4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Hey, communism has its merits. Though I doubt a system desiring equality for all would do the saarebas thing.

[TEWR]

huh... I may do that next time regarding Javaris.


I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

I think I let him live too, I don't recall. Just played the game once.

[TEWR]

I keep playing it for two main reasons:

1) Merrill
2) To find out any new things that went wrong with the story and how it could've been handled better.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

huh... I may do that next time regarding Javaris.


I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

I generally do too.  I see killing Jarvaris as needlessly bloodthirsty.  That said for one of my Evil Hawkes, I did it and get the best "aggessive/in-your-face" lines in the game.  After murderknifing Jarvaris, Merrill held both hands up to her face and looked about ready to cry and my (evil) Hawke turned around and said, "What?  He bothered me."

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

huh... I may do that next time regarding Javaris.


I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

Huh?  I meant Promise, not Courtesy.  The one in Act I, where you kill a bunch of tal-vashoth.  When you go back to the qunari compound, the Arishok gives his obligatory qunari "No." to Javaris and Javaris asks you to reason with him.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

huh... I may do that next time regarding Javaris.


I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

Huh?  I meant Promise, not Courtesy.  The one in Act I, where you kill a bunch of tal-vashoth.  When you go back to the qunari compound, the Arishok gives his obligatory qunari "No." to Javaris and Javaris asks you to reason with him.

Oh that.  That's when Fenris offers to kill Jarvaris for bothering the Arishok and the Arishok contemptously says that his blood isn't worth getting on your blades or something like that.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

huh... I may do that next time regarding Javaris.


I always let him live at the end of Blackpowder Courtesy. The guy did nothing wrong (well, he bothered Hawke), so I see no reason to kill him.

Huh?  I meant Promise, not Courtesy.  The one in Act I, where you kill a bunch of tal-vashoth.  When you go back to the qunari compound, the Arishok gives his obligatory qunari "No." to Javaris and Javaris asks you to reason with him.

Yea I know, but since we were talking about Javaris I just wanted to say how I let him live in Courtesy

[Rifneno]

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh that.  That's when Fenris offers to kill Jarvaris for bothering the Arishok and the Arishok contemptously says that his blood isn't worth getting on your blades or something like that.

-Polaris

Ugh. I never even recruit that knife-ear scum anymore.

[HSHAW]

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh that.  That's when Fenris offers to kill Jarvaris for bothering the Arishok and the Arishok contemptously says that his blood isn't worth getting on your blades or something like that.

-Polaris

Ugh. I never even recruit that knife-ear scum anymore.

Bash him for his personality traits, don't bash him for being an elf.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh that.  That's when Fenris offers to kill Jarvaris for bothering the Arishok and the Arishok contemptously says that his blood isn't worth getting on your blades or something like that.

-Polaris

Ugh. I never even recruit that knife-ear  broody, self-centered, egotistical, mean-to-Merrill, overcompensating with his big sword loser scum anymore.

Fixed for political correctness. The bolded is the part that I dislike about Fenris. He never even changes his stance on Merrill. He can't even be nice to her once.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 17 mai 2011 - 03:21 .

[Rifneno]

HSHAW wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oh that.  That's when Fenris offers to kill Jarvaris for bothering the Arishok and the Arishok contemptously says that his blood isn't worth getting on your blades or something like that.

-Polaris

Ugh. I never even recruit that knife-ear scum anymore.

Bash him for his personality traits, don't bash him for being an elf.

Why not?  85% of the time I talk to an elf I get called a shemlen (which is ironic since, having lost their immortality, so are they).  Geez, you can't even pick on a fictional race anymore... =/

[Deztyn]

Rifneno wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

So we can at least agree that taking mages out of their homes is necessary even if we disagree about the details?

I'll take it.

Hehe. Yeah, some education on their powers is certainly necessary. Just not wrecking their family for... I don't even know why the Chantry says they have to do it.

Because mages are inherently dangerous and better off locked away in Circles where they can learn to use their powers in a safe environment without fear of causing harm to others or having harm done to them. To put it simply.

And I'm not opposed to reforms that include more contact with their families. I do think it needs to be limited and supervised.

... Connor was a desire demon abomination, and he can lay waste to all of Redcliffe.

