231 réponses à ce sujet

[Reidbynature]

I thought that siding with the mages was the most humane choice, but in the end I pretty much killed every circle mage because the ones who weren't killed all turned into abominations. It just reminds me of the companions in that no matter how much you try to do the right, you're usually rewarded negatively for your effort. I think the old saying 'no good deed goes unpunished' rules in this game. Plus there doesn't seem to be much point siding with a dictatorship regime led by a madwoman.

[hawat333]

And it can possibly destroy Thedas.

No. Siding with neither of the two parties - that's the only logical thing to do.
Too bad, the only right thing was denied to us. I can't even say how much it hurts the story.

[AlexXIV]

hawat333 wrote...

And it can possibly destroy Thedas.

No. Siding with neither of the two parties - that's the only logical thing to do.
Too bad, the only right thing was denied to us. I can't even say how much it hurts the story.

Especially since no matter which side you pick, the templars win anyway. So it is not really plausible why Hawke is needed to restore order. The templars can do it on their own, even against Hawke if they must.

Only reason Hawke must get involved is because Orsino turns into a harvester and Meredith must be killed as well. Which was in no way predictable for anyone.

[Esmerella]

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.

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

[AlexXIV]

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 mars 2011 - 01:52 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

AlexXIV wrote...

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

To add on to that most of the blood mages and such did so out of desperation. The fact that the Templars were pushing so hard and even making many mages tranquil. The extreme measures the Templars took forced the mages to also take extreme measures. In the end they weren't given much of a choice. The fact is the Templars were religious zealots. Mages weren't even given a chance. And many of them were good people, including one who had helped other refuges survive. It just brings more the point that pressure the Templars put on them forced them to do what they did in order to survive.

[Naitaka]

Am I the only one who sided with the Templar to minimize casualty? I played a moderate warrior who's sympathetic to the mages but believes the Circle to be necessary evil. Corruption runs deep both within the Templar Order and within the Circle in Kirkwall, however, the Circle poses a much larger threat to citizens of Kirkwall and Thedas as a whole. The Divine is already considering an Exalted March on Kirkwall, now with the Chantry and the Grand Cleric blown to smithereen, the Circle must be brought under control asap. While he doesn't agree with the decision for calling the Rite of Annulment and believes that the Knight Commander is unfit to lead, he believes that the best way to prevent the Templars from following through with it is to convince them to seek a peaceful resolution with the Circle and depose Meredith. If he sides with the mages, then he would hold no sway with the Templars. In the end it all turned out pretty well, he prevented the mages who surrender peacefully from getting slaughtered, saved his sister, removed Meredith and became the Vicount, the fact that all out war broke out anyway could not have been forseen or prevented, but at least Kirkwall is one city that wasn't thrown into complete chaos because of it.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 02:01 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

AlexXIV wrote...

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

Oh please, the moment one discovers "O's" letter in the killer's lair whilst already knowing of Orsino (or meets him not too long after having read the letter), one can't help but put one and one together.

Now, Hawke may not know, but the majority of the players do.

[Naitaka]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

Oh please, the moment one discovers "O's" letter in the killer's lair whilst already knowing of Orsino (or meets him not too long after having read the letter), one can't help but put one and one together.

Now, Hawke may not know, but the majority of the players do.

Even if it weren't Orsino, Hawke would have known that someone high up within the Circle with access to forbidden tomes was helping Quentin avoiding capture. The fact that Kirkwall's Circle IS overruned with blood mages remains the same. Yes, if the Templar hadn't push so hard, the mages might not have resorted to blood magic, but there's nothing Hawke can do about it at that point, the only thing he could do is to prevent as much needless bloodshed as possible.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 02:06 .

[AlexXIV]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

Oh please, the moment one discovers "O's" letter in the killer's lair whilst already knowing of Orsino (or meets him not too long after having read the letter), one can't help but put one and one together.

Now, Hawke may not know, but the majority of the players do.

If Hawke suspected Orsino, he/she could have called him out on it. But it didn't happen, so Hawke had no clue.

What players know that Hawke doesn't is called metagaming. And even the fact that Bioware is pushing people to metagame on this is rather cheap. Because Hawke could never make this decision without knowing what he/she doesn't know.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 mars 2011 - 02:10 .

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Naitaka wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Esmerella wrote...

Tzarene wrote...

