55380 réponses à ce sujet

[UrsulaCousland]

ReiSilver wrote...

Cosmochyck wrote...

I'm sure this may have been covered already (I tried to read all 1700+ pages but haven't made it yet), but I'm curious (thanks to fanfic), what we think happened to Fenris and Hawke after leaving Kirkwall - especially since if you completed the romance he's the only one that doesn't leave your side...

any excuse to repost Aimo art of Fenris and Akiva
(snipped but link left - me likey!)

As for my own theories I'm holding back on anything concrete until the Devs are done with DLC since they keep saying how Hawke's story isn't over.
I could see Marric Hawke and Fenris travelling, Marric would want to show Fenris Fereldan and he'd love to visit places like Rivain, Orlais and maybe even the Anderfels. I think Marric would be a bit worried about staying too long in one place after what happened in the EndGame but I could also see him getting pulled reluctantly into the coming war under certain circumstances...

I feel similarly, and have tried to avoid speculating beyond act III right now other than they're (Aniya and Fenris at least) facing it together as far as *I* can help it!

Eek, ToP...and a high bar already set! I don't remember if this has been posted but it's adorable IMO. Courtesy of ScarletDusk!

Modifié par UrsulaCousland, 12 septembre 2011 - 02:40 .

[UltiPup]

mcilhany wrote...

What do you mean? I thought he kills himself

You either make him help you, kill him, or let him escape. I'm just joking around because I passed by a coffe shop named "Anders Coffee".

[mcilhany]

ohhh hahaha. When I let him go he fought me in the Templar Hall. Is there an option where you can let him go and he won't do that?

[mcilhany]

Well, anyway, thats cool. l used to live in California. I miss lots of things about it. But not the earthquakes.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

In the Andersfan community, it's pretty much assumed that Anders is dead if you sided with the templars. You either kill him, or let him run off and he comes back and fights you, or if you make him fight with you, he implies he's going to commit suicide after the final battle. So, barring something like my ridiculous "Brosca kidnaps him, fakes his death" scenario, he's pretty much dead.

Side with the mages though, and he's fine unless you explicitly kill him.

I actually like that, to some extent... partially because all my Hawkes, regardless of romance, pretty much end up siding with the mages for that final decision: even the ones who sided with the templars for the entire game beforehand. Something about that final bit just doesn't feel right to me... but I know I"m in the minority here.

As for post-game, my Hawke and Fenris are hightailing it back to Ferelden. Kirkwall was a pit, Ferelden is her real home and King Alistair seemed like a pretty decent fellow when she met him: plus he admitted that he helps apostates, so if Hawke is a mage or Bethany is alive and not a Warden, it seems like the best bet. Rivain with Izzy would also be fun, though.

[SurrealSadi]

*mumbles something about an Edit button*

So I'm currently playing a Direct/Aggro Hawke who is, gasp, not romancing Fenris in any way shape or form. They will be friends though. Kit Hawke will be Rivalmancing.....Sebastian. He's the only one I haven't romanced yet.

I need to Rivalmance Anders, but that will be another playthrough.

[mcilhany]

yeah ok, yeah. After I wrote that I came to that conclusion but my ending must side with the Templars, as I am Fenris's love slave. I feel kinda weird saying that as a guy :-), I did finish a playthru siding with the mages, and with Anders as my love interest again, feel kinda weird, please don't have a cow anyone..., but Fenris is my fave so I'm going with that one. Once I make a commitment I like to stick to it. It's kind of how I am.

My male mage Marin is currently courting Izzy. Can't wait to set sail...

Thanks, CGG.

[mcilhany]

Surreal Sadi.

I, with Marianna, Rivalmanced Sebastian. It was so easy because I was so mad at him, haha.

[UltiPup]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

In the Andersfan community, it's pretty much assumed that Anders is dead if you sided with the templars. You either kill him, or let him run off and he comes back and fights you, or if you make him fight with you, he implies he's going to commit suicide after the final battle. So, barring something like my ridiculous "Brosca kidnaps him, fakes his death" scenario, he's pretty much dead.

Side with the mages though, and he's fine unless you explicitly kill him.

I actually like that, to some extent... partially because all my Hawkes, regardless of romance, pretty much end up siding with the mages for that final decision: even the ones who sided with the templars for the entire game beforehand. Something about that final bit just doesn't feel right to me... but I know I"m in the minority here.

As for post-game, my Hawke and Fenris are hightailing it back to Ferelden. Kirkwall was a pit, Ferelden is her real home and King Alistair seemed like a pretty decent fellow when she met him: plus he admitted that he helps apostates, so if Hawke is a mage or Bethany is alive and not a Warden, it seems like the best bet. Rivain with Izzy would also be fun, though.

