1316 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

nranola wrote...

You're
given another option via the Architect, someone who knows how the darkspawn tick and is working towards preventing any more Blights from starting, a possible ally; by killing him you forfeit all that. If you spare him you still have the option of killing him later. Provided you have to find him first, but the point is that the option is still open to you.

It was for this reasoning that my PC let the messenger go, as she had promised, rather than killing him- because she wanted to keep her word and knew he could easily be killed later if necessary.  But the Architect is a different story.  He is too powerful and his methods too terrible to allow him to continue.  Regardless of whether his intent really is what he says it is, his "experimentation" has to stop.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Godak wrote...

Again, that seems to be a rather far-fetched moment, and I doubt it's canonical. Where did the Architect get the dragons? How does he control them? I really just think that BioWare wanted to give us a boss fight, since it seems like complete BS. Dragons are very rare, and the Architect gains nothing by killing us.

His journal indicates he was already contemplating doing that very thing.

He never referred to humans or Wardens as "it" before. No reason to assume that he is now.

By "it", I think he meant either the Mother or the Old God Urthemiel.

[clafount]

[quote]krylo wrote...
In the 'real' situation, you are sentencing to death, more than likely, millions of humans, dwarves, and elves attempting to wipe out the darkspawn in their home, as you expressed the want to wipe them out.  [/quote]

Wait, how do you figure? Because of the possibility of future blights? I don't mean to get pedantic, but I doubt millions of people were killed in the last Blight, considering we stopped it so quickly. And if history is a judge, the next Blight won't be for another couple of hundred years. And there are only likely to be two Blights left, right? I doubt that would add up to millions of deaths (how populated do you think Ferelden is, for example?)

Anyway, that's really just a side issue and not germaine to your argument, I know. I was just thinking here...

[quote]
OR you are sentencing a few of society's absolute worst criminals (worse than just killing one family, preferably) to torture.

Further: Note that I said making them tranquil first was a necessity.

They'd be unable to feel fear, or hatred, or be emotionally scarred.  Only the physical pain would be applicable.  There'd be no emotional trauma committed against them.

Not even I could reconcile it without that provision.
[/quote]

I also think making people tranquil is pretty morally reprehensible, actually. And some people think torture of any kind is morally reprehensible you know

I think whether the women (and let's face it, we are only talking about *women* suffering this fate, not men) truly
suffer or not doesn't change that fact that you're basically giving
someone over to the darkspawn to be violated in such a fundamental way
just to buy yourself peace... Yes, yes, they are criminals and evil and all that but some
people believe that human beings (or elves, or dwarves) have certain
basic rights that shouldn't be violated no matter what their past actions have been. *shrug* It's why some people
are against torture or the death penalty or any form of cruel and
unusual punishment, and I'm not going to get into that argument here, I guess.

[quote]Besides, I'd rather the Darkspawn die out from not having Broodmothers to breed than to willingly provide them
more. I know the hypothetical you've set up presumes some kind of peace accord where they agree not to attack us if we give them females for breeding purposes, but I think that's a rather preposterous circumstance.

[/quote]I think it's more preposterous to assume we'd ever be able to root out the darkspawn from the deep roads and kill all their broodmothers and protect every single female of every other race at all times forever.

A peace accord is much more likely than that.
[/quote]

Actually, why not? It seems to me that the standard operating procedure for the Grey Wardens has been to deal with the Blight when it happens, but when there isn't a Blight, the dwarves are pretty much on their own with dealing with the Darkspawn in the Deep Roads. And the Darkspawn mostly stick to the deep roads when there's not a blight, right? (Present Awakenings expansion excepted, of course).

Why not take the fight to them? That way your casualities are soldiers and Grey Wardens, not innocent civillians. Maybe you can wipe them out. Or at least cull there numbers to the point that they don't have so many digging, digging, digging to find an Old God. So maybe they never find one. Or they don't find one for a thousand years.

Hell, maybe you even outlaw female Grey Wardens in an effort to prevent them from getting captured and used as Broodmothers.

Anyway, specifically about your peace accord:

1.) I just don't see any human (or dwarvish or elven) society being willing to negotiate with the darkspawn like this
2.) I don't see any evidence that the darkspawn would really agree to this. I mean, it's very hypothetical as to how the Darkspawn would act were they to all be "freed."

But that gets into the basic arguments people are having in this thread about what the nature of so-called intelligent and free-willed darkspawn would actually be, so I don't think we need to rehash all that here. 

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Having free will = an ethical nature.

!!!

Modifié par Addai67, 23 mars 2010 - 06:58 .

[Godak]

krylo wrote...

In the game=canonical.

