1316 réponses à ce sujet

[Godak]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Lest anyone forget, the Darkspawn under the Withered (on the Architect's direct orders) AMUSHED Vigil keep with a sneak attack designed to cause as much damage and take as many GW prisoner's as possible. The Architect may be inhuman, but ANY self-aware creature (including Darkspawn) will always take an attack to mean that you have hostile intentions.

To be fair, we don't know that that's how the Architect intended for the Withered to handle the situation, although in that case he may not be lying to you but he doesn't have sufficient control over his followers for his plan to be even remotely safe.

Personally? I think the Architect is very naive. He wants to give his race free will, but I don't think he fully grasps the implications. Still, I can't help but like the guy in that "Ah! You scare me!" kind of way.

[IanPolaris]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Lest anyone forget, the Darkspawn under the Withered (on the Architect's direct orders) AMUSHED Vigil keep with a sneak attack designed to cause as much damage and take as many GW prisoner's as possible. The Architect may be inhuman, but ANY self-aware creature (including Darkspawn) will always take an attack to mean that you have hostile intentions.

To be fair, we don't know that that's how the Architect intended for the Withered to handle the situation, although in that case he may not be lying to you but he doesn't have sufficient control over his followers for his plan to be even remotely safe.

Point very well taken, but as you say, this doesn't bode well for the architect.  Either the Withered with malice aforethought AMUSHED the Wardens to get as much death and as many Grey Warden bodies/prisoners as possible with the direct knowledge and consent of the Architect (which would then make the Architect and untrustworthy liar) OR the Architect lacks sufficient control to prevent his supposedly "awakened" followers from behaving according to their basest and crassest Darkspawn interests....in which case making such a fundamentally hostile, antagonistic, not to mention preditory (and parasitic) race even stronger to be a fundamentally stupid thing to do (which was Sigrun's point).

-Polaris

[krylo]

Addai67 wrote...

I really find it very difficult to believe that there's not a sociopath behind these words.

Acutally, classically speaking, every single tranquil in the game is a sociopath.  Empathy is an emotion, thus they would be devoid of it.

Honestly, I don't think they were written very well, unless they're SUPPOSED to still have vestigial feelings.

But yeah, no.  Not a sociopath.  Last I checked I was capable of feeling empathy for other human beings.  And also things that aren't human.  But I have certainly been, to borrow a game term, 'hardened' by various events in my life, but let's not get into that.

I keep getting the image of a parapalegic or a coma victim and you saying the same things about them

Look at the other two options, and tell me why not?

It's either that or letting innocent fully functioning women get hurt.

Which is the greater crime, here?  Allowing a perfectly innocent girl...let's say about 14 years of age.  A virgin.  To be taken by the darkspawn, and horribly raped, watch her family get torn apart, and forced to eat them, before being turned into a horrible monster... or maybe you wish it on the 25 year old flower girl?  The college woman?  The business woman?  The mother and beloved wife?  The single mother?  OR

A girl who can't feel horror.  Can't feel terror. Can't be violated in the most vicious and cruel of ways, because they can not feel those things.  Can only feel the perfectly transitory physical pain, that will fade with the beginning of the new day?

If I were a sociopath, I wouldn't give two ****s either way.  So long as it wasn't me getting changed.  But I'm not, and I do, and while both options are terrible, one is far worse.  And you can't choose neither, unless you wipe out the darkspawn and that has its own set of issues.

Just because a human being can't feel- let's correct that, can't feel as you do- then you may do with them as you please?!

As Legion said, all beings are different, and it is a form of speciesm to treat another species exactly as your own when they are not, if a benevolent form.   Likewise, it may be nice to treat people whom can't feel as you or I feel as if they are exactly as us, but they aren't.

A person who is raped is not traumatized, not, truly, hurt, because their body was injured.  They are hurt because their psyche was injured.  Their mind.  They were taken against their will, violated in the deepest and purest and truest way.

However, a tranquil has no will.  There is nothing to violate.  They are not like us.

You say you hate the Chantry, but you would greatly compound their evil and call it a good thing?

Just because I dislike the fact that a resource exists, that doesn't mean that I will not use that resource.

