231 réponses à ce sujet

[allankles]

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 "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. 

Huh?! Meredith only loses control at the end. The rite of annulement goes ahead by her will. If they'd been dissent in the ranks the rite would have been challenged.

[AlexXIV]

Naitaka wrote...

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 imho.

Unrealistic =/= impossible.

Depends if Bioware is giving us a combat or a cut scene in which Hawke is cut down. Since in combat Hawke kills everthing thrown at him/her, but in cutscenes he/she is helpless.

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

[Naitaka]

allankles wrote...

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 "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. 

Huh?! Meredith only loses control at the end. The rite of annulement goes ahead by her will. If they'd been dissent in the ranks the rite would have been challenged.

Which we should have been able to do in the first place. You can't just meta-game and say you know we wouldn't be given the choice to prevent the Rite of Annulement.

Modifié par Naitaka, 22 mars 2011 - 03:12 .

[allankles]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Wut?! Quintin has connections to Orsino because Orsino was his superior in the circle. Orsino has nothing to do with your mother's death, so why would Hawke even bring it up?

Quinitn was acting on his own initiative. Orsino we know was very privvy to Quintin's blood magic research, doesn't mean he was in league with Quintin in regards to his crimes.

[allankles]

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Wut?! Quintin has connections to Orsino because Orsino was his superior in the circle. Orsino has nothing to do with your mother's death, so why would Hawke even bring it up?

Quinitn was acting on his own initiative. Orsino we know was very privvy to Quintin's blood magic research, doesn't mean he was in league with Quintin in regards to his crimes.

Seriously, the choices are clear. It's not meta gaming when you know from the off what it means to side with the Templars. I mean, you either try to stop the rite of annulement, or you endorse it, there's no in between. That's not meta gaming, that's dealing with the situation given the options at hand.

[Naitaka]

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Wut?! Quintin has connections to Orsino because Orsino was his superior in the circle. Orsino has nothing to do with your mother's death, so why would Hawke even bring it up?

Quinitn was acting on his own initiative. Orsino we know was very privvy to Quintin's blood magic research, doesn't mean he was in league with Quintin in regards to his crimes.

Quentin isn't even from the Kirkwall Circle to begin with. If you had sided with the Templar, Orsino reveals that he's been harbouring Quentin because he would tarnish the Circle's image, and knew about the women being murdered. He said only he didn't know the extend of his madness and it was too late by then. Remember Quentin's been killing women for YEARS in Kirkwall, there's no way that Orsino can wash his hand on the issue by claiming ignorance.

[Morning808]

dgcatanisiri wrote...

Between the Tranquil as a whole and the fact that Anders is an apostate, not a Circle mage, yet Meredith calls for the Rite of Annulment, I feel completely justified siding with the mages. Not so much the templars. I mean, geez, when Cullen says you've gone too far in oppressing the mages, you know that it's bad.

Oh god yes! That was a wonderful surprize to see him stand to her, since the last time I saw him he was a push over

[Naitaka]

allankles wrote...

allankles wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Wut?! Quintin has connections to Orsino because Orsino was his superior in the circle. Orsino has nothing to do with your mother's death, so why would Hawke even bring it up?

Quinitn was acting on his own initiative. Orsino we know was very privvy to Quintin's blood magic research, doesn't mean he was in league with Quintin in regards to his crimes.

Seriously, the choices are clear. It's not meta gaming when you know from the off what it means to side with the Templars. I mean, you either try to stop the rite of annulement, or you endorse it, there's no in between. That's not meta gaming, that's dealing with the situation given the options at hand.

I'd like to point out, you were still given the option to argue for a peaceful solution in the confrontation scene at the court yard in the Gallow. You were only FORCED into carrying out with the Rite of Annulement by Bioware.

[Legbiter]

Meredith was essentially right, the Circle in Kirkwall was irredeemably corrupt and needed to be annulled. The First Enchanter is at the very least indirectly responsible for the death of Hawke's mother. I sided with the mages simply because I thought that the only way to save Bethany.

