420 réponses à ce sujet

[Arrtis]

Alistair4Ever wrote...

So i have a question. Has anyone at all played through DA2 and sided with the templars because they thought it was the right thing to do? I mean you are doing a good guy playthrough and you sided with the templars. i can't imagine that because i would only ever do that if i felt like being an ****. so anyone out there think that the templar path is morally right? of cource neither can truely be such but i see the mages as the lesser of 2 evils because well... take 1st enchanter. he was the biggest anti-blood magic mage there is and he was willing to make himself an abomonation just to kill templars. he would not have done that except in an absolute last resort. if the templars hadn't he would havebeen fine. in DA2 90% of the time, mages are forced to blood magic by the templars. if wouldn't squeeze the tube of tooth paste it wouldn't have gotten all over their hands. so, back to the question:  anyone out there think that the templar path is morally right?

Well its good in terms of human life.
Templars = many
Mages = less
Letting hundreds to thousands die or letting maybe a hundred.
Less mages less people to go on a killing spree.
Like in the first game.Mages are far better at killing large amount of people than a single warrior or rogue.
Also helping the templars means order for the city.Order is needed for any city to survive.
So let the city get torn apart for mages?The minority.Or try to stop them and reduce the damage done.
Either way yields a lot of damage but less death with templars.
Since mages attack civilians in desperation and I doubt the templars would.Even if they were desperate.
So far only sided with templars.

[LPPrince]

 I played a sarcastic sweetheart, so she was definitely a good character.

But her life is HORRIBLE with heartbreak after heartbreak happening.

And you know what? She sided with the Templars.

[Niten-Ichi]

I played as a Mage, was a pro mage up until what anders did.i was so disappointed with mages that i sided with the templars only to find that Osrino supported quentin ( who killed hawke's mother). I killed him and Meriedith and the templars turned on me!!! She wanted me dead while the other templar wanted to capture me. Beat the hell out of meredieth and the templars kneeled before me.
In my opinion it was the best choice as later varric said that the templars all over thedas respected me, and the mages found in me a reason to rebell or something.

[HolyJellyfish]

Its difficult to say. Templars can be just as power hungry and abusive as mages.

In the end, I sided with mages, since there were dissenter Templars who were also supporting their cause. As for the Templars... I did not see any rogue Mages banding together with them to fight their own ilk.

[lady dansen]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Throughout the game you find complete monsters and very reasonable folks on both sides. You can't really say one side is right and the other wrong. I thought Orsino was more likeable than Meredith but I ended up siding with the templars because of Anders. I did spare what few mages I could at the end.
Strangely, Cullen is far from being the extremist he was in DAO. He still has his convictions but also some doubts and a willingness to compromise. He turns out to be a very sympathetic character to me.

Cullen is the reason I would side with the Templars....I just love him!  <3<3

[MR445]

This was a very tough choice.

On one hand Meredith's actions were inexcusable and you learn throughout Act 3 that she was wrongfully persecuting templars and circle mages alike.

On the other mages like Feynriel (sp?) who are a serious threat to the world as the Keeper tells you before you head into the Fade do need to be controlled. If Hawke hadn't stepped in to do something he would eventually have succumbed and who knows what would have happened then. As a bonus there are also righteous templars who only want peace like Cullen and Emeric.

What I don't get is there was reason enough to believe Meredith needed to die before Anders' big f'you to the Chantry, why wasn't there an option to just kill Meredith and potentially resolve the situation in Kirkwall completely?

Modifié par MR445, 14 mars 2011 - 05:42 .

[Joshd21]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...

Wait if you side with the Templars, you are chosen to rule the city?

Yeah they make you Viscount

Interesting, how does the outcome of the story play out at the end if you do become Viscount? does Isabella stay with you? does the person talking to verric, actually find you?

[MR445]

Joshd21 wrote...
Interesting, how does the outcome of the story play out at the end if you do become Viscount? does Isabella stay with you? does the person talking to verric, actually find you?

