2340 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I doubt he would, to be honest. By the time Meredith calls you outside and you end up fighting her, the Annulment is completed. Cullen, who as I pointed out, thinks tranquility is actually a good thing for mages, would probably still end up tranquiling them, i think.

And yeah, Kirkwall's Right of Annulment was not normal at all. But Cullen isn't that mage happy that he was totally opposed to it, just had doubts about its reasons and necessity. He'd probably tranquil the surviving mages believing he was doing them a great kindness or favor, not out of malicous punishment. And since he doesn't even think mages are people, but weapons, in Act 1, and I've seen little evidence this view has drastically changed, It is unlikely that the surviving mages are going to fare much better.

As I said, he never once tried to step in, mutiny, or relieve Meredith of Command until after the annulment was completed, only when she tries to kill Hawke. Which makes little sense, but even less sense when Hawke sides with the mages and sets them loose to run amok. So Cullen doesn't seem opposed enough to me, to likely call the annulment off later (especially if, by then, the annulment has been technically completed.)

And I severely doubt he wouldn't. Cullen doesn't think tranquility is a good thing. It's simply preferable to them running around wild. (which given his experience to me makes sense).

Still doubt it. There would be no need to watch them for signs of bloodmagic if he's gonna tranquil them all. And I doubt he sees a templar as being all about watching tranquiled mages. As for thinking they're weapons I didn't see that. I saw him seeing them as extremely dangerous and not being able to be treated like normal people. And indeed I agree with his assement.

Oh yes he didn't jump in front of her to stop her from killing those mages. My eyes must've been playing tricks. But again since this is just a difference in opinonothing either of us says will convince the other.

[Monica21]

megski wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...


David Gaider once clarified this, I'm sure someone has the link to the post. But he said that an annulment means all mages are wiped out, children included. If any happen to survive (which seems to be a rare thing) they are either made tranquil or killed. An annulment is a total elimination of all mages, old and young, adults and children, in the Circle, because it has been deemed beyond salvation. Well, unless you're Meredith.

Meredith's Right of Annulment never gets overruled. hawke can chose to spare mages that surrender, but the Annulment is still active, and those surviving mages end up dead or zombified, according to Gaider. You're still annulling the Tower, that's why you are fighting mages. Because you are there to either exteriminate or tranquil any mages you find. Meredith might get mad because you spare a few mages, but only because its a waste of time, they will be dealt with anyway.

Seriously?  That is such b.s.!  Basically when you side with the templars, you kill like maybe 10 people labeled as 'circle mage' and everyone else is labeled 'blood mage' when you're fighting.  You mostly fight demons too!  What a bunch of crap that the annulment is still active.  You would think that once Mereidith goes crazy that it is obviously, her being crazy lol, and as the new vicount you could decide 'if the people want blood.'  

That really bothers me too, that really should have been addressed in the game instead of a follow up detail because as templar side Hawke, you do restore order and have the choice to spare people.   I am disappointed about that.  

I call BS even if there is a link. We're expected to believe that during the time you're killing Orsino that the mages are being hauled off and tranquiled right then? No, not happening. There's no time and no one to do it. Once you kill Meredith, Cullen is in charge, the same guy who opposed the RoA in the first place. Those mages are not being tranquiled.

[Tatinger]

Ryzaki wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
I doubt he would, to be honest. By the time Meredith calls you outside and you end up fighting her, the Annulment is completed. Cullen, who as I pointed out, thinks tranquility is actually a good thing for mages, would probably still end up tranquiling them, i think.

And yeah, Kirkwall's Right of Annulment was not normal at all. But Cullen isn't that mage happy that he was totally opposed to it, just had doubts about its reasons and necessity. He'd probably tranquil the surviving mages believing he was doing them a great kindness or favor, not out of malicous punishment. And since he doesn't even think mages are people, but weapons, in Act 1, and I've seen little evidence this view has drastically changed, It is unlikely that the surviving mages are going to fare much better.

As I said, he never once tried to step in, mutiny, or relieve Meredith of Command until after the annulment was completed, only when she tries to kill Hawke. Which makes little sense, but even less sense when Hawke sides with the mages and sets them loose to run amok. So Cullen doesn't seem opposed enough to me, to likely call the annulment off later (especially if, by then, the annulment has been technically completed.)

