4350 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

The best interests of the Chantry is the Best Interests of Thedas. If you don't believe me, go ask them (the Chantry).

-Polaris

[serrah.hawke]

The OP was my opinion, too, until I actually *came* to the end of the game. I always had it in the forefront of my mind that I would side with the mages, since I 9 times out of 10 go for the 'good' option, and siding with the templars definitely seemed like the 'evil' option.

All the way through the game I was siding with mages, and why wouldn't I? My Eden Hawke was a mage and I hated Meredith. But Eden was rivalmancing Fenris, and Carver had become a Templar. Eden's characterisation was that she believed the Circle worked, even though she'd never been in one (yes, hypocrite, much). She also believed she'd never resort to blood magic, not even if her life depended on it, and anyone who did so was beyond salvation.
When it came to the end, my heart and gut said 'Templar' but my morality and the guide suggested 'mages'. I sided with the mages immediately, but five minutes into playing that ending I had to stop, reload and side with the Templars, I just simply couldn't do it. It felt like everything Eden did to help the mages throughout DA2 was thrown back into her face, everyone was corrupt and pushed into using blood magic, and so it proved all along that they weren't worth saving. The speech that Eden gave when siding with the Templars was perfect, and she had the opportunity to let innocents go. It wasn't "siding with Meredith", it was being logical and minimising bloodshed that would occur in a revolt anyway. Besides, Orsino proved just how corrupt he, too, was in the end.

In the end it seemed to me that neither side was right or wrong, good or evil, just a matter of characterisation and the way you play your game. It depends how you decide to serve justice. "Justice is righteous. Justice is hard."

[Silfren]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Is there ever any proof that Meredith tranquilizes mages that act out? Karl is the only one I can remember, but that's one mage in six years.

A point of clarification: When you do the Tranquility quest, one of the templars can be looted for a letter that makes it clear Karl's Tranquiling was Ser Alrik's doing and apparently had nothing to do with Meredith. 

Specifically, that templar you kill had some serious doubts about Alrik's reason for making Karl Tranquil, and had apparently tried to approach Meredith about the matter, for which he was severely chastened by Ser Alrik.

This is actually a point that never really made sense to me.  From the start, the game would have us believe that Meredith is far more tyrannical and extreme than the average Knight-Commander when it comes to her viewpoint toward mages, even before she's exposed to the idol, but the game's early lore codices suggest that she was actually somewhat reasonable.  In this case, it is suggested that Ser Alrik wasn't bothering to tell Meredith that he was Tranquil-ing mages for this reason or that, but trying to hide it from her notice, under the guise of not bothering her because hey, she's a busy woman, which would imply that he believes he would be punished by her for his flouting of Chantry law.  And then, when you loot Ser Alrik's corpse after Dissent, you see that Ser Alrik tried to get Meredith to support his attempt to have all the mages Tranquiled, and she rejects the proposal.  That just doesn't fit in with the picture we're otherwise led to believe about Meredith's character--which is not merely a matter of a few biased characters, a la Anders, but supported by templars, Circle mages, non-mages, and apostates alike. 

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Tevinter and Orlais invaded nations they helped during the Third
Blight - that's why the nation of Nevarra has such discord with Orlais
these days. I can see why the elves of the Dales would be cautious about
aiding a nation that sent templars into the Dales after they kicked out
missionaries when they refused to convert to the Chant of Light.
Considering how the Chantry made the elven religion illegal and forced
the elves of the Alienages to convert after the Exalted March, I think
that their caution was justified.

Great analysis, by the way!

The Missionaries and templar part is not fact however, just the tellings of the losing side to try and justify their attacks on Red Crossing and all of Orlais up to Val Royeux... However they could be true, they aren't certain though.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
There should have been an option for Hawke to push harder to take the office of Viscount. 

Unlike
previous Viscounts who tried to act independently of the Templars,
Hawke is a personal killing machine, surrounded by some of the deadliest
people in the Free Marches, and (at least in every playthrough I've
done) with the full support of the nobility and the Kirkwall Guard. 

