Utotri

There is no question for me. Female mage. I like females and I like mages, so the choice is easy enough.

Thanks for your concern, but I see no potential of this getting out of hand. I use a certain example from my own experience and it is not inviting a discussion on religion. I am not going to edit it just because religion is mentioned.

This is why it is mere perception and not a truth,but if it was a truth everyone would be saying she is evil this is however not the case as the opinions of her vary so,... This argument makes no sense. It assumes that if something is true that people accept this truth. But truth is not self-evident. There are many intelligent Christians I know who refuse to accept the truth of evolution because they are brainwashed not to believe it although the evidence is as overwhelming as it gets. If they lose their faith, they lose their resistance to evolution. You would say, yes, it is simply a difference of perception, but it does not erase the fact that there is an underlying truth in the matter that governs these perceptions to a great extent. You have explained what you mean. I disagree with such a postmodernist view. There are theories on morality that are more or less universal among humans. Using that, there is ample reason to call Morrigan's actions and opinions evil and as a result Morrigan herself too.

It depends on what is chosen instead. Here nothing is chosen instead, so all you win is two measly days or so. The lack of effort to help those in dire need can hardly be seen as anything other than evil, I'm sorry. There is a forced choice between two evils in Amaranthine. You can't be blamed either way. Saving a certain private who isn't in dire need, just because his brothers all fell and then sacrificing men for such a mundane task is not morally good, it is morally evil, especially in a war. Sten is brainwashed by the Qun. He does not understand he is evil at times. He is much like conservative Christians or Muslims, who use their fairytales as an excuse to be ignorant about how to devise a proper morality. This is nonsense. History judges based on incomplete sources. Historians make an educated guess, and then there's always discussion about this. The time to properly judge a decision is when it is made, because then you don't know what follows and there is no danger of falling into the finalism pitfall. If a certain strategic decision places a far too small value on human life, especially those of innocents, it is just to call it evil. So you find Nature evil? This is the survival of the fittest,this is how many things work,and I probably shouldn't have said deserved as that's the wrong way to say it,but in her eyes a circle that can't win its freedom on its own is not strong. Nature can't contemplate its own actions. I find nature evil, it is even quite evident I'd say, but it has no meaning when applied to nature. This isn't logical. There can always be discussion about what is good and what is evil, but there are guiding principles behind those considerations. The main question is if these principles are arbitrary or not. There are principles that I feel are not arbitrary at all, such as the right to life and freedom of conscience. I do not see much value in your quote of Nietzsche. He is not known to be consistent in his philosophies and here too the quote can be shot at from different angles. Isn't truth quite powerful? What about things that can be measured? What if there are powers prevalent that lead to the truth? But let me ask you then: When do you consider something evil and when do you consider someone evil? Again, this seems to be a choice between two evils where Arthas can't really be blamed for his choice. I can't comment properly, I didn't like WC3 and haven't seen the campaign.

Good and Evil are mere perceptions not fact there for since good and evil can't be 100% true all the time it is then mere opinion. So please stop using black and white words to describe something complex as a person. Am I using the word to describe actions. The constant evil of Morrigan's actions make me conclude that Morrigan as a person is evil. It is an expected result given her philosophies. This has been discussed earlier. I stick to my view that it is not good strategy to leave Redcliffe. It is a strategic village and it will make sure you can safely examine the castle. There can be doubts about what the proper strategy is, of course, but this should be trampled over by the consideration that the villagers will die without help. It isn't comparable. In Amaranthine there is a choice between two places to defend. In Redcliffe there is the choice to defend or not. It can't win in the eyes of Morrigan because it's too weak to break their chains and therefor deserves its fate. Exactly. Now how is this not evil? Any sane person would conclude, given the powers that work against the mages, that they simply need help with attaining their freedom. Instead, Morrigan blames them. Think about a real world situation that is somewhat comparable like the Palestinians. Do they deserve to be locked up in Gaza, destined for poverty and squalor? Or like the West Bank, see the others infringe and infringe without any way to stop it except some makeshift rockets, some left weapons and some sticks and some stones? While it is really unfair for the father of the child where I would myself I said is evil,but once again evil is a perception not fact because when you look at it as a whole right now the Warden has offical duties to deal with for now and can't simply argue,but there will be a time when the father will have the time to make things right for himself and track her down. Evil is not just a perception. Morality is flexible, but there are guiding principles. Come on now, I don't want to go through Hobbes and Locke and the like, this stuff is self-evident. Morrigan tramples the freedoms and rights of others for her own gain or for something as vapid as preserving powerful things.