Sheesh.  This discussion is disturbing.

Lil bit.

But, how about this: I'm open to suggestion.

I listed the only three possible choices I saw a few pages ago, here.

So, tell me, is there a fourth option?

What's the right thing to do?

What's the thing that's going to result in the LEAST possible amount of pain?

Utilitarianism is not always good, because sometimes there is not a good choice--however, when you are making decisions that impact millions of lives, you can't think about the suffering of one or two people.  You have to humanize every single person that will be affected.

You can't afford to JUST humanize the few criminals that may be tortured, you have to humanize all the innocent women that WILL be tortured, and to a far greater degree, if you let things continue as they have been with the darkspawn making raids to take women.

You must humanize all the soldiers who would die attempting to stop anyone from being tortured.  You have to humanize their wives and husbands and children at home, whom have to learn that daddy died, or mommy was missing in action after her squad was wiped out in the deep roads, if you choose to wipe them out instead.

This kind of decision is bigger than just the few women that might have to be sent off to a fate that is arguably worse than death (would Morrigan agree?  She doesn't like that response).

You have to stop thinking about just how horrible it would be for them, and start thinking about how horrible it would be for everyone else.

Modifié par krylo, 26 mars 2010 - 06:38 .

[Stoomkal]

Wow... you are really one sick puppy, Krylo.



I wouldn't blame it on being "hardened" in your life... I have been through awful things... it tends to heighten some peoples humanity, not dull it.



You talk far, far too frivously about some seriously disturbing topics for me to believe you have seen terrible things.



Perhaps some quiet time would be good and these people can get back on topic.



You can contemplate what women are best to torture on your own time in private, thank you.

[krylo]

Stoomkal wrote...

I wouldn't blame it on being "hardened" in your life... I have been through awful things... it tends to heighten some peoples humanity, not dull it.

I'd argue you're the one with the dulled humanity.

You hide behind ideas of "being sick" instead of addressing the issue.

Provide an alternative: What would you do?

Remember: Status quo still means people are being tortured.

You, hypothetically, have a choice in who gets it.  You don't have a choice to stop it.  What do you do?

I think you'd be equally culpable for what happens regardless of whether you walk away and refuse make a choice, because you still caused it to happen to whomever the darkspawn chose at random by your inaction.

You talk far, far too frivously about some seriously disturbing topics for me to believe you have seen terrible things.

I think you take it far too seriously.

This is a video game at the end of the day.

This is not a situation that does exist or even COULD exist.  Last I checked there was no such thing as an actual sentient species that reproduces through the torture and murder of human women.  Much less an intelligent one that is arguably capable of killing off humanity in open war.

You can contemplate what women are best to torture on your own time in private, thank you.

Funny you should use that word.

Why not people?

Would it make a difference if the darkspawn could use men to you?  Would it be ok to sacrifice them then?

Modifié par krylo, 26 mars 2010 - 09:17 .

[Stoomkal]

Be quiet.



I am not "addressing the issue" because it is a rather sick topic.



You have brought up things that are completely objectionable - not the game, you have.



Please refrain from anymore of this. People have managed to discuss this wihtout suggesting the sick crap you have been going on with.

[krylo]

Stoomkal wrote...

You have brought up things that are completely objectionable - not the game, you have.

I didn't write the darkspawn.

I didn't decide how they reproduce.

That was the writing team of the game.  They decided that darkspawn reproduce by raping women, forcing them to eat tainted flesh, and transforming them into a broodmother.

So yes, the game brought it up.  Just because you'd rather walk through Hespith/the Broodmother encounter and think she's talking about sunshine lollipops and rainbows when Hespith says, "And we hated as she was violated," doesn't mean that this isn't an issue directly placed in the game.

AND this is in direct response to the topic.   Head back about fifteen pages and find where it started.

[Stoomkal]

I do not remember Bioware suggesting it is more moral to rape the disabled than a "fully functional woman".



You need help.

[Efesell]

Seems like a valid discussion to me. Macabre sure, but hey some of those plot points are like that.

Stop being so touchy.

[krylo]

Stoomkal wrote...

I do not remember Bioware suggesting it is more moral to rape the disabled than a "fully functional woman".

You need help.

