231 réponses à ce sujet

[ZombiePowered]

Hawke himself states he wishes he could go just one week without an insane blood mage trying to murder him. Templars are necessary, they just shouldn't be led by primordial-lyrium-drunk old women.

[Kriselia]

Ryzaki 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.

...Goddamnit.

*starts another playthrough*

This was talked about a bit earlier, but had to respond.
Alain says Ser Karras was the one who raped him, but I killed Ser Karras before Alain even arrived at the Circle. Bugged dialogue or just oversight?
But I take comfort in the knowledge that in my playthrough Alain was safe

[we r sparta]

I sided with mages my first 2 playthroughs..3rd I just decided to take sides with the templars,Bethany hated it....But still stood at my side and in the end she tried to make the best of the situation..The end had me in awe though.

[Unichrone]

Tzarene wrote...

I already wrote a long reply in the counter thread of why the Templars is the better and logical choice. I 'm approaching this decision from a non-meta-gaming perspective.
Facts of the game I used at the start of Act 3:
- Your mother was killed by a blood mage (Quentin) who was aided by "O". Surely you cannot be in the least suspicious of Orsino? I actually picked the neither option on my first playthrough (as a mage who was for the entire game mage-sympathetic).
- You are Champion of Kirkwall. I don't know what that means to other people here. Perhaps it means very little but to me, it says you are charged with protecting the common masses and preserving peace in the city.

Now when the decision time comes at the end of Act 3.
- Anders destroys the Chantry in an act of terrorism. Justified by some people here but all the same, it goes against what the Champion stands for. Which is what I outlined above.
- As Meredith says "The Chantry was destroyed and the Grand Cleric killed by a Mage... The people will be out for blood." You can argue she's crazy or paranoid but there are points she make that are logically sound. That being one of those. To reduce the chaos and casualities involved, it is thus logical to side with the Templars who are the ruling law in the city.
- Lastly, Orsino. Given your suspicion of him from the above point, and even before considering the above 2 points, can you really trust him after that letter you found? I put 2 and 2 together and did not trust him.

The only concession I can see for certain people wanting to side with mages is under the condition that Bethany was taken by the Circle and you feel that siding with the mages is the better or only way to protect her. Wasn't a problem in my 2nd playthrough with a warrior as she became a Warden and (with metagaming) honestly that's the best path for her anyways. My first playthrough had Carver as Templar.
Within context of the moment, Hawke the character does not know that whatever goes down in the Gallows will spark revolution throughout Thedas. There is nothing to support this other than perhaps the ramblings of Anders, which after the incident, you can hardly expect a reliable source of information. The motivation of Hawke acting under the flag of freedom for all mages or igniting a revolution is based on metagaming.

Now if you add in metagaming to the picture, you actually know that Orsino was involved because you accused him of it. Thus you've effectively proven that the First Enchanter of a Circle is involved in illegal magic, making him guilty. Furthermore, he becomes the Harvester. You also save mages in the scene with Cullen and Meredith. Lastly, you still save Bethany apparently (obviously haven't seen it myself yet but I've gathered as much from others on the forum). You are also revered by the common masses of the city because you've done your job as its Champion. I don't recall you being the Champion of mages, even if you are a mage sympatheizer. You are the Champion of Kirkwall; you have duties and responsibilities in that role.

This should have been the end of the thread.

[primero holodon]

I can't really come up with a good reason to side with the templars considering that Hawke is the sonof an apostate and spent his entire life protecting his family from templars.

Modifié par primero holodon, 22 mars 2011 - 02:36 .

[Arijharn]

primero holodon wrote...

I can't really come up with a good reason to side with the templars considering that Hawke is the sonof an apostate and spent his entire life protecting his family from templars.

That was my thought as well. It's hard for me to side completely with the Templar's for it becomes a legally enforced repression of a minority.

Sure, apostates can be dangerous, but so to can marauders, so to can Templar's themselves and so to can religion in the form of the Chantry and it's 'Exalted Marches.' There will always be mages that will attempt to climb to the top, and may do so by the practice of Blood Magic, but damning the rest of them for the actions of the few is rather a self-fulfilling prophecy I think.