You spout around the black hat thing far too much. *You* are the one who fails to see the complex visions of the anti-Morrigan crowd. When someone or something is called evil it does not mean that there can't be redeeming qualities, it is simply the end result of the equation of adding up the goodness and substracting the evil. Here you repeat a number of things that you give as facts, but they have been disputed before in this thread. This is the vision of Morrigan you choose, but the others focus on her leaving the villagers to rot for instance, which is evil. You may disagree, but I do not understand why you continue to fight the vision of Morrigan being evil. Your argument basically consists of nothing but the arrogant assumption that 'we' can't be right because Morrigan shows other qualities too. Well yes, we see her development and how she can see goodness being applied. But the development is incomplete and does not lead to a change in dispositions like it does with for instance Al and Leliana. Morrigans stays egoistic and pragmatic, which results in evil decisions. BioWare meant to work it out better, but they didn't and this is not our fault. You argue that Morrigan is helping herself and argues for empowering the Warden, but these things are profitable for Morrigan herself as well so we can't distinguish. If the Circle proves it can try to free itself but fails, this should be a plus for the Circle in Morrigan's view, no? Well, no it isn't because Morrigan resents their failure. The Circle can't win with Morrigan it seems. All the facts? That's not at all the case. She hardly tells you anything. It can probably be assumed that she is not lying, because Morrigan is quite honest most of the time, but there are a lot of questions she only answers half. And then there is the point that leaving with the child is simply unfair on the father. Morrigan telling you of her evil deed does not mean it is not evil.

We can't judge what your preferences are.

brokenergy, you hurl unnecessary ad hominems to other people without even explaining yourself. I do not agree with the way you view my opinion, but whatever. You think I am giving cast-iron judgments and I see her in a simplistic manner. Explain this. It sounds like a stupid ad hominem to me. I gave my opinion about Morrigan and people are getting angry at me or something for defending this opinion. I don't understand this. Also, you repeat the argument that Morrigan is the most honest member of the party, but it can't be properly checked. I am unconvinced. You know this. Nothing is being blown out of the water. It is strange if Morrigan did not plan for anything, but it is still naive to me to think that such plans may not arise given Morrigan's constant quest for power and knowledge to improve her chances of survival. Furthermore, it makes it likely that Morrigan is mainly concerned with the Warden's survival. That would not be concordant with her philosophies. These things are hard to judge so I don't know what to make of it. I looked at the comic. It was a bit unimpressive but I'm not really a fan of comics so I tend to be unimpressed, but there was some information including the Orlesian thing. That would have been a proper argument for Morrigan. It is unfortunate it is not in the game. Gaider has failed to portray Morrigan as he wished to. Her character suffers greatly from this, more than Gaider expected surely.

