4350 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

The Dalish codex doesn't actually contradict anything in the Orlesian view of history. It just leaves a lot of things out. Like the destruction of Red Crossing, war with Orlais, fall of Montsimmard and the sacking of Val Royeaux. That's alot of things to forget to mention that come between "missionaries" and "templars."

It does contradict the Orlesian version of events: Orlais claims it was the attack on Red Crossing that started the war, while the Dalish claim it was templars being sent into the Dales to force conversion. The Dalish even provide the information verbally that their refusal to give up worship of their gods is what caused hositilies between them and the human nations. It's clear that the Orlesian version isn't the only version about what caused the war between the Dalish and Orlais, the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Never argued it wasn't.  

I didn't mean to insinuate that you claimed that it wasn't, merely that I find that there's a lot of hate between the two groups. It's likely the reason why the Dalish in the Hinterlands were probably killed by humans given what King Alistair says to Merrill in the imported Dalish Warden world where The Warden asked for land to be given to his people.

[Deztyn]

Silfren.

Cullen is a case of character development over years. It actually plays fairly well if you if pay attention.

Meredith just wasn't the pure evil some people try to make her out as. You can be strict without being a monster. She only completely loses it after gaining the idol.

Modifié par Deztyn, 18 mai 2011 - 09:05 .

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

The Dalish codex doesn't actually contradict anything in the Orlesian view of history. It just leaves a lot of things out. Like the destruction of Red Crossing, war with Orlais, fall of Montsimmard and the sacking of Val Royeaux. That's alot of things to forget to mention that come between "missionaries" and "templars."

It does contradict the Orlesian version of events: Orlais claims it was the attack on Red Crossing that started the war, while the Dalish claim it was templars being sent into the Dales to force conversion. The Dalish even provide the information verbally that their refusal to give up worship of their gods is what caused hositilies between them and the human nations. It's clear that the Orlesian version isn't the only version about what caused the war between the Dalish and Orlais, the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

*Checks codex*

"The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin."

It just says missionaries came, they threw them out, then templars attacked them, and they were driven out of their homes. It leaves out the war with Orlais entirely.

I'd say it went like this:

1) Missionaries

2) Red Crossing

3) War with Orlais (Including the capture of Montsimmard and sacking of Val Royeaux)

4) Exalted March (the Templars)

Modifié par Deztyn, 18 mai 2011 - 09:15 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Dalish entry about the Exalted Marches are worth less than the toilet paper in your drain. It is so extremely brief and bland and devoid of all details, that it can't be used for anything.

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

What little we know of Orsino indicates he was combative with Meredith and overly protective of his mages. His codex entry stops just short of saying he's incompetent and unsuited to the job. 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.

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.)

I'm fairly sure that same codex also states that he got the job of First Enchanter because no one else wanted it.  Incompetence is one interpretation, sure, but it's not the only one for that line of thought.  But if being First Enchanter sucks so badly that the position is basically handed to the first mage who willingly takes it...you gotta wonder why.  I interpret it as meaning that nobody wanted the migraine of having to deal with Meredith's bull****.

I have to take issue with the assertion that if someone is competent they will find a way to work with someone like Meredith.  It completely rules out a fact of life that some people simply refuse to be worked with, and will accept nothing less than complete and total submission. In the face of that, how competent one is at doing their job is of no consequence.  One person's adamant refusal to accept anything less than absolute surrender does not reflect on the other person's capabilities or lack thereof.  And Meredith had all the power in that situation.  What power Orsino had was entirely dependent on her, especially in light of Elthina's refusal to do her damned job.  So he didn't have a chance.

[dragonflight288]

I happen to be pro-mage, but I am willing to listen to pro-templar arguments. I don't agree with them for the most part, but I am willing to listen. So I'm curious. Any pro-templars out there believe Meredith was in the wrong? Was she a crappy Knight-Commander who had way too much power for far too long? Is Orsino in the wrong and Meredith in the right? I'm honestly curious. Do you hold Meredith accountable for the actions of corrupt templars as they are under her direct command or do all of them get a free pass?

Pro templar people, I eagerly await a well-thought out response with logical points.

[Deztyn]

Silfren wrote...
I have to take issue with the assertion that if someone is competent they will find a way to work with someone like Meredith.  It completely rules out a fact of life that some people simply refuse to be worked with, and will accept nothing less than complete and total submission. In the face of that, how competent one is at doing their job is of no consequence.  One person's adamant refusal to accept anything less than absolute surrender does not reflect on the other person's capabilities or lack thereof.  And Meredith had all the power in that situation.  What power Orsino had was entirely dependent on her, especially in light of Elthina's refusal to do her damned job.  So he didn't have a chance.