I think Circle's should exist for example, but I don't think the gates should be barred. There has to be a moderate middle ground in there somewhere, and I think it would probably do more good by allowing the mages police themselves rather than have crazy drug addled Templar's do it.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]TexasToast712 wrote...

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

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

[snip]
[/quote]
I love you. You just shattered his arguements and (hopefully) shut him up.
[/quote]

Why do you take my disagreement with your views so personally? I think we can all have a civil discussion about this issue, still disagree, but be adults about it. There's no reason we need to hate each other simply because we don't agree about the issue of mages or Anders.

[quote]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. [/quote]

Because the Circle mages were kept imprisoned and Knight-Commander Greagoir left the decision of the fate of the mages to his superiors. That's what Cullen's comments refer to. I don't see how this "completely destroys" my argument. Cullen's words about how Greagoir handled the Right doesn't change that Meredith wants to eliminate the entire Kirkwall Circle. Listen to what she orders initially. She says, "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Anulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed -- immediately!"

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

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

Because Knight-Captain Cullen ordered the templars to spare the mages at the Champion's behest, and you didn't acknowledge that Meredith tries to have the Champion executed. I wonder how long the mages Cullen had spared would have lived had she won the battle...

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Only three mages who beg for amnesty are spared, while every other man, woman, and child is apparently killed because the only reason those particular mages were saved is Cullen's intervention. It's outright murder because they are being killed for a crime they didn't commit. It's genocide because Meredith orders the execution of all mages in Kirkwall.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

My comments address that I see no reason to side with Meredith and the templars personally. Unless Hawke knew that Cullen would realize how far gone Meredith, there's no reason he should have expected Meredith to spare his life, the life of Anders, or the life of the mages. She orders the execution of all mages for something that Anders did, after all.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I don't find the senseless execution of men, women, and children who committed no crime lawful.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. If he used ingredients that have been acknowledged by other posters to be similar to components used to create explosives, then I don't see why the explosion was exclusively magical. I don't see why you think it was a magical spell enchanced my the ingredients, because I simply saw it as magic activating the existing ingredients to cause the explosion. I suppose without any conclusive proof, neither of us can be proven right on this issue.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Mages are still killed, so it actually does. Three mages being spared doesn't change the rest of the mages who were outright killed because of Meredith's Anulment.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I suppose where we diverge on the issue is that I personally find no cause to endorse the murder of the mages for the actions of one man.

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

You mean where three mages are spared? Am I supposed to ignore that only three mages apparently survived the Right of Anulment due to the actions of Hawke and Cullen while the templars killed every other mage that they could?

[quote]Tzarene wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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? [/quote]

If Varric addresses that "the Champion's name became a rallying cry for all mages. A reminder of their brutal oppression. She showed not only what the templars were willing to do, but that they could be defied" then I honestly don't see why you think it's Hawke's POV.

[Camenae]

Sociopaths are born the way they are too. They can't help not having a conscience. But you wouldn't want to let them just run free in society. Not saying we should lock them up like animals and beat them and all that, but keep them from the public? Heck yes.

[KAAurious]

Neither side is capable of taking the moral highground. That's why Hawke said, "**** this I'm going to Par Vollen."

[bztang]

Talogrungi wrote...

I disagree. I think that siding with the Templars is the "better" choice in hindsight, though siding with the Mages is the "more logical" choice for most of the game, and the path I chose on my first playthrough.

One of the Templars (Cullen, I think?) even states it; the image of a downtrodden apprentice is a powerful one that the Mages are more than happy to exploit; and they do so throughout the entire game. We're pushed to support them on the basis that they're the obvious underdog "good guys" and either Hawke or Bethany is an apostate mage.

Then, in the end, we learn that even the highest, most learnéd members of the Circle have been practicing blood magic, necromancy and consorting with demons. Meredith is, ultimately, proven right. If you supported the Mages thinking that you were doing "the morally right thing" (as I did) then, frankly, you got played.

DA2 changed my perception of Mage/Templar relations quite significantly. I won't be supporting any Rites of Annulment ('cos that's just knowingly murdering innocents) but neither will I be helping any apostate Mages. As far as I'm concerned, they belong in the Circle being watched over (but not abused!) by Templars .. it's for their safety as much as everyone elses.

This.
On my first playthrough as a warrior I sided with the mages because I liked Anders and understood the Mage's plight, and with Bethany forcibly put in the circle, I thought it was best to help those oppressed.