The Redcliffe storyline never made sense to me. If a desire demon possessing a child could cause that much damage, then a pride demon possessing an experienced mage would be Blight levels of destruction. The situation at the Ferelden Circle wouldn't have been a single tower mostly wiped out, it would've probably been armageddon.

Uldred and friends were immediately contained, and had a clear goal they were working towards while contained. I also suspect that the power gap between the two demon types just isn't as large as game mechanics make it seem. If it was then why wouldn't Wryme just fight it out to claim Feynriel's mind?

So let's say you're right correct, Hawke and friends manage to kill every last templar. How many mages are actually going to be left standing at that point? 20? 50? 100? If just one of those is the next Connor (Because we do know for sure there are demons and abominations all over the place at this point) I think you can make a fair argument that it would have been better to have just gone along with the annulment.

I would think the templars would back down once either Meredith was dead or they realized they were in serious danger of losing the battle. I don't think it's a good idea to kill every last templar there and instantly abolish the Circle. I just think helping a madwoman commit mass murder, and leave her in power to continue her madness, is going to be worse both short and long term.

That's a big assumption. Isn't it more likely that they'd just lock down the Circle ala Fereldan and wait for reinforcements? Hawke has no idea how the average templar feels about the Right, and has no reason to believe that they'd just call it off after she kills Meredith and mass slaughters templars. The Right of Annulment is an order to kill every last mage, not kill every mage you can until you start losing and then call a truce.

It really is a choice that requires you to believe that abolishing the Circle is the best outcome. Either you believe that risking your life to help as many mages as possible escape regardless of their power/morals/potential possession is worthwhile, or you sincerely believe that you can 'win' and destroy the templars and the Circle entirely. 'Maybe they'll change their minds if I kill enough of them' is a pretty unreasonable belief for Hawke to hold.

If you think you shouldn't let a random group of mages escape, that all the mages shouldn't be free, and abolishing the Circle is a bad idea, you should side templar.

(And Zevran is in town and owes you a favour so there's no reason to think Meredith has to stay in power afterwards. )

Aside from Cuckoo Bananas Ambrosia's idea to march on her own cathedral, Kirkwall's is the only known March attempt that's really unjustified. (Unless there's lore I've missed. Always possible.)

I haven't seen any compelling proof that the one against the Dales was justified either. Nor do I think the one against the Imperial Chantry was just either. I'm not condoning Tevinter as a whole, but the Chantry was going to war for the wrong reasons. The one against the Qunari was more self defense against an impending invasion than anything else. So really, the only march I do think was pure and good was the one Andraste herself led against Tevinter.

I think we could spend another week arguing over what the 'right' reasons are for going to war. But 'justified' was the wrong word to use. Would you agree that there were reasons for the Marches beyond "The Chantry is the Ultimate Evil?" That's more or less where this tangent started and what I disagree with.

Modifié par Deztyn, 17 mai 2011 - 03:32 .

[Deztyn]

Plaintiff wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
Aside from Cuckoo Bananas Ambrosia's idea to march on her own cathedral, Kirkwall's is the only known March attempt that's really unjustified. (Unless there's lore I've missed. Always possible.)

They declared an Exalted March on the Dales that was not only entirely unprovoked but ignored the fact that Andraste helped to free the elves in the first place, and had been respectful of their beliefs, making no apparent attempt to convert them. It comes up in conversation a few times, the elves are pretty butthurt about it.

It seems to me that the Chantry's first answer to anything is violence. Individuals in the organization may advocate peaceful solutions, but that's apparently not official protocol. Far from being the 'loving mother' Elthina describes, the image I get of the Chantry is that of an abusive parent, prone to lashing out physically with little to no provocation.

It was only 'entirely unprovoked' if you wholeheartedly believe the Dalish version of events, they have as much reason to skew the truth as the Chantry does. Perhaps more. After all if your vision of the Chantry is correct, they wouldn't have to invent 'entirely unprovoked' attacks on Orlesian settlements as a motive when they could just say "The elves are heathens and this is the Maker's will."

[HSHAW]

Rifneno wrote...

Why not?  85% of the time I talk to an elf I get called a shemlen (which is ironic since, having lost their immortality, so are they).  Geez, you can't even pick on a fictional race anymore... =/

Italic part: To be fair, the Elves are just trying to slip what bits of Elvish into their speech wherever possible so that they don't forget it.

