1316 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

While the loss of our women is regretable if we side with the Architect, I would rather have that then face the 2 blights, where our women would be taken anyhow and in greater numbers. Not to mention hundred of thousands of deaths. Or potentially, complete annihilation.

I, too, find it difficult to believe that you can posit this with any seriousness.  It is like saying that horrible, tormenting experiments on people are worth it if they produce a cure for cancer.  First, do no harm.

I am serious.
I never said I would be jumping with joy. But I would prefer this situation over the other.

Assuming that a few horrible experiments can save hundreds of thosuands of people from certain death. Then yes, it's worth it, IF IT"S UNAVOIDABLE. Furthermore, cancer doesn't kill everyone. The blight can potentially kill everyone.

The darkspawn "problem" is unavoidable. It's choosing the less painful option.

And wiping the darkspawn out is an almost impossible task.

Just as in our world, there will always be war.  You fight the battles as they come.  If you lose your humanity, as you surely do if you cooperate with the darkspawn, what are you even fighting for?

Survival and power. Why else do people fight? "Humanity"? Ha. Yea humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years, apparently for the very same reason. For their "humanity".

Siding with the Architect, in order to potentially save many lives and avoid the blights is losing one's humanity? Really?
So it's human to kill the only hope the darkspawn have to be rightly guided and destroy all hopes to avoid the 2 blights, thus making sure hundreds of thousand will die (if not everyone)?
 
Meh, what you call "inhumane" in this case, I call it rational.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2010 - 03:03 .

[Addai]

"Rightly guided"? The man... or whatever he is... is a lunatic. I would not spare Dr. Mengele on the *hope* that he can save humanity. That's too little hope and too much crazy.

[krylo]

Hey, maybe if they're intelligent and charming enough, they can convince a few women to have consensual group sex, after dinner with a tall glass of delicious taint wine.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

"Rightly guided"? The man... or whatever he is... is a lunatic. I would not spare Dr. Mengele on the *hope* that he can save humanity. That's too little hope and too much crazy.

Why is he a lunatic?

All I saw was a reasonable and rational person, who is still developping and evolving in his understanding. One who could have killed the PC and take all his blood, but decided to spare him / her.
I saw a person that is genuinely caring (to a certain extent) about Utha. And even tells her in his letter that fresh air can do her good (that's a good sign, it made me smile).
I saw a person that actually can deal with merchants and pay them for their services and protect them from corruption, instead of extort or steal from them.
And I saw a person that is determined to fix his mistake (the Mother).

I never saw a lunatic.

If the darkspawn have any chance to be civilised, it's the Architect. He might be a threat, but he isn't insane and isn't without principles.
If the darkspawn are to be led either by the Architect or the Archdemon, I would choose the Architect.
If the darkspawn are to be led by the Architect, or be left insane after the death of the last archdemon, I would choose the Architect.

EDIT: Oh and comparing the Architect to Mengele is not pertinent. Most of Mengele's experiments were competely and utterly useless, very avoidable and ver unnecessary. So they had little use, very little purpose and could have very easily been avoided.

The Architect's experiments on the otherhand can potentially avoid the 2 blights and make his people free.

So the comparision is weak. The Architect can achieve something useful. Mengele is a useless animal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2010 - 05:08 .

[Novadove]

The architect is the right choice. he is nothing more but a random existence. without him, there is still blight. without him, our character wont be able to slay the 5th tainted old god. He is nothing much but a catalyst.



He should've woken up all 3 archdemon so we can slay them at denerim all at once =)



Without him, we wont get our expansion pack.

[Efesell]

Really though I spared him for the best reason of all.

He has a really snazzy voice.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Efesell wrote...

Really though I spared him for the best reason of all.
He has a really snazzy voice.

I especially like how he struggles in talking at the very end with the Mother.
Could it be he is emotionally anxious or nervous?

