one thing that demons want above anything else is to witness the physical world through mortal eyes. They take their forms, their motives, and their very identities from mortal beliefs and concepts; without mortals they would not exist. Once they possess a human host, the host's soul influences them as well, each becoming one being until the host dies and they have to find a new one. They are parasites, and latch onto the host like a tick from the Fade, riding along the host's back in order to see and experience the wonders of mortality.

[Basher of Glory]

Soldatto Rosso wrote...

The one thing that demons want above anything else is to witness the physical world through mortal eyes. They take their forms, their motives, and their very identities from mortal beliefs and concepts; without mortals they would not exist. Once they possess a human host, the host's soul influences them as well, each becoming one being until the host dies and they have to find a new one. They are parasites, and latch onto the host like a tick from the Fade, riding along the host's back in order to see and experience the wonders of mortality.

When I encountered the desire demon and the templar the first time, I believed the demon, because I couldn't see the "evil" behind it's suggestions.

I agree to that, what you wrote about Lynne. So, she's a "good" abomination", right?

What I don't understand in regard of the DA-universe)* is the fact, why the demons "who only want to see the physical world" are necessarily "evil". Why are these abominations automatically hostile towards all? Doesn't that mean, that it is part of the synergy once a demon merges with a "physical being", the new entity will be insane and thus, unable to integrate into the "physical world"?

)* DA-universe in contrast to the AD&D universe, where demons are chaotic evil by default

[Creature 1]

Lianaar wrote...

I am so glad you brought this up, because slavery is a perfect example of evil done by those who do not consider it evil. It's also very clear that you don't understand what I'm saying. Of course slavery was not wrong in the eyes of those who practiced it, though most see it as a grave evil today. It is not that slavery wasn't evil when it was practiced by those who had no moral disagreement with the practice, nor is slavery evil today because now it is morally repugnant to us. The morality of the act to a given people is irrelevant. It is always evil. It is the practice of people willfully denying the freedom of others, and whether the practitioners consider it right or wrong it is still evil.

I am sorry, but this only tells me that you think your morality is the only correct morrality, which is a normal human trait in people, I simply don't think that my own morality is the only valid one. I guess I somewhat hold it arrogant to think that what you believe to be right is the only option for right. Or what I believe to be right. There are perspectives. Mine, or yours is not the only one.
Evil is defined in the morality. History is to be viewed in its own setting. You can not define the evil factor of an action with your own morality as the event took place in a totally different setting. You can not validly apply your own morality to people who lived 2000 years ago. Just like I can not (nor do I wish to) apply my character's morality into RL. Because my character faces totally different surroundings and events.

I think this is a cop-out.  Unless basic human nature has changed in the past 15,000 years, the basics of morality are unchanged.  And basic human nature has not changed--as always, people seek comfort for themselves and try to avoid harm.  Punch some guy in the nose out of the blue 2,000 years ago and he'll have the same opinion of you as someone today would.  The core of morality is the recognition that other people are individuals with the same desire to avoid harm and seek pleasure that you yourself have.  If you don't want others to harm you, you should not harm them either. 

The trouble is people are inconsistent in their views of morality--it's wrong for someone else to hurt them without cause, but fine for them to hurt someone else without cause.  This inconsistency doesn't show that morality does not exist, it shows that morality is frequently ignored.  So genocide, slavery, rape:  always wrong. 

The fuzzy areas are where harm is not obvious, for instance cannibalism (weird and discomfiting but probably not wrong, provided you don't kill them), male infant circumcision (probably wrong), incest (squicky!! but consensual and between adult siblings probably not wrong). 

If people would just follow the Golden Rule that would solve a lot of problems. 

[Creature 1]

Oh, and the desire demon: Kidnapped someone and lobotomized them without their consent--definitely wrong. It would be nice to have a way to liberate him. Not to give spoilers, but given the situation there was no way for your character to do that. Maybe it would have worked in less adverse situations. . . So the demon had to die, and unfortunately the Templar went with him.