Not true. At all. Otherwise, almost every companion would be simultaneously dead and alive.

krylo wrote...

They're tainted thralls. 

 
Which means they should have free will. It does not explain how the Architect controls them.

krylo wrote...

Don't seem to be so rare anymore.  Seem to be making a bit of a comeback.  There's, what, two high dragons, a high dragon ghost, two thralls, and how many drakes? 

It seems to be more of a gameplay =/= canon situation. To me, anyway.

krylo wrote...

Better argument would be that he couldn't have seriously thought two dragon thralls would have a chance in hell against us.

True dat.

Modifié par Godak, 23 mars 2010 - 07:00 .

[clafount]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

clafount wrote...

There's a sci fi type story here that is teasingly unrecallable but it seems similar...where a society sacrifices a member of their community for some overall "good for everyone" reason? What the heck is that?

That's lots of stories, I think!  The one that comes to mind is called "The Shepherd" by Orson Scott Card.

Its a short story called "The Lottery" I think? 

That's the one! Or at least, that IS one. I am sure there are more, as Addai67 said

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Having free will = an ethical nature.

!!!

By "ethical nature", I mean being capable of showing some form of ethics and be able to conprehend concepts like "right" and "wrong". They do not have to be the same ethics we espouse (humans don't even agree amongst themselves about ethics).

I didn't say, having free will = being "good".


 

[sylvanaerie]

Damn Got to take my oldest to work now. Been fun debating with you, lots of interesting viewpoints on the board today. Have fun and Peace out!

[Godak]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Damn Got to take my oldest to work now. Been fun debating with you, lots of interesting viewpoints on the board today. Have fun and Peace out!

Have a good day! I, too, must go. Lunch calls.

[th3 D4rk]

In my game the architect dies

[krylo]

clafount wrote...

krylo wrote...
In the 'real' situation, you are sentencing to death, more than likely, millions of humans, dwarves, and elves attempting to wipe out the darkspawn in their home, as you expressed the want to wipe them out. 

Wait, how do you figure? Because of the possibility of future blights? I don't mean to get pedantic, but I doubt millions of people were killed in the last Blight, considering we stopped it so quickly. And if history is a judge, the next Blight won't be for another couple of hundred years. And there are only likely to be two Blights left, right? I doubt that would add up to millions of deaths (how populated do you think Ferelden is, for example?)

Anyway, that's really just a side issue and not germaine to your argument, I know. I was just thinking here...

I'm not talking about the blights, I'm talking about what happens after which would be this:

Actually, why not? It seems to me that the standard operating procedure
for the Grey Wardens has been to deal with the Blight when it happens,
but when there isn't a Blight, the dwarves are pretty much on their own
with dealing with the Darkspawn in the Deep Roads. And the Darkspawn
mostly stick to the deep roads when there's not a blight, right?
(Present Awakenings expansion excepted, of course).

Why not take
the fight to them? That way your casualities are soldiers and Grey
Wardens, not innocent civillians. Maybe you can wipe them out. Or at
least cull there numbers to the point that they don't have so many
digging, digging, digging to find an Old God. So maybe they never find
one. Or they don't find one for a thousand years.

Yes, it may be POSSIBLE to win, but you would be fighting the darkspawn on their home turf, and they slaughter us terribly on OUR turf.

Denerim fell how quickly?

How well did our actual soldiers do against the darkspawn on the ground?

Do you think they could have won against the horde if the darkspawn hadn't retreated with the death of the Archdemon?

The casualities on our side would be immense in such an operation.

I also think making people tranquil is pretty morally reprehensible, actually. And some people think torture of any kind is morally reprehensible you know

I think whether the women (and let's face it, we are only talking about *women* suffering this fate, not men) truly
suffer or not doesn't change that fact that you're basically giving someone over to the darkspawn to be violated in such a fundamental way just to buy yourself peace... Yes, yes, they are criminals and evil and all that but some
people believe that human beings (or elves, or dwarves) have certain basic rights that shouldn't be violated no matter what their past actions have been. *shrug* It's why some people are against torture or the death penalty or any form of cruel and unusual punishment, and I'm not going to get into that argument here, I guess.

I also think making someone tranquil is terrible, and it's why I pretty much always go to bat for Jowan in the mage tower.  However, I see it as roughly equivalent to killing them.  Maybe a bit worse.  Still better than torturing a feeling person, however.

And I also believe in the rights of people and disagree with torture and the death penalty.  Though, the crux of my disagreement with both is that they don't work (not going to argue heavily here, but go read books by folks that did interrogations in WW2 [there was even a ****, who was known as their greatest interrogator, purely BECAUSE he NEVER tortured anyone), or the crime rates of places with vs places without death penalties).

