1316 réponses à ce sujet

[tmelange]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

*snip*

A possibility. Not a necessity.
Just like it's a possibility that the USA suddenly invades Canada to get its oil (an economic necessity). That doesn't mean we should plan to annihilate the Americans.

*snip*

This is not at all an analogous comparison. Reproduction is a species imperative; it goes to the fundamental viability of life. And in any case, there currently exists no alternative for the darkspawn; Oil, while an economic imperative, is hardly of the same class, as humans as a species can exist quite well without oil, though not optimally. And besides, there exists, currently, quite a few options to ameliorate the need for oil.

However, if the USA thought the oil in Canada was an economic necessity, vital to its self preservation and national interest, you better believe that the USA would find a pretext to invade Canada, or any country.

Oh wait. You don't have to believe it. It's currently happening in the world today! 

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 09:42 .

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[Smallpox can't think. It isn't sentient.

The darkspawn can be sentient. and not only that, they can be morally benevolent (the Messenger).
I would have alot of problem extermiantign them.

I would not.  I don't care how intelligent the Darkspawn are.  Until all the darkspawn are wiped out, Humanity will be in dire peril.  Tragic, but that's reality.  Really we have (as was just pointed out) just ONE example of an altruistic and moral darkspawn out of all of the Architect's attempt. 

Given that, I kill the messenger too (but I do feel bad about doing so).  Read the epilogs in both cases and you'll see why I do.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

However, if the USA thought the oil in Canada was an economic necessity, vital to its self preservation and national interest, you better believe that the USA would find a pretext to invade Canada, or any country.

Oh wait. You don't have to believe it. It's currently happening in the world today! 

Still wouldn't make me comfortable about exterminating the people.
The darkspawn issue with reproduction can have a solution. The one Krylo proposed. It might work or it might not. But it's not impossible for it to work.


And the argument "only one darkspawn was nice". Similar to the very used argument "only a minority of people X are good, the rest are scum". 

It's irrelevent how many darkspawn are benevolent. The fact is that it's possible for them to be benevolent. That alone would make me very hesistant aboutexterminating them.
That and the costs to our own species that would be required to go on such a venture.

The dwarves lost many lives just trying to take Kal Hirol. How many lives do you think we will lose if we go on this mad crusade to exterminate the species?
Not worth the costs.

EDIT: Now I gtg.
As always, it's been an interesting discussion

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 mars 2010 - 09:54 .

[IanPolaris]

The cost of doing nothing is worse. The FACT remains that Darkspawn use humanity both as food and parasitic breeding stock. Given that, helping the Darkspawn is NOT in humanity's best interest, and the Darkspawn (even the intelligent ones) seem hardwired to attack humanity and certainly give humanity a fatal disease/corruption.



I think the Architect is a tragic figure, but the Darkspawn must die. All of them...for the same reason that the Aliens (including the intelligent queens) in the Alien series had to die.



When the choice is Darkspawn or Humanity (and ultimately it is whether you want to admit this or not), we should pick humanity every time. To do otherwise is to betray everything the Grey Wardens are supposed to be.



-Polaris

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Nope. The dreams are about the OLD GODS aka the source of the song. It's not dreams that come out of nowhere. It's consistent dreams about one single thing, the source of the song.

What is your source for this?  In Origins, Grey Wardens are dreaming about the archdemon, but that is because he is tainted.  Otherwise the dreams appear simply to be sleeping echoes of the Wardens sensing the darkspawn.  Oghren describes them as whispers and shadows, not as an insistent song.

If it was indeed the taint only, I find it hard to believe that all the Wardens happen to dream about the exact same thing, which happens to be the source of the song.

One cannot hear the song without being tainted. But the fact that the Wardens go to their calling ONLY when they start having stronger dreams about the Old Gods, shows that the song is the heart of the issue.

As to the first part, see above- during a Blight, all the Wardens are dreaming about the archdemon because they dream about darkspawn and the AD is the darkspawn leader.  As to the second part, you're establishing cause and effect that isn't clear.  Wardens voluntarily go to the Calling when they feel that the taint is advancing to the point that they will lose control over themselves.  The Calling is not a response to the song.

