Alright, I do not know if anyone else has had this overbearing issue but I have become obsessed with the situation on whether or not to kill the Architect in Awakening. I have read The Calling and have listened to his plea however, I have a lot of concerns on if he is better off dead. I always end up taking forever to make this decision every time I play the game and I just wanted to know what others thought on this matter. What do you think will be the outcome of saving or killing him?--Fantasyeve87 15:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
This is the beauty of Dragon Age you know...something Mass Effect did not have. There is really no right or wrong here, and you just cannot judge whether your decision will have a positive outcome later or negative. I mean like at the end of ME2 there's this option whether you want to destroy or save the Collector Base, and while that could've been ambiguous, the game makes it pretty clear that destroying the base was the correct (paragon) way to go.
Anyway Dragon Age is a lot more subtle. And the Architect option is one such instance. When you listen to him speak, one actually feels convinced that he's right and that he means well. And perhaps he actually does....Perhaps he actually means well. Actually at this point having read The Calling is a drawback. Because if one's done that then one feels biased towards the Architect. If one judges him merely on the basis of his actions in Awakening, then there really isn't any reason why to kill him...one can afford to trust him. But having read The Calling, we know that while the Architect might mean well for the darkspawn and preach harmony and all, his plans nonetheless cause people to suffer and die.
All that said, I always kill the Architect. Reason being that even though he no longer plans on changing all humans in half-darkspawn (what he was planning in The Calling), and wants peace, still his plans in the future might well be as harmful to humans. And furthermore none of his attempts have been successful as yet....so insted of risking more death and leaving one more darkspawn alive, I kill him.
I also always spare the Messenger though (the one who comes to the Warden at the gates of Amaranthine) because I feel that one needs to be just and since the Messenger does a direct service to the Warden, he deserves life.IP no. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:05, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I gave the Messenger a chance and he made good; that later factored into my decision to give the Architect a pass. That and he seemed reasonable and well-intentioned enough that in order to judge him for his crimes, I would at least have to determine what those were. At that moment, I wasn't in a position to do so. DokEnkephalin (talk) 18:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
- To the anonymous poster, I truly wish that it were as easy as Mass Effect at times ha ha. I do know that the Architect did a lot of wrong in The Calling however, part of me feels that he is truly trying to help both his kind and the humans and I feel like because not many trust him (for obvious reasons) he never gets the chance to stop the blight. Then I think, regardless on if he is killed or not, I believe there is always a risk of a Blight. To DokEnkephalin, that is exactly what I thought on my last playthrough. I thought the messenger did good so I cannot punish the Architect when he seems as sincere as his messenger. Also, according to the Epilogue, the deep roads became very quiet. That is what scares me and enlightens me. This is how I'm torn because we don't know what he's doing and planning.--Fantasyeve87 21:32, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the Architect at all, in the book or the game. He's like some horrible Mary Sue with the meta ability to make characters who really should know better like and trust him instantly. "Look! A talking darkspawn! Let's believe every word he says, because he speaks so politely!" But personal prejudices aside, I believe the Architect means well. He's a textbook Well Intentioned Extremist, as TV tropes would put it. In The Calling we see that he's more than willing to commit genocide on all the other races so that horribly tainted survivors can live in "peace" with his people. And in Awakening we see that he's also an incompetent boob. "Accidentally" killing all the Orlesian Wardens? Awakening the Mother only for her to go insane? Causing the Blight? Yeah, betting on this guy to end the Blights is definitely a losing prospect. And even if the Architect is able to free all darkspawn and therefore end the Blights, does he have a plan for propagating the darkspawn races without kidnapping human, dwarven, elven and qunari women and raping the living hell out of them and turning them into broodmothers? Because that there is kind of a dealbreaker in itself, if you ask me. For all those reasons, I usually kill the Architect. In at least a couple of games I've left him alive, though, just to see what he'll do later on down the line.