10369 réponses à ce sujet

[DreGregoire]

We do not know that Fergus is alive at the Landsmeet, it would be cool if he had gotten his backside there before then. LOL

Modifié par DreGregoire, 01 mars 2011 - 04:23 .

[KSuri]

Prisoner24601 wrote...


And pretty much I agree with everything else you've said as well, other than the part about Anora.  I think it makes a lot of sense to marry both Alistair and Anora off.  On the other hand, I do see your point about starting over from scratch (I think that's a damned interesting idea), although I'm not sure that Fergus, who spends an entire game derping around in the wilderness would be the best choice as king.   Then again, maybe if Fergus was married to Anora...  now that would be an interesting fic to read.

BW dropped the ball. Fergus was really underground looking for support and quietly raising a group of supporters to put a petition in front of the Landsmeet about Loghain and Howe's crimes against his family.   If handled right he would have a strong claim to throne without Anora.

@Dre...The Fergus thing need not happen at the Landsmeet. It could be a situation like we're sticking Alistiar (or Anora &) on the throne until we've sorted out this Blight mess THEN we'll talk about cleaning up our leadership structure if we survive.

Modifié par KSuri, 01 mars 2011 - 04:27 .

[DreGregoire]

KSuri wrote...

Fergus was really underground looking for support and quietly raising a group of supporters to put a petition in front of the Landsmeet about Loghain and Howe's crimes against his family.   If handled right he would have a strong claim to throne without Anora.

@Dre...The Fergus thing need not happen at the Landsmeet. It could be a situation like we're sticking Alistiar (or Anora &) on the throne until we've sorted out this Blight mess THEN we'll talk about cleaning up our leadership structure if we survive.

Heh I like the idea of Fergus ruling Ferelden in some ways, but Anora and Alistair are hard enough to deal with as a king and/or queen but if you are a human noble grey warden commander, having your brother as King might create a whole new set of problems.

Edit:

Rumor guy 1: Did you hear the Couslands took over Ferelden?

Rumor guy 2: I heard that ones the King and the other is the warden commander and an Arl.

Modifié par DreGregoire, 01 mars 2011 - 04:38 .

[KSuri]

DreGregoire wrote...

KSuri wrote...

Fergus was really underground looking for support and quietly raising a group of supporters to put a petition in front of the Landsmeet about Loghain and Howe's crimes against his family.   If handled right he would have a strong claim to throne without Anora.

@Dre...The Fergus thing need not happen at the Landsmeet. It could be a situation like we're sticking Alistiar (or Anora &) on the throne until we've sorted out this Blight mess THEN we'll talk about cleaning up our leadership structure if we survive.

Heh I like the idea of Fergus ruling Ferelden in some ways, but Anora and Alistair are hard enough to deal with as a king and/or queen but if you are a human noble grey warden commander, having your brother as King might create a whole new set of problems.

Edit:

Rumor guy 1: Did you hear the Couslands took over Ferelden?

Rumor guy 2: I heard that ones the King and the other is the warden commander and an Arl.

The only reason that doesn't cause trouble.....and this applies to ALL races.....is because your Warden SAVED ALL OF FERELDEN. You can get away with being an Arl, especially if your plan is to someday turn the Arling back ove to Howe's kids (who were not involved in his treachery). The whole country is going to be grateful to you until you die......which will then cause all kinds of problems because no one wants an unknown Warden in that kind of political position. OR until all the old players in the Blight begin to die. People's memories are entirely too short. The younger generation coming into leadership, who might have been children at the time of the Blight, are not going to have the same memories as those directly involved. When they start to command a majority in the Landsmeet the Warden might have trouble because they command a great deal of wealth in Amaranthine as well as a major shipping port and voice in the Landsmeet. The youngsters might use what happened during the Blight Landsmeet against you in an effort to wrangle control of that Arling away from the Wardens and suggest a return (permentently) to political neutrality in Soldier's Peak. Throwing the Wardens out all together is unlikely to happen because their involvement in destroying the Archdemon is now a known history and it wouldn't look good for the noble purposing it.

Modifié par KSuri, 01 mars 2011 - 04:54 .

