1316 réponses à ce sujet

[sillymonkboy]

The Tranquil may be blocked from emotional extremes, from violence and passion, but they clearly do have some emotional capacity, as well as awareness of their physical and mental wellbeing. Those in the circle tower thank you for saving them, express discomfort at being tortured and tormented by demons, express preference for familiar surroundings, and desire to continue living.

[sylvanaerie]

umm what is a deantologist? Is that like a philosopher? or a teacher?

[Darkannex]

I too, find the argument that since the Tranquil do not have emotions that they are somehow ... lesser. It's (in my mind) akin to saying someone with autism is. (I understand that this is not a perfect correlation, it is merely the nearest equivalent that my mind thinks of). Owain himself states that despite his differences he is not less a person. He also indicates a will to survive and live and contribute to society.



If you like-compare it to a Vulcan on Star Trek (yes I know they HAVE emotions, just suppress them) but the lack of emotional control over them allows for what they describe as greater enlightenment. Perhaps the tranquil feel the same now. Who knows?



Still, unlike the darkspawn, their existence does not threaten humanity. Nor do they prey on humans for food/sport/procreation.



Just because the deep roads become quiet, does not mean things are well. There were times in Hitler's campaign in WW2 when it seemed he was not expanding. You cannot truly ascribe to him motives.



And KotP, again, what you ascribe from your perspective as WW2 Germany's motives, and what the Germans themselves ascribed to it are different. You have a worldview that they did not. History is written by those that win. Whether we believe it or not, they DID see their war as a war of freedom. Freedom from several things. That it also included expansion and conquest was not in question. Also they fought to be free of punishments from WW1. So in a way-their war was ALSO about freedom from financial, physical and emotional suppression from the allied powers that humilated and dare I say 'enslaved' them? It's viewpoint. But on such viewpoints wars are won and lost.



And I never ascribed to the Architect as martyrdom material. It could happen. But my point is that human beings, or beings with true free will - exercise that free will. Suddenly sentient, intelligent Darkspawn are likely not to decide all of a sudden to link hands and sing kumbaiya. Nor suddenly decide that the way that they breed is morally reprehensible. If they have the right to live, they have the right to recreate and grow as a people (physically).



Also, regardless of what ending you choose, Thaigs are recovered and steps taken forward in the war. Ascribing one ending 'better' based alone on that is fallacy. The only difference is that on one the DS fall back into silence.

[KnightofPhoenix]

sylvanaerie wrote...

umm what is a deantologist? Is that like a philosopher? or a teacher?

Deontology is an ethical philosophy, among others. Its conception of right / "good" and wrong / "evil" are based upon a conception of "Duty" however that is defined. Immanuel Kant is the classical deontologist and his conception of duty is based on the categorical imperative "Act according to the maxim by which you can also wish it to become a universal law".
It's usually comparable, though not perfectly equivalent, to moral absolutism.

[sylvanaerie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

sylvanaerie wrote...

umm what is a deantologist? Is that like a philosopher? or a teacher?

Deontology is an ethical philosophy, among others. Its conception of right / "good" and wrong / "evil" are based upon a conception of "Duty" however that is defined. Immanuel Kant is the classical deontologist and his conception of duty is based on the categorical imperative "Act according to the maxim by which you can also wish it to become a universal law".
It's usually comparable, though not perfectly equivalent, to moral absolutism.

Thanks KoP!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Darkannex wrote...
And KotP, again, what you ascribe from your perspective as WW2 Germany's motives, and what the Germans themselves ascribed to it are different. You have a worldview that they did not. History is written by those that win. Whether we believe it or not, they DID see their war as a war of freedom. Freedom from several things. That it also included expansion and conquest was not in question. Also they fought to be free of punishments from WW1. So in a way-their war was ALSO about freedom from financial, physical and emotional suppression from the allied powers that humilated and dare I say 'enslaved' them? It's viewpoint. But on such viewpoints wars are won and lost.

Now you are confusing the war with the experiments. The experiments had nothing to do with the treaty of Versaille and what the Entente did to them in WW1. Were the experiments designed to help them stop the treaty of Versaille? OIr even help them win the war?  

