4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

My argument was that the writers inserted a variety of 'bad' mage types, who did things no normal human could. Not all of whom were caused by the Circle or "the hellmouth" if you're having another argument, I'm not sure what it is.

It's a poor argument for locking up mages.

Funny, I thought the problem with the thin veil meant they were more likely to become possessed or contact demons. Just living in Kirkwall, not even the Gallows, is enough to turn mages crazy and excuse any action now? News to me.

Slight miscommunication. Most of the insane ones did indeed need to live in the Gallows for it to happen.

Orsino has been the First Enchanter since before the game starts and we know that things in the Circle became progressively worse as time went on. Part of his job is to make sure his mages stay on the straight and narrow, given his own interests it's no surprise he fails there. He's supposed to be working with the Knight-Commander to run the Circle, he's too busy arguing with her to realize that he's not actually helping the situation. He's also supposed to be the mages advocate and represent their interests to the templars. Clearly given their working relationship Meredith isn't going to care much about what he says.

Meredith wouldn't care about what any mage would say, and playing upon some nonexistent sympathy would be utterly hopeless. He makes himself a direct target for Meredith's ire to keep as much as possible from landing upon his people. A templar apologist would make things even worse for the Circle.

Most want to pin all the blame on Meredith. She's certainly not innocent, and after Act II any attempt to understand her is doomed to fail, but I don't think she's entirely to blame. Not for the situation overall. If Orsino was actually competent he'd have found a way to work with her. (Proving he was actually dedicated to seeing his mages weren't a threat would have been a good start, instead of protecting the troublemakers.)

Nothing in the Circle was nearly as much a threat to the outside world as the outside world was to the Circle. Orsino's priorities were entirely correct; the situation was just too stacked against him and his people.

I don't want your head canon. I want canon. In canon there's no big line of mages being tested when Hawke and friends walk away. Just a bunch of templars nice enough to let them go.

Then given how poorly the epilogues are put together, you're SOL.

This doesn't helps all the people who will have died in the days/weeks/months before that.

Nope, that'd be the guard. I daresay that even with shades popping up, the number of innocent deaths is far lower in the templar ending.

What little we know of Orsino indicates he was combative with Meredith and overly protective of his mages.

So it'd be better for them to be totally screwed instead of just partially?

His codex entry stops just short of saying he's incompetent and unsuited to the job.

And you get this from where, exactly?

[dragonflight288]

The codex does say that he took the position when no one else wanted it. Seeing Meredith, I can see why no one wanted the job because they would have to work with her on a regular basis.

They may be suggesting he took the job before he was ready for it? I don't know.

[GavrielKay]

Deztyn wrote...

See, but we do already. We have Merrill who's been tempted by a pride demon, we have Anders that's well ... Anders, we can also see what's going on in Feynriel's mind as three demons try to take him over.

Merrill went with the keeper to where a demon was trapped and purposely bargained with it to get what she wanted.  I don't like Merrill, but I think her situation is different from what we're apparently meant to believe about mages being demon magnets who are constantly sought out and cajoled by demons hoping they'll give in.  The idea was even a really good mage and nice person is just one stray thought away from becoming an abomintion in the middle of a helpless village.  Anders' case doesn't bear that out either.  He met Justice under extremely special circumstances - he didn't have a bad dream and wake up possessed.

Feynriel is a very special and rare kind of mage and he attracts demons even more than most mages, but all they manage to do to him is keep him locked in a nightmare.  Even with minimal training he manages to hold them off until we get there and defeat them.

We're apparently meant to feel like you have to keep mages under a watchful eye because they simply have no control over when a demon who is stronger than they are will find them and take over then show me in the game.  My mage Hawke can go ten years and never see this.

Every mage we see in game is provided a reason for what happens to them...  some bad reasons and some slightly better but never just POOF the demon caught me unaware and now I'm possessed.

It isn't that it's not worth it. In game we don't have the option of trying. Unless you side templar. Sort of.

