169 réponses à ce sujet

[ReallyRue]

Quentin was a very good example of an evil mage, and my opinion of Orsino is futher lessened by knowing the two were in cahoots and that was why he turned into a Harvester.

Also, after what Quentin does to your mother, I decided that suddenly Hawke had both good reasons to be pro-mage and good reasons to be anti-mage.

Considering the game arguably starts you off on a pro-mage stance, it makes sense to level that out with questionable/evil people, whatever their intentions.

[Asdara]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith isn't right, though. The Knight-Commander wants the genocide of every mage for the actions of a Grey Warden who was standing right in front of her. Since there are likely hundreds or thousands of mages of all ages in the Gallows Prison, encountering only a handful of abominations doesn't mean that every mage fell prey to abominations. We can't condemn every mage for the actions of the few we encounter.

Yes, but as Aelia points out above, we encounter more than a "few" mages in our travels, and most of them are dipping into the demonic power pool liberally.  That's a major drawback of having them as common enemy types - our scales are unbalanced by the sheer number of "bad" or "enemy" mages we are mowing down on our way through the story no matter what pathing we take.  Sure, we can be pro-mage, but we're not letting our mother's murderer walk out of that room alive.  Of course we can be pro-mage, but Sebastian's rival noble family is still captive to a Desire Demon who will be tasting the basement dirt before we exit.  Naturally we can be pro-mage, but <fill in time you had to kill a blood mage or demon possessed mage or demon trying to possess a mage here>.

Our experience colors our judgement and the experience laid out for us in DA2 is one that is rife with evil mages running amok set against a backdrop of conflict about mage rights that seems very academic by comparison.

[NICKjnp]

I think the problem with the game is that the mages in Kirkwall seem to all turn into abominations when someone attacked them while in Origins the majority of mages actually fought blood magic and abominations. It seemed to be a complete reversal from the first game to the second. In Kirkwall they say "oh no I'm scared...ooh...ahh...eeh...pittiful humans" and turn into an abomination. In Origins they say "I'm scared...fight the demons back and resist" and they in fact fight the demons back and resist them. It is more along the lines that they completely changed the lore rahter than having deplorable conditions in the gallows.

[blauwvis]

I do think that this was one of the game's weakest and most disappointing aspects, having done one playthrough so far with a generally pro-mage Hawke. As we encountered more and more crazy blood mages and abominations, it became increasingly difficult to defend the notion that all mages should be free, with evidence to the contrary all around. At least they made it easier for me to justify siding with the mages in the final confrontation, since Orsino caved immediately following the Big Bang but Meredith still insisted on exterminating them all - so I wasn't even trying to release them at that point, just save them from slaughter. (Funny thing, that - if Meredith hadn't been completely insane, Anders' gambit would have failed.)

I do like various theories floating around about how Kirkwall's horrific past and the terrible conditions in the Circle there make it more likely for the mages in that city to be influenced by demons, so it's not like mages elsewhere in the world have such a high possession rate; I just wish that, if that was the case, it would have come out more in the game and not required extrapolation from a handful of Codex entries.

[Lithuasil]

The problem is imho - hawke is, with her entire family history, way too biased. I mean even if hawke is no apostate herself, she's still daughter, sister, friend and possibly lover to various apostates, who (excluding anders) are all pretty decent people. (and it's that bias, they're trying to compensate with everyone going *durr bloodmagic*)

What DA3 should do (if they focus on this conflict again), is give you two origins, depending on class - as a mage, you spent the first two hours in a circle, the situation heating up more, and more, and ultimately exploding. As a mundane, you spent the first two hours in some village, preferably son to a templar or something, before runaway bloodmages show up, and hilarity and mass murder ensue.
And then present us with a balanced story, that we as players perceive differently, depending on our origin.

[Buckarama]

Meredith is completely crazy through the reformed idol - and yes that's what is suppose to be hook of the story that no one is right - The Templar's are wrong for following Crazy Meredith, and Orsine is wrong in his reaction to the Templar's efforts.

[wright1978]

Well i stayed pro mage throughout. Think a big theme was how controlling oppression can destroy.Anders goes from being a happy go lucky guy who loves cats to a headcase, inhabitated by a demon who seeing no hope of a peaceful solution. Orsino and grace similarly seem decent people who expliciably make bad choices through desperation. Huon and ferelden refugee woman also follow this pattern. The passive mages(Bethany & young virgin dude) cope with the circle fine but anyone with an ounce of free will is likely to try rash/hazardous methods of escaping the oppression. The templars actively or passively let lobotomisation go on freely meant there was no way i could side with them even if some of the rank & file(Cullen etc) seemed seemed reasonable well adjusted people.