*snip*

Thank you this is a good viewpoint.  I was looking for a viewpoint that would let me support the templars.  It was disappointing that when I sided with the templars I could point out my suspicions about Orsino but if I side with the mages I cannot

Hawke has no proof of Orsino's involment with Quntin and neither that Orsino is involved in bloodmagic of any sort. So if you use that as an excuse to side with the templar you are metagaming and don't really have any real excuse. 'I sided with the templars because in the end it turns out Orsino was a bloodmage all along' - couldn't find a weaker reason.

Oh please, the moment one discovers "O's" letter in the killer's lair whilst already knowing of Orsino (or meets him not too long after having read the letter), one can't help but put one and one together.

Now, Hawke may not know, but the majority of the players do.

Even if it weren't Orsino, Hawke would have known that someone high up within the Circle with access to forbidden tomes was helping Quentin avoiding capture. The fact that Kirkwall's Circle IS overruned with blood mages remains the same. Yes, if the Templar hadn't push so hard, the mages might not have resorted to blood magic, but there's nothing Hawke can do about it at that point, the only thing he could do is to prevent as much needless bloodshed as possible.

I sided with the mages simply because I agreed that there needed to be a mage revolution of sorts. It puts you as a symbol for mages that someone can defy the Templars and survive.

[LobselVith8]

Naitaka wrote...

Am I the only one who sided with the Templar to minimize casualty? I played a moderate warrior who's sympathetic to the mages but believes the Circle to be necessary evil. Corruption runs deep both within the Templar Order and within the Circle in Kirkwall, however, the Circle poses a much larger threat to citizens of Kirkwall and Thedas as a whole.

The problem is Meredith wants to murder all Circle mages for the actions of a man who is a few feet away from her, not for something they did. I don't see why siding with someone who gives the order to commit genocide would prevent more casualties.

Naitaka wrote...

The Divine is already considering an Exalted March on Kirkwall, now with the Chantry and the Grand Cleric blown to smithereen, the Circle must be brought under control asap.

Again, why does genocide need to happen when the Circle mages did nothing wrong?

Naitaka wrote...

While he doesn't agree with the decision for calling the Rite of Annulment and believes that the Knight Commander is unfit to lead, he believes that the best way to prevent the Templars from following through with it is to convince them to seek a peaceful resolution with the Circle and depose Meredith. If he sides with the mages, then he would hold no sway with the Templars. In the end it all turned out pretty well, he prevented the mages who surrender peacefully from getting slaughtered, saved his sister, removed Meredith and became the Vicount, the fact that all out war broke out anyway could not have been forseen or prevented, but at least Kirkwall is one city that wasn't thrown into complete chaos because of it.

I'm not certain I understand why, in your RP, you assumed you'd be able to convince anyone working for Meredith to not kill mages when she explicitly gave the order to. Unless your Hawke knew that Knight-Captain Cullen would see reason, why would he assume that anyone under Knight-Commander Meredith's command would not kill mages when the Right of Anulment has been given? The Champion has no authority over templars, after all. Meredith clearly ordered all mages killed when she discovers what Anders did, and Cullen's later intervention only ends up saving three mages who beg for mercy. The only person who actually has any sway over the templars is Cullen.

[Naitaka]

AlexXIV wrote...
If Hawke suspected Orsino, he/she could have called him out on it. But it didn't happen, so Hawke had no clue.

What players know that Hawke doesn't is called metagaming. And even the fact that Bioware is pushing people to metagame on this is rather cheap. Because Hawke could never make this decision without knowing what he/she doesn't know.

Even if Hawke tried to call Orsino out on it he would just deny it. The fact is there's no solid evidence that we could find in game that proves beyond a doubt that Orsino was involved unless he admitted to it himself. However, the fact remained that someone of authority within the Circle, using the alias of "O" was helping Quentin, and my Hawke certainly suspected Orsino even if he couldn't prove it.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 02:27 .

[Arcadionn]

Great read. Interesting twists.

Tzarene managed to change my mind about who I'll be siding with in my next playthrough

[AlexXIV]

Naitaka wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
If Hawke suspected Orsino, he/she could have called him out on it. But it didn't happen, so Hawke had no clue.

What players know that Hawke doesn't is called metagaming. And even the fact that Bioware is pushing people to metagame on this is rather cheap. Because Hawke could never make this decision without knowing what he/she doesn't know.

