Ce sujet est fermé
Just as a reminder to try to keep it within context of Dragon Age, since I find a topic like this can derail and escalate quickly as a result.
Sorry. Revan's fate is something that hits me hard.
Actually the quest level is 38 or so...I solo'ed it at 50.
...
ANYWAYS, I suspect the Grey Warden character would be the one playing the role of moderation.
The organization has always thrived in avoiding involvement in sides besides the obvious black/white war against the Darkspawn.
Sorry. Revan's fate is something that hits me hard.
...
ANYWAYS, I suspect the Grey Warden character would be the one playing the role of moderation.
The organization has always thrived in avoiding involvement in sides besides the obvious black/white war against the Darkspawn.
Besides when it comes to their support of a rebellion against King Arland of Fereldan, the very political failure that saw them evicted from the nation for more then a century.
I would like to be able to call both sides for the extreme views of some of their members, and find a solution that doesn't involve the annihilation or domination of one side or the other.
Alos, no forcing "perfect understanding" on them 
Too moderate? 
I don't agree...Grey Warden are extremists...the end justify the means...
That's extreme
._. Not when it comes to combating the end of all life
That doesn't need extremism to do
What makes ones as extremists is JUSTIFICATION...when you justify things then you become extremists
"Burn the village and all the people for THE GREATER GOOD...."
"We must invade their land, topple their king, replace it with our own...FOR OUR PEOPLE SAFETY..."
When you justify things, everything is justified...even the most notorious things you done...that extremism
I don't justify anything they do in the off season, but during a blight?
The Kid gloves come off; A Nation doesn't play ball? Leave it to the Darkspawn so the remaining Nations can rally forces and prepare for a campaign.
If anything the end of days requires extremism; There is no price to high for the continuation of the species.
Besides when it comes to their support of a rebellion against King Arland of Fereldan, the very political failure that saw them evicted from the nation for more then a century.
Psh. The work of one foolish commander doesn't reflect on the Warden as a whole.
The Blight only being ended when Archedemon dead killed by a Grey Warden...
So what is the...
i. sacrifice people made them golem
ii. abandon a village who need help
iii. genocide Mages and Mages children because you need Templar army
iv. leave the curse because you need strong werewolves soldier
You don't need golems to battle darkspawn, you need better strategy...decide to sacrife people making them golem is extreme, while find another way to battle darkspawn is moderate
Golems are invaluable weapons when it comes to combating a blight, The first blight proved that. A golem is equal to twenty Darkspawn or more.
And if that Village isn't needed to support the efforts to defeat the blight its a waste of resources to secure against darkspawn invasion.
How is it extreme to carry out an anullment on that circle? If there ever was a circle that needed anulling it was the one in broken circle.
That's ultimately a warden decision, Werewolves are better soldiers then the Dalish that much is true; If you view the lives of a handful of backwoods skulkers over that of maintaining a platoon of werewolf troops that's their decision.
This ultimately isn't even extremism, its pragmatism and practicality.
This ultimately isn't even extremism, its pragmatism and practicality.
I don't think either pragmatism nor practicality are necessarily exempt from extreme takes.
Guest_Challenge Everything_*
It depends on how you define "moderate", too. I mean, in retrospect, the Warden only had one goal: stop the blight. There was no middle ground; the stuff that happened in between was a means to an end. I also feel that because there was so many different things going on, the Warden had room to take different routes and tactics, whereas with Hawke, it's not the same. Hawke isn't helping people pick a ruler or solve a feud between the Dales and some werewolves, there are literally only two routes, two and a half, if you want to get technical.
Unless Inquisition is a lot like Origins with major side decisions to be made, then I don't see much leeway.
Sith Inquisitors cor the win.For the Empire!
I actually enjoy the game a fair bit.
Golems are invaluable weapons when it comes to combating a blight, The first blight proved that. A golem is equal to twenty Darkspawn or more.
And if that Village isn't needed to support the efforts to defeat the blight its a waste of resources to secure against darkspawn invasion.
How is it extreme to carry out an anullment on that circle? If there ever was a circle that needed anulling it was the one in broken circle.
