66 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

A lot of people have argued that the mages need to toss off the Chantry and be free.  I don't think anyone feels that they should endure the illegal abuse and oppression of the Kirkwall Chantry, but the wider point is debatable.   One thing that is lacking in these impassioned pleas is any explanation of how this 'no chantry oppression' mages thing actually works.

I'm curious as to what people think it would actually be like, if not anarchy or magister lords from heck.  Its the internet, so civilized conversation may be impossible, but I'd like to try.  I'd prefer if people don't cite Codex articles about how happy-fluffy it is in Riviani or other places unless you accept that the Codex articles on Circles and Templars accurately describe Kirkwall's Chantry.

When making a proposal, please consider the following points:

1) How do the mages replace the financial subsidies of the Chantry system?   Right now, mages are fed, housed, clothed, and trained at Church expense with pretty limited duties.  Where does the money come from without the Chantry?

2) Who provides physical protection for the mages, which the templars are supposed to do?

3) Do they have a Harrowing?  Rites of Tranquility?  Who deals with renegades and abominations if not the Templars?

4) What is their relationship to the political powers now that the Church doesn't protect them from the lords and kings?  Or are they the lords and kings now?  What about the mage fearing peasantry?

5) How do they find the neophyte mages?  How are they recruited for training?

6) Who governs the mages?   If First Enchanter, what can the mages do if that First Enchanter turns out to be Danarius instead of Irving?   Who can you appeal to without the Chantry overseeing the Templars (theoretically)?

[IanPolaris]

Honestly, I think the heads of state take over all/most of the functions you mention since the proper regulation and education of mages is very clearly in the public interest. As for funds, voluntary tranquil could do a lot, and magic can do a lot of things on a commercial basis (such as healing that are difficult to impossible to do otherwise which should offset much of the cost.

As for Templars, the Chantry monopoly on Templar Training needs to end, and a combine Mage-Knighthood (Mage Hunters) needs to be established (again likely by the crown) to regulate and enforce magical law. Such members would likely include BOTH mages and (ex)-Templars or at least warriors with Templar training. Branches of this order would include a branch for the registration (using phylacteries) and education (in bording schools at first phasing it out as the public learned to accept magic as the Maker's Gift) and enforcement branche (to hunt down abominations, magical criminals,and illegal/unsanctioned magic including unsanctioned bloodmagic). Many magica members in the highly elite enforcement branch likely *would* be bloodmages themselves (and carefully selected and watched) explicitly to control dangerous but useful/powerful bloodmagic.

Finally ths order would provide needed magical support for the King's army.

Anyhoo, just my take.

-Polaris

[Vormaerin]

So pretty much the same as the Chantry system, except a presumably less corrupt royal administration replacing the Chantry? Is Anders still hauled back after each of his times running away? If so, what makes this more tolerable than the Fereldan Circle he runs from? If not, how do you get the mages to join up to this paramilitary structure voluntarily?

I tend to think the king would be less tolerant of idle mages than the chantry, but who knows? The one thing you said I have a hard time with is the "as the public learns to accept mages" part. What is going to make the chantry change its doctrine? Or are we also positing some Reformation style nationalization of the church and its teachings?

[Bmeszaros]

Taking away the Chantry watchdog, you essentially will delve into anarchy with lots of mage on mage violence until the the weak begin to serve the strong, eventually, once war and obedience thins the ranks, you will have Tevinter.

Modifié par Bmeszaros, 03 avril 2011 - 01:32 .

[Camenae]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Harry_Potter

[Deztyn]

+100 friendship for creating this thread. <3

I have nothing more productive to add because I'm comfortable with the Chantry system when it's working properly.

Modifié par Deztyn, 03 avril 2011 - 01:46 .

[Dr. Nexas]

Camenae wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Harry_Potter

I don't think we should look to the Ministry of Magic as a standard for proper control of magic. Everyone there was ****ing incompetent.

[ms_sunlight]

If you recall from DA:O, the circle actually makes money through selling enchantments. The circle subsidises the templars, not vice versa. That is why the law that no mage who passes their harrowing can be made tranquil is so important, as tranquil mages doing what they are told and making enchantments would be a big economic temptation to a corrupt chantry. That is also part of why it is so awful in DA2 when there are more and more tranquil selling their wares; Kirkwall is going back to a slave economy.