[ComTrav]

salbine wrote...

I had a problem taking this situation seriously. The desire demon says something along the lines of, "Where's the harm? He's happy with me." In response, Wynne says something along the lines of, "Happiness and other emotions usually occur in response to real people and events." This, in a game that tries oh so hard to manipulate the player emotionally with computer characters. It reduced the whole scenario to a laugh out loud moment for me, so I didn't have any qualms about killing the demon and the templar. They're not real. lol.

It's funny you felt this, I couldn't help but feel this way during the Sloth Demon.

"I worked pretty hard today, I deserve a break with some DAO..."

[Soldatto Rosso]

Baher of Glory wrote...

What I don't understand in regard of the DA-universe)* is the fact, why the demons "who only want to see the physical world" are necessarily "evil". Why are these abominations automatically hostile towards all? Doesn't that mean, that it is part of the synergy once a demon merges with a "physical being", the new entity will be insane and thus, unable to integrate into the "physical world"?

)* DA-universe in contrast to the AD&D universe, where demons are chaotic evil by default

Well, the demon is evil by way of the concept from which it was "born." Demons are Fade spirits that gain life by latching onto a mortal concept, like desire or pride or rage. Because they are spirits with no experience of the human psyche, they latch onto whatever concept they become. Thus desire demons seduce, rage demons are violent and wrathful, etc. They take on the malevolent characteristics of that negative human concept because they themselves think that that is all there is to existence; they are stereotypes and cliches of our mind given form, and thus are extremely dangerous and destructive. They don't have a choice in the matter; lust, pride, wrath, sloth... these are who they are and they are the embodiment of those ideas.

And thus when they posses a human host and the two merge, the human is "corrupted" by whatever concept the demon has taken on. Which is why, in Wynn's case, she is not a demented monster; the spirit which possessed her was of a benign human ideal, and not some negative concept like wrath or pride.

[Basher of Glory]

Ok, I see now.



If I understood correctly, the demons in AO-universe are very different from those we know from AD&D, right?



While the latter are physically existant by nature, the demons in AO are not, correct?

[Axterix]

Soldatto Rosso wrote...

And thus when they posses a human host and the two merge, the human is "corrupted" by whatever concept the demon has taken on. Which is why, in Wynn's case, she is not a demented monster; the spirit which possessed her was of a benign human ideal, and not some negative concept like wrath or pride.

Wynne's possession goes beyond that though. 

With the demons, they possess because of something they want.  And they feed off the host, influence the actions, make the host less than itself, until ultimately, the host dies.  And they'll do it the moment they are given the opportunity.

Wynne's possession is pretty much the reverse of that.  The spirit is sustaining her, not feeding off her, until eventually, it will die.  It allows Wynne to do what she would do, but in ways she couldn't before.  And it doesn't do it for personal gain, but for what might be called love.  It has watched and maybe helped Wynne for along time.  It doesn't want Wynne to die, so it acts to sustain her.

A demon takes, Wynne's spirit gives.

So, anyway, there seem to be different types of spirits/demons.  And it is probably also impacted by the strength of host.  Flemeth, for example, is not your typical demon possession either.

[Herr Uhl]

Baher of Glory wrote...

Ok, I see now.

If I understood correctly, the demons in AO-universe are very different from those we know from AD&D, right?

While the latter are physically existant by nature, the demons in AO are not, correct?

They can manifest themselves physically though.

[Rugaru]

I believe that people are having problems confusing abstract with definitive. Good, evil, and morality are all just abstract constructs of thought. They are not definitive north, south, east, and west. Morality is not a constant nor should it be used as such, morals are society driven concepts that change with the majority. Good, and evil are abstract creations of morality. There is no line which on one side everything is good and the other is evil.



