Line 1: Line 1:
[[User:Gee-chan|Gee-chan]] ([[User talk:Gee-chan|talk]]) 10:22, January 27, 2011 (UTC){{Forumheader|Lore Discussion}}
{{Forumheader|Lore Discussion}}
<!-- Please start your forum underneath this notice. Remember to sign your edits with four tildes! ~~~~ -->
<!-- Please start your forum underneath this notice. Remember to sign your edits with four tildes! ~~~~ -->
Line 360: Line 360:
: Okay, back to the topic at hand; I think it really depends on the person. While the extermination of a whole country might be a little bit extreme, following a war it would make sense to neutralise any potential threats - hence why royalty/potential rebellion leaders/trouble-makers might be hunted down and executed (if the war is one of conquest). Destroying the entire populace would just be reducing the productivity of the land. In a world where slavery is still practiced, the execution of darkspawn (who aren't even sentient but have the potential to be) to remove their threat would hardly cause a stir. If the rachni weren't never showed sentience and never asked for peace would you give them additional weapons/intelligence to make them even more dangerous in the hope of maybe communicating and working out some mutual agreement? Or would you treat them like the monsters they were and try to kill them before they killed you? The same deal applies here; You have unthinking beings which are stock-standard monster material. Why would you try to make them less of a monster and deal with them - then pray that they don't decide to attack one day. In the case of the rachni the queen has control over what her race will do. The Architect is merely hoping that they will see reason and follow his example in looking for peace. So in terms of risk-benefit the warden is weighing the unspoken promise that the newspawn desire peace against potentially sacrificing all of thedas to the intelligent darkspawn if decided to go to war. It might not happen but there is a chance. Meanwhile the rachni, while dangerous, are so depleted in numbers such that if the queen broke her spoken promise, commander shepard and all the galaxy could descend on them and most likely defeat them again (though it might mean fixing the krogans). So what is at stake is on quite a different scale. And also, in this case the option isn't to conduct genocide. It is to deny or endorse the granting of sentience to darkspawn. Given the example of the mother maybe in this case the ethically right thing to do might not be so clear-cut. [[User:Mr Afk|Mr Afk]] ([[User talk:Mr Afk|talk]]) 18:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
: Okay, back to the topic at hand; I think it really depends on the person. While the extermination of a whole country might be a little bit extreme, following a war it would make sense to neutralise any potential threats - hence why royalty/potential rebellion leaders/trouble-makers might be hunted down and executed (if the war is one of conquest). Destroying the entire populace would just be reducing the productivity of the land. In a world where slavery is still practiced, the execution of darkspawn (who aren't even sentient but have the potential to be) to remove their threat would hardly cause a stir. If the rachni weren't never showed sentience and never asked for peace would you give them additional weapons/intelligence to make them even more dangerous in the hope of maybe communicating and working out some mutual agreement? Or would you treat them like the monsters they were and try to kill them before they killed you? The same deal applies here; You have unthinking beings which are stock-standard monster material. Why would you try to make them less of a monster and deal with them - then pray that they don't decide to attack one day. In the case of the rachni the queen has control over what her race will do. The Architect is merely hoping that they will see reason and follow his example in looking for peace. So in terms of risk-benefit the warden is weighing the unspoken promise that the newspawn desire peace against potentially sacrificing all of thedas to the intelligent darkspawn if decided to go to war. It might not happen but there is a chance. Meanwhile the rachni, while dangerous, are so depleted in numbers such that if the queen broke her spoken promise, commander shepard and all the galaxy could descend on them and most likely defeat them again (though it might mean fixing the krogans). So what is at stake is on quite a different scale. And also, in this case the option isn't to conduct genocide. It is to deny or endorse the granting of sentience to darkspawn. Given the example of the mother maybe in this case the ethically right thing to do might not be so clear-cut. [[User:Mr Afk|Mr Afk]] ([[User talk:Mr Afk|talk]]) 18:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
I kill him because then there would be no more Blights and no Blights means no more Grey Wardens and no more Grey Wardens means no more fun... —'''[[User:Rocketai|Rocketai]]''' (<small><sup>[[User talk:Rocketai|Ho there!]] </sup>'''•''' <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Rocketai|Chase my tail!]]</sub></small>) 18:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:16, 6 February 2011

Forums: Index > Lore DiscussionSiding with the Architect?!
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3544 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.


Here I am, in my first playthrough of the Awakening, stuck at the scene where I am to side with the Architect or the Mother, or to kill both, which is probably what I'm going to do. All my instincts, if I may call them so in a game, yell at me that the Architect cannot be trusted and that by making a deal with him, I'm buying peace for our times while risking future problems in comparison with which a Blight seems a child's game (if I am to fight a horde of darkspawn or a horde of sentient darkspawn, I prefer the former). However, I'd like to base my decision on some reasoning, too. So far, I have been able to come up with the following:

- the Architect lies about the attack at the Keep - the Wardens brought to him were not already dead, since Keenan is still alive and the others "dead or worse", meaning probably that there were some survivors who were experimented on

- "I should have killed it while it slept" - "it" meaning the Warden Commander? and why all the attacks and the bloody dragons, if he wanted my help and alliance?

Anything else he has his paws in? Ygrain (talk) 18:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I think the "it" the Architect refers to is the Old God Urthemiel which is ofc the Archdemon of the Fifth Blight (DDragonfly1990 (talk) 21:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC))
Yes. The sleeping Old God is exactly what the Architect referred to, not the Warden at all. Tabriel Cousland (talk) 22:14, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Grey Wardens are supposed to kill darkspawn. The Architect is a darkspawn. Ergo...

Another big factor is, how do we know the Architect isn't going to make things worse? The Architect may claim to have the best of intentions, but his intelligent darkspawn are running around the arling of Amaranthine killing each other as well as anyone else they come across. Not to mention the Mother. The Maker only knows what else the Architect is going to screw up.

How most of my Wardens look at it, their job is to end the Blight. The reason the Darkspawn didn't go to ground after the death of the Archdemon is because of the Architect. To truly end the Blight, the Architect, along with the Mother, needs to die. Gruedragon (talk) 18:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I read The Calling. Given that the Architect's original plan, at least, involved an "I Am Legend" But as for reasoning...well, I'm fairly sure that the Grey Warden handbook makes it clear that the only way to reason with a darkspawn is with an axe between the eyes. Anyway, the sole purpose of a Grey Warden is to defend against the Blight, and you have no cause to trust a darkspawn, any darkspawn, so that gives you reason aplenty to kill both the Architect and Mother.Tabriel Cousland (talk) 18:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes - but the Grey Warden handbooks sort of don't mention talking darkspawn, and by refusing an offer that might actually end the Blights once and for all, I become directly responsible for all the death and destruction in the Blights to come, which makes me feel rather uncomfortable - that's why I need the reasoning. Also, I need to base the decision on what the Warden knows. Ygrain (talk) 18:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Personally my Warden would just take the talking bit to mean it's even more urgent to kill that darkspawn as quickly as possible. =P The last thing we need to is to start thinking that darkspawn are human-oid too and turn it into some kind of morally complicated decision. =P Tabriel Cousland (talk) 20:10, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Siding with the Architect might end future blights.... maybe. However, I'd rather fight a blight, than fight tactically enhanced battles against intellegent darkspawn. Un-unified darkspawn are much easier to handle. I didn't even think twice, I capped that poor fool, and it's too bad we couldn't save Valanna's sister, she dropped before she even made it to the bottom of the stairs. Lazz3k (talk) 19:11, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

its a very gray and interesting choice to make as there are both risks and positives whether you aid the architect or not in pragmetic terms its a risk but a risk that could prevent more blights from happening and also the architect is proof that there's more to the darkspawn than the chantry and grey wardens think and that they may be more like him who can't hear the calling its similar to deciding whether to allow avernus to continue his research or not there are risks and questions but when a chance to lear more about your enemy and also save more lives in the long term etc its a bit like what if hitler had been stopped in munich would all of the jews died or would it have led to the rise to stalin red alert style of course i gone off topic the point is if you can prevent more people from dieing unecessarly then its something to consider its a hard choice to make but it could be very benefit in the short and long term blackmambauk (talk) 19:59, January 24, 2011 (gmt)

Er, it's not even remotely a bit like Hitler in Munich, let's not be making random off-the-wall comparisons to Hitler here, please. But anyway, it's a wee bit more than A risk! And it only MAY prevent more Blights! That's rather a big maybe to pin your hopes on! LOL! Tabriel Cousland (talk) 20:06, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
yes it is a big risk to take but to everything in life there is risk but if there is a chance for a future generation to not have to worry about a blight and nations to not have to worry if they are going to be attacked by darkspawn in the future espically the dwarves who have been attacked relentlessly for years the architects plan might give them a chance to have some small measure of peace and maybe allow them to complete the thought they can reclaim lost territory and you have to remember that while the fifth blight ended quickly the others didn't they went on for decades causing so much death, destruction, ruin and chaos to the regions they took place in and the amount blood that had to be spilled, taken, sacrificed if there's a chance for that not to be put on future generations isn't that something to consider of course there would still be war, murder and other terrible things as well but a chance to stop this on a global scale is something to consider as there's a quote i always remind myself of you cannot achieve success without the risk of failure and all it takes for evil to trimuph is for good people to do nothing sometimes hard choices have to be made you have to play the devil in order to get what you want sometimes its sad but ture ps the hitler thing was only to argue that maybe if he'd been killed when germans had the chance then maybe 6 millon jews wouldn't had died and maybe 60 millon people wouldn't have lost their lives in a war as the thing to remember about any war regardless of who's fighting what species etc is that no one wins everyone loses anything enough said just my opinion blackmambauk (talk) 19:59, January 24, 2011 (gmt)
First, not to be a nitpicky grammarian, but that long string of thoughts mashed together into a long run-on sentence/paragraph with no punctuation makes it rather difficult to comprehend without reading at least twice.
Now...I reiterate that bringing up Hitler was unnecessary. I still think it is. But maybe that's just because everyone ALWAYS brings up Hitler, to the point where doing so is just fuckin' cheap. I'd just as soon NOT reference a real world historical figure whose ideology brought real misery and death to real people, to draw a comparison within a FICTIONAL GAME. And that is the LAST thing I will say on that subject, period, because, again, cheap. Now, I must point out again that I think the issue here is the word "chance." How much of a chance? If it is a small chance, no, it's not worth considering. The Blight is a known reality that the Grey Wardens are familiar with. Why trade the devil you know for the devil you don't? If there is only the POSSIBILITY of ending the Blights, then no, it's not worth it. I'd need a bloody guarantee that the Blights would come to an end, not just a mere chance of it. Also, the other part of this equation is the price. You don't know that the Architect can be trusted. What the hell is gained if what you get in return for the lack of a Blight is something worse? The question lies in the trade off. A Grey Warden can NOT afford to assume that there won't be any trade off at all. Tabriel Cousland (talk) 21:25, January 24, 2011 (UTC)::: sorry about long sentences force of habit comes with having too much knowledge you do bring up some good points espically on price and trade off of course there's always a price to be paid for anything but what is worse a price that is paid by a few today who took a risk but could understand that its a risk that could change the world for the better or a price paid by many tomrrow or years later when a chance for that not to happen was not taken up by those who are given a hard choice to make. Of course there is an issue of trust with the architect we don't know if he will keep his word etc and the chance taken with him could backfire so much and cause so much damage but the truth is after so many blights we still don't know why the darkspawn act the way they do and the cycle of the blight continues redgardless of how many darkspawn are killed and we still don't know if the chantrys version is accurate there's always two side of an debate you can only get a clear answer if you look at both points of view (just an observation not saying anything about you). Sometimes i think the grey wardens only see their purpose is destroying the darkspawn and thats it just feels like a waste of talent, resources of course thats what it was set up to do but it doesn't have to be te only thing they do lets face it with 400 years between the fourth and fifth blight what was the purpose of the grey wardens they ended up being out of place slowly forgotten by a lot of people and without much direction and much to do at all i feel that the wardens can do more than just kill darkspawn i know thats what they are suppose to do but i do feel they could do more than that as the people who are grey wardens are more than just good at killing darkspawn they have abilities and skills to change the world (as the warden and alstair have shown). And if they can find more purpose to their existence then they can be remembered more than just ending blights and killing darkspawn. enough said just my opinion but what the Architectdoes offer is a chance to break this cycle of death, destruction, chaos, ruin etc is the trade off worth it we won't know unless we find out of course igornance is bliss as well but as with all my warden characters i have created after everything they have seen, been through lost, suffered to see a chance to leave a better world behind and hope that few people ever have to go through what the warden and his companions went through thats why i choose to aid the arthitects plan but i respect you decision not to its very understandable and it shows you stick to your convictions, to your principles and in a world where many don't that is very admireable blackmambauk (talk) 22:32, January 24, 2011 (gmt)
Would you PLEASE make an effort to make your comments readable, rather than just apologize and then do it all again? Now, well, the Blights are a major worldwide problem, and they always bring the risk of total annhilation. That is the reason why the sole purpose for Grey Wardens is to stand against the Blight. Anyone can kill darkspawn, but NOT just anyone can kill the archdemon. And there's actually a pretty solid reason for Grey Wardens to both be kept separate from the rest of society and also to have just that singular purpose: it allows them to be able to make the hard decisions. Specifically because those hard decisions often require sacrifices that most people couldn't bring themselves to make. But I maintain that no Grey Warden should make a deal with the Architect on the grounds that there is a POSSIBILITY of ending the Blights. The only way for that to be the responsible choice is if there is an absolute guarantee of ending all future Blights. I actually know what the tradeoff is, from reading the Calling, and if my Warden had that knowledge, then the answer would be no. As for the centuries-between-Blights thing, that's completely beyond the Wardens' control, of course, but can't be helped. But doesn't mean that there won't be only twenty or fifty years before the next one. Tabriel Cousland (talk) 23:26, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about future blights, I mean, my OGB will step up in the next blight and destroy any darkspawn that stands in his (or her) way. Oh sure Morrigan will try to teach him according to her ways, BUT, that's why my warden stepped through the mirror. To protect the future, and get rid of the remaining (potential) Archdemons, and any future architects. Like father like son. (here's hoping my son (or daughter) doesn't become one him/herself) :p Lazz3k (talk) 20:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Bioware says that well you make "good decisions" they don't come back to bite you in the ass. Plus, people automatically assume the freed darkspawn will commence terrorizing the whole of Thedas the moment they're free. I actually did side with him for the sake of sowing peace. As a general rule, if it can talk, it can be reasoned with. And if it can be reasoned with, there is common ground.FreeMarcher930 (talk) 00:33, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

