176 réponses à ce sujet

[Kartikeya]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Hm. Explained much better than in game. Which, you know, is ahameful for said game.

And yet, I'm not a dev, so I got all of that from the game. The game didn't write you a rambling essay, no, but uh...it's all there. I didn't have to sit and dwell on it for hours to come up with that either. Maybe I'm just more familiar with the general thought processes when you start hitting the despair/depression loop? It's like an increasingly narrow tunnel in which you can only focus on the immediate, on your own feelings of hopelessness, and it feels as though things will simply continue that way, a way that's unbearable, forever. And it feeds itself.

Why does Orsino turn himself into a giant flesh turd? Why does someone hurl themselves off a building? They're caught up in their own despair and feel they've got nothing left. And in Orsino's case, he arguably didn't at that.

[pprrff]

On one side: Oppressive and ruthless military order conducting what essentially is a witch-hunt.

The other side: A bunched of angry and despised super-powered individuals who had many basic human rights denied, many of whom turned to consort with demon.

In the middle: People of Kirkwall, who live both in fear of the mages, and under the oppression of the templars.

The proper ending should be that Hawk uses the templars to destroy the mages, and then rally the people to drive out the templars once and for all.

Modifié par pprrff, 01 avril 2011 - 07:31 .

[Camenae]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It's called the "Rite of Annulment" in the codex, not "Right". Meredith's invoking of the rite was illegal anyhow. Chantry law requires the approval of one of the Grand Clerics to proceed with the Rite of Annulment. Obviously, Elthina wasn't about to give her approval for it. They hadn't even invoked it on the Ferelden circle; Knight-Commander Gregoire sent away to the Grand Cleric asking for permission to do so and was waiting for a response.

I always kind of wished there was some option to just kill/oust Meredith and not necessarily side with one side or the other... but then that wouldn't have made for a good legend.

I rarely read the codex so I don't know what it says in the body of the codex.  But when I got the codex, the notification said: "New Codex: Right of Annulment."  I play with dialogue subtitles and the subtitles always say "Right of Annulment."  The scene in Origins when you go back to Circle Tower and Greagoir tells you he's requesting the Right of Annulment, you get a dialogue choice that says, "Right of Annulment?"

I keep noticing all these instances because I take strong issue with something so drastic and cruel being called a "right."  Are all of these typos?  Does anyone know for sure if it's supposed to be "Right" or "Rite"?  I know it's just a word, but it bothers me... 

[Huntress]

Asperius wrote...

I am siding with Templars since my second play through. Tho' it can change according to my character but by siding with templars:

1- I can save at least 3 innocent mages
2- Don't feel dirty for siding with my mother's killer
3- Mostly fighting side by side with my brother (if Carver is a templar)

I can't side with templars in any game play:

1- They Rape mages and turn them tranquils for the heck of it or to keep them quite.

2- Murdering innocent mages in the name of the Maker, while the crazoids apostates keep bringing up demons that hawk have to kill.. templars are incompetents, they are good for rapeing and kill innocents nothing more.

3- The Mother was killed by a sick mage, rapist/murders templars are by far a larger number than 2.

4- Carver as templar was glad Bethany was dead and not in a circle.

Should I keep going?<_<

Modifié par Huntress, 01 avril 2011 - 07:41 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Eollodwyn wrote...

  Well, I never figured Cullen for the Ser Alrik type, though I see I probably sounded like I did.  But he had to know about the increased number of Tranquil mages, which is both abusive and illegal.  And I doubt he knew absolutely nothing of how badly the mages were treated.  And wasn't he the one that argued at the end of Broken Circle that any of the mages could be blood mages and they should all be treated accordingly, even though the First Enchanter and Greagoir were both telling him that was too much?  He's no Meredith, I know that, but his behavior in Origins and the DA 2 codex both say that he's not nearly that reasonable when it comes to mages. 

To be fair, he does say he questions Meredith's judgments, so perhaps it's my anti-Templar bias talking.

I don't think Cullen's a saint. I do think he's more-or-less a reasonable authority figure, given what we see of him. I'd like to think that at the end of Broken Circle, he's still suffering from more than a little PTSD... they did keep him in a magical cage and torture the bloke. 

Unless you have reason to believe he is lying when he speaks to Hawke (which I have never seen reason for), he honors what Hawke asks of him. If Hawke asks for leniency for Thrask's conspiracy, you can ask him about it later and he'll say that the templars involved are suspended without pay, and the mages are confined to their quarters and sedated. 

