4635 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

I am curious, though. Why does Solas feel like he has the right to modify the very Earth and directly affect billions (?) of lives by his decision alone?

This is the second time he does this. If Solas could see the value and potential of ordinary actions, perhaps he wouldn't have brought so much misery to his people and ultimately himself.


Solas is the new Loghain. And as such, his fandom is divided into two types: Those that love him despite his misdeeds and those that recognize his flaws but don't consider them "real flaws". There is justification for every tiny detail.

I'd argue that the first time, by raising the Veil, was probably necessary, cause the Evanuris were going nuts, and the Veil might have been the only way to take the Evanuris by surprise and cut them off from some of their power. But I definitely agree on this second occasion with you. I don't know what gives him the right to change and potentially kill any non-elven life by destroying the Veil.

[Addictress]

 

I missed that part.

The Orb  and all the consequences that derived from it killed far more people than what he saved with the inquisition.

 

The veil resulted into the annihilation of a considerable part of "his people" thus he inderctly killed more elves than anyone else.

 

To clarify, I meant that in a hypothetical way like - 'based on Solas' belief.'

 

I'm not stating that objectively, more lives WILL be saved.

 

At the end of the day, a man whose headflesh is grafted onto an Oculus Rift which shows him a world in which he must do X to be good is judged according to the principles within the game he is locked into, in my eyes. Although in reality he is incorrect, I have empathy and understand where he is coming from. Either because the writers have lead us through their shoes or because I bring some similar experience of my own to the table.

 

So that's why Loghain and Solas are interesting villains and on the brink of redemption. It appears that there is at least a 50% chance that they are the heroes in their own heads and it's a matter of forcefully merging their internal realities with the realities around them, not an external good striking down an irreversible evil nature as some would paint them to be.

[German Soldier]

I'd argue that the first time, by raising the Veil, was probably necessary, cause the Evanuris were going nuts

Which is solely based on Solas word.

For all i know he may had desired revenge for Mythal  and there wasn't any apocalyptic war between the Evanuris.

We simply don't know what the "gods" were doing.

He destoryed Arlathan not the Evanuris.

[Hellion Rex]

Yes we do. He says how his plan will result in the deaths of humans, dwarves, qunari, and even the modern elves all so he can save the remaining ancient elves. 

Technically, he didn't differentiate between the old elves and current elves. He simply says "my people". But it is worthy to note that he did include everyone alive currently when mentioning that it was like "walking through a world of Tranquil".

 

One question we need answered is if he plans to include modern elves in his dreams of restoring what once was, or if he feeds a believable lie to these current elves in exchange for their help in restoring his people. Unfortunately, I think it will be the latter, and I feel terrible for the elves (particularly the City elves) that will have been duped by it. Because he will be taking great advantage of a downtrodden people who look to him almost as a messiah to free them from oppression and second hand citizenry.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Rampant confirmation bias. The only thing he said is that "I will save the elvhen people" which at this point we don't really know what they are. Hardly any of his statements about this matter are explicit enough to claim that the world will most definitely end and everyone who ain't ancient elves will most definitely die. We also have no idea whatsoever what is the true number of people he tries to save, so you saying that he's sacrificing all for the handful of elves is entirely unconfirmed.

 

Another thing - "death" can mean many things. He himself says that he's on din'anshiral - the path of death, but in an edgame dialogue with Cole he claims that he will walk the path he's on for eternity and states that he "will never forget" romanced Lavellan. Mythal was also "killed" - yet she's still alive. "Death" of one world, or civilization, doesn't mean the end of it all. It wasn't an end of it all when he "destroyed the world of elves", wasn't it?

 

In other words, we don't even know what will happen. What if "death" is more metaphorical, which in a world where symbolism and meaning and shifting perspective actually has an effect on reality can mean many things. So far we only know that there are prophecies and hints, and one of the major prophecies that seems to be tied to what Solas is doing claims that "everyone will be like they were". Not elves, not ancient elves - everyone. 

The only one with rampant confirmation bias is you. You're twisting the words of both others and Solas to fit your perspective. 

 

He mentions multiple times about how restoring his world will end ours, how our people(regardless of Inquisitor race) will end, how the world and it's people will "burn in the raw chaos", etc. He mentions it enough in such unambiguous terms that explicitly shows that this world and the people in it will die, not metaphorically but factually. 

 

Technically, he didn't differentiate between the old elves and current elves. He simply says "my people". But it is worthy to note that he did include everyone alive currently when mentioning that it was like "walking through a world of Tranquil".

