1316 réponses à ce sujet

[tmelange]

Big Mikey Mike wrote...

tmelange wrote...

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.

I spared him every time - I didn't actually realise you could fight him, it seemed so natural to side with him.  Think of it this way; the Grey Wardens do whatever they can to stop the blights.  They don't care about the Darkspawn existing, so much as they care about stopping them killing people.  The Architect arguably represents the best hope we have of preventing blights from ever happening again.  If ever there was a distasteful decision to be made that benefitted Fereldon and the rest of the world, it's siding with the Architect.

Thanks so much for adding in your opinion to the thread! I've hit on these issues in depth over the course of the discussion so I'm not going to reply specifically to the issues you've raised but I appreciate you joining in and providing your prospective.

[Zaros]

Not all darkspawn are evil ugly bastards (well, they're all ugly, but they're not all evil).



I believed The Archittect could actually save the Darkspawn, and in that same respect, I also choose to let The Messenger run free after he help me liberate the arling of Ameranthine.



And, in the end {[(*SPOILERS*)]} he managed to help out a few humans on his own as a benevolent traveler, so, win-win.

[tmelange]

vilnii wrote...

In all of Awakening, intelligent Darkspawn proved to be deadlier than ever.

Darkspawn and living things can never coexist. These creatures turn the very sky dark for crying out loud.

They render the land infertile and barren

Infected humans become ghouls

Just as water and oil do not mix, the taint by nature will always corrupt and destroy the living.

Infact the taint has a huge advantage because living things cannot cleanse or neutralize it. People can only try to avoid it's spread

The facts are so simple, I wonder if people's heads are screwed on backwards who think they are 'negotiating with the architect'. Are you negotiating to give the taint breathing space or what?

It is a ZERO sum game. Architect seeks to preserve and help it's kind, humanity seeks to continue it's civilization. The two do not mix.

Do you realize that the day the Intelligent Darkspawn plan to attack, they do not even need to carry weapons. All they have to do is simply appear from the ground unarmed and start hanging out in cities and people will start dying

What are you "negotiating" for goodness sake!

QFT ^^

[Thor Rand Al]

Zaros wrote...

Not all darkspawn are evil ugly bastards (well, they're all ugly, but they're not all evil).

I believed The Archittect could actually save the Darkspawn, and in that same respect, I also choose to let The Messenger run free after he help me liberate the arling of Ameranthine.

And, in the end {[(*SPOILERS*)]} he managed to help out a few humans on his own as a benevolent traveler, so, win-win.

Awakenings end card for the Messenger:
The darkspawn messenger, set free after joining the Wardens in the battle of Amaranthine, struck out on his own.  The city soon buzzed with stories of a cloaked but lisping figure who aided travelers in danger.  At the same time, reports of isolated cases of the darkspawn disease emerged.


How's that a win-win

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Comparing the removal of AIDS to Darkspawn, how lovely, but I will bite that argument.

Except that you missed that the darkspawn are like the virus, not the people infected by it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Actually I think you doom the world more (is that kind of a paradox? anyway...) by killing the Architect than by sparing him.

By killing him, not only did you just destroy the one Darkspawn willing to at least try and coexist with the rest of the world, you failed at finishing the job. The Architect had several Disciples who escaped you, and now you've just given them incentive to join the next Archdemons against you and using the knowledge of the Architect against you. It would go against everything the Architect stood for, but given their new gained intellegence, I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Addai67 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Comparing the removal of AIDS to Darkspawn, how lovely, but I will bite that argument.

Except that you missed that the darkspawn are like the virus, not the people infected by it.

HUmans are like a virus..... So whats your point? That once we are done with the Darkspawn we should start killing ourselves?

[Sarah1281]

I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance.

The epilogue specifically states they didn't appear to seek vengeance.

So whats your point? That once we are done with the Darkspawn we should start killing ourselves?

There were quite a few people in-game who didn't even bother to wait...

