2340 réponses à ce sujet

[megski]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

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.

Ok, I guess I was stuck on thinking the RoA was just something that happened when all hell breaks loose, like in Ferelden.  The codex kind of reminds me of Kirkwall, how it isn't necessarily one big horrible incident that causes a circle to be annuled.  

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

megski wrote...

Ok, I guess I was stuck on thinking the RoA was just something that happened when all hell breaks loose, like in Ferelden.  The codex kind of reminds me of Kirkwall, how it isn't necessarily one big horrible incident that causes a circle to be annuled.  

I myself never questioned the overall legality of Meredith's annulment, because I'm pretty sure a Knight Commander, if all hell breaks loose, can call an annulment on the spot without having to wait for permission from the Grand Cleric, especially in emergencies. The existing laws in Thedas are such, that I figured meredith calling the annulment wasn't necessarily illegal by Chantry law and standards. I've always figured that given the wording of the Codex, it was really up to the opinion of the Grand Cleric, whether a Circle could be annuled or not. Had Elthina been having a really bad hair day, and decided to grant Meredith her annulment, it would have been legal to do so, even if the Circle had no blood mages or forbidden magic going on. It seems really up the the GC or Divine, except in emergencies, to decide whether or not a Circle can or should be annulled.

it would be interesting to study the history of each annulment, and what the causes and reasons were. We have the history of the first event that created the Right, but no details on any of the others, and there have been 17 before the potential annulment in Ferelden, and the one in Kirkwall.

My problem was the insanity and idocy of her reasoning and motives. I don't care how legal it is, if someone is legally performing an act I find dangerously stupid and based on the lamest of reasons, it still fails. Meredith was too much an insane idiot to really have any critical thinking skills required to make such calls, which is why instead, I decided to annul her instead.

[phaonica]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
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.

I would have disagreed in DAO, but I do agree for DA2.
www.youtube.com/watch

When Cullen relieves Meredith of duty, and definitely after she dies, I would imagine that Cullen at least suspends the RoA briefly to reevaluate continuing with the anullment. If Hawke sides with the templars, it might be assumed that Hawke supports the RoA and therefore Cullen would carry the RoA out to its finality. If Hawke allowed some survivors (which Cullen does seem to support), it might be assumed that the RoA is carried out, but with more careful consideration for sparing those who are deemed uncompromised. Considering that Cullen seemed to defend the idea of sparing some mages, I don't think I would assume that those spared will be Tranquilled.

However, I do think that at the point when Hawke must choose to support the RoA or not, I don't know why it wouldn't be assumed that Hawke is supporting the execution of every mage in the Gallows. The RoA is widely considered a purge, implying no survivors, no one is spared. And Meredith is in charge, not Hawke. The scene where Meredith allows Cullen to override her authority and let some mages be spared makes no sense at all to me. Between her adamant stance and her madness, it doesn't make sense for her to let Cullen or Hawke allow any mages to survive.

Modifié par phaonica, 12 septembre 2011 - 05:38 .

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...
However, I do think that at the point when Hawke must choose to support the RoA or not, I don't know why it wouldn't be assumed that Hawke is supporting the execution of every mage in the Gallows. The RoA is widely considered a purge, implying no survivors, no one is spared. The scene where Meredith allows Cullen to override her authority and let some mages be spared makes no sense at all to me. Between her adamant stance and her madness, it doesn't make sense for her to let Cullen or Hawke allow any mages to survive.

The whole RoA doesn't make a lot of sense, to the point where you can tell your companions that you're doing it to preserve order and not because you agree with Meredith.

I sided with the mages once and then the Templars, and I don't think I'll side with the mages again. I haven't counted numbers, but based on (really weird) dialogue and the action you take, noted by another poster upthread, I actually did feel like I was doing more to save the mages than to kill them. Yeah, it requires some metagaming knowledge, but frankly, so little in Act 3 makes sense that it's hard to play without metagaming.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

phaonica wrote...
However, I do think that at the point when Hawke must choose to support the RoA or not, I don't know why it wouldn't be assumed that Hawke is supporting the execution of every mage in the Gallows. The RoA is widely considered a purge, implying no survivors, no one is spared. And Meredith is in charge, not Hawke. The scene where Meredith allows Cullen to override her authority and let some mages be spared makes no sense at all to me. Between her adamant stance and her madness, it doesn't make sense for her to let Cullen or Hawke allow any mages to survive.

