4350 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[IanPolaris]

Fade22 wrote...

Siding with Meredith does not mean you kill innocent mages... I found it difficult as well but side with the Templers and see what happens... you're not neccesarily siding on the "evil" side.

Yes it does.  If you side with Meredith, then you are siding with the Right of Annulment which includes the slaughter of all mage children in the tower most of whom are innocent.  Bioware doesn't show this and wants us to overlook it, but it's very definately the case.

-Polaris

[Carrington666]

IanPolaris wrote...

Fade22 wrote...

Siding with Meredith does not mean you kill innocent mages... I found it difficult as well but side with the Templers and see what happens... you're not neccesarily siding on the "evil" side.

Yes it does.  If you side with Meredith, then you are siding with the Right of Annulment which includes the slaughter of all mage children in the tower most of whom are innocent.  Bioware doesn't show this and wants us to overlook it, but it's very definately the case.

-Polaris

Actually it does not.  When siding with the Templars a group of Mages surrender to you without a fight. While you can slaughter them all, you can also spare their lives and you will be backed up by Cullen and all of the Templars, not counting Meredith of course.
When I began playing I wanted to side with the opressed mages, but the further I played the harder it got. While my final decision on siding with the Templars was based on the desire to smite a certain abomination (I didn't realise I could do it as well when siding with the Mages) I believe siding with the Templars and the obviously insane woman is the rational descicion based on personal experience.
Even disregarding the real possiblity of an Exaulted March against Kirkwall if the Mages would win, you have practically no positive encouter with a mage that is not in your party.
A bloodmage kills your mother, a bloodmage wants to kill their hostage, in my case my sister, and allmost every mage you encounter is either a bloodmage or an abomination.

During my playthrough I met about ten innocent mages while I met, and killed, probably hundres of bloodmages and abominations. Can I really put the lives of what I have to see as the clear minority of mages over the lives of the whole city?

[Rifneno]

Carrington666 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fade22 wrote...

Siding with Meredith does not mean you kill innocent mages... I found it difficult as well but side with the Templers and see what happens... you're not neccesarily siding on the "evil" side.

Yes it does.  If you side with Meredith, then you are siding with the Right of Annulment which includes the slaughter of all mage children in the tower most of whom are innocent.  Bioware doesn't show this and wants us to overlook it, but it's very definately the case.

-Polaris

Actually it does not.  When siding with the Templars a group of Mages surrender to you without a fight. While you can slaughter them all, you can also spare their lives and you will be backed up by Cullen and all of the Templars, not counting Meredith of course.
When I began playing I wanted to side with the opressed mages, but the further I played the harder it got. While my final decision on siding with the Templars was based on the desire to smite a certain abomination (I didn't realise I could do it as well when siding with the Mages) I believe siding with the Templars and the obviously insane woman is the rational descicion based on personal experience.
Even disregarding the real possiblity of an Exaulted March against Kirkwall if the Mages would win, you have practically no positive encouter with a mage that is not in your party.
A bloodmage kills your mother, a bloodmage wants to kill their hostage, in my case my sister, and allmost every mage you encounter is either a bloodmage or an abomination.

During my playthrough I met about ten innocent mages while I met, and killed, probably hundres of bloodmages and abominations. Can I really put the lives of what I have to see as the clear minority of mages over the lives of the whole city?

So wait.  If you violently oppress a minority for a thousand years, imprison them in a place that's all but guaranteed to make them go insane, let rapists and murderers play guard with no apparent internal affairs to keep them from abusing their power, then it's okay to murder them all if a few escapees do bad stuff?  

Man, I really hope DA3 gives us the chance to Annul the Chantry.  I want to see Val Royeaux burn.

[IanPolaris]

Those mages you save are not spared. No mage is permitted to be taken alive during a Right of Annulment. Those mages you pretend to spare are made tranquil. That's not me saying that. That';s DG's WoG saying that....so you DO kill (or lobotomize) all mages down to the last child if you side with the Templars. No getting around it.

-Polaris

[Carrington666]

Of course not, the situations should not have gone so far, that most of the mages could only see bloodmagic / possesion as their last chance to survive.
But, and this is a very big but, at the time when you make the descion with which side to fight you don't murder them all because a few escapees did bad stuff. You kill most of them because they already are either blood mages, abominations or sympathetic towards them.
Besides you can still spare those that are clearly innocent but compare those few with the dozens upon dozens of aboinations you face and see... it doesn't paint a pretty picturce of the circle mages.