[Glorfindel709]

Yeah... I know that in my Awakening story there is no way in hell that Ferelden is going to accept my Warden as Arl for very long. Dalish Elf Circle Mage who uses Blood Magic..... It's the trifecta from hell!

[Mahkara]

KSuri wrote...

Anyway.....On the DR I'm inclined to agree that it's hard to justify performing it. ...

DR for love and love alone is a hard pill to swallow but not impossible. The Warden had little to no time to be fully indocterinated into the Grey Warden philosphy. You got drafted at an inopportune time for you. No training, no teaching, no history, ect of the Wardens and you are forced to just find your way as you go. It is possible to see how someone might jump at DR for the chance to live and maybe have some happiness in their life after all they've struggled through. Is it right? I don't believe so. In FF the Warden would have be portrayed as deeply, deeply flawed to pull it off without sounding all light and fluffy.

Yes, the hand wringing of "how do we go on from here now that you've slept with someone else?" You'd think that with a world to save this might be the last thing on your mind.

I entirely agree.  I think that a good writer could come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense.  It just has to work with the character.

I can totally see a cynical, worn out Warden going, "screw it. I didn't want to do this to begin with, I don't want to do it now, and I'm not losing someone I love and need at this minute..."  But that has to be what the writer is going for.  (And we need hints leading up to it that make that decision make sense.)

Similarly, I can imagine, as you said, a GW who thinks that the Old God is a great thing...or a Warden who is convinced that Morrigan is their BFF and totally trustworthy (although, again, this would need a lot of build up to not seem pretty naive).  I'd never say you *can't* write virtually anything to be interesting/sympathetic/whatever.  And characters can do the wrong thing *and* be sympathetic.  It happens!  This is why a lot of people think Loghain is an awesome character.

But it is, I think, near impossible to write your Warden as this super smart, heroic person who always does the right thing...then performs the dark ritual.  It's a Faustian bargin.

[Mahkara]

KSuri wrote...

BW dropped the ball. Fergus was really underground looking for support and quietly raising a group of supporters to put a petition in front of the Landsmeet about Loghain and Howe's crimes against his family.   If handled right he would have a strong claim to throne without Anora.

I think it could be a very interesting story either with or without Anora.  Especially if Fergus was doing something rather than hiding out in the wilderness during the game.

[maxernst]

Maria13 wrote...

Ummm, check the messages Makhara, I didn't call you incredibly arrogant.

As to the moral implications of the DR I agree with Makh and Prisoner on aestethic grounds. It is my view that it is one of the most fruitful plot twists to address from DA and those that don't do so are missing out on many creative possibilities. QED.

www.fanfiction.net/s/5885435/16/Dark_Ritual

www.fanfiction.net/s/5885435/17/Dark_Ritual

However, I do think that you come down a bit hard on those that choose to take another view.  And are too soft on those that do a fiction dodge to not confront the moral issues raised to by the DR.

That's all I'm saying.

@Makhara, I did call you arrogant, and I'll stick to it. To claim that taking a potentially terrible risk makes a character comparable to Howe and then go on to say how "most readers will see it that way" is arrogant, and in my opinion, erroneous.  First of all, if the PC is a monster, then so are Morrigan and Alistair--do you really think that most people will view both Alistair and Morrigan as monsters?  And I really don't see how the risk involved in the DR are any greater than any of the risks you take in the game that could result in your failure to stop the Blight going on right now.

How do you know success or failure in the final battle might not come down to Morrigan's magic (in which case you doom Ferelden by avoiding the DR) or Branka's golems? Your decision to recruit any of the dubious companions could be catastrophic.  You could doom Ferelden by getting yourself killed by the High Dragon or all those damned revenants because you're trying to get a cool suit of armor, or on some sidequest for petty cash.    As far as I can tell from the forums, there's no consensus on the morality of the DR, and it's presumptuous (probably a better word than arrogant) to think that most people are going to share your take both on the risks involved and on morality.  Yes, you periodically say things like "there are many reasons a character might do the Dark Ritual", but you convey the distinct impression that the character is a monster regardless and if "you don't expect us to agree with you", it's only because you think we're either stupid or immoral ourselves.