I want to know how the Architect is planning to keep going, like how you are going to give every darkspawn Warden blood? Do you just pass it along the Deep Roads in a big bucket? Where is he going to get this blood? And how can he known if another darkspawn or broodmother isn't going to go bonkers like the Mother?

Besides this technical nitbits i feel must be addressed, i think the concepts that Blights are preferable to smart darkspawn that some are bringing up are ridiculous. Blights are apocalyptic nightmares that have come quite close to winning, have gone on for decades and cost millions of lives. You cant get much worse then that! But God forbid you would have to fight someone with half a brain! I think the darkspawn will start a new civilisation in the Deep Road. They never had a reason to come up without an Archdemon anyway. And most of the crimes you are blaming the Architect for where committed by overzealous disciples. They may come up to trade or rouge ones may led armies up, but they aren't that friking smart come on! they cant even speak English that well--Ironreaper (talk) 01:02, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Just because it can talk, doesn't necessarily mean it can be reasonned with, if you truely believe the latter, please talk to my wife. =P With regards to the Architect, just because he MIGHT know a way to free all the darkspawn, doesn't necessarily mean he will end up freeing all the darkspawn. There was still much testing, and experimentation required to fix everything. Plus, Doesn't he need Warden's blood for all this testing? So depending on how many trial and errors needed, That's a lot of warden's blood. And, i feel there are just to darn many darkspawn to really free them all. Give an animal intelligence, and they are bound to become like humans and start "wanting" things. How long will they like living in the deep roads? how long before they start thinking, "hmmm, it would be nice to go out". And, what was the rate to which they go insane instead of intelligent? I don't recall them saying, so. even 50/50, that's a lot of insane darkspawn goin out and about. Lazz3k (talk) 01:11, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Greed isn’t the only thing disciples have in common with humans: a sense of self-preservation. As the Architect makes clear, Blights invariably cause as much, if not more, damage to the darkspawn as it does to the Thedas. Give them smarts and they will realize that, if they couldn’t do it all at once, they don’t stand a chance as individuals. It’s like a child being afraid of a rat in a hole. The child is scared the rat will come out and bite, the rat is scared the boy will crush it. So it hides in the ground where the child will never find it, and both live in constant fear of each other. The Deep Roads will become a new sanctuary, a fortress, where the darkspawn fear human and dwarven attacks. And with every darkspawn having an opinion, you will at most get a small minority wanting to attack the surface, since most will be smart enough to know a suicide mission when they see one. They would never have enough support among their people to attack as one. And if one darkspawn wants to see the sun, who care's? He'll just walk out and travel around like the Messenger, keeping his face hidden and blight some of the land but not enough to be concerned. Sounds like a real threat to me! As for the blood issue, Archtict has some work to do. he might kidnap a few people and give them the Joining, something im not too happy with. But i do believe he wants to free all the darkspawn. He may not care much for or understand humans, but he cares for his race.--Ironreaper (talk) 03:46, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Darkspawn don't need an archdemon to raid the surface. They can and do raid from time to time. Just not usually in huge numbers. The reason the archdemon is a problem is because it is able to rally the darkspawn into a true fighting force. Give them intelligence and you strip away that single advantage that people have in dealing with them. Think about their sheer numbers, now. You don't seriously think they wouldn't be a dangerous threat, really? And what reason do you have for thinking that only a small minority would ever want to attack the surface? An entire horde of intelligent darkspawn is going to be vastly superior to a non-sentient one, archdemon or no. They'd have plenty of reason to believe they could take on the surface world, and without the death of an archdemon to cause them to suddenly turn and send them fleeing back underground... (talk) 07:22, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the way I saw it is that, one my Warden no longer considered himslef a Grey Warden (part of the order) but simply a Warden (being with taint resistence) thi si important to his dection, also the Architect seemed to lack empethy, he couldn't understand emotion, Serani seemed to be able to guide the Architect to the empithec path. Also, he saw an opputunity. He believed that Wardens exist to portect the people of thedas not kill darkspawn. By forging no alliance with the Architect, he could gain assitance to that end. The Architect could curb darkspawn advances onto the surface maybe even kill the old gods before they awake or assist the Wardens in killing the common enemy of both Disiples and Wardens, the Archdemon. He knew that some Darkspawn would resist like the Mother ( who started a pseudo-Blight) and that they would need to be kill biut he also recalled the mantra every Warden lives by "Anything it takes to win." With this he atleast hoped that the Blights would be slowed perhaps even stop. He also knew that, like Leliana and Marjolaine, it was a mistake that could always be rectified latter.CrowInvictus (talk) 06:31, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

If the Archtict turns all darkspawn into diciples, then they will not hear the Archdemon call and it will not matter what becomes of them anyway--Ironreaper (talk) 07:03, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Possible one of the hardest decisions of the game, I just sided with him in my "evil mage" save and he seems to want to free the darkspawn, but what are his intentions when all the darkspawn are free? He can be reasoned with but there are some definate grey areas in your decision. Although pretty much all your decisions through out all the games are "grey" and never clear cut. Desmond Cousland (talk) 12:41, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Darkspawn no longer a threat, just happily building their own civilization down in the Deep Roads? Are you serious? A race whose procreation is possible only at the expense of the other races; a race whose mere touch destroys the habitat of the other races; a race which shares none of the values of the races; a race whose goals are completely unknown - and you claim that they won't poise a threat any more?

Anyway: if you care to recall what I asked about at the beginning of the thread, it was not a general pro-/anti-darkspawn argument but solid data which prove that the Architect cannot be trusted. I am quite surprised that no-one has mentioned the detail that it was his meddling with Urthemiel which caused the last Blight - and though this is something the Warden doesn't know at the point when he has to make the decision, it still tells a lot about the supposed harmlessness of the darkspawn and the Architect's credibility. If I recall, he claimed that he only wanted to find the Old Gods to kill them, right? so how come that he tried to convert Urthemiel into a disciple? Gives one ideas what else he might be up to, doesn't it. Ygrain (talk) 15:32, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

lol. I was going to mention it, but then decided it wasn't worth the mention. You brought up the point about this being based on the Warden's knowledge, not us players, at the beginning, so I figured that bit wasn't relevant. But yeah, the notion that given intelligence and freedom from the call of the archdemon's song, darkspawn will just live in peaceful harmony with the dwarves and everyone else? Preposterous! Tabriel Cousland (talk) 19:52, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

He says later that he should have killed the Archdemon. He likely would have done so if presented the option. Instead he took a risk and tried to undue the whole calling. It was a stupid idea, ill say. He had no cause to believe it would work and he knew his very presence would corrupt it. At least he regrets making such a huge cock-up. doesnt really make a difference though: he found it, so the darkspawn where probably close to finding it too.

YEah, it might have been a stupid idea that might not have worked and an entire army drinking Archdemon blood is also a stupid idea (the very first Grey Wardens accually killed the current host of Dumat 4 times before becmoing Grey Wardens and killing hium completely.) My overall point is that he was no better nor worse then a Grey Warden, he did what he thought it would take to win.CrowInvictus (talk) 01:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Leaving aside the problem of "the first Grey Wardens killed Dumat four times before becoming Grey Wardens," lol, where is it said that Dumat was slain four times before they were able to do away with him completely? I've always suspected that he had to be killed several times before it was discovered what had to be done for him to be eradicated once and for all, but as far as I know, this isn't referenced anywhere. I've looked at Dumat's wiki page and elsewhere in the more obvious places to look, but never saw anything. So where is your source for this, please? Tabriel Cousland (talk) 22:25, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
It might not have been 4 times, I know he was defeated several times before the Grey Wardens were made but I think it says 4 times in the codex, either he First Blight or Dumat.CrowInvictus (talk) 07:28, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

The darkspawn do not rely on broodmothers to survive, it merely give them more numbers in a fight. There taint makes darkspawn immortal.

You're "shares none of the values of the races" comment strikes me as absurdly assuming and slightly elitist. What values dare i ask, are the darkspawn are lacking that make them so horrible. Or more accurately, what traits do humans show that set them and darkspawn apart. The value to not destroy civilisations? (ops did that to the elves, TWICE. And the qunari are just as bad), the value of anti-slavery? (no, elves again). The value of compassion to their fellow man? (The endless stories of brutality among humans begs to differ, while the Architect is looking for a way to free his kind from the slavery to the Calling. if he wanted power he would already have it).

And just so where clear, the dwarves created a massive civilisation underground, so their is a precedent for this that did not have people screaming "their gonna come up and kill us all!" and never they felt the need to expand to the surface before the first blight. And i do believe any attack made by the darkspawn, no matter how smart they are, would be met with massive retaliation. smart Darkspawn who value their lives would realise this. At least the Achitect does.--Ironreaper (talk) 16:10, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Architect only wanted to see if he could free the archdemon to see if it would free ALL darkspawn but that failed, and it was an accident. A source of grey wardens blood would be Utha. Apparently she even gave her blood out of free will. Having darkspawn as a free race is no more dangerous than having humans or qunari. And just because the darkspawn have to procreate in the way in that a female of another race has to become a broodmother is not the darkspawns fault. There are other possible ways of procreation as well, we just may not know them yet. If you do side with him, the deep roads get quieter and the Dwarves get to relax a little more. There is many positive things that may come of siding with the architect but the only major negative thing is that we don't know the Architect doesn't have a hidden agenda. And back to the point of them not have values, you mean like the values that allegedly brought the darkspawn to Thedas in the first place? (assuming that the bullshitting chantry are not bullshitting for once). Desmond Cousland (talk) 17:41, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

As Shale points out "How does it trust anything without a control rod?"CrowInvictus (talk) 01:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT TRUE that darkspawn as a free are not more dangerous than any other race. They taint and therefore kill other races, if they want it or not. That means that it is impossible to live peacefully with them even if they are freed of the calling or the remaining Old Gods/Archdemons are killed unless they agree to stay in the deep roads forever.--Dedepp (talk) 18:48, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

"Values" probably was not correct wording. All the other races - men, elves, dwarves, qunari - are biologically very similar and share some basic mental and emotional characteristics, like the ties between mothers and children, friendship etc. Also, they operate on some shared notions of good and evil (though this, of course, does not apply to every single individual, and every situation). Darkspawn, on the other hand, share none of these. When dealing with a darkspawn, you deal with a mind that works nothing like your own, that does not share your categories of thinking. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations will be inevitable, and so is a clash of interests. Ygrain (talk) 19:51, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

"tTies to a mother and son" is a bad example. Quarni dont know or care for family.--Ironreaper (talk) 13:42, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Most interactions between Darkspawn and non-darkspawn, are accually interactions between the Old God/Archdemon not the darkspawn themselves. The only real case is the Architet and his disiples. Also morality is something that is learned, (consience can vary from indivudal to indivual) weather people follow morality is a choice but every one in a given culture has a more or less the same morality. Darkspawn do not have mortality as Serani says they are very much like Childern. They are inncoent (as they do not know differently.) No one is born with the instinual knowing that killing is wrong, or that mercy is right.CrowInvictus (talk) 01:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand peoples reasoning behind siding with The Architect. I mean it really boils down to whether he is trustworthy, as has been already stated, and judgeing from his actions so far he clearly isn't. He is directly responsible for nearly every major problem the PC has faced thus far; the blight and archdeamon, the attack on Vigils Keep and subsequent torture and experimentation of its Grey Wardens and The Mother and her followers. Whether these were accidents or not has little relevance as it clearly shows he cares little about the concequnces of his actions and will continue with his plans (what ever they may be, although "The Calling" sheds some light and we'll get to that later) at any cost. He also hides his true intentions from the PC and his responsibilty in creating the 5th blight until he is forced too and even then its in his interests to convince the PC by any means nessacery so shock/horror he might actually lie.