He doesn't like what Meredith has been doing to the mages, but he's also bound by duty to report to her and follow her orders. I don't know about you, but I've had situations where I disagreed with my boss about things. In those situations, I voice my opinion respectfully, then I follow the orders given. I don't think Cullen's really a BAD person, and he does lean toward conservatism when dealing with mages (they are dangerous and must be regulated), but I never got the feeling he was a zealot or sadist. To me he seemed like he just had a really bad experience with the Ferelden circle, and is being suitably cautious as a result. Given the sorts of situations the kirkwall mages end up getting into, I would be too.

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

They ended up sparing three, though... three mages out of hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices of all ages. I don't think sparing three adults makes up for the slaughter of all the Circle mages for something they are completely innocent of.

They spared 3 on camera. You can choose to interpret this as literally the only mages spared or not, but I remember there being only five or so mages left in DA:O during the Uldred fight. Does that mean that you believe there were only 5 mages left in all of the tower?

I tend to think of those as more of a representative group of unnamed number than a literal number seen. 

It's a different situation. Meredith orders the execution of "all mages" in Kirkwall. They spared three mages because of Knight-Captain Cullen personally ordering them to be spared. There's no reason to assume the hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices wouldn't be killed on Meredith's orders because of the three mages Cullen personally ordered to be spared.

[sphinxess]

Makes you wonder how the templars killed the children - did the decent ones leave the area while the fanatics did the job?

And its been done 17 times I think in 400 years? something like that...

Correction: found it

17 times in 700 years

Modifié par sphinxess, 01 avril 2011 - 08:09 .

[Kartikeya]

Seven, actually, but I don't remember the timespan involved. Probably more like 800 years.

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

They ended up sparing three, though... three mages out of hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices of all ages. I don't think sparing three adults makes up for the slaughter of all the Circle mages for something they are completely innocent of.

They spared 3 on camera. You can choose to interpret this as literally the only mages spared or not, but I remember there being only five or so mages left in DA:O during the Uldred fight. Does that mean that you believe there were only 5 mages left in all of the tower?

I tend to think of those as more of a representative group of unnamed number than a literal number seen. 

It's a different situation. Meredith orders the execution of "all mages" in Kirkwall. They spared three mages because of Knight-Captain Cullen personally ordering them to be spared. There's no reason to assume the hundreds or thousands of mages and apprentices wouldn't be killed on Meredith's orders because of the three mages Cullen personally ordered to be spared.

*shrug* You're free to take your own interpretation. I've never even seen the hundreds or thousands of mages you're talking about. I saw like... maybe a few dozen over the course of the game, most while in the process of making them dead.

If you let Uldred abominate enough of the 5 or so mages he has in the Ferelden tower at the end of Broken Circle, the tower falls and the templars tell the Warden that there are no mages left to join the Warden's forces against the Blight. If you're going to take a literal interpretation (as you seem to wish to do), that means that there are, indeed, ~6 or 7 mages total left in the Ferelden circle at the end.

Seems a little silly to me to take a literal interpretation for one game and not for the other, but *shrug* it's your prerogative.

[AshenEndymion]

Huntress wrote...

I can't side with templars in any game play:

1- They Rape mages and turn them tranquils for the heck of it or to keep them quite.

2- Murdering innocent mages in the name of the Maker, while the crazoids apostates keep bringing up demons that hawk have to kill.. templars are incompetents, they are good for rapeing and kill innocents nothing more.

3- The Mother was killed by a sick mage, rapist/murders templars are by far a larger number than 2.

Honestly, this is what I don't understand about the Templar hatred.  There is no actual evidence about any of the accusations against them.  And while it is entirely possible that Alric is doing the actions he, specifically, is accused of, there is no evidence that any other Templar knows, or even suspects, that such actions are occuring.

It bothers me that the templars are viewed with such disdain when the only real accuser (Anders) is likely only making the accusations to tarnish the templars in the eyes of Hawke, and make the action of killing them all seem rightous and just.  It's not like lying to accomplish the overall goal is beneath Anders...

[Kartikeya]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

*shrug* You're free to take your own interpretation. I've never even seen the hundreds or thousands of mages you're talking about. I saw like... maybe a few dozen over the course of the game, most while in the process of making them dead.

If you let Uldred abominate enough of the 5 or so mages he has in the Ferelden tower at the end of Broken Circle, the tower falls and the templars tell the Warden that there are no mages left to join the Warden's forces against the Blight. If you're going to take a literal interpretation (as you seem to wish to do), that means that there are, indeed, ~6 or 7 mages total left in the Ferelden circle at the end.

Seems a little silly to me to take a literal interpretation for one game and not for the other, but *shrug* it's your prerogative.

There's no saying Meredith didn't have them executed the moment your back was turned either, if we want to start going into possible scenarios.

Here's the thing. The Rite of Annulment is very very veeery very clear in what it is. Rite of Annulment = kill the entire Circle. The end. Saying that the Rite of Annulment means killing the entire Circle isn't an 'interpretation', that is literally what it is, what it was created to do, and how it has been used every single time it has gone into effect (which is why it's a last resort measure).

