14909 réponses à ce sujet

[Joe25]

New Art by the Queen

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

My Dear Warden, I think this says it.

 

[In Exile]

Of course it was about protecting people. The entire war was about protecting your nation. The US chose to use the bomb because they calculated that it would end up costing fewer lives, than an invation of mainland Japan would.

The Grey Warden protects the entire world by not being distracted by the few. And it isn't soemthing the Grey Wardens "think". They KNOW they will save more lives by ending the Blight sooner, rather than later. Ironically what the Grey Wardens certainly AREN'T is heroes. Heroes do not leave anyone to die.

 

If you think you can actually use the word "protecting" for things like using a nuke, then (1) the word loses all meaning and (2) there's no point in us debating this, because we'll never agree. 

 

Not to mention that your logic is self-contradictory. If you think real, immediate life vs. hypothetical future life is an actual choice, then you have to consider saving actual people while sacrificing future hypothetical lives is a real problem, so the statement "[h]eroes do not leave anyone to die" can't possibly be true for you, otherwise no one is ever going to be a hero to you. 

[mlgumm]

The Grey Wardens are there to stop any Blights. That's why they infect themselves, even knowing they'll eventually fall to the taint. It's so they can fight darkspawn and kill archdemons. They are not a peacekeeping force or a police force. They have one specific purpose.

 

For comparison, look at Fallout. The Brotherhood of Steel has one purpose- to collect and improve on pre-war technology. In FO3 the D.C. division deviates from their purpose to protect the people of the wasteland instead. This is a noble goal, but it is not the organization's goal. In the context of DAI, Blackwall seems to be the D.C. division, taking his original purpose and expanding on it. Maybe this is just to protect people in general, but I think that he does so because he sees a chance to perhaps end the blights altogether or something like that.

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

The Grey Wardens are there to stop any Blights. That's why they infect themselves, even knowing they'll eventually fall to the taint. It's so they can fight darkspawn and kill archdemons. They are not a peacekeeping force or a police force. They have one specific purpose.

 

For comparison, look at Fallout. The Brotherhood of Steel has one purpose- to collect and improve on pre-war technology. In FO3 the D.C. division deviates from their purpose to protect the people of the wasteland instead. This is a noble goal, but it is not the organization's goal. In the context of DAI, Blackwall seems to be the D.C. division, taking his original purpose and expanding on it. Maybe this is just to protect people in general, but I think that he does so because he sees a chance to perhaps end the blights altogether or something like that.

Yes- but to defend against the Blight is, by its definition, DEFENSE. “You will guard them and they will hate you for it. Whenever there is not a Blight actively crawling over the surface, humanity will do its best to forget how much they need you. And that's good. We need to stand apart from them, even if they have to push us away to make us do it. That is the only way we can ever make the hard decisions.” ―Kristoff

 

[Brian ofthe Dialogue Wheel]

Just because the Grey Wardens only have to defend against one threat doesn't mean they don't defend; it doesn't even mean that they always WON'T defend against others, either. We already know that a few Wardens have interfered when it wasn't necessary, and that seems to have been Duncan's way of doing things. If you think the Wardens will sit by while demons run about, you're sadly mistaken.

[In Exile]

Just because the Grey Wardens only have to defend against one threat doesn't mean they don't defend; it doesn't even mean that they always WON'T defend against others, either. We already know that a few Wardens have interfered when it wasn't necessary, and that seems to have been Duncan's way of doing things. If you think the Wardens will sit by while demons run about, you're sadly mistaken.

The Duncan we saw in DA:O definitely was a pragmatist that only interfered when it suited the main mission of the Wardens. He only helps you in the prologue because he wants to steal you away. He plays nice... until you refuse him, then the fangs come out. 

[AresKeith]

The Duncan we saw in DA:O definitely was a pragmatist that only interfered when it suited the main mission of the Wardens. He only helps you in the prologue because he wants to steal you away. He plays nice... until you refuse him, then the fangs come out. 

 

You don't mess with Master Splinter 

[Finnn62]

The Wardens fight darkspawn. They don't seem very particular in recruiting the most noble or well-meaning people, but simply recruit whoever can and is willing to fight darkspawn. The people they recruit all have their own reasons for fighting and personal moral compass. True all (or most) Grey Wardens die fighting darkspawn and/or their taint, but not all view it as a noble duty so much as others do. Some just happened to have went through the joining to get out of other life issues (e.g. Anders) and others do whatever it takes to fight the the enemy no matter the cost of innocent lives (e.g. Avernus). It seems that Blackwall is one of those who joined the Grey Wardens because he saw it as a way to protect people, through self sacrifice if necessary. He views that as his purpose, and seems to have extended it to his view of the Wardens. I think that's great. He seems to be a very well-meaning individual (based on this one quote) and I'd be glad to have someone of such a high moral character in the Inquisition.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Indeed. Grey Wardens aren't heroes. They don't pretend to be either.