Oh good job with the straw man.

Excellent work.

Here's what Bioware did:

They created a race of creatures that exist to be monsters, and require women to be violated in order to reproduce.

That's fine.  They're monsters.  You kill them.

Then they decided, "Hey, let's make them sapient." Well, ok, now we have evil sapient monsters but... "Oh, and then let's make one morally grey and at least one more an OBVIOUS good guy who spends out his days helping people if you spare him."

Well ****, now we have an entire race of free thinking people, capable of the full range of 'human' emotions and drives, from benevolence to malevolence.

Great.

Except they still need to reproduce by rape.

Then they gave us the choice to help them become sentient or to try and stamp it out.

So--Do we wipe out the entire race and commit genocide?  Do we damn them all for things that are entirely out of their control--their own physiology?  Or do we try to find a way to make peace with them?

Well, how could peace even be possible?

There's only one possible way.  They need to be able to have women.

So then you have an option--you either dictate who they take, and make certain it is criminals/people who can't experience the worst of it and/or volunteers OR you just let them grab women at random.

It's cool that you only read the one post and built a strawman out of it though.  No really cool to just like, condense an entire argument into "Raping the disabled is totally ok!"

Because that was TOTALLY my argument.

It wasn't, "Raping the disabled is totally NOT ok, but if we have to choose between shooting the guy in the stomach who can't feel anything or the guy who can, well the choice seems obvious," or anything.  There weren't like five posts where I explained that it totally was morally reprehensible, but I saw it as better than the alternatives.  Nope.

Modifié par krylo, 26 mars 2010 - 09:54 .

[Stoomkal]

Exactly... you said it was "more" moral than a "fully functional woman".



That *was* your point.



If you have no problem with that point of view... then I cannot explain it to you, really.

[krylo]

Stoomkal wrote...

Exactly... you said it was "more" moral than a "fully functional woman".

That *was* your point.

If you have no problem with that point of view... then I cannot explain it to you, really.

So your point of view is that it's better to let them take innocent women than to take criminals--innoculate them against the worst of it--and then send them there?

We aren't talking about clearing out clinics here, you know.

We're talking about making this the new punishment for high treason, or for maleficarum whom murder templars and do other nasty things.

We're also talking about using volunteers first and foremost, if anyone is willing to volunteer themselves so that no one else has to.

Modifié par krylo, 26 mars 2010 - 09:59 .

[Harorrd]

I saved him, cause i was seeking a long time way to bring peace with the darkspawn, i based this theory on the following fact



The darkspawn are a part of DA world now, eradicating them would be an non ethic thing to do



He explained that the Old gods where the reson for the blights, and by allowing the darkspawn to talk and create an own culture, just as the Cristianety gave information to the northern tribes of the earth.



The darkspawn could be a ally if the Old gods emerge again from the bottom of the world. and sence they are intelligent we can communicate with them



And i seek to end the war and give the Darkspawn a place to build culture and society.



And we can all live in harmony

[Darkannex]

I think people need to step back and take a deep breath. This *is* still a game.

and KoP, a few things :

Your comment regarding the WW2 germans not experimenting to 'free' their people. To their point of view, they were. The view is not condoned, nor is it sane (IMO), but the point of it was to achieve perfection and perfect freedom from the ills associated with lesser beings. Just because the view is not sympathetic to you (or I), does not make it not exist to THEIR frame of mind. Poverty, sickness, imperfections, being a slave to ones genetics*. Looking at it completely dispassionate - their aims and the aims of the Architect are very similar. NOT exact, and through a moral lens, not at all the same. But there ya go.



Secondly : this comment "And yes preicely. If the DS awaken suddenly after the deaths of the old Gods, it will be very difficult to guide them. Hence why I think they need the Architect. For one, he can potentially avoid the blights. Second, he can guide his people so they don't become lost."

You choose to gloss over the very striking thought that people/creatures with free will are not sheep to be herded or as you say, guided. We've had many visionaries in our time killed by the very people that attempt to enlighten them. Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln, etc... Keeping the Architect alive does NOT give even the reasonable expectation that he will be able to sway those awakened Darkspawn. Like Frankenstein, the creation will not be content to be herded. Waking from the song, will they then mindlessly (or mindfully) follow another? There are some that may (like the disciples), but many more than will not (with just a handful of followers awakened, they are already in the midst of civil war).

