105 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

PC controlled examples are not the best, as mine are not as contrary as others might choose to be. And Bethany never became a Warden in my games, while Carver appears much better off in that role than not accepting the ritual.

Anders was fine with the choice in Awakenings, though his latter self seems quite upset and contrary with everything (as does Carver, but he is already covered). And the dialogue exists for Ser Jory to get on with it, even if the PC asks about it being lethal; he simply continues to switch his stances, which aggravates Daveth among others.

And a Golem is not a living creature; simply has the mind of one trapped in it.

[Lavaeolus]

Oh, come now. If it's got the mind of a living being, saying a golem isn't one is splitting hairs. It's like me calling you a sack of meat with a mind in it and judging you on that basis.

[Elhanan]

Oh, come now. If it's got the mind of a living being, saying a golem isn't one is splitting hairs. It's like me calling you a sack of meat with a mind in it and judging you on that basis.

A Golem is much like a Soul Gem, Mind Jar, or other vampiric device made to house the intellect of another; not living at all.

[gottaloveme]

Destroying the anvil is kneejerk for my warden

 

• it enslaves dwarves of whatever caste
• it is a rallying point for loonies (not only Branka but in the epilogues rumours we are told they try to put a demon in one and (surprised anyone?) it runs amok)
• she doesn't have time to make sure the blessed thing is used properly

I guess it all comes down to the weighing up of options. Dwarves are going to die. How many by darkspawn and how many by the anvil? It's up to you warden.

[nerd_gawdess]

Branca annoyed me so i rarely kept it. I would have liked to keep it each time, but the thought of Branka breathing was upsetting to me.

[KaiserShep]

I was pretty certain that there is an experiment gone awry with a golem regardless of whether or not the anvil is destroyed.

[KaiserShep]

Branca annoyed me so i rarely kept it. I would have liked to keep it each time, but the thought of Branka breathing was upsetting to me.

Yeah, as the entire story unfolded, it became clear to me that Branka was going to become another one of my Warden's dagger cushions when I finally met her.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Wardens are necessary to slay an Archdemon, Golems are not.  Just saying.

 

Well that's the thing about military necessity: you do not always get any guarantee on whether or not your sacrifices in war will be worth it. With Wardens it's easy. They know they are needed to become tainted and for one of them to die immediately slaying the Archdemon because it's an established fact. For those fighting a losing battle against Darkspawn in the Deep Roads, it's not guaranteed or certain whether or not golems will be the difference between winning or losing. At the rate they're going, they'll lose eventually. Golems may help them win, or they may not, but some chance of winning is definitely better than no chance.

 

And yes, I do argue there is a difference between the two.  Shale wasn't able to express herself or resist Wilhelm's control especially since his purpose was simply 'giant walking toy I can use to impress people'.  She wasn't even allowed to go fight the darkspawn (if that was her preference) because she wasn't in control of her actions.  Wardens aren't being controlled by some outside force.  They have the choice to refuse the Joining (though that ends disastrously as Jory learned).  As Morrigan says, you always have a choice, the choice may suck but you still have a choice.  Golems don't get that, especially a golem forced into it.

 

Saying you can choose to die rather than become a Warden is basically pedantry. It's practically the same as having "no" choice.
 

In one of your dialogues with her, you even have an option to tell her she seems more animated than other golems, so it may be they ARE mindless, and something Wilhelm did to her allowed her to regain her mind.
 
And Hyr 2.0 soldiers are still people with real feelings and viewpoints.  They don't become mindless tools controlled by their superiors.  They can think and act according to the way their conscience dictates.  Of course, not saying there aren't consequences (court martial, execution etc) for doing so but they are still capable of acting this way.  They aren't controlled and forced to do whatever whim strikes the controller by some outside device.  To suggest that they are automatons with no free will just because they became soldiers is preposterous.  And I don't find anything LOL'able about slavery or the lack of free will.  I find it disgusting and offensive.

 
If it's done to the unwilling then YES, it is disgusting and offensive. However, your value of free-will need not apply to those who choose to become golems, especially if you claim to care about choice in the first place. It's their lives and they've decided. In some cases, being a stone slave may be preferable to the conditions of their lives at that time, intact free-will notwithstanding.

