67 réponses à ce sujet

[Rising Phoenix]

Neither. I never wanted to side with anyone... but you are forced too. Siding with the Templars gets you a more satisfying ending (for me anyhow)

[tomas819]

Interesting discussion.

I (playing a mage) sided with the templars and executed Anders cause I was just so ... angry at him. All game long Anders had been moaning about how people hate and fear mages and then he does what? And, later on, Orsino who had protested that not all mages are blood mages then does what? Geeze. Can we say ironic?

The more I think about the story, though, the more I think that Anders was merely igniting what would have been inevitable anyway. I do wish he'd picked a more appropriate target, however, such as the Knight Commander. It would have made for an easier endgame.

[Arppis]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ChaosVC wrote...

There will be mages who would abuse the power they have, so does lords, kings, emperors and the chantry leaders.

Hell! There are even common folks who would abuse other simply they have some "power" over them.

At least they can't raze a village for laughs, turn into demons and risk killing up to the triple digets or mind controlling others to do their bidding.

Seen many well armed people do just that. Ofcourse, they don't make deals with demons nor mindcontrol anyone. But they do bully their oppinion on others. In the end we all have the potential for violence.

[TobiTobsen]

Arppis wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

ChaosVC wrote...

There will be mages who would abuse the power they have, so does lords, kings, emperors and the chantry leaders.

Hell! There are even common folks who would abuse other simply they have some "power" over them.

At least they can't raze a village for laughs, turn into demons and risk killing up to the triple digets or mind controlling others to do their bidding.

Seen many well armed people do just that. Ofcourse, they don't make deals with demons nor mindcontrol anyone. But they do bully their oppinion on others. In the end we all have the potential for violence.

Yeah... well armed people. Mages don't need weapons because they're the weapon. And the city guard is way better prepared for taking down a guy with a sword then a guy who can shoot lightning out of his finger, throw fireballs in your face or boil your blood and make you explode. The templar order exists for a reason. You need specially trained warriors to take down mages because they are so dangerous and even they suffer heavy losses sometimes.

To quote a codex entry about abominations

As we approached, a home on the edge of the town exploded, sending splinters of wood and fist-sized chunks of rocks into our ranks. We had but moments to regroup before fire rained from the sky, the sounds of destruction wrapped in a hideous laughter from the center of the village.

There, perched atop the spire of the village chantry, stood the mage. But he was human no longer.

We shouted prayers to the Maker and deflected what magic we could, but as we fought, the creature fought harder. I saw my comrades fall, burned by the flaming sky or crushed by debris.

And the guys in the codex entry are freakin templars. Warriors who are trained to fight mages, infused with lyrium to be better protected against spells. They are not the normal city guard or some farmer militia and yet they're dying under the aussaults of the abomination.

I simply don't understand why people are comparing a regular crazy dude with a sword with a mage who is going on a rampage. The potential for destruction is completly different.

[Arppis]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

ChaosVC wrote...

There will be mages who would abuse the power they have, so does lords, kings, emperors and the chantry leaders.

Hell! There are even common folks who would abuse other simply they have some "power" over them.

At least they can't raze a village for laughs, turn into demons and risk killing up to the triple digets or mind controlling others to do their bidding.

Seen many well armed people do just that. Ofcourse, they don't make deals with demons nor mindcontrol anyone. But they do bully their oppinion on others. In the end we all have the potential for violence.

Yeah... well armed people. Mages don't need weapons because they're the weapon. And the city guard is way better prepared for taking down a guy with a sword then a guy who can shoot lightning out of his finger, throw fireballs in your face or boil your blood and make you explode. The templar order exists for a reason. You need specially trained warriors to take down mages because they are so dangerous and even they suffer heavy losses sometimes.

To quote a codex entry about abominations

As I said, everyone has potential to be dangerous. Not all mages are. They can do as much harm as other people can. But yes they are born with abilities like that. But hey, when there is the will, there is the way. There is so many ways to hurt others.

[PPR223]

Did this not happen the other way round though, when mages were free? Tevinter Imperium were supposedly ruled by Magisters, who seem to all know blood magic, and they had a large amount of slavery. The Tevinter, from the Codex, sounded like a dictatorship to me, so no wonder people don't want to run the risk of them ever becoming so powerful again.

No oppression and they still seem to go to Blood Magic, so what is the arguement against that. Templars have the right idea, however it is taken to the extreme in Kirkwall.

[Huwmin race]

I sided with the mages but the fact is the Templars are there for a reason but they shouldn't
lock up mages as a precaution but be there if there is anything wrong or if someone is abusing or using illegal magic then they should be locked up

[Magicman10893]

Dhaunae wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Dhaunae wrote...