However, on my second playthrough as a mage, I knew that many of the mages/apostates I save eventually become blood mages or abominations, thus I decided to show no mercy to any circle mage/apostates and kill eall the ones who betrayed me including Keran and that male mage following Grace. Mind you, in this playthrough I was also very anti-Qunari, siding with Petrice, I also killed anyone who got in my way like that ass Javaris...I was a total renegade in this playthough.

On my third playthrough, I tried being as nice as I could to mages since I know many do eventually resort to blood magic/demons but there are just as many who don't, however in the end I sided with the Templars because I knew it was my duty as Champion to minimize the damage from the mage/templar fight. I tried to be generally good but pragmatic in this playthrough, and that caused Sebastian to leave (didn't say he'll bring his army to Kirkwall, just that he'll find Anders and kill him) because I let Anders go, and caused Anders to fight me atop the stairs of the Templar hall because I was fighting for the Templars...ugh. I'm kinda annoyed that Sebastian left and I ended up killing Anders anyways. I'll probably reload.

So like a few other people here, I just wanted the option of GTFO of Kirkwall.

[BiowarEA]

Errrrr... does it really matter what side you choose? There is absolutely no logic to how events unfold. For example -- I did everything Meredith wanted without question, killed ALL mages, apostates, and templars who sided with them. Killed my own sister. She STILL goes herp a derp retarded crazy evil in the end, and you STILL get a "Mages everywhere used the Champion's name as a rallying cry and overthrew the circles!" ending. I was talking to a someone who finished it almost exactly opposite to how I did, siding with the mages as much as possible. Exact same ending. First enchanter Orsino STILL turns into a big ****ing demon and he STILL had to kill it AND Meredith at the end. C&C is seemingly almost entirely non-existent from the ending.

Modifié par BiowarEA, 22 mars 2011 - 04:11 .

[Arijharn]

Camenae wrote...

Sociopaths are born the way they are too. They can't help not having a conscience. But you wouldn't want to let them just run free in society. Not saying we should lock them up like animals and beat them and all that, but keep them from the public? Heck yes.

Right, but you don't lock up Sociopath's just for being sociopaths, you lock them up for them doing something illegal. Most mages crimes are simply for being mages.

Believe it or not, it's not the same thing at all.

[LobselVith8]

BiowarEA wrote...

"Mages everywhere used the Champion's name as a rallying cry and overthrew the circles!" ending.

The difference is they see Hawke as a villain instead of a hero in that scenerio, and use your Hawke as an example of the "brutal oppression" of the Chantry controlled Circles and how far the templars are willing to go, and seperate the Circles from the Chantry.

[TheJist]

Arijharn wrote...

Camenae wrote...

Sociopaths are born the way they are too. They can't help not having a conscience. But you wouldn't want to let them just run free in society. Not saying we should lock them up like animals and beat them and all that, but keep them from the public? Heck yes.

Right, but you don't lock up Sociopath's just for being sociopaths, you lock them up for them doing something illegal. Most mages crimes are simply for being mages.

Believe it or not, it's not the same thing at all.

Yes we lock them up because what they did was illegal but we would also keep them away from normal people if there was a way to identify them at birth or even at a later date.

Modifié par TheJist, 22 mars 2011 - 04:29 .

[Camenae]

Arijharn wrote...

Right, but you don't lock up Sociopath's just for being sociopaths, you lock them up for them doing something illegal. Most mages crimes are simply for being mages.

Believe it or not, it's not the same thing at all.

Yes I know it's not the same, and I'm sorry I wasn't being clear.  I was trying to point out that like sociopaths, mages (at least as the Kirkwall mages are portrayed in this game) seem to come with a special proclivity for wrongdoing, because of something they're born with.  Not saying it's their fault or not, just saying the tendency is there.

[Foolsfolly]

TheJist wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Camenae wrote...

Sociopaths are born the way they are too. They can't help not having a conscience. But you wouldn't want to let them just run free in society. Not saying we should lock them up like animals and beat them and all that, but keep them from the public? Heck yes.

Right, but you don't lock up Sociopath's just for being sociopaths, you lock them up for them doing something illegal. Most mages crimes are simply for being mages.

