90 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

AntiChri5 wrote...

It only justifies genocide against the Darkspawn because any civilisation they have would be built on our bones.

Everything they are is built around harming us. The survival of their race depends on mutilating and torturing us. They can have their own civilisation when they can survive indefinatly without harming us.

EDIT: Codex mentions that the Blights have been getting progressively less and less destructive.

Every civilisation was built on blood.

Perhaps the Architect's experiements will create a new way of reproduction. Perhaps not. But the loss of a few females is preferrable to having to deal with 2 blights that seek to annihilate everything.

And that's not proof that the last 2 blights won't be destructive. You can't know for sure. I wouldn't risk it.

[Ezio Faraglia]

fantasypisces wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Bioware deliberately made it hard to tell if he is evil or not so the player would have to think. One way Dragon Age is better than Mass Effect is the lack of magical colored bars to think for you.

Not really in the case of the Architect. They make the player guess more than anything.

The book makes him seem really evil, where his plot is to turn the entire world into Grey Warden Darkspawn to "end" the blight. Then I guess between the book and the game he discovers that Warden blood can make the darkspawn resist the taint and ignore the Old Gods' "songs" and he says he just wants to free his people, but he still wants to end the blight. If you keep him alive the Mother says he was responsible for the Blight in the core game...

So the player has to guess. If you've read the book then you don't know if he's telling you the whole truth. If you just play the game he doesn't seem evil, but there's not nearly enough evidence to decide for sure. Even the consequences are ambiguous so you can't make a meta-game decision either.

I guess in a way that qualifies as making the player think, but if there is no consequence... then what's the point of the decision in the first place? Sequels? Doesn't seem likely.

This.

I said earlier (or another post) the story would have been great for a sequel, but it was to rushed for an expansion. There just isn't enough information to make an informed opinion. Took me 20 minutes of smoking and the game on pause to decide I was killing the Architect, because I had to go through everything my character knew, not what "I as a player" knew. And that was hard, because my character didn't really know jack. The final lowblow was it seems a lot of the characters wanted you to work with the Architect (or at least in my party Nathaniel and Oghren did - which confused me as to why Oghren would - and I took an approval hit). Anders wanted me to kill him, but gave no approval bump. In the end I killed him. I'm fine with it, I'm pretty sure I made the right decision.

But based on the epilogue it doesn't look like there is an expansion dealing with Ferelden anymore. Our characters aren't the Commanders anymore.

The retired hero coming back to kick ass and save the world again is not a new concept. And actually, I think the epilogue just says we never return to vigils keep. Maybe we do stand down from being commander, but it doesn't mean my character can't temporarily abandon the search for his mistress morrigan and put his wife (Leliana) and kids on hold to retake command and rip the darkspawn a new one But unless drinking Avernus's potion from WK expands my wardens life, he will not live long enough to go further than that

Modifié par Ezio Faraglia, 27 mars 2010 - 08:02 .

[Red Frostraven]

Quite technically, the darkspawn was created because of the god the chantry worships...

The darkspawn are innocent in the blights, as they're mindless.

Whatever the corrupted old gods, archdemons, are up to is unknown -- and we don't even know if their destruction is their will or the result of the corruption.



...

The darkspawn are no more evil than animals; being evil requires a will to do evil.

Do the darkspawn do evil?

No more than people do to animals: People use animals for breeding, people eat the flesh of animals.



Darkspawn treat people like animals, and are animals themselves... so... business as usual there.

I've not played awakening enough to hear about the architecht, but...

I have no reason to believe he's "evil" at this point.



If anything, he is less evil than the darkspawn who's incapable of being evil due to the lack of will.

He doesn't know much about the world, certainly.

But that can be rectified.

[Vicious]

The Architect is very manipulative. Where was Valenna's sister at the end? WHY was he creating Grey Warden doppelgangers? I can't trust someone who tells me absolutely nothing, since it is quite likely that what he IS telling me, is a lie or at best half-truth.



And if he WAS genuine, well then I gotta blame Bioware for not fleshing him out in the least.

[IanPolaris]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...

Here's something to keep in mind. The talking darkspawn from Amaranthine, after the battle he walked around helping people, but he still infected them with the taint. Seeing that in the epilogue made me happy with my choice of killing the Architect.

It wasn't clear for me that he was responsable. I thought it was the person I freed from Kal-chirol. It's hinted at that he is tainted.

And even if it is the darkspawn's fault, they can still live isolated as their own culture and people. So that doesn't make me regret my decision to spare the Architect. I am still worried of course, but in general I do not regret it.

I wonder if you get the same thing about the taint infection if you killed the guy or left him in there.