Now, it is true that as the taint advances, they hear the song more strongly.  Avernus' note says this.  What is not clear to me is which comes first, the chicken or the egg.  I don't see anything that establishes for me that it is the song that is driving GWs and ghouls mad, rather than the taint driving them mad which makes them less able to resist the song.

[tmelange]

As an aside: I have yet to see any evidence of these "old gods". I've seen dragons, all of which act like any other dragon. They don't talk; they don't cause the sky to rain fire. They seem like dragons, dangerous animals at best. There was no difference between the high dragon at the urn and the high dragon at end game. None of them seem particularly intelligent.

The fact that there is no real evidence of these "gods" beyond the fact that common belief, culture and myth ascribe an origin story to the existence of very dangerous beasts, is also problematic where the darkspawn are concerned.

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 09:57 .

[sylvanaerie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

However, if the USA thought the oil in Canada was an economic necessity, vital to its self preservation and national interest, you better believe that the USA would find a pretext to invade Canada, or any country.

Oh wait. You don't have to believe it. It's currently happening in the world today! 

Still wouldn't make me comfortable about exterminating the people.
The darkspawn issue with reproduction can have a solution. The one Krylo proposed. It might work or it might not. But it's not impossible for it to work.


And the argument "only one darkspawn was nice". Similar to the very used argument "only a minority of people X are good, the rest are scum". 

It's irrelevent how many darkspawn are benevolent. The fact is that it's possible for them to be benevolent. That alone would make me very hesistant aboutexterminating them.
That and the costs to our own species that would be required to go on such a venture.

The dwarves lost many lives just trying to take Kal Hirol. How many lives do you think we will lose if we go on this mad crusade to exterminate the species?
Not worth the costs.

EDIT: Now I gtg.
As always, it's been an interesting discussion

What Krylo proposed is utterly reprehensible.  Its not an option especially if those women stay sentient and KNOW what has been done to them.  What will we do? Hold a lottery to see which woman in village A has to donate a breeding stock to the local darkspawns? What if there are currently NO criminals to turn over to them even assuming this IS a reasonable solution (which I DON"T by any means believe it is). Would your PC then turn over his wife or daughter to them to save the others?

Ultimately it could be no matter WHAT the PC does or the Architect does (if he is just trying to help) its all doomed anyway.  It could be a bad choice vs a worse one.  In that instance I will side WITH humanity not with the Darkspawn. I'm a warden and I protect mankind to my dying breath against them, I sure as hell don't buddy up to the darkspawn for any reasons.

[Darkannex]

This is popcorn eating epic. But might I point out the fallacy of ascribing true motivations to the mad based on what they say? I mean-they're insane. Trying to use what they say as proof one way or the other is clearly not something reasonably done



Proceed.

[tmelange]

Of course, the other issue is this: Are the darkspawn really another "species"? Or are they (most of them) simply diseased humanoids and humanoid-hybrids? Technically, the darkspawn are born of a human mother (grossly deformed). Their circumstance is the result of a "curse" or what could be considered a crippling and contagious gene-warping disease of the blood.

The fact is they have no future as a species, because they have no reproductive path and can be annihilated entirely if ever humanoids discover a way to effectively prevent their use of females. But if they are diseased humanoids, their future lies in a cure for the taint. The first step would be to find a way to cure those people who are suffering the first stages of corruption: the newly captured; wardens. If the Architect wanted to do something worthwhile for his "people", he should concentrate on trying to first stop the infectious nature of the contagion, and then cure it.

Until then, darkspawn have to be put down like rabid dogs, in the same way I mercy killed that captured warden with the cheating wife. There is no future for darkspawn existence alongside uncorrupted humans sans a cure for the taint, irrespective of their ability to talk and hum a tune.

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 10:12 .

[tmelange]

Darkannex wrote...

This is popcorn eating epic. But might I point out the fallacy of ascribing true motivations to the mad based on what they say? I mean-they're insane. Trying to use what they say as proof one way or the other is clearly not something reasonably done

Proceed.

True that. Crazy people always have great rationalizations, and sound sane, right up until the moment they lock you in the basement and use the mallet on your ankles.

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 10:15 .

[Darkannex]

oh god-now I have to watch that movie again

[tmelange]

sylvanaerie wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

However, if the USA thought the oil in Canada was an economic necessity, vital to its self preservation and national interest, you better believe that the USA would find a pretext to invade Canada, or any country.