[LobselVith8]

How is a mage governed Circle the same as one controlled by the Chantry through its templars? The Chantry is teaching people that mages are cursed, a word we repeatedly hear in the Magi Origin from Andrastians and even the Knight-Commanders of both installments. If mages are under a hierarchy where their voice doesn't matter (which is made clear when Greagoir can unilaterally say no to the King of Ferelden's request for troops to fight against the Blight and Irving admits he never saw the evidence against Jowan and has no say over Jowan's Right of Tranquility), then a mage governed Circle would be completely different than one controlled by the Chantry.

[White_Buffalo94]

Vormaerin wrote...

So pretty much the same as the Chantry system, except a presumably less corrupt royal administration replacing the Chantry? Is Anders still hauled back after each of his times running away? If so, what makes this more tolerable than the Fereldan Circle he runs from? If not, how do you get the mages to join up to this paramilitary structure voluntarily?

I tend to think the king would be less tolerant of idle mages than the chantry, but who knows? The one thing you said I have a hard time with is the "as the public learns to accept mages" part. What is going to make the chantry change its doctrine? Or are we also positing some Reformation style nationalization of the church and its teachings?

I agree with Polaris, but to touch on the point you are making:
The Chantry system is corrupt anyway. Why else would the Divine need people like Leliana that act as the "Left Hand" to silence any who blacken the Divine's influence? Anders would not be stuck in a tower in this case, and due to his remarkable skill with healing, he would be recruited as a healer to help fund mage training.
As for your final point, the Chantry has changed its doctrine already. Andraste for example, she gave the Arlathan elves/descendants the Dales to rebuild. Chantry comes along and COMPLETELY overlooks the fact that Andraste granted the Dalish that land, and overruns it in an Exalted March. The Chantry just needs to be either reformed or overthrown completely. I would vote on the latter

[Camenae]

I don't think "the Chantry's control over mages needs to be overthrown" can be equated to "the Chantry needs to be overthrown altogether." : /

The former I can agree with. The latter...I don't know. Plenty of people in Thedas probably want the Chantry to be around. Sure there are those who don't, but why should their opinion automatically override those who want to keep the Chantry, for reasons other than to control the mages?

[The Angry One]

Realistically you can't just overthrow the Chantry.
Look at Tevinter, the Chantry still dominates their society. The Magisters just took it over and crossed out the bits about magic never ruling man and no slavery.

[Lithuasil]

The chantry isn't the problem.
It's Page 11, Row 13 of the official chantry law, which states "No person more competent then a slice of toast left in bucket of rainwater, shall claim any position of command or power within the chantry or the templars" that causes most of the trouble, really.

[Andronic0s]

Well money and defense are not an issue as the mages can make Magical items for a high price and can toss fireballs which should discourage people from attacking them

The thing is, how do you keep mages from having too much political power when they already have so much Martial power?

I think you would need first an agreed on rule that says mages can not be in a position of power outside of their circles, also circles should be retained but mages should be allowed to leave if they have proven they can be trustworthy and keep the templars or have a specialized group of mages for hunting down those that abuse the trust. As for the circle leadership a sort of Council with the Senior Enchanters the First enchanter and the Knight-Commander and Knight-Captain.

After all what the mages need is not a revolution, what they need to make the current system work is to add a system of checks and balances to avoid abuses of power from either the templars or the Mages. Unfortunately the Chantry/Templars would never give up any measure of power without fighting it seems, so revolution it is.

Modifié par Andronic0s, 03 avril 2011 - 03:03 .

[Iosev]

I can think of at least two necessary changes that need to be done regarding the Circles.

The first deals with having magi education in a much more healthy environment. Instead of placing magi indefinitely in an environment with the threat of Tranquility or death constantly on their minds, the Circle's focus should largely be on teaching magi how to control their powers, as well as how to ethically use those powers, and then having more freedom in how to live their lives after mastering their powers.

The second change would be for the Templar to move away from their current philosophy of preemption, and instead focus only on crimes that have actually been committed. Controlling and persecuting magi before they have even committed any magical abuses is only going to push more magi to do so, so instead, they need to focus on actual criminal investigations that involve magic (e.g., Quentin homicide case).

Ultimately, a healthier educational environment and more freedom will push less magi into going rogue and abusing their powers, with the Templar there (along with magi) to focus only on the magi who do abuse their powers.

[Big I]

Andronic0s wrote...
The thing is, how do you keep mages from having too much political power when they already have so much Martial power?

I think you would need first an agreed on rule that says mages can not be in a position of power outside of their circles, also circles should be retained but mages should be allowed to leave if they have proven they can be trustworthy and keep the templars or have a specialized group of mages for hunting down those that abuse the trust.