The mother and her subsequnce actions are accidental and not predictable. You can not hold someone responsible for something that can not be predicted. Before the Mother, disiples had no problem being free , she was the first to resist.CrowInvictus (talk) 01:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid your wrong, the Archdaemon was the first to resist and look how that turned out. Also, do you really believe that someone shouldn't be held responsible for their actions simply because they never fully thought about the possible concequences. Taking such actions lightly is irreponsible and deliberately dangerous and shows that the Architect "research" is a serious threat as he has Twice now brought war to Fereldan, and only for the intervention of Loghain in the events of the calling he'd be looking at a hat-trick.--Chargedjester (talk) 19:14, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I beilive that person's intentions should be counted in to consideration of their actions and how do you know that the Mother's insanity was preditable. I'm looking at this as I would a legal matter (morally, he was doing what he beilived was right, would you condem him for that) the Mother's insanity could not have benn predicted, he also shows regret over the action. At a legal stand point he certinly did not intend harm nor the MOther's insanity. He also regrets statting the Blight. My ultiamte conclution is that he is cabale of learning, he probly belived that that Old Gods in gernal react differntly to the Taint. He used Warden blood which has a resitance to the Archdemon (given the archdemon was tainted with Warden Blood this seemed to be the case) and used Warden blood again on the Mother.) It seems that ghuals rely on the hive-mind. In conclution, the Architect did not seem malevalent and showed the capicity to learn, that is why I sided with him. As to your comment on his research, people learn through expirimentation with their enviroment, the Architect's was expirimenting in an unkown field, he could not predict the results that occured. It someone is to ignore the something because it might dangerous then humans would be eating ants with sticks.CrowInvictus (talk) 05:51, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Bringing legality into the debate is a pretty moot point, do you seriously believe that any court of law in the world would let him (or anyone else for that matter) walk free after the death and destruction caused simply because he has good intentions or couldn't predict the outcome? I think not (Unless of course the Architects been busy saving his sovereigns). Especially considering he knew the old gods needed to be infected with the taint in order to become archdemons, yet he continued his experimentation (Infecting the old god) in an area he had little to no knowledge (as you have also stated) regardless, and constantly stating it couldn't be predicted doesnt mitigate his responsilbty and only means that he didnt fully understand and/or care what he was doing. In regards to his 'malevolence' ive already stated (in a reply to 1 of your comments below) that i do not believe he is evil per se and havent claimed as such. However judgeing his character on only his 'self confessed' intentions is a little naive, and his actions should therefore be equally considered of which little should be commended, especially when considering his plan to infect all of Thedas, which we learn from The Calling (I know I'm repeating what i said below but think its important enough to reiterate). Finally, I agree that progress involves risk but that risk should be carefully considered and minimised, something the Architect has failed to do on 2 occasions. And whos to say his next major experiment won't also fail...he could also mess around with another old god (which i consider extremely likely), cause the 6th and/or 7th blight, bring Thedas to its knees causing total destruction and mayhem. There is as much chance of this happening as there is darkspawn becoming sentient and living happy lives in the corners of the deep roads (Such is the problem with speculation).--Chargedjester (talk) 01:43, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, his actions did bring about much death and destruction, but its the thought that counts. (Haha) No, I'm kidding. I see your point, but does that mean you should punish Albert Einstein for discovering the formula that led to the ATomic Bomb? Should we call Alfred Nobel a war criminal because he developed TNT which he originally created to blast trapped miners free, and instead was used as a weapon of war leading to many deaths? Same point. Just because a person's actions lead to drastically negative effects it doesn't mean they should be punished, no matter how grave the consequences were. And finally your last statement---"he could also mess around with another old god (which i consider extremely likely), cause the 6th and/or 7th blight, bring Thedas to its knees causing total destruction and mayhem. There is as much chance of this happening as there is darkspawn becoming sentient and living happy lives in the corners of the deep roads" -If this was true, then it proves my point. You're asking me to choose between a 50% chance that another Blight will occur versus a 100% it will. Rath101 (talk) 02:00, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
The role of science and its responsilblity (or lack there of) to humanity is a debate that has been raised countless times over the year by people in better positions to make such judgements. However on your point of Einstein, its a common misconception that he was heavily involved in the manhatten project.. his role was limited to little more than a consultant and the true aims and direction of the project was ultimately hidden from him, due to political issues and also because he wasn't deemed totally realiable. Einstein even tried to distance himself from the project after hearing of results in deploying the A-bomb against Japan, however he ultimately realised his role and therefore responsibilty in creating the most detructive force this world has ever seen (and would have our planet stand on the edge of total annihilation for almost half a century!!) which is why he spent countless years after these events petitioning, lobbying and writing to those in power trying to make them halt their nuclear armament programs, or at the very least inforce strict limitations (Who would have thought a case study on the development of nuclear armaments I completed years ago would make it way onto a dragon age forum...small world). We as a people our defined by our actions and our actions have consequences, some far reaching others having minimal effect, but its our ability and inner strength to take responsiblity for our actions that CAN make us honourable people and help seperate us from being mindless savages. Regarding the topic of punishment that YOU have brought up, no where in any of my comments have i alluded to such claims, and then stapled to real world events, which is more than a little in-appropriate especially when using such terms as "war criminal", I believe that neither you nor I are in any position to deem suitible punishemnt for a persons actions in the real world (unless of course you happen to be a judge, jury and executioner). However our PC character is in such a position.. he's Commander of the Grey Wardens, Arl of Amaranthine and depending on our choices King/Queen regent of Ferelden so high justice is theirs to determine. Finally, where did you get your 50% chance of ending all blights from? What evidence is there that his major expeiments will eventuslly prove successful? I mean he has failed twice and doesn't offer much of an explaination as to way, so maybe he doesnt even know whats going wrong. Histroy is riddled with research and expeiments that ultimately failed and went no-where. The possible outcomes from siding with the Architect could be endless (Utha could simply get feed up with his constant failings one day and decide to rearrange the Architects face... making him more pretty in the process no doubt) and specualtion on both our part is not a realiable source of reason, which i have aleady stated.--Chargedjester (talk) 02:08, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
First, you misunderstand my point regarding Einstein. Never have I claimed that he was heavily involved in the Manhattan project, only that it was his formula (and letter) that eventually resulted in it. Second, my 50% came from you. Your statement "There is as much chance of this happening as there is darkspawn becoming sentient and living happy lives in the corners of the deep roads", the statement "there is as much chance" means that you consider both possibilities as having an equal chance of happening. 50/50. I just attached a percentage to it. if you had said that there was only a one in ten chance of it happening, I would have gladly attached 10% instead. If that seems like I am nitpicking your every word, I am not. From what I gathered, you said both possibilities had an equal chance of occurring; therefore 50% is accurate. Thirdly, your comments on how you or I are in a position to judge people in the real world is somewhat skewed, friend. Am I to then say that because I am not a judge, jury, or executioner then I do not have the right to an opinion on the subject matter? Lastly, speculation on both our parts is indeed not a reliable source of reason. When have I ever made the claim that is was? If anything I have always made the point that assumptions are not reliable sources of reason. The point of this whole debate is that we can only speculate on what might happen after our decision is made. My point has always been that BECAUSE we do not know for sure exactly what will happen, should we will simply kill because we fear the chance that something bad might come of it? No matter how small that chance, I simply said I would not, and have only explained why my decision was such. In all my arguments I always cite examples and other similar situations that are in some way analogous to the decision that the Warden is faced with, and I always pose the question "What would you do if..." or "if these were the circumstances involved, then what?". Furthermore, I never mentioned that your comments on the Architect constituted some sort of punishment (legally speaking), only that judging him based on the consequences of his actions would be similar to judging real-life personas for theirs. In retrospect, I could have used the word "blame" instead of "punish". And if you consider bringing in real-life personas as inappropriate, then I will respectfully disagree. They are used as a reference, not as a means of bringing shock and awe by mentioning shocking events that some people might have issues with. They are not meant in any disrespect, nor do I believe I mentioned them in any way that could be misconstrued as such. And as regards to my use of the words "war criminal", let me remind you that I never said in absolute terms what a war criminal is and isn't. I simply asked "Should we...". Would you have been more comfortable with the word "murderer?" Or perhaps "merchant of death?" The semantics are irrelevant. The point was not to lay blame or responsibility, only to raise the issue of laying blame on someone who did not foresee the ultimate consequences of their actions, leading to deaths. The way you commented on it implies (at least to me) that you took it as though I were tossing the word around carelessly, which I did not, and if that is indeed what you were implying, I would take offense. Rath101 (talk) 03:04, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Firstly: I didn’t misunderstand your point on Eintsein I simply elaborated upon it because stating that Einstein theory ‘directly’ lead to the Atomic Bomb would be incorrect (I‘m not saying this is your opinion, simply that’s what I thought you were implying with your statement)… his theory lead to the Manhattan project and that then lead to the development of the A-Bomb, if I were to take your statement at face value I would be going from A to C while bypassing B, especially when B (Manhattan Project) played a major factor in your subsequent question. You asked my judgement on punishment, after all, on Einsteins responsibility in creating the A-Bomb and I duly obliged stating what I know about the subject matter in hand and providing reasoning to support my conclusion that Eintstein had to accept his share of the responsibility in creating such a devastating force, which he ultimately did.

Secondly: Again on the 50% topic, for it to actually be 50% would that not mean that there can only be TWO possible outcomes? Never have I said that THEY (the examples) were the only possible outcomes and to assume as much would mean that I consider myself to know everything about the game ands its future development and I’m not arrogant enough to believe so. Also my comment that *(Such is the problem with speculation)* alluded to the fact that I was using these possible outcomes as examples that using speculation as source of reason is like shovelling snow when its still snowing….POINTLESS!! And this initial comment was in response to Crowlnvictus, not you! So how you came to the conclusion that I was degrading YOUR side of the debate is baffling. Thirdly: I fully accept and respect that people are entitled to their opinions and fail to see were I claimed otherwise. However you asked “should you PUNISH Einstein” and then attributed the same question to the Architiect by stating “Same Point”. Thereby asking (In my mind) whether I consider Einsteins actions and in effect the Architects punishable which is why I replied as such. My statement about being “Judge, jury and executioner” was an attempt at irony…. I believe (and it’s the basis for most forms of justice) that no one person should have the power, or be placed in the position to determine someone’s guilt, their subsequent punishment and enforce said punishment. Such a system would be open to corruption and has been used by many less than honourable rulers in our history. However this was clearly lost on you and as such I will make no further attempts at ironic statements in our future discussions. Fourthly: Citing real world references such as the A-Bomb WILL have a shock and awe effect (whether you intended it or not) as such events have helped defined our planets history, the ramifications of which can still be felt to this day. I find the use of such real-world references in-appropriate because using them in a debate is unfair. By this I mean I could quite easily use a real event or reference that I have spent considerable time studying, that I have access to extended information on or perhaps even have in-side knowledge and then ask someone for their opinion on the comparison who could perhaps have little to no knowledge on the subject. This would confer a significant advantage to me in any debate, would it not? This is especially prevalent considering there are many in-games references (Which others have no problem using) that can draw similar comparisons, and the information for these references is freely available on this wonderful site, thereby creating a fairer and equal opportunity for debate. Finally: Would you mind explaining to me how came up with such an implication. Did YOU not put Albert Nobel and the term “war criminal” in the same sentence? Did YOU not stipulate that via my discussion on the Architect I would consider labelling Nobel as such? Your logic in implying that I was trying to say you were firing such words around recklessly is astounding…. I simply reiterated YOUR OWN statement and stated I disagreed using it as such.. WORDS HAVE POWER, just because someone didn’t intent using such words as “war criminal” or “murderer” in an offensive manner doesn’t make them any less offensive or stop them from construing powerful emotions… and your statement implying that because you didn‘t define what “war criminal“ is I find truly arrogant. I’m I to believe that because you didn’t “define” the word for me that I, or others, can’t use our own understanding on what such a word conveys. Speaking for myself, I would never use such words around people I barely know for I do not pretend to have knowledge of who they are or what they have been through and whether such wordage is appropriate in their presence and most public forums have rules regarding or ban the use of such words.