 

One question we need answered is if he plans to include modern elves in his dreams of restoring what once was, or if he feeds a believable lie to these current elves in exchange for their help in restoring his people. Unfortunately, I think it will be the latter, and I feel terrible for the elves (particularly the City elves) that will have been duped by it. Because he will be taking great advantage of a downtrodden people who look to him almost as a messiah to free them from oppression and second hand citizenry.

If you are elf, he says he will restore his people even at the expense of yours. So yes, he has differentiated them. Plus why would he kill Felassan for seeing modern elves as people if he wants to restore modern elves? 

 

So yes, it is clear to me that he is using the Elves he converts to his cause by saying he will restore the elvhen people. He is going to restore the elvhen people, the issue is he doesn't see the modern elves as elvhen. Same with Abelas, another ancient elf. 

[German Soldier]

 

So that's why Loghain and Solas are interesting villains and on the brink of redemption. It appears that there is at least a 50% chance that they are the heroes in their own heads and it's a matter of forcefully merging their internal realities with the realities around them, not an external good striking down an irreversible evil nature as some would paint them to be.

I have never compared Solas with Loghain because the differences between them are immense.

Solas is for me more close to the Architect,they both wanted to save,free and restore their people at the cost of the current world.

[Hellion Rex]

 

Which is solely based on Solas word.

For all i know he may had desired revenge for Mythal  and there wasn't any apocalyptic war between the Evanuris.

We simply don't know what the "gods" were doing.

He destoryed Arlathan not the Evanuris.

 

That's fair. While I'm certainly not taking his words without a grain of salt, at the same time, we have evidence in codex entries from Trespasser that the Evanuris were up to something prior to the empire's downfall, and that it did not bode well for the world. 

[Addictress]

 

Nobody can sustain itself into the fade physically without dying unless it has special tools like the anchor or is protected by the old gods or is an ancient elf.

Ancient elves don't need the fade to survive they need it to empower themseleves ad nothing more,Solas isn't saving anyone he merely desire the elves in the shame shape they had without the veil.

 

Well people who like Solas headcanon that in Solas' eyes the current people are less.

 

Yeah it sounds like a racist dictator unleashing genocide. I kno

 

But

 

honestly

 

It's a tough question but you do have to think about it. It's kind of like if I had to choose between saving a beetle and saving a bear.

 

The bear is just more 'complex and valuable' in a life and death situation. I'd probably save the bear. 

 

And animal rights people would smack me upside my face. But such reasoning does exist.

[Addictress]

And even when he admits in Trespasser that the current people of Thedas are people, maybe that's just like saying "yeah, that beetle is alive. It is alive indeed"

 

But still, beetle vs. bear? I'd save the bear.

[Lezio]

Well people who like Solas headcanon that in Solas' eyes the current people are less.

 

Yeah it sounds like a racist dictator unleashing genocide. I kno

 

But

 

honestly

 

It's a tough question but you do have to think about it. It's kind of like if I had to choose between saving a beetle and saving a bear.

 

The bear is just more 'complex and valuable' in a life and death situation. I'd probably save the bear. 

 

And animal rights people would smack me upside my face. But such reasoning does exist.

 

It's more like "kill the dog to maybe possibly save the bear, maybe"

[German Soldier]

Technically, he didn't differentiate between the old elves and current elves. He simply says "my people". But it is worthy to note that he did include everyone alive currently when mentioning that it was like "walking through a world of Tranquil".

 

One question we need answered is if he plans to include modern elves in his dreams of restoring what once was

He want to use the modern elves for some ritual in order to complete his plans and restore the ancient elves this can possibly mean two things:

 

a)He would use them to restore the ancient elves possibly as a sort of sacrfice since elven blood has the chance to tear the veil to the point of allowing people to travel phsycially and this can subsitute the anchor that he lost

 

 

b)He want to transform modern elves in ancient elves before to tear down the veil  (maybe he know where another Orb is)

[Almostfaceman]

For me, the obvious comparison Bioware wants to draw is the hero doing what they think they need to do to save whatever they think they need to save. 

 

What do we do, generally, in our games? We're the hero, saving something. Sometimes it's the world, sometimes it's the victims. You get the drift. 

 

They take Solas. From the perspective of Solas, he saves the world thousands of years ago. 

 

When we play a video game, from our perspective we save the world. 

 

If Bioware gave us a game and we as the hero saved the world from our perspective, only for it to turn out like crap later on... a lot of us would be pissed and send more cup cakes to Bioware's headquarters. 