There's no indication that Orsino even tried. There's plenty of evidence that he butted heads with her constantly. and 'refused to do his damned job.'  More explicit evidence of Orsino's failures than Elthina's, I'll point out. (Since I assume this is another comment about you holding Elthina directly responsible for Alrik and Karras.)

[Sylvianus]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I happen to be pro-mage, but I am willing to listen to pro-templar arguments. I don't agree with them for the most part, but I am willing to listen. So I'm curious. Any pro-templars out there believe Meredith was in the wrong? Was she a crappy Knight-Commander who had way too much power for far too long? Is Orsino in the wrong and Meredith in the right? I'm honestly curious. Do you hold Meredith accountable for the actions of corrupt templars as they are under her direct command or do all of them get a free pass?

Pro templar people, I eagerly await a well-thought out response with logical points.

The majority is neither pro-mage, nor pro-Templar. This topic doesn't reflect reality. Everyone was forced to choose sides, and many hated to have to choose two sides in all this madness. Most chose without enthusiasm. 

Nobody followed Meredith, everyone followed his logic, with the experience of the game. What the camps threatening more people than the other ? That was my logic, I let others answer for themselves.

Sorry if I don't develoipp more, but in more than 90 pages, I think I have repeated often enough.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 18 mai 2011 - 09:34 .

[Beerfish]

I happen to be pro-mage, but I am willing to listen to pro-templar arguments. I don't agree with them for the most part, but I am willing to listen. So I'm curious. Any pro-templars out there believe Meredith was in the wrong?

Wrong?  In what way.  She was obviously an over the top zealot in her position.  We can set aside both her and Orsino going insane perhaps as that clouds both issues.  She did a number of things wrong.  She was not wrong in trying to clamp down on an every burgeoning out of control mage problem both in the circle and out.  She was not wrong in wanting to search the circle to root out the bad mages.  She was not wrong in calling for Annulement after the Chantry got blown up.

Was she a crappy Knight-Commander who had way too much power for far too long?

Unknown as there is not quite enough info on her earlier history.  She had a lot of power and it was not appropriate for her to try and in effect keep the Viscount chair vacant.  As to if she was a lousy commander, tough to say as that will totally fall along our normal arguement lines.


Is Orsino in the wrong and Meredith in the right?

Orsino was wrong 100% for sure.  He was a terrible 1st enchanter who was at least as responsible for the debacle as Meredith was.  As for a more detailed answer you would have to read the a00 plus pages of this thread to see the many arguements on both sides.

I'm honestly curious. Do you hold Meredith accountable for the actions of corrupt templars as they are under her direct command or do all of them get a free pass?

She should be held accountable for all under her care no question about it, just as Orsino should be as well.

Pro templar people, I eagerly await a well-thought out response with logical points.

Of course nothing at that I say won't be assailed by the pro mage side and picked at just as if you had made a post with the opposite bent on it, myself and others would pick at it.

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

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.

Sad thing is, that if there'd been consistent writing between Origins and DA2, and a more balanced story for both the mage and templar sides, Bioware could easily have gotten a 50/50 split, or close, from players.  It would not have been that difficult to present players with a solidly believeable scenario where Annulment was the best option, but not a good one.  It just would have taken better writing, which would have taken more time.  Skewing the presentation of mages turned out to be pointless, IMO, when they still portrayed Kirkwall as the sort of place guaranteed to drive mages insane or push them into acts of depredation.  I know I'm not the only one who just feels all the more sympathy for mages in that situation. 

It wouldn't have been that damned difficult to write mages so that the templar "side" is more sympathetic.  Hell, it could have made for a far more satisfying playthrough if they'd gone the "tragic but necessary" route.  Just like the Redcliffe quest would have been better without the option to save everyone, but force the player into a choice between killing Connor, killing Isolde, or having Isolde kill Connor.  No-win situations that force players to struggle for the best of several options that all suck would have encouraged the multiple playthroughs Bioware was aiming for. 

[dragonflight288]

Hmm. I see your points. I agree that Orsino was a lousy first enchanter. I have argued that point in another thread a few weeks back. I'm still pro-mage, but I do understand the need for security.

You believe that Meredith was in the right for Annulment. I can't argue with that because then it's an argument of opinions. You have yours and I have mine. Neither of us will likely change the other's mind.

