6175 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

It can be argued that Sten was suffering from PTSD. He flew off the handle briefly and it cost people their lives. Doesn't make what he did right, but it does put it in the realm of temporary insanity. What Cole did was deliberate, calculated, and repeated over an extended period of time. Its just not the same thing.
 
As far as addressing the murders with a hand waive? Easily done, retcon the little girl it killed into a young woman then make sure all its victims were murderers like her. Just like that, Cole is no longer a predator but an enforcer. Anyone that didn't read the book will accept that information out of hand, those of us that did would have to accept the retcon as canon.
 
So far as addressing the murder as is? Impossible. If the Inquisition finds out it has a habitual child murderer, even a former one, within its ranks, I don't see how it could be tolerated.

So if all the people killed were young women that killed people (which, by the way, in the girl's case weren't intentional), you/your PC be fine with Cole killing them ?
I'd agree that killing children is worse, but that huge difference in opinion seems...strange.

[The Elder King]

Zevran and Leliana were professional assassins. Neither their clients nor their targets could likely be counted amongst the innocent and if so, it was likely without their knowledge, Cole was killing because he was ordered to, or he was being paid to, or even for one political agenda or another. This is what an assassin does. Cole kills for the sake of killing. Cole doesn't assassinate. Cole does murder. There is a distinction.

Ahaha, no. Zevran and Leliana definitely killed innocent people, and they almost surely knew who they were killing. Plus, even if those people committed a crime, there's no way everyone committed one worthy of a death sentence.
Even if there might be a distinction between Cole and Leliana/Zevran, there's absolutely no way that what the latters did was fine.

[SnakeCode]

I've said this before, but since people are still doing it i'd like to point out that I think it's disingenuous to equate Cole with transgendered people IRL. People calling transgendered people "it" or fearing/hating them is completely irrational and usually has more to do with the insecurities of the person/people saying those things.

 

With demons/spirits that fear and hatred is completely rational, we have yet to see a benevolent demon. With the fade tear and the fade entities pouring through, they are the enemy! 

 

As for calling Cole an "it" I don't personally do it, but I don't really see a problem with it tbh. People are saying that it's dehumanising, but can that be the case when Cole isn't in fact, human?

 

First, we don't actually know if demons and the like identify as gendered.

 

Second, he's a disturbed serial killer, characters should have the right to be able to dehumanise him. Killers are dehumanised all the time IRL "you're  a monster" etc.

[Gervaise]

Would point out here that this argument about Cole's morality would not occur if he had not appeared in a book and then we were given further information on that character.   I have been pondering on whether we are in fact given too much information and that it prevents true role playing.

 

The fact is that the Inquisitor is going to have to work on what the character tells them and what other people tell them about the character.   In Cole's case, since people almost instantly forget him that is likely to be very little.   However, there is the possibility that Lambert left case notes behind which, say, Cassandra could have read, and since it is in written form, she can consult if she starts to forget.      Now you can say, he was a demon in Asunder preying on innocent people and thus as PW points out, you can simply not recruit him.   However, if you are playing the role correctly, you cannot judge Cole, or any other character, on what you read in a book or comic or even your experience of them in other games, unless there is a specific reason why you might have that information.

 

At present we don't even know if the Inquisitor is going to be a total amnesiac or have some memory of their past.   If the former then nothing can be based on previous knowledge or experience until someone may be recognises you or fills you in.    If the latter then it is possible to play the PC as more knowledgeable but only about those things they could reasonably be expected to know.   This is why, for me, it is fun to speculate about characters but I see little point in getting all hung up on the moral implications of what they have done prior to the game.   It is okay to a limited extent but after that its ceases to be enjoyable.

[Char]

It can be argued that Sten was suffering from PTSD. He flew off the handle briefly and it cost people their lives. Doesn't make what he did right, but it does put it in the realm of temporary insanity. What Cole did was deliberate, calculated, and repeated over an extended period of time. Its just not the same thing.