Even if Hawke tried to call Orsino out on it he would just deny it. The fact is there's no solid evidence that we could find in game that proves behind a doubt that Orsino was involved unless he admitted to it himself. However, the fact remained that someone of authority within the Circle, using the alias of "O" was helping Quentin, and my Hawke certainly suspected Orsino even if he couldn't prove it.

What disturbs me is just that it is never mentioned for example in the argument at the start of Act3. Meredith even mentions the death of Hawke's mother and Hawke doesn't even get to say something about the note. That's pretty much the point Hawke could have turned to Orsino, hold him the note under his nose and ask him what he's got to say to this.

[Naitaka]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The problem is Meredith wants to murder all Circle mages for the actions of a man who is a few feet away from her, not for something they did. I don't see why siding with someone who gives the order to commit genocide would prevent more casualties.

Siding with the Templars doesn't mean you agree with Meredith or the Rite of Annulment. You already know that a great many Templars were in disagreement with Meredith if you spent any time talking with them in the Gallow. Not only were there a great many more Templars in the city than the mages, the world at large would not support Blood Mages anyway. It'd been much more likely to convince the Templars to remove the mages in open revolt, lock up the rest and wait for the Chantry to sort things out.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, why does genocide need to happen when the Circle mages did nothing wrong?

See above, you could very well have been trying to convince the Templars to stand down, especially when Cullen, who's been your friend, already started to question the Meredith's competence. The fact is siding with the mages would not have mattered one bit unless you were hoping you can slaughter every single Templars in Kirkwall AND manage to defeat the Exalted March that would have ensue. If Cullen didn't turn on Meredith at the end there, then what? Do you kill every single Templars on your way out of the city? Helping the mages achieves nothing unless you WERE trying to incite a mage revolution.

LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm not certain I understand why, in your RP, you assumed you'd be able to convince anyone working for Meredith to not kill mages when she explicitly gave the order to. Unless your Hawke knew that Knight-Captain Cullen would see reason, why would he assume that anyone under Knight-Commander Meredith's command would not kill mages when the Right of Anulment has been given? The Champion has no authority over templars, after all. Meredith clearly ordered all mages killed when she discovers what Anders did, and Cullen's later intervention only ends up saving three mages who beg for mercy. The only person who actually has any sway over the templars is Cullen.

You know you can still argue against Meredith and try to reach a peaceful resolution even if you side with the Templars? Siding with the Templars =/= siding with Meredith but siding with the mages WILL lead to war indefinately.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 02:44 .

[allankles]

 I agree with whoever said that this was Black and White. I'm not sure how Bioware thought that this was a grey decision. Meredith invokes the rite of annulement, that means she's going to kill all the mages, the innocent and the guilty both. It's just logical for Hawke to protect innocent mages from genocide. 

The revelation that there are a ton of blood mages including Orsino himself, doesn't change the fact that the rite of annulement here was unjust. I honestly found it reidiculous how all these blood mages and abominations came out of the wood work.

How can Hawke support the wanton killing of all the mages in Kirkwall, when he has evidence that there were a lot of innocent mages including Orsino (whose turn to blood magic at the end was a bit of a cop out, especially after we'd held off a Templar assault)? Just doesn't make sense to support the Templar's purging.

[AlexXIV]

It does make sense for Hawke to side with the templars if he is a pragmatic guy and hardass. I merely said the heroic option is to side with the mages. Because heroes always side with the innocent.

[allankles]

allankles wrote...

 I agree with whoever said that this was Black and White. I'm not sure how Bioware thought that this was a grey decision. Meredith invokes the rite of annulement, that means she's going to kill all the mages, the innocent and the guilty both. It's just logical for Hawke to protect innocent mages from genocide. 

The revelation that there are a ton of blood mages including Orsino himself, doesn't change the fact that the rite of annulement here was unjust. I honestly found it reidiculous how all these blood mages and abominations came out of the wood work.

How can Hawke support the wanton killing of all the mages in Kirkwall, when he has evidence that there were a lot of innocent mages including Orsino (whose turn to blood magic at the end was a bit of a cop out, especially after we'd held off a Templar assault)? Just doesn't make sense to support the Templar's purging.

That's just not logical. Meredith is in control of the Templars, the rite of annulement has been sanctioned. Cullen only "turns" on Meredith when her intention to kill Hawke rather than arrest him becomes known. 

