243 réponses à ce sujet

[ddv.rsa]

Vormaerin wrote...

Think it through.  You are Lord Bob of Elsewhere.   Some guy has the ability to make magical fires.  Are you going to tolerate him living on your lands, selling his flames to anyone with coin?  Or are you going to say:  Get up here and do fiery stuff for my benefit alone!

Also, you are talking about changing a life of idle scholarship for a life of actual labor.  Your mages have to work to make enough money to pay for a house, a lab, books, lyrium, etc.   The Chantry mages don't.

You are also ignoring that if the mages are out there working, they are making mundane workers unemployed.  If I can replace all the baron's lights with magic glowy thingies, then that's a lot of lost revenue for the baron's charcoaler and the carters who haul it, the servants to keep the lights lit, etc.   You think they are all going to go home and talk about the nice mage who put them in the poorhouse?

You think the mages might not enjoy having to work? At least then they could really complain about being slaves.

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

Lawfully executing criminals is not usually classified as murder.

And the men, women, and children of the Kirkwall Circle who committed no crime shouldn't be considered criminals simply because they're mages.

[Sarielle]

BlakIceanjel wrote...

to the OP, since your main problem with playing as a warrior or rogue and siding with the Templars is your concern for Bethany, you can rest easy knowing that she will still join you in the end once finding out that Orsino knew about Quentin and did nothing.

Heh, I just can't see myself being pro-Templar/Circle the whole way while I attempt to protect my Apostate sister. I actually did a small part of a pro-mage rogue playthrough and left her at home for anything shady that might involve the Templars. My character was reluctant to help Anders, since it meant Templar attention that might translate over to Bethany.

[ddv.rsa]

BlakIceanjel wrote...

And, yes, Orsino was unfit to be the First Enchanter because he knew of blood mages and kept them secret. But do you remember the reason he kept them secret? He knew that if the problems within the Circle were revealed to Meredith she would see it as justification of her paranoia and crack down even harder (which would cause even more mages to take more desperate measures). Also, if you pay attention at the end, if siding with the templars, Orsino will say that he'd never considered blood magic before (Meredith doesn't know that much about mages since she says a mage cannot just pick up blood magic on a whim, Orsino is First Enchanter, I don't imagine it would be hard to cut himself and call a demon since we see others turn into abominations out of fear earlier in the game).

That's a convenient excuse.  And of course blood mages never lie.

[Lithuasil]

Sarielle wrote...

BlakIceanjel wrote...

to the OP, since your main problem with playing as a warrior or rogue and siding with the Templars is your concern for Bethany, you can rest easy knowing that she will still join you in the end once finding out that Orsino knew about Quentin and did nothing.

Heh, I just can't see myself being pro-Templar/Circle the whole way while I attempt to protect my Apostate sister. I actually did a small part of a pro-mage rogue playthrough and left her at home for anything shady that might involve the Templars. My character was reluctant to help Anders, since it meant Templar attention that might translate over to Bethany.

Essentially, given how biased Hawke is, either way, and that the desired outcome is mage rebellion, the game shouldn't have let you side with the templars in the first place - which would be the first step to work out the mess of a third act, actually.

[BlakIceanjel]

ddv.rsa wrote...

BlakIceanjel wrote...

And, yes, Orsino was unfit to be the First Enchanter because he knew of blood mages and kept them secret. But do you remember the reason he kept them secret? He knew that if the problems within the Circle were revealed to Meredith she would see it as justification of her paranoia and crack down even harder (which would cause even more mages to take more desperate measures). Also, if you pay attention at the end, if siding with the templars, Orsino will say that he'd never considered blood magic before (Meredith doesn't know that much about mages since she says a mage cannot just pick up blood magic on a whim, Orsino is First Enchanter, I don't imagine it would be hard to cut himself and call a demon since we see others turn into abominations out of fear earlier in the game).

That's a convenient excuse.  And of course blood mages never lie.