Pretty much the same as the mage ending. Nothing happens when you become Viscount, your love interest will stay with you regardless of who you side with, and the Seeker doesn't find you because you apparently vanished. Varric eludes to you possibly losing your monies before you disappear.

[Arppis]

Mage's leader is more reasonable, he was just pushed too far, just like all the other mages. But then again, Templar leader was tricked by that pure lyrium sword.

[Joshd21]

MR445 wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...
Interesting, how does the outcome of the story play out at the end if you do become Viscount? does Isabella stay with you? does the person talking to verric, actually find you?

Pretty much the same as the mage ending. Nothing happens when you become Viscount, your love interest will stay with you regardless of who you side with, and the Seeker doesn't find you because you apparently vanished. Varric eludes to you possibly losing your monies before you disappear.

Then I made the right choice in sticking with mages, rather then have a title and dozens of mages already killed. If she wants every mage killed, shes talking about you (If your a mage) or your sister. And that sweet innocent looking elf. I just couldn't bare myself to do that. I'd feel too gulity.

[MadCat221]

Arppis wrote...

Mage's leader is more reasonable, he was just pushed too far, just like all the other mages. But then again, Templar leader was tricked by that pure lyrium sword.

Haven't gotten to endgame yet, but from the sound of things the idol just simply amplified her anti-mage bigotry that was there to begin with to insanity levels.

It seemed to amplify the inherent greed in Varric's brother to insanity levels.

[White_Buffalo94]

Both sides I believe have their reasons, but I believe the Chantry has gone too far so I always side with mages, in both games

[Red Templar]

Arppis wrote...

Mage's leader is more reasonable, he was just pushed too far, just like all the other mages. But then again, Templar leader was tricked by that pure lyrium sword.

Orsino wasn't more reasonable. He was just a two-faced schemer who pretended to be reasonable and upstanding in public while undermining the cause in secret. The guy not only protected Quentin - the blood mage necromancer and serial killer who murdered women to stich them together into the Bride of Frakenstein - over a period of years... he also helped the guy with his insane research.

Orsino was not a good guy pushed too far. He was a big part of the problem, and had been for years. He was just subtle about it.

[LexXxich]

Problem with plot resolution is that you can only choose to do right thing for wrong reasons (Templars don't have enough evidence to justify Annulment), or wrong thing for right reasons(Mages *are* all corrupt). You can't ever say:"Die, both of you, I'm leaving this city".

[Nathan Redgrave]

There's no completely right answer, and no completely wrong one. That was the intention of the choice--moral abiguity, with enough potential motivation for both Hawke him/herself and the player him/herself to decide to support one side over the other. That there was more just cause for a middle ground than total support for one side or the other, was the reason Anders felt the need to provoke a final confrontation in the first place. In the end, the only "side" that was completely right was the grand cleric's, and she got blow'd up.

[Nathan Redgrave]

LexXxich wrote...

wrong thing for right reasons(Mages *are* all corrupt).

Um, no.

Mages are all a danger? Yessiree.

Mages are all corrupt? No. Just, no.

[hismastersvoice]

The whole concept of the Circle is anathema to what western culture considers lawful. You cannot prosecute anyone for crimes uncommitted, Minority Report, etc, etc. Therefore, siding with the templars cannot be good by definition. Now, siding with the mages doesn't have to be good, but at least it comes with the chance of being the correct choice...

Templars should just go back to hunting mages that commit actual crimes rather than imprisoning or lobotomizing everyone just to sit on their asses all day.

[Pileyourbodies]

Mages are dangerous i've never supported the mages cause no matter how nice they seem they can always be possessed.

[hismastersvoice]

I'm a nice person, but I can always punch the bridge of your nose so hard it will puncture your brain and kill you. I should therefore be imprisoned or, better yet, have my hands cut off.

[LPPrince]

hismastersvoice wrote...

I'm a nice person, but I can always punch the bridge of your nose so hard it will puncture your brain and kill you. I should therefore be imprisoned or, better yet, have my hands cut off.

