420 réponses à ce sujet

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

 I won't lie. I sided with the Mages first because I instinctively felt it was the right thing to do. Help the oppressed and all that. But, you know what? I remember after my first playthrough, and taking a breath to let the entire story sink in, thinking...why in the world would any sane person side with the mages?

I mean, let's think about this. Anders. Oh my god. Anders. He's a psycopath. A complete psycopath. I killed him. And I did so happily. He is pretty much the EXACT posterchild of why we have circles to begin with.  No, I'll go even further. He's the posterchild of why we should just kill mages as children. What a complete and utter psychopath proving EVERY extreme view about mages 100 PERCENT correct. Way to go Anders. 

Grace and her fellow apostates you HELPED get away. Blood mages. Out to kill you. 

Orsino. Blood mage. Out to kill YOU, even though you sided with the mages.

Merril. Blood mage. Would have unleashed yet another demon on the world if it hadn't been for the intervention and sacrifice of her Keeper.

In fact, was there a single mage in the entire game who wasn't a stark raving mad power hungry blood mage? Bethany. That's it. Bethany is litterally the only non lunatic power-seeking Blood craving mage in the entire game. One might argue Alain and Feyndrial as well, but since Feyndrial is in Tevinter, I'd say it's a given he's going to learn blood magic, and Alain just sort of vanishes during the fight with the Templars, so who knows about that boy. 

How in the world did I think I was helping the oppressed? It's like thinking freeing a bunch of psychotic killers from a supermax prison is helping the oppressed. True only in the semantics, while being utterly rediculous in meaning.

You know what? Even though Meredith was going crazy from her lyirum-induced mind poisoning, she was actually the most rational person in the entire game. That moment after Orsino goes on his tyrade about tyranny and not branding every mage a blood mage (lol, despite every mage in Kirkwall except Bethany ending up being exactly that haha). Meredith gets that look of anguish on her face as she overrides him by saying SHE KNOWS and how much it pains her. And if you, or Orsino have a better way, then speak up! Orsino didn't. And, apparantly neither did I. She really was a great character. I think I'm a little in love with her.

I felt so horrible for betraying her and the people of Thedas for siding with the mages the first time around. Especially after she saved my life from that blasted Qunari.  And, unlike the mages, she really did believe she had the best interests of the people in her heart. We could see what a lie all of Orsino and his fellow mage's were if you sided with them.

Sadly, this short game is even shorter if you playthrough a second time with all this foreknowledge and refusing to help the "pitiful" mages as you progress through the story. I use quotes, because we all know they're all crazy blood mages that deserve death anyways. 

So, the story was basically designed to push you towards helping them, and then, I suppose, you're supposed to question why you did in the end. If that was what Gaider and his team were trying to accomplish, good job. You did it. Hopefully the expansion (DA 2: Culling of Mages?) lets us remove this insane portion of the population from the genepool for good.

Modifié par kjdhgfiliuhwe, 15 mars 2011 - 01:24 .

[Sesshomaru47]

I sided with the mages for my first game. Now I have a mage who will side with the Templars because Cullen is spiffy...Plus I don't like the First Enchanter guy, way to prove the Templars right, moron.

[Yashmia]

Honestly, I sided with the mages, and I regret it. My next play through I'm going with the Templars. Every mage I ever helped (Grace, Orsino, Anders, etc.) always ended up going rouge and trying to kill me.

Although, I forgave Anders in the end. Grace and Orsino however, I did not.

[catgirl789]

I actually liked siding with the templars better than siding with the mages. I sided with the mages in my first playthrough then went back and sided with the templars to see the difference and managed to save a lot more people personally with the templars. I could spare mages, *SPOILER*wasn't forced to kill Fenris*SPOILER* , the same amount of abominations are killed both times, and didn't have to kill any templars.

It was kind of counterintuitive to me that it worked out that way, but I guess Fenris had a point.

[catgirl789]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

 I won't lie. I sided with the Mages first because I instinctively felt it was the right thing to do. Help the oppressed and all that. But, you know what? I remember after my first playthrough, and taking a breath to let the entire story sink in, thinking...why in the world would any sane person side with the mages?

[snip/awesome but long post] 

This is exactly what happened to me. Plus, a mage killed my mom so I just felt disgusted when the First Enchanter did what he did no matter which side I chose. I mean the Champion of Kirkwall sides with you and you still resort to blood magic? Thanks for the faith First Enchanter.

[Victia]

I am with you, my first playthough I sided with the templars and on my second the mages to see the difference and I am 100% with the templars because as you say pretty much every mage you meet is either a blood mage or an abomination and/or out to kill you and/or just plain mad! At least there are a few likeable templars out there

[UltiPup]

I was fully prepared to aid the mages when I started playing. I was romancing Fenris too so I was a bit wanting to side with the templars. But then Anders just blew my friggen mind. Brought everything into perspective. I tried to help mages the entire time. And what do I get? Mages trying to kill me all the time. A mage killed my mother. A mage who I tried to help betrays me and trys to kill Aveline. Thats where my sympathy stopped.

