2340 réponses à ce sujet

[RagingCyclone]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

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.

I agree. The biggest clue in Origins is the blood mage right after talking to Owain on the second floor. She specifically states the premise for following Uldred was to force a change. If you are a mage she goes even deeper. But the biggest statement about why...the Templars are watching...always watching.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

You can RP your decision however you like, but siding with the Templars is a valid RP decision. Your Hawke could easily be someone who believes that there need to be change, but keeping the status quo right now is better than killing Templars. It's more of a Lawful Good/Neutral decision. Your Hawke could also believe that siding with the Templars will help raise your station in Kirkwall (as it does end up doing) and give you access to the Chantry higher-ups. Purely selfish of course, but it's a valid RP.

[Xilizhra]

True, one could play Hawke that way. I'm just saying that it makes the narrative kind of insane because it makes Cassandra look even dumber.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

RagingCyclone wrote...


I agree. The biggest clue in Origins is the blood mage right after talking to Owain on the second floor. She specifically states the premise for following Uldred was to force a change. If you are a mage she goes even deeper. But the biggest statement about why...the Templars are watching...always watching.

Yep. That and of course, Wynne's cameo in Awakening, which takes place years before the Kirkwall annulment does. Even then the mages are gathering to discuss complete severance from the Chantry. There were also numerous themes in certain quests relating to the mage/Chantry conflict and divide. It was definitely brewing in the background.

[Monica21]

Xilizhra wrote...

True, one could play Hawke that way. I'm just saying that it makes the narrative kind of insane because it makes Cassandra look even dumber.

Well, I kind of like that Cassandra thinks my Hawke planned everything instead of "Oops." Makes my Hawke look much smarter and a little Machiavellian.

Edited to add: I think the big problem with the framed narrative isn't that it makes Cassandra look stupid, it's that, for whatever reason, the devs need a ten year time span so Cassandra has to be ignorant. I just don't see how she could fail to gather the information she gets from Varric in three years' time.

Modifié par Monica21, 13 septembre 2011 - 06:07 .

[Melca36]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

There is no point to siding with the Templars especially if your Hawke is a mage.  A Mage as a Viscount does not make sense.

Im some of my Hawke games I roleplay it that they are so done with Kirkwall/The Chantry/ etc that they don't care anymore.

They have been on the run their whole life and they also remembered what Flemeth said on the mountain...Change was coming.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Melca36 wrote...

There is no point to siding with the Templars especially if your Hawke is a mage.  A Mage as a Viscount does not make sense.

This I agree with. Unless said mage Hawke is somewhat deluded. Given Meredith's opinions on mages and general track record, i couldn't see mage Hawke siding with Meredith unless they were incredibly trusting and naieve

However, I certainly can see a non-mage Hawke deciding to side with the templars, and it making sense for them to do so. There are some things as far as the game goes, that make more sense when seen from siding with the templars, such as Cullen stepping up and stopping Meredith from killing Hawke. For non-Mage Hawke, especially one who is ambitous and/or has no real feelings or concern about mages, picking annulment with Meredith would make more sense from a practical point of view.

Im some of my Hawke games I roleplay it that they are so done with Kirkwall/The Chantry/ etc that they don't care anymore.

They have been on the run their whole life and they also remembered what Flemeth said on the mountain...Change was coming.

Which is another reason I have little interest in siding with the templars. I have no desire to rule a madhouse dump like Kirkwall, and had gotten pretty sick of the place by Act 2. Going on the run is a far preferable ending for me. Kirkwall can burn

[Ryzaki]

Nah. Mage Hawke can be suicidal or plan on having Meredith killed during the annullment. Hawke doesn't have to be deluded to side with the templars if a mage.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I don't understand why it is okay to make sweeping generalizations about the Templars, but it is not okay to do so with mages.

Modifié par phaonica, 13 septembre 2011 - 07:09 .

[phaonica]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

There is no point to siding with the Templars especially if your Hawke is a mage.  A Mage as a Viscount does not make sense.

This I agree with. Unless said mage Hawke is somewhat deluded. Given Meredith's opinions on mages and general track record, i couldn't see mage Hawke siding with Meredith unless they were incredibly trusting and naieve

What about a mage who thinks the Circle mages are weak and meek? Like Morrigan.

[Ryzaki]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I don't understand why it is okay to make sweeping generalizations about the Templars, but it is not okay to do so with mages.

Because the mages are the master race or some crap. 

And if power corrupts mages are already born with power. They're more suspitable to corruption than anyone else to start with. 

[Melca36]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...



However, I certainly can see a non-mage Hawke deciding to side with the templars, and it making sense for them to do so. There are some things as far as the game goes, that make more sense when seen from siding with the templars, such as Cullen stepping up and stopping Meredith from killing Hawke. For non-Mage Hawke, especially one who is ambitous and/or has no real feelings or concern about mages, picking annulment with Meredith would make more sense from a practical point of view.

One of my non rogue Hawkes did it and killed Anders. I did not like how that ending made me feel.  The only gratifying part was knowing my Hawke disappeared. I presumed my Hawke disappeared over guilt

Which is another reason I have little interest in siding with the templars. I have no desire to rule a madhouse dump like Kirkwall, and had gotten pretty sick of the place by Act 2. Going on the run is a far preferable ending for me. Kirkwall can burn

Thats how I feel.     My Hawke had sympathy for the Viscount because it  was obvious he DID NOT want to be there.  
Even if Hawke became Viscount, Kirkwall would NEVER change.  

