1890 réponses à ce sujet

[Avilia]

I like the Templar ending because it feels more like an ending..if that makes sense? In the mage ending you just trot off into the sunset (to, erm, return and do Legacy if you leave it until last).

I'm happy to admit I did it unspoiled the first time and I believe I exclaimed "OMG how cool is that!?" when the Templars all bowed to my mage. There was some evil cackling as well "muahaha now an apostate is in charge, I'ma gonna make me some changes..." Possibly plans involving unsuspecting Knight-Captains were hatched, but Hawke's not telling.

@Vaeya - ty Phear my l33t Photoshop skilz (I really need to learn how use it properly one day - I only just discovered you can insert speech bubbles but still have no idea how to rotate them...)

Edit for ToP (shamelessly stolen from Gala's post on around page 6 as I'm at work and can't get anything new)

Modifié par Avilia, 22 août 2011 - 03:50 .

[Monica21]

The pro-templar ending feels like you're actually doing something to restore order instead of, "oh hey, let's let all the mages free!" I won't argue that free mages are A Bad Thing, but I think there's something to be said for understanding that just because the current system doesn't work doesn't mean it should be abandoned altogether. It feels like I'm actually trying to fix something or restore some semblance of normalcy instead of encouraging chaos. Not that the game gives you the opportunity to really lay that out, but still.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

See, I always feel like the Templar ending is you doing something completely abominable, so even if I think the end cutscene is more interesting, I can't bear to do anything that leads up to it.

I mean Varric basically says that the mages look at the slaughter in Kirkwall and say "it is so unimaginably messed up that someone could do that... guess we'd better rebel." I wish the templar ending wasn't actually carrying out the annulment, but was just executing Anders or something like that... anything that isn't implicitly agreeing that the annulment is "ok" right up until Meredith finally snaps.

Even Cullen implies that he doesn't necessarily think it's needed in this case, so I'm shouting at my screen "Good, then let's kill this crazy lady now, and tell the mages we aren't going to annul them! Why aren't we killing her?" I wish there were some way to keep order without going along with an annulment.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 22 août 2011 - 04:17 .

[Galagraphia]

@CulturalGeekGirl, yes, I wish we could just stop in the Gallows, when the templars gather to storm the tower, and jump to the Meredith-killing part.

But I think it wasn't possible. After what Anders did many templars thought it was the right thing to do. It's interesting that before storming the Gallows you can talk to both Cullen and Moira, and they represent two opposite points of view. Moira wants revenge, because she thinks mages have gone too far. Cullen hopes that somehow they will avoid killing everyone, maybe he just wants to eliminate blood mages and abominations. I actually don't know what Meredith told him. Did she even explained why she invoked the RoA to those templars who weren't there when Anders blew up the Chantry? Or she just said: "Mages blew up the Chantry and killed our brothers and Grand Cleric! Let's kill some too!"

That's why I don't like the templar ending - I feel dirty. Guys in the tower were not responsible for the explosion. Maybe some of them were blood mages, yes, but then let's find them and punish them for their crimes, not Anders'.

In the mage ending I don't like that Hawke:
1) Fights to protects mages.
2) Leaves the Gallows! It's like: "I was epic, now I'm going home, and you templar guys can do whatever you want with survivors!"
I know Cullen won't execute the mages who surrender, and maybe he will even revoke the RoA, but it still feels like Hawke achieved nothing.

[Monica21]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

See, I always feel like the Templar ending is you doing something completely abominable, so even if I think the end cutscene is more interesting, I can't bear to do anything that leads up to it.

I mean Varric basically says that the mages look at the slaughter in Kirkwall and say "it is so unimaginably messed up that someone could do that... guess we'd better rebel." I wish the templar ending wasn't actually carrying out the annulment, but was just executing Anders or something like that... anything that isn't implicitly agreeing that the annulment is "ok" right up until Meredith finally snaps.

