231 réponses à ce sujet

[Ngoctu]

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.

are you blind or are you blind or perhaps it's my bad english/spelling

There is a big part of templar that are innocent they actually try many time to defend some mage and you think that siding with mage is OKEY and kill those poor templar that helped mage and that have never done anything to hurt a mage

Mage are not self defending tell hawke mom she died of a mage self defend??? Tell the Elf wife did she die of the mage self defence too?? 

I cant' belive u can just see what u want to see

the two position ARE specular and the fact that you accuse me (when i am actually saying both are wrong and both are right) that i am definitly wrong because only Mage is right... yes u are very SCARY sir

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 09:16 .

[Dave of Canada]

[quote]The Grey Nayr wrote...

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.[/quote]

It wasn't only the entire Chantry-being-blown-up thing, it was the entire Blood Mages roaming the streets killing people and mages causing open rebellion and threatening everything about the city. Orsino himself prevented Meredith from searching through the tower for blood mages.

The destruction of the Chantry was the last straw, what do you think people will see? Will they see a lone man who decided to oppose the templar by blowing up the Chantry or will they see a mage doing it? They'd cry out for blood, Meredith knew this and even mentions it.

[quote]2. The Templars are bullies and zealots[/quote]

Sweeping generalizations is fun.

The mages are all blood mages and abominations!

[quote]who arguably have brought most of those mages to desperation and their use of blood magic.[/quote]

We've seen quite a few Tevinter mages in Dragon Age 2 and you know what? They use blood magic and demons! Funny thing, they don't even have to worry about the templar! I wonder what's their excuse for using insanely powerful magic that can control the minds of others.

[quote]3. Even if mages are prey for demons that's no excuse for the way they are treated.[/quote]

A mage becoming possessed and killing hundreds of people doesn't justify keeping them seperate from society under the watchful eye of the only people who can effectively slay them should they go crazy?

What will, then?

[quote]You don't need to be an abomination to be a cold blooded murderer and commit disgusting crimes.[/quote]

A cold blooded murderer can't mind control people, raze entire districts of cities and destroy houses with a thought.

[quote]Would you lock up or drown every child because they could grow up to be a serial killer or another kind of nutcase.[/quote]

If they were insanely dangerous? Yes. They aren't normal, they don't deserve the same rights as somebody who's normal.

[quote]If Dragon Age II proves anything, its that not only mages can become abominations.[/quote]

When a mage does it.

[quote]And it doesn't necessarily have to be because of a mage. Bringing your companions into the fade to save Feynriel proves that.[/quote]

Going into the fade isn't a common occurance.

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

Game mechanics. Read the codex entries and you'd know that a lone abomination is enough to raze an entire district of a city or kill hundreds of people. Meredith's sister turned into an abomination and killed her family and 70 citizens before being finally killed by the templar.

[quote]6. Yes, some mages go bad, but for every bad mage there about a dozen or more bad normal people.[/quote]

Mages aren't different than normal people, give mages the rights of normal people and you'd have the same exact thing. The only difference is that the bad mages can possess you, can manipulate your mind, can raze everything you own, can blow up your houses, can turn your family against you, can crush you alive and can paralyze you.

That's not even listing everything.

[quote]And the same applies for the Templars.[/quote]

Finally something we agree on, Templar are normal people with the flaws and benefits of normal people. They just don't have super powers.

[quote]7. You could compare the Templars to Scar from Full Metal Alchemist.[/quote]

Never watched it.

[quote]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.[/quote]

That isn't really great of a comparison for either side.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Metagaming and you don't save the mages in the templar ending, they are dead. You can agree with Meredith until the final scene where she suddenly goes idol on everybody.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

And I believe the opposite.

[Ryzaki]

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.

...Goddamnit.

*starts another playthrough*

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Full stop.

Alain was raped?

What?

>:|

Yeah, apparently there was a party we weren't invited to.

Aside from one Anders comment I missed everything about the raping going on.

