1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Cantina]

I read what I could through this thread; I do not want my
eyes to go crossed.

I know everyone has his or her own opinion on what Anders
did at the end of the game. Some people agree, others disagree and some are in
the middle ground.

 

My opinion is as follows:

I agree one-hundred and ten percent that what Anders did was
right and I refuse to shake my finger in his face and tell him he was wrong in
doing it. People say, “Think of the innocents killed.”  I like to know just how innocent these people
were since as far as I know, not everyone is innocent. Furthermore, they did not seem to care enough about how mages were being treated and how Meradith was a complete whack job. So as far as I am concerned, I don't care one bit who died in the explosion.

I view what Anders did to the Chantry as justification. For
a thousand years, the mages have suffered under the heel of the Chantry and the
Templars. The Chantry twists the words of Andraste and uses that as means of
fear through religion. For every mage that has suffered over those years, it is
equal to each person that died in the explosion. It is not going to make the
scale balance out, but it is a start. Flemeth stated at the start of the game, “Without
an end there can be no peace.” Sometimes, you have to do something so extreme
in order to change things.

The Grand Cleric had the chance to stop things before they
got out of hand, but she did nothing. She assumed sitting down with cookies and
tea, with the First Enchanter and Meradith would smooth things over. If you are
going to be that naive about how bad the situation has become, then you deserve
whatever repercussions comes your way.

From my many play-throughs, I have always stood up for
Anders and his view points on the Circle, The Templars and The Chantry.  Is he hypocritical about some of his
comments/answers? Sure, he is, but when you have a spirit living inside your
body I cannot imagine how hard it is, to say one thing, then hear Justice and
then Anders agrees with him, going back on his own words. Besides many
characters in the game are hypocrites.

I never regret sparing his life after the explosion. I
cannot kill someone for doing something I view as nothing wrong. Even IF I did
see it as a wrong act, I would not kill him still. It is far better to live
with the consequences of your actions, then to seek an easy means of escape.

Yes, I always side with the Mages and yes, I always run away
with Anders. My character beliefs in mage freedom are just as strong as Anders
views. Only difference is she does not have a spirit inside her body.

It will be a cold day in hell if I ever see Anders actions
as wrong, side with the Templars and The Chantry.

The war was already starting, Anders just sped the process
up instead of it lingering on with useless speeches from that dumb Grand
Cleric.

Yeah, I might get flamed for my opinion/view point, but
honestly-don’t care.

Modifié par Cantina, 29 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

So by your logic, every third-world country would be totally justified in terror-bombing the **** out of every first-world country, because no first-world coutnry really cares about what is happening in third-world countries, and no one is truly innocent anyway....

[Cantina]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So by your logic, every third-world country would be totally justified in terror-bombing the **** out of every first-world country, because no first-world coutnry really cares about what is happening in third-world countries, and no one is truly innocent anyway....

I don't invole real life issues with a fantasy world. Its an oppurtunity to explore areas you would not normally be able to explore in real life.

If something were to happen like this in real life, no I would not agree to it. But this is a game and I understand the diffrence.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So you agree with Anders because you can, not because you would? Just because it is a fictional situation, doesn't mean that the morals involved can't translate to real life.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

Yes, Merrill is a blood mage.  But she fights on your side, loyally and well, and frankly, Marethari's death is her own fault.  Merrill brought Hawke along as insurance in case things went sour.  There was no guarantee that Merrill couldn't resist being possessed (she WAS shaken by the Fade if you took her along, and swore to do better in the future.)  My Hawke would have given her the benefit of a doubt and let things fall out as they would, and if Merrill had incontrovertibly lost control to a demon my Hawke would have killed her.  There was no reason for Marethari to sacrifice herself on a "maybe."  Hawke and Co. have put down large numbers of demons by Act III.[/quote]

The fact that she uses blood magic doesn't bother me so much as her recklessness and naivite.

And it was a pretty big "maybe," and one Marethari wasn't willing to risk given her love for Merrill. I think most people would generally assume that dealing with a pride demon will most likely result in some sort of undesirable outcome. Considering the Dalish are located nearby, she also has to take into consideration the safety of herpeople. Why should she trust Merrill's plan when there's so much to lose? [/quote]

I actually find Merrill to be one of the most intelligent companions that Hawke has. Merrill is proactive, she uses both magic and blood magic responsibly, she is willing to risk her life to help out Hawke, and she is trying to restore elven technology that she thinks can benefit the People. Her culture shock as a Dalish elf in a human city makes her naive when it comes to an alien culture she knows next to nothing about, but we see her intellect when it comes to magic.

Also, Audacity was imprisoned in a totem. I don't see the danger in conversing with an imprisoned demon, especially when the short story noted that Marethari thought it posed no danger in that condition.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

My point is that every child brought to the Circle Tower did so under duress, and was separated from their family with varying degrees of kicking and screaming and weeping, after manifesting their powers.  And yet the Circle is filled with non-abomination mages who arrived and survived without incident, even when undergoing the most traumatic and frightening experience in their young lives.[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing? Obviously everyone who experiences an intense emotion doesn't turn into an abomination. But you don't need to feel an intense emotion for magic to get out of control. [/quote]

I think the argument from people who disagree with the status quo address that they oppose the Chantry controlled Circles, rather than the basic concept of the Circles of Magi as a place of learning.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

Merrill was given into Keeper training at four years of age. Hawke and Bethany grew up within a home environment.  Morrigan was raised by Flemeth.  None of these apostate mage children became possessed, despite their lack of being locked in a stone tower under guard by killers.[/quote]

Merrill came pretty close, but I digress. Anyway, it's great that some mages are able to have a mentor that can give them the one-on-one support and education they need. But not everyone has that luxury.Conner did have one-on-one help, but clearly it wasn't enough. That's why some form of Circle is needed; that one instructor might prove to be inept. [/quote]

Merrill came close in a quest that plot railroads every single companion into betraying Hawke in a matter of seconds. Connor had Jowan, who wasn't a proper instructor but an apprentice, so I don't think he can be a claim against private instructors who would actually be properly trained and instructed in how to teach apprentices in how to use their powers responsibly. I agree, though, that the Circle of Magi can be useful, but not in its current form under the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

I think Gaider's "unconscious" doesn't mean asleep, but rather means that they can agree without saying "Yes, please possess me!"  It's far more likely that a cornered mage, like Olivia for example, can say "Please, somebody help me," and offer a blanket acceptance of any "help" that's offered, demon or no.[/quote]

That makes it even more dangerous xD And also more important for an educational system to be put into place. [/quote]

Dragon Age II's depiction of abominations didn't even match what was made explicitly clear in the lore and in the story of Origins. If a mage is in the real world, they aren't in the Fade (or with a demon in the Fade) - as we see from the lore on Aeonar; as we witnessed with the mages in Ostagar. Even the designers of the game have admitted that the abominations that we saw was an issue of game mechanics, rather than lore (including the scenes when abominations appeared from the ground).

