1807 réponses à ce sujet

[T0paze]

xka wrote...

T0paze wrote...
Well, what you're saying about the game world may be true, but I still don't have any problem with that. Even if there is an abstract soul in one-week-old fetuses in Thedas, one can immediately see a huge difference between that soul and the soul of a fully sentient child or adult. The first is, well, pretty much abstract, so removing it would mean nothing to me. The second is very real, so eliminating it would be a true sacrifice.

Ey, you are thinking like Morrigan!
A soul is a soul from ethic view. Power, knowledge, ..from ethic point of view, don't matter in this question. Farway, the fact of replacing an innocent soul, for another thing is ethically...well..you know. Well, we could speack about organ trafficking to compare..but better not to do.

Well, i see from this point of view.

But like a said before, i dont know is this would be evil for the greywardens, im not sure.


EDIT: i think Morringans want it to , after a lot of years, get his body with its powers. I mean, the same Flemmeth wanted to do with Morringan

Morrigan, unlike me, wouldn't have any problem sacrificing any child or adult to resurrect an old god. Or perhaps she would - I don't know. On the other hand, I, unlike you, am quite more sceptical in my attitude towards the souls of embryos (provided that they exist at all), and certainly do not attach such great value to them, mainly because I consider them fairly abstract. Aside from that, I think that most mages (at least those not completely brainwashed by the Chantry) would go to great pains to resurrect an uncorrupted Old God, knowing about their contribution to magic, so Morrigan's offer was actually not a way out of a hopeless situation - it was a very welcome proposition in itself. The only bad thing about it was that Morrigan intended to take the child and disappear... but then, first, nobody's perfect, and second, that could and probably will be handled. 

Modifié par T0paze, 11 décembre 2009 - 01:39 .

[xka]

Allattar1 wrote...
XKA
I have no problems with your posts.  You make points and present a discussion.

Sorry again Allattar1, i saw  late you was speaking about other user. Im sorry, i have edit my other message. Is a problem with my low level of english.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allattar1 wrote...
I mean how can you be so passionate about a game character, your practically telling everyone how to play there game, the outcome they must go through.
I am actually quite apalled at the way you respond to everyone here Lotion and think your verging on being abusive.

I'm not telling anyone what they MUST do or what they SHOULD do. Unless you have forgoten, I'm playing the game with different characters, who made different decisions.

What I AM doing is analayzing the choices for what they are. Each of my characters have their own reasons for making a choice. That doesn't change the reality of the choice itself.
Some of my characters might be too brash, too self-absorbed or full of spite, so they take the ritual. Not all the characters have to the wise and noble.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I give up, I really do, you are so full of it that you can't even see it.



I repeat what I said in my last post.



It is NOT selfish, nor is it selfless.



Selfish and selfless are merely points of view of people.



Some would consider a Warden demanding that he be the one to take the final blow as selfish as they want to die for the glory of being the saviour. Whilst obviously others would see it as selfless because they sacrificed themselves for the other Wardens.



So stop trying to preach that it is selfish to do the ritual and that anyone whom thinks otherwise is wrong, that is just your personal point of view.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allattar1 wrote...
That is not making a point, he is using emotional engagement to discredit another view.  A logical fallacy, but one where he is trying to enforce a point of view that those who disagree are despicable bad people.

Lotion is being too emotional and is hampering the fun of the discussion in this thread.  Very shortly, depending on the maturity of posters in this forum, threads like this devolve into name calling after posts in the fashion of lotions.

Personally I take great offense that Lotion appears to assume he is the law judge and codex on every matter to do with Dragonage.

If anything he is only the chantry.

This topic hit the moral chord pretty hard. What? Did you expect from me to leave morality out of this completely? A bit hard given that this topic adresses morality too. You cannot talk about selfishness without that.

