1018 réponses à ce sujet

[Ynqve]

People need to calm down. I don't think accusing the other side of being judgmental pricks or fools is helping anyone.

 

I love Blackwall, I enjoy his character a lot. But there are valid reasons for disliking him and that's ok. Regarding the arguments about his crime within the context of Orlesian politics: He's a middleman who tried to play the game and failed. The family he ordered dead and his men are victims of the Game. But he's still responsible, no one forced him to take the job. He's guilty, no doubt about that. The question is if he's worthy of redemption. I think so, I think he's finally becoming a good man. And that's why I send him to the Wardens. 

[ThreeF]

Believe me if Blackwall was an unrepentant liar and bandit without the self righteousness I'd like him far more.

 

This is basically why I do not like him much as a person. I always earn a big chunk of disapproval when talking to him for the first time at Skyhold, because he is downright creepy there with his pedestal talk. Others might not perceive him as such.

 

But I must say that I do like what they did with Blackwall as a character. I see him as a man who hates himself and is so obsessed with the ideal of righteousness that he has lost his touch with reality, he is an LG DnD trope lampshaded and subverted and I do like the concept (I dislike DnD Aliments a lot).  His approach to justice when he speaks of it is artificial. He does try to do a good thing but for the most part I see it as him asking himself "what the real Blackwall would do?" and in that sense it's not him doing the good deed, it's the character he plays. And this is actually the reason I let him to atone, he out to accept himself and decide for himself what kind of person he should be, without the need of hiding behind a name or an order.

[FiveThreeTen]

I like Blackwall and his attempt at redemption but his story is pretty mundane when you think about it so I scratch my head when I see some hysterical reactions he provokes.

 

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[iamlaughed]

I had no problems with forgiving Blackwall/Rainier, considering all the other people we gave second chances to along the way.
UNTIL!
...Until he started back talking me during the judging - saying I was corrupt? Pfffft.
Our diplomats busted their butts getting him out of jail using favors garnered at Halamshiral. No deaths, no lies, no sneaky business.
How disrespectful. Bleh. He's lucky I didn't spitefully force him to continue his lie.

[Ryzaki]

I dunno.  I kinda like that he's repentant, but doesn't know exactly how to go about atoning.  A villain strugling to remake himself into a hero, though he doesn't really know how.

 

I mean, his trying to emulate what he thinks is a better man than he is both endearing and a bit bizarre to me.

 

It's a nice concept but the execution fell flat for me.

 

That's just bleh to me really. But I guess it goes with the whole masks thing with Orlesians.

 

This is basically why I do not like him much as a person. I always earn a big chunk of disapproval when talking to him for the first time at Skyhold, because he is downright creepy there with his pedestal talk. Others might not perceive him as such.

 

But I must say that I do like what they did with Blackwall as a character. I see him as a man who hates himself and is so obsessed with the ideal of righteousness that he has lost his touch with reality, he is an LG DnD trope lampshaded and subverted and I do like the concept (I dislike DnD Aliments a lot).  His approach to justice when he speaks of it is artificial. He does try to do a good thing but for the most part I see it as him asking himself "what the real Blackwall would do?" and in that sense it's not him doing the good deed, it's the character he plays. And this is actually the reason I let him to atone, he out to accept himself and decide for himself what kind of person he should be, without the need of hiding behind a name or an order.

 

I never thought of him as a LG trope but I can see how it fits.

 

I wish I could enjoy him as a character but he just...ugh. I don't even hate the dude I'm just annoyed. I don't even enjoy disliking him as I do other characters.

[ThreeF]

I never thought of him as a LG trope but I can see how it fits.

The way I see it he basically throws every single line every LG character has used in games that use DnD rules (and I see him being flat as part of that) and has decided for IQ  what IQ out to be as the result. He creeps me out as much as Casavir did in NWN2, except Casavir is played straight , which made me dislike him as character more and not consider him much of a person.

[Ryzaki]

The way I see it he basically throws every single line every LG character has used in games that use DnD rules (and I see him being flat as part of that) and has decided for IQ  what IQ out to be as the result. He creeps me out as much as Casavir did in NWN2, except Casavir is played straight , which made me dislike him as character more and not consider him much of a person.