PS: Back on topic…The origin of this debate, which was started by Ygrain (the OP’er), actually asked for reasons the PC would have for siding with or against the Architect, also what else the Architect has been involved in and in a later comment what is the Architects trustworthiness (which are questions I tried to answer in my first post). Not what are the possible outcomes and speculation of our decisions… However I freely admit I also got side-track by this, even if I was trying to point out the fruitlessness in such a debate.--Chargedjester (talk) 13:36, February 5, 2011 (UTC) !!SPOILER!!

Finally, for those who have not read "The Calling" by David Gaider I suggest you do, not only to its relevance to this thread but also because its a cracking book. In this book its revealed The Architect plans to taint all the races of Thedas (as well as killing the old gods) there by ending hostilies. Now with that said I dont think my warden was too far wrong in planting an axe between his eyes. --Chargedjester (talk) 20:51, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Serani and Utha seemed pretty fine with being tainted. Utha had her tiant accelerated and Serani never had a resistance so the Architect made it so that taint is non-leathal. His actions although misguided are not directly malevalent. He doesn't wish to harm anything but the Old Gods...he does need to work on his foresight however.CrowInvictus (talk) 01:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that he isn't 'evil' and dont think ive stated as such. I do however find him unrealible at best, i believe actions speak louder than words and so far his actions have little to be commended for. The fact that serani and utha have been tainted leds me to be a little suspious of their current mindset, and your statement about him not harming anyone but the old you think his original plan to infect the nations of Thedas to be acceptable then?--Chargedjester (talk) 19:34, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things that makes Dragon Age great are the complex moral choices. There are good reasons for siding with the Architect. It could end the cycle of the Old Gods, prevent future Blights and save countless lives. But there are also good reasons for killing him. Much like Morrigan's Old God Baby, we can't possibly know what consequences will be for future generations. --JackfieldsA113 (talk) 22:05, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is this: Architect led darkspawn aren't really darkspawn.

Let me explain my thought.

Has anyone seen the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "I, Borg"? How about it's follow up episode called "Descent"? In those episodes an offshoot of Borg are created due to just one Borg remembering what being an individual is like. This Borg, who gets named Hugh, causes a ripple effect with the Borg around him. They too become individuals totally separate in mindset and ideals from the Borg hive mind that is controlled by the Borg Queen. These newly re-sentient Borg for the majority just want to re-establish some form of peaceful life. There are some individuals in the newly formed species that are war hungry, but there are individuals like this in all races. They are also infantile at first and prone to being swept up in hyperbole, good or bad. As the story then shows they split into two factions one lead by the peaceful minded Hugh and the warlike brother of Commander Data, Lore.

For the most part the Architect and his followers are Hugh and his "I, Borgs". They are a new and separate entity from the darkspawn hoard. They are infants in culture and have the potential to change the war against the darkspawn for the better. Of course there is also potential for this new race to make everything worse for everything.

Also, unless I completely missed something (which I do not think I have, I've played this game to death) the main hoard army that is terrorizing the country in Awakening is the Mother's army, not the Architect's. Of course that doesn't excuse the Architect's odd behavior in his "testing" on our hero and setting our hero against a gauntlet of soldiers, ending with a match against two Dragons. But hey, from the Architect's POV which is naive and inexperienced... if we couldn't handle that gauntlet, then maybe the Wardens aren't all their legend says. Which then leads into all sorts of other questions this newborn race would have. But guess what? Our hero was all their billing said it was. So by playing the game we're already shaping the Architect's growth and mindset. A mindset that softens and is much more empathic by the end game.

Two questions then come to the forefront in regards to the Architect and his "newspawn" (to coin a term).

1. Could this new race evolve a culture and mindset that helps wage war against the evil of the hoard? 2. Could this new race be a worse threat than our present enemy?

The answer is Yes and Yes, btw.

You can't uncreate the Architect. He exists and his followers exist and they aren't all in an area of the game for you to hunt.

So it all simply boils down to whether you want to extinguish the potential for good out of fear of possible evil or side with the potential for good and deal with whatever life creates?

--Zambingo (talk) 07:01, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well said!!--Ironreaper (talk) 13:40, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for expanding on this point. I toatally agree with all but one point. It's true that you can't unmake tyhe architect but you can kill him. Of course that raises another very interestiung question. Can genocide be justified? Because that is exactly what the destruction of the Disibles would be. A sentient race being entirely wipeout asnd worse jsut for being what they are. The Mother's don't get me wrong that's war they stuck first and we defended but the Architect has not shown the same violent tendencies. Excuse for looking at the larger picture but that is wha this forum is asking. Genocide. The complete destruction of the newly coined "newspawn" (no pun intended.)CrowInvictus (talk) 10:00, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

True, siding with the Architect may(will) come and bite us in the future.

But I believe that the choice to make peace with him is the ‘most white’. I kind of like him. He is weird, and has the well being of his own species as his flag. He is not evil, doesn’t want death or destruction and what he actually is…is lonely. He has his faults and made mistakes and didn’t tell of it, but who can blame him for wanting to stop Blights and free his people. His mistakes were made with the best intentions. I just hope his risks actually pay of someday in the DA world. For now, it’s a failure after another. In the whole though he seems to be the actual third “best” choice, the ones that DA is filled with after all.

Personally I am with the idea that Darkspawn may turn into a ‘race’(?) I am not sure how the Taint works and maybe if they become sentient, they may be able to not Taint so easily the other races. We will see.Acher4 (talk) 12:59, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you let the Messenger go, the epiloge mentions small incidents of the taint poping up after him, so they still have the taint. but the damage of one darkspawn's taint doesnt appear to be serious enough to panic about.--Ironreaper (talk) 13:46, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I sided with the architect in hopes the darkspawn would become intelligent, then I could propose they kill all those knife ears...with my help of course. Mmmmm. Genocide. I'd probably promise them some sort of relief from attacks and give them a hole to chill in, but out of that hole I wouldn't be able to protect them. Then I'd go on about how getting society to stop attacking darkspawn, even in one place; of their own freewill, is a step to them living in peace. It worked for the werewolves, for a time, but they had too savage of a nature and had to be put down. A shame. (talk) 14:34, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

One more point: the taint apparently affects mental abilities. Do the older Wardens in the Calling find the Architect's offer appealing because they are more pragmatic than the younger ones, or because their mental processes can be somewhat influenced by the taint? Or even controlled by someone, through the taint? Does anyone think that Seranni is right in her senses, acting the way she does? - BTW, why is she tainted at all if the Qunari merchant can be protected from the taint?

Ygrain (talk) 15:18, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

That was going to be one of my points. They do not taint everything they come into contact with in definite, I was going to use Armaas as an example, but think about the legion of the dead or anyone who has fought a darkspawn. I think that is a bad example as well saying that darkspawn are biologically different, they eat, drink, reproduce they live on instincts etc. And also the darkspawn don't know right from wrong as they are not free, they do not have experience either and this is not their fault. Killing the Architect because the disciples may become crazy is not exactly right either, you could base the same theory for humans, not all humans etc. are "sane" and have the same capacity for evil if not more so than darkspawn. Desmond Cousland (talk) 17:46, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

The architect was a cool character so i sided with him.-- (talk) 18:17, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I sided with the Architect for exactly the same reason I told Avernus to continue his research; potential. For me the decisions are not for good or evil, but instead as to what option holds the most potential for actually acheiving something. To put it in perspective, I consider this choice siding with the Architect or the Wardens. Now, consider in all their time, what the Wardens have actually achieved. All the wardens have done is destroy (yes, they may be the lesser of two destroyers, but still). Now look at the Architect. He has been around for far less time, but he has already made a massive achievement in the form of the disciples. Yes, I understand that he has made mistakes, but such is the price of progress. We learn from our mistakes and do things differently next time (also, but forging this alliance, a new alternative for the archdemon disciple plan emerges. If it was the Architect being a darkspawn that made it fail last time, next time he could ask for help and we could send someone else to do it). Anyway, that is just my spin on things. Gee-chan (talk) 10:22, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

May I say that the purpose of the Grey Wardens is to stop Blights and kill darkspawn, they do this to protect the world (the first Blight destoryed the Tevinter Imperium (the major power for over a thousand years.) I would also like to say a Old God Disible is a god idea. Archdemons are not darkspawn. They moreorless ghouls. Creatures which have been blighted (to coin a phrase.) They control the horde, tehy are the true threat when concerning darkspawn. In this sence, the Architect is atleast the lesser of two evils. With an alliance of Disiples and Wardens, the remaining two Old gods could be killed before a Blight ever starts. At this point a pragmatist could turn on the Architect and the other darkpsawn but for all intents and purposes they have become disiples, darkspawn free of the old god's call. Some may become like the mother and need to be killed, others will be like the Architect and may take the deep roads as a home. Or maybe they will decide to take over the world but I'd take intelligent but sperate darkspawn oveer a horde controlled by a hive-mind any day.CrowInvictus (talk)
Yes, I understand the purpose of the wardens, but in my opinion they don't seem to have been very creative about it...nor very pro-active. I mean, they have been at this for hundreds of years and all they have done is prolong the possibly inevitable, oh and getting the griffons wiped out. Its not like they even tried to purge the darkspawn from the deep roads with a constant assault, instead they just hang around the surface avoiding the problem until the taint make their liver look like an old dwarf's. If they were at all serious then it would be no mystery about the broodmothers because the wardens would have found them a long time ago (note how people know about the broodmothers in Awakenings, after we found one and presumably told people. If the wardens found out about them earlier then they must have withheld the information which raises even more questions).
Also I just really want to see how an arch-disciple would turn out. I mean, at the very least it would make it clear just how much truth there was to the old Tevinter religion; if the thing starts communicating, then we know it was true, if not, then we know that they were wrong and by extension, so is the chantry (here's hoping). Either way, even if it goes wrong, it can be fixed, and now we know.
Gee-chan (talk) 22:02, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... could you present your idea of eradicating darkspawn from a cave system of the size of a continent? Especially if they can delve tunnels of their own?
As for the issue of broodmothers - is it stated anywhere that all the Wardens never knew of their existence, or is it just that Alistair and our Warden as fresh initiates were never told? Since the Weisshaupt seems to know more than just a thing or two (where Bregan learned about the location of Old Gods, I wonder?), I'd assume it was the latter. Ygrain (talk) 19:33, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