Even Cullen implies that he doesn't necessarily think it's needed in this case, so I'm shouting at my screen "Good, then let's kill this crazy lady now, and tell the mages we aren't going to annul them! Why aren't we killing her?" I wish there were some way to keep order without going along with an annulment.

There are so many times in Act 3 that I yelled at my screen I'm not even sure where to start. After the Chantry bombing Orsino says, "The mage responsible isn't even part of the Circle so why would you annul it?" And he sounds just as exhasperated as I was when I heard her say that. I will never stop shaking my head at that part. It's just written so badly. 

I agree that participating in the annulment is a bad thing but, metagaming-wise, the end result is exactly the same. If you side with the mages then they look at Kirkwall and revolt because they finally realized they can, so the situation ends up exactly the same but for different reasons. The only thing I noticed different was that Cassandra says either "Templars can trust her" or "Mages can trust her" when trying to find Hawke.

[Avilia]

I agree CCG - there are a lot of innocent mages being killed for no reason but Meredith's insanity. Another option would have been nice. Someone sticking a sword in Meredith while she foamed at the mouth in Lowtown would have been good. They could have still had a nice couple of boss fights (which are apparently mandatory) and still stirred the Circles up for rebellion when word got out.

I can only think Bioware wanted to make the whole thing so ridiculously not grey anymore for some future gaming reason. I hope they did anyway.



(Actually that would have been very dramatic. Meredith screaming away and suddenly, bomp, her head goes rolling off down the square. I'm thinking Cullen cut it off. Then Anders could have gone all 'justicey' and finally shown the power he apparently has in that form. Boss fight 1. Not sure who could be boss fight 2. Maybe the idol reattaches Meredith's head and its fight on. Okay that bit was silly. (but no sillier than what did happen imho))

[Avilia]

 A question regarding Cullen's time as Uldred's guest in Origins.  Depending on how long you take to go to the Circle, it is possible he was locked up for almost a year (I think you can leave it until last to do if you want).

The gossips in Lothering are talking about the situation there so its already started just after you leave Flemeth's pad.

My question relates to Lyrium withdrawal - I just suddenly thought today (as you do) - did Cullen suffer withrawal if he was locked up long enough?  Or:

1.  Did the blood magic/demons stop it from happening
2.  Did Uldred stop it so he could have more fun
3.  Did Bioware forget to deal with it

Any thoughts?  You've probably noticed by now I'm not much of a lore expert so I've probably missed something really obvious.

I don't think this was covered a few pages back during the lyrium discussions but I apologise if my rotten memory has overlooked it.

Modifié par Avilia, 22 août 2011 - 08:31 .

[Galagraphia]

@Avilia, lol, I think BioWare forgot about it ))) In fanfiction we can do whatever we like with it. Maybe Uldred even tried to drug Cullen with lyrium and see if it will help to break him, who knows?

I usually do the Broken Circle right after Lothering, because FREE STATS! and because I can't let Cullen suffer while I'm having fun with lampposts-in-winter

My Amell went there because of all other places it was the only one she knew well, and it seemed ok to start from something familiar. So in "Obsession" Cullen suffered about 3 weeks, which I think was more than enough I would lose my mind after 3 days in that tower, seeing my friends killing each other and being exploded or torn into pieces by demons. I honestly believe that Cullen is made of steel if he's still such a darling after what had happened to him.

*hugs Cullen forever*

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Back on to act 3... I had this sitting in the post hopper for a while, but think as I might, I can't fix it properly. Here's the problem: for the mage Revolution to happen, they need the unfair annulment to happen and be publicized, so we can't just stop Meredith in her tracks without her doing any damage if we want the war (and I do think we want the war. I've said this in other threads, but somebody was going to be fighting Orlais in DA3. It was pretty much guaranteed... and if we're gonna fight, it might as well be for mage freedom.)

