4350 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

Is saving fifty genuinely innocent mages worth it if the result is one Connor or Amelia style abomination escaping with them?

Yes.  That is the price we pay for our humanity.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

I like the idea of Carver becoming a Grey Warden, since it ties into the The Warden and an organization I really like. The dichotomy between Hawke and a templar Carver over Meredith's edict against the mages never really made me reconsider protecting men, women, and children from her madness. His choice to stand with Meredith didn't cause me to waiver. It's unfortunate Thrask was killed in that insipid quest, because I think he would have sided against Meredith as well to protect the enchanters, mages, and apprentices from her.

I have to wonder if there are any ramifications for a Warden Carver siding with a pro-mage Hawke. Would Carver return to the Wardens, or remain at his brother's side? Would Carver ask his brother to help with the "mysterious task" that involved Stroud, Nathaniel, and the other Wardens? Does it have anything to do with the Lyrium Idol that consumed Meredith? And what will the common people think when they learn that Meredith was possessed and turned to stone?

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I have to wonder if there are any ramifications for a Warden Carver siding with a pro-mage Hawke. Would Carver return to the Wardens, or remain at his brother's side? Would Carver ask his brother to help with the "mysterious task" that involved Stroud, Nathaniel, and the other Wardens? Does it have anything to do with the Lyrium Idol that consumed Meredith? And what will the common people think when they learn that Meredith was possessed and turned to stone?

I doubt it.  Even Warden Bethany is ignored by the Templars (Circlemage Bethany of course is not).  At worst, I'd expect a sharply written complaint by the Chantry and/or Knight Commander to the nearest Warden Commander and that would be the end of it assuming the Wardens as a whole didn't make a habit of interfering (and that doesn't seem to be in the immediate cards).

As for the common people, I don't think the common people will ever find out except as a wild rumor or tall tale by a few rambunctions Templars with too much to drink.  I think the Templar will go to great lengths to hide the evidence and comment that Mereidith was killed by the Champion in combat without further detail (and most would take that at face value I think).

-Polari9s

[HSHAW]

Just a thought but IIRC the Templars had to sail to the Gallows to bring their forces in the city against the mages, why didn't the mages set their boats on fire?

[LobselVith8]

Ian,

I really hope the Knight-Vigilant writes the complaint to the Warden-Commander of Ferelden. I'd love to return the favor the Chantry provided for the royal boon. "You want me to do something about the Warden Carver? .... No."

[Ryzaki]

HSHAW wrote...

Just a thought but IIRC the Templars had to sail to the Gallows to bring their forces in the city against the mages, why didn't the mages set their boats on fire?

These are the same mages whole let the templars run up to them through a funnel before attacking. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the rack. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

HSHAW wrote...

Just a thought but IIRC the Templars had to sail to the Gallows to bring their forces in the city against the mages, why didn't the mages set their boats on fire?

THere can be a bunch of different reasons, and perhaps they did set fire on some boats. We never really see the Templars approach. When Hawke arrives, the fighting has already been going on for a while.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I was raising my eyebrow at Meredith since Act 1. More so in Act 2. Her actions, if looked at carefully, were never that reasonable and were even counter-productive. If it were up to me, I would make her retire the moment she initiated a coup d'etat.

But that's just me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2011 - 10:35 .

[Deztyn]

Silfren wrote...

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. 

This is actually the argument of most of the pro-templar side. We don't get to choose whether the annulment is going to happen, we just get to choose how to minimize the damage. How we feel about the Circles in general is irrelevant.

(We are all genocidal, rape supporting, Gestapo, N**i babykillers for it though.)

GavrielKay wrote...

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.

I'm not really looking for that. Just a bit less of "The Chantry is evil because they don't need to lock up mages. See the picturesque village of Haven as proof!" Because well, it's Haven, and there's much more going on there then their treatment of mages. Same with Tevinter.

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.

A perfect solution is never reachable, but I think something more is required than, "Chantry= Evil, tear it down!". At least for me to take a person's opinion on the matter seriously.

For the record, my opinion is that space should be occupied by the Circle. With modifications to allow a bit more freedom for proven adult mages, and with better oversight of the templars to prevent the kind of abuses that went on in Kirkwall.