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

Hey, he had to mobilize the mages into action.  They'd refused to take a stand, to mobilize, to take the threat of their Templar executioners seriously.  The fall of the Circles after he blew up the Chantry rather implies that it worked.  From a strategic viewpoint, the events in the DA2 epilogue and also in Asunder demonstrate that blowing up the Chantry worked.[/quote]

But it wasn't his choice to make. If the mages "refused to take a stand, to mobilize, to take the threat of their Templar executioners seriously," then that's their choice. One that makes me raise an eyebrow, but still their choice to make. He wants them to die "a quick death now instead of a slow one later," but he's refusing to take into consideration their own preferences and just uses their lives to further his own political agenda (which is somewhat similar to the Templars and Chantry, now that I think about it). What about the mage apprentices, who are probably scared ****less and are now doomed to be slaughtered (unless Hawke sides with the mages)? Not only does he have the blood of the Chantry-explosion victims on his hands, but also that of the mages who were slain. [/quote]

It's one of the most controversial aspects of Dragon Age II, but part of the issue is that the Chantry isn't simply a religious organization - it's the organization that has legal control over the lives of every mage in all the Andrastian societies, with the sole exception of Grey Wardens, and the templars are the military branch of the Chantry. Elthina isn't simply an old lady with a religious title, she's the highest ranking member of the Chantry in the city-state of Kirkwall, and Knight-Commander Meredith is her subordinate.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

Reading up on the Right of Annulment, the codex and wiki state that it is the Grand Cleric who grants permission.  Odd that Meredith would have sent to Val Royeaux for permission before the Chantry was destroyed, since the person she should have been asking was Elthina herself.  But I suppose Elthina would have denied her permission, and the Divine, having already threatened an Exalted March via Leliana (in the Exiled Prince DLC), would be all too ready to grant it in her stead.[/quote]

Yeah, how I figured it went down was that Meredith asked for Elthina's permission, who obviously would turn her down since she doesn't want unnecessary bloodshed. She then asked for the Divine's permission, and the Divine sent Leliana to investigate Kirkwall to get a clear idea of what's going on. I'm not sure if the Divine did grant permission or not; I'm leaning towards "no" given her actions in DA2, but Leliana did get attacked by a bunch of crazed resolutionists. [/quote]

That scene in "Faith" made Leliana look incompetent (in my opinion). Leliana seemed unaware of the fact that the Knight-Commander turned dictator had taken power, installed her templars in the Viscount's Keep, was trying to usurp control of the City Guard, and had a death squad killing people. The fact that both mages and templars wanted Meredith deposed - along with some nobles and commoners - should have been addressed. Even the Champion of Kirkwall can publicly condemn Meredith's actions and her dictatorship. For someone who was sent to investigate the cause of the unrest in Kirkwall, Leliana doesn't seem to have properly investigated the situation. I think "Faith" was poorly written.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]katiebour wrote...

And there's a good question- why the hell doesn't a Viscount!Hawke STAY Viscount?  I did one pro-templar run and was frankly surprised at how quickly she was deposed.[/quote]

He wasn't deposed, IIRC. He left "mysteriously" (same as the Warden, and a pro-mage Hawke) so he will be able to make vague cameos in the future. [/quote]

That really seems pointless, in my humble opinion.

[Cantina]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So you agree with Anders because you can, not because you would? Just because it is a fictional situation, doesn't mean that the morals involved can't translate to real life.

No offense but I think your taking what I stated a bit too
seriously and mixing that up with real life situations.

I am a role player and I chose to build my character from
the ground up. I use every bit of information in the game and decide how I want
my character to react to such a situation. My character is not on board with
the Templars or Chantry and feels the same way Anders does about it. I am fully
aware knowing something like this could not happen in real life-so why worry
about trying to imagine it happening much less comparing it to a real life
situation. I agree with Anders choice because in my mind and my character’s
mind, it was the right choice because of what happened then and what happened
up to that point.

When it comes to fantasy, I tend to look at it, as what is
best for the future of my character, were I want her to go etc. Sure, I add in
my morals to the game, cannot simply turn those off, but, being able to explore
areas you normally could not in real life and do so in safety is what makes the
reality of life fade away. That is the point of a game, no?

I agree with what Anders did not because I can, I did so
because it was something that needed to be done. IF you or anyone chooses not
to agree on the direction, I chose to take my character or my game, so be it. I
am not playing the game to ensure all my choices are those everyone will agree
with much less entertain them. I play the game to make my own choices and build
my own character’s story. If that bothers people <shrugs> oh well, I am
not going to lose sleep over it.

[Always Alice]

Cantina wrote...
I agree one-hundred and ten percent that what Anders did was
right and I refuse to shake my finger in his face and tell him he was wrong in
doing it. People say, “Think of the innocents killed.”  I like to know just how innocent these people
were since as far as I know, not everyone is innocent. Furthermore, they did not seem to care enough about how mages were being treated and how Meradith was a complete whack job. So as far as I am concerned, I don't care one bit who died in the explosion.

You do realize that there are more people who will be affected by the explosion than just Chantry personnel, correct? The cutscene shows the fire spreading to other buildings and debris doesn't just stay floating in the sky. And in Act III if you talk to some citizens in Hightown (I think after the debate) you can see them expressing their dislike of Meredith and how they think she's out of control. So yes, there are plenty of citizens who are concerned about her methods.

I view what Anders did to the Chantry as justification. For
a thousand years, the mages have suffered under the heel of the Chantry and the
Templars. The Chantry twists the words of Andraste and uses that as means of
fear through religion. For every mage that has suffered over those years, it is
equal to each person that died in the explosion. It is not going to make the
scale balance out, but it is a start. Flemeth stated at the start of the game, “Without
an end there can be no peace.” Sometimes, you have to do something so extreme
in order to change things.

Why should the scale have to balance out in the first place? Vengence is never a good thing.

The Grand Cleric had the chance to stop things before they
got out of hand, but she did nothing. She assumed sitting down with cookies and
tea, with the First Enchanter and Meradith would smooth things over. If you are
going to be that naive about how bad the situation has become, then you deserve
whatever repercussions comes your way.

Sebastian says that Meredith no longer listens to her, so she was trying to get through to her. I agree that she could have, should have done more,  but she wasn't willing to risk whatever peace there was left in Kirkwall. An admirable, if naive goal.

