That's almost like saying someone who hires an assassin isn't guilty. To me, they are just as guilty as the assassin who performs the murder in the first place. Giving an order you know is wrong is just as bad, if not worse then following one.
It's probably worse that he even lied to his men, they would never have done it otherwise - and they get put to death for it while he walks free and gets a chance to redeem himself.
I wonder if they really would never have done what they did if he were honest. It's comforting to believe that they wouldn't, but I'm not entirely convinced.
I wonder if they really would never have done what they did if he were honest. It's comforting to believe that they wouldn't, but I'm not entirely convinced.
Comforting? Maybe but that's not what i'm basing it from. Blackwall himself was certainly afraid of them, Cole states as much.
Great character.
Nevertheless, they were still willing to go ahead and kill everyone. Maybe they wouldn't have done so if Rainier hadn't said that it was an official mission, but maybe they would have. People can justify a lot, especially if they think they might be getting some kind of reward in the end. I can see some of them convincing themselves that killing everyone was for the good of the country even if Rainier hadn't said it first.
It could go either way really. There's no way to know for sure.
I think that Blackwall is the perfect example of how people perceive a man in a diametrically opposed way depending on how they focus on the good or on the bad.
I personally focus on the good, and Rainier/Blackwall did a lot of good.
I read a lot of times people belittling what he did as a warden - because yes, he lived, acted, fought and suffered as a warden for many years, taint or no taint.
'I don't care if he killed some darkspawn... saving some refugees is not enough...'
I everyday hear calling 'heroes' people who saved one single human life. He saved many.
Many people seem to forget that most wardens were criminals, and it doesn’t matter what they did when they join the Order because joining the wardens means erase a man's past. The only difference with Blackwall is that we know all the details of what he did, while ‘having been a criminal’ is vague.
I never heard anyone asking to personally execute Cullen for locking all the mages, children included, in the tower of magi with the abominations in DAO, nor to personally execute Zevran for being an unrepentant assassin, nor wanting justice for his victims.
Just to make one of the many possible examples we, as part of the Inquisition, accept to kill all the apostates in Witchwood. I am sure they were no monsters, just people who, as children, were stolen from their parents in order to be locked inside a tower, then suffered imprisonment.
Now, for the first time in their lives, they are free and are fighting to keep their freedom. To their eyes you, the Inquisitor, are nothing but one more pain in the ass. I'm reasonably sure there were also children or teen-agers among them but I'm sure nobody thought about it before entering the cave to exterminate them all.
Heroes are made, not born. Who knows what the 'real' Blackwall did before he became a Grey Warden, perhaps he murdered dozens of people, children included. Does it matter?
He became a hero and gained the silver wing of valor. If he ever met that kind of 'justice' instead of being recruited in the wardens the men he saved would be dead as well, and the world had lost a potential hero and all the good he could have done.
I think that Blackwall is the perfect example of how people perceive a man in a diametrically opposed way depending on how they focus on the good or on the bad.
I personally focus on the good, and Rainier/Blackwall did a lot of good.
I read a lot of times people belittling what he did as a warden - because yes, he lived, acted, fought and suffered as a warden for many years, taint or no taint.
'I don't care if he killed some darkspawn... saving some refugees is not enough...'
I everyday hear calling 'heroes' people who saved one single human life. He saved many.
Many people seem to forget that most wardens were criminals, and it doesn’t matter what they did when they join the Order because joining the wardens means erase a man's past. The only difference with Blackwall is that we know all the details of what he did, while ‘having been a criminal’ is vague.
I never heard anyone asking to personally execute Cullen for locking all the mages, children included, in the tower of magi with the abominations in DAO, nor to personally execute Zevran for being an unrepentant assassin, nor wanting justice for his victims.
Just to make one of the many possible examples we, as part of the Inquisition, accept to kill all the apostates in Witchwood. I am sure they were no monsters, just people who, as children, were stolen from their parents in order to be locked inside a tower, then suffered imprisonment.
Now, for the first time in their lives, they are free and are fighting to keep their freedom. To their eyes you, the Inquisitor, are nothing but one more pain in the ass. I'm reasonably sure there were also children or teen-agers among them but I'm sure nobody thought about it before entering the cave to exterminate them all.
Heroes are made, not born. Who knows what the 'real' Blackwall did before he became a Grey Warden, perhaps he murdered dozens of people, children included. Does it matter?
He became a hero and gained the silver wing of valor. If he ever met that kind of 'justice' instead of being recruited in the wardens the men he saved would be dead as well, and the world had lost a potential hero and all the good he could have done.