 

So instead of doing that to us, they did it to Solas. 

 

Now Solas is facing what seems to him a hard choice. These are the kind of hard choices that I believe Bioware really wants to have us face as players... so they're having us look at those choices through Solas.

 

I bet in DA4, we'll find out more about the plan of Solas and the challenges he's facing and find out that preserving the Veil is a tougher choice than at first it appears. 

[Hellion Rex]

And even when he admits in Trespasser that the current people of Thedas are people, maybe that's just like saying "yeah, that beetle is alive. It is alive indeed"

 

But still, beetle vs. bear? I'd save the bear.

Quite. While he did admit that he was wrong, the way he said it still made me think that he sees us as lesser.

[midnight tea]

It's more like "kill the dog to maybe possibly save the bear, maybe"

 

Or kill people to save people? It's not like it didn't happen in real life. I still know of people who had to make heart-wrenching decisions during WWII. It just so happens that I live in a country where occupying Nazis created an inhumane law - every person who was found out helping a Jew was sentenced to death... together with their entire family.

 

Don't help or kill your Jewish friends, or neighbors, or family members to save your family? Not a dilemma I'd ever want to be in.

[Qun00]

1. I really doubt we're all going to come to a consensus on who has "the right" to change the world and to what degree.

2. What is it with people-who-dislike-Solas's obsession with (incorrectly) categorizing people-who-enjoy-his-character? You're just making yourself look ignorant and petty, because so far these gross generalizations and oversimplifications have been far from accurate. There are plenty of Solas fans who accept that he is flawed. I think you might be falsely equating understanding his flaws with forgiving them.

And yet that is what they do. Not a single word is uttered to actually condemn Solas' actions.

There is much talk of the great reasoning in his actions, the great motivation, why he had no choice, why he deserves all sympathy in the world. When the entire text focuses on reasons to absolve him, then it becomes an argument for forgiveness.

The question is, why should complexity automatically lead to the conclusion that one was right? To be a morally grey character doesn't mean "His actions were good, but the oh-so-little-minds can't understand why they're good".

It is closer to being a criminal who gets a shorter jail sentence due to mitigating factors.

[midnight tea]

And yet that is what they do. Not a single word is uttered to actually condemn Solas' actions.

There is much talk of the great reasoning in his actions, the great motivation, why he had no choice, why he deserves all sympathy in the world.

The question is, why should complexity automatically lead to the conclusion that one was right? To be a morally grey character doesn't mean "His actions were good, but the oh-so-little-minds can't understand why they're good".

 

 

You keep repeating how Solas is "grey" yet you interpret any time a person describes or puts him in grey, complex light as complete whitewashing or justification or something. For you it seems that grey is not really that far or different from black.

 

Plus - there's so much oversimplification, equivocation and interpreting him in least charitable light possible, that at many points in thread this is simply attempt to un-skew the picture. The fact that he's flawed and nobody really wants to see him do bad things to the world (or do bad things to the world without a reallllllllly good reason for it) is sort of a no-brainer. Pretty much everybody who likes or argues for Solas underlined in this discussion more than a few times. That you don't see this speaks more about your attitude towards the character or discussion that happens.

[Xerrai]

And yet that is what they do. Not a single word is uttered to actually condemn Solas' actions.

Actually there have been several.

If you couldn't see them through the dredge that the near-immortal "Solas is X" debates, then that's fine. But just because you didn't see them, does not mean they are not there.

 

Few of us actually agree with how Solas is doing things, but we find ourselves capable of sympathy with him regardless. Yet somehow that sympathy, even while we do not agree with his actions, is always twisted by someone or another as being compliant with Solas' plans.

 

It's almost as if any response that denounces Solas's plan, but is not actively getting angry at him and is  Solas hater, is not a valid answer at all. As if, somehow, just because we like his character, that must mean any statement we have on not condoning his actions is a lie.

[Qun00]

You keep repeating how Solas is "grey" yet you interpret any time a person describes or puts him in grey, complex light as complete whitewashing or justification or something. For you it seems that grey is not really that far or different from black.

Plus - there's so much oversimplification, equivocation and interpreting him in least charitable light possible, that at many points in thread this is simply attempt to un-skew the picture. The fact that he's flawed and nobody really wants to see him do bad things to the world (or do bad things to the world without a reallllllllly good reason for it) is sort of a no-brainer. Pretty much everybody who likes or argues for Solas underlined in this discussion more that a few times. That you don't see this speaks more about your attitude towards the character or discussion that happens.

