Poll: Video Gamings Most One Sided Arguments.

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I'd say that discussions about favorite romances from Persona 3 and 4 tend to be quite one sided with people favoring Chie and Naoto more than anyone else.

After my first playthrough in which I romanced every single important female character, I can safely say that my choice for favorite romance in Persona 4 is either going to be Rise or Yukiko from now on. Because, and this in my opinion, after that awkward Valentine's Day moment, I swear Yukiko was going to create a new fire based spell called "Amagidyne" and completely nuke my ass (and subsequently the rest of my anatomy, with her aim pointing toward one, or three, particular bit) from orbit to make sure I was dead.

And then Rise because when you can access every Persona in the sea of thy soul, what better complimentary life partner than one who can analyze everything and everyone you meet?

(Incidentally, I did choose Naoto on my first playthrough. She IS that awesome.)

OT: There are no sides. There's me...and then there's death. No sides whatsoever, just my little happiness bubble. ^.^

 

[Nexxis]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

And grats! You made your first thread.

I agree with this. At one point, I checked on a forum on another game site to see which side people chose. At first, it seemed unanimously Stormcloak. The primary reason seemed to be that the Empire was trying to execute you at the beginning. However, once other people started mentioning their behavior (especially the racism), it seemed like people began to switch sides on mass.

They have a very worthwhile causes: Independence from foreign oppression. They're basically invoking our modern right of self-determination of peoples in international law. Also, they fight for the freedom to practice their religion: They want to be able to worship Talos. These are both causes that many of us would support in the real world.
Sure, their support in the populace might not have be overwhelming, they're pretty racist, and their rebellion weakens the empire and thus makes it more likely that, eventually, Skyrim will be subjugated by an arguably more oppressive regime, the Thalmor - but that's precisely what makes the question ambiguous.

I think the overall issue that rubbed people the wrong way is that the Stormcloaks kept their own interests in mind, no matter the cost. While they couldn't practice their religion in public, the empire was willing to turn a blind eye to any worship that didn't happen out in the open. The actions of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks screwed that up because they weren't happy worshiping Talos in secret, even if it was for the greater good of the empire. It makes them come off as a bit selfish. I could understand if their religion was completely stripped from them but it wasn't. That was until the Stormcloaks threw a tantrum alerting the Thalmor that worship was still going on.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

For human augmentation, it's pretty obvious why one side gets all the support; it's because they're right and the DE:HR shoves plenty of evidence of that fact in everyone's faces. Augmented people are smarter, stronger, faster, more charismatic, and come equipped with shades in their face or guns in their arm, with the only problems being the expense and the drug they need to use, both of which, unless I'm completely forgetting the story (completely possible) were close to being solved at the time the story takes place.

For the Mage/Templar struggle, I wouldn't call it one sided. I'm of the belief that the Circle (the one from Origins) works perfectly well, though some extra freedoms should probably be given. Considering that mages are walking time bombs for demons, reality warping, blood magic, and killing lots of things, they certainly can't be allowed to just walk around freely without threatening basically everyone. And, considering the setting is medieval, they should be fucking happy they get to live a cushy life in a giant stone tower with nice beds, warm meals, zero responsibilities, and no threat of being murdered by some bandit or a lord you pissed off. Sure, they're not living like a lord or a king, but they don't have to work the fields for hours a day and worry about starving or being in constant fear for their life.

Excellent points. I think you are right about them being close to solving the expensiveness of augmentation(to a degree), and the need of drugs. Granted they weren't very clear about how well that was going to go, and I've just played that game, so I don't know what happens in the future.

As for the Mage/Templar business. I agree that the cycle can work, but not the way the Templars want to run it.
Yes mages are safe from the day to day trials of life, but some actually want to live like that. Working the fields, building their own homes, starting a family.

Living comes with risks. However, with the risks come rewards. From becoming a land barren, to simply watching your kids learn and grow.

I think the biggest problem is the mentality of it. The Templars are suppose to keep the mages safe, but they seem more occupied with just keeping them away from the rest of the world.

Plus, every mage MUST risk their life at some point to attempt the Harrowing, or die/become a Tranquil(I would say it's a worse fate). That's the problem. They don't want them to become monsters, but they don't treat, or even sometime let them act like people.

