1316 réponses à ce sujet

[Godak]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

Well, techinically it would be species-ist...or, something.

[Darkannex]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

These are the kind of answers that contribue nothing to a discussion. Nor does name calling and insulting other peoples intelligence. 

[Costin_Razvan]

I was just giving a friendly tip to someone who has been trying this entire thread to make see some sort of reason.

I should point out that I mentioned in my other post I said having intelligence AND caring about the moral choices in a game. Since the OP made this thread I am assuming he/she cares about the choice.

I cannot for the life of me see how killing someone who is offering to help stop the mother and the Blights be anything other then stupid. It can be argued that he killed Velanna's friends ( The same Velanna who btw will try and kill you if you fight the architect if you don't persuade her otherwise ) but as his elf helper points out : The Darkspawn are like children, grown into the world with no understanding of good or evil. That is worth considering.

Could he Architect be lying? Of course he could, I have no doubt about that. Still to assume that and kill him without giving a chance is stupid. You are not stopping the Blights, you are not ending a threat, you are just making a stupid choice. Just because a person might not view it as stupid doesn't mean it isn't stupid. 

If you do make that choice from a moral viewpoint rather then from a game viewpoint. that is ( From a game viewpoint killing him is good, hell good items vs what? An inferno spell cast once? )

It's like the whole Loghain thing all over again. People who killed him either didn't want to lose Alistair, didn't care about the moral choice at all actually since it's a game anyway, or just simply are fools.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 mars 2010 - 10:09 .

[Addai]

Heh. Well, thank you for that little glimpse into your narrow-mindedness and impressive ego. Much as I disagree with KoP and krylo, they at least can formulate an argument.

[Godak]

Addai67 wrote...

Heh. Well, thank you for that little glimpse into your narrow-mindedness and impressive ego. Much as I disagree with KoP and krylo, they at least can formulate an argument.

...And they seem to be good at avoiding childish name calling.

[Joshd21]

He seemed like a nice guy, and spoke in that cool voice. How could I not spare him, though I admit his ghoul was a little werid

[Costin_Razvan]

Arguments are useless if people are not willing to listen to them. Take a look at the OP, he/she can't see why sparring the Architect could even be considered a good choice, even though there are several very good reasons presented both in this thread and throughout the game.

If there is anything to be learned from Loghain/Dark Sacrifice/Bhelen threads is that people who argue against such decisions loudly are people who don't listen to reason ( and yes there is reason in sparring the Architect, sparring Loghain ) and are so stuck up minor issues they usually can't see the great picture. Let's not even talk about the whole Mass Effect 2 ending issue.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 mars 2010 - 10:28 .

[IanPolaris]

Those that are making the "Killing Darkspawn are racists" argument (athough it would actually be specism but I digress) are fundamentally missing the key point.



You have not only the RIGHT as a human (or elf, dwarf, or even qunari) but the DUTY to try to what is best for humanity (read in all inclusive above). Elves aren't an active threat to the continuation of the human race. Elves don't eat human beings, nor are Elve require to kidnap, torture and rape human females just to reproduce. Moreover elves don't spread lethal disease in human beings just by proximity.



Darkspawn of course do all these things. That's why it's morally justified and indeed morally required to turn down the architect. Not only is he untrustworthy, but if you help him, you are making a species that fundamentally views your own as PREY stronger, and as Sigrun points out that is a very, very stupid thing to do. Ultha and Velanna's sister are traitors. Period.



Sorry, but anyone with any loyalty to humanity, with any moral sense, and with an IQ above 50 (if I get fire thrown at me, I WILL throw it back) must come to the conclusion that you need to turn down the architect and ultimately make him take a dirt-nap.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Joshd21 wrote...

He seemed like a nice guy, and spoke in that cool voice. How could I not spare him, though I admit his ghoul was a little werid

By all accounts I've read, Dr Joeseph Mengala was also a terrifically nice guy whose experiments did in fact add a great deal to modern medical science.  That did not stop the allies from executing him (and justifiably so).

-Polaris

[Costin_Razvan]

Polaris: You can believe that if you will. It won't change the fact that in the end game the choice to spare the Architect is better then killing him.

What arguments people can bring of could/might/ if etc is really pointless. It's the same thing that happens in Bhelen arguments. You are wasting your time trying to prove killing the Architect is a good thing when the epilogue clearly shows it is better to ally him.

I was surprised the Architect's army didin't launch itself at Vigil's Keep to finish you off should you choose to kill him.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 mars 2010 - 10:42 .

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Arguments are useless if people are not willing to listen to them. Take a look at the OP, he/she can't see why sparring the Architect could even be considered a good choice, even though there are several very good reasons presented both in this thread and throughout the game.