I agree that the German refusal to abide to the treaty of Versaille was justified. This has nothing to do with their experiments and with their genocidal policies. Most of those who were targetted had nothing to do with WW1 in the first place. Those who imposed the treaty on them were mostly France and Britain and their populace were not subject to what the Slavs, Jews and other "lesser races" were subjugated to.

So do not confuse the war and the experiments. They might see the war as liberation. They never saw the experiments as freeing them somehow. It was just purging the "lesser races", while also learn and experiment as much as possible before they die.

Darkannex wrote...
And I never ascribed to the Architect as martyrdom material. It could happen. But my point is that human beings, or beings with true free will - exercise that free will. Suddenly sentient, intelligent Darkspawn are likely not to decide all of a sudden to link hands and sing kumbaiya. Nor suddenly decide that the way that they breed is morally reprehensible. If they have the right to live, they have the right to recreate and grow as a people (physically).

The epilogue says that Disciples do regard the Architect as their savior, when you kill him. He could be a martyr.

And yes, I know that it will take time for them to develop socially, ethically and intellectually. Hence why I want them to be guided by a leader, and not suddenly become sentient in the middle of a war.

[Darkannex]

The point I was trying to make-and I am pretty tired so forgive me - is that all of this was a means to the end for them. Or at least some of them. The experimentation was part of the Eugenics plan that would elevate them to pure aryan, freeing them from all that ailed society. The WW1 treaty was one of many cogs in the wheel for them. Those not pure were used towards the greater goal of freedom. Was there sadism involved? In more cases than you can count. But this was their mindset and their theology.



I guess the ultimate point I am trying to make is that morality is in eyes of the beholder. I firmly believe that WW2 veterans believed all of what they did was justifiable towards their ends of freedom . From their opressors (the allies), from lesser races, and from their own genetics.



Again - I am not saying that I believe this...but I do truly believe that many people in Germany did believe this.

[Darkannex]

And they didn't specify which disciples, all or the ones present?

[KnightofPhoenix]

@Darkannex
I've read Na.zi rethoric (And I am sorry, I am not trying to potray myself as better knowing than you). They rarely if ever mention freedom as their ultimate goal (indeed, "freedom" is a dangerous word to use in a totalitarian context). Their clear goal was the purity of Europe and the Volk from the corruption of the lesser races and bolshevism. That's not equivalent to freedom.

Did some Germans think they fought for freedom? Certainly and had I been German in that period of time, I would have probably been attracted to at least some of the rethoric.
The point is, experimentation was not a public knowledge and only the Na.zi high command knew of it. I do not think freedom was a goal, but it was purity, based on their weird ideology (weird to say the least).

That is not the Architect. The fact that his people are enslaved is an objective fact, not based on conspiracy theories or bigotry. He doesn't seem to hate anyone, but only seek to free his people from a slavery that is clear and apparent (not metaphorical).   
Yes, the Architect is a "ends justify the means" kind of person. But when comparing two persons or factions that operate with this logic, the key is to compare the ends themselves and not the means. The Na.zi ends were different from the Architect's.

And no they didn't specify who saw the Architect that way. But seeing how most of the "heretical" disciples that were with the mother are killed, I would say it's most of the disciples left that saw the Architect as their savior.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mars 2010 - 01:17 .

[Darkannex]

I've also read Eugenics theory as well as WW2 german theory. I agree to use the word freedom in many contexts is dangerous-all I am stating is that viewpoints matter. Even the higher echelons sought purity which in many of their minds did equate to freedom - even if phantasms of threat were all they fought against.

You are saying that the Architect is fighting against a clear and demonstrative enslavement. To those that feel oppressed, it feels very real. The fact that it is or is not is not salient to the point I am making. I am not trying to justify his actions over anothers or split hairs on theory, simply speaking that there are similarities that are not just superficial-and that perception can equal fact to many.

And I've still to be convinced totally that much of what you say is objective fact, and not more than your own perception based on what the Architect believes. I refer again to the point that if medieval scholars wrote that humors caused illness...that did not make it true. Likewise, there could be other forces or causes at work here that have not been fully sounded and determined.