 

[Abomination]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

They have a very worthwhile causes: Independence from foreign oppression. They're basically invoking our modern right of self-determination of peoples in international law. Also, they fight for the freedom to practice their religion: They want to be able to worship Talos. These are both causes that many of us would support in the real world.
Sure, their support in the populace might not have be overwhelming, they're pretty racist, and their rebellion weakens the empire and thus makes it more likely that, eventually, Skyrim will be subjugated by an arguably more oppressive regime, the Thalmor - but that's precisely what makes the question ambiguous.

Actually it's what makes the question pretty straight-forward - their intentions and methods will ultimately lead to their OWN downfall. They think they have it bad now? Without the Empire the Thalmor would be easily capable of throwing its full might at the place.

Not only are they weakening the Empire - the only thing protecting them from the full might of the Thalmor - but they're bringing about their utter destruction by doing so. Skyrim has always been part of the Empire, it's where the damn thing started. Splitting off from the Empire is just like cutting your own head off because you've got a thorn in your foot.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Hmmm... how about choosing between the factions in Fallout: New Vegas?
I'm not sure if this counts, as it's not really an example where the majority of players favored one side over another. Rather, it's one where most of them AVOIDED a particular side over all other side.

I am talking about Caesar's Legion. I don't know any player who genuinely supports them, what with their slavery, misogyny, and conquering anyone that's not them. Practically speaking, it's also pretty hard to play as a Legion-supporting character, as the NCR controls a lot of the Mojave.

Well I think the issue is the while I can't see MANY people REALLY being for the Legion(and as you said, it's can actually just be harder to play to game if you go for them right away). The other issue is that the other sides are a bit harder to chose between(House, NCR, Independent Vegas). So you can't really call it that one sided, ya know?

That said, the Legion is most certainly the least supported by the players. I mean hell, with the whole women can be nothing but slaves and baby makers thing, that pretty much losses most people.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

And grats! You made your first thread.

I agree with this. At one point, I checked on a forum on another game site to see which side people chose. At first, it seemed unanimously Stormcloak. The primary reason seemed to be that the Empire was trying to execute you at the beginning. However, once other people started mentioning their behavior (especially the racism), it seemed like people began to switch sides on mass.

They have a very worthwhile causes: Independence from foreign oppression. They're basically invoking our modern right of self-determination of peoples in international law. Also, they fight for the freedom to practice their religion: They want to be able to worship Talos. These are both causes that many of us would support in the real world.
Sure, their support in the populace might not have be overwhelming, they're pretty racist, and their rebellion weakens the empire and thus makes it more likely that, eventually, Skyrim will be subjugated by an arguably more oppressive regime, the Thalmor - but that's precisely what makes the question ambiguous.

I think the overall issue that rubbed people the wrong way is that the Stormcloaks kept their own interests in mind, no matter the cost. While they couldn't practice their religion in public, the empire was willing to turn a blind eye to any worship that didn't happen out in the open. The actions of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks screwed that up because they weren't happy worshiping Talos in secret, even if it was for the greater good of the empire. It makes them come off as a bit selfish. I could understand if their religion was completely stripped from them but it wasn't. That was until the Stormcloaks threw a tantrum alerting the Thalmor that worship was still going on.

I honestly made a Stormcloak character just because. I didnt agree with their rebellion at all. I can see where they would be coming from, but at the same time, I can also se just how fucking blind they are. They're rebelling against the Empire for not fighting for their right to worship Talos, yet they are weakening the Empire, making it easier for the Thalmor to roll on in and take everything over. "Yeah, you rebel and get to worship Talos in the open... till the Thalmor bust down your door because the Empire was to weak to fend them off... now you're all subjegated by thalmor... Good job Stormcloaks."

 

[CloudAtlas]

That's a good one. Though, with the reapers breathing down you neck, it can make it easier to chose. Unless you were completely on the fence.
For me, I just figured, if they infected them with the stuff twice, I think they can do it again, so why not just cure it now, and if they act up, infect them again! Plus I tursted Wrex.

