4350 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[DKJaigen]

Beerfish wrote...

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.

WTF is this ****. Things escalated after that ****** meredith called for annulement and the whole city plunged into anarchy . also i see a grand total of 1 bloodmage in  the streets thats likely a resolusionist. also conspiracies and escapes is likely to happen if you allow **** like kerras alrick and cullen in the order it goddamn human nature, the templars are responsible for this ****.

[LobselVith8]

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

It's the tragedy of what happened in Kirkwall to the mages that caused revolution among the mages, and it lead to the Circles of Magi across Thedas breaking free from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. After a thousand years, the mages apparently decided that it was better to die on their feet than live on their knees.

[Humakt83]

I'd liked to have an option to side with neither party.

DKJaigen wrote...

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

Perhaps you prefer Tevinter way then? Weak chantry there equals oppressive magisters doing human sacrifices. And slavery runs rampant.

Użytkownik Humakt83 edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 03:58

[Lord Gremlin]

Both options may be evil. It boils down to pro-mage or anti-mage. Problem is, the end sequence is horrible, aka horribly stupid and same no matter what you choose.

[LobselVith8]

Humakt83 wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

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

Perhaps you prefer Tevinter way then? Weak chantry there equals oppressive magisters doing human sacrifices. And slavery runs rampant.

The Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, the Avaar tribes, and the kingdom of Rivain are acknowledged to have free mages, and they aren't trying to emulate the oppressive and enslaving regime of the Imperium that has the Magisters keeping non-mages and mages as slaves.

[Humakt83]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, the Avaar tribes, and the kingdom of Rivain are acknowledged to have free mages, and they aren't trying to emulate the oppressive and enslaving regime of the Imperium that has the Magisters keeping non-mages and mages as slaves.

Good thing there is variety in the world, but we are never likely to visit those places since Dragon Age series is trying so hard to be brooding "Dark" fantasy.

Plus most of those are pretty minor civilizations.

Użytkownik Humakt83 edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 04:09

[DKJaigen]

Humakt83 wrote...

I'd liked to have an option to side with neither party.

DKJaigen wrote...

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

Perhaps you prefer Tevinter way then? Weak chantry there equals oppressive magisters doing human sacrifices. And slavery runs rampant.

so i prefer Tevinter now? And no ,a weak chantry doesnt equate oppresive magisters.

[IanPolaris]

DKJaigen wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

I'd liked to have an option to side with neither party.

DKJaigen wrote...

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

Perhaps you prefer Tevinter way then? Weak chantry there equals oppressive magisters doing human sacrifices. And slavery runs rampant.

so i prefer Tevinter now? And no ,a weak chantry doesnt equate oppresive magisters.

True, but that is what the Chantry and their apologists would have you believe, i.e. free mages automatically means you are for Tevinter and all it's evil.  Even Lelianna in "Faith" expresses that and she (and we) know better.

-Polaris

[Majspuffen]

Meredith was a loony, but I still think siding with the Templars was the right choice to do, even though I myself was a Mage. I thought Orsino was the better of the two leaders, him and Meredith, but I thought the templars had the right cause versus the mages.

Then as the plot unfolds, it is revealed that Orsino is just as bad - if not even worse than Meredith (seriously, hiding Quentin so that he can do his sick experiements?). If not even the first enchanter can be trusted, who can? I take a look at the Fereldan tower and that one seems largely at peace, and I think Irving would rather accept death than use blood magic in a last resort to strike against the templars.

There were innocent mages and you could actually save some of them by siding with the templars. You are presented with a choice - either you kill them, or you step over Meredith and allow them to live. You can even ask Cullen for his opinion and he, too, will step over Meredith to save those mages.

Meredith is the ****, but the templars in general were right. "I wish I could go one week without meeting a crazy mage, just one week!"