It's the messenger.  I had him killed in the second playthrough (but killed the Architect in both games) while I let him (the messenger) live in the first.  If you kill the messenger, there is no spread of the taint on the surface.

QED the messenger is responsible.

-Polaris

[magnuskn]

Unless he has come up with a solution to the problems of a.) darkspawn reproduction and b.) blighting the land with their very presence, which doesn't involve damaging the other races, he and the entire darkspawn race must go.

Modifié par magnuskn, 27 mars 2010 - 11:25 .

[Havokk7]

I think one of the strengths of the writing is that none of the characters are really evil. Some are doing some pretty nasty things, true, but they all think they are doing the right thing.



The architect is trying to save his race from genocode at the hands of the Grey Wardens.



It's all shades of grey (thus the name "Grey Wardens", I guess).

[alexmasterson123]

One thing regarding the taint - remember the Qunari merchant in the Silverite Mines? He said that the Darkspawn kept him immune from the taint while he provided services for them. Does this mean that potentially they have that ability on a larger scale?



Secondly,it's a bit out there, but Avernus' research on nullifying the taint's effects could possibly

reach a point where it could be applied (via magic, or whatever) on a large scale to entire populations.



I do get the feeling that if Avernus and the Architect combined their research efforts there would be some very interesting results...

[Xandurpein]

The true importance of the Architect is that he accidentally triggered a Blight, which means that we can expect a new Blight in DA2, without waiting hundreds of years.

[alexmasterson123]

Personally, I hope Bioware stick to their statement that they're finished using Blights as a basis for a game.

[Xandurpein]

I don't think any character in the game is meant to be evil. "Good" and "Evil" is simply labels each of us applies to characters depending on our own personal beliefs.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Evil, no. Evil requires malicious intent with no regard for the suffering of others. The Architect, at best, seems to have a rather skewed morality from our perspective.



Sparing the Architect is a matter of how I roleplay. I do hope this comes up in future expansions. The Architect and his plans are simply too much awesome plot material to forget about, especially as it can have direct bearing on the larger picture.

[sylvanaerie]

Its a pretty simple choice to me. PC is a Gray Warden. She/he is supposed to fight darkspawn not invite them to tea. Their continued existence is to the detriment of those the GW's fight for (humanity). Architect might be a talking darkspawn but its still a darkspawn.
Architect can't guarentee there will be no further blights as he can't innoculate every darkspawn.  So we have to deal with INTELLIGENT and aggressive darkspawn (out of all the ones made ONLY one of them is sort of a nice guy) PLUS we have to deal with Blights as well.  Arguments to spare this guy are full of holes.
Kill it quick before it multiplies.
No crisis of conscience here.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 08 mai 2010 - 12:40 .

[Xandurpein]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Sparing the Architect is a matter of how I roleplay. I do hope this comes up in future expansions. The Architect and his plans are simply too much awesome plot material to forget about, especially as it can have direct bearing on the larger picture.

The Architect suffers from the same problem as Morrigan's god baby, when it comes to future expansions - I killed him, so he is just dead. I guess the Architect at leasat can have a surviving disciple.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xandurpein wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Sparing the Architect is a matter of how I roleplay. I do hope this comes up in future expansions. The Architect and his plans are simply too much awesome plot material to forget about, especially as it can have direct bearing on the larger picture.

The Architect suffers from the same problem as Morrigan's god baby, when it comes to future expansions - I killed him, so he is just dead. I guess the Architect at leasat can have a surviving disciple.

Kill him or no, like you said, he still has disciples, perhaps even students capable of continuing his work. It doesn't matter what is done to him, he has already set some very serious things into motion. Perhaps, moreso than Morrigan's god baby, because it's existance depends on your own choices. The Architect was doing his stuff long before you came around, and even if you kill him, his legacy lives on in the Awakened.

Definitely too good to end that plot thread.

[Xandurpein]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Sparing the Architect is a matter of how I roleplay. I do hope this comes up in future expansions. The Architect and his plans are simply too much awesome plot material to forget about, especially as it can have direct bearing on the larger picture.

The Architect suffers from the same problem as Morrigan's god baby, when it comes to future expansions - I killed him, so he is just dead. I guess the Architect at leasat can have a surviving disciple.

Kill him or no, like you said, he still has disciples, perhaps even students capable of continuing his work. It doesn't matter what is done to him, he has already set some very serious things into motion. Perhaps, moreso than Morrigan's god baby, because it's existance depends on your own choices. The Architect was doing his stuff long before you came around, and even if you kill him, his legacy lives on in the Awakened.

Definitely too good to end that plot thread.

Especially as one of the things critics didn't like about the original game is that the enemy was too faceless. A thinking, talking enemy is easier to make you loath enough to make a good villain.