But that would mean taking the story off the railroad tracks...

Yeah every time i saw something like "Maybe I can be viscount, or with your support I could be a viscount" I always took that option but to no effect =(

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Actually, the Exalted March against the Dales is one of the major issues
I have with the Chantry, and proof that they're not a religion of
peace. The Andrastean Chantry is a militant religion, and that's never a
good thing.

You mean the exalted march that was declared when the Elves had finally reached Val Royeaux meaning they would have taken Halamshiral, Lydes, Verchiel, Montsimmard, Val Foret and then finally beseiged the Orlesian Capital.

The Exalted March that was declared after the apparent attacks on red crossing where chantry priests were found impaled and chantrys defiled? that exalted march

Its not really condemnable, at the same time howver not justfiable due to the fact that both sides lie to justify their actions.. For all we know The chantry were zealotous bastards who would not accept the Elves not being of the Andrastian religion, or the elves were a bunch of fanatic human haters that were merciless butchers.. Just an interesting note that an elven storyteller doesn't believe the resisted conversion was enough to start the war.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I agree completely. You would imagine in a story that's heavily
advertised as a "rise to power" that Hawke would be proactive in gaining
allies and support. I thought that Hawke might be able to wrest control
from Meredith and change Kirkwall from a position of strength.

Yeah I was hoping he would unify the free marches but alas, no such thing happened =(

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 06 mai 2011 - 05:50 .

[TEWR]

I think Meredith was extreme from the very beginning of Act 1 and obviously not a good person, but she was still a rational person who could be reasoned with if you presented her with a good argument. I don't think she was a tyrant then. Just biased, extremist, and whatever else.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

at the very least we've seen it can be temporarily cured, through the Tranquility quest involving Karl Thekla.

Maybe if mages could do research into magical anatomy and everything, they could discover a way to turn mages into regular human beings. You know, getting rid of the magical abilities. Personally I doubt it could happen, but only with research will you know what limitations there are.

great post by the way.

I recall reading that the Chantry prohibits medical research.

What? no way.. really? Where'd you read it?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I think Meredith was extreme from the very beginning of Act 1 and
obviously not a good person, but she was still a rational person who
could be reasoned with if you presented her with a good argument. I
don't think she was a tyrant then. Just biased, extremist, and whatever
else.

Act 1? What did she do wrong in act 1? You mean when she death stared the urchin who robbed me 2 seconds later?

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 06 mai 2011 - 05:54 .

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I believe I told GavrielKay that I would find some ways the Orsino incident could've been handled better. Well, here was what I posted on another thread.

...

Thanks

Honestly any of those would at least show that they were trying to fit it into the story.  Better yet, they could have just given up on the notion of having two boss fights and have Meredith be one path and Orsino the other.  Many many players take the completionist route, so it's not like you'd never see the other side.

[TEWR]

XxDeonxX, history is written by the victors. The idea that the Dalish would attack the nation that gave them some of their land back after the Tevinter Imperium stole it seems too far-fetched to me.

Orlais on the other hand had just survived a Blight that had destroyed their fertile land for the most part.

And who is close to Orlais that has fertile land? The Dalish. I believe they started a war with them to take back their land.

[TEWR]

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I think Meredith was extreme from the very beginning of Act 1 and
obviously not a good person, but she was still a rational person who
could be reasoned with if you presented her with a good argument. I
don't think she was a tyrant then. Just biased, extremist, and whatever
else.

Act 1? What did she do wrong in act 1? You mean when she death stared the urchin who robbed me 2 seconds later?

I never said she did anything wrong in Act 1. I said she was extreme. Varric's narration states "And that's when the trouble began with the mages. The Templars had grown very powerful under Knight Commander Meredith."


Although I think she robbed that guy of his soul when she death stared him

[Augustei]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

XxDeonxX, history is written by the victors. The idea that the Dalish would attack the nation that gave them some of their land back after the Tevinter Imperium stole it seems too far-fetched to me.

Orlais on the other hand had just survived a Blight that had destroyed their fertile land for the most part.