[Elhanan]

Well that's the thing about military necessity: you do not always get any guarantee on whether or not your sacrifices in war will be worth it. With Wardens it's easy. They know they are needed to become tainted and for one of them to die immediately slaying the Archdemon because it's an established fact. For those fighting a losing battle against Darkspawn in the Deep Roads, it's not guaranteed or certain whether or not golems will be the difference between winning or losing. At the rate they're going, they'll lose eventually. Golems may help them win, or they may not, but some chance of winning is definitely better than no chance.
 
 
Saying you can choose to die rather than become a Warden is basically pedantry. It's practically the same as having "no" choice.
 
 
If it's done to the unwilling then YES, it is disgusting and offensive. However, your value of free-will need not apply to those who choose to become golems, especially if you claim to care about choice in the first place. It's their lives and they've decided. In some cases, being a stone slave may be preferable to the conditions of their lives at that time, intact free-will notwithstanding.

One cannot be certain that not using Golems offers no chance of winning. Prefer to err on the side of morality.

[sylvanaerie]

Well that's the thing about military necessity: you do not always get any guarantee on whether or not your sacrifices in war will be worth it. With Wardens it's easy. They know they are needed to become tainted and for one of them to die immediately slaying the Archdemon because it's an established fact. For those fighting a losing battle against Darkspawn in the Deep Roads, it's not guaranteed or certain whether or not golems will be the difference between winning or losing. At the rate they're going, they'll lose eventually. Golems may help them win, or they may not, but some chance of winning is definitely better than no chance.

 

 

Saying you can choose to die rather than become a Warden is basically pedantry. It's practically the same as having "no" choice.
 

 
If it's done to the unwilling then YES, it is disgusting and offensive. However, your value of free-will need not apply to those who choose to become golems, especially if you claim to care about choice in the first place. It's their lives and they've decided. In some cases, being a stone slave may be preferable to the conditions of their lives at that time, intact free-will notwithstanding.

 

If it's their choice, then it's their choice, it was certainly Shale's.  Volunteering isn't my issue with it.  Even if they don't understand entirely what will happen or what exactly they are giving up, the choice is still theirs at this point.  Perhaps even to some casteless, existence as a golem might be preferable to their lives in Dusttown.  Not saying its a great choice but it's still their choice.  And I have no issue with that.

 

My issue with the anvil is the potential for abuse, (hence my viewpoint of it's little more than slavery with those control rods) and with a whack job like Branka and a weak willed Harrowmont or power mad dictator like Bhelen as ruler it will be abused and the unwilling fed to the anvil.  To believe any of those characters have the strength of will to only sacrifice the willing to the anvil is completely ignoring their established characterization.  Branka views people as tools to be used, even her own lover.  Bhelen will toss anyone under a bus to get/keep the throne and Harrowmont is too weak willed to resist Branka, even if he wanted to.

[congokong]

If it's their choice, then it's their choice, it was certainly Shale's.  Volunteering isn't my issue with it.  Even if they don't understand entirely what will happen or what exactly they are giving up, the choice is still theirs at this point.  Perhaps even to some casteless, existence as a golem might be preferable to their lives in Dusttown.  Not saying its a great choice but it's still their choice.  And I have no issue with that.

 

My issue with the anvil is the potential for abuse, (hence my viewpoint of it's little more than slavery with those control rods) and with a whack job like Branka and a weak willed Harrowmont or power mad dictator like Bhelen as ruler it will be abused and the unwilling fed to the anvil.  To believe any of those characters have the strength of will to only sacrifice the willing to the anvil is completely ignoring their established characterization.  Branka views people as tools to be used, even her own lover.  Bhelen will toss anyone under a bus to get/keep the throne and Harrowmont is too weak willed to resist Branka, even if he wanted to.

I agree that even though ideally it can be restricted to volunteers it inevitably wouldn't. Regardless, considering the darkspawn threat (especially in Orzammar where there's a blight 24/7 and they're barely surviving) would this Branka and Harrowmont/Bhelen scenario with the anvil be worse than going extinct? And if not extinct, they will inevitably lose far more to the darkspawn than they would to the anvil. 1 golem = 12 dwarven soldiers. And the golem doesn't have to be made from a young dwarf in the prime of his life which would be the rough equivalent of one of those 12 soldiers. It could be an elder smith who becomes a golem to ensure their grandchildren live to grow up instead of being taken away to become brood mothers. I don't like my pcs destroying the anvil not just because I think it could save the dwarven world, but also because they'd eliminate this opportunity forever.

