TPags,
DG also said that in the case where a mages actually survived the RoA for some reason, they could theoretically be made tranquil instead of executed. That is almost a direct quote btw.
Cullen AT NO TIME rescinds the right of annulment and at NO TIME is it mentioned there are mage survivors (unlike when you side with the mages). Therefore, the prisoners would have either had to have been executed later OR made tranquil. Period.
-Polaris
Siding with the Templars is fine, but siding with Meredith isn`t
Débuté par
yogolol
, mars 22 2011 10:27
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 02 mai 2011 - 11:52
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
TPags,
DG also said that in the case where a mages actually survived the RoA for some reason, they could theoretically be made tranquil instead of executed. That is almost a direct quote btw.
Cullen AT NO TIME rescinds the right of annulment and at NO TIME is it mentioned there are mage survivors (unlike when you side with the mages). Therefore, the prisoners would have either had to have been executed later OR made tranquil. Period.
-Polaris
That's closer to what he said. I'm too lazy to find the quote myself.
While Cullen doesn't rescind the orders, he clearly violates rule #1 by taking prisoners. Just because the end game doesn't mention survivors doesn't mean there aren't any. The game never says every mage is killed, either.
Again, it's fine for you to rp that way. But given that Cullen breaks rule #1, I think it's also valid to say there ARE survivors - the prisoners if nothing else - and that they are NOT made tranquil OR executed until, perhaps, someone else arrives to take over.
But to say Cullen MUST do so makes little sense.
#78
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 12:35
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Actually the rule doesn't say that mage's can't be taken prisoner. It says that being taken prisoner can NOT be used to permit the mage to break quarantine which is why DG said that it might be possible for mages that were somehow alive to be made tranquil instead. He DOES say the general policy is no prisoners.
At NO TIME does Cullen resind the Right of Annulment when he takes command and it's well within his legal rights to do so.
-Polaris
At NO TIME does Cullen resind the Right of Annulment when he takes command and it's well within his legal rights to do so.
-Polaris
#79
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:13
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Actually the rule doesn't say that mage's can't be taken prisoner. It says that being taken prisoner can NOT be used to permit the mage to break quarantine which is why DG said that it might be possible for mages that were somehow alive to be made tranquil instead. He DOES say the general policy is no prisoners.
At NO TIME does Cullen resind the Right of Annulment when he takes command and it's well within his legal rights to do so.
-Polaris
Well, what Gaider said was, the templars take no prisoners. However you want to phrase that (as a rule or something else) when a RoA is called, no prisoners are taken. The second part of his comment, about mages who "somehow survive theoretically" being made tranquil, sure seems to back up the thought that prisoners simply are not taken.
Cullen never rescinds the RoA order. But he clearly takes prisoners. So whether it's a rule, a general rule, or a guideline, he's not sticking to it. I see no reason for him to treat those mages he took prisoner as if they "somehow survived".
#80
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:17
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Varric says there are no survivors. We know because he explicitly does mention survivors when you side with the mages. Say what you want to make you sleep well at night, but siding with the mages MEANS genocide and it means killing or lobomizing every circle mage regardless of guilt on the word of a clear madwoman.
-Polaris
-Polaris
#81
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:25
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
Varric says there are no survivors. We know because he explicitly does mention survivors when you side with the mages. Say what you want to make you sleep well at night, but siding with the mages MEANS genocide and it means killing or lobomizing every circle mage regardless of guilt on the word of a clear madwoman.
-Polaris
First, I sleep at night just fine. I have no trouble distinguishing between what my character does in a video game and what I do in real life. No character choice in a video game could ever make me lose sleep at night. So please, enough of that nonsense.
Second, as I have no completed a pro-templar game (my first, as you may recall, sided with mages. I haven't been interested enough to complete a second yet) I can't say what Varric says. I'd ask for a video link, please. Even if he doesn't mention it, lack of mention does not mean there are none.
Third, I don't recall Varric mentioning survivors in my pro-mage run. He may have - I don't recall. I sure don't remember seeing any mages standing at the end of that run. Actually, the only mages I saw - post Orsino going Harvester - were abominations or blood mages. Prior to that, there were a few standing with me waiting for the Templar assault. But Orsino killed them.
