4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Deztyn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, that doesn't really work. The Annulment begins after Hawke chooses sides; when Hawke chooses the side of the mages, she isn't choosing violence, just solidarity. She is then attacked by the templars just like everyone else... so yes, it is self-defense. Especially since Hawke doesn't even have to sympathize with the mages for this, because Meredith says outright that she'll kill Hawke if she doesn't participate in the Annulment.

Humm. Maybe I needed to replay that section as a mage supporter again. As I remember it, Meredith has already stated that she's invoking the Right of Annulment. When Hawke chooses sides she's choosing knowing that it's going to come to fighting. And Hawke still chooses to get involved further rather than just leave after the initial fight. She's still acting illegally either way.

Hawke isn't part of the Circle. The Annulment has no legal hold over her, and Meredith isn't her superior. Meredith's threat to kill Hawke for not participating is absolutely illegal, and after the initial fight, the rule of law is lying in ruins in any case. Which is pretty much the case for the entirety of Act 3, as Meredith's position as de facto Viscount seems quite illegal as well; the Annulment might technically not be, but everything Meredith had to do to reach a position where she could just declare that was. You're by no means some champion of law and order by siding with her.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 mai 2011 - 01:12 .

[The Baconer]

Xilizhra wrote...
Hawke isn't part of the Circle. The Annulment has no legal hold over her, and Meredith isn't her superior. Meredith's threat to kill Hawke for not participating is absolutely illegal, and after the initial fight, the rule of law is lying in ruins in any case.

That depends. If the Hawke in question is a mundane, then her actions are indeed illegal. If he's a mage, then she's well within her legal right to do whatever she wants with him. Apostates have no legal rights.

[Xilizhra]

Death is only an automatic penalty for maleficarum; ordinary apostates, I believe, are simply imprisoned. Unless you're Stalindith.

[The Baconer]

Xilizhra wrote...

Death is only an automatic penalty for maleficarum; ordinary apostates, I believe, are simply imprisoned. Unless you're Stalindith.

Imprisonment is a charity given out by whoever's in command at the time (or whoever happens to catch said apostate). A Templar who simply kills an apostate upon catpure certainly won't come under fire for any legal reasons unless they were explicitly ordered to catch the mage alive by a superior.

[Xilizhra]

Ah well. My current Hawke isn't a mage, so Meredith's way out of her jurisdiction for me in any case.

[GavrielKay]

IanPolaris wrote...

Again NO.  If the Templars CHOOSE to attack you, you are not morally responsible.  All people have an innate and inalienable right to self-defense.

-Polaris

Hawke can choose an action that can cause Carver to have to choose how he reacts.  If Carver is now more loyal to the Templars than his brother/sister that's just the way it is.  Carver may also have had time to see that this particular group of Templars isn't so great and wonder what he got himself into.

[Rifneno]

Woah. This thread grows by the minute. I can't believe all the catching up I have to do. Apologies for the inc walls of text guys.

Deztyn wrote...

I didn't literally mean plumbing was a priority, my sense of humor doesn't always translate well to text. >_>

Ahh hehe. Fair enough, I get myself into trouble a lot the same way.

My problem is this, you can't look at the problems of the mages in isolation: Technology, religion, politics, social mores, local laws, economy etc. Etc. All effect how the mages are treated currently and should effect what solutions are viable and what solutions might work in theory but would break the consistency of the world of to a degree that you may as well be rebuilding it entirely. This is an issue with many of the solutions people come up with on the boards here.

A good point. But on the other hand, you have to weigh the long term damage of a band-aid solution in determining whether it's worth the effort and damage for the more radical options. The Chantry's rule has been going for a thousand years. I don't believe the human mind is even capable of comprehending the amount of suffering it has caused. There reaches a certain point where our minds simply can't fathom an extremely large amount of things. An example. The sun's circumference is 2.7 million miles. We understand that's an incredible amount, but do our minds really understand that size when most of us are familiar with about 30 miles around us? I doubt it.

Sorry, I ramble sometimes. My point is, suffering beyond imagination has been caused by this system. What if it continues another 1,000 years? The effect of a major overhaul is short term, but the effect of a minor overhaul is extremely long term.

Getting whipped for stealing is bad. Getting your hand cut off for stealing is worse. Getting executed for stealing is unconscionable. If it's accepted that within the larger society people can be maimed or killed for stealing than a lashing shouldn't be used an example of templar abuse. It's an example of problems within the society as a whole.

