273 réponses à ce sujet

[Nalyd]

. . . I'm not sure that you guys are quite grasping the argument here. This isn't totalitarianism vs. liberal democracy. This is feudalism or literal empire vs. theocratic communalism. Iron Bull himself makes this point several times - for most normal people, daily life in Qunandar is not especially different from daily life in Val Royeaux. Would you call elves in alienages free? Land-bound serfs, are they free? Is a servant whose options are to please his lord or die starving free? You do know Tevinter has actual slaves, yeah? The Qun is hegemonic, sure, but at least it's organized so that its leaders work to benefit its society - by every account we've seen, the tamassrans are benevolent, the military doesn't overstep its role, and the priesthood keeps to itself - and its people have a better quality of life for it. Feudalism, even late feudalism with a middle class, is structured solely for the benefit of the powerful. It's literally organized into tiers of people, each with a legal obligation to serve the next-highest. I'm not gonna say the Qun is great, cuz it's for sure not, but for humanitarianism, it's at least on par with, y'know, its actual contemporaries. At least. You think the jackasses you meet in Halamshiral would hesitate for a second to use qamek or brainwashing on their subjects, if they knew how? Cuz they wouldn't.

[Mythos Engineer]

I choose to sacrifice once just to see, then I reloaded, and let the Qunari get murdered. I hate them, and while Bull is pretty great, the Qun is horrible, and I would never want an alliance with those monsters.

[Feybrad]

You all should submit to the Qun.

 

I did. And I'm right. Always.

[Amirit]

I also reasoned that even if the Chargers die, better them than an entire Qunari Dreadnought and the Qunari on board, while also exiling him from everything he grew up with, which he didn't seem to resent too much. 

 

Exactly! I will post it as many times as it takes to prove hypocrisy of the choice. They did not even mentioned the crew of that Dreadnought, yet it's HUNDREDS of people. Idiocy of the whole quest aside, it IS a simple math - five mercs vs hundreds of sailors. And nobody even mentions them!  

[Mythos Engineer]

Exactly! I will post it as many times as it takes to prove hypocrisy of the choice. They did not even mentioned the crew of that Dreadnought, yet it's HUNDREDS of people. Idiocy of the whole quest aside, it IS a simple math - five mercs vs hundreds of sailors. And nobody even mentions them!  

 

The Chargers are worth a thousand Qunari in my eyes. I'm pretty sure I've not hated a race in a game as much as them

[KingAgamemnon]

I tried out both options just to see what happened. My first round I saved the Chargers because, well...I have a problem with sacrificing a group of people like that for a cause like the Qun. I refuse to call it the Greater Good, because its debatable whether or not it actually is.

 

Second playthrough I wanted to see what changed. I went through the mission, watched Bull basically die inside and turn back into an automaton of the Qun, and went, "Nope, screw that." Reloaded the save and saved the Chargers, because to hell with the Qun. I understand how a society like that would work for certain people, but it definitely doesn't work for me - not to mention it clearly isn't what Bull wants. Watching him after the Chargers died was easily the saddest part of the whole game for me. 

[AzureAardvark]

five mercs vs hundreds of sailors.

 

Five *models* ... from the first series of dialogues with the Chargers at Crestwood, and reinforced by most of the follow on conversations, it isn't just "these five guys" ... none of the dialogues you have with IB about the Chargers make any sense if it's just five guys.

[Equalitas]

Good relations with the Qun is more important then a few misfits lives. A tear was dropped and crystallized with magic for a necklace for The Bull.   

[Amirit]

Five *models* ... from the first series of dialogues with the Chargers at Crestwood, and reinforced by most of the follow on conversations, it isn't just "these five guys" ... none of the dialogues you have with IB about the Chargers make any sense if it's just five guys.

 

So, you are telling me that if writers were not hypocrites and added the line "there are 700 people on that Dreadnought, you even knew some of them" - you would still easily sacrifice all of them for live of 5 barely familiar (you only really knew Krem) hired guns? 

[AzureAardvark]

So, you are telling me that if writers were not hypocrites and added the line "there are 700 people on that Dreadnought, you even knew some of them" - you would still easily sacrifice all of them for live of 5 barely familiar (you only really knew Krem) hired guns? 

 

What?   How are you going from me saying "the chargers are more than these five guys" to "So, you'd kill all these Qunari for 5 guys you barely know?" :/

 

I'm a former serviceman; five lives for a hundred is the kind of "ruthless calculus of war" that I'm reasonably familiar with, and the kind of decision I never had to, but would have been required to make.

 

I can see how the decision was suppose to be set up, but I think BW didn't really hit the nail on the head, so to speak.

[Amirit]

What?   How are you going from me saying "the chargers are more than these five guys" to "So, you'd kill all these Qunari for 5 guys you barely know?" :/

 

I'm a former serviceman; five lives for a hundred is the kind of "ruthless calculus of war" that I'm reasonably familiar with, and the kind of decision I never had to, but would have been required to make.