I never regret sparing his life after the explosion. I
cannot kill someone for doing something I view as nothing wrong. Even IF I did
see it as a wrong act, I would not kill him still. It is far better to live
with the consequences of your actions, then to seek an easy means of escape.

Agreed.

[Always Alice]

[quote]Cantina wrote...

 I agree with Anders choice because in my mind and my character’s
mind, it was the right choice because of what happened then and what happened
up to that point. [/quote]
And herein lies the fundamental point of contention. I can never view the killing of innocents as something that is morally right. Sometimes I think it can be necessary, but never right.

[quote]I agree with what Anders did not because I can, I did so
because it was something that needed to be done. [/quote]
I agree something needed to be done as well, but Anders didn't need to blow up a church and kill a bunch of innocent people. That, imo, is the main problem. The goal of mage freedom is not necessarily a bad one, but his methods (imo) are.
[/quote]
[quote]katiebour wrote...

This really boils down to the Trolley problem:

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

Is it ethical to kill one person to save five? What action will bring about the least amount of suffering or the greatest amount of happiness? Is the violation of the rights of a group justified if it brings happiness to another group?

Philosophers have been arguing problems like this for a very, very long time, and it's not an easy question to answer. Many people will agree that it is better to flip a switch and kill one then allow five to die, but the answer starts to change when "flip a switch" becomes "push a fat man off a bridge in front of the trolley" or "the person that will die is your mother."

The one thing that utilitarianism tends to stress is that history will eventually prove whether an action was "justified" or not. Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified, since they ended WWII and saved the lives of countless American soldiers?

Even then we can argue that something better might or might not have happened if an act had or had not been committed.

Militaries have been asking themselves this question for ages- see here for an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia....rategic_bombing

In the World Wars, conditions were often poor and the bombs not at all accurate. Militaries blitzed anyway, both in hopes of hitting their actual military target and demoralizing the enemy. See here:

http://en.wikipedia....Dresden_bombing

It was determined, as it is in every war, that x number of civilian casualties were acceptable in achieving the desired result. Whether Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. were justified is STILL under debate, as it should be. We as human beings should ask ourselves these questions, should question any decision that places our gain above the rights of others.

Truthfully, this is part of why I loved DA2 so much- you could walk away from it with so many mixed emotions, so many questions, so many dilemmas. Anders as a LI made it even WORSE by involving personal emotion (remember in the Trolley problem, most people said they'd let five people die rather than sacrifice their own mother- this is NOT an inconsequential question) which I adored.

It is my opinion that Anders was justified, for all of the various reasons I've given before. It's not a clean, pretty answer, and I likely won't convince you (and vice versa you are unlikely to convince me ) because we each have to decide for ourselves whether we are moral relativists or absolutists.

But it's fun to debate, aye? And that's what makes Bioware and its writers AWESOME [/quote]

Yes, it is highly unlikely that opinions are going to change because this issue really depends on how personal morality is viewed. And while I have a lot of gripes about DA2, I think they did an absolutely fantastic job of creating this character and the moral dilemma that surrounds him. Love him or hate him, he's certainly a character that gets a reaction, lol.

[Cantina]

Always Alice wrote...

I agree with what Anders did not because I can, I did so
because it was something that needed to be done.

I agree something needed to be done as well, but Anders didn't need to blow up a church and kill a bunch of innocent people. That, imo, is the main problem. The goal of mage freedom is not necessarily a bad one, but his methods (imo) are.

Anders played a hand in the plot; sure, I am sure that
Justice/Vengeance was the cause behind it all. On the Rivalry path, Anders is
willing to stop what he put in motion, but his other half takes over.

Is it wrong to kill innocents? Sure. However, sometimes in
order to save even more lives, the lives that died, seems small in comparison. The
destruction of the chantry could have been avoided, if the Grand Cleric was
willing to step up and take action aside from pointless speeches. If you make a
speech repeatedly and it is not doing anything, the logical choice would be to
accept outside help.

Meredith started the war, the Grand Cleric allowed it to
continue. The mages used this as a means to try to grasp at freedom. I am not
saying the Mages are one-hundred and percent correct in their actions, but they
are not as bad as the ones the Grand Cleric and Meredith made.

Anders chose to blow up the Chantry to give reason for mages
to fight in an open-war perspective. He was willing to sacrifice his life to
give life to others for years to come.

Sometimes when war happens, the innocents suffer the most,
but the chance at freedom for mages seems to over-shadow the suffering of
innocents.

I find it hard to believe that the people in Thedas are so
sure that what they are doing to mages will not come back and bite them in the
ass. IF they did not treat mages like crap, then those so-called innocents
would still be alive. You pay for the consequences of your actions, innocent or
not.

 

But hey all we can do is agree to disagree on the subject
and interpret the situation each of us feels is right for them.  

[Always Alice]

I actually find Merrill to be one of the most intelligent companions that Hawke has. Merrill is proactive, she uses both magic and blood magic responsibly, she is willing to risk her life to help out Hawke, and she is trying to restore elven technology that she thinks can benefit the People. Her culture shock as a Dalish elf in a human city makes her naive when it comes to an alien culture she knows next to nothing about, but we see her intellect when it comes to magic.

Also, Audacity was imprisoned in a totem. I don't see the danger in conversing with an imprisoned demon, especially when the short story noted that Marethari thought it posed no danger in that condition.

Don't get me wrong; I like Merrill, I just have some issues on a few of her views. I don't mind that she's naive when it comes to human society (it's completely understandable, and I find it endearing). Her dialogue shows that she could be astute and intelligent, but you can be the smartest person in the world and still make dumb decisions. And I'm of the opinion that trying to deal with Audacity counts as a dumb decision, especially since we've seen her be easily susceptible to possession in the Fade. And why would the demon want to help a Dalish elf in the first place? (if she mentioned why then feel free to correct me since it's been a while since my last playthrough)

Merrill came close in a quest that plot railroads every single companion into betraying Hawke in a matter of seconds.

I have issues regarding that plotline too, but since it'sin the game I'm assuming her susceptibility to demons is canon.

Connor had Jowan, who wasn't a proper instructor but an apprentice, so I don't think he can be a claim against private instructors who would actually be properly trained and instructed in how to teach apprentices in how to use their powers responsibly.

Good point.

Dragon Age II's depiction of abominations didn't even match what was made explicitly clear in the lore and in the story of Origins. If a mage is in the real world, they aren't in the Fade (or with a demon in the Fade) - as we see from the lore on Aeonar; as we witnessed with the mages in Ostagar. Even the designers of the game have admitted that the abominations that we saw was an issue of game mechanics, rather than lore (including the scenes when abominations appeared from the ground).

I hope DA3 clears things up a bit.