Bolded part: If you're going to pick on someone fictional or otherwise, pick on them for reasons that actually make sense.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

It was only 'entirely unprovoked' if you wholeheartedly believe the Dalish version of events, they have as much reason to skew the truth as the Chantry does. Perhaps more. After all if your vision of the Chantry is correct, they wouldn't have to invent 'entirely unprovoked' attacks on Orlesian settlements as a motive when they could just say "The elves are heathens and this is the Maker's will."

I can see that except for one niggling problem.  The Elves by and large don't have a history of attacking anyone unprovoked.  When the elves (Alathan, Kdm of Dales, Dalish) attack you, there is genearlly a reason for it...you might not like the reason but there is one.

OTOH, Orlais has a reputation of stabbing it's neighbors in the back (ask Nevarra and Fereldan about that!) and it's particularly notorious for doing so just after blights.  Given that the Exalted March was called to save the Empereror of Orlais' bacon, and it's a war that Orlais probably caused, I am not too likely to be very charatible to th Chantry version of history honestly.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 17 mai 2011 - 03:32 .

[TEWR]

IanPolaris, I would venture a guess that given the fact Orlais barely survived a Blight that destroyed their fertile land, they figured they could sneak attack the elves so they could get fertile land again. The Dalish did nothing wrong and they just concocted some excuse so they could play the part of the good guys.

Orlais, though very frilly and pretentious, should not be trusted.

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

IanPolaris, I would venture a guess that given the fact Orlais barely survived a Blight that destroyed their fertile land, they figured they could sneak attack the elves so they could get fertile land again. The Dalish did nothing wrong and they just concocted some excuse so they could play the part of the good guys.

Orlais, though very frilly and pretentious, should not be trusted.

Absolutely.  Orlais has a very bad reputation when it comes to honoring and keeping it's agreements and borders.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

HSHAW wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Why not?  85% of the time I talk to an elf I get called a shemlen (which is ironic since, having lost their immortality, so are they).  Geez, you can't even pick on a fictional race anymore... =/

Italic part: To be fair, the Elves are just trying to slip what bits of Elvish into their speech wherever possible so that they don't forget it.

Bolded part: If you're going to pick on someone fictional or otherwise, pick on them for reasons that actually make sense.

Jesus Christ I'm fairly damned certain they were being sarcastic in the first place.  I thought YOU were being sarcastic in your initial response, but now...

[Plaintiff]

Deztyn wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
Aside from Cuckoo Bananas Ambrosia's idea to march on her own cathedral, Kirkwall's is the only known March attempt that's really unjustified. (Unless there's lore I've missed. Always possible.)

They declared an Exalted March on the Dales that was not only entirely unprovoked but ignored the fact that Andraste helped to free the elves in the first place, and had been respectful of their beliefs, making no apparent attempt to convert them. It comes up in conversation a few times, the elves are pretty butthurt about it.

It seems to me that the Chantry's first answer to anything is violence. Individuals in the organization may advocate peaceful solutions, but that's apparently not official protocol. Far from being the 'loving mother' Elthina describes, the image I get of the Chantry is that of an abusive parent, prone to lashing out physically with little to no provocation.

It was only 'entirely unprovoked' if you wholeheartedly believe the Dalish version of events, they have as much reason to skew the truth as the Chantry does. Perhaps more. After all if your vision of the Chantry is correct, they wouldn't have to invent 'entirely unprovoked' attacks on Orlesian settlements as a motive when they could just say "The elves are heathens and this is the Maker's will."

I've never heard about any attacks on Orlesian settlements. From what I heard, "heathens" and "Maker's will" were exactly the excuses the Chantry used.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

 After all if your vision of the Chantry is correct, they wouldn't have to invent 'entirely unprovoked' attacks on Orlesian settlements as a motive when they could just say "The elves are heathens and this is the Maker's will."

Not true.  The Kingdom of the Dales was built expressly on land granted to them by Andraste herself and thus very plainly given by the will of the Maker, and thus any unprovoked attack on the Dales (Heathen or not) is a direct violation of the Maker's will.

The Divine had to rewrite the Chant of Light to justify the Exalted March (and even the Chantry admits this).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Plaintiff wrote...

I've never heard about any attacks on Orlesian settlements. From what I heard, "heathens" and "Maker's will" were exactly the excuses the Chantry used.

