231 réponses à ce sujet

[Jarlaxlecq]

No, Mages are not the better choice, if there is one thing this game did right is try to make you feel pity on the mages, to see them as an oppressed people, and then get screwed over by them every chance they get. Be it Grace, be it Quinton, Orsino, hell Anders. I went into the game with as few spoilers as i could so i could play through with my warrior the way i would react in RL. i did my best to try to mediate between the two. Granting Mercy whenever i could. As far as my warrior was concerned he loved and wanted to protect his sister and sympothy for that influenced how he reacted to all other mages. All i got for it was a dead mother, kidnapped sister. I had apostitutes try to slash my throat, every 2nd mage turn into an Abomination on me, The Templars have issue, their leadership is as bad if not worse then the mages. but their mission is still a valid one and why all future playthroughs of the game i go through i will support the Templars.....

[RazorrX]

TexasToast712 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Anders was overreacting. The only time I saw a hint of rape of Circle Mages was from that Ser Alrik Templar right before I killed him during Ander's Tranquil Solution quest.

Given that another mage admits to being raped and threatened with tranquility if he says anything, Anders clearly wasn't overreacting.

When? I only remember the little girl that Ser Alrik is about to Tranquilize.

In act 2 talk to Alain in the courtyard of the Gallows.

[TexasToast712]

RazorrX wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Anders was overreacting. The only time I saw a hint of rape of Circle Mages was from that Ser Alrik Templar right before I killed him during Ander's Tranquil Solution quest.

Given that another mage admits to being raped and threatened with tranquility if he says anything, Anders clearly wasn't overreacting.

When? I only remember the little girl that Ser Alrik is about to Tranquilize.

In act 2 talk to Alain in the courtyard of the Gallows.

Oh well, lets just hope it was Meredith or another female Templar who did the deed. If not then, oh well.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 21 mars 2011 - 08:13 .

[AlexXIV]

You can divide the two choices in the heroic one and the pragmatic. More pragmatic is joining the templars, since we know they win anyway, and Hawke becomes Viscount. A position of power and maybe helpful to change things for the better.

Joining the mages side is more heroic because matter of factly Meredith does invoke the right of annullment incorrectly. It is an injustice and slaughter of innocents. But it is the losing side. In Kirkwall anyway.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[sevalaricgirl]

I side with the mages every time. I'm really not a religious person but the chantry is holier than thou with their attitude and I can't stand them. I also believe in freedom for all people. So Anders did blow up the chantry. After talking to the grand cleric, I would have too.

[sevalaricgirl]

Of course I was a mage and in a romance with Anders.

[AlexXIV]

Well I understand both sides. The mages and the templars. So I am not biased as in having a mage or templar agenda. But simply what Meredith did was wrong, a crime. And I wish Cullen would have stood up against her before they wiped out the circle. The right of annullment is meant for use if a circle is beyond hope. And the kirkwall circle wasn't. Orsino offered to give up, let the mages be imprisoned and search the circle. But Meredith was only interested in killing every single mage. You see that even if you side with the templars and want to spare the 3 mages who give up. Meredith would rather have them killed if Cullen and Hawke didn't say no. She is a crazy woman. And if Hawke helps her murder innocent mages, he/she also becomes a murderer. And that's not my Hawke.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 08:07 .

[Kenshen]

If you side with the templars then why is it that the seeker seems to imply Hawke was the cause of all of this. At the end of my pro templar game there were around 20 of them standing around staring at whatever Meredith became then all take a knee in repect of Hawke. It would seem to me that the story of at least that day should have already been known.

Also I noticed last night that Varric loves to tell stories that are either embellished or flat out lies. Since we are playing the game the way he is telling the story can we even trust what we played to actually be the way events turned out?

[back pain]

Siding with Meredith at the end of DA2 would be like locking up every Muslim in New York city after the 9/11 attacks, sure maybe a small percentage of them are "bad guys" but you end up harming people who you acknowledge are probably innocent. Also, only a complete moron would miss that Meredith was bat**** insane, she even had her own templars working against her with the help of mages.