D:

But isn't Alain that nice mage who helps during the kidnapped quest? 

F*** the Templars. I'm never siding with those bastards again. 

[WhiteKnyght]

Dave of Canada wrote...

2. The Templars are bullies and zealots

Sweeping generalizations is fun.

The mages are all blood mages and abominations!

Okay, not all Templars are bad. But people aren't born Templars at random, they are cherry picked. Any who would feel sympathetic for mages are generally not chosen.

[AlexXIV]

Ngoctu wrote...

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.

are you blind or are you blind does bloodmage kill innocent people that kill NOT GUILTY PEOPLE

and there is a big part of templar that are innocent they actually try many time to defend some mage and you think that siding with mage is OKEY and kill those poor templar that helped mage and that have never done anything to hurt a mage

MAge are not self defending tell hawke mom she died of a mage self defend Tell the Elf wife did she die of the mage self defence too??

I cant' belive u can just see what u want to see

If a mage kills innocents then I kill the mage. If a templar kills innocents I kill the templar.

If that means I am blind, then I am rather blind.

[JamesX]

NKKKK wrote...

It makes the most sense for a smart Hawke to side with the MAges, even if aTemplar himself. I mean the Seneshal reveals that to become Viscount you have to currey favor with the Templars..

That is applicable to the Champion of Kirkwall because?  To use past to rule the future have just detroyed your own basis for decision.  The Chantry has always ruled the Cirlce, so whats the point of breaking the Circle away?

The point is the future is not certain, and you can fight for what you believe in.

NKKKK wrote...

 And siding with the Templars is pretty much a waste of effort because... Since you cant since being Viscount is overrated, and the world is going to blow up anyways so who cars about allies. 

If the Vicount is overrated, then whats the point of being a Rebel?  Isn't that equally overrated?  The only difference is you don't have a nice mansion, and a nice city to call your own, and servants, and luxuries of a local lord.  So...?

NKKKK wrote...

So really its either. Revolution now, and get a chance of freedom for mages, or live in despair and die a slow death.
Plus most of the stupid templars are insane turn to killers anyway.. 

Except you will be running as a Rebel fighting a war that affirms everything people say is evil about mages.  Or did you think the War is going to be a beautiful revolution of like minds that do nothing but good and flowers spring at your heels?

The war is a ugly war, there is no good side in it.  So there is no real reason to use that as a basis for a decision.

As for Templars turning into insane killers... have you SEEN what the Mages do?  They are more appropriately called insane killers I think.  When push comes to shove, the entire order turned Abomination.  I have screenshots of the initial fight in the Templars Halls (if you backed Templars) and it was filled with abominations.  That is the side you want to support?

Of course that is not all circles, but it is the stuff the circle of kirkwall is made of.

NKKKK wrote...

And the Templars dont bow to you at the end (who cares?)... and the templars bend their knees to easily to any deuche And with the chantry blown up the way it was, the people of kirkwall can stick it

Thats why I feel siding with the Mages is easily the best and most logical choice.. 
Opinions? =D

The mage ending is no different.  Both sides are moronic, and the ending itself is very strange.  but oh well

Modifié par JamesX, 21 mars 2011 - 09:18 .

[Ngoctu]

yes blind... you shouldnt be the one choosing of anybody life or dead.

definitly blind and scary


and if u have to choose you should choose on the base of real innocent

Templar are guilty
mage are guilty

who is the real innocent? The city the elf wife hawke mather those are "civil" victim

and who you think will protect them better if u side with them Mage (that already used them as guinny pig) or Templar that never have killed a civilian

I would say my choise is not made over who is right and who is wrong between mage and templar (as they are both guilty) but on the only innocent left THE CITY the poor! the slaves! and between the two i think templar is the one that would harm them less

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 09:22 .

[AlexXIV]

Ngoctu wrote...

yes blind... you shouldnt be the one choosing of anybody life or dead.

definitly blind and scary

Yeah and you clearly should be the one judging ...