Modifié par Sarah1281, 29 mars 2010 - 02:09 .

[Volourn]

"but given their new gained intellegence, I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance."



OH, SNAP!

[Addai]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Comparing the removal of AIDS to Darkspawn, how lovely, but I will bite that argument.

Except that you missed that the darkspawn are like the virus, not the people infected by it.

HUmans are like a virus..... So whats your point? That once we are done with the Darkspawn we should start killing ourselves?

Let me try this again.

People are arguing that to kill the darkspawn is "speciesist" even though they threaten humanity.  Yet we try to eradicate other species if they threaten human life.  I am comparing the darkspawn to a virus like ebola or AIDS.

[Thor Rand Al]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Actually I think you doom the world more (is that kind of a paradox? anyway...) by killing the Architect than by sparing him.
By killing him, not only did you just destroy the one Darkspawn willing to at least try and coexist with the rest of the world, you failed at finishing the job. The Architect had several Disciples who escaped you, and now you've just given them incentive to join the next Archdemons against you and using the knowledge of the Architect against you. It would go against everything the Architect stood for, but given their new gained intellegence, I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance.

Who's to say that still couldn't happen if you did keep him alive.  I do believe the Architects words were:  "I do not seek to rule my brethren.  I only seek to release them from their chains."   There's going to be no one to control these darkspawn once their free.  He's not going to enforce order and how do we know that even though their free of the compulsion to seek out the Old God they won't still do it? 

All I see is more chaos brewing if he's allowed to live, their going to want to establish themselves somehow now that they got the power.  Theres going to be conflicts within these darkspawn orders.  Where before most of them were focused on the Old God but now that's been taken away.  And since I've killed their Savior, the Mother and on top of it all the ArchDemon I'm not to worried about vengeance and if they are that stupid to retailiate in anyway against anyone then I'll hunt them down and eliminate them too .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance.

The epilogue specifically states they didn't appear to seek vengeance.

Yet...

Thor Rand Al wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Actually I think you doom the world more (is that kind of a paradox? anyway...) by killing the Architect than by sparing him.
By killing him, not only did you just destroy the one Darkspawn willing to at least try and coexist with the rest of the world, you failed at finishing the job. The Architect had several Disciples who escaped you, and now you've just given them incentive to join the next Archdemons against you and using the knowledge of the Architect against you. It would go against everything the Architect stood for, but given their new gained intellegence, I bet the Disciples also just developed a taste for vengeance.

Who's to say that still couldn't happen if you did keep him alive.  I do believe the Architects words were:  "I do not seek to rule my brethren.  I only seek to release them from their chains."   There's going to be no one to control these darkspawn once their free.  He's not going to enforce order and how do we know that even though their free of the compulsion to seek out the Old God they won't still do it? 

All I see is more chaos brewing if he's allowed to live, their going to want to establish themselves somehow now that they got the power.  Theres going to be conflicts within these darkspawn orders.  Where before most of them were focused on the Old God but now that's been taken away.  And since I've killed their Savior, the Mother and on top of it all the ArchDemon I'm not to worried about vengeance and if they are that stupid to retailiate in anyway against anyone then I'll hunt them down and eliminate them too .

But at least their will be the counterwieght of the intellegent Darkspawn which disagree. As it is without the Architect you are CERTAIN a new Blight will happen. With the Architect the Blights can be stopped before they begin.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 29 mars 2010 - 02:19 .

[Robalicious_13]

I just thought of something, maybe I'm just too high but.....



The Darkspawn Messenger that you set free from the city ( if you choose to) goes and in the epilouge is the "masked figure or w/e that saves people traveling etc" but also this is when more spreading of the DS taint/ diease occurs.



I don't know about you guys, but I look at it like this. I think he is Infecting people on purpose, given the fact he rescues these people. If I was freed and my people were spared a chance to be themselves agian and not be under control, I wouldn't be hanging around with others, I'd try to go rebuild. Besides, he is one of the Architects ( father's) Darkspawn, if you spared the Arch why wouldn't he go back to him? Even if you killed the Arch, I'm sure he would want to find out what happened the one man who freed himself and his brothers.



