208 réponses à ce sujet

[Schreckstoff]

And I felt preserving the Anvil was overwhelmingly and clearly the best option.

Obviously many do not disagree. Which is why I think it was a good choice to offer.

I was very surprised by this as I usually create ruthless characters who do anything to get the job done but I drew the line there and destroyed the Anvil.

Apparently many who play mostly good keep the Anvil surprisingly which to me is the most despicable choice one can make in DAO.

I mean even the warden who eradicated the Dalish camp just because he didn't want hot lady forest to sacrifice herself destroyed it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was very surprised by this as I usually create ruthless characters who do anything to get the job done but I drew the line there and destroyed the Anvil.

Apparently many who play mostly good keep the Anvil surprisingly which to me is the most despicable choice one can make in DAO.

I mean even the warden who eradicated the Dalish camp just because he didn't want hot lady forest to sacrifice herself destroyed it.

We each approach the problems differently. I argued long and hard that saving Redcliffe was foolish and reckless, and that Sten's objection to saving it was exactly correct. I can only save Redcliffe now when playing deeply flawed characters, because I cannot otherwise justify it.

And I also think preserving the Anvil seems like the obviously correct and good option.

[Schreckstoff]

We each approach the problems differently. I argued long and hard that saving Redcliffe was foolish and reckless, and that Sten's objection to saving it was exactly correct. I can only save Redcliffe now when playing deeply flawed characters, because I cannot otherwise justify it.

And I also think preserving the Anvil seems like the obviously correct and good option.

Correct probably but it's far from the 'good' as in morally correct choice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Correct probably but it's far from the 'good' as in morally correct choice.

I disagree. The Anvil gives the Dwarves a chance to preserve their culture and way of life. Destroying the Anvil denies them that opportunity.

Should they not have some say in their own fate? To me, destroying the Anvil seems extremely paternalistic, and arguably malicious. Saving it is neither. Saving it is the good option.

But that we can disagree about that speaks to the strength of DAO.

Destroying the Anvil is very similar, I think, to supporting the Krogan genophage.

[Schreckstoff]

I disagree. The Anvil gives the Dwarves a chance to preserve their culture and way of life. Destroying the Anvil denies them that opportunity.

Should they not have some say in their own fate? To me, destroying the Anvil seems extremely paternalistic, and arguably malicious. Saving it is neither. Saving it is the good option.

But that we can disagree about that speaks to the strength of DAO.

Destroying the Anvil is very similar, I think, to supporting the Krogan genophage.

It is morally wrong as it consumes people's soul. You have to actively kill people in return for benefits. How could that be morally correct?

Also by saving it you ignore the wishes of its creator and owner, you even have to end his existence.

[Fast Jimmy]

We each approach the problems differently. I argued long and hard that saving Redcliffe was foolish and reckless, and that Sten's objection to saving it was exactly correct. I can only save Redcliffe now when playing deeply flawed characters, because I cannot otherwise justify it.
And I also think preserving the Anvil seems like the obviously correct and good option.

Now that I think about it, you could, arguably, make the case that evacuating Redcliffe and letting the Darkspawn take care of the Connor problem would have been the smarter option. Sure, Eamon probably would have been killed, but you've got to cracks. Few eggs to make an omelette, right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

It is morally wrong as it consumes people's soul. You have to actively kill people in return for benefits. How could that be morally correct?

Because they volunteered. And as Shale demonstrates, their souls aren't necessarily destroyed - just supplanted.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. You're assuming that Caridin's privilege of ownership outweighs the greater good. You're even assuming the nature of ownership (that Caridin owns the Anvil because he made it).

Surely you see that someone could reasonably hold contrary opinions.

[Schreckstoff]

Because they volunteered. And as Shale demonstrates, their souls aren't necessarily destroyed - just supplanted.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. You're assuming that Caridin's privilege of ownership outweighs the greater good. You're even assuming the nature of ownership (that Caridin owns the Anvil because he made it).

Surely you see that someone could reasonably hold contrary opinions.

 

I'm not debating whether it's for the greater good, I acknowledged from the start that it is the correct choice just that it isn't the good, as in morally correct, choice. They didn't all volunteer for the Anvil, it'll most definitely get exploited once demand exceeds supply but not even that is the problem. There are multiple problems, absolute obedience, private ownership, etc.

[Allan Schumacher]

I suppose Bio doesn't want players to find out that something they did twenty hours ago has spoiled their endgame, so they're not willing to really put such choices in. I did once have an ME3 run where Shepard only survived Destroy because I had him sabotage the genophage cure, but that outcome requires a particular ME2 import and no DLC.

 

I can't speak for all of BioWare, but I love that stuff to pieces.  But yeah, I don't think many do unfortunately.  I loved Fallout's timer too.