That said, why do people insist on desperatly defending the validity of the choice some character of theirs took? Like the character has to be super-smart and super-right all the time? So a character made the less-optimal choice, so what? Get over it an move on.
Why the need to defned that choice as the "smart" or "good" one to the end? Maybe because they feel it insults their inteligence too? Maybe because they figured too late the choice was not the wisest one, and it messes with their character concept? But I digress....

And really Allarat1? You're offended by me not liking experimentign with children? Does my oppinion shock you? If I told you I considered rapists horrible poeple, will you throw a fit too? Chill.
There's no need to take offense from my moral compass..Aren't you the one who said "it's only an oppinion"? If so, why do you care what my oppinion is? Surely I'm not such an important infulence in your life?

[Layn]

xka wrote...

Allattar1 wrote...

What we do know is that tainted Warden blood + Soul + Archdemon soul = Warden + Archdemon dead.

We have more:

# A mage fail quest -> Demon gets his body (abomination). Only 1 soul remain

# Archdemon is killed by an ordinary person-> Archdemon goes to a darkspawn (tainted blood) and reencarnate. Only 1 soul remain.

# The fact is Archdemon in normal condition, only is killed when meeting with a greywarden's soul (also tainted blood) in a the same body. The ritual brokes this conditions, throwing archdemon into a another corpse, yes also with tainted blood, but its supposed in new conditions: doenst reencarnate like archdemon, doesn't dies.

for the first: a demon is a spirit, not a soul. different rules apply. and anyway, we don't know what happens to the soul. the second: darkspawn doesn't have a soul and thats why the archdemon survives.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



You sure we're palying the same game? Maybe some trigers are nit fireing properly for you?

In my latest playtrouhg I have high coercion, but Morrigan still disgrees with practicly everything I do.

and thats why dragon age is so awesome! forget about stats, its about how you talk to her. have you tried to befriend morrigan? thats how she was when i played the way i've been talking about here.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And thank you for proving my point. You've just admitted your'e gambling in the dark, and a childs soul is (or might be) at stake.

Even if there is no soul yet, you're still robing the child of it's future.

of course there is a risk, as there always is with things where you don't have hard proof. i have always been saying that you aren't wrong with being cautious. there is a 1 in 3 chance that the soul of the child exists and dies, however what morrigan says has more weight to me because of trust. so im more confident that that choice is alright. and how am i robbing a child of its future if it wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the ritual?

[Allattar1]

Lotion you dont get it do you?



I am not justifying any characters choices.

I am not bothered by your point of view.



I know you are going to turn this thread into a flameway sooner or later. I will not be a party to it.

I dislike the way you have insinuated in posts above that people who justify the dark ritual some way are evil.

I dislike your high handed and oppressive approach to discussions.

I dislike your inability to be flexible in thought.

I dislike the way you are preaching in thread like this about what is right or wrong, when its about a game.

I dislike the way you assume something, ahve an opinion and declare it fact.



My posts where saying to you chill out. Telling me to chill out is just a bit on the abusrd side isnt it?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Selfish and selfless are merely points of view of people.

Weather someone is selfish or not depends on what one tries to achive, why one tries to achieve it and how one goes about achieving it (what's he is ready to do to achieve it).

Pretty much all 3 have to be valid for an act to truly be selfless.

If you're attacking the archdemon just cause you want glory..well..that's not fully selfless, but since you're still saving other people..it's not selfish either.
Anything that sacrifices others or harms them to futher your goal is selfish.

Now, regarding the ritual...possible motivations..in other words, the WHY (somewhat WHAT also):
- bring back an old god
- stop Blight
- live
- have sexy time with Morrigan
Anything else? There's probably more.
Now some of those are selfless, some are selfish. But that's only the WHY. There's the the question of HOW.

Regardless of any of the above, the ritual still remains a shot in the dark, a gamble with other's lives, which is downright selfish (or at least evilish).

So.. I've yet to see a WHAT + WHY + HOW combination that doesn't end up as selfish.  If you do know one, I'm interested to hear it.