Now some of what I have said is metagame knowledge (the calling and what not) with no way for the character to know this (save for some role-played stretch, like finding Duncan's diary). So understandably this strays from the original intent of this thread.



But it is still salient, in my opinion to the larger ideas being displayed and bandied ehre.



Ultimately I am willing to have a respectful discourse on this

Also, I find that the Architects notes, while illuminating may not be accurate to the REAL causes of things. You can easily say that the journals of those in the middle ages that ascribed illness to humors is truth. What the Architect has is merely his opinion and observations within his own framework of understanding and the current level of technology in the world.

[Addai]

krylo wrote...

Look at the other two options, and tell me why not?

It's either that or letting innocent fully functioning women get hurt.

So you would rather be complicit in the rape and torture of a few women?  Not just complicit, but hand them over?  Make it the systematic law of the land?  See them as a "resource"?

A girl who can't feel horror.  Can't feel terror. Can't be violated in the most vicious and cruel of ways, because they can not feel those things.  Can only feel the perfectly transitory physical pain, that will fade with the beginning of the new day?

First of all, you can't really say what these women would feel.  Owain and other tranquils will tell you that just because they are not human in your eyes, doesn't mean they don't have an existence they value.

However, a tranquil has no will.  There is nothing to violate.  They are not like us.

They're a human being!!!  Again, I find it hard that you're seriously arguing here.  You're putting us on, yes?  Either that, or I must put this down to yet another case of postmodern political correctness melting the brains of otherwise sensible people.  Your use of the term "speciesism" makes me suspicious of the latter.

Just because I dislike the fact that a resource exists, that doesn't mean that I will not use that resource.

Let's just remind ourselves again that you're talking about human beings.

What you are talking about is not even an option as a tactical decision IMO.  As for pursuing total war on the darkspawn being the equivalent of genocide, well, so be it.  Beyond the fact of their history of ravaging the world, their existence simply is incompatible with human life.

[Addai]

@krylo, a further thought: Instead of comparing what you propose to a tactical military decision- say, withdrawing troops from a civilian area despite knowing that you leave them unprotected and what will likely happen to them- it is more apt to compare it to a cult sacrificing a virgin, or a child, to appease a wrathful god. You can dehumanize the sacrifice victim all you want, but in the act of handing her over, you show yourself and your society not worthy of the protection she *might* buy you.

[LD50]

So, let me get this straight.

On the one hand, spare the Architect because his intentions are supposedly noble. Sure, that could likely lead to atrocities, given the nature of the darkspawn and their particular parasitic method of reproduction but a greater crime would be to kill creatures who could be made sentient and, therefore, potentially innocent members of that race. The possibility of peace with that race and ending of the cycle of Blights, however slim, is well worth that price.

Or kill the Architect. He is dangerous and untrustworthy. The price of continued war with mindless darkspawn, even if it last another thousand years, is well worth the it to preserve the people of Thedas. There can never be truly be peace between the two factions because the darkspawn need to prey on the other races to survive.

Is this about correct?

If this is the case, it becomes a question of what is an acceptable price for peace with the darkspawn. Or for war, for that matter. I find it extremely interesting to see how far people here are willing to go for one of the other.

[LD50]

krylo wrote...

What's the thing that's going to result in the LEAST possible amount of pain?

Utilitarianism is not always good, because sometimes there is not a good choice--however, when you are making decisions that impact millions of lives, you can't think about the suffering of one or two people.  You have to humanize every single person that will be affected.

Interesting that you mention utilitarianism, as that reminds me of John Stuart Mill, who is certainly a poster child for utilitarian society.

Then again, he also said:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is  much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,  nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable  creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Just a thought.

[atheelogos]

tmelange wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

tmelange wrote...

Going to do one more playthrough and figured I'd ask for some feedback on the Architect storyline, since I can't seem to find a good reason in my own mind to spare him.

So just curious--who spared the Architect and why?

