145 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoe77]

I disagree with that character assessment.  To me, he was trying to be for those farmers what the real Blackwall as for him.  Having a Warden acknowledge worth in him was what encouraged him to commit to improving himself.  He even says that the whole point of conscripting those farmers was to teach them to stand on their own.  I guess it depends on if you take him at his word at that point, but I see no reason not to.  

 

As for the Calling, he was never direct when he was asked about it.  He simply says that he doesn't worry about the Calling when it's discussed with Hawke's friend in Crestwood, and afterwards he essentially says he's not hearing voices.  It's ambiguous enough that it didn't have me saying "not a warden", though I was aware that something was strange.  

[Korva]

There are definitely a lot of companions with bloody pasts. Seems weird that Blackwall gets singled out simply because he lied about it, disregarding that he does more than all the others to make amends for his past actions. And seems to spend a lot of time regretting them.

 

Not weird at all. As I said in other threads, "evil" NPCs have often been fan favourites and many players are perfectly fine with all manners of "evil" behavior -- as long as it's aimed at someone else, preferably the oh-so-hated "authority figures" of the game world. But the moment a NPC lies to us, undermines our authority, we become the "real" victim. And we can't have that.

 

Also, while unapologetic evil may be considered "cool" and "funny", remorse and guilt may be considered "weak" and "pathetic". They can be, I suppose, if they result in nothing more than wangsty whining, but a character who picks themselves up again and tries to atone as best they can even if the attempt is flawed ... that's pretty much the opposite of weak or pathetic, IMO.

[MiyuEmi]

@Phoe77: He is asked directly about the Calling by the Inquisitor and he states that he knows what Corypheus is and he holds no sway over him.  That said though, I understand your viewpoint.  It was a good twist in the story, but I suppose my harsh judgment of him is that I simply didn't like his character from the get-go and even on subsequent playthroughs, I have not warmed to him at all.

[In Exile]

Oh gee, here we go again. Now that you're done here, maybe you'd like to go to the DA:O forums and complain that you didn't get to chop off Sten's head/Zevran's head/Leliana's head? I'll say that while what Blackwall did was terrible, he's also truly repentant and is a changed man - kind of like how Sten and Leliana change. Zevran doesn't actually seem to have entirely changed, now that I think about it.

If you get Zevran's help during those war table missions, it seems to me like he's still happily working as, you know, an independent assassin who still kills people for money (as far as I can tell). But hey, the fact that he's your companion from DA:O and is killing someone as a favor to Leliana and the Inquisitor (while making money and thumbing his nose at the Crows) makes things okay, right? I mean, he's clearly morally superior to the (formerly bad) man who's actually been trying to atone for his sins. *sarcasm*

If, after all the dialogue and banter and information that fills in all the details about what happened, you can't see that the situation with Blackwall is more complex than "he ordered a whole family murdered" and refuse to acknowledge things like him not actually knowing that there would be children there that day, then eh - whatever.

Regarding Shelidon's point, by pulling strings or sending in soldiers or using Leliana's deception, you de facto open yourself up to accusations that you abused your power. It seems silly to believe that beheading someone after you really did abuse your power in at least two cases (or gave the impression that you did by calling in a favor) is magically going to make people believe that the Inquisition is fair.

I'll point out you do get to execute Zevran. And unlike Leliana he seems to stay dead.

It wouldn't have cost much for Bioware to have the option there.

[Phoe77]

@Phoe77: He is asked directly about the Calling by the Inquisitor and he states that he knows what Corypheus is and he holds no sway over him.  That said though, I understand your viewpoint.  It was a good twist in the story, but I suppose my harsh judgment of him is that I simply didn't like his character from the get-go and even on subsequent playthroughs, I have not warmed to him at all.

 

That's understandable of course.  Everyone likes different characters for different reasons.  I still don't like Sten at all.

