47 réponses à ce sujet

[HarlequinKing]

TJPags wrote...

Oh, I killed him.  Would have preferred a more gruesome death.  But oh well.

No kidding. The knife to the back wasn't enough. I would've taken his head off samurai-style. But I guess it would've been too much to set up a dialogue wheel just to decide on Anders' manner of death.

[VettoRyouzou]

Kemor wrote...

VettoRyouzou wrote...
And as I pointed out they have a bane which are templar who are able to kill them but just like the power of a mage  can go to a man head so can the power of being stronger then a mage go to a man head.

So again your point is moot.

I've yet to see any Templar kill random innocent passerby...
And any Templar going zealot so far only did so against mages, and were proven right nearly at every turn in DA2 because of mages becoming complete crazies, even the first enchanter.

I mean..I bet Thrax now wished we killed all these mages back in the days...oh, if he was actually alive that is...

Seeing as templar will throw anyone in jail who even think about helping a mage ya, being imprisoned for having a heart so much nicer then just killing people out right. -rolls eye-.

Oh well no point were not going to see eye to eye here.

[HarlequinKing]

MJF JD wrote...

i couldnt allow the annulment even if i didnt fully agree with the mages. Unfortunately that led to every circle in thedas starting a revolution.

Well, in hindsight (having played both endings now), the Right of Annulment probably doesn't happen even if you side with the templars. Cullen takes over the Order and he seems way more level-headed than he was in Origins. And he agrees with your choice to spare some innocent mages during the battle, if you do so.


Haristo: good reference on New Vegas. Hadn't thought about that until now. I think the NCR is a much lighter shade of grey, though, personally.

[Kemor]

VettoRyouzou wrote...

Seeing as templar will throw anyone in jail who even think about helping a mage ya, being imprisoned for having a heart so much nicer then just killing people out right. -rolls eye-.

Oh well no point were not going to see eye to eye here.

Well, you mean kinda like you'd put people in jail if they helped someone about to blow a building if he doesn't like his cereal one morning you mean?

And yea, you see the good in people and think that'll help.
I see humans and consider how much damage they can do when they screw up knowing that they WILL screw up.

[HarlequinKing]

VettoRyouzou wrote...

Seeing as templar will throw anyone in jail who even think about helping a mage ya, being imprisoned for having a heart so much nicer then just killing people out right. -rolls eye-.

Oh well no point were not going to see eye to eye here.

Some will, and some won't. And of course, Kirkwall is an exceptionally bad case compared to other places.

[Kemor]

HarlequinKing wrote...

MJF JD wrote...

i couldnt allow the annulment even if i didnt fully agree with the mages. Unfortunately that led to every circle in thedas starting a revolution.

Well, in hindsight (having played both endings now), the Right of Annulment probably doesn't happen even if you side with the templars. Cullen takes over the Order and he seems way more level-headed than he was in Origins. And he agrees with your choice to spare some innocent mages during the battle, if you do so.


Haristo: good reference on New Vegas. Hadn't thought about that until now. I think the NCR is a much lighter shade of grey, though, personally.

Totally, Cullen is pretty cool overall and while he wants to keep mages in the Circle, he's not a zealot and seems ready to calm things down.

After what Anders did though, not sure if anyone can return from that...It's so...Symbolic.
I mean, hundreds can die and it wouldn't change much but that..it's just gonna stick...

[VettoRyouzou]

Kemor wrote...

VettoRyouzou wrote...

Seeing as templar will throw anyone in jail who even think about helping a mage ya, being imprisoned for having a heart so much nicer then just killing people out right. -rolls eye-.

Oh well no point were not going to see eye to eye here.

Well, you mean kinda like you'd put people in jail if they helped someone about to blow a building if he doesn't like his cereal one morning you mean?

And yea, you see the good in people and think that'll help.
I see humans and consider how much damage they can do when they screw up knowing that they WILL screw up.

Sure... you do realize this is a game oh well I've had enough take care now.

[Corwyn]

VettoRyouzou wrote...

Kemor wrote...

VettoRyouzou wrote...
And as I pointed out they have a bane which are templar who are able to kill them but just like the power of a mage  can go to a man head so can the power of being stronger then a mage go to a man head.

So again your point is moot.

I've yet to see any Templar kill random innocent passerby...
And any Templar going zealot so far only did so against mages, and were proven right nearly at every turn in DA2 because of mages becoming complete crazies, even the first enchanter.

I mean..I bet Thrax now wished we killed all these mages back in the days...oh, if he was actually alive that is...

Seeing as templar will throw anyone in jail who even think about helping a mage ya, being imprisoned for having a heart so much nicer then just killing people out right. -rolls eye-.

Oh well no point were not going to see eye to eye here.

There is a world of difference between throwing somebody in jail and hassling them on the street and killing people for evil magic rituals.  

That said I went into this opposed to the templars but the mages made it very difficult to view them as victims.  Some resorted to blood magic as a last resort but a number just wanted the power.  And if the stories told about Tevinter, were the mages aren't restricted, are true it's hard to think the templars don't have a good point.

