14909 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

Can I just interject that Blackwall (and Cullen) exemplify what I love about DA? His crime is genuinely terrible and yet the game refuses to say "this is a bad person." But it also doesn't let us say "well what he did wasn't that bad." Redemption is always on offer and it's redemption for real sin, not mere coldness or disbelieving the hero.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I thought Loghain did what he did for personal reasons? I remember him saying Cailan was an idiot not meant for the throne and that he did what he did because it was a perfect opportunity to cover up his trying to take the throne because people would suspect he was pulling out because he didnt want to lose his men and not because he was killing the king to get the throne. He does challenge you to a duel and try to kill you because he feels you are threatening his place on the throne. That doesnt sound like someone innocent to me let alone unselfish. He commited treason to become king.

The only personal reason for killing Cailan I can think of actually had nothing to do with Loghain, but his daughter Anora. Cailan and Celene were planning an arranged marriage to unite Ferelden and Orlais. That would put Anora out with nothing, and Ferelden as nothing but at best a vassal state of the thing Loghain hates most. So the two things he fights for were threatened by Cailan.

 

 

Do tell me how you really know that some part of it wasn't for personal gain? Just because Loghain said something doesn't make it so, although I was willing to take the man at his word about some of the things he said on the one occasion that I spared him - but then I'm capable of giving people the benefit of the doubt on occasion.

 

At least in Blackwall's case, aside from my heart and the evidence in front of me, I had my trusty spirt-human-lie detector with me (aka Cole). You say you can understand about Loghain's actions, well what's the problem in understanding Blackwall's actions? We know what he did and why; it is also understandable, just like the actions that Loghain took.

 

It's just not necessarily something that's forgivable, depending on your moral stance about situations like this. Oh right, the scrolls...yes, well there was plenty of time to read them, and if that was actually what he was after (knowledge for the sake of posing better as a Warden), then he sure did a p----poor job of it, seeing as he gave himself away repeatedly. With the amount of time that passes in the game, I'm sure he could have read all them by the time I started asking him about Warden-related issues.

Okay, then tell me what he gained personally. He became regent sure, but he already pretty much had that when Cailan was alive. I said Loghain's actions were more understandable, meaning Rainier's are too, just to a lesser extent. I suppose a better word would be Loghain's action were more sympathetic since he was doing it for Ferelden while Rainier was doing it for just himself. Doesn't matter since both committed unforgivable crimes. 

 

The scrolls could have had information he already knew or ones that didn't help him where it was needed in the story. Or, since the scrolls can be recovered at any point in the game meaning that he could have had no time to read them as well, they don't affect the dialogue. It's not the only companion quest that doesn't.  

 

 

If he called off the attack the noble he was hired to kill would have retaliated against all of them. Rainier, his men and the guy who hired them would all be dead. The reason why his intervention works in the game is because no one is gaining anything by executing his second in command. The situation between Celene and Gaspard has been resolved, the nobles involved in the incident are dead or disgraced. And then there's the fact that Rainier has been hiding all the time, and thus no one could step forward and attest to the fact that the soldiers didn't know what they were doing.

Rainier could have refused and nobody would have died, at least not by him. But no, he became greedy and as a result would rather kill innocents, including children, than die himself. Then he left his men to die as well, using them as scapegoats while he ran away with his blood money. 

[Bugsie]

The thing about what Rainier did, was that it was all about personal ambition, and that isn’t something we see in a lot of characters here.  Most are presented as noble and stuff like that, even those who we are meant to despise supposedly have a greater purpose in mind  The Loghains and the Anders, we’re (well to some of us) are meant to relate to them on some level, it’s much easier to gloss over personal failings if something better is what they had in mind.  Selfishness is rarely presented as relatable in games and story telling, even though it’s a trait we all share.  It’s easier to swallow a characters selfish ambition if its tied to something good.

 

Bravo for giving us a selfish character who isn’t about the greater good (although the aspiration ends up being that) and for making us feel something about it (my initial feeling was disappointment in him).  We have had plenty of characters who were ‘bad’ but with good traits, nice to have a supposedly ‘good’ character with so called ‘bad’ traits!

