54 réponses à ce sujet

[Just My Moniker]

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, 1.'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.  2.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.  3.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

4.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.
 

1. Where did I say "everyone" would become a super morally grey and ruthless person upon joining the Grey Wardens? I even stated in my post you quoted that not everyone would just up and abandon their morals upon joining the order (I even gave Alistair as an example)

 

2. I concede to a certain degree. Someone who believes the ends justify the means probably has that instilled in themselves, but are you suggesting that peoples personalities, morals, and world outlook are impossible of changing? That if someone believes in doing good, nothing can ever change, or even alter that viewpoint to some degree, whatsoever?

 

3. I refuted the hive-mind claim in my other post in this thread. Yes, the ends justify the means in the Warden order, but that can also mean doing something good to achieve your goal, it doesn't have to mean always being super ruthless and morally base. There are probably many Wardens that walk a righteous path and probably many that some might consider evil, and there are probably many that take a route down the middle in the grey zone. Wardens do what they must to combat the blight, whether that be good, bad, or inbetween.

The fact that Wardens do what they must, isn't a hive mind, its a tenet of their order that their members follow according to their own interpretation.  

"That they don't get called into account for their actions is when one should be more aware of their morality, not less." I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Wardens should be held accountable for crimes they commit by outside powers? By higher ranking wardens? I would argue against that, but thats kind of for a different thread entirely.

 

4. Hmmm... kinda for a different thread (And forum section), but I'll touch on it.

Spoiler

The wardens in this situation were scared and desperate. They all thought they were dying and people who think they're dying can do pretty drastic things. To say they should have questioned their actions when they believed their very lives and the safety of all southern Thedas was at risk, is a little judgmental imo. Though they were completely wrong however, and allying with Corypheus was beyond stupid.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

 

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

Yes.

[sylvanaerie]

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...?

 

While some good may come from their atrocities, the amount of effective medicines and surgeries developed from them is hardly "most" of the treatments employed today.  Medicine has been around for hundreds of years.  Do you propose doctors just sat around learning nothing until some war criminals decided to use unethical means to satisfy their curiosity?  And the legacy as such seems to be a lot more limited than you propose.  From the wiki: (spoilered for those who have no desire to read it)

Spoiler

 

The results of the Dachau freezing experiments have been used in some modern research into the treatment of hypothermia, with at least 45 publications having referenced the experiments since the Second World War.^[31] This, together with the recent use of data from Naziresearch into the effects of phosgene gas, has proven controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain this data.^[19] Some object on an ethical basis, and others have rejected Nazi research purely on scientific grounds, pointing out methodological inconsistencies. In an often-cited review of the Dachau hypothermia experiments, Berger states that the study has "all the ingredients of a scientific fraud" and that the data "cannot advance science or save human lives."^[31]

Controversy has also risen from the use of results of biological warfare testing done by the Imperial Japanese Army's Unit 731.^[32] The results from Unit 731 were kept classified by the United States until the majority of doctors involved were given pardons.^[33]

 

 

Link to full article for those interested: 

https://en.wikipedia...experimentation

 

The first successful vaccine to be developed (smallpox) was created by Edward Jenner in 1796, a century and half before WW2, as an example. Reference: https://en.wikipedia...mallpox_vaccine

 

As for animal testing in cosmetics, while, yes, I'll grant you animals are used in testing, it has been banned in some nations and being considered for banning in several others.  Link to wiki as the article is a little long to cut/paste:

 

https://en.wikipedia...tics_on_animals

 

And also they are making versions of these products 'cruelty free'.  Whether these labels can be trusted is up to the individual buying the product and whether they care enough to do their research.  

 

And consider also, there is no comparison between life saving medicines (like vaccinations, high blood pressure meds, antibiotics, insulin or chemotherapy medications to name a few) and a vanity item like lipstick or fingernail polish.  So there are even varying degrees of ethical dilemma involved here.  In this instance I guess it depends on how vital it is to the individual to look like that model in the latest issue of Vogue or how much you care about animal testing vs human.

 

As for the original debate: Avernus' product might be akin to this comparison maybe.  Some may find it a 'necessary evil' to accomplish something good, others may see it as inexcusable, others may see nothing wrong with it, or view it as 'well, what's done is done, let's not let it go to waste.'  There are as varying motives as there are wardens for either destroying or drinking it.  In the end, each man or woman has to answer to himself for his actions.  The order may have an 'ends justifies the means' mentality but in the end, it's the warden who has to live with his choice and why he made it.