 

Ugh Casavir man. I fell asleep talking to him.

 

He made Bishop look like a better LI. So painfully boring. :X

[ThreeF]

Ugh Casavir man. I fell asleep talking to him.

 

He made Bishop look like a better LI. So painfully boring. :X

Yep!

[AresKeith]

It's a nice concept but the execution fell flat for me.

That's just bleh to me really. But I guess it goes with the whole masks thing with Orlesians.

To me I felt the execution was done well in showing him doing it in a flawed way

[Bugsie]

Yep, I think we'll just have to disagree on this one. I don't believe the path to a better world can always be achieved by the "right" actions.
 
I tend to think the definition of "justice" is giving an-eye-for-an-eye treatment to the criminal. But I don't think this is the "right" thing to do. Its more important to take whatever option will make the situation better for the most people.

The good thing about the judgements we make is that they can cover the spectrum of how we think the judgement should play out. If only punitive judgements were available (execution because let's face it were not asked to judge petty crimes here) I'd tire of that particular game mechanic pretty fast. Judgement was a novel idea for Awakening, however, I'm still left with the feeling that in this current game it's really just a bit gimmicky, good for a laugh or for a few drama moments in a romance but people approaching it with the seriousness like they're laying out real life justice/punishments and moralising on it, feels like a stretch to me (mainly because, majority of us have little to no experience with the real judicial system so our approach is naive perhaps?)

@ Ryz, I consider myself (a fault I guess) being rather self righteous sometimes, maybe more so as I get older, maybe that's why that aspect of his personality doesn't bug me? I think a lot about liking and hating characters is seeing aspects of your personality in them. Not generalising for everyone, just a personal observation about myself in relation to BW (and other characters).

[Ryzaki]

@ Ryz, I consider myself (a fault I guess) being rather self righteous sometimes, maybe more so as I get older, maybe that's why that aspect of his personality doesn't bug me? I think a lot about liking and hating characters is seeing aspects of your personality in them. Not generalising for everyone, just a personal observation about myself in relation to BW (and other characters).

 

That's fair.

 

I just find it to be a really big turn off. Especially when I feel the person being self righteous really has no leg to stand on.

 

To me I felt the execution was done well in showing him doing it in a flawed way

 

True it is a YMMV situation.
 

[Xetykins]

If I am to judge all my companions past and present. All I'll be left with is dog.

[mopotter]

I think they did a great job with him, like him or hate him, understand or condemn, he makes people react.    There were more than one companion in this group that did that for me anyway.

 

So far I've sent him to the wardens to do the joining, after he helps us.  The wardens don't care about your past.   Thief, murder, saint or sinner, if you have an ability they can use, and can survive the joining, that's what counts.    

 

I found it interesting that he disapproves if you want him to continue with the lie and approves if you tell him to atone or join the wardens.  I also found it interesting talking to Cullen about him.

[Steelcan]

I think they did a great job with him, like him or hate him, understand or condemn, he makes people react.    There were more than one companion in this group that did that for me anyway.

I hate when people use this reasoning.  It is rather easy to provoke a reaction with characters and events, that's why we get an endless parade of horror movies and antagonists built around shocking actions and cheap gore.

 

That part is easy, but getting an audience to understand a character and then reach a conclusion is much harder.  On television over the past several years we have a string of truly terrific fantastic characters like this.  The most obvious examples are Walter White and Gus Fring from Breaking Bad and Tywin Lannister and Joffrey "Baratheon" in Game of Thrones but it extends to a few others as well.

 

 

For DA its quite a different story.  Characters like Loghain fall into this category, he is BioWare's finest villain and I'd say one of their best companions.  Blackwall's narrative is already a watered down redemption arc similar to what we got with Loghain, just more options on what to with him.

[Hazegurl]

The reason people are mentioning it is because some people have implied that law and justice/doing what is right are one and the same, and an awful lot of them seem to claim that anyone who chooses not to follow the letter of the law is somehow wrong for allowing their compassion to supersede the law. It's perfectly valid to point out that the law and Orlesian society in general aren't particularly just and that they are, in fact, flawed at the core. It is pretty hypocritical of those law-and-order types to say to others that they're wrong for choosing to show mercy and to constantly throw "the law is always right" when that "law" happens to be unjust in the first place.

