Xilizhra wrote...
Then I hope they have the good sense to not try to kill or imprison me/other mages.
phaonica wrote...
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?
Monica21 wrote...
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.
There is a subtle differentiation in this, I think. I'm more or less convinced that Cassandra knew that it was through Meredith's hands that the RoA was invoked, and that it was Meredith who did what she did during the final battle, and that Meredith was acting outside her control - through the madness in the idol. The only question is this: whose fault was it? If Hawke really brought back the idol from the Deep Roads with the explicit purpose of driving Meredith mad, then the blame would fall on Hawke - and Meredith would be exonerated to an extent. On the other hand, if it was Meredith who willfully took possesion of the idol and used it to further her ends, then it would actually be Meredith's fault. This is what Cassandra observes after the final battle I think, in either ending, templar or mage. Her expression isn't one of surprise, but of realization - yes, of course, this is probably how it happened; and it makes sense. As if something something snapped into place at that moment.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.
Perhaps it becomes simpler to think that she knew beforehand the idol drove Meredith insane.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 could say "yes, you're probably right" to all of that, simply because I don't have evidence to prove my case. But given the sequence of events, what I or some of the others here have said doesn't sound outlandish. At least, I suppose that's all I was saying.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.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your argument. I'm not going to simply assume that hundreds of people were slaughtered if I didn't see it or didn't do it. The only people I'm killing if I side with the Templars are blood mages, abominations, demons, and enthralled Templars.LobselVith8 wrote...
So we should excuse templars who are killing hundreds of innocent men, women, and children because they were simply following orders? If Hawke has a choice to protect armed and armored soldiers who are going to kill innocent people or protecting the people who aren't responsible for the actions of one, single man, then I think Hawke has every right protecting the mages from the templars.
And the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall were indeed innocent of Anders' actions. Meredith's entire argument is that the people "will demand blood."
LobselVith8 wrote...
phaonica wrote...
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?
So we should excuse templars who are killing hundreds of innocent men, women, and children because they were simply following orders? If Hawke has a choice to protect armed and armored soldiers who are going to kill innocent people or protecting the people who aren't responsible for the actions of one, single man, then I think Hawke has every right protecting the mages from the templars.
And the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall were indeed innocent of Anders' actions. Meredith's entire argument is that the people "will demand blood."
Indeed. What DA:A taught us is that threatening to kill a mob works wonders in putting it down without bloodshed. Especially considering the mob will have barely any arms and armor (the mob in DA:A had weapons, but no armor).
Meredith (who was sadly the power in Kirkwall) and her Templars, along with the City Guard, are supposed to keep order. If a mob were to form, she could threaten to kill them all and they would see reason (hopefully, considering they're in Hellmouth Land). The mob does not dictate her actions. She dictates the mob's actions.
LobselVith8 wrote...
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?
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.
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 wrote...
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your argument. I'm not going to simply assume that hundreds of people were slaughtered if I didn't see it or didn't do it. The only people I'm killing if I side with the Templars are blood mages, abominations, demons, and enthralled Templars.
It's easy to insert the word "slaughter" into dialogue at the end of the game, but I'm not going to believe there are more mages in the Circle than there are in the entire city of Kirkwall.
LobselVith8 wrote...
So we should excuse templars who are killing hundreds of innocent men, women, and children because they were simply following orders?
Modifié par phaonica, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:33 .
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
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?
My point is that just because only three were shown on the screen that doesn't mean that they were the only three that were saved. Yes, I agree that "many" more are saved if you side with the mages. All I'm saying is that even though we only saw three saved, that doesn't mean that there couldnt' have been more (not "many", just more than three). It's not supposed to "make it better", it's just an argument against the absolute three you keep bolding for me.
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
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.
If he intervened for these three, he might have intervened for more that we didn't see, that occured off screen.
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
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.
Because a Knight-Captain who has utterly no sympathy whatsoever for their plight would not have supported Hawke's attempt to spare some of them.
Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:24 .
LobselVith8 wrote...
Monica21 wrote...
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying your argument. I'm not going to simply assume that hundreds of people were slaughtered if I didn't see it or didn't do it. The only people I'm killing if I side with the Templars are blood mages, abominations, demons, and enthralled Templars.
It's easy to insert the word "slaughter" into dialogue at the end of the game, but I'm not going to believe there are more mages in the Circle than there are in the entire city of Kirkwall.
So you're ignoring the lore that states that there are hundreds of mages in the Circle of Kirkwall (and this is prior to the influx of mages from the Circle of Starkhaven) because you personally dislike it?
LobselVith8 wrote...
Whether three or slightly more mages were spared and made tranquil instead doesn't change the fact that Meredith ordered the execution of the Circle of Kirkwall because they were mages, and an apostate destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry.
LobselVith8 wrote...
Since Hawke's support is needed for those mages to be spared (including Circle mage Bethany), I don't agree.
So those mages who surrendered during the RoA weren't men and women?His sympathy didn't extend to the men, women, and children being killed simply for being mages, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
Modifié par phaonica, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:32 .
phaonica wrote...
Why not? You're ignoring that Cullen might have intervened to allow for more mages than three to surrender because you didn't see it on screen. She saw (somebody help me here) maybe 100 mages die in the Templar ending, so why assume that any more that that were killed?
