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.
You mean like exactly what you've been doing?
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.
Thing is, it's not deliberate. It's not Solas's goal - he tells us that "I intend to restore my people, which MAY destroy your world", not "I will 100% destroy your world so my people could come back".
And... I probably shouldn't bring this, but you're sort of making me curious: what is your stance on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is a highly contested issue till this day. There are people who point out that *deliberately killing more than 120 thousand people* was unnecessary, and there are those who point out that it most likely saved millions of lives.
Or what about allying with Soviets to win the war? The Soviets who committed genocide in Katyn? And the later Yalta conference, where basically the West gave Eastern Europe to Stalin?
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?
You mean his persona doesn't. We have no idea what the real Solas is capable of.
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.
Okay.
*does thought experiment*
Nope, committing genocide in an attempt to possibly hit the reset button doesn't come to mind.
I wish he'd just appreciate this world.
I could on and on about good vs evil and all that, but his real crime is being a dork who can't live in the present. Hell, he can barely appreciate a waking state.
You mean like exactly what you've been doing?
If the only thing you can throw at me is simple "no, you!" then you have no argument in that regard whatsoever.
You mean his persona doesn't. We have no idea what the real Solas is capable of.
Actually we do, if we just apply a bit of logic.
Would Solas's use of blood magic reveal his secret identity? No.
Would Solas's use of blood magic be detrimental in aiding in closing the Breach? No.
Would Solas's use of blood magic be detrimental in combat situations? No.
So... the only reason he doesn't use blood magic is because of the reasons he cites. There's nothing to gain in lying.
Someone so attuned to the Fade wouldn't even care about blood magic.
That's a problem in itself though.
Thing is, it's not deliberate. It's not Solas's goal - he tells us that "I intend to restore my people, which MAY destroy your world", not "I will 100% destroy your world so my people could come back".
And... I probably shouldn't bring this, but you're sort of making me curious: what is your stance on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It is a highly contested issue till this day. There are people who point out that *deliberately killing more than 120 thousand people* was unnecessary, and there are those who point out that it most likely saved millions of lives.
Or what about allying with Soviets to win the war? The Soviets who committed genocide in Katyn? And the later Yalta conference, where basically the West gave Eastern Europe to Stalin?
It is deliberate. His plans are deliberate, and he cares not for the consequences. When confronted about it being murder, he makes no denial about it.
Those attacks were genocide, pure and simple. They were done to literally shock the Japanese government into surrendering. Same thing with the firebombing campaign earlier in the war, which crossed any and all ethical lines. The atomic bombs were just more efficient at it, which is why they are discussed more than the firebombing. Also it was more than 120,000. Hiroshima lost somewhere between 90,000-140,000 and Nagasaki lost between 39,000-80,000(and only because Fat Man drifted off course) so the total is between 129,000-220,000. I will never support what the United States did with the firebombing or atomic weapon attacks. It was evil.
But I'm not going to talk more about real world examples. It goes against the Site Rules.
If the only thing you can throw at me is simple "no, you!" then you have no argument in that regard whatsoever.
Why bother? You'll just ignore my actual arguments like last time.
You mean his persona doesn't. We have no idea what the real Solas is capable of.
"Real Solas"? "Persona"?
Someone so attuned to the Fade wouldn't even care about blood magic.
That's a problem in itself though.
Not really sure if this is how it works. He even tells us that it's quite a shame that he has to refrain from blood magic, as it is powerful.
Actually we do, if we just apply a bit of logic.
Would Solas's use of blood magic reveal his secret identity? No.
Would Solas's use of blood magic be detrimental in aiding in closing the Breach? No.
Would Solas's use of blood magic be detrimental in combat situations? No.
So... the only reason he doesn't use blood magic is because of the reasons he cites. There's nothing to gain in lying.
He is surrounded by Templars and Seekers who remained loyal to Divine Justinia and formed the Inquisition. We aren't even able to learn blood magic as a specialization because it would contrast with the setup.
Plus, why reveal something that could prove useful later on? It's simple logic to keep your cards close to the chest.
It's because the Japanese wouldn't surrender..and outright invasion would've killed hundreds of thousands on both sides.. and people had enough of the war by that point.
It's terrible, but I don't know what the hell else is to be done... when you have a weapon like that.
And the crazy thing is, the Japanese didn't surrender after the first attack. They welcomed another. And then when they finally surrended, the emperor still wanted to rule. Talk about obstinate.
Sorry to go off topic.. but I don't think genocide is the right word. It's something we've never seen before or since.
"Real Solas"? "Persona"?
Persona: the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.
Ergo, the person Solas pretended to be while he was in our company.