It's one of the most controversial aspects of Dragon Age II, but part of the issue is that the Chantry isn't simply a religious organization - it's the organization that has legal control over the lives of every mage in all the Andrastian societies, with the sole exception of Grey Wardens, and the templars are the military branch of the Chantry. Elthina isn't simply an old lady with a religious title, she's the highest ranking member of the Chantry in the city-state of Kirkwall, and Knight-Commander Meredith is her subordinate.

I think Elthina could be considered a valid military target (I don't think she's deserving of death personally, but I don't consider her to be just a civilian). The countless others who died because of Anders' actions are not. If he wanted to, he could have just killed Elthina (or Meredith), but he chose the most violent, explosive (haha) way in order to prove a point, which is something I  consider to be immoral.

That scene in "Faith" made Leliana look incompetent (in my opinion). Leliana seemed unaware of the fact that the Knight-Commander turned dictator had taken power, installed her templars in the Viscount's Keep, was trying to usurp control of the City Guard, and had a death squad killing people. The fact that both mages and templars wanted Meredith deposed - along with some nobles and commoners - should have been addressed. Even the Champion of Kirkwall can publicly condemn Meredith's actions and her dictatorship. For someone who was sent to investigate the cause of the unrest in Kirkwall, Leliana doesn't seem to have properly investigated the situation. I think "Faith" was poorly written.

I have so many issues with that quest, I don't even know where to begin. Why on earth would Hawke NOT have the option to tell the agent of the Divine that Meredith is breaking Chantry law by making already-Harrowed mages Tranquil? And yeah, Leliana seems...odd, in that quest. It seems like she doesn't know that Meredith is abusing her power, which should be evident to anyone who so much as sets foot in the city. More dialogue options would have been helpful, instead of the quick kthxbai we got.

Her report would have to include that yes, there are some serious issues with the mages here given her "reception," but I'm assuming she would also have to address Kirkwall's political climate. I just can't believe she wouldn't mention Meredith in the report. How could she not?

That really seems pointless, in my humble opinion.

I agree completely. It just seems so unnecessary; their stories are over, and we're not going to play as them again. Why keep dragging them out? Why not just put them to rest already?

Modifié par Always Alice, 30 mars 2012 - 04:28 .

[Always Alice]

Cantina wrote...

[Anders played a hand in the plot; sure, I am sure that
Justice/Vengeance was the cause behind it all. On the Rivalry path, Anders is
willing to stop what he put in motion, but his other half takes over.

I believe Justice only really plays a role in the rivalry path; in the friendship ,path the two seem to have merged (hence Anders saying he doesn'tk now where he ends and Justice begins). Anders is well aware of what he's doing.

Is it wrong to kill innocents? Sure. However, sometimes in
order to save even more lives, the lives that died, seems small in comparison.

I think I mentioned this in a previous post, but I'm sure the families of the victims in the explosion wouldn't view their deaths as "small."

The destruction of the chantry could have been avoided, if the Grand Cleric was
willing to step up and take action aside from pointless speeches.

This sounds a lot like victim blaming. Elthina didn't force Anders to do anything; he did it on his own volition.

If you make a speech repeatedly and it is not doing anything, the logical choice would be to
accept outside help.

I agree. But in this case,she believed that seeking outside help would just make things worse (the last thing she wants is an Exalted March).

Meredith started the war, the Grand Cleric allowed it to
continue.

This I agree with.

Edit: Actually, looking back at this I'm not sure if I do agree. Which "war" are you talking about here?

The mages used this as a means to try to grasp at freedom.

You mean Anders used this? Because the mages were forced to fight.

I am not
saying the Mages are one-hundred and percent correct in their actions, but they
are not as bad as the ones the Grand Cleric and Meredith made.

Would you consider Quentin's decision to make a magical Frankenstein out of dead women to be better than Elthina trying to dissuade the Divine from calling an Exalted March?

There is no way to measure if one decision is "just as bad" as another one. The most accurate statement would be to say that everyone in Kirkwall ****ed up at some point, and call it a day.

Sometimes when war happens, the innocents suffer the most,
but the chance at freedom for mages seems to over-shadow the suffering of
innocents.

For us as players, maybe. But again, if one of the innocents that died was someone you know instead of a random NPC you might feel a bit differently.

I find it hard to believe that the people in Thedas are so
sure that what they are doing to mages will not come back and bite them in the
ass. IF they did not treat mages like crap, then those so-called innocents
would still be alive. You pay for the consequences of your actions, innocent or
not.

What "people" are you referring to here? The average citizen?Most of them are either ignorant of what goes on or does not care unless it affects him, just like in real life. Could you please clarify what you're trying to say here?

But hey all we can do is agree to disagree on the subject
and interpret the situation each of us feels is right for them.  

Works for me

Modifié par Always Alice, 30 mars 2012 - 10:34 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I actually find Merrill to be one of the most intelligent companions that Hawke has. Merrill is proactive, she uses both magic and blood magic responsibly, she is willing to risk her life to help out Hawke, and she is trying to restore elven technology that she thinks can benefit the People. Her culture shock as a Dalish elf in a human city makes her naive when it comes to an alien culture she knows next to nothing about, but we see her intellect when it comes to magic.

Also, Audacity was imprisoned in a totem. I don't see the danger in conversing with an imprisoned demon, especially when the short story noted that Marethari thought it posed no danger in that condition.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong; I like Merrill, I just have some issues on a few of her views. I don't mind that she's naive when it comes to human society (it's completely understandable, and I find it endearing). Her dialogue shows that she could be astute and intelligent, but you can be the smartest person in the world and still make dumb decisions. And I'm of the opinion that trying to deal with Audacity counts as a dumb decision, especially since we've seen her be easily susceptible to possession in the Fade. And why would the demon want to help a Dalish elf in the first place? (if she mentioned why then feel free to correct me since it's been a while since my last playthrough) [/quote]

"Night Terrors" forces every single companion to betray Hawke in a matter of seconds. It's a plot railroad where every single person but Hawke succumbs, and for no discernible reason. I don't hold Merrill's betrayal in "Night Terrors" against her as the quest forces everyone to betray Hawke (except Anders). While some fans have argued that it's due to the Fade and the two powerful demons in question (the Desire Demon, Caress, and the Pride Demon, Wryme), the fact that Hawke is clearly immune illustrates that this simply isn't the case. It's silly, stupid writing that makes absolutely no sense.