The only way you could theorize that there are other mages spared other than the ones that Hawke personally argues for is if other Templars, like Cullen, are going against the Right of Annulment behind Meredith's back. Given she was facing an insurrection from her own forces for her extremes, this is possible. We don't know. And maybe there are still mages hiding in the tower for after Meredith goes loco, and maybe the templars use Meredith going loco to call the Rite off early. We don't know.

But the fact of the matter is? When you call for the Rite of Annulment, you are calling for the death of every single mage in the Circle in question. No exceptions. That's not an interpretation. That's the definition of the Rite.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Honestly, this is what I don't understand about the Templar hatred.  There is no actual evidence about any of the accusations against them. 

We have templars admitting they tortured a child. We have templars who plan on killing Ser Thrask. We have Alain admitting he was raped by a templar in Act II (and likely serves as the reason why he followed Ser Thrask in Act III). We have Ser Alrik saying that the templars with him would rape a mage when she was made tranquil, and we hunt down two mages who were sane before they entered the Gallows (and one of them was a member of the Circle of Ferelden) and mentally unstable when they left the Gallows. We also have templars trying to murder the nobles who want to see Knight-Commander Meredith removed from her position. We have templars following through with the genocide of all the mages in Kirkwall when Meredith orders the Rite of Annulment.

AshenEndemion wrote...

And while it is entirely possible that Alric is doing the actions he, specifically, is accused of, there is no evidence that any other Templar knows, or even suspects, that such actions are occuring.

Besides the large group of templars with him.

AshenEndemion wrote...

It bothers me that the templars are viewed with such disdain when the only real accuser (Anders) is likely only making the accusations to tarnish the templars in the eyes of Hawke, and make the action of killing them all seem rightous and just.  It's not like lying to accomplish the overall goal is beneath Anders...

Which explains why Anders came to Kirkwall after Karl told him about the abuses going on in the Gallows, when he was later illegally made tranquil despite having passed the Harrowing.

[Kartikeya]

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[/quote]

Honestly, this is what I don't understand about the Templar hatred.  There is no actual evidence about any of the accusations against them.  And while it is entirely possible that Alric is doing the actions he, specifically, is accused of, there is no evidence that any other Templar knows, or even suspects, that such actions are occuring.

It bothers me that the templars are viewed with such disdain when the only real accuser (Anders) is likely only making the accusations to tarnish the templars in the eyes of Hawke, and make the action of killing them all seem rightous and just.  It's not like lying to accomplish the overall goal is beneath Anders...
[/quote]

Err, no...actual evidence?

Well, sure. It's not like Hawke walks in on a Templar and his buddies about to drag off a mage to be made Tranquil while bragging about how he's going to take advantage of her when she can no longer resist him. ...Oh wait, that happens.

Well, it's not like Hawke walks in on a group of Templars that just tortured a young elf to death because they think he had information on an apostate they were looking for...no, that happens too.

And it's not as though there's a whole lot of accusations flying around from lots of people that aren't Anders about abuses in the Gallows. Or that you have people telling Hawke that someone was sane before they went into the Kirkwall Circle, and then you get to see they're bugnuts bonkers on coming out. Or that Templars themselves are starting to question the extremes going on, to the point where a number of them start helping mages escape. It's not as though you run into a newly Tranquil'd mage who, in his few moments of clarity, begs you to kill him because it's better than living like that. Or that you run into incidental commentary about 'I was threatened with being made Tranquil if I told anyone this Templar was in my room at night'. Or that Anders makes it sound like NOT being raped or beaten by Templars is being 'lucky'. Or that it's common knowledge that tensions between Templars and Mages are at an all time high in Kirkwall, with most people admitting that Meredith is pushing too hard.

Look. It's a system in which one group of people is placed at the total mercy of another group of people, and where that second group of people has a lot of members with fears or hatreds of the group that's been placed in their care.  It doesn't matter who you are, that is a recipe for rampant abuse. Look up the Stanford Prison Experiments if you'd like to lose a little more faith in humanity. This doesn't mean every Templar is a cackling villain. In fact, in places not Kirkwall, this is probably a minority of Templars. A lot of Templars are decent people trying to do what they feel is right. But the system is horrifically open to abuse, and writing off any incident as just 'oh it was just that one guy'  or 'they're probably just lying or exaggerating' is outright ignoring the problem, and is exactly why the situation in Kirkwall has gotten so completely out of hand.

[Camenae]

I agree with the above. I'm not in the "FREEEEEEDOM!" camp, but damn if I don't think the Templars need some accountability, badly.

[hoorayforicecream]

Kartikeya wrote...


There's no saying Meredith didn't have them executed the moment your back was turned either, if we want to start going into possible scenarios.

