77 réponses à ce sujet

[krylo]

CalJones wrote...
Morally upstanding, no. Practical, yes. Would Riordan recruit him? Yes. Would Duncan recruit him? Yes. A reluctant conscript or a raw recruit who had little understanding of the Wardens' ethos might choose to do otherwise. I'm not disputing that.

Even a practical warden, assuming they aren't metagaming, would find plenty reason to kill Loghain rather than conscript him.  A practical warden might assume that he's lying about protecting Anora or his regret.  A practical warden might, after having been branded a traitor by him, after having seen--from a biased point of view--him turn his back on the king, after having seen all his crimes, may just decide that they can't trust him.  And in any battle, much less one with as much at stake as battling the archdemon, trust is just as, if not more important than skill.  If the Warden has to keep worrying about Loghain stabbing him in the back his head's not going to be in the game when they're cutting their way through the horde.

Remember, at that point the wardens don't know about the ultimate sacrifice, so making him a sacrificial lamb isn't something they know is possible--so that practicality is gone. 

And Riordin saying that once you're a warden you just are is just kind of bunk.  Yes, you can never just stop sensing the taint, but--us not knowing that Wardens are, LITERALLY, necessary to stop the blight, and with Loghain's hatred of Orlesians--it's quite possible he could keep on sensing the taint and still decide to betray all the wardens that aren't himself.  God knows the taint doesn't keep our Wardens from betraying Alistair (romantically, making him king against his will, keeping him from it if hardened, allowing Anora to execute him, saving Loghain, etc), telling Riordin to shove it, or endangering the whole operation just to save our own skin (Dark Ritual).

On the other hand, an impractical warden might decide to let him live out of a sense of ironic justice, knowing what the joining entails.

Stop presenting your choice as in any way superior, either through practicality, or morality, or any other ethos.  There's plenty of ways to view it from every possible method of judgment.

I'm assuming the riots kicked off due to the events that happen in the City Elf origin, so no, even Howe wasn't involved in those.

Howe called for the Alienage to be culled.

Whether he knew everything, or just decided to murder a bunch of innocent elves to get one, well... But that's not really the discussion.

Funnily enough Branka gets to live in quite a few of my games. Sometimes my Warden makes her see the error of her ways. Sometimes I just need the golems.

 To quote one of my favorite humans ever, "Not the point, man!"

The point is, look at the discussion you and apophis had, lines like: "Indeed, though it seems that many seem to derive some sort of visceral pleasure from killing him."

And then tell me, again, that you weren't presenting your viewpoint as some kind of superior method.

Point conceded. I must admit I haven't read the books (yet) nor have I delved deeply enough into the Codex to know what those laws are.

You dont' really have to, considering we go through the legal process at the end of the game.

The nobles of the landsmeet vote, and whomever has the most votes wins.  In the event of a tie, trial by combat between the applicants and/or their champions.

Maybe so, but Eamon is still taking a huge risk promoting Alistair when there's an archdemon on the loose. For starters, Alistair doesn't want to be king, and second, he's one of only two Wardens known to be in Fereldan at that point so what the hell is Eamon doing trying to make him king? Eamon might be right to feel agrieved for being poisoned, but he's still a dick with a lousy sense of timing.

Saving his life?

Remember, Loghain wanted all the Wardens killed for treason at that point.  Alistair was the only person with Royal Blood, and therefore the only one with a claim that could go against Anora's.  It was either bid Alistair for king, or allow the last two Grey Wardens to die under false charges of treason.  And while Eamon didn't know exactly what the stakes were--as no one else did but Riordin--had he not acted as he had there'd have been no way to fight the Blight.

Apophis2412 wrote...


Canon states that he regained
his memories just before the battle of the starforge. There should he
not be executed after the events of Kotor?

He also had the false memories implanted by the Council.  Was it truly Revan, or was it the new personality still in charge?  Perhaps 'Revan' was executed when his personality was over written.  Considering the dialogue options in KotoR it certainly seems that way, as that the light side character clings to their new personality and identity, and only the dark side character accepts that they are Revan.  Light side is, of course, canon.

There's a whole lot of wacky brain messing that muddles this issue horribly.  Not to mention the whole Lightside Darkside thing, where one could argue a dark sided jedi isn't truly responsible for their actions any more than the mage being controlled by a demon in an abomination is truly responsible for theirs.  Maybe the first action that led to that path, but after that?  There's an argument to be made.

Revan just...doesn't really apply here.  I don't know why you're bringing him up.   I mean, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's not a very good allegory thanks to the whole force mind wipe + corruption of the dark side thing.

Modifié par krylo, 06 mars 2010 - 05:04 .

[Chezdon]

Read the books. Then you will need no other reason to justify saving him.

[Akka le Vil]

One funny thing about how people easily forgive "cool villains" is simply that we can empathize more with person we know and can relate to.
People with a weak objectivity are hence rather easily swayed to the cause (or at least more easily understanding of the point of view) of someone they're made more acquainted with. As such, a book detailing the hardship sustained by someone makes his decisions feels more "natural" and "acceptable", even when they cross the line, simply because they're shown through the said person's eyes.

Of course, it's simply being weak-minded, and lacking a more open/imaginative mind that could encompass the larger picture rather than just being tied to a single person's point of view. They would be just as easily swayed the other way if the book wasn't about how bad the villain had it before, and rather was centered about how the life of a victim of the villain was destroyed by the said villain's actions.
Plenty of people sheeply say "Loghain's justified, you can't understand what the Orlaisians did to Ferelden, his hatred is understandable". But they seem to forgot that Loghain did the same as the Orlaisians do. And he is even more guilty of this than they, as he did it to his own people - that he pretends he's trying to protect -, that he does this in pure hypocrisy, and even worse, that he handed them to the Darkspawns, which are far worse than anything humans can do to oppress each other.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 06 mars 2010 - 05:31 .