54 réponses à ce sujet

[Dai Grepher]

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?

It comes down to justifying their torture and defiling their memory. If you use it to enrich yourself, or benefit yourself with more power or centuries long lifespan, then you are saying that their past torture is something you accept if it resulted in you reaping the rewards of their suffering. Like drug money. Someone you know gives you money made from selling drugs. Would you accept it? Why not? The person's long gone getting high somewhere, destroying his or her life.

Also, it is disrespectful to their memory and their lives. We have laws against grave robbing, right? Why? The dead aren't using any jewelry they're buried with. They don't need those gold fillings anymore.

It's also hypocritical if you tell Avernus to conduct ethical research while you benefit from his unethical research.

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?!"

But you aren't ignoring their suffering. You are acknowledging it and refusing to lift yourself up by stepping on them. As long as you read about what happened to them and respect what they went through, leaving the concoction alone does not ignore what they went through. Their torture should not have happened. Leaving the concoction there means you are leaving the proof of their torture intact. It happened. You acknowledge that. And you refuse to benefit from their suffering. But allowing it to remain gives it the possibility to lead to some greater good.

My Cousland believed that smashing it made their suffering all for nothing, and removed the physical manifestation of their torture. It meant everything they went through was wasted, all that's left is their suffering. I think this was the hardest decision he made in the game, whether to smash it or not. But ultimately he chose to leave it be, to respect their memory and allow for the possibility for a greater good to come from it either through ethical research or if a terrible problem arose in which the concoction would be needed.

My Amell drank it without a second thought. He always wants more power, and doesn't care about the suffering of others.

My Surana destroyed it without a second thought. She is a Chantry Loyalist who saw the torture and result of it as evil. To her, the concoction was the fruit of evil deeds, and thus had to be destroyed.

[RoseLawliet]

Ok, so how is maybe using it to research a cure to the taint better than using it to maybe stop the darkspawn from destroying everything? I'm just having trouble understanding why the one is acceptable to you but not the other. If the darkspawn win, then everyone's suffering and dead and no one can remember a tiny group out of everyone sufferend in a slightly different way?

[Dai Grepher]

Ok, so how is maybe using it to research a cure to the taint better than using it to maybe stop the darkspawn from destroying everything? I'm just having trouble understanding why the one is acceptable to you but not the other. If the darkspawn win, then everyone's suffering and dead and no one can remember a tiny group out of everyone sufferend in a slightly different way?

Used on a Warden it wins a few battles for that Warden. Used on a cure it wins the whole war for all people.

The Warden doesn't need the concoction to defeat darkspawn, it only makes it a little easier for him to do so. But if the concoction can lead to a cure for the taint, it can save many lives from the corruption. It can cleanse blighted lands. It might even be effective in killing darkspawn.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

It comes down to justifying their torture and defiling their memory. If you use it to enrich yourself, or benefit yourself with more power or centuries long lifespan, then you are saying that their past torture is something you accept if it resulted in you reaping the rewards of their suffering.

I don't believe that's really true. I believe that you can use something that should never have existed without believing that its creation was justified, and assuming using it results in no further evil and you don't use it for evil you can still be justified. I certainly don't believe respecting the torture victims really comes into it as an argument in either direction.

 

Like drug money. Someone you know gives you money made from selling drugs. Would you accept it? Why not? The person's long gone getting high somewhere, destroying his or her life.

Is the assumption that I didn't do anything evil to get this money? If so, why did you assume the question "why not?" is justified?

 

This is a harder question than asking whether the Warden is justified in gaining power that will help them do their essential job through a potion that should never have been created, since me having money only benefits me, but it's not much harder.

 

 

Also, it is disrespectful to their memory and their lives. We have laws against grave robbing, right? Why? The dead aren't using any jewelry they're buried with. They don't need those gold fillings anymore.

Indeed they aren't/don't. I do wonder why anyone would want to be buried with gold that the rest of us could use. I probably wouldn't personally rob their graves for it, not least because they might have surviving loved ones who will be hurt by me doing this. (It's worth noting that this isn't the case with the long-dead Wardens at Soldier's Peak.) But I wouldn't judge someone else who robbed graves too harshly (especially if whoever it was had no surviving loved ones who were offended by this,) and I especially wouldn't judge anyone who defiled a corpse in the name of something actually worthwhile, such as added power to survive fighting darkspawn and to help others. (I think a lot of the people who are arguing this decision is immoral are assuming, not necessarily justifiably, that the Warden's motivation is selfish.)

 

Though maybe a lot of this is the gamer in me talking. Bear in mind that I've been robbing virtual graves since games advertised that they were Y2K compliant.

 

It's also hypocritical if you tell Avernus to conduct ethical research while you benefit from his unethical research.

I benefit from Avernus's unethical research in order to gain the power to do good. I limit Avernus to ethical research in the future in order to gain more such power without having to give him permission to do anything bad. In both cases my actions are meant to increase the good in the world and decrease the bad. That my principles are not your principles does not mean that I apply them inconsistently.

 

But you aren't ignoring their suffering. You are acknowledging it and refusing to lift yourself up by stepping on them. As long as you read about what happened to them and respect what they went through, leaving the concoction alone does not ignore what they went through. Their torture should not have happened. Leaving the concoction there means you are leaving the proof of their torture intact. It happened. You acknowledge that. And you refuse to benefit from their suffering. But allowing it to remain gives it the possibility to lead to some greater good.

 

A Warden who drinks this is not necessarily one who does not care that it was created through torture, and is not necessarily one who needs proof in order to remember. As for lifting yourself up by stepping on them, they're to all appearances long past caring where you put your feet. Unless Avernus distilled their souls into that potion (not likely) there's nothing you can do for or to them.

 

Used on a Warden it wins a few battles for that Warden. Used on a cure it wins the whole war for all people.

The Warden doesn't need the concoction to defeat darkspawn, it only makes it a little easier for him to do so. But if the concoction can lead to a cure for the taint, it can save many lives from the corruption. It can cleanse blighted lands. It might even be effective in killing darkspawn.

Which means that if this was possible it would be worth keeping aside for that purpose. But this headcanon is unlikely to be followed through, and we don't know that it could be used this way even if Avernus tried. It's probably best to assume that if you leave it there, what happens is it's left there.

 

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

 

You've said this before, but I'm not sure I understand what this means.

[RoseLawliet]

Used on a Warden it wins a few battles for that Warden. Used on a cure it wins the whole war for all people.

The Warden doesn't need the concoction to defeat darkspawn, it only makes it a little easier for him to do so. But if the concoction can lead to a cure for the taint, it can save many lives from the corruption. It can cleanse blighted lands. It might even be effective in killing darkspawn.

 

But isn't that last point getting a little meta? My first time through the game (ultimate edition) I was genuinely afraid that I could fail. I imagine actually being in this situation would only increase that fear. It isn't a given that the Warden will succeed.