39 réponses à ce sujet

[casedawgz]

As the Architect hit the ground dead, something occurred to me. I'm not sure if it was an intentional parallel or not, but this choice actually seems to have a great deal more narrative significance than it does at first glance. Sure, there's the whole "maybe the architect will prevent future blights" angle, but that's not really important. What is important is the way your Grey Warden's actions can reflect those of Loghain in Origins.

I was unwilling to work with a darkspawn; it's a darkspawn, for crying out loud! But as soon as I killed it, it all crystallized in my mind. What I had just done was no different than Loghain's blind hatred of the Orlesians. As I made the decision, I didn't really consider the true ramifications of it; the destruction I'd seen Ferelden suffer at the hands of the darkspawn blinded me to it, and I killed the Architect, condemning future generations of Fereldans to more blights. Really gives you some perspective into Loghain's actions when you find yourself blinded by the very same feelings that blinded him.

[Andaril78]

Good point!

[Auresta]

Yes - and I toiled over whether or not to kill him, so I just decided to make two files : one where I kill him, and one where I don't.

Great way to end the game, but I have my other own personal peeves about the game.. with those aside, I applaud this

[Walina]

Wrong, Loghain is different he was "sacred" to death that Orlais will come back to Ferelden so he has only hatred for Orlais, nothing more and nothing else. He did anything he could to prevent Orlais coming in Ferelden like : letting die Cailan (because he wanted to marry with queen or Orlais), he "chased" the wardens and made them look traitors! Etc...

So, HELL NO! Killing the architect is totally another story because it's not about fear that you do it, that's the DIFFERENCE.

Modifié par Walina, 22 mars 2010 - 12:26 .

[Efesell]

Much as I am loathed to work with Darkspawn, I can't just pass up a chance at preventing future blights. Even if it might lead to another problem down the line.



At the very least I feel that the Architect would be easier to deal with should he go back on his good intentions.

[dunachar]

I wonder how the game will be going forward without darkspawn/blights. I don't think they happen often......should be interesting.

[TheBlackBaron]

Walina wrote...

Wrong, Loghain is different he was "sacred" to death that Orlais will come back to Ferelden so he has only hatred for Orlais, nothing more and nothing else. He did anything he could to prevent Orlais coming in Ferelden like : letting die Cailan (because he wanted to marry with queen or Orlais), he "chased" the wardens and made them look traitors! Etc...

So, HELL NO! Killing the architect is totally another story because it's not about fear that you do it, that's the DIFFERENCE.

Uh, no, Loghain was more than just scared of the Orlesians, he genuinely hated them. The OP's got an interesting point.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 22 mars 2010 - 12:50 .

[chaosapiant]

Having read "The Calling" I was fascinated by The Architect, and knew i'd side with him before the choice ever game up. And his voiceover work is masterful. I love the slow deliberate speech.

[Malanek]

To be fair while there are certain parallels if you view it a certain way, I feel there are also plenty of differences. Loghain was filled with hatred for the Orlesians. As a Warden you may possess absolutely no hatred towards the darkspawn but kill the architect anyway because of the risk involved. I see it purely as a risk versus reward quandry.

What is similar is you are making a decision with incomplete information which is similar to what Loghain faced. In his case he guessed that the Orlesians were the more imediate threat which was wrong even if they were the bigger threat.

[Brirun08]

I agree, suddenly the "mindless" enemy had a mind and a conscious, but they are still darkspawn. They're easy to kill when they are just one big angry mob, but now that they can be freed of that mob mentality, and possibly capable of a certain amount of good (visible during the epilogue if you make a certain choice), it's a bit tougher. You essentially have to make a somewhat racist decision if you go against the Architect. Then again, if you side with the Architect, what does Thedas turn into long-term? I had to scratch my head and chuckle a bit when this decision had to be made. Definitely a lot of gray. Kudos to the writers.



I killed the Architect. Yep, blights are terrible, but there are only a few more left. Disease spreading darkspawn that want to integrate with society seemed scarier. Especially when there's a chance a certain percentage that go nuts-psycho-crazy!

[Venatio]

We are Grey Wardens, and we bear a sacred burden. We are to stand against the Darkspawn, and we cannot afford to falter. What good would sparing the Architect do besides strengthen the Darkspawn? Sigruns right, this just reaks of stupid - a few smart Darkspawn are bad enough, but an army, a species no less, is something nigh unthinkable.

[Efesell]

As I understood it their task was to defend humanity from the Blights, through any means necessary. No matter how unsavory they may be.



I felt that by siding with the Architect on this, I was doing exactly that.

[chaosapiant]

To be clear, Grey Wardens stand against the Blight, not the Darkspawn. If they were against just the Darkspawn, then they would attempt to clear out the Deep Roads, instead of waiting for their calling to die at their hands. The Darkspawn are like volcanoes, only a danger when they erupt.