And who is close to Orlais that has fertile land? The Dalish. I believe they started a war with them to take back their land.

Just because history is written by the victors, does not make the victors initially wrong. The elven storyteller Sarel even says the elves must have played a part in their own downfall. The blight devistated Orlais is just as unlikely to go to war with the dales because they refused to convert to their religion. They were just devistated by a blight, they wouldn't have been able to win a war with the dales.. Which was shown when their capital was under attacked, Why would they risk getting destroyed like that for some land they didn't truely need?

Most likely case is that both sides are at fault. Orlais spans a large region, their infertile land was only around the region of Mont-de-glace. they could have taken the Deauvin flats or begin foresting in the arbor wilds

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 06 mai 2011 - 06:06 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I've seen people use the whole Broken Circle thing as proof that a Knight Commander needs to seek approval for a RoA when there's no Grand Cleric present. And then call Meredith's actions a plot hole or a retcon or what have you


I think people are forgetting one thing. We never once met a Grand Cleric that Gregoir answered to. Just because we don't see one does not mean there is no Grand Cleric. He said he sent word to Denerim. For all we know he answers to Denerim's Grand Cleric.

what's the saying I've seen people use? Absence of proof is not proof of absence?

Not certain, but I do believe there are lore codexes that suggest, if not explicitly state, that under normal circumstances the Knight-Commander has to have approval before they can carry out Annulment, but that they don't explicitly state that a Knight-Commander can't take action of their own accord in an emergency where it is not possible or practical to gain permission first.

I think part of the equation in Knight-Commander Gregoir's case is that he needed reinforcements as badly as he needed approval for the Right of Annulment.  Yes, the Grand Cleric for Ferelden is in Denerim, and you do actually see her, during the Landsmeet.  (At least, I'm fairly certain that woman is the Grand Cleric).  So that's where he had to send to for approval.  What's interesting in that case, is that he could have argued that the situation was so immediately dire that he didn't have time to wait for going through proper channels--notwithstanding his own forces had been decimated so badly that he probably needed reinforcements before he could even think about carrying out the Annulment.  Under the circumstances, I think it's reasonable to say he might have been pardoned for making an executive decision he wasn't technically authorized to make.  Or maybe there's a clause somewhere that does provide him that authorization.  I imagine having a civil war going on around you made things a bit more difficult, not to mention darkspawn running amok over the place.  

In Meredith's case, I agree, it strikes me as obvious that the Chantry is going to have a way to account for a Knight-Commander being in a situation where they need to get the Right approved, but circumstances are such that there's no Grand Cleric around to ask.  That's not a ret-con, it's what any chain-of-command organization is going to have in place as a safeguard to deal with the fact that people do on occasion drop dead at the most inconvenient time possible. Meredith's problem is that she wasn't in a dire situation such as faced by Gregoir, and even if she thought the Right was necessary, I don't think she could legitimately argue that she had to act under emergency conditions.  She could have made her case to the Divine while keeping the mages under even more extreme lockdown conditions than usual.

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

The Missionaries and templar part is not fact however, just the tellings of the losing side to try and justify their attacks on Red Crossing and all of Orlais up to Val Royeux... However they could be true, they aren't certain though.

Orlais has a history of invading other nations, and the Chantry has supported their efforts. Look at the nations of Nevarra (after the Third Blight) and Ferelden before the Dragon Age. In contrast, we have references that the elves of the Dales wanted nothing to do with humans, and even placed Emerald Knights to prevents humans from entering their lands, because they wanted to reclaim their culture and their immortality. In fact, the Chantry made the elven religion illegal and forced the city elves to convert - which is precisely what the Dalish claimed started the war.

I concede that we don't know the absolute truth, but of the two, Orlais has a history of conquest. Even King Alistair notes to Hawke that some Orlesians want to conquer Ferelden again

XxDeonxX wrote...