And I severely doubt he wouldn't. Cullen doesn't think tranquility is a good thing. It's simply preferable to them running around wild. (which given his experience to me makes sense).

Still doubt it. There would be no need to watch them for signs of bloodmagic if he's gonna tranquil them all. And I doubt he sees a templar as being all about watching tranquiled mages. As for thinking they're weapons I didn't see that. I saw him seeing them as extremely dangerous and not being able to be treated like normal people. And indeed I agree with his assement.

Oh yes he didn't jump in front of her to stop her from killing those mages. My eyes must've been playing tricks. But again since this is just a difference in opinonothing either of us says will convince the other.

The evidence is there.  Just look at the Legacy DLC.  Bethany says everything is fine in The Circle.  'Nuff said.  The Annulment never took place -- thanks to the action of The Champion.

P. S. Sorry, maybe I should have put a spoiler on that or something because obviously people supporting the idea that The Annulment took place haven't played it.

Modifié par Tatinger, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:23 .

[Catriana]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't really care about either side (My Rogue Hawke is like "LOL whatever just give me money or GTFO, The Blooming Rose's premium service is expensive, yo"), it just seems strange to see folks going "OMG if you side with the Templars, you're endorsing genocide!" with the ranting and the raving. Makes me wonder if they've even done the Templar playthrough or if they're just making assumptions.

I've seen it. Sparing three people doesn't stop you from being a mass murderer.

Seriously? That is such b.s.! Basically when you side with the templars, you kill like maybe 10 people labeled as 'circle mage' and everyone else is labeled 'blood mage' when you're fighting. You mostly fight demons too! What a bunch of crap that the annulment is still active. You would think that once Mereidith goes crazy that it is obviously, her being crazy lol, and as the new vicount you could decide 'if the people want blood.'

Are you surprised? There's no redeeming value to be had for the templar decision, and no respect for a Hawke who makes that decision.

I'm really confused as to how you would suspect they would only spare three people and that's it. Cullen believes 'many mages can be spared", not just those three. To me, this implies any mages afterwards who surrender would be spared, like those three. It doesn't make sense to spare them, disagree with Meredith and decide to follow the Champion's exmaple, only to continue with the Rite five minutes later.

<--- The conversation as shown on YouTube.

[Tatinger]

Catriana wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't really care about either side (My Rogue Hawke is like "LOL whatever just give me money or GTFO, The Blooming Rose's premium service is expensive, yo"), it just seems strange to see folks going "OMG if you side with the Templars, you're endorsing genocide!" with the ranting and the raving. Makes me wonder if they've even done the Templar playthrough or if they're just making assumptions.

I've seen it. Sparing three people doesn't stop you from being a mass murderer.

Seriously? That is such b.s.! Basically when you side with the templars, you kill like maybe 10 people labeled as 'circle mage' and everyone else is labeled 'blood mage' when you're fighting. You mostly fight demons too! What a bunch of crap that the annulment is still active. You would think that once Mereidith goes crazy that it is obviously, her being crazy lol, and as the new vicount you could decide 'if the people want blood.'

Are you surprised? There's no redeeming value to be had for the templar decision, and no respect for a Hawke who makes that decision.

I'm really confused as to how you would suspect they would only spare three people and that's it. Cullen believes 'many mages can be spared", not just those three. To me, this implies any mages afterwards who surrender would be spared, like those three. It doesn't make sense to spare them, disagree with Meredith and decide to follow the Champion's exmaple, only to continue with the Rite five minutes later.

<--- The conversation as shown on YouTube.

Xilizhra is just trolling at this point.  I'm done. 

[DKJaigen]

Catriana wrote...

I want links to the latter portion of your argument, because it doesn't make sense. The argument made is fairly clear-cut in the game. Cullen remarks about the Rite of Annulment almost done in Origins, and he explains the situation there was much more dire and did not end with unnecessary bloodshed. He wants to spare any mages who surrender.

Meredith insists the Rite must be carried out after Hawke wants to spare the mages.

She insists that if any are spared, they could be blood mages. She asks Cullen if he's willing to take responsibility. He expresses he feels that is what being a Templar is all about. Meredith says that she's the Knight Commander, and they will do as she says.

Cullen then tells the templars to "Listen to the Champion", who wants to spare the mages who surrender. They listen to Cullen. In short, the mages are not killed. They're not going to be killed. They're not going to be made tranquil(otherwise, there would be no concern in them becoming blood mages), they're going to be saved if you decide you want to save them instead.