[Melca36]

Ryzaki wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I don't understand why it is okay to make sweeping generalizations about the Templars, but it is not okay to do so with mages.

Because the mages are the master race or some crap. 

And if power corrupts mages are already born with power. They're more suspitable to corruption than anyone else to start with. 

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.



Can't wait until DA:3 and the Chantry's lies are exposed.

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

I don't understand why it is okay to make sweeping generalizations about the Templars, but it is not okay to do so with mages.

Templars are an organization. Mages are a biological grouping. Similarly, it's more all right to make generalizations about Navy SEALS than black people.

[phaonica]

Melca36 wrote...

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Not all Templars are mindless, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or want to Tranquil every mage in Thedas, either.

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Not all Templars are mindless, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or want to Tranquil every mage in Thedas, either.

No, but the prevailing ethos of the organization is all of those things.

[rak72]

No, it's not ok to make generalizations about Navy SEALS, unless that generalization is that they are brave & awesome

[rak72]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Not all Templars are mindless, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or want to Tranquil every mage in Thedas, either.

No, but the prevailing ethos of the organization is all of those things.

And the prevailing ethos of Mages in Kirkwall is that they are all bloodmage psyco abominations.

[berelinde]

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Not all Templars are mindless, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or want to Tranquil every mage in Thedas, either.

No, probably not, but they line up behind Meredith.

The difference is that when you side with the mages, you kill templars to prevent them from slaughtering all the mages, whereas when you side with the templars, you slaughter all the mages just because they exist.

[phaonica]

Xilizhra wrote...

Templars are an organization. Mages are a biological grouping. Similarly, it's more all right to make generalizations about Navy SEALS than black people.

...

No, but the prevailing ethos of the organization is all of those things.

So every individual within the Templars is guilty by association because they are part of the Templar Order?

What about Templars who didn't have a choice to join?

[Xilizhra]

phaonica wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Templars are an organization. Mages are a biological grouping. Similarly, it's more all right to make generalizations about Navy SEALS than black people.

...

No, but the prevailing ethos of the organization is all of those things.

So every individual within the Templars is guilty by association because they are part of the Templar Order?

What about Templars who didn't have a choice to join?

Then I hope they have the good sense to not try to kill or imprison me/other mages.

[LobselVith8]

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.

So what's your point, that there might be three survivors out of hundreds who were condemned to death simply for being mages? Is that supposed to make everything better, that three people were spared, while hundreds of men, women, and children weren't? That Meredith says that she's going to kill all the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall because the mob will demand blood is sufficient reason for me to see that an entire population of people are going to be condemned to death because they are mages - and that's the crux of Meredith's argument when she tries to persuade Hawke to her side. The fact that Varric only references many survivors from the Circle of Kirkwall if Hawke sides with the mages makes it very clear that there's a difference in helping the mages or helping the templars.

[RagingCyclone]

Xilizhra wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Not all Templars are mindless, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or want to Tranquil every mage in Thedas, either.

No, but the prevailing ethos of the organization is all of those things.

Ok, here's a twist for you. My mage Galen sided with the Templars.  Being a mage he tried to help them when he could, and also trying to work for change he worked with Templars. He was trying to change the system from within. By Act 3 with Thrask he had hope, but everwhere he turned not only were Templars trying to kill him, but so were the mages. He felt Orsino was in incompitent fool too busy arguing with Meredith. So when things came to a head he sided with the Templars. At that point (not metagaming the whole lyrium sword because it's not know at the time) he chose the enemy he knew.  Mages trying to kill were enemies.  Templars trying to kill him were enemies. BUT, mages are unpredictable when possessed, Templars are a known quanity since he had been evading them all his life. Solution, eliminate the unknown and deal with the known. That's how a mage can be rp'd to side with the Templars. Nothing political or genetic about it...just a matter of self preservation.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 13 septembre 2011 - 07:47 .

[LobselVith8]

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.

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.

The fact that Cullen does nothing for an entire population of people who are being executed and will only intervene for either three people and/or Hawke doesn't exactly speak highly for his character.

People are being killed simply because they were born with magical ability, and Cullen does nothing to stop Meredith until Hawke's life is in danger - is this a man who I'm supposed to care about? He allows an entire population of people to die because Meredith wants to please the imaginary mob.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Three might be saved. Three mages, out of hundreds. That isn't exactly stellar, especially when the mages are being killed because Meredith wants to appease a possible mob.

phaonica wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Symbols are often exaggerated.

Considering Hawke sides with the Knight-Commander who demands the deaths of hundreds of people for an act they are completely innocent of committing, I think it's an apt symbol.

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.

Either Hawke protected many mages from the templars who are following Meredith's orders, or Hawke aids the templars in killing mages who are innocent of Anders' actions. I don't see where you're coming from in thinking that Cullen is going to be reasonable and stop the Right of Annulment when his characterization is as a Knight-Captain who thinks mages shouldn't be treated like people, views mages as weapons, and seems to endorse the Tranquil Solution.

[Monica21]

Melca36 wrote...
Not all mages want power and its wrong to assume that. And its wrong to assume they all can be corrupted.

Except that they can all be corrupted. Mages can be tricked, lied to, and possessed in the Fade where non-mages cannot. Orsino was the First Enchanter and he was corrupted without even being possessed. Will they all? No, but to state that they cannot be corrupted is false.