1316 réponses à ce sujet

[Efesell]

Could be an interesting scenario in which the Architects faction fights against the Sixth Blight as well.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

No they won't. They will take human, elven and dwarven females because they need to. They do not need to taint the species to survive however.

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 mars 2010 - 09:34 .

[Axekix]

I allied with the Architect on my first playthrough for no other reason than having a chance at ending the blights once and for all (also having Nathaniel and Velanna in my party helped persuade me). I believed the Architect, and the epilogue seems to support him being true to his word.



However, after reading some of tmelange's posts I think my view is shifting a bit. I can certainly see how (based on what our characters know in the moment) that could seem like a very dangerous decision.



Still, while sentient Darkspawn certainly -can- be a large threat, it doesn't mean they necessarily will be. As mindless zerglings following an archdemon they're one united force. As seen in DAA, when they can think for themselves, differing viewpoints emerge. And much like humans, it seems unlikely that they would all unite under one philosophy on anything really.



Being sentient means they now have a desire to preserve their own lives, which also means they can know fear. Convincing them to march to war en masse becomes much more complicated.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Well, there's no point in discussing further then.  I don't find it at all plausible to "wait and see."  Honestly, I thought it was a weak point in the story even when reading The Calling.  Utha's actions seem inexplicable to me.

Thanks for the convo, however.

[Godak]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Well, there's no point in discussing further then.  I don't find it at all plausible to "wait and see."  Honestly, I thought it was a weak point in the story even when reading The Calling.  Utha's actions seem inexplicable to me.

Thanks for the convo, however.

Just following up on the Utha bit...Didn't she seem a tad bit eager to kill us?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Well, there's no point in discussing further then.  I don't find it at all plausible to "wait and see."  Honestly, I thought it was a weak point in the story even when reading The Calling.  Utha's actions seem inexplicable to me.

Thanks for the convo, however.

I am afraid you will have to wait and see either way.

And you are most welcome. It's been truly a pleasure

[tmelange]

Axekix wrote...

I allied with the Architect on my first playthrough for no other reason than having a chance at ending the blights once and for all (also having Nathaniel and Velanna in my party helped persuade me). I believed the Architect, and the epilogue seems to support him being true to his word.

However, after reading some of tmelange's posts I think my view is shifting a bit. I can certainly see how (based on what our characters know in the moment) that could seem like a very dangerous decision.

Still, while sentient Darkspawn certainly -can- be a large threat, it doesn't mean they necessarily will be. As mindless zerglings following an archdemon they're one united force. As seen in DAA, when they can think for themselves, differing viewpoints emerge. And much like humans, it seems unlikely that they would all unite under one philosophy on anything really.

Being sentient means they now have a desire to preserve their own lives, which also means they can know fear. Convincing them to march to war en masse becomes much more complicated.

*kisses* !!! LOL I was beginning to get tired of banging my head against a wall.

I've probably said all that I can say on this issue. I do think it's ill-advised to fixate on the possible upside while ignoring the absolute bars to coexistence. Any reasonable decision regarding the darkspawn has to take into account a few immutable facts: 1) they rely on other species for their reproductive mechanism (a la the movie Aliens where a host is needed), making them parasitical to the other species of the world; 2) their presence is a contagion, both to people and to the environment; and 3) they outnumber other species hundreds to 1. 

An absolute bar is really something that should have a solution before you change the status quo, before you let the genii out of the bottle, and before you put humanity at an extreme tactical disadvantage. Before you enable the prosperity of a species that considers you prey.

However! It matters not, because this girl won't be sitting around waiting to be hauled off to the alien cow farm; she won't flip the Skynet switch; she will not be on the welcoming committee when the Visitor ship arrives, offering us a cure for cancer; she will not go quietly to be sacrificed to the demon. When Morpheus offers the pills, she's taking the red one.

I'm not ready to turn myself into a fruit cocktail for some monster so it can reproduce, power its cells, feed itself or achieve its individuality.

[tmelange]

Reviewing the past few pages...*wondering*...why is it assumed that the darkspawn are *supposed* to be free of the song? Or that the darkspawn are supposed to have "free will"? Or that hearing the song, pre-taint, equates to NOT having "free will"? All that is certain is that once the darkspawn corrupt the song, it turns into an instrument that enables a corrupted, demented god to control them.

Perhaps the need is for a cure for the taint, rather than a release from the song?

Isn't it in the bible (or maybe I was just watching Supernatural, lol) where it says that angels have no free will; they are completely enthralled to the will of god. It is only when they are corrupted, and desire free will that they fall, becoming demons...

Perhaps darkspawn are supposed to hear the song; perhaps they are a species like bees and have a hive-type mind; maybe the song keeps them sane, controls a bestial nature.

We don't know if it's natural for the darkspawn to live according to the same basic paradigm as other species. All we have is the Architect's mad scientist theories, and a plan to change the power dynamic of the whole world on speculation.