(Time to to put in my two cents) WOOOWIE!!! This topic is the longest one i have seen in this wiki! way to go Ygrain! Any way back to topic so far i have finished 2 playthroughs (origins+awakening) and i always end up siding with the architect for 3 reasons: 1- I had no idea he was the one who started the 5th blight (well my warden at least) 2- Having a chance to end blights forever is worth considering (3 companions agreed even darkspawn hating dwarf Oghren) 3- I prefer to see darkspawn in a different light in DA2, i am sure we will see the good old stupid darkspawn but i hope we get to see the architect and his disciples. Also the guys who think that a sentient darkspawn horde might get the intention to conquer the world? well it's stupid, Why? Because i am sure they are smart enough to not get themselves killed. Why should these newspawn be the only ones with the desire to conquer everything? Just to remind you guys - the Qunari are always trying to conquer lands as we will see in DA2 that the free marches is their next stop. Saying that the newspawn will want to invade the surface is like saying the humans want to do the same or the chantry wanting to lead an exalted march on any non-maker religion. These newspawn have the potential to become a peaceful race if freed from the calling, they just need to be guided in the proper direction (the architect is teaching them the concept of peace i am sure), sure, they ARE primitive and monsters to booth (seeing as how they reproduce and how they spread the taint) but they are not like the werewolves, they don't have a disease or condition that pushes to them to rage and kill. One last thing i want to say is remind yourself about the conversation with wynnne regarding the nature of an abomination, she said what defines an abomination is it's madness, insanity and malevolence but an abomination that keeps it's mind and spirit is not one, it only is a cursed being doomed to have an ugly body while still gaining massive power. This in a sense is a way to look at these newspawn.--The Grey Hawke (talk) 16:18, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Er...thank you? :-) Ygrain (talk) 19:33, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
As an afterthought: if the only thing that should prevent the nespawn from invading the surface is intelligence, this is not very reassuring. You know, they don't have to bother with warfare if they can do what the Mother did in Amaranthine - spread a highly contagious and deadly infection and then overcome what's left. Why should they do it is another question - but the fact that I do not grasp the reasons behind the many wars and dictatorships of our world does not, unfortunately, mean that they don't happen. Ygrain (talk) 05:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. WHY would they want to do it? They have no compelling reason besides vengeance and the calling. So in light of this - we can safely assume that siding with the architect isn't all bad (unless if he decides to back stab us by having an ulterior motive...)--The Grey Hawke (talk) 06:01, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just to correct some facts, Darkspawn don't eat, drink, or reproduce. Please read the links in this topic: 'Possible fact(s) about Darkspawn and Broodmothers' -DeltaEcho

Wrong. Darkspawn do reproduce. WTF do you think a broodmother is???? It's producing darkspawn, the broodmother gets impregnanted! That's reproduction! Is it different than human reproduction? Absolutely, but it's reproduction. LOL Also Morrigan says she saw Darkspawn eating the dead at Ostagar. So they eat too. Look I have full respect for the devs as they are the game's creators, but sometimes people need to just open their eyes and see what the game shows us not what a dev said who might have had a brain fart about what was put into the game. --Zambingo (talk) 21:31, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
"what a dev said who might have had a brain fart about what was put into the game" - really, what a way to define Gaider :-) Ygrain (talk) 05:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that's a sign you were amused... I try. --Zambingo (talk) 06:13, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
If you took the time to read what was posted, you would see that David(Lead writer for the Dragon Age series) said: "Darkspawn don't require food for sustenance. The corruption within them keeps them alive. They can eat... but if they do so they do it for reasons other than dietary." and he describes Broodmothers as: "No, they don't turn into darkspawn...A darkspawn is a creature that is born from a ghoul, but that's the only way they're created." and "Yes, broodmothers do need to eat. If you want the simplest description, a broodmother is essentially a darkspawn factory (and a lovely analogy that is, too)." DeltaEcho (talk) 01:24, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
My point still stands and if the dev understands the words he speaks then he's making my same point. The darkspawn reproduce and eat. They just don't do it in an manner similar to us. 1. The darkspawn reproduce via Broodmothers. The dev wants to call them a factory then whatever, I've always thought that's probably to avoid the question of darkspawn sex. lol But it's reproduction. The game describes the process in detail and it's two organisms interacting providing matter between them to create more of their "species". That's reproduction. Heck if the dev and game had said that more darkspawn are produced when one dies and another forms from it's ashes... that's reproduction too. If they had said that a darkspawn toe gets cut off and a new darkspawn spawned from that then, yep, that's reproduction too. It's not reproduction like us, but it is reproduction. 2. They do eat. They physically eat for pleasure or some other reason, perhaps ritual. But they do eat for sustenance as well. They might not have to eat food to sustain themselves, because of the taint, but they are eating. Their bodies are consuming whatever cosmic energies the taint is providing them. That's eating. It may not be eating like chomping a Big Mac or on some hapless soldiers leg, but it's eating. Finally, I apologize for coming off so directly aggressive in my last. I was trying to have some fun, but reading it again I see it was more aggressive toned than light-hearted. --Zambingo (talk) 05:34, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Im not too worried about the futur Blights there are only 2 Archdemons left in Thedas as far as we know from what the Tevinter say about the Old Gods but what will happen to them after the Archedmons are all killed will they be free or will they all go insane from not hearing them anymore like the Mother did

Well, some will take a Architect apporch, some will take a other aprroch and others will take a "kill everything in sight just fot eh hell of it" approch.CrowInvictus (talk) 05:24, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Here is my 2 cents. Let us consider a few facts. 1. Darkspawns are greater in numbers than any other single race 2. Blight is basically Darkspawns’ organized all-out war against surface 3. Darkspawns are mostly unorganized and will only raid surface in small numbers 4. Before Architect, Darkspawns can only be organized together to wage war against surface, aka Blight, by an Archdemon 5. Darkspawns can now be organized by the newly sentinel race created by the Architect to wage large scale war at any time. Aka Mother’s army. 6. There are only two Old Gods left. So there will be only two possible Archdemon lead Blight left 7. Siding with Architect will create endless Blight possibility with superior foes than Archdemon lead Blight

Yeah, my choice was simple after that…Architect must die.

So Loghain was right to allow the Grey Wardens and the King to die. Celene was going to marry Cailan (Gaider,) so by your logic Loghain was preventing the occupation of Fereldan by Orlais so He was in the right. (Okay, so the anology doesn't match up exactly but it's not a stones throw, I just prefer taht arguements for genocide are better tought out.)Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. This is the destruction an intlligent race that only a sect of has acually violent tendancies.CrowInvictus (talk) 07:02, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I sided with the Architect, for the simple reason that Grey Wardens were born out of necessity to stop the Blights. Now, take into consideration that the reason why the darkspawn go into "Blight Mode": an Archdemon compels them to do so. The Architect isn't saying that their awakening WILL PREVENT future Blights, he only claims that Awakening them will stop them from hearing the Calling, in other words, the Archdemon forcing them to start a Blight in the first place. If he can give them intelligence, then that means they can be given free will. Should you kill an entire race simply because some of them MIGHT decide to attack you? The fact of the matter is this, the Architect gives them the ability to decide what they want to do or not. Simply continuing to kill them because they MIGHT do something bad seems---monstrous.

The assumption made here is that darkspawn are completely evil, and the Grey Wardens knew of no other way than to simply kill the Archdemon and pray that the next time a Blight occurs, they could do it again. The Architect offers an alternative. I say go for it.

Let me put things another way. Two nations of a typical fantasy-setting have been at war for say, a thousand years. Nation A is mind-controlled by say, a lich or something, into attacking Nation B, and every time a war starts, thousands die. Now, a citizen of Nation A magically escapes the mind control, and asks for your aid in helping him free his people. Now, of course, there's nothing to stop Nation A from simply going to war with Nation B once the mind-control is gone, right? But does that mean that Nation B should wipe out all of Nation A simply because they MIGHT still want to go to war? True, they've been at war for a thousand years, but only because Nation A was compelled to do it. (The same sort of paranoid thinking applied to Loghain, who out of fear of Orlais, chose to murder the king and blame it all on the Wardens) Who's to say? If this nation has only ever attacked because they lack the higher intelligence to know what they are doing, then wouldn't it be simply right to allow them the chance to make their own choices?

A more concrete example? Ever do the Nature of the Beast Quest? The werewolves in this situation were not compelled (like the darkspawn) or mind-controlled, but they were savage beasts who only knew how to attack and kill, but when awakened by the Lady of the FOrest they regained (some---alright, a very small) measure of "civility". Nevertheless, they deserved the chance to be free of their lycanthropy, which was the source of their rage and savageness. If the darkspawn only attack because the Archdemon compels them too, then shouldn't they be given the benefit of the doubt?

The OBVIOUS choice is to kill them, because they look nothing like us, the only thing we've seen them do is kill us, and they look like monsters. But if they can possess intelligence and if they can choose to do, then the INTELLIGENT choice (not to mention practical and in my opinion, ethical) would be to give them free will.

To put it simply: siding with the Architect might ensure that the darkspawn never become a threat. Not siding with him ensures that another Blight will happen for sure. I'll take, the maybe, thank you very much. As for those who reference the Mother as a failed experiment I'll put it this way. The Mother caused some of the darkspawn to resurface as a threat. A Blight will ensure all of them are. Rath101 (talk) 07:25, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

@CrownInvictus: As an addendum, I agree completely with you. Killing all darkspawn is an acceptable choice if there truly is no other option (in other words, if they were all mindless savages who knew only how to destroy and massacre). But the mere fact that they CAN obtain intelligence and that they can CHOOSE to attack or stay away means they are a sentient race, as opposed to a humanoid but simply monstrous one. Killing them all with the knowledge that not all of them are mindless demons and that they CAN be saved means that doing so is essentially genocide. And my Grey Warden isn't cool with genocide. Rath101 (talk) 07:29, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Finally, to whomever said "There's only two Archdemons left, that leaves only two Blights anyway." Would it be alright to say something like, "Let's NOT try to stop this deadly plague with a possible cure, it's probably going to have one or two more serious outbreaks, and should only kill a few thousands more, maybe a hundred thousand at the worst." Right. Real compassionate. (I'm kidding, but you see my point - to us, its a game, but from the player character point of view, the decision to help the Architect might save thousands - is it a big maybe? A big risk? Let's see, two ASSURED BLIGHTS that WILL kill thousands? Or an intelligent race of darkspawn who might can actually think about who they are and what they should do?) Rath101 (talk) 07:33, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, why snuff out an alternative due to ricks when the possible reward out weigh what will occur. Wothout intervaention the Blights will occur. The Architect is offering intervention (maybe it will work, maybe it won't, if I get cancer Kemo may or may not work, still inject me with the poison (kemo kills faast-growing cells like hiar, sking and tumors.))CrowInvictus (talk) 20:46, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Also to those with the arguement that Disiples are more dangerous then their Archdemon-controlled Counterparts. They're less of a threat. The key to any battle if information (this is chapter one of teh Art of War in a nutshell.) The disiple lack the ability ot be onmi-present, they would be no mre a threat then any human army. Teh archdemon is in contact with all darkspawn under it's control, it is omni-present. This advantage allows it to make mand implament battle plans on the fly. Look at Ostagar the lynch pin waw the Beacon, communication of information. the Archddemon wouldn't need that.CrowInvictus (talk) 20:46, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'free' darkspawn would be more dangerous, than a blight, if they were going to invade because once the Archdemon is killed they retreat but without one they would be almost unstopable because they would not stop untill they were all killed. Voodoo Hedgehog (talk) 21:44, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