I felt the opposite. First ever run and I was pro mage until the Chantry incident. I sided with the templars strictly because it was Anders who did it. He betrayed me, his friend, for the mages. I couldn't side with the mages at this point, after everything. And since I was Friends with Anders, and I believed Sebastian was going to eff up Kirkwall, death was the only option. For all the lives he took for the sake of his own little mission, at the expense of the only person who friggen believed in him, I do not regret it.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I'm fine with executing Anders. It's siding with the templars after.

Then again, siding with the Templars is exactly what proves Anders point: the Templars have shown that they are incapable of actually dealing with apostates, and will continue to scapegoat, murder, and abuse those they DO have control due to the actions (or potential actions) of those they don't. The entire Right of Annullment is a sham, Meredith and the Templars care absolutely nothing for executing the actual guilty party, and then you murder people who had absolutely no part in it because you can.

Almost all my Templar-sympathizing Hawkes do execute Anders... but when that's not enough for Meredith, they tell her she's a moron and side with the mages. Because the whole POINT of templars is to execute the actual guilty mages while not executing the innocent ones.

You're basically killing everyone who is left handed because a left handed guy just happened to kill your local generalissimo, or jailing everone of a particular ethnicity because you happen to be at war with that country. Your basically scapegoating an entire people, murdering them out of revenge for an act they had no part in.

If you annul the circle because you truly believe the number of blood mages is so overwhelming that nobody in it can be saved, then that I can respect. If you do it because you're angry at Anders, you are proving that mages will never ever be safe in any circle, because peole will murder them whenever they get angry, and nobody will care.

Before I came to the bioware boards, I thought Anders was crazy for saying that templars would just use any excuse to just up and murder circle mages... and get away with it. Now I see that his fear was utterly and completely reasonable, because so many people will simply murder all the mages they have access to murdering because one mage pissed them off.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:14 .

[mcilhany]

Ulti, once again, I side with you.


****Ulti wants to be Queen, and I wants to be King****

[ReiSilver]

I'm with CGG
I have only one planned Templar siding Hawke and it's For Science... when I can bring myself to do it. Meredith's reasoning; killing people because the public will want blood, is a horrible reason for a slaughter of innocent people which is what annulment is, then I saw the torture devices in The Gallows which... oh the implications *shudder*
Killing Circle mages because Anders betrayed your trusts seems hugely spiteful (not that there's anything wrong with a Hawke who is that spiteful from a role playing perspective XP)
Sebastian seems like he's lost it... raze Kirkwall to the ground for one man? Good plan there guy, what makes you think he'll still be there? (I'm kinda hoping for DLC with Sebastian as an antagonist, I think he'd make a good enemy)
I'm a huge Fenris fan but that doesn't mean I support the Templars (hurrah high friendship/rivalry loyalty)

[UltiPup]

Let me first say that I did not side with the Templars JUST because Anders pulled a dick move. He was, though, the straw that broke the camel's back. I let mages get away with so much and still believed they could be saved. But after all the betrayals my Hawke suffered, all the mages she tried to help, who backstabbed her in their paranoia, she just stopped believing they were all so innocent.

I don't think there should be a right or wrong in this case. Both sides have their points that make sense. You decide what is the lesser evil, even if you still don't like the choice. I did not want to kill the entire Circle, but the mages never gave me a reason to not believe the Annulment wasn't necessary. With that amount of blood mages in Kirkwall, the time to pity them was over. They were willingly going to the darker side of magic to try to escape, even if that meant proving all the fears of a templar.

But even if you do side with the templars, you are given an opportunity to see if you are totally in for the bloodletting or have some regrets. I let the mages that surrendered go. It sounds hypocritical, calling for Annulment but allowing mages to live, but my Hawke just couldn't help it. She always was a more neutral type, so it was a hard decision to make first off. But after seeing them surrender and not fight back, gave her hope that maybe something could be saved.

No matter what side you take, the fears of the other side are proven. No matter what you do, the evils of a side are proven. Its just a depressing choice to make when you realize neither of them are right.

[UrsulaCousland]

Well said, Ultipup.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

As I said before, I'm fine with annulling the circle if you think they're just too corrupt, but your initial post made it seem like the chantry boom was a major deciding factor, and that's what bothers me.

I have to ask this then... if Anders didn't blow up the Chantry, would you still do the annulment exactly as often as you do now? Or would the percentage of the time you do it change?