[Silensfurtim]

seems to me that Morrigan pulled a "Desire Demon" job with DAO players lol

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allattar1 wrote...
I dislike the way you have insinuated in posts above that people who justify the dark ritual some way are evil.

People? You mean characters, right? Cause I took the ritual choice as a mage too and I sure as hell aint' evil. But the mage was a magnificent bastard.

I dislike your high handed and oppressive approach to discussions.

Elaborate..How can one be opressive on the forums? I can't stop you or blackamil you into posting anything. You have full freedom of discussion here.

I dislike your inability to be flexible in thought.

I'm flexible if presented with some proof. You've yet to provide anything concrete.
You've yet to disprove the main points. So what do you expect me to do? Change my conclusions just cause you don't like em?

I dislike the way you are preaching in thread like this about what is right or wrong, when its about a game.

And things in a game can't be right or wrong? Good or bad? Smart and stupid? So shooting a Cone of Cold into the party is not stupid, cause it's a game?
 

I dislike the way you assume something, ahve an opinion and declare it fact.

You'd notice I mark facts clearly as such. The rest are hints or suggestions.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Crrash wrote...
 forget about stats, its about how you talk to her. have you tried to befriend morrigan? thats how she was when i played the way i've been talking about here.

I've bedded her twice. She's not as harsh as she was, but she still lacks empathy.

there is a 1 in 3 chance that the soul of the child exists and dies, however what morrigan says has more weight to me because of trust. so im more confident that that choice is alright.

I'm curious...how did you get those numbers?

[marshalleck]

This thread owns all of your souls. Forget the Old God, look upon what Silentsfurtim has wrought and tremble, mortals.

[Silensfurtim]

*evil laugh*

Only David Gaider can save this thread now. Almost a thousand replies in 38 pages and hes nowhere to be seen.

[marshalleck]

I wonder if he's just sitting back, shaking his head, and thinking to himself "those people have noo idea what they're talking about..."

[Silensfurtim]

or maybe.. we already figured out one of the planned DLCs lol

[robertthebard]

[quote]Silensfurtim wrote...

Reasons why Morrigan cannot be trusted.

1. Shes an Apostate Mage. There are reasons why Apostates are hunted by the Circle of Magi, Templars and Chantry.[/quote]

Since when does the Circle hunt apostates?  The Chantry, through their Templars does, but the Circle does not.  If they were to do so, then Wynne would turn in Morrigan, no question.

[quote]2. Her mother is Flemeth. An abomination who body-snatches her daughters. And sending Morrigan with you was the plan from the very start.[/quote]

How can you show that this was the plan from the start?  Dialog after the tower rescue is very much believeable.  The Blight is every bit as much a threat to Flemeth as it is to everyone else.  Assuming anything else from the dialog you have been given is very much just wanting to see the worst in somebody.

[quote]3. She wants the power of an Old God for herself. She could have just raised the child with you.[/quote]

This is viable.  Yes, she wants power.  It is also likely that she plans to pull a Flemeth herself.  However, if you romanced her, and got the ring, you know she feels badly for leaving you.  For all we know, in the sequel, she shows up at your doorstep.

[quote]4. Shes disapproves at everything you do good.[/quote]

This is a blatant lie.  She, like Sten, disapproves of everything she sees as wasting time, or not furthering your power to fight the darkspawn/Archdemon.  This is why she disapproves of saving Owen's daughter, but not of saving Arl Eamon.  The disapproval rating is lessened on destroying the Anvil of the Void if you use the line about making her a golem.  It is also lessened if you point out that she could be in the tower if things had gone differently in the past.  These are not things that she pretends to agree with.  She still sees them as a waste of time, and disagrees, but can see that they are necessary, or "right".

[quote]5. She "loves" you. But instead of living with you happily every after, she decides to go away not wanting to be found.[/quote]

So, if offered, would you take your hero self off to the Wilds, or the Frostback Mountains, forsaking all the glory you made for yourself in defeating the Blight?  She is not a social butterfly, hence her isolated position in camp.  She even discusses this in camp dialog.