To me, the "Salarian argument" - we need the genophage to keep the Krogan in check in the future - is not what made the decision difficult - although the game tries its best to frame this argument as to make it matter. At the time when you have to make the decision, you know that you're fighting in a war against the extinction of all advanced life in the galaxy, and your situation is desperate. Conflicts that might or might not arise after this war is won, if it is won at all, which doesn't seem likely in the first place, has absolutely zero relevance.
I doubt that even the Salarians think that the genophage was the morally right thing to do in itself: you're almost sterilizing an entire species, and the effect that this has on the fabric of society of this species were horrible. But they felt it was necessary, that is, they justify the genophage with the Greater Good. They adopt the utilitarian position: The ends justify the means. But now, the situation has changed: The Salarian position of not curing the genophage is not only morally wrong, and unambiguously so I would argue, it is now also detrimental to the Greater Good. The only thing that does matter from the utilitarian perspective now is not being annihilated, and keeping the genophage is reducing the Krogan war effort, and thus increasing the chance of annihilation.

Unfortunately, the Salarians are incredibly stupid, and that's not the decision the player has to make: He has to decide between curing the genophage, thus winning the Krogan support but loosing the Salarian support (or parts thereof, and only with some likelihood; you can't know whether they get some sense reverse their decision later), or not curing the genophage, thus winning the Salarian support and risk loosing the Krogan support (if they find out).
So you have to decide whether the Krogan or the Salarian support is more valuable for the war, and what the chances of gaining/loosing either are after your decision, i.e. which decision contributes more to the Greater Good, winning the war. And you also have to decide, if this assessment favors the Salarians, whether this difference justifies the (unambigously) immoral act of not curing the genophage, lying about it to the Krogans, and, at the end, killing a dear friend for it.
Here, some say every alternative is preferable to extinction, and thus move such moral considerations to the back seat - and indeed, utilitarian considerations tend to prevail in war, especially in total war, because the stakes are incredibly high - and I tend to agree with this view, but you can also argue that, if in order to survive you have to commit deeply immoral acts, it's not worth surviving. (To choose a real life example, think about cannibalism: is it morally permissible to eat fellow human beings to survive?)

The game pulls every emotional string to make you opt for curing the genophage, and so, if I remember some BioWare stats correctly, it's probably no surprise that 80% of all people choose the cure, but still, I found it damn hard.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Well in Skyrim I always found the civil war ridiculously one sided.

The Stormcloaks were basically dipshits and political terrorists without a worthwhile cause. So I naturally sided with the empire and stamped them out in the name of the glorious Emperor.

They have a very worthwhile causes: Independence from foreign oppression. They're basically invoking our modern right of self-determination of peoples in international law. Also, they fight for the freedom to practice their religion: They want to be able to worship Talos. These are both causes that many of us would support in the real world.
Sure, their support in the populace might not have be overwhelming, they're pretty racist, and their rebellion weakens the empire and thus makes it more likely that, eventually, Skyrim will be subjugated by an arguably more oppressive regime, the Thalmor - but that's precisely what makes the question ambiguous.

Actually it's what makes the question pretty straight-forward - their intentions and methods will ultimately lead to their OWN downfall. They think they have it bad now? Without the Empire the Thalmor would be easily capable of throwing its full might at the place.

Not only are they weakening the Empire - the only thing protecting them from the full might of the Thalmor - but they're bringing about their utter destruction by doing so. Skyrim has always been part of the Empire, it's where the damn thing started. Splitting off from the Empire is just like cutting your own head off because you've got a thorn in your foot.

Good points. Though I have heard people say that the Thalmor don't really have the power to take Skyrim quite yet. They bring up that Hammerfell already fought them off, and that the Thalmor themselves don't want the war to end.

That said, the Thalmor are the greater threat in this situation, even if they aren't SO dire.
And as they say; "Divide and conquer".

So, I'm on the Empires side. Besides, Ulfric is a jerk. ;p

 

[CloudAtlas]

I think the overall issue that rubbed people the wrong way is that the Stormcloaks kept their own interests in mind, no matter the cost. While they couldn't practice their religion in public, the empire was willing to turn a blind eye to any worship that didn't happen out in the open. The actions of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks screwed that up because they weren't happy worshiping Talos in secret, even if it was for the greater good of the empire. It makes them come off as a bit selfish. I could understand if their religion was completely stripped from them but it wasn't. That was until the Stormcloaks threw a tantrum alerting the Thalmor that worship was still going on.

