1018 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

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. 

 

How is kill everyone massively different from killing children? What only children count as non combatants now? They were there for a massacre to start with.

 

"No one likes to think about it but the real power is in bloodline. Heirs. I've been on enough battlefields to know the same crime at the right time would've earned me a medal." Hell I wouldn't have been surprised if it wasn't the first time such a thing occurred with him and his men. Only it wasn't justified as the cost of war this time.

 

Eh I never got the impression Blackwall or his men were the most morally upright people to begin with given the excuses he uses.

 

But I wonder what his men would've done if Blackwall had been straight with them.

[Qunquistador]

 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. 

I agree. And I'm not sure why that was so emphasized. Cullen's like forget that he killed kids he betrayed the trust of his sweet sweet innocent men 

People can disobey orders. Didn't Anders leave the Grey Wardens over his cat? His men could have seen those children and said nah, man, you're on your own.

 

Very odd that Bioware used the same reasoning of Nazi war criminals (we were just following orders) to make Ranier's men seem like people we should feel bad for. The whole time you get the impression that they want us to feel like misleading his men was a nastier crime than the whole lot of them slaughtering children.

[Sabreenei]

How is kill everyone massively different from killing children? What only children count as non combatants now? They were there for a massacre to start with.

 

"No one likes to think about it but the real power is in bloodline. Heirs. I've been on enough battlefields to know the same crime at the right time would've earned me a medal." Hell I wouldn't have been surprised if it wasn't the first time such a thing occurred with him and his men. Only it wasn't justified as the cost of war this time.

 

Eh I never got the impression Blackwall or his men were the most morally upright people to begin with given the excuses he uses.

 

But I wonder what his men would've done if Blackwall had been straight with them.

 

I don't think he'd ever been responsible for killing children before, or it wouldn't weigh so heavily on him. I think he's seen it done, and just like with the story from when he was a boy with the dog, he's never stopped it from happening. But seeing it happen and being responsible for it happening are two different things, at least to him.

 

Most likely, that's one of the reasons the dog story was included. We have to see him change from a person that doesn't stop bad things from happening, to a man who won't stand by and stay quiet if he thinks someone is following a dark path.

 

re: Cullen, I think the betrayment of the men hit him hard, because of what he went through in Kirkwall. Most likely he felt betrayed by Meredith, and so that hits a nerve. Not saying it's right or wrong, just from a character's perspective.

[Ryzaki]

I don't think he'd ever been responsible for killing children before, or it wouldn't weigh so heavily on him. I think he's seen it done, and just like with the story from when he was a boy with the dog, he's never stopped it from happening. But seeing it happen and being responsible for it happening are two different things, at least to him.

 

Eh it could just as easily be the guilt from the fact that there was no greater purpose behind it than his greed.

[Rinji the Bearded]

I think the rocking griffon and his comment about the children being allowed to be children even during times of war speaks a lot of his guilt.  There's also the fact that Cole brings up the nursery rhyme that Rainier heard when he and his men approached the Callier entourage -- it's weighing heavily on his mind.

[AtreiyaN7]

Eh it could just as easily be the guilt from the fact that there was no greater purpose behind it than his greed.

 

My impression is that it's a combination of both things. He never, ever had any intention of killing children, so when he found out that they were in that carriage and were ultimately killed by his men, it horrified him (Cole's dialogue related to that night shows it). On top of that, there was also his realization that it was his greed that had led to such a singularly terrible moment.

 

Just occurred to me that, perhaps, his reaction to the children was partially tied to Liddy (who died when she was very young). I think that because of her, he may have had a major soft spot for young children. It could be that this was part of why what happened with the children on the night of the massacre really changed him. Ah, here's that dialogue...

 

Cole: We played by the fire so she would be warm. No, it's summer, Liddy.
Blackwall: This thing you do? Maybe you should stop doing it.
Cole: Got her a flower but they'd taken her. Left it on her bed. Next eight on the sill.
Cole: Tourney sands. A garden seat. Five to Chantry altars. One to a child with her hair. The sea? Too many to count.
Cole: And thirty-six. Tossed off the battlements today.
Blackwall: Go bother Solas.
Cole: You have many feelings.
Cole: I'm sorry she died.

 

I'm making a guess here, but with the number of flowers seeming to increase over time, it looks like he was counting every single one of Liddy's missed birthdays after she died (or the anniversary of her actual death). That seems to speak to a very strong attachment and love for her that I believe extended to other children of a similar age.

[ThreeF]

 

Cullen's like forget that he killed kids he betrayed the trust of his sweet sweet innocent men 

Probably because he feels betrayed himself (not by Blackwall obviously), so it hits close to home

 

 

Just occurred to me that, perhaps, his reaction to the children was partially tied to Liddy (who died when she was very young). I think that because of her, he may have had a major soft spot for young children. It could be that this was part of why what happened with the children on the night of the massacre really changed him. Ah, here's that dialogue...

 

 

Yes, this is probably why, because until then Blackwall was fine with anything that would give him an edge. I don't know if the massacre really changed him, or maybe it was the actual Backwall's death that contribute to this, or even something further down the road, or all together, but it definitely gave him a pause.

[AtreiyaN7]

 

Yes, this is probably why, because until then Blackwall was fine with anything that would give him an edge. I don't know if the massacre really changed him, or maybe it was the actual Backwall's death that contribute to this, or even something further down the road, or all together, but it definitely gave him a pause.