After playing DA:O I would have ignited your torch in a heartbeat but since the Grand Cleric was the only sane leader in the mage/templar conflict I'd probably have to think a bit about it....but then it is in Orlais so I would probably help you anyway

Polaris, I don't know when or what DG has said about the Right of Annulment or this specific action so I have to rely only what is in the game itself.
The Mages are taken into custody of the Templars and led out of the scene, we are not told (I think) what will happen to them.
Under normal circumstances it would lead to them made tranquil, but with the Grand Cleric dead, the former Knight-Commander insane and then dead and you the ruler of the city and a sympathetic Knight-Captain you cannot call this normal circumstances.
Of course that is just wishfull thinking on my part.
In the end, you have to decide for yourself which bad descision you are going to make. I just think for myself it would have been better, if you would meet more good, non stupid, mages before choosing a side. Then you could believe (more easily) that there are actually mages in the tower that deserve to be saved and not just abominations-to-be.

Użytkownik Carrington666 edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 07:06

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
Those mages you save are not spared. No mage is permitted to be taken alive during a Right of Annulment. Those mages you pretend to spare are made tranquil. That's not me saying that. That';s DG's WoG saying that....so you DO kill (or lobotomize) all mages down to the last child if you side with the Templars. No getting around it.

David Gaider never said: Those mages you got to spare during the Annulment in DA2, you're not actually sparing them.
He said something along the lines of so far calling for the RoA has meant a Circle is going to be purged, down to the last apprentice (yes, children). That's the rules. No one said the one in charge couldn't change the rules (even if they'd have to answer for doing so afterwards).

And even if these mages are to be made tranquil, you do go into the Circle expecting to kill everyone to begin with. You shouldn't expect to spare anyone. You can seize the opportunity, but the consequences of doing so are out of your hand. I imagine my Hawke would be displeased to hear the mages were made tranquil, especially if Bethany would be among them.

I wonder, if they'll show you the consequences in an expansion, DLC or sequel. Hawke helped the mages of Kirkwall escape, the resulting abominations decimated the population of Lowtown considerably and terrorized the surrounding villages.

Użytkownik klarabella edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 07:52

[Realmzmaster]

The person who called for the Right of annulment is no longer in charge (Meredith is dead). The right can then be revoked by the person who assumes command in this case Cullen. Since Cullen and all the Templars take a knee to Hawke, Hawke would have influence on sparing the mages. The only Right of Annulment that probably could not be revoked onsite is one that came from the Divine herself.

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Those mages you save are not spared. No mage is permitted to be taken alive during a Right of Annulment. Those mages you pretend to spare are made tranquil. That's not me saying that. That';s DG's WoG saying that....so you DO kill (or lobotomize) all mages down to the last child if you side with the Templars. No getting around it.

David Gaider never said: Those mages you got to spare during the Annulment in DA2, you're not actually sparing them.
He said something along the lines of so far calling for the RoA has meant a Circle is going to be purged, down to the last apprentice (yes, children). That's the rules. No one said the one in charge couldn't change the rules (even if they'd have to answer for doing so afterwards).

And even if these mages are to be made tranquil, you do go into the Circle expecting to kill everyone to begin with. You shouldn't expect to spare anyone. You can seize the opportunity, but the consequences of doing so are out of your hand. I imagine my Hawke would be displeased to hear the mages were made tranquil, especially if Bethany would be among them.

I wonder, if they show you the consequences in an expansion, DLC or sequel. Hawke helped the mages of Kirkwall escape, the resulting abominations decimated the population of Lowtown considerably and terrorized the surrounding villages.

Don't bite my head off.  I didn't write the lore.  DG and Lob talked about this at length elsewhere and DG was very, very specific.  Mages aren't permitted to be captured during a Right of Annulment as mages.  Either they are executed or they are made tranquil.  No exceptions.

Also Cullen never rescinds the right of annulment.  He has the option to do so immediately after he relieves Meredith of her command but he doesn't, so what DG said stands.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The person who called for the Right of annulment is no longer in charge (Meredith is dead). The right can then be revoked by the person who assumes command in this case Cullen. Since Cullen and all the Templars take a knee to Hawke, Hawke would have influence on sparing the mages. The only Right of Annulment that probably could not be revoked onsite is one that came from the Divine herself.

At no time does Cullen ever revoke the Right of Annulment.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

Why would Cullen say he's gonna watch a group of mages that he turns tranquil?

No. I doubt Cullen saved the mages lives just to turn them tranquil. And Gaider never even mentions DA2's Rite of Annulment (which was already different in several ways) when talking about mages being turned tranquil.

[Realmzmaster]

I doubt very seriously that Cullen is going to go against of Hawke especially if Hawke is viscount. Unlike the pro-mage ending there is no need for templars to come in and restore order. Order is restored with Hawke in command.

