2340 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

I agreed that Cullen didn't act to intervene in the RoA. What I don't agree with is the idea that Cullen is ruthless.

  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?

Probably because "many" weren't saved. That doesn't mean none were saved.

Also, Varric explicitly says Hawke is a symbol of oppression.

Symbols are often exaggerated.

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.

And from my perspective, since we don't know the exact conditions of every circle rebellion that occured, I think that what you've stated is only one of countless possibilities.

Modifié par phaonica, 12 septembre 2011 - 10:20 .

[phaonica]

DKJaigen wrote...


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.

It says the RoA at Kirkwall was a slaughter if you side with the mages, too.

I think that probably "many" mages don't survive the RoA if Hawke sides with the Templars. I'm not saying that many mages are saved. I'm only saying that *some* of them *might* have been saved because it doesn't explicitly say that *none* of them were saved. Whether the survivors are made Tranquil are not is unknown. That seems to be the call of Hawke and Cullen.

[megski]

Basically what I am concluding from everyone's points of view is that we just weren't shown enough to really understand the choices that we made. I think it would have helped to have a cutscene where Hawke is crowned viscount and then shows what happens in the circle afterward to give people an idea of what was really going on.

Eta:  Regardless of what Varric says, what the rules of RoA say, we still don't get to see it for ourselves.  

Modifié par megski, 12 septembre 2011 - 11:22 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...


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.

From what I've seen, the Grand Cleric is only accountable to the Divine, as far as Chantry business is concerned. I think they only have limited accountability to the state itself, but from what I saw in origins and read in the Stolen Throne and the Calling, it is very limited.

And  that is one of many major reasons I tend to be against the Chantry having authority or control over anything as important and sensitive as magic. They have serious accountability issues, something I find unacceptable for any person or organization that wishes to wield power. Accountability is very important in every major field.

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.

Probably not, but again, we are talking about a system that tends to be hamfisted to begin with. That would be more a moral arguement than anything, I think. But in terms of what most would consider justifications for the Right of Annulment, I think that probably most were legit from that perspective. The morality and general effectiveness, is a different question.

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.

Well, it is a complete annulment if the warden agrees to it, as irving and the surviving mages willingly submit to annulment if it is chosen. As far as most vs all, again, that comes back to the mentality of "kill  em all, the Maker will know his own", one that is generally considered an acceptable way to deal with problem groups, as far as the Chantry, and Theodosians in general, are concerned. It doesn't just apply to mages, either. The Chantry's exalted marches on the dales, as well as the Qun converts in Rivain, were more examples, though those were cases of open warfare, as well.

The rightness from a moral perspective would not really be a consideration, at least from the perspective of your average Theodosian. From a player perspective, however, it is certainly debatable as the the necessity of such extreme measures. Both from a moral, as well as practical/pragmatic point of view. But given the situation and laws in place, no one would have questioned Gregoire calling the annulment, or his reasons or right to do so. And it wasn't something he was particularly thrilled about doing.

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

Details are awesome, and I hope we get further detail of all aspects of thedas.

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

I certainly agree, and again, is another reason I think the Chantry needs to be removed from power, and be relgated to purely religous/spiritual roles. The Codex on the templars states that the Chantry seeks unswerving dedication and obiedience to its doctrine and orders, over any moral, ethical, or practical character aspects. In otherwords, good character is not their primary concern, as the codex on Templars states:

While mages often resent the templars as symbols of the Chantry's
control over magic, the people of Thedas see them as saviors and holy
warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to
protect the world from the ravages of foul magic. In reality, the
Chantry's militant arm looks first for skilled warriors with unshakable
faith in the Maker, with a flawless moral center as a secondary concern.
Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the
Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute
loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes
time to make difficult choices. 


dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_Templars

Not the sort of people I would particularly trust to be practical or really make sound descisions, but there you go. That's Chantry how the Chantry decides things.

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...

Hell, had L:oghain, who I publically beheaded in the Landsmeet in origins had suddenly appeared out of nowhere and joined the battle alive and well, that wouldn't have phased me like Meredith's whole battle did. it was just.....one long continuous facepalm for me. I do remember some of her pauses to rant or babble, but given everything else, i found them so nonsensical in context of everything, and my ability to take meredith seriously as an antagonist ended at that point.

