270 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

Redflametrow wrote...

The Right of Annulment was unjust. From a logical standpoint the end cannot justify the means. Therefore the side of opposing the actions of the templars is the logical choice. Not saying that most the mages shouldn't be logically executed, but if there's one innocent mage for every guilty one, the innocent one would be illogical to kill. The problem is the solution is to compromise. Making them all Tranquil would have even been a better compromise, though still rather horrific.

I see how being on the templar side could have been more beneficial, but it still doesn't pass the logical check of the end justifying the means.

Really the whole thing of killing all the mages for the actions of some seems to be, if not is, genecide; which is frowned upon universally. The mages are similar to many discriminated factions in that they are simply born different. The whole danger they can pose is a valid point to make that is elitist, but most people won't mind it. Mages can be individually very dangerous. The problem is that they're not the only dangerous ones. Logain was the biggest threat in the first game with the Blight as the biggest potential threat. Since a ruler can be a bigger threat than an apostate, should there be no rulers? Even the templars are corruptible and can defeat mages, so should they be destroyed? The Grey Wardens are bound by nothing other than the taint in their blood and yet are far stronger than ordinary humans, should they be destroyed? In the end every living thing posses a danger. Should the most dangerous living things be killed once they pose a threat? Is what it comes down to for me. Even look at the United States, World Trade Centers destroyed and the power to kill every Muslim. Should the United States kill all Muslims because of extremist groups? No. Which makes me realize the fallacy your argument holds is the slippery slope, so as a whole it cannot work due to the ramifications of similar thinking.

Keeping Anders around is even a difficult decision when you think about whether or not he'd be of more use dead or alive. I chose to keep him merely because he was needed (not actually needed but useful) to fight against the Templars who were the clear and present danger. Anders, I'm not so sure about at all. To me, killing him simply would not undo anything. Sebastian would have been a good reason, but pressure to take his life isn't enough to make it the only option. Knowing that no one knows where you are in the start of the game helps to make these decisions that should complicate the future.

So yeah, definitely not sure about Anders, but like Logain I didn't feel like killing him (let Alistar kill him the first playthrough). I'm fairly certain that the genocide of the mages was wrong. Being from the Circle in Origins I saw what type of mages could exist within and thought those types or better deserved to be judged for their own actions.

Frowned upon Universally? But we havn't explored it all yet =P Sparing Anders is definitly a bad move since A) He is guilty and  It will cause a war between two city states.

Locking up mages is wrong, they are mistreated yes, Orsino however was wrong to protest against Meredith from searching the tower for blood mages, Since he was harboring tonnes of them.. She was right that One simply doesn't learn blood magic out of the blue as well, So Orsino and the others have practiced Maleficarum all along.. So they are guilty of crimes that endanger the whole city.. According to Cullen (Suprising it was him that pointed this out) but the right of annulment allows the sparing of surrendering mages.. Which you are given the option to.. All that resist are killed.
Modern ideology cannot be applied to medieval societies.. If the results of not annuling the circle would be mass rioting and loss of all order.. Then what do you think Monarchs and general leaders would do... An Exalted March is being considered on the city like I keep saying, It will definitly go ahead if you side with the mages.. And with infighting in the city how do you think things will go for them? They will all wind up dead.

Im not saying: Mages are dangerous, they should be locked up or killed.. Im saying.. Leaving this particularly group of mages alive, this ground in question.. not all mages everywhere. This group. So no its not genocide.. Since genocide is "The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination
of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." This is a specific target in a specific location. Sparing this group will lead to far more deaths than siding with them..

If given the option.
200 people will die or
Thousands will die

Then it is far more logical to pick the side that will result in less deaths.
Also, Sacrificing the few to save the many in the concept of the Grey Wardens.. Sure most of them are given the choice to join, Not all however.

[jma2286]

For all the chest puffing the Chantry does about how they're against slavery isn't that what they do with mages with the Circle? Sure they have a place to live and survive without being a harm to society, but call it what you want the Circle is a glorified religious version of slavery, except of that which they fear - magic.

The difficult thing about it all is how personal the choice is to Hawke. You're either going against your own nature or your sister if you side with the Templars. Sure they're a standing army and you're fighting nearly impossible odds, but are you really going to betray your sister or go against your own nature? That's one of the beautiful grisly parts of Dragon Age 2 and the world BioWare made - there's really no right answer.