There is no tower sweep unless you specifically call for it. That's the point, it's like a redeeming choice for those who really don't want to kill all the mages but don't want to do the mage playthrough. I've played the Templar side more than enough times to know this. If you can tell me where David Gaider says the mages get killed or made Tranquil REGARDLESS of your choice to spare them, I'll retract my statement. Until then, I'm going off my playthrough, where Cullen and the other templars follow your lead, not Meredith's, and spare any mages who surrender.

I have seen this post to. It was several months back so i have some digging to. But yeah David indeed confirms that annulment will be carrierd out if you side with the templars and the mages you safe will become tranquil

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Ryzaki wrote...



Still doubt it. There would be no need to watch them for signs of bloodmagic if he's gonna tranquil them all. And I doubt he sees a templar as being all about watching tranquiled mages. As for thinking they're weapons I didn't see that. I saw him seeing them as extremely dangerous and not being able to be treated like normal people. And indeed I agree with his assement.

It's in an Act 1 conversation with him. he refers to them as not being people, more like weapons. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his assessment is not important, it is the fact that this is what he thinks that is, when looking at his character. He has, to a measurable degree, dehumanized his charges. Which is a bad thing for someone in that capacity to have. he certainly has every reason to feel that way, given what was done to him at Lake calenhad, that I do not debate. But it still means that he should have been assigned to a different post, and kept away from Circle mages, because his traumatic experience would seriously effect his ability to do his job properly. But that's another arguement.

Oh yes he didn't jump in front of her to stop her from killing those mages. My eyes must've been playing tricks. But again since this is just a difference in opinonothing either of us says will convince the other.

Yes, since its really based on perception and speculation, I think we can reasonably agree to disagree on this one.

[Jessabi]

On my first playthrough I sided with the mages and didn't kill Anders. However, on my current playthrough I really feel like I want to kill him. What he did was wrong - the templar organisation is corrupt, yes. The mistreatment of the mages, rape and torture etc, forced tranquility and whatnot, so very wrong. However, commiting an act of terrorism, killing hundreds of innocent people, is not justified. If he had went for templars specificially? I would be more forgiving of that. But as others of said, Hawke was beginning to sway Meredith then BOOM! Anders goes and screws the whole damn thing over.

Just to add my two cents on the mage/templar issue, I'm very 50/50. I understand Anders' point of view as I stated above, however, practically every mage you come across in the game turns to blood magic and demons. And some people have probably already mentioned this (I couldn't be bothered ready through all 40+ pages), but the Tevinter Imperium is a prime example of the alternative. It's a mageocracy, and though blood magic is officially banned, the magisters still use it behind closed doors to gain power. For all Fenris' ****ing could get annoying, he lived the opposite of having the Templar order. Corrupt evil mages who misuse their magic for torture and enslavement, just so they can rise to the top of the political food chain. Those who don't turn to blood magic have to be content at the bottom, and very few are. Fenris even tells Sebastian of a time Danarius used a child as a blood sacrifice to impress guests, and according to him, things such as that are common practise in Tevinter - oh yes, much better.

The point is, a balance needs to be reached between the two. The Circle as it stands obviously isn't working, the Templars are too oppressive. As others said, mages wouldn't be risking their lives to try to escapse if it really wasn't all that bad. However, I don't think mages should be completely free to govern themselves as while many would use their magic wisely, there would undoubtedly be mages who would want more. Either to take revenge, or perhaps feel like they shouldn't have to play by the rules since they are inherently more powerful than those trying to enforce them. The Tevinter Imperium started somehow, I think it's misguided to think it wouldn't happen again if mages were given complete freedom.

Modifié par JessieBee185, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:30 .

[phaonica]

Tatinger wrote...

The evidence is there.  Just look at the Legacy DLC.  Bethany says everything is fine in The Circle.  'Nuff said.  The Annulment never took place -- thanks to the action of The Champion.

P. S. Sorry, maybe I should have put a spoiler on that or something because obviously people supporting The Annulment idea haven't played it.

According to the Dragon Age wiki, Legacy takes place before the end game.

"Legacy is a story-driven downloadable content for Dragon Age II. It can be played at any moment after reaching Kirkwall, and takes place before the events of the end game, although it can be played after the campaign. "

[Ryzaki]

phaonica wrote...

Tatinger wrote...