That said, Merrill knows that the denizens of the Fade are dangerous. She warns Hawke about this. She admonishes Anders for thinking otherwise. Merrill knows that Audacity is dangerous, but it is the best of limited options for her, because Audacity is the only one who would have knowledge about the creation of the Eluvian, given Audacity's nature. It's a risk, and Merrill admits that, but it's one she's willing to make because she feels the benefits outweight the risks.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Merrill came close in a quest that plot railroads every single companion into betraying Hawke in a matter of seconds. [/quote]

I have issues regarding that plotline too, but since it's in the game I'm assuming her susceptibility to demons is canon. [/quote]

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It's one of the most controversial aspects of Dragon Age II, but part of the issue is that the Chantry isn't simply a religious organization - it's the organization that has legal control over the lives of every mage in all the Andrastian societies, with the sole exception of Grey Wardens, and the templars are the military branch of the Chantry. Elthina isn't simply an old lady with a religious title, she's the highest ranking member of the Chantry in the city-state of Kirkwall, and Knight-Commander Meredith is her subordinate.[/quote]

I think Elthina could be considered a valid military target (I don't think she's deserving of death personally, but I don't consider her to be just a civilian). The countless others who died because of Anders' actions are not. If he wanted to, he could have just killed Elthina (or Meredith), but he chose the most violent, explosive (haha) way in order to prove a point, which is something I  consider to be immoral. [/quote]

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That scene in "Faith" made Leliana look incompetent (in my opinion). Leliana seemed unaware of the fact that the Knight-Commander turned dictator had taken power, installed her templars in the Viscount's Keep, was trying to usurp control of the City Guard, and had a death squad killing people. The fact that both mages and templars wanted Meredith deposed - along with some nobles and commoners - should have been addressed. Even the Champion of Kirkwall can publicly condemn Meredith's actions and her dictatorship. For someone who was sent to investigate the cause of the unrest in Kirkwall, Leliana doesn't seem to have properly investigated the situation. I think "Faith" was poorly written.[/quote]

I have so many issues with that quest, I don't even know where to begin. Why on earth would Hawke NOT have the option to tell the agent of the Divine that Meredith is breaking Chantry law by making already-Harrowed mages Tranquil? And yeah, Leliana seems...odd, in that quest. It seems like she doesn't know that Meredith is abusing her power, which should be evident to anyone who so much as sets foot in the city. More dialogue options would have been helpful, instead of the quick kthxbai we got. [/quote]

You're absolutely right, Leliana should have known about it. I mean, how wouldn't everyone already know that Meredith has become the de facto Viscount of Kirkwall? Kirkwall hasn't had a genuine Viscount in years, templars are installed in the Viscount's Keep, and there's a death squad killing people. Her actions are causing such problems that templars and mages are working together to oust her from power.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

Her report would have to include that yes, there are some serious issues with the mages here given her "reception," but I'm assuming she would also have to address Kirkwall's political climate. I just can't believe she wouldn't mention Meredith in the report. How could she not? [/quote]

II really don't know. I'm guessing Gaider went a different direction with Leliana in Asunder because of how many people complained about how "anti-mage" she came off in "Faith." That said, I'm honestly not certain why even certain why Leliana brought up the Resolutionists - a group we have never heard about in all the years Hawke has lived in Kirkwall, and who are never mentioned again.

[quote]Always Alice wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That really seems pointless, in my humble opinion.[/quote]

I agree completely. It just seems so unnecessary; their stories are over, and we're not going to play as them again. Why keep dragging them out? Why not just put them to rest already? [/quote]

It really seems unnecessary. I don't imagine that a pro-templar fan who wanted their respective Hawke to become Viscount would like working towards that goal, and then losing the position for some absurdly vague reason.

I'm wondering if Anders continually tell a pro-mage Hawke that he should become a leader to the mage rebellion will be addressed. Given how Seeker Cassandra blamed Hawke entirely for the situation at first, along with spreading subversion against the Chantry, do people assume that a pro-mage Hawke intentionally set out to defy the Kirkwall Chantry and Knight-Commander Meredith?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Merrill came close in a quest that plot railroads every single companion into betraying Hawke in a matter of seconds.

I have issues regarding that plotline too, but since it's in the game I'm assuming her susceptibility to demons is canon.

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

 
Weak-willed? Against two of the most powerful demons in the Fade, and you claim that Hawke's companions should have been able to resist? And completely destroy all BioWare have been trying to tell us of the dangers of demons? perhaps you should just accept how dangerous demons can be?

LobselVith8 wrote... 

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's one of the most controversial aspects of Dragon Age II, but part of the issue is that the Chantry isn't simply a religious organization - it's the organization that has legal control over the lives of every mage in all the Andrastian societies, with the sole exception of Grey Wardens, and the templars are the military branch of the Chantry. Elthina isn't simply an old lady with a religious title, she's the highest ranking member of the Chantry in the city-state of Kirkwall, and Knight-Commander Meredith is her subordinate.

I think Elthina could be considered a valid military target (I don't think she's deserving of death personally, but I don't consider her to be just a civilian). The countless others who died because of Anders' actions are not. If he wanted to, he could have just killed Elthina (or Meredith), but he chose the most violent, explosive (haha) way in order to prove a point, which is something I  consider to be immoral.

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

And all the people who died in the fires that spread throughout Kirkwall as a result of Anders' bomb was also magically members of the Chantry, and thus culprits, which also means no innocents were harmed?

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 mars 2012 - 03:47 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

 

Weak-willed? Against two of the most powerful demons in the Fade, and you claim that Hawke's companions should have been able to resist? And completely destroy all BioWare have been trying to tell us of the dangers of demons? perhaps you should just accept how dangerous demons can be?

You realize that Hawke is immune... right? Whether he's a warrior, a rogue, or an apostate. Maybe you could explain the logic behind that one, rather than arguing that a demon should be able to persuade a person to kill Hawke in a matter of seconds, despite what we explicitly see in Origins that openly contradicts this.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

And all the people who died in the fires that spread throughout Kirkwall as a result of Anders' bomb was also magically members of the Chantry, and thus culprits, which also means no innocents were harmed?

Considering how many mages have died throughout a millennia of history at the hands of a system that some view as slavery, and how Meredith condemned hundreds of men, women, and children to death for an act that none of them were responsible for, I can see how desperate one might be to emancipate their people from this oppressive system.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

 

Weak-willed? Against two of the most powerful demons in the Fade, and you claim that Hawke's companions should have been able to resist? And completely destroy all BioWare have been trying to tell us of the dangers of demons? perhaps you should just accept how dangerous demons can be?

You realize that Hawke is immune... right? Whether he's a warrior, a rogue, or an apostate. Maybe you could explain the logic behind that one, rather than arguing that a demon should be able to persuade a person to kill Hawke in a matter of seconds, despite what we explicitly see in Origins that openly contradicts this.