#82
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:35
Ryzaki
-
- Members
- 34 400 messages
Varric doesn't mention how many survived in the templar ending. He says "many lived to tell the tale." in the mage ending.
Varric's censorship in the templar ending makes sense if you recall the choice to spare or kill the surrendering mages. Obviously far more mages would survive if you spared those that surrendered.
Varric's censorship in the templar ending makes sense if you recall the choice to spare or kill the surrendering mages. Obviously far more mages would survive if you spared those that surrendered.
#83
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:40
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
Ryzaki wrote...
Varric doesn't mention how many survived in the templar ending. He says "many lived to tell the tale." in the mage ending.
Varric's censorship in the templar ending makes sense if you recall the choice to spare or kill the surrendering mages. Obviously far more mages would survive if you spared those that surrendered.
That makes a lot of sense. The cut scene is what it is, but it has to account for players who may kill the surrendering mages, and those who take them prisoner.
But again - silence does not mean everyone died.
#84
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:46
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
TJPags wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
Varric doesn't mention how many survived in the templar ending. He says "many lived to tell the tale." in the mage ending.
Varric's censorship in the templar ending makes sense if you recall the choice to spare or kill the surrendering mages. Obviously far more mages would survive if you spared those that surrendered.
That makes a lot of sense. The cut scene is what it is, but it has to account for players who may kill the surrendering mages, and those who take them prisoner.
But again - silence does not mean everyone died.
In this case it does. We already know that Varric will mention mage survivors if any do (becuase he does with the mage ending). Since he does not in the Templar ending, it means no mage survived which is consistant with making those captured mages tranquil and is consistant with the WoG.
-Polaris
#85
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:46
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 990 messages
The mage ending states: "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry - a reminder that the mighty templars could be defied. He had defended the mages against a brutal injustice and many lived to tell the tale. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire."
The templar ending states: "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry for all mages, a reminder of their brutal oppression. He had shown not only what the templars were willing to do, but that they could be defied. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire. Here at home, the city all but got down on its hands and knees and begged the Champion to rule."
Off-topic: Is it only possible to have your family members match your skin tone if you chose a particular pre-set with the skin tone you're looking for? I've modified the first avaliable pre-set that you have the ability to change, but the family members never really match the color unless I chose black, and I was going more of a tanned look.
The templar ending states: "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry for all mages, a reminder of their brutal oppression. He had shown not only what the templars were willing to do, but that they could be defied. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire. Here at home, the city all but got down on its hands and knees and begged the Champion to rule."
Off-topic: Is it only possible to have your family members match your skin tone if you chose a particular pre-set with the skin tone you're looking for? I've modified the first avaliable pre-set that you have the ability to change, but the family members never really match the color unless I chose black, and I was going more of a tanned look.
#86
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 01:54
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
TJPags wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
Varric doesn't mention how many survived in the templar ending. He says "many lived to tell the tale." in the mage ending.
Varric's censorship in the templar ending makes sense if you recall the choice to spare or kill the surrendering mages. Obviously far more mages would survive if you spared those that surrendered.
That makes a lot of sense. The cut scene is what it is, but it has to account for players who may kill the surrendering mages, and those who take them prisoner.
But again - silence does not mean everyone died.
In this case it does. We already know that Varric will mention mage survivors if any do (becuase he does with the mage ending). Since he does not in the Templar ending, it means no mage survived which is consistant with making those captured mages tranquil and is consistant with the WoG.
-Polaris
No, it does not. It has to account for two scenarios - prisoners taken, and prisoners not taken. Making no mention of it does not mean all were killed. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence in this situation, as with most others.
LobselVith8 wrote...
The mage ending states: "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry - a reminder that the mighty templars could be defied. He had defended the mages against a brutal injustice and many lived to tell the tale. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire."
The templar ending states: "Word of the slaughter spread quickly. The Champion's name became a rallying cry for all mages, a reminder of their brutal oppression. He had shown not only what the templars were willing to do, but that they could be defied. The Circles rose up and set the world on fire. Here at home, the city all but got down on its hands and knees and begged the Champion to rule."
Off-topic: Is it only possible to have your family members match your skin tone if you chose a particular pre-set with the skin tone you're looking for? I've modified the first avaliable pre-set that you have the ability to change, but the family members never really match the color unless I chose black, and I was going more of a tanned look.
