1018 réponses à ce sujet

[Bugsie]

 

They weren't fighting side by side with me for three quarters of the game. 

 

I personally like my punishments to be retributive in some way, but I've yet to rp a completely uncompromising PC inquisitor. Pretty much you can choose this type of 'punishment' or atonement or whatever you want to call it for all of the people you judge.  

 

I usually spare Alexius, and I've yet to judge Servius but I've seen his judgement there's only one that is truly punitive, the rest are a service/atonement.  The inquisitor even says he can 'redeem' himself by providing artifacts smuggled from Tevinter.

 

Florianne can be sent to work the fields, or to serve as your court jester, personally I haven't had a chance to exercise that particular punishment but sounds like condemning her to wear bad shoes seems fitting!!  

 

Judgement seems to go in a 3 (retributive punishment/atonement) and 1 truly punitive (death/prison) pattern.

 

Alternatively, if you haven't exiled the wardens send everyone there!  (Except Ser Ruth, send her to the deep roads!)

[Xetykins]

So justice is different because you know the person? Or is it different because he was doing good during the game? Because he only got the chance to do either of those things because he didn't face justice after his crime like all the other characters had to. If they had the chance to escape, they could have turned out like Blackwall.

Stop dishing out the justice word. Makes you look like a hypocrite. You already said that murdering a lot of people including children is good if the murderer thinks its good for the world.

[Abyss108]

Stop dishing out the justice word. Makes you look like a hypocrite. You already said that murdering a lot of people including children is good if the murderer thinks its good for the world.

 

No I said if someone did something bad, thinking it was the right thing to do, its NOT AS BAD as just doing that same thing for money. I never said it good. Someone who kills 1 person to save a hundred lives if better than the person who murders someone for fun, etc.

 

 Not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite, I've explained my arguments. Context matters, and its unfair for one person to get a chance to make amends if you don't offer that one chance to everyone else. I've asked for clarification on other peoples arguments as I don't understand them. You're free not to answer, but I'm not sure why you're insulting me for asking...

[AtreiyaN7]

So does everyone who frees Blackwall want the chance to free all the other people you have to judge? All the NPCs to you fight? Corypheus? 

 

Why does Blackwall deserve to atone but not the others? Any of those other people could regret what they did given time like what Blackwall got. 

 

I freed a lot of people that I judged and gave them second chances because - for me - it's far better to do that than it is to waste a life if someone can be redeemed. I ultimately sent Ser Ruth back to the Wardens to deal with what she had done, rather than making her a laughingstock (pointless) or sending her to the Deep Roads (a waste of a valuable individual). She clearly felt the weight of guilt and remorse, and she was going to live with it and atone for it by doing her duty as a Warden as far as I was concerned - it also doesn't hurt to have a voice of conscience to maybe help the other Wardens be more vigilant about their own actions.

 

Her case wasn't entirely dissimilar to Blackwall's, but A ) because I find the Joining to be too much of a risk for my LI and B ) I feel that the whole Warden thing has been kind of a crutch for him. I freed him to atone as himself with the Inquisition. Instead of throwing Alexius in jail or killing him, I gave him a chance by having him as an agent performing magical research. Considering that he had tried to personally kill me, I probably had more right than anyone to summarily execute him - but it would have been pointless, cruel, vindictive, and a waste of talent.

 

Vis-a-vis my conversation with Dorian - and I'm sure you don't really care about things like personal relationships or knowing about a man's character and nature, judging by your apparent stance on things - I learned that Alexius had actually been a good man prior to what happened to his wife and son. So I chose to spare him and show mercy. Got a problem with me being understanding that this was a good man who took the wrong path because he was truly desperate to save his son?

 

I maintained a fairly consistent position of showing forgiveness when possible and giving many people a chance to redeem themselves and even gave the Mayor of Crestwood a chance - and he was responsible for more deaths than Rainier was when he attacked the Callier entourage. The mayor was sent to the Wardens; he can atone with them and take his chances with the Joining, hopefully doing some good to make up for what he did to his own people.

 

You can either kill everyone who wrongs you and others by sticking to some rigid code of "justice" if you like, but if I see some kernel of goodness in a person or the potential for change (or have seen actual change vis-a-vis Blackwall), then I feel that that is something worth saving - and I will try to do that. People like Erimond can get the sword or a cell for all I care - maybe a cell, although I think that even with years and years of self-reflection he's probably the kind of guy who will never change.