That wouldn't fit with the evidence up to that point. If you tell him to ask Meredith for leniency with Thrask's rebellion, Cullen later says (if asked about it) the templars involved are suspended without pay, and the mages are sedated and confined to their quarters. Unless Cullen was lying, of course. But there's no real evidence for that, since we've never been shown him lying to Hawke. Meredith didn't kill Emile de Launcet either, despite being fully within her rights to do so. You can verify this if you side with the mages, because he's in there with the other mages at that last conversation part. 

Here's the thing. The Rite of Annulment is very very veeery very clear in what it is. Rite of Annulment = kill the entire Circle. The end. Saying that the Rite of Annulment means killing the entire Circle isn't an 'interpretation', that is literally what it is, what it was created to do, and how it has been used every single time it has gone into effect (which is why it's a last resort measure).

The only way you could theorize that there are other mages spared other than the ones that Hawke personally argues for is if other Templars, like Cullen, are going against the Right of Annulment behind Meredith's back. Given she was facing an insurrection from her own forces for her extremes, this is possible. We don't know. And maybe there are still mages hiding in the tower for after Meredith goes loco, and maybe the templars use Meredith going loco to call the Rite off early. We don't know.

But the fact of the matter is? When you call for the Rite of Annulment, you are calling for the death of every single mage in the Circle in question. No exceptions. That's not an interpretation. That's the definition of the Rite.

Yes, but don't forget that the Rite was called for at the Ferelden Circle too. Greagoire called for the rite, meaning that if given the go-ahead, he believed he had to kill every last mage in the Ferelden circle (all 6 or 7 of em ). However, as Cullen said in DA2, the circumstances there were much worse and yet still many mages were able to be saved. 

Based on both experiences in the games with the Rite of Annulment, I never saw it as a hard and fast THIS MUST BE SO thing. Once again, YMMV.

The thing that bugs me so much about the YAY FREEDOM FOR MAGES path is that many people fall into the exact same trap that Orsino accuses Meredith of falling into. They tend to paint the templars (as a whole) with the same brush they'd paint Ser Alrik or Ser Karras, and I find that a bit silly.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 01 avril 2011 - 08:56 .

[Huntress]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Huntress wrote...

I can't side with templars in any game play:

1- They Rape mages and turn them tranquils for the heck of it or to keep them quite.

2- Murdering innocent mages in the name of the Maker, while the crazoids apostates keep bringing up demons that hawk have to kill.. templars are incompetents, they are good for rapeing and kill innocents nothing more.

3- The Mother was killed by a sick mage, rapist/murders templars are by far a larger number than 2.

Honestly, this is what I don't understand about the Templar hatred.  There is no actual evidence about any of the accusations against them.  And while it is entirely possible that Alric is doing the actions he, specifically, is accused of, there is no evidence that any other Templar knows, or even suspects, that such actions are occuring.

It bothers me that the templars are viewed with such disdain when the only real accuser (Anders) is likely only making the accusations to tarnish the templars in the eyes of Hawke, and make the action of killing them all seem rightous and just.  It's not like lying to accomplish the overall goal is beneath Anders...

You missed:
4- Carver as templar was glad Bethany was dead and not in a circle.

^This probably mean about the Robes mages uses in the circle.. what an idiot is that carver, cloth is not everything..


Honestly did you missed the dialog btw the mage and templars that made Anders turn into Justice?

Mage: I'll do anyhting please dont kill me..

Templar: yes after you are a tranquil you'll do ANYTHING*

wow it probably mean making pies.. Now I see it how stupid of me!!  right? Anders was so wrong.

Modifié par Huntress, 01 avril 2011 - 09:18 .

[AshenEndymion]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars admitting they tortured a child.[/quote]

When and where was this?  Because I don't recall it ever occurring, or being stated.  Or is it that Dalish confrontation in Act 2?  Because he wasn't a child, as far as I recall the statement going.  But, I chalk that up to overzealous persuit of an apostate... I agree not good...  (Obligatory racist remark: But it was only an elf.  Who cares about an elf?)

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars who plan on killing Ser Thrask.[/quote]

Thrask was protecting known blood mages.  The templars did not turn their weapons on Thrask (or Hawke) until it became obvious that the he was harboring the blood mages, rather than turning them in to the Circle, as was his duty.  It is not murder, as Thrask (and Hawke) was resisting arrest.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have Alain admitting he was raped by a templar in Act II (and likely serves as the reason why he followed Ser Thrask in Act III).[/quote]

No, we have Alain saying that a templar was in his room.  Nothing about rape.  Why is the templar in Alian's room?  Who knows.  Perhaps Alain is an escaped mage from Sunderholt, and like all such mages that were caught, suspected of using blood magic and the visit was an inspection to see if he was or was not using blood magic...  In my last run, Ser Karras was dead when Alain made the statement.  Perhaps Alain is being visited by a demon in his sleep, and cannot tell the difference between his dreams and reality?