Apparently, this is what he says (and thank you, Lob for posting it). Why would he say the Templars could be defied, when Hawke sided with them, if every mage died? How is that defiance? That's a death sentence, and no evidence of defiance.
#87
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:02
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 990 messages
TJPags wrote...
Apparently, this is what he says (and thank you, Lob for posting it). Why would he say the Templars could be defied, when Hawke sided with them, if every mage died? How is that defiance? That's a death sentence, and no evidence of defiance.
No problem. I'm honestly not certain why it's phrased that way - I could see if the mages were upset about the fact that the Right of Annulment was called because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina (and it seems to make the most sense to me), but I'm not sure how Hawke showed the mages that the templars could be defied (particularly when he seems to be viewed as a villain to the mages and a hero to the templars in this scenerio) unless it's addressing the defeat of a possessed Meredith, but even defeating her wouldn't be the first time that someone has defeated a templar before.
#88
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:08
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
TJPags wrote...
Apparently, this is what he says (and thank you, Lob for posting it). Why would he say the Templars could be defied, when Hawke sided with them, if every mage died? How is that defiance? That's a death sentence, and no evidence of defiance.
No problem. I'm honestly not certain why it's phrased that way - I could see if the mages were upset about the fact that the Right of Annulment was called because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina (and it seems to make the most sense to me), but I'm not sure how Hawke showed the mages that the templars could be defied (particularly when he seems to be viewed as a villain to the mages and a hero to the templars in this scenerio) unless it's addressing the defeat of a possessed Meredith, but even defeating her wouldn't be the first time that someone has defeated a templar before.
Yea, it doesn't make sense to read that as "every mage died". That doesn't seem to equate to defiance, to me.
#89
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:14
thesuperdarkone
-
- Members
- 1 745 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
TJPags wrote...
Apparently, this is what he says (and thank you, Lob for posting it). Why would he say the Templars could be defied, when Hawke sided with them, if every mage died? How is that defiance? That's a death sentence, and no evidence of defiance.
No problem. I'm honestly not certain why it's phrased that way - I could see if the mages were upset about the fact that the Right of Annulment was called because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina (and it seems to make the most sense to me), but I'm not sure how Hawke showed the mages that the templars could be defied (particularly when he seems to be viewed as a villain to the mages and a hero to the templars in this scenerio) unless it's addressing the defeat of a possessed Meredith, but even defeating her wouldn't be the first time that someone has defeated a templar before.
You got your facts wrong. Varric only says the "Templars could be defied" line ONLY if you side with the Mages.
#90
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:17
Blacklash93
-
- Members
- 4 154 messages
The idol-sword in itself wouldn't have bothered me, but making Meredith turn out to be a lyrium-addled crazy woman all along completely killed her character.
Modifié par Blacklash93, 03 mai 2011 - 02:18 .
#91
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:25
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 990 messages
thesuperdarkone wrote...
You got your facts wrong. Varric only says the "Templars could be defied" line ONLY if you side with the Mages.
I respectfully disagree. This point has been addressed by others who have gotten the pro-templar ending with Hawke as well.
#92
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:36
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
thesuperdarkone wrote...
You got your facts wrong. Varric only says the "Templars could be defied" line ONLY if you side with the Mages.
I respectfully disagree. This point has been addressed by others who have gotten the pro-templar ending with Hawke as well.
Lob is right. Just played a link: ( www.youtube.com/watch jump to 12:30) and that's exactly what he says.
Which makes no sense if every mage died.
#93
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:55
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
TJPags wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
thesuperdarkone wrote...
You got your facts wrong. Varric only says the "Templars could be defied" line ONLY if you side with the Mages.
I respectfully disagree. This point has been addressed by others who have gotten the pro-templar ending with Hawke as well.
Lob is right. Just played a link: ( www.youtube.com/watch jump to 12:30) and that's exactly what he says.
Which makes no sense if every mage died.
You get the same thing even if you do very explicitly execute all mages so this doesn't mean anything.
-Polaris
#94
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 02:58
TJPags
-
- Members
- 5 694 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
TJPags wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
thesuperdarkone wrote...
You got your facts wrong. Varric only says the "Templars could be defied" line ONLY if you side with the Mages.