[Ngoctu]

then siding with mage is like siding with 9/11 as making a terroris attack if you are poor/oppressed it seems to be fine killing innocent if u have a bad childwood because of a religion persecution is forgivable so lets all do terrorist attack if we feel oppressed.

there is not a "right" choise or "wrong" choise the choise itself is not the end of the problem in both case whatever you choose if what you will do AFTER you toke the decision that is important

if you side with templar and after u killed the mage u try to make a better templar institution understnading and peacefull that will make the difference

if after you side with mage and kill Meredith you stop the massacre stop killing innocent templar and purge urself from evil blood mage and try to create a different peacefull relationship between church/mage/templar that would work too

so the choise by itself doesnt identify if you did right or wrong but it's what u are going to do after it that will make it right or wrong if u kill all the templar then let the evil bloodmage free to experiment on human defending them because they had a bad time in the past well that's wrong

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 08:36 .

[SpectreVerner]

Orsino helped Quentin turn your mother into a Frankenstein, so I don't think they are as good as everyone thinks. Meredith has the excuse of being driven insane by the idol.

[SpectreVerner]

aryon69 wrote...

If you side with the templars then why is it that the seeker seems to imply Hawke was the cause of all of this. At the end of my pro templar game there were around 20 of them standing around staring at whatever Meredith became then all take a knee in repect of Hawke. It would seem to me that the story of at least that day should have already been known.

Also I noticed last night that Varric loves to tell stories that are either embellished or flat out lies. Since we are playing the game the way he is telling the story can we even trust what we played to actually be the way events turned out?

Because Templars doesn't necassarily mean Chantry. They could have splintered off.

[AlexXIV]

SpectreVerner wrote...

Orsino helped Quentin turn your mother into a Frankenstein, so I don't think they are as good as everyone thinks. Meredith has the excuse of being driven insane by the idol.

Well Meredith bought the idol to begin with. She traded power for sanity. That was her fault.

And Orsino didn't know what exactly Quentin did. He knew that he was a bloodmage though and wanted to learn from him.

[WhiteKnyght]

Siding with the mages is the right and ethical choice.

1. The Templars were trying to annul the Circle for a crime they had absolutely no involvement. Thats like someone arresting and executing you for a murder that you didn't commit.

2. The Templars are bullies and zealots who arguably have brought most of those mages to desperation and their use of blood magic.

3. Even if mages are prey for demons that's no excuse for the way they are treated. You don't need to be an abomination to be a cold blooded murderer and commit disgusting crimes. Would you lock up or drown every child because they could grow up to be a serial killer or another kind of nutcase. The same principle applies.

4. If Dragon Age II proves anything, its that not only mages can become abominations. Anybody can be possessed. And it doesn't necessarily have to be because of a mage. Bringing your companions into the fade to save Feynriel proves that.

5. Abominations aren't even that dangerous anyway. They are actually a bit weaker than most of the enemies I've fought.

6. Yes, some mages go bad, but for every bad mage there about a dozen or more bad normal people. And the same applies for the Templars.

7. You could compare the Templars to Scar from Full Metal Alchemist. his homeland of Ishval was destroyed so he made it his mission to hunt and murder every State Alchemist(even those not personally responsible) because he believed his god Ishvala wanted him to do it.

8. And lastly look at the events of the game. No matter who you side with you end up fighting Meredith and saving the mages.

Siding with the Templars is something to do for other reasons. Different scenarios, trophies/achievements, and embracing your inner bad boy. But I'm just saying, the ethical choice is the mages.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 21 mars 2011 - 08:33 .

[back pain]

Ngoctu wrote...

then siding with mage is like siding with 9/11 as making a terroris attack if you are poor/oppressed it seems to be fine killing innocent if u had a bad childwood because of religion is forgivable so lets all do terrorist attack if we feel oppressed.

The circle mages had nothing to do with the attack on the chantry, just like the New York Muslim population had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.  Sure the mages were oppressed by the chantry, but only Anders, who was not a member of the circle, was responsible for the attack.