Merill's theme seemed to be gullible/naivety. Like everytime i cracked a sardonic joke, she swallowed it hook line and sinker so did he with the demon. Wanting to fix the mirror i took as not being evil but taking a risky shortcut i let the consequences be on her head.

[Lee T]

To be honest the Templars don't look nicer than the mage, on one side you have blood crazed maniacs psychokiller mages, on the other hand you have abuser torturer godwin's law abider templars.

[Aelia]

Lithuasil wrote...

The problem is imho - hawke is, with her entire family history, way too biased. I mean even if hawke is no apostate herself, she's still daughter, sister, friend and possibly lover to various apostates, who (excluding anders) are all pretty decent people. (and it's that bias, they're trying to compensate with everyone going *durr bloodmagic*)

I mostly agree with this except for the "possible lover to various apostates" part. You note Anders as an exception to this, but based on how DA2 unfolded, the only thing that kept Merrill from falling prey to demon possession was the sacrifice made by Marethari which in turn resulted in the massacre of her entire village.  An argument might be made for Fenris as an apostate (I wouldn't categorize him that way, but I saw someone else do it) and while I love that little emo elf to death, this is the guy who wiped out the village of the people who took him in, on his master's orders, and later ripped his sister's heart out for her betrayal in the Hanged Man... not really what I'd call decent people, but there ya go...  If they were compensating for her bias, then, as far as I'm concerned, they over did it.

What DA3 should do (if they focus on this conflict again), is give you two origins, depending on class - as a mage, you spent the first two hours in a circle, the situation heating up more, and more, and ultimately exploding. As a mundane, you spent the first two hours in some village, preferably son to a templar or something, before runaway bloodmages show up, and hilarity and mass murder ensue.
And then present us with a balanced story, that we as players perceive differently, depending on our origin.

I like this idea! To me the more choices the more I like it.  Even better... have my choices actually MEAN something.

-A

Edited for spelling

Modifié par Aelia, 28 mars 2011 - 05:36 .

[NICKjnp]

Although you can take a side that doesn't kill the Dalish and where Fenris doesn't kill his sister.

[Isaantia]

The Angry One wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why? Out of the hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children in the Gallows Prison, we encounter only a fraction of them. In fact, we encounter two mages for Meredith's quest who were sane before they went to the Gallows Prison, and mentally unbalanced when they came out. (On the Loose) We also know that a mage like Alain is getting raped by a templar who threatens him with tranquility if he talks, based on what we says in Act II, so the enviornment of the Gallows Prison is a toxic one.

Well you know, it's the epitome of lazy design that we never see this.
Instead we see a few mages standing around outside complaining about it. If they really wanted to depict a grey area we should've been able to go inside the Gallows prison or see scenes in there instead of hearsay and assumption (for all we know those two mages became unstable because of the Hellmouth alone).

Eveline was in Darktown in Act 2 begging for change. But when Bethany does go to the circle and she doesn't go all blood magic-y. She does appreciate freedom more at the end though. 

I do wish we could have gone inside the Gallows tower. I mean if Anders knew how to get inside, there should have been a quest in there. 

[Aelia]

Lee T wrote...

To be honest the Templars don't look nicer than the mage, on one side you have blood crazed maniacs psychokiller mages, on the other hand you have abuser torturer godwin's law abider templars.

Believe me, I don't think the Templars were on the side of the angels.  I WANTED to support the mages, and in the end, I did anyway... The problem here is that the Templars' atrocities are somewhat mundane and localized (i.e. a Templar goes bad and rapes a mage, or makes them tranquil, or kills them... all very bad, they might even do it to multiple mages before they are finally brought to "justice").  But when a mage goes bad... and in DA2 they seem to do it if they stub their toe (alright, a slight exaggeration... errr... I think it's an exageration), you do NOT want to be standing at ground zero.  My lore is a little rusty, but it seems to me the whole darkspawn thing is a direct repercussion of mages out of control... or having to much of it... oh you know what I mean... hardly what I would consider balanced on the "evil" scale

[LobselVith8]

Aelia wrote...

The problem here is that the Templars' atrocities are somewhat mundane and localized (i.e. a Templar goes bad and rapes a mage, or makes them tranquil, or kills them... all very bad, they might even do it to multiple mages before they are finally brought to "justice"). 