[sylvanaerie]

 

  

"That they don't get called into account for their actions is when one should be more aware of their morality, not less." I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Wardens should be held accountable for crimes they commit by outside powers? By higher ranking wardens? I would argue against that, but thats kind of for a different thread entirely.

 

4. Hmmm... kinda for a different thread (And forum section), but I'll touch on it.

Spoiler

The wardens in this situation were scared and desperate. They all thought they were dying and people who think they're dying can do pretty drastic things. To say they should have questioned their actions when they believed their very lives and the safety of all southern Thedas was at risk, is a little judgmental imo. Though they were completely wrong however, and allying with Corypheus was beyond stupid.

 

 

I seem to be digging myself into a deeper hole of miscommunication, but I'll try to explain my thoughts on the bolded though it will have to be in a spoiler tag since the subject is, as you rightly point out, better debated on the Inquisition boards openly than spoiler tagged here.

 

Spoiler

Let me use my original example.  Even among the rank and file of wardens present in Adamant, there are dissenting voices, silent until the Herald tries to persuade Clarel the order is being manipulated.  They said and did nothing to stem the tide.  Maybe they were too frightened to speak up, maybe they were afraid of rocking the boat.   Maybe they tried and failed, too few and too unsure of themselves to be noticed.  I don't know.  There could be any number of reasons why they did nothing while their fellows were sacrificed to summon demons.  And did nothing while the mages who summoned them turned "distant".  The lone voice among them calling for good sense (despite also being hounded by Corypheus false Calling just like all the others) was Hawke's warden friend (Alistair/Stroud/Loghain) and that person was hounded, hunted and outlawed by the warden commander.  Yet, by standing up to something he knows is wrong, he stands out and is able to face Nightmare with the conviction that he did his best.

 

A further example: the warden mage who turns herself in for judgement at the Inquisition.  She realized what she did, and despite having been manipulated, accepts full responsibility for her actions (however right or wrong she may be in her perspective).  She cannot get the others to judge her, so she judges herself, turns herself in.  In the end, her conscience cannot live with what she's done.

 

When the world around you is going insane, that's when you have to guard your morality even more closely, not give in to the impulses of the moment, or the pressure of the crowd to do something you know, in your heart is wrong, because at the end of the day you're the one who will have to live with your actions.

[vbibbi]

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.

But how pretty was the hat?

[vbibbi]

...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.   

To me, this is a slightly different scenario than basic corpse-looting. It's politics, which is a different kind of morality

 

I have Alistair wear Cailan's armor to the Landsmeet as a calculated move to show how similar he is to his half-brother. It's not parading the armor around and mocking the dead man, it's inheriting Cailan's legacy and trying to gain the throne to provide stability to the country. Plus, we have the option of setting Cailan's body to rest after getting his armor, so it's not like we stripped it from his corpse and then left him there. The darkspawn had already removed the armor and we're recovering it from them.

[Qun00]

While some good may come from their atrocities, the amount of effective medicines and surgeries developed from them is hardly "most" of the treatments employed today.  Medicine has been around for hundreds of years.  Do you propose doctors just sat around learning nothing until some war criminals decided to use unethical means to satisfy their curiosity?  And the legacy as such seems to be a lot more limited than you propose.  From the wiki: (spoilered for those who have no desire to read it)

Spoiler

 
The results of the Dachau freezing experiments have been used in some modern research into the treatment of hypothermia, with at least 45 publications having referenced the experiments since the Second World War.^[31] This, together with the recent use of data from Naziresearch into the effects of phosgene gas, has proven controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain this data.^[19] Some object on an ethical basis, and others have rejected Nazi research purely on scientific grounds, pointing out methodological inconsistencies. In an often-cited review of the Dachau hypothermia experiments, Berger states that the study has "all the ingredients of a scientific fraud" and that the data "cannot advance science or save human lives."^[31]
Controversy has also risen from the use of results of biological warfare testing done by the Imperial Japanese Army's Unit 731.^[32] The results from Unit 731 were kept classified by the United States until the majority of doctors involved were given pardons.^[33]
 

 
Link to full article for those interested: 
https://en.wikipedia...experimentation
 
The first successful vaccine to be developed (smallpox) was created by Edward Jenner in 1796, a century and half before WW2, as an example. Reference: https://en.wikipedia...mallpox_vaccine
 
As for animal testing in cosmetics, while, yes, I'll grant you animals are used in testing, it has been banned in some nations and being considered for banning in several others.  Link to wiki as the article is a little long to cut/paste:
 
https://en.wikipedia...tics_on_animals
 
And also they are making versions of these products 'cruelty free'.  Whether these labels can be trusted is up to the individual buying the product and whether they care enough to do their research.  
 