Ahh see, but you would've done that by CHOICE.

Mages can be dangerous and they don't even have to want to.

So its more like this-

Person A- A regular person.

Person B- A person with a psychological condition which makes them spontaneously go on a rampage and attempt to kill everyone around them.

Are you gonna allow both people to just stroll around with the masses? I wouldn't. Person A is fine(unless they decide to become a mass murderer or some such)

Person B is a huge liability. Now, if there was a place where they could get treatment and stay away from the masses, then that's cool. It won't cure them, but it will make a spontaneous murdering rage less likely.

That's what The Circle provides to mages.

A mage? Dangerous, even if they're the nicest person in the World.

The Circle? A place where they can learn to control their powers and not end up going on a murderous rampage.

And STILL, like any being in the DA world, they can still choose to go on these rampages.

So you tell me-

Should a potentially dangerous mage be kept away from the masses they can hurt while being supervised by those with the ability to resist and kill them, or should they roam free?

Personally, I'll go with the former.

Let me be clear when I say that mages should not be IMPRISONED. But kept in check and taught to control themselves? Yes.

[hismastersvoice]

Sorry, that's not how it works. Every single person, mage or nor, has the potential to do harm. The extent of said harm should have nothing to do with how they're treated by law before they do any harm, unless said law sanctions slavery, inferior status, class privilages etc. Had the Circle been a purely educational institution, I'd have no problem with it. It's not. It's a tool of extreme suppression and one that clearly fails at what it's supposed to do.

Modifié par hismastersvoice, 14 mars 2011 - 09:23 .

[DuskWanderer]

hismastersvoice wrote...

Sorry, that's not how it works. Every single person, mage or nor, has the potential to do harm. The extent of said harm should have nothing to do with how they're treated by law before they do any harm, unless said law sanctions slavery, inferior status, class privilages etc. Had the Circle been a purely educational institution, I'd have no problem with it. It's not. It's a tool of extreme suppression and one that clearly fails at what it's supposed to do.

It's not a matter of causing harm, persay, it's the matter of demons possessing mages. Remember, until we saw the thing that the crazy mage-lady was doing to the templars, it was widely believed the only people that could be possessed were mages and corpses (thus the tradition of cremation). Even then, it took the intervention of mages to do. 

[Kemor]

BrettF wrote...
You can apply this logic to real world scenarios.  By your logic firearms should all be banned.  Imagine that one person does not have a gun and other people do.  When a person who owns a gun gets angry they can simply massacre everyone around them, while a person without a gun cannot.

What do you propose, that all weapons should be banned?  And those who will not surrender their firearms should all be killed at birth? 

Oh I'm sorry but in my country, firearms and knives longer than the palm are forbidden by law and NOBODY carries a firearm around but some law enforcement. And you know what, we're not even in the top 40 countries list of number of murders with firearms per capita while a country like..say..the US, is almost at the top of every single crime watch charts

Also, you can remove guns from people, no harm done.
You cannot remove magic from people (apart tranquil)...

That's absurd.  Other citizens can be trained in templar ways to defend themselves against magic or law enforcement agencies could hire good mages to use magic to defend others. 

You do realize that by doing this you actually train people to know how to kill someone effectively right? I mean, you take normal random people, with all their possible craziness, and you give them all the knowledge to kill at will. That's like having some kind of gun training at school...

Modifié par Kemor, 15 mars 2011 - 12:54 .

[Dangerfoot]

If Meredith hadn't have been driven mad by the relic, I'm not sure things would have gone as far as they did. If you listen to her backstory, it makes sense that she's being harsh because she wants to protect her people. I think that without it she might have been reasoned with.

Orsino on the other hand, was involved with the guy who killed Hawke's mom. I can only see him as a completely dishonest and shady character after that.

(Of course either cause is a good cause, just talking about the leaders.)

[Fidget6]

Both sides are corrupt. That's politics for ya.