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I doubt very seriously that Cullen is going to go against of Hawke especially if Hawke is viscount. Unlike the pro-mage ending there is no need for templars to come in and restore order. Order is restored with Hawke in command.

As far as Cullen is concerned, the Viscount is the Tail that is trying to wag the Templar Dog.  Do you honestly think that Cullen would rescind the annulment off screen and Varric would say nothing about that to Cassandra?

No.  If Cullen wanted to rescind the Right of Annulment, he had ever legal right to do so right after relieving Meredith of her command since there is no Grand Cleric available.  He does not.

As for watching the mages carefully, of course he does...that is S.O.P.!  Per Templar protocol, those mages could be (and are assumed to be) either abominations, bloodmages, or both until they are made tranquil.  No mage is allowed to survive capture during a Right of Annulment (as a mage anyway).  Thems the rules.  Ask DG about it.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
Don't bite my head off.  I didn't write the lore.  DG and Lob talked about this at length elsewhere and DG was very, very specific.  Mages aren't permitted to be captured during a Right of Annulment as mages.  Either they are executed or they are made tranquil.  No exceptions.

He was speaking in general. I believe, he also said that it would make no sense for a Knight-Commander to call for the Right of Annulment if he thinks the Circle could be redeemed by other measures, which is not the situation at Kirkwall. The person who called for the RoA did so under special circumstances (Grand Cleric dead, Meredith under the influence of a magical artifact) and died. Cullen ends up in charge, so he could very well decide that an exception can be made.

Of course, the Divine and the Knight-Marshall/General could decide that Cullen's decision is wrong and issue the command to make all surviving mages of Kirkwall tranquil. (Actually, if mages do survive the RoA at Kirkwall the "rallying cry because the templar's can be defied" makes more sense. Oooooh, the irony! ^^)

You also claimed that Meredith can't invoke the RoA legally because it is not explicitly stated that she can. Gaider then explained to you that with the Grand Cleric's demise things are out of balance and Meredith can indeed do as she pleases for the moment without violating any laws.

Funny how you never learn not to declare your interpretion an ironclad fact.

IanPolaris wrote...
Also Cullen never rescinds the right of annulment.  He has the option to do so immediately after he relieves Meredith of her command but he doesn't, so what DG said stands.

Oh, you mean because he doesn't officially rescind the RoA in the 60 seconds after Meredith's death (maybe because there isn't any pressure to do so this instant), he can't possibly do that 10 minutes later? Really, you're trying too hard.

Użytkownik klarabella edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 08:18

[Carrington666]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I doubt very seriously that Cullen is going to go against of Hawke especially if Hawke is viscount. Unlike the pro-mage ending there is no need for templars to come in and restore order. Order is restored with Hawke in command.

As far as Cullen is concerned, the Viscount is the Tail that is trying to wag the Templar Dog.  Do you honestly think that Cullen would rescind the annulment off screen and Varric would say nothing about that to Cassandra?

No.  If Cullen wanted to rescind the Right of Annulment, he had ever legal right to do so right after relieving Meredith of her command since there is no Grand Cleric available.  He does not.

As for watching the mages carefully, of course he does...that is S.O.P.!  Per Templar protocol, those mages could be (and are assumed to be) either abominations, bloodmages, or both until they are made tranquil.  No mage is allowed to survive capture during a Right of Annulment (as a mage anyway).  Thems the rules.  Ask DG about it.

-Polaris

IIRC Cullen didn't have the time to do anything, because right after relieving Meredith she loses it completely and they have to fight for their lives and we don't see much of the aftermath of the fight. 
The problem with this Right of Annulment, as I see it, is that the person that proclaims it turns out to be mad and/or possessed therefore the next-in-ine will think carefully about the ramifications of his actions.
I don't think that Varric would mention it since it would only matter for a few surviving mages and would not really change his grand epic about the Champion.

Użytkownik Carrington666 edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 08:16

[IanPolaris]

Bolluxs. Cullen needed all of three seconds (if that!) to rescind the Right of Annulment. DG has stated that Cullen had the legal right once he relieved Meredith of command (for the same reason Meredith did). He never did.

Also, there is not ONE mention of surviving mages if you side with the Templars. There is if you side with the mages. That alone makes if very clear that Cullen never rescinded the Right of Annulment and killed (or tranquilled) all mages.

Just accept genocide when you see it, m'kay?

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
Bolluxs. Cullen needed all of three seconds (if that!) to rescind the Right of Annulment. DG has stated that Cullen had the legal right once he relieved Meredith of command (for the same reason Meredith did). He never did.