[Ryzaki]

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.

 Let's not forget that reverses for the mage ending. (Even though only about 8 mages run away Hawke somehow saves most of them). 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 septembre 2011 - 04:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Ryzaki wrote...

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.

 Let's not forget that reverses for the mage ending. (Even though only about 8 mages run away Hawke somehow saves most of them). 

We see nonattached templar gangs killing mages in a cutscene (well, trying to; the mage goes abomination before they succeed). It can be reasonably extrapolated that the templars are looking to Meredith for leadership and not Cullen's ideals, since, well, Meredith is the leader, and go kill-happy unless Cullen tells them not to... and he can't even do that without Hawke's backup. As for sparing, we save six in one go in a battle against the templars right before heading to the Docks, plus those that flee from Orsino, and then there's Varric's epilogue line about how many survive to tell the tale. Certainly there had to be enough to spread word to a lot of other Circles.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

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.

 Let's not forget that reverses for the mage ending. (Even though only about 8 mages run away Hawke somehow saves most of them). 

We see nonattached templar gangs killing mages in a cutscene (well, trying to; the mage goes abomination before they succeed). It can be reasonably extrapolated that the templars are looking to Meredith for leadership and not Cullen's ideals, since, well, Meredith is the leader, and go kill-happy unless Cullen tells them not to... and he can't even do that without Hawke's backup. As for sparing, we save six in one go in a battle against the templars right before heading to the Docks, plus those that flee from Orsino, and then there's Varric's epilogue line about how many survive to tell the tale. Certainly there had to be enough to spread word to a lot of other Circles.

If that's the case, then I'll also extrapolate that every time a Templar tried to kill a mage the mage turned into an abomination.

And I still have this nagging feeling that Varric isn't telling the whole truth. All we know is that no matter what, mages die. This RoA is somehow different enough (but not at all explained how) from past RoA's that other mages in other circles decide to revolt, and for some reason the Templars are rebelling too. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Monica21 wrote...
And I still have this nagging feeling that Varric isn't telling the whole truth. All we know is that no matter what, mages die. This RoA is somehow different enough (but not at all explained how) from past RoA's that other mages in other circles decide to revolt, and for some reason the Templars are rebelling too. 

Varric not telling the truth will likely be utilized in the future as a way to retcon/change alot of things in DA2 that might make no sense in DA3. Which might not be entirely a bad thing in many cases, as there's a number of things that made no sense whatsoever, and might accept them being retconned back to make some sense in future installments. I still think it's a weak excuse for bad writing, but what's done is done, the future is still unwritten and all that.

It's one of my biggest problems with framed narrative. How much of the game is "actually happening" vs how much of the game is being "imagined", so to speak. It really makes alot of things difficult to speculate properly on, since you really don't know what's "canonically" happening, and what is subjective, and subject to change.

[MichaelFinnegan]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

From what I've seen, the Grand Cleric is only accountable to the Divine, as far as Chantry business is concerned. I think they only have limited accountability to the state itself, but from what I saw in origins and read in the Stolen Throne and the Calling, it is very limited.

Yes, I guess you're right. And that actually goes both ways - the Chantry is somewhat kept away from the affairs of the state, which of course doesn't include mages.

And  that is one of many major reasons I tend to be against the Chantry having authority or control over anything as important and sensitive as magic. They have serious accountability issues, something I find unacceptable for any person or organization that wishes to wield power. Accountability is very important in every major field.

The issue is that the templar order is assumed to be the only one capable of controlling mages - and this is indoctrination that runs rather deep within the Thedas society - one the Chantry reinforces I suppose by preaching the common folk to fear mages.

The question for us, atleast as impartial observers, I suppose is how best to resolve the situation. Even if we get to overtrhow the Chantry, there perhaps needs to be a system in place - an equitable one. I'm one of those who perceives limited anarchy, in the sense of an absence of a governing body that encroaces upon every basic right of individuals, as a viable alternative. Although, some would consider that an extremist position.

Probably not, but again, we are talking about a system that tends to be hamfisted to begin with. That would be more a moral arguement than anything, I think. But in terms of what most would consider justifications for the Right of Annulment, I think that probably most were legit from that perspective. The morality and general effectiveness, is a different question.