[In Exile]

What I don't get is why Blackwall gets the blame for what his psycho soldiers do. He absolutely ordered a noble killed for treasonous, treasonous reasons and petty gain. He was reckless and/or indifferent to the circumstances of his death and so culpable for the family being killed.

But he was not present. His soldiers made the call to kill the children. They faced the "Do we need to murder some children?" moral dilemma alone and resolved it by a resounding "****, yeah!"

They're each responsible and absolutely more culpable than Blackwall himself, despite Blackwall organising the whole thing.

[MiyuEmi]

@In Exile: Unless I'm remembering this wrong, he is quoted as saying that he didn't tell his soldiers what they were doing so it's likely they never had an intended target, only he did.  He was kind of the middle man in the situation.  He was hired by someone higher ranking and chose not to inform his soldiers of what they were doing.  Very likely because he was asked not to so that the mission would not be compromised through whispers with a name being mentioned.

[Emho]

I obviously missed the whole Blackwall quest during my first playthrough, I think I just hurried to the end.

 

Blackwall is the only party member capable of speccing Vaguard.  I certainly dont want to play that role (too boring for me), so I leave it to Blackwall.  Vanguard spec fits perfectly with my favorite group setup so I'd rather not see Blackwall go anywhere.

[In Exile]

@In Exile: Unless I'm remembering this wrong, he is quoted as saying that he didn't tell his soldiers what they were doing so it's likely they never had an intended target, only he did. He was kind of the middle man in the situation. He was hired by someone higher ranking and chose not to inform his soldiers of what they were doing. Very likely because he was asked not to so that the mission would not be compromised through whispers with a name being mentioned.

They still killed children. Given the way Blackwall laments the situation he didn't order them to do it. So not only is their defence "Just following orders" which is, y'know, not even remotely exculpatory, but it also involved a murder judgement call on their part. I just see them as equally culpable at least, and likely moreso.

[Phoe77]

If I remember correctly, Rainier ordered his men to kill everyone accompanying the chevalier.  I don't know why his men would think that that had to include young children, especially if they thought they were acting under legitimate military orders.  That's part of what makes me so willing to forgive him for not proclaiming their innocence when they were captured.  

[ThreeF]

Children were often killed in situation like this, it's not unthinkable that soldiers would assume it mean to kill them too, the game play on our contemporary morals in this.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

What I don't get is why Blackwall gets the blame for what his psycho soldiers do. He absolutely ordered a noble killed for treasonous, treasonous reasons and petty gain. He was reckless and/or indifferent to the circumstances of his death and so culpable for the family being killed.

But he was not present. His soldiers made the call to kill the children. They faced the "Do we need to murder some children?" moral dilemma alone and resolved it by a resounding "****, yeah!"

They're each responsible and absolutely more culpable than Blackwall himself, despite Blackwall organising the whole thing.

Yes he was. How would Rainier hear the nursery rhyme and realize children were there if he was not present?

 

I agree with his men not being any more innocent than him however since any of them could have chosen to stop, but at least they thought they were doing it for their country and not their boss' greed. 

 

 

Children were often killed in situation like this, it's not unthinkable that soldiers would assume it mean to kill them too, the game play on our contemporary morals in this.

Rainier even says this while in prison. 

[Phoe77]

I don't know if that's the default option though.  Cassandra and her brother were spared and their parents were trying to overthrow a king.  Of course, that's Nevarra and a different set of circumstances in general.

 

Nevertheless, I suppose it's beside the point.  If Rainier's causing the deaths of those children, even unknowingly, is so awful, it seems to me that those soldier's following such an order is just as reprehensible.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't know if that's the default option though.  Cassandra and her brother were spared and their parents were trying to overthrow a king.  Of course, that's Nevarra and a different set of circumstances in general.

 

Nevertheless, I suppose it's beside the point.  If Rainier's causing the deaths of those children, even unknowingly, is so awful, it seems to me that those soldier's following such an order is just as reprehensible.  

Cassandra explains it as the king spared them because they're family and since they were children he knew they had nothing to do with the coup. 