I think Meredith ordering the genocide of all the mages in Kirkwall was more brutal and horrific than what the rogue mages and abominations were doing, in my opinion, especially when you consider that they were all innocent of the reason behind the Rite of Annulment.

[Dark83]

I'm totally making a Spirit Healer/Bloodmage maleficar who yells at Merrill about using Blood Magic, and sides with the Templar.

His name shall be Politician Hawke. :innocent:

[Itkovian]

Personally I think DA2 does a wonderful job showing that neither side is good.

The Templars in Kirkwall really DO oppress the mages rather badly, first with that Templar who wants to implement The Tranquil Solution (I believe he's the on at the root of all the Tranquils being created due to simply breaking rules, like Anders' friend), and then by Insane Paranoid Meredith.

But it also shows that mages really CAN turn into abominations, or turn to blood magic and do Very Evil Things (usually by turning to Blood Magic out of desperation, and then being corrupted by demons, much like Merril would have been had the Keeper not intervened). That includes Anders, of course.

So which side do you choose? There are good and evil templars, and there are good and evil mages, and the game does an excellent job at showing us the excesses of both. And that's the point: nobody is really right, and we have to choose between two very grey sides.

That said, I think in the end siding with the mages is the "good" choice, because Meredith wishes to eliminate the entire Circle. Since the Circle certainly contains a LOT of innocents, and was not even partially responsible for Anders' actions, calling on the rite of annulment is far too extreme an action. And of course it turns out Meredith was completely corrupted by then, which was no doubt why she blamed the entire Circle in her demented paranoia.

.... but of course it then turns out that the Circle really DID have a lot of Blood Mages, including Orsino, so in that aspect Meredith was right (even though annulment would still have killed a lot of innocents).

So what is the moral of the story? I think it's that neither side is good, and they both have corrupted villains amongst them... and good people as well.

Which of course contradicts the OP. There is definitely no black and white here, but lots of shades of grey. Take Cullen, for example. In DAO he was definitely an anti-mage zealot, but by the end of DA2 he saw that Meredith was going too far and relieved her of command. Cullen, the one who was tormented by Blood Mages in DAO, actually is a good guy in DA2 and comes to understand the extreme zealotry of Meredith is a bad thing... it is an excellent example of character development and depth.

So ultimately, what this game shows is that there is no quick and simple solution to the problem. There are valid example of why mages should be contained (or that there should at least be something in place to defend against mages, and train mages to ensure they don't fall prey to demons), as well as why having mages kept as prisoners is wrong (and how easily things can go badly when one group is given absolute power over another... Anders' comment on templars raping mages should be telling enough).

Maybe a compromise might have been possible, but Anders made sure to shatter any chances of this happening for the time being... so for now we have to contend with two groups, neither of which are correct or "good", waging war across Thedas... it should make for an interesting DA3.

Itkovian

[highcastle]

I have a hard time seeing any of the characters you listed as purely good or evil. So let's go through them one by one:

Hawke: Not necessarily good. Hawke can be a blood mage. He can sell a poor boy's soul to Torpor. He can slaughter hundreds if not thousands. He can own a slave. On the same token, he can go out of his way to help people, to stop death, to save as many lives as possible. Hawke cannot be quantified because s/he's the PC and thus his or her personality is determined by the player.

Alain: We don't see much of him. He doesn't seem to be participating in blood magic. However, a case could easily be made that both times he surrenders to Hawke he does so only to save his own skin. He could very well have participated in what the blood mages during an Act of Mercy were doing, realized things were getting out of control, and thus tried to flee. He also definitely went along with Grace's kidnapping plan. While he says he was opposed to it, we have only his word to go on. Now, I happen to like Alain. I think he's most likely a sheltered kid who got mixed up in bad things. But a case could be made for him being a very cunning manipulator.

Orsino: He clearly has ties to some questionable elements. I think it's safe to assume the letter we find at Quentin's hideaway was sent by Orsino as it was signed O. So he had some knowledge of necromancy even if he later considered it too evil or too dangerous to pursue himself. However, there are some mitigating circumstances. He's both an elf and a mage, so he's been oppressed on all fronts. By the time he turns into the Harvester, his back's against the wall and he has very few other options. He believes he's going to die, and thus he makes a last stand of desperation. He fails. I don't believe this makes him evil; it makes him weak. He became what the templars always said the worst mages are. But he didn't do it capriciously. He didn't do it for kicks. He did it in the face of wanton destruction, in the hopes of saving what he could. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions, and I think we have to consider intent when considering morality. Thus, I don't see him as purely evil.