There's your error. You immediately assume they will ALL attack. Everyone who says the 'free' darkspawn will be a bigger threat than mindless ones assumes that they will attack, which is not true. That's the whole point of making them FREE. Imagine this situation. A thousand darkspawn are alive. (there are probably more, I use this as a point of comparison) All of them are compelled by an archdemon to attack. That's a thousand mindless monsters raiding and pillaging, not stopping until every last one of them is dead. NONE of them would retreat unless you kill the Archdemon. As a contrast, you have a thousand INTELLIGENT FREE-THINKING DARKSPAWN. Please note the 'intelligence' and 'free-thinking'. Do you think that ALL of them would attack? Why would they? War has to have purpose. An intelligent race would have to first determine that war is the best course of action. Clearly, the intelligent darkspawn won't all attack, since they can choose not to (and clearly all of them didn't, as evidenced by Awakening where the darkspawn emissary from the Architect didn't attack, and in fact was afraid of the Grey Warden when he came bringing news of the attack at Vigil's Keep). The darkspawn lose a reason to attack and risk retaliation. Second, your point that they would be unstoppable until they were all killed. Again, very erroneous. (I'm not trying to pick a fight or mean disrespect here, but hear me out first). Why? Because intelligent people know when to retreat. Anyone who can put two and two together can certainly figure out "Oh crap, there's only a hundred of us left, and a thousand of them left. Yeah, on an open battlefield, we'd be toast. Better to retreat." Point is, whether you side with the Architect is you choosing between the inevitability of war versus the chance that a war might never occur. Even the question of more intelligent darkspawn being a bigger threat than mindless ones is a moot point. You assume that they will immediately go to war. Why? What do they have to gain? Why attack a nation of humans? For the thrill of it? As we saw in Awakenings, the intelligent darkspawn fractured into tribes that mostly fought with each other. Seems to me that if a darkspawn CAN decide whether it's to go to war or to let humans be, it should be given the choice. I'd rather face one intelligent darkspawn than ten mindless ones anyway. An intelligent one knows when to give up. (Again, I cite the intelligent darkspawn emissary, cringing in the presence of your company, rather than simply attacking like a mad animal - which is what mindless darkspawn would do).
The argument of intelligent darkspawn army being a bigger threat than a mindless one is of course, moot. The point of siding with the Architect is that there may be no army to begin with. Rath101 (talk) 22:09, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
I appologise I miss-typed, let me clarify. Assuming from Awakening we an say that the Archetects 'treatment' works roughly 50% of the time (he and the mothers forces were equaly matched not counting the children). Again like in Awakening this would probably lead to a civil war between the 'peacefull' and the 'crazy' darkspawn, assuming that the 'crazy' ones win this war. they would be unable to sense the old-gods and would become a bigger problem for the Dwarves, as they would not know where too search and eventualy, it can be safely assumed, that they would spill onto the surface and cause a larger problem than the blights as they would now be able to adjust tactics on the fly (and if you played the darkspawn chronicles you would know that the orders given by the Archdemon were along the lines of theres something there kill/break it). Even if the peacefull ones win my ficticious war they would still cause massive ammounts of corouption and kill anyone that had prolonged exposure.Voodoo Hedgehog (talk) 23:17, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Well, lemme take this point by point; to quote you 1) "they would be unable to sense the old-gods and would become a bigger problem for the Dwarves"
Why would they be a bigger problem for the dwarves? You're assuming that they would attack the dwarves. Again, this is an assumption based on the fact that there have never been darkspawn who can think for themselves. All we know of them is their mindless, monstruous selves. This Awakening is unprecedented. Who knows what they would do? Given that, shouldn't they be given the choice?
Your second point 2) "it can be safely assumed, that they would spill onto the surface and cause a larger problem than the blights as they would now be able to adjust tactics on the fly"
Again, "IT CAN BE SAFELY ASSUMED?" You assumed that they will attack. How is this a safe assumption? We know only of mindless darkspawn. How do we know what they will do if freed? What if I were to safely assume that they won't attack? To kill based on an assumption is reckless. Shall we order the deaths of "assumed" murderers?
Your third point 3) "Even if the peacefull ones win my ficticious war they would still cause massive ammounts of corouption and kill anyone that had prolonged exposure". Yes, but not as many as 100% of them. If there was no war, surely 1000 mindless darkspwan would cause more corruption and taint than 500 darkspawn who are intelligent enough to know they're not wanted and therefore may stay away. And I'm sure you'd agree, a Blight would cause FAR MORE corruption than isolated bands of intelligent darkspawn.
My point is this, the only reason why darkspawn SHOULD BE WIPED OUT (Pre-Awakening) is because they go on Blights, killing, murdering, raiding, pillaging. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be talked to, they are mindless indiscrimate murdering heathens. Fine. BUT. Let's look at the whys-
Why do darkspawn kill humans? Answer - They are mindless savages, who know only how to kill.
Why do they go on Blights? Answer - They are compelled by the Archdemon
By removing these two factors, you remove all preconceptions of darkspawn to begin with. IF you remove their mindless savagery, IF you remove the connection with the Archdemon, what happens? Point is, you don't know. But if there is a chance that they won't, doesn't it stand to reason that they should be given the chance? I'm guessing if you played Mass Effect 2 and did Geth's loyalty mission, you wiped out the Heretic Base rather reprogramming them. (A bit of a stretch for comparison, but the principle is there). What's more ethical? To kill a race that has the potential for good out of fear of its evil? Or to give them the benefit of the doubt? Rath101 (talk) 00:21, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
In order to try and get my point across, let me instead put it in other terms. Take away the taint and corruption, and the bloody rituals and whatever, and strip down the issue to its core. If the darkspawn were not darkspawn, and instead an enslaved race of humans controlled by an Archdemon to cause a Blight, would you free them, or just assume they can't be saved and wipe them out? I see your points, though, don't get me wrong. I myself spent thirty minutes staring at the screen on my first playthrough wondering if I should side with teh Architect or not---until I did exactly what I said. I asked myself "What if they were human?" They're not, but maybe the one factor that made the decision difficult is the fact that they aren't humans. If they were, would I kill them out of simple xenophobia and paranoia? No---like I said, that's something Loghain did. That's something a lot of real-world dictators do. Just saying. Rath101 (talk) 00:25, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Tiny flaw. We know there is a way to free them, we don't know what they would do. Also, my biggest problem is not just what about the disiples yet to come but what to do with the ones already here? If we kill everyone who could become a murderer, just blow up the planet problem solved, should we kill anyone with an infectious disease, no one will get sick. The disiples are not just what we know as darkspawn anymore. They are intelligent, they have free-will. Should they be denined the right to live because of harm they might do?CrowInvictus (talk) 01:19, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I assume the tiny flaw you mention is from the previous poster? Because I'm of the opinion that siding with the Architect is the right thing to do. That is my point exactly. Everyone justifies destroying them out of sheer fear that an intelligent darkspawn poses a greater threat than a mindless one. Ever try to realize that MAYBE they aren't threats at all? If you wanna kill off every single individual just because they have the capacity to do evil, you might as well wipe out the human race while you're at it. Take a look at Zathrian. He believed all humans to be evil and mindless, and turned them into werewolves, long after the original culprits who murdered and raped his children were dead, he still continues to hate them. You can't kill a race off for a crime or evil act that they MIGHT commit. Rath101 (talk) 01:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I pointing out the tiny flaw in your anology, yous said give up on curing them, we know there is a cure, the question is what do we do with this information. I then went on a rant on how it is more "safe" to assume the worst but less ethical do to so. I have never said it is right nor wrong but simply asked is it justified? IMO, no but i will not force this on others, I present arguements to my conclution and then leave them to do the same. I just nit pick out flaws to arrive at a conclution.CrowInvictus (talk) 04:05, January 31, 2011 (UTC) sounds like you misunderstood what I meant. I meant the cure analogy only as a reference to the "cure" the Architect offers, since his cure can also cause 'madness' (like the Mother). But as a cure for the Calling, yes I agree it is absolute. Perhaps I should have said "cure" instead of "possible cure". Also, never have I said that we know what the darkspawn will do when Awakened. In fact I have repeated it over and over---we don't know what they will do but they should be allowed to make that choice. I apologize if I was unclear. Thought that my point was pretty obvious. Rath101 (talk) 07:44, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

The Architect's messenger, assuming you keep him alive after Amaranthine, in the dialogue actually goes out of his way to help people, that is more than what I can say for most people. Desmond Cousland (talk) 00:48, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Rath101 (talk) 01:13, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
He's also the only Disciple in the game who doesn't try to kill you on site. If only the Architect had sent him to Vigil's Keep before the game starts instead of the Withered.
I find the Architect untrustworthy. Instead of trying to talk to your Warden, he experiments on you. When you call him on what he did to the other Wardens, he claims they were all dead. I'm sorry but Keenan was very much alive. If the Architect lied about that, what else is he being less than truthful about? Gruedragon (talk) 14:03, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he wasn't aware that he was alive? I know he isn't trustworthy, however, neither is Zathrian. It doesn't mean that you should wipe the Dalish out. Desmond Cousland (talk) 14:51, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

If the Dalish had almost overrun Ferelden six months prior, if the Dalish were monsters, etc...
I admit it's not a clear-cut black and white decision, and in my next playthru I could very well decide to spare the Architect. But after going through the game seeing what the freed Darkspawn have done with themselves (if they weren't attacking each other, they were attacking the surface), my last Warden decided letting him live was not worth the risk. Gruedragon (talk) 16:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I think reading The Calling would make the choice a lot easier to choose whether or not to side with the Architect, as it describes much of what the Architect is like, such as his plans, intents and character, as well as the choices of what the Grey Warden’s and Maric made about whether or not to side with him. With everything that the book has told us about the situation, and from what I’ve heard before even reading the book, I personally have never sided with the Architect, despite how well intentioned or claims of peace it proposes. Reading the book simply made it easier to not side with him. (However if you’re roleplaying your character, perhaps they have different views) –Here is where spoilers begin- The simplest reason (and to prevent a huge long post of analysis of the entire situation) is because in order to carry out the plan of freeing the darkspawn from seeking the Old Gods, the plan was to have everyone exist halfway between humanity and darkspawn, to essentially administer the taint to everyone in all of Thedas in order to let them coexist with darkspawn and to free the darkspawn from their calling to the Old Gods. Even if there was a way as claimed to administer the taint without having to do Joinings, thus not killing off a ton of people, it would still mean that all of humanity would carry the taint, except, as in the book describes, certain people who have protected enchantments. But in the book, this was planned by the Orlesian mage Remille, to which he was allied with the Architect. Remille planed to protect only themselves, or those whom they deemed worthy, and thus Orlais would rule the world in a way while everyone else is tainted.
But that aside, I personally would not submit everyone to the taint even if it meant peace, because of how the taint works. The plan would essentially the make humans into a bunch of Grey Wardens, minus their killing darkspawn, to which their chance of reproduction is very low, thus obviously the population would vastly drop. Plus all the other effects of the taint that everyone else knows, minus the calling. As much as making peace seems like a nice idea, and having everyone compromise sounds like a nice idea, this to me is just not the way it should go, however, people like Utha, who was very compassionate, was okay with it, as well as Bregan before he found out the truth with Orlais. Maric, Fiona and Duncan were not okay with this sacrifice though, with good reason, so it really depends upon what your character values most or how they see the situation as since there are many sides to look at to which one inevitably has to block out the other side. While I do have sympathy toward darkspawn, I still don't think I'd compromise my humanity as well as everyone else just to get along with them and prevent fighting, as the taint to me isn't all that great of a thing to have, as selfish as that may sound to some. Celsis (talk) 20:48, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede that, definitely. But as you so clearly pointed out, the events in the book ARE NOT known to the Grey Warden. You're only working on the information that was given you. It's the same thing when I play through Orzammar's quest. Even if I already know that (SPOILER) Bhelen would make a more effective king than Harrowmont via the epilogue, I still side with Harrowmont because from the PC's perspective, he doesn't know exactly what will happen. But yes, taking the information of the Calling (book) into account, there is far less reason to trust the Architect. Mind you, I only agree with his freeing darkspawn, not tainting humanity. If darkspawn CAN be free, they should be. If he plans to taint all humanity in order for them to better accept darkspawn, then that's a line that has to be drawn. Just as darkspawn should be able to decide whether to be trouble or not, humanity should have the freedom to decide whether to accept them or not. I never said that humans should submit themselves to the taint for peace---that's information that you acquired from the book, not through the game, meaning the PC is unaware of that. Rath101 (talk) 21:02, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
And just to be clear---not wanting to submit yourself to the taint isn't selfish, it's just logical. I agree with you 110% on that account. To be more clear; if the Architect tells me he wants to continue freeing his brethren with WILLING Grey Wardens, be my guest. If he does plan on tainting humans---heads will roll. I'd be the first one to stab a blade right through him. Rath101 (talk) 21:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the warden doesn't know all the facts, and thus would make whatever decisions they had based upon what they know, which was very limited at best. I was just going with the original person's post on what I assumed was our own personal preference, given the knowledge we know of the Architect in general. Obviously this would change if we didn't know key information, as seen with only looking at one side of the mirror sorta thing. From my understanding there is no way to free the darkspawn without tainting everyone, as seen with the Messenger if he's set free, as he taints people without them realizing it as a side effect of his freedom, no matter how kind he is toward people. Unless all the darkspawn go underground, never to bother anyone again, the taint will always be there. Celsis (talk) 21:59, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
There actually is a way to free darkspawn without tainting everyone. The taint wouldn't be a problem if they simply stay away. The Messenger, as you mentioned, despite good intentions, causes taint wherever he goes. Of course, the problem is that we don't know what will happen if they are set free. But surely, if the Messenger is as good-naturd as he appears to be, then certainly a civil discussion and explanation that he poses a danger because of the taint will surely give him the option of simply staying away from humans, no? As you said, unless they all go underground, never to bother anyone again, the taint will always be there. If the Messenger were to be told this, wouldn't he? He seems like a decent enough fellow, for a darkspawn.
I have to agree with Rath here. I sided with the Architect simply because of the greater threats, hte Archdemons to come and the mother. If he decides to step out of line, if he were to attack the surface, or the dwarves, it would be war. I would end as I was going to the mother. But at the moment he did present a threat, he was not an enemy if in the future that changes, I ended a Blight once, defeated an army of Disiples and about ot kill it's leader, I could do the same to him! In short, siding with him now, doesn't mean condoning his future plans.CrowInvictus (talk) 02:25, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
That being said, if we take ALL information (not just what the PC knows) into account, then you should take the epilogue into account as well. If we assume that the darkspawn and Grey Warden 'story arc' (sorry, didn't know how else to phrase it) is over, then the Awakening epilogue is our only information about the outcome of the Warden's decision. Siding with the Architect reveals that the darkspawn do retreat into the earth and that the cycle is broken. Killing them both results in an epilogue that says the cycle of the Old Gods will continue. It's a moot point, since we all know siding with Architect simply leads to a better ending. Rath101 (talk) 00:15, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