What reason would he have had to say that at that point if it weren't true? He was either going to die by the Champion's hand or survive and then there would have been no witnesses to his plea of innocence.

And how is that excuse convenient? Meredith was making mages Tranquil for simply questioning. We can see that she was seeing blood magic around every corner. It is purposely a hard moral decision with a fine line between. We could all argue this until Andraste returns, but there is no right answer. You're either a tyrant or naive either way you think.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Lawfully executing criminals is not usually classified as murder.

And the men, women, and children of the Kirkwall Circle who committed no crime shouldn't be considered criminals simply because they're mages.

No two ways about it, annulment is an ugly call to make, but arguably neccessary given the circumstances. But what about siding with Bhelen or the werewolves?

What about the men, women and children of House Harrowmont who committed no crime. Why set them up to be murdered?

What about the men, women and children of the dalish who committed no crime. Why feed them to the werewolves?

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 05 avril 2011 - 04:25 .

[Sarielle]

Lithuasil wrote...

Sarielle wrote...

BlakIceanjel wrote...

to the OP, since your main problem with playing as a warrior or rogue and siding with the Templars is your concern for Bethany, you can rest easy knowing that she will still join you in the end once finding out that Orsino knew about Quentin and did nothing.

Heh, I just can't see myself being pro-Templar/Circle the whole way while I attempt to protect my Apostate sister. I actually did a small part of a pro-mage rogue playthrough and left her at home for anything shady that might involve the Templars. My character was reluctant to help Anders, since it meant Templar attention that might translate over to Bethany.

Essentially, given how biased Hawke is, either way, and that the desired outcome is mage rebellion, the game shouldn't have let you side with the templars in the first place - which would be the first step to work out the mess of a third act, actually.

I will not disagree with you here. I even enjoy playing evil SOBs, but I simply can't connect on any level with an evil SOB who has no ties of loyalty whatsoever. Which is what you sort of need to lean to if you have an apostate sister and side with the mages. hurk I mean Templars.

I mean, yeah. People have said Bethany WILL still side with you/you can still save her from Meredith even if you agree with Annulling, but how do you know that without metagaming? You don't.

Which is of course the summation of my whole dilemma, but still.

Modifié par Sarielle, 05 avril 2011 - 04:16 .

[BlakIceanjel]

Sarielle wrote...

BlakIceanjel wrote...

to the OP, since your main problem with playing as a warrior or rogue and siding with the Templars is your concern for Bethany, you can rest easy knowing that she will still join you in the end once finding out that Orsino knew about Quentin and did nothing.

Heh, I just can't see myself being pro-Templar/Circle the whole way while I attempt to protect my Apostate sister. I actually did a small part of a pro-mage rogue playthrough and left her at home for anything shady that might involve the Templars. My character was reluctant to help Anders, since it meant Templar attention that might translate over to Bethany.

Ah, I understand. I find a hard time being pro-Templar all the way through anyway. I just chose to side with the Templars in the end that time because I was really pissed with Anders for blowing up with whole Chantry. The first playthrough I was mad, but I was in love with him so I let it slide... horrible thing, love.

[Peer of the Empire]

Not a mage, but a warrior. 

It was a very difficult decision as presented at the time, with my sister in the Circle and the Circle's presumable innocence.  Without Meredith going ahead with the Rite of Annulment there would have been no issue (beyond executing Anders and investigating the Circle).

However.  Anders has blown up the Chantry, Meredith is invoking the Rite, and if I side with the mages and kill the Templars the first garbled reports to the outside will look like mage revolutionaries got away with destroying the Chantry and overthrowing the Templars, even if in fact the Champion of Kirkwall was just stepping in for justice.

Given the evil magic has brought into the world and the preponderance of blood mages the Circles are a necessary practice.  Therefore revolution must not break out; revolution involving the immediate slaughter of tens of thousands across the land, mage and templar and soldier, and the loosing of blood magic upon the general population.