[LobselVith8]

Legbiter wrote...

Meredith was essentially right, the Circle in Kirkwall was irredeemably corrupt and needed to be annulled. The First Enchanter is at the very least indirectly responsible for the death of Hawke's mother. I sided with the mages simply because I thought that the only way to save Bethany.

Meredith is wrong because she wants to commit genocide against the Circle mages for the actions of a man right in front of her - someone who has no ties to the Kirkwall Circle, and isn't a Circle mage since he joined the Grey Wardens. Regardless of Orsino's culpability in the death of Leandra, it doesn't excuse the murder of hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability.

[Legbiter]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regardless of Orsino's culpability in the death of Leandra, it doesn't excuse the murder of hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability.

No. Only this particular Circle requires that, not every mage. What's done after an annulment is the setup of a new Circle and life goes on.

[Vicious]

Siding with the Mages is the wrong choice because they are 99% blood mages led by Orsino, who you cannot supplant.

The problem is people fool themselves into thinking this is the same Circle as Ferelden, where there were plenty of good mages [and children] Nope, not this one. They are already corrupt by the time you get there.


siding with Templars is the right choice because while Meredith is a nutjob, you can supplant her and let the much more coolheaded [ironically] Cullen take over. And you can also annull the Circle while saving the Good Mages.


philosophical debate aside, I go by the facts, and the fact is that in DA2, siding with the Mages is the idiot's choice and makes Hawke look like a toolbag.

[LobselVith8]

Legbiter wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regardless of Orsino's culpability in the death of Leandra, it doesn't excuse the murder of hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children with magical ability.

No. Only this particular Circle requires that, not every mage. What's done after an annulment is the setup of a new Circle and life goes on.

That's the point. How many mages are at the Kirkwall Circle? Hundreds? Thousands? Meredith orders the death of all the mages - a genocide of all men, women, and children in Kirkwall with magical ability. Knight-Commander Meredith orders her men, "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Anulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed -- immediately!"

[Legbiter]

Vicious wrote...

philosophical debate aside, I go by the facts, and the fact is that in DA2, siding with the Mages is the idiot's choice and makes Hawke look like a toolbag.

Agree with the caveat that from a RPG perspective a mage Hawke or a Hawke going "Screw this I'm getting sis out" siding with the magelings makes sense.

[LobselVith8]

Vicious wrote...

Siding with the Mages is the wrong choice because they are 99% blood mages led by Orsino, who you cannot supplant.

Innocent people aren't guilty simply because their leader made bad choices. Like Merril said, "You know she's going to murder people whose only crime is being born a mage." It's the genocide of all mages in Kirkwall.

Vicious wrote...

The problem is people fool themselves into thinking this is the same Circle as Ferelden, where there were plenty of good mages [and children] Nope, not this one. They are already corrupt by the time you get there.

People don't fool themselves on the issues of mages; people who disagree with murdering innocent people for the actions of one man aren't going to condone the genocide of all mages simply because of Orsino's mistakes.

Vicious wrote...

siding with Templars is the right choice because while Meredith is a nutjob, you can supplant her and let the much more coolheaded [ironically] Cullen take over. And you can also annull the Circle while saving the Good Mages.

That's not incorrect; the mages are murdered because Meredith orders the execution of all for a crime they did not commit. And saving three mages is all Hawke accomplishes by siding with the templars.

Vicious wrote...

philosophical debate aside, I go by the facts, and the fact is that in DA2, siding with the Mages is the idiot's choice and makes Hawke look like a toolbag.

Siding against the genocide of men, women, and children who happen to be mages isn't the "idiot's choice," at all.

[Legbiter]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's the point. How many mages are at the Kirkwall Circle? Hundreds? Thousands? Meredith orders the death of all the mages - a genocide of all men, women, and children in Kirkwall with magical ability. Knight-Commander Meredith orders her men, "As Knight-Commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Anulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed -- immediately!"