Anders: Easily the most complex character of the game. I really don't think you can view Anders as purely evil. Again, you need to look at his intent. His intent was not to murder hundreds of innocents for fun. His intent was to remove one of the links of oppression chaining the mages in Kirkwall. The Chantry ostensibly controls the templars. He spoke with Grand Cleric Elethina several times in the hopes or hearing her stance on mage rights. While she made sympathetic mutterings, in the end she did nothing. She allowed Meredith to continue her tyranny. And as long as she remained even slightly optimistic about the future of mages, Orsino wasn't going to move against her. Anders sees this, so he removes her from the equation, essentially forcing the mages into actions.

When you see him after the detonation, he's clearly feeling guilty. From his discussion with Isabela, he admits he expects to die so his victims will have justice, too. He's also possessed. While I don't think you can blame Justice for every action he makes, the presence of the spirit definitely compromises him. Throughout the whole game we see him slipping, we see his control lessening. Again, this doesn't make him evil, it makes him somewhat weak and out-of-control. This doesn't excuse his actions, but it explains them. I just don't see how you can read him as evil or malicious. He was taking a stand for something he believes in, for an end to the beatings, rapes, forced tranquilities and other horrors of the Circle. He did so in an extreme matter. Disagree with it all you want--I do; I don't condone what he did--but it's not a black hat moment.

Grace: Grace is another one who can't be called simply evil. She lost everything. She lost her lover, her extended family, and finally her freedom. She sees everything she had taken from her. She becomes bitter and lost. She lashes out. That's not evil, it's human.

Even without these complex characterizations I would have a hard time siding with Meredith. When you reach the climax, her call for the Right of Annulment has nothing to do with the mages in the Gallows. It has to do with Anders. Anders blows up the Chantry, Meredith calls for the Right. She's holding all mages responsible for the actions of one. One who isn't even affiliated with the Circle, mind you. I can't support this for logic's sake let alone my own beliefs in freedom. I think you can make a case for sparing versus killing Anders. I have a much harder time seeing the logic in any argument to support Meredith.

[Lithuasil]

While I wouldn't consider Anders 'evil', I think I can make a pretty good case for him being an idiot, wasting a perfect opportunity to improve the mages' lot, without sparking a war that will get them all killed.

That said, I agree with most of what you said - and since the right of annulment extends to all the mages within the city boundaries, unless bethany is dead, you just killed anders, you're no mage yourself, and you hate Merill - it's pretty hard to side with the templars.

[sevalaricgirl]

Karnor00 wrote...

Catt128 wrote...

So Anders is an evil mage? In my opinion things are much more complex than "good" or "bad".

To my mind, blowing up the Chantry puts a big tick into the evil terrorist box.  He may have had his reasons, but they don't justify mass murder.

The Chantry are walking a difficult line between the rights of mages on one hand and protection for the general populace on the other hand.  The fact that pretty much every mage you meet in the game is either a demonic abomination or a mass murderer very much underlines the fact that simply freeing all mages wouldn't be an acceptable solution.

Nothing is ever said about how many people were really in the chantry, could have been just a few.  You're really laying things on Anders that weren't confirmed.  I frankly don't think Anders is evil. 

I think Bioware went way too far with the abominations but I think it's because they lacked vision with the story so they wanted more combat.  Combatting abominations and demons the entire game just wore on me.  I got tired of it.  I'm playing my last play through for awhile.  I've bought several other games I want to play. 

[Aelia]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aelia wrote...

The problem here is that the Templars' atrocities are somewhat mundane and localized (i.e. a Templar goes bad and rapes a mage, or makes them tranquil, or kills them... all very bad, they might even do it to multiple mages before they are finally brought to "justice"). 

I think Meredith ordering the genocide of all the mages in Kirkwall was more brutal and horrific than what the rogue mages and abominations were doing, in my opinion, especially when you consider that they were all innocent of the reason behind the Rite of Annulment.