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Frowned upon Universally? But we havn't explored it all yet =P Sparing Anders is definitly a bad move since A) He is guilty and  It will cause a war between two city states.

You think Sebastian can manage to wrest control of Starkhaven on his own? He couldn't even deal with a handful of mercenaries, and you think he'll take control of the throne from the people who wiped out almost every member of his family?

XxDeonxX wrote...

Locking up mages is wrong, they are mistreated yes, Orsino however was wrong to protest against Meredith from searching the tower for blood mages, Since he was harboring tonnes of them.. She was right that One simply doesn't learn blood magic out of the blue as well, So Orsino and the others have practiced Maleficarum all along.. So they are guilty of crimes that endanger the whole city.. According to Cullen (Suprising it was him that pointed this out) but the right of annulment allows the sparing of surrendering mages.. Which you are given the option to.. All that resist are killed.

Except Orsino says he never practiced blood magic before, and only knows the ritual from Quentin's research.

Why would Hawke assume that Meredith would spare any mage? She doesn't even spare an apostate Hawke after all is said and done. Furthermore, you end up saving three mages... three, out of possibly hundreds, or thousands, of mages.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Modern ideology cannot be applied to medieval societies.. If the results of not annuling the circle would be mass rioting and loss of all order.. Then what do you think Monarchs and general leaders would do... An Exalted March is being considered on the city like I keep saying, It will definitly go ahead if you side with the mages.. And with infighting in the city how do you think things will go for them? They will all wind up dead.

The city guard can keep order, as it's done for years. There's no reason innocent people need to be killed in the hundreds or thousands to maintain order. The Circle mages did nothing wrong. I'd rather protect men, women, and children from genocide than participate in it.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Im not saying: Mages are dangerous, they should be locked up or killed.. Im saying.. Leaving this particularly group of mages alive, this ground in question.. not all mages everywhere. This group. So no its not genocide.. Since genocide is "The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination
of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group." This is a specific target in a specific location. Sparing this group will lead to far more deaths than siding with them..

It's the systematic extermination of all the mages in Kirkwall, so how is it not genocide?

XxDeonxX wrote...

If given the option.
200 people will die or
Thousands will die

Then it is far more logical to pick the side that will result in less deaths.
Also, Sacrificing the few to save the many in the concept of the Grey Wardens.. Sure most of them are given the choice to join, Not all however.

I don't see siding with the templars resulting in less death when their agenda is the systematic assassination of all the men, women, and children with magical ability.

[jma2286]

There is no easy choice here.

Mages in non-Tevinter Thedas are viewed as lepers, gathered and hunted like cattle, and, as we saw in Kirkwall, public enemy number one. They are viewed that way not for who they are but what they could become. That's wrong no matter how anyone looks at it. Families with mages have to resort to desperation to escape the Chantry. Mages on the run become more and more desperate. There's always the option for mages in the Circle to give in to demons, especially if they become frustrated with the system, as many do.

On the other side, to support a mage is to go against the Chantry that is the most prominent institution in the world. Why would anyone want to do that? Falling in line and helping to prevent the loss of life from abominations is a noble idea. Furthermore, we have the Blight and darkspawn which has been blamed by magi through the Chantry for bringing into existence. You have demons, darkspawn, the Tevinter Imperium, all blamed for existing on magic. What in the world would make someone support its use?

That's the point of Dragon Age 2 - present the most difficult moral dilemma in the world and have you choose a side, for better or worse.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You think Sebastian can manage to wrest control of Starkhaven on
his own? He couldn't even deal with a handful of mercenaries, and you
think he'll take control of the throne from the people who wiped out
almost every member of his family?

Killing people and leading people are two different things, and when he is the rightful heir then sure he could unify Starkhaven.. I mean its not a given, but its no easily dismissed either.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The city guard can keep order, as it's done for years. There's no
reason innocent people need to be killed in the hundreds or thousands to
maintain order. The Circle mages did nothing wrong. I'd rather protect
men, women, and children from genocide than participate in it.

Maintain order like they did with the fanatics killing Qunari? Like they did when the Qunari attacked? And just because they can manage to eventually put a mass riot down doesn't mean it wont cause mass damage.

