Exactly what it says in the title. From the past two games; What do you think are the "right" choices? Why? Do you think multiple choices in a decision have good reasons to choose them? if so, list them if you wish. Where do the characters fit in regards to your moral standards?
Please avoid insults and name calling (unless they really deserve it; looking at you trolls *hefts two handed sword*)
Have fun!
Exactly what it says in the title. From the past two games; What do you think are the "right" choices? Why? Do you think multiple choices in a decision have good reasons to choose them? if so, list them if you wish. Where do the characters fit in regards to your moral standards?
Please avoid insults and name calling (unless they really deserve it; looking at you trolls *hefts two handed sword*)
Have fun!
since i tried to do things good/right in my main playthroughs of the game, (taken from a meme from another thread)
Off the top of my head:
Destroy the Anvil, Save the Mages, get help from the Mages to save both Isolde and Connor, Cure the Werewolf Curse, Don't Sacrifice the City Elves in a Blood Ritual.
I think one of the more difficult moral choices in DAO was Ruck. Is it better to end his suffering or let him live? It's very difficult to choose. I chose to let him live and tell his mother that he died long ago. I made the decision based on my own morals. I couldn't kill the poor guy because, well, I just couldn't! But the more moral decision may have been to end his pain, no matter how "content" he was to keep surviving on Darkspawn in the Deep Roads.
I think one of the more difficult moral choices in DAO was Ruck. Is it better to end his suffering or let him live? It's very difficult to choose. I chose to let him live and tell his mother that he died long ago. I made the decision based on my own morals. I couldn't kill the poor guy because, well, I just couldn't! But the more moral decision may have been to end his pain, no matter how "content" he was to keep surviving on Darkspawn in the Deep Roads.
I usually tell myself, if he wanted to die, he wouldve said so or committed suicide already. Its not like he's in a vegetative state, he's still conscious and aware
I usually tell myself, if he wanted to die, he wouldve said so or committed suicide already. Its not like he's in a vegetative state, he's still conscious and aware
That's exactly how I felt. I have three worlds on the Keep so far, and Ruck is alive in all of them.
That's exactly how I felt. I have three worlds on the Keep so far, and Ruck is alive in all of them.
The beauty with these games is that the line between right and wrong are very fine. One person who plays it might say this is the right choice whereas another might say the complete opposite. I'm thinking off Nature of the Beast in DA:O. Siding with the Werewolves could be considered good, same with siding with the Elves. And of course, there is the neutral option. All can be considered "good" in the eyes of different people.
Didn't really see much point in killing him but my reason for keeping him alive is far simpler: I had a ton of crap I needed to hock before I went further.
*nods in approval*
That's exactly how I felt. I have three worlds on the Keep so far, and Ruck is alive in all of them.
He sells deep mushrooms. Obviously his tortured existence is worth more mushrooms.
If I was him, I would have eaten all those deep mushrooms before I tried roasted Darkspawn.
@LightningPoodle
That's why this thread is about people sharing and debating/discussing what they think is "right" and why they think it is.
In terms of Orzammar, I think Bhelen is definitely the better choice, even if he did kill his brother. He brings the dwarves into the future and lets them become more open with outsiders. Harrowmont closes Orzammar off.
Morally good choices that also result in a favorable outcome:
Defending Redcliffe
Saving the mages
Saving Connor from possession, without sacrificing Isolde
Negotiating a peace between the Dalish and Werewolves
Destroying the Anvil when Bhelen is King. Choosing Bhelen isn't a morally good choice, but if you destroy the Anvil on a playthrough where he is crowned, the golems ultimately aren't really needed. His reforms alone are enough to spark a dwarven revival and reclaim some lost territory.
Saving the City Elves from the Tevinter Slavers
Define "right." I'm a moral nihilist, so there's no objectively correct answer for me. I guess, that's my answer.
My main/first character is always a projection of myself, so they tend to be amoral, but not without empathy.
That said, as far as conventional right and wrong, I think most choices were pretty obvious. There were some fine lines, though, like Ruck, which has already been brought up. But otherwise, most are pretty clear, IMO (save the mages, defend Redcliffe, save Connor, destroy the Anvil, etc). I find DAII had the more blurry moral choices, because both sides were guilty of some pretty unethical things (Qunari invasion, Chantry members instigating conflict, blood mage presence, overbearing Templars, etc).
I did most of my decisions base on my character like with Harrowmont sure my brother betrayed me to get the thrown but he can move the dwarves away from their ways that are slowly rotting their people into nothing. however I would not trust him with the anvil and that stuff be crazy yo so destroyed that killed bronca. also the lohgain decision. I let him live even though alistair would leave why? We need wardens and if he dies its a fitting punishment if he dosn't guess what we now have four wardens here to try and save the day simple as that math.
The anvil always seemed like morally blurry to me.