So OK, it must end in crazy Meredith doing enough damage to shock mages anywhere into realizing that Templars can pretty much murder them whenever they want with no repercussions. So how do you allow a player to side with the Templars without having them actively endorse the Annulment?

This is my stupid idea: after the explosion, Meredith just runs off straighth away, before you make your choice. Now you are offered two possibilities: Orsino wants you to help him defend the mages, and Cullen wants you to prioritize keeping order in the city and then try to catch up with Meredith later, (knowing you may be too late to save some of the mages.) That way you're making a legitimate decision between civil order and mage freedom.

It'd be a very similar result, except that you wouldn't be directly complicit with the annulment, you'd just decide keeping order is more important than stopping it... which I still don't agree with myself, but I could definitely envision a sympathetic Hawke who makes that decision (while I can't see a sympathetic one who agrees with the Annulment. I mean even my psychopath Hawke doesn't side with the Templars. Though that's mostly out of spite).

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 22 août 2011 - 09:13 .

[esper]

I don't know CGG - why would Cullen even assume that the fight would leave the Gallows? And know matter what Cullen is still a templar. I can never fanthom why he thought that Meridith was only going to arrest Hawke. Perhaps the choice should have been:
1. Side with the mages - Orsino
2. Side with Templars - Meridith
3. Side with the Guards - Aveline (Only possible if she kept the loaytly of the guards)
In three you could help the guards proctect the civilians, Meridith would still kill most of the mages because there is no one to protect them. That would cause Orsino to go harvester and Meridith would have to active the lyrium sword to beat him without hawke's support. The lyrium sword makes her completely crazy and she decides that everyone who is a much as related to a mage must be killed and thus turn her attention to the civilians, forcing Hawke to kill her.
The epilog could then be - the words of the chaos spread and the mages rebels because the realized that no one, but themself would ever stand up for them and the circle offer no protection.

[R2s Muse]

I like these ideas of having the option not to support the Right of Annulment, but instead to support saving the city/restoring order. To be honest, I always sorta felt that the pro-templar side was that. I couldn't find a good youtube vid to remind me of the diplomatic things my reluctant mage!Hawke said, but it was something about limiting the damage/casualties and sounded like it was limiting mage casualties as well. This, along with the fact that you support Cullen in letting the three mages surrender suggested to me that Hawke isn't really pro-RoA but instead is trying to limit the fighting at all costs. Being "on Meredith's side" is more like tempering Meredith while you try to keep everyone from dying. But that could be my brain trying to better stomach the pro-templar ending...

edit: ...the fact that you could choose to support Cullen in letting the three mages surrender...

Modifié par R2s Muse, 22 août 2011 - 11:42 .

[sylvanaerie]

R2s Muse wrote...

I like these ideas of having the option not to support the Right of Annulment, but instead to support saving the city/restoring order. To be honest, I always sorta felt that the pro-templar side was that. I couldn't find a good youtube vid to remind me of the diplomatic things my reluctant mage!Hawke said, but it was something about limiting the damage/casualties and sounded like it was limiting mage casualties as well. This, along with the fact that you support Cullen in letting the three mages surrender suggested to me that Hawke isn't really pro-RoA but instead is trying to limit the fighting at all costs. Being "on Meredith's side" is more like tempering Meredith while you try to keep everyone from dying. But that could be my brain trying to better stomach the pro-templar ending...

edit: ...the fact that you could choose to support Cullen in letting the three mages surrender...

Yea my Hawke's who did side Templar were doing it to limit the killing spree Knight-Commander Whacko was on, trying to save innocent lives on both sides, and caught in the middle of the conflict.

[Xilizhra]

There are no innocent lives on the templar side; they're all trained combatants on the offensive.

[sylvanaerie]

Xilizhra wrote...

There are no innocent lives on the templar side; they're all trained combatants on the offensive.