Agreed. But that's not exactly what was said. As I understood it, the tranquil was saying that he/she would be whipped because other people stole and the tranquil just didn't catch them.

Even if it's not true it's still fun to think about!

Indeed. Discussing theories is why I came to these forums. Never intended to keep getting drawn into these Chantry morality debates. Ahh well.

Well, technically Hawke could be considered to be acting in defense of others. But the Right of Annulment is legal. Hawke knows that siding with the mages will involve fighting and killing the templars that are charged with enacting the legal Right. So I consider Hawke responsible for the deaths of any templars that result from the crime of defending the mages.

Who cares about the law? The law sucks. If this game was in Tevinter, would you be helping an escaped slave trying to escape to a better nation? Because that'd be a crime too.

TJPags wrote...

Really? I saw a lot more abominations and evidence of blood magic in the pre-mage ending than I did "innocent" mages. Who was animating those skeletons I fought? Where did those abominations filling the courtyard come from?

I still can't believe how many people don't understand the logical fallacy with condemning people for things done to aggressors in self-defense. If a man shoots a known serial killer that's charging at him with a butcher knife, do you want him tried for murder?

GavrielKay wrote...

We've spent 80 pages debating the evils of a virtual world, and then I go back to the real world and read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=C2

Blech.

The disturbing thing is, that's not even as bad as I expected considering the reactions. It's mindblowing some of the "traditions" still in practice today. Let's see... worst one I can think of that doesn't involve sex or genital mutilation is the Satere-Mawe tribe in the amazon. There's an insect in those rainforests that is considered the have the most painful sting of any insect. The bullet ant, so named because a sting feels like being shot. Or, in the words of a researcher who'd been stung by just about every insect imaginable, "Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like fire-walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch rusty nail in your heel." The venom also lasts upto 24 hours. Now then, the tradition of this tribe? They weave a kind of glove out of hundreds of sedated bullet ants, with the stingers all facing inwards. In order to pass an initiation rite into manhood, a boy must wear endure this natural torture device for 10 minutes. Without screaming. And this must be done 20 times over the course of months or years.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Now I have to run to take out that stupid wh*re mage before she wipes the party with that cheap blood swirl (that my bloodmage can't even USE WTF?!?)
----
I didn't even touch FF13. It's that bad? Yikes. I was thinking about playing it but all the scathing reviews...I have few enough cash as it is I'm not wasting money on a bad game.
----
Dr Disc? Hm...thanks for the suggestion I'll look into it.
----
That's true. But we've only see one RoA in action (or two depending on if you did it in origins). That's really not enough evidence to say how they're usually done. What something says and what tends to actually happen tend to be different things. And all the Codexes have bias.
----
I loved Cid. Though...could Balthier and them see Venat? I can't remember.

I loved FF12. There was very few "just bad." characters in that game. Refreshing for a FF title.

- Yeah he can. That's Hemmorage. Or rather a moderately souped up NPC version.
- Yes. FF13 is made of cancer and the blood of the innocent.
- I recommend getting unplayable discs professionally resurfaced. It costs a few bucks per disc, but the word "professional" is in it for a reason. Machinery that can do a proper job of repairing optical media costs thousands of dollars. The $20 crap they sell at Best Buy damages discs almost as often as they fix them. I sent a totally screwed up disc in to get resurfaced once, and it came back looking like it just rolled off the factory line. It went from a scratched up mess to absolutely pristine. Well worth the 5 bucks it cost me compared to the other options.
- Cullen specifically states it's "always been a last resort, when every mage involved was beyond salvation" and that that isn't the case in Kirkwall.
- They could eventually see Venat, later on, when he materialized or something. But for the most part only Cid could see him. Anyway, what do you mean? There were very few that *weren't* "just bad" in the Arcadian empire. When they bombed the peaceful Mt. Bur-Omisace, full of refugees fleeing from their other conquests, I just wanted to launch a MIRV at Arcadia.

Hmm. I wonder if Reverant Wings was a worthy addition. I never got around to it since I didn't have a DS, but they must be cheap now. I'm rather afraid of any FF on a Nintendo system though. It seems like ever since they split following the cartridge vs CD debiacle, they only give them joke games. Tactics Advance causes brain damage.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well a Sarebaas almost killed him in Act 2.