Once the decision was made it was pursued with all determination.  It was not all slaughter; surrendered mages were recaptured.

As it happens, Bethany was saved, and the canon ending has Circles across the land breaking into open revolt anyhow.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 05 avril 2011 - 09:38 .

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

BlakIceanjel wrote...

And, yes, Orsino was unfit to be the First Enchanter because he knew of blood mages and kept them secret. But do you remember the reason he kept them secret? He knew that if the problems within the Circle were revealed to Meredith she would see it as justification of her paranoia and crack down even harder (which would cause even more mages to take more desperate measures). Also, if you pay attention at the end, if siding with the templars, Orsino will say that he'd never considered blood magic before (Meredith doesn't know that much about mages since she says a mage cannot just pick up blood magic on a whim, Orsino is First Enchanter, I don't imagine it would be hard to cut himself and call a demon since we see others turn into abominations out of fear earlier in the game).

That's a convenient excuse.  And of course blood mages never lie.

Unless you are metagaming, your Hawke has zero reason and zero evidence that Orsino is a bloodmage.  Irving wasn't and he had books of bloodmagic as well remember.  Even when you go hard pro-templar, you have to tell Meredith (who refuses to believe you) that the evidence just doesn't support her preconceived conclusions.

-Polaris

[Lithuasil]

Sarielle wrote...
I will not disagree with you here. I even enjoy playing evil SOBs, but I simply can't connect on any level with an evil SOB who has no ties of loyalty whatsoever. Which is what you sort of need to lean to if you have an apostate sister and side with the mages. hurk I mean Templars.

I mean, yeah. People have said Bethany WILL still side with you/you can still save her from Meredith even if you agree with Annulling, but how do you know that without metagaming? You don't.

Which is of course the summation of my whole dilemma, but still.

I feel with you. Given by the third act, Meredith is literally, openly mad, what I'd have done (after shipping apostate hawke to the gallows at the end of act II, see my signature) would be along the lines of offering three different endings - 

Mage hawke can either further Anders crazy terrorist plan, or orchestrate a more or less peaceful revolution together with fringe elements like thrask, mundane hawke can support anders, or try to overthrow meredith in a coup d'etat with the help of the Kirkwall nobility. Ending is the same (templars defied, circles rise up) but plot makes more sense 

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

There's not thousands.  Its unlikely there are even hundreds.   But whatever.  Meredith being gleeful is entirely unrelated to the necessity of something.

Kirkwall houses the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches (with the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle), so why wouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of mages of all ages living there when none of the other city-states have their own Circle?

[LadyBri]

I only sided with the templars once because Carver had become a templar and I wanted to see how our relationship might change if I seemed more supportive of him. However, the entire playthrough I was seething because Carver as a templar is pretty much a ****, and while there are some decent templars I still don't agree with the overall treatment of mages.

Plus, anytime I have Bethany I find it impossible to side with the templars because I usually allow her to get taken to the Circle so it makes sense to keep siding with the mages. But, I have wondered how Bethany would be if I did side with the templars - maybe one day I'll create a Hawke who does that.

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

No two ways about it, annulment is an ugly call to make, but arguably neccessary given the circumstances. But what about siding with Bhelen or the werewolves?

Kardol wasn't an option.

Regarding Orzammar, considering that the Warden had a choice between a "traditionalist" who wanted to keep the casteless without rights for the future and a reformer who had brutal tactics, there was little choice in the matter. A Blight threatened the nation of Ferelden, and as the Grey Warden I had to make pragmatic decisions. Did Bhelen's reform end up granting the casteless freedoms, improviding trade with the surface, and a plan to regain the lost thaigs? Yes, it did. Did Bhelen take out his political rivals to secure his power? Of course he did. However, Bhelen never commits genocide against a group of people - Meredith orders the extermination of all Circle mages in Kirkwall.

As for the werewolves, they can be freed from their curse. Why side with the werewolves and lose the ability to have ranged attacks?

ddv.rsa wrote...