Oh, don't get me wrong: It was an easy decision for me every time: I always picked the empire - the desire for seeing additional content was never stronger than my feeling of what is morally right, even if it's just a virtual world. But it still is, I think, not morally unambiguous.

I think I played an imperial and a wood elf first, so they both are naturally not very sympathetic to both the Thalmor, and thus kinda fond of the Empire, nor the racist Stormcloaks.
And, roleplaying aside, while I do value the right of self-determination of people, I believe it is forfeit if the people invoking this right are themselves violating other (and perhaps even more) fundamental human (or... elven?) rights. Putting foreigners/minorities in ghettos, kicking them out of Skyrim, or tolerating the murder of individuals of these groups, these are all pretty heavy infringements on the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' of these individuals. Or, I consider those rights as more essential than the right of self-determination, so they supersede the latter. (And in actual policy this means I think the international community has an obligation to intervene in other countries, with force if necessary, when those fundamental rights are grossly violated (Rwanda), and you can reasonably assume that your intervention changes the situation for the better).

Actually it's what makes the question pretty straight-forward - their intentions and methods will ultimately lead to their OWN downfall. They think they have it bad now? Without the Empire the Thalmor would be easily capable of throwing its full might at the place.

Yes, that is true, but it still doesn't automatically invalidate their right of self-determination. This right doesn't automatically expire if you make bad decisions, neither for individuals nor for people.
Anyway, rejecting the Empire doesn't automatically bring upon Thalmor domination upon Skyrim. It just, probably, increases the chances of that happening at some point in the future.

 

[Abomination]

Good points. Though I have heard people say that the Thalmor don't really have the power to take Skyrim quite yet. They bring up that Hammerfell already fought them off, and that the Thalmor themselves don't want the war to end.

That said, the Thalmor are the greater threat in this situation, even if they aren't SO dire.
And as they say; "Divide and conquer".

So, I'm on the Empires side. Besides, Ulfric is a jerk. ;p

Hammerfell is able to hold off the Thalmor, but Hammerfell isn't independent.

What if Hammerfell was independent? Could they still do it? What if they had to have a civil war to gain that independence? One could hardly say they'd be in a better position to fight the Thalmor. What's more, Skyrim itself is divided on the issue. This isn't just the entire province raising up, it's about one third the province rising up, another third of the province trying to put that rebellion down and another third just wishing the one rising up would stop it but not wanting to get its hands dirty.

The Stormcloak are dicks... they're also the worst kind of dicks: they're stupid dicks.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

That's a good one. Though, with the reapers breathing down you neck, it can make it easier to chose. Unless you were completely on the fence.
For me, I just figured, if they infected them with the stuff twice, I think they can do it again, so why not just cure it now, and if they act up, infect them again! Plus I tursted Wrex.

Spoiler: It's not dead, just sleeping.

To me, the "Salarian argument" - we need the genophage to keep the Krogan in check in the future - is not what made the decision difficult - although the game tries its best to frame this argument as to make it matter. At the time when you have to make the decision, you know that you're fighting in a war against the extinction of all advanced life in the galaxy, and your situation is desperate. Conflicts that might or might not arise after this war is won, if it is won at all, which doesn't seem likely in the first place, has absolutely zero relevance.
I doubt that even the Salarians think that the genophage was the morally right thing to do in itself: you're almost sterilizing an entire species, and the effect that this has on the fabric of society of this species were horrible. But they felt it was necessary, that is, they justify the genophage with the Greater Good. They adopt the utilitarian position: The ends justify the means. But now, the situation has changed: The Salarian position of not curing the genophage is not only morally wrong, and unambiguously so I would argue, it is now also detrimental to the Greater Good. The only thing that does matter from the utilitarian perspective now is not being annihilated, and keeping the genophage is reducing the Krogan war effort, and thus increasing the chance of annihilation.