Callier for his part was not a poor victim. I think most of Blackwall's story is about his commoner background. He is not noble by birth, he's just a soldier that earned a better position with hard work and liked money [not so far away than any of us]. He accepted to kill a single man to get more coins, but happened that such man was travelling with his whole family. Obviously, the powerful people that hired him - and knew - did not say a word for helping him.Blackwall is a character about how high classes can mess things up and get better results than those who are from lower classes, those who have to live the daily ****, inspired by the idealization of the heroes, understanding that they never could be one.Rainier has a lot of self-esteem issues based on class, and also a lot of bias and hatred towards powerful people who don't give a damn about those who are under them.When you first meet Krem he says about The Iron Bull: "He’s professional, we accept contracts with whoever makes the first real offer […] We’re loyal, we’re tough, and we don’t break contracts. Ask around Val Royeaux, we’ve got references."This means that what Blackwall/Rainier did only once in his life, i.e. accepting a hire job to kill an Orlesian Grand-Gamer, was in fact Iron Bull’s daily bread and butter.The Iron Bull and his chargers made a living out of killing shems, as Skinner will later say in Skyhold - and she seems to enjoy it a great deal too.The Iron Bull accepted every contract if the offer was good enough. Krem: "You’re the first time he’s gone out of his way to pick a side."This means that The Iron Bull wants to stop being a mere mercenary and wants to fight for the greater good…. BUT, he doesn’t join for free like Blackwall, he wants to be paid good money for it.Rainier was not a professional criminal, he was a well respected, honest military captain who accepted only one contract as mercenary that ended in a massacre of an entire family. He lied to his men and didn't stop them when he heard the young voices, ok. All I can say is that he was a very clumsy and inexperienced mercenary, and he probably didn't tell his men because he was ashamed of what he was doing. He did wrong, but he's just a man.All our companions have done very questionable things in their lives, and some still do (see Leliana). Does it matter? No, because they all are in the Inquisition to do good, to help save the ****** world, and if we start executing all the companions or advisors who did wrong or caused deaths we'd finish all our runs in solitude.
I don't think you can simplify Blackwall's situation as only "focusing" on the negative, like it's no big thing. Murder and treason are big issues--people died for this man's greed. I feel like people trying to excuse his actions are doing a disservice to the character. His story is about redemption; he did horrible things--he knew the difference between what is right and what is wrong, yet he still did what he did. Some posts further up did a great job in outlining it and why his actions should not be swept under the rug and treated as inconsequential.
He is not the only character to get lambasted for his killing actions. There is a lot of Zevran and Sten hate. Even Leliana has gotten flack on these boards. Iron Bull gets crap too. Please don't act like Blackwall is the only character to get singled out for killing people because he's not.
I understand that you love this character, hence your name, but you do him a disservice when you write off his actions as "clumsy".
I have a character who let him atone; I also have another who is sending him to the wardens, but I also have one who left him to rot in Orlais. The fact is, if his actions weren't so reprehensible or if he wasn't so intent on atoning for his mistakes, his story would not be as good. I find that all 3 actions are fitting depending on the type of person you want to rp.
I wonder if they really would never have done what they did if he were honest. It's comforting to believe that they wouldn't, but I'm not entirely convinced.
Seems to me He was close enough to hear them, could have called out to stop, but didn't because he feared his men would immediately turn against him.
Here is the exact conversation:
Blackwall: You, who heal the helpless... you're not angry about what I was hiding?
Cole: You never hid from me.
Cole: "Mockingbird, mockingbird." Too many voices in the carriage. Maker, they're young.
Cole: 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.
Blackwall: Stop. Please.
He could hear voices (not making out words) and realized they sound young. This is all we know for sure. Yes, he could stop the attack and he did not. He is guilty. But not as a murdered himself, as someone who ordered a murder. He is fully responsible for that murder, like anyone who send someone to kill someone. Still, those people in a carriage died by the hands of his soldiers, not his own.
He not only has the blood of the people in the carriage on his hands, but of all the men whom he ordered to action and were put to death, again under orders that were not even legitimate and motivated by little more than for him to line his own pockets.
Do not undermine actions of his soldiers - everyone is responsible for his own deeds. Those men DID kill in cold blood several children. They deserve their fate. We do not know if they regret their action - the last one who was not executed (thanks to Blackwall) did not say much. But they are guilty.
As for "pockets" - money was a benefit (and one of the motive), but he had an order from a higher ranks. It was not his idea, his initiative. Does not excuse what he did but means that "murder for sale" is not his nature.
it really is a shame. I understand he tried very hard to become a different person, but ultimately he was a coward who hid behind a mask: without the Inquisitor's influence he never returns to face justice.
I'll just leave here another dialog from our party-shrink with Blackwall:
Blackwall: Cole, if you knew what I am, what I'd done, why didn't you tell the others?
Cole: Everyone hides dead things. Everyone pretends. You wanted to fix it.
Blackwall: I'm a murderer.
Cole: You don't want to be. You made a new you. You are Blackwall. You killed Rainier.
Blackwall: If only that were possible.