This is likely going to be something we agree to disagree with. I appreciate your standpoint, and appreciate more that you are respectful of mine as well. 

Modifié par Darkannex, 27 mars 2010 - 01:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Darkannex wrote...
Even the higher echelons sought purity which in many of their minds did equate to freedom - even if phantasms of threat were all they fought against. 

You have no real way of knowing that. Their rethoric wasn't based on it. And we have no way of knowing how they think that experimenting on thousands of twins just to know about twin biology has anything to do with freedom.
The rethoric was based on racial superiority and purity first and foremost.

The Architect never spoke of anything but freedom in the game.

Darkannex wrote...
You are saying that the Architect is fighting against a clear and demonstrative enslavement. To those that feel oppressed, it feels very real. The fact that it is or is not is not salient to the point I am making. I am not trying to justify his actions over anothers or split hairs on theory, simply speaking that there are similarities that are not just superficial-and that perception can equal fact to many.

Seeing how the Slavs never oppressed the Germans, I think it's a stretch to say that Na.zi belief that the Slavs are inferior and lesser is because they took away their freedom.
It wasn't in the perception of Hitler or his lackeys. Perhaps "Jewish bolshevism" was considered slavery. I can concede that point. The supposed inferiority of the Slavs and the need to purge them has nothing to do with freedom on the otherhand. Just the creation of the German Reich and to secure its expansion to the east.

And when judging an act or a person, it's our job to see if his / her perceptions are true or not. The Architect's perception that the song is enslavement is factual or at the very least demonstratable and very possible. The fact that some Germans percieved the Slavs or others to be a threat to their freedom simply for being inferior is not a fact and is a falsity.  

Darkannex wrote...
And I've still to be convinced totally that much of what you say is objective fact, and not more than your own perception based on what the Architect believes. I refer again to the point that if medieval scholars wrote that humors caused illness...that did not make it true. Likewise, there could be other forces or causes at work here that have not been fully sounded and determined.

This is likely going to be something we agree to disagree with. I appreciate your standpoint, and appreciate more that you are respectful of mine as well. 

But the Architect was succesful in his experiments. Qnd he did experiment and thus obviously knows what he is talking about (or at least knows alot of what he is talkign about), unlike the medieval scholars who are clearly very ignorant (at least the European ones) and didn't base their theories on anything concret.

There is little reason to think that the Architect is completely wrong, especially when he did succeed. In-game, he is the best and most reliable source on the darkspawn, even if he might not be entirely correct. For one, he knows more about his own species than my PC, so no sense in me to kill him simply because he might not be 100%accurate, while I know next to nothing of what he knows.

Eh, I always start and usually end up with agreeing to  disagree.
And I appreciate the discussion very much

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 mars 2010 - 02:01 .

[IanPolaris]

KoP,

You are again mistaking effect for cause. Just because the Architect did suceed at awakening some Darkspawn does NOT imply that his guesses (and he admits he is guessing) and theories of why it works (Darkspawn enslaved by the song) are correct.

In medicine (for example) [but we see it a lot in science], it's quite common actually to get sucessful results for the wrong reasons. That's why the scientific methode exists...to seperate why things work the way they do. It is a gross leap in logic to say that just because the Architect's experiments worked (and they only did sorta kinda) to "he must be correct about the underlying causes".

In DoA, it is strongly implied to be the opposed (by Morrigan and Flemeth who probably know as much as anyone about this), That is they think that it is the TAINT that corrupts and enslaves those within it (including the Old Gods and Darkspawn itself) and the song the Grey Wardens hear during a blight is a side effect of the growing taint. Ruck's progression also agures for this....as does the fact that Morrigan's ritual works but the song (at least that song) ends anyway for the Darkspawn. [Even if you take Morrigan's ritual, the Darkspawn apparently do not "hear" the old god song from within Morrigan's womb....which tells you it's the taint not the song that is enslaving the darkspawn.]

As a guess, I would say that drinking Grey Warden Blood gives some darkspawn greater control over their own innate taint and it is this that allows them to awaken....and it is this as a side effect that cuts of the song.