On average, a golem is far stronger than a normal fighter. For example, if for every golem in a battle, 5 less dwarves die due to the golem shielding them/killing darkspawn.
Does that not mean that the anvil helps far more people than it hurts? You can say it enslaves souls, but is that worse than dying or becoming a ghoul?
The Dwarves are fighting for their existence. If a morally "right" choice leads to their annihilation, wouldn't that actually be the "wrong" choice?
The anvil always seemed like morally blurry to me.
On average, a golem is far stronger than a normal fighter. For example, if for every golem in a battle, 5 less dwarves die due to the golem shielding them/killing darkspawn.
Does that not mean that the anvil helps far more people than it hurts? You can say it enslaves souls, but is that worse than dying or becoming a ghoul?
The Dwarves are fighting for their existence. If a morally "right" choice leads to their annihilation, wouldn't that actually be the "wrong" choice?
I see the resoning there sure, but my dwarf who travelled with shale saw the end result and would rather die a flesh and blood dwarf over what shale became. Even its creator who lived durring the worst that the darkspawn had to offer said it was better never made and if the creator says that than who am I to argue.
The anvil always seemed like morally blurry to me.
On average, a golem is far stronger than a normal fighter. For example, if for every golem in a battle, 5 less dwarves die due to the golem shielding them/killing darkspawn.
Does that not mean that the anvil helps far more people than it hurts? You can say it enslaves souls, but is that worse than dying or becoming a ghoul?
The Dwarves are fighting for their existence. If a morally "right" choice leads to their annihilation, wouldn't that actually be the "wrong" choice?
I think destroying the Anvil is the morally good choice because it doesn't involve turning people into machines and stripping them of their free will. (and not necessarily in that order)
I count it among the morally good choices that doesn't backfire because if you couple it with Bhelen as king, the golems ultimately aren't necessary for a dwarven renaissance. Maybe they are more necessary with Harrowmont, since he doesn't institute social reforms that results in an increase in dwarven military manpower.
I think destroying the Anvil is the morally good choice because it doesn't involve turning people into machines and stripping them of their free will. (and not necessarily in that order)
I count it among the morally good choices that doesn't backfire because if you couple it with Bhelen as king, the golems ultimately aren't necessary for a dwarven renaissance. Maybe they are more necessary with Harrowmont, since he doesn't institute social reforms that results in an increase in dwarven military manpower.
but how many casteless die in order to reclaim the lost territory?
The thing with morality is that it must take into concern circumstance.
Killing someone is immoral. Killing in self-defense(if there is no other option) is moral, or at least amoral.
An act may be "wrong", but if the alternative is worse I'd count it as the "right" thing to do.
And if you found those stalata negat codex, you will see how the dwarves have been constantly fighting and having to fall back and will eventually run out.
For the sake of indulging, I'll bite:
Ruck: I kill him. Same reason one slays a darkspawn or a ghoul: put him out of his misery. Soon, his mind will deteriorate further, and he will suffer. Better to end it quickly, and tell his mother that he died fighting. It's not a complete lie, and she gets closure from it.
Anvil: The Anvil is a strong tool with long term benefits, but can easily be misused. I do not trust it to the dwarven society, who have proven to be very tribalistic and backwards in regards to their caste system. It could turn out to be a horrible tragedy. There are other ways of fighting darkspawn: like setting up more Grey Warden bases in Orzammar and helping them retake their thaigs.
Dwarven Succession: A practice of what appears to be right, isn't necessarily so. Harrowmont operates more on a system of what I'd call categorical philosophy, whereas Bhelen is more consequential. Therefore, I go with Bhelen. Unless of course, I rolled a Dwarven Noble, in which case I say "Screw you both, I got Caridin to give me the Crown instead. I win." But seriously, that should have been an option.
Dwarven Succession: A practice of what appears to be right, isn't necessarily so. Harrowmont operates more on a system of what I'd call categorical philosophy, whereas Bhelen is more consequential. Therefore, I go with Bhelen. Unless of course, I rolled a Dwarven Noble, in which case I say "Screw you both, I got Caridin to give me the Crown instead. I win." But seriously, that should have been an option.
I so wanted that to be an opition. I rally wanted to play a dwarven lady who strvied to be queen. Hey the humans nobles got to be queen, why couldn't the dwarven noble have the same treatment for their kingdom?
I so wanted that to be an opition. I rally wanted to play a dwarven lady who strvied to be queen. Hey the humans nobles got to be queen, why couldn't the dwarven noble have the same treatment for their kingdom?
There have been Dwarven Queens.
It was a Queen who sent out the legion of steel and was deposed when it never returned 
Guest_Blindseer_*
Is it necessary to have a "right" or "wrong" choice? Words like "right" or "wrong" are dictated by those who govern or rule over an individuals choices through religion, morals, ideals, social media, peers, institutions, etc. Is it just in itself to declare what is right or wrong? :/
Retour en haut