54 réponses à ce sujet

[Qun00]

I came across this old thread about the subject and honestly, I wanted to strangle every little **** trying to be edgy with their "morality is for losers" talk.

A common argument was that destroying it just wastes the sacrifice of the human subjects. That would only be true if they had actually volunteered.

The other line that got thrown around a lot was that Avernus' actions can't be undone, so it doesn't matter if you drink or not. But I would argue that yes, there is meaning in the act.

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

That doesn't really work as justification. It only adds insult to injury.

[ShadowLordXII]

It depends on the character that's being played.

 

An evil character can destroy the concoction out of spite while a good character can use it as another tool to protect the world from the Darkspawn.

 

While I won't demean the topic by saying that "morality is for losers", this is also another example of where the situation is simply grey. What Avernus did is horrific, but what you do with the work of his experiments is in your hands. Wasting the potion deprives you of strength to face the Blight and knowledge on the darkspawn taint while using it may be seen as condoning Avernus' actions.

 

It's a matter of perspective really.

[Mike3207]

You're a Warden. Their morality is the ends justifies the means.

[Qun00]

Grey Wardens aren't a hive mind.

It's just like when Commander Genevieve joined the Architect's side in The Calling, while Duncan and Fiona opposed the idea.

[sylvanaerie]

You're a Warden. Their morality is the ends justifies the means.

 

This is a copout.  Just because you become a warden doesn't brain wash you into one blanket mentality.  Each individual warden has their own morality, and that doesn't change just because you became a warden.  This kind of statement makes it seem like the wardens are some kind of cult.  While a lot of them have shown to be this fanatic in the course of the games, a player character has his/her own personality and has to make his/her own choices based on the morality we set for them.

 

Not going to argue about Avernus concoction.  Some of my wardens drank it and some didn't.  It depended on the individual personality and what they sought to do with it.

[Just My Moniker]

1. This is a copout.  Just because you become a warden doesn't brain wash you into one blanket mentality.  Each individual warden has their own morality, and that doesn't change just because you became a warden.  This kind of statement makes it seem like the wardens are some kind of cult.  While a lot of them have shown to be this fanatic in the course of the games, a player character has his/her own personality and has to make his/her own choices based on the morality we set for them.

 

Not going to argue about Avernus concoction.  Some of my wardens drank it and some didn't.  It depended on the individual personality and what they sought to do with it.

1. I agree with you to the point that not every Warden is gonna become a super morally-grey or become completely ruthless upon joining the Wardens, but one of the tenets of the Warden order is to achieve victory over the darkspawn and the blight at any cost.

 

I think you're placing too much faith in a person's sense of morality. Many people once they realize that moral contraints are no longer as strongly applied to them as they once were (Because while Wardens are held somewhat accountable for their actions by outside forces, for the most part they seem to be left alone) , they can become vastly different people.

 

Again, thats not to say everyone would just lose every moral fiber in their being upon becoming a Warden (See Alistair for example), but undergoing such a drastic change in your lifestyle to an order that doesn't care about right and wrong is bound to change some, and I would argue, many people.

[Just My Moniker]

Grey Wardens aren't a hive mind.

It's just like when Commander Genevieve joined the Architect's side in The Calling, while Duncan and Fiona opposed the idea.

Yes, they aren't a hive mind, and there are Wardens of all different beliefs and moralities,  but the common idea held as a tenet of the Warden order is that the ends justify the means.

 

If the majority of Wardens were against such an idea and believed in justice and morality as the best course of action for Wardens, then they would have altered that tenet. And as we can see, they haven't.

[Just My Moniker]

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

Hey, if it was a nice looking hat..... >.>

[SgtSteel91]

I came across this old thread about the subject and honestly, I wanted to strangle every little **** trying to be edgy with their "morality is for losers" talk.

A common argument was that destroying it just wastes the sacrifice of the human subjects. That would only be true if they had actually volunteered.

The other line that got thrown around a lot was that Avernus' actions can't be undone, so it doesn't matter if you drink or not. But I would argue that yes, there is meaning in the act.

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

That doesn't really work as justification. It only adds insult to injury.

 

Maybe not to you but it works for me in a videogame, especially if that hat has better stats than what I currently have. Or in the case of Avernus' concoction, gives me additional abilities to use in battle.

[Qun00]

Maybe not to you but it works for me in a videogame, especially if that hat has better stats than what I currently have. Or in the case of Avernus' concoction, gives me additional abilities to use in battle.

Fair enough.

Hey, if it was a nice looking hat..... >.>

And if the stains can be successfully removed...

[Illegitimus]

I came across this old thread about the subject and honestly, I wanted to strangle every little **** trying to be edgy with their "morality is for losers" talk.