There is a real issue with this line of thinking, though. Where does one stop? Morality, if anything, is a guide to our actions, one which ought to lead us away from harm, and one which I firmly believe should lead us to peace and justice in the longer run.

So, yes, what Meredith does is an extreme case, but one that was bound to happen sooner or later - the writing was on the wall. The power is concentrated in the hands of the Chantry, the Divine being the ultimate authority, and the Chantry being the only entity with any say over what happens to the Circles in general. Although I appreciate the conditions under which the RoA was first formulated, I question its efficacy and its morality. The question is simply this: in the name of protecting the innocent (civilians), to what extent is one willing to go to kill innocents (mages). And I was never the one who subscribed to the belief that sacrificing one innocent was somehow okay for the good of the majority. It is perhaps an idealistic position, but it is one I believe we can all aspire to, even as (imagined) inhabitants of Thedas.

Well, it is a complete annulment if the warden agrees to it, as irving and the surviving mages willingly submit to annulment if it is chosen. As far as most vs all, again, that comes back to the mentality of "kill  em all, the Maker will know his own", one that is generally considered an acceptable way to deal with problem groups, as far as the Chantry, and Theodosians in general, are concerned. It doesn't just apply to mages, either. The Chantry's exalted marches on the dales, as well as the Qun converts in Rivain, were more examples, though those were cases of open warfare, as well.

Yes, I agree that it might be the mentality of the average Thedasian, but it is not universally applicable. Anders and even Orsino (who speaks of justice in the sense I meant) think of it in terms of freedom of individuals.

The rightness from a moral perspective would not really be a consideration, at least from the perspective of your average Theodosian. From a player perspective, however, it is certainly debatable as the the necessity of such extreme measures. Both from a moral, as well as practical/pragmatic point of view. But given the situation and laws in place, no one would have questioned Gregoire calling the annulment, or his reasons or right to do so. And it wasn't something he was particularly thrilled about doing.

Yes, I suppose you're right again. No one would have questioned it outright or be vocal about it. But what such an act does is create doubts in the mind, at first. And these doubts build up over time. I know some people might view 17 RoAs over 700 years as no big deal - but looked at in another way, it's a wiping out of a whole Circle once every 41 years - at least once in a lifetime of an average Thedasian, if I can make that assumption. That is a big deal for me.

You know, the issue seems to me that the system itself lacks flexibility. An RoA ought to have been a temporary measure. Yes, one realizes the dangers that mages inherently face and pose, but the objective over the ages ought to have been to reduce the danger by making mages less susceptible to falling prey to demons. And once the probability of such demonic possession had been reduced to marginal numbers, then to revoke the right to perform any more annulments. But, instead, what has actually transpired is the RoA has become permanent, the condition of mages goes on to be the same or worse generation after generation, and the factors of fear and hatred have steadily increased all over again. It was always a volcano in the making - its erruption certain.

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

I certainly agree, and again, is another reason I think the Chantry needs to be removed from power, and be relgated to purely religous/spiritual roles.

Yes, I agree the Chantry has to go. In fact, I view it no different to any organized religion dictating terms.

But, as a temporary measure: I think it'd have been somewhat better if the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter could hold equal power, one acting as a check on the power of the other. Any disputes between them could have been arbitrated by an assembly consisting of the Grand Cleric, someone like the Viscount, etc. Nowhere there ought to be one sole power holding its grips over a particular section of the citizenry.

The Codex on the templars states that the Chantry seeks unswerving
dedication and obiedience to its doctrine and orders, over any moral,
ethical, or practical character aspects. In otherwords, good character is not their primary concern, as the codex on Templars states:

While mages often resent the templars as symbols of the Chantry's
control over magic, the people of Thedas see them as saviors and holy
warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to
protect the world from the ravages of foul magic. In reality, the
Chantry's militant arm looks first for skilled warriors with unshakable
faith in the Maker, with a flawless moral center as a secondary concern.
Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the
Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious fervor and absolute
loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes
time to make difficult choices.

dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_Templars

Not the sort of people I would particularly trust to be practical or really make sound descisions, but there you go. That's Chantry how the Chantry decides things.

Yes, I remember this one quite well. It is what makes me question greatly the Chantry's methods and/or motives. That kind of recruitment simply begs for trouble. But I really wonder why they might really have done this, unless the objective was to hold on to their power.