Also, I feel like the annulment is one of those times where you are not given adequate information before you make the decision. If it was couched as "search the tower for blood mages, killing any you find and making an effort to spare as many mages as possible" then I'd see it as a valid option. The thing is, at the moment you sign on to an annulment, you are agreeing to murder every single mage there, even Bethany (if she's there). Based on everything we know about annulments so far, that is the official blueprint for an annulment. The fact that that's not what actually happens is irrelevant: you didn't know that saving anyone would be possible when you agreed with Meredith.

if it had been written in a way to clearly explain that you were doing this in order to try to save as many innocent mages as possible, I'd agree that it was an equal decision, The way that it's currently written, I can't in good conscience  say that it's a valid decision at the time you make it.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:41 .

[Arcane_Solona]

UltiPup wrote...

Let me first say that I did not side with the Templars JUST because Anders pulled a dick move. He was, though, the straw that broke the camel's back. I let mages get away with so much and still believed they could be saved. But after all the betrayals my Hawke suffered, all the mages she tried to help, who backstabbed her in their paranoia, she just stopped believing they were all so innocent.

I don't think there should be a right or wrong in this case. Both sides have their points that make sense. You decide what is the lesser evil, even if you still don't like the choice. I did not want to kill the entire Circle, but the mages never gave me a reason to not believe the Annulment wasn't necessary. With that amount of blood mages in Kirkwall, the time to pity them was over. They were willingly going to the darker side of magic to try to escape, even if that meant proving all the fears of a templar.

But even if you do side with the templars, you are given an opportunity to see if you are totally in for the bloodletting or have some regrets. I let the mages that surrendered go. It sounds hypocritical, calling for Annulment but allowing mages to live, but my Hawke just couldn't help it. She always was a more neutral type, so it was a hard decision to make first off. But after seeing them surrender and not fight back, gave her hope that maybe something could be saved.

No matter what side you take, the fears of the other side are proven. No matter what you do, the evils of a side are proven. Its just a depressing choice to make when you realize neither of them are right.

You know, reading this thread really comforts me because it makes me realise that I'm not the only one taking all the decision making in DA to heart. My older brother plays it as well, and he just goes on making different decisions in different playthroughs (even if they are decisions that completely go against his morals, beliefs and sympathies). To him, its nothing more than a game, and by making a horrible decision (such as betraying Fenris and giving him back to Danarius), no one is really getting affected by the decision, so it doesn't bother him one bit.

To me, its all very personal, for some reason. Is it a female thing? I'd really like to hear the male opinion on this matter, because apparently, females are more in touch with the emotional and sympathetic aspect of things.

I sided with the mages in my first playthrough because I genuinely thought it was the righ thing to do. But in my second playthrough, I somehow became convinced (mostly by Fenris) that mages are a danger to others and themselves, no matter how good their intentions, and they need to be protected (I see the Circle as a necessary means of protection, not oppression).

Its true. Look at Anders in the Tranquil Solution quest. He nearly killed that innocent mage. For all we know, if Hawke hadn't been there, he probably would've, and that is all due to Justice (no matter how bevevolent he claims it to be). Anders is the very embodiment of the danger that even the BEST intentioned mages pose to Thedas.

EDIT: By the way, I would NEVER be able to betray Fenris, even if just to see how it all plays out. Just the thought of it aches my heart.

Modifié par Arcane_Solona, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:45 .

[UltiPup]

That's why I wanted to clarify my original post. Anders was a turning point in my opinion. I was always pro mage since Origins. So, yeah, if Anders didn't do something that horrendous, I probably would have sided with the mages. His act brought everything into perspective to me. Reminded me of all the mages that wronged me. All of the stuff that Orsino SHOULD have no let happen in the first place. I never enjoyed siding with Meredith, but I thought it was the best option. At the time, siding with the mages seemed like saying "these guys are ok even if many of them tried to kill me multiple times!".

We've only seen the Annulment used twice, so I can only compare it to it being called in Ferelden. It was made to seem like the last resort option when there was little to no chance of saving any mages. I think it still is such that, but maybe Meredith was too hasty in calling it. At the time, I thought I was going to have to kill all the mages, I just didn't expect any mages to surrender, considering every other time they seem to go demon on me. It threw me off that i was allowed to spare them, and I couldn't help but do so.

On that very first run, my Bethany died in the Deep Roads due to not knowing curve balls. So I really had no family tie ins with the Circle to hamper my decision. But my laptop died and in short, my game files were gone. I've made another run trying to do the exact same things from my first run. But I couldn't let Bethany die in the Deep Roads ( and I was planning on Wardening her on another PT ) so she went to the Circle. I was trying to do the exact same choices from my first PT, so I still sided with the templars. But it was at this point in DA2's lifetime that I already knew there was no way the game was going to force me to kill Bethany. Sooo, I admit, I don't know if my decision would have stayed the same if Bethany was still alive during my first PT.