Siding with the Templars is siding with the rite of annulement. By choosing to protect the mages, you're standing by your convicitions despite the odds. It is a brave decision and a right one.

Cullen is a coward, he only stood down because he knew Hawke and co. had the physical prowess to kill the Templars around him at the time, including Cullen, in resisting arrest. He lacked the courage to stand up to Meredith before then.

[allankles]

AlexXIV wrote...

It does make sense for Hawke to side with the templars if he is a pragmatic guy and hardass. I merely said the heroic option is to side with the mages. Because heroes always side with the innocent.

"Pragmatic" is not the word to use. If Hawke is a coward, yes he'll side with the better odds. If Hawke has no sense of justice, he'll also approve of the rite of annulement. Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is simply an injustice. Templars are nothing but zealots.

Modifié par allankles, 22 mars 2011 - 02:44 .

[AlexXIV]

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It does make sense for Hawke to side with the templars if he is a pragmatic guy and hardass. I merely said the heroic option is to side with the mages. Because heroes always side with the innocent.

"Pragmatic" is not the word to use. If Hawke is a coward, yes he'll side with the better odds. If Hawke has no sense of justice, he'll also approve of the rite of annulement. Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is simply an injustice. Templars are nothing but zealots.

It's pragmatic because Hawke could think that the templars win anyway. The fighting stops earlier, and he could probably save more mages. Siding with the mages is more of a sybolic value, to say the right of annullment was wrong, the templars were wrong to follow Meredith. One has a symbolic value and one a practical. However if Hawke sides with the templars he/she will have to kill innoccents who do nothing but defending their lifes. That's not something my Hawke would do.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 mars 2011 - 02:49 .

[Grand_Enchanter]

I think there are merits and demerits to both sides.

The Circle seems like a necessary place for mages to go and be trained. The problem lies in the fact that they are mistreated and given little to no freedoms. Some Templars are allowed to abuse their power and do so with impunity. Of course, not all Templars are like that. There are some genuinely good ones like Thrask, Cullen, and Keran who seem to genuinely want to help mages.

I liked that if you side with the Templars you CAN still spare a few mages who come forward and ask. The Templars will support Hawke and agree to spare them despite Meredith's objections. And once Meredith reveals how crazy she is the Templars will continue to support you over her even if you're a mage.

As for the mages, I can fully understand why they would want to rebel against the current system. Some of the things Templars get away with are abominable and mages have no rights. I would hate to be a mage in the Kirkwall Circle knowing that one wrong move could make me tranquil. Still the game does a good job of showing just how dangerous a mage can be. And just like not every Templar is bad, we see that not every mage is good. Some are rotten to the core like Quentin or just plain stupid like Grace and her cronies. Mages you try to help will turn on you at the drop of a hat (I'm looking at you Orsino).

I don't see either side as good or bad. Just two different extremes with no option for middle ground between the two thanks to Ander's advocating for no compromise by blowing up the Chantry and killing the Grand Cleric. In the end, the world is thrust in to war no matter which side you choose to support.

[Naitaka]

allankles wrote...

allankles wrote...

 I agree with whoever said that this was Black and White. I'm not sure how Bioware thought that this was a grey decision. Meredith invokes the rite of annulement, that means she's going to kill all the mages, the innocent and the guilty both. It's just logical for Hawke to protect innocent mages from genocide. 

The revelation that there are a ton of blood mages including Orsino himself, doesn't change the fact that the rite of annulement here was unjust. I honestly found it reidiculous how all these blood mages and abominations came out of the wood work.

How can Hawke support the wanton killing of all the mages in Kirkwall, when he has evidence that there were a lot of innocent mages including Orsino (whose turn to blood magic at the end was a bit of a cop out, especially after we'd held off a Templar assault)? Just doesn't make sense to support the Templar's purging.

That's just not logical. Meredith is in control of the Templars, the rite of annulement has been sanctioned. Cullen only "turns" on Meredith when her intention to kill Hawke rather than arrest him becomes known. 

Siding with the Templars is siding with the rite of annulement. By choosing to protect the mages, you're standing by your convicitions despite the odds. It is a brave decision and a right one.

Cullen is a coward, he only stood down because he knew Hawke and co. had the physical prowess to kill the Templars around him at the time, including Cullen, in resisting arrest. He lacked the courage to stand up to Meredith before then.