--DarkAger (talk) 00:15, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point; I should've known better. I wondered whether the Orlesian Wardens had assailed him without question to the point where he had no choice but counter-attack, or if he launched the attack initially, but it shouldn't matter -- the fact remains that he's responsible for their death, and it should be the Ferelden Wardens' duty to avenge them. It's pretty telling that Justice disapproves, but I didn't have him in my party that time, and if I did I probably would've attacked. It kind of disturbs me that there are darkspawn who can now make ideological appeals so well that we may not notice until too late that what they're organizing is effectively a Blight. I dread even more that by DA3, the darkspawn will become 'Proud Warrior Race Guys' -- I bet the dwarves would be especially offended by that. DokEnkephalin (talk) 01:08, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
- To my understanding however, The Architect did not want the Orlesian Wardens dead. His disciple took hostile actions and killed many of them without his consent. That's what I gathered. Either way, it does say something about the way things may be. If the Architect's minions don't obey him, that's trouble all on itself. Good point. --Fantasyeve87 02:24, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Also consider that the Architect claims that the Grey Wardens were all dead when they were brought to his lair underneath the silverite mine for him to do his experiments on. But if that's so, then why is Grey Warden Keenan lying around... totally alive and everything... having had his legs broken by the Hurlock Dragon-Tamer? Either the Architect was lying and he left that man to die, or he was somehow completely oblivious to the fact that his darkspawn followers had a living Grey Warden prisoner. Neither possibility does much to inspire confidence in him or his plans.--DarkAger (talk) 04:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Never reading any of the books and only playing the games I would say its probably for the better to kill the Architect. My reasoning is this: If a blight is started by the darkspawn finding one of the old gods and corrupting it then there can only be two more blights as Origins revolves around the fifth blight. The wardens are 5 for 7 and even though the next two blights could destroy the world its worth the risk. Alot of things can go down hill letting the architect live. Such as the way darkspawn need all kinds of races to make into broodmothers and its very unlikely anyone would just offer to get gang raped by darkspawn and have their children. Then if the Architect does succeed and the darkspawn actually become intelligent whats to stop one from stumbling across one of the last two Old gods and starting another blight but this time the darkspawn arnt mindless. I think proof comes from the mother in awakening, even though they cant hear the old gods call anymore it is still possible for a darkspawn to bump into one. Even if the architect means well and keeps his promise he cant promise what the entire darkspawn race will do. So take him out risk two more blights and after that there isnt a whole lot to fear other then roving warbands.
In strictly gameplay terms, DA:O set up a pattern that DA:A appeared to be following: if you give character a chance to redeem themselves, it pays off. Jowan, Zevran, Loghain, then Nathaniel and the Messenger. So sparing the Architect does appear to be a smart move, all other considerations notwithstanding. Of course, if the Architect turned around to bite you in the ass, it could subvert the whole trend and make that decision more perplexing in future games. DokEnkephalin (talk) 11:32, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
The pattern is even bigger - Sten also redeems himself, and it could also be said the many of the Wardens redeem themselves in the eyes of Thedas after being given another chance by Duncan (Dwarf Noble, Dwarf Commoner, City Elf, Mage). Because of that pattern, I've been tempted to spare the Architect on occasion. But it always comes down to the fact that the Architect is a darkspawn for me, and so he always dies. --Knight of Hope (talk) 12:38, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me the purpose of the Grey Warden is to end Blights; if it was just to kill darkspawn, we'd have as many down in the Deep Roads as the Legion. That leaves the dilemma whether the Architect is going to prevent Blights, help fight them, or just begin the equivalent. Actually that last one really bugs me the most, because the strength of DA:O's monsters was that they were incomprehensible marauders while the humans were the well-developed villains. DA:A broke that pattern and the result was godawful melodramatic clichestorm; just fully fucking unforgivably bad. I would really hate to see that repeated in future DA, so the Architect should get asstomped just on that principle. DokEnkephalin (talk) 13:19, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I spared him because in the epilogue we see that the deep roads are very quiet and that the dwarves are sending partys to recover some thaigs and that's good no?