Even if the riots are contained then how will the city state stand against an Exalted March? Not well... So they will die from that.. To assume they wouldn't, well did nobody die when the Templars took Acre in the crusades?  No.. heaps of them died.

I don't see siding with the templars resulting in less death when their
agenda is the systematic assassination of all the men, women, and
children with magical ability.

The population of Kirkwall extends beyond mages.... They kill all those with magical ability Within the Kirkwall circle.. Aka not all mages everywhere.
An Exalted March was already being considered.. If the chantry looses all its templars and members in Kirkwall then its a definitite.. So not only will the circle suffer, but the people will as well.

And like Meredith said, the people of Kirkwall will demand blood for what happened with the chantry.. regardless of the fact that it was just Anders responsible.. They will riot and just because a riot and a massive riot, even if managed to be put down will result in alot of death..

Plus both outcomes have mages all pretty much dead in the city anyway, From either their maleficarum summoning demons or the Annulment.. Annulment applying to both sides you choose since Hawke doesn't stop the whole Annulment.

So Siding with the Templars = No Riots, No Exalted March. Which is less death

[LightningOkami]

I feel sorry for Mages, they shouldn't be mistreated for being born that way, it wasn't their fault, as they say in the game "The Maker made us this way, why should he want his own children to die?" -- Or something along those lines. Blood Mages however should get punishment.. But that also depends, i mean.. Merrill went down that road but she's not evil, i'd hate for her to die... D:

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Killing people and leading people are two different things, and when he is the rightful heir then sure he could unify Starkhaven.. I mean its not a given, but its no easily dismissed either.

I think you're forgetting about Alistair, and how he ran the risk of getting executed.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Maintain order like they did with the fanatics killing Qunari? Like they did when the Qunari attacked? And just because they can manage to eventually put a mass riot down doesn't mean it wont cause mass damage.

I didn't realize the common people of Kirkwall were comparable to trained Qunari warriors.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Even if the riots are contained then how will the city state stand against an Exalted March? Not well... So they will die from that.. To assume they wouldn't, well did nobody die when the Templars took Acre in the crusades?  No.. heaps of them died.

You're basically saying people will die regardless of the choice, so why should I support genocide when you seem to think people will die either way?

XxDeonxX wrote...

The population of Kirkwall extends beyond mages.... They kill all those with magical ability Within the Kirkwall circle.. Aka not all mages everywhere.
An Exalted March was already being considered.. If the chantry looses all its templars and members in Kirkwall then its a definitite.. So not only will the circle suffer, but the people will as well.

You mean it would have been the end of the dictatorship of Meredith? The Circles of Magi are now free, the templars aren't taking orders from the Chantry anymore, and even the Seekers seperated to hunt down the mages, so i suppose it's a moot point.

XxDeonxX wrote...

So Siding with the Templars = No Riots, No Exalted March. Which is less death

There's no riots or Exalted March when you side with the mages, either.

[Redflametrow]

Fundamentally you did not contradict or argue that this isn't a case of the end not justifying the means. In a traditional argument, I don't need to go any further as that is considered a truth in logic. So yeah, it's a pretty good point in a logical argument.

Probably the wrong choice with Anders, wanted Sebastian to do it. Used the same choices with Logain and Alistar did it. I simply didn't have a motive to kill him, I'd arrest him and let him be killed or accept the responsibility of killing him later if granted, but I didn't just want to kill him on the spot. Heck, I'd encourage him to try some blood magic to sacrifice himself to raise the Grand Cleric from the dead. Just not enough of a reason for me to kill him, it was too late to prevent his actions.

Orisino screwed up time and again, but it wasn't for him that I was fighting. I was glad I got to kill him as an abomination.Didn't hear that surrendering part. If someone had just said that in the game and not expected me to be omnipotent, then I could change my mind. Still there still could have been mages who would not surrender due to fear of being mistreated of which the templars had proved was a sound fear. So unless I interviewed each mage or got to run ahead and say that all who surrender will be moved to a better circle or something, then I'd probably stick with my stance. I'm not even convinced basic blood magic is bad as long as you do more good than evil.

Yes modern ideology can. There's no logical reason why it cannot.