Not listen or not be persuaded?  There is a difference.  Your declaration that those who do not play the game exactly as you do are "fools" doesn't exactly recommend you as a thoughful debater.  One of the strengths of the game is that so many of the characters and situations are ambiguous enough that it is rarely cut and dried.  I have strong opinions on two issues you've mentioned and in the opposite direction as yours, but am I going to lay them out for you?  No.  Show your fellow players some respect or don't bother commenting.

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Polaris: You can believe that if you will. It won't change the fact that in the end game the choice to spare the Architect is better then killing him.

No it's not.  There is a short term eerie quiet. 

In fact, by that same argument it's better to kill the messenger than let him go since if you let him go he spreads the darkspawn taint.

As my sig says, Sigrun is right.  Making a race that fundamentally views and needs to view (just to survive and breed) humanity (all versions) as PREY even stronger than they already are, is a stupid, stupid thing to do.  We already know in the vast majority fo the cases, intelligent Darkspawn are even more vicious and more inclined to attack humanity than non-intelligent ones (see Withered et al).  Of all the awakened darkspawn, ONE and only ONE has had any sort of moral compass as we understand it....and he still spreads fatal disease/taint.

-Polaris

[Efesell]

In which far fewer people die, many thaigs are reclaimed, and the roads are an all around safer place.

Sure you can speculate that something big may be brewing but in the end the result of sparing him is far more peaceful than killing him.



Also can you please stop saying Sigrun Was Right over and over and over and...

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
What arguments people can bring of could/might/ if etc is really pointless. It's the same thing that happens in Bhelen arguments. You are wasting your time trying to prove killing the Architect is a good thing when the epilogue clearly shows it is better to ally him.

The epilog is not nearly as clear as you think it is.  It merely says that the Deep Roads become quiet.  Guess what?  The Deep Roads become quiet during blights as well.  THINK aboiut it.....

I was surprised the Architect's army didin't launch itself at Vigil's Keep to finish you off should you choose to kill him.

All this tells me is that the architect doesn't understand and can't control his own experiments.  If anything this is a point against the Architect.   The point is that even so-called "awakened" darkspawn are almost unversially antagonistic and hostile towards humanity....and even if they weren't (which they are), they would still have to be eliminated because in the end they are not ecologically compatible with humanity.

What some fail to understand is the harsh reality of survival.  The only way a lamb will co-exist beside a hungry mountain lion is when one is inside the other.  It's the same here.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Efesell wrote...

In which far fewer people die, many thaigs are reclaimed, and the roads are an all around safer place.
Sure you can speculate that something big may be brewing but in the end the result of sparing him is far more peaceful than killing him.

The Deep Roads are quiet during blights as well.  Also, the Bhelen epilog already states that many Thiags are reclaimed.  Also the same holds true with at least one Thiag if you kill the Architect.

So no, you can not say that the "save the architect" is a better ending.  At BEST it might seem that way in the short run, but I'd even argue that point.

Also can you please stop saying Sigrun Was Right over and over and over and...

Not until people show that they no longer need to hear it.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Arguments are useless if people are not willing to listen to them. Take a look at the OP, he/she can't see why sparring the Architect could even be considered a good choice, even though there are several very good reasons presented both in this thread and throughout the game.

Not listen or not be persuaded?  There is a difference.  Your declaration that those who do not play the game exactly as you do are "fools" doesn't exactly recommend you as a thoughful debater.  One of the strengths of the game is that so many of the characters and situations are ambiguous enough that it is rarely cut and dried.  I have strong opinions on two issues you've mentioned and in the opposite direction as yours, but am I going to lay them out for you?  No.  Show your fellow players some respect or don't bother commenting.

To be fair, many of the opposite argument have also claimed that those sparing the Architect are idiots. And unilaterally decide that their choice was the only right choice.
And I am not saying it's you BTW.

EDIT:

Also can you please stop saying Sigrun Was Right over and over and over and...

Not until people show that they no longer need to hear it.

-Polaris

That's what I mean.



I went into this thread with the assumption that neither choice is right or wrong perse. Both positions are equally valid. I just find one choice to be more appealing than the other (and initially, it was only slightly so).  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 mars 2010 - 10:56 .

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

 

Also can you please stop saying Sigrun Was Right over and over and over and...

Not until people show that they no longer need to hear it.

-Polaris

That's what I mean.

I stand by it.

I went into this thread with the assumption that neither choice is right or wrong perse. Both positions are equally valid. I just find one choice to be more appealing than the other (and initially, it was only slightly so).  

And I find that position to be morally reprehensible for exactly the same reason that Sigrun does.  Sorry, but I am an ethical deantologist (i.e. I reject ethical relativism).  In this case there IS a correct ethical choice albeit a tragic one since without humanity, no futher ethical choices are possible. Given that the only correct ethical choice is NOT to make it easier for a race that fundamentally doesn't just want to but NEEDS to destroy/enslave humanity to do so.