Rifneno wrote...
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.

1) So the defense here is: So what if Hawke acts illegally when siding with the mages, when siding with the mages Hawke does this other illegal thing too.

2) Meredith's authority here has nothing to do with filling the Viscount seat, she has the power as Knight-Commander. Anders is an Apostate and Maleficar, if she wants to execute him she has the right to do so, if she wants to deputize someone else to make the decision for her, she can probably do that too.

Modifié par Deztyn, 12 mai 2011 - 10:41 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

All of her actions was to weed out the blood mages, she suspected was hiding within the Circle. If her investigation had not been denied, things would have been alot different.

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ian,

I really hope the Knight-Vigilant writes the complaint to the Warden-Commander of Ferelden. I'd love to return the favor the Chantry provided for the royal boon. "You want me to do something about the Warden Carver? .... No."

Yeah, there would be a certain irony and justice to that wouldn't there?

-Polaris

[Merela]

PureMethodActor wrote...

I haven't read any of the others posts yet, and I will eventually. But I do want to post my 2 cents on this, as I spoiled myself of the game way ahead of me playing it.

I find Meredith very reasonable in Act 2 and the beginning of Act 3. She talks calmly about her viewpoints and is very eloquent, doesn't let emotions cloud her arguments, and doesn't let emotions get the best of her at the particular stages of the game I mention. Plus her codex provides a personal reason why she is justified with increased vigilance in her duties. Overall, at those points in the game, I can totally, completely agree with her.

Based on that, I'm more led to believe that she becomes crazy due to exposure to the red lyrium and also becomes less and less... her. That is the only reason she goes apes**t like Orsino in the final parts of the act.

My thoughts: When I get to that point in the game with my first Hawke, I'm not siding with mages or templars, Orsino or Meredith... I'm siding with who can keep order, safety, and the general well-being of the people of Kirkwall, and based the countless numbers of blood mages and malificarum I see in the game, I'm guessing that the Templars are the best bet for keeping order.

Be careful. Even before you know it, you'll be categorized as a supporter of genocide, a pro-rapist and an immoral person, even if your main concern is Kirkwall and its people. No golden mean in that case, it's apparently for coward persons...

[Deztyn]

IanPolaris wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Is saving fifty genuinely innocent mages worth it if the result is one Connor or Amelia style abomination escaping with them?

Yes.  That is the price we pay for our humanity.

-Polaris

The surviving citizens of the next Redcliffe Village would probably like to have a word with you regarding your humanity.

HSHAW wrote...

Just a thought but IIRC the Templars had to sail to the Gallows to bring their forces in the city against the mages, why didn't the mages set their boats on fire?

This is Kirkwall.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was raising my eyebrow at Meredith since Act 1. More so in Act 2. Her actions, if looked at carefully, were never that reasonable and were even counter-productive. If it were up to me, I would make her retire the moment she initiated a coup d'etat.

But that's just me.

Meredith already has the idol in Act II, though.

At least it's heavily implied.


(Sidenote: Yay! I caught up! )

Modifié par Deztyn, 12 mai 2011 - 10:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I was raising my eyebrow at Meredith since Act 1. More so in Act 2. Her actions, if looked at carefully, were never that reasonable and were even counter-productive. If it were up to me, I would make her retire the moment she initiated a coup d'etat.

But that's just me.

Meredith already has the idol in Act II, though.

At least it's heavily implied.


(Sidenote: Yay! I caught up! )

Does it really matter if she is innately incompetent or incompetent because of the idol or a combination of both?

At the end of the day, you have someone who is incompetent and who has more power than she should (and who wants more).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 mai 2011 - 10:48 .

[SheilaD67]

Siding with the Templars gives you more of an opportunity to save lives than siding with the mages. Also, a good justification is that the Templar order is one of the arms of the law in KIrkwall. A good example is of your Hawke feeling that he/she needs to keep order is if you meet Warden Bethany and she berates you for siding with the Templars, you tell her you only want to keep order - and save as many civilian lives as possible. She agrees and sides with you. Then, when you are battling the mages, you can opt to argue sparing those who surrender (Cullen sides with you and the mages are spared).