IF they did work, however, I'd still find them terrible, and disgusting, but I'd see them as a necessary evil. 

How many lives does it take to equal the life of one murderer?  The violation of one serial killer?

I believe there's a point where the right to life of people, of enough people, supercedes the right of a criminal to not be harmed.  Even if the harm being done is truly terrible.

Anyway, specifically about your peace accord:

1.) I just don't see any human (or dwarvish or elven) society being willing to negotiate with the darkspawn like this

Why not?  Knight and I would be.  Godak would be.  There are people who would.   And such negotiations needn't be open to the public.

Rulers have to do things that are terrible sometimes, in order to protect their people.  A ruler's duty is to make certain his people can remain safe and live happy lives.  Even if it means going to hell for it.

2.) I don't see any evidence that the darkspawn would really agree to this. I mean, it's very hypothetical as to how the Darkspawn would act were they to all be "freed."

I don't see any evidence that they wouldn't.  Most of the disciples I met were at least rational enough to speak to me, and make temporary truces with both myself and others.

[krylo]

Godak wrote...
Not true. At all. Otherwise, almost every companion would be simultaneously dead and alive.

A companion dying is a choice.

The Architect saying x, y, or z, for instance, is not a choice.

The former is not canonical in all games (and may not be at all, if they set a canon in a sequel).

The latter is canonical.

The alternative to this view completely negates any attempts to argue anything as I could just say "Well, -I- believe it is canon that the Architect is sunshine lollipops and rainbows and nothing in the game that disproves that is true," and Addai could say, "Nuh uh, he is obviously composed entirely of feces.  And anything in the game that disproves THAT is not true."

It is the purview of nihilists and madmen.

Step back from the edge, Godak.  There is still time!  Cease staring into the abyss before it stares back into you!

Which means they should have free will. It does not explain how the Architect controls them.

That is not what thrall means.

It seems to be more of a gameplay =/= canon situation. To me, anyway.

You don't think the fact that it's called the DRAGON age was maybe... a bit of foreshadowing or anything?  Maybe some kind of clue that dragons are coming back?

No?

Well ok then.

Modifié par krylo, 23 mars 2010 - 07:13 .

[clafount]

(I apologize if my formatting gets screwed up. I seem to get line breaks in odd places for some reason).

krylo wrote...

Yes, it may be POSSIBLE to win, but you would be fighting the darkspawn on their home turf, and they slaughter us terribly on OUR turf.

Denerim fell how quickly?

How well did our actual soldiers do against the darkspawn on the ground?

Do you think they could have won against the horde if the darkspawn hadn't retreated with the death of the Archdemon?

The casualities on our side would be immense in such an operation.

Well, I dunno. My warden does pretty well in the deep roads with only three people accomanying her And the wardens in The Calling did alright with a small party.

Imagine if you had a huge party of Grey Wardens attacking and making settlements into the Deep Roads. Who knows? I always wondered why the Grey Wardens didn't do this, actually.

IF they did work, however, I'd still find them terrible, and disgusting, but I'd see them as a necessary evil. 

How many lives does it take to equal the life of one murderer?  The violation of one serial killer?

I believe there's a point where the right to life of people, of enough people, supercedes the right of a criminal to not be harmed.  Even if the harm being done is truly terrible.

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here. I think we lose some humanity, something that makes us special, if we begin to treat life so cheaply. I think there's a point beyond the utilitarian reasons to NOT torture. Because it says "we are not like those who would kill so freely" and "we will not stoop to that level."

I may be an idealist. I'm not that much of a peacenik, though, really. I just feel pretty strongly on these issues.

Knight and I would be.  Godak would be.  There are people who would.   And such negotiations needn't be open to the public.

Rulers have to do things that are terrible sometimes, in order to protect their people.  A ruler's duty is to make certain his people can remain safe and live happy lives.  Even if it means going to hell for it.

Yeah, but you guys are used to making such calls as Grey Wardens. And I assume you don't all follow the religion of the Chantry, which preaches that the Darkspawn are man's punishment for sin and as such, unspeakably evil. I mean, I doubt the Chantry would be behind such a deal, and a lot of Thedas's countries are believers in the Maker. So you would have religion to contend with. Not that that is an iron-tight reason by any means, but the value system of the people in Thedas is probably not going to be completely similar to your own. They may have culturally specific reasons to be against it. And they won't have had your experience in dealing with the Architect and the other talking darkspawn, presumably.

Having said all that, you could probably find some ruler somewhere who may be able to secretly pull this off - I'll concede that point, but I still think it is highly unlikely.