[Ngoctu]

thinking that siding with mage is the "right" choise it's obviously what scare me more about people

there is not a right choise and the fact that many people want to prove their choise it is an absolute "Right" it's something really wrong in human nature

Sometimes there is not absolute "Right" and absolute "Wrong" choise specially when it doesnt depend only on ourselves and trying to convince ourself we did THE RIGHT it's what make people scary extremist.

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 08:39 .

[Tzarene]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Snip

Alright, fixing all the quotes was getting annoying so I'll address the issues as they appear in your post. Double monitors sure coming in handy here.

Firstly, and since this is a recurring theme in your arguments, I'll keep referring back to this. By your own definition of genocide that you've provided, The Right of Annullment is simply not that. Borrowing from my own post to Arynslie, and right from Cullen's mouth ingame to Meredith's face: "The Right has always been a last resort, when every mage involved is
beyond salvation. The situation in Ferelden was much more severe, yet
many mages were saved. We could still do as much here." This does not
equate to me that children and innocent mages were being killed. Thus this is -not- genocide. Returning to this argument when it's simply proven not so is flawed.

Secondly, and this is one of my recurring themes, siding with templars =/= siding with Meredith. Siding with the templars is preserving order in the city. In fact, Hawke actually says, "Order must be preserved." if you sided with the templars. You claim Meredith's Right of Annullment (Tranquility what?) = genocide of Kirkwall mages. Truth. Except in practice, that wasn't the case at all.

Meredith's decision to leave Anders up to you is in itself a recognition that the Champion of Kirkwall is lawful.
"As for this murderer, I'll leave his fate to you. He's your companion after all. Do as you see fit." If that's not the Knight-Commanders of the templars giving you lawful approval to deal justice as you see fit, I dunno what to say. As for other indication, the seat of Viscount is chosen by approval from the nobles as well as the backing of the templars. The Champion, after Act 2, fulfils both these requirements and hence is a position recognized as lawful. The only difference between Viscount and Champion is really the common masses and the fact that the Viscount (at least in Dumar's case) never fought or was incapable of doing so directly.

Anders used ingredients to create/enhance a ritual or spell to do the deed. Next thing you'll tell me is that using Lyrium or blood even to enhance magical powers is explosives and not magic. I just watched the scene again and you're really drawing short straws in saying what happened to the Chantry was caused by anything other than magic, let alone explosives.

"Helping save the mages from genocide or participating in it" choice. Irrelevant as genocide is non-existent as I had outlined. You also do not participate in it as the mages you end up killing are all either blood mages or summoned demons. The one exception is siding with Meredith over Cullen in that scene; if so, you did participate in genocide. Also the fact that you kill Orsino if you sided with the mages is metagaming. Faced with the decision after the Chantry disintegrates, you would not stand side-by-side to defend Orsino knowing what you know. As for what he may or may not have done? There is proof beyond mere speculation that Orsino was involved, non-metagaming and metagaming.

You can cite all the examples of templars going too far and I can in turn cite mages who went too far. Alain can be dismissed as hearsay as he joins Grace. Had he not, I will accept his claim. Illegal tranquiltiy on Karl? And that was in Anders' companion adding quest. Considering every quest involving Anders, with the one exception of Ser Alrik, is suspect (metagaming), I don't hold that very credible and I certainly wouldn't hold it credible after Anders' destroyed his own credibility with the Chantry (non-metagaming). The only 2 examples of where templars went too far from your list is the Dalish and Ser Alrik, which goes with the 1 or 2 that I initially said.

"Considering the Gallows is seperated from Kirkwall by water, I don't see
common people getting to the fortress if access is restricted." Somehow you arrived to Kirkwall by sea and with Kirkwall having a harbor, are you really drawing straws here in saying that people cannot find means if the outrage was warranted?

Ending is irrelevant to the decision in non-metagaming context. Varric also says the story based on the actions you do. So if you sided with the mages, obviously you thought that was your justice. To say otherwise is to devalue Hawke's decisions. In metagaming context, I can easily point out the reason why many lived to tell the tale is that Cullen found them to be innocents (like the ones you save if you side with the templars) and he spared them.

[Dave of Canada]

If all templars are evil rapists that want to tranquil everybody, all mages are blood mages that want to kill everybody or turn them into abominations! I can play that game too!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 mars 2011 - 08:42 .