[quote]6. Some your companions don't trust her.[/quote]

Based on this, the only companions you should have are Alistair and Dog.  Alistair trusts no one in camp.  You evidently didn't get the "People in Camp" dialog.  The only one that Alistair trusts is you, and Dog.

[quote]7. Shes rude to most of your companions.[/quote]

Based on this, nobody on this forum should be trusted either.  Most of the "See it my way or you're wrong" crowd in here has been rude to the ones that see the morality in game as being a bit more fluid.  We are told that trusting Morrigan is blind trust, since we don't know her, but we are supposed to take it on faith that this is so from people that we don't know.  Taking it on faith is also blind trust.  So, we are expected to blindly trust a poster here, that has not been with us to kill a High Dragon, thousands of darkspawn, and a myriad of other creatures, that our opinion of whether we can trust the Morrigan in our campaign is wrong.

If you could show instances where she has stabbed me in the back during the game, your opinion might carry more weight.  However, since this is not the case, you're just asking us to take it on faith.  Again, this is blind trust.


Reasons why Morrigan can be trusted.

1. I just... trust her.[/quote]
Actually, she has never betrayed me.  Anora will sell you out in a heartbeat, and yet you probably made her Queen.  Inconsistant logic much?  Anora, ruling on her own, will wipe out the Alienage to silence them.  Yeah, there's a great moral choice for ya'.  Others would put Alistair on the throne, with or without Anora.  All based on blind trust that he will be a better king than he was senior Grey Warden in Ferelden.  That's not even blind trust, that's utter stupidity.  Granted, it seems to work out in the end, but, since you have nothing in game to tell you he wouldn't suck except for Arl Eamon assuring you that he can pull Alistair's strings, you take a lot on blind trust.  Human Noble females at least have the alterior motive of being "queen".  Human Noble males can justify it by being "King".  Both of which aren't altruistic, but merely selfish, and yet, there seems to be no consensus that these purely selfish acts are anything but good choices.  Granted that the endings are limited to what you can do at that point.  The ritual has two paths as well, you do it, and Morrigan leaves, or you don't do it, and Morrigan leaves.

That she's in it for herself cannot be denied.  Every single member of your party but Dog is.  Dog is in it for you, period.  If you had a way to just leave Ferelden to it's fate, Dog would go with you, and you would take no hits on his approval.  He is the only member of your party that will blindly follow you, no matter what choices you make.  Frankly, I'm glad that the rest of the party is full of independant thinkers.

In the end, for me, the ritual was indeed a selfish act.  But all the nonsense that gets thrown around about causing another blight is unsubstantiated.  There has been no proof that it will, we are just asked to take it on blind trust.  Assuming that it will have affects w/out any evidence is nothing else.  If the Old Gods were already evil, then Thedas would have been wiped out centuries ago.  The facts given in game say that the Old God must first be corrupted.  For all we know, when the Old God's soul jumps to the infant, it is still destroyed.  After all, that is what happens when it jumps into the Grey Warden that strikes the killing blow w/out the benefit of the ritual.  Morrigan may very well be disappointed to learn that the child isn't what she thought it would be.  Unless you can show me otherwise?  I won't be taking it on blind trust, either, you'll have to document it.

[Allattar1]

Lotion it is possible to be abusive and oppressive in replies, without using four letter words.

You downright ignore replies, or dismissive them as thats not proof.

I detailed every assumption you assume is fact.

You refuse to acknowledge that you don't know about souls in DA:O. There is nothing to back up what you believe here.



You only have your own assumptions, and you treat them as fact.

Another way of being abusive is to structure your posts in an aggressive and regular manner that makes others feel like they cannot be bothered to point there view, or worry that they risk your ire.

Decisions in a game can be wrong or ight, but this decision has been deliberately left ambigous with a lot of unanswered questions.

Offer proof? I have offered as much proof as you have for my reasoning. Your own reasoning is based off of feelings, and assumptions.