 

Sorry, then I got you all wrong. Though IB was always mentioning only those 5 and you actually meet them personally. So, I took it literally in game - only those 5 are Charges. Still, it's supposed to be a small group (quest condition), and Dreadnought crew wins in numbers.

 

I hate that quest with a passion, so easily overeating. 

[AzureAardvark]

Sorry, then I got you all wrong. Though IB was always mentioning only those 5 and you actually meet them personally. So, I took it literally in game - only those 5 are Charges. Still, it's supposed to be a small group (quest condition), and Dreadnought crew wins in numbers.

 

I hate that quest with a passion, so easily overeating. 

 

It's fine, man.

 

This discussion is like "Who rules in Orzammar?" from DAO ... my first playthough, I went with Harromont.  I didn't know you always get *something* no matter who you choose, and ruthless, opportunistic Bhelen struck me as someone who would more than likely not give me troops once I'd helped him.  Hyper traditional Harromont, though, was a safer bet.  

 

Then you try expressing that online and you get fifty different munchkins lecturing you on how it's just so *obvious* that Bhelen is *the* better choice, *so* progressive (for a fratricide/patricide with the ethics of a starving, horney alley cat), citing information you don't have (unless your character was a dwarf commoner), or cranking up the meta game by citing the ending cut scenes.

 

**** just gets old.

[Laurelinde]

. . . I'm not sure that you guys are quite grasping the argument here. This isn't totalitarianism vs. liberal democracy. This is feudalism or literal empire vs. theocratic communalism. Iron Bull himself makes this point several times - for most normal people, daily life in Qunandar is not especially different from daily life in Val Royeaux. Would you call elves in alienages free? Land-bound serfs, are they free? Is a servant whose options are to please his lord or die starving free? You do know Tevinter has actual slaves, yeah? The Qun is hegemonic, sure, but at least it's organized so that its leaders work to benefit its society - by every account we've seen, the tamassrans are benevolent, the military doesn't overstep its role, and the priesthood keeps to itself - and its people have a better quality of life for it. Feudalism, even late feudalism with a middle class, is structured solely for the benefit of the powerful. It's literally organized into tiers of people, each with a legal obligation to serve the next-highest. I'm not gonna say the Qun is great, cuz it's for sure not, but for humanitarianism, it's at least on par with, y'know, its actual contemporaries. At least. You think the jackasses you meet in Halamshiral would hesitate for a second to use qamek or brainwashing on their subjects, if they knew how? Cuz they wouldn't.

 

I have found DAI to be very interesting in that it has given us a more nuanced approach to both the Qun and Tevinter than previously.  Clearly, both societies have what we today would consider unacceptable and inhumane customs and practices.  But there are certainly positive aspects to the societies as well, like that flavor text codex you can get about the old nanny who meets a Qunari after being mugged, and is told how she would be respected and treated well under the Qun, as opposed to being beaten by her employer and robbed in the street and left for dead.

 

Likewise Tevinter, which has very obvious problems with abuse of magical power/blood magic, slavery, etc. does at least seem to have some rudimentary form of representational government and a concept of citizenship, which is still seemingly unknown in Orlais/Ferelden/the Marches, where ruling families rule because they've always ruled, and have money and power and dynasties, and everyone else is a powerless peasant reliant on the good graces of the powerful.  

 

So, freedom is important; but how do you balance that with security, with personal responsibility, with in-practice equality?  None of the societies in Thedas that we've seen so far really has all the answers or anything like an 'ideal' government or culture, even in theory, which makes it both more realistic and more interesting to play, I think.  A lot of the ideas are things we as people and peoples are still working out today. (See: every discussion about individual rights vs. security from terrorism.)

[Mythos Engineer]

It's fine, man.

 

This discussion is like "Who rules in Orzammar?" from DAO ... my first playthough, I went with Harromont.  I didn't know you always get *something* no matter who you choose, and ruthless, opportunistic Bhelen struck me as someone who would more than likely not give me troops once I'd helped him.  Hyper traditional Harromont, though, was a safer bet.  

 

Then you try expressing that online and you get fifty different munchkins lecturing you on how it's just so *obvious* that Bhelen is *the* better choice, *so* progressive (for a fratricide/patricide with the ethics of a starving, horney alley cat), citing information you don't have (unless your character was a dwarf commoner), or cranking up the meta game by citing the ending cut scenes.

 

**** just gets old.

 

Having done the noble dwarf Origin from DAO I can safely say that there's no way in hell I will ever let Bhelen be the King

[NoForgiveness]

I let the chargers die. I couldn't think of any way that small group was more important then a ship full of people. The alliance is good for both sides too. And yes those are people.

[wright1978]

While normally I'd be pragmatic & sacrifice a handful of soldiers for a shipful. However that ship was full of vile qunari who are a severe threat to southern thedas. I was dubious about any potential temporary alliance anyhow, so letting one of their dead noughts fall whilst also making the bull into a tal-vashoth was just too good an opportunity to miss.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Qune = no sweets.

Uh no.