The evidence is there.  Just look at the Legacy DLC.  Bethany says everything is fine in The Circle.  'Nuff said.  The Annulment never took place -- thanks to the action of The Champion.

P. S. Sorry, maybe I should have put a spoiler on that or something because obviously people supporting The Annulment idea haven't played it.

According to the Dragon Age wiki, Legacy takes place before the end game.

"Legacy is a story-driven downloadable content for Dragon Age II. It can be played at any moment after reaching Kirkwall, and takes place before the events of the end game, although it can be played after the campaign. "

Not according to my missing Anders who was only missing after I killed him during the Last Straw.

[Monica21]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
But as far as Cullen is concerned, I doubt he'd going to withold the tranquil brand, since throughout the game, he has made a couple comments that show he seems to think Tranquility is a good thing, and doesn't understand why mages dislike it so much. In Act 2, when you discuss Alrik's paper proposing the "tranquil solution" on all mages, he doesn't find it really horrifying. In fact, though he doesn't actively support it, he says it has merits. In Act 3, right before all hell breaks loose, he says that tranquility would have been a kinder fate than what the templars were going to do to them, refering to the annulment that Meredith kept trying to invoke, and was likely to end up pulling regardless of what Elthina or the Divine thought. Since she was completely nutso.

I don't recall any comments where he thinks tranquility is a good thing, but that may depend on how aggressive you are about mage freedom. I recall him not being horrified, but because he'd already seen the proposal. Maybe they'd even had a staff meeting about it or something. And since I'm continually fighting blood mages in Kirkwall and/or dealing with their idiocy (Tarohne, Wilmod, Keran, Decimus, Grace as just a few examples) I'd probably think it wasn't such a bad thing either. 

"It's so weird how many mages end up as blood mages."
"I know, right? Maybe we should tranquil them."
"Hmmmm........."

So while Cullen might oppose meredith's excesses, he is far from being sympathetic to mages, given his apprant fascination with making mages tranquil throughout the game. And while Cullen voices his protests, he never once attempts to stop or revoke the annulment. And he didn't seem to care much if Hawke decides to kill the Mages (including possibly allowing meredith to skewer hawke's own sister, if they so permit). Cullen only steps in when meredith tries to kill Hawke (whether they sided with or against the templars), for some reason I can't fathom. He doesn't step in beforehand and try to relieve Meredith of command when she invoked the Right in the first place. So while he didn't fully support it, he didn't oppose it enough that prevented him from taking part in it. And it was only after the annulment was done (or prevented, for the most part) and Meredith decides to kill Hawke, that he steps in.

I wouldn't call Cullen sympathetic, but rather someone who's thinking clearly about the situation. And where do you get the impression that he has a "fascination" with making mages tranquil? It's one conversation. As for revoking the annulment, I've talked about this a couple of times. What's the upside to him disagreeing? If Meredith doesn't try to kill Hawke then Cullen gets jailed. There are a lot of things that could happen where Cullen ends up stripped of his rank and either left begging on the street for lyrium or jailed and without it. If my options were slow insanity and withdrawal or trying to clean up the effects of an RoA I'd go with the latter.

So somehow, I doubt the mages that you spare are going to end up as anything but talking vegetables. Cullen has never struck me as one for moderation much.

DA2 Cullen is far more moderate than DAO Cullen.

[phaonica]

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked,
the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being
brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible.
It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the
order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that
point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage...
something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus
capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So
therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any
mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they
could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6960031/1#6960523

[Xilizhra]

I'm really confused as to how you would suspect they would only spare three people and that's it. Cullen believes 'many mages can be spared", not just those three. To me, this implies any mages afterwards who surrender would be spared, like those three. It doesn't make sense to spare them, disagree with Meredith and decide to follow the Champion's exmaple, only to continue with the Rite five minutes later.

Cullen is, shall we say, an optimist when it comes to Annulment. It's also established that he doesn't have that many issues with the Rite of Tranquility. In any case, those templars not with Cullen are just killing any mages they see, which we get a glimpse of with those templars cornering a mage who goes abomination.

Xilizhra is just trolling at this point. I'm done.

I never troll.

"It's so weird how many mages end up as blood mages."
"I know, right? Maybe we should tranquil them."
"Hmmmm........."