2.) I don't see any evidence that the darkspawn would really agree to this. I mean, it's very hypothetical as to how the Darkspawn would act were they to all be "freed."

I don't see any evidence that they wouldn't.  Most of the disciples I met were at least rational enough to speak to me, and make temporary truces with both myself and others.

I guess I just don't know what the goals of this new breed of darkspawn would be. Would they even need or want to reproduce in large numbers anymore? Would they desire peace with us? Would they just prefer to take freely what they want rather than be limited to this agreement? Would they trust us?

I still think it's rather improbable, but as I said before, my main problem with it is the morality of the thing.

[Godak]

krylo wrote...

Step back from the edge, Godak.  There is still time!  Cease staring into the abyss before it stares back into you!

(...)

You don't think the fact that it's called the DRAGON age was maybe... a bit of foreshadowing or anything?  Maybe some kind of clue that dragons are coming back?

No u!

What I'm saying is that the developers may take liberties with the setting (IE: one high dragon is sighted, naming the age. She has one nest,  which makes sense. But now dragons are in Amaranthine?) to give the player more enemy variety.

krylo wrote...

That is not what thrall means.

The dragon thralls were corrupted by the ARCHDEMON, not the ARCHITECT. If the Architect gave them the warden's blood, they should have free will. Once again, how does the Architect control them?

*Goes back to eating lunch*

[krylo]

clafount wrote...
Well, I dunno. My warden does pretty well in the deep roads with only three people accomanying her And the wardens in The Calling did alright with a small party.

Yeah, but the Hero of Ferelden pisses destruction and ****s armageddon.  And so do our companions.

Kind of an unfair comparison.

Most people aren't anywhere near our level of ability.  Most people get destroyed in droves by a single ogre (codex even says so).  We kill two or three at a time.

By ourselves.

With EASE.

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here. I think we lose some humanity, something that makes us special, if we begin to treat life so cheaply. I think there's a point beyond the utilitarian reasons to NOT torture. Because it says "we are not like those who would kill so freely" and "we will not stoop to that level."

I actually agree with this as well.

It's why I mentioned how it's a ruler's duty to do what is best for his people even if it means going to hell for it.

I make no claim that what I would be doing would be 'right' or 'just'.  However, I believe it would be the best thing for the people, and if I have to make that deal, and lose my humanity, so that the people I rule over can live out full happy lives and never have to think about another blight or war with the darkspawn?

Well, I'll do it.  Happily.

My humanity isn't worth the lives of my people.

[krylo]

Godak wrote...
The dragon thralls were corrupted by the ARCHDEMON, not the ARCHITECT. If the Architect gave them the warden's blood, they should have free will. Once again, how does the Architect control them?

*Goes back to eating lunch*

Who says he didn't give them normal hurlock blood?

[Godak]

krylo wrote...

Godak wrote...
The dragon thralls were corrupted by the ARCHDEMON, not the ARCHITECT. If the Architect gave them the warden's blood, they should have free will. Once again, how does the Architect control them?

*Goes back to eating lunch*

Who says he didn't give them normal hurlock blood?

How would that control them? No rhetorical questions, here. If you seriously know, please share. I'm always willing to learn, my sensei.

[clafount]

krylo wrote...

clafount wrote...
Well, I dunno. My warden does pretty well in the deep roads with only three people accomanying her And the wardens in The Calling did alright with a small party.

Yeah, but the Hero of Ferelden pisses destruction and ****s armageddon.  And so do our companions.

Kind of an unfair comparison.

Most people aren't anywhere near our level of ability.  Most people get destroyed in droves by a single ogre (codex even says so).  We kill two or three at a time.

By ourselves.

With EASE.

Right! So let's go kick some ass in the Deep Roads and make this discussion moot. Maybe that's what Dragon Age 3 will be

I actually agree with this as well.

It's why I mentioned how it's a ruler's duty to do what is best for his people even if it means going to hell for it.

I make no claim that what I would be doing would be 'right' or 'just'.  However, I believe it would be the best thing for the people, and if I have to make that deal, and lose my humanity, so that the people I rule over can live out full happy lives and never have to think about another blight or war with the darkspawn?

Except for those women sentenced to become Broodmothers, of course Yes, I know you plan to make them tranquil and that they would be awful horrible criminals.

Or at least, they'd be convicted as such (because innocent people even in our world can and do get sentenced to die).

And you would be continuing to bring more darkspawn into the world, and you *assume* that the darkspawn would never make war on us again and that it would really bring peace...

Well, I'll do it.  Happily.

My humanity isn't worth the lives of my people.