That being said in a game good and evil are more clearly defined, it is still subject to the individual player but there are rules to it to guide. D&D had a sliding scale system, this game does not. To say that anything is evil in this game we must refer to the rules of the system. The game clearly gives the rule that demons are evil and spirits are not, if you look for it.



The desire demon is a demon and therefore it is evil. What you do with said evil is up to you but do not try to say that demons are not evil. Our only yardstick by which to measure morality in this says that they are evil.

[Basher of Glory]

Another thought, although perhaps beyond common morality:



Obviously the templar succumbed to the temptations of the desire demon. Thus, he delivers evidence about his unability to fullfill a templar's duty.

After the fight I found a notice about the guy, in which his principals rebuked him for several inadequacies.



In regard of his weakness and his unreliability, wouldn't he be an even greater threat to all? This time it was "only" a desire demon, next time it might be something else, driving him to attack the first enchanter or his captain.



Ignoring concepts like humanity and compassion and only viewing the "higher" goal of a templar's duties:

Has the man not forfeited his life anyway?

[Onyx Jaguar]

I noticed that in the fade when you chase after Vareevel the dead Templar on the floor looks like the Templar that was bewitched in this scene (I've done this multiple times, only noticed it the last time when I let them go).



Also I've been trying to figure out what a Pride demon was, I must have glazed over because my codex has been updated but I have no idea what I fought that was a Pride demon.

[Maria Caliban]

Dark83 wrote...

Re: Real vs Illusory Happiness.

Red Pill or Blue Pill?

In this case, it's illusionary happiness vs death.

I'd go for the illusionary happiness, as we know it's possible for the Templar to break the illusion, but there's no way he can return from the dead.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also I've been trying to figure out what a Pride demon was, I must have glazed over because my codex has been updated but I have no idea what I fought that was a Pride demon.

Uldread was possessed by a Pride Demon.
If you play the Mage origin, you meet a Pride Demon.
If you do the Asunder quest in the Deep Roads, you fight a Pride Demon. Though it's called a 'Fade Beast.' I'm not sure if that's exactly the same.

I think Unbound might be a pride demon, but I've never finished that quest.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 novembre 2009 - 04:46 .

[Taleroth]

Actually, it's death either way. Remember what happened to Nial? They feed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Meeh, I exterminated the demon and the Templar because I went in the circle with the intent of purging everyone and everything inside.



But I do not think the demons are evil. I am rather curious. Everytime I meet a demon, I end up talking, before they lose their temper sadly. And I found it very strange that a pride demon in the harrowing would give our character advice, almost as if he cares. He doesn't even try to take possession of our character.



So while the decision on this matter was easy for me (kill them both). I will not use the easy very abused method of labeling things that I do not understand as "evil". Rather, I choose to label them as either threats or assets and I do hope that somehow they can prove to be assets in future installements.

[Onyx Jaguar]

AHA! Yes that would make sense that the Demon in the Harrowing was the Pride Demon!

[Maria Caliban]

Baher of Glory wrote...

What I don't understand in regard of the DA-universe)* is the fact, why the demons "who only want to see the physical world" are necessarily "evil". Why are these abominations automatically hostile towards all? Doesn't that mean, that it is part of the synergy once a demon merges with a "physical being", the new entity will be insane and thus, unable to integrate into the "physical world"?

)* DA-universe in contrast to the AD&D universe, where demons are chaotic evil by default

A demon is malicious because demon just means 'malicious spirit.' Spirits of pride, rage, hunger, desire, and sloth tend to be malicious.

The reasons that spirits who try to enter the physical world tend to be malicious (and hence demons) is that the easiest route to the physical world is dreamers or mages, and when you enter a dreamer or mage, you’re probably going to destroy the person who used to be there or at least shove them to the side while you take control.

There are spirits who enter the world and aren't malicious. If you read up on spirit healers, they summon spirits into the world who help others.