Now this I totally agree with, in general. Act 3 made no sense at all from beginning to end. Why Meredith would even care what Hawke thinks, since she's already crazy, and plans to kill him/her regardless. Why Orsino goes Harvestino on you even if you side with the mages and survive. Why Cullen would defend a Hawke who sided with the mages, thus allowing many to escape. Why Meredith didn't even care if rivaled Anders survives and helps with the Annulment. Why Cullen can't seem to locate Anders, or bother to try and arrest him, if you try to shop Anders to the templars when Anders is planting a bomb. If Anders isn't in the party, Cullen says they can't find him. Despite Anders being openly shacked up with Hawke. Bring him back later, no reaction from anyone in the gallows.

So yes, I agree, Act 3 made little sense at all.

[phaonica]

Monica21 wrote...

The whole RoA doesn't make a lot of sense, to the point where you can tell your companions that you're doing it to preserve order and not because you agree with Meredith.

Even if you don't agree with her reasons, siding with her is still an acceptance of her actions, which you can assume will be the execution of every mage. I'm not sure I understand the mentality of siding with the Templars if you want the chance to save some innocent mages. I do understand siding with the Templars if you're trying to maintain the status quo, and the innocent mages are an unfortunate casualty that you are willing to accept, but whom you would save if you could, given the opportunity.

I sided with the mages once and then the Templars, and I don't think I'll side with the mages again. I haven't counted numbers, but based on (really weird) dialogue and the action you take, noted by another poster upthread, I actually did feel like I was doing more to save the mages than to kill them. Yeah, it requires some metagaming knowledge, but frankly, so little in Act 3 makes sense that it's hard to play without metagaming.

I definitely do not like the way this ending was written. If the Templar choice can only be morally justified via metagaming, that is not fun for me. I'm not saying that it's an invalid or bad playstyle, just that it's not the way I like to play.

[MichaelFinnegan]

megski wrote...

Ok, I guess I was stuck on thinking the RoA was just something that happened when all hell breaks loose, like in Ferelden.  The codex kind of reminds me of Kirkwall, how it isn't necessarily one big horrible incident that causes a circle to be annuled.

I suppose the condition is merely that the Circle has become irredeemable. Given mages, though, one could visualize demon summonings and abominations, and, yes, to the templars, it is also wholesale use of "forbidden" aka blood magic.

I think the codex doesn't talk about an RoA being performed, but just states what events transpired to bring it to reality. None of the 17 RoAs that have been performed have been documented, yet. The Circle wasn't annuled in this incident, although all the mages might have been killed by the abomination.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I myself never questioned the overall legality of Meredith's annulment, because I'm pretty sure a Knight Commander, if all hell breaks loose, can call an annulment on the spot without having to wait for permission from the Grand Cleric, especially in emergencies. The existing laws in Thedas are such, that I figured meredith calling the annulment wasn't necessarily illegal by Chantry law and standards.

Not necessarily. According to this, I wonder if Meredith really wasn't doing something illegal. I wonder though if the Knight Commander deciding the RoA followed some precedent. I doubt it, but one can never be too sure.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I've always figured that given the wording of the Codex, it was really up to the opinion of the Grand Cleric, whether a Circle could be annuled or not. Had Elthina been having a really bad hair day, and decided to grant Meredith her annulment, it would have been legal to do so, even if the Circle had no blood mages or forbidden magic going on.

Pretty sure it wouldn't have happened that way; Elthina didn't come across to me to be capable of making such a horrendous error in judgment.

But, the real issue is what Gaider mentioned: would the templars really make sure every mage was guilty before carrying out the Right?

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

it would be interesting to study the history of each annulment, and what the causes and reasons were. We have the history of the first event that created the Right, but no details on any of the others, and there have been 17 before the potential annulment in Ferelden, and the one in Kirkwall.

Yes, I find it curious that none of the codexes till now talk about any of the 17 RoAs done prior to the events in DA. Of course, they'd be open to interpretations and subject to the bias of the writer, but it'd still be something.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

My problem was the insanity and idocy of her reasoning and motives. I don't care how legal it is, if someone is legally performing an act I find dangerously stupid and based on the lamest of reasons, it still fails. Meredith was too much an insane idiot to really have any critical thinking skills required to make such calls, which is why instead, I decided to annul her instead.