[Arquen]

sweet maker I missed so much!

I do hate working the weekends...

I pretty much will not touch the sexuality arguments with a 10 foot pole. It never leads to anywhere good. As far as the Templar/Mage - it is set up as a choice where both sides are fairly justified. Also, both sides have strong supporters, neutral supporters, and "don't care" supporters.

Personally I have sided with both. I did not thoroughly disagree with the Templars. I did not thoroughly agree with the Mages. What I do agree with is more along Fenris' reasoning. That you cannot simply be naive about mages and that "one day you will realize that not all mages are worth saving." It is an ethical dilemma that dates way back. Take a chance, "do the right thing" save someone, and they end up being the next dictator, mass murderer, tyrant, etc. The paradox comes in how you answer this question, which is very personal.

That being said, the Circle is a broken system and needs a complete overhaul. "Andraste took away the tyranny of magic and replaced it with a new one" -- I agree with this as well. The Chantry is no solution. The Circle and Templars are no solution. Where I disagree with Fenris is the maintaining of the status quo at end game. Mages are backed into a corner, and will inevitably turn to abominations/forbidden/what have you to save themselves. Yet, it is because they would rather die fighting with all they have then go back to a broken "prison." The desperation Anders talks about is real, but it is born out of fear of the status quo. While I also will never trust all mages or magic I won't sit there and support a broken system that offers no choice and has the potential for unchecked corruption to feed sadistic appetites. There are inevitably good mages "good and honorable men" locked away in the circle, and they are denied choice because of the actions of a few. Tevinter offers no solution, but that doesn't mean that holding up the status quo of what the chantry put in place is any type of solution either. I simply believe there has to be something better. "Some things have to be worse than slavery." "Some things are worse than death.."

[CulturalGeekGirl]

If you would be willing to live your entire life in a prison and never marry after having committed no crime and would be willing to allow all your PCs, mage or not, to experience that same fate, then I'm fine with you saying the circle is necessary.

The thing is, so many Hawkes who are willing to support the Circle system would probably rave and rant if they were similarly denied their liberty for something they just "might" do, and the average Hawke is infinitely more dangerous than the average mage. It's your basic case of "I've got mine." When it's someone other than you being denied their liberty, threatened and tortured, it's regrettable excesses of a necessary system. When it's actually YOU, it's an outrage.

If you think your Hawke would gently submit to a lifetime of imprisonment and never raise their hand against the force that imprisoned them, no matter how abusive it became, no matter how many times you saw your friends raped or beaten, no matter how many times you saw a good man made tranquil, then good for you. I couldn't suffer that myself, so I will not see others suffer it.

I believe in a control and monitoring system for mages. I just believe that the current circle system is a nightmare that creates infinitely more problems than it could possibly ever solve. The current Circle system created Anders as he is. But for those for whom only their own liberty and safety is of any import, I can see how it would be more convenient to let the Circle stand, rather than trying to make something better work.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:02 .

[Arcane_Solona]

Arquen wrote...

sweet maker I missed so much!

I do hate working the weekends...

I pretty much will not touch the sexuality arguments with a 10 foot pole. It never leads to anywhere good. As far as the Templar/Mage - it is set up as a choice where both sides are fairly justified. Also, both sides have strong supporters, neutral supporters, and "don't care" supporters.

Personally I have sided with both. I did not thoroughly disagree with the Templars. I did not thoroughly agree with the Mages. What I do agree with is more along Fenris' reasoning. That you cannot simply be naive about mages and that "one day you will realize that not all mages are worth saving." It is an ethical dilemma that dates way back. Take a chance, "do the right thing" save someone, and they end up being the next dictator, mass murderer, tyrant, etc. The paradox comes in how you answer this question, which is very personal.

That being said, the Circle is a broken system and needs a complete overhaul. "Andraste took away the tyranny of magic and replaced it with a new one" -- I agree with this as well. The Chantry is no solution. The Circle and Templars are no solution. Where I disagree with Fenris is the maintaining of the status quo at end game. Mages are backed into a corner, and will inevitably turn to abominations/forbidden/what have you to save themselves. Yet, it is because they would rather die fighting with all they have then go back to a broken "prison." The desperation Anders talks about is real, but it is born out of fear of the status quo. While I also will never trust all mages or magic I won't sit there and support a broken system that offers no choice and has the potential for unchecked corruption to feed sadistic appetites. There are inevitably good mages "good and honorable men" locked away in the circle, and they are denied choice because of the actions of a few. Tevinter offers no solution, but that doesn't mean that holding up the status quo of what the chantry put in place is any type of solution either. I simply believe there has to be something better. "Some things have to be worse than slavery." "Some things are worse than death.."