What we do know from DAA are the following:

1. Drinking of Grey Warden Blood allows some DS to awaken. We do NOT know why (not even the Architect)

2. Awakened Darkspawn are just as violence prone and vicious towards humanity as unawakened Darkspawn but much more dangerous (not just Mother, but the Architect's own Lieutenant Withered proves this).

3. The Darkspawn awakened or not still spread deadly disease and still depends on the parasited enslavement of other races just to exist.

Given all of that, this is not a difficult ethical or moral choice. Kant would indeed call both choices wrong, but given the catagorical imperitative he would insist the architect has to die since all species as a categorical imperitative have a right to defend themselves individually and collectively and destroying the Darkspawn IS an act of self-defense for humanity.

-Polaris

Edit:  There were many successful experiments in Alchemy in particular during the middle-ages that were based on completly false theoretical underpinnings.  Just becasue an experiment suceeds does NOT imply that the underlying theory is correct or even sensible.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 27 mars 2010 - 03:23 .

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ 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.

That isn't true.  Kant viewed the death penalty for particular henious crimes to be justified in Critique of Pure Reason.  Under the Categorical Imperative, people both individually and collectively have an absolute right to defend themselves and killing Darkspawn in this case is an act of species self-defense.  Nothing more.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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 )

Oh really?  Everyone that is a warden or associated with the Wardens (or the Legion of the Dead) are scared witless over the possibility that some OTHER force than an Archdemon can give the Darkspawn a collective will and intelligence.

THIS (the intelligence, cunning, and collective will) is what makes the Blights so dangerous.  If you side wth the architect, you agree to end periodic blights with (eventually) a blight that lasts 24/7.  Also going by your own precious epilog, there is no evidence at all (and indeed the epilog says the opposite) that you earn any emnity from the architect's disciples by killing him.  It's not even clear that the Architect's plan can continue without him.  Even if it can, that is not subject to your control.  Helping the Darkspawn thrive (which means helping them kill and/or enslave humanity) is.

Again, this is not a difficult moral choice.  It's just not.

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.

Sigrun was willing to go try to take out the Broodmothers single-handedly and was willing to die alone in the Deep Roads if that is what it took.  Oghren is a burnt out drunk and failure as a husband and a Dwarf (or any kind of member of the humanities).  Oghren even admits this if you get his approval high enough.  Oghren is so tired of living that he is willing to pay any price to end the conflict.

Of the two, Sigrun is a far better guide to what is right and wrong, and a much better example of what is best among the dwarves.

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.

How did the darkspawn come to be?  I actually think the Chantry (as much as I loathe them) are probably right.  The Darkspawn have all the earmarks of a eugenics plague that is destined to kill itself off (like small pox or ebola).  I wouldn't be at all suprised if the Maker designed them (call from the Black City and all) with a mission to destroy humanity and themselves along with it.  Basically the Darkspawn as a species has no future.  Regardless, giving the Darkspawn a few women is morally reprehensible.  I would think even you could see that.

-Polaris

[Volourn]

"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. "



Actually, it's a point in favour of the Architect. His goal is to FREE his kind NOT to control them. That's the whole point of the Awakening - to give individual darkspawn the POWER to CHOOSE.



And, siding with TA does NOT mean giving darkspawn the okay to go and kidnap women, or slaughter otehrs en masse. Oh contraire, mon ami. It's about giving them the RIGHT to CHOOSE what they want to do.



Also, there is the possibility that the darkspawn can be cured of the taint wholly and make it unneeded for them to do so. Afterall, at one point, theyw er ejust mindless monsters. Theya ren't anymore. Perhaps, they are going some sort of evolution, How bout that for a big FU to the Chantry.



Btw, The Chantry also says it's okay to mindwipe, enslave, and murder anyone magic while using magic themselves to do exactly that. Sorry, but the chantry is highly suspect and untrustworthy. A lot more untrusty than TA.



btw, the 'mindless' darkspawn' have no mission. They have NO choice to attack other races. They are FORCED to do it. The Awakening allows them then to CHOOSE not to,





FREE THE DARKSPAWN TO FREE OURSELVES!



The Awakening is not just the salvation of the darkspawn, it is OUR salvation from the taint.



LONG LIVE NON RACIST SCUMBAG MURDERERS!