Hell, had L:oghain, who I publically beheaded in the Landsmeet in origins had suddenly appeared out of nowhere and joined the battle alive and well, that wouldn't have phased me like Meredith's whole battle did. it was just.....one long continuous facepalm for me. I do remember some of her pauses to rant or babble, but given everything else, i found them so nonsensical in context of everything, and my ability to take meredith seriously as an antagonist ended at that point.

It was exciting though with those gate guardians coming alive, even though the battlefield itself was a mess. Fortunately, to escape the stun attacks from the templar/slaver/whatever lieutenants/commanders from ealier I was equipped with a relatively cheap ring that made me immune to stun, and my rogue Hawke had quite high ciritical damage numbers to just rip anything to shreds with a few strikes. And Merrill, seriously, is overpowered.

Regarding Meredith: her madness has occasioned some debate, especially regarding her possession of the mangled idol (sword). As someone pointed out a few posts ago, it could have been that she was possessed by some entity/spirit. This might have had something to do with how she converses with herself during the battle - at least I could see some doubts creeping into her mind during the heat of battle, with her mad persona finally winning over.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 13 septembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[Xilizhra]

If that's the case, then I'll also extrapolate that every time a Templar tried to kill a mage the mage turned into an abomination.

To disprove that, all we need to do is see the templar charge into the Gallows where they start slashing through mages and none of them goes abomination.

And I still have this nagging feeling that Varric isn't telling the whole truth. All we know is that no matter what, mages die. This RoA is somehow different enough (but not at all explained how) from past RoA's that other mages in other circles decide to revolt, and for some reason the Templars are rebelling too.

The templars seem to be rebelling because the Chantry didn't want to unleash them to kill all mages everywhere. As for how this RoA is different...

IT IS EXPLAINED HOW! EXPLAINED EXACTLY HOW! It was undertaken for something the Circle didn't even do, and it was wholly unwarranted! Plus, the Circle was able to fight back well enough that it showed the templars had both finally thrown off all pretense of not being brutal tyrants, and that they could be defied.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

If that's the case, then I'll also extrapolate that every time a Templar tried to kill a mage the mage turned into an abomination.

To disprove that, all we need to do is see the templar charge into the Gallows where they start slashing through mages and none of them goes abomination.

And you still get "hundreds" of deaths how?

And I still have this nagging feeling that Varric isn't telling the whole truth. All we know is that no matter what, mages die. This RoA is somehow different enough (but not at all explained how) from past RoA's that other mages in other circles decide to revolt, and for some reason the Templars are rebelling too.

The templars seem to be rebelling because the Chantry didn't want to unleash them to kill all mages everywhere. As for how this RoA is different...

IT IS EXPLAINED HOW! EXPLAINED EXACTLY HOW! It was undertaken for something the Circle didn't even do, and it was wholly unwarranted! Plus, the Circle was able to fight back well enough that it showed the templars had both finally thrown off all pretense of not being brutal tyrants, and that they could be defied.

Wow, the all caps monster is out and you're metagaming again.

Varric explains it, but even if you side with the mages, Cassandra is surprised and says, "So Meredith provoked the attack." Cassandra doesn't know much about it and that's the entire reason she's interrogating Varric. And, really. Mages never fought back in any RoA ever? They just laid down and let Templars kill them whether they were blood mages or abominations? They sent out letters saying "We're going to be annuled but we deserve it"? What people actually know about this annulment isn't much, and that includes Cassandra who's in a position to know. Random Mage Guy in X Tower isn't going to know more.

[MichaelFinnegan]

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

And from my perspective, since we don't know the exact conditions of every circle rebellion that occured, I think that what you've stated is only one of countless possibilities.

I think LobselVith8 has a point. And that point is "all" the Circles (within a few years?) have rebelled, not just one or a few. So, there likely has been one/few central/common driving/compelling reasons.

I think, combined with the idea of the RoA at Kirkwall generally being perceived as an oppressive and flagrantly unjust measure on the part of templars, it is also that the Kirkwall Circle mages when their backs were pushed to the wall, rebelled, instead of surrendering (although this isn't how it happened - because Meredith refused Orsino's offer for surrender). And, it is based on the confidence that, if such a rebellion could be performed once, to whatever degree of success, it could be performed again.