[Ngoctu]

back pain wrote...

Ngoctu wrote...

then siding with mage is like siding with 9/11 as making a terroris attack if you are poor/oppressed it seems to be fine killing innocent if u had a bad childwood because of religion is forgivable so lets all do terrorist attack if we feel oppressed.

The circle mages had nothing to do with the attack on the chantry, just like the New York Muslim population had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.  Sure the mages were oppressed by the chantry, but only Anders, who was not a member of the circle, was responsible for the attack.

Then only Meredith were the one thinknig all mage were to kill

dont you understand the position are specular they did it in porpuse what you see in the templar can be seen in the mage thats why I say they both Wrong they both Right THEY WERE MADE IT TO BE THAT WAY and if you think only templar are right or only mage are right is where I think you are beeing very wrong

**crazy one**
meredith = andres

**excuses**
follow order = beeing oppressed

**innocent**
good templar work to pay food for family = not blood mage

**terrible act**
templar torture mage = mage torture citizen

specular they both can be right they both are wrong it's what you do after (DA:3) that count not the choise by itself

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 08:51 .

[AlexXIV]

Ngoctu wrote...

back pain wrote...

Ngoctu wrote...

then siding with mage is like siding with 9/11 as making a terroris attack if you are poor/oppressed it seems to be fine killing innocent if u had a bad childwood because of religion is forgivable so lets all do terrorist attack if we feel oppressed.

The circle mages had nothing to do with the attack on the chantry, just like the New York Muslim population had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.  Sure the mages were oppressed by the chantry, but only Anders, who was not a member of the circle, was responsible for the attack.

Then only Meredith were the one thinknig all mage were to kill

dont you understand the position are specular they did it in porpuse what you see in the templar can be seen in the mage thats why I say they both Wrong they both Right THEY WERE MADE IT TO BE THAT WAY and if you think only templar are right or only mage are right is where I think you are beeing very wrong

**crazy one**
meredith = andres

**excuses**
follow order = beeing oppressed

**innocent**
good templar work to pay food for family = not blood mage

**terrible act**
templar torture mage = mage torture citizen

specular they both can be right they both are wrong it's what you do after (DA:3) that count not the choise by itself

I find you rather scary. Because you claim people who have made up their mind are scary and then come up with something like that. The problem is that the templars kill all mages, regardless whether they are guilty or not. In that case they act just like the bloodmages who kill people everywhere.

But there is one innocent party, and these are the mages that lived in the circle after the templar's rules and did nothing wrong. And they are going to be killed now because of Meredith. And you say that's ok?

I am sorry but if you say that murder is as justified as self defense then you are the one who is scary.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Siding with the mages is the right and ethical choice.

1. The Templars were trying to annul the Circle for a crime they had absolutely no involvement. Thats like someone arresting and executing you for a murder that you didn't commit.

2. The Templars are bullies and zealots who arguably have brought most of those mages to desperation and their use of blood magic.

3. Even if mages are prey for demons that's no excuse for the way they are treated. You don't need to be an abomination to be a cold blooded murderer and commit disgusting crimes. Would you lock up or drown every child because they could grow up to be a serial killer or another kind of nutcase. The same principle applies.

4. If Dragon Age II proves anything, its that not only mages can become abominations. Anybody can be possessed. And it doesn't necessarily have to be because of a mage. Bringing your companions into the fade to save Feynriel proves that.

5. Abominations aren't even that dangerous anyway. They are actually a bit weaker than most of the enemies I've fought.

6. Yes, some mages go bad, but for every bad mage there about a dozen or more bad normal people. And the same applies for the Templars.

7. You could compare the Templars to Scar from Full Metal Alchemist. his homeland of Ishval was destroyed so he made it his mission to hunt and murder every State Alchemist(even those not personally responsible) because he believed his god Ishvala wanted him to do it.

8. And lastly look at the events of the game. No matter who you side with you end up fighting Meredith and saving the mages.

Siding with the Templars is something to do for other reasons. Different scenarios, trophies/achievements, and embracing your inner bad boy. But I'm just saying, the ethical choice is the mages.