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@Darkannex
I've read Na.zi rethoric (And I am sorry, I am not trying to potray myself as better knowing than you). They rarely if ever mention freedom as their ultimate goal (indeed, "freedom" is a dangerous word to use in a totalitarian context). Their clear goal was the purity of Europe and the Volk from the corruption of the lesser races and bolshevism.

And Lebensraum.  The freedom they wanted was the freedom to be German.  It's just that everyone else, everywhere, needed to be pure German, too, or as close as it got.

That is not the Architect. The fact that his people are enslaved is an objective fact, not based on conspiracy theories or bigotry. He doesn't seem to hate anyone, but only seek to free his people from a slavery that is clear and apparent (not metaphorical).  

Seems, but you don't know that.  His ends could very well be the interests of the darkspawn whether they clash with those of humanity or not.  Why assume he is altruistic?

The byline of Awakening to me is not "morally ambiguous choice about whether to help talking darkspawn"; rather, "oh crap, there are talking darkspawn, humanity is in deeper **** than we knew."  However, I also don't subscribe to your theory that once the song is gone, the darkspawn will spontaneously become intelligent creatures.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 mars 2010 - 04:36 .

[Sarah1281]

Perhaps, they are going some sort of evolution

Evolution via the artificial act of ingesting GW blood? Besides, it doesn't matter it every darkspawn on the planet were 'awakened' if they can't find a new way to reproduce then the species isn't going to evolve and each new darkspawn will need to be 'awakened' individually.

[tmelange]

Volourn wrote...

btw, the 'mindless' darkspawn' have no mission. They have NO choice to attack other races. They are FORCED to do it. The Awakening allows them then to CHOOSE not to,

In between blights, the darkspawn spend hundreds of years warring against dwarves, and anyone else that crosses their paths. During that time, they are not being controlled by the song; they hear it and seek to find the source but aren't controlled by it. They choose to act in the same ways sans coercion as they do when impelled by the archdemon. 

Choice is not dependent on higher level intelligence or the ability to speak. A lion chooses which gazelle will make its next meal. It seems to me a bit of an overstatement to argue that the darkspawn have never had any choice to attack other species but for the awakening.

[sylvanaerie]

tmelange wrote...

Volourn wrote...

btw, the 'mindless' darkspawn' have no mission. They have NO choice to attack other races. They are FORCED to do it. The Awakening allows them then to CHOOSE not to,

In between blights, the darkspawn spend hundreds of years warring against dwarves, and anyone else that crosses their paths. During that time, they are not being controlled by the song; they hear it and seek to find the source but aren't controlled by it. They choose to act in the same ways sans coercion as they do when impelled by the archdemon. 

Choice is not dependent on higher level intelligence or the ability to speak. A lion chooses which gazelle will make its next meal. It seems to me a bit of an overstatement to argue that the darkspawn have never had any choice to attack other species but for the awakening.

A bit off topic but I had to say Tme your new avatar is adorable!  Nice job making her.

[IanPolaris]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Perhaps, they are going some sort of evolution

Evolution via the artificial act of ingesting GW blood? Besides, it doesn't matter it every darkspawn on the planet were 'awakened' if they can't find a new way to reproduce then the species isn't going to evolve and each new darkspawn will need to be 'awakened' individually.

Indeed, the very means by which the Darkspawn reproduce indicate to me that the Chantry does have it partially right.  That is, the Darkspawn are artificial creations designed explicitly to punish mankind.  As others have pointed out, even in between blights, Darkspawn are vicious and antangonistic towards everthing (even each other) and the evidence in DAA says that even awakened Darkspawn retain these traits (look at Withered, First, Lost, and all the other so called Disciples...even those the Architect sent to make 'peace' with the Grey Wardens...here's a clue-file:  A sneak attack designed to kill as many humans as possible and capture as many Grey Wardens as possible is not a way to make peace even with other darkspawns let alone humanity).

The fact is that if humanity (inclusive) were to find a way to become immune from the taint (or at least the Broodmother variation), Darkspawn would become extinct in a generation.  BY DESIGN th Darkspawn can not coexist with humanity and thus the Architect should and needs to be turned down.