The epilogue does say they retreat into the earth, but I guess no one really knows how long that will last, since they would be more intelligent if freed, would they not question why they are stuck under the earth after some time among other things? The Architect still cannot control all of them that easily to keep them underground, as seen with The Mother, to which he freed. The Architect also wanted humans and darkspawn to coexist in harmony, so going underground was either temporary, or he changed his plans with the Warden Commander (don't remember what he says to you if you side with him). As stated by others, it's not easy to really trust the Architect knowning what he's done already for many reasons, despite whether or not his choices were due to ignorance of how humans work or not (as he didn't fully know Remille's intentions, just saw someone who could help him in his plans). He made a lot of mistakes, miscalculations and tactful speeches to get his way despite whatever good intentions he had, and while I wouldn't necessarily condemn him for it I definitely would not side with him on his plans. Celsis (talk) 01:43, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

And you shouldn't really. As I mentioned, you can't predict what people will do. Why did the poor revolt in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution when so many other countries have similar gaps between the haves and have-nots? (I hate to cite real-world references, but it drives my point across) Why do some people abused by their governments turn to open rebellion while others resort to peaceful demonstration? It's a matter of choice. We don't know exactly what darkspawn nature is, remember? Why should they retreat into the earth without the Archdemon's influence? Do we know? Maybe they like the dark. Maybe they like the cold, dank underground caverns. Who's to say they will or will not stay? Maybe they won't like the underground. Maybe they'll go to the surface and create communities of their own, far away from humans. The Dalish did. Why can't the darkspawn find their own place? Plus, the Architect was pretty clear that the darkspawn that he frees aren't under HIS control. They simply follow him because they choose to, because he awakened them. Again, the choice here is between an assured Blight, and a possibility that the darkspawn will never attack again. I have never said the Architect was trustworthy, nor that his plans were the Warden Commander's. Only that his choice to free the darkspawn, all information considered (all infor provided the PC anyway) seemed like the right one given the circumstances. Rath101 (talk) 05:44, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re: To Taint or Not to Taint

Obviously many of us seem to be in agreement that if the Architect's plan was to taint Humanity to solve the issue of the Darkspawn and the Taint AND then that he couldn't be swayed from that plan... he's got to go. The Newspawn deserve a chance and choice, but Humanity does too.


The Qunari merchant in the Silverite Mines, Armaas, explains that he's been granted protection from the Taint. This brings an entirely new, deeper level to the Dragon Age Universe. And although Armaas has been talked about a bit in this thread, this particular point has been glossed over to an extent.

In Awakening that line of dialogue lays solid as stone that somehow the Architect has figured out how to make becoming infected with the Taint an optional situation, perhaps a choice he can make (maybe like a Vampire and Vampirism... choosing to turn someone or not) or at least he has figured out a way to simply shield something from the Taint. But whatever this ability is, the ability exists.

Of course this isn't an ability the Architect has yet taught, if he even can, to the Newspawn... or at least to the Messenger because we know with 20/20 hindsight that the Messenger does spread small bits of the Taint as he adventures around Ferelden.

However the possibility to Not Taint now exists in the game. And it's something that is conceivable for our Wardens to have thought of during their adventure... why? Because I thought of it the moment Armaas explained himself to me.

So this is yet another thing in the Architect's favor when the Warden considers his case. There are so many possibilities, good and bad, with the Architect and only one... certain blights... without the Architect.

I'll just out right say it, I think the Architect and partly this decision by our Warden is a true tipping moment in the Dragon Age Universe. I think it can change everything. And I have hopes that BioWare pushes this possibility into future gameplay... and like the OGB possibilities... the devs can do whatever they want, no matter our Warden's final decision. There are possibilities here even if we made our Warden's kill the Architect. You see the Architect can be killed, but all his followers still exist and most can't be touched during gameplay. We can't uncreate the Atom Bomb, the Warden can't uncreate the Architect's affect on the world. It's done.

To bring it back to the start though, yeah, if the Architect is allowed to live and then the Architect decided to Taint all... it's war and he and those with his mindset will perish. --Zambingo (talk) 02:22, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I think "freeing darkspawn" and "tainting humans" are separate issues, even if the two are part of a grander plan for "peace". Freeing slaves is never a bad thing, human or no, for as long as they are sentient. However, you can't force humans to like your race simply because they're tainted too. Peace is simply something that's nice to have, but can't be forced. Rath101 (talk) 05:44, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Alright so I should be studying for midterms but i read this whole article instead. Listen i understand that yeah okay the newspawn deserve to choose and think and all that but we're ignoring the fact that they're monsters. I;m sorry but its true what happens when they all become intelligent? Will they have any system of governemnt of rule without the Archdemon? And with their vast, vast numbers (which grow by the daily) they could easily over take the dwindling and dying dwarven race. Can the Architect prevent this? I don't think so. Its impossible to say that once the newspawn gain their intelligence that they will just stow away in the farthest reaches of the deep roads because no other species WOULD do that. They will begin to desire things and expand creating new broodmothers. The darkspawn are a blight upon the world, everwhere they go they destroy even if it not by choice. The newspawn will still contain the taint and will still poison the world their limited intelligence is the only weapon the wardens truly have against the darkspawn and that is containment. (Sentury7 (talk) 23:23, February 2, 2011 (UTC))

Oy vey, this is getting repetitive, no? Lemme repeat then. We don't know what darkspawn nature truly is because they've never been sentient. All of those questions you asked are answered by 'maybe, and maybe not.' While it's impossible to say that "once the newspawn gain their intelligence that they will just stow away in the farthest reaches of the deep roads" it is equally wrong to say that they won't. It is also wrong to say "because no other species WOULD do that"---they aren't like other species. And besides THERE IS ANOTHER SPECIES that lives underground and is sentient. Dwarves---many of them spend their whole lives underground, never seeing the sky, remember?
Your argument that "they could easily over take the dwindling and dying dwarven race"---who is to say that they will? How are you so assured of the inevitability of their attack when we don't know what they will do?
And finally "They will begin to desire things and expand creating new broodmothers."---this is your assumption. You keep looking at their invading the surface world as an inevitability. Is it a possibility, yes. But it is only an assumption. The question is, are you willing to kill over that assumption? It is the possibility of peace that you choose when you side with the Architect, not the assurance. But without his help, the next two Blights will be an inevitability. And one of those Blights could destroy the world. But if there is a possibility that the Blights do NOT occur, isn't that worth trying? (Not to mention ethical). Rath101 (talk) 23:33, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

The Darkspawn are only monstrous because of their nature, in which they have NO CHOICE in. Just because they look like monsters doesn't make them so. The Qunari are monstrous but would that stop you from freeing Sten from the cage in Lothering? And committing genocide against them? Desmond Cousland (talk) 01:01, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I mean if the darkspawn have a chance to be sentient why not let them it wasn't their fault that they were born like that. I mean the darkspawn that are still sentient know how to make more so why not stick with the darkspawn that actually negotiates with you at least. Plus would any of you kill something that is alive that can think speak and live, I mean as far as they are sentient then they are just like a human which means innocent because they were barely born thats why I chose to side with the architect and not kill him.

Why can't we just all agree that something that ugly doesn't deserve to live? :P Haha i saw this article ages ago but never thought it would get this big! Yes it might seem a tough moral choice (if humans becoming tainted isn't a part of the agenda) but really it just boils down to whether you really want to potentially be buddies with darkspawn. If these sentient darkspawn turn out to be a menace/run around trying to kill dwarves/humans etc then in come the grey wardens to exterminate them for good. If they overcome their somewhat undesirable habits and learn to become more...socially acceptable, then yay, we have a new species of rather repugnant creatures don't need to eat, have pretty terrible technology (based on their weaponry throughout the game), and whose reproductive process involves a not-so-pleasant experience for a female of another species. Thus we have a civilisation which is going to be pretty tough to trade with, given they have no needs and have nothing other races need (and not to mention are extremely ugly), and that will rely on people to volunteering to become broodmothers. Unless they're happy to stop reproducing and whatever darkspawn do, that probably means they'll have to go raiding for females. Survival of the species etc right? Raiding equals fighting equals grey wardens swooping in to end them.

Anyway, to continue this spiel, there is also the problem with the ownership of all those thaigs and deep roads. Unless dwarves recognise adverse possession (legal term), i'm pretty sure they would want all their lost cities back. So where will the darkspawn go? The surface? And why should they be allowed go anywhere anyhow? They pretty much satisfy the zombie-category - ugly things designed for guilt-free slaughter. They appear out of nowhere, are basically parasites (not adding anything but just taking, requiring unwilling humanoids to further their species), and are really ugly. I've stressed this point several times because would you personally want to have something from a nightmare/scary legend wandering around your homes, in your cities? No, probably not. Hence no matter how nice they become or how many tea-parties they throw, the humans, elves and especially the dwarves are never going to accept them. So pretty much making them sentient is pretty much like waking them up before killing them (because that is which is going to eventually happen either way). It would also be making them exponentially more dangerous as well. If just a couple sentient darkspawn could cause all the trouble seen in awakening (and wipe out a warden-filled vigil's keep) I think that allowing more to become sentient probably isn't the ideal if there's going to be a war.

So the only real advantage of siding with the Architect seems to be the end of blights. But hey, there are only two or so blights left AND the blights are triggered by darkspawn and pretty much just involve lots of darkspawn right? So another solution for the noble goal of the 'end of blights' is just a little bit of genocide then no more Old Gods becoming archdemons. Otherwise, the grey wardens know where the old gods are; what's stopping them for going on an Old God hunt? Sure it may involve a bit of digging but just get the dwarves to dig a few tunnels, stabbity-stab, no more blights. and this way all the poor widdle darkspawns are free from the call and have the freedom to run around causing whatever brain-less havoc they want to cause. It seems like making darkspawn sentient is a rather round-about method to create a tougher future enemy. Which might actually be a fun idea for all those who found nightmare difficulty too easy...

Okay, just to summarise: Either way, allowing darkspawn to become sentient is going to end up with conflict. There is no real chance of 'peace'. So why go through all the hassle of making them sentient, teaching them what is right and wrong, when it's probably going to end up all in flames anyhow? (and much hotter 'flames' now that they can use their brains). Unless you're an idealist, hoping for the perfect scenario somehow, I would say that there is no point really siding with the architect. Anyway, my warden usually is too vengeful after the Architect stole her clothes and gave it to some disgusting 'experiment' to even listen to what he says haha. Well hope you enjoyed my rant, saw lots of words and decided to join in the fun! Mr Afk (talk) 17:37, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