[rwscissors702]

Here is my take on... well pretty much all the mages I've met in DA2.

Hawke: Hi guys, I'm a Mage too. I just want to talk.
Apostate: Pawn of the Teplars! *cuts self* Demons come make powerful!
Hawke: *facepalm*

I'm in the midst of a second play through which I intent to side with the Templars as a Mage no less.

[StrikeSaber47]

Here is my position. In Dragon Age: Origins I sided with the Mages during the Mages Quest because I realized that not all the Mages in the Tower were evil (i.e. Wynne and Irving). They were mostly victims to Uldred's followers and I believed that most were innocent and the Right of Annulment was total overkill and wrong. My HNF Warden is mostly neutral with issues of the Chantry, but she often will favor the Mages over the Templars (despite being supportive of the Chantry in general due to her status) because most of the Mages you get to know in Ferelden are not BAD people and most don't even touch Blood Mage or other insane hogwash. I let Morrigan go in Witch Hunt because Morrigan was Morrigan and her dark ritual caused my Warden to survive and inherited the powers of the throne with Alistair and I owe her for that much as well as understanding that even she went against her mother Flemeth and was willing to work in her own terms, as long as she doesn't harm others.

In Awakening, I supported Anders because as the Commander of the Grey, I was working in the self-interest of the Grey Wardens and the defense of Aramanthine, In addition, Anders was not a Blood Mage and I am sure that granting Mages some freedom was worthwhile, especially when the Fereldan Mages aren't bad people at all. Letting a few go free would not hurt, especially if they assist the Wardens.

However, the situations in Kirkwall is very different and I am not going to lie, even playing as an apostate mage with my annoying brother, I will side with the Templars. In both cases, both sides are corrupt and evil. The Templars at Kirkwall are 100x worse than the Templars in Ferelden and are mostly corrupt and warmongering, self-ignorant morons led by a paranoid, lyrium-insane- (Insert final word description here). HOWEVER, MOST of the Mages from Kirkwall are backstabbing, lying, crazily mad heretics. Even the First Enchanter has done some horrific deeds that none of the administration under First Enchanter Irving back at Ferelden would dare to do (except Uldred, but Uldred was mad from beginning and no many other high ranked Enchanters supported him in Origins).

Therefore the Mages at Kirkwall are not like the Mages at Ferelden. The Mages at Kirkwall are just down right evil (except I spared the few that were truly innocent) and most of all, the First Enchanter supported the person who killed my mom? Yeah... No... You don't see my Warden spare Rendon Howe. Sure Meredith is also a total (insert description word here), but at least there is some dignity with the new Templar leadership to understand the fine line.

In conclusion, I chose the lesser of the two evils. Both sides suck but I had to go for the one that would quell the other side that was going to do more harm than good. Too bad because I really do respect the Mages in Ferelden (well most of them), but the ones in Kirkwall, they can go rot in hell, even if I am a Mage myself ha!

PS: Also Anders + Justice my god. They totally ruined my perception of them in Awakening. Both of them were so righteous in Awakening, but in DA 2, I had no sympathy for what they did. Even the most fervent Chantry anti-supporters knows that is a BAD idea to do. More reasons the Mages in Kirkwall are mad, mad, mad!

[LobselVith8]

You have a toxic environment where mages are getting tortured, raped, and made tranquil, and people are surprised there are mages turning to blood magic? I couldn't condone Meredith's insane decree to murder men, women, and children who were innocent. Regardless of the actions of a few mages, not everyone was a blood mage. You had mages fighting templars who didn't resort to blood magic, an Orlesian noble who only wanted to experience what it was like to be with a woman for the first time, a group of mages who fled to tell the other Circles about the onslaught that was happening in the Kirkwall Circle, and you had terrible elements on both sides to make you consider what choice to make.

I couldn't see the massacre of innocent people for an action they had nothing to do with as good, and I could understand why Anders wanted to put an end to a thousand years of slavery by any means necessary.

[Taleroth]

I think it's impossible and I'm surprised by those that disagree.  Meredith's decision is simply inexcusable.  I don't care how many evil mages there are, it doesn't excuse the cold blooded murder of the rest.  And that wasn't even her stated motivation.  She just wanted to appease public sentiment.

Modifié par Taleroth, 16 mars 2011 - 04:58 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Both routes involve killing innocents, so you can't say "killing innocent mages is wrong because they're not all bad/evil".

There are good Templars and there are evil ones.
There are good mages and there are evil ones.