 

Well. We haven't met every Grey Warden.

[ladyofpayne]

What kind of food is he? What was devs answer?

[Scheddar]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but in dragon age awakening, there is a portrait in Vigil's keep (on either side of the main door, I can't remember) that has a person akin to Blackwall's appearance.

[Fiery Knight]

^Intriguing. Gonna look for the painting when I get the chance.

[Mistic]

The Duncan we saw in DA:O definitely was a pragmatist that only interfered when it suited the main mission of the Wardens. He only helps you in the prologue because he wants to steal you away. He plays nice... until you refuse him, then the fangs come out. 

 

Exactly. It's as if people forget that Duncan used the Right of Conscription if you kept refusing him. My favourite playthrough was, in fact, about a Dalish Elf who was forced to join the Grey Wardens and was always complaining about it. Of course, by the end that Warden realized the need of the order, closing the circle. Still an iconoclast, though.

 

As for Blackwall, I'm wondering if he joined the order willingly or if he found out his purpose over time. He sounds like an idealist regarding the Wardens' role in the world.

[EmperorSahlertz]

If you think you can actually use the word "protecting" for things like using a nuke, then (1) the word loses all meaning and (2) there's no point in us debating this, because we'll never agree. 

 

Not to mention that your logic is self-contradictory. If you think real, immediate life vs. hypothetical future life is an actual choice, then you have to consider saving actual people while sacrificing future hypothetical lives is a real problem, so the statement "[h]eroes do not leave anyone to die" can't possibly be true for you, otherwise no one is ever going to be a hero to you. 

Okay then. So according to you, the use of a nuke to blow up a meteorite (armageddon style), is NOT actually an effort to protect the Earth, but an act of war against the meteorite......

[Thomas Andresen]

Sooner or later, every Warden ventures into the Deep Roads.

I laughed.

[Dean_the_Young]

Okay then. So according to you, the use of a nuke to blow up a meteorite (armageddon style), is NOT actually an effort to protect the Earth, but an act of war against the meteorite......

 

 

 

According to him? Well, he said

 

 

If you think you can actually use the word "protecting" for things like using a nuke, then (1) the word loses all meaning and (2) there's no point in us debating this, because we'll never agree. 

 

Not to mention that your logic is self-contradictory. If you think real, immediate life vs. hypothetical future life is an actual choice, then you have to consider saving actual people while sacrificing future hypothetical lives is a real problem, so the statement "[h]eroes do not leave anyone to die" can't possibly be true for you, otherwise no one is ever going to be a hero to you.

 

I see nothing in there about a meteor, which would make your claim of his position a strawman argument, but he certainly pegged you for the fundamental differences. Probably about a fundamental difference of distinction between offensive and defensive capabilities, but he's not explicit about that.

[EmperorSahlertz]

According to him? Well, he said

 

 

I see nothing in there about a meteor, which would make your claim of his position a strawman argument, but he certainly pegged you for the fundamental differences. Probably about a fundamental difference of distinction between offensive and defensive capabilities, but he's not explicit about that.

He literally said that if I could use the word "protecting" in connection with using a nuke, then the word lost all meaning. So in ALL cases of using a nuke, it is impossible that the purpose of it is to protect. That is literally what he said.

 

What apaprently you cannot comprehend, is that offense can be used as defense. To protect another you don't have to throw yourself in front of him and take the bullet. You can also just shoot the assailant before he manages to shoot. BOTH of these instances would be you protecting another.

[Scheddar]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but in dragon age awakening, there is a portrait in Vigil's keep (on either side of the main door, I can't remember) that has a person akin to Blackwall's appearance.

 

I took a picture of it from my phone (crap, yes. Big image too, as a warning). I'm near certain that isn't him but nevertheless, looks akin.

Spoiler

[Dean_the_Young]

He literally said that if I could use the word "protecting" in connection with using a nuke, then the word lost all meaning. So in ALL cases of using a nuke, it is impossible that the purpose of it is to protect. That is literally what he said.

 

Except you're having a fundamental difference of definition of what 'protect' means. A nuclear weapon destroys: that destruction may prevent harm from the comet, but there is a difference in role and function between preventative destruction and protective measures of endurance such as a protective bunker. There's a reason militaries like the American army consider body armor protective equipment, distinct from weapons.

 

Well, not to you apparently. But that's the fundamental difference between you and him that he's pointing out.