There really is no 'good' or 'evil' choice for this - as far as the choices themselves go. Both leaders are a bit off (Orsino using blood magic; Meredith already possessed). I've done both endings, and frankly, I like the templar siding better only in that I feel like I've saved more lives - civilian, mage, templar - in that choice than in siding with the mages. Which also puts my Hawke on the other side of the law.

Course, it really depends on how you roleplayed throughout the game as well. For some Hawkes, siding with the Templars makes absolute sense, and for others, none at all.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

- 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.

I think Ryzaki meant poorly developed characters as opposed to truly sinister characters. As for Revenant Wings, I think it did pretty well.

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.

 MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anyway, yea I remember a lot about FFXII's plot, characters, and everything. The story was really well done. As soon as I watched the tiny Fenris clip with voice acting many months ago I was really happy that Balthier's VA was doing the voice. I mean, he just has an awesome voice (though at first I kept imagining Balthier there and it took me a while to see that the voice did fit Fenris). 

Apparently, FFXII isn't the first game to take place in Ivalice. One of the earlier games in the FF series did too, and as such these games are called the Ivalice Alliance. Also, I remember hearing about a new game that takes place in Ivalice sometime after FFXII called Fortress. I wonder how it's doing...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 mai 2011 - 11:06 .

[IanPolaris]

Eva Galana wrote...

Siding with the Templars gives you more of an opportunity to save lives than siding with the mages. Also, a good justification is that the Templar order is one of the arms of the law in KIrkwall. A good example is of your Hawke feeling that he/she needs to keep order is if you meet Warden Bethany and she berates you for siding with the Templars, you tell her you only want to keep order - and save as many civilian lives as possible. She agrees and sides with you. Then, when you are battling the mages, you can opt to argue sparing those who surrender (Cullen sides with you and the mages are spared).

There really is no 'good' or 'evil' choice for this - as far as the choices themselves go. Both leaders are a bit off (Orsino using blood magic; Meredith already possessed). I've done both endings, and frankly, I like the templar siding better only in that I feel like I've saved more lives - civilian, mage, templar - in that choice than in siding with the mages. Which also puts my Hawke on the other side of the law.

Course, it really depends on how you roleplayed throughout the game as well. For some Hawkes, siding with the Templars makes absolute sense, and for others, none at all.

That's all well and good as long as you are willing to ignore that you are complicit and abetting an open act of Genocide AND doing so against a group of people for a crime they didn't commit.

If that doesn't bother you then sure.......

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

The surviving citizens of the next Redcliffe Village would probably like to have a word with you regarding your humanity.

Freedom isn't free.  I note that a pyschopathic rogue could do as much damage...so we should lock away all people that might be rogues?

-Polaris

[Sylvianus]

Eva Galana wrote...

Siding with the Templars gives you more of an opportunity to save lives than siding with the mages. Also, a good justification is that the Templar order is one of the arms of the law in KIrkwall. A good example is of your Hawke feeling that he/she needs to keep order is if you meet Warden Bethany and she berates you for siding with the Templars, you tell her you only want to keep order - and save as many civilian lives as possible. She agrees and sides with you. Then, when you are battling the mages, you can opt to argue sparing those who surrender (Cullen sides with you and the mages are spared).

There really is no 'good' or 'evil' choice for this - as far as the choices themselves go. Both leaders are a bit off (Orsino using blood magic; Meredith already possessed). I've done both endings, and frankly, I like the templar siding better only in that I feel like I've saved more lives - civilian, mage, templar - in that choice than in siding with the mages. Which also puts my Hawke on the other side of the law.

Course, it really depends on how you roleplayed throughout the game as well. [b]For some Hawkes, siding with the Templars makes absolute sense, and for others, none at all.

The voice of reason has spoken.

Also like Merela, Ryzaky and everyone said,   If you are worried about the Kirkwall's people, it is the templar we decided to join.

Meredith is mad or not, this is not her decision that is followed, it is ours in a situation that doesn't give us the choice, in a radical situation that calls for blood.

Meredith is eliminated, the threat is contained, Kirkwall see all extremists eliminated. The calm may come back and order restored.

Yes there certainly were many victims, but innocent people were already involved from the chantry's blow. What matter was  the final resolution of the conflict, in one way or another.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 mai 2011 - 11:10 .