Note that I am not appealing to the Chantry in all respects.  I am merely speculating that in this one case (the creation of the Darkspawn) the Chantry version may have more than a grain of truth to it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
Seems, but you don't know that.  His ends could very well be the interests of the darkspawn whether they clash with those of humanity or not.  Why assume he is altruistic?

Indeed if you read the calling, you find the Achitect is anything but altruistic.  The comparison to Dr Joeseph Mengela is an apt one.  The Architect is urbane and even charming in a dark sort of way, but ultimately the Architect is a darkspawn and only has darkspawn interests at heart (and his own interpretation of them).  Again if you read the calling, the Architect wanted to ghoulify (and thus enslave) the entire human race killing most of it for the sake of the Darkspawn.

That alone should tell you that the Architect deserves to take a dirt-nap.

-Polaris

[tmelange]

sylvanaerie wrote...

A bit off topic but I had to say Tme your new avatar is adorable!  Nice job making her.

Thank you! I like to give all my wardens their time in the sun. Your avatar is quite beautiful herself.

[sylvanaerie]

Thanks this is my favorite one so been using her a while.

[Thor Rand Al]

I'm sorry I don't understand how anyone can allow him to live period. Yes I have played it both ways so I can honestly say I've tried it. The only positive thing from letting him live is maybe, a big MAYBE he can end the blight's once and for all. But there's no gaurantee that he can actually stop another 1 from happening, (does he still have plans on trying to find the Old Gods and kill them?) He's the dang reason why the ArchDemon was brought early to suface in the first place because of his "mistake." His "experiments" seem to be going wrong everytime you turn around.

The early rise of the ArchDemon, the Mother and these new breed of creatures.  The Mother and these new creatures are only a small sample of what he's created, if he's allowed to continue doing this Maker knows what else he'll "create". Things that have cost dearly so many lives, so much destruction and were going to allow him to keep doing it. By letting him live your not making it easier for the future, your adding more fuel to the fire. These thing's, this "evil" is being allowed to evolve into something much much more powerful, stronger, smarter.

I seriously doubt their going to want to stay underground once they escape the "song". Their whole purpose to life is to seek out the Old God's. If you allow the Architect to take that away then their new goal will be to try to take over the world and yes I can see that happening. All it would take is for them to come up to the surface in massive groups and start corrupting everyone and everything (that's actually what the Architect wanted to do in the first place) before anyone would know what was happening and then it be too late. If you kill him then the only time that happens is during a blight when an ArchDemon has risen but there's still time in between blights where the only thing that drives them is finding that Old God. Less of a risk on the world then letting the Architect live.

All his experiment does is stops the darkspawn from hearing the Old God's song. That's the only thing it stops. It doesn't stop the taint, they are still diseased corrupted creatures, they still spread the taint. Their not even human, they never will be no matter what the Architect tries to do.

I'm trying really hard to find something positive for letting him live. Look at how the beginning of the game started, 1 of his own killing the other Grey Warden's. If he truly meant to get the Grey Warden's help that was not the way to do it. Letting him live is the greater of two evils. In the long run it is. We only have 2 more Old God's/Archdemon's to deal with, and that could take centuries or possibly thanks to the Architect it could be earlier cause now they know where the Old Gods are. In the meantime the darkspawn are trying to find them, focusing on just that. If you allow them to escape that all your doing is asking for bigger and far greater disaster. There will never be a chance to get rid of the darkspawn. They will always be around but as long as theirs an Old God to distract them then the world above is safer for a time and who's to say that once these Old God's are gone they don't just wither away and die, (wishful thinking, but you never know and maybe Morrigan's baby might be the answer to getting rid of them once and for all lol). If you allow the Architect to continue then there never will be a way to get rid of them, there purpose in life will change and that will be disastrous for the world above because these will be intelligent, stronger more harder to get rid of.

Sorry about the long post but I feel better now that I finally got that out of my system after days of speculating, reading other posts and playing the game lol.


EDIT:

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 27 mars 2010 - 06:38 .

[MassEffect762]

I spared him because it seemed more interesting than simply killing him imo, don't really care beyond that.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 27 mars 2010 - 06:42 .