Believe it or not, it's not the same thing at all.

Yes we lock them up because what they did was illegal but we would also keep them away from normal people if there was a way to identify them at birth or even at a later date.

The thing is, the Circle is also a school. A mage can start fires with their minds and if they're emotionally stressed they turn into powerful monsters. You cannot let these people just walk around without training them how to keep their **** together.

Yeah, it's also a prison. But look at our boy Anders, the poster boy for why it needs to be a prison. He escapes 7-8 however many times and then makes a deal with a spirit and goes on to kill how many innocents? Staying in the Circle has to be enforced otherwise all you have are trained walking WMDs.

Let's look back at First Enchanter Irving. He would sell out mages and sign papers to tranquil people, because being the First Enchanter means you're not the defender of just the mages under you, but of the public perspection of all mages. You cannot have blood mages running around killing people, the public will demand blood.

Siding with the mages is supporting chaos. The Kirkwall Circle was corrupted with Blood Mages and Abominations and fighting to let those guys run around will lead to more innocents hurting all because supporting the Templars in oppressing them hurts your moral code.

See how well that moral code comforts you when there are more people who lose their mothers to crazed blood mages.

[Icinix]

Sided with Templars, let Mages go, saved sister, killed Saren..er...Meredith...Circle rebelled, Templars rebelled, became viscount...change is upon us...good change.

[Arijharn]

Camenae wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Right, but you don't lock up Sociopath's just for being sociopaths, you lock them up for them doing something illegal. Most mages crimes are simply for being mages.

Believe it or not, it's not the same thing at all.

Yes I know it's not the same, and I'm sorry I wasn't being clear.  I was trying to point out that like sociopaths, mages (at least as the Kirkwall mages are portrayed in this game) seem to come with a special proclivity for wrongdoing, because of something they're born with.  Not saying it's their fault or not, just saying the tendency is there.

I hear you, but I don't think you should absolve the Templar's of their own fair share of wrong doing. I don't think having a Circle in and of itself is wrong (because at least Circle's represent a sense of 'belonging' to individuals where they may face persecution and fear otherwise), I do however think that with the Templar's constantly policing the mages, then the mages become fearful to the point where they wouldn't make the most rational of all decisions.

Some mages are going to be jerks, this is assured because some people are jerks, but I think arbritrarily locking people up just because they were born with a gift/curse to be as wrong. Let Templar's be broken up into a police force within guardsmen (for the sake of those mage bad apples that manage to elude capture) but otherwise allow qualified and capable mages to police themselves, and society may be better for the common man and mage both.

[Arijharn]

TheJist wrote...

Yes we lock them up because what they did was illegal but we would also keep them away from normal people if there was a way to identify them at birth or even at a later date.

No we wouldn't, try and get that past civil libertarian's.

[LobselVith8]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Yeah, it's also a prison. But look at our boy Anders, the poster boy for why it needs to be a prison. He escapes 7-8 however many times and then makes a deal with a spirit and goes on to kill how many innocents? Staying in the Circle has to be enforced otherwise all you have are trained walking WMDs.

We have a situation like the one Anders caused precisely because of what the Chantry and the Order of Templars were doing. Anders wanted to stop the oppression against mages because he saw the mages doomed on the path of subjugation they were on. He didn't target a civlian complex, he focused his attack on the ruling order of Thedas that controls mages and endorses Kings, Queens, and Viscounts (and in the latter removed the ruler of Kirkwall when he tried to expel the templars).

As we can clearly see from the scene where the Chantry is destroyed, there were no civilians, only members of the Chantry and the Order of Templars. The target was the Grand Cleric - who can order templars to 'gently' imprison the First Enchanter of the Kirkwall Circle, no less. Should Anders have done nothing and allowed another thousand years of slavery to continue?

Foolsfolly wrote...

Let's look back at First Enchanter Irving. He would sell out mages and sign papers to tranquil people, because being the First Enchanter means you're not the defender of just the mages under you, but of the public perspection of all mages. You cannot have blood mages running around killing people, the public will demand blood.

You seem to give him more authority than he actually has. He's overruled time and again. Look at how only seven mages at Ostagar were permitted, even when Duncan came on the King's behalf to request more mages at the fortress of Ostagar to deal with the darkspawn. Also, the First Enchanter didn't sell anyone out. Knight-Commander Greagoir signed the Right against Jowan, and Irving never even saw the evidence against him.