I just believe there is a difference between "He clearly had good intentions, but it led to a serious mistake" and "It is less than ideal, but still the best course of action".

When both motivation AND methods employed are defended, then what fault is there to be found? This person is completely absolved and can go home.

[midnight tea]

I just believe there is a difference between "He clearly had good intentions, but it led to a serious mistake" and "It is less than ideal, but still the best course of action".

When both motivation AND methods employed are defended, then what fault is there to be found? This person is completely absolved and can go home.

 

Who ever said that his course of actions is the best  ? EVEN IF we assume that his goal is objectively justifiable, his way of obtaining that goal may not be, and so far it seems it is not. I mean - how many choices in DA are better than others, while some are questionable? Keep the Anvil and golems or not? Ally with Qun or save Chargers?

 

And there's a whole wealth of difference between "defending" from unreasonable accusations and defending a person from any blame. Like, really - you speak of greyess a lot, but I notice you ignore a lot of nuance. One defense is not equal to other.

[BansheeOwnage]

You do realize you say everything "it's not ok" and yet you excuse his every action by saying stuff like "he gave the orb to Corypheus because he wanted to off a maniac, his intentions were pure!!!!!" or "He killed his friend because the latter gave a s*** about life, but he's ancient and complex and is on a (self-imposed) quest to changethe world!!!!" or "he changed his mind later on(after killing said friend[but he was also an agent so he knew the risks!!!]) because he's open-minded and now he considers everyone people(in 2 out of 3 scenario and still wants to kill them all anyway)!!!!" and so forth and so on

Funny how I leave with a post about the difference between understanding Solas and forgiving him, and people oversimplifying his character doing it a disservice, and when I get back, that's still exactly what's happening

 

Oh well, I didn't really expect different I guess.

[midnight tea]

Funny how I leave with a post about the difference between understanding Solas and forgiving him, and people oversimplifying his character doing it a disservice, and when I get back, that's still exactly what's happening

 

Oh well, I didn't really expect different I guess.

 

It's pretty amazing isn't it? And then, after pages upon pages of demonstrating acute bias or lack of reading comprehension or simply lack of will to read what is exactly written some people get all dramatic about the fact that sometimes people are called wrong, blind or, on some rare occasion, childish. Because what else could that be? The position of some is patently clear "Solas is all kinds of wrong and something is wrong with you for liking/getting/sympathizing with him, and when you utter a single word of support for Solas or point out the complexity of situation you're obviously absolving him from every single fault he has" 

[BansheeOwnage]

 

I judge him based on what i see is someone who fought fake gods and yet behaves just like one, someone who would sacrifice just about anyone to accomplish his self-imposed quest, someone who destroyed the world once because he chose to (he made the veil after the Evanuris killed Mythal, not before. He put his precious People to the sword because one person had died), someone who will try to do so again, change the natural laws of the world again, because he has a sense of entitlment that only someone who thinks hismelf a god could have

Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. He didn't make the veil just because Mythal died. He implied that the remaining Evanuris were going down a path that would destroy the world, and that creating the veil was the best option he had to stop that. It wasn't just about Mythal. That was just what got him to really start fighting.

 

Yes. Genocide is evil no matter how you slice it. 

I... disagree, bad as that sounds. For instance, I don't think Shepard sacrificing the geth (basically genocide since they all die) to stop the Reapers is evil, and I don't think it's necessary evil, just necessary bad (understatement though, obviously).

 

Where we differ, based on another one of your posts, seems to be that you think acts are inherently evil, regardless of intent or circumstance and I think the opposite. I think someone's intentions are what make them "good" or "evil". Would you consider killing to be inherently evil? I don't, because I think self-defense is legitimate. Animals also kill all the time, are they evil? Intention and circumstance are key.

 

 

I couldn't care less to categorize the reasons of why some players may like him however  call petty and ignorant those who categorized Solas as a self aggrandizing megalomaniac and a worldwide criminal  just because his fans want to see him into another light isn't right either.

I was referring to people who were categorizing, so if you couldn't care less about categorizing people, then I wasn't calling you petty

 

Yes we do. He says how his plan will result in the deaths of humans, dwarves, qunari, and even the modern elves all so he can save the remaining ancient elves. 

We don't know that, absolutely. He's pretty vague about it. He says "even if your people must die" (emphasis mine) and "your world will end" (your, not the), but that could simply mean that your way of life and culture will end, because it will. I'm not disputing that many will die in the process, whatever the process is, but it's not clear if what he does will somehow directly cause everyone to keel over, or if the sudden change of the world will simply impact culture and way-of-life in such a way that many die in the ensuing chaos.