 

P.S. Don't be ridiculous by bringing Corypheus up - he tried to destroy the world and is a threat to everyone. What he did is on a whole different level, and that particular fight is a matter of life and death for the entire world. And bringing up random enemies is equally silly - that there is death along the way is unavoidable, and the people you fight are agents of Corypheus or ruthless bandits, etc. If they want to lay down their arms, then great - I expect they pretty much won't, though. I think most of us should have enough common sense to recognize the difference between narcissistic sociopaths, megalomaniacal nutjobs, and those people who can be redeemed (well, I should hope so anyway - if a person isn't capable of recognizing the differences...yeah, well, I don't want to be that person).

[MrsHairyMcLummox]

Friend, I'll tell you this:

The same people who judge Tom Rainier for running away because he was afraid to die by hanging are the same people who, in every day life, whenever faced with their own mistakes by their parents, school teachers, husbands, wives, asf, claim they are innocent and point the finger at someone else instead.

 

And I'm talking about light stuff, like "who forgot to turn off the light"...

 

Players want characters to be perfect while at the same time not applying that perfect ethical, moral systems on themselves and their horrid flaws as human beings.

 

Learning to forgive a friend's mistakes and to understand why they did it takes a lot of courage and symbolizes a very important step in growing up and accepting the world as it is. Those who forgave Tom's lie must've fully understood his situation and were capable of feeling genuine empathy for a character that did the most human thing to do when faced with his predicament: run away and seek penitence for his sin by helping others with his skills.

 

But I guess it's difficult to feel true empathy while sitting on a couch eating potato chips and masturbating to Blackwall's handsome bearded face. He's just a character on a screen, after all...

 

I'm out of likes, so I quote.

 

This deserves a shrine too. I also noticed how the people who can't forgive and who judge, judge, judge, are the same who spend the whole day writing nonsense on the internet, thinking perhaps it's the best way to make the world a better place. I wonder how much time they have left to actually DO something good for others assumed they also study/work. So, I am confident that many of those who are most active on the web are not at all the people whose opinions I hold in high esteem. 

 

Aside from the fact that many people nowadays seem to totally lack empathy and the ability of understanding and forgiving, I think that young people just don't have the means to understand Blackwall's situation. Exactly like young Rainier, they KNOW BETTER and life has not yet called them into account, life is ahead of them, they don't have a past yet. But they judge, and I think videogames until now have done very little to keep their egos at bay.

 

This is the first time characters in a videogame don't follow you whatever, they have a mind of their own and judge you in the same way you judge them. This hurts, especially if they have flaws and are not the usual cliché characters made to please them.

 

Only yesterday a person I met on the web told me that she cried in the Revelation scene because it reminded her so much of her real life, where she's married to a man with a heart of gold who did wrong in the past, and she has been his blessing. 

 

Some say 'No matter how many lives he has saved blah blah blah'. Really? I'm more than sure that if in real life should someone save THEIR lives they wouldn't be so picky about their savior's past, he would become a hero to them also if theirs is the only life he has ever saved. 

 

P.S. I know my English is not perfect but I'm not stupid, I'm simply not an anglophone person and I'm doing my best to express complex concepts in a proper way.

[Xetykins]

 
Assuming Anders killed children in that explosion, then yes I view it as better than Blackwall. Murder to create a better world is better than murder for coin. And I say Anders is better, even though he's my most hated character in the entire series.

And you think he did create a better world? The killings did not even stop in Kirkwall. It rippled through Thedas. This brings back to my point that one has to murder thousands to be a hero. Kill a few then you're just a murderer.

[Kjubaran]

What i CANT forgive him is i was taking him on Gray warden missions and agains Darkspawn...with almost no reaction. Now i know why. Well sent him to the Gray Wardens at the end but still...

[Xetykins]

What i CANT forgive him is i was taking him on Gray warden missions and agains Darkspawn...with almost no reaction. Now i know why. Well sent him to the Gray Wardens at the end but still...

You get approvals when you kill darkspawn and finding warden artifacts :-)

[Korva]

The Orlesians do this all the time. They're only pretending to be outraged by an "atrocity" because it's politic to do so, for Celene supporters for obvious reasons and for Gaspard because of his chevalier honor. Hypocrites, all of them. And the only reason anyone at all cares is because the family had noble blood. If it was an elven family or even peasants and chevaliers doing the killing, no one would even notice or care why it happened.