During the final battle, I find it curious how Meredith says at the very end, "What if I'm not doing the right thing. What if this is all madness?" It's almost as if her sanity is trying to voice out. I found her soliloquies during the battle quite odd - as if she was constantly trying to rationalize what she was doing, and on occasion doubting herself.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:12 .

[phaonica]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Now this I totally agree with, in general. Act 3 made no sense at all from beginning to end. Why Meredith would even care what Hawke thinks, since she's already crazy, and plans to kill him/her regardless. Why Orsino goes Harvestino on you even if you side with the mages and survive. Why Cullen would defend a Hawke who sided with the mages, thus allowing many to escape. Why Meredith didn't even care if rivaled Anders survives and helps with the Annulment. Why Cullen can't seem to locate Anders, or bother to try and arrest him, if you try to shop Anders to the templars when Anders is planting a bomb. If Anders isn't in the party, Cullen says they can't find him. Despite Anders being openly shacked up with Hawke. Bring him back later, no reaction from anyone in the gallows.

So yes, I agree, Act 3 made little sense at all.

It's a mess. Meredith is *insane*. I don't know exactly when this happened, but at some point, she shouldn't have cared at all about any restrictions she supposedly had. Not in arresting Hawke any time during Act 3. Not in dealing with Anders after the Chantry is bombed. Not in allowing Cullen to spare mages.

Even if she was going to "snap", and even if she wasn't technically insane until the exact moment before the final battle, why was turning on Hawke the trigger? 

[phaonica]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
During the final battle, I find it curious how Meredith says at the very end, "What if I'm not doing the right thing. What if this is all madness?" It's almost as if her sanity is trying to voice out. I found her soliloquies during the battle quite odd - as if she was constantly trying to rationalize what she was doing, and on occasion doubting herself.

I had forgotten about these soliloquies during the battle. It really doesn't sound too much different than Anders being possessed by Justice/Vengeance. Vengeance is brutal and uncompromising, yet Anders doesn't always completely agree with Vengeance. Perhaps symbolically (or perhaps even literally) Meredith is possessed by the idea of... Vigilance? Being "possessed" may be a type of madess that allows for doubt.

Modifié par phaonica, 12 septembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I suppose the condition is merely that the Circle has become irredeemable. Given mages, though, one could visualize demon summonings and abominations, and, yes, to the templars, it is also wholesale use of "forbidden" aka blood magic.

I think the codex doesn't talk about an RoA being performed, but just states what events transpired to bring it to reality. None of the 17 RoAs that have been performed have been documented, yet. The Circle wasn't annuled in this incident, although all the mages might have been killed by the abomination.

Yes, and what constitututes "irredeemable" could very well be open to interpretation. But no, we sadly don't see exactly what conditions the other 17 annulments were called on, and I think that would be an interesting study, writer biases and all.

Not necessarily. According to this, I wonder if Meredith really wasn't doing something illegal. I wonder though if the Knight Commander deciding the RoA followed some precedent. I doubt it, but one can never be too sure.

See above. While I don't think a Grand Cleric can just roll out of bed, order tea, buscuits, and the Circle to be Annulled with breakfast, I do think what constitututes a Circle being "irredeemable" to the point that every man, woman, and child within are to be executed or tranquilled, is a concept open to a wide variety of interpretations. And thus, the possibility of of it having been applied before under very questionalble circumstances, with even more questionable motives, would be interesting to see.  I don't doubt that at least half of those annulments were called for very solid, justifiable reasons, where few, if anyone, would argue over the need or justification to annul the Circle. Gregoire's Annulment was perfectly justified, for example, and much of the reason that Circle went bad was due to political intrigues. Given the turbulent history of Thedas, it wouldn't surprise me the causes of the Chaos at kinloch didn't happen at least once before. But out of 17 annulments, I'm willing to bet at least a couple annulments were highly questionable. This annulment might not be so unusual in that regard. It's why I'd really like to see, in the future DA games, some further information.

Pretty sure it wouldn't have happened that way; Elthina didn't come across to me to be capable of making such a horrendous error in judgment.

But, the real issue is what Gaider mentioned: would the templars really make sure every mage was guilty before carrying out the Right?

No, I doubt in reality, Elthina would. I was just giving the example that as a Grand Cleric, its her call on Annulments.

As to your last question, I'd say no. Some templars might, but most wouldn't. If they were convinced enough were, they are basically the "kill em all, let the Maker sort em out" type of troopers.