 

As far as addressing the murders with a hand waive? Easily done, retcon the little girl it killed into a young woman then make sure all its victims were murderers like her. Just like that, Cole is no longer a predator but an enforcer. Anyone that didn't read the book will accept that information out of hand, those of us that did would have to accept the retcon as canon.

 

So far as addressing the murder as is? Impossible. If the Inquisition finds out it has a habitual child murderer, even a former one, within its ranks, I don't see how it could be tolerated.

 

 

 

I have a few points to make on this matter. The first is that human society is what makes a distinction between killing children and killing adults. There is a widespread social understanding that children are more innocent and therefore more deserving of life. A spirit isn't guaranteed to have any understanding of social constructs, or of the differences between a child or adult. Therefore a spirit isn't to know why his actions are being judged to be more heinous than those of the other killers around him.

The second point I have to make is that the idea of a "little girl" varies wildly across cultures and times. Puberty can start very early, or very late. For most medieval cultures a female child was marriageable and a full grown woman as soon as menstruation began. I'm sure the City Elf origin in particular was only intended to be 16-or-so and yet they were considered adult enough to lead an army. A "little girl" is subjective.

 

The third point I want to make is that the idea of redemption, education and repentance is a common one across many cultures. I think that having an opportunity for someone to work towards an understanding of what they did, of why it was wrong, and to put into action a positive future that seeks to redress the balance is a fantastic and admirable chance.

[Char]

 

Second, he's a disturbed serial killer, characters should have the right to be able to dehumanise him. Killers are dehumanised all the time IRL "you're  a monster" etc.

 

Just because people are dehumanised IRL doesn't make it OK. People often use labels to dehumanise the mentally ill, (see Rosenhan et al) and that is certainly not OK. People dehumanise others because they seek to distance themselves from any kind of kinship with out-groups. In the case of serial killers, I think as a society we have to accept that people can do terrible things. It doesn't make them any less human (and generally they are equated with animals, who in most cases don't indiscriminately kill within their own species). People who are driven to harm and kill others need to be understood. We need to have a stronger understanding of the reasons why people will behave in this way in order to prevent it. Recent studies suggest a strong genetic component to sociopathy, for example. I think the whole "a life for a life" philosophy is wasteful and short-sighted, but then again, being fascinated with the mind is what brought me to psychology and neuroscience

[Fortlowe]

So if all the people killed were young women that killed people (which, by the way, in the girl's case weren't intentional), you/your PC be fine with Cole killing them ?
I'd agree that killing children is worse, but that huge difference in opinion seems...strange.

Not at all, but when I point out it killed children, the predominant opposing remarks are concerned with arguing that it did not kill children but adults. The reasoning being, adults could make a more mature decision about the 'assisted suicide' Cole was offering them. Which of course I don't see as assisted suicide at all, but murder, whether the victim be adult or child. The victim in the book was child though. And as you say, that is worse.

[SnakeCode]

Just because people are dehumanised IRL doesn't make it OK. People often use labels to dehumanise the mentally ill, (see Rosenhan et al) and that is certainly not OK. People dehumanise others because they seek to distance themselves from any kind of kinship with out-groups. In the case of serial killers, I think as a society we have to accept that people can do terrible things. It doesn't make them any less human (and generally they are equated with animals, who in most cases don't indiscriminately kill within their own species). People who are driven to harm and kill others need to be understood. We need to have a stronger understanding of the reasons why people will behave in this way in order to prevent it. Recent studies suggest a strong genetic component to sociopathy, for example. I think the whole "a life for a life" philosophy is wasteful and short-sighted, but then again, being fascinated with the mind is what brought me to psychology and neuroscience

I agree completely.

 

Cole is different imo though. He isn't human to begin with. He's (most likely) a demon, who as we know crave to learn about, and be a part of the real world (as in not the fade) he's basically mimicking a human that actually used to exist, which is pretty creepy in it's own right. Add in that he's clearly mentally distressed and (at least was) a habitual murderer, I don't see how Sera comes out of this looking like the out and out bad guy.