Ah well, just Rob, being Rob!

[Thor Rand Al]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But at least their will be the counterwieght of the intellegent Darkspawn which disagree. As it is without the Architect you are CERTAIN a new Blight will happen. With the Architect the Blights can be stopped before they begin.

Are you CERTAIN that with the Architect that there won't be another Blight.  Who says that their going to stop, why would they when all they have to do is wake both of them up and bring doom upon the world, (that's a little out there but it could happen).

How, how do you know without a doubt that they won't dig up another Old God even without the compulsion.  I don't remember him saying that he promised there would never be another blight.  All he said is he wanted to free his bretheren of the compulsion but who's to say their going to stop. We're suppose to take the Architect's word for this? Off of what, name 1 reason why we should trust him.  What has he done to earn even an inkling of trust. 

1) He attacked the Keep, supposedly it was a misunderstanding.
-10

2) He lays a trap for us and then takes our blood without asking.
-20

3) His experiments (the Mother) have backfired on him.
-10

4) He kidnaps Valenna's sister.
-10

5) He lets 1 of his generals gode Velanna into thinking it was humans that took her sister and we know the result of that.  Many dead because he can't control his own people, same thing could be said about the Withered at the Keep too.
-20

6) He lets 2 of his pet dragon's attack us and supposedly he want's to ask us for a favor.
-10

7) He sends the Messenger to warn us about the Mother attacking the Keep.
+ 5

8) The whole problem with the Dwarf quest can be laid at his feet because of his experiments but I'll leave that alone. 

9) The Grey Warden being killed in the Marsh just to lay a trap for us is something else that can be laid at his feet because it was his experiment but again I'll leave that be.


The Messenger does not outweigh all the other stuff thats happened.


By letting him live and continuing freeing his bretheren your making them stronger.  Which means double trouble when they resurface again and they will.

[Robalicious_13]

Kill em all, let the maker sort them out!

[Sarah1281]

I don't know about you guys, but I look at it like this. I think he is Infecting people on purpose, given the fact he rescues these people.

...Wow. That makes perfect sense. He can't go out in public because people will kill the darkspawn and even if he put on his cloak he'd attract attention. Saving people means that he's seen as a hero and so people would be less inclined to connect him to the spreading taint and this way he gets close contact with a few people who won't try to flee as he saves them so he can be reasonably sure to infect them. Can't we trust anyone in this game?!?!

Modifié par Sarah1281, 29 mars 2010 - 03:00 .

[Robalicious_13]

^ OH SNAP



Sarah and I are on to something!

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But at least their will be the counterwieght of the intellegent Darkspawn which disagree. As it is without the Architect you are CERTAIN a new Blight will happen. With the Architect the Blights can be stopped before they begin.[/quote]


Are you CERTAIN that with the Architect that there won't be another Blight.  Who says that their going to stop, why would they when all they have to do is wake both of them up and bring doom upon the world, (that's a little out there but it could happen).

How, how do you know without a doubt that they won't dig up another Old God even without the compulsion.  I don't remember him saying that he promised there would never be another blight.  All he said is he wanted to free his bretheren of the compulsion but who's to say their going to stop. We're suppose to take the Architect's word for this? Off of what, name 1 reason why we should trust him.  What has he done to earn even an inkling of trust.[/quote]
To which I can fittingly ask you the counter-question: How do you know they will?