[tmelange]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

I actually let him live because at the time I felt I needed his help against the mother or a lot of extra people were going to die.  (If you consider his "help" starting when the messenger shows up in Amaranthine.)  I think both choices had sucky results.  In general this expansion was a little too postmodern for me.  I like grey decisions, sure, but I felt like nothing I did made any kind of difference at all.  Once you get to the epilogue then it turns out that I did have a major impact, but you don't really get to see much of that in game.  For instance, shouldn't trade improve once you fix the mess in the wending wood?  With new supplies it seems like people should be able to start rebuilding a little, but nope....nothing. Or the peasants revolt even if I sent soldiers to protect the fields?  Huh?  What kind of sense does that make?   Anyway, that feeling of impending doom and nothing seeming to improve the situation led me to conclude I was doing a really bad job governing and needed all the help I could get.  As it was, that wasn't actually the case as the epilogue revealed so next time through I'll probably kill him.  The only way I would let him go is if it could be shown that he would stop raiding but as darkspawn need to make broodmothers to reproduce, I don't see that the raiding could ever realistically stop.

I know exactly what you mean about not knowing if you're making a difference at all. My second time through I did what I thought best from a micro perspective, though, and it seemed to work out better: I said no to Ohgren becoming a Grey Warden and sent him with Anora to fight in the regular army; I offered Nathaniel a place in the Wardens but when he said he'd rather die, I obliged him; I sent the soldiers to protect the fields, but I killed the Dark Wolf, which led to an explanation of the revolt as instigated specifically by Bann Esmerelda as a distraction. I saved Amerantine, and killed both the Messenger and the Architect.

My end cards were perfect. The city was saved, the darkspawn broke against the Keep, none of my team died, the darkspawn fractured and retreated and all the rest. I was satisfied.

[tmelange]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think the fact his presence corrupts and kills others with the taint is slightly more relevent than him being ugly.

The Qunari merchant would disagree.
Clearly, the Architect can protect people from the taint.

There is no way of knowing how the Qunari was protected from the taint. He could simply be sequestered by himself in a room and darkspawn are forbidden from approaching too closely. Supplies are exchanged from a distance.

And, of course, the Qunari is not really relevant to the overall discussion. He's a gameplay device so the PC can restock before going into a major battle in an area that you can't leave. As such, he's an anomaly, and not at all indicative of a path to coexistence.

[tmelange]

Efesell wrote...

"Wiping out all darkspawn" would be a monumentally difficult, if not impossible, task.

Not necessarily. All you'd really have to do is prevent them from breeding. Humans have some measure of control over that piece of the puzzle. A concentrated effort would have to be made to protect the women. Now that we finally know what the darkspawn do with the people they drag away underground (via our quests in DAO) a plan can be put in place to either prevent it from happening, or to equip women with a preventive mechanism if they are captured (e.g, a suicide pill). 

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmelange wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think the fact his presence corrupts and kills others with the taint is slightly more relevent than him being ugly.

The Qunari merchant would disagree.
Clearly, the Architect can protect people from the taint.

There is no way of knowing how the Qunari was protected from the taint. He could simply be sequestered by himself in a room and darkspawn are forbidden from approaching too closely. Supplies are exchanged from a distance.

And, of course, the Qunari is not really relevant to the overall discussion. He's a gameplay device so the PC can restock before going into a major battle in an area that you can't leave. As such, he's an anomaly, and not at all indicative of a path to coexistence.

The Qunari says he has been promised protection from the taint by the Architect. And he is just down the main hall, how is he secluded? You think they trade supplies under the door?

And no, he is mostly useless as a gameplay device, as we get our prievous items at the same time. He has nothing useful. And that's a very weak argument. So the fact that a Qunari is in the middle of a darkspawn base, who had no problems dealing with the Architect, is to be ignored by my PC just like that?

The fact that he delt with the Architect in person and was protected from the taint is very significant. To dismiss it as gameplay device is very waek and meeeh.  

[Efesell]

You'd also have to find all the current broodmothers, which we have no idea of, each one capable of popping out thousands of the buggers. All of this done in an area as vast as the Deep Roads.



And the idea of perfectly protecting all of the women is just as unlikely.

[UnAffectedFiddle]

magnuskn wrote...

Uh... dude. That's how they re-produce. I find it unlikely that they'll simply "come up with another way" on the fly. Or ever. It's their biology.

There is simply *no* moral justification for not wiping them out.

You failed to read the bit where I point out Seranni and Utha being women, possibly hybridised women. We dont know if the race can reproduce outside of its usual state of a hive mind. Because they are seeking to break free of their hive mind.

More importantly by killing him you only guarantee an endless cycle vs the slim chance that the darkspawn will change. You would rather guarantee endless war over a possible outcome that does not involve slaughtering a race. I also speak of destroying a primal force that has existed on this planet long before other sentient races, the Old Gods. More worrying is what happens when you take a race of beings so powerful it supposedly took a god to chain them in the earth and wipe them out?