Why should mages be barred from holding political power in the first place? Why is it more just for hereditary nobles to hold all political power than for mages to hold some of it? I would have no problem with mages becoming a part of the political system.


With regards to OP, I think the best system would be a Tevinter style Circle with the proviso that human sacrifice, slavery, and mind control are illegal and the laws are enforced by a templar order. The remit of the order should only be to capture and punish maleficarum; no taking babies away from mages, no forcing tranquillity on people. Just make sure mages aren't breaking the law.


I also think the Harrowing and the Rite of Tranquillity should be abandoned. Tranquillity is completely inhumane, and the Harrowing is only important as a measureable "exam" of the mental defenses of a mage. The important thing about the Harrowing is not that the mage beat a demon, but that the Circle has trained them well enough to do so. Keep the training, augment it with an evalution system carried out by other mages, and get rid of the practice of throwing apprentices to Pride demons (like in Origins).

[Funny_chan]

Fist, I would like to explain my decision in the game. To me, siding with the templars was a no-brainer.
First of all, I tend to value the most the well-being of the majority rather than the well-being of a minority (I guess almost everybody does, actually). However, obviously, this can't be used as an excuse to abuse the minority.
Actually, I believe the best solution for the games main conflict would be siding with the templars and expelling Meredith of their command (I was actually quite pleased seeing that she was killed at the end of the game).
BTW, I also think Meredith isn't to blame as much as Orsino, because she was being controled by that artifact, while Orsino deliberately chose to be a "bad guy".

Now into the facts...
The circle of Magi actually resembles to me not a prision but an asylum. We know that the mentally unstable people did not choose to be born or to become mentally ill. It may seem unfair, however, if we were to choose to release everyone that lives in an asylum from all over the world, the world would be engulfed in chaos. I'm pretty sure that the homicides rate would increase.
Perhaps the less "dangerous" (to themselves and to others) mages could live with their own families, just like it happens in the real world regarding the mentally unstable. Perhaps they could even have a templar "bodyguard", just like some that suffer mental diseases have their particular nurses.
However, those that are dangerous should be made tranquil, just as in real life the dangerous asylum patients are sedated.
That's just my 2 cents.

Modifié par Funny_chan, 03 avril 2011 - 05:05 .

[Plaintiff]

1) How do the mages replace the financial subsidies of the Chantry system?   Right now, mages are fed, housed, clothed, and trained at Church expense with pretty limited duties.  Where does the money come from without the Chantry?

The mages already offer enchantment services, sell magical items, and no doubt can offer healing well beyond what any non-magical individual is capable of. Anders was doing it for free, but if his customers weren't refugees he could've made a mint, he seems to be the only damn doctor in the whole city. Bodyguarding and mercenarial work are also options, and I'd imagine they'd be pretty popular too. If I was a mage I'd be jumping at the chance to get out of the ****ing tower and start hurling fireballs at bad guys.

2) Who provides physical protection for the mages, which the templars are supposed to do?

Key words being "supposed to". So far they haven't exactly been doing the mages any favours. Even Greagoir, who's a picnic compared to Meredith, sent a rag-tag group of strangers in to kill every mage, rather than actually doing his job and going in there his own damn self to check for non-possessed survivors.

Morrigan, Flemeth, Wynne, Anders, Velanna, Merrill, Bethany, Mage-Warden and Mage-Hawke have all proven they can protect themselves just fine (note that they spend a lot of time defending themselves from these templars that you imagine are protecting them). Surely with proper training in their craft, a competent mage has very little to fear. Why is this even a question?

3) Do they have a Harrowing?  Rites of Tranquility?  Who deals with renegades and abominations if not the Templars?

Do they need a Harrowing? As far as tests go, that struck me as one of the stupidest in that or any other universe. "Hey yeah, we'll just chuck you into the Fade, which you have no prior experience with, and see if you get possessed by a demon. BTW, if you take too long we'll kill you anyway! Are you in a state of emotional distress now? Good, that makes you even more vulnerable! No pressure!"

Rites of Tranquility can still exist, mages will be able to volunteer to be made Tranquil, just as before.

I dunno what Dragon Age you're playing, but the only Templar I saw dealing with abominations and renegade mages with any measure of success was Alistair. The ones that weren't cowering behind Greagoir got possessed themselves, with seemingly no difficulty, and when Meredith's having trouble, who does she go to? Cullen? Thrask? Why, no! She goes to Hawke, the man who counts apostates among his close personal friends!