A common argument was that destroying it just wastes the sacrifice of the human subjects. That would only be true if they had actually volunteered.

The other line that got thrown around a lot was that Avernus' actions can't be undone, so it doesn't matter if you drink or not. But I would argue that yes, there is meaning in the act.

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

That doesn't really work as justification. It only adds insult to injury.

 

...that would be a more compelling argument if I hadn't rolled countless bodies, robbed so many graves and wore Cailan's armor...to the Landsmeet.   

[Apo]

I think it depends on how your character thinks about it : will it be usefull or is it evil ?

And I think that drinking or not is tied, in the character's mind, to the decision to kill or let Avernus continue his experiments (ethically or not).

[Qis]

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

 

 

The Warden loot corpses in old ruins, Deep Roads, everywhere....

 

Like Bodhan said, "we cannot just leave them there..."

[sylvanaerie]

1. I agree with you to the point that not every Warden is gonna become a super morally-grey or become completely ruthless upon joining the Wardens, but one of the tenets of the Warden order is to achieve victory over the darkspawn and the blight at any cost.

 

I think you're placing too much faith in a person's sense of morality. Many people once they realize that moral contraints are no longer as strongly applied to them as they once were (Because while Wardens are held somewhat accountable for their actions by outside forces, for the most part they seem to be left alone) , they can become vastly different people.

 

Again, thats not to say everyone would just lose every moral fiber in their being upon becoming a Warden (See Alistair for example), but undergoing such a drastic change in your lifestyle to an order that doesn't care about right and wrong is bound to change some, and I would argue, many people.

 

Again, that depends on the individual. While I will grant you it is human nature and cult mentality that people adopt the attitudes of those around them, 'Many people' isn't the same as 'everyone'.  And in this instance the only two wardens you are exposed to with any frequency are yourself and Alistair, who isn't like that.  I should think if you were going to be an 'ends justifies the means' warden you would have certainly started with that mentality or at least had inklings of it from the beginning (which is probably one of the things that prompts Duncan to recruit your PC in the first place).  Certainly (as you point out) Alistair doesn't go all 'ends justifies the means' though he understands the necessity in his head, his heart tells him differently every time you make a 'not so nice' choice in the game as he gives you flak for it.

 

In the case of the PC (who is the one doing the drinking) this is especially so.  One could be RPing a morally reprehensible warden who is a borderline sociopath, or  you could be playing a forthright and honest one, who does his best for the good of everyone.  Just saying "It's a 'ends justifies the means' organization takes the responsibility out of the hands of the individual player and makes it seem very 'hive-mind'.  Like, 'now you have no choice in the matter, you must do it this way.  You don't get to choose."  I'm sure lots of war criminals had the same lament "I was just following orders".  That they don't get called into account for their actions is when one should be more aware of their morality, not less.

 

Spoiler

Look at the mess that happens in Inquisition because not enough of them questioned this 'ends justifies the means' mentality.

 

Too much "You drank the koolaid" in that scenario.
 

[Aren]

 

 

An evil character can destroy the concoction out of spite

This reason is stupid not evil.

There is no valid motivation to destroy it for an "evil character"  if with it more  evil can be achieved.

Is like saying:"i destroy this gun out of spite because i'm evil despite i know that i can do greater evil with it in my hands"

[Qun00]

The Warden loot corpses in old ruins, Deep Roads, everywhere....

Like Bodhan said, "we cannot just leave them there..."

It is a common custom to transfer a dead person's belongings, whether it is by inheritance or confiscated by the state when there is nobody to leave it to.

The problem is when there is a great horror involved, an atrocity so repulsive that you don't want to touch anything that was involved in performing the deed.

Everything that Avernus has learned already is in his notes about the experiments. Destroying the vial doesn't harm his research and it makes a strong statement that he'll have to do it ethically from now on.

[The Baconer]

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

That doesn't really work as justification. It only adds insult to injury.

It's not like we spend a good chunk of the game literally doing that.

Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that example.

[Qis]

It is a common custom to transfer a dead person's belongings, whether it is by inheritance or confiscated by the state when there is nobody to leave it to.

The problem is when there is a great horror involved, an atrocity so repulsive that you don't want to touch anything that was involved in performing the deed.

Everything that Avernus has learned already is in his notes about the experiments. Destroying the vial doesn't harm his research and it makes a strong statement that he'll have to do it ethically from now on.

 

Grave robbery is a grave robbery, no matter how want to justify it...archeologists say "we want to learn...", they dig up old graveyard and then make millions of cash by making a documentary about it, watch History Channel

 

Most of vaccines, medical breakthroughs, drugs we use today for our health care come from notorious WW2 experiments on prisoner of war...most cosmetic products are the result of notorious animal tests...