How about Meredith's position as the acting Viscount? After Dumar's death, I can easily see her stepping up to fill the void. But three years later, she is still preventing the nobles from ruling the city or allowing a new viscount from taking office. What is your opinion on that?

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz 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.

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.

The thrust of the discussion was about killing Circle mage children because the Right of Annulment requires total annhilation of everyone, not a debate over the right or wrong way to deal with a Connor-like situation.  Why are you trying to change things around?  The point you raise warrants a separate discussion. 

At least try to pretend to have an honest debate.

Modifié par Silfren, 18 mai 2011 - 09:47 .

[Silfren]

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.

He's twisting the topic around to something else in a transparent attempt to skew your position.  Don't let him change topics in mid-stream on you. 

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It does contradict the Orlesian version of events: Orlais claims it was the attack on Red Crossing that started the war, while the Dalish claim it was templars being sent into the Dales to force conversion. The Dalish even provide the information verbally that their refusal to give up worship of their gods is what caused hositilies between them and the human nations. It's clear that the Orlesian version isn't the only version about what caused the war between the Dalish and Orlais, the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

*Checks codex*

"The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin."

It just says missionaries came, they threw them out, then templars attacked them, and they were driven out of their homes. It leaves out the war with Orlais entirely.

It addresses that the Chantry sent templars into the Dales after the missionaries were kicked out, which means the war didn't start because of Red Crossing - if the Dalish codex is correct, then the attack on Red Crossing was in response to the attack made by the Chantry and its templars. Did the people of Red Crossing aid in the attack against the elves? There's no way to say for certain, and I think it's intentionally meant to be ambiguous.

[GavrielKay]

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.

I think even the folks who strenuously argue against ever hurting a child would prefer it to outright killing the child in question.

I'm also not convinced the issue is nearly as big as the Chantry/Meredith wants you to believe.  Gregoir was willing to have the Warden cleanse the Ferelden circle in leiu of an actual RoA so there are high ranking Templars who believe it can be done.  I don't think Meredith was even slightly interested in finding alternatives...  she wanted to kill the mages and was just waiting for an excuse.

If the Chantry were really looking to save the world from blood magic, there'd be a zillion copies of the Litany of Adralla and Templars all over trained to use it.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.

In fairness, that has nothing at all to do with what they're talking about.

[dragonflight288]

I think even the folks who strenuously argue against ever hurting a child would prefer it to outright killing the child in question.

I'm also not convinced the issue is nearly as big as the Chantry/Meredith wants you to believe. Gregoir was willing to have the Warden cleanse the Ferelden circle in leiu of an actual RoA so there are high ranking Templars who believe it can be done. I don't think Meredith was even slightly interested in finding alternatives... she wanted to kill the mages and was just waiting for an excuse.

If the Chantry were really looking to save the world from blood magic, there'd be a zillion copies of the Litany of Adralla and Templars all over trained to use it.

The chantry controls the lyrium trade with the dwarves. That means the templars are addicted and under chantry control. Take away the priests and initiates, take away the people who may be good, but you have templars essentially enslaved by their addiction by an institution. And templars exist in order to protect the world from mages AND protect mages from the world. Or at least they are supposed to. If there was no blood magic, the templars wouldn't be needed. If the templars aren't needed, then the chantry loses their army.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The litany is magic, it isn't that simple. If any of the nations were wise, tehy would equip all their soldiers with super enchanted weapons aswell, and encase them in inpenetrable armor. However, these things being magic, it just isn't that simple.

But if there had been a simple way to detect abominations, there would enver have been an issue, as the Templars would have used it.

[dragonflight288]

I see no one who supports the templars have even answered my question about Meredith position of acting viscount. Let's add another one to the mix. How do you feel about templars trying to take over the city guard from Aveline?

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Orsino knew the dude was up to no good, as you point out he keeps it quiet because he knows he is up to no good.  He just offers up all this helpful data to Quentin and does zero checking up on him.

Yes, it's like he's in a prison for mages under templar supervision

I always wondered how exactly Orsino was able to get those books out of the Circle to Quentin in the first place.  Or, for that matter, given the special brand of anti-mage suspicion among Kirkwall templars, why such books were even allowed in that Circle's library to begin with.

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It does contradict the Orlesian version of events: Orlais claims it was the attack on Red Crossing that started the war, while the Dalish claim it was templars being sent into the Dales to force conversion. The Dalish even provide the information verbally that their refusal to give up worship of their gods is what caused hositilies between them and the human nations. It's clear that the Orlesian version isn't the only version about what caused the war between the Dalish and Orlais, the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

*Checks codex*

"The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin."