Given the templars' less than stellar track record, I'd say the mages could hardly do worse by policing themselves. Alternatively, templars can still do the job, if they've improved any, but the Templar Order needs to be divorced from the Chantry. Chantry influence is shown to create bias, and their existence should be a matter of practicality, not religion.

4) What is their relationship to the political powers now that the Church doesn't protect them from the lords and kings?  Or are they the lords and kings now?  What about the mage fearing peasantry?

"Protect"? Are you kidding? The Chantry is the reason mages are feared. Every second sentence out of any given Chanter's mouth is a diatribe on the evils of magic and those who use it. According to them, Magic caused the Maker to abandon us and it's also what created the first Darkspawn, phsyical embodiments of evil. With the Chantry out of the picture, the lot of mages can only improve.

But as for allies, well, Alistair seemed mage-friendly when I met him in Kirkwall, so I'm willing to bet the smart nobles in Ferelden will be following suit, at least in public. Not to mention Connor, if he lives, is also a mage. Arl Eamon's allies should be sympathetic to that, and if it were made public, it would drive the point home that a mage is not a monster, they are someone's child, a human being, and deserve the same respect and rights thereof.

If the peasants were smarter they wouldn't be peasants. Make a few proclamtions about how mages are our bros now and most of them will accept it unquestioningly.

5) How do they find the neophyte mages?  How are they recruited for training?

Well their methods of finding them weren't exactly perfect before. I imagine they'll sit around and wait for the kids to get reported. What else can they do? Alternatively, if the Circle changed some (a lot) of those ridiculous rules, and had more facilities in heavier populated areas, parents would be less apprehensive about sending their children for study, and the children would be more willing to go. Templars don't have to barge in and violently tear a child away from his mother. Their parents can enroll them just as our parents enroll us in non-magical schools. Or they can arrange for private tuition from a certified Circle Mage.
 
6) Who governs the mages?   If First Enchanter, what can the mages do if that First Enchanter turns out to be Danarius instead of Irving?   Who can you appeal to without the Chantry overseeing the Templars (theoretically)?

Well your question presupposes that the templars have to be overseen by the Chantry, and that's not true. In fact, for a Templar Order to truly exist for the sake of protecting mages, Chantry influence is the last thing you want. The Templars should be an entirely separate institution, the Chantry has too much power anyway, cutting down its militaristic and poltical power can only be a good thing.

Alternatively, if templars aren't available, they can ask other Circles for aid, or, in Ferelden, where most nobles have at least a small militia under their command, they can request help from them. Sure, they won't have the unique skills that the templars supposedly have for dealing with rogue mages. But, as I've said before, the templars we've seen so far kind of suck at their jobs anyway.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 avril 2011 - 05:25 .

[IanPolaris]

Funny_chan,

Actually the asylum in modern mental health practices has gone the way of the lobotomy. People simply are not institutionalized anymore unless they actually DO something or check themselves in (or are checked in by their guardian/parent). Even in these cases. psychiatrists will do everything possible to de-institutionalize such a person as much as possible such as monitered work-release programs.

It used to be the way you say for mental health patients, but some of the very things we see wrong in the circle in Dragon Age is almost precisely why psychiatists concluded that locking away mentally ill people for what they might do was a bad idea and generally very counter-productive.

Yes asylums still exist, but they exist for people that need them for what they have done and their proven explicit danger to themselves and others....and they are used sparingly (at least in modern western societies).

-Polaris

[Funny_chan]

IanPolaris wrote...

Funny_chan,

Actually the asylum in modern mental health practices has gone the way of the lobotomy. People simply are not institutionalized anymore unless they actually DO something or check themselves in (or are checked in by their guardian/parent). Even in these cases. psychiatrists will do everything possible to de-institutionalize such a person as much as possible such as monitered work-release programs.

It used to be the way you say for mental health patients, but some of the very things we see wrong in the circle in Dragon Age is almost precisely why psychiatists concluded that locking away mentally ill people for what they might do was a bad idea and generally very counter-productive.

Yes asylums still exist, but they exist for people that need them for what they have done and their proven explicit danger to themselves and others....and they are used sparingly (at least in modern western societies).

-Polaris

Yes, I agree with you in that we can't abuse the minority. That's the reason I wrote:
"However, obviously, this can't be used as an excuse to abuse the minority." and "Perhaps the less 'dangerous' (to themselves and to others) mages could
live with their own families, just like it happens in the real world
regarding the mentally unstable."