I’ll also point out that all spirits come from the Fade, and are used to malleable reality. The desire demon in Connar knows that he wants to play general and keep his father alive, so she puts the old man in a coma and summons an army of undead for him to play with.

In the Fade, she could slaughter people all day and no one would be hurt. In many ways, the world of a spirit is like the experience we have when we play games. Nothing is real, there are no actual consequences, and everything conforms to your will. As far as we know, spirits can’t actually die.

To the desire demon in Kenloch tower, telling it that manipulating the Templar is wrong is like me telling you that having your PC romance Alistiar is wrong, because while every other game you’ve played didn’t feature real people, Dragon Age does and you romancing Alistair – even though it’s obvious he likes it – actually makes him very sad.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Re: Real vs Illusory Happiness.

Red Pill or Blue Pill?

In this case, it's illusionary happiness vs death.

I'd go for the illusionary happiness, as we know it's possible for the Templar to break the illusion, but there's no way he can return from the dead.

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also I've been trying to figure out what a Pride demon was, I must have glazed over because my codex has been updated but I have no idea what I fought that was a Pride demon.

Uldread was possessed by a Pride Demon.
If you play the Mage origin, you meet a Pride Demon.
If you do the Asunder quest in the Deep Roads, you fight a Pride Demon. Though it's called a 'Fade Beast.' I'm not sure if that's exactly the same.

I think Unbound might be a pride demon, but I've never finished that quest.

I believe my codex entry in my last playthrough was updated after the unbound quest, but I cannot remember what in that would have been a Pride Demon.  I do remember the demon in the Harrowing though.  Uldred also makes sense although my codex wasn't updated when I kill him to reflect a Pride Demon so thats where I was being confused.

[EmperorSahlertz]

To my estimation the blight happens for one reason ´more than any other: Survival. The Darkspawn NEED us to survive as a race, both for food and reproduction. Survival is never evil, it might suck to be on the reciving end of the hungry predator, but you can't really blame it for going hungry.

It may also happen for another reason: Vengeance. The Old God might be a little pissed about being entombed beneath the earth for centuries. Vengeance isn't neccesarily evil, as much as a deluded version of justice.





About the demons. They are only a threat when the witless and the plain stupid interact with them. We know they will try to lure you into an agreement that isn't exactly favorable to you. That is why Morrigan refuses to speak with the demon btw, not because she thinks it is evil.

We also know that demons can posses a host forcibly or be "invited" willingly, the later being the case of Connor, the former 'the Kitty incident'. Willing hosts can be exorcised, forced hosts can't.



The emotions the demons feed off is not neccesarily negative emotions, not a tall actually, they do have a potential of turning negative, but they aren't inherintly negative.

Rage - Primal, pretty much only invoked in fits for survival (or at least that is the "purpose" of that emotion)

Hunger - Primal, just your brain telling you to eat something to keep yourself alive. I agree that being hungry can suck, but still, not neccesarily a bad thing.

Sloth - All right. I agree that in the biblical sense it is pretty negative, but i remember reading somewhere that Sloth demons also fed off of other emotions such as happiness, and they were basicly just named after their personality.

Desire - Can range from the extremely negative to the extremely positive. The desire to do evil to the desire to do good, basicly.

Pride - Not a bad thing, especially if you got something to be proud of. Only when taken to extremes does it become a bad thing.

Judging by the emotions they feed of, they aren't neccesarily "evil", they just have an unquenchenable curiosity for the mortal world, and they clearly view us as inferior, so its their right to use us to their ends.... clearly....

[Maria Caliban]

Taleroth wrote...

Actually, it's death either way. Remember what happened to Nial? They feed.

1. Given that Nial wasn't the demon's host, what does this matter? I didn't say the desire demon wouldn't hurt others, only that she won't hurt the Templar.

2. Nial died because he was fed on and not given any food or water. The sloth demon kept his body alive beyond the effects of dehydration and starvation. There's no reason to think a desire demon would benefit from keeping people unconscious.