Which is funny because even blood mage mind control doesn't go that far and that abominably.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked,
the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being
brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible.
It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the
order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that
point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage...
something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus
capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So
therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any
mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they
could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6960031/1#6960523

I'm not seeing anything there that applies to the Kirkwall Circle or how the events transpire or the fact that the Templar who opposed the RoA is now in charge.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Monica21 wrote...

I call BS even if there is a link. We're expected to believe that during the time you're killing Orsino that the mages are being hauled off and tranquiled right then? No, not happening. There's no time and no one to do it. Once you kill Meredith, Cullen is in charge, the same guy who opposed the RoA in the first place. Those mages are not being tranquiled.

Ehhh, see above. Cullen didn't stop the annulment. And he's been quite supportive of tranquility in general. Cullen certainly steps up when he thinks something has gone beyond what he thinks is acceptable, and challenges Meredith over Hawke. They don't need to tranquil the mages then and there. Round up the survivors, keep watch on them until all the festivities are done, then get around to the good ol' lyrium lobotomy. Cullen would probably do so just to play it safe, given what happened at Calenhad.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

"It's so weird how many mages end up as blood mages."
"I know, right? Maybe we should tranquil them."
"Hmmmm........."

Which is funny because even blood mage mind control doesn't go that far and that abominably.

I know, right? They just like to turn Templars into abominations and torture recruits with desire demons. But sure, they're totally harmless.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Monica21 wrote...

megski wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...


David Gaider once clarified this, I'm sure someone has the link to the post. But he said that an annulment means all mages are wiped out, children included. If any happen to survive (which seems to be a rare thing) they are either made tranquil or killed. An annulment is a total elimination of all mages, old and young, adults and children, in the Circle, because it has been deemed beyond salvation. Well, unless you're Meredith.

Meredith's Right of Annulment never gets overruled. hawke can chose to spare mages that surrender, but the Annulment is still active, and those surviving mages end up dead or zombified, according to Gaider. You're still annulling the Tower, that's why you are fighting mages. Because you are there to either exteriminate or tranquil any mages you find. Meredith might get mad because you spare a few mages, but only because its a waste of time, they will be dealt with anyway.

Seriously?  That is such b.s.!  Basically when you side with the templars, you kill like maybe 10 people labeled as 'circle mage' and everyone else is labeled 'blood mage' when you're fighting.  You mostly fight demons too!  What a bunch of crap that the annulment is still active.  You would think that once Mereidith goes crazy that it is obviously, her being crazy lol, and as the new vicount you could decide 'if the people want blood.'  

That really bothers me too, that really should have been addressed in the game instead of a follow up detail because as templar side Hawke, you do restore order and have the choice to spare people.   I am disappointed about that.  

I call BS even if there is a link. We're expected to believe that during the time you're killing Orsino that the mages are being hauled off and tranquiled right then? No, not happening. There's no time and no one to do it. Once you kill Meredith, Cullen is in charge, the same guy who opposed the RoA in the first place. Those mages are not being tranquiled.

Too much to follow on this thread at the moment to decipher exactly what is being argued, so I hope I'm not making the error of misunderstanding.

First of all, here is what Gaider said about it. Let's look at how the situation with Cullen at Kirkwall doesn't apply to what he said. Specifically this:
"It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine."

Cullen says this when sparing the mages at the Gallows,
"Surely, the RoA requires something more..."
"The Right has always been a last resort, when every mage involved was beyond salvation. The situation in Ferelden was far more dire and still many mages were saved. We could still do as much here."

And more importantly, this:
"But they haven't resorted to it [blood magic], even to save their own lives. Perhaps if we watched them carefully..."

Clearly, the Right of Annulment has been invoked - even Orsino asks for it to be revoked. Meredith is trying to enforce it to the word. Cullen is objecting to its exacting implementations - he is not acting immorally at this point in time and is not even suggesting tranquility. So there is no evidence that the captured mages will be made tranquil. And how does one interpret Gaider's words?
'So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if anymages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.'

There are a lot of unknowns here...

EDIT: Some formatting, and correcting typos.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 12 septembre 2011 - 03:34 .

[Monica21]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Ehhh, see above. Cullen didn't stop the annulment. And he's been quite supportive of tranquility in general. Cullen certainly steps up when he thinks something has gone beyond what he thinks is acceptable, and challenges Meredith over Hawke. They don't need to tranquil the mages then and there. Round up the survivors, keep watch on them until all the festivities are done, then get around to the good ol' lyrium lobotomy. Cullen would probably do so just to play it safe, given what happened at Calenhad.