Użytkownik Majspuffen edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 04:35

[Merela]

I never felt siding with the Templars and Meredith was an evil thing, neither I felt siding with the mages and Orsino was a good one. Because on each side, innocent people are going to die, and as much I feel sorry for the mages, despite the fact that much of their actions made me facepalm, I don't trust them being able to restrain themself from hurting the mere population of Kirkwall and of the rest of Thedas, especially with the heavy risk of turning into abomination without any warning because of the thin Veil. The templars, on the other hand, are just normal-yet-lirium-addicted soldiers who just follow order and are in the position of spare people having nothing to do with the whole conflict.  As in, I'm not sure the life of an apprentice has more value than the life of a street rat boy.

Now, I don't say Meredith was right to order the death of all the mages from the Gallows, despite apparently having the legal right to do so. Maybe executing Anders would have been enough for appeasing both side, sadly the evil Soul Edge annihilates that option as surely Anders destroyed the Chantry. Actually, that's the tricky part for me - Meredith has the excuse of the sword and her personal story for starting to act like a crazy old bat, when I find personaly no excuses for Orsino to have study Quentin's researchs and to have hidden them for years from the Knight-Captain, who once seemed to be a very strict but not insane woman.

[LobselVith8]

Majspuffen wrote...

Meredith was a loony, but I still think siding with the Templars was the right choice to do, even though I myself was a Mage. I thought Orsino was the better of the two leaders, him and Meredith, but I thought the templars had the right cause versus the mages. 

Meredith makes it clear that she wants to execute the Circle mages because of what an apostate has done. I don't see how that gives the templars the right cause when the mages of the Kirkwall Circle are innocent of the crime Anders has committed.

Majspuffen wrote...

Then as the plot unfolds, it is revealed that Orsino is just as bad - if not even worse than Meredith (seriously, hiding Quentin so that he can do his sick experiements?).

Orsino corresponded with a serial killer while Meredith orders an act of genocide. Both of them are bad people, but their acts aren't comparable.

Majspuffen wrote...

If not even the first enchanter can be trusted, who can?

Bethany, who is a member of the Circle of Kirkwall and one of the mages who Meredith wants to kill.

Majspuffen wrote...

I take a look at the Fereldan tower and that one seems largely at peace, and I think Irving would rather accept death than use blood magic in a last resort to strike against the templars.

Given how First Enchanter Irving thanks The Warden for freeing them from "their shackles" if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, even a moderate like Irving is thankful to be free from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. And some mages use blood magic because templars can nullify normal magic.

Majspuffen wrote...

There were innocent mages and you could actually save some of them by siding with the templars.

You mean three mages who will likely be made tranquil.

Majspuffen wrote...

You are presented with a choice - either you kill them, or you step over Meredith and allow them to live. You can even ask Cullen for his opinion and he, too, will step over Meredith to save those mages. 

Which doesn't change the fate of the countless men, women, and children who are going to be killed because Anders killed Grand Cleric Elthina and Meredith condemned the Circle of Magi for something an apostate did, who she later handwaved despite his crime.

Majspuffen wrote...

Meredith is the ****, but the templars in general were right.

No, killing men, women, and children from the Circle of Kirkwall because of an act Anders committed doesn't make the templars right.

[nos_astra]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, the Avaar tribes, and the kingdom of Rivain are acknowledged to have free mages, and they aren't trying to emulate the oppressive and enslaving regime of the Imperium that has the Magisters keeping non-mages and mages as slaves.

We know next to nothing about the Chasind (or the Avvar), only that the Chasind are led by Shamans and practice ancient dark magic. I'm not sure why, but I've never pictured them as a copy of the Dalish.
The Dalish have very few mages. So few that Merrill was given to Marethari as an apprentice by a clan from Nevarra(?). They know abominations and the clan is forced to kill the Keeper if it happens. Blood magic is also frowned upon, as is dealing with demons in general.
Rivain, haven't the Rivaini people been partially converting to the Qun?

Użytkownik klarabella edytował ten post 02 maj 2011 - 06:06

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, the Avaar tribes, and the kingdom of Rivain are acknowledged to have free mages, and they aren't trying to emulate the oppressive and enslaving regime of the Imperium that has the Magisters keeping non-mages and mages as slaves.