There was a borderskirmish between the Dalish Emerald Knights and the Orlesians at Redcliff Crossing (IIRC) that escalated into full scale war.  A war, I might add that had the Orlesian Empire getting it's tail kicked (the Dalish marched all the way to Val Royaleux and IIRC sacked it) before the Chantry authorized the Exalted March to pull Orlais' chestnuts out of the fire.

Given the reputations of both sides, I am 90% certain that Orlais startted it.

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

Plaintiff,

It was Red Crossing. But otherwise it's what Polaris said. Minus the certainty that Orlais started it.


Polaris,

I'd say the modern Dalish have quite the history of unprovoked attacks -- when they think they can get away with it. Perhaps the Dalish saw Orlais as weakened by the Blight, and thought "Hey! Let's get rid of these pesky Shemlen neighbors." We don't know what their motive might have been, that doesn't mean they didn't have one.

Nevarra was occupied during the Blight, Orlais just decided not to leave. That's a bit different from the situation with the Dales. So I'm not sure how the occupation of Nevarra (which happened a hundred years after the Fall of the Dales) proves that Orlais was entirely in the wrong.

[RangerSG]

Deztyn wrote...

Plaintiff,

It was Red Crossing. But otherwise it's what Polaris said. Minus the certainty that Orlais started it.


Polaris,

I'd say the modern Dalish have quite the history of unprovoked attacks -- when they think they can get away with it. Perhaps the Dalish saw Orlais as weakened by the Blight, and thought "Hey! Let's get rid of these pesky Shemlen neighbors." We don't know what their motive might have been, that doesn't mean they didn't have one.

Nevarra was occupied during the Blight, Orlais just decided not to leave. That's a bit different from the situation with the Dales. So I'm not sure how the occupation of Nevarra (which happened a hundred years after the Fall of the Dales) proves that Orlais was entirely in the wrong.

I've always seen the Dalish as not nearly as innocent as many here make them out to be. I don't know whether they or Orlais *started* the war, but I'm fairly certain the Dalish took way too much pleasure in prosecuting it and drew the Exalted March as a result. Sacking Val Roy was hardly necessary to defend their home. One might also note the werewolf curse in DA:O. The Dalish are just as much well-intentioned extremists as your average Templar. When you get down to it, paranoia and distrust are pretty much standard MOs in Thedas.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

Plaintiff,

It was Red Crossing. But otherwise it's what Polaris said. Minus the certainty that Orlais started it.


Polaris,

I'd say the modern Dalish have quite the history of unprovoked attacks -- when they think they can get away with it. Perhaps the Dalish saw Orlais as weakened by the Blight, and thought "Hey! Let's get rid of these pesky Shemlen neighbors." We don't know what their motive might have been, that doesn't mean they didn't have one.

That's not what the game lore suggests.  It suggests that human villagers fear the Dalish, but I have yet to hear of any Human-Dalish fight that the humans didn't provoke at least in part.  In fact we know that the Dalish make it a policy to AVOID conflict with humans even to the point of exiling hotheads.  So I'd say the existing lore flat out disagrees with your assertion that the Dalish have a history of unprovoked attacks.  Indeed the lore and information we have stongly suggest the opposite.

As for the Kingdom of the Dales, the Dalish during their existance as a kingdon NEVER showed any interest in outside affairs.  This is collaberated by both Elvish and Human sources.  Saying that after the Blight the Dalish would suddenly want to conquer a bunch of hostile Shemlen because they can flies in the face of all Elven history and attitudes to that point and beyond.

Nevarra was occupied during the Blight, Orlais just decided not to leave. That's a bit different from the situation with the Dales. So I'm not sure how the occupation of Nevarra (which happened a hundred years after the Fall of the Dales) proves that Orlais was entirely in the wrong.

You mean sort of like the Russians post WWII in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe.  Go to Warsaw and ask how popular the Soviet Union (or Russians in general were or are).  There is a reason why Eastern Europe fell over itself to try to join NATO following the cold war.

Orlais has almost the same sort of reputation the old Soviet Union does in thie regard.  I never said anything was *certain* but given both peoples and the histories of both sides, I am 90%+ sure Orlais started it.  Orlais has a very bad reputation in this regard.

-Polaris