 

For instance, just imagine everyone suddenly becoming mages! People would kill other people because of their new-found power, or by accident, or get possessed... that could be the "burning in the raw chaos" he talks about.

 

Or you could be totally right. But we don't know for sure at this point.

[straykat]

I would give Solas a chance to acknowledge that this world has promise. I guess that is "forgiveness". Almost. Enough to talk at least.

 

OTOH, the world really doesn't show much promise, depending on the player. In which case, maybe he should hit the reset button.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I... disagree, bad as that sounds. For instance, I don't think Shepard sacrificing the geth (basically genocide since they all die) to stop the Reapers is evil, and I don't think it's necessary evil, just necessary bad (understatement though, obviously).

 

Where we differ, based on another one of your posts, seems to be that you think acts are inherently evil, regardless of intent or circumstance and I think the opposite. I think someone's intentions are what makes them "good" or "evil. Would you consider killing to be inherently evil? I don't, because I think self-defense is legitimate. Animals also kill all the time, are they evil? Intention and circumstance is key.

You're right and wrong. You're right in that sounds bad, and wrong that it isn't evil. 

 

Some acts are. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Genocide is evil. There is never an intent or circumstance that makes them not. Let's look at the definition of genocide:

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

In order for genocide to be genocide, it has to be deliberate. Thus the person or people committing it have to do it with that intention. Thus it is an evil intention thus an evil act. As for your question, killing isn't necessarily evil but murder is. That's why we have created terms to differentiate them.

[BansheeOwnage]

 

It's a tough question but you do have to think about it. It's kind of like if I had to choose between saving a beetle and saving a bear.

 

The bear is just more 'complex and valuable' in a life and death situation. I'd probably save the bear. 

 

And animal rights people would smack me upside my face. But such reasoning does exist.

It's also worth considering that the bear will probably live longer. I'm not saying saving the bear is absolutely the way to go, but it would probably get some points in its favour because of that.

 

 

He want to use the modern elves for some ritual in order to complete his plans and restore the ancient elves this can possibly mean two things:

 

a)He would use them to restore the ancient elves possibly as a sort of sacrfice since elven blood has the chance to tear the veil to the point of allowing people to travel phsycially and this can subsitute the anchor that he lost

Solas doesn't use blood magic, so that's unlikely. I suppose he could get someone else to do it, but... meh. Doubt it. Also, I could be wrong, but didn't he imply that he needed the Anchor not just to get into the fade, but also to bring down the veil?

 

So instead of doing that to us, they did it to Solas. 

 

Now Solas is facing what seems to him a hard choice. These are the kind of hard choices that I believe Bioware really wants to have us face as players... so they're having us look at those choices through Solas.

 

I bet in DA4, we'll find out more about the plan of Solas and the challenges he's facing and find out that preserving the Veil is a tougher choice than at first it appears. 

I do find that interesting to think about, and I bet people would have different opinions (not everyone, mind) if we had played an entire game in Solas' shoes. Forget Solas, the character for a moment, and instead imagine our PC living in Arlathan and waging a campaign against the Evanuris, with a downer-ending where they were forced to beat them by raising the veil. Imagine experiencing the world-that-was and knowing what was lost, and having to decide what to do when you wake up with it all gone.

 

I shouldn't need to say that I'm not excusing Solas' actions but just find that all interesting and conflicting, but apparently I do, because some people need it spelled out.

 

And yet that is what they do. Not a single word is uttered to actually condemn Solas' actions.

There is much talk of the great reasoning in his actions, the great motivation, why he had no choice, why he deserves all sympathy in the world. When the entire text focuses on reasons to absolve him, then it becomes an argument for forgiveness.

The question is, why should complexity automatically lead to the conclusion that one was right? To be a morally grey character doesn't mean "His actions were good, but the oh-so-little-minds can't understand why they're good".

That's not true, there have been words condemning his actions. However as Xerrai said, most people don't feel the need to say it as a caveat with each post, because it goes without saying, and will instead concentrate on discussing him.

 

Then you're still misinterpreting the arguments. They're not trying to absolve or forgive him, only to explain and understand him. That understanding may garner sympathy, but that doesn't mean that he is excused. I can feel sorry for someone who did something wrong. I can see where they might be coming from. It's not the same as condoning.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that complexity = being right. At all