You (hopefully) also realize that Hawke is the PC. Of course he is immune (though technically that depends on you a a player, since he can be tempted), he is also immune to the influence of the Idol, even though he had direct contact with it. It is called plot armor.
And demons are masters of blood magic, and nothing in Origins tells us that a demon can't use the mind control powers of blood magic on reflections in the Fade.

LobselVith8 wrote... 

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

And all the people who died in the fires that spread throughout Kirkwall as a result of Anders' bomb was also magically members of the Chantry, and thus culprits, which also means no innocents were harmed?

Considering how many mages have died throughout a millennia of history at the hands of a system that some view as slavery, and how Meredith condemned hundreds of men, women, and children to death for an act that none of them were responsible for, I can see how desperate one might be to emancipate their people from this oppressive system.

Right..... So did Anders' bomb result in the death of innocents or didn't it?

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You realize that Hawke is immune... right? Whether he's a warrior, a rogue, or an apostate. Maybe you could explain the logic behind that one, rather than arguing that a demon should be able to persuade a person to kill Hawke in a matter of seconds, despite what we explicitly see in Origins that openly contradicts this.

You (hopefully) also realize that Hawke is the PC. Of course he is immune (though technically that depends on you a a player, since he can be tempted), he is also immune to the influence of the Idol, even though he had direct contact with it. It is called plot armor.

Hawke is still immune, because he can make a choice. His companions can't; the plot forced them to betray Hawke in a matter of seconds, even though it's asinine when Origins and Awakening has depicted this isn't the case. Also, Hawke and Varric are, apparently, immune to the Idol at first, while Bartrand betrays them, and eventually succumbs to it.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And demons are masters of blood magic, and nothing in Origins tells us that a demon can't use the mind control powers of blood magic on reflections in the Fade.

There is no blood in the Fade. If demons could do that, then why do the events in Origins and Awakening show us that this isn't the case?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering how many mages have died throughout a millennia of history at the hands of a system that some view as slavery, and how Meredith condemned hundreds of men, women, and children to death for an act that none of them were responsible for, I can see how desperate one might be to emancipate their people from this oppressive system.

Right..... So did Anders' bomb result in the death of innocents or didn't it?

You realize the discussion was about whether what Anders did was justified, while I explicitly addressed that it was a controversial act precisely because of the oppression that exists with the mages living under the heel of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars?

[Lazy Jer]

Cantina wrote...

People say, “Think of the innocents killed.”  I like to know just how innocent these people
were since as far as I know, not everyone is innocent. Furthermore, they did not seem to care enough about how mages were being treated and how Meradith was a complete whack job. So as far as I am concerned, I don't care one bit who died in the explosion.

How much information do you think the common person has?  Hawke knows what he knows because he's in the thick of it in Kirkwall.  They don't know what Meredeth is doing, they don't know how things are inside the circle, they're just living their lives.  Going to work, coming home, eating, and perhaps going to the Chantry to prey.

I view what Anders did to the Chantry as justification. For
a thousand years, the mages have suffered under the heel of the Chantry and the
Templars. The Chantry twists the words of Andraste and uses that as means of
fear through religion.

*takes a drink* Sorry about that...I decided to make a drinking game out of these Anders threads.  Every time a pro-Anders person mentions either 900 or 1000 years of mage oppression I take a drink.

In all seriousness, though, this does take away the innocence of the common chump visiting the chantry, nor any of the young sisters or brothers or some of the younger mothers that have grown up being told "This is how things are."  Most of the people killed by Anders bomb haven't done anything wrong themselves.

For every mage that has suffered over those years, it is
equal to each person that died in the explosion. It is not going to make the
scale balance out, but it is a start.

Are you advocating more death?
 

Flemeth stated at the start of the game, “Without
an end there can be no peace.” Sometimes, you have to do something so extreme
in order to change things.

She was specifically speaking about the death of Wesley do bring him the peace of death to avoid the suffering of the darkspawn taint.

The Grand Cleric had the chance to stop things before they
got out of hand, but she did nothing. She assumed sitting down with cookies and
tea, with the First Enchanter and Meradith would smooth things over. If you are
going to be that naive about how bad the situation has become, then you deserve
whatever repercussions comes your way.

Grand Cleric Elthina wasn't killed because she failed to do anything, she was killed to prevent her from doing anything.  "Sitting down with tea and cookies" as you call it could have done a lot more then you might think.  As it was she prevented Meredeth from calling for Annulment earlier, so she did a lot more then people give her credit for.  She could have done more, but if she had Anders wouldn't have gotten his war.

From my many play-throughs, I have always stood up for
Anders and his view points on the Circle, The Templars and The Chantry.  Is he hypocritical about some of his
comments/answers? Sure, he is, but when you have a spirit living inside your
body I cannot imagine how hard it is, to say one thing, then hear Justice and
then Anders agrees with him, going back on his own words. Besides many
characters in the game are hypocrites.

It might not have been that direct.  Towards the end Anders actually says that he and Justice are one and the same.

I never regret sparing his life after the explosion. I
cannot kill someone for doing something I view as nothing wrong. Even IF I did
see it as a wrong act, I would not kill him still. It is far better to live
with the consequences of your actions, then to seek an easy means of escape.

Oddly enough I have regrets no matter what I do.  Letting him go or keeping him in the party seem like small punishments for his crimes, but killing him just plays into his own desires, given that he sort of wants to be a martyr.

Yeah, I might get flamed for my opinion/view point, but
honestly-don’t care.

For the record, I'm not intending to flame here, just pointing out the various areas where you and I are in disagreement, partially in an attempt to gentlely steer the conversation back onto the track it was when the OP began this conversation.  That's right, I'm using you to further my own agenda.  I am a master manipulator!  I AM  the game of thrones! 

[Always Alice]

LobselVith8 wrote...

"Night Terrors" forces every single companion to betray Hawke in a matter of seconds. It's a plot railroad where every single person but Hawke succumbs, and for no discernible reason. I don't hold Merrill's betrayal in "Night Terrors" against her as the quest forces everyone to betray Hawke (except Anders). While some fans have argued that it's due to the Fade and the two powerful demons in question (the Desire Demon, Caress, and the Pride Demon, Wryme), the fact that Hawke is clearly immune illustrates that this simply isn't the case. It's silly, stupid writing that makes absolutely no sense.

The fact that Merrill is the first to betray Hawke is what makes it so problematic. The orders of betrayal are not random; she is always the default. Whoever wrote the quest made a conscious decision to have her be the first to fall, believing that out of the possible characters that could be tempted, Merrill would be the first to give in.

LobselVith8 wrote...

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

What it's trying to tell you is that demons are incredibly persuasive, and even those who are strong-willed can get sucked into their lies.

LobselVith8 wrote...

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

Then the writers certainly suceeded, lol.