[AresKeith]

Blackwall is so the Jean Valjean of Dragon Age xD

[Ynqve]

Rainier could have refused and nobody would have died, at least not by him. But no, he became greedy and as a result would rather kill innocents, including children, than die himself. Then he left his men to die as well, using them as scapegoats while he ran away with his blood money. 

 

They were already attacking. The option was to leave the nobleman alive and face his retribution or kill them and take their chances. And as I said, if everything had worked out the way they were supposed to then he and his men would have been safe. But he placed his bet on the losing side, the noble who hired him committed suicide, there was no one to protect them and thus they were hunted down for treason. Rainier's men were victims of the game, as were the children. Yes, he has a lot of blame in the situation but someone higher up in the chain of command slipped up and that's not his fault. 

 

Edit: As for allowing his men to be scapegoats, I'm not defending that. It's cowardice but he evolves as a character into a better man. A man who accepts his responsibility and tries to make it right. 

[Ynqve]

Blackwall is so the Jean Valjean of Dragon Age xD

 

Pretty much. If Jean Valjean was a character written by George RR Martin. 

[AresKeith]

Pretty much. If Jean Valjean was a character written by George RR Martin. 

 

Sounds legit lol

[AtreiyaN7]

The only personal reason for killing Cailan I can think of actually had nothing to do with Loghain, but his daughter Anora. Cailan and Celene were planning an arranged marriage to unite Ferelden and Orlais. That would put Anora out with nothing, and Ferelden as nothing but at best a vassal state of the thing Loghain hates most. So the two things he fights for were threatened by Cailan.

 

 

Okay, then tell me what he gained personally. He became regent sure, but he already pretty much had that when Cailan was alive. I said Loghain's actions were more understandable, meaning Rainier's are too, just to a lesser extent. I suppose a better word would be Loghain's action were more sympathetic since he was doing it for Ferelden while Rainier was doing it for just himself. Doesn't matter since both committed unforgivable crimes. 

 

The scrolls could have had information he already knew or ones that didn't help him where it was needed in the story. Or, since the scrolls can be recovered at any point in the game meaning that he could have had no time to read them as well, they don't affect the dialogue. It's not the only companion quest that doesn't.  

 

 

Rainier could have refused and nobody would have died, at least not by him. But no, he became greedy and as a result would rather kill innocents, including children, than die himself. Then he left his men to die as well, using them as scapegoats while he ran away with his blood money. 

 

What did Loghain stand to gain? His daughter on the throne and himself being the true power behind the throne - minus the annoying problem of constantly have to deal with Cailan and his whims or flights of fancy. Loghain would be the one to whom everyone would really be  showing obeisance, no pretenses necessary with Cailan dead (as long as the transition was reasonably smooth). And Anora is hardly Ms. Innocence either btw - it's clear that she wants to be on that throne and uses you to try to get her way. From my perspective, Loghain seems to have always looked at Cailan as a bit of a dreamer and a fool who wasn't terribly pragmatic. I got the impression that, to an extent, he may have considered Cailan a nuisance or a hindrance.

 

And for like the ten millionth time: if Rainier had stopped the attack, I very much doubt that any mercy would have been shown to his men. His men would NOT have just gotten off the hook. From what I've seen of Orlais, Orlesians don't generally strike me as being particularly merciful if you fail at the Game (whether you're a pawn or the schemer). While Rainier was undeniably a bad man way back when, he gradually changed into a different person. That's what it comes down to.

 

Either you can choose to hold his sins over him forever if it suits your worldview, or you move past it based on your experiences with him.

[Ryzaki]

The thing about what Rainier did, was that it was all about personal ambition, and that isn’t something we see in a lot of characters here.  Most are presented as noble and stuff like that, even those who we are meant to despise supposedly have a greater purpose in mind  The Loghains and the Anders, we’re (well to some of us) are meant to relate to them on some level, it’s much easier to gloss over personal failings if something better is what they had in mind.  Selfishness is rarely presented as relatable in games and story telling, even though it’s a trait we all share.  It’s easier to swallow a characters selfish ambition if its tied to something good.