One could argue that you didn't save anyone. No one came out on top in the end and you just barely escape yourself. Anders didn't save the mages, he potentially made it worse attacking a neutral party, the Chantry. If anything the game showed us that mages aren't friends to keep. Orsino turns himself into an abomination. Grace kidnaps your friend after you save her. Anders uses you to bomb a building full of people who wished to take no part in the matter. Throughout the game for every good mage you meet you run into about twenty bad ones.

You could say that the harsh treatment of the Templars in Kirkwall directly led to the subsequent amount of bloodmages but then again MLK didn't gain rights by bombing a church. Meredith needed to be stopped, no doubt with her mind addled by the idol but people like the king of Fereldan was more sypathetic to the mages plight. The mages did nothing to garner sympathy.

[LobselVith8]

Tzarene wrote...

Firstly, and since this is a recurring theme in your arguments, I'll keep referring back to this. By your own definition of genocide that you've provided, The Right of Annullment is simply not that. Borrowing from my own post to Arynslie, and right from Cullen's mouth ingame to Meredith's face: "The Right has always been a last resort, when every mage involved is beyond salvation. The situation in Ferelden was much more severe, yet
many mages were saved. We could still do as much here." This does not equate to me that children and innocent mages were being killed. Thus this is -not- genocide. Returning to this argument when it's simply proven not so is flawed.

"Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately!" Knight-Commander Meredith.

Tzarene wrote...

Secondly, and this is one of my recurring themes, siding with templars =/= siding with Meredith. Siding with the templars is preserving order in the city. In fact, Hawke actually says, "Order must be preserved." if you sided with the templars. You claim Meredith's Right of Annullment (Tranquility what?) = genocide of Kirkwall mages. Truth. Except in practice, that wasn't the case at all.

Siding with the templars is about murdering the mages of the Circle, not preserving order. The mages of the Circle weren't responsible for Anders' actions. Murdering people because of the actions of a man who hasn't had anything to do with the Circle in over a decade is ridiculous. Genocide is:

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
 
I don't see how you would discount murdering all the mages of the Circle in Kirkwall being genocide when it fits the definition of genocide. What Meredith is demanding is the genocide of all the mages of the Circle is.

Tzarene wrote...

Meredith's decision to leave Anders up to you is in itself a recognition that the Champion of Kirkwall is lawful.
"As for this murderer, I'll leave his fate to you. He's your companion after all. Do as you see fit." If that's not the Knight-Commanders of the templars giving you lawful approval to deal justice as you see fit, I dunno what to say.

She also tries to kill Hawke if he's a mage (even if he sided with the templars), because she points out there's still a mage left. I doubt she would let Anders live any longer than she plans to let an apostate Hawke live.

Tzarene wrote...

As for other indication, the seat of Viscount is chosen by approval from the nobles as well as the backing of the templars. The Champion, after Act 2, fulfils both these requirements and hence is a position recognized as lawful. The only difference between Viscount and Champion is really the common masses and the fact that the Viscount (at least in Dumar's case) never fought or was incapable of doing so directly.

Time and again we hear how the templars are the authority in Kirkwall, and how they control eastern Thedas. The last Viscount to try to expel them was killed.

Tzarene wrote...

Anders used ingredients to create/enhance a ritual or spell to do the deed. Next thing you'll tell me is that using Lyrium or blood even to enhance magical powers is explosives and not magic. I just watched the scene again and you're really drawing short straws in saying what happened to the Chantry was caused by anything other than magic, let alone explosives. 

Given that you ingest lyrium and Anders didn't ingest anything, I don't see why you're claiming that it enhanced his own abilities. I've heard other people actually address that the components mirror real life ingredients to construct explosives.

Tzarene wrote...

"Helping save the mages from genocide or participating in it" choice. Irrelevant as genocide is non-existent as I had outlined.

The definition of genocide fits what Meredith wants to do to the Circle of Kirkwall.

Tzarene wrote...