Both choices are bad, both leaders are corrupt; you're simply choosing to side with the established law or start a revolution. If you think the revolution is justified and/or necessary then that's fine. But siding with the Templars is a perfectly valid solution and no less moral, depending on your justifications.

[Taleroth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Both routes involve killing innocents, so you can't say "killing innocent mages is wrong because they're not all bad/evil".

There are good Templars and there are evil ones.
There are good mages and there are evil ones.

The Mage choice isn't to murder the Templars.  It's to defend the Mages.  Any Templar who stands down gets to live.  Any Mage who stands down still bleeding gets murdered.

I wouldn't have sided with "murder the Templars," either.

Modifié par Taleroth, 16 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[Darian Tylmare]

It dpends how you look on it.
The templars under Merideth is paranoid and willing to install a totalitarian rule just to knwo people play the way she wants. This means oppression of dissidents or getting rid of them, killing somebody just because he could potenitally be dangerous and using every trick in the book to keep your power.
On the other side are the mages. People who are sick of being bulied and oppressed, that turn to questionable means to achieve freedom. Most of them go so overboard, it isn't justifiable with a intact moral compass.
I sided with the mages and even spared Anders because he was a friend of Hawke, but I do believe that when there is a majority to safe, a minority has to "take one for the team".
But, since Merideth could have had sparked a domino effect just like Anders did and force everyone under the chantry/templar supervision and so opppress not a minority but a majority, the mages should be the ones to side with.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Meredith is the problem, not the Templars. You can spare innocent mages on the Templar path, and Cullen and his men are perfectly reasonable and ready to turn on Meredith.

Personally I think the odds of changing the "law" are better from the inside. In siding with the Templars you can keep an eye on their activities. In siding with the mages you are ensuring mass death by going against the law. And more Templars and the chantry will come down on you in the end, as that is the established law in much of the area. The Templars' duties are deemed sacred by many.

And I don't think raw anarchy will help anything, especially after learning just how corrupt Orsino really was.

[Taleroth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Meredith is the problem, not the Templars. You can spare innocent mages on the Templar path, and Cullen and his men are perfectly reasonable and ready to turn on Meredith.

Personally I think the odds of changing the "law" are better from the inside. In siding with the Templars you can keep an eye on their activities. In siding with the mages you are ensuring mass death by going against the law. And more Templars and the chantry will come down on you in the end, as that is the established law in much of the area. The Templars' duties are deemed sacred by many.

And I don't think raw anarchy will help anything, especially after learning just how corrupt Orsino really was.

You're not done with the game, yet, are you?  You can spare innocent mages on the Templar path.  But the Templar ending is siding with kill them all.

The only way to protect innocent mages is if the final decision is to side with mages.

[Cadeym]

Both sides are wrong, unfortanetly there was no option to simply walk away or to kill all the mages and all the templars, I wish there had been these options.

Modifié par Mouseraider, 16 mars 2011 - 05:15 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Taleroth wrote...
You're not done with the game, yet, are you?  You can spare innocent mages on the Templar path.  But the Templar ending is siding with kill them all.
The only way to protect innocent mages is if the final decision is to side with mages.

Oh, I've finished the game.  In siding with the mages you are protecting both the guilty and the innocent mages in hopes of changing the law to be more lenient for mages.

In siding with the Templars you are upholing the right of anulment to protect Kirkwall's populace from the evil mages, and said populace has been endangered by many mages over the years.

It's not nearly as black and white as you seem to think.  I get where you're coming from; really, I do.  But siding with the Templars is not a cut and dry "okay, time to murder all mages".  I don't know how many damned demons I fought in Kirkwall prior to that decision.  The mages are a threat, and there's nothing evil about protecting the city from them.

As I said, both sides involve killing innocents and both leaders are specifically corrupt.  Personally, I feel Meredith's actions are closer to the desired outcome in the long run than Orsino's.  I don't support "murdering all mages" either, and I didn't.  I saved the ones I could, including Bethany.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 16 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[Taleroth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

In siding with the Templars you are upholing the right of anulment to protect Kirkwall's populace from the evil mages, and said populace has been endangered by many mages over the years.

That's not what's happening at all.  Meredith outright states that she's invoking the Rite for public appeasement.  And later reveals it's because she's bleeding insane.  There's nothing good or just about supporting insanity.

But siding with the Templars is not a cut and dry "okay, time to murder all mages".  I don't know how many damned demons I fought in Kirkwall prior to that decision.  The mages are a threat, and there's nothing evil about protecting the city from them.

You can protect the city without murdering the innocents.

As I said, both sides involve killing innocents and both leaders are specifically corrupt.

There is no killing innocents in protecting the mages.  If someone comes to murder an innocent person in cold blood (as the Templars are explicitly doing), they do not have the luxury of being considered innocent themselves.  Defending yourself is not murder and it's simply absurd to equate the two.