So, we either kill him and left with endless darkspawn or we let him live and face the fact things might change, and even if they dont  we are still fighting an eternal war.

[tmelange]

Efesell wrote...

You'd also have to find all the current broodmothers, which we have no idea of, each one capable of popping out thousands of the buggers. All of this done in an area as vast as the Deep Roads.

And the idea of perfectly protecting all of the women is just as unlikely.

No one said you'd have to do it perfectly, but certainly someone could come up with a magical solution that would bar that reproductive option for the darkspawn. The lifespan of existing broodmothers might likely be based on a human lifespan, but in any event, it is only a lifespan. You wouldn't have to hunt existing broodmothers; they'd die off eventually.

A plan that blocks their use of unwilling hosts for reproduction, and hastens the natural eradication of the darkspawn species makes a whole heck of a lot more sense in humanity's best interest than some crazy plan to "free" darkspawn from the only thing that controls their corrupting effect on humanity in-between blights, turn a parasitical, demonic species into intelligent adversaries, and commit to supplying that species with female hosts to perpetuate that species basically forever, because the darkspawn have no reproductive mechanism of their own.

Before anyone can argue that the Architect's frankenstein plan to create intelligent darkspawn is a step in their rightful evolutionary path, someone would have to address the fact that no species has an evolutionary path without first having a reproductive path. The Architect might think he knows what the darkspawn are supposed to be, but apparently, the Maker, or whomever is in charge of the DA world, thinks otherwise.

Modifié par tmelange, 22 mars 2010 - 05:58 .

[tmelange]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

tmelange wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think the fact his presence corrupts and kills others with the taint is slightly more relevent than him being ugly.

The Qunari merchant would disagree.
Clearly, the Architect can protect people from the taint.

There is no way of knowing how the Qunari was protected from the taint. He could simply be sequestered by himself in a room and darkspawn are forbidden from approaching too closely. Supplies are exchanged from a distance.

And, of course, the Qunari is not really relevant to the overall discussion. He's a gameplay device so the PC can restock before going into a major battle in an area that you can't leave. As such, he's an anomaly, and not at all indicative of a path to coexistence.

The Qunari says he has been promised protection from the taint by the Architect. And he is just down the main hall, how is he secluded? You think they trade supplies under the door?

And no, he is mostly useless as a gameplay device, as we get our prievous items at the same time. He has nothing useful. And that's a very weak argument. So the fact that a Qunari is in the middle of a darkspawn base, who had no problems dealing with the Architect, is to be ignored by my PC just like that?

The fact that he delt with the Architect in person and was protected from the taint is very significant. To dismiss it as gameplay device is very waek and meeeh.  

He is on the other side of a massive door. There are no darkspawn standing right on the other side of the door, and besides, you don't know how close or far a person has to be to avoid taint.

If you refuse to view the Quanri as an anomaly, added to the game for the sake of gameplay, that's fine. But the fact is some steps were put in place to avoid him becoming tainted, and those steps most likely had to include controlled proximity. We don't know exactly what those steps are, but apparently, it wasn't something that could be adopted to protect any other ally over the course of time.

What we do know is if you free the messenger, he spreads taint; all the darkspawn's allies are tainted. Sans any other instance anywhere in the games or books, the Quanari is a single anomaly. An outlier. You don't base findings on single outliers.

[tmelange]

UnAffectedFiddle wrote...

magnuskn wrote...

Uh... dude. That's how they re-produce. I find it unlikely that they'll simply "come up with another way" on the fly. Or ever. It's their biology.

There is simply *no* moral justification for not wiping them out.

You failed to read the bit where I point out Seranni and Utha being women, possibly hybridised women. We dont know if the race can reproduce outside of its usual state of a hive mind. Because they are seeking to break free of their hive mind.

More importantly by killing him you only guarantee an endless cycle vs the slim chance that the darkspawn will change. You would rather guarantee endless war over a possible outcome that does not involve slaughtering a race. I also speak of destroying a primal force that has existed on this planet long before other sentient races, the Old Gods. More worrying is what happens when you take a race of beings so powerful it supposedly took a god to chain them in the earth and wipe them out?