You've taken me out of context here, Lobs, and missed my point entirely.  My fault for being flippant tho.  What I was trying to show is the extreme nature of a single mage gone wrong versus a single Templar gone wrong.  Meredith, holding the position she held, meant that she could cause harm on a much greater scale than a typical templar, whereas ANY mage regardless of skill or station could unleash demonic forces on Thedas.  There is no doubt when we finally see what Meredith has become (due, it appears, to the influence of a magic relic akin to demonic possession) that she has to be stopped.  The point I'm trying to get at (and the OP too if I understand him correctly) is that based on how BW has set DA2 up, even when you believe in the cause of the Mages, it begins to be difficult to take their side because everywhere you look are demon possessed mages.  In fact, the relic had become a necessary plot device to justify taking her down.  A mage, Circle or no (former Circle mage, albeit a different circle, escaped and gone warden), had just destroyed the Chantry, for the specific purpose of inciting a war.

It is NOT that I disagree with you.  It's that BW made my agreement hard to swallow, and intellectually difficult to justify.  We didn't really need to see the Templars behave worse... what we really needed to see was some Mages rise to the occassion and do things truly selfless.

-A

[haroldhardluck]

Karnor00 wrote...
By the end of the story I found myself thinking that the templars don't go nearly far enough and that the Qunari have the right idea.  The reason is that practically every mage I meet in the game is evil or an abomination.  And note that I don't regard blood magic as inherently evil here so I'm not writing people off simply for being blood mages.

You missed the narrative that said due to Meredith's repression, more and more mages were turning to blood magic in response. IOW she was creating the very problem she was supposedly preventing. That is why you encounter so many blood mages.

The bad acts of the Templars that you directly encountered is only the tip of the iceberg. You hear far more indirectly through the comments of your companions and other NPCs that indicate the Templars' crimes are more widespread than the specific cases you encounter.

The situation with the Circle and the Templars is inherently unstable. The Templars are more like prison guards over a population of mages presumed guilty of blood magic whether they are or not. The problem is the mages are really far more powerful than the Templars. Only the acquiescence of the majority of non-blood mages makes the system work. Rebellion by the mages is inevitable once Meredith starts active persecution of the mages. As Varric commented, even the Templars are in revolt by the end as they realize that system is inherently bad.

Fenris has an interesting monologue about how things are different in Tevinter where the mages watch over themselves. That situation has its own problems but it could be a hint at what DA3 will be about, establishing a new relationship between mages and the chantry that is more equitable. The chantry established a bad system to regulate mages that was all too easy to abuse. In Kirkwall that abuse triggers the rebellion of the mages.

Harold

[Lord Gremlin]

I'm evil, played pro-mage. The only downside is occasional braindead mages who don't realize Hawke is on their side.

[Legbiter]

I'm pro-mage. Just not when it comes to the Kirkwall Circle.

[Zalocx]

NICKjnp wrote...
In Kirkwall they say "oh no I'm scared...ooh...ahh...eeh...pittiful
humans" and turn into an abomination. In Origins they say "I'm
scared...fight the demons back and resist" and they in fact fight the
demons back and resist them. It is more along the lines that they
completely changed the lore rahter than having deplorable conditions in
the gallows.

Thats not a lore change at all
a)The barrier between the Fade and the Real World is much thinner in Kirkwall than anywhere in Fereldan outside the Bercilian Forest (due to all the dead slaves in the city's history) That means demons probably can try to posses people much more forcibly than they could other places

the conditions in the Gallows ARE deplorable, Fereldan's circle was never this bad. Desperation breeds desperate measures

c) Irving and Gregior were actually decent people who trusted each other and worked together, to the point where Gregior took Irving's word over that of Cullen and standard Templar procedure about the Rite of Annulment, Merideth and Orsino were both at each other's throats and both their sides suffered for it.

In fact how many mages did we see resist demons in Origins anyway?
Mage!Warden was the main character
Irving was a powerful first enchanter
Wynne already was bound to a Fade Spirit, meaning any demon that wanted in her had to first kick out Faith, and even then Wynne had more experience and self control than most mages ever do
Morrigan was taught by Flemeth, obviously demons don't scare her a whit
Almost every other mage that encountered a demon in DA:O (from Conner to the majority of the Circle who WERENT under Wynne's protection) went abomination to simply being possesed or killed

Modifié par Zalocx, 28 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Dussan2]

I'm playing through again as pro templar, and I'm still getting those hard choices. Kill the mage because they are suspected of Blood Magic, but with no proof. That is pretty hard thing to do.

[TJPags]

Good mages: Alain, Bethany, Ella, possibly Hawke (depending on how you play)

Blood mages or abominations: everyone else who can use magic.

Screw the mages.