Unfortunately, the Salarians are incredibly stupid, and that's not the decision the player has to make: He has to decide between curing the genophage, thus winning the Krogan support but loosing the Salarian support (or parts thereof, and only with some likelihood; you can't know whether they get some sense reverse their decision later), or not curing the genophage, thus winning the Salarian support and risk loosing the Krogan support (if they find out).
So you have to decide whether the Krogan or the Salarian support is more valuable for the war, and what the chances of gaining/loosing either are after your decision, i.e. which decision contributes more to the Greater Good, winning the war. And you also have to decide, if this assessment favors the Salarians, whether this difference justifies the (unambigously) immoral act of not curing the genophage, lying about it to the Krogans, and, at the end, killing a dear friend for it.
Here, some say every alternative is preferable to extinction, and thus move such moral considerations to the back seat - and indeed, utilitarian considerations tend to prevail in war, especially in total war, because the stakes are incredibly high - and I tend to agree with this view, but you can also argue that, if in order to survive you have to commit deeply immoral acts, it's not worth surviving. (To choose a real life example, think about cannibalism: is it morally permissible to eat fellow human beings to survive?)

The game pulls every emotional string to make you opt for curing the genophage, and so, if I remember some BioWare stats correctly, it's probably no surprise that 80% of all people choose the cure, but still, I found it damn hard.

I know what ya mean. For most of the Bioware "big decisions" I actually didn't take that long to pick(granted I usually try for the middle path, have my cake and eat it too, so maybe that has something to do with it).

But there was one that I really did have to think about for a good long while.
The deal with Morrigan.

I came to trust Morrigan, even though she wasn't exactly the greatest human alive. But I was very worried about the deal. Worried that she was planning to do what her mother was going to do to her. Worried that she had something perhaps worse planed. I trusted her, but well, she is who she is. There was also the concern that even if it did work, would I want to lose her, and my child?

In the end, like with the genophage later, I decided that if I lived to see the next day after the fight I could then have a chance to deal with whatever consequences that came with the decision. And I did, kind of...
I guess(and hope) that I'll see how that plays out in inquisition.

 

[Abomination]

Yes, that is true, but it still doesn't automatically invalidate their right of self-determination. This right doesn't automatically expire if you make bad decisions, neither for individuals nor for people.

The thing is they're not JUST making a decision that's bad for themselves - it's bad for everyone APART from the Thalmor. Why do you think the Thalmor are there in the first place? They WANT the rebellion to happen, the Stormcloaks are just playing straight into their hands - the Empire can see it, but the Stormcloaks can't because they're stupid, racist, selfish morons.

They're self-determining themselves off a cliff, and dragging a quarter of the Empire with them.

 

[CloudAtlas]

snipity snip snip

I fail to see your point. The two reasons you really gave not to save the geth were "they may still have reaper code, and that may be bad maybe" and "ROBOTS DON'T HAVE SOULS".

Also, I would be much more favourable towards the quarians if it weren't for the fact unless you micromanage your previous playthroughs to engineer the "peace" route they basically destroy themselves after you specifically tell them to cut it out.

Well, but the second question is central for the morality question: Are the Geth alive? Is synthetic life life at all, and if yes, is it of the same value as organic life? If they are not alive, then they're pretty much just machines. And if you are sure in your decision that they are just machines, would you still save the machines over "humans", no matter how much those humans are at fault?
Let's say, and I hope you bear with my perhaps not-extremely-intuitive example here, the pilot of a plane full of passengers is steering his machine right into a Reaper drone. That's a pretty expensive drone, pretty "intelligent", and with a name too fitting to pass as example. You tell him a hundred times to change course, but he doesn't. Now your only options are to shoot down the drone, shoot down the plane, or do nothing and loose both. Would you shoot down the passenger plane, because it's the pilot fault and he is too stubborn to listen, even though the drone is just a machine, and even though the plane is full of passengers? Remember, it's not like every Quarian thought going to war with the Geth is a swell idea, but many of them will die nonetheless if you pick the Geth.
You're killing of innocents just because their leaders made bad decisions, just so you don't have to destroy some piece of machinery (provided you think Geth are not life). That's what it boils down to. And if that makes an easy decision for you, in favor of the Geth, well, then I can't understand you.