And consider also, there is no comparison between life saving medicines (like vaccinations, high blood pressure meds, antibiotics, insulin or chemotherapy medications to name a few) and a vanity item like lipstick or fingernail polish.  So there are even varying degrees of ethical dilemma involved here.  In this instance I guess it depends on how vital it is to the individual to look like that model in the latest issue of Vogue or how much you care about animal testing vs human.
 
As for the original debate: Avernus' product might be akin to this comparison maybe.  Some may find it a 'necessary evil' to accomplish something good, others may see it as inexcusable, others may see nothing wrong with it, or view it as 'well, what's done is done, let's not let it go to waste.'  There are as varying motives as there are wardens for either destroying or drinking it.  In the end, each man or woman has to answer to himself for his actions.  The order may have an 'ends justifies the means' mentality but in the end, it's the warden who has to live with his choice and why he made it.

Also, it's a different situation when morally good alternatives aren't available or, as it happens sometimes, not even presented though it potentially could have.

But that's not what we're dealing with here. There isn't a need that can only be answered by drinking the potion. You can walk a way.

[Nixou]

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.

 

 

Vanilla Inquisition's epilogue implies that things may be changing.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

But that's not what we're dealing with here. There isn't a need that can only be answered by drinking the potion. You can walk a way.

Nor is there any concrete good that's served by not doing drinking the potion. Nobody's life is easier or longer because the Warden did not drink the potion. But peoples lives can become easier and longer because the Warden became more powerful, and if the Warden doesn't have to deliberately kill anyone or let them die, and is too late to save the people who had to die to generate the power, why not? Things would be different if this was a setting where instead of drinking the potion you could dump 10000 GP worth of diamond dust into it and save the person whose corpse it was made with, but you can't. Either there's the silver lining that you became more powerful, or there is none.

[Qun00]

Nor is there any concrete good that's served by not doing drinking the potion. Nobody's life is easier or longer because the Warden did not drink the potion. But peoples lives can become easier and longer because the Warden became more powerful, and if the Warden doesn't have to deliberately kill anyone or let them die, and is too late to save the people who had to die to generate the power, why not? Things would be different if this was a setting where instead of drinking the potion you could dump 10000 GP worth of diamond dust into it and save the person whose corpse it was made with, but you can't. Either there's the silver lining that you became more powerful, or there is none.

A benefit isn't really required when you make a choice. But sure, that's a fairly good reasoning when you're playing a morally grey hero.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

A benefit isn't really required when you make a choice. But sure, that's a fairly good reasoning when you're playing a morally grey hero.

I don't see where the grey is. Is my Warden killing his brothers? Or allowing their deaths by his inaction?

[Qun00]

I'm curious... isn't the concoction basically tainted blood? Shouldn't drinking it shorten the Warden's lifespan, at least in theory?

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


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?

Avernus' victims didn't support his goal. There is no sacrifice being dishonored by not drinking the potion.

Well, unless we look at it from a Morrigan-y point of view, there is something called respect for the dead and people's suffering. Not everything boils down to "What do I get out of this?".

I don't see where the grey is. Is my Warden killing his brothers? Or allowing their deaths by his inaction?

I've already addressed this. I won't repeat myself just because you didn't read the other posts in the thread.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm curious... isn't the concoction basically tainted blood? Shouldn't drinking it shorten the Warden's lifespan, at least in theory?

It could. Or it could lengthen it. We know Avernus is doing something to make his life longer, and it could be the potion or something related to it. (Though personally I think he's possessed. He says his longevity is derived from "a similar source" to the demon that possessed Sophia.) 

 

Avernus' victims didn't support his goal. There is no sacrifice being dishonored by not drinking the potion.

They were, strictly speaking, sacrificed. I think I even agree that they should not have been. I don't know that you can say this sacrifice can be "honored," but that's not the same as saying it can't be "wasted," is it?

 

Well, unless we look at it from a Morrigan-y point of view, there is something called respect for the dead and people's suffering. Not everything boils down to "What do I get out of this?".