I would argue that it is common sense to defend a village right at the base of the fortress so the threat won't spread. It's location makes it quite important. What is there to win by not helping the villagers? You're not getting to Eamon any faster and leaving the place behind likely means that you have spent time travelling for nothing. Is that pragmatic? What eliminates the reality that people are complex? Calling someone evil? This would then apply to anyone so no one could be called evil. What then would be the use of the word evil? If an attack on innocents like in Redcliffe is allowed I call this evil. Simple golden rule stuff. Now, Morrigan allows such death and destruction so that is evil unless there are good reasons. The argument you give is that the people are intolerant and there is a strategic dispute. The first is just an explanation for her errors, but not an actual argument. The latter is just a matter of opinion. They are just not good enough reasons to leave people to die. You say that I don't allow for complexity but this doesn't follow from the things I have said. Please show to me an explanation behind your reasoning if you can because I don't understand how you reach your conclusion. Her argument makes no sense. The wish to preserve something means that a certain value is ascribed to it. This is all the more clear when Morrigan wishes this soul for herself as she means to take it away. Given Morrigan's philosophies we can assume that there will be a certain use for this soul for her. Given her focus on power and survival we may even assume that it is to empower herself. This does not necessarily mean that this is done by body snatching and I did not say so. The apocalypse is also something I have not spoken of. I don't know how to respond to that. Wynne tries to take opportunities for adventure to get freedom. You make a very good point regarding Wynne not opposing the culling, but in her defence she is really in a fatalistic mood there which can be seen in the fade as well and is later explained further in the camp conversations. Morrigan is right to not like the leash, but it is a leash that is laid out by the Chantry. The role of the Circle itself is much more ambiguous. Here too you come with allegations against the Circle that are actually the result of Chantry policies. I still don't see the point about the questions regarding Vaughan. Then there is a long sentence where you start off by claiming the Circle is nothing more than a prison. This is just wrong. It is also an orphanage of sorts. A home, a place of nourishment. Morrigan may not view it that way, but it just means she is not understanding the complexity of the situation. Maybe she does understand, but then she is just being vengeful. Also, pragmatism fails here. What purpose does it serve to destroy the Circle? It does not make mages any more free. It makes mages more dead. We can expect death to be lacking in freedom I assume. It also doesn't empower the Warden. Mages are powerful, Morrigan should know this. You should wish for their support against the blight. They need to survive for that. I am not going to move towards a discussion on Alistair here, surely you understand. I do have something short to say. The comment about the stigma was about the impression when he first meets Morrigan. You give reasons for his foolishness. There are many reasons for Alistair's foolishness, but he is still a fool. He is friendly and nice though and you can push him to work harder and be smarter. At first, Alistair is a fool though. You may not agree, but I think the progression Alistair makes is clear so I hope you do agree that he is at least relatively foolish in the beginning. What you would have to prove is that Morrigan generally seriously takes suffering into account. What you have done now is prove my point that Morrigan indeed is capable of understanding suffering. She is fully aware of the fact that she is leaving the villagers in Redcliffe to die. She simply doesn't care enough. Morrigan figures the village should defend itself, yes, but it is an evil opinion because she leaves people to die. I get the same response all the time: Redcliffe isn't important, it's pragmatic and so on, but I have given arguments against this. It is finalistic to say that Redcliffe isn't important. The way the narrative develops the player is led to believe that Redcliffe *is* important. And even then, I would definitely argue that the strategic value of Redcliffe is worth investing a night in. Then there is also still the problem that pragmatism is not an excuse for evil behaviour. The last sentence about being late in Denerim I think is a bit absurd, but then again I don't think you meant it seriously. It seems highly likely that the darkspawn did a timed attack *because* your armies are in the wrong location. If you had arrived earlier or later the attack would have taken place earlier or later. We can only speculate about these things. You again talk about black hats and I don't understand why you do this. I see Morrigan as a survivalist, she is interested in progressing her own goals. They coincide with those of the Warden so she helps. Her attitude leads to her making evil decisions though. This doesn't mean she is the enemy of the Warden and because she is fairly loyal she usually ends up being a force for goodness regardless. She is not a black hat then I feel. But she is still basically an evil person.

I disagree that Redcliffe and Eamon should be seen as separate. Maybe in the game it plays out like that, but would it be a valid expectation beforehand? I don't think so. Nothing is black and white. Sten, Wynne, and Morrigan are given dimension. To call any evil belittles the fact that the writers fleshed them out to be realistic, flawed people. And Morrigan is not at the black end of this very grey world. You can call her argument to abandon Redcliffe wrong, but I don't see why you think I should consider her evil for it. Regarding the ritual, Morrigan is upfront when she says the ritual is important to her. Preserving one of the last mysteries of Ferelden against certain death is important to her. The same way Alistair leaves your party if you spare Loghain, you're doing something that neither can abide by. If you're in a romance with Morrigan, this ritual will save you from death. If you're a dear friend, it does the same. And you're inferring her quest enpowers her, but the truth is we see no change in her power. Her pragmatic arguments tend to focus on enpowering you - after all, she never asks the blood ritual to enpower her, after all. I can call Bush evil. I can call Bin Laden evil. To call them evil belittles the fact that they are real, flawed people? No. To not call them evil belittles the fact that they are responsible for much pain and suffering. That part of your argument makes no sense to me then. You say Morrigan is not at the black end of a grey world. Sure, that is definitely true. So where do the dark shades that can be called black end? Then about the ritual. The preservation of the Old God may be important to Morrigan but it isn't made clear why and there is no reason why she kept this from you for so long. Is she upfront? About some things, yes. About some things, no. Yo compare it with Alistair. It can't be done. Alistair is surprised on the spot and reacts emotional and idiotic. This is not the case with Morrigan who had ample time to prepare for a negative response. Her arguments focus on how the ritual is good for the Warden, yes. What is your point? It is only more proof of Morrigan's dishonesty. *She* wants the soul of the Old God. If she wouldn't want it, she wouldn't even do the ritual I'd reckon. You seem to doubt that the Old God's soul will empower Morrigan. I think that is just very naieve. Everyone has secrets, even in real life. You're basically saying all of humanity is intellectually dishonest by that line of arguing. Pretty much, yes. The difference is that most people are aware of it and try not to do it and excuse themselves for it, while others actively use it and propagate it. Morrigan does the latter, Alistair the first. I don't see why you keep using evil. People misuse power. Mages have misused power, so have royalty. Does Vaughan's actions mean the elves should murder every human throughout Ferelden? Or lock them all in a tower to be abused and mentally tortured? IIn theory, the Circle should only be a place to instruct mages, but it's a place of fear, where you can lose your soul for not getting in line with the Chantry and templar way of thinking. There's nothing honorable about getting someone made tranquil, or hunting down a kid for being scared of grown ups and running away like Wynne's apprentice. This kind of institution conditions blood magic. You don't see all of Kolgrim's followers dead because of an abomination, or all the Dalish elves deceased because of abominations. Apparently, they have no Harrowing, no templars or chantry, and do much better than the Circle ever has. I use evil because it is being used. Now, I don't know why you start of with ridiculous questions regarding the punishment of Vaughan, but I think he should simply be killed or locked away for good. Not all humans, because it was just Vaughan and a few henchmen and they are the ones deserving punishment. If you meant it as an analogy to the Circle Tower it is a strange analogy. The Chantry places a punishment on magic, of course that is wrong. The Circle is the only lifeline for magic users. It is a necessary evil because of the Chantry. It is not the Circle's fault. There are enough mages opposing the Chantry as well.