Meh, at that point in the story, let the Maker sort them out.

[Wynne]

I sided with the mages because they were clearly the more oppressed, beleaguered side (and I was a mage myself, but that really didn't matter.) But when it comes down to it, I think reform is the only way the system will survive. Anders and Fenris both have it right in different ways, but it's not whether someone is a mage or a templar. It's the individual that matters in every single instance.

The problem is that so many templars are taught to see mages as monsters judged and sentenced by the Maker. Mages begin to see themselves as monsters as well. If magic is viewed as a curse, and its bearers as unclean, that leads to so many intense, negative emotions.

What attracts demons? What do they identify with? Intense, negative emotions. The templars and the teachings of the Chantry are inspiring the problems that they are supposed to be guarding against!

Of course mages shouldn't wield political power--they are already naturally powerful, as are the templars with their training and equipment. Neither group should ever be allowed political dominance. It's too dangerous for the populace.

The entire system of the templars needs to be revamped. It should be composed of teams. Maybe even pairs, if possible--one mage and one templar. Look at the friendship between Greagoir and Irving. Friends who know each other well; know each other's flaws and support each other over the years.

That's how it should be. The dangers and wonders of magic should be guarded carefully, but with participation and friendship between mage and templar encouraged. Both must be educated that they must be vigilant against the possible possession of the mage, which would be bad for everyone, and that positivity and emotional balance is the best protection.

A good templar, a true templar, is neither too cruel (Karras) nor too kind (Thrask). I see Cullen (DA2 Cullen, of course) as a perfect example of what a templar should be.

The Tevinter Imperium is the result of too much power for mages and not enough for regular people. The situation in Kirkwall is the result of too much power for trained normal humans and not enough for mages. The ideal would be something in between--a willing cooperation between mages and humans trained to help mages, not only in the use of sword and armor but in the use of mind and heart.

I don't know if that sounds too soapbox-y for the average person, or TL:DR maybe, but if so, well, the previous paragraph is what it breaks down to.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Siding against the genocide of men, women, and children who happen to be mages isn't the "idiot's choice," at all.

Definitely not. It's no mage's fault that they have magic in the first place, only what they do with it--but pushing them to fear and desperation is a perfect way to break their control, yet not all of them collapsed under the pressure like Orsino did, so clearly not all of them deserve what Meredith called for (which was clearly part of her fanatical madness caused by the idol anyway.) 

Modifié par Wynne, 22 mars 2011 - 04:19 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

My two cents about Orsino and his dabbling in forbidden arts: I think every First Enchanter is the one mage who deals with explaining and guarding things like that, it's his/her duty as the wisest of mages to deal with dangerous artifacts. Just remember whos grimoire you find in Irving's room in DA:O. And Irving was pro-chantry mage and an aquitarian to bones.

[Wynne]

That's how it seemed to me, too. Orsino had knowledge he didn't want to use; he might not have ever been tempted to use it if not terrified and backed into a corner like that.

[Ngoctu]

If mage are "the innocent" can someone explain me what are the citizen? the one killed by the bloodmage... the wife of the Elf... hawke mother the other 2 woman...

it seems here only mage are the one suffering... what did the citizen did to the mage to deserve to be killed without any right? A master of the cirlce is responsable for what the adept of the circle do that's what a "power position" make you

My boss is responsable for my mistake at the client eyes and Orsino is responsable of his own adept many of which are proven to be bloodmage too many... I am sure the annulament is an exageration but Orsino is guilty as man in charge of what happen in the city caused by mage

and what about that poor templar that joined just to feed his family... he never had anything against mage why is it all right to side with mage and kill him but side with templar and kill an innocent mage is a terrible thing?

both position are specular and wrong you can argue to infinite as there is no one right answer.
What really matter it's not which side you take and the story obviously try to prove at the end.

Modifié par Ngoctu, 22 mars 2011 - 04:42 .

[Morning808]

Ngoctu wrote...