 

 

What apaprently you cannot comprehend, is that offense can be used as defense. To protect another you don't have to throw yourself in front of him and take the bullet. You can also just shoot the assailant before he manages to shoot. BOTH of these instances would be you protecting another.

 

 

Protecting another doesn't mean the means you use to do so is protective in nature. Pre-emption is a doctrine of offense, not a defensive measure, even when it's put in the framework of a defensive strategy. There is overlap in the role and involvement of offensive and defensive measures in the service of an overall defense, but there's also a considerable distinction between what role those measures provide. Means of offense frequently serve in the service of overall defense without becoming defensive in nature. A sword is still a tool made for the purpose of killing, even if it's in the hands of someone defending themselves.

 

To bring up your nuke and meteorite example, as strawmaned into absurdity as it was (Act of War? Really?)- yes, using a nuclear weapon against a meteor would be an offensive measure. Even if it saves lives, the fact of saving lives doesn't change the nature of the system being used.

 

 

Bringing this even tangently back to the topic of whether the Wardens are defensive, there's also the analogy of what certain weapon systems are made for. It is, for example, completely possible to fire artillery as a direct fire weapon: shooting over open sights, it used to be called. But that capability for serving in a different role doesn't mean that it's an appropriate tool for that role: an artillery commander who wants to take his battery to provide direct fire support for any infantry unit would soon be dismissed, and for good reason. On a similar vein, people who try and use strategic weapons in not-strategic situations are likewise frowned upon.

 

The Wardens have some distinct attributes with their organization. They're small, for one: they don't have the numbers or resources to protect everyone from individual Darkspawn attacks, nor do they try. This issue is made worse by requiring a ritual with a notable fatality rate, decreasing their pool of potential applicants further. In exchange for this, they get two unique attributes: the ability to sense Darkspawn, and the ability to kill Archdemons. Their institutional focus and knoweldge base prioritizes darkspawn, but is less exceptional at anything else.

 

Contrast that to the Templars. Templars, unlike Wardens, have a regular and relatively uniform higher resistance to magic. They are specifically trained, equiped, and organized to handle mages and demons, and they have the lore and organizational focus to do it... but they have no comparable advantage or relevance against Darkspawn. No Templars can beat a Blight, even though they do have the numbers and resources to be stationed across the countryside and serving as a defensive force for Chantries.

 

Wardens can fight Mages, but it'd be wrong to categorize them an anti-magic force. Templars can fight Darkspawn, but it would be wrong to categorize them an anti-Darkspawn military force. Even if both forces do, on occasion, fight groups they aren't oriented for.

 

 

This is the sort of categorization distinction we're making. It can be applied to offensive and defensive forces as well, even if you are not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

And here you go again with your abject failure of comprehension. Protection is NOT necesarily a defensive action. I don't know why you apparently cannot comprehend such a simple fact, but any future discussion with you is pointless, until you fathom this very simple fact.

[AkiKishi]

You hold the Wardens back until the Arch Demon shows up. That's common sense. They are the only ones capable of killing it ,so throwing them into other conflicts will reduce your chance of accomplishing the ultimate goal. 

 

The last thing you want is for the Arc Demon to show up and be out of Wardens.

[Dean_the_Young]

And here you go again with your abject failure of comprehension. Protection is NOT necesarily a defensive action. I don't know why you apparently cannot comprehend such a simple fact, but any future discussion with you is pointless, until you fathom this very simple fact.

 

Wow, it's almost like In Exile identified this fundamental difference of distinction a day ago. He outright told you... and you still went on at it.

 

Well, a day late is better than... wasting a week with you? Something like that. I had the time to spare, so seeing you not see my point of view was just amusing.

 

I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of this, though. Cheeers to you, Exile!

[Milan92]

The impression I get of Blackwall, though based on the very little information we have on him (and thus possibly wrong), is that he is more pragmatic than honorable. 

 

 

 

Or at least that is the impression I get from that letter. When he gets news that Loghain has outlawed Wardens, he decides to allow Ferelden to destroy itself rather than risk his men by combating the Blight in Ferelden. If Ferelden won't cooperate with the Wardens, he'll await the Blight in Orlais.

 

On a side note I think that letter speaks volumes about Blackwall's intelligence. Holding the Wardens back in Orlais is the smart play. Its the right strategic move. Of course the hero of Ferelden ends up slaying the archdemon before the Blight reaches Orlais, but there is no way Blackwall or any other Warden outside of Ferelden could have envisioned that. As far as they know, the Wardens no longer exist in Ferelden and the ruling regime is hostile.

 

I like his attitude so far.

[Xetykins]

Guys.. do you know when e3 is going to be on today european time?
I cant wait to know more about beardy.

[ladyofpayne]