[TexasToast712]

Tzarene wrote...

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.

I love you. You just shattered his arguements and (hopefully) shut him up.

[WhiteKnyght]

Ngoctu wrote...

Mage are not self defending tell hawke mom she died of a mage self defend??? Tell the Elf wife did she die of the mage self defence too??

So you blame everybody for the actions of some? If that's the case normal people deserve persecution MUCH more than the mages.

Quentin's action's were terrible, but what about the Magistrate's son who had been murdering elven women simply because they were "Too beautiful", and what about Alrik who was using the Rite of Tranquility to get away with rape? And what about the thousands of generic robbers and bandits who attack you in these games and try to kill you?

You can try to rationalize it all you want, but normal people commit crimes just as bad if not worse than mages, but you focus on them simply because they are different.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 21 mars 2011 - 09:24 .

[Ngoctu]

I give a reason u are far from even giving a shadow of a reason what drives u is or hate "kill them all" or a blind sympathetic feeling toward mage for the reason that u probabily are a sucker for mage story.

And it's obvious that the fact that a blood mage killed ur mother didn't affect you more then going to buy some bread at the corner shop.

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 09:25 .

[Robhuzz]

I don't think there is any right choice in this. Siding with the templars is just pretty much evil here. The completely insane knight commander just declares the right of annulment for no real reason (The Circle didn't blow up the chantry, way to go Anders *Seriously, loved it*) so it makes no sense to actually support the templars in killing all those innocent mages.

After siding with the mages however it becomes apparent (judging by how many demons there are on the loose) there are a lot of blood mages there in kirkwall, hell, even the first enchanter is a blood mage (I hate blood magic) so supporting that corrupted circle (even though the blood magic is only because of the templars putting down on the mages) is pretty much wrong as well.

Ahh well, I'll just continue supporting mages and murdering templars and blood mages along the way.

[Dave of Canada]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Okay, not all Templars are bad. But people aren't born Templars at random, they are cherry picked. Any who would feel sympathetic for mages are generally not chosen.

It's a career, we've seen quite a few pro-mage templar like Cullen in Origins (pre-mage tower) and Thrask. Different people have different beliefs, some of them want to get rid of all the mages just like any merchant might feel the same. Just like how some mages are willing to work with templar and actually like the Circle (Wynne, Finn) while others see no redeeming qualities (Anders, Grace).

[WhiteKnyght]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Okay, not all Templars are bad. But people aren't born Templars at random, they are cherry picked. Any who would feel sympathetic for mages are generally not chosen.

It's a career, we've seen quite a few pro-mage templar like Cullen in Origins (pre-mage tower) and Thrask. Different people have different beliefs, some of them want to get rid of all the mages just like any merchant might feel the same. Just like how some mages are willing to work with templar and actually like the Circle (Wynne, Finn) while others see no redeeming qualities (Anders, Grace).

Well from my perspective it looks like people just focus on mages because they are different. Yes some awful crimes in the game are committed by people with magic, but what about all the dozens of crimes, thefts, and murders committed by non-mages?

It wasn't a mage who murdered Seamus, it was a Revered Mother who wanted to start a war. It wasn't a mage who was killing elven women for being too beautiful and saying "The demons made me do it", it was a politician's son who was crazy. It wasn't a mage who destroyed Highever and murdered the Couslands, that was Rendon Howe, an ambitious bootlicker.

For every crime a mage commits, many more are committed by normal people. But supersticion and fear makes people focus on the mages.

[DrFumb1ezX]

 Can't we just ritually dismember everyone in Thedas and call it a day?
Oh wait, it's not Tuesday, is it? 

Modifié par soccerchick, 21 mars 2011 - 09:37 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Ngoctu wrote...

And it's obvious that the fact that a blood mage killed ur mother didn't affect you more then going to buy some bread at the corner shop.