 

Bravo for giving us a selfish character who isn’t about the greater good (although the aspiration ends up being that) and for making us feel something about it (my initial feeling was disappointment in him).  We have had plenty of characters who were ‘bad’ but with good traits, nice to have a supposedly ‘good’ character with so called ‘bad’ traits!

 

Put like that I can see what you mean.

 

That said his views on the wardens reminds me of Alistair's. Except he lacks Alistair's lack of world experience and youth for me to buy it without getting annoyed. (The whole "the wardens would never use bloodmagic!" I don't think I laughed so hard in this game yet.)

 

And him getting pissy about me being a necromancer.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

They were already attacking. The option was to leave the nobleman alive and face his retribution or kill them and take their chances. And as I said, if everything had worked out the way they were supposed to the he and his men would have been safe. But he placed his bet on the losing side, the noble who hired him committed suicide, there was no one to protect them and thus they were hunted down for treason. Rainier's men were victims of the game, as were the children. Yes, he has a lot of blame in the situation but someone higher up in the chain of command slipped up and that's not his fault. 

I meant he could have refused to go against his position as a soldier and instead kill a noble for money. The Game didn't force him to do it, he made the choice willingly. He could have stopped the attack, or heck even delayed attacking until the target was away from the family but he didn't, again by his choice. He could have protected his soldiers by taking full responsibility for the massacre or the abortion of the mission, but yet again he didn't by choice. As for someone higher up slipping up, I doubt it. Even Rainier says what he did was how things go, so the death of the family was more than likely planned from the start. Rainier just fell for the lie they fed him. 

[CredulousAlloy]

If only Thom Rainier had simply stolen a loaf of bread, I'd have been spared so much emotional turmoil!

I mean, I love Blackwall and forgave him along with my Inquisitor as I knew he was a changed man, but it's still sometimes hard for me to stomach what he did in the past, even though I know he deeply regrets it and is now a better person (or is still in the process of becoming one, depending on your interpretation).

I applaud Bioware for including such a divisive, morally ambiguous character in the game, even moreso for making him a possible love interest. That was a brave move IMO. Cheryl, I know you stopped by the other day, so if you happen to be reading this, thanks so much for this character.

[Hornless Qunari/Human DPS]

Blackwall was a soldier he was only following orders, blame the person above him.

[Ynqve]

I meant he could have refused to go against his position as a soldier and instead kill a noble for money. The Game didn't force him to do it, he made the choice willingly. He could have stopped the attack, or heck even delayed attacking until the target was away from the family but he didn't, again by his choice. He could have protected his soldiers by taking full responsibility for the massacre, but yet again he didn't by choice. As for someone higher up slipping up, I doubt it. Even Rainier says what he did was how things go, so the death of the family was more than likely planned from the start. Rainier just fell for the lie they fed him. 

 

He couldn't have delayed or stopped the attack because they were already attacking.

 

And as I've said time and time again: Yes, he was a coward. Yes, he was a selfish man. Yes, attempting to play the Game was a stupid thing to do. No, he's not beyond redemption. No, he's not the same person anymore. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

I meant he could have refused to go against his position as a soldier and instead kill a noble for money. The Game didn't force him to do it, he made the choice willingly. He could have stopped the attack, or heck even delayed attacking until the target was away from the family but he didn't, again by his choice. He could have protected his soldiers by taking full responsibility for the massacre, but yet again he didn't by choice. As for someone higher up slipping up, I doubt it. Even Rainier says what he did was how things go, so the death of the family was more than likely planned from the start. Rainier just fell for the lie they fed him. 

 

There is a lot of "could haves" in your statement.   Maybe in your mind he could have done these things.  We only know what he told us, though.  

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue anymore.

[Hellion Rex]

Blackwall was a soldier he was only following orders, blame the person above him.

I disagree with that statement. Yes, he was following orders, but he could still have chosen to not follow through with them. He chose to follow that course of action. He's just as culpable as the one who gave him the orders.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

There is a lot of "could haves" in your statement.   Maybe in your mind he could have done these things.  We only know what he told us, though.  