[quote]We have Ser Alrik saying that the templars with him would rape a mage when she was made tranquil,[/quote]

Implied.  Not actually said...  Besides, I've already stated that Alrik was fraking insane.  His actions(alone) do not mean the templars as a whole are evil (just as blood magic use by a few mages does not mean the entire Circle is tainted).

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

and we hunt down two mages who were sane before they entered the Gallows (and one of them was a member of the Circle of Ferelden) and mentally unstable when they left the Gallows.[/quote]

There is no evidence that the instability was caused by the Templars.  It could have been caused by Orsino, or any other blood mage in the Circle, attempting to gain allies.  The instability only proves that the Templars are right to be concerned about the blood mage prevelance.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We also have templars trying to murder the nobles who want to see Knight-Commander Meredith removed from her position.[/quote]

Nobles plotting an insurrection, and the murder of the Knight Commander.  Also, the templars don't attack, but attempt to arrest those who are present.  Hawke resists.

[quote]We have templars following through with the genocide of all the mages in Kirkwall when Meredith orders the Rite of Annulment.[/quote]

The Rite was invoked.  It is not genocide, but the protection of the people of Kirkwall at this point.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

And while it is entirely possible that
Alric is doing the actions he, specifically, is accused of, there is no
evidence that any other Templar knows, or even suspects, that such
actions are occuring. [/quote]

Besides the large group of templars with him.[/quote]

Very well.  The templars with Alric know.  Do any others?  If this proves that they do, then every mage knows about the blood magic the few crazies perform, right?  I didn't think so...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

It bothers me that the templars are viewed with such disdain when the only real accuser (Anders) is likely only making the accusations to tarnish the templars in the eyes of Hawke, and make the action of killing them all seem rightous and just.  It's not like lying to accomplish the overall goal is beneath Anders...[/quote]

Which explains why Anders came to Kirkwall after Karl told him about the abuses going on in the Gallows, when he was later illegally made tranquil despite having passed the Harrowing.[/quote]

Again, this is if we believe Anders at his word, that Karl told him about the abuses... or even that Karl ever passed the Harrowing.  Karl doesn't ever make these statements to us...

Look... I'm not saying that there isn't sketchy things going on in that Circle.  There are.  On both sides.  But the templars of Kirkwall are not 100% PURE EVILZ, any more than the mages are 100% PURE EVILZ.  I am skeptical about anything Anders says with regards to the Templars because he is biased.  No accusation against any Templar has any evidence supporting it (besides Alric)... Especially since all the "murder/torture" claims, if they are true, are acceptable under the course of apprehending apostates and maleficarum.

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

The thing that bugs me so much about the YAY FREEDOM FOR MAGES path
is that many people fall into the exact same trap that Orsino accuses
Meredith of falling into. They tend to paint the templars (as a whole)
with the same brush they'd paint Ser Alrik or Ser Karras, and I find
that a bit silly.[/quote]

100% this...

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 01 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[Bayz]

sphinxess wrote...

Makes you wonder how the templars killed the children - did the decent ones leave the area while the fanatics did the job?

-Dunno how but I but I bet they came back home licking heir lips and saying stufff like "children the other white meat"

-Who let anders out o the clinic?

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Kartikeya wrote...

Here's the thing. The Rite of Annulment is very very veeery very clear in what it is. Rite of Annulment = kill the entire Circle. The end. Saying that the Rite of Annulment means killing the entire Circle isn't an 'interpretation', that is literally what it is, what it was created to do, and how it has been used every single time it has gone into effect (which is why it's a last resort measure).

The only way you could theorize that there are other mages spared other than the ones that Hawke personally argues for is if other Templars, like Cullen, are going against the Right of Annulment behind Meredith's back. Given she was facing an insurrection from her own forces for her extremes, this is possible. We don't know. And maybe there are still mages hiding in the tower for after Meredith goes loco, and maybe the templars use Meredith going loco to call the Rite off early. We don't know.

But the fact of the matter is? When you call for the Rite of Annulment, you are calling for the death of every single mage in the Circle in question. No exceptions. That's not an interpretation. That's the definition of the Rite.

Yes, but don't forget that the Rite was called for at the Ferelden Circle too. Greagoire called for the rite, meaning that if given the go-ahead, he believed he had to kill every last mage in the Ferelden circle (all 6 or 7 of em ). However, as Cullen said in DA2, the circumstances there were much worse and yet still many mages were able to be saved. 

