1018 réponses à ce sujet

[Ynqve]

He was outside when he saw it then goes into his house. He wasn't inside watching from a window. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. 

 

So people can't talk about things in the game in the section of the forums that allows things in the game to be talked about? I'm sorry I spoiled things, but it was in a spoiler-allowed section. 

 

Common sense says that if the game has just been released and you're in threads where it's obvious that some people haven't finished that particular plot, the decent thing is to spoiler tag. It doesn't really matter which section you're in. Nobody likes a party pooper. 

[Hellion Rex]

 

Would have sucked if Mornay got the noose anyway.

Despite Thom's assertion of just "following orders", my impression was that the Orlesians wouldn't have cared and just lopped off both heads.

[Hellion Rex]

It would've been funny if he basically gave himself up on the spot, and then the guy says "OK, hang them both!"

Funny, though I honestly wouldn't have been surprised.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Despite Thom's assertion of just "following orders", my impression was that the Orlesians wouldn't have cared and just lopped off both heads.

 

*Hanging.  Beheading is reserved for high-born folk.

 

~*~ SEMANTICS ~*~ ahahaha sorry please forgive me u_u

[Hellion Rex]

*Hanging.  Beheading is reserved for high-born folk.

 

~*~ SEMANTICS ~*~ ahahaha sorry please forgive me u_u

Gah, never mind lol. Totally forgot that it was hanging. The point is they killz dem both
 

[TheLastArchivist]

And now, some people want to blame a kid for not doing anything afetr watching other children hang a dog.

 

It must be the same people who believe Superman is real and that there's a super hero just waiting to save the world in every corner.

 

Unrealistic expectations of real people leads to distorted moral values. 

[TheLastArchivist]

What matters is that he regretted not doing anything and many years later, then realised how faulty our education system is (both parental and academic).

 

Most people just see injustice every day, shrug and turn their faces the other way (when they don't just stand and watch the whole thing, deriving pleasure from the victim's torment or actively engage in the act of tormenting him/her for the fun).

[AresKeith]

What matters is that he regretted not doing anything and many years later, then realised how faulty our education system is (both parental and academic).

 

Most people just see injustice every day, shrug and turn their faces the other way.

 

I know I do

 

[TheLastArchivist]

I know I do

 

 

[Hellion Rex]

then realised how faulty our education system is (both parental and academic).

 

What does that have to do with Blackwall? And what education system are you even referring to?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What matters is that he regretted not doing anything and many years later, then realised how faulty our education system is (both parental and academic).

 

Most people just see injustice every day, shrug and turn their faces the other way (when they don't just stand and watch the whole thing, deriving pleasure from the victim's torment or actively engage in the act of tormenting him/her for the fun).

So because most people do it, it is okay? Most people discriminate too. Does that make discrimination okay? 

[ComedicSociopathy]

*Looks at previous pages*

 

So let get this straight. A child that sees the incredibly traumatizing act of watching full grown adults hang a dog is in someway a coward/culpable/immoral because he didn't do anything about it. 

 

....

 

Alright, someone needs to desperately learn something about children and human beings in general.

 

Here you go. Acute stress reaction

[AtreiyaN7]

It's funny that a story presented by a character as an example of something he deeply regrets is being argued about. I mean, Blackwall himself admits that this was a sh*tty thing he did, and that people should be better than this.

Yeah, we've only had this same "discussion" with Hanako about the dog story a hundred million times in the Blackwall thread (I use the term "discussion" very, very loosely). That was when Hanako basically insinuated that everyone who didn't condemn him over his actions - when he was a child - was okay with animal cruelty. All we did was try to point out his relatively young age and to talk about why a child (or even an adult) might not intercede in a similar situation.

Rainier could have stepped in and clearly does hold this as another thing in life that he regrets. As to the issue of why he didn't step in or get help? He doesn't ever explain why, but I think it's safe to say that he was certainly outnumbered by the gang of urchins who did it, so stepping in wasn't going to be a realistic or smart option (believe that Hanako insisted that he should have just thrown himself at the gang of urchins early on in the "discussion" - which goes toward showing the kind of "logic" involved at that point).

Rainier may be viewing this with the hindsight of an adult and may be assigning more blame to himself than he should be over this incident. He might simply have been afraid and panicky at the time (he was a kid, after all). We don't know and will never know his actual mental or emotional state at the time, but he certainly wasn't the one who strung up that dog.

