65 réponses à ce sujet

[Creature 1]

errant_knight wrote...
We'll have to agree to disagree. If I have an option besides 'kill a child' or 'use blood magic', I have to try it, and the tower is close by. Killing a child has to be a last resort and, again for me, human sacrifice is absolutely not an option.

Seems to me leaving the residents of Redcliffe while you go off to the Tower equates to human sacrifice. 

[errant_knight]

Creature 1 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
We'll have to agree to disagree. If I have an option besides 'kill a child' or 'use blood magic', I have to try it, and the tower is close by. Killing a child has to be a last resort and, again for me, human sacrifice is absolutely not an option.

Seems to me leaving the residents of Redcliffe while you go off to the Tower equates to human sacrifice. 

That would only be true if going to the circle didn't work. It does, so clearly it was a good choice. Sometimes you have to take a risk.

[Creature 1]

errant_knight wrote...
That would only be true if going to the circle didn't work. It does, so clearly it was a good choice. Sometimes you have to take a risk.

So you're making the decision from a metagaming perspective. 

[errant_knight]

Creature 1 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
That would only be true if going to the circle didn't work. It does, so clearly it was a good choice. Sometimes you have to take a risk.

So you're making the decision from a metagaming perspective. 

Er, no. I didn't know it would work when I first made the choice, I just believed it to be worth the risk. I wasn't going to be complicit in the use of blood magic, and I wasn't going to kill a child without trying another option.

[Creature 1]

Well, I doubt the survivors of Redcliffe would have said it was worth the risk if you polled them. But they had more skin in the game.

[Thiefy]

Creature 1 wrote...

Well, I doubt the survivors of Redcliffe would have said it was worth the risk if you polled them. But they had more skin in the game.

It's really not cool to badger someone else about their choice because it's not the one you would make.

There is no right or wrong choice, just what each individual can risk and what they are or are not capable of doing.

Please respect Errant Knight's choice. You might think it's wrong but it's pretty uppity of you to go around saying or implying that. It's not as if the choice you made was any better.

Two different people would do two different things and that's fine. Doesn't make one 'more correct' over the other.

[Creature 1]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

Well, I doubt the survivors of Redcliffe would have said it was worth the risk if you polled them. But they had more skin in the game.

It's really not cool to badger someone else about their choice because it's not the one you would make.

There is no right or wrong choice, just what each individual can risk and what they are or are not capable of doing.

Please respect Errant Knight's choice. You might think it's wrong but it's pretty uppity of you to go around saying or implying that. It's not as if the choice you made was any better.

Two different people would do two different things and that's fine. Doesn't make one 'more correct' over the other.

Oh nonsense.  I couldn't care less which route a person takes in their game, but when they criticize my route--as her first post did--I'll say why I chose that route.  Killing Isolde is the most rational course to complete that quest.  Killing Connor is the second most rational course.  Going back to the Circle is the least rational course. 

[ejoslin]

*grin* I've made about every choice in the Redcliff arc and, well, they all have their merits. I think Alistair drops the ball blaming the warden for killing Connor when both he and Bann Teagan say it's necessary. The tower is nicey-nice but I have to think leaving a town with an uncontrolled demon in it for a week, especially if you've been listening to the gossip about how there are demons running amok at the circle, is not the most responsible of choices for the people involved. Sure, it turns out all puppy dogs and roses, but that doesn't make it the responsible choice.

Modifié par ejoslin, 02 février 2010 - 10:29 .

[Thiefy]

Creature 1 wrote...

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

Well, I doubt the survivors of Redcliffe would have said it was worth the risk if you polled them. But they had more skin in the game.

It's really not cool to badger someone else about their choice because it's not the one you would make.

There is no right or wrong choice, just what each individual can risk and what they are or are not capable of doing.

Please respect Errant Knight's choice. You might think it's wrong but it's pretty uppity of you to go around saying or implying that. It's not as if the choice you made was any better.

Two different people would do two different things and that's fine. Doesn't make one 'more correct' over the other.

Oh nonsense.  I couldn't care less which route a person takes in their game, but when they criticize my route--as her first post did--I'll say why I chose that route.  Killing Isolde is the most rational course to complete that quest.  Killing Connor is the second most rational course.  Going back to the Circle is the least rational course. 

I didn't think her post was criticizing you at all. Actually her first response was to me, and then when you quoted her, she replied with "let's agree to disagree". Unless i missed a post somewhere.

[Eudaemonium]

TheLion36 wrote...

I think the articles on the wiki state that it is common belief among scholars, which of course doesn't proof anything. I also read that the Architect stated he would kill all old gods before they become archdemons in return for something (not sure if he got it and actually started with it), however he might just call them old gods for lack of the correct term or because someone told him.

I doubt it can be a normal dragon because we can kill the dragon near the sacred ashes without losing anyone and without seeing the soul attempting to enter someone, however that is not an archdemon and it might actually have something to do with the taint that the soul moves on...

So basically we do not know for sure... For now I think all we can do is assume it is true... But you do make an interesting point, what if it is not an old gods soul that is now inside Morrigans child... 

Well, there's also the issue that the Old Gods, or at least Urthemiel, appear to be (viewed as) male, whereas if they were dragons they'd be High Dragons, which as far as we know are exclusively female. And TBH, I think the sacred ashes dragon is more game mechanics than lore - there's also the fact you're characters are at least 50 times more powerful than even the elite soldiers of redcliffe or Denerim.

The Architect talking about the Old Gods is somewhat compelling, though he isn't actually connected to them is he, which is how he retains free will. Which means he'd probably be going on what he learnt from others. Regardless, its something which will either be made clear or left nebulous as the series progresses - like whether the Maker exists or where darkspawn come from. For the moment we may as well assume Archdemon = Old God. Whatever one of those is.

[Ponce de Leon]

If it will make the bi...ermm, the WITCH suffer, sure, without thinking twice. Then, again, without thinking twice, kill her too. Unless she admits she is wrong and would like to repay the debt between the PC and her by killing herself. That would be funnier to watch.

And yes, I hate Morrigan, like I never hated any other game character out there.

[Solica]

People who have played through the entire Baldur's Gate saga, might have some idea about who that child might be. And many tried to kill it, no one ever succeeded. regardless if it chose to be good, neutral or evil.

[TheBlackBaron]

Solica wrote...

People who have played through the entire Baldur's Gate saga, might have some idea about who that child might be. And many tried to kill it, no one ever succeeded. regardless if it chose to be good, neutral or evil.

Voodoo Child wouldn't have us pulling his strings through the keyboard, though.

[BroBear Berbil]

I would kill it if it was a danger to the world. I would eat it if it cured my taint and/or made me immortal - that's for my mage though

Modifié par OnionXI, 02 février 2010 - 11:20 .

[R-F]

depends on what character i import, if it's my mage warden that romanced her and fathered the baby then no, i side with her. If it's my warrior that was with Leliana then the kid dies.

[KurtCF]

DPSSOC wrote...

Well if any of my character's encountered Morrigan's baby it would be their baby too so probably no. My HN characters aren't going to kill their own child considering they'd lost what family they had. So I'd probably try to reign them in but I could never kill them.

I agree.My character would  even fight anyone who tried to attack Morrigan and the child.  He did promise to always protect Morrigan.