You don't need to be a mage to be a deranged killer. Look at the serial killers in our world. Adolf Hitler, Zodiac, Son of Sam, BTK, Jack the Ripper, the DC Snipers. Did they have magic?

Just because the person who killed Leandra was a mage doesn't mean I'm gonna be ignorant enough to focus on that one part of him.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 21 mars 2011 - 09:40 .

[Tzarene]

Ok I've come to the impression that you really want to keep jamming the genocide thing in. Here's your proof that completely
destroys your genocide argument.
@ 2:01mins - 3:51mins.
Feel free to consider it metagaming because that's the only argument you'll have
against this evidence. Genocide? Hardly.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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

Clearly that video is showing that case right? And heck, who saved the mages there? Ok...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
You didn't murder all the mages; clearly you actually spared some of them. What Meredith is demanding and what I'm doing is not the same thing. If you did not kill the innocent mages, then 1) it's not murder as all you killed are blood mages and demon summoning mages 2) Children were not harmed as long as they were not possessed and thus 3) it is not genocide as we are in fact not killing every single mage of the Circle in Kirkwall, only the ones beyond salvation.  

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
Again, you pointing out that Meredith's views do not equal my own doesn't help your case. In fact, she tries to kill Hawke no matter what. How is that even a refute?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
Did you just prove that the templars are lawful bcause they have the military power to keep order in the city and the region? That's what I'm getting at and you just proved my point. Any type of lawful position must have the backing of the templars and since the Champion of Kirkwall actually does, it is thus a lawful position.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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.  [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
I didn't claim anything about ingesting, you brought that up. Don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't claim that it enhanced his abilities nor did I claim that Anders used lyrium or blood. To be specific, I claimed that 1) the ritual or spell is based on magic which used the ingredients as components. 2) The precise nature of the disintegration (note I'm using the word disintegration intentionally because that's what happened) makes it clear that it's not a conventional explosive and is indeed the work of magic.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Tzarene wrote...

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

The definition of genocide fits what Meredith wants to do to the Circle of Kirkwall.
[/quote]
Truth. What actually happens to the Circle of Kirkwall even if you side with the Templars does not fit the definition.

[quote]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.  [/quote]

Knowing what Orsino did when he needs to reveal it to you long after you chose a side beforehand is also metagaming.
[/quote]
Actually on my first playthrough I did not know when I picked the templars personally. You have evidence in the way of that letter, given in Act 2 right before the crisis with the Qunari, ironically where Orsino makes his entrance. It really really is not hard to put 2 and 2 together based on that. I'm arguing based on non-metagaming mostly and where metagaming is prevalent, I definitely make a note of it. Orsino's involvement was pretty clear and what happens after the decision only serves to reinforce the point.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote]
Again you do not condemn all; Meredith did. Also the reason why there are survivors at all. Refer vid again.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]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. [/quote]

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

Varric addresses the events as you picked them based on your point-of-view. Did you also forget that Hawke makes a speech to everyone (companions) to cement their convictions on his chosen path?

My 2 main points stand. It is not genocide to side with the templars. This is not you siding
with Meredith; this is you siding with the templars with the intent of preserving order in the city.

[AlexXIV]

I think many pro-templar biased people here always bring up what the templars did before and mages did before. That's completely unrelated to the fact that Meredith is commiting genocide on the Circle. The Knight Commander of the Circle of Ferelden sent for the right of annullment to denerim expecting the answer from the chantry. Meredith just decides it there. She clearly uses the Grand Cleric twice. For once as the reason and also because by her death Meredith cannot be stopped anymore.

I don't know how people are so ignorant of simple logic. Anders blew up the chantry and the Grand Cleric for the very same reason. Without the Grand Cleric Meredith would be out of control, he knew that. Anders wanted the Circle wiped out as well, just like Meredith. Just for different reasons. He wanted them to be the martyrs who cause all the other Circles to rise up. People should stop seeing this fight as a mages vs templar thing, because it isn't. There are basically only Meredith and Anders who force this conflict. And templars as well as mages are more or less victims. Still the Right of Annullment was not legitemate. She had no right to decide that on her own. She only profitted from the chaos and the public shock that Anders' action provoked.