[Kemor]

VettoRyouzou wrote...

Sure... you do realize this is a game oh well I've had enough take care now.

Sooooo, you justify something because it's in a game, then pull the "it's a game" card? You do realize that you kill thousands of people in DA2 right? What a silly question.


Come down your personal human right or whatnot ideology and try logic & reasoning for some time, it applies beautifully in both gaming and living! The cool thing about gaming though is that you don't have to play as YOU and can actually roleplay into a murdering character enjoying fresh virgin blood in his morning cereals!

[ArawnNox]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't think the other side is wrong, I just find some of the arguments they use as... odd.

Like those that say Anders was completely logical and rational in what he did because he has good intentions.

Emphasis mine.

Well, "The Road to Hell" and all that.

Incidentally, in my play through I was heavily biased towards the Mages in the first place (My Lady Hawke was very protective of her family), but when the sh*t hit the fan during the climax I was like, "Aweful lot of blood mages and demons in here." More than there really should have been. I found myself wondering just how much of the problem was actually caused by Templar oppression.

I also didn't punish Anders and made him come with me. He was my character's friend, but his pleas of "I didn't want to get you involved in this." was such bull. I was like, "Well... too late for that." But the deciding factor was me feeling this: "You started this, you're going to help me finish it. You're not going to get out of this the easy way."

[ArawnNox]

Macgarnickle wrote...
That said I went into this opposed to the templars but the mages made it very difficult to view them as victims.  Some resorted to blood magic as a last resort but a number just wanted the power.  And if the stories told about Tevinter, were the mages aren't restricted, are true it's hard to think the templars don't have a good point

It definatly seemed to me that the writing was really pushing that "Blood Magic leads to abuse of power, murder, and demons." much more so than in Origins. In Origins, even a hapless doof like Jowan can use Blood Magic and not abuse it's power. While in 2, it seems like anyone that uses it gives in to the tempation to abuse the power and seek more power for it's own sake. Even Merril is unhealthily obcessed with restoring the Eluvian, unwittingly doing a demon's bidding.

[Dangerfoot]

TJPags wrote...

Oh, I killed him.  Would have preferred a more gruesome death.  But oh well.

I dunno about gruesome, but I wish there had been an option to make him Tranquil. He was prepared to die, but I don't think he'd feel nearly as satisfied if I had said, "Here you go Meredith, make him Tranquil." Acting all righteous after that slaughter, he deserved to live with his nightmare, unable to appreciate the fruition of his plan.

[HarlequinKing]

Dangerfoot wrote...
I dunno about gruesome, but I wish there had been an option to make him Tranquil. He was prepared to die, but I don't think he'd feel nearly as satisfied if I had said, "Here you go Meredith, make him Tranquil." Acting all righteous after that slaughter, he deserved to live with his nightmare, unable to appreciate the fruition of his plan.

That's what I call poetic..... Justice! LOL.

(I believe that's what I had done to Jowan in Origins too.)

[TJPags]

Dangerfoot wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Oh, I killed him.  Would have preferred a more gruesome death.  But oh well.

I dunno about gruesome, but I wish there had been an option to make him Tranquil. He was prepared to die, but I don't think he'd feel nearly as satisfied if I had said, "Here you go Meredith, make him Tranquil." Acting all righteous after that slaughter, he deserved to live with his nightmare, unable to appreciate the fruition of his plan.

Oh, you win!!!!

Never thought of that one at ALL!!!!

It's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!

[TheTWF]

Two words.

Exalted Marches.

[Kemor]

TJPags wrote...]
I dunno about gruesome, but I wish there had been an option to make him Tranquil.

That would have made my day! This is brillant! 

I'd have make him stand in the square all day long with a sign "I'm the moron who did it, and Hawke didn't like it. You sure you want to pursue you current course of action?"

Damn, where's the toolset!

[Parrk]

Either mages are people or they are not. If you agree that mages are people, then it is a pretty clear-cut issue of equality.

With the exception of slavery, Japanese internment in WW2 is easily among the most shameful pages of our nation's history, The mage situation is shockingly similar to that of Japanese-Americans during that time. Certainly there were people of Japanese heritage in the US during that time who were actually delivering actionable-level intelligence to our enemies, but they were a definite minority.

Those who had lived in the US for a while, or were not first generation Americans would naturally have wanted to resist, and to not go willingly to the prison camps because the very notion of of us turning on our own and throwing the very basis of our entire society under the bus for no reason other than fear is disgusting to a large portion of us.

The actions of individual mages is grossly irrelevant because it is not a question of who they are, but rather a question of who WE are.

Equality and freedom are the two founding ideals that I most cherish about our society. I feel they are almost Godly in their importance. Without them we have nothing, I would be willing to tolerate a large amount of collateral damage, even on a personal level, to ensure that they remain unbroken.

Given this set of beliefs, there is only one choice, and it is not a nuanced one.

[TJPags]

Parrk wrote...