 

Yes. Can't emphasize this enough. Didn't someone on another thread say one of the novels reveals that going on a murder spree in the nearest Alienage is part of the graduation "fun" for new chevaliers?

 

For Andraste's sake, the entire Exalted Plains map is a giant atrocity carried out by all sides in the civil war. Settlements razed and burned, villagers shot and hacked to bits, refugees speared through the guts and left to die in long agony. Who gives a whit about them? Nobody. The only punishment meted out to the noble commanders and string-pullers will be for supporting the losing side at Halamshiral. Blackwall is bitterly correct when he states that the same crime he committed earns people medals under different circumstances. (That is why I hate that zone so much, and why I wish the Freemen weren't bogeymen but had been fleshed out as tired and desperate people just trying to get away from and survive the butchery and tyranny, people we can aid and support.)

 

None of that excuses what Blackwall did. Of course not. Nothing does and nothing could. But the nobles and commanders who would gleefully watch him die a horrible, lingering, public death have no leg to stand on at all because all their power comes from a system in which crimes like his are just business as usual.

 

It does seem to come down to whether you take the side of Cassandra, who sees the wrong that Ranier did and merely judge him by his faults and his sins,

 

And it seems even Cassandra slowly, very slowly, starts to not-hate him again. I don't fault her for her anger in the meantime, because she is a truly good person who serves and sacrifices and cares, the one who stands with my Inquisitor as the vanguard and shield against evil, just as Blackwall does.

 

And I free Blackwall and free him. At least he's trying, That's more than most.

 

Exactly.

 

As I said, he's not perfect even in his guilt and atonement, far from it. That makes him very human, and that in turn is why I don't see him as a badly-written or boring character like some do. He no saint or superhero, no chosen one, nothing special at all. His struggles are credible because he isn't special, because he -- unlike all us Bioware RPG protagonists -- does not have a cadre of cheerleaders kissing his butt at every turn and handing him power without responsibility at the drop of a hat.

[Abyss108]

I freed a lot of people that I judged and gave them second chances because - for me - it's far better to do that than it is to waste a life if someone can be redeemed. I ultimately sent Ser Ruth back to the Wardens to deal with what she had done, rather than making her a laughingstock (pointless) or sending her to the Deep Roads (a waste of a valuable individual). She clearly felt the weight of guilt and remorse, and she was going to live with it and atone for it by doing her duty as a Warden as far as I was concerned - it also doesn't hurt to have a voice of conscience to maybe help the other Wardens be more vigilant about their own actions.

 

Her case wasn't entirely dissimilar to Blackwall's, but A ) because I find the Joining to be too much of a risk for my LI and B ) I feel that the whole Warden thing has been kind of a crutch for him. I freed him to atone as himself with the Inquisition. Instead of throwing Alexius in jail or killing him, I gave him a chance by having him as an agent performing magical research. Considering that he had tried to personally kill me, I probably had more right than anyone to summarily execute him - but it would have been pointless, cruel, vindictive, and a waste of talent.

 

Vis-a-vis my conversation with Dorian - and I'm sure you don't really care about things like personal relationships or knowing about a man's character and nature, judging by your apparent stance on things - I learned that Alexius had actually been a good man prior to what happened to his wife and son. So I chose to spare him and show mercy. Got a problem with me being understanding that this was a good man who took the wrong path because he was truly desperate to save his son?

 

I maintained a fairly consistent position of showing forgiveness when possible and giving many people a chance to redeem themselves and even gave the Mayor of Crestwood a chance - and he was responsible for more deaths than Rainier was when he attacked the Callier entourage. The mayor was sent to the Wardens; he can atone with them and take his chances with the Joining, hopefully doing some good to make up for what he did to his own people.

 

You can either kill everyone who wrongs you and others by sticking to some rigid code of "justice" if you like, but if I see some kernel of goodness in a person or the potential for change (or have seen actual change vis-a-vis Blackwall), then I feel that that is something worth saving - and I will try to do that. People like Erimond can get the sword or a cell for all I care - maybe a cell, although I think that even with years and years of self-reflection he's probably the kind of guy who will never change.