You really starting to get under my skin, you know that? :dry: Yes the warden is going to act differently as you are the one who is in control and are willing to do things differently. Why did I make a comparison to Duncan? People romanticise him, portray him as something a good guy when Gaider shot it down from the sky. So is Duncan a good guy, who kills a coward for the good of the order and dies honourably? No, he is not. The question to you (and all who give the whole 'evil' thing) is why should Morrigan be considered evil? Why should she be stigmatized because of the impression in first minute you meet her? Why should her actions be considered evil, when other companions do exactly the same thing? Sounds like some people let the first impressions get in the way of logic. I am glad that you have taken the time to put forth a more articulate argument. Now, why should Morrigan be considered evil, you ask. First then, let me tell you that she is not stigmatized. The stigma is on Alistair who seems like a total fool when interacting with Morrigan. Morrigan should be considered evil because of two interlocking things, her philosophies and the actions that result from them. The argument is rather complex when worked out because it would need a proper definition of evil for instance, but basically the train of thought is that Morrigan's philosophies do not really allow for any other disposition than the one she deems best for herself. She disregards suffering in others for this. She knows suffering, so she is not incapable of understanding what she is disregarding. Her philosophy then is a matter of self-deception. She can work like that for herself in the Wilds where survival is the common core value, but in a society this is different. Morrigan *does* know the notion of helping others. It is common everywhere, even among animals. Morrigan was never on the receiving end, that's all. She doesn't understand the culture, okay. Now, why should I care? Morality may be relative, but it is not all relative. There is no excuse for her lack of understanding in a number of instances, Redcliffe being a rather clear one. If you don't help the village you are basically the accessory of the sacking of the village. They did nothing to deserve that. Realism is an explanation, but it is not an excuse. Saving the village *is* going to help you save an entire nation. Did you not play the game? Perhaps you would say that this is in hindsight, but it is clear before as well that Redcliffe is worth the effort. There are only a few arls in Ferelden and Eamon is one of the more powerful ones as Alistair makes clear. He also has Teagan with him, a bann. Perhaps Morrigan is unable to understand their importance, but that would not be concordant with Morrigan's own statement that she has studied history. Also, this is again an explanation, not an excuse. Abou the cat: There are myraid reasons why Morrigan disapproves. The conclusion that she does not like your dishonesty seems the most likely one, I agree. Then there are myriad reasons why Morrigan disapproves of dishonesty. It says nothing at all about her own honesty or lack thereof. That said, I would not say Morrigan is particularly dishonest. She is intellectually dishonest. She is not a liar, although it is difficult to judge. Alistair and Leliana are far worse in that department. I do not see them as evil though because of their various redeeming qualities. Those are lacking with Morrigan, who is only interested in her own progress. What is your point here? That Morrigan doesn't understand things properly? That is exactly my point. She doesn't understand things or she is deceiving herself and it leads to evil decisions involving innocent deaths and the like. She should be able to understand the value of survival, no? Then she should understand very well why the Circle is what it is. She should then also understand why the elves need help. She wishes for them to earn their survival, but the thought is indistinguishable from the idea that they deserve their deaths should they die, which is just an errant way of thinking. She should be thinking about why their survival is under threat and if this is just or not. Her disregard for the potential suffering of innocents is evil. I did not call you a fan fanatic, so I suppose this is aimed at someone else. I am not going to check the forum you pointed out. It is up to you to prove me wrong, I am not going to do your work and I can't say I'm expecting much from that thread either so there is little incentive for me to do as you advise. If you are unable or unwilling to lay down the arguments yourself it is better to agree to disagree.