Yeah every time i saw something like "Maybe I can be viscount, or with your support I could be a viscount" I always took that option but to no effect =(

Hawke still should have been proactive against Meredith, instead of letting her spend three years as the de facto Viscount and dictator over the people of Kirkwall. He may not be able to help Hawke gain the position of Viscount, but at least King Alistair is trying to make the Magi boon happen even seven years after the Chantry said no, and he seems to be nationalizing magic.

XxDeonxX wrote...

You mean the exalted march that was declared when the Elves had finally reached Val Royeaux meaning they would have taken Halamshiral, Lydes, Verchiel, Montsimmard, Val Foret and then finally beseiged the Orlesian Capital.

The Exalted March that was declared after the apparent attacks on red crossing where chantry priests were found impaled and chantrys defiled? that exalted march

And we have no idea whether the Orlesians struck first or not. Orlais claims that Red Crossing was the start, but it could have been a response to an attack made by the Orlesians. The Dalish even claim it was starting when the templars went into their nation to force conversion, and the Orlesians have a long history of conquering other nations, and are still trying to do it in present day Thedas. We know that the Chantry fully supported the occupation of Ferelden in the name of the Maker.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Yeah I was hoping he would unify the free marches but alas, no such thing happened =(

So was I, my friend, so was I.

[IanPolaris]

The issue I had with the legality of it until clarified was this: The codecies and lore in DAO at least very strongly suggested if not outright said that the executive authority to authorize a Right of Annulment was a CLERICAL one and it's know there was a strong seperation between the CLERICAL and MILITARY branches of the Chantry. I agree that there would have to be protocols for emergency situations, but I was under the impression that for something as Dire as a Right of Annulment (and the lore seemed to suggest that I had a point here), it had to be submitted and approved by at least TWO people one of whom was not a Templar.

Yes, DG has "clarified" this, but honestly I do regard it as a retcon to permit Meredith to go full 'Fruitloop" while still remaining technically in the 'legal' right according to the chantry. This wouldn't be the first or most egregious 'retcon' or 'reinterpretation' (if you prefer) of existing lore.

I know you don't agree with this Sifren, but there it is.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

IanPolaris wrote...

...  but I was under the impression that for something as Dire as a Right of Annulment (and the lore seemed to suggest that I had a point here), it had to be submitted and approved by at least TWO people one of whom was not a Templar.

Yes, DG has "clarified" this, but honestly I do regard it as a retcon to permit Meredith to go full 'Fruitloop" while still remaining technically in the 'legal' right according to the chantry. This wouldn't be the first or most egregious 'retcon' or 'reinterpretation' (if you prefer) of existing lore.

I know you don't agree with this Sifren, but there it is.

-Polaris

I think after the Chantry explosion, Meredith was going to do the Right whether the law said she had the authority or not.  The only point for me in retconning it was to open up that route as a legitimate option for the PC.

[TEWR]

XxDeonxX, Hahren Sarel says that they thought their land wouldn't be forcibly taken from them. That's where he says the elves were partially to blame.


GavrielKay, agreed. I really can't say more than that =P

[GavrielKay]

I have this mental image of the devs and writers sitting around a table saying to each other: "If we claim that it is legal due to the death of the Grand Cleric, we can go from 30% player choice to 37%"

[TEWR]

oh god now I'm picturing that. wait, is it a round table? Is it raining outside? Are they drinking their coffee or whatever?

[Sylvianus]

GavrielKay wrote...
Yes, but you miss my point. 

Those of us who support the mages and bad mouth the Templars have been accused of making that judgement based on just the few bad Templars that we meet - and then getting upset when the pro-Templars make the same decision based on the few circle mages they meet.  They claim that our bias against the Templars is hypocrisy since we complain about their bias against the mages.

Ho Ho ho, ( like you said ) No, actually, you have simply failed to demonstrate that the mage's side was moral solution, by your contradictions. It's just that that should be taken into account in our reactions.

I sum up : " All Templars are bad, the Ander's  act is justified . there are no innocents in the camps of the Templars, the Magi are oppressed, they must win their freedom at any cost. And that price may affect the innocent victims. No sorry they are not victims because they belong to the organization you dislike. The Magi may have blood on their hands, almost a duty to survive.