[Grieving Natashina]

Okay, I've liked Cole for awhile, but the (mostly civil) debate about him has been really interesting to watch.   Even when it comes to those I disagree with, there has been overall some very valid points on both sides.  It's been a good read.

 

 

I look forward to seeing how this debate progresses, provided that everyone remains mature.  

[Fortlowe]

I have a few points to make on this matter. The first is that human society is what makes a distinction between killing children and killing adults. There is a widespread social understanding that children are more innocent and therefore more deserving of life. A spirit isn't guaranteed to have any understanding of social constructs, or of the differences between a child or adult. Therefore a spirit isn't to know why his actions are being judged to be more heinous than those of the other killers around him.

The second point I have to make is that the idea of a "little girl" varies wildly across cultures and times. Puberty can start very early, or very late. For most medieval cultures a female child was marriageable and a full grown woman as soon as menstruation began. I'm sure the City Elf origin in particular was only intended to be 16-or-so and yet they were considered adult enough to lead an army. A "little girl" is subjective.

 

The third point I want to make is that the idea of redemption, education and repentance is a common one across many cultures. I think that having an opportunity for someone to work towards an understanding of what they did, of why it was wrong, and to put into action a positive future that seeks to redress the balance is a fantastic and admirable chance.

 

Does its lack of understanding overrule the damage it has done? Further more does its nature suggest that if it can decide simply to make it self good, that it had already a concept of right and wrong as it did those murders? What happens when we take the focus off the killer and place it on the victim? When a name and a face replaces a statistic? Where does the empathy go then?

 

I agree with you on the idea of redemption. Still, some actions are irredeemable. How many serial killers make parole?

 

So far as a measure of age versus the accepted age of adulthood in Thedas, Maric is a good indication, I think. He was eighteen, but still very much regarded as a child until his mother was killed and the role of ruler fell to him. Teenagers, it would seem at least under ideal circumstances, are still regarded as children in Thedas.

[SnakeCode]

Cole's concept of right and wrong comes solely from what Rhys taught him. 

 

Which is why he stopped killing mages but had no problem killing templars and actually sought out a certain seeker so he could put an end to him (I personally hope he failed.)

[Char]

Does its lack of understanding overrule the damage it has done? Further more does its nature suggest that if it can decide simply to make it self good, that it had already a concept of right and wrong as it did those murders? What happens when we take the focus off the killer and place it on the victim? When a name and a face replaces a statistic? Where does the empathy go then?

 

I agree with you on the idea of redemption. Still, some actions are irredeemable. How many serial killers make parole?

 

So far as a measure of age versus the accepted age of adulthood in Thedas, Maric is a good indication, I think. He was eighteen, but still very much regarded as a child until his mother was killed and the role of ruler fell to him. Teenagers, it would seem at least under ideal circumstances, are still regarded as children in Thedas.

 

I have already said in another post that more focus needs to be on the killers, to understand motivation and cause, and learn from that in order to prevent it from happening again. Very few human serial killers make parole for two reasons- the first that the rest of society finds it difficult to forgive, and therefore even the most repentant killer is always at risk of being killed in revenge for their crimes. The second is that at present we simply do not have the capacity to cure a psychopath. We are beginning to understand the patterns of psychopathy, we have some research as to the cause, but we are not yet able to change the wiring of the brain in an adult human. The victims should always be objects of sympathy and understanding and treated with respect, but looking at, or attempting to change the victim does not prevent further crime.

 

Whilst lack of understanding does not alleviate the need for punishment, in law we accept children, and people with mental illnesses to have diminished responsibility for their crimes as a result of a lack of understanding of the consequences and framing of their actions. There is nothing to suggest that with a full understanding of his nature, Cole would have still killed. Killing for survival is something our ancestors have all done, and our wild cousins continue to do. We are in a society that tells us that this is wrong only because it is no longer necessary for us to do so.

Did he originally have a sense of right and wrong? Perhaps. Will it be understandable from a human frame of reference? Who knows. If he has developed a human frame of reference, there is nothing to say he will not stick to it from now on.