How is Redcliffe so vital when weighed against the fate of the entire country? It's destruction changes nothing about the fate of Ferelden. Morrigan is correct in stating that it won't affect the Blight. Personally, I wouldn't advocate leaving the people to die, but I also don't consider Morrigan evil for stating her opinion, either. Nobody in game knows that this distraction won’t mean failure. As the Warden, you know the game mechanics and can take the high road or simply restart. From a story standpoint, no one knows that the Blight won’t overcome the entire country tomorrow. We are going to go in circles. I don't understand why you still say Redcliffe is not important. It is made quite clear in the early narrative that Eamon is important. Your point about haste being necessary does not have any value. It would be an argument against almost anything you do in the game. I have called Sten honorable in a certain situation. If you want to hear me call Sten evil I can do that, but it really is just the Qun that is evil. Morrigan does not honour you when you decline her ritual. Morrigan does not honour your word if you decline her absurd request. Morrigan leaves. It speaks volumes about her real intentions. Ending the blight is not her goal, the Old God is, and right up to the very end ending the blight is entirely concordant with her personal quest (which does empower her very much I envisage), but when a dichotomy appears she is gone with the wind that very instant. Doing someone you disagree with doesn't make her evil. Having secrets doesn't make Morrigan any more evil than Alistair keeping his heritage from you or Leliana actually lying to you does. Everyone has secrets, everyone has opinions. I never said the secrets made her evil, they made her intellectually dishonest. If you wish to hear from me that Leliana and Al do it too, I can comply. The Circle is not monolithic and the Circle is not Wynne. The Circle is just there regardless of Wynne and most of the evil of the Circle is imposed by the Chantry. Wynne seeks freedom within the confines that are given. This may be complacency as you say, but it is unclear. The fact remains that while she may not rebel against those confines she does rebel against injustices on the road out of a wish to simply help others. That is goodness right there. Also, we have to understand that the Circle is not really arbitrary as far as we can see. There is an internal pattern of justice that basically revolves around using blood magic or not. This begs the question if blood magic is evil or not. I don't think it is necessarily so, but the common position in Ferelden is that the risk is too great and it should be deemed evil by default. That position is harsh, but it isn't irrational and it certainly isn't all that evil as blood magic is a choice.

I had also thought that Hespith was like Ruck. The broodmother part I envisioned as being part of her future, but not anything immediate. This could well be true. It would certainly make for an interesting cameo or perhaps even a bigger role. They could do quite some crazy storylines there.

It is impressive that you post this with what seems to be a lot of arrogance when in fact it consists of a collection of fallacies. What Duncan may have done is of no consequence. Duncan dies at Ostagar and we are left with the Warden and the subjective experience that accompanies it. You say that Morrigan is doing what a Grey Warden would do, well, so is the Warden. Things work out for the Warden so who's to say that Duncan's approach would have been better? Duncan isn't a paragon of virtue, he is the cold murderer of Sir Jory for one. :tongue: Well then, what does RedCliffe give you? Knights, Eamon. What do the elves at the alienage give you? Support at the Landsmeet. These things are not nothing. They add up. Then you call me left-minded, but that is just asinine. I have given arguments for my opinion, respond to those instead of trying to act superior. And then you follow up with a nice ad populum that means nothing to me.