During the final battle, I find it curious how Meredith says at the very end, "What if I'm not doing the right thing. What if this is all madness?" It's almost as if her sanity is trying to voice out. I found her soliloquies during the battle quite odd - as if she was constantly trying to rationalize what she was doing, and on occasion doubting herself.

By that point, meredith had become to idiotic and over the top for me to really care what she was saying. I was getting mobbed by giant bronze voltron statues, and she was levatating, backflipping, and doing things that made it difficult for me to get through the battle without frequent pauses to lol and facepalm.

[aries1001]

Before all this happens, though, with Meredith invoking the RoA, didn't Anders do something that made the Grand Cleric Elthina pass away? It is only after this has happened that Meredith invokes the RoA.
(at least that's how I remember it). And this point, Cullen, I think steps in and says 'I'm relieving you of your duties, Meredith.' (because he think she has gone bonkers -ehm- crazy....)

Meredith is then acting as the Grand Cleric because she is, the Grand Master?, of the Templars (or whatever their leader is called). She clearly sees it as her mission and vision to restore order in the Kirkwall circle - through any means necessary. Just as Anders sees it as his vision and mission to free the mages - through any means necessary.

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

I would have disagreed in DAO, but I do agree for DA2.
www.youtube.com/watch 

Cullen only spares three mages out of hundreds, and we don't even know whether those three mages will be made tranquil or not. Regardless of the fate of the three mages, Cullen doesn't do anything to curb the deaths of hundreds of other denizens of the Gallows.

phaonica wrote...

When Cullen relieves Meredith of duty, and definitely after she dies, I would imagine that Cullen at least suspends the RoA briefly to reevaluate continuing with the anullment.

Suspend the Right of Annulment? Why? Cullen only intervenes if Hawke's life is threatened, not because hundreds of men, women, and children are being killed by the templars. The remaining Circles of Magi rebelled against the Chantry and the Order of Templars because of what happened at Kirkwall. If it wasn't as bad as all the previous Rights of Annulment, then I don't see why every remaining Circle of Magi would defect from nearly a thousand years of servitude to the Chantry and its templars.

phaonica wrote...

If Hawke sides with the templars, it might be assumed that Hawke supports the RoA and therefore Cullen would carry the RoA out to its finality. If Hawke allowed some survivors (which Cullen does seem to support), it might be assumed that the RoA is carried out, but with more careful consideration for sparing those who are deemed uncompromised. Considering that Cullen seemed to defend the idea of sparing some mages, I don't think I would assume that those spared will be Tranquilled.

Cullen only spared three mages if pro-templar Hawke agrees, while any other mages who are fighting for their lives because they were all summarily condemned for Anders' actions are being executed. And Cullen seems to advocate the Tranquil Solution when he's confronted about Ser Alrik's actions (as Hawke and Anders can point out).

phaonica wrote...

However, I do think that at the point when Hawke must choose to support the RoA or not, I don't know why it wouldn't be assumed that Hawke is supporting the execution of every mage in the Gallows. The RoA is widely considered a purge, implying no survivors, no one is spared. And Meredith is in charge, not Hawke. The scene where Meredith allows Cullen to override her authority and let some mages be spared makes no sense at all to me. Between her adamant stance and her madness, it doesn't make sense for her to let Cullen or Hawke allow any mages to survive.

I agree. That scene doesn't really make any sense. Then again, neither does Cullen intervening if pro-mage Hawke is confronted by Meredith.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

phaonica wrote...

It's a mess. Meredith is *insane*. I don't know exactly when this happened, but at some point, she shouldn't have cared at all about any restrictions she supposedly had. Not in arresting Hawke any time during Act 3. Not in dealing with Anders after the Chantry is bombed. Not in allowing Cullen to spare mages.

Even if she was going to "snap", and even if she wasn't technically insane until the exact moment before the final battle, why was turning on Hawke the trigger? 

Yeah, as I said, it makes no sense. Especially, as I said, if you play a Hawke who sides with the mages (and can even be a maleficar themselves) and comes strolling out of the Gallows after potentially releasing a shyteload of potentially dangerous individuals into a city at breaking point. And even moreso if Anders is still alive. If one is playing all the above criteria, it makes zero sense to me why Cullen would be opposed to Meredith executing Hawke on the spot. He even says, if you side with the mages, that the plan was to arrest Hawke, would would most likely be executed anyway, since they have conspired enough with questionable mages, or might be one themselves. It only makes sense for Cullen to object if hawke aided the annulment, since, well, murdering someone who just gave you a big hand solving your problems is not really a nice thing to do.