However, even if it's only for some, we still need to have the asylums.
I wouldn't mind if mages like, say, Wynne, lived with their own families and not in the circle, but the circle would still be extremely necessary for mages like Quentin (Leandra's killer).
That's why I didn't kill all the mages in my DAII playthrough, even though I sided with the templars (I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations).

[LobselVith8]

Funny_chan wrote...

That's why I didn't kill all the mages in my DAII playthrough, even though I sided with the templars (I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations).

Meredith orders the execution of all mages in the Kirkwall Circle - from the eldest mage to the youngest apprentice - and the only reason three mages are spared is because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention.

[Mnemnosyne]

Vormaerin wrote...

A lot of people have argued that the mages need to toss off the Chantry and be free.  I don't think anyone feels that they should endure the illegal abuse and oppression of the Kirkwall Chantry, but the wider point is debatable.   One thing that is lacking in these impassioned pleas is any explanation of how this 'no chantry oppression' mages thing actually works.

I'm curious as to what people think it would actually be like, if not anarchy or magister lords from heck.  Its the internet, so civilized conversation may be impossible, but I'd like to try.  I'd prefer if people don't cite Codex articles about how happy-fluffy it is in Riviani or other places unless you accept that the Codex articles on Circles and Templars accurately describe Kirkwall's Chantry.

When making a proposal, please consider the following points:

1) How do the mages replace the financial subsidies of the Chantry system?   Right now, mages are fed, housed, clothed, and trained at Church expense with pretty limited duties.  Where does the money come from without the Chantry?

2) Who provides physical protection for the mages, which the templars are supposed to do?

3) Do they have a Harrowing?  Rites of Tranquility?  Who deals with renegades and abominations if not the Templars?

4) What is their relationship to the political powers now that the Church doesn't protect them from the lords and kings?  Or are they the lords and kings now?  What about the mage fearing peasantry?

5) How do they find the neophyte mages?  How are they recruited for training?

6) Who governs the mages?   If First Enchanter, what can the mages do if that First Enchanter turns out to be Danarius instead of Irving?   Who can you appeal to without the Chantry overseeing the Templars (theoretically)?

1: Currently, the money for the Circles comes from the tranquil primarily, not from the chantry.  Some tranquil are currently volunteers who actually find it relieving to not have to worry about their magic.  If the number of volunteers is not enough in the future, other avenues of funding can appear.  The nation they are in would likely provide a considerable amount of funding for various reasons - public safety and magical services being two major ones.  Other sources of income would be the Circles selling the services of mages to any interested parties who wish to pay.

2: Guards are easy to hire.  There's certainly no lack of able-bodied men and women willing to take up positions as guards.

3: I would imagine the Rite of Tranquility would be kept as an option for volunteers.  I am not sure about the harrowing - it may be somewhat altered.  Overall it's somewhat reasonable a precaution.  This may be the toughest thing I can think of to determine a reasonable answer to.  As for who deals with abominations and renegades, the Circles could have groups devoted to that cause.  Or the nation might have such a group composed of mages and others.

4: The mage-fearing peasantry wouldn't be mage-fearing if not for the constant demonization of mages by the Chantry.  Even in DA2 we're starting to see common people take the side of the mages over the templars, according to Cullen, so this seems like much less of an issue than it might otherwise be.  As far as a relationship to political powers, I would imagine it may vary between nations, but the most reasonable answer is a separate entity.  In other places the Circle may own land and be treated as the local lord, somewhat like the Grey Wardens were given control of Amaranthine.

5: Same way they're found now, I imagine.  It would probably be reasonably simple to keep the same traditions of people reporting young mages to the Chantry and now have them report to the Circles instead.  As long as the young mages were not taken from their families it is likely most parents would be quite willing to bring their children forward for study.

6: The First Enchanter seems a reasonable answer.  As for what to do if the First Enchanter is evil/oppressive/etc?  Well, same thing any other group of people do in that case.  Either nothing, or they seek external aid, or they rise up against him.  Just because your ruler is First Enchanter instead of a Lord or Bann or Teyrn or Viscount doesn't really change the general position of everyone.  Frankly the mages already have a fairer and more egalitarian way of selecting their First Enchanter than the average citizen has of selecting their ruler (which is none) so this doesn't seem like a major concern.