I have to get to work, so I'll say this for now: opposing the annulment and stopping it are two different things. He did oppose it.

[Xilizhra]

I know, right? They just like to turn Templars into abominations and torture recruits with desire demons. But sure, they're totally harmless.

Well, at least the latter is reversible.

[Catriana]

phaonica wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked,
the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being
brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible.
It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the
order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that
point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage...
something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus
capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So
therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any
mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they
could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6960031/1#6960523

This is about a general discussion of what the Rite of Annulment should be based on the poster's request for clarification. It's not specifically discussing what happened in DAII. I thought people were saying this is what he was saying actually happened in Kirkwall, but that's not the case. Trying to use it as an argument for what happened in the game is flawed, at best.

It certainly doesn't negate the fact that Cullen can agree to spare any remaining mages who surrender, especially when he calls for Meredith to stand down when she goes too far. Considering he doesn't believe the Rite of Anullment should be excecuted in this instance, I doubt any of the mages are made tranquil or are executed.

[megski]

I think Gaider was talking about a hypothetical situation. Obviously, the RoA in Kirkwall didn't go as they're supposed to, because people that surrendered WERE spared. Also, the circle in Ferelden was one of those where everything had moved passed saving, which I think is what he is talking about. The annulment in Kirkwall wasn't about that, it was about doing something Meredith wanted to appease the community. I know that Kirkwall doesn't necessarily follow the rules at any point, but the chantry does forbid making a mage tranquil if they pass their harrowing, so the only penalty is death via the annulment. As far as I can see, Cullen doesn't seem like he wants to break any more rules, he just wants order restored.

[Catriana]

Oh, as for an answer to the thread question:

I kill Anders depending on whether or not I feel like trolling Sebastian. It was oddly satisfying to be like "It's a long walk back to Starkhaven, better get started."

I was a little irritated when I spared Anders and he comes back to fight you if you side with the Templars. Because really, I told you to GTFO, dude.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Monica21 wrote...


I don't recall any comments where he thinks tranquility is a good thing, but that may depend on how aggressive you are about mage freedom. I recall him not being horrified, but because he'd already seen the proposal. Maybe they'd even had a staff meeting about it or something. And since I'm continually fighting blood mages in Kirkwall and/or dealing with their idiocy (Tarohne, Wilmod, Keran, Decimus, Grace as just a few examples) I'd probably think it wasn't such a bad thing either. 

"It's so weird how many mages end up as blood mages."
"I know, right? Maybe we should tranquil them."
"Hmmmm........."

I recall several conversations where he thought tranquility was a good thing, or didn't see why mages thought it was worse than death. As far as Alrik's papers goes, he made the statement that the idea had Merit, and wasn't opposed to it, at least in theory or principle, but likely in practice.

And I wasn't fighting blood mages non-stop until Act 3 and Meredith had gone so overboard that even her templars were forming a conspiracy to oust her. In act 1, I fought Decimus.. Beyond that, all the mages I remember fighting were apostates that were part of criminal gangs, which is pretty standard practice everywhere, including orzammar (when you invade the Carta hideout, you fight surface mages, likely under the employ of the Carta). I was being attacked by way many more non-mages than I was mages.

Act 2, the only blood mages I remember fighting were Quentin and Lady Harriman, who just attacked me. Most of the people attacking me in Act 2 were freaking religous zealots, including a buttload of templars trying to instigate holy war with the Qunari.

Act 3, everyone became epic stupid, and was attacking me. Blood mages and apostates, templars, random no-names with a death wish, ect. And as i said before, in Act 3, meredith had gone so off her rocker Cullen was comparing her to Uldred in her madness(yet like everyone in game, does nothing about it). So when I'm finally getting mobbed by all these blood mages and their servants, it's not like its just happening out of the blue for the lulz.

I wouldn't call Cullen sympathetic, but rather someone who's thinking clearly about the situation. And where do you get the impression that he has a "fascination" with making mages tranquil? It's one conversation. As for revoking the annulment, I've talked about this a couple of times. What's the upside to him disagreeing? If Meredith doesn't try to kill Hawke then Cullen gets jailed. There are a lot of things that could happen where Cullen ends up stripped of his rank and either left begging on the street for lyrium or jailed and without it. If my options were slow insanity and withdrawal or trying to clean up the effects of an RoA I'd go with the latter.