Oh wait. You don't have to believe it. It's currently happening in the world today! 

Still wouldn't make me comfortable about exterminating the people.
The darkspawn issue with reproduction can have a solution. The one Krylo proposed. It might work or it might not. But it's not impossible for it to work.


And the argument "only one darkspawn was nice". Similar to the very used argument "only a minority of people X are good, the rest are scum". 

It's irrelevent how many darkspawn are benevolent. The fact is that it's possible for them to be benevolent. That alone would make me very hesistant aboutexterminating them.
That and the costs to our own species that would be required to go on such a venture.

The dwarves lost many lives just trying to take Kal Hirol. How many lives do you think we will lose if we go on this mad crusade to exterminate the species?
Not worth the costs.

EDIT: Now I gtg.
As always, it's been an interesting discussion

What Krylo proposed is utterly reprehensible.  Its not an option especially if those women stay sentient and KNOW what has been done to them.  What will we do? Hold a lottery to see which woman in village A has to donate a breeding stock to the local darkspawns? What if there are currently NO criminals to turn over to them even assuming this IS a reasonable solution (which I DON"T by any means believe it is). Would your PC then turn over his wife or daughter to them to save the others?

Ultimately it could be no matter WHAT the PC does or the Architect does (if he is just trying to help) its all doomed anyway.  It could be a bad choice vs a worse one.  In that instance I will side WITH humanity not with the Darkspawn. I'm a warden and I protect mankind to my dying breath against them, I sure as hell don't buddy up to the darkspawn for any reasons.

I didn't even bother to answer that truly reprehensible suggestion to use female prisoners, tranquil them, and give them to the darkspawn to "ensure peace." To even suggest that shows that the person has no moral compass, and is just arguing for the sake of arguing. The way you treat your prisoners is a benchmark of a civil society, and there is nothing that a criminal can do that would justify depriving them of life and freedom and subjecting them to horrible torture, just so that the majority might prosper.

Sacrificing unwilling women is not an option. The darkspawn's right to whatever sentience they may aspire to ends at another's right to exist free of darkspawn needs.

I think if there is any sacrificing to be done, it should be men who should be raped and forced to mutilated birthing of thousands of monsters out their a-holes. Or let's magically turn them into women. She how fast the men change their mind about there being a workable solution in that instance. 

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 10:25 .

[Sarah1281]

I didn't even bother to answer that truly reprehensible suggestion to use female prisoners, tranquil them, and give them to the darkspawn to "ensure peace."

I have huge problems with that too and think it's a horrible idea. Morals aside, though, humans and elves would never go for it. Only their women would be sacrificed since a prerequisite would be them being made tranquil and since becoming tranquil involves severing ones connection to the Fade and dwarves are not connected to the Fade already, they could not 'contribute.' Since no matter what you choose at the end of Awakening, the darkspawn leave the surface and tend to stay underground as they have better luck when only the dwarves care about them, the darkspawn are generally seen as a dwarven problem. If the big way to bring 'peace' with the darkspawn doesn't involve the dwarves at all, no one else would go for it.

[tmelange]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

*snip*

EDIT: Now I gtg.
As always, it's been an interesting discussion

You did yeoman's work today, and held the line for your side all by yourself despite the fact that we bum rushed you. Though I think you're CRAZY, you would be great in a foxhole. LOL

Have a great day!

[Efesell]

tmelange wrote...

If the Architect wanted to do something worthwhile for his "people", he should concentrate on trying to first stop the infectious nature of the contagion, and then cure it

A good point, but I kind of wonder if that would take priority over freeing them from thralldom.

[tmelange]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I didn't even bother to answer that truly reprehensible suggestion to use female prisoners, tranquil them, and give them to the darkspawn to "ensure peace."

I have huge problems with that too and think it's a horrible idea. Morals aside, though, humans and elves would never go for it. Only their women would be sacrificed since a prerequisite would be them being made tranquil and since becoming tranquil involves severing ones connection to the Fade and dwarves are not connected to the Fade already, they could not 'contribute.' Since no matter what you choose at the end of Awakening, the darkspawn leave the surface and tend to stay underground as they have better luck when only the dwarves care about them, the darkspawn are generally seen as a dwarven problem. If the big way to bring 'peace' with the darkspawn doesn't involve the dwarves at all, no one else would go for it.