You also do not participate in it as the mages you end up killing are all either blood mages or summoned demons. The one exception is siding with Meredith over Cullen in that scene; if so, you did participate in genocide. Also the fact that you kill Orsino if you sided with the mages is metagaming. Faced with the decision after the Chantry disintegrates, you would not stand side-by-side to defend Orsino knowing what you know. As for what he may or may not have done? There is proof beyond mere speculation that Orsino was involved, non-metagaming and metagaming. 

Knowing what Orsino did when he needs to reveal it to you long after you chose a side beforehand is also metagaming.

Tzarene wrote...

You can cite all the examples of templars going too far and I can in turn cite mages who went too far. Alain can be dismissed as hearsay as he joins Grace. Had he not, I will accept his claim. Illegal tranquiltiy on Karl? And that was in Anders' companion adding quest. Considering every quest involving Anders, with the one exception of Ser Alrik, is suspect (metagaming), I don't hold that very credible and I certainly wouldn't hold it credible after Anders' destroyed his own credibility with the Chantry (non-metagaming). The only 2 examples of where templars went too far from your list is the Dalish and Ser Alrik, which goes with the 1 or 2 that I initially said.

Or he joins Grace because he was being raped by a templar and wanted control over his life. You're welcome to assume that every single mage is outright lying about the abuses in the Kirkwall Circle, but I don't see why this is the case when Anders only came to Kirkwall because of the abuses that Karl was telling him about. You give the templars the benefit of the doubt, and that's fine, but think that the actions of a few mages should condemn them all because we fight blood mages and abominations, and I fail to see the reason behind it when Varric admits there were many survivors who spread word about what happened at the Circle. Clearly, not every mage was a blood mage or an abomination.

Tzarene wrote...

"Considering the Gallows is seperated from Kirkwall by water, I don't see
common people getting to the fortress if access is restricted." Somehow you arrived to Kirkwall by sea and with Kirkwall having a harbor, are you really drawing straws here in saying that people cannot find means if the outrage was warranted?

Ending is irrelevant to the decision in non-metagaming context. Varric also says the story based on the actions you do. So if you sided with the mages, obviously you thought that was your justice. To say otherwise is to devalue Hawke's decisions. In metagaming context, I can easily point out the reason why many lived to tell the tale is that Cullen found them to be innocents (like the ones you save if you side with the templars) and he spared them.

Except it's not my thoughts or even Hawke's thoughts, it's Varric addressing the events.

[back pain]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Siding with the mages is the right and ethical choice.

1. The Templars were trying to annul the Circle for a crime they had absolutely no involvement. Thats like someone arresting and executing you for a murder that you didn't commit.

You could just stop here, this point alone proves your entire conclusion.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

2. The Templars are bullies and zealots who arguably have brought most of those mages to desperation and their use of blood magic.

Not all of them are bad, Meredith certainly was but some of them knew this and actively worked against her.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

3. Even if mages are prey for demons that's no excuse for the way they are treated. You don't need to be an abomination to be a cold blooded murderer and commit disgusting crimes. Would you lock up or drown every child because they could grow up to be a serial killer or another kind of nutcase. The same principle applies.

Normal children are not capable of setting entire villages on fire with their minds by accident.  Nor can a possessed normal person through fireballs.  Where a crazy normal person might kill ten people, a crazy mage could kill thousands.  Mages, through no fault of their own, are dangerous and something needs to be done to mitigate that danger. 

The Grey Nayr wrote...

4. If Dragon Age II proves anything, its that not only mages can become abominations. Anybody can be possessed. And it doesn't necessarily have to be because of a mage. Bringing your companions into the fade to save Feynriel proves that.

Demons specifically target mages for possession because they are more powerful, and a possessed mage is much more dangerous then a possessed cat. We see it time and again in DA2, a mage is pushed to the breaking point and then is suddenly possessed, this does not happen with regular people.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

5. Abominations aren't even that dangerous anyway. They are actually a bit weaker than most of the enemies I've fought.

Your talking about a difference between game play and game lore.  In the games reality a single abomination is capable of taking down several templars, people who are specifically trained to counter such beasts.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

6. Yes, some mages go bad, but for every bad mage there about a dozen or more bad normal people. And the same applies for the Templars.

I agree, but this seems to clash with point #2

The Grey Nayr wrote...