While I'm not sure you've adequately explained what the problem with that is, assuming that the additional qualifiers I put in for the sake of making it a relevant analogy are being assumed true, let's add another one I should have added last time: suppose that having the hat somehow makes you more able to help others, the same way being more powerful does for The Warden. Then where's the issue, even by the standards you just set forth? It's no longer necessarily about what the looter's getting out of it, is it?

 

 

I've already addressed this. I won't repeat myself just because you didn't read the other posts in the thread.

You addressed it, but I don't know that you explained it. The closest I could find was you asserting that the act of refusing to use the potion that people have already been killed for has meaning.

 

Edit: Actually, you also said that if there was a great enough horror involved in something, you might not want to touch it, but like Qis said, if I'm in the hospital for hypothermia I want proper treatment. I am nearly positive the world would be a better place if the Holocaust never happened (assuming there's no Doctor Who-type, fixed point in time, lesser of two evils thing going on where if the Third Reich didn't do it a cleverer evil regime would have done so more successfully), but it did happen, and we apparently learned something about hypothermia from it. Not using that knowledge doesn't make the world a better place, it makes it a worse place.

[Cyrus Amell]

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.

 

 

Avernus' victims didn't support his goal. There is no sacrifice being dishonored by not drinking the potion.

Well, unless we look at it from a Morrigan-y point of view, there is something called respect for the dead and people's suffering. Not everything boils down to "What do I get out of this?".


I've already addressed this. I won't repeat myself just because you didn't read the other posts in the thread.

 

 

 

Well yes. That is terrible in the given context. 

 

But, if you came across that murder victim 200 years later such an act would certainly have a less acrimonious light. Players regularly loot the long dead of valuables, with no reverence or regard or a "this belongs in a museum" moment. The Alchemical Concoction is no different, despite the horrific nature of its creation. So why show respect for the long dead here in this Grey Warden Fortress and not show similar respect in Elven Ruins or Dwarven Thaigs? An adventurer in any fantasy setting is a pragmatist who uses whatever is available on the road before a big bad needs to be killed, with only slight derivations to mirror some moral conundrum and add depth to the journey.  

 

As for the man who committed this heinous act, he has been stuck in a demon infested tower for 200 years. Frankly, it's a wonder that he did not go completely mad from the isolation and constantly fighting for survival. I did not kill him because I felt that he could yet redeem himself (and of course, I am a mage with an interest in future longevity) and because his life up until this point was not spent selfishly but rather preventing a demonic invasion when he could easily have fled long ago. 

 

The same goes for this concoction of his, as the aid it can lend your Warden against the Blight and the end of the world can go someway to redeeming this entire horrible situation.

 

But yes, I concur that if the Alchemical Concoction was brimming with the lyrium infused blood of my recently slain fellow Grey Wardens I would be far more inclined to take the thing and bash Avernus' head in with it. Perhaps 200 years was too much time to add to this moral dilemma. The Anvil of the Void Decision Point had more immediacy because you knew some poor sods were going to be sacrificed right after it was secured. 

[KaiserShep]

When I first came across this, my initial thought when considering whether or not the Warden should drink it was basically: "If I walked into a creepy ass room that looked like a dungeon run by a mad wizard, do I want to just drink some random junk on a table without really knowing what it'll do to me?" So of course I didn't drink it. 

[Cyrus Amell]

When I first came across this, my initial thought when considering whether or not the Warden should drink it was basically: "If I walked into a creepy ass room that looked like a dungeon run by a mad wizard, do I want to just drink some random junk on a table without really knowing what it'll do to me?" So of course I didn't drink it. 

 

Well spoken and true. It is more prudent to drink the concoction, if so inclined, only after Avernus has explained what it is when speaking to him. It is less likely to kill you if Avernus wants you to live and help him face the demons I should imagine. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

When I first came across this, my initial thought when considering whether or not the Warden should drink it was basically: "If I walked into a creepy ass room that looked like a dungeon run by a mad wizard, do I want to just drink some random junk on a table without really knowing what it'll do to me?" So of course I didn't drink it. 

That Avernus's work might be toxic (or that the Taint in it might shorten the PC's lifespan) is a legitimate concern, but doesn't really speak to the morality of using it.