It just says missionaries came, they threw them out, then templars attacked them, and they were driven out of their homes. It leaves out the war with Orlais entirely.

It addresses that the Chantry sent templars into the Dales after the missionaries were kicked out, which means the war didn't start because of Red Crossing - if the Dalish codex is correct, then the attack on Red Crossing was in response to the attack made by the Chantry and its templars. Did the people of Red Crossing aid in the attack against the elves? There's no way to say for certain, and I think it's intentionally meant to be ambiguous.

Except that's not what it says at all.

It says there were missionaries. It says there were templars. It says that they got kicked out of their homes. It doesn't address the details of the war. It doesn't mention Red Crossing. It doesn't mention that the Dalish attacked the Orlesians on their home turf. Taken at face value it implies that the Dalish just sat back in Halamshiral the entire time and the big bad Chantry went there to pick on them and drove them out without a war ever happening.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Books on blood magic are kept in the Circle libraries for several reasons. One is to root about the bad apples from the good ones. In the Ferelden Circle the books were udner survailence and when a mage or apprentice took the books, it was noted, or something to that effect.
Another reason is: It is knowledge. Dangerous knowledge, but it is on a subject the Circle and the Templars are constantly trying to combat. They need to have such knowledge ready. Reading a blood magic book, does not make you a blood mage, any more than reading a racist book makes you a racist.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It does contradict the Orlesian version of events: Orlais claims it was the attack on Red Crossing that started the war, while the Dalish claim it was templars being sent into the Dales to force conversion. The Dalish even provide the information verbally that their refusal to give up worship of their gods is what caused hositilies between them and the human nations. It's clear that the Orlesian version isn't the only version about what caused the war between the Dalish and Orlais, the seat of power for the Andrastian Chantry.

*Checks codex*

"The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin."

It just says missionaries came, they threw them out, then templars attacked them, and they were driven out of their homes. It leaves out the war with Orlais entirely.

It addresses that the Chantry sent templars into the Dales after the missionaries were kicked out, which means the war didn't start because of Red Crossing - if the Dalish codex is correct, then the attack on Red Crossing was in response to the attack made by the Chantry and its templars. Did the people of Red Crossing aid in the attack against the elves? There's no way to say for certain, and I think it's intentionally meant to be ambiguous.

Except that's not what it says at all.

It says there were missionaries. It says there were templars. It says that they got kicked out of their homes. It doesn't address the details of the war. It doesn't mention Red Crossing. It doesn't mention that the Dalish attacked the Orlesians on their home turf. Taken at face value it implies that the Dalish just sat back in Halamshiral the entire time and the big bad Chantry went there to pick on them and drove them out without a war ever happening.

Trust me. I've tried to explain to Lob many, many times that that particular entry is worthless, and doesn't at all say what he thinks it does. He doesn't listen though.

[IanPolaris]

And the Chantry would have you believe that they never did anything (nor did Orlais) that might possibly have provoked the crazy heathen elves EVEN THOUGH (and even the Chantry is forced to admit this), they had to rewrite their own holy scripture to make the Exalted March legal.

I think the truth is in the middle. I DO think that there were missionaries that were executed (and the Dalish HAD that right) and Templars sent to punish the Dalish (against the explicit will of Andraste and thus the Maker)...and the Chantry doesn't want to admit this. I also think in hindsight the Dalish aren't especially proud of the scorched earth war in relatiation either.

However, annihilating an entire culture and people in response (which IS what the Chantry has and is doing) is over the top. The Chantry has the power but that doesn't make it right.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

I don't mind having the choice to spare some mages. It works because we already know Cullen disagrees with the Right, and it makes Meredith seem a little bit less cracked when she turns on you.

Point.  Missing it.  It doesn't matter that Cullen disagrees with the right.  He isn't the Knight Commander, it's not his call.  Annulment doesn't mean you go through and check for mages who can be spared. It means that every mage in the Circle is beyond redemption, and they all have to bite it.  Every. Last. One.

That's the whole bloody point people are trying to make.  If Annulling the Circle is what you decide to do, you shouldn't get a chance to spare anyone, because that defeats the very purpose of Annulment in the first place.

An aside:  When I first heard of Annulment during Broken Circle in Origins, I took it as the Rite of Annulment, and first thought that Gregoir was asking for authorization, and perhaps the means, to enact some kind of ritual that would wipe out every living soul behind the locked doors in a single blow.  I didn't realize it was merely a euphemism for killing each mage by hand, one at a time.