The Right of Annulment itself means you've declared the ciricle irredeemable and are going to kill all of the mages.  I think they throw in saving Bethany and/or a few circle mages to give you a little relief but they totally nerf the RoA in game play and don't make you do what it says you should be doing.  To do the tragedy of it justice they should have a scene with Templars killing a room full of young apprentices.  At the point in game where I have to choose, that's the scene I'm picturing as Hawke tells Meredith that there's no way we'll help her.

[Beerfish]

GavrielKay wrote...

  To do the tragedy of it justice they should have a scene with Templars killing a room full of young apprentices.  At the point in game where I have to choose, that's the scene I'm picturing as Hawke tells Meredith that there's no way we'll help her.

They do exactly that in one scene.  After the initial skirmish three mages come running up begging to be spared. You can intervene and get Cullen to spare them or you can follow the hard line of Meredith and execute them on the spot.  That is the test on whether you as the player are willing to do what is called for (all out mage elimination) or to jam out.

Hawke is given way more leeway than just about anyone in the game because everyone (from Elthina to Orsino to Meredith) know he/she is totally elite and is travelling with an elite group that could easily turn the tables in the conflict.  That is why Meredith, so hard line against others, even her own will cow tow to the champion at times.

[GavrielKay]

Beerfish wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

To do the tragedy of it justice they should have a scene with Templars killing a room full of young apprentices.  At the point in game where I have to choose, that's the scene I'm picturing as Hawke tells Meredith that there's no way we'll help her.

They do exactly that in one scene.  After the initial skirmish three mages come running up begging to be spared. You can intervene and get Cullen to spare them or you can follow the hard line of Meredith and execute them on the spot.  That is the test on whether you as the player are willing to do what is called for (all out mage elimination) or to jam out.

That scene is not a room full of young apprentices.  It is 3 adult mages that you're allowed to save, possibly including your sister.  That scene is the exact proof that I'm talking about: they nerfed the RoA to make it more palatable.

That scene really just proves that Meredith was wrong to call the RoA.  Cullen believes that you can in fact determine who is still innocent.  If you have the ability to sort them out, then you shouldn't Annul the circle.  Meredith may have the legal authority in the absence of a Grand Cleric, but her second believes it wasn't necessary and he's quite the hard line Templar.  If Cullen isn't convinced that the circle is irredeemable, then neither am I.

[dragonflight288]

It would be harder to believe in Annulment if you go into a room and see templars killing seven year old apprentice mages who were only just taken to the gallows.

[IanPolaris]

dragonflight288 wrote...

It would be harder to believe in Annulment if you go into a room and see templars killing seven year old apprentice mages who were only just taken to the gallows.

Which is EXACTLY the DAMN point!  If you can't stomache the thought of slaughtering children in front of your eyes, then you have no business siding with the Templars becuase THAT is what you are agreeing to.

Bioware IMO dishonestly lets you try to eat meat without having to slaughter the animal (or see it done).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[GavrielKay]

dragonflight288 wrote...

It would be harder to believe in Annulment if you go into a room and see templars killing seven year old apprentice mages who were only just taken to the gallows.

Exactly.

Why was BioWare so concerned about trying to even up the split on this choice?  In my opinion they would have been better off with telling a straight story, no artificial plot devices or back story hidden in codices that are missable.  Just tell a flat out story and let the player decide what their Hawke believes in.  If the split comes off 95/5 so be it.  Having choices for the player is great, weakening the story to shift the balance of that choice came off weird.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So if you don't give a damn about the children, it is okay to side with the Templars?

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So if you don't give a damn about the children, it is okay to side with the Templars?

That was NOT what was said at all. It isn't right or okay at all to slaughter children, but if you chose to Annul the Circle, you are saying you will kill everyone in it. Whether you personally want everyone dead or just the ones who are guilty doesn't matter, by siding with the Templars you said they could go ahead with it and kill everyone. Innocence is no longer a factor at play.

It doesn't make it okay. What it means is that you did the job you agreed to do.

Again, it doesn't make it right.

"Death is never justice."

[EmperorSahlertz]

Okay. So it is never okay to kill a child. I can get behind that.

Is it okay to kill an abomination child?

[TEWR]

if the child truly cannot be saved in any way, yes.

But in the case of Connor-like Abominations, no.