So, every single templar is a complete dick in support of Merrydeath's plan to wipe out the Circle?  I tend to think there may be some who simply want to live their lives, do their jobs (Like Thrask and Keran and Emeric), and generally not go freaking homicidal maniac on the mages.
There is also a young woman there who will spam the "My mom wants me to quit the Templars because she thinks it's too dangerous."

A generalization like "all of them" is too broad.  There are good people who will die on BOTH sides of that conflict, caught in the middle.

[Xilizhra]

So, every single templar is a complete dick in support of Merrydeath's plan to wipe out the Circle? I tend to think there may be some who simply want to live their lives, do their jobs (Like Thrask and Keran and Emeric), and generally not go freaking homicidal maniac on the mages.
There is also a young woman there who will spam the "My mom wants me to quit the Templars because she thinks it's too dangerous."

I didn't say all of them were evil. I said none of them were innocent. They're soldiers. They're starting a combat situation that's either a war crime/crime against humanity, or just an act of war, and in neither case in real life is it ever considered immoral to fight and kill soldiers carrying out either, especially when they're completely on the offensive.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

What bothers me is this: if mages hear that you've called the Right, they have every reason to believe they're going to be killed, and to resort to extreme measures in self-defense. If you don't scare the crap out of them with the A-word, I think you'd be able to save a lot more mages. That's why it bugs me so, so much.

I reread Terry Pratchett's "Jingo" lately, and there's a relevant passage there.

"He ought to stay here, and do the best he could.

But . . . history was full of the bones of good men who’d followed bad orders in the hope that they could soften the blow. Oh, yes, there were worse things they could do, but most of them began right where they started following bad orders."

Almost everybody who does the pro-templar side feels like its supporting the city and order, but... well... that's really not something that logically follows from the thing you're deciding to do. I don't understand how going along with the annulment itself helps. Going along with the Templars, sure. Doing some kind of a non annulment investigation and killing ssome blood mages? Great! But even if I know the end result, I can't get my head around a character who thinks that actively supporting someone's decision to just go kill a bunch of innocent people is the correct choice. I wish there were a way I could be templar-y without doing that.

But I'm probably way too picky, there.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 22 août 2011 - 04:11 .

[Xilizhra]

But even if I know the end result, I can't get my head around a character who thinks that actively supporting someone's decision to just go kill a bunch of innocent people is the correct choice. I wish there were a way I could be templar-y without doing that.

That's what the templars are. There is no compromise.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

See, I disagree. (I can't believe I found someone who is more aggressively pro-mage than I am. This is... refreshing!) I think it's possible to bring the order to a more moderate place, and I think the evidence for that is a pre-vows templar like Alistair. That's the kind of thing I'd model my new lay-templar order on, if I had my druthers and moved the Templars away from direct Chantry control and also stopped addicting them all to lyrium!

I don't think Cullen would have called the Right if he were in charge... he comes as close to saying as much as he possibly can without being insubordinate, and he argues in favor or sparing the mages who surrender. It's not great, but it's something. It's a hint of possibility... and one that's much more interesting to explore than the polarity of "zomg everyone is a blood mage" vs. "completely murderous templars."

[Neminea]

According to this def of innocent, neither mage nor templar are innocent.

innocent [ˈɪnəsənt]adj
1. not corrupted or tainted with evil or unpleasant emotion; sinless; pure
2. (Law) not guilty of a particular crime; blameless
3. (postpositive; foll by of) free (of); lacking innocent of all knowledge of history
4.
a. harmless or innocuous an innocent game
b. not cancerous an innocent tumour
5. credulous, naive, or artless
6. simple-minded; slow-witted
n
1. an innocent person, esp a young child or an ingenuous adult
2. a simple-minded person; simpleton
innocently adv

[Xilizhra]

See, I disagree. (I can't believe I found someone who is more aggressively pro-mage than I am. This is... refreshing!) I think it's possible to bring the order to a more moderate place, and I think the evidence for that is a pre-vows templar like Alistair. That's the kind of thing I'd model my new lay-templar order on, if I had my druthers and moved the Templars away from direct Chantry control and also stopped addicting them all to lyrium!