To me the Exalted March is similar to the invasion of Poland. Mages are the Jews. I simply wanted to get the good Jews out of there. Other injustices being practiced by a foreign force is not my responsibility. Their actions are their responsibility. Yet again, the end does not justify the means. If I had a choice, I may evacuate the whole city if it meant there was guaranteed danger if they stayed.

Genocide may not directly refer to mages (*spoilers* they're not real), but they could be viewed as a religious faction and saying the killing of them is different than genocide is really just a word game.Yes it is a specific group, but it's still genocide if you kill certain people of a tribe or literally a house. Genocide comes from Latin and literally means the killing of a house. House being extended into the older meaning to be the house of a certain family (like Ameil or Hawke), a nation (the house of Russia), or in this case I'm extending it to the House of the Circle Mages of Kirkwall. So by the literal original definition it can be said to be genocide.

If given the option to press a button to change a train on tracks to kill one person instead of five, then they would. If they have to shove the person on the tracks to save the person 90% of people would not. When you are faced with killing innocents to save more it's not so cut and dry as selecting a button. To me, like I said, the end does not justify the means. So sticking by that, I do not have to defend my bad end with good means.

Less is good, but none is better. To me it is the side who decides there must be death that deserves to die and thus the templars decided that there must be death. Fundamentally I did not believe. I wished merely to defend the mages than fight the templars. I was kinda hoping they'd stand down or not listen to Meredith when faced with the choice of whether or not to kill the champion of Kirkwall. As I viewed things, I might as well have been the viscount and my words law. Defying me is defying Kirkwall and must be dealt with as such. Asking Meredith to find a middle ground was not a request, but an order. She disobeyed that order and declared war on the leader of Kirkwall. So from the perspective as top dog, bowing down to the lower dog wasn't ever an option. I was not bowing to Orsino, but defending those in my pack.

It's a weird way to look at things, but that's the way my Hawke did. Still, the end does not justify the means is the fundamental point that I believe the templars cannot overcome, and no it is not just a modern concept.

[LightningOkami]

I let Anders live, though it was a hard choice, if he had just told me his plan then i may have been more forgiving when he actually put his plan into motion, part of me felt like he deserved to die but i coudn't bring myself to do it.
I was pleased that Fenris returned on my side after i said the option about freedom (or something like that) and he instantly changed his mind and fought alongside me XD I can't remember if i had more rivalry or friendship with him, since i always had him in my party and sided with the mages an awful lot, which caused him to dislike me more and more, not sure if either of those sway his mind to my side or Meredith's xD

[Wereparrot]

MColes wrote...

 Mages DO need to be policed

I think mages should only be policed as far as non-mages are policed. I don't think mages should be given 'special treatment' in this respect. 

If a mage makes a pact with a demon it should be the state that tracks them down and hangs them, just as it would be for a murderer.
 

Modifié par Wereparrot, 23 mars 2011 - 05:04 .

[Cismontane]

I suspect much more is going on offscreen. Remember in Awakening, in the trigger sequence for the Ines quest, Wynne says she's on her way to a Free Marches city.. Cumberland I think.. for the regular enchanter gathering.. Where Circle leadership from all over Ferelden were planning on discussing a conspiracy to break away from the Chantry? Even the less militant Anders of the time said he was appalled. In all likelihood, Orsino was there. Then in Act III, Leliana says that there is an organized Thedas-wide conspiracy of a faction called the Resolutionists. If you brought Fenris along to the meeting, he said that he has info that faction was covertly backed by Tevinter. Leliana said there was no proof, but that would be the polItically astute thing to say. There were also clues to rebellion in background convos one could overhear at the Ferelden circle library in Witch Hunt, referencing the fraternities.

It seems likely that the Templars must've got wind of some of this plotting.. And probably ramped up repression in their usual hamfisted way as a result.

It seems that rebellion was being plotted over many years, far beyond Ferelden.. And that maybe, just maybe the Kirkwall uprising would've happened regardless of what the Champion does or doesn't do.