 

I understand and I do agree that if a person is going to go all "law and order" on folks then they should be willing to punish any of their criminal companions. But I also believe that we have had the chance to do that. You can kill Zevran, Kick Morrigan out and later stab her, kill Shale, hand Isabella to the Arishok and/or ruin her chance at getting her ship, hand Fenris back to his master (if you're pro Vint or whatever). And players have their many reasons for selecting those options. Not seeing why those who choose to punish Blackwall deserve a lecture about it. Which it seems what this thread is about...or at least has turned into with the personal judgements on players who choose to punish him.

 

Also, I'm not understanding how unjust Orlesian laws have to do with Blackwall willingly taking a job to kill people.

 

I love Isabella and I always opt to help her get her ship back and I fight the Arishok for her but I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that the world is unjust to excuse her actions. I love her and she's a criminal.

[Iakus]

To me I felt the execution was done well in showing him doing it in a flawed way

Yeah, I mean, he's sort of a Lawful Evil guy trying to make the leap to Lawful Good.  But all he has are stories to go by on how to act.  He's trying to fit an impossible ideal.

[Abelas Forever!]

I think they did a great job with him, like him or hate him, understand or condemn, he makes people react.    There were more than one companion in this group that did that for me anyway.

 

So far I've sent him to the wardens to do the joining, after he helps us.  The wardens don't care about your past.   Thief, murder, saint or sinner, if you have an ability they can use, and can survive the joining, that's what counts.    

 

I found it interesting that he disapproves if you want him to continue with the lie and approves if you tell him to atone or join the wardens.  I also found it interesting talking to Cullen about him.

I think that Blackwall is a good character too because he makes people react and character can be well written even if people don't like him. I also find it interesting to see how much his guilt affects his actions.

[Master Warder Z_]

I hate when people use this reasoning. It is rather easy to provoke a reaction with characters and events, that's why we get an endless parade of horror movies and antagonists built around shocking actions and cheap gore.

That part is easy, but getting an audience to understand a character and then reach a conclusion is much harder. On television over the past several years we have a string of truly terrific fantastic characters like this. The most obvious examples are Walter White and Gus Fring from Breaking Bad and Tywin Lannister and Joffrey "Baratheon" in Game of Thrones but it extends to a few others as well.


For DA its quite a different story. Characters like Loghain fall into this category, he is BioWare's finest villain and I'd say one of their best companions. Blackwall's narrative is already a watered down redemption arc similar to what we got with Loghain, just more options on what to with him.

Plus Aparat's goodbye was an excellent song choice for Fring.

[Iakus]

I hate when people use this reasoning.  It is rather easy to provoke a reaction with characters and events, that's why we get an endless parade of horror movies and antagonists built around shocking actions and cheap gore.

 

That part is easy, but getting an audience to understand a character and then reach a conclusion is much harder.  On television over the past several years we have a string of truly terrific fantastic characters like this.  The most obvious examples are Walter White and Gus Fring from Breaking Bad and Tywin Lannister and Joffrey "Baratheon" in Game of Thrones but it extends to a few others as well.

 

 

For DA its quite a different story.  Characters like Loghain fall into this category, he is BioWare's finest villain and I'd say one of their best companions.  Blackwall's narrative is already a watered down redemption arc similar to what we got with Loghain, just more options on what to with him.

I think what Mo is saying is that Blackwall is not  this saintly hero.  He's done some truly horrible things.  Identity theft is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

But once it all comes out, how we react is varied, and we can do a number of things about it.  Do you let him atone?  How?  Do you think he's truly changed, can truly change?  That's the reaction we get.  not "OMG he killed women and children!" but "he killed women and children, and he deeply regrets it.  But is he really really making up for that now?"

 

Some think he is.  Some think he isn't.  Some think he's just getting away with murder.  We have a variety of views on it.

[ThreeF]

I hate when people use this reasoning.  It is rather easy to provoke a reaction with characters and events, that's why we get an endless parade of horror movies and antagonists built around shocking actions and cheap gore.