Well, that would be ideal, but I suspect that the Chantry's control has to be ripped away first. Which luckily seems to be in the process of happening.

I don't think Cullen would have called the Right if he were in charge... he comes as close to saying as much as he possibly can without being insubordinate, and he argues in favor or sparing the mages who surrender. It's not great, but it's something. It's a hint of possibility... and one that's much more interesting to explore than the polarity of "zomg everyone is a blood mage" vs. "completely murderous templars."

Which is great, but he and the other templars still go along with the damn thing, which is why I have no qualms about killing them. In combat, anyway.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 août 2011 - 05:13 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Oh I'm also fine with killing most templars, you just have to remember that there could be someone like Alistair or Cullen under that helm. Alistair especially... we know that he had no choice but to go to the order, and that's awful. They get you as a kid, brainwash you, and get you addicted to lyrium. Some templars seem nearly as trapped as mages.

I mean I still pretty much never kill Anders and I've sided with the mages literally every time. In general, I'm pretty anti-templar, but poor Cullen plays my empathy strings so well. He's trying so hard, for no personal gain or motive beyond his duty. I want to make a world where he realizes it's Ok to want things, to want to be happy, to have a life outside duty.

Ok, I haven't slept for over 24 hours now, so it is seriously bedtime. Hopefully. I'll have Cullen-grade dark circles soon, otherwise.

[Vaeya]

Interesting opinions floating around here. x3

I, for one, dislike killing Templars. There are exceptions to that, of course... Like Meredith and Alrick being among the top of that list.

In my opinion, it sucks to side with either side. You kill innocents either way. The Templars are just doing their job, and they can't disobey Meredith unless they want to lose their job (meaning go through lyrium addiction and losing pay) or possibly die. XD And the mages had nothing to do with attacking the chantry, and while quite a few are blood mages, the majority of them are innocent.

So either way, you're killing innocents on both sides. I'm all for treating mages like people, and I am usually always a Mage on my first playthrough (ahem, the majority of my playthroughs XD). But I actually still like the idea of the Circle, though it has flaws and it would probably never work in anything but a utopia (which is impossible. XD).

I'm also no expert on DA like many of you. X3

Modifié par Vaeya, 22 août 2011 - 06:54 .

[Xilizhra]

In my opinion, it sucks to side with either side. You kill innocents either way. The Templars are just doing their job, and they can't disobey Meredith unless they want to lose their job (meaning go through lyrium addiction and losing pay) or possibly die.

"Just following orders" has been legally determined to be a lame excuse.

[Neminea]

Not where I am from, they didn't execute every german soldier for following orders after the war, the ones who give the orders are to blame.

[rak72]

Xilizhra wrote...

In my opinion, it sucks to side with either side. You kill innocents either way. The Templars are just doing their job, and they can't disobey Meredith unless they want to lose their job (meaning go through lyrium addiction and losing pay) or possibly die.

"Just following orders" has been legally determined to be a lame excuse.

Whatever your opinion on the RoA, Merideth wasn't ordering them to do anything illigal up to that point.  Because Arlik was going rogue, dosn't make the guys doing their day to day job evil monsters.  The tranquility progect was not allowed to go foward. 

They a have a responsibility to both the mages and the general population to make sure abominations aren't running amuck.   I know you have very strong opinions on this, but they are just that - opinions.   My opinion is that the Templars serve a vital functon.  Abuses should be dealt with, but like you can't condem all mages because some are bloodmage lunatics, you can not condem all Templars because a few of them are also lunatiucs.

I thought Cullen was the most decent person in the whole game.  He was able to remain fair and objective despite all of the horrors he saw and was subjected to in his lifetime.

:wub:Cullen:wub:

Modifié par rak72, 22 août 2011 - 07:25 .