So, we either kill him and left with endless darkspawn or we let him live and face the fact things might change, and even if they dont  we are still fighting an eternal war.

Hybridized women? Whether they can reproduce outside of a hive mind? I don't understand what you're saying. Dumb or intelligent, there are no female darkspawn. In order for them to reproduce, dumb or intelligent, they have to use females of other species and corrupt them into horrible deformity. Are you trying to say that once they are intelligent, there will be enough non-darkspawn women who will voluntarily consent to mating with darkspawn in order to make their species viable? And that this is a viable future for the human race?

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmelange wrote...

He is on the other side of a massive door. There are no darkspawn standing right on the other side of the door, and besides, you don't know how close or far a person has to be to avoid taint.

If you refuse to view the Quanri as an anomaly, added to the game for the sake of gameplay, that's fine. But the fact is some steps were put in place to avoid him becoming tainted, and those steps most likely had to include controlled proximity. We don't know exactly what those steps are, but apparently, it wasn't something that could be adopted to protect any other ally over the course of time.

What we do know is if you free the messenger, he spreads taint; all the darkspawn's allies are tainted. Sans any other instance anywhere in the games or books, the Quanari is a single anomaly. An outlier. You don't base findings on single outliers.

Eum, did you forget about the darkspawn we had to kill on the same saide of the door before getting to him? That massive door was in fact the entrance / exist of the base and the Qunari merchant was inside.
 
If indeed that Qunari was purely gameplay mechanics, then I wonder why we never had a merchant in the middle of blackmarsh, or in the Mother's breeding ground. Or in the Mother's lair for that matter. Of course this can't be seen as a simple gameplay thing. It could have very easily been replaced by a chest contianing some potions and whatnot.

Once again, it's not clear if the darkspawn messenger is the cause of the taint infection. It could be that man we free from Kal'Hirol. I would have to play again to be sure.
And we don't know how the Qunari was protected (could be magic), but clearly the Architect knows how to protect people from the taint. I doubt it has much to do with proximity, otherwise the people the messenger supposedly tainted, would have surely known he was a darkspawn if he was cms away from them.

My point is that the taint and the infection can be avoided and interaction can happen to a certain extent. I didn't say we can kiss and hug darkspawn and hope we don't get infected. I responded to the assumption that all arround the Architect are corrupted, which isn't true.
The Qunari is not an outlier. He is an example that falsifies the theory that the darkspawn have to corrupt all they interact with. One single example is enough to falsify a theory.

And how ever this Qunari was protected can be duplicated, in order to achieve some form of limited interaction with a possibly freed and rational darkspawn people.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2010 - 06:19 .

[tmelange]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

tmelange wrote...

He is on the other side of a massive door. There are no darkspawn standing right on the other side of the door, and besides, you don't know how close or far a person has to be to avoid taint.

If you refuse to view the Quanri as an anomaly, added to the game for the sake of gameplay, that's fine. But the fact is some steps were put in place to avoid him becoming tainted, and those steps most likely had to include controlled proximity. We don't know exactly what those steps are, but apparently, it wasn't something that could be adopted to protect any other ally over the course of time.

What we do know is if you free the messenger, he spreads taint; all the darkspawn's allies are tainted. Sans any other instance anywhere in the games or books, the Quanari is a single anomaly. An outlier. You don't base findings on single outliers.

Eum, did you forget about the darkspawn we had to kill on the same saide of the door before getting to him? That massive door was in fact the entrance / exist of the base and the Qunari merchant was inside.
 
If indeed that Qunari was purely gameplay mechanics, then I wonder why we never had a merchant in the middle of blackmarsh, or in the Mother's breeding ground. Or in the Mother's lair for that matter. Of course this can't be seen as a simple gameplay thing. It could have very easily been replaced by a chest contianing some potions and whatnot.

Once again, it's not clear if the darkspawn messenger is the cause of the taint infection. It could be that man we free from Kal'Hirol. I would have to play again to be sure.
And we don't know how the Qunari was protected (could be magic), but clearly the Architect knows how to protect people from the taint. I doubt it has much to do with proximity, otherwise the people the messenger supposedly tainted, would have surely known he was a darkspawn if he was cms away from them.

My point is that the taint and the infection can be avoided and interaction can happen to a certain extent. I didn't say we can kiss and hug darkspawn and hope we don't get infected. I responded to the assumption that all arround the Architect are corrupted, which isn't true.
The Qunari is not an outlier. He is an example that falsifies the theory that the darkspawn have to corrupt all they interact with. One single example is enough to falsify a theory.