Cole: You would stand between Rainier and the carriage. But you can't. It doesn't work like that.
Cole: So you carry the bodies to remember.
Blackwall: I suppose I do.
He could here voices (not making out words) and realized they sound young. This is all we know for sure. Yes, he could stop the attack and he did not. He is guilty. But not as a murdered himself, as someone who ordered a murder. He is fully responsible for that murder, like anyone who send someone to kill someone. Still, those people in a died by the hands of his soldiers, not his own.
He is definitely a murderer. If he did not tell his men to kill them, they would not have died. He is very responsible--more so I would say because he played on his mens' loyalties. Blackwall even says his men thought they were doing a service for their country.
His men gleefully murder children. They are absolutely vile. That they didn't have the socially acceptable reason for murdering children doesn't make it better.He is definitely a murderer. If he did not tell his men to kill them, they would not have died. He is very responsible--more so I would say because he played on his mens' loyalties. Blackwall even says his men thought they were doing a service for their country.
His men gleefully murder children. They are absolutely vile. That they didn't have the socially acceptable reason for murdering children doesn't make it better.
Blackwall and his men are being tried for an unsanctioned killing; that's their only true crime in Orlais. Had they been sanctioned they would be - as Blackwall says - venerated. It's sick.
The loyalty angle is just related to his men believing they had the OK to murder these children.
Gleefully? I don't remember them being "gleeful" about it. Killing children is not ok in my book. I'm not giving his men a free pass, but it does not lessen Blackwall's culpability as some are suggesting. That is my problem. The "loyalty angle" is how Blackwall manipulated his men into doing the killing; it's not like they were going to murder a general who was on their side without cause.
And the fact still remains that Blackwall took money, ordered his men to murder the general and everyone with him, and decided to not call off the attack when he realized there were children there because he was afraid of the backlash.
I don't think you can simplify Blackwall's situation as only "focusing" on the negative, like it's no big thing. Murder and treason are big issues--people died for this man's greed. I feel like people trying to excuse his actions are doing a disservice to the character. His story is about redemption; he did horrible things--he knew the difference between what is right and what is wrong, yet he still did what he did. Some posts further up did a great job in outlining it and why his actions should not be swept under the rug and treated as inconsequential.
He is not the only character to get lambasted for his killing actions. There is a lot of Zevran and Sten hate. Even Leliana has gotten flack on these boards. Iron Bull gets crap too. Please don't act like Blackwall is the only character to get singled out for killing people because he's not.
I understand that you love this character, hence your name, but you do him a disservice when you write off his actions as "clumsy".
I have a character who let him atone; I also have another who is sending him to the wardens, but I also have one who left him to rot in Orlais. The fact is, if his actions weren't so reprehensible or if he wasn't so intent on atoning for his mistakes, his story would not be as good. I find that all 3 actions are fitting depending on the type of person you want to rp.
Oh so hate for everyone... 'good' xD
Actually I'm not an assiduous forum reader and I usually tend to focus on what I like so I miss many 'hate' threads and posts, luckily.
I'm not trying to excuse his action, just trying to be objective about him, the situation he found himself in and compared to the other people we recruit in the Inquisition.
The only different here is Blackwall was given a personally quest where you get to question right from wrong, where you get to judge him for his action. The rest of the Inquisition just swooped pasted that check-point. Hence we'r now discussing how horrible Blackwall's crime is. In reality his "crime" is nothing compared to the rest of the merry band of the Inquisition.
The player make choices that changes the fate of everyone, good to worse or sometimes in between. Not to mention Sera, that chick is just batshit crazy, everytime i talk to her she just screams sociopathic tendencies.
Blackwall did a booboo. Sera enjoy killing stuck up nobles. IB fights for gold. Cole kill with "mercy". Leliana assassinate people.
Most which can be prevented at the snap of the player fingers, but does that excuse them for what they did before they ran into the inquisitor snappy fingers?. If you/we think what BW did was so wrong, we should probably be judging everyone who joined up "to do the right thing" and/or "atone".
Oh so hate for everyone... 'good' xD
Actually I'm not an assiduous forum reader and I usually tend to focus on what I like so I miss many 'hate' threads and posts, luckily.
I'm not trying to excuse his action, just trying to be objective about him, the situation he found himself in and compared to the other people we recruit in the Inquisition.
In real life I'm against killing even someone who is still a criminal, because men can change, imagine a man like Rainier who was once a honest man, a well respected captain who did just one mistake -which resulted in a crime- and then dedicated the rest of his life to save people and the ****** world. What good does killing a man like him?Again, if we start executing all the companions or advisors who did wrong or caused deaths we'd finish all our runs in solitude.As Cole said, and Cole reads people's mind and hearts, he killed Rainier, he IS Blackwall. What's the point in killing Blackwall because of a dead man's mistakes?