edit: Just realised I missed one possibility! (hard to believe given the amount I wrote haha) The possible scenario that most of the pro-Architect sayers seem to be angling at is the situation where the darkspawn somehow utterly disappear into the underground, stop annoying dwarves, and mind their own business...been philosophical or something. A world where the darkspawn aren't integrated into the world of other sentient beings. It's possible I guess, I vaguely remember something like that occurring the time I sided with the Architect. I guess if you consider a life perpetually underground with no purpose and no needs to be 'freedom' and such freedom to be very important then I guess you might face a larger ethical quandary than myself. I mean, it's hard to consider how such a life (no food, no 'reproduction', no..anything) could be fulfilling, but as has been pointed out before - they're an entirely new species!! It's not like dwarves, elves, humans even qunari despite been of different races are pretty much the same mentally; These newspawn enjoy doing nothing! So once all the mind-less darkspawn are liberated they're all going to sit around in the furthest corners of the underground and do absolutely nothing. Or maybe they'll become philanthropists and attempt to make the world a better place. Whatever it is, it seems a somewhat strange sort of existence/freedom. Shunned by the rest of the world with no needs and no purpose. Maybe they'll have a ball until the end of time. Who knows I guess? Maybe my warden shouldn't have pin-cushioned the Architect with arrows..haha Mr Afk (talk) 18:04, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone, yet another lurker speaking up here. Anyway, just wanted to point out that you seem to be assuming that sentient darkspawn will be unable to grow and adapt. You talk about how their technology sucks and they're ugly (which, I mean, I agree, it's true) but nevertheless that does not mean they won't be able to grow and advance their technology once they're free of the 'beautiful song'. I mean, that search for the Old Gods pretty much defines their existence as it is. When it's gone they could very well learn to become productive members of Thedas. And they might take cues from the other races and use make-up? All in all, it's pretty darn mean to just kill somebody because they're ugly. You do bring up interesting points regarding what the dwarves will do about the deep roads though. MichaelCousland (talk) 18:07, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I'm not a lurker! I never bothered to read this thread properly until just then! Haha just thought it might be fun to get into another debate with Rath, seems like a good way to kill time. Anyway, you're missing my main point. It's not so much about their inability to grow and adapt. It is quite possible that given the support they could become 'civilised' by thedan (thedish?) standards anyway. What I was trying to say was that it is quite impossible for them to be accepted by the rest of the world...besides maybe the Qun. And it's hard to be a productive members of thedas when nobody wants to be associated with them (besides that weird qunari merchant who is frankly pretty freaky). Plus, with no needs they have no need to do anything, which somewhat destroys the incentive to work...unless they develop a liking for pretty things and need to fund their walk into capitalism.
As for the killing part...think of it as mercy killing :D Saving them from a sad, meaningless life of existentialistic depression. Or a painful inescapable death if they misbehaved. But i'm glad you liked my dwarven point, came up with it during my free-form spiel. haha and i'm pretty sure no make-up could make a darkspawn look good, and i really don't want to imagine, eurgh. Mr Afk (talk) 18:33, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I didn't mean you were a lurker, I just meant that--like with most forums--there are probably quite a few lurkers who enjoy watching vocal community members duke it out for fun. Anyway, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's quite impossible for the other races to come to accept the smart darkspawn. I think that's crossing into the same domain as the humans vs elves thing. We have no real way of knowing that the people of Thedas can't come to accept them. Certainly the darkspawn messenger that's been brought up is a step in the right direction though. It's unfair on everyone's part (whether we're talking elves and humans or darkspawn and the rest of civilization) to refuse to make an effort towards potential peace because they're waiting for the opposing side to do something. If one wants something to change, one must act. I mean honestly, while I would most definitely find the darkspawn to be terrifying and it would be hard to forget the fear, it doesn't mean we shouldn't give them the chance.
Ah, fair enough. Well I guess the elves definitely deserve something else to replace them on the bottom of the social ladder but i'm not sure that most of the regular thedians (thedes?) would be so forgiving as you. In ferelden, darkspawn had just recently terrorised the country side and butchered thousands of people. I think it'll take a while for them to come to accept the species which pretty much symbolises and epitomises evil in their religion (if not physically). And in the case of the dwarves, I'm not sure if they're just going to forget that they were reduced from a massive empire to two cities surrounded by crumbling ruins with a rather depleted population? Basically it's not like the darkspawn are some cute new innocent species, like some peaceful aliens discovered on a distant planet. Even though in some cases these newspawn might be exactly like the aliens in that analogy, the past conceptions and history behind the darkspawn race almost ensures that they will be universally hated by everyone. In any case, the likelihood that peaceful relations and mutual respect will develop is quite slim. Some red necks are going to take it upon themselves to slay a few 'monsters'. Or a few newspawn might think that killing humans is fun. Once that occurs there'll likely be a chain reaction/cascade. It might sound somewhat pessimistic but I would say that it isn't very feasible for darkspawn to be able to integrate into civilised society. The only option for any sentient darkspawn is hiding on the outskirts of thedas, avoiding the rest of the world (maybe living in a small city/village might be accepted if it was far away, out of sight, out of mind). Hm I guess they could also scurry around all hooded pretending to be human like the darkspawn messenger. But imagine if it was exposed while in a city. Pretty sure the guards would cut him down, no questions asked.
And I just thought of another analogy, (analogies are fun haha). If you had a species of dog which was completely brainless yet, through either magical or genetical intervention, you could increase the intelligence of the dog and make it somewhat sentient - is it wrong to prevent that intervention? The darkspawn seem to have always been brainless. How is altering them (using warden blood) such that they become sentient 'saving them'. It's like creating these sentient dogs (which would be pretty awesome but besides the point) and holding the fact that they used to be rabid murdering wolves who killed all your family and friends against them. Okay shit analogy but I cbf re-thinking it. As I said earlier, the idealist would give them a chance, hoping that they will not end up causing more trouble now they have a greater ability to do so, and hoping that thedas will forgive them for the actions of their brain-less past; but the more pragmatic and simple approach is to not give them that chance in the first place. And really, your warden's responsibility isn't to cause social change. Um as i'm rapidly losing coherency and definately any sort of succinctness, i think i should go sleep now haha Mr Afk (talk) 19:45, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
All good points to consider. Maybe I am a little more optimistic than some would be. Either way, that's my two cents on the matter, I suppose. Someone needs to try, at least. I do contend that it is my warden's responsibility to cause a social change, though. If we sit by and let things go on as they have been, then things won't grow. Change is good. I've never put my warden on the throne, because I don't think that would be his responsibility, but changing the way the world at large deals with the darkspawn is most definitely his business; but that's a discussion for another day, I think. MichaelCousland (talk) 22:53, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
@Mr Afk - Haha, I didn't know debates with me are that much fun. Let me just say, all your points are valid. I'm not really an idealist, although yes, I can see why it might seem that way. I should say however, that my view of the situation is slightly different. I don't actually HOPE that the darkspawn will not be a threat, I only know that they MIGHT not be if siding with Architect. I know that by the way that it sounds, it actually weakens my case, but that's the whole point I was trying to make. Not what they WILL do, but rather that the future is uncertain. Now, that aside, what I am after is not the HOPE for peace either, only that there is a chance for it. And yes, while true peace is certainly, as some would say, unattainable, the same can be said of humans fighting humans as well.
Take your analogy with the rabid murdering dog. I'll use a slightly different analogy, since I like dogs, if you don't mind. :) Say a shark kills my family. It does so because it doesn't know any better. It's in its nature to investigate by biting and with razor-sharp teeth. Does that I mean I kill all sharks? If that shark were to suddenly become sentient, and realize what a horrible thing it has done, throws itself at my mercy and asks for forgiveness, will I? I might not forgive its past actions, I may hate it for what it did, but knowing that it had no capability of thinking for itself or considering the possible consequences of its actions at the time of the act, I would not kill it simply out of spite, nor would I be "pragmatic" and simply kill it just because the solution to preventing more shark attacks were to simply kill all sharks.
I'll do you one better, even. Say I'm the leader of a nation and I'm at war with another nation. If they surrender, do I simply wipe them out? Let's not even say they were forced or mind-controlled into doing it. Wiping them out is easy, simple, and effective. After all, it is a sure way that they will never be a threat, no assassins will come after me for revenge, and there will be 'peace'. I don't think I could, honestly. (And to other posters, let me clarify that I am using this analogy to tackle the issue of whether or not wiping out a people because they are a potential threat is acceptable to me, not to claim that humans are the same as darkspawn---which I believe is a separate issue) Rath101 (talk) 07:48, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, (wow, I do write a lot, don't I), it's a situation similar to whether or not to kill the Rachni in Mass Effect (fingers crossed and hoping that everyone has played Mass Effect to get the analogy---because if you haven't played it---WTF are you doing reading this post?!?! BUT IT AND PLAY IT NOW!!!---end of advertisement). Do you kill the Rachni Queen, a fertile member of a powerful race that nearly overran the galaxy, nearly wiping out all civilizations, and was responsible for the deaths of (possibly) millions?! But the Rachni Queen claims it had no hand in that, it never wanted a war (and was in fact an egg during the time of the war), and swears it only wishes to be left alone and in peace, never to bother the galaxy again. Same difference, morality-wise, to the darkspawn issue. The darkspawn never "wanted" to go to war, or "wanted" to raid and pillage. We don't know what they want. Similarly speaking, we don't know what the rachni want either. Nobody ever talked to them, nobody knew exactly what started the war. Maybe the galaxy's civilizations started it by invading rachni territory and they were simply being territorial. Maybe they accidentally burned a nest or two when they landed their ships on a rachni planet. Maybe the rachni are just vicious man-eating creatures and will bring the civilizations of the galaxy to extinction once again. Maybe. It seems a practical decision such as simply killing the darn thing is acceptable to prevent the chance of galaxy-wide extinction. Still, I didn't---it just seemed wrong. In the words of Commander Shepard---"We'll fight and win without it. I won't let fear compromise who I am." Because you can bet, if the situation were reversed, if humans had been mind-controlled into attacking another race and they had me at their mercy were I in the Architect's place, I'd want a chance to save humanity. If humans can choose their destiny, darkspawn ought to be able to choose theirs. If they choose a destiny that involves invading the surface once again---then I'll hand their asses to them on a platter. But not before. Why? Maybe for the simple reason that I'd want the chance to choose if I were in their place. Rath101 (talk) 08:08, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

You cannot commit genocide simply because they are ugly, some think that the Dwarves are ugly but there is no moral debate about destroying them. Desmond Cousland (talk) 13:13, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

@Desmond - Haha i'm sure there are many offended dwarves out there now, but my first statement about darkspawn been too ugly to live was more of a precursor hyperbole/exaggerated statement which was to lead to my main argument(and be inflammatory :P). I'm not saying that darkspawn should be eradicated from the world due to their looks; I was suggesting that their looks (as well as their history) contributed to their inability to find a place in civilised society and that a conflict with them would be the inevitable result. Thus making them sentient would be pointless, only serving to ensure that the future conflicts take a heavier toll of human, dwarvish and elvish lives. Anything that cannot coexist with mankind will usually end up somewhat extinct. For example, Dragons. I would consider them to be better looking than darkspawn but due to the way they devastated the countryside, they were hunted close to extinction. So even if these sentient darkspawn desired a peaceful happy solution, unless a miracle occurs-due to the reasons I ranted on about, I am quite sure that 'destroying them' will appear on the agenda. And just so you know, i'm not endorsing genocide; I'm endorsing not allowing them sentience so that such actions aren't required. Plus you want some darkspawn around for the odd day you feel like a bit of monster slaying. The zombies deserve a break
@Rath - Okay, maybe I shouldn't use the word 'fun', but it IS somewhat satisfying to have a person respond with a similar sized wall of text. Seems like we both share the flaw of been a little verbose :P Plus the only reason why I joined in this discussion was because the general consensus seemed to be set with the Architect (and I do enjoy stirring things up). But yes, I do get your point and your analogies. But first, is it just me or is the rachni storyline EXACTLY the same as that in ender's game? (If you haven't read the book, read it! haha) Anyhow, both Rachni and Buggers are insect-like; utilise a hive-mind controlled by the queen/share information across generations - and in both cases they are pretty much extinct (down to one queen) and it is up to the protagonist to choose to save them or not. I wonder if that is taking the 'inspiration' line too far? Or did they ask permission to practically copy those ideas?
Okay, back to the topic at hand; I think it really depends on the person. While the extermination of a whole country might be a little bit extreme, following a war it would make sense to neutralise any potential threats - hence why royalty/potential rebellion leaders/trouble-makers might be hunted down and executed (if the war is one of conquest). Destroying the entire populace would just be reducing the productivity of the land. In a world where slavery is still practiced, the execution of darkspawn (who aren't even sentient but have the potential to be) to remove their threat would hardly cause a stir. If the rachni weren't never showed sentience and never asked for peace would you give them additional weapons/intelligence to make them even more dangerous in the hope of maybe communicating and working out some mutual agreement? Or would you treat them like the monsters they were and try to kill them before they killed you? The same deal applies here; You have unthinking beings which are stock-standard monster material. Why would you try to make them less of a monster and deal with them - then pray that they don't decide to attack one day. In the case of the rachni the queen has control over what her race will do. The Architect is merely hoping that they will see reason and follow his example in looking for peace. So in terms of risk-benefit the warden is weighing the unspoken promise that the newspawn desire peace against potentially sacrificing all of thedas to the intelligent darkspawn if decided to go to war. It might not happen but there is a chance. Meanwhile the rachni, while dangerous, are so depleted in numbers such that if the queen broke her spoken promise, commander shepard and all the galaxy could descend on them and most likely defeat them again (though it might mean fixing the krogans). So what is at stake is on quite a different scale. And also, in this case the option isn't to conduct genocide. It is to deny or endorse the granting of sentience to darkspawn. Given the example of the mother maybe in this case the ethically right thing to do might not be so clear-cut. Mr Afk (talk) 18:04, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

I kill him because then there would be no more Blights and no Blights means no more Grey Wardens and no more Grey Wardens means no more fun... —Rocketai (Ho there! Chase my tail!) 18:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.