Perhaps just shows how disgruntled Circles mages all over Thedas actually are.

And I believe how the rebellion itself spread was in a cascading manner. Perhaps the Circles to recieve the news of events at Kirkwall first, rebelled earlier. And the other Circles, perhaps hearing about all of this, would be more confident in their own rebellions.

[Xilizhra]

And you still get "hundreds" of deaths how?

You think that the templars would shy away from slaughter?

Varric explains it, but even if you side with the mages, Cassandra is surprised and says, "So Meredith provoked the attack." Cassandra doesn't know much about it and that's the entire reason she's interrogating Varric.

She's heard a lot of conflicting reports, and naturally isn't inclined to believe the mage ones.

And, really. Mages never fought back in any RoA ever? They just laid down and let Templars kill them whether they were blood mages or abominations? They sent out letters saying "We're going to be annuled but we deserve it"?

This particular Annulment was a chaotic mess with a lot of holes, given that it was a battle that nearly took over the city, with a bunch of demons popping up for good measure. Most other Annulments are surgical strikes against single buildings, and more of them are likely to be at least semi-justified, like the Broken Circle one.

What people actually know about this annulment isn't much, and that includes Cassandra who's in a position to know. Random Mage Guy in X Tower isn't going to know more.

They're more likely to believe the (accurate) information that isn't the Chantry party line.

[Monica21]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
I think LobselVith8 has a point. And that point is "all" the Circles (within a few years?) have rebelled, not just one or a few. So, there likely has been one/few central/common driving/compelling reasons.

I think, combined with the idea of the RoA at Kirkwall generally being perceived as an oppressive and flagrantly unjust measure on the part of templars, it is also that the Kirkwall Circle mages when their backs were pushed to the wall, rebelled, instead of surrendering (although this isn't how it happened - because Meredith refused Orsino's offer for surrender). And, it is based on the confidence that, if such a rebellion could be performed once, to whatever degree of success, it could be performed again.

Perhaps just shows how disgruntled Circles mages all over Thedas actually are.

And I believe how the rebellion itself spread was in a cascading manner. Perhaps the Circles to recieve the news of events at Kirkwall first, rebelled earlier. And the other Circles, perhaps hearing about all of this, would be more confident in their own rebellions.

My theory is that there was very little knowledge of what happened. Cassandra's interrogation tells you that, and they had a Seeker in Kirkwall, possibly at the very time of the incident. Cassandra is in a position to know and simply doesn't. For whatever reason, it took her three years to get someone with any knowledge of the events, nevermind the fact that the Seekers could have made their presence known and started interrogating Templars (including Cullen) that very night. (There's actually very little story reason for it to make sense that Cassandra doesn't know, but the fact is that she doesn't.)

If Cassandra doesn't know what happened, then mages in other circles don't know. The only thing the mages could have heard about is either the events from mages who escapted the Annulment or mages to escaped via the Underground. Either way, their story is going to be fairly one-sided and it's unlikely that they know what happened to Meredith.

I've said before that you'd have to have played Origins blind and stupid to not see a mage/templar conflict coming up fast. There are clear issues in how the mages are handled, and I simply believe that the Kirkwall Annulment was nothing more than the fuse that lit the powderkeg. It could easily have been the annulment of any other circle that caused it. Hawke just happens to be in the city that has one.

[Xilizhra]

Cassandra's interrogation tells you that, and they had a Seeker in Kirkwall, possibly at the very time of the incident.

I think Leliana left after Faith. I also think that something happened to Cullen that would prevent them from interrogating him, and possibly everyone who was at the final battle with Meredith. Maybe the templars purged them, with Cullen being the sole survivor.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...
You think that the templars would shy away from slaughter?

Why not? Cullen did. The same guy who still wanted everyone killed in Ferelden. It makes as much sense as assuming every Templar is a bloodthirsty animal.

She's heard a lot of conflicting reports, and naturally isn't inclined to believe the mage ones.

She hasn't heard much of anything. She doesn't know about the idol, she doesn't know that Hawke didn't come to Kirkwall with all her buddies to spread dissension. Cassandra knows next to nothing about the events that night, no matter which side you choose.