What about the men, women and children of House Harrowmont who committed no crime. Why set them up to be murdered?

The alternative is King Harrowmont keeping the casteless powerless and destroying Orzammar's economy, or murdering all the denizens of Dust Town if he gets his hands on the golems...

ddv.rsa wrote...

What about the men, women and children of the dalish who committed no crime. Why feed them to the werewolves?

Personally, I didn't, and I see no reason to because I found the Dalish archers more useful (in theory, I never actually had to call for them) than the werewolves.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regarding Orzammar, considering that the Warden had a choice between a "traditionalist" who wanted to keep the casteless without rights for the future and a reformer who had brutal tactics, there was little choice in the matter. A Blight threatened the nation of Ferelden, and as the Grey Warden I had to make pragmatic decisions. Did Bhelen's reform end up granting the casteless freedoms, improviding trade with the surface, and a plan to regain the lost thaigs? Yes, it did. Did Bhelen take out his political rivals to secure his power? Of course he did. However, Bhelen never commits genocide against a group of people - Meredith orders the extermination of all Circle mages in Kirkwall.

.

Wouldn't you call House Harrowmont a group of people? A few dozen nobles at least, of all ages. Not to mention all the followers who were collateral damage. Every last one murdered for Pyral's actions - something many if not most had nothing to do with. He was a Harrowmont and so were they, that's all the justifcation Bhelen needed.

I can't help but compare it with all mages in the city suffering for what Anders did. Yet most people contend it is best to put Bhelen in power despite his tyranny, for the sake of the larger picture.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

As for "genocide."  Potato-Potato.  I don't call it genocide.  Nor do I call it "mass murder."  I call it "the legal execution of prisoners lawfully convicted of a crime."  Because that's what it is.

I understand that people would side with the templars for the opportunity to become Viscount (although I have to admit that I don't understand why power-hungry characters would be content to be Viscount in a city-state that is run by the templars), but I don't see why people would deny that the mass extermination of innocent people isn't genocide. Anders attacked the Chantry of Kirkwall - with or without the help of the Champion, ingredients from all over Kirkwall were gathered, and the Grand Cleric was killed. However, that death is the sole responsibility of the man standing right in front of Knight-Commander Meredith, and she basically handwaves his presence after she orders the Rite of Annulment.

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Wouldn't you call House Harrowmont a group of people?

They're a family, and the Warden didn't murder Harrowmont's family by siding with Bhelen  - he elected a King who wasn't to destroy the lives of the casteless.

ddv.rsa wrote...

A few dozen nobles at least, of all ages. Not to mention all the followers who were collateral damage. Every last one murdered for Pyral's actions - something many if not most had nothing to do with. He was a Harrowmont and so were they, that's all the justifcation Bhelen needed.

Compared to the hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children who are slaughtered by the templars in the Rite of Annulment, you mean?

ddv.rsa wrote...

I can't help but compare it with all mages in the city suffering for what Anders did. Yet most people contend it is best to put Bhelen in power despite his tyranny, for the sake of the larger picture.

Considering King Harrowmont with the Anvil intact would murder every denizen of Dust Town with his tide of steel men, I elected for the leader that wouldn't destroy an entire district of people to fulfill his bigoted ideals.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

As for "genocide."  Potato-Potato.  I don't call it genocide.  Nor do I call it "mass murder."  I call it "the legal execution of prisoners lawfully convicted of a crime."  Because that's what it is.

I understand that people would side with the templars for the opportunity to become Viscount (although I have to admit that I don't understand why power-hungry characters would be content to be Viscount in a city-state that is run by the templars), but I don't see why people would deny that the mass extermination of innocent people isn't genocide. Anders attacked the Chantry of Kirkwall - with or without the help of the Champion, ingredients from all over Kirkwall were gathered, and the Grand Cleric was killed. However, that death is the sole responsibility of the man standing right in front of Knight-Commander Meredith, and she basically handwaves his presence after she orders the Rite of Annulment.