The templars only do what she tells them because they think that they have to. That this is what 'the order dictates'. But in truth it was wrong. The order did not demand to kill every mage in this situation, only Meredith did. And if Cullen and the more powerful templars would not have been caught so by surprise of the events they would never have followed her order. It was chaotic though, and Meredith claimed to restore order.

Orsino offered to give up though. He said word for word that the templars can take all mages in custody, search the circle, etc. He just wanted that they don't kill the mages. I don't know how a half way decent, intelligent or civilized person can think that to say :'Bull****, kill them all!' is the better option.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 09:58 .

[gordian122]

Actually, I took a differant tack.  The game demonstrates why the Templars are needed, since you spend the entire game killing demon-summoning Blood Mages.  However, the Templars in Kirkwall are obviously corrupt.  Both sides are bad for the people I cared about: the rest of the city.

However, I made my decision based on the cutscene at the beginning of Act 3.  Meredith is a tyrant.  Whatever the legal powers of the Champion, Meredith has no authority to act as kingmaker, before Act 2, or as de-facto dictator afterwards.  The Grand Cleric explains during the conversation after Orsino's little rally that the Viscount is accountable to the Council of Nobles, who have the authority to choose their leader, when the line ends.  Not to mention that aside from just being a tyrant, she's a lunatic with an army in my home city.

I didn't read any spoilers, and this was my thought process.  I chose the Mages because the Templars are a greater threat to the City, and I assumed at the time that I could sway Cullen to betray Meredith, because he hinted at that during his conversations.  I fully intended to kill Meredith, turn the Templars over to Cullen, and then finish off the mages if they got lippy.  Return government of the City to its rightful leaders, hopefully snag the Viscount title for myself, and put the Templars back in their place.  I did kill Anders, though; he threw a wrench in that plan.  Ends up, I was closer to the truth than I thought.  Cullen as Templar Commander with Orsino and Meredith dead.  I just thought that the Viscount title would be automatic when you beat the game. 

[WhiteKnyght]

Tzarene wrote...

Ok I've come to the impression that you really want to keep jamming the genocide thing in. Here's your proof that completely
destroys your genocide argument.
@ 2:01mins - 3:51mins.
Feel free to consider it metagaming because that's the only argument you'll have
against this evidence. Genocide? Hardly.

That just makes me think more that the problem isn't the mages. Its that the people in charge making the decisions are dumbasses.

[Dave of Canada]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Well from my perspective it looks like people just focus on mages because they are different. Yes some awful crimes in the game are committed by people with magic, but what about all the dozens of crimes, thefts, and murders committed by non-mages?

It wasn't a mage who murdered Seamus, it was a Revered Mother who wanted to start a war. It wasn't a mage who was killing elven women for being too beautiful and saying "The demons made me do it", it was a politician's son who was crazy. It wasn't a mage who destroyed Highever and murdered the Couslands, that was Rendon Howe, an ambitious bootlicker.

For every crime a mage commits, many more are committed by normal people. But supersticion and fear makes people focus on the mages.

And I'm not ignoring that, however freeing the mages will make them just as likely as to commit those acts as anybody else, the only difference is that they'd be a bigger threat because of it.

Let's hypothetically assume there's no risk of possession.

What if Rendon Howe was a mage? He could've used blood magic to manipulate the Couslands, he could've destroyed their castle using magic and summoned demons to assist him. What if Sister Petrice used blood magic to control a group of Qunari to kill some citizens to cause the war?

Mages aren't immune to sin as everybody else, the only difference is they have super powers that put them in a position where they could greatly influence things a lot more than a non-mage. Obvious example is the Tevinter Imperium where any non-magister is crushed underheel, mage or no, while the magisters can almost literally get away with anything they want. What's the Tevinter Mage's excuse for using Blood Magic? They aren't oppressed, they still consort with demons and use it.