This particular Annulment was a chaotic mess with a lot of holes, given that it was a battle that nearly took over the city, with a bunch of demons popping up for good measure. Most other Annulments are surgical strikes against single buildings, and more of them are likely to be at least semi-justified, like the Broken Circle one.

How many people know who blew up the Chantry? If someone in a different city hears it's a mage, they'll assume it's an angry circle mage or an angry apostate. Either way, dumb move. It's not just criminal, it makes mages look bad. The demons that were popping up were either because of the work of a blood mage or an abomination. Again, not exactly something that makes mages look good.

They're more likely to believe the (accurate) information that isn't the Chantry party line.

They're more likely to believe what they want to believe.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

Cassandra's interrogation tells you that, and they had a Seeker in Kirkwall, possibly at the very time of the incident.

I think Leliana left after Faith. I also think that something happened to Cullen that would prevent them from interrogating him, and possibly everyone who was at the final battle with Meredith. Maybe the templars purged them, with Cullen being the sole survivor.

Possible, but we don't know. We also don't know if any other Seekers were in Kirkwall. Considering how concerned the Divine was over the situation, it seems more likely that she left a Seeker there. And the Templars purged themselves? I don't know what you're saying.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Yes, I guess you're right. And that actually goes both ways - the Chantry is somewhat kept away from the affairs of the state, which of course doesn't include mages.

Not all the time. There are many cases where the Chantry is signifigantly involved with the state (like the Grand Cleric of ferelden having a vote in the Landsmeet). And they are involved in the coronation of the Monarch. And from what I remember of the Stolen Throne, the Chantry was very active in the occupation of Ferelden, on the orlesian side. The Chantry has long been an instrument or Orlesian foreign policy.

The issue is that the templar order is assumed to be the only one capable of controlling mages - and this is indoctrination that runs rather deep within the Thedas society - one the Chantry reinforces I suppose by preaching the common folk to fear mages.

The Chantry keeps a monopoly on lyrium, and closely guards the secrets of templar abilities to keep them strictly under Chantry jurisdiction. It gives them the edge of being technically the only people capable of handling mages. However, as Alistair has shown, any warrior with sufficient skill, discipline, and training can utilize templar abilities. If this got out, and non-templars, such as city guards or regular army, were capable of performing the anti-magic feats of the templars, the Chantry would lose a signifgant edge, and possibly, their monopoly on lyrium.

Yes, I suppose you're right again. No one would have questioned it outright or be vocal about it. But what such an act does is create doubts in the mind, at first. And these doubts build up over time. I know some people might view 17 RoAs over 700 years as no big deal - but looked at in another way, it's a wiping out of a whole Circle once every 41 years - at least once in a lifetime of an average Thedasian, if I can make that assumption. That is a big deal for me.

It is a big deal, and has been discussed before quite a bit, actually. For me, it shows the system as having been a long term failure. But this is unsurprising, because containment and extermination are always only short term solutions. The Chantry is too stupid to realize this, and can't get through their skulls.

You know, the issue seems to me that the system itself lacks flexibility. An RoA ought to have been a temporary measure. Yes, one realizes the dangers that mages inherently face and pose, but the objective over the ages ought to have been to reduce the danger by making mages less susceptible to falling prey to demons. And once the probability of such demonic possession had been reduced to marginal numbers, then to revoke the right to perform any more annulments. But, instead, what has actually transpired is the RoA has become permanent, the condition of mages goes on to be the same or worse generation after generation, and the factors of fear and hatred have steadily increased all over again. It was always a volcano in the making - its erruption certain.

This i fully agree on, and have actually argued this very point before, as part of many reasons why the Chantry is just too stupid and incompetant to be trusted with something as delacate as the management of an entire segment of the population as critical as the mages. As I stated above, the Chantry's system fails because it relies on temporary, questionable solutions for very long term, far reaching issues. Containment can only ever be a temporary measure, and extermination is a very questionable one. I have many ideas for more permanent solutions that are far more practical, productive, and fair than the current system. But given the nature and tendancies of the Chantry, it would be totally removed from the issue period.

The Chantry has only been interested in containing or killing off mages. Improving mages has never been their goal, given that in a millenia of Circle management, little has changed as far as the mages and their condition goes. the Chantry's best solution is faith in their invisible god, and a program geared at telling mages to "just say no to demon possesion". Which, needless to say, are solutions I find laughable at best.