Because there are large stretches of time where the darkspawn aren't in evidence, you'd never convince people that an accord with them, or that we needed to turn them intelligent, was the way to go. You can't even convince a lot of people in Ferelden to partner with Orlais; I doubt anyone would think that a warden's idea to parlay with darkspawn is rational.

That's why I say, at the most, capture the Architect. Take him to a higher tribunal if your conscience won't let you kill him. I'm sure any group of rational humans with something at stake would see the problems inherent in ascribing inalienable rights to the darkspawn.

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 10:37 .

[tmelange]

Efesell wrote...

tmelange wrote...

If the Architect wanted to do something worthwhile for his "people", he should concentrate on trying to first stop the infectious nature of the contagion, and then cure it

A good point, but I kind of wonder if that would take priority over freeing them from thralldom.

In his mind (and perhaps in fact), it's the easier thing to do, to simply enable the darkspawn without solving the core problem. I think the Architect even says something about the fact that once he frees his compatriots, he's found that he has no control over what they do next -- to the detriment of his plans. The more responsible path would be to cure the core problem, then release them.

You don't let a prisoner out of a cage prior to the point where you think s/he's no longer a threat to society.

[krylo]

tmelange wrote...

To even suggest that shows that the person has no moral compass

Right.

Sacrificing a few serial killers every year, after shutting off their ability to feel pain, is showing no moral compass, but Genocide?

THAT'S A-OK!

You know, when you and Ian are using phrases like "Darkspawn apologist" you should really step back a few hundred steps.

The only people who uses phrases like that are white power groups, and fear propagandists.  "Afro-Apologists" "Jew-Apologists" "Asian-Apologists" "Communist Apologists"

That's the oly time I've seen such labelling used.  It reeks of blind hatred and fear with no mitigating rational thought.

Modifié par krylo, 25 mars 2010 - 11:06 .

[Addai]

@krylo, you might be shy of female serial killers even in our day, with a much higher population.

So what is your plan B, failing a couple of female Fereldan Ted Bundy's being turned over to the darkspawn? I'm sure the Chantry would offer up some other possibilities. Blood mages, etc. Kill a few birds with one broodmothering stone.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 mars 2010 - 11:17 .

[sylvanaerie]

krylo wrote...

tmelange wrote...

To even suggest that shows that the person has no moral compass

Right.

Sacrificing a few serial killers every year, after shutting off their ability to feel pain, is showing no moral compass, but Genocide?

THAT'S A-OK!

You know, when you and Ian are using phrases like "Darkspawn apologist" you should really step back a few hundred steps.

The only people who uses phrases like that are white power groups, and fear propagandists.  "Afro-Apologists" "Jew-Apologists" "Asian-Apologists" "Communist Apologists"

That's the oly time I've seen such labelling used.  It reeks of blind hatred and fear with no mitigating rational thought.

Statistically speaking most serial killers are male. I know there have BEEN some females but most serial killers who have been caught were predominately male.  Now, barring that, what would be a crime that fits that criteria to turn over to the darkspawn for breeding purposes?  Pickpocketing? stealing bread in a street corner market?  Adultery? where do we draw the line?  or then do we use the lottery method? 
Also the tranquil do feel pain.  If you rescue one of them from the demon in the tower she says "Thank you that was an uncomfortable experience". granted a mild response but she was definitely aware it was not a good thing being done to her.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 25 mars 2010 - 11:22 .

[tmelange]

krylo wrote...

tmelange wrote...

To even suggest that shows that the person has no moral compass

Right.

Sacrificing a few serial killers every year, after shutting off their ability to feel pain, is showing no moral compass, but Genocide?

THAT'S A-OK!

You know, when you and Ian are using phrases like "Darkspawn apologist" you should really step back a few hundred steps.

The only people who uses phrases like that are white power groups, and fear propagandists.  "Afro-Apologists" "Jew-Apologists" "Asian-Apologists" "Communist Apologists"

That's the oly time I've seen such labelling used.  It reeks of blind hatred and fear with no mitigating rational thought.