 

P.S. Don't be ridiculous by bringing Corypheus up - he tried to destroy the world and is a threat to everyone. What he did is on a whole different level, and that particular fight is a matter of life and death for the entire world. And bringing up random enemies is equally silly - that there is death along the way is unavoidable, and the people you fight are agents of Corypheus or ruthless bandits, etc. If they want to lay down their arms, then great - I expect they pretty much won't, though. I think most of us should have enough common sense to recognize the difference between narcissistic sociopaths, megalomaniacal nutjobs, and those people who can be redeemed (well, I should hope so anyway - if a person isn't capable of recognizing the differences...yeah, well, I don't want to be that person).

 

Thank you for posting this explanation! Looks like we actually made mostly the same decisions in the game. I usually pick the options that have the most chance to help any victims or benefit other people. I just don't classify it as "justice". To me, that means the person who committed the crime gets what he/she deserves. I could kill criminals, but it wouldn't help anyone after the crime and would only affect the criminal. 

 

And you think he did create a better world? The killings did not even stop in Kirkwall. It rippled through Thedas. This brings back to my point that one has to murder thousands to be a hero. Kill a few then you're just a murderer.

 

Well we don't really know whether it will lead to a better world yet. It depends what happens after the war. But motive matters to me, and I have more sympathy then I would if he blew up that church for money. Though I'm a little confused now, as you say someone who murdered thousands can be a hero, I got the impression you believed the opposite of that from your earlier posts. Anders is responsible for thousands of deaths as he started the war.

[Dean_the_Young]

So I guess Orlais is a big loser by your estimation? Let's face it, Orlais political and legal systems are corrupt as all hell, with country's main leaders constantly breaking their own laws with their assassination plots, coups and intrigues. If the Inquisitor really wanted to uphold some measure of moral and legal credibility he or she would have had to hang Celene, Gaspard, Briala and probably two-thirds of the attendants at the ball. No matter what you do in that situation one or possibly all three of them get away with committing acts that would earn you life imprisonments, war crimes accusations or charges of espionage in the real world. But that's all alright because they have power and can offer to the Inquisition so it can use it to save the whole fricking world. And don't even get me started on the chevaliers and their right to get drunk and murder random elves. Orlesian law isn't even worthy to service as toilet paper.

 

The only important difference between them and Blackwall is at least he understood what he did was wrong and devoted his entire life to try and make that right. That all said, I just don't see the point of letting Blackwall die. It does nothing. It does nothing to change the Orlesian legal system, it doesn't satiate anyone's need for revenge, it doesn't secure the Inquisition's image or really affect it at all. All it does is allow a man desperately trying to do the right thing the chance to atone for what he's done. If we had meet Rainer a week after he commited those crimes then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but after everything he's done...

 

Besides, conscripting him into joining the Wardens just feels like the perfect solution. Joining them is both a life commitment to redemption, a legal loophole and a possible death sentence. Perfect.  

 

It's amazing how you can write so much, and yet address my points so little. Aside from the fallacies involved with demanding fiat justitia ruat caelum lest your justice system be meaningless, there's not much you actually raised here about whether Blackwall submitting to the justice system is justice or compatible with his own view of atonement.

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree with you up until this last point. The notion of justice and how we as individuals react to it is not clear cut in Thedas any more than the real world. Your sentence pretty much states that the approach to ethical dilemmas is (or should be I hope you're not simply moralising here...) the same for everyone and by not accepting a certain moral stance in regard to Rainiers crime (the eye for an eye kind) that they’re completely ignoring the issue of justice, that they don't care about integrity or that they are dismissing the idea of being the head of an organisation requires a degree of accountability. It ignores the fact that people actually put a great deal of faith in restorative justice 'making matters right' over more punitive forms.

 

Alternatively the degree of moral/ethical dilemma presented really isn't meaty enough for people to connect with on level that would be equal to how they would view/react in the real world?

 

Incorrect. I'm not saying that everyone should reach the same conclusion. I'm simply saying that if they aren't, then their priorities are something else.

 

You don't have to believe that impartial justice and accountability are the end-all-be-all. Most Bioware players clearly don't, or we wouldn't enjoy playing most Bioware games where corrupt and criminal characters who are never held to account are often among the most popular companions, or portrayed in the most sympathetic manner.

 

Most people just get uncomfortable if you raise that 'being nice to friends' are frequently more important than 'justice' whenever the two come into conflict. How many people considered their Shepards paragons of lawful morality to the utmost possibility in ME, and yet happily committed perjury and a deliberate cover up of war crimes when the immediate beneficiary's name was 'Tali'? How many people have called Aveline the 'lawful' member of the crew in DA2, when she is said to deliberatly commission and often joins Hawke on criminal activity?