I don't think it's hard decision.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 26 mars 2010 - 11:02 .

[LadyDamodred]

Initially it was only slightly so? Has your position become more hardened since then, KoP?



Note: I have no been following the thread closely, so I have no idea.

[Costin_Razvan]

Polaris: The biggest threat to the surface and dwarves is a Blight, nothing else. If the Architect is willing to stop it then you should give him a chance. It's not like you are going to stop his plan as his Disciples will continue it regardless, and by sparring him you are at the very least not earning the ire of his Disciples. ( Should he prove to be genuine )

Also Sigrun can go to hell. She is a castless thief who didn't even stand for what the Legion was for. She was nothing more then a coward. Perhaps you might want to bring Oghren to hear what he has to say.

Given that the only correct ethical choice is NOT to make it easier for
a race that fundamentally doesn't just want to but NEEDS to
destroy/enslave humanity to do so.

Turning a few women is not equal to enslaving humanity. Besides how the hell the darkspawn came to be in the first place? They must have a way to reproduce other then turning women from other races in Broodmothers.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 mars 2010 - 11:11 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I went into this thread with the assumption that neither choice is right or wrong perse. Both positions are equally valid. I just find one choice to be more appealing than the other (and initially, it was only slightly so).  

Well, like Polaris and as I told you earlier, I don't find the decision that difficult, either.  Nothing about the Architect conduces me to believe sparing him is a good idea.  However if there are players that feel strongly in the other direction and can articulate an argument, I try to give their viewpoint a hearing.

I also think the writer must have some inkling of why cooperating with the Architect should be a viable response for a Grey Warden, or for any ethical person.  There is Utha, after all, and I doubt they would present us with a game choice that was supposed to be easy.  But for the life of me I don't see it.  There certainly are situations in the game that gave me pause, but this isn't one of them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ IanPolaris
In your opinion, there is an ethical choice. And I would argue that ethical deontologists, in particular Kant, would regard either choice as unethical. Why? Because Kant sees killing, regardless of why, where and how, to be unethical, regardless of reasons, context, motives and results. Hypotheticals do not matter. He rather bases it on the categorical imperative and he thinks that killing is ALWAYS unethical.

So Kant will never say killing the Architect, or anyone is ethical. He might think it's necessary. But not ethical.

@ LadyDamodred.

When first presented with the choice, there are many variables one could forget. Soiemtimes, the best way to judge an act or a decision is to take a step back and judge. After dsoing so and after having played two playthroughs, my position on this issue hardened yes. But I do not see the choice of killing him to be wrong.

Although I do find the idea of exterminating the darkspawn to be unethical and unnecessary.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 mars 2010 - 11:13 .

[LadyDamodred]

Yes, I know. I was just curious, is all.



Also, 75 pages and counting. XD

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

krylo wrote...

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.

Sorry, but this post was riddled with pure ignorance, I had to respond.

Obviously, you have never watched someone die a slow death from some horrible disease, otherwise, you would not make such idiotic statements like this. Physical pain is as real, valid, and horrific as emotional pain, especially when it is being caused slowly through disease, toxin, or total bodily malfunction.

I've seen and known people who died slow, painful deaths from various cancers, hepetitis, AIDS related complications, cirrosis of the liver, or types of chemical induced poisoning. In most cases, these people were heavily sedated on all sorts of medical mind-benders and painkillers that emotionally "tranquilled" them. Yet that did not stop them completely from feeling pain and suffering from their illness. They often still complained when you touched them, or they moved a certain way, of pain even morphine couldn't kill. To say that you need emotions to make pain real or valid is stupid.

The darkspawn taint isn't like a physical injury from a fight or accident, it is like a horrific, slow working disease. Like cancer. Becoming a broodmother would be a horrible, painful experience, emotions or not, because of the process involved. It's like a horrible, mutating cancer that comepletely destroys the body.

Your coment on rape is laughable. The emotional trauma certainly is the worst part, but since rape usually involves physical force and violence, the physical pain and torment is just as bad, especially when some sort of lasting physical damage is present. 

Tranquilled or not, offering any living person up to become broodmothered really is sentancing them to something quite horrific and gruesome.

[Costin_Razvan]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf : I don't think anyone can really comment on the Tranquil, since I doubt anyone here can really even begin to understand how it is to live without emotion.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

My point is, is that physical pain is not somehow lessened than emotional pain, nor does physical pain have to bring about bad emotions to be unpleasant. pain is pain. Disease is disease. Physical pain exists to warn us that something unhealthy is happening to your body. Animals, even the lower ones, feel it.