If we're talking abominations during an Annulment, then you have to.

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So if you don't give a damn about the children, it is okay to side with the Templars?

That was NOT what was said at all. It isn't right or okay at all to slaughter children, but if you chose to Annul the Circle, you are saying you will kill everyone in it. Whether you personally want everyone dead or just the ones who are guilty doesn't matter, by siding with the Templars you said they could go ahead with it and kill everyone. Innocence is no longer a factor at play.

Honestly, it's a game and it's ok for your Hawke to want to slaughter little pixel mage children if it pleases you.

My complaint was more about the writers fudging their own lore and making it seem like your character wasn't really agreeing to slaughter children and everyone else in the circle just so the percentage of players choosing each side was more balanced than in DAO.  It feels contrived.

Meredith was written as an extreme zealot who then fell under the influence of the nasty-making idol.  I believe her character was written such that she fully intended to kill everyone and ensure that her Templars did so.  I believe it is fully in character for her to have planned to go back and kill the mages that Hawke spares once you're out of the picture. 

The devs wimp out on their own storyline to make the numbers come out in a predetermined fashion.

Edit: spelling

Modifié par GavrielKay, 18 mai 2011 - 07:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

if the child truly cannot be saved in any way, yes.

But in the case of Connor-like Abominations, no.

If we're talking abominations during an Annulment, then you have to.

So when a child abomination is hiding amongst other children, what then? You ignore them? Let the abomination kill the children, then you can kill it, and avoid the blood stain on your own hands? Risk that it escapes while you run for the "cure"? Or do you accept the deaths will be on your hands, and make sure the abomination won't escape.

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

Polaris,

1) .... Orlais 'reputation' starts after the Fall of the Dales. That war happens before any of the others. Before Nevarra, before the schism with the Tevinter Chantry, before Fereldan. You're arguing a pattern of behavior that didn't even exist yet is proof of Orlais wrong.

Actually, their reputation for conquest started with the inception of the Orlesian Empire, since King Kordillus Drakon I established it through numerous Exalted Marches against the neighboring city-states to create modern day Orlais, and it lead to him becoming Emperor of the Empire.

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

if the child truly cannot be saved in any way, yes.

But in the case of Connor-like Abominations, no.

If we're talking abominations during an Annulment, then you have to.

What if the child was the child of a templar. Would the templar still peform his/her duty?

That's where it gets tricky. We draw ourselves into a Thrask scenario. I really can't say as it's up to the Templar to make a hard decision.

If it is beyond saving, it is no longer his child. But if it's a Connor-esque child, it's hard for him/her to make that decision.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So when a child abomination is hiding amongst other children, what then? You ignore them? Let the abomination kill the children, then you can kill it, and avoid the blood stain on your own hands? Risk that it escapes while you run for the "cure"? Or do you accept the deaths will be on your hands, and make sure the abomination won't escape.

So do you reject the gameplay evidence that a demon will always defend itself against even non-lethal force and thus be detectable by anyone determined to try?  DAO let us sort out the mages, Anders will do his "test" on Kerran to tell you he's clean with no repercussions. 

The game itself seems to tell you that you can actually detect an abomination.  If it is possible to determine guilt or innocence then I think it's worth the trouble.

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

I never said Orlais was trustworthy. I said the circumstances were different. Sticking around in Nevarra and Kirkwall or taking advantage of a weakened Fereldan is not at all the same as attacking a strong enemy that remained completely untouched by the Blight when they hadn't recovered from the Blight. And I don't think Orlais' future history should have too much influence on how the Fall of the Dales is viewed.

There's no evidence to suggest the war on the Dales was unprovoked. None. Even when you troll Sarel, he still doesn't give an actual alternate history of the war, he just whines that it was their land and Shems had no right to take it from them.

And for what it's worth, I don't even have a problem with the idea that Orlais did just attack the Dales for the heck of it. But there's no proof of that. Just a lot of assumptions, and Choose Your Own History based on which side you prefer.