The thing is I have always said here that the only bit of knowledge we know for definite is that we do not know.



We dont know how souls work.

We dont know what Morrigans duty is.

We dont know if the child with the old gods soul will be morally good or evil.

We dont know if the old soul can be re corrupted or not.

We dont even know if Morrigan really knew anything at the beginning of the game or if she did. Plenty of places to learn about Flemeths plans, mid game.



We do know that the old gods soul dies for good if the archdemon tries to jump into a body already with its own soul. That we do know.



So the whole argument of is this morally right or wrong comes down to, does your character believe Morrigan? Does your character care about believing Morrigan? Does your character want to live?



A morally just character could believe Morrigan,

Just like a morally dubious character could distrust Morrigan and at the end decide demon baby with Morrigan is too much even for them.



So when we point out Lotion, that it is your own point of view, it is just that your own point of view.

Hell even Morality is based on society, morality is what ever society decides it is.



For some places on this Earth it is morally acceptable for women to walk around with bare shoulders, in others any flesh shown is unacceptable.



So how can you preach to us of what is wrong or right in a game or a fictional society that we have only glimpsed in a few books and the game itself.

[robertthebard]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Selfish and selfless are merely points of view of people.

Weather someone is selfish or not depends on what one tries to achive, why one tries to achieve it and how one goes about achieving it (what's he is ready to do to achieve it).

Pretty much all 3 have to be valid for an act to truly be selfless.

If you're attacking the archdemon just cause you want glory..well..that's not fully selfless, but since you're still saving other people..it's not selfish either.
Anything that sacrifices others or harms them to futher your goal is selfish.

Now, regarding the ritual...possible motivations..in other words, the WHY (somewhat WHAT also):
- bring back an old god
- stop Blight
- live
- have sexy time with Morrigan
Anything else? There's probably more.
Now some of those are selfless, some are selfish. But that's only the WHY. There's the the question of HOW.

Regardless of any of the above, the ritual still remains a shot in the dark, a gamble with other's lives, which is downright selfish (or at least evilish).

So.. I've yet to see a WHAT + WHY + HOW combination that doesn't end up as selfish.  If you do know one, I'm interested to hear it.

So any time you don't do the ritual is selfish, and the bolded part of your own quote proves it.  Since you have clearly stated in this quote that "Anything that sacrifices others or harms them to futher your goal is selfish."  If you don't do the ritual, and die, or allow another Grey Warden to die in your place, you have committed a selfish act.  You stated this as fact.  Note, that I am not putting words in your mouth, you stated this.  You have killed another Grey Warden, even if it is yourself, to further your own agenda.  You have thereby committed a selfish act.  This is taking things absolutely at face value, and quoting you directly.

Saving Connor is a selfish act, because it's done to further your own agenda.  You have killed a demon to do so, regardless of whether you allow Jowan to do the ritual, or go get the Circle mages.

Not saving Connor is also a selfish act because you killed a child.

Doing any of the dwarven roads to get your troops is a selfish act, because you have to kill people in order to achieve it, no matter which way you go.

Siding with the elves, or the werewolves is a selfish act.

Before you start trying to justify, all of the "why" in this is to further your own agenda.  This is the problem with your black and white world that I have been trying to point out since I started debating this with you.  Since you take the bolded position in this quote, everything you do is selfishly motivated.  Whether you save the mages or not, you did so to build your army.  You had no altruistic reason to either spare them, or kill them all.  You did so merely to further your own goals.  The possible exception to saving the mages excuse that one was a Circle mage, and loved being so is moot, since you have to kill to achieve your ends, and ultimately, the only reasons you would have to be at the Circle in the first place are to either save Connor, and find it in disarray, or to get the mages to honor your treaty.

[robertthebard]

sleepy__head wrote...

If someone wants you to do something she wants, but she refuses to explain why she wants that, and at the same time refuses to explain why she doesn't want to explain, that throws up all sorts of red flags to me.