But protecting pro-mage Hawke? No, don't make sense to me at all. Especially if you are playing a Hawke who basically represents everything he opposes, and acts on these things repeatedly. But I guess they felt they needed to have the templars assist in the final boss battle with meredith.

[MichaelFinnegan]

phaonica wrote...

When Cullen relieves Meredith of duty, and definitely after she dies, I would imagine that Cullen at least suspends the RoA briefly to reevaluate continuing with the anullment.

I haven't thought about what happened after the events of the final battle, but doesn't Varric say that even the templars had rebelled against the chantry? In any case, on whose authority would he carry it out? Sure Meredith's assessment of the situation would be considered void after her death, especially knowing that madness perhaps was the cause of her decision to carry out the RoA?

If Hawke sides with the templars, it might be assumed that Hawke supports the RoA and therefore Cullen would carry the RoA out to its finality. If Hawke allowed some survivors (which Cullen does seem to support), it might be assumed that the RoA is carried out, but with more careful consideration for sparing those who are deemed uncompromised. Considering that Cullen seemed to defend the idea of sparing some mages, I don't think I would assume that those spared will be Tranquilled.

I think such an argument could be made as soon as Hawke decides to support the templars over the mages at the start of battle, not after it. Although, I'd like to point out that by choosing to spare the mages, Cullen is taking a moral stand - a difficult path given the nature of what it might lead to, if he was wrong.

However, I do think that at the point when Hawke must choose to support the RoA or not, I don't know why it wouldn't be assumed that Hawke is supporting the execution of every mage in the Gallows.

At that point, yes. As I said above. But, consider. One could have agreed to it earlier, merely with the supposition that supporting templars (which is all what we agree to, not the RoA, as such) would maintain order in the city. Whether one would actually go about murdering mages could be relegated to later - what you agree with initially isn't necessarily how it should end; the political situation in Orzammar thought us that. The later dialogue option, "We can still prevent this" lends some basis for this. In fact, in retrospect, the story plays out this way. Having no flexibility here would have been restrictive, story-wise.

The RoA is widely considered a purge, implying no survivors, no one is spared. And Meredith is in charge, not Hawke. The scene where Meredith allows Cullen to override her authority and let some mages be spared makes no sense at all to me. Between her adamant stance and her madness, it doesn't make sense for her to let Cullen or Hawke allow any mages to survive.

Perhaps she's not there yet - she does get extremely mad though. Well, I don't know if they factored this into the game, but couldn't it have been possible for Cullen to actually trust Hawke more than Meredith, and for the templar order to follow Cullen's orders over Meredith's? I don't know what else to say about this one.

In any case, as I said earlier, I view RoA as not simply butchering every mage in sight, but by exercising judgment on a case-by-case basis - as hard as that could turn out to be, which is what we kind of do in DAO, by killing all abminations but sparing Wynne and other mages, but it isn't called an RoA.

[megski]

I think what people are trying to say is that siding with the templars doesn't necessarily mean you side with meredith. I think Hawke could do more for Kirkwall by staying. If Alistair is king, he mentions some things about the circle changing in Ferelden, as viscount Hawke could follow suite and I'm sure could convince Sebastian to be on board from Starkhaven. But that is all speculation I guess. I always imagine Hawke having his/her own agenda by siding with the templars. But this is all speculation anyway. At the same time though, you never know when or if Anders might be resurrected and come back to haunt you.

[LobselVith8]

Monica21 wrote...

The whole RoA doesn't make a lot of sense, to the point where you can tell your companions that you're doing it to preserve order and not because you agree with Meredith.

Pro-templar Hawke's voiced argument is ridiculous. There's no rebellion, there's mages fighting against their assassination. Mages are fighting for their lives because Meredith has ordered the execution of every mage for an act that Anders alone is responsible for.

Monica21 wrote...

I sided with the mages once and then the Templars, and I don't think I'll side with the mages again. I haven't counted numbers, but based on (really weird) dialogue and the action you take, noted by another poster upthread, I actually did feel like I was doing more to save the mages than to kill them. Yeah, it requires some metagaming knowledge, but frankly, so little in Act 3 makes sense that it's hard to play without metagaming.