[berelinde]

They still killed children. Given the way Blackwall laments the situation he didn't order them to do it. So not only is their defence "Just following orders" which is, y'know, not even remotely exculpatory, but it also involved a murder judgement call on their part. I just see them as equally culpable at least, and likely moreso.

If you talk to him in prison, Blackwall absolutely knew there were children there. He realized it moments before the soldiers attacked. He hesitated. He knew there were children in the carriage, but wars are about heredity and bloodlines, and as ugly as it was, that was the way wars were fought. And then it was over. Later, he regretted what he had done, but it was already too late.

 

And he was right about that. In one of your earliest conversations with Cassandra, you can ask her why she was raised by her uncle instead of her parents and she'll tell you that her parents were executed because they were part of a plot to overthrow King Markus. She and her brother were spared because they were family and because they were very young, and it's implied that this was an unusual concession. In other words, killing off rivals and their families was not really all that unusual. Maybe if Cassandra had not been King Markus's cousin, she and her brother would have been executed.

 

I always free him to atone under his own identity and of his own volition. The Colliers are dead and Blackwall's execution will not bring them back. Justice demands a life, and justice was satisfied, as far as I'm concerned, because Ranier's life did end. He himself made every moment after that his penitence. In my mind, allowing him to continue to atone voluntarily is the one good thing that can come out of a terrible situation.

 

 

 

But I'd given this some thought prior to meeting Blackwall in game. I wrote a character who had formerly served Arl Howe, and I'd decided that if he had been ordered to attack the Couslands, he would have done it, and he would even have killed little Oren, if his orders demanded it. So, after deciding whether I could forgive this character, forgiving Blackwall wasn't all that tough.

[ThreeF]

I don't know if that's the default option though.  Cassandra and her brother were spared and their parents were trying to overthrow a king.  Of course, that's Nevarra and a different set of circumstances in general.

 

The way the dialogue is worded around this makes it sound as an exception,  but  children killing is portrayed as ultimate evil overall in the game, you can see this especially when your run in your head with Envy.

[Phoe77]

I just rewatched the prison scene, and it seems like Rainier knew that the man's family was there when the order was given.  "I didn't know Callier would be traveling with his family.  I assumed only soldiers, armed guards."  Unless I missed something somewhere, there's nothing suggesting that he learned that the man's family would be there in any time to get his men to stop the attack.  Even with what he said about the importance of bloodlines, it's unclear whether or not he would have gone through with the attack if he knew who was going to be killed.  

 

And in the end, I'd still pardon him either way.  I believe that he's endeavored to redeem himself and I think he's done a good job of it, regardless of whose name he was using when he was doing it.

[ThreeF]

And in the end, I'd still pardon him either way.  I believe that he's endeavored to redeem himself and I think he's done a good job of it, regardless of whose name he was using when he was doing it.

I actually think that unless you pardon him he can't redeem, whatever he was doing up to the  point of giving himself up was noble but was done for the wrong reasons, as in the whole time prior the scene at VR  he was doing things because he thought that's what real Blackwall would do, he was  doing things because he thought he was supposed to do them, he sort of projects this on the Inquisitor too. If this makes sense,  it's a fine difference. Pardoning him gives him a chance to discover and accept himself instead of running away from himself, something that he was doing all this time

[Korva]

Blackwall says he thought Callier would be travelling with only armed guards, not with his family, but by the time the slaughter began, he absolutely did know that the family was present because he heard the children singing in the carriage. While it shocked him, it wasn't enough to make him call off the attack. This is confirmed both by his own words and -- more importantly, since we don't know if Blackwall might be lying again -- by Cole in his first post-Revelations banter with Blackwall:

 

"Mockingbird, mockingbird. Too many voices in the carriage. Maker, they're young. If I tell my men to stop, they'll know it was all a lie. Cold, trapped, heart hammering like axes on a carriage door."