Speaking of which, maybe someone can RP a Hawke that sides with Meredith out of debt. She saved his life, so like a Wookie, he thinks he should help her or at least not fight her.

Woah. That's by far the best way to RP going the templar side I've heard. Very similar to what happens in the extremely rare event Aveline turns on Hawke (extremely rare because Fenris is an ****). She's absolutely livid with Hawke but in the end she throws down her sword and walks out because Hawke saved her life once upon a time.

I still don't think it's right. The debt is for Hawke's life, not other people's lives. But it's certainly better than "Orsino might've helped a guy kill 3 women! Let's commit genocide to get back at him, if he did it!"

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And now I'm imagining this turning into FFXII where Dr. Cid was conversing with Venat, and no one else could see it
----
As for FFXII, I loved it too. It was more of a political Final Fantasy. There were barely any "bad" characters as you said, and each were enjoyable on their own merits (fun fact: Loghain's VA did a voice of one of the Senators of Archadia).

GAH! YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN! Anyway, agreed, it was my favorite one. Maybe because I love MMO's and it was like a single player in an MMO type of world. Another fun fact, the judge that Simon Templeman VA'd, Zargabaath, was the only Judge Magister (the highest rank) that survives the game. Of course Balthier was VA'd by Gideon Emery, who also does Fenris in DA2. But I doubt anyone could've missed that.

IanPolaris wrote...

Honestly I find Night Terrors to be one of the worst written, and dishnest quests in DA2 (and that's saying a lot). The quest is supposed to "educate us" as to what mages face everyday in their dreams (as Fenris outright states) with the implication that there is no way a mage.....any mage...can be trusted to resist for any length of time.

I agree. That entire quest was simply awful. The only redeeming feature was the post-quest conversations with people that betrayed you (or in Anders' case, that you betrayed). Even though it just introduced yet one more time I wanted to slap the taste out of Aveline's mouth.

[GavrielKay]

Rifneno wrote...

They weave a kind of glove out of hundreds of sedated bullet ants, with the stingers all facing inwards. In order to pass an initiation rite into manhood, a boy must wear endure this natural torture device for 10 minutes. Without screaming. And this must be done 20 times over the course of months or years.

Ow.  Not much point in comparing relative amounts of pain/damage done to children.  There are certainly some nasty rituals out there.

My main point, I suppose, in including something more or less off topic was the idea that inflicting pain and suffering on folks who don't deserve it can get wound up into culture pretty easily and then ends up being defended along the lines of, hey, that's how we do things here, you should respect it.  Well, no, just because it's "always" been that way doesn't mean anyone else has to respect it - that in itself isn't reason enough.  If it hurts no one, or helps them keep their culture alive, then great - but merely stating "it's a tradition" can't be a inviolate.  (Merely stating it's not MY tradition, can't be a reason to try to take it away from people either, mind you.)

So to bring the tangent back around to the topic - just because mages have been feared and imprisoned for 1000 years doesn't mean it's right, or good or defensible in and of itself.  Just because it would take effort and dedication and time to change the minds of thousands of people doesn't mean it shouldn't start right this second.

edit:  spelling

Modifié par GavrielKay, 12 mai 2011 - 04:10 .

[GavrielKay]

Rifneno wrote...

A good point. But on the other hand, you have to weigh the long term damage of a band-aid solution in determining whether it's worth the effort and damage for the more radical options. The Chantry's rule has been going for a thousand years.

One of my problems with the idea that Elthina was trying to orchestrate a compromise (which we don't see a lot of evidence of, but that's what she seems to hope will happen) is that a compromise may stave off the immediate threat, but isn't likely to really overhaul the system in any meaningful way.  Maybe she gets Meredith to agree to flog every Templar caught raping a mage...  well, sure that's an improvement.  But is keeping things simmering rather than boiling really a solution?  It's almost certain to boil over again somewhere.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah well. My current Hawke isn't a mage, so Meredith's way out of her jurisdiction for me in any case.

I wouldn't count on anyhting akin to a juridstiction even exists in Thedas. If a Templar wants to kill you he can, but he will be questioned about it (presuming it is even discovered), and he will need to justify his actions. To other Templars, not a Guardsman. The same goes for a Guardsman though.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I wouldn't count on anyhting akin to a juridstiction even exists in Thedas. If a Templar wants to kill you he can, but he will be questioned about it (presuming it is even discovered), and he will need to justify his actions. To other Templars, not a Guardsman. The same goes for a Guardsman though.