There is information from the Dalish that contradicts the Orlesian version of events. Technically, the Dalish codex establishes that the war began because when the elves of the Dales kicked out the missionaries, the Chantry sent in templars into their nation. Even the Dalish attribute their refusal to convert to the Chantry of Andraste as the reason behind the war with Orlais, which is the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

Deztyn wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

The Dalish Origin starts with the PC holding a bow on some poor sap who made the mistake of wandering into Dalish territory. And since the Dalish are nomadic and Thedas has yet to found MapQuest, that's not exactly a mistake so much as bad luck. Oh, and Tamlen right by you wants to kill him for no more reason than "being a shem." And this is the introduction for the frickin' hero! The Dalish are innocent like the dwarves are tall.

I wasn't going to mention that because it would just be "Well Tamlen (and the Warden) are bad Dalish." But yeah, the Dalish aren't exactly fond of humans.

The humans, if spared, try to incite the village to go after the Dalish. I'd say the feeling is mutual.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So when a child abomination is hiding amongst other children, what then? You ignore them? Let the abomination kill the children, then you can kill it, and avoid the blood stain on your own hands? Risk that it escapes while you run for the "cure"? Or do you accept the deaths will be on your hands, and make sure the abomination won't escape.

So do you reject the gameplay evidence that a demon will always defend itself against even non-lethal force and thus be detectable by anyone determined to try?  DAO let us sort out the mages, Anders will do his "test" on Kerran to tell you he's clean with no repercussions. 

The game itself seems to tell you that you can actually detect an abomination.  If it is possible to determine guilt or innocence then I think it's worth the trouble.

I doubt it is as simple as that. If it were that simple there would never have been any issue. The demon either have to truly believe its "life"(/host) is in danger, or it is more complicated than that. Either way, it would require you to harm a child, which seems to be the major gripe with alot of you.

[TEWR]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

if the child truly cannot be saved in any way, yes.

But in the case of Connor-like Abominations, no.

If we're talking abominations during an Annulment, then you have to.

What if the child was the child of a templar. Would the templar still peform his/her duty?

That's where it gets tricky. We draw ourselves into a Thrask scenario. I really can't say as it's up to the Templar to make a hard decision.

If it is beyond saving, it is no longer his child. But if it's a Connor-esque child, it's hard for him/her to make that decision.

I suspect a templar would put his kin before his sworn duty. The templar would perhaps harbor a mage, in exchange for the Blood mage using an innocent to fuel the Blood magic ritual(ala, Isolde if Warden doesn't go to the Tower for help).

I can and can't see that happening, as it really depends on the Templar.


I can see a Templar killing their Connor-esque child though if the child knew it was possessed, snapped out of it briefly, and begged to be killed.

But I wonder (and this is somewhat off-topic), does blood magic require human blood or is it just that all blood mages have used human blood and never anything else? Could pig's blood work? Goat's? If you can use animal blood, then that should become the new medium.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So when a child abomination is hiding amongst other children, what then? You ignore them? Let the abomination kill the children, then you can kill it, and avoid the blood stain on your own hands? Risk that it escapes while you run for the "cure"? Or do you accept the deaths will be on your hands, and make sure the abomination won't escape.

So do you reject the gameplay evidence that a demon will always defend itself against even non-lethal force and thus be detectable by anyone determined to try?  DAO let us sort out the mages, Anders will do his "test" on Kerran to tell you he's clean with no repercussions. 

The game itself seems to tell you that you can actually detect an abomination.  If it is possible to determine guilt or innocence then I think it's worth the trouble.

I doubt it is as simple as that. If it were that simple there would never have been any issue. The demon either have to truly believe its "life"(/host) is in danger, or it is more complicated than that. Either way, it would require you to harm a child, which seems to be the major gripe with alot of you.

If you don't say you're at Redcliffe Castle to kill the Connor Abomination, it will still attack you. Not personally, but by using thralls to defend itself.

So even if you don't threaten an abomination, they will still defend themselves.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is never really certified, but since blood magic is regarded with such terror, it stand to reason that only magically inclined races' blood can be used.

After all, if pigs' blood were enough, there would never have been any reason to kill a whole bunch of slaves for the Tevinters.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 18 mai 2011 - 07:28 .