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue anymore.

No, in reality he could have done those things. He chose to take the blood money, he chose to let the attack still happen after knowing the intel was wrong, he chose to let his men take the fall. 

[Bugsie]

I disagree with that statement. Yes, he was following orders, but he could still have chosen to not follow through with them. He chose to follow that course of action. He's just as culpable as the one who gave him the orders.

Never heard of Milgrim I take it.

[Rinji the Bearded]

No, in reality he could have done those things. He took the blood money, he let the attack still happen after knowing the intel was wrong, he let his men take the fall. 

I'm arguing that people say he had no choice when he did. This whole thing was a combination of his choices. 

 

I'm not sure he could have done things that you've just made up.  But yes, he did make a lot of bad decisions.  I don't think anyone is disagreeing there.

[Sabreenei]

Put like that I can see what you mean.

 

That said his views on the wardens reminds me of Alistair's. Except he lacks Alistair's lack of world experience and youth for me to buy it without getting annoyed.

 

He and Alistair have one thing in common -- they both consider their lives saved by a grey warden they come to idolize. With Alistair it's Duncan, and with Rainer, it's Blackwall. I get the idea that when he met Blackwall, he finally met a man who did good in the world just to do good. Something that would be very alien coming from the Game of Orlais background, where everyone is used as pieces on a chessboard. It struck a chord in him. A place where it didn't matter your background or what sins you have committed in your past, where you could let go of whatever horrible choices brought you to this place in your life, and choose to spend the rest of your life fighting for something important. Not power or money or who would be the next on the throne. He understands all the sad truths of life, but he wants to believe Blackwall was representative of all Grey Wardens. I can't blame him for that. Blackwall died fighting to save him, even knowing the truth of who and what he was. That had to mean everything to him. It's no wonder to me that he feels the need to leave Rainer dead on that hill and take up the mantle of "Blackwall".

 

(just saw your edit -- I laughed at that line too, with the Blood Magic. I was like, boy, my Warden could sure fill you in on a few details there!! hah!)

[Bugsie]

No, in reality he could have done those things. He chose to take the blood money, he chose to let the attack still happen after knowing the intel was wrong, he chose to let his men take the fall. 

Did he know the intel was wrong?  Where does he say that?  And more importantly when?  Before the attack happened or whilst it was already in progress?

[AtreiyaN7]

I meant he could have refused to go against his position as a soldier and instead kill a noble for money. The Game didn't force him to do it, he made the choice willingly. He could have stopped the attack, or heck even delayed attacking until the target was away from the family but he didn't, again by his choice. He could have protected his soldiers by taking full responsibility for the massacre or the abortion of the mission, but yet again he didn't by choice. As for someone higher up slipping up, I doubt it. Even Rainier says what he did was how things go, so the death of the family was more than likely planned from the start. Rainier just fell for the lie they fed him. 

 

Sorry, but Cole's dialogue indicates that it was too late - the whole "Cold. Trapped. Heart hammering like axes on a carriage door." thing. I don't know about you, but it sounds like events were already in motion. That the axes were literally hammering at the doors, that he was hearing all of this and seeing it unfold. Again, Robert Chapuis - the man who hired Rainier - told him that it was just going to be the nobleman and some bodyguards (at most).

 

EDIT: For clarification, Blackwall says that he was told that it would only be the nobleman with bodyguards at most in some of his dialogue (unless I am grossly mistaken). I think the natural inference is that it was, in fact, Chapuis (the man who hired him) who provided him with what was clearly false information.

 

As for his position as a soldier and a captain? That has nothing to do with participating in the Game in my opinion. The only way to advance and grab power in Orlais is to play the Game; it might not seem important or significant to you, but to someone who is living within that society, it is. And if you're bad at the Game and screw up, you will be eaten alive, and you will face consequences for failure (probably death).