The second question is not unimportant either. The Geth will have the Reaper code, and nobody knows what it exactly does. The reapers certainly didn't help the Geth out of altruism, and the Geth can't be sure that it affect them in some way. It might be some gateway to something like indoctrination, and indoctrination is a threat that is very real, and very present, and very central over the course of the game. To give a real-world analogy: If the US and China ever went to war, I would imagine that the US would be pretty wary about using complex IT equipment made in China in their fighter planes.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Yes, that is true, but it still doesn't automatically invalidate their right of self-determination. This right doesn't automatically expire if you make bad decisions, neither for individuals nor for people.

The thing is they're not JUST making a decision that's bad for themselves - it's bad for everyone APART from the Thalmor. Why do you think the Thalmor are there in the first place? They WANT the rebellion to happen, the Stormcloaks are just playing straight into their hands - the Empire can see it, but the Stormcloaks can't because they're stupid, racist, selfish morons.

They're self-determining themselves off a cliff, and dragging a quarter of the Empire with them.

You are, again, totally right. And keep in mind that I agree with your decision, and that I feel quite safe in this decision, morally. However, I still recognize that its not entirely unambiguous.

And many decisions you make for yourself have adverse consequences on others, and they can be sometimes dire - the question is where you draw the line. And that's a question every society is struggling with. Yea, obviously, in no civilized country would I be free to kill you just because I want to (well, unless I'm in Florida and feel vaguely threatened by you), but I would be, for instance, free to smoke if I was pregnant, thus potentially harming my child severely. And a hypothetical country during 1933-45 would have also been free to throw out the British oppressors, embrace Hitler, thus making life for its own citizens worse (and much worse for its Jews), increasing the strength of the Third Reich, with all the bad consequences this has for the world.

And in reality, too, many people defend the non-interference principle in national matters in foreign affairs, even if (the leaders of) these nations use their right of self-determination to commit horrible atrocities against their population.
I'm not one of them, and I think they're wrong, I think their moral arguments are wrong, but I must still admit that these arguments exist.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: This stuff.

As for the Mage/Templar business. I agree that the cycle can work, but not the way the Templars want to run it.
Yes mages are safe from the day to day trials of life, but some actually want to live like that. Working the fields, building their own homes, starting a family.

Living comes with risks. However, with the risks come rewards. From becoming a land barren, to simply watching your kids learn and grow.

I think the biggest problem is the mentality of it. The Templars are suppose to keep the mages safe, but they seem more occupied with just keeping them away from the rest of the world.

Spoiler: That stuff.

The thing about life being about risk/reward is that, for most, there really isn't any life changing situations like that. Maybe one or two of the commoner mages would have gone on to be something great if they weren't mages, but everyone else would ply their parents' trade, work their parents' field, and live a life that is constantly being determined by others, whether that be in the form of lords issuing commands, criminals attacking you, or the sky deciding that it doesn't want to give you any water. At least in the Circle they all receive an education, are (supposed to be) protected from all harm, and are taught how to better use their amazing talents.

Not to mention that letting them loose on the world means letting lots of people who can cause huge amounts of damage with the thought, and that's without the fact that they are constantly being tempted by demons and blood magic. Abominations and blood mages aren't super common because most of the mages can't give in to either without being executed by the Templars; take those watchful eyes and constant threats away from them and super magic probably starts looking a whole lot better.

Though, the Circle should definitely undergo a good amount of reforms to make the mages feel less like prisoners and make them a bit more productive as well. Maybe set up on an island with more land and allow the mages to live outside and establish families and have children while farming or working on something when they're not studying magic. You'd have to make sure that the entire coast is secure at all times, and that would take a lot more effort, but it would make the mages content and productive, while keeping them contained, safe, and away from people they could harm. Give some technological advancements in ship building and it might not even take that much to secure the island other than a few ships patrolling.

Spoiler: More stuff!

Plus, every mage MUST risk their life at some point to attempt the Harrowing, or die/become a Tranquil(I would say it's a worse fate). That's the problem. They don't want them to become monsters, but they don't treat, or even sometime let them act like people.

Spoiler: EVEN MORE STUFF!

Well the Harrowing, for all its hype and suspense, isn't that harrowing, regardless of the fact that that's what I always tell Jowan. Other than fighting some lesser spirits--a good test to make sure that you won't succumb to any random spirit that touches your mind--the only thing you have to do is follow the lessons you've been taught and the directions you were given.