A crazy mage can raze an entire district of a city, a crazy non-mage can maybe kill a few people at most. Do you think guards would stand a chance against Quentin and Decimus? Mages aren't normal, they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.

Now let's add back the risk of possession and... well, yeah. You've got the public that fear the mages, you've got the templar that watch them and you've got the mages that want to be free but might turn into demons whenever. Gives mage their freedom, public will attack the mages and the templar will either be forced to intervene before the mages oppress the public and become a new Tevinter Imperium or they get forced into submission and a new Circle is formed.

Using the term "ethical" to this choice is dismissing everything about the situation, the choice isn't something simple to have such labels and it isn't supposed to be. You can't dismiss the templar as the evil group or the mages as the evil group, I just value the security and freedom of the majority (the public) over the freedom and well being of the minority (rebel mages).

Does this mean people who side with mages are illogical or unethical? No, they just have far different priorities. I just won't let them insult the templar choice as if I'm siding with the devil.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 mars 2011 - 09:59 .

[DKJaigen]

Dileos wrote...

Sided with the mages on my first play through.

Never. Doing. That. Again. They're all gunna die, every single one of them.

Who blew up the chantry? Anders, a mage.
Who turned into a big scary monster thing? Orsinio, a mage.
Who killed Hawke's mother? Some creepy guy, a mage.
What corrupted the Knight-Commander? A dwarf artifact, a MAGIC dwarf artifact.

irrelevant arguments. suffice to say anyone siding with the templars over such trivalities  need to have their head examined. you cannot condemn a people because of the actions of a few idiots.

[DrFumb1ezX]

It's threads like these that make me wonder if we are fit to actually make decisions.
The end was a NO WIN situation. Either way, a lot of people were going to die. The only thing you could really do was side with your morals. If you do that, at least you're being honest with yourself.

TBH, I spent nearly 15 min agonizing over whether to support the mages or templars.

I just sided with mages on my warrior play-through, and will do so again with my mage, but will be with the templars for my rogue. It's about freaking choice; 'Cause in the end, freedom won't matter if there's no choice.

Modifié par soccerchick, 21 mars 2011 - 10:10 .

[Ngoctu]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You don't need to be a mage to be a deranged killer. Look at the serial killers in our world. Adolf Hitler, Zodiac, Son of Sam, BTK, Jack the Ripper, the DC Snipers. Did they have magic?

Just because the person who killed Leandra was a mage doesn't mean I'm gonna be ignorant enough to focus on that one part of him.

So just because A Naz-i killed Hebrish we dont have to think Naz-i are bad? is the Ideology that is bad
and a blood mage ideology when possesed by a demon is to kill/use people as he please

the ideology of templar is not to kill mage it's to protect mage form themselves and protect the people of the city


We are at the point when even if u are not Naz-i but protect Naz-i you are guilty because u are protecting an ideology
so if you are mage and PROTECT demonic-bloodmage for whatever reason you are protecting someone that has as ideology to kill innocent

Templar has a bad leader but the ideology is not to torture Mage.

Modifié par Ngoctu, 21 mars 2011 - 10:14 .

[AlexXIV]

soccerchick wrote...

It's threads like these that make me wonder if we are fit to actually make decisions.
The end was a NO WIN situation. Either way, a lot of people were going to die. The only thing you could really do was side with your morals. If you do that, at least you're being honest with yourself.

TBH, I spent nearly 15 min agonizing over whether to support the mages or templars.

I just sided with mages on my warrior play-through, and will do so again with my mage, but will be with the templars for my rogue. It's about freaking choice; 'Cause in the end, freedom won't matter if there's no choice.

The only choice I really ever wanted was to save Hawke's mother. The templars and mages could go to hell for all I care. Well, except Bethany and Merril.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 mars 2011 - 10:17 .