The DR was a hard decision for my fanfic PC, and he's no saint, but I'd hardly put him in the category as Rendan Howe because he makes a risky choice for ultimately selfish reasons.

Modifié par maxernst, 01 mars 2011 - 05:14 .

[thesnowtigress]

My Warden feels guilty about doing the Dark Ritual, he wonders what Morrigan is going to do with the child. The fact is, nobody knows what OGB will actually be like, good, evil, harmless, hurtful.

I just don't think I went deep enough into his feelings and worries etc. I certainly didn't have him thinking: Oh no, I may have created something more evil than the archdemon.

My Warden hates being called a hero. He does the best he can with whats thrown at him, but he really doesnt consider himself a hero, especially since he went through with the DR.

Anyway, I dont see why people are getting so heated about this. There are some people who don't think far off into the future when they make decisions backed into a corner, you know? Selfish, maybe, surely, but monstrous???? Perhaps... I guess it's a matter of opinion.

EDIT: am i the only one who cant help but see tampons when i see OGB? lol.

Modifié par thesnowtigress, 01 mars 2011 - 07:35 .

[ZerbanDaGreat1]

(spoilers for my fic)

My Warden doesn't do the Ritual. She's disgusted that Morrigan brings it up, despite their friendship, and sends her away almost instantly. After all, she's been doing the 'right thing' the whole time.

Ven does, however. He doesn't want to see Morrigan go because of their relationship. He does briefly wonder if the whole thing was a lie to prime him for the ritual (Morrigan started showing an interest in him once Elisa conscripted him), but goes through with it. Elisa is... not happy, to say the least. It's the only time she's truly angry at him.

Then Ven points out that she's marrying Alistair, and sacrificing either of them would be a cruel waste. She counters that they have plenty of other Wardens; Loghain, Ven and another OC called Malcolm. Ven then points out that Elisa isn't the person who'd send others to die in her place. It's a bit of a logic bomb for her.

Of course, come Witch Hunt, Elisa is ready to stab a witch.

[Mahkara]

maxernst wrote...


@Makhara, I did call you arrogant, and I'll stick to it. To claim that taking a potentially terrible risk makes a character comparable to Howe and then go on to say how "most readers will see it that way" is arrogant, and in my opinion, erroneous.  First of all, if the PC is a monster, then so are Morrigan and Alistair--do you really think that most people will view both Alistair and Morrigan as monsters?  And I really don't see how the risk involved in the DR are any greater than any of the risks you take in the game that could result in your failure to stop the Blight going on right now.

How do you know success or failure in the final battle might not come down to Morrigan's magic (in which case you doom Ferelden by avoiding the DR) or Branka's golems? Your decision to recruit any of the dubious companions could be catastrophic.  You could doom Ferelden by getting yourself killed by the High Dragon or all those damned revenants because you're trying to get a cool suit of armor, or on some sidequest for petty cash.    As far as I can tell from the forums, there's no consensus on the morality of the DR, and it's presumptuous (probably a better word than arrogant) to think that most people are going to share your take both on the risks involved and on morality.  Yes, you periodically say things like "there are many reasons a character might do the Dark Ritual", but you convey the distinct impression that the character is a monster regardless and if "you don't expect us to agree with you", it's only because you think we're either stupid or immoral ourselves.

The DR was a hard decision for my fanfic PC, and he's no saint, but I'd hardly put him in the category as Rendan Howe because he makes a risky choice for ultimately selfish reasons.

I think you are twisting what I said pretty significantly.  I did not say that the average reader will equate the DR with the behavior of Howe. I said that performing the DR is pretty inconsistent with a hero who makes a big deal out of always doing the right thing.  There's a difference there.  But yes, I do believe that your average reader is savvy enough to go "Huh, if this person is making a Faustian bargain that may cause another Blight to save their own life and/or the life of their best friend/boyfriend, they're not a 100% good and moral character."

Ultimately, I think there are reasons you can give for doing any act in the game. But a lot of them are inconsistent with a traditionally good or heroic character.  Abandoning Redcliffe to be eaten by zombies?  Not consistent with a good character! (Despite that Morrigan advocates it.)  Saving the golems is quite pragmatic, but again, not really consistent with a character who doesn't think  the ends justify the means.  Shall I go on?