I respectfully disagree. This point has been addressed by others who have gotten the pro-templar ending with Hawke as well.
Lob is right. Just played a link: ( www.youtube.com/watch jump to 12:30) and that's exactly what he says.
Which makes no sense if every mage died.
You get the same thing even if you do very explicitly execute all mages so this doesn't mean anything.
-Polaris
Which was exactly my point. The fact that he doesn't mention survivors, whether you took prisoners or not, is not evidence that every mage died.
#95
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:00
Silfren
-
- Members
- 4 748 messages
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
I doubt you're ever going to be able to grasp this, given what I've seen you post time and time again, but the bottom line is that not every choice boils down to good versus evil. Both DA:O and DA2 make it clear that sometimes the best decision is not necessarily the happy one. Sometimes people just find themselves having to make decisions that will result in the deaths of innocent people, but are the lesser evil in the long run.
Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, there IS an argument to be made that siding with the templars and Meredith is the least evil decision to make. It has nothing to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of killing innocents, and everything to do with making the unhappy and tragic decision that it is best for the ENTIRE population of Kirkwall to annul the Circle, because that will result in the least number of deaths.
And before you accuse me of supporting genocide, I do support the mages in every playthrough, because I can't bring myself not to. But I'm still capable of understanding the logic of making the other choice, that does not necessarily have to mean that you're a trigger happy maniac looking for an excuse to go all Hitler on people. Sometimes people have to make hard choices. History is full of people having to do that, not because they want to, but because they really don't have any other choice.
#96
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:40
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Sifren,
You are making thea argument for genocide though. You are making exactly the same argument (excuse) that has been made throughout human history. It wasn't valid then. It isn't valid now.
I am not saying that ALL choices are black and white, but this one really is. You either support genocide or you do not. Period. There is no middle ground. In this (if nothing else) Anders is quite right. You either support a madwoman slaughtering all mages because they happen to be mages (and she wanted to do it for a long time) for a crime they didn't even commit, or you do not.
In short, Bioware messed this game up big-time...and in trying to make a choice that really IS black and white, supposedly grey, they are embarassing themselves and putting their own ethics under scrutiny (and yes DG, I am talking to you...Mr Mages aren't innocent because they are mages).
-Polaris
Edit PS: The problem I am having with a lot of you is that I understand all too well the logic of the other side. It has supported outright evil for most of human history, but it wouldn't happen if it didn't have a certain appeal if you don't bother to look at it too closely. In short, I do understand the otherside, but it's still objectively evil.
You are making thea argument for genocide though. You are making exactly the same argument (excuse) that has been made throughout human history. It wasn't valid then. It isn't valid now.
I am not saying that ALL choices are black and white, but this one really is. You either support genocide or you do not. Period. There is no middle ground. In this (if nothing else) Anders is quite right. You either support a madwoman slaughtering all mages because they happen to be mages (and she wanted to do it for a long time) for a crime they didn't even commit, or you do not.
In short, Bioware messed this game up big-time...and in trying to make a choice that really IS black and white, supposedly grey, they are embarassing themselves and putting their own ethics under scrutiny (and yes DG, I am talking to you...Mr Mages aren't innocent because they are mages).
-Polaris
Edit PS: The problem I am having with a lot of you is that I understand all too well the logic of the other side. It has supported outright evil for most of human history, but it wouldn't happen if it didn't have a certain appeal if you don't bother to look at it too closely. In short, I do understand the otherside, but it's still objectively evil.
Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 mai 2011 - 03:41 .
#97
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:42
SusanStoHelit
-
- Members
- 1 790 messages
I don't know that I'd agree that siding with the Templars is 'fine', but it is certainly a rational choice and can be played that way. Not a good choice, let me be clear, but simply rational. The lives of all the population of Kirkwall in the balance against the lives of the mages in the Circle. It's still wrong, immoral, and repugnant - but can be seen as the lesser of two evils. And I've managed to bring myself to do it once - with my character who was the most 'good' and law-abiding. She was actually pro-mage, and anti-Templar, but more importantly saw herself as the only person standing between the ordinary people of Kirkwall and whatever was going to happen. On all other playthroughs I have chosen (or will choose) to side with the mages.