Nowhere there ought to be one sole power holding its grips over a particular section of the citizenry.

Definitely not a section of the populace that can potentially provide a very powerful arsenal of mental weapons. But there would still have to be a controlling body, and certain levels of containment.

Yes, I remember this one quite well. It is what makes me question greatly the Chantry's methods and/or motives. That kind of recruitment simply begs for trouble. But I really wonder why they might really have done this, unless the objective was to hold on to their power.

That's pretty much half of their total objective: power. Spread the Chant and hold onto or expand their power to spread it/enforce it. It is not unlike any other organized entity in that, and I don't really consider it surprising or offensive. it's the fact they are completely incompetant in their use, application, even seizure of power that bothers me, because that makes them dangerous. The mage issue is but one example.

Regarding Meredith: her madness has occasioned some debate, especially regarding her possession of the mangled idol (sword). As someone pointed out a few posts ago, it could have been that she was possessed by some entity/spirit. This might have had something to do with how she converses with herself during the battle - at least I could see some doubts creeping into her mind during the heat of battle, with her mad persona finally winning over.

Meredith was going bad long before she got her pretty idol. Cullen even stated in Act 1 that Meredith's leadership and harshness had already pissed alot of people off, and people were turning their noses up at the templars, where they used to think them saviors.

[MichaelFinnegan]

DKJaigen wrote...

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.

Bulk of the mages surviving? Not likely in any scenario. But, in any case, there is no evidence to suggest that those who survived were made tranquil. In fact, the RoA itself might be revoked, seeing how it started in the first place - with Meredith's madness.

[Xilizhra]

Why not? Cullen did. The same guy who still wanted everyone killed in Ferelden. It makes as much sense as assuming every Templar is a bloodthirsty animal.

Given the psychology of those who hold absolute power over another group, I suspect my way is a bit more accurate.

She hasn't heard much of anything. She doesn't know about the idol, she doesn't know that Hawke didn't come to Kirkwall with all her buddies to spread dissension. Cassandra knows next to nothing about the events that night, no matter which side you choose.

"Somehow, the Champion knew what was down there!"
She did know about the idol, apparently; I think she thought that Meredith was driven into it by a concerted conspiracy, or something.

How many people know who blew up the Chantry? If someone in a different city hears it's a mage, they'll assume it's an angry circle mage or an angry apostate. Either way, dumb move. It's not just criminal, it makes mages look bad. The demons that were popping up were either because of the work of a blood mage or an abomination. Again, not exactly something that makes mages look good.

The demons were coming in on their own, without mage assistance. I think the Veil finally disintegrated under both the bomb and the templars' slaughter.

Possible, but we don't know. We also don't know if any other Seekers were in Kirkwall. Considering how concerned the Divine was over the situation, it seems more likely that she left a Seeker there. And the Templars purged themselves? I don't know what you're saying.

I'm saying the templars killed everyone who might make them look bad to the Seekers.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...
"Somehow, the Champion knew what was down there!"
She did know about the idol, apparently; I think she thought that Meredith was driven into it by a concerted conspiracy, or something.

She didn't know the idol had driven Meredith crazy, which even a cursory questioning of all the Templars standing behind Meredith that night means she would have that information. Saying "Meredith was the instigator" means she did not know that Meredith was the instigator or why.

The demons were coming in on their own, without mage assistance. I think the Veil finally disintegrated under both the bomb and the templars' slaughter.

Thinking is not the same as knowing, and we don't know.

I'm saying the templars killed everyone who might make them look bad to the Seekers.

Meredith is the only one who would make them look bad and she's dead. 

[MichaelFinnegan]

Monica21 wrote...

My theory is that there was very little knowledge of what happened. Cassandra's interrogation tells you that, and they had a Seeker in Kirkwall, possibly at the very time of the incident. Cassandra is in a position to know and simply doesn't. For whatever reason, it took her three years to get someone with any knowledge of the events, nevermind the fact that the Seekers could have made their presence known and started interrogating Templars (including Cullen) that very night. (There's actually very little story reason for it to make sense that Cassandra doesn't know, but the fact is that she doesn't.)