The cases are entirely different so the argument has an entirely different context. The food dispute is mundane and inconsequential. Redcliffe is not. Alistair has by then typically made clear that Redcliffe is quite important. In Lothering Morrigan has a point, in Redcliffe she is wrong. You make two points here. One is that I should be more understanding of Morrigan because of her past and that a lack of empathy shown to her has led to her showing a lack of sympathy to others. The second point is that no one is really good or evil, but all grey. The second point does not have any bearing I think. It is completely acceptable to speak of evil even though it is not absolute. I can call Morrigan evil because her actions and dispositions show many evil aspects, and then I can compare it to Wynne and call Wynn good. It's the first point that is interesting though. There is nothing stopping Morrigan from empathizing with the villagers but herself. An outcast would be in a perfect position to understand the need for acceptance and sympathy. I see the point you are getting at, but Morrigan's disposition smells too much like revenge in that case. Why would she not reach the simple conclusion that these people are all just the victims of their upbringing just like Morrigan? Also, the argument does not run counter to mine. It is understandable to act according to past experiences, but it can at times be evil and it lends itself for capriciousness just fine. Of course, but this is the Chantry. The Chantry is not the Circle. Morrigan's way of thinking is far too simple, almost animalistic. The Circle is not the problem, but the Chantry is. This should be sufficiently clear even to Morrigan. The Circle is the only proper mage organisation and any effort to free mages would be most likely to succeed with help of the Circle. It serves no purpose to destroy it. It would mean the deaths of innocents and the Chantry will still be there to oppress the mages. I don't quite know what you are getting at. I mean, karma? What does karma have to do with anything? Are you saying that an elf would perhaps let the Circle be destroyed or Redcliffe overrun just because it would be regarded as karma? That would be a position of such gruesome intellectual laziness that I would call it evil for sure and dumb to boot. For someone believing in karma it would be downright silly not to help, because you should then assume that bad things will happen to you. As for Morrigan: Redcliffe is a single village, but this falls way short of telling the whole story. It is made clear that Redcliffe is indeed important. It would make no sense to let the area around Eamon be overrun by undead. Also, if people are not keen on the disposition to help the needy, they should certainly still be helping those that they themselves require help from. In Redcliffe this scenario is active. Morrigan is not pragmatic. And come on now, calling Morrigan honest... You forget that Morrigan is in large part there for a certain ritual that she never tells you about. I don't know if she is honest in her point of view at all. You are free to see it that way of course. I pretty much agree there, but it doesn't make it any less cruel surely. Plenty. It is a village of importance. Now, is there any reason she should *not* care about a village of people who likely would kill her if they knew she was an apostate when this village was in dire need of help? The only argument I can think of is based on vengeance. That just isn't a good reason. It is understandable, but it is evil. She is wrong and it is not beyond her capabilities to understand this, because it is so blatant. Also, Morrigan isn't focused on the blight. She is focused on improving her own condition. When the final battle comes and you don't give her the child she leaves. Battling the blight is a means to an end. The dark ritual is kind of a big thing, you see. These are the things you might really want to know beforehand. When Alistair doesn't tell you stuff in time he has very simple reasons for this and he apologizes in a sincere matter. That is honesty. With Morrigan, the whole ordeal was planned this way. Dishonesty is not just a matter of lies and truths. It is a matter of controlling the flow of information. This is what Morrigan does. But I was speaking of intellectual dishonesty earlier. Sure, dishonesty by maliciously controlling the flow of information is bad, but I don't mind that so much. What I mind is the fact that Morrigan refuses to see the error and inconsistency of her core philosophies even when it is apparant. She is willing to be evil to reach that goal, so I would hazard the guess that her intentions aren't exactly benevolent. But even if we give her the benefit of the doubt, it would still be just her personal preference to preserve this. The facts show that these Old Gods are simply potential blights waiting to happen. Why should it be preserved? You know Morrigan isn't just going to give away her secrets. I think it is important to note that while the child is the carrier of the soul Morrigan will leave, so the child can't be checked. This means that Morrigan more or less owns this soul. She is a powerful mage and she has the Grimoire, we should expect the worst I feel. A soul is not something one should own. Owning another's soul is vile and evil, I'm sure almost anyone would agree to that. Sten is bound by honour. He contests your leadership after voicing his concerns before and this is how he does it. Yes, it is stupid, but it isn't really dishonest. If you win, you get respect. Zevran makes an unlucky gamble if he doesn't trust you yet and he has his contract for the Crows. You *know* that Zevran could do that, because Zevran told you already that he does not wish to commit to a certain plan. These are two different situations that don't compare well with what Morrigan does. I do agree that it seems as though Morrigan is telling no clear lies. I think she never really does that. It is not the nature of her type of dishonesty, as I have explained. But, although Morrigan seems sincere, we can not know what Morrigan intends to do with the child. Can someone like Morrigan be trusted with such a child? She doesn't tell us why she really wants it, so we can't know the answer. If she is honest, she would not know this herself, else she should really tell the Warden or be dishonest. The childishness is something I perceive when I look at Morrigans core philosophies. They revolve around egoism and survivalism. They do not take into account the complexity of the world. It is not a developed world view, it is very animalistic and childlike to me.