As I said before, I find all punishments for Rainier valid, and that includes the option to leave him to die. I'm not advocating that he must die or that anybody who does wrong must die (I don't even see that kind of post in this thread so I'm not sure why you are saying that), but I think it's important that people not write off his crime as a simple misdeed. There was nothing simple or accidental about it.
Blackwall did a booboo.
Are you serious? 
I can't take anything you say seriously after that statement.
All the men and women who join the Inquisition willing to sacrifice their lives to save the world are to be considered heroes. And heroes are made, not born, this means that many times a man needs to do wrong to find the strength to change and become a hero.
There's a line from Varric in the game, a banter in which he speaks with Blackwall about the fact that commoners are uncomfortable with their presence -you can often hear comments like 'we want no trouble here' coming from commoners in many places. Varric says that "The creepy people' like them exist in order to do the dirty job so that the 'good' people can stay at home minding their own business".
What Varric says means that the majority of people just sit there and wait for others to fix things. The very few people who act to save the day and who choose to live a life of self-denial for the greater good are heroes, and their past mistakes are just the path that led them to become the heroes they are now.
I'm not interested at all in judging a hero for his past mistakes, nor to kill or let be executed a comrade in arms who fought bravely by my side.
This applies to all of our companions and advisor of course, not just to Blackwall.
Guest_Raga_*
Not really. For one, I didn't want to execute him. For another, I always got annoyed when various nations expected me to judge crimes that happened in their jurisdictions involving their citizens. Why am I judging what some mayor of a small town in Ferelden did during the Blight 10 years before the Inquisition existed? This is clearly Alistair/Anora/whoever's job. It's not my business to enforce Ferelden laws on Ferelden citizens. I was *super* annoyed when I gave Florianne to Celine only to have her give Florianne back to me. Seriously, lady? *You* are the empress of Orlais. *You* are the one who she tried to assassinate. *You* are the one I just put back in power - so do your job and rule your country!
There are some special cases obviously - where I'm dealing with somebody who directly attacked the Inquisition, or where the powers that be are incapacitated, or where the crime is international enough in scope that it doesn't clearly fall under the purview of some monarch or other. But a lot of them very obviously fell within the bounds of a particular jurisdiction.
So in Blackwall's case, if I *had* wanted to execute him, I'd have just let Orlais do its thing. If he had committed a crime against the Inquisition, it would be different. But it was an Orlesian crime. Let the Orlesians sort it out.
I think calling it a "booboo" is nonsensical, but I do agree with the notion that Blackwall gets some of the flak he gets because he can be judged while other companions can't ... and because he's remorseful, which may be read as "weak" compared to the "coolness" of unrepentantly evil characters.
And I wonder if players would be so willing to have our own actions judged as harshly. Personally, I never play evil characters. I think some of the options from past games were so distasteful and/or stupid that they should have carried severe consequences, since the generic theme of a Bioware game is still "you're the hero" and the NPCs around us shouldn't just overlook it when the supposed hero goes full-on darkside on them. But if anything, many people clamor for more evil options and less "goodie-two-shoes" ones. If we want to judge NPCs, we should be willing to accept the same judgments, the same restriction to our freedom to do what we want to whomever we want. Consequence-free power-trips are boring and shallow as f*ck.
I think calling it a "booboo" is nonsensical, but I do agree with the notion that Blackwall gets some of the flak he gets because he can be judged while other companions can't ... and because he's remorseful, which may be read as "weak" compared to the "coolness" of unrepentantly evil characters.
I agree and I wrote this more than once, so I just copy-paste:
Are you serious?
Haha, sorry. Been babysitting my nephew lately (3yro). He laughs and laughs when you say "booboo", from Boo the bear. Kinda stuck now, booboo!.
I think calling it a "booboo" is nonsensical, but I do agree with the notion that Blackwall gets some of the flak he gets because he can be judged while other companions can't ... and because he's remorseful, which may be read as "weak" compared to the "coolness" of unrepentantly evil characters.
And I wonder if players would be so willing to have our own actions judged as harshly. Personally, I never play evil characters. I think some of the options from past games were so distasteful and/or stupid that they should have carried severe consequences, since the generic theme of a Bioware game is still "you're the hero" and the NPCs around us shouldn't just overlook it when the supposed hero goes full-on darkside on them. But if anything, many people clamor for more evil options and less "goodie-two-shoes" ones. If we want to judge NPCs, we should be willing to accept the same judgments, the same restriction to our freedom to do what we want to whomever we want. Consequence-free power-trips are boring and shallow as f*ck.
This is why my Cadash did not give him to the Grey Wardens. Otherwise Cadash would need to fall in line right behind him and sign up as well. "Atone on your own terms" is still a viable option, even if it's not for every one. I understand that the human noble game lends itself to a different perspective. Different strokes.
Retour en haut