A grey warden has responsibilities to the world, and trying to get such a one to make a decision based on this total ABSENCE of information does not show trust and does not show good faith.

If my grey warden doesn't deserve an answer to a very fair question, Morrigan doesn't deserve me considering her request seriously. And to be willing to gamble on a "I hope she has no evil intention" is irresponsible, and definitely not a good act.

We've covered this before, but allow me to address this again:  In the game where I did the ritual, my City Elf Female was conscripted into the Wardens to avoid a death sentence, or worse, for killing Vaughn.  So, my "reward" for killing the man that kidnapped me, and raped my friend, and would simply get away with it because he's the Arl's son is that I find out I'm expected to throw my life away to save people that, ultimately, don't give a rat's ass about me, or my people?  This is my "duty".  No thanks.  If the option to leave to Ferelden to it's fate had existed, I would have taken it on that play through, and would have killed Alistair myself to do so, if that's what was required of me to accomplish that end.

Talk to me about duty while supporting Alistair as King if you spared Loghain.  All through the game he touts the honor of being a Grey Warden, and then, bails on you.  Yeah, he lived up to his duty, didn't he?  You want me to throw my life away to support his rule, or rather, to give him something to rule after he abandoned me to my fate?  No, thank you.  That's like asking me to spare Vaughn, not going to happen.  It's all well and good to point at the ritual and say "Bad Grey Warden, you should be willing to throw your life away to stop the Blight regardless of how these people treated you".  It's another thing to take the ingame experiences of a character that add weight to that decision.  From the Quartermaster in Ostagar, you get a good sense of how elves are treated outside of the Alienage, and what do you find?  That by and large, what goes on in the Alienage is pretty much common throughout the realm.  Yet, you would say that any elf that has passed the Joining must automatically become willing to sacrifice their life to preserve this treatment?  Yet, you have the audacity to claim that the decision is irresponsible and bad?

It is selfish, especially from where I played it from.  However, it is not irresponsible, or bad.  It is simply putting myself above everyone else, and frankly if that's bad, then as I stated before, we are all bad.  Using Lotion's logic, "Anything that sacrifices others or harms them to futher your goal is selfish.", then the whole game is based on being selfish.  This is not something that you can have both ways.  If we're going to be absolute in our values, then we must be absolute.  Nothing you do in game can be attributed to being selfless in this view, not even getting the flower to save Dog, since it's done under the pretense of imprinting Dog on you, thereby increasing your powerbase.  There can be no other view, in a black and white world.

[robertthebard]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Capital Gaultier wrote...
She tells you that she values survival.  Neither her nor Flemeth pursue power past trying to influence the Grey Warden to perform the ritual.

"Only power and survival have meaning".. remeber that?

Which facts?  I'd like to hear them.

*sigh*

- Everything about the ritual comes from only one source - Morrigan. There's no way to confirm even one step or point of the whole process, let alone the whole thing. Not even hints that it might work. Nothing. The ONLY thing you have is her word. And she is rather evasive.
- The ritual involves letting Morrigan do some ancient experimental magic on a child
- killing the Archedemon the old-fashioned way has been proven to work
- Old Gods become Archdemons (when corrupted?)

The Old God is not guilty, either.  You don't have enough evidence to show that.  You have to go with a belief here, and I (and my characters) believe that you should never presume guilt.

Also, how is it dangerous?  It had the body of a dragon before, and that is definitely dangerous.  In a child, its knowledge may be dangerous, but that's about it.

In oder to save Ferelden from another Blight? Guilty or not, it's the safest way.
Note that the very fact the Old God calls the darkspawn raises some suspicions. Why are the darkspawn the only one who can hear it? Why do they obey it?

Also, note that mighty demons can mutate/change the body they posses. If Flemeth can shapeshift into a dragon, do you really think an Old God would have trouble doing the same? 