[Nyaore]

I was impressed with the decision as well, especially since not matter what you do during the game you're still going into that discussion without knowing everything that you could in order to make an informed choice.
Personally, I still killed the Architect for the following reasons:
1. The Darkspawn still need to kidnap and rape females of other races in order to reproduce. No where does it ever state that the Architect's tests have found a way to get around this little snag in his grand schemes. If I could have found some way to force him into a binding oath that would ensure that they would forever make due with the Broodmothers they already had, and never preyed on any other women again then I would have been a tad more sympathetic.
2. There are only so many more Blights the world can go through before there are no more Old Gods for the Darkspawn to taint. As it stands, there are only two more Old Gods left that have yet to be tainted. Which means once the final one is destroyed there no longer will be any Blight to worry about, and the Darkspawn will once again revert to a primitive beastial race with little to no purpose. It's true that giving the Darkspawn the gift of sentience could easily pan out favorably for everyone involved; but when you weigh the impacts of what could very well happen it seems like the riskier choice in the long run. I don't know about you but I'd prefer having to deal with a relatively stupid race that only has two more chances to destroy the world before they become a non-threat (the Archdemons are really the one truly intelligent foes in this case), instead of a highly intelligent race that could easily be a threat for the rest of their existence.
3. I didn't trust the Architect not to make yet another mistake that could have serious ramifications for the rest of Thedas while trying to achieve his goal. Maybe if I had more of an assurance that this wouldn't happen, or if I could be given the choice to periodically monitor his actions so that he doesn't ignorantly cause another conflict then I would have had an easier time siding with him.

Still with all that said, it took me a good ten minutes of pondering before I choose to kill him - and even then I still wasn't entirely convinced I had made the right choice.

[krylo]

casedawgz wrote...

As the Architect hit the ground dead, something occurred to me. I'm not sure if it was an intentional parallel or not, but this choice actually seems to have a great deal more narrative significance than it does at first glance. Sure, there's the whole "maybe the architect will prevent future blights" angle, but that's not really important. What is important is the way your Grey Warden's actions can reflect those of Loghain in Origins.

I was unwilling to work with a darkspawn; it's a darkspawn, for crying out loud! But as soon as I killed it, it all crystallized in my mind. What I had just done was no different than Loghain's blind hatred of the Orlesians. As I made the decision, I didn't really consider the true ramifications of it; the destruction I'd seen Ferelden suffer at the hands of the darkspawn blinded me to it, and I killed the Architect, condemning future generations of Fereldans to more blights. Really gives you some perspective into Loghain's actions when you find yourself blinded by the very same feelings that blinded him.

Interesting thought.

I think I like you.

[Efesell]

It's really hard for me to get behind the "Only two more blights" reasoning.



It banks way too much on them being as incompetent as Urth was.

[krylo]

I prefer to think less in terms of "Urthemiel was incompetent" and more in terms of "My PC was just that ****ing awesome."


But yes, fully agreed, Efesell. I don't buy the only 2 more blights reasoning.

It would be like saying "Welp, only two more holocausts. I see no reason to take a chance at preventing THAT!"

Modifié par krylo, 22 mars 2010 - 01:33 .

[Nyaore]

Efesell wrote...

It's really hard for me to get behind the "Only two more blights" reasoning.

It banks way too much on them being as incompetent as Urth was.

It's more of a 'what if' scenario than anything else; and out of all the reasonings I considered it was definitely the weakest one that came to mind. It's the same kind of gamble you're making on whether or not you trust the Darkspawn to evolve beyond their current roles as the enemies of the rest of Thedas, and on it's own would definitely not stand up as a concrete reason to deny the Darkspawn a chance at true sentience. For me it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, even though I still wasn't entirely convinced that killing the Architect was the right thing to do.

[Efesell]

Of course, now what we need is for the Architect to find and awaken both remaining Old Gods.


Oooooops

[Nyaore]

Efesell wrote...

Of course, now what we need is for the Architect to find and awaken both remaining Old Gods.


Oooooops

"Well, on the bright side the Darkspawn are no longer susceptible to the call of the Old Gods. Wait, please don't point that shiny claymore at my face..."

[Efesell]

"It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

[magnuskn]

The darkspawn reproduce by rape and permanent enslavement of the raped women. That's their biology. Since that isn't likely to change, there can be no co-operation with them, intelligent or not.

[magnuskn]

Double post.

Modifié par magnuskn, 22 mars 2010 - 01:54 .

[Efesell]

Not talking about everyone being buddy buddy with Darkspawn.



Just taking the best option, as I see it, to preventing the blights.

[Nhadalie]

There's far more to the decision than just the "well, he could end the blights."


He could also convince you to turn people into Grey Wardens, simply so he can experiment on them to further his own goals. Whatever those might be. He could also create more monsters like the Mother, and possibly destroy humankind. He could do so many morally abhorrent things, and guess what. Responsibility for all of those things would lay on your shoulders. Because you let him live.

Not to mention the whole "killing men for food, and raping the women and abusing them until they're transformed into broodmothers" thing.


That being said, the Architect is a very interesting character. And I'm glad that they made it such a difficult decision in most cases. But I do wish you could make your companions see reason if you decide to kill him. Nathaniel disapproves, because it might lead to the blights ending all together. Yet he also seemingly ignores everything I wrote above. The Architect created the Mother, and caused the Urthemiel to be tainted and become an archdemon. You should have the opportunity to point out these facts, and how risky it is to your companions.

It's another alliance of convienance. The moment your goals allign, he will help you. The moment they do not, he will use you however he can to achieve whatever he wants. None of which he ever truly confides in you. He tells you that he wants the others of his kind to be free from their taint, and the call of the archdemon. But to what end? He never tells you why, or even gives you the idea that it might really be a good idea to let him live.


Needless to say. I'm firmly in the camps of "It's too dangerous to risk letting him live." and "if I do let him live, I'm coming back to kill him once the Mother is dead. Sure he was helpful when I needed him. But it's too dangerous to risk it."

I cannot imagine any of my characters honestly letting the Architect live past the death of the Mother. He's too powerful to be let free afterwards to do whatever he wishes.

Modifié par Nhadalie, 22 mars 2010 - 02:08 .