You yourself said you could not blame someone who became a monster because he was oppressed. A murderer, whatever his past, must be stopped iby the way.

And we say that given the circumstances, and the number of blatant evil mages, we are also eliminating the Magi in their entirety.  As YOU we consider they are not necessarily innocent, guilty of belonging to this  organization compromised and represent a threat.

We discard to remove a threat, let them alive is to be vulnerable to corruption, which can be fatal.

A camp should destroy the other camps and it requires blood. Nobody was shocked by this and , it is war  again. and individuals to choose a camp. What shocks IS YOUR OWN LOGIC THAT YOU CONDEMN! It's very funny.

And do not tell me Anders was alone, that your justifications that i tell, and all that you defended. So the moral, you can store it in the closet. It's about choice and sensitivity.

your justifications are the same.

It is a war, there are no innocents, only victims, and points extremists on both sides, fully demonstrating that morality has nothing to do with all that, it's each his sensibility.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 07:02 .

[GavrielKay]

Sylvianus, I have no interest in debating with you. After dismissing Elthina's guilt because she's old and tired, there isn't anything you can say that will make me respect your position or bother to defend mine to you.

[Sylvianus]

So, Thank you and goodbye.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 07:08 .

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

The issue I had with the legality of it until clarified was this: The codecies and lore in DAO at least very strongly suggested if not outright said that the executive authority to authorize a Right of Annulment was a CLERICAL one and it's know there was a strong seperation between the CLERICAL and MILITARY branches of the Chantry. I agree that there would have to be protocols for emergency situations, but I was under the impression that for something as Dire as a Right of Annulment (and the lore seemed to suggest that I had a point here), it had to be submitted and approved by at least TWO people one of whom was not a Templar.

Yes, DG has "clarified" this, but honestly I do regard it as a retcon to permit Meredith to go full 'Fruitloop" while still remaining technically in the 'legal' right according to the chantry. This wouldn't be the first or most egregious 'retcon' or 'reinterpretation' (if you prefer) of existing lore.

I know you don't agree with this Sifren, but there it is.

-Polaris

I don't disagree as much as you'd think.  The only contention I had with you was your insistence that it was an "ass-pull" by the writers to jerk us around.  But that's neither here nor there.  I haven't actually explored this particular issue to any great depth, though I do recall reading some of the codices you've referred to in establishing Chantry/Templar/Circle chains of command, though it's been a while.  So I don't have a very clearly defined position on the matter, beyond what I said in my last post.  

There are a ton of inconsistencies between Origins and DA2 that may not be outright ret-cons, but they sure seem as such.  Part of it boils down to the fact that ret-cons, accidental and intentional, are going to occur when you write one story, then come back and write another within the same universe, without having first written both stories sequentially, as a single unit.  Any writer can fall into this trap on their own.  It's going to be far worse when it's a full team of writers.  This is why it would make for far more consistent lore to write all the stories first, with all the available lore details about the universe on hand, than to write one story, finish it, and then add another story to it with a plot that doesn't work against the established lore without some intricate backpedaling.  Hell, the timeline of DA2 was botched so badly that by rights, none of the events of DA2 actually could have happened because they defy established laws of space and time.  It was all a dream!

It can be done.  I've seen sequel plots that seem to defy the lore established in the original tale, but end up having a plausible explanation that makes sense and fits seamlessly into the lore without requiring you to not so much suspend your disbelief as beat it to death with a lead pipe.  DA2...hasn't done that. 

[GavrielKay]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

oh god now I'm picturing that. wait, is it a round table? Is it raining outside? Are they drinking their coffee or whatever?

The sad thing is that I don't remember feeling that way about any particular part of DAO.  I remember hating certain characters, but never feeling like the story and characters were warped willy nilly just to make the game play out a certain way.  I always thought Loghain was a traitorous jerk, but he was entirely self consistent.  As was Howe.  Perhaps it's just the fondness of times gone by, but I can't think off hand when in DAO I sat back and thought, geez, where on earth did THAT come from?  There wasn't a case of some character who had every reason to hate/like me behaving as though they didn't.