Well, there must be something Meredith felt she couldn't do as easily as she wanted to because there's a scene where Aveline is arguing with a Templar over the independence of the city guard.  By the end though, I don't think Meredith cares what's legal, right or sane.

[Silfren]

*wails and gnashes teeth*

This is what I get for following a Bioware thread for sixty-odd pages. My gauge is completely off!

*holds up hand-knitted sock that is totally pretty and perfectly constructed and completely freaking unwearable*


YOU GUYS RUINED MY KNITTING!!!!!!!!!!!

*goes back to reading now*

[Beerfish]

Silfren wrote...

*wails and gnashes teeth*

This is what I get for following a Bioware thread for sixty-odd pages. My gauge is completely off!

*holds up hand-knitted sock that is totally pretty and perfectly constructed and completely freaking unwearable*


YOU GUYS RUINED MY KNITTING!!!!!!!!!!!

*goes back to reading now*

Obviously a mage that has gone bonkers (seduced by the Crochet Demon undoubtably).  Yet another example of why we need a strong circle with dedicated Templars to keep and eye on them.  There is a well known overabundance of tea coseys in the Tevinter Imperium.

[Silfren]

Deztyn wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

asindre wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You are choosing the side of the mages, in so doing, you are also choosing to attack the Templars. Or are you saying you wouldn't attack the Templars if they just ignored you, and went after the mages only?

I think you're forgetting which side wants to fight. (hint, it's not the mages)
You're not choosing to attack the templars, you're just choosing to defend the mages.
If the templars had chosen not to attack, the mages and hawke would have no reason to kill them

Irrelevant. Polaris is trying to advocate self-defense. What he is describing is however not self-defense. He joins the Mages, and take their fight as his own. The mages are just defending themselves. A Hawke who joins them, however, is actively choosing to fight the Templars.

Well, technically Hawke could be considered to be acting in defense of others. But the Right of Annulment is legal. Hawke knows that siding with the mages will involve fighting and killing the templars that are charged with enacting the legal Right. So I consider Hawke responsible for the deaths of any templars that result from the crime of defending the mages.

The biggest problem I see happening is either a refusal or an inability to separate one's personal morals from their character's. 

It IS possible to decide, from Hawke's point of view, that the best decision is to join the Templars and carry out the Annulment.  It IS possible for them to decide, as much as they hate the idea, that not doing so will result in an even worse situation.  They could either decide that the mages will be driven to such desperate measures of self-defense that more people will be killed by the resulting chaos.  In this scenario, the innocence of the mages is irrelevant--the decision is made based on Hawke concluding that it's the least terrible of several terrible options.  It is also possible to believe that Meredith is right, that the suspicion of blood magic means that the entire Circle is compromised and since there's no easy way to determine innocent from guilty without the risk of being wrong, that annulment is necessary.

A person can make either decision without believing that annulment is morally just.  I've seen similar scenes played out before, in film and book. 

I've tried siding with the templars just once in order to roleplay that angle: a Hawke who despises the very concept of Annulment but finds herself forced into making that choice because of Meredith's crazy.  This is one case in which I couldn't fully separate my personal morals from my character's, and so I didn't even attempt to try roleplaying a Hawke who actually believed Annulment was a good idea and a just one.  But even trying to play a Hawke who hated herself for having to carry out what she felt was a horrific act but one made necessary by Meredith--and Anders, in that playthrough--was too much, and I couldn't do it.  

But I can still understand the reasoning.  I really think that part of the problem is failing to accept that it is possible for people to be forced into doing things they consider to be morally heinous because the alternatives--especially in the heat of a moment when a decision has to be made without the luxury of ample consideration--either are or could potentially be worse.

[GavrielKay]

Deztyn wrote...

My problem is this, you can't look at the problems of the mages in isolation: Technology, religion, politics, social mores, local laws, economy etc. Etc. All effect how the mages are treated currently and should effect what solutions are viable and what solutions might work in theory but would break the consistency of the world of to a degree that you may as well be rebuilding it entirely. This is an issue with many of the solutions people come up with on the boards here.