As for my comment about how doing the dark ritual could be more evil (perhaps I should restate - could have worse consequences?) than anything Loghain or Howe has done...well, couldn't it be?  Let's pretend that the dark ritual does cause another Blight, or something akin to one.  (I'll admit I have no idea what could happen if we all agree that we don't know, either.)  Is causing another Blight better or worse than slaughtering a castle full of people?  I'm going for *worse*. Admittedly, this is my *opinion*, not a fact.  You can see it the opposite way if you choose.

[Merilsell]

Mahkara wrote...

I entirely agree.  I think that a good writer could come up with a lot of reasons why it makes sense.  It just has to work with the character.

I can totally see a cynical, worn out Warden going, "screw it. I didn't want to do this to begin with, I don't want to do it now, and I'm not losing someone I love and need at this minute..."  But that has to be what the writer is going for.  (And we need hints leading up to it that make that decision make sense.)

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]

Wow.
You just described Lenya.  I'm in an awe.

[Elysium-Fic]

Mahkara wrote...
I said that performing the DR is pretty inconsistent with a hero who makes a big deal out of always doing the right thing. 

It's only inconsistent if you take a simplistic, two-dimensional approach to characterization, in which a "good" character can never, ever have a moment of weakness or selfishness. That may be "consistent" but it's certainly not realistic. At that point, you've stopped writing a character and begun writing a paragon.

Some writers prefer their characters a bit more faceted.

[Maria13]

Elysium-Fic wrote...

Mahkara wrote...
I said that performing the DR is pretty inconsistent with a hero who makes a big deal out of always doing the right thing. 

It's only inconsistent if you take a simplistic, two-dimensional approach to characterization, in which a "good" character can never, ever have a moment of weakness or selfishness. That may be "consistent" but it's certainly not realistic. At that point, you've stopped writing a character and begun writing a paragon.

Some writers prefer their characters a bit more faceted.

Well said.

[Prisoner24601]

Elysium-Fic wrote...

It's only inconsistent if you take a simplistic, two-dimensional approach to characterization, in which a "good" character can never, ever have a moment of weakness or selfishness. That may be "consistent" but it's certainly not realistic. At that point, you've stopped writing a character and begun writing a paragon.

Some writers prefer their characters a bit more faceted.

That's a straw man argument.   Makhara never said that a good or heroic person couldn't have a moment of weakness.  That's a complete mischaracterization of what she said.

The point is that doing the dark ritual is not a heroic action, but a selfish one that has potentially really bad consequences.  With well done characterization, it could totally make sense in a story and even be extremely compelling to watch a character struggle with it.

[Mahkara]

Elysium-Fic wrote...

Mahkara wrote...
I said that performing the DR is pretty inconsistent with a hero who makes a big deal out of always doing the right thing. 

It's only inconsistent if you take a simplistic, two-dimensional approach to characterization, in which a "good" character can never, ever have a moment of weakness or selfishness. That may be "consistent" but it's certainly not realistic. At that point, you've stopped writing a character and begun writing a paragon.

Some writers prefer their characters a bit more faceted.

You're right.  A hypocritical hero who makes a big deal about always doing the right thing, then caves in when there are actual consequences, is a perfect candidates for someone who would do the dark ritual.  *shrugs*

I love facted characters, too. This is why, to me, Loghain, Anora, Nathaniel, Cauthrien, Bhelen, Branka, etc. are really *interesting*.  Surely that these are some of my favorites is well known by now, and I am just preaching to the choir?

Ultimately, how a character handles the DR is a real test of their character. Finally, here's a decision!  There are real consequences that can't be hand waved away, like with Connor's possession or breaking the curse in the Brecilian Forest. So here's the moment of decision for your character!  Does he dither about and whine, push the decision off on someone else, or sacrifice himself for the greater good?  Does he worry about the consequences at all, or naively go "Morrigan said that it's a good thing, and I totally trust her!"  Does he angst, or is he so greatful that there's a way out of death that he doesn't even consider the possible consequences to his actions?  Or is he delighted about the idea of the Old God baby destroying the world?  These are all possibilities, and all indicate very different types of characters.