[_Aine_]

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty. Had that not already been pre-determined it would have felt like there were more impact to any decision of mine. While fear of the mages makes complete *logical* sense given the weight of their abilities and the possible effects of using them, blanket sentences like annulment just bring out the anti-extremist in me I suppose. I don't think it is any ability that makes a person corrupt necessarily. After all look at the qunari, they had not one, but at least TWO substances that could have razed Kirkwall to the ground. And yet, if the Arishok was beaten in "honorable" combat, the rest of them just up and leave without so much a sideways glance in your direction.  Having the ABILITY to destroy something, and even a hatred of it, doesn't necessarily cause one to USE that/those abilities.  

Revolution rarely exists when no-one is victimized or oppressed. Does one spur on revolution for too much sunshine and rainbows? No, it is a reaction to a real or widely-perceived and harsh repression.

Whether the city is best run with the mages kept safely tucked away from much of society to monitor their powers is "best" or not is debatable, but at least understandable. The call for extermination of all those born a certain way, whether for a logical precaution or not, is still genocide.

I have been trying to do a templar-sided ending anyway, just for roleplay value.

It is hard though, for me. I think that this rebellion and uprising didn't need Hawke, or Anders, or any one demonized individual or even event to happen though, honestly. It has been brewing for a while. Having central characters to blame just makes it easier for the story-teller to create a wild tale, and history to have someone to blame other than society itself. just my humble opinion.

Modifié par shantisands, 25 mars 2011 - 02:02 .

[TobiTobsen]

shantisands wrote...

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty.

Meh... side with the templars and listen to Cullen. Meredith is doing the whole annulment wrong. The right never said: "Death to all mages!" it says "Death to all Blood Mages", at least thats what Cullen said. He will even back you up, when you meet some mages who just want to give up and you protest against Meredith order to kill them. Every  templar present will disobey her order and side with you and Cullen. In the end they even side with you against her when she finally goes nuts.

To bad most of the mages turn to blood magic the second Meredith calls for the anullment. Cullen and you coul've spared more otherwise.

[Unichrone]

MotoSkunkX wrote...


He didn't try to kill you.  Orsino died the moment he cast the spell that turned him into a flesh golem.

And to be fair, the room was about to be stormed by hundreds of Templars - he was justified in thinking you were all going to die in a few minutes anyways, and he wanted to at least kill Meredith.

This is utter garbage.  He didn't die-- he transformed himself into an gnarled visage and tried to kill you-- AFTER you agreed to help him.  Even if he "died" as you suggest, that in no way alleviates him of the responsibility.  If I plant a bomb somewhere and then shoot myself in the head, does that mean I'm not responsible for the actions I've taken?  

The whole "The mage's backs are against the wall" argument is utterly ridiculous and ultimately self-defeating.  It is exactly those extreme circumstances in which people would be tempted to use blood magic that the Templars and the general public are worried about.  

I agree with the OP that siding with the Templars is both the logical and right choice.  You can make a case for either, but a case for the mages just doesn't hold water.

Modifié par Unichrone, 25 mars 2011 - 02:00 .

[Unichrone]

Wereparrot wrote...

MColes wrote...

 Mages DO need to be policed

I think mages should only be policed as far as non-mages are policed. I don't think mages should be given 'special treatment' in this respect. 

If a mage makes a pact with a demon it should be the state that tracks them down and hangs them, just as it would be for a murderer.
 

Would you send the city police to go apprehend a man who has a nuke?  

[Unichrone]

LightningOkami wrote...

I feel sorry for Mages, they shouldn't be mistreated for being born that way, it wasn't their fault, as they say in the game "The Maker made us this way, why should he want his own children to die?" -- Or something along those lines. Blood Mages however should get punishment.. But that also depends, i mean.. Merrill went down that road but she's not evil, i'd hate for her to die... D:

I guess we may or may not be able to make a case that Merrill is not evil, but she certainly committed evil acts.  And her people suffered because of her wickedness.  Her own people thought she deserved to die- I agree with them. 

[_Aine_]

TobiTobsen wrote...

shantisands wrote...

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty.

Meh... side with the templars and listen to Cullen. Meredith is doing the whole annulment wrong. The right never said: "Death to all mages!" it says "Death to all Blood Mages", at least thats what Cullen said. He will even back you up, when you meet some mages who just want to give up and you protest against Meredith order to kill them. Every  templar present will disobey her order and side with you and Cullen. In the end they even side with you against her when she finally goes nuts.

To bad most of the mages turn to blood magic the second Meredith calls for the anullment. Cullen and you coul've spared more otherwise.