Well, I doubt it would just be you involved though. It would probably take quite a few people being complicit in this venture. I doubt it would stay secret forever.

[krylo]

Godak wrote...

krylo wrote...

Godak wrote...
The dragon thralls were corrupted by the ARCHDEMON, not the ARCHITECT. If the Architect gave them the warden's blood, they should have free will. Once again, how does the Architect control them?

*Goes back to eating lunch*

Who says he didn't give them normal hurlock blood?

How would that control them? No rhetorical questions, here. If you seriously know, please share. I'm always willing to learn, my sensei.

He manages to control other non-freed darkspawn.

I imagine he would control the thralls the same way.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My character observed lots of things. Having free will = an ethical nature.

Your earlier explanation of this comment makes sense.  However, compare Ruck or a Warden at the end of his life to darkspawn.  They (tainted humans) hear the archdemon's call and are drawn to it, yet are able to resist it.  There is something else about the darkspawn besides the archdemons which causes them to be what they are and do what they do.

To go with the assumption "darkspawn are all evilzzz" is just a non-argument  and simply a prejudice. It could be right, but it could be (and is proven to be) wrong.

I will resist saying "darkspawn are all evilzzz" if you resist the urge to paint them as noble savages simply waiting for enlightenment.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 mars 2010 - 08:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

My character observed lots of things. Having free will = an ethical nature.

Your earlier explanation of this comment makes sense.  However, compare Ruck or a Warden at the end of his life to darkspawn.  They (tainted humans) hear the archdemon's call and are drawn to it, yet are able to resist it.  There is something else about the darkspawn besides the archdemons which causes them to be what they are and do what they do.

To go with the assumption "darkspawn are all evilzzz" is just a non-argument  and simply a prejudice. It could be right, but it could be (and is proven to be) wrong.

I will resist saying "darkspawn are all evilzzz" if you resist the urge to paint them as noble savages simply waiting for enlightenment.

What part of "resistance to the taint" have you forgotten? The Wardens can resist the song because they can resist the taint, for a while. The reason they go to die in the calling is precisely to avoid being enslaved by the song. The fact that the Wardens at the end of their lives get much stronger and vivid dreams is because they start hearing the song.

And even Ruck says that the song is getting irresistible. After a while, he will join the Blight, as a ghoul. He wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

I never said they are noble savages waiting to be enlightnened. I said they have the potential to be enlightened. At least some of them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mars 2010 - 08:55 .

[Addai]

And you simply trust that they will learn and maintain resistance to the taint, and not try to spread it to humans (assuming there is any way even to prevent that)? Even though it is the darkspawn themselves who taint the old gods when they find them?

Modifié par Addai67, 23 mars 2010 - 09:05 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

And you simply trust that they will learn and maintain resistance to the taint, and not try to spread it to humans (assuming there is any way even to prevent that)? Even though it is the darkspawn themselves who taint the old gods when they find them?

I will not "simply trust". But I do believe we can reach accords and agreements with them yes. Have diplomatic correspondance and even trade with them, yes.

The spread of the taint is very difficult and the number one method is drinking darkspawn blood (the whole Warden joining, Ruck, Mabari hounds...etc). So the taint can be contained, with the support of the darkspawn or no. Only the Children have the capacity to unleash the taint in a very deadly way.

But otherwise, the taint will not be able to reach the level necessary to wipe out the species or any significant amount of people, if we remain vigilant.

The darkspawn taint the old Gods because of the song. If the song is removed, they no longer need to search for them.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mars 2010 - 09:12 .

[Godak]

krylo wrote...

Godak wrote...

krylo wrote...

Godak wrote...

The dragon thralls were corrupted by the ARCHDEMON, not the ARCHITECT. If the Architect gave them the warden's blood, they should have free will. Once again, how does the Architect control them?



*Goes back to eating lunch*

Who says he didn't give them normal hurlock blood?

How would that control them? No rhetorical questions, here. If you seriously know, please share. I'm always willing to learn, my sensei.

He manages to control other non-freed darkspawn.



I imagine he would control the thralls the same way.

Darkspawn are trying to follow the orders of the Disciples (who, in turn, follow either the Architect or the Mother) who they probably see as the "Alpha Males". It makes no sense to apply this same principle to the thralls, who are of a totally different species.



Anyways...While I do believe that there will be another blight, I think that the Architect will have freed enough darkspawn to make it a less apocalyptic scenario.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The darkspawn taint the old Gods because of the song. If the song is removed, they no longer need to search for them.  

And they will taint humans, elves and dwarves because of survival instinct.  We are their breeding stock.

Can we agree that the song is not the only thing which drives darkspawn to do what they do?  Otherwise we're just going in circles.