291 réponses à ce sujet

[Dieb]

I don't. Whenever there is an option to murder someone, I don't take it. The only times my character ever kills is either in self-defense or in the defense of others. 

 

It wasn't a combat situation. Rainier took the assassination contract and had him and his men ambush the carriage. That's murder. 

 

Nonsense. He took gold to kill them. He is no different than Zevran. Both are murderers. 

 

Refraining from putting terms like "Fact" and "Nonsense" in front of your opinions and deductions like everybody else goes a long way for a non-hostile debate.

 

Secondly, I was more referring to the overkill when we applied it to each and every companion. What Rainier and his men did was, and again, without a doubt, murder.

 

And I'm gonna try and mention that one last time, Rainier did not take coin to kill a family. He took the money to kill a political opponent, as a soldier, from a soldier. He chickened out when he realized there was a family there while his men were already given their orders. I know that difference makes it annoyingly difficult, but that's how we're told it happened. Yes, he didn't call them back, which makes him guilty of murder (see?), but it doesn't give him a murderer's mindset, and also he didn't take coin to kill a family. It started as something we as players and most mercenaries do on a daily basis

[Hanako Ikezawa]

and the pc kills by my count over a dozen sometimes get "donations" what blackwall was just a Tuesday doing what he thought was best for his nation

Your PC, maybe. Mine doesn't. 

 

...Wat? Putting their life on the line with the intention of saving the world (stopping the Blight, sealing the Breach, etc.) isn't justice enough?

Do all of the characters mentioned in the posts I quoted put their lives on the line with the intention of saving the world? The answer is no. 

 

Refraining from putting terms like "Fact" and "Nonsense" in front of your opinions and deductions like everybody else goes a long way for a non-hostile debate.

 

Secondly, I was more referring to the overkill when we applied it to each and every companion. What Rainier and his men did was, and again, without a doubt, murder.

Except when I use those words, it is not with opinions. I use the term fact when it is a fact, and make sure it is a fact before using such terminology. Like "It is a fact that Rainier committed murder, thus is a murderer.".

When it is an opinion or deduction, I make sure to express that it is so people don't think I'm speaking like it's a fact. 

 

And I'm gonna try and mention that one last time, Rainier did not take coin to kill a family. He took the money to kill a political opponent, as a soldier, from a soldier. He chickened out when he realized there was a family there while his men were already given their orders. I know that difference makes it annoyingly difficult, but that's how we're told it happened. Yes, he didn't call them back, which makes him guilty of murder (see?), but it doesn't give him a murderer's mindset, and also he didn't take coin to kill a family. It started as something we as players and most mercenaries do on a daily basis

The fact he took coin to kill someone off the field of battle still makes it murder and him having the mindset of a murderer. 

[zambingo]

I keep him and make him a warden things happen and he did good work later so IMO it worked out. Sides we've dealt with people far worse (Fenris, aveline, Anders,Izzy,sten, etc ) even the pc has a body count

Aveline?

She's a soldier and an officer of the law, additionally she's so straight and narrow she could be on Dragnet. Not saying she doesn't have a body count, but attributing hers in an immoral light is saying Captain America is a mass murdering ****head... to coin an Izzard phrase.

[raging_monkey]

cause you apply a double standard and apply your strict moral code to everything. Which may why most dismiss you

[zambingo]

Wait. What are you on about now?

[raging_monkey]

Aveline?

She's a soldier and an officer of the law, additionally she's so straight and narrow she could be on Dragnet. Not saying she doesn't have a body count, but attributing hers in an immoral light is saying Captain America is a mass murdering ****head... to coin an Izzard phrase.

I attribute aveline to this due to her somewhat hypocritical habits and general indifference to how her guards behave at end of act 2 but that was years ago that horse has been beat to hell

[raging_monkey]

Wait. What are you on about now?

not you zam was to ikezawa

[zambingo]

Ohhhh.

[zambingo]

I attribute aveline to this due to her somewhat hypocritical habits and general indifference to how her guards behave at end of act 2 but that was years ago that horse has been beat to hell

Her house wasn't in order certainly. Fair point.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

cause you apply a double standard and apply your strict moral code to everything. Which may why most dismiss you

What double standard are you referring to? 

[raging_monkey]

Her house wasn't in order certainly. Fair point.

it's definitely a grey area similar to this minor travesty

[raging_monkey]

What double standard are you referring to?

how you single out the wall(which fine and totally understandable) but content to not apply it to the other companions creating from my POV a very black and white perspective

[Kierro Ren]

Personally, I like Blackwall. Ok, sure, he made a horrible mistake. Like some said, so did Sten. Your Warden, Hawke, Leliana, Zevran, Isabella, Morrigan, Ogren etc are all killers. Hell, Zevran killed an innocent lover, which later he regretted and wanted to die. Blackwall is no difference. Ok, it took however many years it did, till he confessed. I have to ask, how many of you would of had the balls to admit something like that? Eh... maybe 4? Rest would of kept running. He's also a badass Tank, Cass can't up guard, yet Blackwall only has 2 guard bars missing.