 

That part is easy, but getting an audience to understand a character and then reach a conclusion is much harder.  On television over the past several years we have a string of truly terrific fantastic characters like this.  The most obvious examples are Walter White and Gus Fring from Breaking Bad and Tywin Lannister and Joffrey "Baratheon" in Game of Thrones but it extends to a few others as well.

 

 

For DA its quite a different story.  Characters like Loghain fall into this category, he is BioWare's finest villain and I'd say one of their best companions.  Blackwall's narrative is already a watered down redemption arc similar to what we got with Loghain, just more options on what to with him.

 

hmm? I think they did that with Blackwall, at least that how I see it. Some people tend to reach to conclusions before understanding the character and maybe they even don't care to understand the character, same had happened with Loghain.

 

I kind of suspect that they didn't intend to bring him back initially (as evident as his lack of some dialogue after he returns to skyhold)

[Sabreenei]

One thing about the judgment scene: I actually like that he is mad you saved him. It made it real to me. When you do things for other people without being asked, you are doing them because *you* choose to do them. The people you do them for have no obligation to you, because they did not ask for it. They may even mad about it.

 

It's a good lesson to learn in life. Do things because you want to, not to elicit a response (even a thank you, though sometimes that would be nice!)

 

On a small scale, I see this all the time between my parents and my younger sister. My parents do things for her, often sacrificing something for themselves, to do something *they* think she should have, or should need. My sister doesn't want whatever it is they are doing, and she basically mouths off to them. Quite the opposite of a thank you. Both sides complain to me, about how the other person is acting. I see both perspectives. (edit: she is an adult, with her own place, just for perspective. Not living under their roof.)

 

Even Dorian's storyline with the amulet has a touch of this. He doesn't want the inquisitor to get it for him. And that's just an amulet. This is pulling some major strings.

 

Getting Blackwall out of jail was a choice our inquisitor's made. It wasn't something he asked for, and he owes us no thanks. He has every right to feel however he feels about it. His reaction seems very real to me, not something cleaned up and made palatable. To me, it's important to put myself in someone else's shoes, look at it from their perspective. When I do that with Blackwall, I can understand why he reacts the way he did at the judgment.  

 

I'm not getting into the whole other part of the issue, people are free to like or dislike him, just as they are with other characters. Sometimes you don't even need a reason, a character just might rub you the wrong way. I enjoy Blackwall as a character, and really like the depth of his story. I'm perfectly okay with others not thinking the same or not finding the same depth I do, since this isn't the Blackwall appreciation thread

 

I'll just be over there now.

[Sabreenei]

This is basically why I do not like him much as a person. I always earn a big chunk of disapproval when talking to him for the first time at Skyhold, because he is downright creepy there with his pedestal talk. Others might not perceive him as such.

 

_*snip*

 

I almost  always take the middle, more sarcastic dialogue options with Blackwall. He laughs, usually approves, and realizes he can't put you up on a pedestal.  You actually see a bit of his sense of humor with those. If you take the top ones, he seems more serious. I've noticed if you take the bottom dialogue options in those early conversations he really dislikes it. If someone was rp-ing a character that took those choices a lot, I could see how they would never get along.

 

It makes it interesting to role play different types of characters in this game. By taking different dialogue choices, you see completely different sides to all the companions in this game.

[Bugsie]

hmm? I think they did that with Blackwall, at least that how I see it. Some people tend to reach to conclusions before understanding the character and maybe they even don't care to understand the character, same had happened with Loghain.

 

I kind of suspect that they didn't intend to bring him back initially (as evident as his lack of some dialogue after he returns to skyhold)

I felt reasonably happy with what was given, all the companions have a cut off/exhaustion point for dialogue, it didnt feel different to other companions, (I make that statement with no quantifiable evidence of that though, just how it felt). 

 

It's possibile though that they knew that some people wouldn't want him back after revelations and made the decision to leave him in Val Royeaux so maybe didn't put too much effort in with post revelations dialogue?   IDK.

[Sabreenei]

hmm? I think they did that with Blackwall, at least that how I see it. Some people tend to reach to conclusions before understanding the character and maybe they even don't care to understand the character, same had happened with Loghain.