I never understood it when people stated this. By saving three mages and allowing the murder of hundreds of other mages, you feel you're saving more mages than you otherwise would by having Hawke protecting mages from the templars killing all the mages in the Gallows? Meredith is a genodical lunatic, and Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated like people and are weapons. Neither of them gave me the feeling that any mages would be safe in their hands. Even Varric's endgame dialogue only says that there were survivors if Hawke sides with the mages.

[megski]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The whole RoA doesn't make a lot of sense, to the point where you can tell your companions that you're doing it to preserve order and not because you agree with Meredith.

Pro-templar Hawke's voiced argument is ridiculous. There's no rebellion, there's mages fighting against their assassination. Mages are fighting for their lives because Meredith has ordered the execution of every mage for an act that Anders alone is responsible for.

Monica21 wrote...

I sided with the mages once and then the Templars, and I don't think I'll side with the mages again. I haven't counted numbers, but based on (really weird) dialogue and the action you take, noted by another poster upthread, I actually did feel like I was doing more to save the mages than to kill them. Yeah, it requires some metagaming knowledge, but frankly, so little in Act 3 makes sense that it's hard to play without metagaming.

I never understood it when people stated this. By saving three mages and allowing the murder of hundreds of other mages, you feel you're saving more mages than you otherwise would by having Hawke protecting mages from the templars killing all the mages in the Gallows? Meredith is a genodical lunatic, and Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated like people and are weapons. Neither of them gave me the feeling that any mages would be safe in their hands. Even Varric's endgame dialogue only says that there were survivors if Hawke sides with the mages.

What hundreds of mages?  

[LobselVith8]

megski wrote...

I think what people are trying to say is that siding with the templars doesn't necessarily mean you side with meredith.

I doubt the Kirkwall mages see much difference if Hawke sides with the templars who are fulfilling Meredith's edict.

megski wrote...

I think Hawke could do more for Kirkwall by staying. If Alistair is king, he mentions some things about the circle changing in Ferelden, as viscount Hawke could follow suite and I'm sure could convince Sebastian to be on board from Starkhaven.

Viscount doesn't mean much in a city-state that's controlled by the templars, and Sebastian doesn't think that the mages should be free from the Chantry. He even discusses with Fenris handing over the apostates in Hawke's group, at which point Fenris tells him to take the issue up with Hawke.

megski wrote...

But that is all speculation I guess. I always imagine Hawke having his/her own agenda by siding with the templars. But this is all speculation anyway. At the same time though, you never know when or if Anders might be resurrected and come back to haunt you.

It's been said by the developers that if Anders is killed, he'll remain dead.

megski wrote...

What hundreds of mages?  

The codex on the Circle of Kirkwall references that there are hundreds of mages in the Circle of Kirkwall - which is written before the influx of mages from the torched Circle of Starkhaven.

[rak72]

megski wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The whole RoA doesn't make a lot of sense, to the point where you can tell your companions that you're doing it to preserve order and not because you agree with Meredith.

Pro-templar Hawke's voiced argument is ridiculous. There's no rebellion, there's mages fighting against their assassination. Mages are fighting for their lives because Meredith has ordered the execution of every mage for an act that Anders alone is responsible for.

Monica21 wrote...

I sided with the mages once and then the Templars, and I don't think I'll side with the mages again. I haven't counted numbers, but based on (really weird) dialogue and the action you take, noted by another poster upthread, I actually did feel like I was doing more to save the mages than to kill them. Yeah, it requires some metagaming knowledge, but frankly, so little in Act 3 makes sense that it's hard to play without metagaming.

I never understood it when people stated this. By saving three mages and allowing the murder of hundreds of other mages, you feel you're saving more mages than you otherwise would by having Hawke protecting mages from the templars killing all the mages in the Gallows? Meredith is a genodical lunatic, and Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated like people and are weapons. Neither of them gave me the feeling that any mages would be safe in their hands. Even Varric's endgame dialogue only says that there were survivors if Hawke sides with the mages.

What hundreds of mages?  

If they are being killed, you can count the numbers that are killed off screen.  if they are being spared, you can only coult the instances that occur on screen.

[MichaelFinnegan]

phaonica wrote...

I had forgotten about these soliloquies during the battle. It really doesn't sound too much different than Anders being possessed by Justice/Vengeance. Vengeance is brutal and uncompromising, yet Anders doesn't always completely agree with Vengeance. Perhaps symbolically (or perhaps even literally) Meredith is possessed by the idea of... Vigilance? Being "possessed" may be a type of madess that allows for doubt.