 

'Nepotism' is a dirty word, but it's also one that's pretty common with the approach and attitude of Bioware players in Bioware games. Not because they're Bioware fans or because of Bioware games, but because players are people and people are often remarkably biased in favor of friends when they have the power and unaccountability to be so. Rationalizations of why this person deserves a second/third/fourth chance, yet this one deserves an iron hammer. Trying to discredit any such infringement by trying to link it to other injustices that can't be resolved- not to expand a perview of accountability or justice for crimes, but rather to argue that some crimes for people 'we' like shouldn't be punished just because other people are able beyond the reach of the law. The lowest common denominator of justice, if you will, and arguments that would never be made in favor of someone they disliked. (Can you imagine if someone tried to raise the 'well, Celene and Gaspard and Briala can't be judged, so the Inquisitor shouldn't judge anyone' as a rational for opposing every judgement of and by the Inquisitor? Probably not, because it's a silly position. Unfortunately, it doesn't become less silly if you pick sympathetic defendants.)

[Xetykins]

Thank you for posting this explanation! Looks like we actually made mostly the same decisions in the game. I usually pick the options that have the most chance to help any victims or benefit other people. I just don't classify it as "justice". To me, that means the person who committed the crime gets what he/she deserves. I could kill criminals, but it wouldn't help anyone after the crime and would only affect the criminal. 
 

 
Well we don't really know whether it will lead to a better world yet. It depends what happens after the war. But motive matters to me, and I have more sympathy then I would if he blew up that church for money. Though I'm a little confused now, as you say someone who murdered thousands can be a hero, I got the impression you believed the opposite of that from your earlier posts. Anders is responsible for thousands of deaths as he started the war.

Well that's just it you dont think Anders deserves to be castrated for the thousands of innocents because he *thinks* he is doing something right. Not even a small remorse or anything because he was not getting paid for it. While you would obliterate a repentant man who's been lied to about his target and whos been doing nothing but good things for atonement. This is not an apology for what he has done by the way. Just a take on my own views.

We will just have to agree to disagree because I don't believe that the path paved with innocent bodies to a better world ever works.

[AtreiyaN7]

@abyss: Ah, we seem to be somewhat in accord then. My personal opinion is that some people seem to equate "justice" with rigidly following a specific legal code and that this is always - without exception - the same as doing the right thing, but that is just not the case as far as I'm concerned. Vis-vis my earlier post where I pointed out that Orlesian society and its laws are, effectively, corrupt because their society is okay with the wanton killing of elves (it is approved and legal), that doesn't make this abhorrent practice ethical or right just because it's allowed under Orlesian law.

When it comes to judging individuals in the game, there should be room for things like mercy, compassion, and understanding, or what's the point? To kill and keep killing just because someone says the law demands it? If a society were draconian enough that their laws stated that all theft is punishable by death - no exceptions whatsoever - would any reasonable person (with a heart) actually condemn a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving children? Sure, they could exact "justice" under the law by executing the thief, but it certainly wouldn't be the right thing to do.

As for people like Ser Ruth and Blackwall, hey, go ahead and execute them/leave them to die/whatever if you really believe that the law is the be-all and end-all in life (or whatever reasoning you might have for making that choice). But if you do that, it won't bring the dead back or satisfy them, will it? And I don't think you're really making the world a better place by throwing another two bodies onto the pile when they could be doing a lot more good alive than dead.

[Red of Rivia]

Blackwall is the stereotype of the Grey Wardens that I always wanted to see, I have nothing to complain about.

[KaiserShep]

@abyss: Ah, we seem to be somewhat in accord then. My personal opinion is that some people seem to equate "justice" with rigidly following a specific legal code and that this is always - without exception - the same as doing the right thing, but that is just not the case as far as I'm concerned. Vis-vis my earlier post where I pointed out that Orlesian society and its laws are, effectively, corrupt because their society is okay with the wanton killing of elves (it is approved and legal), that doesn't make this abhorrent practice ethical or right just because it's allowed under Orlesian law.