At first I wanted to write that no-one would want to spend the time to concoct a whole system of mage society from scratch for a virtual world that would never benefit.  Then I thought about how much time I've spent on here anyway and I probably could have done just that. 

Still... 

These sorts of problems don't have 100% solutions.  Even in the modern world we can't agree on how best to fight terrorism.  We just have to accept that given enough determined and clever people, someone will be able to do harm. 

Profiling isn't 100% because you can't tell that granny isn't hiding a bomb in her wheel chair since she has 3 months to live anyway and the airline fired her husband just when she needed his health insurance for chemo.  You can't tell by someone's face, birth or upbrining whether they will actually try to do you harm or not. 

Random sampling sure isn't 100% either.

You can't tell whether a mage will do harm just because he's a mage.  You can estimate the relative risk of how many people that mage could harm under certain circumstances vs a non-magical person.  You can decide based on that risk that you probably ought to do something to mitigate that risk.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss alternatives to the current Chantry controlled system just because they haven't written a full treatise examining the statistics of lives saved vs. lost by both systems.  We can't know, and probably should devote that kind of in depth analysis to saving actual people.

As far as the game is concerned, I think the history and lore provided shows that that current system is hardly perfect.  It's not even very good from some points of view, so there's quite a bit of room between the current system and some idealistic 100% system.

[Ryzaki]

Deztyn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, that doesn't really work. The Annulment begins after Hawke chooses sides; when Hawke chooses the side of the mages, she isn't choosing violence, just solidarity. She is then attacked by the templars just like everyone else... so yes, it is self-defense. Especially since Hawke doesn't even have to sympathize with the mages for this, because Meredith says outright that she'll kill Hawke if she doesn't participate in the Annulment.

Humm. Maybe I needed to replay that section as a mage supporter again. As I remember it, Meredith has already stated that she's invoking the Right of Annulment. When Hawke chooses sides she's choosing knowing that it's going to come to fighting. And Hawke still chooses to get involved further rather than just leave after the initial fight. She's still acting illegally either way.

Yes Hawke is breaking the law by defending the mages. Merediht even gives you a chance to backout of the decision before you finalizie it. 

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yes Hawke is breaking the law by defending the mages. Merediht even gives you a chance to backout of the decision before you finalizie it. 

I think this is a debatable point.

Do we know for a fact that Meredith has the legal authority to call the Right in the absence of the Grand Cleric, or permission from the Divine?  It's a question - don't attack me

If Hawke believes that Meredith has overstepped her bounds and failed in her duty in other ways already discussed in this thread, it is possible that Hawke also believes that Meredith is not fit to act as Knight Commander and should step down.  Even before the whole idol-sword debacle, Hawke may find Meredith to be quite unstable and incapable of making a rational (or legal) decision.

Thedas obviously has different rules, but generally it has been established that disobeying an illegal order is legal. 

If Hawke believes that Meredith isn't fit for duty, then it follows that Hawke doesn't believe ordering the Right is legal.  Losing her mind over the death of the Grand Cleric is a reason to step down in favor of someone who can still think rationally, not to go on a power trip and use it as an excuse to do something she already wanted to do.

I'm just trying to establish that it isn't cut and dried here.  Hawke could feel completely morally as well as legally obligated to prevent Meredith from going on a rampage.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
I think this is a debatable point.

Do we know for a fact that Meredith has the legal authority to call the Right in the absence of the Grand Cleric, or permission from the Divine?  It's a question - don't attack me

According to WoG in the absense of the Grand Cleric the KC had full authority to call the Rite. I forgot where his quote was but its..somewhere. Anders murder of Elthina gave Meredith the power to call the RoA. Hell that's what Anders was banking on. 

If Hawke believes that Meredith has overstepped her bounds and failed in her duty in other ways already discussed in this thread, it is possible that Hawke also believes that Meredith is not fit to act as Knight Commander and should step down.  Even before the whole idol-sword debacle, Hawke may find Meredith to be quite unstable and incapable of making a rational (or legal) decision.

Thedas obviously has different rules, but generally it has been established that disobeying an illegal order is legal. 

But Hawke has no legal standing to make that decision. Cullen does. 
Which he later uses. 

If Hawke believes that Meredith isn't fit for duty, then it follows that Hawke doesn't believe ordering the Right is legal.  Losing her mind over the death of the Grand Cleric is a reason to step down in favor of someone who can still think rationally, not to go on a power trip and use it as an excuse to do something she already wanted to do.