Don't believe what you see in the Fade and make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, comes back with you. If you can't follow that instruction, or defeat one of the weakest demons there are, you are pretty much constantly at risk of possession and a constant danger to those around you.

Don't get me wrong. I see what ya mean, and the compromises you propose are more than enough I think(It could even be done without having to move them all to an island I'd say).

Granted, while I do agree mages should have some regulation(including self regulation too), I don't agree with the idea that even if you just let them all go do what they want, that they'd turn into Tevinter. Most likely most mages would just stay in the towers, but once in a while go out to see the world, or visit their families. Even if some go straight for the "mad mage" path, Tevinter wasn't made in a day.

Tevinter was made in a culture the treated those with magic like royalty. In most of the world(mostly because of how Tevinter acted) magic is one of the most distrusted things ever. I'm not saying mages couldn't or wouldn't take at least some control over time, but it wouldn't be as easy as Templars talk it up to be.

As for the Harrowing? Eh. I liked it. The Fade was my favorite part of the game/world.
My favorite bit was the very end with the demon. Mouse's parting words.
"Keep your wits about you mage, true tests never end..."

That really is the "mage experience" in Dragon Age in sentence. A never ending series of tests.

Also, from the side content (the books) we learn that there is now a new way to lessen a mages powers without making them Tranquil. However, because it also allows for a way to untranquilfi a mage the Templars(or at least the ones in charge) try to kill everyone who knows about it.
And in the end that, plus the stuff from Dragon Age 2, starts the war.

Oh well, we can fix it. ;D

Spoiler: Skyrim junk.

Good points. Though I have heard people say that the Thalmor don't really have the power to take Skyrim quite yet. They bring up that Hammerfell already fought them off, and that the Thalmor themselves don't want the war to end.

That said, the Thalmor are the greater threat in this situation, even if they aren't SO dire.
And as they say; "Divide and conquer".

So, I'm on the Empires side. Besides,

Ulfric is a jerk. ;p

Hammerfell is able to hold off the Thalmor, but Hammerfell isn't independent.

What if Hammerfell was independent? Could they still do it? What if they had to have a civil war to gain that independence? One could hardly say they'd be in a better position to fight the Thalmor. What's more, Skyrim itself is divided on the issue. This isn't just the entire province raising up, it's about one third the province rising up, another third of the province trying to put that rebellion down and another third just wishing the one rising up would stop it but not wanting to get its hands dirty.

The Stormcloak are dicks... they're also the worst kind of dicks: they're stupid dicks.

Are you sure? Didn't they separate from the Empire? Or did they fight with another land against the Thalmor?

I'm not the best at the lore. Beffudled Sheep on the other hand, well, that guy knows everything about it!

 

[Abomination]

but I would be, for instance, free to smoke if I was pregnant, thus potentially harming my child severely.

It isn't my child and so I wouldn't give a damn and I have no dog in the fight. For that reason nobody would get to stop you.

And a hypothetical country during 1933-45 would have also been free to throw out the British oppressors, embrace Hitler, thus making life for its own citizens worse (and much worse for its Jews), increasing the strength of the Third Reich, with all the bad consequences this has for the world.

And the British would be well within their rights to enact THEIR self-determinism by keeping their colonies in line. This is because they stand to suffer for the loss of them and anyone else who stood to suffer should they lose them would have cause to assist the British.

And in reality, too, many people defend the non-interference principle in national matters in foreign affairs, even if (the leaders of) these nations use their right of self-determination to commit horrible atrocities against their population.

This is another case of other nations having no dog in the fight. While I feel if you can improve a situation such as that you SHOULD improve it, no modern nation has the capability or surplus of funds to do so.

I'm not one of them, and I think they're wrong, I think their moral arguments are wrong, but I must still admit that these arguments exist.

The argument existing is not a point in its favor when the thing they're arguing for is fundamentally flawed in both in goal and method as well as being self-defeating. To use you as the pregnant and smoking mother example it would be as though the you are demanding to steal MY money to buy cigarettes because now you don't have to pay for them so you can afford to provide your baby with better medical care... oh, and I'm the baby-daddy who wants to have a healthy child. Oh, and it's the doctor who you will pay the medical care costs to who convinced you to steal the cigarettes and start smoking while pregnant.