I completely agree with you, Arquen. The Circle definitely needs an overhaul, at least the one in Kirkwall, The one in Fereldan never stuck me as an awful place, in all honesty, but the way the Gallows is described really is appalling. Yet, for some reason, I still side with Fenris' reasoning: no matter how good, no matter how noble, all mages need to be trained and protected from others AND from themselves. If a rogue mage is showing a bit too much interest in blood magic, I think that mage should be made Tranquil. I oppose all sorts of extremeties, so I do not support Anders' stance (completely freeing mages) and I definitely do not support Meredith's stance (completely eradicate the mages). Its all a balancing act- a very careful one, at that.

Modifié par Arcane_Solona, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:03 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I don't agree with Anders that mages should be completely unmonitored. What I do believe is that the Chantry is corrupt at the very top, an engine of internment and apartheid. The only way mages could be free from torture and abuse is to make a new system of mage monitoring that is completely unrelated to the Chantry, and is instead related to civil governance.

I've talked about the system I'm in favor of before: a system where a council of mages, templar-skilled-non-religious-people (a la Alistair), and a neutral third body (my preference is for a council of dwarves and elves) who determine mage affairs.

My question is this: what makes those of you who think that it's a good idea to preserve the current system believe there is any chance they would voluntarily change from within?

[UltiPup]

That's my problem with the Circle. It is more of a cage than a sanctuary. The Circle should be welcoming, not scary. Mages should want to be apart of it. If they are risking their lives to escape a Circle, then something is seriously wrong. But at the same time, mages should be educated about their newly discovered powers. You learn how to control your powers in the Circle. We've seen what could happen to a young mage if they could not control their powers. Connor tore open the bloody veil. Young mages need education to learn about their powers, to pick a School of study, and to understand demons.

Templars should be guardians, not jail keepers. They shouldn't fear mages, they should care for them. That they should only strike them down when they are beyond help. It is a terrible job to upkeep, to be a caretaker and executioner at the turn of a hat. But mages need someone to be there to effortlessly and cleanly put them down as to not spread trouble. Mages and templars should respect and care for one another to make a Circle really work.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

The thing is, even Anders starts out believing that. He states that he wants a world where mages can "train in the circle by day, and return to their families by night." It's only the circle's complete refusal to consider any kind of reform for nearly a decade that makes him become so extreme.

This may be a flaw in the writing, something they didn't mean to convey, but I got absolutely no indication that there was any chance that the circle would become a more positive system through gradual change. Rather, the lesson I got from most of DA2 was basically "The Chantry will call an exalted march on your butt if you try to suggest anything should change." 

By the end of the game I was convinced that a war was basically the only hope of making any sort of alteration to the current status of the circle system at all. Remember that the chantry even defies the King of Ferelden's attempt to make the Circle independent...

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:13 .

[Arcane_Solona]

UltiPup wrote...

That's my problem with the Circle. It is more of a cage than a sanctuary. The Circle should be welcoming, not scary. Mages should want to be apart of it. If they are risking their lives to escape a Circle, then something is seriously wrong. But at the same time, mages should be educated about their newly discovered powers. You learn how to control your powers in the Circle. We've seen what could happen to a young mage if they could not control their powers. Connor tore open the bloody veil. Young mages need education to learn about their powers, to pick a School of study, and to understand demons.

Templars should be guardians, not jail keepers. They shouldn't fear mages, they should care for them. That they should only strike them down when they are beyond help. It is a terrible job to upkeep, to be a caretaker and executioner at the turn of a hat. But mages need someone to be there to effortlessly and cleanly put them down as to not spread trouble. Mages and templars should respect and care for one another to make a Circle really work.

I couldn't have said it better myself (:

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sorry I'm so contrary today... I've got a real life thing that's making me vaguely cantankerous, and this is one of my hotbutton fictional issues, so kersploom!

To try to sum up: it really frustrates me when people say "well obviously the circle SHOULD change" but then do absolutely nothing to make it change, and offer no explanations as to why they think it probably will change without their intervention.

It's a thing I see a lot in real life, when I bring up actual social problems. People will say "well sure, that sucks, and stuff like that shouldn't happen. Oh well, I'm not going to actually do anything that will help it change, and in fact I'm going to continue to support groups that ensure the status quo remains the same! But because I think it SHOULD change, I don't have to feel bad about supporting the groups that perpetuate it." 

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:21 .