 

Also, come on and be realistic here - Rainier was never a chevalier or a knight or whatever you think he was. Even if he had been a chevalier (he wasn't), well, chevaliers seem to get special dispensation even if they commit crimes like rape, and they can get off scot-free even when they commit worse crimes than that. Oaths of any kind don't really seem to mean too much in Orlais if you ask me. That being said, the old chevalier who helped him at the Grand Tourney was one of those rare specimens who actually did embody all the better qualities of chevaliers (as opposed to the scummy ones who abuse their power).

 

The old chevalier saw something within Rainier and offered to mentor him, but Rainier was the c--- of the walk after winning the Grand Tourney (with the chevalier's help) and thought he had it all worked out when he was younger - so he spurned the man who could have taught him and molded him. Rainier was young and stupid and overly confident, not recognizing the value of what was being offered to him. Maybe you could say that that's when he took his first major wrong turn.

 

He lived to regret that choice later, but as he points out if you are in the romance, rejecting the chevalier's offer ultimately leads him to you. The fact is that the chevalier saw something in him, though. I think he saw the kind of man that Rainier could have been - alas, he made his choice for better or worse (mostly worse...and then better later on) and headed down the wrong path.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm not sure he could have done things that you've just made up.  But yes, he did make a lot of bad decisions.  I don't think anyone is disagreeing there.

I didn't make anything up. If he chose to do those things, then he was able to choose to not do those things as well. It's not like he was acting in self-defense where he had no real choice in the matter. 

 

Did he know the intel was wrong?  Where does he say that?  And more importantly when?  Before the attack happened or whilst it was already in progress?

He heard the children singing at least a full verse of a nursery rhyme in the carriage since Cole knows it from reading Rainier's mind, so he had more than enough time to scream "Stop!" to his troops. Especially since the verse would be before the first blow since who sings when axes are being chopped into a carriage? The kids would be screaming, not singing. 

[Ynqve]

I didn't make anything up. If he chose to do those things, then he was able to choose to not do those things as well. It's not like he was acting in self-defense where he had no real choice in the matter. 

 

He heard the children singing at least a full verse of a nursery rhyme in the carriage since Cole knows it from reading Rainier's mind, so he had more than enough time to scream "Stop!" to his troops. 

 

That's still just a matter of seconds before he has to make a decision. I don't know what kind of nursery rhymes you are used to, but the verses aren't usually that long. And his men may already have been on the move to attack. The people in the carriage are the last ones to notice the ambush. If we go by what Cole says (and since he can read minds, I think we should) then the attackers were already on the move. This is confirmed by Rainier himself when you talk to him in the cell.

[Rinji the Bearded]

I didn't make anything up. If he chose to do those things, then he was able to choose to not do those things as well. It's not like he was acting in self-defense where he had no real choice in the matter. 

 

He heard the children singing at least a full verse of a nursery rhyme in the carriage since Cole knows it from reading Rainier's mind, so he had more than enough time to scream "Stop!" to his troops. Especially since the verse would be before the first blow since who sings when axes are being chopped into a carriage. The kids would be screaming, not singing. 

 

I'm still not sure what you're arguing about.  We already know that he knew there were children in the carriage and didn't stop the attack.   If he had done so, his men would have known he was lying to them.

 

Literally no one is excusing him for this, so...

[veeia]

Wait, so you think he's a stalker because he looks at a girl he likes but doesn't approach her? Maybe I'm missing some context here, but given how sunny and innocent Josie is, it makes sense to me that he wouldn't make a move.

I do agree that we shouldn't absolve BW of his actions. He choose to do it, and he probably had time to call it off when he realized what was happening. If you take those things away from him, you take away what makes his character interesting. He was a coward who tried to atone by becoming someone else, but that in itself was more cowardice and he hid behind it. He doesn't start really becoming the man he wants to be until he stands up and takes responsibility for what he's done. And even then, he has to live with what he's done. He has to be a man who would hate who he was without hating himself. He can't forgive himself, but he has to also get over himself..his atonement doesn't come from just righting wrongs, but accepting that he can be both a person who failed and someone who rights wrongs.

In the end, I liked that once he could admit who he was, he was less angsty. To me that was a big step for growth. He wallowed in that guilt rather than really face it.