And how ever this Qunari was protected can be duplicated, in order to achieve some form of limited interaction with a possibly freed and rational darkspawn people.  

You doubt it has anything to do with proximity? That's the basis of the corruption throughout the game. The taint is clearly not airborne. 

And the issue with the messenger spreading corruption was included on his end credit card. I killed the guy from Kal-Hirol. The two are not related.

The qunari is an anomaly, despite anything that anyone can posit as a theory as to how his agreement with the Architect works. Gameplay device, doors, rooms, exchanges, proximity, magic--it means nothing to the basic argument. Tens of thousands and more of people and the physical world entire have had the exact same reaction to the darkspawn. No one proceeding logically and scientifically can base any finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmelange wrote...
You doubt it has anything to do with proximity? That's the basis of the corruption throughout the game. The taint is clearly not airborne. 

And the issue with the messenger spreading corruption was included on his end credit card. I killed the guy from Kal-Hirol. The two are not related.

The qunari is an anomaly, despite anything that anyone can posit as a theory as to how his agreement with the Architect works. Gameplay device, doors, rooms, exchanges, proximity, magic--it means nothing to the basic argument. Tens of thousands and more of people and the physical world entire have had the exact same reaction to the darkspawn. No one proceeding logically and scientifically can base any finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly.

No, I said I doubt it has much to do with proximity. Difference.

Thanks for the confirmation. Doesn't change my argument.

You speak as if  the Qunari is genetically incapable of acquiring the disease (which would be a huge stretch). The Qunari is an example that infection can be avoided somehow. How? I do not know. But I do know that the Architect knows.
He is proof that one can interact with the darkspawn rather closely and still not be infected. And such a thing can be duplicated.
And logically, if you see something not fitting your theory or premise, then it's falsified and your theory has to be altered to fit this new discovery. To simply dismiss it as an anomaly and forget about it is hardly scientific.

So future limited interactions is possible. 

The basic argument is that the darkspawn can (and often do) infect people with the taint. That I do not dispute.
My argument is that some form of interaction with the darkspawn can exist, with the taint and infection being avoided.
That's all I said.

EDIT: anyways I am off to sleep. This is a cool discussion!
Good night everyone!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2010 - 07:04 .

[krylo]

@TME:
Actually, scientifically, you presented a theory.

Your theory was that "All beings in close proximity to the darkspawn become tainted."

In science, a single anomaly disproves a theory.

Thus, your theory is disproven.

In science you never prove theories. You merely fail to disprove them. This is why we have a theory of gravitation/gravity.

Knight's theory that there is a way to actively protect people from the taint does not have enough information to be tested/disproven, and is therefore scientifically invalid. However, it has more supporting data than your old theory.

I would suggest a new theory of "Most beings who come into contact with darkspawn will be tainted" or "It is not possible to protect all beings who come into contact with the darkspawn."

Neither theory will be any more valid than Knight's until we have more data, but they will be more valid than your theory that darkspawn corrupt everything.

P.S. Please do not throw around words like 'scientifically' unless you know what they mean.

Modifié par krylo, 22 mars 2010 - 07:03 .

[tmelange]

krylo wrote...

@TME:
Actually, scientifically, you presented a theory.

Your theory was that "All beings in close proximity to the darkspawn become tainted."

In science, a single anomaly disproves a theory.

Thus, your theory is disproven.

In science you never prove theories. You merely fail to disprove them. This is why we have a theory of gravitation/gravity.

Knight's theory that there is a way to actively protect people from the taint does not have enough information to be tested/disproven, and is therefore scientifically invalid. However, it has more supporting data than your old theory.

I would suggest a new theory of "Most beings who come into contact with darkspawn will be tainted" or "It is not possible to protect all beings who come into contact with the darkspawn."

Neither theory will be any more valid than Knight's until we have more data, but they will be more valid than your theory that darkspawn corrupt everything.

P.S. Please do not throw around words like 'scientifically' unless you know what they mean.

I didn't present a theory; I presented a fact based on the evidence and definitions presented in game (no other person in-game ever has been able to coexist with darkspawn, and the Quanari is an anomaly that for lack of information as to why he's standing there you can't use as a basis for a plan that will affect all of humanity).