 

I'd say that at minimum, it (the children's deaths) started him down a road of serious self-reflection and that he didn't like what he found when he took a good, hard look at himself.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Blackwall's death was a huge catalyst for Thom, yes.  After Thom abandoned his post, he became a sellsword to get by, IIRC.  It was Blackwall who turned Thom to noble purpose and gave Thom the chance to do something good for a change, even if Thom was severely misguided in following through with that.  There's a Viv/Blackwall banter that involves her calling him naive and arrogant for believing that "passing through a life has a power to change it."  His entire motivation is hinged on that very idea -- that a single person passed through and changed his life.  His struggle is trying to believe that it's true.

[ThreeF]

Blackwall's death was a huge catalyst for Thom, yes.  After Thom abandoned his post, he became a sellsword to get by, IIRC.  It was Blackwall who turned Thom to noble purpose and gave Thom the chance to do something good for a change, even if Thom was severely misguided in following through with that.  There's a Viv/Blackwall banter that involves her calling him naive and arrogant for believing that "passing through a life has a power to change it."  His entire motivation is hinged on that very idea -- that a single person passed through and changed his life.  His struggle is trying to believe that it's true.

Interesting thing about this is that Blackwall wasn't the first such a person to pass through Thom's life, so in a way Viv is sort of right

[Rinji the Bearded]

Interesting thing about this is that Blackwall wasn't the first such a person to pass through Thom's life, so in a way Viv is sort of right

 

Well, change isn't always for the better.  The Chevalier did change Thom's life, for example, just not in a way that was good.  The Chevalier intended good, but helping Thom win the melee just made Thom that much more cocky.  Thom's definitely kicking himself for that now.

[Catwall]

Well, change isn't always for the better.  The Chevalier did change Thom's life, for example, just not in a way that was good.  The Chevalier intended good, but helping Thom win the melee just made Thom that much more cocky.  Thom's definitely kicking himself for that now.

That, and often we make a series of bad choices that in hindsight seem like mere preparation for making one good one.

[Bugsie]

Eh it could just as easily be the guilt from the fact that there was no greater purpose behind it than his greed.

I'd like to think that he'd have guilt even if children weren't involved, but I'm thinking that the writers were thinking it wouldn't be enough. Mainly because we're shown all this Orlesian intrigue, asassinations and general murder and mayhem, which occurs on the road and behind closed doors in Thedas. Much easier to dismiss this behaviour as simply aligning himself with a supporter of Gaspard (even if it was monetarily motivated) adding children to the actions makes it personal and I'm sensing the writers really wanted to make you uncomfortable with any of the choices you made with this character.

[Ryzaki]

I'd like to think that he'd have guilt even if children weren't involved, but I'm thinking that the writers were thinking it wouldn't be enough. Mainly because we're shown all this Orlesian intrigue, asassinations and general murder and mayhem, which occurs on the road and behind closed doors in Thedas. Much easier to dismiss this behaviour as simply aligning himself with a supporter of Gaspard (even if it was monetarily motivated) adding children to the actions makes it personal and I'm sensing the writers really wanted to make you uncomfortable with any of the choices you made with this character.

 

Most likely yeah.

 

My impression is that it's a combination of both things. He never, ever had any intention of killing children, so when he found out that they were in that carriage and were ultimately killed by his men, it horrified him (Cole's dialogue related to that night shows it). On top of that, there was also his realization that it was his greed that had led to such a singularly terrible moment.

 

Just occurred to me that, perhaps, his reaction to the children was partially tied to Liddy (who died when she was very young). I think that because of her, he may have had a major soft spot for young children. It could be that this was part of why what happened with the children on the night of the massacre really changed him. Ah, here's that dialogue...

 

Cole: We played by the fire so she would be warm. No, it's summer, Liddy.
Blackwall: This thing you do? Maybe you should stop doing it.
Cole: Got her a flower but they'd taken her. Left it on her bed. Next eight on the sill.
Cole: Tourney sands. A garden seat. Five to Chantry altars. One to a child with her hair. The sea? Too many to count.
Cole: And thirty-six. Tossed off the battlements today.
Blackwall: Go bother Solas.
Cole: You have many feelings.
Cole: I'm sorry she died.

 

I'm making a guess here, but with the number of flowers seeming to increase over time, it looks like he was counting every single one of Liddy's missed birthdays after she died (or the anniversary of her actual death). That seems to speak to a very strong attachment and love for her that I believe extended to other children of a similar age.

 

That's fair enough.

 

(also one sentence answers because my internet is throwing a fit and kicking me every five minutes).

[katamuro]

Honestly, Blackwall was just a man, he did try to make himself into a good man but generally considering what people did in the kinda of "middle ages" times that we have in Dragon Age and what many people still do he is not that bad. His mistake killed not just that family but also his men and while sure it was a bad mistake, a certain Qunari did something similar and I am sure that both Zevran and Leliana had killed more than a few people who did not really deserve it. Life is cheap especially for those who may profit from that.

[Ryzaki]

Eh I like Sten because I found fascinating.

[Ryzaki]

Lol me too, but he doesn't like me much.

 

XD I do kind of like how you got approval for standing up for yourself with him. Also playing the straight man to his deadman snarking was