Foolsfolly wrote...

Siding with the mages is supporting chaos. The Kirkwall Circle was corrupted with Blood Mages and Abominations and fighting to let those guys run around will lead to more innocents hurting all because supporting the Templars in oppressing them hurts your moral code.

See how well that moral code comforts you when there are more people who lose their mothers to crazed blood mages.

Siding with the mages is supporting an opposition to genocide and slavery. Murdering hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women, and children because they have magical ability isn't something I can support.

[Ghozt66]

Side with the mages to ensure chaos and a revolution. It is a Dragon Age after all no sunshine and rainbows here.

Orsino and Meredith dead, The Champion Hawke aposate fugitive is being hunted by the chantry along with his companion raider Isabella.Justice Anders is alive and leading the revolution, Sebastian from Starkhaven declared war agaisnt Kirkwall.Nathaniel is never recruited. The Architect is alive and rebuilding an advance horde.The people of Ferelden lose all trust in the wardens due to the fall of Amaranthine. The Hero of Ferelden vanishes with Morrigan thru the mirror.His brother Fergus is assassinated by surviors of Amaranthine thus ending the Cousland line.Queen Anora is overthrown by Vaughan and Ferelden Nobles due to the Mage Revolution,Ferelden is ruled by the indivual governors(nobles).Connor"s demon kills the Arl and Isolde.Bann Teagan becomes the new Arl, a puppet of connor's.King Bhelan tries to enslave the casteless, the casteless hear about the mages revolt and begin a civil war.Lady of the Forest and the werewolves move to Ostagar and take over.Ancient magic is used and she possess the unburned body of King Cailan. Sten sees the mages revolution as a opportunity to attack Tevinter from within.Grey Wardens Alistair,Oghren,Carver and Sigrun venture in the deep roads and there story remains to be told...or are we all missing the BIG picture here the events that took place were some big scheme from everyones favorite witch Flemeth....

So ladies and gents thats what I think a real Dragon Age should be...it will never ends well whichever side you pick
as my man Sandal would say " I like the shiny"

Modifié par Ghozt66, 22 mars 2011 - 08:08 .

[DarkSpiral]

I've done both, for different reasons. The main probelm I see with the most vocal posters in this topic is that they (seem to be) saying they did certain things in the game as if they were hawke. Which is fine, naturally.

But my second Hawke was a mage, and a Circle suppoorter. Sure, she was also a bit of a hypocrite, being an apostate, but she reasoned that she couldn't very well protect her family if she was locked up in the Gallows. And that wasn't me at all. "Me" was the first playthrough, where I sided with the Templars: because Merideth (as the now highest ranking person of Chantry authority in Kirkwall) had in fact authorized the Rite of Annulment. Was she right to do it? Hell no. Was I fairly sure (in character and out) that she was crazy? Oh god yes! But the Rite had been called. There was a about to be a lot of death, regardless of which side I chose. So Daniel Hawke sided with Meredith, figuring this was the only way he could mitigate the damage. I was downright thrilled when I even has the chance to say so, when Bethany (a Warden in this playthrough) demanded to know what in the name of sanity I was doing.

What I loved, after some time to consider the way the game is structured, is that neither side is wrong. Orsino is obviously (from the player's perspective) keeping secrets, Meredith is clearly allowing the Templars to go to far. Who watches the watchers, and all that. You can find perfectly valid reasons for supporting either side. Or even for changing your mind, between Acts.

[sammcl]

mmkay, I can't be bothered reading everything that's been added, damn timezone difference...