Personally, I didn't think it was a rational option under any circumstances for humanity to come to any sort of accord with the darkspawn or the Architect. It was clear to me that the Architect's interference led to the darkspawn not retreating upon the death of the old god, and resulted in continued human devastation, the deaths of thousands, and of dozens of wardens. It seemed clear to me that the darkspawn are very like vampires, parasitical and requiring humans for sustainence, breeding and acclimation, and as a result, an accord would be...untenable in fact. Thus, the argument that the darkspawn are somehow enslaved to the song of the old gods, and need to be freed (the slavery hook) so they can evolve, and the notion that the warden blood needed to free the darkspawn is analogous to the grey warden ritual wasn't compelling. 

I think the one thing they missed out on, however, was having the captured wardens being kept alive to provide this massive amount of blood they would need to convert darkspawn-dom. A dead warden supplies only a finite amount of blood. It would have been interesting to effect this rescue, and it also supplies a way for Duncan to be alive still. LOL (Keep hope ALIVE)

Anyway, what were you thinking when you spared the Architect?

I agree with you. the Architect needs to be destroyed. He is too dangerous to be left alive. Even if he wanted to help the humans and the darkspawn it still wouldn't work.

For example how much warden blood blood would he need to change hundreds of thousands of darkspawn? It doesn't matter because there wouldn't be enough wardens to provide it. And theres another problem. Drinking the taint doesn't work for all people. Many die. The Architect came up with something that is like the joining only in reverse. But the same pros/cons should apply right. Why should we expect this reverse joining to work on all of them? We shouldn't. There is no logical reason to assume that it would on every darkspawn 100% of time.

Here's another little problem. Lets say all the darkspawn were able to somehow get enough warden blood and they all listened to the Archtitect and there was peace. It would only last for a few decades if that. If there was complete peace then you wouldn't need wardens anymore. If you don't have warden blood than you can't convert the darkspawn. So in time they warring with us again.

Another problem is that the taint on averge can only sustain a warden for about 30 years. So who's to say the Architects reverse joining is permanent or would last longer than 30 years?

Another problem is this. Once they are free from the calling whats to keep them from attacking us again? Only this time they would be more intelligent more deadly.

And one of the biggest problems is these abominations are thieving parasites. They need our women to procreate. They steal people, force feed them and violate their bodies. Even if they were free from the calling they would want to continue living yes? Which would mean they would need more of our women to do so. And that ladies and gentlemen is unacceptable. 

There are to many ways for this to go south if he is left alive. In the case of the darkspawn genocide can indeed be justified. For us and the dwarves to live in peace the darkspawn need to be wiped off the face of the planet.

Dearest one, for 30 pages I have said the same things. There are vocal advocates on both sides of the issue, and the arguments can be compelling depending upon what any particular person is disposed to do. Me, I don't think darkspawn have proven they deserve my consideration over the interests of humanoid species. I believe there are absolute bars to coexistence with the darkspawn and that it hasn't been proven that they are *supposed* to be intelligent and independent of the song. I think it's just as likely that the song controls their bestial nature, which is why they are driven to corrupt it. I think it's much more likely that intelligent darkspawn equal unending strife against a foe that outnumbers us severely and preys upon us.

I don't believe in breeding extinct dinosaurs and hoping that they stay contained on the island. No species can survive without an awareness of its position in the natural order.

And beside the meta questions, I don't think the Architect as an individual deserves to live. I think he's the typical mad scientist, struggling amorally to justify his theories and to hell with the cost to individuals and to anyone not of his sphere of interest. His weak intimations of a greater good are severely undermined in my mind by his outrageous failures that have exacted a huge cost already.  I think he deserves to die just for slaughtering my brothers-in-arms so ignobly.

The one thing you said that I don't remember coming up so far is the fact that the warden's resistance is finite, therefore, the resistance conferred by the reverse joining might also be finite, and the intelligent darkspawn might simply revert back, making all the sacrifices some are willing to make for the promotion of the darkspawn meaningless.

"I think he deserves to die just for slaughtering my brothers-in-arms so
ignobly." I couldn't agree  more.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Darkannex wrote...