[Myrmedus]

By this point in the story I did not need to bend over backwards for allies, so as far as I was concerned the Inquisition would do what IT wants and if others want to come along for the ride, so be it. If we can't be allies naturally (ie. naturally we have an affinity, make the same choices, want the same things etc.) then so be it.

[Jukaga]

The worst part of that quest is the 'Thomas the Tank Engine' animation of the dreadnought sailing in *DING*DING* and shooting the smuggler barque. Then it just sits there waiting for you to sacrifice it or the Chargers. I get what they were trying to do with this scene but the presentation is ATROCIOUS and not up to par with any of the other cutscenes.

[sp88]

although i seriously didn't want to ...

 

i decided to let the chargers die because that was the mission they'd undertaken

 

better to let them die as heroes having succeeded at their task than let them slink away to fight another day with a failure against their names

 

the chargers: "they get the job done, except when it's looking a bit tricky" - i don't think that's the kind of reputation they'd have wanted

[BioWareM0d13]

I had the Inquisitor sacrifice the Chargers even though he was a devout Andrastian that was opposed to the Qun. Under normal circumstances I probably would have had that character guide the Iron Bull away from the Qun, but because the choice occurs during a mission where you are attempting to broker an Alliance with the Qunari to interdict Venatori reinforcements at sea...I couldn't find a justification for that Inquisitor saving the Chargers. The Qunari Alliance was strategically important, whereas the survival of a mercenary band was not. The Inquisition had an army by that point. What it needed was ships.

 

Also the Chargers had a mission to hold that hill to protect the dreadnought. Having them retreat to save their own skins and give the Venatori their win, betraying allies in the process, is dishonorable. Its also not militarily sound. 

 

There are two main priorities of a combat leader. The first is mission accomplishment and the second is the welfare of the troops under that combat leader's command. While both are important, troop welfare is always secondary to mission accomplishment. And the troops should know that. It's part of their job description.

[Silcron]

I saved the chargers. The qunari dragged the chargers and me into that situation, without giving me more information, or letting me prepare and then I'd have to sacrifice people who have already put their lives on the line. Why? Because they didn't trust me enough to tell me the whole situation until I was there? I could have used Leliana's people to have reinforcements that could come in without drawing attention, I could have used my forces or Jossie to convince nobles to lend us fast boats so even if the smuggler ship tried to scape, it couldn't.

The qunari don't seek an alliance, what they're trying to do is get on our good graces so when they invade the Inquisition might consider joining them, or they will have enough people inside that they will be able to break it if they side against them.

I was seriously considering giving them a chance, specially since they have Sten the Arishok (Heroes of Dragon Age calls him that, it's easier to differentiate DA2 Arishok from DAO Sten being the Arishok), and hey, all help is welcomed, but not on those conditions.

What pissed me off the most is that doing that mission caused a glith that has put Leliana on a sort of perpetual invisible mission. The war table says she's always busy on a mission, but I can't see her anywhere on the war table. Let's hope this works on the xbox one

http://answers.ea.co.../4027960/page/2

[Pi2r Epsilon]

I tried out both options just to see what happened. My first round I saved the Chargers because, well...I have a problem with sacrificing a group of people like that for a cause like the Qun. I refuse to call it the Greater Good, because its debatable whether or not it actually is.

Pardon me, but sacrificing your mercenaries to achieve a strategic objective in the fight against a common enemy is not sacrificing people for the Qun's cause.

 

You want to defeat the Ventatori for your own reasons, and likewise do the Qunari. The Qunari says they are interested in an alliance* with you to pursue this common goal and come up with a mission to test whether they can cooperate with you in a way that is mutually beneficial, by them providing the naval force and you providing the land force. You agree to this for your own reasons.

 

* A real-world political alliance, not one of the fantasy alliances common to bad literature and games. In other words, a question of temporarily putting aside most grievances and cooperating politically, militarily, or economically for the purpose of achieving certain common goals, not a question of friendship. The Qunari undoubtedly have also considered the value of getting on the good side of an organization that appears to be a new rising power in mainland politics, because they aren't going to abandon their overall strategic goal of spreading the Qun and the relations built here might turn out to be valuable, just like the Inquisition's political leaders consider - or should consider - the long term advantages and disadvantages of building relations with the Qunari. That's politics.

 

 

Then, unfortunately, you end up in a situation where you have to choose between 1) abandoning the mission plan and acting to save some of your own soldiers that are at high risk of dying while knowing that you are putting the success of the mission and the lives of the entire Qunari force at risk by doing so, or 2) sticking to the mission plan, which means not acting to save those of your soldiers that are at risk, but also pretty much guaranteeing the success of the mission.

 

If you aren't willing to accept the sacrifice of your own people in war to achieve your own goals, what the hell are you doing in command of an army?

 

If you think that successful alliances are based on your alliance partner bearing the risks and the costs while you reap the rewards, avoiding risking your own assets and abandoning battle plans you've agreed to when the going gets even slightly tough, what the hell are you doing in politics?

[SandiKay0]

All you are is someone who picked up an orb. For the politics and militery stratagy you have your advisors.