Yes, something like an MPD, I guess. Well, whatever it was, she's been at it for some time. I remember someone mentioning that she used to "converse" with someone/something/herself when she was alone at her office.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Yes, and what constitututes "irredeemable" could very well be open to interpretation.

It is open to interpretation, big time. That's the whole problem with it. I don't know the whole Chantry structure, but I don't know how accountable the Grand Cleric would be, or even to whom she might be accountable to.

See above. While I don't think a Grand Cleric can just roll out of bed, order tea, buscuits, and the Circle to be Annulled with breakfast, I do think what constitututes a Circle being "irredeemable" to the point that every man, woman, and child within are to be executed or tranquilled, is a concept open to a wide variety of interpretations. And thus, the possibility of of it having been applied before under very questionalble circumstances, with even more questionable motives, would be interesting to see.  I don't doubt that at least half of those annulments were called for very solid, justifiable reasons, where few, if anyone, would argue over the need or justification to annul the Circle.

Let me just say it out. I think all of them would have been questionable. I highly doubt every mage inhabitant of the Circle at that time would have been found guilty.

Gregoire's Annulment was perfectly justified, for example, and much of the reason that Circle went bad was due to political intrigues.

I think Greagoire was wrong, though. Saying most of it is irredeemable isn't the same as all of it isn't, and the life of some innocent mage hangs in the balance of that decision. Not having the Warden there would probably have made the RoA a complete annulment.

Given the turbulent history of Thedas, it wouldn't surprise me the causes of the Chaos at kinloch didn't happen at least once before. But out of 17 annulments, I'm willing to bet at least a couple annulments were highly questionable. This annulment might not be so unusual in that regard. It's why I'd really like to see, in the future DA games, some further information.

Even I hope they've planned for it. But not seeing any till now dampens my spirits somewhat.

As to your last question, I'd say no. Some templars might, but most wouldn't. If they were convinced enough were, they are basically the "kill em all, let the Maker sort em out" type of troopers.

Yes, that is what makes the character of the one leading them all that important.

By that point, meredith had become to idiotic and over the top for me to really care what she was saying. I was getting mobbed by giant bronze voltron statues, and she was levatating, backflipping, and doing things that made it difficult for me to get through the battle without frequent pauses to lol and facepalm.

I'd suggest you hear Meredith talk during the battle, if you can. It is somewhat odd, to say the least. I don't know if the causes of Meredith's madness will be revealed, but in general the lyrium idol mystery might be elaborated upon.

Yes, the battle was a mess. Atleast I had Anders (who mysteriously re-appeared after I sent him away in my siding-with-mages playthrough), whom I didn't take for the Deep Roads expedition, and that ARW was a bigger facepalm for me.

EDIT: Formatting...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 12 septembre 2011 - 07:20 .

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Cullen only spares three mages out of hundreds, and we don't even know whether those three mages will be made tranquil or not. Regardless of the fate of the three mages, Cullen doesn't do anything to curb the deaths of hundreds of other denizens of the Gallows.

Maybe only three mages out of the whole lot surrendered. Maybe more surrendered to Hawke or Cullen and we weren't shown every single instance. Maybe because they saved three we might assume that they would save more, if given the chance.

Suspend the Right of Annulment? Why? Cullen only intervenes if Hawke's life is threatened, not because hundreds of men, women, and children are being killed by the templars.

Even if he (for whatever reason) only intervened with Hawke's life was threatened, he was clearly not entirely convinced that the RoA should be occuring at all. He didn't intervene to stop the RoA, however once it *was* stopped and once it *was* his call, I think he voiced enough misgivings that I think he would at least take one moment to reevaluate whether the mage situation was actually irredeemable

And Cullen seems to advocate the Tranquil Solution when he's confronted
about Ser Alrik's actions (as Hawke and Anders can point out).

IIRC, he didn't advocate it, he said some parts of it had merit.

The remaining Circles of Magi rebelled against the Chantry and the Order of Templars because of what happened at Kirkwall. If it wasn't as bad as all the previous Rights of Annulment, then I don't see why every remaining Circle of Magi would defect from nearly a thousand years of servitude to the Chantry and its templars.