If mage are "the innocent" can someone explain me what are the citizen? the one killed by the bloodmage... the wife of the Elf... hawke mother the other 2 woman...

it seems here only mage are the one suffering... what did the citizen did to the mage to deserve to be killed without any right of defence?

and what about that poor templar that joined just to feed his family... he never had anything against mage why is it all right to side with mage and kill him but side with templar and kill an innocent mage is a terrible thing?

both position are specular and wrong you can argue to infinite as there is no one right answer.
What really matter it's not which side you take ad the story obviously try to prove at the end.

Ok so a Templar never did anything to a mage that was innocent? What about the Templars that were trying to make all the mages in to tranquil? What about Cullen in Origins when he wanted to kill all the mages in the circle because there was an outbreak of Blood Mages. There are bad seeds in every group even the citizens! Can anyone say how the elfs are treated?

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

he might not have ever been tempted to use it if not terrified and backed into a corner like that

Well same goes with Irving (he also was tortured and seen his comrades turn into abominations). But he never gave in into temptation, even for, say, confronting Uldred with his own "weapon". That's the power of principle for you.
What Orsino did in the game, was stupid. It's stupid to shout in a square about opressed mages in hope that some noble or peasant will hear and do something. Noone will care, people have their own problems and children to feed. Twas immature and dangerous for mages sake.

Yeah I sided with mages in my first (and I think last) full game rush, but I've been out of counting how many times I did a facepalm on anything that any mage did in this game.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 22 mars 2011 - 04:36 .

[SupidSeep]

Take away Bethany, take away Leandra. Take away ALL knowledge of wrongdoings by BOTH the Kirkwall Templars and the Kirkwall Circle Mages.

We are left with the destruction of the Chantry by a Apostate Mage that was never part of the Kirkwall Circle (sympathetic to, yes, part of, no). That is no justification to annul (ie. execute) the Circle Mages. Meredith was dead wrong in that choice. She'd done better accusing the Grey Wardens (as ridiculous as THAT sounds) as the Apostate was once from their ranks.

[Ngoctu]

Morning808 wrote...

Ok so a Templar never did anything to a mage that was innocent? What about the Templars that were trying to make all the mages in to tranquil? What about Cullen in Origins when he wanted to kill all the mages in the circle because there was an outbreak of Blood Mages. There are bad seeds in every group even the citizens! Can anyone say how the elfs are treated?

you answer my question with a question answer first what are citizen for you
if you really want to side with the innocent between

templar killing mage
mage killing templar and people of the city
people of the city beeing killed

who are you siding with ANSWER THIS FIRST it's easy who are the innocent
there are 3 group

TEMPLAR
MAGE
PEOPLE

and people is born people as well they dont choose to "not born mage" they maybe would rather be born mage but they just happen to be born "normal people" does that make them guilty of anything? does that make it right to kill them?

if you see a person with a tank (templar) a person with a gun (mage) and a person with nothing (civil) who do you think has the right to be defended first? First i defend the CITIZEN then I try to protect MAGE and last I save whoever TEMPLAR I can... in this order look at the choose u are about to take and honestly to protect the CITIZEN i feel like templar is the side to take

Mage can look the "weak" in front of the templar with tanks but why you dont look the all picture what are those civil there? just piece of wood for the fire to use to burn down the templar???

Modifié par Ngoctu, 22 mars 2011 - 04:49 .

[Wulfram]

My Templar supporting Hawke considered that the best way to protect the City of Kirkwall as a whole was to ensure the swift victory of the Templars, even if she disagreed with Anullment.  If the Circle had won it would only result in more war, with Kirkwall as the battlefield, while abominations and blood mages were likely to run rampant.

She held out a certain amount of hope that she could serve as a restraining influence, but she knew she'd agreed to become an accomplice in a terrible crime and judged it worth it to defend the city that had made her its Champion.

AlexXIV wrote...
. As far as I know if you side with the mages you can only save bethany, but no other mage survives.

Varric does say that "many lived" if you sided with the mages.