I'm just trying to establish that it isn't cut and dried here.  Hawke could feel completely morally as well as legally obligated to prevent Meredith from going on a rampage.

Doesn't matter if Meredith isn't fit for duty. If her second in command doesn't relieve her, her word in the absence of the grand cleric is law. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 mai 2011 - 08:05 .

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Actually, that doesn't really work. The Annulment begins after Hawke chooses sides; when Hawke chooses the side of the mages, she isn't choosing violence, just solidarity. She is then attacked by the templars just like everyone else... so yes, it is self-defense. Especially since Hawke doesn't even have to sympathize with the mages for this, because Meredith says outright that she'll kill Hawke if she doesn't participate in the Annulment.

Humm. Maybe I needed to replay that section as a mage supporter again. As I remember it, Meredith has already stated that she's invoking the Right of Annulment. When Hawke chooses sides she's choosing knowing that it's going to come to fighting. And Hawke still chooses to get involved further rather than just leave after the initial fight. She's still acting illegally either way.

Yes Hawke is breaking the law by defending the mages. Merediht even gives you a chance to backout of the decision before you finalizie it. 

You know another law many Hawkes break at that scene?  Executing Anders!  Hawke is not legally judge, jury, and executioner.  Hawke isn't even any kind of government official.  It's not self-defense, it's within the city limits of Kirkwall, and he's just sitting on a crate talking when Hawke murderknifes him.

[Ryzaki]

Rifneno wrote...
You know another law many Hawkes break at that scene?  Executing Anders!  Hawke is not legally judge, jury, and executioner.  Hawke isn't even any kind of government official.  It's not self-defense, it's within the city limits of Kirkwall, and he's just sitting on a crate talking when Hawke murderknifes him.

That's arguable. Especially if Meredith tells you to deal with the traitor as you see fit. As she and Aveline are the law in Kirkwall you do kind of have official sanction to kill him or do whatever. 

Regardless I don't murderknife Anders becase it's a weak scene. I let him go and kill him in self defense when he attacks. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 mai 2011 - 08:08 .

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
You know another law many Hawkes break at that scene?  Executing Anders!  Hawke is not legally judge, jury, and executioner.  Hawke isn't even any kind of government official.  It's not self-defense, it's within the city limits of Kirkwall, and he's just sitting on a crate talking when Hawke murderknifes him.

That's arguable. Especially if Meredith tells you to deal with the traitor as you see fit. 

Regardless I don't murderknife Anders becase it's a weak scene. I let him go and kill him in self defense when he attacks. 

No, it's not arguable.  Unless you have some codex that specifically states by Kirkwall or Free Marches law that citizens may kill one another in circumstance X, then you have no leg to stand on.

[Ryzaki]

Rifneno wrote...
No, it's not arguable.  Unless you have some codex that specifically states by Kirkwall or Free Marches law that citizens may kill one another in circumstance X, then you have no leg to stand on.

Edit: Yes it is. Meredith is the law in Kirkwall. She told Hawke to deal with Anders as he saw fit. Therefore whatever Hawke did to Anders was legal. 

Only time Hawke's actions towards Anders are illegal is when he/she sides with the mages. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 12 mai 2011 - 08:16 .

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
No, it's not arguable.  Unless you have some codex that specifically states by Kirkwall or Free Marches law that citizens may kill one another in circumstance X, then you have no leg to stand on.

Edit: Yes it is. Meredith is the law in Kirkwall. She told Hawke to deal with Anders as he saw fit. Therefore whatever Hawke did to Anders was legal. 

1.  It's been acknowledged by the devs that most people side with the mages.  Meaning Meredith never says that most of the time.
2.  Meredith is not "the law" in Kirkwall.  The fact she had any political power at all was illegal and only allowed to happen because Elthina refuses to enforce Chantry law.

It really is pathetic the lengths some people will go to deny the obvious so they can tell themselves comforting lies.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Doesn't matter if Meredith isn't fit for duty. If her second in command doesn't relieve her, her word in the absence of the grand cleric is law. 

I'm not convinced, but that's ok.  My Hawke thinks Meredith is a psychotic power tripping woman who shouldn't be making decisions involving anything more complicated than lipstick color.  Legal or illegal in the eyes of whatever passes for law in these circumstances doesn't matter to Hawke.