Well, this makes it a bit easier to try for this on a play-through then.  Funny how Cullen has turned into more of a moderate since DA:O.  =)  

[DKJaigen]

XxDeonxX wrote...


If given the option.
200 people will die or
Thousands will die

Then it is far more logical to pick the side that will result in less deaths.
Also, Sacrificing the few to save the many in the concept of the Grey Wardens.. Sure most of them are given the choice to join, Not all however.

You confuse logic with cowardice. if you do not even wish to do the right thing simply to spare more people then your a coward end of story. Also the grey wardens willingly sacrifice themselves cowards are executed on the spot.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 25 mars 2011 - 02:11 .

[DKJaigen]

Unichrone wrote...


I guess we may or may not be able to make a case that Merrill is not evil, but she certainly committed evil acts.  And her people suffered because of her wickedness.  Her own people thought she deserved to die- I agree with them. 

You have to explain the whole evil act thing to me

[Curry Noodles]

Some of the stuff people are saying makes no sense to me, it doesn't seem very logical.

First off, I don't know if it was a difference in endings due to how we played the game or WHAT, but in my ending Varric clearly states that a ton of the kirkwall circle survived due to me siding with the mages and that they started the rebellions in the other cities that led to the liberation of the other circles. It never mentioned citizens rioting and attacking and killing them. Meredith said something like that, but she also accused Cullen the templar of blood magic about 20 minutes later, so her statements don't carry much water with me. Could this be because I killed Anders? Even though I was a mage and sided with the mages I killed him. He'd become a mass murdering madman by the end of the game.

Second, using the serial killer's actions as justification for siding with the templars is lunacy. The man killed a bunch of women and constructed a corpse facsimile of a woman he loved from their bodies. Serial killers in real life have killed and done the exact same thing without magic; the only difference is it couldn't creepily get up and come back to life. Not only that, a circle mage could never commit this type of crime due to their phylacteries. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with mages being particularly dangerous; he could have just as easily been a crazy man with a knife or hell, even a templar. Would it make sense to kill every templar in Kirkwall if the serial killer turned out to be a templar? He's just a crazy person.

Third, murdering every controlled circle mage because Anders blew up the Chantry. This makes slightly more sense, but only if you advocate killing all mages everywhere as well. Anders is an apostate and a grey warden. He hasn't been a circle mage for over 7 years. Using a rite meant to combat demonic infestation and blood magic, thereby killing every imprisoned circle mage in the city because someone unassociated with the circle did something that didn't even involve blood magic or demons is kind of crazy. The problem in the game has always been with uncontrolled mages. Even that group in the second to last mission is only a problem because they've been allowed the freedom to get out of the gallows. Killing all of the controlled mages will just make the problem worse since as soon as word gets out EVERY mage in Thedas will find out they have almost nothing to lose; the templars will kill them as maleficar for something an apostate did even if they're well behaved and innocent of any wrongdoing. I'd imagine that's the main reason behind the mage uprising, in fact.

I think there are justifications to side with the templars, but they are either because you don't want to have kirkwall ripped apart by magic war, because mages as a whole are too dangerous to let live or because you want power (become the viscount).

I was a bit disappointed with the finale to be honest; it's such a great idea but it was handled pretty badly. Annulment of the circle due to something an apostate did? Then Orsino turning into an abomination when you're a mage made absolutely no sense; it should have at least happened outside and it should involved something that actually looked like a threat. He just seems to go from compromising and reasonable to "I have no hope, time to go crazy and kill myself" way way too quickly.

I think a much better way to handle it would be to have Anders detonate the Gallows instead of the chantry. All of the mages escape into the city and the templars start a mass campaign, hunting them down to capture them all. But then a small number (not even close to a majority of them) start using blood magic and using innocents to power spells. Some kind of fade tear happens, demons start pouring through uncontrollably. Orsino says he can close it using blood magic, and you fight to get to the rift. It closes and most of the obvious demons are killed. But shortly afterward, Orsino acts strangely and it becomes clear he's turned into an abomination.