He does say that he could have told his father, but we are left to speculate about why he didn't go to him. For all anyone knows, he could have been afraid of losing his beloved father after his younger sister Liddy died. Maybe that death made him fearful of losing someone else that he loved. Or his father could have been a real bastard and his home life sucked so horribly that his father was the last person he'd ever go to for help.

Aside from his younger sister's sudden death (he seems to have loved her very much) and the fact that he's from Markham, no one really knows anything about what his life was like back then (or what he was like back then) at all. Either of the two scenarios that I suggested above could just as easily be possible as not. My point is that no one can begin to guess at what may have influenced his decision on that day.

How is anyone supposed to even begin to judge a kid over something like that? He clearly does blame himself now that he's an adult for closing his eyes to what happened. But blaming yourself over things that you did/didn't do when you were much younger and having regrets over what you did/didn't do seems to be something that every person is going to end up going through in their life (unless you've had some sort of perfect life and somehow managed to unfailingly make the right decisions every single day of your life, etc.).

[TheLastArchivist]

So because most people do it, it is okay? Most people discriminate too. Does that make discrimination okay?

 

That's how most people think.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yeah, we only had the same "discussion" with Hanako about the dog story a hundred million times in the Blackwall thread (I use the term "discussion" very, very loosely). That was when Hanako basically insinuated that everyone who didn't condemn him over his actions - when he was a child - was okay with animal cruelty. All we did was try to point out his relatively young age and to talk about why a child (or even an adult) might not intercede in a similar situation.

Still making stuff up to discredit people who disagree with you, I see. 

 

 

So because most people do it, it is okay? Most people discriminate too. Does that make discrimination okay?

 

That's how most people think.

That didn't answer my question. 

 

Edit: Your future posts do. I guess that's why there is disagreement about these things. Forget this place is worldwide sometimes thus has different cultures. 

[TheLastArchivist]

What does that have to do with Blackwall? And what education system are you even referring to?

 

 

The same system which fails to teach children not to abuse defenceless people and animals.

Most parents don't teach their kids to respect others, don't teach right from wrong. They just spoil them. That's why there's so much bullying and pushing over.
And when their children are in the wrong, they pretend they'll punish them, but they just keep spoiling their kid.

 

(to be continued)

[TheLastArchivist]

And schools simply refuse to approach the subject. Whenever there are cases of conflict between children, teachers and coordinators are omissive.

But in some countries, like Japan, bullying others is reason enough to reproach the student, make him apologize to the victim and do something to learn from his mistake. Why? Because when you behave improperly, you embarass your family. You embarass your teachers, you embarass your colleagues, you embarass the nation.

(to be continued)

[TheLastArchivist]

It's a cultural value. Each individual represents the whole. Behave poorly and you shame us all. This notion doesn't exist in Western societies. Actually, people in our civilization mistake being assertive with being always right and agressive toward others.

 

Blackwall realised he was brought up not knowing how to fight abuses and that this abusive culture is normal in Thedas. "There's always some dog out there. Some ****** mongrel that doesn't know how to stay away." So he takes upon himself to change that typical behaviour and try to be better than that.

(end)

[In Exile]

Despite Thom's assertion of just "following orders", my impression was that the Orlesians wouldn't have cared and just lopped off both heads.

 

The thing is unless his orders were "Kill this guy, and if you find some children, make sure to kill them too", his troops are independently culpable. Even if the order was kill everyone, they're still culpable for just shrugging their shoulder's and thinking "Well, the boss totes meant kill the kids too!" like it was a casual thing they always did. 

 

The story is weird. Blackwall acts as if he didn't intended for the children to die, but we're also supposed to think he failed his men. While he's certainly guilty of a lot - like treason - the murder of the family being pinned on him when his whole regret is that they weren't supposed to be there is weird. 

[Ryzaki]

The thing is unless his orders were "Kill this guy, and if you find some children, make sure to kill them too", his troops are independently culpable. Even if the order was kill everyone, they're still culpable for just shrugging their shoulder's and thinking "Well, the boss totes meant kill the kids too!" like it was a casual thing they always did. 

 

The story is weird. Blackwall acts as if he didn't intended for the children to die, but we're also supposed to think he failed his men. While he's certainly guilty of a lot - like treason - the murder of the family being pinned on him when his whole regret is that they weren't supposed to be there is weird. 