 

[Legomaniac91_v1legacy]

I always saw the Mage/Templar conflict having many parallels to the Human/Mutant conflicts in the X-men comics; a group of people with powers and abilities that are being persecuted for being perceived as dangerous or different. Except the mages don't have a Professor X or magneto stand in yet.

With the human augmentation debate, I've gotta go with Yahtzee on this one: "If there's a conflict growing between people with ocean liner pistons for forearms and a group of people who think everyone should be forced to be as shit as they are, I know which side I'm on!"

 

[CloudAtlas]

but I would be, for instance, free to smoke if I was pregnant, thus potentially harming my child severely.

It isn't my child and so I wouldn't give a damn and I have no dog in the fight. For that reason nobody would get to stop you.

But it does affect you, even if only indirectly: A sick or disabled child means higher expenses for health care, for which you too have to pay in most western countries via taxes/health care contributions. And even if you don't, such a child is less likely to become successful, professionally, and end up as net payer into the tax system of your country. And everybody who is not a net payer costs you.

And in reality, too, many people defend the non-interference principle in national matters in foreign affairs, even if (the leaders of) these nations use their right of self-determination to commit horrible atrocities against their population.

This is another case of other nations having no dog in the fight. While I feel if you can improve a situation such as that you SHOULD improve it, no modern nation has the capability or surplus of funds to do so.

Many modern nations have the capabilities and the funds and did and still do intervene. They do so in Mali currently, they did so in Libya, in Kosovo, in former Yugoslavia, they could and should have done so in Rwanda and Sudan... and those are just the conflicts I can remember.
Sure, these interventions will have rarely been entirely selfless, but I'm not so cynical as to assume that humanitarian reasons didn't play a part.

I'm not one of them, and I think they're wrong, I think their moral arguments are wrong, but I must still admit that these arguments exist.

The argument existing is not a point in its favor when the thing they're arguing for is fundamentally flawed in both in goal and method as well as being self-defeating.

Sorry, but that's not how moralilty works. There are arguments that are arguably wrong on any account, to be sure, and they are plentiful. But statements that you believe are wrong, to a larger or lesser degree, but that are totally right within a different morality system. Now you might say that system is wrong too - and you most likely will, after all you believe in a different one - but if you actually deal with moral philosophy, with the different popular morality systems (like utilitarism, communitarism, libertarianism, the writings of Kant or Rawls, some systems based on religion, and so on), you will still have to admit that the arguments your proponents may have some merit, even though you fundamentally agree with them.

If people knew more about moral philosophy, they would understand better why some moral questions that seem very clear to them are, in fact, not, or if they do, have a better understanding of why that is so.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Let's say, and I hope you bear with my perhaps not-extremely-intuitive example here, the pilot of a plane full of passengers is steering his machine right into a Reaper drone. That's a pretty expensive drone, pretty "intelligent", and with a name too fitting to pass as example. You tell him a hundred times to change course, but he doesn't. Now your only options are to shoot down the drone, shoot down the plane, or do nothing and loose both. Would you shoot down the passenger plane, because it's the pilot fault and he is too stubborn to listen, even though the drone is just a machine, and even though the plane is full of passengers?

Except the game pretty clearly states that the geth will become self-aware if Legion uploads the code. That's pretty different from a manned drone. Also, you don't "lose both" if you do nothing. The geth win.

Remember, it's not like every Quarian thought going to war with the Geth is a swell idea, but many of them will die nonetheless if you pick the Geth.
You're killing of innocents just because their leaders made bad decisions, just so you don't have to destroy some piece of machinery.

...which wouldn't happen if the quarians didn't outfit their civilian ships with weapons to try and gain an edge.

The second question is not unimportant either. The Geth will have the Reaper code, and nobody knows what it exactly does. The reapers certainly didn't help the Geth out of altruism, and the Geth can't be sure that it affect them in some way.

All of which is negated at the end of the game. And apparently Legion knows what he's doing, as he can tell you the data will make them self-aware before uploading it.

I suppose the "correct" answer is peace, but considering the game hides this choice unless you micromanage in advance and frames this as one of the big morale choices it felt pretty one-sided when the game spends a couple of hours hammering how innocent the geth is before making you make it.