 

More importantly, he's my character's friend. Friend's never turn their backs on each other, in game or IRL. Never.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

how you single out the wall(which fine and totally understandable) but content to not apply it to the other companions creating from my POV a very black and white perspective

I do apply it to the other companions who have done similar tier of things though. 

This thread is about Rainier however, so I'm focusing on Rainier.

If this was a Loghain thread I'd focus on Logain, an Isabela thread I'd focus on Isabela, etc. 

 

Besides, I spare him from the hangman's noose. 

[raging_monkey]

Then the convo is moot

[berelinde]

how you single out the wall(which fine and totally understandable) but content to not apply it to the other companions creating from my POV a very black and white perspective

You aren't in the wrong, but you are asking the impossible. Not everyone is capable of empathy, nor is everyone self-aware. So yeah, no matter how accurate you are, you aren't going to get acknowledgment of it. Some of the most nefarious people in history believed they were doing good deeds.

 

I learned this back when I was modding. I'd written a scene, and somebody wrote in stern condemnation of it based on some really skewed values. At that point, I was forced to accept that not everyone's moral compass is calibrated the same. Best to just thank them for sharing their thoughts and then ignore.

[c0bra951]

Hanako Ikezawa, on 25 May 2015 - 4:57 PM, said:

    He was there when the orders were carried out. He heard the children singing a nursery rhyme in the carriage before the carriage was attacked.  
    He had an opportunity to call the attack off at that point, but he didn't take it. Thus the slaughter of those kids was intentional.

 

Being paralyzed with fear and doubt =/= intentionally slaughtering kids. It's pretty clear that he did not intend for children to be there and for them to die.

Second chances for Blackwall. Second chances for Leliana and Loghain and Zevran and Isabela. Second chances for everyone. (ﾉ´ヮ´)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧

I missed that.  It only makes the decision more difficult.  But even so, it must be the same for me.  Blackwall is too important to the survival of everything to discard him before the job is done.  Maybe afterward he could be judged more severely, executed or forced to atone for life.  That option should be available, perhaps even selectable during his original trial.

 

And gameplay still trumps everything for me.  I will not do without Blackwall unless my inquisitor is a champion warrior.  (He will be in my current PT.  He isn't there yet.)

[raging_monkey]

You aren't in the wrong, but you are asking the impossible. Not everyone is capable of empathy, nor is everyone self-aware. So yeah, no matter how accurate you are, you aren't going to get acknowledgment of it. Some of the most nefarious people in history believed they were doing good deeds.

I learned this back when I was modding. I'd written a scene, and somebody wrote in stern condemnation of it based on some really skewed values. At that point, I was forced to accept that not everyone's moral compass is calibrated the same. Best to just thank them for sharing their thoughts and then ignore.

more than fair

[Korva]

Blackwall was always meant to be a divisive character, but I find it odd that so many people find his crimes unforgivable, especially when others who have done much worse get a free pass.

 

Exactly.

 

I really do think that the writers' (apparent) intentions hold a lot of sway. If a person who for the lack of a better word could be called "evil" is presented as badass or sexy or admirable or as flat-out comic relief, and there is no way to question them, judge them or otherwise hold them responsible, you're fishing for that "kewlolol" reaction even though such a character, too, should be "divisive" to say the least. When such characters share a story and setting with people who are less objectionable but presented as divisive and able to be judged and condemned, it creates a really weird disconnect.

 

At any rate, I think another reason also plays into this: Blackwall lied to us, and if you used the treaties it creates trouble for us. Lying and theft and murder and pretty much any crime under the sun may be "kewlolol" to a lot of people if presented in the "right" way and aimed at the "right" people (such as "authority figures" who dare to try placing limits on what the almighty player character can do) ... but if the player becomes the target, it's not so "kewlolol" anymore for some strange reason.

 

Yes, Blackwall breaking the others' trust and handing the protagonist authority via the treaties that he's not actually qualified to give are problems. I'm not denying that, but I do find it baffling when people treat that as his "real" crime, one that is worse than him taking money to kill someone and then not calling off the slaughter when he realized the whole family was present.

[In Exile]

Exactly.

I really do think that the writers' (apparent) intentions hold a lot of sway. If a person who for the lack of a better word could be called "evil" is presented as badass or sexy or admirable or as flat-out comic relief, and there is no way to question them, judge them or otherwise hold them responsible, you're fishing for that "kewlolol" reaction even though such a character, too, should be "divisive" to say the least. When such characters share a story and setting with people who are less objectionable but presented as divisive and able to be judged and condemned, it creates a really weird disconnect.