 

To be fair BW's games have molded us to expect companions to do some messed up stuff because the PC (their leader) told them so. (Looking at you Kaidan not bating an eye when Shep punches some reporter in the face, Alistair helping the PC slaughter innocent people, Wynne doing the same, etc.). Most of the companions "breaking points" are only when you do something that they personally dislike. You can slaughter all the innocents you want though and they'll help.

[In Exile]

To be fair BW's games have molded us to expect companions to do some messed up stuff because the PC told them so. (Looking at you Kaidan not bating an eye when Shep punches some reporter in the face, Alistair helping the PC slaughter innocent people, Wynne doing the same).

 

Sure, but in those cases the PC is the instigator. I find it hard to absolve Blackwall's troop from the murder of those children when they were the ones that made the judgment call their orders included some casual child murder. 

[Ryzaki]

Sure, but in those cases the PC is the instigator. I find it hard to absolve Blackwall's troop from the murder of those children when they were the ones that made the judgment call their orders included some casual child murder. 

 

Eh how is telling them "we need to attack this group" not an instigation?

 

Granted I'm not saying his men are blameless but according to Blackwall he didn't even tell them the whole story. So they really weren't making a fair judgement call. (Particularly given his whole "same crime at a different time would've gotten me a medal." spiel and "they thought they were defending our country." remarks.)

[Qunquistador]

The thing is unless his orders were "Kill this guy, and if you find some children, make sure to kill them too", his troops are independently culpable. Even if the order was kill everyone, they're still culpable for just shrugging their shoulder's and thinking "Well, the boss totes meant kill the kids too!" like it was a casual thing they always did. 

In these sorts of power plays people would often kill children. So, if the men were ordered to kill everyone, they weren't going to make an exception, even for children. The whole My Lai massacre esque "we were following orders" argument thing doesn't absolve them of wrongdoing, though. Not at all. I've taught entire units on this, and not once has this excuse made a war criminal seem more sympathetic. The soldiers aren't as culpable as their leader, but they are still despicable.

 

No, Ranier did not know the children would be there, but as it's been mentioned before - you can find out through Cole that Ranier sees the children right before and is shocked by how young they are, but rather than call off the attack then, he follows through with it because his men will know he lied to them if he makes them stop.

 

That makes him the worst offender in the bunch, imo, since he had a chance to stop the attack and knowledge his men did not.

Modifié par Qunquistador, 03 février 2015 - 06:26 .

[In Exile]

Eh how is telling them "we need to attack this group" not an instigation?

 

Granted I'm not saying his men are blameless but according to Blackwall he didn't even tell them the whole story. So they really weren't making a fair judgement call. (Particularly given his whole "same crime at a different time would've gotten me a medal." spiel and "they thought they were defending our country." remarks.)

 

Because "kill everyone" and "kill children" is pretty different. What I'm saying is that, when faced with a situation where his men encountered non-combatants, their moral compass pointed to "kill all of the children". That's really bad. 

 

Even if the story Blackwall told them was that they were going to kill the most evil person in Orlais and that this person's death was completely necessary to save their entire country, that still doesn't lead to "and then kill all of the children."

 

I'm not saying Blackwall isn't responsible, or defending his actions. I just think his men are - at the very least - equally culpable. 

[In Exile]

In these sorts of power plays people would often kill children. So, if the men were ordered to kill everyone, they weren't going to make an exception, even for children. The whole My Lai massacre esque "we were following orders" argument thing doesn't absolve them of wrongdoing, though. Not at all. I've taught entire units on this, and not once has this excuse made a war criminal seem more sympathetic. The soldiers aren't as culpable as their leader, but they are still despicable.

 

No, Ranier did not know the children would be there, but as it's been mentioned before - you can find out through Cole that Ranier sees the children right before and is shocked by how young they are, but rather than call off the attack then, he follows through with it because his men will know he lied to them if he makes them stop.

 

All I'm saying is I don't get this whole "Blackwall feels responsible for misleading his men" bit. They're all monsters. They're just monsters who happened to commit something monstrous at a point in time when they weren't going to get a medal for it. There is a lesson in this, but it's not that he led his band of unthinking murder machines down, or that he somehow failed them as a leader.