[sylvanaerie]

I agree that even though ideally it can be restricted to volunteers it inevitably wouldn't. Regardless, considering the darkspawn threat (especially in Orzammar where there's a blight 24/7 and they're barely surviving) would this Branka and Harrowmont/Bhelen scenario with the anvil be worse than going extinct? And if not extinct, they will inevitably lose far more to the darkspawn than they would to the anvil. 1 golem = 12 dwarven soldiers. And the golem doesn't have to be made from a young dwarf in the prime of his life which would be the rough equivalent of one of those 12 soldiers. It could be an elder smith who becomes a golem to ensure their grandchildren live to grow up instead of being taken away to become brood mothers. I don't like my pcs destroying the anvil not just because I think it could save the dwarven world, but also because they'd eliminate this opportunity forever.

 

Your example of the dwarven smith gives only a 'best case scenario'.  Volunteers are all well and good, but what of surface raids to capture human/elf prisoners to turn into golems?  They never volunteered to save dwarves they don't know.  Or raids on Dusttown to force casteless (who are treated as less than nothing) onto the anvils.  Or the King's political enemies who's only crime was disagreeing with him.  These are just as likely scenarios.  

It's not just darkspawn that's killing them, the dwarves are going extinct because of a sluggish birth rate, their inability to cast off their antiquated traditions and a caste system that needs revision.  Having golems is a temporary stop gap at best for the problem and a problematic one at that. 

 

Get rid of the control rods, give them free will like Shale and I'll reconsider my stance.  Till then, we're just arguing in circles I'm afraid.

[Elhanan]

If Caradin and Shale as Paragon creator/ victim, and volunteer are against it, and batty Branka the homicidal Paragon is for it, destroying this artifact of Blood Magic and enslavement is a privilege.

[KaiserShep]

Too bad we couldn't force Branka to become a golem. She believed in its necessity so badly, maybe she should have served herself up as an example. Anyways, I'm not really convinced in the Anvil's military potential against the darkspawn. It was already used in the past to create stone combatants to fight the darkspawn, yet they still failed. What's so different this time? That they can potentially just scoop up more [unwilling] people to become golems? That happened too, and it didn't work. F*ck it, and Branka, I say.

[mrs_anomaly]

Too bad we couldn't force Branka to become a golem. She believed in its necessity so badly, maybe she should have served herself up as an example. Anyways, I'm not really convinced in the Anvil's military potential against the darkspawn. It was already used in the past to create stone combatants to fight the darkspawn, yet they still failed. What's so different this time? That they can potentially just scoop up more [unwilling] people to become golems? That happened too, and it didn't work. F*ck it, and Branka, I say.

 

Branka deserved to be a Golem- yet I wouldn't have wished that much physical prowess upon the likes of her  . She did way more than just kill people and oh hundreds of them that followed her into that thaig. 

 

As for the whole Wardens vs Golem analogy. I may concede to Congo that yes, the Wardens use the same rationale to conscript some folks (others volunteering obviously) but as a subjective I'd hands down rather be in my own body than made golem. Having a shorter life time also seems to be a bit of a boon considering how Wilhelm uses Shale in The Stolen Throne IMO. 

[congokong]

 Till then, we're just arguing in circles I'm afraid.

Agreed. That's the vibe I've been getting from the for/against Anvil of the Void posters. No one convinces anyone of anything. Not unusual for the internet. lol

 

 

Anyways, I'm not really convinced in the Anvil's military potential against the darkspawn. It was already used in the past to create stone combatants to fight the darkspawn, yet they still failed. What's so different this time? That they can potentially just scoop up more [unwilling] people to become golems? That happened too, and it didn't work. F*ck it, and Branka, I say.

What happened was Cardiin hid it away after they reclaimed a few thaigs. Read the codex.

[Lady Luminous]

Playing my evil runthrough right now, so siding with Branka and keeping the anvil. Although I didn't think ahead and brought Shayle, because I've never had her in the game before and I wanted Caridin's explanation. 

 

...But now I have to fight against her and I'm trying hard not to die. Gah, hope I can convince her to stay in the party afterwards. 