At any rate, I think another reason also plays into this: Blackwall lied to us, and if you used the treaties it creates trouble for us. Lying and theft and murder and pretty much any crime under the sun may be "kewlolol" to a lot of people if presented in the "right" way and aimed at the "right" people (such as "authority figures" who dare to try placing limits on what the almighty player character can do) ... but if the player becomes the target, it's not so "kewlolol" anymore for some strange reason.

Yes, Blackwall breaking the others' trust and handing the protagonist authority via the treaties that he's not actually qualified to give are problems. I'm not denying that, but I do find it baffling when people treat that as his "real" crime, one that is worse than him taking money to kill someone and then not calling off the slaughter when he realized the whole family was present.

I think his having murdered children in particular is what sets him apart in the eyes of most people. Though I personally don't see much of a difference between him and Leliana/Zevran (esp. Zev). I suppose their plots didn't centre on their guilt which makes it different?

[Fearsome1]

Sure, but with Loghain the decision to spare him or not happened right after you defeat him. I don't think you know whether or not he was remorseful or shameful. He probably didn't feel either of those at the time you spared him

 

This. 

 

Zevran was an assassin. Sten killed a family. Leliana kills in the name of the game in DAO and wants to kill even more people in DAI. Morrigan killed Templars with Flemeth back in the Wilds and has no problem trying to kill everyone we meet in DAO. Loghain kills in the name of Fereldan multiple time in DAO and The Stolen Throne. Oghren killed somebody in the Proving in rage. Shale really seems to have no problem in trying to kill people. Isabela sunk a whole ship full of innocent slave to save her own skin in her comic book. Iron Bull is a mercenary and has probably killed innocents for money before. Cole went around killing people in the Orlais Circle.

 

This too!

[Iakus]

 

 

Again, regardless of culture(in this case, The Game) a person who has done nothing wrong is an innocent. Rainier killed innocent people for coin. 

 

 

That Rainier is guilty of murder either through action or inaction is unquestionable.

 

But the fact that he deeply regrets it now is a strong mitigating factor for me.  It's sort of that Planescape: Torment question "What can change the nature of a man?"  In this case the answer seems to be "regret"

 

 

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.

 

I mean, he ends up so ashamed that he takes on Blackwall's identity.  Not to escape justice, but because he felt Blackwall was a better man than he, and didn't deserve to die any more than Raniner deserved to live. So he makes Blackwall "live" the only way he can.  By becoming him and living Blackwall's life as best he knows how.  Messed up, yeah, but I can see why he did it.

 

And that's why I give him a second chance.  One playthrough I pardoned him completely.  The other I told him I'd send him to the Wardens when the crisis passed.

[Korva]

I think his having murdered children in particular is what sets him apart in the eyes of most people.

 

Maybe, though with other people like yours truly, feeling as if someone or something is pulling the "BUT THE BAAAAAYBEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!" card can also backfire because that's as cheap and manipulative (and thus annoying) as it gets.

 

Implicitly or explicitly being responsible for the death and/or destitution of children (leaving a kid alive but orphaned can arguably be a much uglier fate than a quick death alongside their parents), or pushing the player character to do the same, has also made little to no dent in the popularity of other characters like Canderous, Morrigan or Sten.

 

Though I personally don't see much of a difference between him and Leliana/Zevran (esp. Zev). I suppose their plots didn't centre on their guilt which makes it different?

 

Most likely. I don't recall Zevran's plot very well, but if memory serves, both he and Leliana and presented as victims when their past (the Crows/Marjolaine) catches up with them. We meet people who hurt them, not people hurt by them.

[SolNebula]

Because I wasn't a tank and he was the best tank in my squad....i used him....case closed

[zambingo]

No doubt these stories are full of killers, not sure anyone truly tries to spin they aren't. I think what people argue over is what is jusitified, which is sorta futile given that even with a baseline agreement for what is moral and legal (important those are distinct, they aren't the same) subjectivity is rampant.

 

This is why, for me, Blackwall's situation needed to be resolved using the laws of the shop (when in Rome...), regardless of my replusion for his particular actions. My Quizzy acted as such in all possible ways, deferring to the appropriate authority; Crestwood Mayor handed to Denerim. Venatori Whatever-Man handed to Wardens. etc. With Blackwall I had him resubmit to the Wardens and took whatever PR hit that afforded the Inquisition.

 

All my PCs have acted that way, unless replaying purely for a trophy. Whenever possible I defer to the laws of the shop, take every chance I can at peaceful resolutions and take the opportunities presented to preach idealistically that not everything must come down to cake or death.

 

Even though the story still undoubtedly leaves a body count, perhaps even unimaginably so given respawn/xp leveling, at least I know it's due to do or die. If possible I'll flee an unnesssary fight as well; eg. strolling thru the hinterlands do I have to decimate that avvar, kill that bear??? etc. I guess it's an open palm or closed fist thing. I dunno. I do know one thing; I always wish more Captain Kirk "Word-Fu" moments were available. More Superman-Reeve "what about the people" preaching for the laying down of weapons.