 Even if you believe that the only people inside the Chantry were templars and sisters/brothers (ignoring any refugees and oprhans that Chantries are supposed to take care of according to DAO) and that they were guilty, those inside the buildings are not the only ones affected by the explosion. The explosion was not self-contained. The fire and debris that will result from it is bound to take lives. And of course, all the mages who are subsequently killed. 

I really don't know. I'm guessing Gaider went a different direction with Leliana in Asunder because of how many people complained about how "anti-mage" she came off in "Faith." That said, I'm honestly not certain why even certain why Leliana brought up the Resolutionists - a group we have never heard about in all the years Hawke has lived in Kirkwall, and who are never mentioned again.

Yeah, that whole thing was just so random and out of place. The game could have easily included a subplot about Resolutionists; I'm not quite sure why they didn't. This is a problem I have with DA2; it seems like there is some awesome stuff going on in the background, but Hawke is always looking the other way.The codex mentions that Anders was the leader of some kind of mage underground, but we don't actually have the option to help out (or arrest them).  And now we see these resolutionists who are allegdly "enagaged in acts of terror and sabotage," yet we don't actually see enough of them to assume they're a problem until that one quest.

LobselVith8 wrote...

It really seems unnecessary. I don't imagine that a pro-templar fan who wanted their respective Hawke to become Viscount would like working towards that goal, and then losing the position for some absurdly vague reason.

I'm wondering if Anders continually tell a pro-mage Hawke that he should become a leader to the mage rebellion will be addressed. Given how Seeker Cassandra blamed Hawke entirely for the situation at first, along with spreading subversion against the Chantry, do people assume that a pro-mage Hawke intentionally set out to defy the Kirkwall Chantry and Knight-Commander Meredith?

I would think so. So much about the ending was left vague, it's really quite irritating.

Modifié par Always Alice, 30 mars 2012 - 10:28 .

[avatoc]

V he is not

[Shared]

David Gaider wrote...

The mages aren't slaves.

Some people might refer to them as such-- Anders, for one, though I don't know if he's the sort of supporting argument you want to use-- but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that not being free and being a slave are different things.

They are definitely not free. In Kirkwall, they are tantamount to prisoners. According to the law of the Circle of Magi, they have a certain amount of rights if very limited personal freedom. How much those laws are respected will vary from tower to tower. Either way, however, they are not owned by the Chantry, nor are they forced into servitude (meaning they are not forced to perform work or any other service on the Chantry's behalf).

If someone wishes to see the Chantry as heartless oppressors, by all means-- there are many ways to interpret the situation, and that's intentional. If someone tries to argue that there are absolutes involved, or that anything we've written suggests there are, they're quite simply deluded-- not to put too fine a point on it.

Not beeing free is the same as beeing a slave. As a mage in the circle you cannot pursue the life you want yourself, and this is enforced with often violence or imprisonment. Or even worse, beeing made tranquill, which basically kills you (if you cannot feel you are not human anymore) but your not really dead either. The comparison to the slaves in the US is pretty obvious. The mages gets their freedom taken away because of what they are born as. Just as the afro americans/africans where. You could argue their slavery is "better" then what the slaves in "real life" where subject to, but its still slavery. Slavery does not equal beeing forced to work for someone. Its beeing denied your freedom.

Modifié par Shared, 11 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[Shared]

David Gaider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

If you wish. You're the one who claimed they were forced to stay-- I'm simply telling you they're not. They're free to go, and some in fact do if there's a logical place for them elsewhere (which is rare). They're certainly not blind to the fact that the world would not welcome them. I'm also not sure how you equate the loss of emotion with the loss of free will. If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so. They are not automotons.

Hmm, gotta reiterate my 2 cents on this. It can be argued mages are not slaves per ce. Just doomed to eternal imprisonemnt becuase they are born as mages. However any argument about the tranquill, and especially thoose that do not want to be made tranquill is mute. It is a horrific prosess. When you can no longer feel you are no longer human. They are put to a fate worse then slavery, they are "killed" yet still alive. A fate i would argue is worse then death. Maybe the loss of emotion is not the loss of free will. But it is the loss of your "humanity". It actually makes little sense how they are portrayed in DA, in real life people that have this condition almost withouth exception ends upp as murderers as they cannot feel, cannot relate and haven o emphaty. It seems like they are both lobotomized/pasified and their emotions are removed. Because of what we know actual humans do when they cannot feel.

How i see the tranquill is also the reason i always in all my playthroughs made Anders kill the mage in his quest. Because the way i see it, its better to die then to exist but not live.

Modifié par Shared, 11 avril 2012 - 10:05 .

[LobselVith8]

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

"Night Terrors" forces every single companion to betray Hawke in a matter of seconds. It's a plot railroad where every single person but Hawke succumbs, and for no discernible reason. I don't hold Merrill's betrayal in "Night Terrors" against her as the quest forces everyone to betray Hawke (except Anders). While some fans have argued that it's due to the Fade and the two powerful demons in question (the Desire Demon, Caress, and the Pride Demon, Wryme), the fact that Hawke is clearly immune illustrates that this simply isn't the case. It's silly, stupid writing that makes absolutely no sense.

The fact that Merrill is the first to betray Hawke is what makes it so problematic. The orders of betrayal are not random; she is always the default. Whoever wrote the quest made a conscious decision to have her be the first to fall, believing that out of the possible characters that could be tempted, Merrill would be the first to give in.

Isn't that an issue of game mechanics? It's essentially the game mechanics of Merrill betraying Hawke first, but it doesn't absolve the narrative's problem that it remains an asinine story that makes it seem as though every single companion (except Anders) would sell Hawke out in a heartbeat.

Because, game mechanics aside, "Night Terrors" is still a quest where companions betray Hawke in a matter of seconds so I have little reason to treat it seriously. Friends in real life aren't going to murder someone simply because someone made them an offer, unless they are mentally disturbed. And Hawke being immune already invalidates the idea that the demons were that powerful; we also know from Origins and Awakening that demons don't operate this way, and neither does the Fade. Hawke being immune already makes this entire scenerio ridiculous.

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If it's canon, then that tells me that every single companion (save Anders) is willing to kill Hawke if they are given a few seconds worth of dialogue. I doubt that Hawke's companions are seriously that weak-willed.

What it's trying to tell you is that demons are incredibly persuasive, and even those who are strong-willed can get sucked into their lies.

What the story is telling me is that it takes mere seconds for Hawke's companions to betray him, and to try to murder him. Real people don't work that way. None of The Warden's companions worked that way when they faced demons in the Fade, either. I don't see this as any different than abominations rising up from the ground; essentially, it's completely ridiculous and pointless.