Cullen could have been jailed for trying to step in and defend Hawke, too, but that didn't stop him.

As far as his support of tranquility, you speak to him in Act 1, and he talks about how mages think tranquility is worse than death, a view he thinks is evidence that the mages don't want any control on them, and how he doesn't get it. Act 2, as I said, he tells you that Alrik's plan has merits. His reasons for this are not important to my point, it is the fact that he would consider lobotomizing every mage in existance as a solution that has "merits", is not the viewpoint of someone who is moderate by any means. He certainly wasn't that horrified or opposed to it.

DA2 Cullen is far more moderate than DAO Cullen.

Not by much. he's certainly not as hysterical and broken as he was at the end of the broken Circle quest, and certainly has mellowed out some. But he is still pretty extreme by the standards of most templars I met in DAO, and fits in well with the Gallows in DA2. Hell, he pretty much supported Meredith until about Act 3. He even talks about this in the first convo you have with him in the Gallows, about Meredith. It wasn't until she had gone full lyrium-idol loco that he started comparing her to Uldred and started doubting her leadership. And by all accounts, she was still a pretty nasty, incompetant b*tch clear back in Act 1, and Cullen had no problems.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Cullen's opinions, or how he formed those opinions, is not my point. It is that he didn't oppose Meredith when she was was, sans idol, still running an extreme and very corrupt shop. He only opposes her when she goes insane bwahahahaha evil that he takes issue.

[MichaelFinnegan]

megski wrote...

I think Gaider was talking about a hypothetical situation. Obviously, the RoA in Kirkwall didn't go as they're supposed to, because people that surrendered WERE spared. Also, the circle in Ferelden was one of those where everything had moved passed saving, which I think is what he is talking about. The annulment in Kirkwall wasn't about that, it was about doing something Meredith wanted to appease the community. I know that Kirkwall doesn't necessarily follow the rules at any point, but the chantry does forbid making a mage tranquil if they pass their harrowing, so the only penalty is death via the annulment. As far as I can see, Cullen doesn't seem like he wants to break any more rules, he just wants order restored.

At which point we need to go back to what the Right of Annulment actually means. It is a power that rests primarily with any Grand Cleric to purge a Circle entirely if she rules it irredeemable. Does it mean that all mages must be killed once the RoA is invoked? I don't think so. Even what Gaider said seems to suggest that the reason why every mage might be killed is simply because of the fear of what if. What if some mage was corrupted and had become a blood mage - which cannot be normally detected? That mage might try to escape from captivity later on.

Once an RoA has been sanctioned, it is well within the rights, apparently, of the templars to purge the Circle entirely, and they won't be questioned thereafter. But that doesn't mean that every Knight Commander or the templar order in general would just kill every mage within the Circle just because the RoA has been invoked. Cullen is a templar who would risk the sparing of mages who he thinks are not guilty and merely protecting themselves without resorting to blood magic. Perhaps it's just a judgment call.

[Monica21]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
It's in an Act 1 conversation with him. he refers to them as not being people, more like weapons. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his assessment is not important, it is the fact that this is what he thinks that is, when looking at his character. He has, to a measurable degree, dehumanized his charges. Which is a bad thing for someone in that capacity to have. He certainly has every reason to feel that way, given what was done to him at Lake Calenhad, that I do not debate. But it still means that he should have been assigned to a different post, and kept away from Circle mages, because his traumatic experience would seriously effect his ability to do his job properly. But that's another argument.

I think that dehumanizing them is actually necessary in his job. Because mages have a free pass to the Fade and because it's not terribly dificult to become an abomination and because it's rather easy to use your magic against the Templars, he never knows when an RoA might have to be called. Take the Ferelden circle as an example. If you start in the mage origin it seems pretty normal, people learning, people gossiping. It feels like a boarding school and the Templars are monitoring hall passes. All it took was one guy and a few followers to create the need for a legitimate RoA.

Dehumanizing them helps him. If you think of them as something else, then you find it much harder to carry out your duties. The mage you just saw in the library yesterday might be begging for her life right now, but you simply don't know if s/he's possessed or not. Hesitation can mean he dies or an abomination walks free. He's better off dehumanizing them.

Modifié par Monica21, 12 septembre 2011 - 04:59 .