[Nightingale87]

The best thing that could happen (I think) is a sort of White Tower (from Wheel of Time; PLEASE NOTE THAT I DONT WANT THIS GAME TO TURN INTO WHEEL OF TIME - there are just a lot of good ideas from that book that Bioware could throw around and eventually make there own.)

For those that dont know what that is the fast explanition is that It's a place of learning. But there is a catch, when someone with magic abilitys are decovered they are usually taken form their famlieys and sent to the tower.

The difference is that the tower is not a prison, once someone with the ability to use magic is has master that ability, or has "graduated" to become an Aes Sedi (or in this has case graduated to Magehood). They are free to come and go as they please.

As for how they would make money to support such a place, the Mages could offer there services, such as the ability to heal, or the ability to enchant just as an example.

As for who would replace the templars, there are 2 ways of doing this;

#1. (I dont like this one becase it's not very DA'ish) Is a device called an oath rod, (this is also something from Wheel of time), once an oath is sworn on the rod, the mage who swore on it is magicly bound to keep the oath. So if a mage were to swear never to harm another  person unless in an act of self defence or the defense of others, they can't use magic as a weapon, unless someone is trying to hurt them or someone else.

#2. Is also from the Wheel of Time, the Aes Sedi in the book have a personal Gardian know as Warder (lol) which is an extensivly trained warroir who has the ability to sence darkspawn as well as the mage he is sworn to protect (this is really in the book too lol). I am thinking the "warder" or "templar" or whatevere they decided to name it could become a safe gaurd to the mage, if the mage where to turn into an abomination the warder or whatevere could strike them down.

There are several other things to take into consideration howere, such as ltrium trade, and the chantry reglion itself. I dont think you can simply just do away with the chantry all together.

Again, despite what it might sound like, I am not saying I want this game to turn in to "Wheel of Time", just that I think the book has many good ideas about how to handle those with magical abilitys that would aslo make sence in the DA world. And that I can see ways that Bioware could take those ideas and put a nice twist on them, and make them their own.

I do believe the next game is going to be about the mages and the templars/chantry finding some kind of middle ground, I think that the mages will be less oppressed then they where (in the end) and the templars\\chantry will be less of a tryanical order over mages then they where.

Modifié par Nightingale87, 03 avril 2011 - 05:35 .

[Plaintiff]

Camenae wrote...

I don't think "the Chantry's control over mages needs to be overthrown" can be equated to "the Chantry needs to be overthrown altogether." : /

The former I can agree with. The latter...I don't know. Plenty of people in Thedas probably want the Chantry to be around. Sure there are those who don't, but why should their opinion automatically override those who want to keep the Chantry, for reasons other than to control the mages?

Do you know of any real-world theocracies that don't suck?

In the real world, nations institute "separation of church and state" policies for a reason. The Chantry can still exist, but it shouldn't have anything like as much power as it does. Religions become powerful because they manipulate belief and fear to assume and maintain control (not always deliberately). 

No religion should be in a position of poltical power because that grants them the authority to force their biases on individuals who do not share their faith, which is unfair, unconcscienable, and what the Chantry currently does.

[Funny_chan]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Funny_chan wrote...

That's why I didn't kill all the mages in my DAII playthrough, even though I sided with the templars (I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations).

Meredith orders the execution of all mages in the Kirkwall Circle - from the eldest mage to the youngest apprentice - and the only reason three mages are spared is because of Knight-Captain Cullen's direct intervention.

That's why I hated the b*tch:

"Actually, I believe the best solution for the games main conflict would
be siding with the templars and expelling Meredith of their command (I
was actually quite pleased seeing that she was killed at the end of the
game).
BTW, I also think Meredith isn't to blame as much as Orsino,
because she was being controled by that artifact, while Orsino
deliberately chose to be a 'bad guy'."

I meant that I only killed the ones that transformed into abominations during the rest of the game, and not the end quest.
But, even if it's metagaming, I still believe Orsino was even worst than than Meredith (he never fooled me, anyway).

Tell me:
I know this is a touchy subject, but if someone were to hijack a commercial plane with 200 passengers and use it to explode, say, a crowded stadium,  with more than 40,000 people would you rather shoot down the plane (even though there were inocents inside) or let many more inocents die because you couldn't do it.
That's the way I often approach the circle question. I'm not saying that I'm right or anything, just that, unfortunately, sometimes sacrifices have to be made in order to protect the majority (in real life, at least).

Modifié par Funny_chan, 03 avril 2011 - 05:57 .