 

But ignorance is a bliss...if we know, will we still buy medicines and make ups...?

[Catilina]

You're a Warden. Their morality is the ends justifies the means.

There is some truth, but it is not justifies any means. (Yes, i drank it)

[dainbramage]

A common argument was that destroying it just wastes the sacrifice of the human subjects. That would only be true if they had actually volunteered.

 

Why do you think this?

[Qun00]

It's not like we spend a good chunk of the game literally doing that.
Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that example.

It was a real life example and it gets the point perfectly across when operating by those rules.

But if you want something strictly from the game's world, we need not look further than the slave trade. If a Tevinter slaver asked you to perform a task and the reward were some of the money he made from selling a little elf girl, would you accept it?

The origin does matter. There are always exceptions, of course, but there are things you just don't touch with a 10 ft pole.

Why do you think this?

Because one of the arguments is that you should honor the sacrifice of Avernus' test subjects. That's completely asinine. How does one insult their memory by not reaping the benefits of something they never wanted to do in the first place?

On the other hand, a Grey Warden giving his life to end the Blight is a deed to be honored. He believed in what he was doing.

It is far more likely that Avernus' victims died cursing his name than wishing his research to succeed.

[The Baconer]

It was a real life example and it gets the point perfectly across when operating by those rules.

But if you want something strictly from the game's world, we need not look further than the slave trade. If a Tevinter slaver asked you to perform a task and the reward were some of the money he made from selling a little elf girl, would you accept it?

The origin does matter. There are always exceptions, of course, but there are things you just don't touch with a 10 ft pole.

The key difference here is performing a task. Would completing it make me at all complicit in the selling of the girl? The Warden isn't doing anything to affect Avernus' research when they find the elixir, they just stumble upon it. Then it's their decision to drink it or not, even knowing where it came from.

That it was created from experiments on Wardens places it further in a gray area (heh). Their entire existence is the means to an end, which isn't to say Avernus' research is justifiable or should be continued, but it did bear some fruit. Might as well use it to kill Darkspawn.

[dainbramage]

It was a real life example and it gets the point perfectly across when operating by those rules.

But if you want something strictly from the game's world, we need not look further than the slave trade. If a Tevinter slaver asked you to perform a task and the reward were some of the money he made from selling a little elf girl, would you accept it?

The origin does matter. There are always exceptions, of course, but there are things you just don't touch with a 10 ft pole.


Because one of the arguments is that you should honor the sacrifice of Avernus' test subjects. That's completely asinine. How does one insult their memory by not reaping the benefits of something they never wanted to do in the first place?

On the other hand, a Grey Warden giving his life to end the Blight is a deed to be honored. He believed in what he was doing.

It is far more likely that Avernus' victims died cursing his name than wishing his research to succeed.

 

It's more like there's a pile of gold that the slaver has lying around which you can take (or did you leave it behind in the hospice?). By doing a task for him you're helping him, which then implicitly helps with the slaving. In drinking the concoction you benefit from the fruits of something unethical (like taking a slaver's gold), but that doesn't condone Avernus' experiments, or help him continue them.

[Mike3207]

This is a copout.  Just because you become a warden doesn't brain wash you into one blanket mentality.  Each individual warden has their own morality, and that doesn't change just because you became a warden.  This kind of statement makes it seem like the wardens are some kind of cult.  While a lot of them have shown to be this fanatic in the course of the games, a player character has his/her own personality and has to make his/her own choices based on the morality we set for them.

 

Not going to argue about Avernus concoction.  Some of my wardens drank it and some didn't.  It depended on the individual personality and what they sought to do with it.

Its my general impression of the Wardens, and I figure Alistair is the exception rather than the rule. They'd do anything if it helped them defeat the darkspawn and the Blights, up to and including blood magic. Your Warden might not toe the Warden line, but it's not going to make the life he leads among his fellow Wardens very easy.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I came across this old thread about the subject and honestly, I wanted to strangle every little **** trying to be edgy with their "morality is for losers" talk.

A common argument was that destroying it just wastes the sacrifice of the human subjects. That would only be true if they had actually volunteered.
 

I'm not sure I understand how that argument follows. Could you go into more detail as to the logic behind this counterargument?

 

The other line that got thrown around a lot was that Avernus' actions can't be undone, so it doesn't matter if you drink or not. But I would argue that yes, there is meaning in the act.

It is like coming across the body of a murdered victim, picking up her hat because it looks pretty, cleaning the blood stains and putting it on your head. Then someone questions you about it and you're like "What? She wasn't gonna need it anyway!".

Assuming for the sake of argument that there were no loved ones to claim the hat, and that the hat was useful in some way other than looking nice (because we need to assume both of these for the analogy to be valid,) why would this be a problem?