[TheMadHarridan]

Playing my evil runthrough right now, so siding with Branka and keeping the anvil. Although I didn't think ahead and brought Shayle, because I've never had her in the game before and I wanted Caridin's explanation. 

 

...But now I have to fight against her and I'm trying hard not to die. Gah, hope I can convince her to stay in the party afterwards. 

 

Um, if you brought Shale to the Anvil of the Void and sided with Branka, Shale will die. You have to kill her. No other option. Now, if you left her at camp, you can either lie to her about what happened or tell her the truth and try to persuade her to stay (lying is much easier and doesn't result in an approval drop).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

One cannot be certain that not using Golems offers no chance of winning. Prefer to err on the side of morality.

 

But we can be certain it offers a better chance, and that could potentially be the difference between success and failure.

 

Ethics are not such a simple thing. It's immoral to lie, but sometimes telling the truth (the "moral" thing) does more harm. It's good to try to be ethical, but pointless to try to be perfect. Some moral dilemmas are imperfect. I prefer to err to the side of not being dead so I can preach good morals later!

 

And that's the other thing I hate about destroying the 'Anvil: it's up to the people to make good, safe use of it. Any time some new technology is introduced, some people find ways to misuse it. But, some people find ways to stop them, and society as a whole generally tries to make things safer for people rather than worse (so they themselves are not hurt). Those issues get sorted out with time. 'Anvil detractors say they can't ensure that it will be used properly, but they also can't ensure that it will not be recreated, either (if they refuse to take responsibility for that, why do they take responsibility for how other people use the 'Anvil?). It was invented once and can be again, so sooner or later, the dwarves are going to have to learn to integrate it into their society. Destroying the 'Anvil only ensures that nobody learns anything.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I told Shale the truth about the 'Anvil. She deserved to know, even if it meant her anger with me. We got over it, though.

[Lady Luminous]

Um, if you brought Shale to the Anvil of the Void and sided with Branka, Shale will die. You have to kill her. No other option. Now, if you left her at camp, you can either lie to her about what happened or tell her the truth and try to persuade her to stay (lying is much easier and doesn't result in an approval drop).

 

Damn. I hope I'd just knocked her out. "Wild Shale fainted!" Lol.

 

Guess I'll have to go to a previous save and dump her at camp. Lucky there's a checkpoint before the door. 

[Elhanan]

But we can be certain it offers a better chance, and that could potentially be the difference between success and failure.
 
Ethics are not such a simple thing. It's immoral to lie, but sometimes telling the truth (the "moral" thing) does more harm. It's good to try to be ethical, but pointless to try to be perfect. Some moral dilemmas are imperfect. I prefer to err to the side of not being dead so I can preach good morals later!
 
And that's the other thing I hate about destroying the 'Anvil: it's up to the people to make good, safe use of it. Any time some new technology is introduced, some people find ways to misuse it. But, some people find ways to stop them, and society as a whole generally tries to make things safer for people rather than worse (so they themselves are not hurt). Those issues get sorted out with time. 'Anvil detractors say they can't ensure that it will be used properly, but they also can't ensure that it will not be recreated, either (if they refuse to take responsibility for that, why do they take responsibility for how other people use the 'Anvil?). It was invented once and can be again, so sooner or later, the dwarves are going to have to learn to integrate it into their society. Destroying the 'Anvil only ensures that nobody learns anything.

No; it is speculative that Golems will offer a better opportunity. If they are used against the Dwarves - be it willful, domination, or commanded - then things are seemingly worse.

And the Anvil is not simply new Tech; it is Blood magic that requires the death of someone to operate every single time.

[Jaison1986]

No; it is speculative that Golems will offer a better opportunity. If they are used against the Dwarves - be it willful, domination, or commanded - then things are seemingly worse.

And the Anvil is not simply new Tech; it is Blood magic that requires the death of someone to operate every single time.

 

You're taking that out of your behind. They never openly state that the anvil is some blood magic device, in fact, we never see it at work. How can you be so certain it's blood magic?

[Dabrikishaw]

Elhanan is saying the Anvil's requirement to turn 1 person into a Golem is comparable to Blood Magic using blood to fuel spells. I'm not saying I agree with him, just playing Devil's Advocate.