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
Whether three or slightly more mages were spared and made tranquil instead doesn't change the fact that Meredith ordered the execution of the Circle of Kirkwall because they were mages, and an apostate destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry.
Fine. It wasn't brought up to characterize the RoA, anyway, it was brought up to characterize Cullen.
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
Since Hawke's support is needed for those mages to be spared (including Circle mage Bethany), I don't agree.
Maybe Hawke isn't needed. Cullen and Hawke give that first order, then Cullen could use that authority to spare more who surrender (assuming that Meredith isn't looking over Cullen's shoulder during the entire battle).
phaonica wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
His sympathy didn't extend to the men, women, and children being killed simply for being mages, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
So those mages who surrendered during the RoA weren't men and women?
Modifié par LobselVith8, 13 septembre 2011 - 08:41 .
Since you decided to press me. Well, here are a few things. I've done only one playthrough of DAO and that was with the human noble origin. I played this game sometime starting this February. Since I didn't have a lot of time back then, I played it for a long time - took me about 10 weeks or more to finish it. When I was playing it though, my mind was wondering at different things (NOTE: This is really one of my very first RPGs. ME2 and ME1 being the first ones, in that order). So, anyway, my whole point of view when playing this game was not to focus on every detail as such, but on the threat of the blight and events connected with it, which seemed more immediate and pressing back then.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.
. Just kidding....
LobselVith8 wrote...
phaonica wrote...
Why not? You're ignoring that Cullen might have intervened to allow for more mages than three to surrender because you didn't see it on screen. She saw (somebody help me here) maybe 100 mages die in the Templar ending, so why assume that any more that that were killed?
Because the endings make a distinction between "many survivors" if Hawke protects the mages and making no reference to many survivors if Hawke aids the templars. Apparently, "many survivors" only transpires if Hawke is protecting the mages. If only one ending notes that many survived, and the other doesn't, then it's a clear distinction between the two acts.
Agreed.Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
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.
I'll agree with that. Their monopoly on lyrium seems like a means to an end - as you said to keep both mages and templars in line. The Chantry's primary motive, as that of any organized religion, is to spread itself. And it has ridden on the waves of the aftermath of the events of the ancient Tevinter Imperium. But these waves have dampened in intensity over time.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.
It is not just the inertia of the inaction of status quo, I suppose. As you hinted above, it's also that if mages became less dangerous, the Chantry'd lose credibility in their action to confine mages to the Circles and thus also to have their templar custodians. If I understand it correctly, isn't the templar order, including the Circle mages, a mighty military force in itself - say, to declare Exalted Marches? Keeping mages that way has other benefits.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.
Clearly they want to maintain status quo - it is to their great advantage in doing so.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.
Yes, I think we've debated one such in the past. And although I considered it an improbable idea there, I didn't think it was an impossible one. Certainly, if things went really dire one has to have options.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.
Although I suppose one could find good-natured and progressives among the Chantry folk, I think whoever they are, are clearly in the minority. So, overall, I'd have to agree with you again.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.
I could debate this point, though. No matter how powerful some individuals might be, it'd still not work in the longer run to "contain" them, and regard them as threat always. At some point something has to give. And I for one think that it'd be beneficial in the long run to let things work out as they might, outside of captivity, in the wild, so to say; to allow people to decide for themselves. I'm sure it'd not work out in every case, but it is the only thing I feel can work without jumping into some catastrophe in the future.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, but in my own perspective desiring power, either for doing good or evil is never a good thing. Because the thing - power - itself corrupts.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.
Yes, the idol could have been merely the catalyst, in some sense. But I still wonder, even when Meredith was so totally gone to madness at the end - something within her still seems to want to fight it. I know it isn't much of a case for Meredith, but it is something, even if merely 0.001%.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.
Feynriel abuses his power if you let him live...Ryzaki wrote...
...I hada nice post and the forums ate it.
Screw you forum.
Anyway everyone is suspectible to corruption mage or not. The more power you have the more likely you are to be corrupted. Mages included. Since they start off with more power than most they like any other human being are more likely to abuse it. That's all.Not saying all mages are gonna go "MUWAHAHAHAHA!" and start abusing and exploiting people. No. All templars aren't going to do that either. But there will always be Alriks and Orsino's abusing their power just like they'll be Thrasks and Feynriel's.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Feynriel abuses his power if you let him live...Ryzaki wrote...
...I hada nice post and the forums ate it.
Screw you forum.
Anyway everyone is suspectible to corruption mage or not. The more power you have the more likely you are to be corrupted. Mages included. Since they start off with more power than most they like any other human being are more likely to abuse it. That's all.Not saying all mages are gonna go "MUWAHAHAHAHA!" and start abusing and exploiting people. No. All templars aren't going to do that either. But there will always be Alriks and Orsino's abusing their power just like they'll be Thrasks and Feynriel's.
LobselVith8 wrote...
Or maybe he did exactly what he did for the many mages who are being killed simply for being mages... absolutely nothing.
LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean the three adult mages who surrendered? Even if three mages are spared, it doesn't make up for the countless men, women, and children who were butchered with swords of mercy because Meredith thinks "the people will demand blood."
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Feynriel abuses his power if you let him live...
Modifié par rak72, 13 septembre 2011 - 09:36 .
Retour en haut