[TEWR]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sylvianus, I have no interest in debating with you. After dismissing Elthina's guilt because she's old and tired, there isn't anything you can say that will make me respect your position or bother to defend mine to you.

SO. MUCH. WIN.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Ho Ho ho, ( like you said ) No, actually, you have simply failed to demonstrate that the mage's side was moral solution, by your contradictions. It's just that that should be taken into account in our reactions.

Hawke siding with the mages means he isn't helping the templars murder men, women, and children from the Kirkwall Circle who are not responsible for Anders' actions.

Sylvianus wrote...

I sum up : " All Templars are bad, the Ander's  act is justified . there are no innocents in the camps of the Templars, the Magi are oppressed, they must win their freedom at any cost. And that price may affect the innocent victims. No sorry they are not victims because they belong to the organization you dislike. The Magi may have blood on their hands, almost a duty to survive.

Grand Cleric Elthina is Meredith's superior, and the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall. Despite her authority, she did nothing to curb the plight of the templars or the abuse of authority, even when Hawke was bringing this information to her. Simply because she didn't act doesn't absolve her of responsibility when she is the highest authority of the Chantry in Kirkwall.

Sylvianus wrote...

You yourself said you could not blame someone who became a monster because he was oppressed. A murderer, whatever his past, must be stopped iby the way.

And we say that given the circumstances, and the number of blatant evil mages, we are also eliminating the Magi in their entirety.  As YOU we consider they are not necessarily innocent, guilty of belonging to this  organization compromised and represent a threat.

The mages of the Circle of Kirkwall are innocent of Anders' actions. One apostate shouldn't condemn an entire population of Circle mages to execution.

Sylvianus wrote...

We discard to remove a threat, let them alive is to be vulnerable to corruption, which can be fatal.

A camp should destroy the other camps and it requires blood. Nobody was shocked by this and , it is war  again. and individuals to choose a camp. What shocks IS YOUR OWN LOGIC THAT YOU CONDEMN! It's very funny.

The Circle mages weren't a threat, they weren't the ones who destroyed the Chantry - Anders was.  He was a known apostate protected by the Champion's reputation, and he killed Grand Cleric Elthina.

As for your comments about destroying other camps, are you trying to say the templars needed "more breathing room"?

Sylvianus wrote...

And do not tell me Anders was alone, that your justifications that i tell, and all that you defended. So the moral, you can store it in the closet. It's about choice and sensitivity.

Hawke could help him (unknowingly), that's true.

Sylvianus wrote...

your justifications are the same.

It is a war, there are no innocents, only victims, and points extremists on both sides, fully demonstrating that morality has nothing to do with all that, it's each his sensibility.

The mags are innocent of Anders' actions, and Meredith's condemnation of an entire population of mages to death for being mages is an act of genocide.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 06 mai 2011 - 07:15 .

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

So, Thank you and goodbye.

I however--and I'm the one who said the "oh ho ho" remark--would like you to at least attempt to explain this:

Sylvianus wrote...
Eltina don't want to deal with anything like that. Eltina do not want to
hear about it. Yes she knows everything, but she doesn't act. I do not
see corruption, not to act.

You acknowledge that Elthina knew what was going on, but then say that she didn't want to deal with it or even hear about it.  What you're either not understanding, or just disregarding, is that it was her job to deal with it and hear about it, and her not wanting to do either is irrelevant.  In the real world, someone who doesn't want to do their job gets fired under normal circumstances.  But there's grocery clerks, and then there's people in major governmental positions.  A sales clerk not wanting to do their job just results in inconvenience. A  government official not wanting to do their job can lead to suffering and death.  

I don't understand how you can say that a person not wanting to do their job is not a sign of corruption.  And Elthina--she is not a "high priestess" by the way, but "Grand Cleric" is her title and position--is refusing to fulfill her duties as Grand Cleric.  She is also refusing to step down from her position in order to allow for someone more willing and capable to do the job.  This isn't corrupt?