We know next to nothing about the Chasind (or the Avvar), only that the Chasind are led by Shamans and practice ancient dark magic. I'm not sure why, but I've never been picturing them as a copy of the Dalish.
The Dalish have very few mages. So few that Merrill was given to Marethari as an apprentice by a clan from Nevarra(?). They know abominations and the clan is forced to kill the Keeper if it happens. Blood magic is also frowned upon, as is dealing with demons in general.
Rivain, haven't the Rivaini people been partially converting to the Qun?

I wouldn't take DA2 at face value regarding the Dalish.  We clearly see (if you listen to them) a sick clan that isn't normal and isn't functioning correctly.   The only part from DA2 that I would take as strictly canonical is in the rare case where a Keeper goes bad (becomes an abomination), it's the hunter's duty to act as 'templars' and kill the keeper.  It also apparently does NOT happen very often or all the Dalish would be like the sad sack clan you see by year seven and not the normal Dalish you see in DAO.

IMHO the Devs deliberately tried to poison the Dalish counter-example to make the Templars look better than they deserve.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chasind Wilders, the Dalish clans, the Avvar tribes, and the kingdom of Rivain are acknowledged to have free mages, and they aren't trying to emulate the oppressive and enslaving regime of the Imperium that has the Magisters keeping non-mages and mages as slaves.

We know next to nothing about the Chasind (or the Avvar), only that the Chasind are led by Shamans and practice ancient dark magic.

There's no reference to "ancient dark magic" for the Avvar or the Chasind.  We know that the Avvars live in the Frostback Mountains and believe in a myraid of gods, the three dominant gods being Korth the Mountain-Father, Hakkon Wintersbreath and the Lady of the Skies. The Chasind Wilders live in the Korcari Wilds and are lead by the Shamans, and are regarded as a peaceful people.

klarabella wrote...

The Dalish have very few mages. So few that Merrill was given to Marethari as an apprentice by a clan from Nevarra(?). They know abominations and the clan is forced to kill the Keeper if it happens. Blood magic is also frowned upon, as is dealing with demons in general.

We know that the Dalish clans have free mages among them, which we know from Aneirin the Healer being a member of Zathrian's clan, Velanna knowing the possible replacement as Keeper from her own clan, and the elven Circle mage who escaped to Ariane's clan.

klarabella wrote...

Rivain, haven't the Rivaini people been partially converting to the Qun?

There are free mages in the kingdom of Rivain. According to the codex at the Bioware Blog: "Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."

[Corker]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith makes it clear that she wants to execute the Circle mages because of what an apostate has done. I don't see how that gives the templars the right cause when the mages of the Kirkwall Circle are innocent of the crime Anders has committed.

This.

I thought DA2 was doing a fine job of showing the good and the bad on both sides.  If Orsino had marched into the Gallows and demanded mage independence, and Meredith had said, "Get back to your rooms," and everyone had looked at the PC and said, "Well, Hawke?" it would have been a really hard choice.

Instead, the question is, on its face, "Do I allow the innocent to be punished for another's crime?"  If you really stretch it, I suppose it can be made into, "Do I support the templars even in the face of their worst abuses?"   But even if you read it like that, it undermines the work that went into making choosing the templars a viable option.  In that moment, Meredith is wrong. 

The Chantry explosion was dramatic and all; it was a logical thing for Anders to do, character-wise.  But to me, it felt like it undermined all of the storytelling that had led to that point and robbed me of the more difficult moral choice to make.

[Sarcastic Tasha]

Is having a crush on Meredith a good enough reason to side with her?

[thesuperdarkone]

Sarcastic Tasha wrote...

Is having a crush on Meredith a good enough reason to side with her?

 

No since genocide is never justified based on liking someone 

[GavrielKay]

The basic problem with the whole idea of the mages as too dangerous for freedom is that it pretty much CAUSES the mages to be dangerous. If you take a young child away from its parents, raise it in an unloving, antisocial environment you're going to make it awfully difficult for that child to grow into a well adjusted adult who wants only to help their fellow man. After 1000 years of persecution, distrust, enslavement and abuse I'm surprised we see any mages at all who are still able to resist the pull of demons. The fact that any of them can live the way they do and still be good at heart makes me think that if you left them to be raised by loving families in villages where they were appreciated you wouldn't have to worry about them at all.