 

I kind of suspect that they didn't intend to bring him back initially (as evident as his lack of some dialogue after he returns to skyhold)

 

I felt reasonably happy with what was given, all the companions have a cut off/exhaustion point for dialogue, it didnt feel different to other companions, (I make that statement with no quantifiable evidence of that though, just how it felt). 

 

It's possibile though that they knew that some people wouldn't want him back after revelations and made the decision to leave him in Val Royeaux so maybe didn't put too much effort in with post revelations dialogue?   IDK.

 

There is the bug, where you don't get all the dialogue to ask him about his real past, after bringing him back. But I agree with Bugsie, it didn't feel different to the other companions. I doubt they'd have made a second love interest option where the LI left and didn't come back. Two in one game is quite a bit.

 

I liked the cutscene with him, once the griffon was finished carving. That says to me they intended for him to be there, since he'd been carving it the whole game, and then you have the scene with it finished.

[AtreiyaN7]

 

I understand and I do agree that if a person is going to go all "law and order" on folks then they should be willing to punish any of their criminal companions. But I also believe that we have had the chance to do that. You can kill Zevran, Kick Morrigan out and later stab her, kill Shale, hand Isabella to the Arishok and/or ruin her chance at getting her ship, hand Fenris back to his master (if you're pro Vint or whatever). And players have their many reasons for selecting those options. Not seeing why those who choose to punish Blackwall deserve a lecture about it. Which it seems what this thread is about...or at least has turned into with the personal judgements on players who choose to punish him.

 

Also, I'm not understanding how unjust Orlesian laws have to do with Blackwall willingly taking a job to kill people.

 

I love Isabella and I always opt to help her get her ship back and I fight the Arishok for her but I'm not going to sit here and proclaim that the world is unjust to excuse her actions. I love her and she's a criminal.

 

 

No one is excusing his crime by pointing out that Orlesian law is unjust - it's only being brought up in the context of whether or not laws should always be unfailingly applied simply because they're codified laws. Some people feel that that's the case, and other people don't - especially not when those laws appear to be unjustly applied in the first place (e.g., the fact that everyone is not treated the same).

 

No one says that Rainier didn't kill for money or that the massacre wasn't a terrible thing; he did kill for money, and the massacre itself was a terrible thing. However, the circumstances surrounding the incident are important. Some seem to feel that his decision to kill for money is somehow worse than that of anyone else who has killed for money (like Zevran) in the past, but one could argue that it's normal behavior in Orlais. Orlais is a country where anyone with sufficient rank and power (like a Vivienne or a Gaspard or an officer like Blackwall) will invariably try to get ahead because participation in the Great Game is normal and even expected. It is an accepted part of Orlesian society (one that I can't say that I like, although I certainly enjoyed Halamshiral). EDIT: According to the codex entry I just reviewed, this was exactly why he did it - to advance himself and to amass wealth like anyone else would do in that society.

 

As I have pointed out before, you can talk to Vivienne and find out from her that anyone who wants to win at the Game learns to use their resources, like using servants to gather information and so forth. Rainier used his men and lied to them, which is neither nice nor honorable, but it also falls into the category of being an expected use of resources in my eyes (even if you don't want to think of people like that). Like I've also said, Rainier was a p---- back then, so he only really cared about himself and was willing to use people like that, no matter who they were. I, personally, don't approve of treating people who trust you like that and don't like what he did at all, but I also understand that this is the nature of the Game and Orlesian society.

 

Now if Rainier had been caught back then, that pretty much would have been it for him. In fact, the person he was back then would have deserved his fate, and I probably wouldn't be batting an eye if we were discussing executing him in the immediate aftermath of the crime. The thing is that Rainier ended up successfully escaping and going on the run for years - and during that time he underwent a drastic transformation into being a fairly good and decent person. He proves this through his actions in Val Royeaux.

 

And six years after the crime, yeah, the situation has become a lot more complicated for some of us because the man that he is now is actually someone worth saving in our eyes, rather than being the piece of garbage that he was six years ago. Hey, people can judge him for who he was six years ago and his actions back then. Do that and leave him to die in Val Royeaux if that's your inclination. Other people are judging him on who he is now and feel that he has done sufficient atonement to deserve a second chance despite the severity of the original crime. Both positions are valid, depending on your point of view of what the "right" thing to do is.