[Fast Jimmy]

I can't speak for all of BioWare, but I love that stuff to pieces.  But yeah, I don't think many do unfortunately.  I loved Fallout's timer too.

And that's why we love the grognard in you, Allan.

[Fast Jimmy]

And transfer its ownership to a headcase, yeah. It's not exactly "the dwarves" who reclaim the anvil here.

Yet it's undeniable the dwarves that benefit. The endings state that they are able to not only hold the Darkspawn back - after centuries of losing ground, which would have been a victory itself - but that they GAINED back cities/thaigs that had been lost since the First Blight. Less killing and raping, more Dwarven expansion and developing economy.

Granted, you don't know that at the time of the choice, by that is, to me, the logical conclusion when I made the choice. It just so happens that the game supported that outcome from the choice.

[Lady Nuggins]

Because they volunteered. And as Shale demonstrates, their souls aren't necessarily destroyed - just supplanted.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. You're assuming that Caridin's privilege of ownership outweighs the greater good. You're even assuming the nature of ownership (that Caridin owns the Anvil because he made it).

Surely you see that someone could reasonably hold contrary opinions.

 

Isn't it also stated that many of them are convicts, forced into it against their will?  And given what we know about dwarf society, most convicts are really just casteless brands who have no other alternative.  Caridin also emphasizes that he had no idea how painful the procedure was until he underwent it himself.  So it could be argued that the volunteers were not aware of what they were volunteering for, and did not really consent to what happened to them.

 

There's also the whole control rod thing.  Because of Shale, we know that they are fully aware of what they are forced to do, even though they have no way of showing it.  So it's nothing more than a slave race.

 

Definitely, it's still a moral dilemma, though, with all that the dwarves have lost to the darkspawn.  You do raise some interesting points.

[Schreckstoff]

Yet it's undeniable the dwarves that benefit. The endings state that they are able to not only hold the Darkspawn back - after centuries of losing ground, which would have been a victory itself - but that they GAINED back cities/thaigs that had been lost since the First Blight. Less killing and raping, more Dwarven expansion and developing economy.

Granted, you don't know that at the time of the choice, by that is, to me, the logical conclusion when I made the choice. It just so happens that the game supported that outcome from the choice.

What's interesting is that Bhelen the more open minded candidate eventually forbids creation and usage of golems after Branka refuses to make more for him. 

 

Also the Dwarves are greedy and stupid. Instead of using the golems to reinforce and strengthen Orzammar as well as to rebuild their society, they use them to expand their influence again. Which will drive up the demand for the golems for which the ones 'volunteering' will most definitely be primarily casteless.

[Bob from Accounting]

You seem to be suggesting that if a narration leaves itself open to different points of view, then it has nothing to say.

 

A narrative is always open to different points of view. Never will the book you're reading grow an arm and point a gun at your head, demanding you agree with everything the author said. No matter how much a narrative says "Bob is good and moral and you should side with him," you're always completely free to think "No, that's stupid, Bob is completely wrong and Alice is good and moral."

[Fast Jimmy]

What's interesting is that Bhelen the more open minded candidate eventually forbids creation and usage of golems after Branka refuses to make more for him. 

 

Also the Dwarves are greedy and stupid. Instead of using the golems to reinforce and strengthen Orzammar as well as to rebuild their society, they use them to expand their influence again. Which will drive up the demand for the golems for which the ones 'volunteering' will most definitely be primarily casteless.

 

Fereldens, Dalish and Orlesians are all pretty greedy and stupid, too. That doesn't mean we should have let the Fifth Blight destroy everyone.

 

Although, ideally, the ultimate solution would be to replicate the Anvil technology to work off of Darkspawn. They clearly have some semblance of humanity buried deep in there, otherwise the Awakened Darkspawn wouldn't be possible. It would be interesting to see if they could be converted to golems, controlled through rods and then used to fight and capture other darkspawn to further swell the ranks.

 

Given the nature of the Broodmothers, I'd find that to be the ultimate in just irony.

[HuldraDancer]

Ah the anvil that coupled with my choice of king left me feeling like a monster when I got to the ending slides, and made it difficult for me to not metagame that part of the game ever again.  Though really to me unless your playing a dwarf PC or someone that cares about what happens to them it seems kind of hard to pass up using the Anvil but on the other hand it also seems hard to use the thing since A you'll be giving it to a woman whose clearly lost her mind and B neither of the potential kings seem like they wouldn't overly abuse their power with it but if you are playing as a different race or as someone who doesn't care about the dwarves those two reasons aren't really compelling enough to not use the anvil and get a much stronger army. At least in my opinion and clearly its a good choice if people still debate about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's also the whole control rod thing.  Because of Shale, we know that they are fully aware of what they are forced to do, even though they have no way of showing it.  So it's nothing more than a slave race.

