I...really wouldn't say that anythign Samson did after he met Corypheus was admirable. It wasn't. He did some bad things.
At the kernel of what he was, he wanted to do right. He wanted to do good. He let that get twisted by his rage at the Chantry. Much like Anders was. His rage while probably pretty justified given what he went through in his life doesn't make his actions with the Red Templars excusable. Despite all this, I like Samson's character. He's a good "villain". His background and what he turns into makes my heart hurt. I wish things had gone differently for him because you can see how much he cared. That could have been utilized for actual good.
Ser Barris is young and has NONE of Samson's baggage. It was probably really difficult though to stand up to his brothers/sisters. Like Samson he cared for them. Fighting against them like he did was no easy task. I don't really see it as weakness. I see it as understandble again. He's ONE man against this entire massive institution. The fact that - in the end - he stood up or if you don't recruit him he went out fighting...says a lot.
I think you all are really too needy for these things to have easy answers and be black and white. A need for there to be a bad guy and a good guy. The thing is, things aren't black/white. And there isn't really a bad guy or a good guy. It's complicated and messy and sometimes the bad guy is the good guy and vice versa.
At the end of the day, all we have is just people. People making stupid, good, terrible decisions. And then just living with the consequences. That's all this is. I find Samson to be a good person but still can think what he did was atrocious. I also am capable of thinking Ser Barris while a bit weak willed is still a hero.
That's what the entire game was about. Are we more than our actions? And that's for the player to decide. Clearly some of you say no - there is a line. At some point intent doesn't matter --- which is reasonable. For me, though, it does.
I suppose that's fair. Still, as the Inquisitor, it's the Inquisitor's job to judge such people. And how does one do that with out parameters? Does the intention, the body count left behind, the practicality of who's better for Thedas and the Inquisition come into mind? If we are to compare Delrin and Samson, yes Samson did terrible things but for a more hopeful end for him and the people he cares about. Delrin followed orders like a good soldier and with out the Inquisitor's intervention, ultimately failed because he lacked the will to act. It's true I'm harsh on Delrin because he is capable. I guess if Delrin is to be raised as a leader and messiah of the templar order, I would expect more than just rescuing kittens from trees. On one hand, Samson acted and inspires a loyalty in his men only good men could. On the other hand, Delrin is quite accomplished strategically but lacks initiative. The problem I have with Delrin is he is a "yesman", to die fighting in a situation with out any strategy to save his people or make things right, or worse just negligent of the consequences until it's too late- it's just thoughtless and a waste of a good soldier. I'm disappointed in him I say. I suppose Blackwall's story about how he looked the other way at an abused dog or Heir telling Assassin Inquisitor "a still blade cuts as deep as one that lashes out" in their war table quest has me wondering, is an atrocious action worse than inaction that leads to atrocious consequences?
Retour en haut
).