[The Elder King]

Not at all, but when I point out it killed children, the predominant opposing remarks are concerned with arguing that it did not kill children but adults. The reasoning being, adults could make a more mature decision about the 'assisted suicide' Cole was offering them. Which of course I don't see as assisted suicide at all, but murder, whether the victim be adult or child. The victim in the book was child though. And as you say, that is worse.

Understood.

[Lambdadelta]

Cole is not human, technically, but the ultimate effect is the same as dehumanization. Technical terms and details do not ultimately matter. Cole is a person. He may not be human, but he's still a person. Calling him "it" as if he were a thing is to deny his personhood. The ultimate problem with that is the same.

 

(For the record, you could use that argument for a dwarf or elf or Qunari too. Characters who belong to these races aren't human either, and yet you wouldn't call any of them 'it', would you?)

[Char]

I agree completely.

 

Cole is different imo though. He isn't human to begin with. He's (most likely) a demon, who as we know crave to learn about, and be a part of the real world (as in not the fade) he's basically mimicking a human that actually used to exist, which is pretty creepy in it's own right. Add in that he's clearly mentally distressed and (at least was) a habitual murderer, I don't see how Sera comes out of this looking like the out and out bad guy.

Oh, no I agree with you. Sera's actions are perfectly understandable given that fear and suspicion are very common reactions to both demons and killers peoples initial reactions certainly don't have to be of trust and welcome, suspicion is healthy. What make Sera 'bad' is if during the game Cole does prove to be a loyal and steadfast companion, and she refuses to change her mind. That still only makes her stubborn and closed-minded though, rather than evil I think a lot of people are upset because it pulls into real-world situations where different is often equated with bad. People would like to see the other characters grow to accept Cole for his differences, because it's what we'd like to see in an ideal society

[twincast]

I don't think the events of Asunder will come up much other than the mages breaking away from the Chantry and the Templars breaking away to stop the mages. Besides the fact that not everyone, in fact probably only a relatively small percentage, of players have not read that book, it also can go against the canon of some players. For example, those who didn't awaken Shale or killed Wynne. 

 

Well, Wynne has her spirit as a get out of death free card (way easier to rationalize than Leliana's survival no matter what). And while unlikely, I suppose she could've somehow stumbled across Shale and learned of her origin anyway. Either way, Shale's more of a minor factor, whereas the Asunder(-equivalent) events that form a significant part of DA:I's backstory very much break down ohn Wynne.

 

Anyway, I do think pretty much all of it will come up during and/or after Cole's companion quest.

 

There hasn't been a lot of blond wearing a dusty red cloak seen as of yet other than Cole, and Gaider did pop in earlier when that concept art was pop'd up and did an evil laugh. I don't see who else it could be, but yeah that's what this thread is mainly for, discussion and speculation XD The context of the image is a complete mystery, but people are all piled up thinking he's attacking her.

 

One should remember, though, that Cole went from of malleable morals in the survey to a dedicated do-gooder in his current description. Plus, cuts happen. It's certainly possible that whatever happens in that concept art is still an (optional) event in the game, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

[Meeszy Alexy]

Okay, I've liked Cole for awhile, but the (mostly civil) debate about him has been really interesting to watch.   Even when it comes to those I disagree with, there has been overall some very valid points on both sides.  It's been a good read.

 

 

I look forward to seeing how this debate progresses, provided that everyone remains mature.  

 

Just woke up to this debate and caught up to this discussion. I'll join you there and watch it unfold this time instead of debating myself.

 

[SnakeCode]

Cole is not human, technically, but the ultimate effect is the same as dehumanization. Technical terms and details do not ultimately matter. Cole is a person. He may not be human, but he's still a person. Calling him "it" as if he were a thing is to deny his personhood. The ultimate problem with that is the same.

 

(For the record, you could use that argument for a dwarf or elf or Qunari too. Characters who belong to these races aren't human either, and yet you wouldn't call any of them 'it', would you?)

I see where the argument comes from but I still don't agree with that line of thought.