Seriously, is it that hard to think that the way mages are treated is at the heart of the problem? The Templars feel like a self fulfilling prophecy to me.

[mousestalker]

I haven't liked Meredith since Grey's Anatomy jumped the shark.

[Paraxial]

Thread is much older than I thought.

Siding with the Cullen is the way to go. For those who have done so and seen him defend his position and what he believes it means, is quite powerful. Meredith was likely sane, albeit rather extreme, before she got her hands on the idol. After that however, it was game over.

[LobselVith8]

Bible Doctor wrote...

Thread is much older than I thought.

Siding with the Cullen is the way to go. For those who have done so and seen him defend his position and what he believes it means, is quite powerful. Meredith was likely sane, albeit rather extreme, before she got her hands on the idol. After that however, it was game over.

Side with the man who said mages shouldn't be treated like people and claimed mages were weapons? I disagree.

[TJPags]

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.

-Polaris

Come on, that's a huge contradiction.

No mages are permitted to be taken alive.  Yes, DG said that.  Yet Cullen takes mages alive.

As to making them tranquil, what DG said was that no mages are taken alive - if any somehow manage to survive, they would theoretically be made tranquil.

This is clearly not a typical situation.

You're free to assume they're made tranquil if you wish.  It's valid.  But it's not ironclad.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags 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.

-Polaris

Come on, that's a huge contradiction.

No mages are permitted to be taken alive.  Yes, DG said that.  Yet Cullen takes mages alive.

As to making them tranquil, what DG said was that no mages are taken alive - if any somehow manage to survive, they would theoretically be made tranquil.

This is clearly not a typical situation.

You're free to assume they're made tranquil if you wish.  It's valid.  But it's not ironclad.

The situation was clearly bad enough to inspire a revolution within every Circle of Magi across the continent to the point that Varric said the Chantry had lost control of the Circles and the templars left to hunt down the mages, so I think that the Right of Annulment had to be as bad as every previous one invoked, if not worse.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags 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.

-Polaris

Come on, that's a huge contradiction.

No mages are permitted to be taken alive.  Yes, DG said that.  Yet Cullen takes mages alive.

As to making them tranquil, what DG said was that no mages are taken alive - if any somehow manage to survive, they would theoretically be made tranquil.

This is clearly not a typical situation.

You're free to assume they're made tranquil if you wish.  It's valid.  But it's not ironclad.

DG was very clear that in the rare case when a mage was taken prisoner during a Right of Annulment, that mage was either executed or possibly made tranquil.  All circle mages during a declared RoA are automatically considered corrupted and can not evade destruction by capture.  That is POLICY.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

TJPags 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.

-Polaris

Come on, that's a huge contradiction.

No mages are permitted to be taken alive.  Yes, DG said that.  Yet Cullen takes mages alive.

As to making them tranquil, what DG said was that no mages are taken alive - if any somehow manage to survive, they would theoretically be made tranquil.

This is clearly not a typical situation.

You're free to assume they're made tranquil if you wish.  It's valid.  But it's not ironclad.

DG was very clear that in the rare case when a mage was taken prisoner during a Right of Annulment, that mage was either executed or possibly made tranquil.  All circle mages during a declared RoA are automatically considered corrupted and can not evade destruction by capture.  That is POLICY.

-Polaris

Oh no.  That's not accurate, Ian.

What he said was that prisoners are not taken.  Rules of engagement - and you are or were military, you understand that - is kill on sight.

He said any mages who somehow escape the killing - which sure doesn't sound like being taken prisoner to me, more like being missed somehow in the search - would theoretically be killed.  Theorectically because he made clear there should be no prisoners and no survivors.

Cullen clearly took prisoners, a break from the normal rules of engagement.  As he's likely the one in temporary command following the events of DA2, I think it's reasonable to assume he doesn't go make them all tranquil.  Why else would he take them prisoner?