Modifié par tmelange, 24 mars 2010 - 01:06 .

[fantasypisces]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And some of them have shown moral and ethical appreciation for humanity, so it's not a guarantee that they would even think of such a thing.

Which?  Certainly nothing that our character would have observed by the time we have to decide whether to cooperate with the Architect's plan or not.  Or is that what you call your experience of the Architect's "laboratory"?

The Withered deciding to spare the Senechal's life, despite not being a Grey Warden, for one.
The Qunari Merchant having no problem at all dealing with the Architect.
The Architect's notes show that the darkspawn have developped a connection to Seranni and are close to her.
The Architect showing no hatred or bigotry to anyone. And him trying to help us against the Mother, while he could have very easily ignored the problem and let us deal with it on our own.
 The Messenger fighting with us when we save Amaranthine. He could have very easily left during the battle and no one would have noticed. He remained. 

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

Sorry my computer died, so I'm jumping back into this discussion late.

I did not side with the architect, I happily killed him for a variety of reasons including
1) Darkspawn need females to make brood mothers, ala parasitic.
2) Making them smarter can make them more dangerous. Factions coud form that still hate the other races and attack us, yes other darkspawn may help drive them back, but would we want them to? That's because of
3) The taint is still there. Even if the darkspawn are happy go lucky, flower picking, rainbow children they could still wipe out all surface life because of the taint.

I do not think all the darkspawn would be evil when they become sentient. But that does not stop them from being a huge huge threat.

Plus, helping the architect will not stop future blights. He will not innoculate millions of darkspawn at once, meaning blights could still happen while the Architect is attempting to "cure" them all. So in the end, helping him does not stop blights, heck, it doesn't even really delay them.

I admit I did take about 20 minutes to decide while the game was on pause, but then I chopped his head off and I have not looked back.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ fantasypisces.

All your points have already been addressed and I explained why they do not impede my decision to spare the Architect (all of which is my opinion). I won't repeat my self, lest we go back in circles.

What I will say is good for you. Never said killing the Architect is a "wrong" choice.

[MassEffect762]

I predict a connection between the Architect and Morrigans god child.

Just an Old gods hunch.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 24 mars 2010 - 02:04 .

[Efesell]

Er.. why?

[ashez2ashes]

I sided with the Architect because I was thinking what would happen after the final blight... There's only one more old god to go, and after he's gone what will happen to the dark spawn? Many are going to go super nutso after having the song cut off for good. It could help future generations to have someone capable of reasoning on the other side when that happens...

[Sarah1281]

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

That's not true in all cases. While statistics on how prevalent sociopaths are vary, the fact remains that there do exist people who are incapable of internalizing right and wrong. Can they learn what other people view as moral and immoral? Yes. Is it going to affect their behavior more than making sure those useful to them/society at large doesn't see them as menaces to be locked away? Not really. Does this mean they lack free will? Far from it.



The Architect doesn't seem to have any concept of morality himself, although he does realize that abducting and killing Wardens will not endear him to you so if nothing else he fails to mention Keenan. Could the darkspawn have morality? Sure. Does the Messenger at least seem to have it? Yes. Does that mean all or even a majority will? Not necessarily.

Plus, helping the architect will not stop future blights. He will not innoculate millions of darkspawn at once, meaning blights could still happen while the Architect is attempting to "cure" them all. So in the end, helping him does not stop blights, heck, it doesn't even really delay them.

He doesn't have to innoculate everyone all at once or even stop the searching. All he has to do is find the Old Gods first - and if he found one surely he can find the others - and stop the searching darkspawn from getting close enough to taint it. It would actually be quite easily manageable, as long as he took precautions to not get close enough to taint it or however tainting an Old God works and to make sure those he has guarding it do thesame.

[Efesell]

It could even provide something of an opportunity for a preemptive strike assuming he could manage to convince the Wardens of his discovery.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

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

That's not true in all cases. While statistics on how prevalent sociopaths are vary, the fact remains that there do exist people who are incapable of internalizing right and wrong. Can they learn what other people view as moral and immoral? Yes. Is it going to affect their behavior more than making sure those useful to them/society at large doesn't see them as menaces to be locked away? Not really. Does this mean they lack free will? Far from it.

The Architect doesn't seem to have any concept of morality himself, although he does realize that abducting and killing Wardens will not endear him to you so if nothing else he fails to mention Keenan. Could the darkspawn have morality? Sure. Does the Messenger at least seem to have it? Yes. Does that mean all or even a majority will? Not necessarily.

The fact that someone disagrees with the general norms on what is right and what is wrong does not make one incapable of understanding the concepts. Sociopaths, based on the very vague definitions, simply do not care about the already established norms. That doesn't mean they cannot, in and of themselves, come up with their own ethical understanding (no m,atter how perverse it is). 