That said, if when your character's back is finally against the wall, and it's down to the line, they say "yes, I will accept a Faustian deal with unknown and potentially horrible consequences", you've painted a very different character than what most of us conventionally think of as "good".

[Elysium-Fic]

Mahkara wrote...
you've painted a very different character than what most of us conventionally think of as "good".

Only if "most of us" stopped evolving their definition of "good" somewhere around mid-elementary school.

[Mahkara]

Elysium-Fic wrote...

Mahkara wrote...
you've painted a very different character than what most of us conventionally think of as "good".

Only if "most of us" stopped evolving their definition of "good" somewhere around mid-elementary school.

I think a mid-elementary level concept of good and evil is better exemplified by moral dilemmas such as "kill the elves, kill the werewolves, or break the curse and make nearly everyone happy".  There's a reasonably straight forward answer here unless you *really* want a werewolf army.

The Dark Ritual is a far more complicated dilemma. Do you sacrifice yourself for the common good, sacrifice your friend or lover for the common good, or make a Faustian deal with a witch that you hope won't go horribly awry?  The conventionally "good" answer to this would be to sacrifice yourself. But people obviously aren't keen on suicide.  The easy way out is obviously to make the deal, despite that it has potentially catastrophic consequences.  But it's complicated.

A similar dilemma persists with the Architect. He started the last Blight while trying to find a way to save his people (not just himself or his friend, but *all* darkspawn).  Was this an acceptable risk?  A horrible thing to do?  It's not an identical choice, but there are similarities in the decision...

[Scary Lady]

Mahkara wrote...
A similar dilemma persists with the Architect. He started the last Blight while trying to find a way to save his people (not just himself or his friend, but *all* darkspawn).  Was this an acceptable risk?  A horrible thing to do?  It's not an identical choice, but there are similarities in the decision...

I don't imagine the Architect to have undergone any dilemma at all.  He isn't equipped with the social mores to even comprehend what others may perceive as a 'horrible thing to do'.  This was evidenced in the novel, where (without wishing to spoil for those who haven't read it)  he makes a suggestion that seems eminently reasonable to him and would horrify virtually all of humanity.  He's unable to recognise the flaws in even the coldest, most detached form of Utilitarianism.

I cannot in any way compare this to the Warden's decision concerning the DR, unless the Warden in question is almost inhumanly detached.

[DreGregoire]

Edit: Erased

Modifié par DreGregoire, 01 mars 2011 - 10:53 .

[Mahkara]

Scary Lady wrote...

Mahkara wrote...
A similar dilemma persists with the Architect. He started the last Blight while trying to find a way to save his people (not just himself or his friend, but *all* darkspawn).  Was this an acceptable risk?  A horrible thing to do?  It's not an identical choice, but there are similarities in the decision...

I don't imagine the Architect to have undergone any dilemma at all.  He isn't equipped with the social mores to even comprehend what others may perceive as a 'horrible thing to do'.  This was evidenced in the novel, where (without wishing to spoil for those who haven't read it)  he makes a suggestion that seems eminently reasonable to him and would horrify virtually all of humanity.  He's unable to recognise the flaws in even the coldest, most detached form of Utilitarianism.

I cannot in any way compare this to the Warden's decision concerning the DR, unless the Warden in question is almost inhumanly detached.

You make a good point there. The Architect is pretty remote.  And I doubt he cared, other than the possible fear that doing this might make Grey Wardens less willing to work with him.

That said, though, I find it hard to blame him overly for doing things that cause a Blight if the Warden is willing to risk the same thing *just* to save his/her own life.   By completing the dark ritual, the Warden is putting himself/herself in with the more morally complex characters.  Which is all well (again, I enjoy complexity) if the author accepts this and rolls with it.  What annoys me is when the Warden does the ritual so that he/she won't die, but then treats other moral dilemmas in the game as this clear black/white, where the bad guys are wrong/the good guys are *right*.  (Unless, of course, the author makes it clear that said protagonist is meant to be a rather hypocritical character.)