Orsino's corruption is completely irrelevant.  Because defending the mages is not about supporting Orsino.  Supporting the Templars, however, is entirely about supporting Meredith.

Personally, I feel Meredith's actions are closer to the desired outcome in the long run than Orsino's.  I don't support "murdering all mages" either, and I didn't. 

The long run of Meredith's actions are that every mage is dead.  It's genocide.

Modifié par Taleroth, 16 mars 2011 - 05:32 .

[Kemmer]

Amainville wrote...
I had to choose the mages. Sure, my Hawke was a mage. Sure, I've never really liked Templars all that much. Sure, I'm a Blood Mage myself. But, the straw that broke the camel's back was when Meredith decided all mages had to be killed (and yet she conveniently forgets about the fact that the mage that destroyed the Chantry is not of the Circle).

Very good point.  Argh, so hard to decide!

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Taleroth wrote...
That's not what's happening at all.  Meredith outright states that she's invoking the Rite for public appeasement.  And later reveals it's because she's bleeding insane.  There's nothing good or just about supporting insanity.

You can protect the city without murdering the innocents.
There is no killing innocents in protecting the mages.  If someone comes to murder an innocent person in cold blood (as the Templars are explicitly doing), they do not have the luxury of being considered innocent themselves.

The long run of Meredith's actions are that every mage is dead.  It's genocide.

And again, I didn't really side with Meredith.  Both leaders are corrupt, but you have to choose one.

Yes, part of her specific reasoning was to appease the public, which is a purely political move, but that doesn't mean siding with the Templars has you agreeing to everything she says.

The Templars are just doing their jobs.  By your logic I can say that I didn't kill any innocent mages because all the mages I killed resorted to Blood Magic and summoning a crapload of demons.  Self defense?  Sure, and the Templars are defending the city as is their sacred duty.  Innocent mages who surrendered could be, and were, spared.

And the long run of Orsino's actions would have been a city destroyed by a Harvester and a gaggle of blood mages.  Not sure how you keep bringing this back to Meredith's insanity when I've said countless times she is wrong.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 16 mars 2011 - 05:33 .

[Darian Tylmare]

Taleroth wrote...

The long run of Meredith's actions are that every mage is dead.  It's genocide.

Constituted genocide. The right of annulmetn was given over 15 times before and never did a world wide war break out after it was invoked. The thinking behind it is: Kill 1 mage to safe the lives of 10 commoners.
On short term it is the peacefuller, albeit not best solution. Most people tend to forget that if Merideth wouldn'T have been killed she too would be an example. So maybe it's better to stand up against her and the organization behind for a reboot of society which will bring better solutions altogether.

[eye basher]

i'd rather be a tyrant and safe than a bleeding heart up to my neck in demons,abominations and maniacs.

[Taleroth]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
That's not what's happening at all.  Meredith outright states that she's invoking the Rite for public appeasement.  And later reveals it's because she's bleeding insane.  There's nothing good or just about supporting insanity.

You can protect the city without murdering the innocents.
There is no killing innocents in protecting the mages.  If someone comes to murder an innocent person in cold blood (as the Templars are explicitly doing), they do not have the luxury of being considered innocent themselves.

The long run of Meredith's actions are that every mage is dead.  It's genocide.

And again, I didn't really side with Meredith.  Both leaders are corrupt, but you have to choose one.

Yes, part of her specific reasoning was to appease the public, which is a purely political move, but that doesn't mean siding with the Templars has you agreeing to everything she says.

Except she IS the Templars.

The Templars are just doing their jobs.  By your logic I can say that I didn't kill any innocent mages because all the mages I killed resorted to Blood Magic and summoning a crapload of demons.

Nonsense.  Not all of the mages in the final battle use Blood Magic or summon demons.

Self defense?  Sure, and the Templars are defending the city as is their sacred duty.

The city isn't under attack.  The Templars are defending no one.

Innocent mages who surrendered could be, and were, spared.

Only because they were never given the option to surrender in the final battle.

And the long run of Orsino's actions would have been a city destroyed by a Harvester and a gaggle of blood mages.

Orsino's actions from the beginning are simply to remove Meredith from power.  That is his long term goal.  Not free reign.  He doesn't even oppose the Templars, just Meredith.

[Vaemer-Riit]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Personally I think the odds of changing the "law" are better from the inside. In siding with the Templars you can keep an eye on their activities. In siding with the mages you are ensuring mass death by going against the law. And more Templars and the chantry will come down on you in the end, as that is the established law in much of the area. The Templars' duties are deemed sacred by many.

And I don't think raw anarchy will help anything, especially after learning just how corrupt Orsino really was.

One Problem: Bureaucratic Inertia. The Templar/Chantry/Circle institution has been in effect for so long any attempt to change it will be meet with delays and setbacks.

If you really want to change a system your best bet is to scrap it entirely and build a new one.