When it comes to judging individuals in the game, there should be room for things like mercy, compassion, and understanding, or what's the point? To kill and keep killing just because so eone says the law demands it? If a society were draconian enough that their laws stated that all theft is punishable by death - no exceptions whatsoever - would any reasonable person (with a heart) actually condemn a man who stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving children? Sure, they could exact "justice" under the law by executing the thief, but it certainly wouldn't be the right thing to do.

As for people like Ser Ruth and Blackwall, hey, go ahead and execute them/leave them to die/whatever if you really believe that the law is the be-all and end-all in life (or whatever reasoning you might have for making that choice). But if you do that, it won't bring the dead back or satisfy them, will it? And I don't think you're really making the world a better place by throwing another two bodies onto the pile when they could be doing a lot more good alive than dead.

 

This is why the only character I ever execute in this game is Erimond, because he's an unrepentant jerkass.

[AtreiyaN7]

This is why the only character I ever execute in this game is Erimond, because he's an unrepentant jerkass.

Heh, yeah - Erimond is the one person that I chose to personally execute. However, I have since opted to either hand him over to the Wardens (being the most severely wronged party in this case, I felt that they had a right to decide his fate) or to let him stew in prison for the rest of his life. When I know that someone is outright bad and is utterly incapable of change, I can certainly dish out some well-deserved punishment - and I knew that leaving Erimond in a tiny little cell was the exact opposite of what he was hoping for (he did want a quick death after all), so I felt that letting him rot in anonymity for the rest of his sorry life was apropos.

[KaiserShep]

Heh, yeah - Erimond is the one person that I chose to personally execute. However, I have since opted to either hand him over to the Wardens (being the most severely wronged party in this case, I felt that they had a right to decide his fate) or to let him stew in prison for the rest of his life. When I know that someone is outright bad and is utterly incapable of change, I can certainly dish out some well-deserved punishment - and I knew that leaving Erimond in a tiny little cell was the exact opposite of what he was hoping for (he did want a quick death after all), so I felt that letting him rot in anonymity for the rest of his sorry life was apropos.

 

I can imagine him just sitting in his cell, yelling about how he won't suffer the indignity of having some yokel watch over him, and the guard making snarky remarks back about putting more elfroot or deep mushroom in his gruel or something. Erimond prisoner DLC plz.

[Ynqve]

Not going to lie, chopping Erimond's head off was fun. 

 

But other than that, depending on your earlier choices I think sending Blackwall to the Wardens can be seen as a sort of just punishment. My Inquisitor had been sending everyone she could to the Wardens. There was a precedent. What Blackwall did was bad, I'm not denying that. But it's not worse than what the mayor of Crestwood did. Both were cowards who tried to cover up after themselves and managed to evade justice for years. So if the Mayor got sent to the Wardens, there's no reason why the same standard shouldn't be applied to Blackwall. 

[CredulousAlloy]

WARNING: Disjointed rambling ahead. I'm writing this with a migraine, so I can't promise it'll flow naturally, but once I started I couldn't stop my thoughts from spilling out, lol.

Even I, as one of the biggest Blackwall fans you'll find, freely admit that he was a scumbag who committed a horrible crime and betrayed his men for gold.

Key word being "was."

People can change. And although his path to attempted redemption is flawed, I like it, because he's a deeply flawed character who f***s up even when he tries to do right. Perfect characters tend to bore me, unless they're written extremely well. I need shades of grey; characters who challenge me and force me to examine my own beliefs. I definitely got that with Blackwall, and it's one of the many reasons I adore him as a character (remember, you don't have to agree with someone's actions, or even necessarily like them as a person, in order to enjoy them as a character).

I'm not going to touch on Blackwall's past and the nature of his crime too much; TBH I've been there, done that, and am sick of treading over old ground. Plus, there are others in this thread and elsewhere who've explained better than I ever could why his specific crime requires a sense of perspective and deeper examination beyond a reactionary, binary response. What I will say is that his remorse and desire to atone are genuine, and there's really no disputing that (per Cole, who sees directly into the minds of others and by his very nature is incapable of lying). Whether you find him worthy of forgiveness is up to you, and I personally like that his arc poses complex and uncomfortable questions, especially to a romanced Inquisitor. Is it ever too late to change? Are some crimes simply unforgivable? Each of us will find different answers, and that's the mark of a great character IMO.