That's ultimately a warden decision, Werewolves are better soldiers then the Dalish that much is true; If you view the lives of a handful of backwoods skulkers over that of maintaining a platoon of werewolf troops that's their decision.
This ultimately isn't even extremism, its pragmatism and practicality.
So are you just embarrassed and trying to retroactively justify measures that turned out to be completely unnecessary?
To be fair, they're only known to be unnecessary due to magical metaknowledge. If only such advantages existed within the realm of any particular playthrough.
That being said, perhaps we should allow superior end game results in the wake of less than ideal middle game choices.
To be fair, they're only known to be unnecessary due to magical metaknowledge. If only such advantages existed within the realm of any particular playthrough.
That being said, perhaps we should allow superior end game results in the wake of less than ideal middle game choices.
Hardly impossible. Werewolves are just more melee fighters, a niche much covered already; the Dalish have a nice ranged specialization.
You lose no time at all defending Redcliffe.
Killing all mages, who can do things that literally no one else can, simply out of hand is complete idiocy and uselessly throwing away resources.
The only exception to this is possibly keeping the Anvil of the Void; that requires some concern about the dwarves' future instead of just seeing them as tools to help beat back this particular Blight.
To be fair, they're only known to be unnecessary due to magical metaknowledge. If only such advantages existed within the realm of any particular playthrough.
That being said, perhaps we should allow superior end game results in the wake of less than ideal middle game choices.
Possibly. Every gamer inevitably metagames if they play a 2nd time through, so it can be hard to try and make arguments about issues in the games like Connor in Redcliff when we already know the optimal solution. For example, on my very first playthrough, I let Jowan do his ritual and sacrificed Isolde as I held Connor to be the least responsible for the situation, and Isolde's comment on how much time it would take to go to the Circle had me thinking that I may very well lose part of the army meant to fight the blight.
I found it that isn't the case in a later playthrough, but that doesn't take away the choice I made in my first playthrough as I saw it at the time as the most expedient one.
Possibly. Every gamer inevitably metagames if they play a 2nd time through, so it can be hard to try and make arguments about issues in the games like Connor in Redcliff when we already know the optimal solution. For example, on my very first playthrough, I let Jowan do his ritual and sacrificed Isolde as I held Connor to be the least responsible for the situation, and Isolde's comment on how much time it would take to go to the Circle had me thinking that I may very well lose part of the army meant to fight the blight.
I found it that isn't the case in a later playthrough, but that doesn't take away the choice I made in my first playthrough as I saw it at the time as the most expedient one.
Eh, that's what actually roleplaying a character is for. You the player know what happens, but John Doe the Dwarf Commoner doesn't know anything about magic or why so much a fuss is being made about this noble boy killing commoners. Happens all the time.
Eh, that's what actually roleplaying a character is for. You the player know what happens, but John Doe the Dwarf Commoner doesn't know anything about magic or why so much a fuss is being made about this noble boy killing commoners. Happens all the time.
Also true, but not every gamer roleplays that way. Most casual gamers don't...or at least most casual gamers I know personally.
Did someone get Qistina started on the Wardens? Oh boy.
To be fair, they're only known to be unnecessary due to magical metaknowledge. If only such advantages existed within the realm of any particular playthrough.
That being said, perhaps we should allow superior end game results in the wake of less than ideal middle game choices.
Agreed here. It's easy to pass judgement as a player, but it isn't so easy once you put yourself into the PCs shoes. If you want "true" RP, one doesn't use metaknowledge. Back in my day <shakes cane> we used to call that player knowledge. That's a big no-no in roleplaying.
Would you mind clarifying that second sentence? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Hardly impossible. Werewolves are just more melee fighters, a niche much covered already; the Dalish have a nice ranged specialization.
You lose no time at all defending Redcliffe.
Killing all mages, who can do things that literally no one else can, simply out of hand is complete idiocy and uselessly throwing away resources.
The only exception to this is possibly keeping the Anvil of the Void; that requires some concern about the dwarves' future instead of just seeing them as tools to help beat back this particular Blight.