That's not true at all. Meredith was not "in control" of the Templars, out of all the Templars we met, how many can you honestly say support Meredith at the end of Act 3? Ser Keras and the female recruit from Act 2? All the rest showed doubts and some were even rebels. (If you had Meredith spare them earlier on Best Served Cold) Cullen clearly defied Meredith's direct order when some of the mages surrendered and the Templars were more willing to follow him than their own Knight Commanders. Siding with the mages may be a "just" decision but it would have led to far more death and suffering on the grand scale. Yes, the mages still revolted even if you sided with the Templars, but without meta-gaming knowledge, it was the one that would seem to lead to less chaos and destruction. Also, imho, it's unrealistic to expect Hawke to be able to cut through Meredith, Cullen and probably a few hundred more Templars just waiting outside the gate AND then defeat the Divine's army while keeping the peace in the city. After you killed all the Templars, the populance would probably have revolted against "champion" who clearly sided with the Blood Mages who seems to have blown up the Chantry in the first place already.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 03:09 .

[allankles]

AlexXIV wrote...

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It does make sense for Hawke to side with the templars if he is a pragmatic guy and hardass. I merely said the heroic option is to side with the mages. Because heroes always side with the innocent.

"Pragmatic" is not the word to use. If Hawke is a coward, yes he'll side with the better odds. If Hawke has no sense of justice, he'll also approve of the rite of annulement. Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is simply an injustice. Templars are nothing but zealots.

It's pragmatic because Hawke could think that the templars win anyway. The fighting stops earlier, and he could probably save more mages. Siding with the mages is more of a sybolic value, to say the right of annullment was wrong, the templars were wrong to follow Meredith. One has a symbolic value and one a practical.

I'm not saving the mages of Kirkwall by going along for the ride as they purge the city of mages, dude. Hawke, by siding with the Templars, has done nothing to stop the rite of annulement. And "pragamatism" is not the chief term to describe Hawke's decision if he sides with the Templars.

Using logic like "the Templar's will win anyway" is not pragmatic. Pragmatism would be to try to sway Cullen to resist Meredith, reverse the rite of annulement by at least splitting Templar loyalties between Cullen and Meredith.

The "the Templars will win anyway" reasoning is not an example of pragmatism, it's apathy. Pragmatism is about some kind of active application just as it's about efficiency and realism, it is not simply going with the motions. Since siding with Templars doesn't require your input in the battle, you might as well be a spectator to the slaughter, it's an apathetic decision at best, cowardly and unjust at worst. 

Modifié par allankles, 22 mars 2011 - 03:02 .

[AlexXIV]

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It does make sense for Hawke to side with the templars if he is a pragmatic guy and hardass. I merely said the heroic option is to side with the mages. Because heroes always side with the innocent.

"Pragmatic" is not the word to use. If Hawke is a coward, yes he'll side with the better odds. If Hawke has no sense of justice, he'll also approve of the rite of annulement. Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is simply an injustice. Templars are nothing but zealots.

It's pragmatic because Hawke could think that the templars win anyway. The fighting stops earlier, and he could probably save more mages. Siding with the mages is more of a sybolic value, to say the right of annullment was wrong, the templars were wrong to follow Meredith. One has a symbolic value and one a practical.

I'm not saving the mages of Kirkwall by going along for the ride as they purge the city of mages, dude. Hawke, by siding with the Templars, has done nothing to stop the rite of annulement. And "pragamtism" is not the chief term to describe Hawke's decision if he sides with the Templars.

Using logic like "the Templar's will win anyway" is not pragmatic. Pragmatism would be to try to sway Cullen to resist Meredith, reverse the rite of annulement by at least splitting Templar loyalties between Cullen and Meredith.

The "the Templars will win anyway" is not pragmatism, it's apathy. Pragmatism is about defintive action just as its about efficiency and realism, it is not smply going with the motions. Since siding with Templars doesn't require your input, you might as well be a spectator to the slaughter, that's apathetic at best, cowardly and unjust at worst. 

Pragmatism is about accepting realities and trying to make the best of it. As I said as a templar supporter you can save 3 mages who give up and you can save bethany. As far as I know if you side with the mages you can only save bethany, but no other mage survives. Also you can become Viscount and maybe have influence in a better future. As a mage supporter the tempars take over Kirkwall.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 mars 2011 - 03:04 .