I never used the term "darkspawn apologist" -- but I like it. So get your facts straight.

[krylo]

Addai67 wrote...

@krylo, you might be shy of female serial killers even in our day, with a much higher population.

So what is your plan B, failing a couple of female Fereldan Ted Bundy's being turned over to the darkspawn? I'm sure the Chantry would offer up some other possibilities. Blood mages, etc. Kill a few birds with one broodmothering stone.

Blood mages was the original plan.

Seeming as they're to be executed or made tranquil anyway.

And really, what's terrible about the rape etc. isn't the physical pain.  It's the emotional trauma.

Tranquils aren't like us.  They're just dolls.  They have nothing left of what makes them human, and it would be impossible for them to be hurt, beyond a few scrapes and bruises, by what the darkspawn do.

Being punched in the face isn't pain.  Being cut is't pain.  Being electrocuted isn't pain.  It's all just purely physical.  It can be ignored, moved past, and endured.  I've been through my share of physical pain, and you know what?

Physical pain doesn't hurt.

Emotional trauma does.

The tranquil have no feelings and thus could feel no trauma.  There'd be no fear.  No horror.  No sense of being violated.  It would just be the motions.

The tranquil are already dead.

Which--by the by--is why I hate the chantry for even doing it to any mage who is 'too weak'.  It's murder, but without the body and a prettied up name.

[krylo]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Statistically speaking most serial killers are male. I know there have BEEN some females but most serial killers who have been caught were predominately male.  Now, barring that, what would be a crime that fits that criteria to turn over to the darkspawn for breeding purposes?  Pickpocketing? stealing bread in a street corner market?  Adultery? where do we draw the line?  or then do we use the lottery method? 
Also the tranquil do feel pain.  If you rescue one of them from the demon in the tower she says "Thank you that was an uncomfortable experience". granted a mild response but she was definitely aware it was not a good thing being done to her.

They feel physical pain.

As I said, physical pain isn't really pain.  It's nothing more than discomfort.

Anyone who thinks it is has had a very shallow life.

[krylo]

Edit: Huh, first time I've had this thing Double post on me.

Modifié par krylo, 25 mars 2010 - 11:26 .

[tmelange]

krylo wrote...

tmelange wrote...

To even suggest that shows that the person has no moral compass

Right.

Sacrificing a few serial killers every year, after shutting off their ability to feel pain, is showing no moral compass, but Genocide?

THAT'S A-OK!

You know, when you and Ian are using phrases like "Darkspawn apologist" you should really step back a few hundred steps.

The only people who uses phrases like that are white power groups, and fear propagandists.  "Afro-Apologists" "Jew-Apologists" "Asian-Apologists" "Communist Apologists"

That's the oly time I've seen such labelling used.  It reeks of blind hatred and fear with no mitigating rational thought.

And, by-the-by, regarding this "genocide" -- I started this thread with a simple question about ONE individual. The premise was never genocide. Of course, the conversation has developed to address the fundamental question of the existence of darkspawn vis a vis the humanoid species of the world. Fact of the matter is, if the darkspawn go AWAY, humans don't bother hunting them. It is only when they impinge upon humanoid life that the need arises to protect that life against unreasonable encroachment. 

Hence, your claim that my moral compass is off because I'm promoting genocide is off. Even if we had to exterminate every last darkspawn to the last creature, it would only be because they cannot exist side-by-side with us, and are in fact, antithetical to the natural order of the world. There is no moral bankruptcy in preserving your own right-to-life as against an encroacher. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them dead, it's not because you lack a moral compass.

You, on the other hand, suggested an option that would take people who cannot choose for themselves, and subject them to horrible torture, just so that you and yours can be safe. Despite anything that the person might have done, it doesn't give you the right to subject them to experimentation and torture. Doing so lowers you to the level of what you accuse your victim of being: a criminal.

Better to have suggested that volunteers be accepted. Then you have an instance like the anvil of the void, where some people might CHOOSE to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. But the minute you decide to press the neck of the unwilling to the cold stone, you are gravely transgressing, and it can lead to no good. There is no justification in imagining that you are only consigning the worst of the worst to a fate worse than death.

I'll put my morals up against your morals any day.

Modifié par tmelange, 25 mars 2010 - 11:39 .