[Glorfindel709]

I agree with scary lady, to say that the decision of whether to let the Architect live or not is in no way shape or form even comparable to that of the Warden making the DR.

A) You do your job as a Grey Warden and kill the darkspawn
You let a darkspawn who started the fifth blight (no matter how well intentioned) in an attempt to turn the Old God into a Disciple (so no, he wasnt just trying to free them, he was attempting to take power and control) who is going to be draining the blood of Grey Wardens in order to turn a race that requires the kidnapping and raping of women in order to reproduce into an intelligent and sentient species.

Sure, the Old God has the "risk" of becoming a big danger, but making a disease like the Darkspawn sentient is truly not a risk of something bad happening, but an undeniable certainty.

Modifié par Glorfindel709, 01 mars 2011 - 10:42 .

[Mahkara]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

I agree with scary lady, to say that the decision of whether to let the Architect live or not is in no way shape or form even comparable to that of the Warden making the DR.

A) You do your job as a Grey Warden and kill the darkspawn
You let a darkspawn who started the fifth blight (no matter how well intentioned) in an attempt to turn the Old God into a Disciple (so no, he wasnt just trying to free them, he was attempting to take power and control) who is going to be draining the blood of Grey Wardens in order to turn a race that requires the kidnapping and raping of women in order to reproduce into an intelligent and sentient species.

Sure, the Old God has the "risk" of becoming a big danger, but making a disease like the Darkspawn sentient is truly not a risk of something bad happening, but an undeniable certainty.

I'd agree that allying with the Architect is a huge risk. So is creating the OGB. *shrugs*  If my job as a Grey Warden is first and foremost, to make sure there are no Blights, creating the OGB seems rather...irresponsible.  I'd imagine that if you cleared the whole dark ritual with Weisshaupt that they would *not approve*.

Again, you can write wardens who fall short of this heroic ideal.  But I have a hard time seeing a Warden being declared to *be* this heroic ideal, then having that same Warden complete the dark ritual.

[Scary Lady]

Mahkara wrote...
What annoys me is when the Warden does the ritual so that he/she won't die, but then treats other moral dilemmas in the game as this clear black/white, where the bad guys are wrong/the good guys are *right*. 

In my first run I did precisely that.  I didn't write about it, or in any way inflict it upon those who may be annoyed by it, but it was my first character, in many ways my canon character, and despite being a good person, she had one Achilles Heel:  Alistair.  She made precisely two decisions that she knew damn well were the wrong ones, and will be haunted all her life by them, but to risk leaving her Alistair grieving alone in a King's bedchamber was wholly unacceptable.  So she made him do the ritual and kept him a Warden.

We all have our weak spots, strong moral characters just as much as others.  We all have aspects of our lives, or the lives of others, that make cowards of us.  It's a shame that such a thing annoys you, but I have to defend the... the reality of it.  It's not two-dimensional, it's not a shallow character concept; it caused her anguish and personal diminishment.   I find that people's choices are just not cut and dried, and to be annoyed by that is to be annoyed by life.

Modifié par Scary Lady, 01 mars 2011 - 11:06 .

[Mahkara]

Scary Lady wrote...

We all have our weak spots, strong moral characters just as much as others.  We all have aspects of our lives, or the lives of others, that make cowards of us.  It's a shame that such a thing annoys you, but I have to defend the... the <i>reality</i> of it.  It's not two-dimensional, it's not a shallow character concept; it caused her anguish and personal diminishment.   I find that people's choices are just not cut and dried, and to be annoyed by that is to be annoyed by life.

Oh, of course. And writing a character like that is fine. People *are* hypocritical. But some authors will go on rants about how *evil* every last character they don't like is...then do the dark ritual...and act as though their character is still saintly. I can 100% buy a character feeling this way.  After all, it's not hard for me to imagine a person behaving in a similar fashion.  These are *your* friends, of course you're not going to let them die, it's worth the risk if it's *your* life, etc...despite that the same character would hate someone who made the same morally hazy choices.  It's a very *human* reaction, if not a particularly noble one.  But there are ways of writing that show that these are misperceptions that the author does not share.