The rite of annulment is enacted afterwards because due to the chaos in the street and lack of the gallows there's no time or way to imprison the mages, tell who's not an apostate, or even tell who is and isn't possessed. At the same time though it's clear you'll be mostly be killing completely innocent mages if you assist with the rite of annulment. You still have to choose between templars and mages with no compromise, but now both sides involve you saving some innocent people at the cost of letting some others die (or killing them). This way I at least have a lot of trouble deciding what to do; do you solve the problem as quickly as possible by killing every mage in the city, or do you try and save them, getting them out of the city but in the process potentially allowing some demons to go free.

[Curry Noodles]

TobiTobsen wrote...

shantisands wrote...

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty.

Meh... side with the templars and listen to Cullen. Meredith is doing the whole annulment wrong. The right never said: "Death to all mages!" it says "Death to all Blood Mages", at least thats what Cullen said. He will even back you up, when you meet some mages who just want to give up and you protest against Meredith order to kill them. Every  templar present will disobey her order and side with you and Cullen. In the end they even side with you against her when she finally goes nuts.

To bad most of the mages turn to blood magic the second Meredith calls for the anullment. Cullen and you coul've spared more otherwise.

If Cullen says that then there's a discrepancy between what he's saying and what it says in the codex and what the rite of annulment entails in the first game.  Those two sources clearly state that they mean every mage in the tower dies.  

Modifié par Curry Noodles, 25 mars 2011 - 03:39 .

[Arppis]

For me it was pretty simple: Oppress and destroy or fight for those who are oppressed. True, mages are powerful, but captivity and oppression drives people to extreme things. They will rebel when things get too tight. And they will fight to the end when pushed far enough. In the end they are just a group of people, who happened to born with something unusual. And people are afraid of that.

So no. Templars isn't very logical choice to go with.

But really: I'd rather choose peace or kill them all, than either side. Everyone would win. You guys want to fight? Then die. You guys actualy want peace and stability? Then kiss and make up.

[_Aine_]

Curry Noodles wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

shantisands wrote...

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty.

Meh... side with the templars and listen to Cullen. Meredith is doing the whole annulment wrong. The right never said: "Death to all mages!" it says "Death to all Blood Mages", at least thats what Cullen said. He will even back you up, when you meet some mages who just want to give up and you protest against Meredith order to kill them. Every  templar present will disobey her order and side with you and Cullen. In the end they even side with you against her when she finally goes nuts.

To bad most of the mages turn to blood magic the second Meredith calls for the anullment. Cullen and you coul've spared more otherwise.

If Cullen says that then there's a discrepancy between what he's saying and what it says in the codex and what the rite of annulment entails in the first game.  Those two sources clearly state that they mean every mage in the tower dies.  

That is what I thought too (your name is making me want lunch!) which is why I was/am having a difficult time of it. Like saying there is the possibility of a serial killer hiding in a mall so electing to blow everyone in it up just to kill him.     

[TobiTobsen]

Curry Noodles wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

shantisands wrote...

I have a very difficult time ultimately siding with the templars for one simple reason: they have *already* called for the right of the anulment, which means death to ALL mages, not just those suspected guilty.

Meh... side with the templars and listen to Cullen. Meredith is doing the whole annulment wrong. The right never said: "Death to all mages!" it says "Death to all Blood Mages", at least thats what Cullen said. He will even back you up, when you meet some mages who just want to give up and you protest against Meredith order to kill them. Every  templar present will disobey her order and side with you and Cullen. In the end they even side with you against her when she finally goes nuts.

To bad most of the mages turn to blood magic the second Meredith calls for the anullment. Cullen and you coul've spared more otherwise.

If Cullen says that then there's a discrepancy between what he's saying and what it says in the codex and what the rite of annulment entails in the first game.  Those two sources clearly state that they mean every mage in the tower dies.  

Yeah, I know that and I was a little bit confused. But hey... Cullen is Knight-Captain, he has to know . Could be a retcon... or maybe Cullen makes his own Right of Annulment Light, now with less murder! He said that the Ferelden Circle was way more screwed up and they could spare some mages, so maybe he thinks that he can spare even more mages in Kirkwall with a lightly adjusted RoA.

[_Aine_]

TobiTobsen wrote...

 Could be a retcon... or maybe Cullen makes his own Right of Annulment Light, now with less murder!

haha!

Could make a joke about less filling, but I will be good!

RoA Light.  Love it.   *goes off to find lunch, snickering*