Why would he feel the need to do this immediately? The mages are dead, a few are under control, Meredith is dead.
There's no need to hurry and formally revoke the Right of Annulment. Especially after the templars that are now under his command obviously will follow his orders and bow to pay respect to Hawke.

Really, why would he feel any pressure to announce the obvious? They are done for the moment.

IanPolaris wrote...
Also, there is not ONE mention of surviving mages if you side with the Templars. There is if you side with the mages. That alone makes if very clear that Cullen never rescinded the Right of Annulment and killed (or tranquilled) all mages.

Once again you claim that abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence.

IanPolaris wrote...
Just accept genocide when you see it, m'kay?

Oh, I do accept that. I don't think sparing a few mages changes the fact that seperating mages from society and occasionally purging their communities fits the definition of genocide.

Użytkownik klarabella edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 08:32

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

Oh, I do accept that. I don't think sparing a few mages changes the fact that seperating mages from society and occasionally purging their communities fits the definition of genocide.

Slobodan Milosovich would agree with you (subbing Bosnian Muslims for Mages).  The Hague saw it somewhat differently as do I.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...

klarabella wrote...
Oh, I do accept that. I don't think sparing a few mages changes the fact that seperating mages from society and occasionally purging their communities fits the definition of genocide.

Slobodan Milosovich would agree with you (subbing Bosnian Muslims for Mages).  The Hague saw it somewhat differently as do I.

You should learn to read what's actually there, not make up stuff that fits your presumptions.

I said, that the treatment of the mages in general (seperation, purging and all) already fits the definition of genocide. Sparing a few mages during the RoA doesn't change the fact that it is in fact genocide (or at least very very close).

I agree with you and you compare me to Milosovich? <_< I don't even...
(Unless you wanted to say that everyone playing a character who sides with the templars ... in that case I think a ban is in order.)

Użytkownik klarabella edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 09:27

[Shadowbanner]

RazorrX wrote...

Here is the thing, Yes it is obvious that Merideth is a nutcase at the end, however if you are looking at it from a many vs few angle - then siding with Knight Marshal Crazy pants is the logical thing to do. Say there are 300 mages in the tower with half being innocent children - there are thousands living in kirkwall and half of them probably children.

Side with the templars and you have a chance to stop the divine from cleansing the city. Yes if you are a mage it means you die too (annulment would be every mage in the city) but you would do it for the good of the many vs the few.

On a moral side - both were messed up, the question is who was the most messed up and why.

Fair poinrt, BUT with Merredith gone crazy, and aftert all Mages were dead, it wouldn't take long until she decided that so an so were evil and must be "cleansed"...and this would have gone on and one and on because she was bonkers. Eventually she would have killed the whole city because they were "impure". Sould Edge would vie her for blood.

Użytkownik Shadowbanner edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 09:34

[CalJones]

It's tricky.
I've yet to side with the templars - there is magic in Hawke's lineage and even if he isn't a mage himself, his sister is and there's a likelihood that any offspring he has will be a mage. However, the mages do make it hard to feel sympathetic. There are some genuinely tragic cases (like Evelina) but there are plenty of others (Orsino, I'm looking at you) where you just think "f'n idiot".
In fact there's a whole quest (Best Served Cold) that you do at Orison's behest where, even if you're rabidly pro-mage, you end up having to kill a load of Circle Mages and anti-Meredith templars.It just makes no sense at all.

[DKJaigen]

CalJones wrote...

It's tricky.
I've yet to side with the templars - there is magic in Hawke's lineage and even if he isn't a mage himself, his sister is and there's a likelihood that any offspring he has will be a mage. However, the mages do make it hard to feel sympathetic. There are some genuinely tragic cases (like Evelina) but there are plenty of others (Orsino, I'm looking at you) where you just think "f'n idiot".
In fact there's a whole quest (Best Served Cold) that you do at Orison's behest where, even if you're rabidly pro-mage, you end up having to kill a load of Circle Mages and anti-Meredith templars.It just makes no sense at all.

I was thinking the same way. But gaider already explained they went a bit overboard with the evil bloodmage thing. However i agree that siding with meredith is madness. Greagoir at least had very real concerns while meredith just acts like a ****.

Im still opposed against the whole chantry controlled circles however. Its simply a tool for the chantry to stay into power and not for the benefit of the people

[Beerfish]

DKJaigen wrote...

CalJones wrote...

It's tricky.
I've yet to side with the templars - there is magic in Hawke's lineage and even if he isn't a mage himself, his sister is and there's a likelihood that any offspring he has will be a mage. However, the mages do make it hard to feel sympathetic. There are some genuinely tragic cases (like Evelina) but there are plenty of others (Orsino, I'm looking at you) where you just think "f'n idiot".
In fact there's a whole quest (Best Served Cold) that you do at Orison's behest where, even if you're rabidly pro-mage, you end up having to kill a load of Circle Mages and anti-Meredith templars.It just makes no sense at all.