Sadly, I'm not given the chance to choose to decry both sides and take them on. I mean, I am forced to do that anway, but not as a choice I made. I cannot say 'Meredith is a raving lunatic, a paranoid megalomaniac and I refuse to side with her - and Orsino is complicit in hiding and enabling blood mages and serial killers and I won't side with him either'.
The prevalence of blood magic and deals with demons in Kirkwall and the Free Marches gives a very false impression of the danger of mages in general, in my view. But Hawke grew up in Ferelden, and is aware that it need not be like that. Indeed, potentially 3 out of 5 of the immediate Hawke family are mages. I couldn't agree more with the person earlier in this thread who suggested it was in fact the circles and the templars and the way mages were treated that caused most of the cases of blood magic and deals with demons. I'm not validating the choices of those mages, they were still wrong in my view, but they are a result of the way mages are treated.
And two final points:
1) It's the Rite of Annulment - not the Right of Annulment.
2) Killing all mages (whether you think this is good, bad, or indifferent) is not genocide. It's mass murder, but not genocide. Because mages aren't an ethnic group or nation. Genocide is 'the deliberate extermination of a people or nation'.
Edit: For clarity, I don't mean the circle/templars caused all cases of blood magic etc, only that they made it more likely to happen.
Sadly, I'm not given the chance to choose to decry both sides and take them on. I mean, I am forced to do that anway, but not as a choice I made. I cannot say 'Meredith is a raving lunatic, a paranoid megalomaniac and I refuse to side with her - and Orsino is complicit in hiding and enabling blood mages and serial killers and I won't side with him either'.
The prevalence of blood magic and deals with demons in Kirkwall and the Free Marches gives a very false impression of the danger of mages in general, in my view. But Hawke grew up in Ferelden, and is aware that it need not be like that. Indeed, potentially 3 out of 5 of the immediate Hawke family are mages. I couldn't agree more with the person earlier in this thread who suggested it was in fact the circles and the templars and the way mages were treated that caused most of the cases of blood magic and deals with demons. I'm not validating the choices of those mages, they were still wrong in my view, but they are a result of the way mages are treated.
And two final points:
1) It's the Rite of Annulment - not the Right of Annulment.
2) Killing all mages (whether you think this is good, bad, or indifferent) is not genocide. It's mass murder, but not genocide. Because mages aren't an ethnic group or nation. Genocide is 'the deliberate extermination of a people or nation'.
Edit: For clarity, I don't mean the circle/templars caused all cases of blood magic etc, only that they made it more likely to happen.
Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 03 mai 2011 - 03:45 .
#98
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:43
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
TJPags wrote...
Which was exactly my point. The fact that he doesn't mention survivors, whether you took prisoners or not, is not evidence that every mage died.
Yes it is, because if you side with the mages, Varric makes it clear that some mages survived. If any mages survived then it was not a sucessful annulment, and the pro-templar ending makes it very plain that it was. Conclusion: Those captured mages were either killed or tranquilled later as DG says is procedure in such cases.
-Polaris
#99
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:45
Shadow of Light Dragon
-
- Members
- 5 179 messages
The fate of the mages is left open-ended. There is no explicit statement that all the mages died in a pro-templar run, and removing a 'many innocents lived to tell the tale' comment doesn't mean everyone was killed. Considering Cullen overrules Meredith if Hawke wants to spare the mages who surrendered, and considering the templars end up kneeling to Hawke when Meredith is dead, s/he probably gets the final say in what happens to the mages (be that spared but kept in the tower, executed, tranquil)--AT LEAST until outside forces are possibly sent by the Divine to instate a new Revered Mother and Knight Commander.
#100
Posté 03 mai 2011 - 03:46
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
SusanStoHelit wrote...
2) Killing all mages (whether you think this is good, bad, or indifferent) is not genocide. It's mass murder, but not genocide. Because mages aren't an ethnic group or nation. Genocide is 'the deliberate extermination of a people or nation'.
Actually it is under modern UN legal definitions. A mage is defined and selected for different treatment because of a physical characteristic that can not be controlled which causes that person to have his own culture and own sense of identity. You see this repeatedly thoughout the series. As such "mage" is both a racial and ethnic group and thus the Right of Annulment (and yes DG clarified this) IS genocide. KoP actually dug up the legal definitions that proved it.
-Polaris