If only three mages are spared because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention, and nothing in "A Broken Circle" precludes the possibility of surviving mages outside of Wynne's group when we clearly meet surviviors who weren't personally protected by Wynne, I don't see why we should assume that more than three mages will be saved when Hawke decides to side with the Knight-Commander who called for the execution of all mages in Kirkwall.

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If only three mages are spared because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention, and nothing in "A Broken Circle" precludes the possibility of surviving mages outside of Wynne's group when we clearly meet surviviors who weren't personally protected by Wynne, I don't see why we should assume that more than three mages will be saved when Hawke decides to side with the Knight-Commander who called for the execution of all mages in Kirkwall.

Something in "A Broken Circle" definitely precludes the possibility of surviving mages. If you don't stop Uldred from abominating the mages he has during the fight, the circle falls and all of the mages are dead (well... Wynne's status is debatable). This frees Greagoire to lend you the support of the Templars -- they no longer have to watch over the mages because they're all dead. If you save the mages at Uldred's fight, the Templars won't join the battle because they have to watch over the mages that survived. This means that the mages that you save during the Uldred fight (all five of em) are the remaining survivors of the tower. If there were more survivors, the templars would have to watch over them and wouldn't be able to join the battle against the Blight.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 01 avril 2011 - 09:34 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars admitting they tortured a child.[/quote]

When and where was this?  Because I don't recall it ever occurring, or being stated.  Or is it that Dalish confrontation in Act 2?  Because he wasn't a child, as far as I recall the statement going.  But, I chalk that up to overzealous persuit of an apostate... I agree not good...  (Obligatory racist remark: But it was only an elf.  Who cares about an elf?) [/quote]

The "Dalish" who was captured and tortured by the templars in their pursuit of Feynriel was indeed a child.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars who plan on killing Ser Thrask.[/quote]

Thrask was protecting known blood mages.  The templars did not turn their weapons on Thrask (or Hawke) until it became obvious that the he was harboring the blood mages, rather than turning them in to the Circle, as was his duty.  It is not murder, as Thrask (and Hawke) was resisting arrest. [/quote]

They make it clear that they plan on killing Thrask even when Hawke turns the Starkhaven mages over to the templars.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have Alain admitting he was raped by a templar in Act II (and likely serves as the reason why he followed Ser Thrask in Act III).[/quote]

No, we have Alain saying that a templar was in his room.  Nothing about rape.  Why is the templar in Alian's room?  Who knows.  Perhaps Alain is an escaped mage from Sunderholt, and like all such mages that were caught, suspected of using blood magic and the visit was an inspection to see if he was or was not using blood magic...  In my last run, Ser Karras was dead when Alain made the statement.  Perhaps Alain is being visited by a demon in his sleep, and cannot tell the difference between his dreams and reality? [/quote]

So he threatened to make Alain tranquil if he told anyone simply because he was doing a routine inspection?

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have Ser Alrik saying that the templars with him would rape a mage when she was made tranquil[/quote]

Implied.  Not actually said...  Besides, I've already stated that Alrik was fraking insane.  His actions(alone) do not mean the templars as a whole are evil (just as blood magic use by a few mages does not mean the entire Circle is tainted). [/quote]

Technically, if he implied they would rape her, then he verbally said it. Also, I never claimed the templars as a whole were evil.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

and we hunt down two mages who were sane before they entered the Gallows (and one of them was a member of the Circle of Ferelden) and mentally unstable when they left the Gallows.[/quote]

There is no evidence that the instability was caused by the Templars.  It could have been caused by Orsino, or any other blood mage in the Circle, attempting to gain allies.  The instability only proves that the Templars are right to be concerned about the blood mage prevelance. [/quote]

I. Orsino claimed he never used blood magic before. There's no evidence to contradict this.
II. The instability illustrates how toxic the Gallows Prison is for mages when even a Harrowed mage from the Ferelden Circle can be mentally broken down.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We also have templars trying to murder the nobles who want to see Knight-Commander Meredith removed from her position.[/quote]

Nobles plotting an insurrection, and the murder of the Knight Commander.  Also, the templars don't attack, but attempt to arrest those who are present.  Hawke resists. [/quote]

Showing support for Hawke and a regime change is hardly the same as plotting an insurrection. And the templars attempt to murder the people present, let's not sugar-coat it.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars following through with the genocide of all the mages in Kirkwall when Meredith orders the Rite of Annulment.[/quote]

The Rite was invoked.  It is not genocide, but the protection of the people of Kirkwall at this point. [/quote]

Killing all the mages in Kirkwall is genocide. Furthermore, killing them for something no Circle mage did is something I find horrific.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Besides the large group of templars with him.[/quote]

Very well.  The templars with Alric know.  Do any others?  If this proves that they do, then every mage knows about the blood magic the few crazies perform, right?  I didn't think so... [/quote]

It illustrates he wasn't alone in raping mages.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Which explains why Anders came to Kirkwall after Karl told him about the abuses going on in the Gallows, when he was later illegally made tranquil despite having passed the Harrowing.[/quote]

Again, this is if we believe Anders at his word, that Karl told him about the abuses... or even that Karl ever passed the Harrowing.  Karl doesn't ever make these statements to us... [/quote]

Considering how old Karl is, you're really stretching it to claim that he hasn't passed his Harrowing. You either pass the Harrowing or you're made tranquil.