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
1) He attacked the Keep, supposedly it was a misunderstanding.
-10[/quote]
The Darkspawn was the ones being attacked, sure once the battle was started they didn't exactly try to stop it, but that porbably wouldn't ahve achieved anything, since I doubt the Grey Wardens would have stopped killing them anyway.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
2) He lays a trap for us and then takes our blood without asking.
-20[/quote]
That was probably before he realized we would be of more use alive than dead. Besides he didn't kill us and he "let" us go. He just didn't bother stopping the Dragon's from trying to munch us. Can't really blame him, if those Dragons hadn't been tehre we would probably had gone straight for him killing him before he could plead his case.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
3) His experiments (the Mother) have backfired on him.
-10[/quote]
In all fields of science experimentation bears risk. As long as the rewards outweigh these risk they are acceptable.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
4) He kidnaps Valenna's sister.
-10[/quote]
She went along willingly at least eventually, either that or its a serious case of stockholm syndrome.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
5) He lets 1of his generals gode Velanna into thinking it was humans that took her sister and we know the result of that.  Many dead because he can't control his own people, same thing could be said about the Withered at the Keep too.
-20[/quote]
He didn't "let" him do that, he actually thought it was quite strangely done of him. But once it was done he could do little to stop it. He writes about it in his notes.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
6) He lets 2 of his pet dragon's attack us and supposedly he want's to ask us for a favor.
-10[/quote]
See my previous point about this matter.

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
7) He sends the Messenger to warn us about the Mother attacking the Keep.
+ 5
[/quote]
Yay +5!

[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
9) The Grey Warden being killed in the Marsh just to lay a trap for us is something else that can be laid at his feet because it was his experiment but again I'll leave that be.[/quote]
Well in that case Niels Bohr can be held accountable for Chernobyl.


[quote]Thor Rand Al wrote...
By letting him live and continuing freeing his bretheren your making them stronger.  Which means double trouble when they resurface again and they will. [/quote]
OR we are fractioning the previous Darkspawn unity.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I don't know about you guys, but I look at it like this. I think he is Infecting people on purpose, given the fact he rescues these people.

...Wow. That makes perfect sense. He can't go out in public because people will kill the darkspawn and even if he put on his cloak he'd attract attention. Saving people means that he's seen as a hero and so people would be less inclined to connect him to the spreading taint and this way he gets close contact with a few people who won't try to flee as he saves them so he can be reasonably sure to infect them. Can't we trust anyone in this game?!?!

No it doesn't... He rescues people and the outbreaks of the taint was isolated and the two were never connected. If the people infected had one thing in common, being rescued by a mysterious hooded stranger, don't you think people would have put 1 and 1 together?

[Sarah1281]

That was probably before he realized we would be of more use alive than dead.

That's not exactly a point in his favor.

No it doesn't... He rescues people and the outbreaks of the taint was isolated and the two were never connected. If the people infected had one thing in common, being rescued by a mysterious hooded stranger, don't you think people would have put 1 and 1 together?

They were connected on the epilogue card about the Messenger meaning we KNOW he's the one spreading the taint. The only question is if it's deliberate. I don't think people are going to be rushing to accuse their savior and obviously not every case spread the taint (we still don't have enough information on how it is spread or how the qunari merchant was 'protected' or if he was at all as Seranni clearly wasn't protected). The fact that a few elves were returned by the Tevinters was enough to convince everyone but Shianni that they weren't kidnapping people in the first game, wasn't it? People don't want to believe that their Robin Hood was making them sick and they have a few cases where people he saved weren't sick then they won't believe it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sarah1281 wrote...

That was probably before he realized we would be of more use alive than dead.

That's not exactly a point in his favor.

Well you can't really blame him for thinking that way, a lot of people we have encoutner throughout the games thinks that way.

Sarah1281 wrote...

No it doesn't... He rescues people and the outbreaks of the taint was isolated and the two were never connected. If the people infected had one thing in common, being rescued by a mysterious hooded stranger, don't you think people would have put 1 and 1 together?

They were connected on the epilogue card about the Messenger meaning we KNOW he's the one spreading the taint. The only question is if it's deliberate. I don't think people are going to be rushing to accuse their savior and obviously not every case spread the taint (we still don't have enough information on how it is spread or how the qunari merchant was 'protected' or if he was at all as Seranni clearly wasn't protected). The fact that a few elves were returned by the Tevinters was enough to convince everyone but Shianni that they weren't kidnapping people in the first game, wasn't it? People don't want to believe that their Robin Hood was making them sick and they have a few cases where people he saved weren't sick then they won't believe it.