If Cassandra doesn't know what happened, then mages in other circles don't know. The only thing the mages could have heard about is either the events from mages who escapted the Annulment or mages to escaped via the Underground. Either way, their story is going to be fairly one-sided and it's unlikely that they know what happened to Meredith.

Okay, let's just stop here for a second. What exactly did Cassandra not know? She seemed to know of the idol, and that Meredith's madness was caused by it - heck, all the templars including Cullen were right there, battling Meredith. Was there some reason why they'd not have reported any/all of it? No. I got the impression that she knew of the event (the final battle), but not all the details. But she was hoping, let me stress this point, that it was somehow the Champion's fault, that he arrived at Kirkwall to instigate all this, including bringing back the idol from the Deep Roads and perhaps presenting it to Meredith to drive her mad.

I do not know how the other Circles rebelled or for exactly what reasons, but I believe that they did so because of the events of Kirkwall; and also because that if someone can rebel once, that rebellion can be done again.

I've said before that you'd have to have played Origins blind and stupid to not see a mage/templar conflict coming up fast. There are clear issues in how the mages are handled, and I simply believe that the Kirkwall Annulment was nothing more than the fuse that lit the powderkeg. It could easily have been the annulment of any other circle that caused it. Hawke just happens to be in the city that has one.

After DAO, no I didn't think that there would be story focused on the mage-templar conflict. Honestly. I thought that DA was a story about the age and place. And we'd go around to different regions, nothing more - I wasn't anticipating this kind of thing, at any rate.

@Skadi_the_Evil_Elf: I'll reply to your post later. I gotta go now. Finding it difficult to shift between 2 or 3 different things I'm doing.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

After DAO, no I didn't think that there would be story focused on the mage-templar conflict. Honestly. I thought that DA was a story about the age and place. And we'd go around to different regions, nothing more - I wasn't anticipating this kind of thing, at any rate.

Actually, alot of people saw the writing on the wall about the mage/templar conflict in Origins. Even though the Magi is but one origin, and the mages only one quest, there was alot that suggested it was likely this whole thing was going to blow up in a big way, sometime in the near future. The mage/templar conflict is one of the few things that truly spans Thedas. Every Andrastian nation has at least 1 Circle, and a number of templars within the country. And all of them ultimately answer to the same authority in Val Royeux. The Chantry itself is at the head of this, and the Chantry's influence is everywhere.

[Monica21]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
Okay, let's just stop here for a second. What exactly did Cassandra not know? She seemed to know of the idol, and that Meredith's madness was caused by it - heck, all the templars including Cullen were right there, battling Meredith. Was there some reason why they'd not have reported any/all of it? No. I got the impression that she knew of the event (the final battle), but not all the details. But she was hoping, let me stress this point, that it was somehow the Champion's fault, that he arrived at Kirkwall to instigate all this, including bringing back the idol from the Deep Roads and perhaps presenting it to Meredith to drive her mad.

Cassandra knows that there was something from the Deep Roads that Meredith had shaped into a sword, but that's really the extent of what she seems to know. I honestly can't imagine why she's surprised that Meredith is the instigator, unless she's made no effort to talk to the Templars who were right there. It's possible that it was intended as a throw-away dialogue, but there's really no rational reason for Cassandra to have such a poor picture of everything that happened. 

I think you're right in that she was hoping it was the Champion's fault, but I still can't think of a good reason why she wouldn't know that Meredith was insane. It makes even less sense if you side with the Templars.

I do not know how the other Circles rebelled or for exactly what reasons, but I believe that they did so because of the events of Kirkwall; and also because that if someone can rebel once, that rebellion can be done again.

I believe that too. The narrative tells you as much. But I don't know how much if it is because of rumors flying around about the Kirkwall circle or simply because mages have decided that they're tired of getting annuled. Again, I really don't think many mages in Thedas know enough of the details to determine that what happened was the result of consistent oppression or just crazy. And we don't know how many circles were "lost" because of a few mages (like Uldred) or because of a mass uprising.

Modifié par Monica21, 13 septembre 2011 - 05:28 .

[Xilizhra]

It makes even less sense if you side with the Templars.

Nothing in the framed narrative makes any sense if you side with the templars. A rather appropriate counterpoint to the value of the decision itself, I feel.