Also, you're welcome to believe that Anders never says a truthful word, but since he was correct about a templar trying to push forth the "Tranquil Solution," I have to respectfully disagree.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

Look... I'm not saying that there isn't sketchy things going on in that Circle.  There are.  On both sides.  But the templars of Kirkwall are not 100% PURE EVILZ, any more than the mages are 100% PURE EVILZ.  I am skeptical about anything Anders says with regards to the Templars because he is biased.  No accusation against any Templar has any evidence supporting it (besides Alric)... Especially since all the "murder/torture" claims, if they are true, are acceptable under the course of apprehending apostates and maleficarum. [/quote]

I never claimed the templars were pure evil, but it's completely false to say no evidence exists to show templar abuse besides what we know about Ser Alric.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

The thing that bugs me so much about the YAY FREEDOM FOR MAGES path is that many people fall into the exact same trap that Orsino accuses Meredith of falling into. They tend to paint the templars (as a whole) with the same brush they'd paint Ser Alrik or Ser Karras, and I find that a bit silly.[/quote]

100% this...[/quote]

There's a difference between thinking the Chantry controlled Circles are wrong, and thinking all templars are evil.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 avril 2011 - 09:45 .

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If only three mages are spared because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention, and nothing in "A Broken Circle" precludes the possibility of surviving mages outside of Wynne's group when we clearly meet surviviors who weren't personally protected by Wynne, I don't see why we should assume that more than three mages will be saved when Hawke decides to side with the Knight-Commander who called for the execution of all mages in Kirkwall.

Something in "A Broken Circle" definitely precludes the possibility of surviving mages. If you don't stop Uldred from abominating the mages he has during the fight, the circle falls and all of the mages are dead (well... Wynne's status is debatable).

I never said anything about the Rite of Annulment that Greagoir requests from the Grand Cleric in Denerim, I addressed there are survivors outside of the small group Wynne is personally protecting.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

This frees Greagoire to lend you the support of the Templars -- they no longer have to watch over the mages because they're all dead. If you save the mages at Uldred's fight, the Templars won't join the battle because they have to watch over the mages that survived. This means that the mages that you save during the Uldred fight (all five of em) are the remaining survivors of the tower. If there were more survivors, the templars would have to watch over them and wouldn't be able to join the battle against the Blight.

You're conflating game mechanics with lore when the cut-scene for the mages marching to Denerim illustrates that more than seven mages survived. We're not given an estimate on how many mages actually survived, while we only see three mages in the scene being spared by Knight-Captain Cullen because they beg for mercy and accept any punishment that is deemed necessary. If we were intended to believe more than three were being spared in this cut-scene, they could have presented more.

[Kartikeya]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

That wouldn't fit with the evidence up to that point. If you tell him to ask Meredith for leniency with Thrask's rebellion, Cullen later says (if asked about it) the templars involved are suspended without pay, and the mages are sedated and confined to their quarters. Unless Cullen was lying, of course. But there's no real evidence for that, since we've never been shown him lying to Hawke. Meredith didn't kill Emile de Launcet either, despite being fully within her rights to do so. You can verify this if you side with the mages, because he's in there with the other mages at that last conversation part.  

Which is my point. There's no real evidence to suggest lots of mages, or ANY mages, are being spared off-camera by other Templars when Hawke isn't present (and for that matter, when Cullen isn't present. There are a lot of mages and a lot of Templars). And there's a lot of evidence to suggest that, you know, they're probably murdering every mage they come across because that's what the Rite is.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Yes, but don't forget that the Rite was called for at the Ferelden Circle too. Greagoire called for the rite, meaning that if given the go-ahead, he believed he had to kill every last mage in the Ferelden circle (all 6 or 7 of em ). However, as Cullen said in DA2, the circumstances there were much worse and yet still many mages were able to be saved. 

Based on both experiences in the games with the Rite of Annulment, I never saw it as a hard and fast THIS MUST BE SO thing. Once again, YMMV.

The thing that bugs me so much about the YAY FREEDOM FOR MAGES path is that many people fall into the exact same trap that Orsino accuses Meredith of falling into. They tend to paint the templars (as a whole) with the same brush they'd paint Ser Alrik or Ser Karras, and I find that a bit silly.