I didn't mean to question wether it was him spreading the taint, mor ethan him spreading it deliberately. And if their is one thing people love more than their heroic Robin Hood, it is tearing their hero down.

[Thor Rand Al]

I had to lol at your responses EmperorSahlertz. Their kind of cute. Anyways the bottom line is, neighter you nor I know for a fact that freeing them will stop a Blight or not. There's no proof of that either way. Here is the 1 fact, the 1 proof that we do know. They aren't being cured of the taint, they are still dangerous free or not because of this taint.



Knowing that and knowing the distruction that corruption and taint can cause they are safer down in the Deep Roads distracted. For the sake of Thedas not letting him continue doing what he's doing is safer and healthier.



If they start getting free-will they will want to start adventuring up to the surface, there's nothing holding them in the Deep Roads anymore and the Architect is not going to stop them. He's already said he doesn't want to rule them but free them.

[Sovrath]

Zaros wrote...

Not all darkspawn are evil ugly bastards (well, they're all ugly, but they're not all evil).

I believed The Archittect could actually save the Darkspawn, and in that same respect, I also choose to let The Messenger run free after he help me liberate the arling of Ameranthine.

And, in the end {[(*SPOILERS*)]} he managed to help out a few humans on his own as a benevolent traveler, so, win-win.

Well, the other thing is that they didnt' have to warn you. I felt that since they did warn us I wasn't going to kill the messenger since the message was good. I more than appreciate getting the message than not.

I also chose to let the Architect live because in the end I don't believe he was truly evil. The darkspawn as well as the architect just didn't think well when it came to how they would be greeted. And given their reputation it was near impossible that any leaders would take them seriously.

Since there will be more blights anyways it seemed a better decision to at least allow them to redeem themselves. And if even a quarter of the newly awakened darkspawn didn't take part in a blight then that is a quarter less that people have to worry about.

A big part of the first game was the idea of redemption.

Even though "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" I do think their warning was a good faith token. And the epilogue backs that up as the deep roads are quiet.

Does that mean they will never want to rise up? No. but we know they will rise up as mindless darkspawn anyways so at least we now have a group that might be reasoned with.

[Efesell]

He seems to be doing a pretty good job keeping them in the Deep Roads in my ending.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Thor Rand Al wrote...

I had to lol at your responses EmperorSahlertz. Their kind of cute. Anyways the bottom line is, neighter you nor I know for a fact that freeing them will stop a Blight or not. There's no proof of that either way. Here is the 1 fact, the 1 proof that we do know. They aren't being cured of the taint, they are still dangerous free or not because of this taint.

Knowing that and knowing the distruction that corruption and taint can cause they are safer down in the Deep Roads distracted. For the sake of Thedas not letting him continue doing what he's doing is safer and healthier.

If they start getting free-will they will want to start adventuring up to the surface, there's nothing holding them in the Deep Roads anymore and the Architect is not going to stop them. He's already said he doesn't want to rule them but free them.

Oh yes without a doubt they are still very dangerous. I have not tried to advocate the opposite, not at all. I'm just trying to say that with intellegence they might get more fractionalized than they currently are. Right now they are basicly just "The Darkspawn vs. the World" I'd prefer it was something like: "This Darkspawn vs. That Darkspawn for the right of that Nug".

Besides with intellegence they might experience some of all the good stuff us more civilezed people get the pleasure of like: Nation building, civil war, war, jealousy murders, ideology, ideological wars, psychopaths, psycopath killers, and of course the crown jewels of the "civilization collection" religion and religious war.
With this kind of stuff the amount of time Darkspawn will spend on the surface will be very limited, perhaps just a few raids now and then, mainly for females... But we could just give them the Dalish, an acceptable loss.