Eh, easy to say as the observer player that isn't in the actual game world. I think it's fair for people to disagree. I think it's idiocy to attempt going to save Connor, though my position as the external game player knows that ultimately that's the best solution.
Though perhaps your right and we should have made it so that those particular choices come across as perhaps better ones to make, with respect to the goals of defeating the blight.
Possibly. Every gamer inevitably metagames if they play a 2nd time through, so it can be hard to try and make arguments about issues in the games like Connor in Redcliff when we already know the optimal solution. For example, on my very first playthrough, I let Jowan do his ritual and sacrificed Isolde as I held Connor to be the least responsible for the situation, and Isolde's comment on how much time it would take to go to the Circle had me thinking that I may very well lose part of the army meant to fight the blight.
I found it that isn't the case in a later playthrough, but that doesn't take away the choice I made in my first playthrough as I saw it at the time as the most expedient one.
I agree that there's not much to do with respect to the fact that some people will use metaknowledge. My statement is more an observation that some will judge others decisions, such as the one you (and I!) made at Redcliffe, and point to the metaknowledge that there's an ideal solution.
Also true, but not every gamer roleplays that way. Most casual gamers don't...or at least most casual gamers I know personally.
Well, depending on the application of the term, it's possible that most casual gamers don't even make it through to a second playthrough (or maybe don't even finish one playthrough)
Would you mind clarifying that second sentence? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Just that ultimately the choices, in my opinion anyways, mostly just come out as different flavours. That is, because of how they exist, we can use that metaknowledge to state that some choices are better than others, because we know the consequences of all choices. And I definitely struggle with this myself. It's actually why, particularly at the end of the game, I am okay with endings that provide much less closure. Like the end of Deus Ex (original or Human Revolution), where I can know the immediate consequences of a decision, but don't know what the long term effects are.
If one of the choices has an epilogue that is clearly superior, it can feel a bit like "well you chose poorly." Though I think I'm getting better at this, personally (for instance, I enjoyed the Kuei-jin ending in Bloodlines. Although no ending in that game really goes into long term consequences either).
So maybe the idea of "this choice is clearly bad for the local situation, but makes solving the bigger quest easier" is something that might be more interesting?
Mostly just a philosophical point, really. Food for thought of "what are interesting choices in an RPG."
Oh, that makes total sense! Thanks for clearing that up. 
Meh, moderation is overrated. Radical ideas are more often what get the job done.
i. There are other weapons that could be used other than golems, especially in the magical world such as Thedas. The creator of such weapon himself want to destroy the weapon, but you decide to kill him and allow another crazy figure to take control of such weapon. Is that necessary? You only THINK that "this might be a good idea to have such army", you don't know it is either necessary or not. You only take advantage of it without thinking the moral behind it.
Let say, you don't find Branka and you don't find Carridin cross, are you not be able to defeat the Blight because of it?
No weapon however is useful to the dwarves for when the darkspawn flood back into the deep roads as much as golems would be. Unlike everyone else, the war with the darkspawn doesn't end for the dwarves. While everyone else is celebrating and cheering on the surface, the darkspawn who had previously been ravaging the surface return to pound at the doors of orzummar and kal-sharok, and about the only reason it is that orzummar and kal-sharok are the only cities left are because they lost the means to create golems, before that the darkspawn were able to at the very least be held back from overtaking the majority of the deep roads.
Now, I'm not saying what is or isn't morally right here. But it seems pretty obvious to me that they could use some reinforcements in this battle, or they are probably going to lose. If the elves deserve so much reparations for how much they suffered under human rule, the dwarves deserve at least 3 times whatever people think the elves should get as compensation. And since nobody is looking to give them any sort of aid, and are more then willing to let them wither and die from the darkspawn and their constant, ever present advancements on the cities, I think that maybe giving them the means to making golems isn't the worse choice in the world. That maybe, even with all the abuses the kings of orzummar do, having the golems push and put pressure on the darkspawn could do some good for the future in keeping the darkspawn from having the same access to the networks of tunnels and the space to amass the numbers they managed to gather in the previous blights.