  Maybe the RoA itself didn't have high fatalities, but it was instead the symbol of the exploding chantry that drove their rebellion.I don't know. And you don't either. We can speculate, but that's all.

[phaonica]

rak72 wrote...

If they are being killed, you can count the numbers that are killed off screen.  if they are being spared, you can only coult the instances that occur on screen.

Exactly. <_<

[LobselVith8]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Cullen only spares three mages out of hundreds, and we don't even know whether those three mages will be made tranquil or not. Regardless of the fate of the three mages, Cullen doesn't do anything to curb the deaths of hundreds of other denizens of the Gallows.

Maybe only three mages out of the whole lot surrendered. Maybe more surrendered to Hawke or Cullen and we weren't shown every single instance. Maybe because they saved three we might assume that they would save more, if given the chance.

If that was the case, I don't imagine Varric would only say that there were "many survivors" in the mage ending.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Suspend the Right of Annulment? Why? Cullen only intervenes if Hawke's life is threatened, not because hundreds of men, women, and children are being killed by the templars.

Even if he (for whatever reason) only intervened with Hawke's life was threatened, he was clearly not entirely convinced that the RoA should be occuring at all. He didn't intervene to stop the RoA, however once it *was* stopped and once it *was* his call, I think he voiced enough misgivings that I think he would at least take one moment to reevaluate whether the mage situation was actually irredeemable

Except Varric makes it clear that there are only many survivors when Hawke is protecting the mages from the templars, not when Hawke is helping the templars kill the mages. Clearly, any misgivings Cullen had about the Right of Annulment weren't sufficient to move him to action until Hawke specifically is threatened.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And Cullen seems to advocate the Tranquil Solution when he's confronted about Ser Alrik's actions (as Hawke and Anders can point out).

IIRC, he didn't advocate it, he said some parts of it had merit.

Hawke and Anders can say that it sounds like Cullen supports the Tranquil Solution, and Cullen also argues that templars have "divine right" over mages in Act III when discussing Grand Cleric Elthina.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The remaining Circles of Magi rebelled against the Chantry and the Order of Templars because of what happened at Kirkwall. If it wasn't as bad as all the previous Rights of Annulment, then I don't see why every remaining Circle of Magi would defect from nearly a thousand years of servitude to the Chantry and its templars.

 

Maybe the RoA itself didn't have high fatalities, but it was instead the symbol of the exploding chantry that drove their rebellion.I don't know. And you don't either. We can speculate, but that's all.

Which is why I said 'I don't see.' It denoted that this was from my perspective. However, I don't see anything to support the idea that many mages are saved, especially when Varric contrasts the mage and templar endings with noting that there are "many survivors" only in the mage ending. If it was true in the templar ending as well, why didn't he address it? Also, Varric explicitly says Hawke is a symbol of oppression.

From my perspective, I don't see why a Right of Annulment that wasn't as bad as the previous Rights would lead to all the remaining Circles of Magi emancipating themselves from the Chantry and the templars when the prior Rights over the course of a millennia didn't. I think it had to be at least as bad as the prior Annulments for every Circle of Magi to rebel against the Chantry and the templars.

[phaonica]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Varric makes it clear that there are only many survivors when Hawke is protecting the mages from the templars, not when Hawke is helping the templars kill the mages. Clearly, any misgivings Cullen had about the Right of Annulment weren't sufficient to move him to action until Hawke specifically is threatened.

But Varric doesn't say that there were no mage survivors in the Templar ending. So, no, it isn't clear.



bbl, errands to run

Modifié par phaonica, 12 septembre 2011 - 08:49 .

[DKJaigen]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Varric makes it clear that there are only many survivors when Hawke is protecting the mages from the templars, not when Hawke is helping the templars kill the mages. Clearly, any misgivings Cullen had about the Right of Annulment weren't sufficient to move him to action until Hawke specifically is threatened.

But Varric doesn't say that there were no mage survivors in the Templar ending. So, no, it isn't clear.



bbl, errands to run

Still stong evidence suggest that the circle is either wiped out or very few remain. its true that varric didnt say if any mages survived. But he did say that it was a slaughter. And i dont know about you but slaughters usually means that a large part or all where killed of . Since the templars first intent was to kill all mages i would say that most mages where killed and the survivors made tranquil. furthermore as Lob said : the mages wouldnt rebel or use kirkwall as a rallying cry if their where many survivors  . If the bulk of the mages survived the event would be praised as an example chantry benevolence.