He pretended to be something else, a persona, to hide his true identity, the real Solas.
He is surrounded by Templars and Seekers who remained loyal to Divine Justinia and formed the Inquisition. We aren't even able to learn blood magic as a specialization because it would contrast with the setup.
Plus, why reveal something that could prove useful later on? It's simple logic to keep your cards close to the chest.
He's still a Fade fanatic. He would have no use for blood magic.
It is deliberate. His plans are deliberate, and he cares not for the consequences. When confronted about it being murder, he makes no denial about it.
Making no denial about making drastic changes to the world that may cost lives =/= cares not for the consequences.
Oh, but why do I bother? It doesn't matter how many times I bring dialogue which CLEARLY shows that he cares about consequences - for you the answer is clear, and there's not a shade of nuance in there. I'm pretty sure that even if Patrick Weekes thrown some light on the matter (which he did on panels and in interviews) you'd just be "nope, dude! You're wrong!"
He's still a Fade fanatic. He would have no use for blood magic.
If you want to get technical all magic is blood magic. Magic requires lyrium, which is Titan blood.
Making no denial about making drastic changes to the world that may cost lives =/= cares not for the consequences.
Oh, but why do I bother? It doesn't matter how many times I bring dialogue which CLEARLY shows that he cares about consequences - for you the answer is clear, and there's not a shade of nuance in there. I'm pretty sure that even if Patrick Weekes thrown some light on the matter (which he did on panels and in interviews) you'd just be "nope, dude! You're wrong!"
If he cared about the consequences, he wouldn't do it and find another way.
Please, share Patrick Weeke's words on the matter. Just try to use the actual quotes this time, and not change them around like you've done before.
He is surrounded by Templars and Seekers who remained loyal to Divine Justinia and formed the Inquisition. We aren't even able to learn blood magic as a specialization because it would contrast with the setup.
Plus, why reveal something that could prove useful later on? It's simple logic to keep your cards close to the chest.
The Templars and Seekers would toss him in a Circle or kill him anyway, since he's an apostate. It seems the only reason he's not treated this way is because of the chaos in both organizations and because Cassandra finds him useful and has a bit of common sense. Blood magic is incidental.
The player isn't able to practice blood magic because frankly it's difficult to swallow as a game design choice. It's been poorly implemented in both previous games. It shouldn't have been. Church authorities and Church sympathizers in both previous games would have "realistically" attempted to have our PC locked up or killed just for that practice alone. But nobody blinks at it or acknowledges it.
There's not much logic in holding the blood magic back if it could be useful in dealing with something catastrophic like closing the Breach and defeating Corypheus. These are "do or die" situations that require everyone operating at their best, if we're staying in-character and out of meta-gaming.
Is it blood or more akin to a fossil of it?
In any case, the real concern with BM is the demand for more power....and more blood. Blood that you don't have except through the worse kind of means. While with Solas, I just don't see why he'd be interested in it to begin with.
He's a bastard, but not all bastards are blood mages.
Persona: the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.
Ergo, the person Solas pretended to be while he was in our company.
He pretended to be something else, a persona, to hide his true identity, the real Solas.
I wasn't asking for you to explain me what persona is - I'm just amused that you call Solas's character while he's with Inquisition "a persona", while this was probably the most true he was to himself since thousands of years.
...But of course you would.
Thing is Solas explains that Solas IS who he is. "I was Solas first - Fen'Harel came later".
Which you'd probably claim he'd lie about. I do wonder however if you notice that such argumentation is a double-edged sword? Because if he lies about pretty much everything, he may as well lie about the whole "end of the world" thing.
If he cared about the consequences, he wouldn't do it and find another way.
No. Shepard cared about the consequences in destroying the Batarian colony. He did it anyway. Or she did it anyway. Whatever.
Just because a person feels they have to do something doesn't mean they like doing that thing.
Persona: the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.
Ergo, the person Solas pretended to be while he was in our company.
He pretended to be something else, a persona, to hide his true identity, the real Solas.
He may have been hiding his agenda the whole game, but there is little to indicate that Solas was actively forming a façade personality or creating a made-up persona. Saying the Solas we meet not being the "real Solas" is pure theory. A theory that as of now, has little to back it up.
Yes he deceives us of his real goal in Inquisition. Yes he was intentionally not trying to reveal much about his past. Yes he intentionally kept us at arms length (relatively) during most of the main game. But none of that is indicative of if he lied about being who he is as a person.
If he was intent on creating a "fake persona" then he was woefully inefficient at it. A fake persona implies utilizing it to get the desired effects, and the only thing Solas could do with presumed fake persona was essentially staying out the of the way? If the Inquisitor never pried, literally the only thing Solas would do was be his apostate hobo self who liked painting and reading. That's it. He gained nothing but a good pastime with good academic sources while the Inquisitor went toward the goal of killing Corypheaus (which likely would have happened without his interference).