- The epilogue does state that and it makes me wonder. However, it is true that if the darkspawn find the old gods and follow that pattern, there are only two left, excluding the one that is spawning within Morrigan. So I am wondering because the game doesn't really make it clear as to whether or not the Architect plans on breeding more darkspawn. Will he just stop or breed more with freedom instead of just aimlessly killing everything in their path? Hmmm.....Questions, questions, they say that it was questions that drove me mad.--Fantasyeve87 02:24, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
- I too noticed the epilogue, stating that the Deep Roads fell into silence. I however do not draw any comfort from that. I would much rather see what my enemies are doing rather than having them scheming. Furthermore I think like some of the previous posters; there are only two Old Gods (could be more lesser Old Gods though) left to be awoken, I'd rather choose the option to kill the Architect and see a light in the end of the tunnel than to keep him alive not knowing when all this will end. As the Architect has shown that he's capable of commanding the darkspawn, he could very much take the role of an Old God to command the horde.
- However, the only piece of information that I need to justify killing the Architect is the fact that he's the one that awoke Urthemiel and by doing so started the fifth blight. As seen here: "It is revealed that Urthemiel was found not by the main darkspawn horde, but by the mysterious, sentient darkspawn known as the Architect. After a failed attempt to induce Grey Warden blood to Urthemiel, which the Architect believed would disrupt the Old Gods' hold over the darkspawn, Urthemiel became tainted, beginning the Fifth Blight." --ATH30S (talk) 22:23, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
What bugs me the most, is that killing or sparing him doesn't seem to have any impact. In DA2 Nathaniel says that there are still plenty of non-awakened darkspawn in the Deep Roads, just the opposite of what the Wardens hoped for, after the Architect was spared. Alternatively, if you killed him, Nathaniel says that it's the same old story: darkspawn, darkspawn everywhere. No impact at all, except for one small fact that presumably it were the awakened darkspawn, who gave the Wardens intel on the Primeval Thaig location. Take it for what you will. -Algol- (talk) 22:55, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it could be one of these "OH LOOK A SUPER IMPORTANT DECISION THAT DOES NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON ANYTHING" things that Bioware likes to do. A little like the Mass Effect 1 ending. It could however be that there are effects of the decision that we have yet to see. DA3 anyone? ;) --ATH30S (talk) 23:36, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Of course! They already stated that previous decisions will have an effect in DA3! Riiiiight. I wouldn't call a cosmetic change in a single dialogue line an "effect" though. Simply judging from previous cases, I think it safe to assume that DA3 will have "effects" just like that one. -Algol- (talk) 00:23, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Seriously not trying to throw shade but can I ask what your expectations are regarding decisions impacting later games? I know you are a smart guy so I'm genuinely curious. I think we can all agree that there's simply no way the story can deviate in extreme directions based on player decisions for financial and time reasons. For all the crap it's taken I thought ME3's Genophage and Rannoch sections were pretty well executed in that regard.
With regards to the architect...I just can't bring myself to trust him. It's one of those situations where I wish i could unread the calling so maybe I could feel for his character more but I obviously can't. Furthermore I just can't see any kind of universe where peace with the darkspawn is an option. --Tabris.the.great (talk) 08:03, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
"there's simply no way the story can deviate in extreme directions based on player decisions for financial and time reasons"
I know. But I want Bioware to be honest about it. And they are not.