That is another debate.  At a few days old, many people would not call it a child.  Others believe it's a child from the moment of conception.

an abortion debate basicly? I don't want to get into that. Suffice to say, ti's life and you're f***** with it.
Doesn't that baby have the right to be itself? Possesion = bad.

Lots of actions you took in your game could come back to bite everyone in the ass.  If you don't have any faith in the future, why would you want to do any good in the world at all?  You can't fix everything, and the gamble here is very, very small in my opinion.

True. But in all the other cases either you don' have enough information to pick either option as better OR you're not given an option to refuse to choose.
In the case of the ritual, you have a safe and proven option, and a option that requires sacrificing something/someone else with no way of even knowing the chances of sucess or the consequences.

I thought you did not trust her? Or you only trust her when it suits you?

Fair enough. Le'ts not trust a single thing that goes out oher mouth. Doesnt' really change anything regarding the ritual.

You're starting to get desperate here, Lotion.  The fact is, regarding the bolded part first, that the darkspawn are not the only ones that can hear the Archdemon.  Anyone tainted can.  For example, you drink some blood, you pass out, and you dream of the Archdemon, this happens before the Tower of Ishal, and then again in camp after Lothering.  Did you even talk to Ruck?  You are so concerned about your black and white, that you are willing to ignore details that have been presented in game.  You are also ignoring that everything the Grey Wardens know concerning the Archdemon says that it is the corrupted soul of an Old God.  I'm not making this up, it's in game.  However, the "evidence" presented here is made up.  This is something that you materialized out of thin air to try to prove that you are "right" in a situation where there is no right or wrong.  I would throw my hands up in frustration if it weren't so funny.  Afterall, you state on one hand that doing the ritual is not wise, and yet state this; "Anything that sacrifices others or harms them to futher your goal is selfish.".  Since your ultimate goal is to stop the Blight, as I pointed out before, not doing the ritual is selfish, since it will involve killing someone, even yourself, to do so.  You have argued yourself into a rather deep hole with all these absolute positions.  Watching you try to dig yourself out will be quite interesting.

[Ravauviel]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

This topic hit the moral chord pretty hard. What? Did you expect from me to leave morality out of this completely? A bit hard given that this topic adresses morality too. You cannot talk about selfishness without that.

That said, why do people insist on desperatly defending the validity of the choice some character of theirs took? Like the character has to be super-smart and super-right all the time? So a character made the less-optimal choice, so what? Get over it an move on.
Why the need to defned that choice as the "smart" or "good" one to the end? Maybe because they feel it insults their inteligence too? Maybe because they figured too late the choice was not the wisest one, and it messes with their character concept? But I digress....

And really Allarat1? You're offended by me not liking experimentign with children? Does my oppinion shock you? If I told you I considered rapists horrible poeple, will you throw a fit too? Chill.
There's no need to take offense from my moral compass..Aren't you the one who said "it's only an oppinion"? If so, why do you care what my oppinion is? Surely I'm not such an important infulence in your life?

I think you hit the nail on the head their Lotion. Kudos!

[robertthebard]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Allattar1 wrote...
Well if there is a soul in the child at the point of conception, then the Archdemon and child will both die.
Thats how it works.  The fact that it is implied that child doesnt die, has to mean no soul in there.

Nope. Remeber that a tainted soul and a reguler one might be very different. Remeber that possesion is a strange thing. It can be done by force or trough the target/host surrendering willingly. Willpower is key here.

When Flemeth poseses one of her clidren, her soul isn't destroyed, is it?
So it's not just as simple 1 soul + 1 soul = anihiliation. It's not matter and anti-matter. 
In essence, one has to overpower the other.

Now this is all absurd becuase we are discussing fantasy, but you can explain any number of mechanisms that means no soul in child, for instance hold the moment of conception to the moment of death of the archdemon. 

And you know that how? A soul is really something intangible that isn't governed by physical laws. By what logic can't the soul form the second new life is concieved?