Oh, I haven't forgotten. The Rite was called for and Gregoire was waiting for permission. That he was still waiting for the go-ahead is the only reason you have the option to save the mages at all, otherwise they'd have gone in and cleaned house. Gregoire at that point believes the Circle is entirely lost. He can still be convinced of that even with Irving and Wynne standing right there being un-blobbed, the difference is that Gregoire is a reasonable dude who takes your word for it that the insanity has been dealt with and the culprits are dead.

Go back and read the codex entry on the Rite of Annulment (it's the same in both games). The Rite was invented because the Templars of a certain Circle were dealing with an insurrection and couldn't pinpoint who was actually involved and who was innocent, not because that entire Circle had gone to abomination-ville. Templars don't need permission to kill abominations, it's kind've what they do. They need permission to wipe out an entire Circle in the belief that there is simply no saving it. This does not require every mage to actually be beyond saving. When you talk to Gregoire, he fully believes everyone not an abomination or a blood mage is dead, and says something like 'to think otherwise would be...too painful and too much to hope for'. But he doesn't and can't know for sure. I mean, all of maybe fifty feet past the doors is Wynne's group, complete with mage children.

That Templars can be merciful and change their minds doesn't change what the Rite of Annulment is. It means wiping out the entire Circle. If they don't wipe out the entire Circle, they are not enacting the Rite of Annulment.

But yeah, loads of people like to paint it as 'those evil templars are all baby eaters', and that annoys me too.

[CLime]

Kartikeya wrote...

What was the point of it all? you wonder. Why would they ever let you live long enough to realize what a hopeless, hopeless, senseless life you were going to have? Why would they let you dream up false hopes that it would ever get better? Was this just a means to make it crueler? And why should you go quietly? What's the point of resisting temptations of power when you're going to be murdered regardless? Why not take a few of them with you when you go? They've made you live in terror your entire life, why not spend your last, pointless moments giving those bastards a reason to fear you? There is literally no reason to keep resisting.

A fair and reasonable analysis that would be cold comfort to the thousands of people he would have slaughtered if no one had stopped him.

I sided with the mages on my "good" playthrough, and even then I felt a little doubtful.  Going through it again with Jerk Hawke, I feel a bit better that siding with the templars is the responsible course of action.

The major theme of the whole Act 3 dynamic is power.  More specifically, the abuse of it.  You can boil the conflict down into two options: give templars power over mages, or give mages power over everyone else.

People are weak.  Give someone a position of strength and they will, more often than not, use it for their own benefit.  Mages, templars, and any other faction of power you can imagine is guilty of this to some extent.  The problem is that a bad templar can kill, tranquilize, or abuse a few mages, while a bad mage can wipe out a district.

At least with templars there's some sort of vetting process so that any random nutjob can't pick up a shield and start smiting people.  There's no such control valve for mages, no way to ensure that only the concientous and well-adjusted are given the privilege of dealing with fade spirits.  We saw in DA:O the damage that one radical can inflict.  Even if 99 out of 100 mages are using their abilities for the benefit of those around them, when that last guy becomes overwhelmed with emotion and becomes an abomination, the community is lucky to break even.

Requiring strict control over all mages is a very slippery slope.  If the majority can deprive one group of essential rights for whatever reason, can further opression really be far behind? Sadly, it's also the safest option.  The Champion of Kirkwall has a duty to the entire city.  I find it hard to justify any decision that puts the great majority of the populace at risk.

Oh, and even on my Nice Hawke playthrough, I killed Anders.  Guy really deserved it.

Modifié par CLime, 01 avril 2011 - 10:14 .

[hoorayforicecream]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're conflating game mechanics with lore when the cut-scene for the mages marching to Denerim illustrates that more than seven mages survived. We're not given an estimate on how many mages actually survived, while we only see three mages in the scene being spared by Knight-Captain Cullen because they beg for mercy and accept any punishment that is deemed necessary. If we were intended to believe more than three were being spared in this cut-scene, they could have presented more.

They could have presented more mages at the Uldred fight too, but they didn't. We certainly weren't given an estimate of how many mages survived the battle at the Gallows either way. We weren't shown anything. Your conclusion is "because we didn't see anything, it must have been literal". Mine is "it could have been literal, or it could have been figurative". It would have been silly to see a small army of surrendering mages, considering that up to that point you only fought something like 5 or 6 mages in the courtyard. Seeing a whole crowd of mages surrender after five get killed would seem strange.

I usually find an overly literal interpretation silly, because there's never really any indication of how many mages there are in the Kirkwall circle to begin with. You keep throwing the terms "hundreds" or "thousands" around, but there's never been any indication whatsoever how many there are. The purpose of the ferelden circle example is to support the theory that "what you see isn't necessarily what you get"... but like I said, YMMV.