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The people who died with Grand Cleric Elthina were members of the Chantry of Andraste, and members of the Order of Templars - basically, the people who Anders views as part of an organization that commits slavery against his people. I'm certain that the writers intended for it to be controversial.

Then the writers certainly suceeded, lol.

Even if you believe that the only people inside the Chantry were templars and sisters/brothers (ignoring any refugees and oprhans that Chantries are supposed to take care of according to DAO) and that they were guilty, those inside the buildings are not the only ones affected by the explosion. The explosion was not self-contained. The fire and debris that will result from it is bound to take lives. And of course, all the mages who are subsequently killed. 

If the ultimate price is an end to a system that is condemned by its opponents as slavery, then I can see why people advocate in Anders' favor.

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I really don't know. I'm guessing Gaider went a different direction with Leliana in Asunder because of how many people complained about how "anti-mage" she came off in "Faith." That said, I'm honestly not certain why even certain why Leliana brought up the Resolutionists - a group we have never heard about in all the years Hawke has lived in Kirkwall, and who are never mentioned again.

Yeah, that whole thing was just so random and out of place. The game could have easily included a subplot about Resolutionists; I'm not quite sure why they didn't. This is a problem I have with DA2; it seems like there is some awesome stuff going on in the background, but Hawke is always looking the other way.The codex mentions that Anders was the leader of some kind of mage underground, but we don't actually have the option to help out (or arrest them).  And now we see these resolutionists who are allegdly "enagaged in acts of terror and sabotage," yet we don't actually see enough of them to assume they're a problem until that one quest.

Too many things were kept in the background. Honestly, the background stuff always seemed more interesting than what we actually did as Hawke.

Always Alice wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It really seems unnecessary. I don't imagine that a pro-templar fan who wanted their respective Hawke to become Viscount would like working towards that goal, and then losing the position for some absurdly vague reason.

I'm wondering if Anders continually tell a pro-mage Hawke that he should become a leader to the mage rebellion will be addressed. Given how Seeker Cassandra blamed Hawke entirely for the situation at first, along with spreading subversion against the Chantry, do people assume that a pro-mage Hawke intentionally set out to defy the Kirkwall Chantry and Knight-Commander Meredith?

I would think so. So much about the ending was left vague, it's really quite irritating.

I found it quite irritating as well. I felt like the narrative had some serious problems, in general. I thought making mages and templars more three-dimensional would have worked in the narrative's favor. Really explore the dichotomy between the two ideologies, rather than villify both sides to the extend that the storyline did. Meredith obtaining the Idol really made no sense, and her gleeful attitude about the Right of Annulment seemed to make her a villain, as opposed to how Origins' handled Greagoir contemplating the Right while feeling remorseful over the lives that would be lost in the process, while Orsino's dealings with Quentin was simply ridiculous and stupid. I think maintaining them as flawed, but well-meaning people, would have been better. Actually having a mage rebellion that Meredith felt she had to quell probably would have made more sense, rather than an explosion caused by Anders and a macguffin to turn Meredith into a Super-Sayian.

[Always Alice]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Isn't that an issue of game mechanics? It's essentially the game mechanics of Merrill betraying Hawke first, but it doesn't absolve the narrative's problem that it remains an asinine story that makes it seem as though every single companion (except Anders) would sell Hawke out in a heartbeat.
Because, game mechanics aside, "Night Terrors" is still a quest where companions betray Hawke in a matter of seconds so I have little reason to treat it seriously. Friends in real life aren't going to murder someone simply because someone made them an offer, unless they are mentally disturbed. And Hawke being immune already invalidates the idea that the demons were that powerful; we also know from Origins and Awakening that demons don't operate this way, and neither does the Fade. Hawke being immune already makes this entire scenerio ridiculous
…
What the story is telling me is that it takes mere seconds for Hawke's companions to betray him, and to try to murder him. Real people don't work that way. None of The Warden's companions worked that way when they faced demons in the Fade, either. I don't see this as any different than abominations rising up from the ground; essentially, it's completely ridiculous and pointless.

A DA2 scenario being asinine and ridiculous? Color me shocked
I hate this quest probably as much as you do, but that does not change the fact that this quest is unfortunately part of the game canon. The game isn’t a buffet; we can’t pick and choose the pieces we want (though I really wish we could given the general idiocy of some of the plotlines). The fact that Merrill, along with the rest of the companions (except for Sebastian, possibly), is susceptible to demonic influence does not change.  And out of all the companions, she is the one who is first to give in to the pride demon if she is present.

If the ultimate price is an end to a system that is condemned by its opponents as slavery, then I can see why people advocate in Anders' favor.

I can see why people advocate in Anders’ favor as well. Most people can. What is comes down to is whether you not you think his course of action was right, and I personally do not think that anything resulting in the intentional death of innocents is ever “right.”

Too many things were kept in the background. Honestly, the background stuff always seemed more interesting than what we actually did as Hawke.

It really was. I don’t see why they didn’t bother implementing these things in the main game; it definitely could have added to Hawke’s personal role in the mage-templar conflict instead of just making him a glorified errand boy.

I found it quite irritating as well. I felt like the narrative had some serious problems, in general. I thought making mages and templars more three-dimensional would have worked in the narrative's favor. Really explore the dichotomy between the two ideologies, rather than villify both sides to the extend that the storyline did. Meredith obtaining the Idol really made no sense, and her gleeful attitude about the Right of Annulment seemed to make her a villain, as opposed to how Origins' handled Greagoir contemplating the Right while feeling remorseful over the lives that would be lost in the process, while Orsino's dealings with Quentin was simply ridiculous and stupid. I think maintaining them as flawed, but well-meaning people, would have been better. Actually having a mage rebellion that Meredith felt she had to quell probably would have made more sense, rather than an explosion caused by Anders and a macguffin to turn Meredith into a Super-Sayian.

I think I might have said this in another thread, but both sides in the mage-templar conflict in DA2 were like grotesque parodies of their respective ideologies. The first game did a great job depicting both sides, but in the second Meredith and Orsino were cartoonishly exaggerated to the point where they became caricatures instead of actual characters. I really can’t fathom how the developers would consider any of these plot points and characterizations to be good ideas. Meredith’s excuse for the RoA was just awful, and completely absurd. If they wanted to keep the dramatic effect of Anders being the one to blow up the Chantry, at the very least they could have made it so there would be suspicion of Anders having connections and informants inside the Circle. At least something that would make the slightest bit of sense.

[prizm123]

terrorism is never justified when it kills innocent civilians. i am sure we would have ended up killing Meredith eventually no matter what, but what he did was unexcusable

what i found rather funny was the playthrough where my mage sided with the templars....just for laughs, but it ended up being pretty intense in different ways