Either mages are people or they are not. If you agree that mages are people, then it is a pretty clear-cut issue of equality.

With the exception of slavery, Japanese internment in WW2 is easily among the most shameful pages of our nation's history, The mage situation is shockingly similar to that of Japanese-Americans during that time. Certainly there were people of Japanese heritage in the US during that time who were actually delivering actionable-level intelligence to our enemies, but they were a definite minority.

Those who had lived in the US for a while, or were not first generation Americans would naturally have wanted to resist, and to not go willingly to the prison camps because the very notion of of us turning on our own and throwing the very basis of our entire society under the bus for no reason other than fear is disgusting to a large portion of us.

The actions of individual mages is grossly irrelevant because it is not a question of who they are, but rather a question of who WE are.

Equality and freedom are the two founding ideals that I most cherish about our society. I feel they are almost Godly in their importance. Without them we have nothing, I would be willing to tolerate a large amount of collateral damage, even on a personal level, to ensure that they remain unbroken.

Given this set of beliefs, there is only one choice, and it is not a nuanced one.

So, all the blood mages running amok in the streets of Kirkwall, and Anders nuking the Chantry, that's all good right there?

[Kemor]

Parrk wrote...

Either mages are people or they are not. If you agree that mages are people, then it is a pretty clear-cut issue of equality.

With the exception of slavery, Japanese internment in WW2 is easily among the most shameful pages of our nation's history, The mage situation is shockingly similar to that of Japanese-Americans during that time. Certainly there were people of Japanese heritage in the US during that time who were actually delivering actionable-level intelligence to our enemies, but they were a definite minority.

Those who had lived in the US for a while, or were not first generation Americans would naturally have wanted to resist, and to not go willingly to the prison camps because the very notion of of us turning on our own and throwing the very basis of our entire society under the bus for no reason other than fear is disgusting to a large portion of us.

The actions of individual mages is grossly irrelevant because it is not a question of who they are, but rather a question of who WE are.

Equality and freedom are the two founding ideals that I most cherish about our society. I feel they are almost Godly in their importance. Without them we have nothing, I would be willing to tolerate a large amount of collateral damage, even on a personal level, to ensure that they remain unbroken.

Given this set of beliefs, there is only one choice, and it is not a nuanced one.

Mages are not people, problem solved.

And please don't compare this to some real life crap, nothing in our world can compare to the differences between what mages are/can do, and what regular humans/elves/dwarves are in DA.

[HarlequinKing]

Parrk wrote...

Given this set of beliefs, there is only one choice, and it is not a nuanced one.

This is what I was alluding to in the original post about missing the point. The point is that the choice is supposed to be very nuanced, grey-shaded, and shaped by your personal experience... including whatever happened to Bethany or Carver. You should be able to choose either side and remain in good-guy territory. Insisting that one side is definitely "wrong" loses sight of the direction the writers wanted to go.

Relying too much on real-world comparisons is also missing the point. This is a fantasy world, and a medievalesque fantasy world to boot. The rules are different.

Modifié par HarlequinKing, 14 mars 2011 - 01:57 .

[Deztyn]

"Either mages are people or they are not. If you agree that mages are people, then it is a pretty clear-cut issue of equality."

That argument is fundamentally flawed, no one in the real world has an innate ability to inflict the massive amounts of damage a mage can. Principles are nice. But how many Connors do we really want to see running around loose without any oversight?

Modifié par Deztyn, 14 mars 2011 - 02:01 .

[keekee53]

There was nothing free about the free marches. I chose the mages and felt they were the lesser of two evils. The mages lived in fear so most turned to blood magic. The templars let fear rule them and the mages suffered for it. It was obvious neither leader was fit to lead.

Question because I might have misunderstood the lore..

Why would the leader of the Chantry let this spiral out of control? It was my understanding the Chantry controlled the templars for the most part. The Grand Cleric had plenty of opportunity to set things right between the two. Yeah so....I let Anders live because of that too.


Anyways, I hope my Hawke went back to Ferelden where most of the mages understand the seriousness of not using blood magic and the templars have a little sympathy for mages. It seemed like the Circle Tower had better leaders, even with their drama.

[ArawnNox]

keekee53 wrote...

There was nothing free about the free marches. I chose the mages and felt they were the lesser of two evils. The mages lived in fear so most turned to blood magic. The templars let fear rule them and the mages suffered for it. It was obvious neither leader was fit to lead.

Question because I might have misunderstood the lore..

Why would the leader of the Chantry let this spiral out of control? It was my understanding the Chantry controlled the templars for the most part. The Grand Cleric had plenty of opportunity to set things right between the two. Yeah so....I let Anders live because of that too.


Anyways, I hope my Hawke went back to Ferelden where most of the mages understand the seriousness of not using blood magic and the templars have a little sympathy for mages. It seemed like the Circle Tower had better leaders, even with their drama.

I think the Grand Cleric took a position of neutrality because, in her mind, condeming one side or the other would spark the events of Act III. Ironically, it was her position of neutral mediator that made her Anders' target.