I didn't say that someone having free will has to be ethical. I mean that someone possessing free will can understand ethical concepts. Whether he abides by it or not is another matter.

The fact that the Architect is determined to free his people, does show that he cares for something other than himself and believes what he is doing is right and necessary. Also the fact that he shows no pleasure in doing what he does, or any sign of hatred or bigotry. Just because he doesn't act like a self righteous zealot (like Justice) doesn't make him unethical or unable to understand the concepts. Furthermore, the Architect has lived as a pariah for most of his existence (I presume). He cannot be called a sociopath, since he never lived in a society with established norms anyhow. If the darkspawn can become free, then they can develop an ethical understanding, that might or might not collide with yours. But they will have to develop such a thing, since it is the number one requirement for any society (be it family, tribe, city, state...etc). 

My main point was this. If the darkspawn are freed, they will develop an understanding of morality (and the examples I have cited, for me, are quite promising).  Then each darkspawn can be judged individually, instead of condemning the whole species.
Can they have an ethical understanding that is completely against our own? Maybe. Seeing how they will become intelligent whether we like it or not, it may be best for us to try to get on their good side and give them an incetive to be like the Messenger.

[Godak]

Just throwing this in: ethics and morality are very abstract concepts that will vary from culture to culture.



I must agree with Knight. The Architect cannot be said to reject morals or ethics, as he was not raised in a culture with anything resembling the concepts of morals or ethics. He has had very little exposure to the civilizations of Thedas, and has very little understanding of how a society functions.

[fantasypisces]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ fantasypisces.
All your points have already been addressed and I explained why they do not impede my decision to spare the Architect (all of which is my opinion). I won't repeat my self, lest we go back in circles.
What I will say is good for you. Never said killing the Architect is a "wrong" choice.

I bet they were, since I stated them at like page 1 or 2. I was just restating since I haven't been in this conversation for three days (computer broke).

And I wasn't critcizing your decision, never said siding with him was a wrong choice, just that I didn't hesitate to do it.

[DragonShepard138]

I spared the architect because he did seem trustworthy and willing to end the blights. If not, I'll just wipe the floor with him in DA2

[KnightofPhoenix]

fantasypisces wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ fantasypisces.
All your points have already been addressed and I explained why they do not impede my decision to spare the Architect (all of which is my opinion). I won't repeat my self, lest we go back in circles.
What I will say is good for you. Never said killing the Architect is a "wrong" choice.

I bet they were, since I stated them at like page 1 or 2. I was just restating since I haven't been in this conversation for three days (computer broke).

And I wasn't critcizing your decision, never said siding with him was a wrong choice, just that I didn't hesitate to do it.

Oh was it broke for that long?
Sorry I misunderstood.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Well, there's no point in discussing further then.  I don't find it at all plausible to "wait and see."  Honestly, I thought it was a weak point in the story even when reading The Calling.  Utha's actions seem inexplicable to me.

Thanks for the convo, however.

I am afraid you will have to wait and see either way.

I mean that I don't find it at all plausible for a Warden to take a "wait and see" attitude to the Architect.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, we cannot. Until the darkspawn are freed from the song, then we can judge each of them individually, and see why they do the things they do. 

Well, there's no point in discussing further then.  I don't find it at all plausible to "wait and see."  Honestly, I thought it was a weak point in the story even when reading The Calling.  Utha's actions seem inexplicable to me.

Thanks for the convo, however.

I am afraid you will have to wait and see either way.

I mean that I don't find it at all plausible for a Warden to take a "wait and see" attitude to the Architect.

Debatable (A warden does what's necessary to stop the blight).
And not really relevent. Our characters are individuals first and foremost, Wardens second (especially since they never got to live within the order anyhow,except for the Orlesian).
Does this mean my character is a bad Warden? I don't think he would even care. 

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Does this mean my character is a bad Warden? I don't think he would even care. 

Neither would my HNF Warden.  That, too, is irrelevant.  I simply don't see any logic in cooperating with the Architect.  I didn't when reading The Calling, either.  Perhaps for Genevieve and Bregan, but not for Utha, who was of sound mind and body.

[KnightofPhoenix]

We're back to square 1 I see lol

[GrammarCub]

My first playthrough, I used an Orlesian Warden. I figured that character would spare the Architect for any number of reasons -- he's a pragmatist instead of a hardliner, and was trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number. He also doesn't really give a **** about Ferelden -- the locals have been downright hostile even though he tried to protect them. So why go through another boss battle for people who don't even like or respect you? Serves 'em right if they get eaten by genlocks, the conspiratorial xenophobes.



My current playthrough is with my imported character, who has taken the extreme high road throughout the game. I'm just about to meet the Architect again ... and I'm not so sure he'll survive. All darkspawn must be eradicated, after all ...