[Qis]

Alright let's look at other point of view, we eat animals, we kill animals to eat them, vegan sure love to demonize meat eater for this, but we human do eat meat, it's one of our food chain, it's our nature. Although we can choose not to eat meat, does that make eating meat is evil? Just because some people choose not to eat meat, it does not make them having high morality...

 

Vegetables are living being also...despite what vegan try to make excuse that plants don't have brain and feel no pain, that's their excuse, we can see plants do react to threats and some that can do avoid harm by moving away from threats, they are living and having reactions. In some religion plants do have souls.

 

So, morality is very subjective, it's only about justifications, human will find justifications for actions...like Palpatine said, "good is a point of view..."

 

When asking about morality, it's depend on people point of view.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Alright let's look at other point of view, we eat animals, we kill animals to eat them, vegan sure love to demonize meat eater for this, but we human do eat meat, it's one of our food chain, it's our nature. Although we can choose not to eat meat, does that make eating meat is evil? Just because some people choose not to eat meat, it does not make them having high morality...

 

Vegetables are living being also...despite what vegan try to make excuse that plants don't have brain and feel no pain, that's their excuse, we can see plants do react to threats and some that can do avoid harm by moving away from threats, they are living and having reactions. In some religion plants do have souls.

Please stop it. You're making me crave a chicken and broccoli stir-fry.

[RoseLawliet]

Honestly, what is so bad about using something that's already made? You're not the one who did all those horrible things, but you are the one who can try to use the product to save the country. His subjects might have hated him, might have wished him to fail... but they don't exist anymore. The concerns of the dead should not outweigh the lives of the living.

 

Somewhat related?

It's not like the Collector base in ME2. I blew that thing up to spite Cerberus. Also because I didn't trust TIM. Avernus' potion is being used by the PC.

[kimgoold]

My Warden's never drink the Vial and destroy it, but they Are Wardens and allow Avernus to live and help the wardens with Ethical research; otherwise those other wardens who were slaughtered died for nothing. But I believed the HoF struck him from the wardens ranks and more had Avernus as a prisoner atoning for their sins until he died.

[Dai Grepher]

My Hero did not drink it, because it would be immoral to benefit from the suffering of others. He also did not destroy it, because then their suffering was all for nothing.

 

He wanted it to remain as a guide for ethical research, or if it is ever needed some day for some higher purpose, like surviving in the Black City so the taint can be removed, or to allow anyone to take the Joining to survive, or to possibly produce a cure, or something like that. Then it would be ethical to use it.

 

But not for self gain.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

My Hero did not drink it, because it would be immoral to benefit from the suffering of others. He also did not destroy it, because then their suffering was all for nothing.

 

He wanted it to remain as a guide for ethical research, or if it is ever needed some day for some higher purpose, like surviving in the Black City so the taint can be removed, or to allow anyone to take the Joining to survive, or to possibly produce a cure, or something like that. Then it would be ethical to use it.

 

But not for self gain.

I don't get how that works. I agree that it's immoral to cause others to suffer for your own benefit, or even to benefit from allowing it, but how is it immoral to benefit from the suffering of others if you can do nothing about that suffering?

 

I do get the rationale for saving it for a rainy day, though. That I don't object to.

[RoseLawliet]

My Hero did not drink it, because it would be immoral to benefit from the suffering of others. He also did not destroy it, because then their suffering was all for nothing.

 

He wanted it to remain as a guide for ethical research, or if it is ever needed some day for some higher purpose, like surviving in the Black City so the taint can be removed, or to allow anyone to take the Joining to survive, or to possibly produce a cure, or something like that. Then it would be ethical to use it.

 

But not for self gain.

 

If it sits there, gathering dust... then their suffering was for nothing because it hasn't been used. It sounds like you're setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation:

 

Drink the potion: "How dare you! That's unethical! This is a product of suffering, you monster!"

Don't drink it: "How dare you! That's cruel! They suffered and you're just ignoring what they made possible?!"

[Qun00]

Honestly, what is so bad about using something that's already made? You're not the one who did all those horrible things, but you are the one who can try to use the product to save the country. His subjects might have hated him, might have wished him to fail... but they don't exist anymore. The concerns of the dead should not outweigh the lives of the living.
 
Somewhat related?
It's not like the Collector base in ME2. I blew that thing up to spite Cerberus. Also because I didn't trust TIM. Avernus' potion is being used by the PC.

Actions have meaning. Not everything should be reduced to immediate benefits and strictly what can be perceived by the eyes.