And even if that isn't the case, perhaps letting them have this stain on their history might be the lesser of two evils.
Now let's all get back to the topic of moderate positioned characters, and not about whether the wardens actions are or are not moral.
Meh, moderation is overrated. Radical ideas are more often what get the job done.
I'd like to have some moderation and conversation for once. Radicals are all fine and good, but isn't it time that we weigh the cost of such actions? Isn't there a point we can go, "Okay, I'd like the choice not to be a total angel or a complete ass to this group."
By the way, I may be moderate and believe in both sides trying to work together. Yet, I did not agree with the Grand Cleric Elthina's approach in the slightest.
*Insert tin foil hat theory that Elthina wanted to be a martyr by dying due the hands of mages. I'll find an active thread where I can stick that idea in later.*
A pattern I seem to see a lot is the assumption that moderates can't hold any positions. And if they do hold a moderate position that somehow removes the possibility of them having any sort of morals or principles of preferences.
Now, I don't know why people seem to think this, but it baffles my mind personally. Most of the major issues worth commenting on aren't simple A or B choices with a clear and definitive split, there is a spectrum involved between one side or the other, and within the middle range of this spectrum is where the moderate position lies. It doesn't have to be a perfect 50/50 grey split but it certainly isn't beholden to one side and only one side. That's the thing about holding a moderate view, you can criticize and believe in aspects of both sides.
And someone holding a moderate position on major issues other characters might want to champion doesn't reflect on their actual moral outlook. Maybe they believe in a moral absolutist position and hold that a moderate position is what is moral truth. Maybe they're highly pragmatic and see the impracticality of either sides extreme. Maybe they lean more towards wanting order and security over radical change and the chaos that would inevitably ensue. Good or evil, lawful or chaotic, you don't need to completely absolve yourself of all of them to be a moderate or hold a more neutral oriented position.
I'd like to have some moderation and conversation for once. Radicals are all fine and good, but isn't it time that we weigh the cost of such actions? Isn't there a point we can go, "Okay, I'd like the choice not to be a total angel or a complete ass to this group."
By the way, I may be moderate and believe in both sides trying to work together. Yet, I did not agree with the Grand Cleric Elthina's approach in the slightest.
*Insert tin foil hat theory that Elthina wanted to be a martyr by dying due the hands of mages. I'll find an active thread where I can stick that idea in later.*
Don't get me wrong, I'm fairly moderate too.
I support a nonviolent solution to the mage-templar conflict, preferably involving an impartial third party (like the Grey Wardens). But even that is radical.
Mages have been under Chantry supervision for centuries. Now they aren't.
Any solution that doesn't involve a return to that status quo will be viewed as radical by some.
EDIT: Martyrs are the worst. 
The Dwarves have been battling darkspawn all these time showing that they themselves is more than capable, so it is a question of necessary or not to sacrifice lives for your cause?
Again...it is a matter of JUSTIFICATION...
The dwarves have battled this whole time and lost, continuously. You don't see that? They aren't "more then capable" they are barely holding in there as it is. Look at all the thaigs they've lost, all the ground they've been forced to back away from until now there are only two cities left, far on the very edges of their former territory, and can't even leave those cities unless going to the surface without a guaranteed death sentence when facing the number of darkspawn.
They aren't holding their own, and they aren't winning anything, they are in a continuous retreat and have been literally forced to corner themselves between a rock and a hard place. Now that there isn't anywhere else to retreat to, they can either wait to be inevitably overrun by the next surge of darkspawn or find a new means of fighting back. They've done so bad that the dwarves went from 4 kingdoms when the initial darkspawn wave decimated to just 2, with one of them having been thought wiped out completely until recently thanks to the sealing of the deep roads in the ancient age.
Their first major victory against the darkspawn, thanks to the hero of amaranthine, occurred in the dragon age. That has been the only recorded victory of ground for the dwarves in the entire time they've been on their own fighting darkspawn.
So you try and tell me that the dwarves don't need some kind of help if they're going to make it beyond 2 more ages.
Retour en haut