My argument is that the Quanari doesn't disprove, nor was intended to change, the basic definitions provided to us in-game regarding the effect of proximity over time to darkspawn. My argument is that we have no way of knowing how the Qunari has managed to deal with the darkspawn, however, it can be as simple as the way ALL people manage to avoid darkspawn taint: limiting exposure via control of time and proximity.

My statement, "No one proceeding logically and scientifically can base any finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly," is in fact true -- you can't base a finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly. You are arguing an unrelated negative -- you don't prove theories; you simply fail to disprove them (though, of course, you do have the exercise of proof of theories all the time) -- which is true but isn't what I SAID, so I'm not sure of your point.

Of course, the existence of the quanari doesn't prove the theory that the darkspawn have discovered a way to immunize humanity from corruption -- which, was, in fact, my point, which you somehow managed to miss.

PS

Please stop trying to sound smart. It's not working.

[krylo]

tmelange wrote...

I didn't present a theory; I presented a fact based on the evidence and definitions presented in game

Then don't use the word 'scientifically'.  There is no such thing as scientific fact.  Only theory.

My statement, "No one proceeding logically and scientifically can base any finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly," is in fact true -- you can't base a finding, rational basis or plan on an anomaly.

Actually it's NOT true.

If someone were to discover tomorrow a single object that doesn't obey the current version of the theories of thermodynamics or gravity, those theories would be considered disproven and would need to either be thrown out or rewritten.

It doesn't matter HOW the qunari avoids being tainted, whether by limiting exposure or some kind of magic.  What matters is that he is able to interact closely with the darkspawn--trading goods--without ever contracting the taint. 

This makes him an exception to the rule.

Exceptions disprove rules.

P.S. Please stop trying to sound smart. It's not working.

Who said I was trying?

I'm simply taking issue with your abuse of meaningless fluff words to make your argument seem more compelling.  Particularly when you use them incorrectly.

Modifié par krylo, 22 mars 2010 - 08:11 .

[tmelange]

krylo wrote...

Then don't use the word 'scientifically'.  There is no such thing as scientific fact.  Only theory.

Maybe you should stop taking a point made in the first paragraph and applying it to a sentence made in the last paragraph that has nothing to do with that sentence. The sentence you seem stuck on relates to the original argument: that the existence of the Qunari can form the basis of a new theory of the case.

My argument is simply a presentation of the facts as they have been presented to us in this universe by Bioware. I'm not the one presenting some new theory. The OP on this issue was. I'm the one saying you can't base a theory on an anomaly when you have so many clear instances for a different conclusion, and no substantiation as to why the anomaly exists.

I'm not sure why you're missing this point.

Actually it's NOT true.

If someone were to discover tomorrow a single object that doesn't obey the current version of the theories of thermodynamics or gravity, those theories would be considered disproven and would need to either be thrown out or rewritten.

*Tired sigh* Once again, I'm not the one presenting a theory of the effect of darkspawn in this universe. There is only the facts that the creators of this world have established. 

But based on your insistence on applying an erroneous premise to my argument: You have to actual HAVE an instance that actually DISPROVES the theory. If we have the theory of gravity, and someone says they dropped a ball from the roof and instead of it falling down, it ended up resting right by their side, the theory of gravity isn't disproven. There isn't enough information to determine why that ball moved sideways instead of down. The fact that the ball is sitting there DISPROVES nothing; it is simply an anomaly that should be re-tested for replication or thrown out entirely.

My argument was that the existence of the Quanari, sans any further information, cannot form the basis of a new theory on darkspawn; it cannot disprove the fact that darkspawn corrupt everything, because without replication and information, it is simply an anomaly.

Modifié par tmelange, 22 mars 2010 - 09:04 .

[Lycidas]

I actually stopped playing for now when it came to that decision. I know from the book that the Architect can not be trusted and I really really want to kill him but that it knowledge that can not be found anywhere in the game (at least I did not find it)...I don't like metagaming so because of this and some messed up quests I'm going to start again from the beginning and find myself a reason to kill him in the meanwhile.

[Tellervo]

My Warden saw too much common ground, and that honestly frightened him.  Now he's terrified that when he goes to his Calling he'll survive and turn into something like that....  How can you kill a reflection of yourself?

That was my logic, which isn't really logic at all.