"For all the crap it's taken I thought ME3's Genophage and Rannoch sections were pretty well executed in that regard"
They were. And I would have expected at least that level of consistency from Bioware in DA3, if... If there wasn't a destruction of the Collector base, the most important decision of ME2, which had NO effect, unless you consider 10 points of War ASSets to be an "effect". There was also making Anderson a Councilor, one of the most important decisions in ME1, which had NO effect, because it was retconned. Oh, saving or abandoning the Council had little to no effect too. How about saving the rachni? About 50 of War ASSets difference, so NO effect again. Consider me a pessimist, but judging from all that I think that Tuchanka and Rannoch were exceptions and the general rule remains the same: "decisions matter" is nothing but a marketing ploy. Especially if we take this fact into account: Bioware is still unsure what kind of save file transfer system (if any) will be used in DA3. -Algol- (talk) 10:34, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I'm really expecting the decision whether to kill or not to kill the Architect to make any grand difference, frankly I'm barley not even expecting it to be mentioned in DA3. However, the optimistic little naive nerd in me hopes that Bioware remembers the criticism they received for screwing up the Mass Effect series. Them doing that is probably the only chance we have to get any results from the decision.
"If there wasn't a destruction of the Collector base, the most important decision of ME2, which had NO effect, unless you consider 10 points of War ASSets to be an "effect"." DON'T YOU FORGET THAT CHANGE OF COLOR, SON! --ATH30S (talk) 14:12, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
I chose to spare the Architect based on the situation. As I recall; he shows up at the last part of of the Mother's lair. By then I've used up a good portion of potions and grenades. I saw it as: fight and use up more potions and grenades or gain an ally and save those use against the Mother. Maybe it'll bite me in the ass later, maybe it won't. I'll have to wait and see.--KCMueller (talk) 15:35, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
I let him live. Maybe he can end the blights by freeing the darkspawn. That would not mean darkspawn and dwarves will suddenly start trading and having happy, happy fun times all of a sudden. The darkspawn are still a corrupt and evil race and war with darkspawn will happen just as surely as it would if another archdeamon was found. It will probably happen much sooner since the darkspawn will not need to spend a few centuries searching for one.
This comes down to a simple 2 X 2 matrix. I either kill him or I let him live. Also, the architect can either end all blights or he fails. This gives us 4 options. 1. Architect can end the blights; i kill him: blights continue. 2. Architect cannot end the blights; I kill him: blights continue. 3. Architect can end the blights; I let him live: end of blights. 4. Architect cannot end the blight; I let him live: blights continue. In any case, I will have to kill him eventually. However in future wars with darkspawn, the battles are easier to win without an archdeamon in the fray. There is also a possibility to negotiate with independent darkspawn that does not exist while they are bound to the archdeamons. So killing him does not change anything. Letting him live has the possibility of giving you an edge in all future conflicts. The.Huntress (talk) 15:50, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
I always let the messenger live, because, well it's not polite to kill the courier and he did warn you that The mother had tricked you. The Architect, well his head rolls. He allowed an entire dalish camp to be wiped out by his second-in-command. His idea of chatting is to cast a sleep spell on your Warden and experiment upon him/her... he could had, oh i dunno, simply asked the wardens by just sending the one darkspawn not a army to Vigil's keep?
In my experience trying to prevent things sometimes acceraltes them happening or does nothing. Sometimes it's better to prepare for when stuff does go down.Phoenix96 (talk) 16:07, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
@The Huntress. How can you justify sparing the life of the one creature that started the fifth blight? Like you said, in any case you will have to kill him eventually, however you do not know if that's before or after he creates some kind of super darkspawn. Just look at what the Mother created, the childer grubs. I saw adult childers tear apart amaranthine guards in seconds. If the Architect were to "improve" the childers it would mean an end to humankind in Ferelden.--ATH30S (talk) 17:26, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
Killed him everytime. I think it's asking a little too much when someone captures and experiments on me and then expects to be allowed to live afterwards. --R0B45 (talk) 16:58, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