This might have been addressed by someone already but Tzarene seems to be the main Templar defence so I'll reply mostly with his/her posts in mind

1. The Champion of Kirkwall has no actual power, it is a title recognising prior acts of greatness, there are no future responsibilities incurred by the holder of the title. I actually just read the codex entry last night. Despite any unofficial influence the Champion may have on how the city is run, he/she has no power to enforce their opinions. So, no, you have no legal duty to preserve order in the city, the choice is purely ethical, do you kill innocents to stamp out the guilty? Some might say it's worth it, I don't : /

2. Orsino's blood magic: This little tidbit was poorly designed, you don't even meet Orsino until after the whole necromancy thing is resolved, the letter signed "O" bears no significance. I had no idea he was involved during my entire first game, it only clicked last night, I thought "Hmm, O, do I know any mages with an O name?" At best, if you have a good memory you might speculate that it could be Orsino, all you really have to go on is his name starts with "O"... at least in my game he showed no signs of a link to that quest, I had the utmost respect for him until the self sacrifice debacle in the conclusion. Even if your game did reveal clues that Orsino was involved, would you really kill a whole lot of innocent mages just because one of them killed your mum? how selfish >_>

3. The whole "so many blood mages" argument, bad people tend to be blood mages, there are plenty of bad mercenaries and slavers etc. as well, not to mention Templars. It's just the way the game is designed, in order to play as a hero, you have to kill bad people, therefore bad people are going to make up the majority of the people you encounter. You have no reason to interact with good mages, they're doing their thing locked in the gallows. Just because the majority of mages you run into in your evil squashing endeavours are blood mages doesn't mean that all the people you never interact with are also blood mages.

4. Siding with the Templars is not siding with Meredith: Meredith Commands the Templars, you are indeed following her judgement. Just because it turns out later you can save a few and defy Meredith, doesn't make your original choice justified. In the moment you are given the choice to support her genocide (for the greater good presumably, although she is nuts), or protect innocents. Remember you get a lot of indication that Meredith is losing it before this moment, it isn't revealed why but NPCs all notice it, you can't say the same for Orsino.

5. Limited examples of Templars abuse of power: The Templar and Blood mage comparison is a bit flawed. Blood mages show up more often because they become fugitives and actually cross paths with you, you would need to actually hang out in the gallows to witness how Templars treat mages and since you never do that the examples are heavily skewed towards bad mages. The Templar abuses are conveyed through conversation, just because there is no physical evidence, doesn't mean it's not happening. It is kinda thrown at you a lot that Kirkwall mages have very little freedom and are mistreated.

6. What you see in game is not always the extent of the situation: Prime example-Orsino's sacrifice at the end, he does it in a room full of friendlies and your group is winning. This is nuts if you take it at face value, you need to take cues from conversations though. Your group is winning because it's not fun to play a game you can't win, so while in gamplay terms you're winning, in story terms, you are completely outmatched and are probably all going to die. So Orsino tells people to run to other circles, turns into a giant monster and starts attacking you...I think we can safely assume he's meant to have killed a load of Templars too, even though it's not shown.

Another example: the size of towns and their populace...in Origins Ferelden apparently mustered an army to meet the darkspawn horde, where were all these people living? there were like 10 buildings in Redcliffe, yet it's the biggest town outside of Denerim. Denerim actually felt capable of housing an army, Redcliffe, not so much. Sometimes actually showing something takes a backseat to good gameplay, although they really should have had a short cutscene showing monster Orsino killing Templars.

[CaptainSpaceout]

From the beginning of the game I sided with the Templars. From a RP perspective I wanted my Hawke to try to lay low. To not bring the wrong kind of attention to herself and her family. By activley opposing what was the law of the land. Near the end of the game I chose to side with the mages. My Hawke was not going to support a mass slaughter. Even though the game didn't show other mages that lived in the Gallows. It goes without saying that there were other mages there that were not completely off their rocker. Like children for example. Just because the game doesn't show you other denizens of the Gallows doesn't mean they are not there.
 

Modifié par CaptainSpaceout, 22 mars 2011 - 03:00 .

[Aurica]

I wouldn't exactly say that siding with the mages is better. 

From an RP point as my warrior.  You do see how abusive the templars can get and i sympathize the mages.  It seems to make sense to side them.. but then considering what Anders did & Orsino had knowledge of Quentin's dabbling in Blood Magic.. its becomes a bit harder to want to side with the mages.   I mean if it weren't for Orsino not doing anything about Quentin, Leandra would not have died.

If I was Hawke, I would have sold my Estate in Hightown and bring my entire family back to Ferelden.  Kirkwall seems to be so messed up that nothing Hawke do will ever improve the situation.  With the templars & mages involved it seems to be going in a downward spiral. 

Modifié par Aurica, 22 mars 2011 - 10:18 .