But that doesn't make any sense; would you condemn every athlete in a league if an athlete who had been in that league in the past did something horrible?

Exactly, that's like saying, "A terrorist group from Iraq bombed our country's capital city! Invade Syria and Lebanon!"

Exactly, that's like saying "An Iraqi terrorist group bombed our county's capital! Invade Lebanon and Syria!"
Exactly, that's like saying "An Iraqi terrorist group bombed our country's capital! Invade Lebanon and Syria!"
Mages weren't angellical beings before the Chantry destruction and the Annullment would happen anyway, I just sided with Meredith because the Chantry's destruction was the last straw (fitting the quest name).

Neither side is innocent in the slightest, but the act of a single mage that was never part of the Kirkwall Circle triggering the Circle's annulment seems horrible. It's killing people innocent of a crime because someone similar commited the crime.

Modifié par Magicman10893, 26 mars 2011 - 05:33 .

[Dhaunae]

I have to wonder. The Tevinters and Dalish seem to have far fewer abominations running wild, and both of them recognize the dangers of all spirits and don't try to simply categorize and then ignore the spirits. The Circles seem much more about telling the mages, "look, just don't give in to the demons," and leaving it at that. Is it any real wonder that mages turn to the spirits when all they've been told is, "these things are bad, they make you bad, don't do it!"

[Jarcander]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

SkittlesKat96 wrote...

 Anders ruined that chance.
 

To be honest... there wasn't really any chance at any sort of reasonable compromise. A compromise would be reached, the abuses would continue, something would spark the resistance again and the whole cycle would start over.

Anders did nothing more than break that cycle.

Eh. That's like saying we should drop a nuke because we are only delaying inevitable.

There were no good or acceptable options at the end, only a bad choice. We should've been able to kill them all and let the Maker sort out their souls or kill Anders before manure hit the tornado. Naturally it wouldn't do to ruin the greater plot they had planned for DA3, so we didn't get the options. Pick either ending and the greater end results are still the same, a war between templars and mages and who knows what else.

[Liliandra Nadiar]

Mages, not to say I don't constantly feel the urge to groin punch Orsino with a pair of spiked brass knuckles (or Anders as well for that matter) for being a colossal idiot. The Templars, while serving a valid point and purpose, were turning the Kirkwall Circle into a reversed Teivinter and were braking their own laws. That nearly all the mages ended up proving their suspensions right was largely incidental.
But I still wanted to kick several mages in the kneecaps through out the game.

[KotorEffect3]

I've been wanting to take it to the Templars since DAO, not to mention the family connection (sister and father both mages). Never see myself siding with the Templars in any of my playthroughs.

[shastboy]

tomas819 wrote...

 I do wish he'd picked a more appropriate target, however, such as the Knight Commander. It would have made for an easier endgame.

Yeah why did he destroy the chantry instead of the templar hall?

[cornvp]

I will admit, the potential of mages to be more destuctive and devastating is very high and an example is the difference in the collateral caused between a murderer with a sword and a murderer with magic.
But the KEY question at the end was whether the right annulment the solution to the problem... which it wasn't since in principle it would just be genocide of mages just because of Anders' crime.
Now, if I HAD A CHOICE, I will make Anders take all the blame but since it was not an option, I can only side the mages. Not much of a choice.

[Johun]

I sided with the templars, chiefly because Cullen was the most reasonable person involved in the whole conflict. When he and the other templars knelt before me in the end, I got chills.

[Danjaru]

First playthrough my sister was a mage, second I was a mage.. The choice was kind of made for me..

Even though I'd like a choice of "hmm.. I think I'll just kill you all.."

Modifié par Danjaru, 30 mars 2011 - 06:22 .

[Devildealer]

1st playthrough sided with mages
2nd playthrough side with templars

I was disappointed with the templar ending. I was expecting something along the lines of "and the templars inspired by hawke went on a crusade to kill all mages, to be rid of them once and for all". But nope it was basically the mage ending with hawke becoming viscount....

Becoming viscount is not really much of a reward when you know a bunch of pissed off mages are going to be coming to your doorstep after what you did. So I prefer siding with the mages.

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

Mages all the way. It's not right to enslave an entire class of people for something they were born with. It's also not right to punish the majority for the actions of the minority. And Anders was partially justified in blowing up the chantry. The chantry is the body that is responsible for the enslavement of the mages, as they created the templars and have some control over them. Some of the priests act like they are neutral, but they are really being negligent. Anders went a little over the top, but the priests aren't innocents.