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Does it really matter if she is innately incompetent or incompetent because of the idol or a combination of both?

Not particularly, no. But the other poster blamed the Idol. You said she was already nuts by the second Act, I was just mentioning she had the Idol then too.

At the end of the day, you have someone who is incompetent and who has more power than she should (and who wants more).

I liked Meredith as a character. At least until she completely lost it. I have nothing against the idea of her being driven by her justifiable fear of mages and trying to establish an oppressive templar regime in the name of protecting the average man. Not bad as far as motivations go. It's the execution that was lacking. I'm just not sure how much blame should go to Meredith's actual character, and how much should go to the idol or the writing staff.

[IanPolaris]

Sylvianus wrote...

Eva Galana wrote...

Siding with the Templars gives you more of an opportunity to save lives than siding with the mages. Also, a good justification is that the Templar order is one of the arms of the law in KIrkwall. A good example is of your Hawke feeling that he/she needs to keep order is if you meet Warden Bethany and she berates you for siding with the Templars, you tell her you only want to keep order - and save as many civilian lives as possible. She agrees and sides with you. Then, when you are battling the mages, you can opt to argue sparing those who surrender (Cullen sides with you and the mages are spared).

There really is no 'good' or 'evil' choice for this - as far as the choices themselves go. Both leaders are a bit off (Orsino using blood magic; Meredith already possessed). I've done both endings, and frankly, I like the templar siding better only in that I feel like I've saved more lives - civilian, mage, templar - in that choice than in siding with the mages. Which also puts my Hawke on the other side of the law.

Course, it really depends on how you roleplayed throughout the game as well. [b]For some Hawkes, siding with the Templars makes absolute sense, and for others, none at all.

The voice of reason has spoken.

Also like Merela, Ryzaky and everyone said,   If you are worried about the Kirkwall's people, it is the templar we decided to join.

Meredith is mad or not, this is not her decision that is followed, it is ours in a situation that doesn't give us the choice, in a radical situation that calls for blood.

Meredith is eliminated, the threat is contained, Kirkwall see all extremists eliminated. The calm may come back and order restored.

Yes there certainly were many victims, but innocent people were already involved from the chantry's blow. What matter was  the final resolution of the conflict, in one way or another.

Sure, just as long as you are willing to ignore the fact that you have to aid and abet the mass murder of an entire group of people for a crime they didn't commit, and that doesn't bother you than sure.

Genocide bothers me....just a little bit.  The cost is too high.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All of her actions was to weed out the blood mages, she suspected was hiding within the Circle. If her investigation had not been denied, things would have been alot different.

Not necessarily.  She's already requested permission for the RoA at the beginning of Act 3.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Does it really matter if she is innately incompetent or incompetent because of the idol or a combination of both?

Not particularly, no. But the other poster blamed the Idol. You said she was already nuts by the second Act, I was just mentioning she had the Idol then too.

Not to nitpick, but I said her actions were not that reasonable and were counter-productive. I didn't say she was nuts.

I liked Meredith as a character. At least until she completely lost it. I have nothing against the idea of her being driven by her justifiable fear of mages and trying to establish an oppressive templar regime in the name of protecting the average man. Not bad as far as motivations go. It's the execution that was lacking. I'm just not sure how much blame should go to Meredith's actual character, and how much should go to the idol or the writing staff.

I didn't feel she had a character (Orsino is even worse) but that I blame on the writers.

Meredith could have potentially been a character I could be interested in. But as it stands, I am indifferent to her, at least before Act 3.

[IanPolaris]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

All of her actions was to weed out the blood mages, she suspected was hiding within the Circle. If her investigation had not been denied, things would have been alot different.

Not necessarily.  She's already requested permission for the RoA at the beginning of Act 3.

Indeed if you sided with Meredith in the Chantry square (start of Act III), Meredith gives you "Best Served Cold" and she makes it fimrly but quietly clear that she is looking for ANY evidence and ANY excuse to slaughter all the mages (she says Right of Annulment but that is what it is).  Meredith is looking for any pretext to slaughter all mages at least from the start of Act III if not before.  That is made crystal clear in many places.

-Polaris