 

The guy is guilty without a question, and the fact that his soldiers are guilty too does not diminish that in any way.

[cronshaw]

They still killed children. Given the way Blackwall laments the situation he didn't order them to do it. So not only is their defence "Just following orders" which is, y'know, not even remotely exculpatory, but it also involved a murder judgement call on their part. I just see them as equally culpable at least, and likely moreso.

Right I think passivity or at least moral inertia is kind of a theme for Blackwall

the story of the dog in his childhood reinforces this

[cronshaw]

Children were often killed in situation like this, it's not unthinkable that soldiers would assume it mean to kill them too, the game play on our contemporary morals in this.

Fiction, but I think relevant.

Not that I'm arguing a parallel to Macbeth does anything to improve the impression of Blackwall's character

[Korva]

Right I think passivity or at least moral inertia is kind of a theme for Blackwall

the story of the dog in his childhood reinforces this

 

To be fair, the same would apply to probably the majority of humanity. Pretty much everyone who's been bullied, sexually harassed or assaulted, racially profiled etc. will have stories to tell about how people all around them looked away and pretended it wasn't happening or even blamed the target for "provoking" what was done to them. Outrage at others is easy, actually stepping up ourselves is a lot harder ... even in such simple matters as asking people to tone down abuse in multiplayer games or internet forums. People, even those who feel uncomfortable, often remain silent and passive because they don't want to become a target too, or simply don't want to lose status as the "cool fun guy/girl who doesn't make waves".

 

Young Blackwall stands out in this because most characters in this sort of game are either exceptionally brave and would speak out, or happily evil and would cheer it on. You don't see "normal person" behavior that much IMO.

[In Exile]

Blackwall says he thought Callier would be travelling with only armed guards, not with his family, but by the time the slaughter began, he absolutely did know that the family was present because he heard the children singing in the carriage. While it shocked him, it wasn't enough to make him call off the attack. This is confirmed both by his own words and -- more importantly, since we don't know if Blackwall might be lying again -- by Cole in his first post-Revelations banter with Blackwall:

"Mockingbird, mockingbird. Too many voices in the carriage. Maker, they're young. If I tell my men to stop, they'll know it was all a lie. Cold, trapped, heart hammering like axes on a carriage door."

The guy is guilty without a question, and the fact that his soldiers are guilty too does not diminish that in any way.

I'm not saying he's not guilty. What I'm saying is that the idea that somehow his men shouldn't also get the noose because these weren't the children they'd normally be sanctioned to kill in a war is ridiculous. His men deserve to die just as much as he does; that he happens to try to attone is a point in his favour (as is his being useful) but to me that doesn't excuse his troops.

In fact I think the most culpable thing he does after adopting the Blackwall identity is try to stop a child murder from being executed. That's not noble - that shows his moral compass is still very screwy.

[ThreeF]

Right I think passivity or at least moral inertia is kind of a theme for Blackwall

the story of the dog in his childhood reinforces this

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing is the general theme for Blackwall character. That and the subversion of the lawful good trope.

[cronshaw]

To be fair, the same would apply to probably the majority of humanity. Pretty much everyone who's been bullied, sexually harassed or assaulted, racially profiled etc. will have stories to tell about how people all around them looked away and pretended it wasn't happening or even blamed the target for "provoking" what was done to them. Outrage at others is easy, actually stepping up ourselves is a lot harder ... even in such simple matters as asking people to tone down abuse in multiplayer games or internet forums. People, even those who feel uncomfortable, often remain silent and passive because they don't want to become a target too, or simply don't want to lose status as the "cool fun guy/girl who doesn't make waves".

 

Young Blackwall stands out in this because most characters in this sort of game are either exceptionally brave and would speak out, or happily evil and would cheer it on. You don't see "normal person" behavior that much IMO.

I think that this phenomenon is vastly exaggerated

but that is neither here nor there

the point is the trait is part of Blackwall's weakness,

His "tragic flaw" if you want to get all lit 101ish