And let's not forget that the Inquisition isn't whiter than white. We routinely have people killed, or their reputations ruined, through war table missions. We have countless mercenaries, spies, assassins and other morally dubious people in our employ (we don't actually see most of the work they carry out, but they're not just there for decoration). One of our leaders is an assassin who enjoys her job a little too much. Point is, the Inquisition's already full of criminals and people with murky pasts. The difference being that none of these people have their pasts exposed, centre-stage, in order for the (perfect, flawless) player to judge them.

Again, Thom Rainier was a piece of work who only cared about his own interests...until he met the real Blackwall, a man who showed him he could become more than he was. And though at least part of his motivation for becoming Blackwall 2.0 was self-preservation, he made damn sure that he tried to carry on his good work...not for personal gain, but because he wanted to become a better man. He defended the refugees in the Hinterlands from demons coming through the rifts. He saved the Inquisitor's life by blocking an arrow to the face. He helped those "conscripts" to defend themselves from bandits (and who knows how many more of these good deeds he carried out in the 5+ years he was on the road as "Blackwall"). He helped find and utilize the Grey Warden treaties (fraudulent or not, it directly benefited the Inquisition at a time when it sorely needed growth and more resources). He defended Haven from the mages/templars along with everyone else. He helped foil an assassination attempt on Empress Celene. He talked the Wardens out of destroying themselves at Adamant. He trained new recruits. He fought at the Inquisitor's side as they battled hordes of bandits of bandits and demons, sealed countless rifts, and delivered aid and support to those affected by the conflict. And eventually, fought against Corypheus and helped to save the entire world.

Sure, he doesn't do most of this if you never have him in your party, but the point still stands. By the end of my game, he'd done more than enough to make up for his past, and even afterwards he's committed to staying with the Inquisition and continuing to atone through his actions. Because no matter how much good he does, he'll never be able to truly forgive himself. "Good, because he doesn't deserve forgiveness!" you may cry. That's fine - but at least recognize that he knows he f****d up badly and has dedicated the rest of his life to attempting to make up for it, which is a damn sight more than the countless unrepentant bastards we meet during the course of this series.

So, my final verdict. Hero? Not quite, but he has the right intentions and the resolve to stay on that path. Flawed human being who's become a far better man than the person he once was? Absolutely.

[Ieldra]

pfft you can keep your low standards.
Different people - romance away if that is your desire. It bothers me not.

Low standards? I'd say people who risk their lives to save yours, people you can depend on in a fight to the death, those are pretty hard to find.

[Bugsie]

Incorrect. I'm not saying that everyone should reach the same conclusion. I'm simply saying that if they aren't, then their priorities are something else.

 

You don't have to believe that impartial justice and accountability are the end-all-be-all. Most Bioware players clearly don't, or we wouldn't enjoy playing most Bioware games where corrupt and criminal characters who are never held to account are often among the most popular companions, or portrayed in the most sympathetic manner.

 

Most people just get uncomfortable if you raise that 'being nice to friends' are frequently more important than 'justice' whenever the two come into conflict. How many people considered their Shepards paragons of lawful morality to the utmost possibility in ME, and yet happily committed perjury and a deliberate cover up of war crimes when the immediate beneficiary's name was 'Tali'? How many people have called Aveline the 'lawful' member of the crew in DA2, when she is said to deliberatly commission and often joins Hawke on criminal activity?

 

'Nepotism' is a dirty word, but it's also one that's pretty common with the approach and attitude of Bioware players in Bioware games. Not because they're Bioware fans or because of Bioware games, but because players are people and people are often remarkably biased in favor of friends when they have the power and unaccountability to be so. Rationalizations of why this person deserves a second/third/fourth chance, yet this one deserves an iron hammer. Trying to discredit any such infringement by trying to link it to other injustices that can't be resolved- not to expand a perview of accountability or justice for crimes, but rather to argue that some crimes for people 'we' like shouldn't be punished just because other people are able beyond the reach of the law. The lowest common denominator of justice, if you will, and arguments that would never be made in favor of someone they disliked. (Can you imagine if someone tried to raise the 'well, Celene and Gaspard and Briala can't be judged, so the Inquisitor shouldn't judge anyone' as a rational for opposing every judgement of and by the Inquisitor? Probably not, because it's a silly position. Unfortunately, it doesn't become less silly if you pick sympathetic defendants.)