I was thinking the same way. But gaider already explained they went a bit overboard with the evil bloodmage thing. However i agree that siding with meredith is madness. Greagoir at least had very real concerns while meredith just acts like a ****.

Im still opposed against the whole chantry controlled circles however. Its simply a tool for the chantry to stay into power and not for the benefit of the people

Eh?  Gregoire had one mage tower with mages in it that appeared somewhat contained, while in kirwall there is a blood mage on every street and the head of the tower is being very uncooperative.  Saying that Greagoire had a real concern and Meredith didn;t is bizarre.  Just because Meredith was bat guano crazy doesn't change that the fact that there were conspiracies, escapes from the circle and boat loads of blood mages and such running around.  The mage circle at lake calenahd was somewhat contained, in Kirkwall the mage situation was far from contained.

Things may have been different perhaps if ****** Orsino had agreed to a search of the circle before the final conflict began.  Only after it is essentially too late does he say they can search the tower and he will help.

[appleyum]

The Angry One wrote...

The problem is the endgame makes the leaders of both sides crazy bonkers.
One is an abomination waiting to happen, the other has been turned by Soul Edge.

Bingo...

Soul Edge....don't give the idol to Isabella.



Actually there should have been a 3rd choice.  Don't get invovled, let Templar and Mages duke it out,.... and once the two are serverly weakened, use Aveline to swoop in with the guards to put the city back under control. 

Użytkownik appleyum edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 03:32

[LobselVith8]

Carrington666 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Fade22 wrote...

Siding with Meredith does not mean you kill innocent mages... I found it difficult as well but side with the Templers and see what happens... you're not neccesarily siding on the "evil" side.

Yes it does.  If you side with Meredith, then you are siding with the Right of Annulment which includes the slaughter of all mage children in the tower most of whom are innocent.  Bioware doesn't show this and wants us to overlook it, but it's very definately the case.

-Polaris

Actually it does not.  When siding with the Templars a group of Mages surrender to you without a fight.

You mean three mages, who are likely going to be made tranquil. The reason that the mages across Thedas revolt against the Chantry and templars who rule over them is because of what happened in Kirkwall - mages from the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches (and likely having a larger population than most Circles) being killed because an apostate blew up the Kirkwall Chantry. Had Cullen put an end to the Right of Annulment, then it's doubtful the mages would have started a revolution.

Carrington666 wrote...

When I began playing I wanted to side with the opressed mages, but the further I played the harder it got. While my final decision on siding with the Templars was based on the desire to smite a certain abomination (I didn't realise I could do it as well when siding with the Mages) I believe siding with the Templars and the obviously insane woman is the rational descicion based on personal experience.

Meredith is ordering the execution of all the Circle enchanters, mages, and apprentices for an act Anders had committed. That isn't rational at all.

Carrington666 wrote...

Even disregarding the real possiblity of an Exaulted March against Kirkwall if the Mages would win, you have practically no positive encouter with a mage that is not in your party.
A bloodmage kills your mother, a bloodmage wants to kill their hostage, in my case my sister, and allmost every mage you encounter is either a bloodmage or an abomination.

Mostly every dwarf I ran across was a member of the carta, but I know this isn't true of all dwarves. You seem to be addressing the mage antagonists and attributing it to mages inside the Gallows who we never actually meet. Our experience with the Circle mages is very, very limited, and the most time we get with them is with two characters: First Enchanter Orsino, and Bethany.

Carrington666 wrote...

During my playthrough I met about ten innocent mages while I met, and killed, probably hundres of bloodmages and abominations. Can I really put the lives of what I have to see as the clear minority of mages over the lives of the whole city?

Hawke killed probably hundreds of carta members. It doesn't mean every dwarf in Kirkwall is a member of the carta. And killing plenty of apostates and abominations doesn't mean that the many Circle mages you've never actually met are anything like them.

[88mphSlayer]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bolluxs. Cullen needed all of three seconds (if that!) to rescind the Right of Annulment. DG has stated that Cullen had the legal right once he relieved Meredith of command (for the same reason Meredith did). He never did.

Also, there is not ONE mention of surviving mages if you side with the Templars. There is if you side with the mages. That alone makes if very clear that Cullen never rescinded the Right of Annulment and killed (or tranquilled) all mages.

Just accept genocide when you see it, m'kay?

-Polaris

they were annoying gits anyways