7. You could compare the Templars to Scar from Full Metal Alchemist. his homeland of Ishval was destroyed so he made it his mission to hunt and murder every State Alchemist(even those not personally responsible) because he believed his god Ishvala wanted him to do it.

Never heard of Full Metal Alchemist so I can't comment on this.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

8. And lastly look at the events of the game. No matter who you side with you end up fighting Meredith and saving the mages.

The PC doesn't know this when he/she sides with the templars, just like he/she doesn't know that the first enchanter will use blood magic and turn into a giant corps monster if you side with him.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Siding with the Templars is something to do for other reasons. Different scenarios, trophies/achievements, and embracing your inner bad boy. But I'm just saying, the ethical choice is the mages.

Despite some disagreement with the specifics of your argument I agree with your conclusion.

[TexasToast712]

back pain wrote...
snip

Good GOD! I want to light your avatar on fire. Its disturbing. LOL

[WhiteKnyght]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Siding with the mages is the right and ethical choice.

1. The Templars were trying to annul the Circle for a crime they had absolutely no involvement. Thats like someone arresting and executing you for a murder that you didn't commit.

2. The Templars are bullies and zealots who arguably have brought most of those mages to desperation and their use of blood magic.

3. Even if mages are prey for demons that's no excuse for the way they are treated. You don't need to be an abomination to be a cold blooded murderer and commit disgusting crimes. Would you lock up or drown every child because they could grow up to be a serial killer or another kind of nutcase. The same principle applies.

4. If Dragon Age II proves anything, its that not only mages can become abominations. Anybody can be possessed. And it doesn't necessarily have to be because of a mage. Bringing your companions into the fade to save Feynriel proves that.

5. Abominations aren't even that dangerous anyway. They are actually a bit weaker than most of the enemies I've fought.

6. Yes, some mages go bad, but for every bad mage there about a dozen or more bad normal people. And the same applies for the Templars.

7. You could compare the Templars to Scar from Full Metal Alchemist. his homeland of Ishval was destroyed so he made it his mission to hunt and murder every State Alchemist(even those not personally responsible) because he believed his god Ishvala wanted him to do it.

8. And lastly look at the events of the game. No matter who you side with you end up fighting Meredith and saving the mages.

Siding with the Templars is something to do for other reasons. Different scenarios, trophies/achievements, and embracing your inner bad boy. But I'm just saying, the ethical choice is the mages.

One could argue that you didn't save anyone. No one came out on top in the end and you just barely escape yourself. Anders didn't save the mages, he potentially made it worse attacking a neutral party, the Chantry. If anything the game showed us that mages aren't friends to keep. Orsino turns himself into an abomination. Grace kidnaps your friend after you save her. Anders uses you to bomb a building full of people who wished to take no part in the matter. Throughout the game for every good mage you meet you run into about twenty bad ones.

You could say that the harsh treatment of the Templars in Kirkwall directly led to the subsequent amount of bloodmages but then again MLK didn't gain rights by bombing a church. Meredith needed to be stopped, no doubt with her mind addled by the idol but people like the king of Fereldan was more sypathetic to the mages plight. The mages did nothing to garner sympathy.

I'd say being wrongfully persecuted for 1000 years is enough to get some sympathy.

And I don't see why blood magic is so forbidden anyway. It can be taught by demons but the codexes and what we've heard suggest two other possible origins for it. One said the Magisters learned it from the old gods, the other says the elves of Arlathan practiced it before humans even came to Thedas. And blood magic isn't the only things demons have taught humanity. They taught warriors the Reaver arts, but I don't see a forbidden label on that and I don't see the Chantry locking warriors up and killing anybody guilty of Reaving.

Mind domination is the only thing that people really need to worry about from blood mages, but there are ways to prevent it. Such as the Litany of Adralla, a spell that can be cast by anyone, and after hearing it, a person can never be controlled. It would be easier and more humane to copy the litany and spread it around to the masses.

They could even give mages clothing with wards drawn on them to negate magic. The Circle Mage origin proves such things exist since they were drawn on the door to the phylactery chamber.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 21 mars 2011 - 09:10 .