I can't say I personally haven't made that sort of decision based on that in these games (being friends lovers or hating a character) but in a detached way my distaste for punitive treatments has had a bigger influence (I'd still argue that sending BW to the wardens is punitive, because a. he might not survive the joining, b. if he does then he has a delayed death sentence, pretty much like most death row prisoners - plus the possibility of dying in battle with darkspawn).  I don't think I've ever made the argument that you can't necessarily judge at all - it's pretty clear that there are a number of 'types of judgement' you can make, ones that fit in with a range of views about what justice is for them (or how they are rping their inquisitor).  I've never argued against leaving him to his fate in Val Royeaux is wrong, its perfectly sound reasoning to do that , but I believe the other means of judgement are also perfectly sound within the context of this narrative (yet people keep telling me I'm wrong for making a certain decision or they start moralising and this is where it begins to get annoying).  Whilst making him atone is somewhat clouded by personal feelings about this character I'd argue that if you were rping a hardcore eye for an eye inquisitor you'd likely execute most people in judgement, but that's not much fun now is it?  Maybe once I'll execute everyone, but mostly I want to make Florianne my court jester, I want a grovelling Servius to become a smuggler for me I want to make Erimond tranquil. 

 

At the end of the day, the system they've set up is shallow in execution (no pun intended) and I can't really fault anyone from not wanting to execute a companion when the narrative drives you to interact with them on a level that makes you like them.  Plus we're not all lawyers or judges in real life the true nature of what we are doing here is likely a little beyond our capacity to be be truly rational about.

[jellobell]

So does everyone who frees Blackwall want the chance to free all the other people you have to judge? All the NPCs to you fight? Corypheus? 

 

Why does Blackwall deserve to atone but not the others? Any of those other people could regret what they did given time like what Blackwall got. 

Other people have answered this, but I mostly judged based on whether the people I was judging would do more good alive than dead.

 

Everything Alexius had done he did for the sake of his son, who was going to die soon anyways. It's unlikely that he would do any harm now that he had been caught and tried, and it was much more beneficial for him to be a researcher and work towards fixing the mess he helped make.

 

Erimond was an unrepentant zealot who had helped cause the deaths of a great number of Grey Wardens, spirits, and innocent people. He deserved death, and that is exactly what my Inquisitor gave him. It was ultimately too dangerous to let him live, him being a mage. And there's no way I was going to make him tranquil. Nobody deserves that.

 

Mistress Poulin had been between a rock and a hard place. I think she made the best decision she could under the circumstances. Therefore, she was sentenced to continue helping the people of Emprise du Lion.

 

Same thing for the mayor of Crestwood, so I had him exiled rather than killed or jailed.

 

Ser Ruth really wanted to be punished. She wanted some sort of retribution for her own peace of mind. Just sending her back to the Wardens would just make her feel like she'd cheated justice. On the other hand, I didn't want to kill her, because she wasn't truly at fault. So I had her put in the stocks and then sentenced to hard labour for a while. Ultimately harmless, but it would make her feel like she was atoning.

 

So freeing Blackwall fit in with the other decisions my Inquisitor made. By going back, Blackwall demonstrated that he was willing to be punished for his crimes. After that, following through and killing him would help nobody. It's not like he was going to re-offend. My Inquisitor was also wary of the Grey Wardens (for good reason), and believed Blackwall would do more good as part of the Inquisition rather than being given a very slow death sentence. 

[Sir DeLoria]

I wouldn't compare Thom and Anders. Thom is a repentant ex Captain who ordered the death of a single family, Anders is a posessed maniac who wouldn't mind the death of half the world to fuel his agenda.

[dragonflight288]

I find the idea or concept of justice is not as set in stone as others think. Heck, even the spirit Justice in Awakening was nowhere near as hard or as quick to kill as he was when possessing Anders. 

 

In Awakening, he told Velanna she had to face justice for the crimes she committed by atoning to humans in general and seeking to improve herself so she would never make the same mistake again. 

 

To me, justice is not a code of law followed to the letter, it's a concept that is different across cultures but follows a simple philosophy. The punishment must fit the crime. In America and I assume European countries as I've never been there, the price for stealing is reimbursment, fine and possibly jail time depending on what was stolen. In several African and Middle Eastern countries, the crime calls for losing a hand. 

 

Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that reduce complicity or level of guilt and thus reduce the sentence, or someone may bear more blame than another or is held to a higher standard because of their position in society and thus are subject to higher degrees of punishment.

 

I can see the arguments on both sides of sparing Blackwall or leaving him to the Gallows.