He never tried to woo anyone (the Solas romance mostly has Lavellan initiating all of the moves). He made no lingering connections. He made no attempts to raise his status in the Inquisition. He made no moves to garner influence over anyone in the Inquisition (save perhaps the kitchen staff. He has tea preferences), and he was essentially the most out-of-the-picture-and-in-no-way-important person.
If the Solas in Inquisition was a "made up" Solas, then he really has no idea how those fake persona are supposed to work.
You mean his persona doesn't. We have no idea what the real Solas is capable of.
Yes... we do. He's really all about the fade, so he really doesn't use blood magic, because it lowers one's connection to the fade.
Okay.
*does thought experiment*
Nope, committing genocide in an attempt to possibly hit the reset button doesn't come to mind.
Well, it doesn't have to. I just think that living Solas' life would give you important perspective, regardless of if you come to the same conclusions he did.
It's still worth noting that we don't know exactly what his plan will do. If it inherently destroys modern Thedas' people, yeah, that's terrible. But what if it does what I suggested, which is just taking down the veil? What if his prediction of people "burning in the raw chaos" is simply that he thinks society will collapse and loads of people will die in the complete anarchy. Also terrible, but from a certain point of view, that would be on them for choosing to fight each other, not Solas.
So no deliberate action to kill a large number of people would have taken place. I'm waiting on more info to render my judgement of Solas.
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.
Well, I cannot think of a good reason for rape, so I guess that comes as close as you can get to inherently evil. Even more than murder in my book.
What about Shepard and the geth, again? Is it "deliberate" if Shepard knows the geth will die as a side-effect, but isn't "deliberately" killing them. Is it genocide? Is it justifiable? (There, see, I'm not talking about real world things, Site!)
But I'm not going to talk more about real world examples. It goes against the Site Rules.
Really? So we're not allowed to compare things in the game to things in real life? That's utterly nonsensical and just plain lame.
I wasn't asking for you to explain me what persona is - I'm just amused that you call Solas's character while he's with Inquisition "a persona", while this was probably the most true he was to himself since thousands of years.
...But of course you would.
Thing is Solas explains that Solas IS who he is. "I was Solas first - Fen'Harel came later".
Which you'd probably claim he'd lie about. I do wonder however if you notice that such argumentation is a double-edged sword? Because if he lies about pretty much everything, he may as well lie about the whole "end of the world" thing.
You know what, you're right. Constantly lying is the truest he has ever been to himself since thousands of years ago.
I've already stated that him explaining his plan is more for the player's benefit than the protagonist's. If it was just the Inquisitor, Solas would have absolutely no logical reason to reveal his plan to the Inquisitor. With a high enough approval he even mentions that but continues anyway. Revealing his plans just puts them in jeopardy. He gains nothing by it, but risks everything. Bioware was using that moment to explain to the players where they were going with the story.
He may have been hiding his agenda the whole game, but there is little to indicate that Solas was actively forming a façade personality or creating a made-up persona. Saying the Solas we meet not being the "real Solas" is pure theory. A theory that as of now, has little to back it up.
Yes he deceives us of his real goal in Inquisition. Yes he was intentionally not trying to reveal much about his past. Yes he intentionally kept us at arms length (relatively) during most of the main game. But none of that is indicative of if he lied about being who he is as a person.
What you just described is lies of omission. Lies of omission are still lies thus deceit.
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
I don't think Mythal's death was the reason why he "created" the veil. I think his choice do that was something along the lines of "In order to cure themselves and the Golden City of the Blight they were going to taint the physical world". Or maybe do a mass sacrifice of all their worshippers to get the blood power to cleanse themselves or something.
If you want to get technical all magic is blood magic. Magic requires lyrium, which is Titan blood.
Yeah, but one type doesn't lower connection to the fade, so he'll use it, and one does, so he won't.
I've already stated that him explaining his plan is more for the player's benefit than the protagonist's. If it was just the Inquisitor, Solas would have absolutely no logical reason to reveal his plan to the Inquisitor. With a high enough approval he even mentions that but continues anyway. Revealing his plans just puts them in jeopardy. He gains nothing by it, but risks everything. Bioware was using that moment to explain to the players where they were going with the story.
You're right, he has no logical reason to do so. Thing is, people's aren't logical all the time. The reasons he tells you these things are not logical, but they are reasons nonetheless. I agree that the conversation's main purpose was to relay new lore to the player, but it's not contradictory to also serve to relay it to the Inquisitor.
Retour en haut