I think people need to step back and take a deep breath. This *is* still a game.
and KoP, a few things :
Your comment regarding the WW2 germans not experimenting to 'free' their people. To their point of view, they were. The view is not condoned, nor is it sane (IMO), but the point of it was to achieve perfection and perfect freedom from the ills associated with lesser beings. Just because the view is not sympathetic to you (or I), does not make it not exist to THEIR frame of mind. Poverty, sickness, imperfections, being a slave to ones genetics*. Looking at it completely dispassionate - their aims and the aims of the Architect are very similar. NOT exact, and through a moral lens, not at all the same. But there ya go. 

It's not a question that their views are not sympathetic to mine. It's the question that their views are not supported by reality. Experimenting on "lesser races" was not for freedom, it was simply to take advantage of a people they were going to kill either way, for their "destined" expansion to the East. Freedom is not the heart of the issue, it's expansion.

The Song on the otherhand is a GENUINE threat to the darkspawn. It's real and no one could contest it. The darkspawn are enslaved and the Architect can free them. Second, he never had any contempt for other races or any belief that "lesser races" HAD to be exterminated for the sake of some destiny like the Na.zies thought they had. He may experiment on other races (msoitly WArdens because that's what his joining needs). But from what we know in the game, he isn't concerned with the other species and mainly his own.

There exists similarities, but they are very superficial. The idelogy, the motives, the reality, the usefullness, the necessity and the scale behind both cases are radically different.

Darkannex wrote...
Secondly : this comment "And yes preicely. If the DS awaken suddenly after the deaths of the old Gods, it will be very difficult to guide them. Hence why I think they need the Architect. For one, he can potentially avoid the blights. Second, he can guide his people so they don't become lost."

You choose to gloss over the very striking thought that people/creatures with free will are not sheep to be herded or as you say, guided. We've had many visionaries in our time killed by the very people that attempt to enlighten them. Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln, etc... Keeping the Architect alive does NOT give even the reasonable expectation that he will be able to sway those awakened Darkspawn. Like Frankenstein, the creation will not be content to be herded. Waking from the song, will they then mindlessly (or mindfully) follow another? There are some that may (like the disciples), but many more than will not (with just a handful of followers awakened, they are already in the midst of civil war). 

I never said the Architect will be able to rule over all the darkspawn, with no opposition. And it's funny you mention those examples. Even when MLK and Gandhi were killed, no one denies the guiding role they played, even in death. To this very day, Gandhi is a national Indian symbol and even a worldwide symbol of what he preached.

To deny the darkspawn of a guide is dangerous. The Architect may succeed. And he may not. If I spare him. If I kill him and the darkspawn are freed anyhow, then we would be in an even worse situation.
 
So I do not see the logic behind: "The Architect could not be able to sway the darkspawn, so let's kill him".
If there is anyone we know of that could guide the darkspawn, it's the Architect.

"people/creatures with free will are not sheep to be herded or as you say, guided."

Haha, yes they are. Humans are the best example.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 mars 2010 - 07:46 .

[Volourn]

"Not only have I already killed multiple broodmothers at this point"



O RLY? Multiple broodmothers? You killed one in O, and then we kill one at the end of A after the choice dealinjg with TA has been made. LMAO



And, I don't see TA's innate malice towards non darkspawn. In fact, he has naything but.



People who want to wipe out all the darkspawn simply because theya re darkspawn are the very definition of racists. The Messenger, The Architect, and all intelligent dsarkspawn should be treated as individuals because that's what they are. To murder them for the sins of their race is wrong.



If you feel TA should be killed because you hate him personally or you perceive him as a threat, fine, but to kill him simply on the principle that he is a darkspawn is run.



Just like killing Zev on the basis that he's an elf is wrong; but killing him based on the fact thatb he's an assassin that tried to murder you can be justified.



GAME OVER.

[Costin_Razvan]

Any person with an IQ over 50 and cares enough about moral choices in games spares the Arhitect, end of story.

[Addai]

Having it out for darkspawn is... racist...  LOL!

Not going to go down this road, but there is so much...

No, not going to do it.  Anyway, thanks for the lolz.

[Costin_Razvan]

Knight: Stop trying to beat reason into these idiots. You are just wasting your time if they want to live in their fantasy world were killing solves everything then let them.