I absolutely concede that it's slavery.  But to me, the thing that's bad about slavery is that its not voluntary.  Slaves haven't historically chosen slavery.  Frankly, any time you're forced to do things against your will, that's slavery.  I would argue that conscription is slavery.

 

But if you volunteer, knowing at the time of your choice that you can't take it back, that seems different to me.  It's like suicide.  Should I criticise people who, fully aware of what they're doing, choose suicide?  There may be reasons why I should, but it's not because of the self-harm, and the self-harm appears to be the only argument being made against voluntary golems.  Like suicide, becoming a golem is a choice that effectively ends your life, that you can't undo, one that denies you future choices.  So the morality around them should be similar, yes?

[Schreckstoff]

I absolutely concede that it's slavery. But to me, the thing that's bad about slavery is that its not voluntary. Slaves haven't historically chosen slavery. Frankly, any time you're forced to do things against your will, that's slavery. I would argue that conscription is slavery.

But if you volunteer, knowing at the time of your choice that you can't take it back, that seems different to me. It's like suicide. Should I criticise people who, fully aware of what they're doing, choose suicide? There may be reasons why I should, but it's not because of the self-harm, and the self-harm appears to be the only argument being made against voluntary golems. Like suicide, becoming a golem is a choice that effectively ends your life, that you can't undo, one that denies you future choices. So the morality around them should be similar, yes?

No as you are still conscious and might be condemning yourself to endless torture in form of performing acts you might not want to perform and yes you should criticize people who try or do commit suicide as they not only hurt themselves but also their relatives and friends, if they have some, and waste a whole lot of money the state invested in them. They should at least be considerate enough to take life insurance and let it appear like an accident.

Not to forget the whole "volunteering" is easily abused, especially in a caste system.

Again keeping the Anvil intact is absolutely the wisest decision but it's also the most despicable one in DAO.

[Fast Jimmy]

No as you are still conscious and might be condemning yourself to endless torture in form of performing acts you might not want to perform and yes you should criticize people who try or do commit suicide as they not only hurt themselves but also their relatives and friends, if they have some, and waste a whole lot of money the state invested in them. They should at least be considerate enough to take life insurance and let it appear like an accident.

Not to forget the whole "volunteering" is easily abused, especially in a caste system.

Again keeping the Anvil intact is absolutely the wisest decision but it's also the most despicable one in DAO.

 

I'm of the mindset that the most wise decision is by its very nature the most virtuous.

 

But again... the point of this thread is not to argue the merits of one previous game's choice over another. It is the fact that such choices should be present, as evidenced by the fact that we can have interesting discourse about the merits of the decision five years after the fact. I don't see anyone arguing that saving Vigil's Keep and Amaranthine wasn't the best option five years later, as an example.

[Elhanan]

If there is a Best option (for Good purposes) or Most Lucrative (for my more Evil PC's), these are likely used by some of my Mages after they have been discovered, as I often grant them Clairvoyance. However, it is usually my Rogues and Warriors that are the ones to discover such information on previous sessions (or a really good walkthrough after my initial game).

Using Awakenings, my Warrior saved his men and the Keep, and my Rogue saved Amaranthine. Since it was then discovered that one could save both, my Mage took this track.

[Fast Jimmy]

If there is a Best option (for Good purposes) or Most Lucrative (for my more Evil PC's), these are likely used by some of my Mages after they have been discovered, as I often grant them Clairvoyance. However, it is usually my Rogues and Warriors that are the ones to discover such information on previous sessions (or a really good walkthrough after my initial game).

Using Awakenings, my Warrior saved his men and the Keep, and my Rogue saved Amaranthine. Since it was then discovered that one could save both, my Mage took this track.

 

I find lucrative or money making decisions the most shallow in games. 

 

In a game where difficult can be dropped down, what kills peasants for a gold reward that won't even buy you a better weapon? Gold isn't used in dynamic enough ways to really be an incentive in most games, including DA games. DA2's Act 1 Main Quest tried to make this work, but it wound up being a thinly veiled reason to just do lot's of fetch quests, not to place a high value on monetary rewards over more "moral" ones.

[Elhanan]

Perhaps I should have said something to define the obtaining of personal power rather than lucrative. Sometimes the refusal of a reward has a greater benefit to the character, and my Evil Power Behind the Throne Mages tend to be rather cunning in that. However, if there is an emotional response available that may better suit their true nature, I have taken that sometimes simply to illuminate their character flaws.

[Fast Jimmy]

Perhaps I should have said something to define the obtaining of personal power rather than lucrative. Sometimes the refusal of a reward has a greater benefit to the character, and my Evil Power Behind the Throne Mages tend to be rather cunning in that. However, if there is an emotional response available that may better suit their true nature, I have taken that sometimes simply to illuminate their character flaws.

Word.