 

Demons aren't like elves, dwarves, or qunari, we don't even know if they're technically alive in the traditional sense, I mean, in game we "kill" them, but that could just result in being banished to the fade for a demon. They're somewhat sapient, and at least semi-intelligent, but surely that isn't enough on it's own? Do they have a heart, lungs, stomach? Do they breath, or need air or a bloodflow to survive at all? Are they even fully corporeal? Are they just a magical entity? (like lyrium.) 

 

They don't even come from the same (in game) world as the rest of the species.

[cogsandcurls]

He's capable of independent thought, self-awareness and has feelings. He's a person.

 

He may not be human, but he's a person. Doesn't even matter if he's "alive" or not. He's sentient. He is a person.

 

Edit: re: abominations, The Calling seems to imply that abomination bodies are a twisting of the existing mages' body. But it's entirely reversible. So maybe the physical form of an abomination is less about physical transformation of the mage and more a projection of that image into the minds of everybody else around them? Who knows.

[Char]

I see where the argument comes from but I still don't agree with that line of thought.

 

Demons aren't like elves, dwarves, or qunari, we don't even know if they're technically alive in the traditional sense, I mean, in game we "kill" them, but that could just result in being banished to the fade for a demon. They're somewhat sapient, and at least semi-intelligent, but surely that isn't enough on it's own? Do they have a heart, lungs, stomach? Do they breath, or need air or a bloodflow to survive at all? Are they even fully corporeal? Are they just a magical entity? (like lyrium.) 

 

They don't even come from the same (in game) world as the rest of the species.

I suppose that depends on a very personal philosophy: what makes a person?

That's something that is going to be slightly different for each one of us, because it's a subjective area. To me, Cole has a personality- that's all it takes to be a person in my eyes

 

EDIT: For example, to take a real-world perspective, I am currently pregnant (can't believe I've just revealed that online before telling my grandparents, but anyway) For some people the little bundle of cells inside me is a person. Was a person from the moment of conception despite physically being nothing but a cell of human DNA. For others, a person arrives at birth. Its an incredibly subjective topic all round

[SnakeCode]

I suppose that depends on a very personal philosophy: what makes a person?

That's something that is going to be slightly different for each one of us, because it's a subjective area. To me, Cole has a personality- that's all it takes to be a person in my eyes

Yes, that's the point of that post. I'm asking that exact question. 

[Lambdadelta]

I see where the argument comes from but I still don't agree with that line of thought.

 

Demons aren't like elves, dwarves, or qunari, we don't even know if they're technically alive in the traditional sense, I mean, in game we "kill" them, but that could just result in being banished to the fade for a demon. They're somewhat sapient, and at least semi-intelligent, but surely that isn't enough on it's own? Do they have a heart, lungs, stomach? Do they breath, or need air or a bloodflow to survive at all? Are they even fully corporeal? Are they just a magical entity? (like lyrium.) 

 

They don't even come from the same (in game) world as the rest of the species.

 

Cole can't really be defined as a demon or a spirit though. He was, at once point, yes, purely a Fade entity, probably a spirit, but at this point he's more than that. They are definitely alive in some sense considering how we can kill demons within the Fade. But Cole as he is now, the boy we know, definitely is a sentient being, with a thought process and with the equivalent intelligence and understanding of one; he has an individual, independent identity of his own. It is somewhat muddy and he is confused, but it exists. That, to me, makes him a person.

 

It's the argument that "it's not dehumanization because he's not human" that, to me, comes across as overly-technical and nitpicky to me, because it's not about Cole's humanity or personhood or inhumanity, it's really just all about semantics, you know?

[SnakeCode]

He's capable of independent thought, self-awareness and has feelings. He's a person.

 

He may not be human, but he's a person. Doesn't even matter if he's "alive" or not. He's sentient. He is a person.

 

Edit: re: abominations, The Calling seems to imply that abomination bodies are a twisting of the existing mages' body. But it's entirely reversible. So maybe the physical form of an abomination is less about physical transformation of the mage and more a projection of that image into the minds of everybody else around them? Who knows.

My dog is capable of all of those things. Am I dehumanising him if I were to call him an it?