Again, you cannot have it both ways.  The darkspawn are soulless, and so when the Archdemon jumps to them, they just become a new archdemon.  Riordan tells us this.  This is not supposition based on artificial moral dilemmas.  When a Grey Warden makes the killing blow, the Archdemon jumps into the closest tainted body.  It doesn't check for a soul, it checks for the taint.  In this fashion, Grey Wardens kill Archdemons by sacrificing themselves, because two souls can't inhabit the same body, and once the Archdemon jumps, it's stuck where it ends up.  The offspring from the ritual cannot have a soul.  If it did, and since the taint in the offspring is from a Grey Warden, then the end result would be the same thing as the Archdemon jumping into a Grey Warden.  Dead Old God, dead baby.  There can be no other outcome if the baby has a soul.  This again, is not from some artificial moral dilemma, but from what's presented to us in game, from both Riordan, and Morrigan.  The only reason this can be assumed to be totally uninformed is if we ignore what is both Canon to the game, and is told to us by both Riordan and Morrigan.  The aftereffects are somewhat sketchy, but all of the information we need is presented up front.

All this philosophical nonsense about whether regular babies have souls at conception, or birth or somewhere in the mddle is just another way to force the decision into the realm of a moral dilemma.  This is not a normal baby.  The fact that it is created during a Dark Ritual means that any rules that govern normal conception are out the window, and ignoring this fact is simply done to justify telling me how wrong I am to actively participate, or, as in my case, to have Loghain actively participate in this ritual, albeit with my knowledge and consent.  This is all based on knowledge gleaned in game.  When I play a video game, the character is not me.  The character is the result of upbringing, and experiences in game leading up to the point of the final battle.  In the game where I allowed Loghain to make the sacrifice, my character was appalled at Morrigan's suggestion.  Does this mean that I'm a hypocrite because I played the game with two endings, and took the ritual in one of them?  If so, how many hypocrites are here telling me how wrong I am for doing it?

[Alex Savchovsky]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

This topic hit the moral chord pretty hard. What? Did you expect from me to leave morality out of this completely? A bit hard given that this topic adresses morality too. You cannot talk about selfishness without that.

That said, why do people insist on desperatly defending the validity of the choice some character of theirs took?
 

Because the choice is valid. Regardless of your own unwillingness to accept it.

[Felene]

Alex Savchovsky wrote...

But it is the intent that makes it selfish or not.
Let me give you an example...
Is it selfish to help an old woman walk the street? Usually no, right?
How about you help an old woman walk the street to win a bet? Same act, entirely different reasoning. 
it's the same with the ritual, you can do it for various reasons, some of them selfish, some of them bad... and some of them neither.

Hmm, I wonder if you did read my post or not.

People agree the offer so far give has me following reasons:

"navie" - "I trust Morrigan!" "I think Old God is good!" "I hope the child won't be[ or can not be ] taint!"

"irresponsible" - I don't want to be a Grey Warden from the start! So I can rightfully throw away all responsibility to the trashcan and have someone else suffer the consequences of my action. HAHA too bad for them!"../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png

"selfish" - "I don't want to die!" "It is not my time yet!" "I want to live happily there after with my boy/girl friend!"

You see?

All of the navie reason involve either wishful thinking or personal gain and none of them has ever mention "what if they are wrong" or "If Morrigan can't be trusted..." "If Old God is evil..." "If the child become an archdemon..."

Totally lack any sense of responsibility, simply believe in the best doesn't mean they are correct.

There is a interesting reason that does come up...

fantasypisces wrote...

allowed there to be two Grey Wardens remaining, therefore easier to rebuild the order.

Although it is not the only reason he wrote, and this reason alone cannot convince me, but it is interesting and worth mentioning because it can be look upon as a selfless reason.

As for any reason look upon as a neither, can you list one example?

Modifié par Felene, 12 décembre 2009 - 04:54 .

[Alex Savchovsky]

Felene, the reasons you put under "naive"... why are they selfish?

Naive or not, it's not selfish if you do not pursuit personal benefit.