That was very odd. Then again, you've already proven yourself as her ally if she's leaving Anders in your hands. I doubt she thinks you'll let him go. She's probably giving you the "pleasure" of killing him.

Personally, I wish I could have made him tranquil. It would never make up for all the people he killed, and who will die as a result of his actions. But it's much better than practically rewarding Anders by letting him die a martyr.

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

There's not thousands.  Its unlikely there are even hundreds.   But whatever.  Meredith being gleeful is entirely unrelated to the necessity of something.

Kirkwall houses the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches (with the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle), so why wouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of mages of all ages living there when none of the other city-states have their own Circle?

Because that is stupidly expensive and dangerous?   Anyway, we have no idea what the population of Kirkwall is or how many people live in the Free Marches or what percentage of the population are mages, so its impossible to actually talk about this with facts.

But I will say that if they have that many people there and the requisite number of Templars to control that many mages, then that raises a LOT of questions about other aspects of the game world.

[ddv.rsa]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]ddv.rsa wrote...

Wouldn't you call House Harrowmont a group of people? [/quote]

They're a family, and the Warden didn't murder Harrowmont's family by siding with Bhelen  - he elected a King who wasn't to destroy the lives of the casteless.
[/quote]
[/quote]


Not a family as we would commonly understand it. They were a clan - a tribe, if you will. In real life when one tribe exterminates another, it's considered genocide. But the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the DA series often lets you make ugly choices for the sake of the bigger picture. 

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Kirkwall houses the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches (with the destruction of the Starkhaven Circle), so why wouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of mages of all ages living there when none of the other city-states have their own Circle?

Because that is stupidly expensive and dangerous?  

As stupid and dangerous as housing a Circle of Magi in where the Veil is weak, you mean? I suppose you can argue that the templars didn't realize that having mages live in a place where the Tevinter Magisters kept and killed slaves wouldn't have weakened the Veil, though.

Vormaerin wrote...

Anyway, we have no idea what the population of Kirkwall is or how many people live in the Free Marches or what percentage of the population are mages, so its impossible to actually talk about this with facts.

We know that Starkhaven mages were being re-directed to the Kirkwall Circle after their Circle burned down, and it stands as the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches. I don't see why we should assume that it has a minimal population.

Vormaerin wrote...

But I will say that if they have that many people there and the requisite number of Templars to control that many mages, then that raises a LOT of questions about other aspects of the game world.

Kirkwall is the base of power over eastern Thedas, which is controlled by the templars. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of templars, especially since Meredith acts as the de facto Viscount of Kirkwall.

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Compared to the hundreds or thousands of men, women, and children who are slaughtered by the templars in the Rite of Annulment, you mean?

You have no idea how many people are in the Gallows.  You have no idea how many of them are "innocent".  Blood mages have been running rampant in the tower for years and years.  You are making up facts to support your argument based purely on speculative interpretations. 

I could count the actual mages who show up in the various Gallows scenes and claim that was the whole population with just as much validity.  And most of those were blood mages.

[ddv.rsa]

A circle of thousands would have a massive army of templars guarding them. The arishok and his few hundred qunari would have posed no threat whatsoever. In which case why would anyone fear them? Why would the grand cleric be so interested in appeasing them?

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Kirkwall is the base of power over eastern Thedas, which is controlled by the templars. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of templars, especially since Meredith acts as the de facto Viscount of Kirkwall.

Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to maintain a standing garrison of thousands of men?  Nobody did that until the age of modern nation states, infrastructure, and taxation.   And Meredith doesn't even have the revenues of the Viscounty in her clutches for 2/3 of the game.

Further, if Meredith has these thousands of Templars, how is it that the Qunari are even remotely a threat?  They were one shipload.   Even if we imagine some insanely ginormous super dreadnought ship and everyone surviving the wreck, it wouldn't be a threat to a standing army of thousands of Templars.