- ...Don't forget sending you to run naked through a bunch of armed guards. Humiliating. -Algol- (talk) 22:26, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to let him live for the same reason I spare the mage in Soldier's Peak: because his research benefits the Wardens. In the Calling, it's implied that through the events that happen, Fiona is cured of the taint/no longer has to do the Calling (She's still around ten years after Duncan begins to hear his Calling). Therefore, it is worth experimenting with. I don't think it'll have an overly major effect being imported into DA3 though, because it comes from an expansion pack. What other games have included key plot points that can be changed in DLC only? Plus it could totally mess up people's canon if this decision proves to be significant. Eggy2504 (talk) 17:06, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
If Archiect wants peace with not corrupted races, then he should have work not only on awakening his kind but also to research a new method of reproduce, which doesn't require abducting, torturing and turning a poor woman into an unnatural monster.18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:17, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
@22.214.171.124 Agreed. Improving the reproduction process should be the first step against peace. The Architect words does not match his actions. Killing all of the Warden? Not really a smart move, neither was torturing them.--ATH30S (talk) 17:28, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
Kill all darkspawn, especially the Architect. There is no reason to spare him, and there is every reason to kill him. The darkspawn are dangerous enough as they are. Giving them greater intelligence makes them more dangerous. There is no reason to believe that the Architect can end the blights. He admits that awakening the darkspawn merely gives them freewill. It does not guarantee that they will choose to be noble and seek to end the blights. Even if the blights were to end, what then? These sentient darkspawn would still seek to preserve their race, which requires the corruption of women to use as Broodmothers. Even keeping the current number of Broodmothers is evil, and would result in an abundance of darkspawn overrunning the surface and deep roads. The slim to none possibility of ending the blights is insignificant compared to the risks. Besides, there are only two old gods left anyway. As the races of Thedas continue to advance, the next blights will be even easier to defeat. The Architect may be smart by darkspawn standards, but to human standards he is still foolish and insane. Believe it! (talk) 01:22, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
I spare the Architect because I want to Darkspawn to further war amongst themselves and kill each other like they did in Awakening, keep in mind the only reason The Mother attacked Amaranthine in Awakening was because the Architect was trying to make an alliance with the Grey Warden's and use their blood to break more people from "the song". If you spare the Architect he can free more Darkspawn and they can hopefully continue to kill each other, Even if this doesn't happen far better to have an enemy that can think and be logical about things, someone you can talk to and negotiate with, come to an understanding etc. --XxDeonxX (talk) 23:10, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I also think as long as the Architect awakens darkspawns, they will fight and slaughter each other, Nathaniel mentioned it in DA2. If the 1st Wardens thinks that way he can also use that opportuinty to attack weakened victor of darkspawn civil war.126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:22, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
He says the awakened darkspawn are rare, theres millions of darkspawn out there it's not easy task to awaken them all and would require a great deal of time. Besides just because there were plenty of normal darkspawn in that section of the deep roads doesn't mean that they aren't fighting another civil war elsewhere.. The deep roads are pretty big we don't get any indication one way or the other so your statement of nobody "slaughters" nobody isn't exactly true.... nor false --XxDeonxX (talk) 04:50, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
I spare The Architect mostly because of the plea made by Seranni before I face him, and I figure awakened Darkspawn would be more willing to stay underground --Edocrack - 127 (talk) 23:10, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
In my "canon" story, the Hero of Fereldan killed both the Architect and the Messenger. As he saw the blight as the threat, and while the Messenger was a nice creature, it was still a blight creature and had to be removed to not spread it. Eventually when all the darkspawn are gone, the Wardens will also die out with no more Joinings. --Nyruk (talk) 07:33, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
In my play through it was rough deciding because in all reality would the Darkspawn once awakened be content with their machinations enough to reside in the filth of the Deep roads that they've slothed about until they've found an old God when it comes down to it We don't know how old the architect really is and he could be just and benign or corrupt as they come its all going to come crashing down before the end and Flemeth is going to play a pivotal role in all of it --Chalka412 (talk) 12:02 pm, March 25, 2013 (ADT)
I say let him live. It's pragmatic to keep him alive for study. And if he's being up front about wanting to ally with the Wardens his insight on the Darspawn would be a major boon to the Order. If you let Avernus (Warden's Keep) live there's some foreshadowing in DA2 that the two might be working together in unlocking knowledge and power stored within Tainted Blood.