72 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Because main stories have never been my 'thing'. I rarely sit there shocked when something happens, even not having read spoilers. The beauty of a story for me personally is never what happens but how it happens and how it is played out. The dialogue of the characters, the feeling of scenes. I personally consider it a blessing to be able to view things that way. The first time reading through a book or playing through a game is ALWAYS magical to me... it doesn't matter if I know Soandso dies or ThisorThat happens. I have friends who 'stop caring' the second they hear a spoiler and don't finish titles. That's never an issue for me, but I am careful not to let them hear any spoilers from me.

For me, it's not 'doing anything' to myself except making me more excited for a title because I blink at reading a spoiler and go, "WHOAH. How are they going to pull that one off?!" and enjoy the intricacies building up to it. Plus, I still feel more emotional than alot of players do even not knowing. I KNEW Leandra was going to die and I sobbed on her quest anyway. It didn't matter that I had preparation for the death. I don't watch spoiler VIDEOS for things, because I feel like that's showing me the exact scene as it will play out. But telling me a character is going to die and even -how- will not stop me from crying when it happens, or even an upsetting plot development. Sometimes I wish it would because Torchwood seemed to delight in how many times it could make me sob.

I also hate being startled, so my friends learned very early on to warn me if there was a jump scene in a movie that otherwise wasn't scary (I just flat out don't go to scary movies) and if a movie ends on a depressing note, they flat out tell me not to go see it. I've been like this since I was a little girl. Used to make my mom sick of things because I could literally watch the same movie twice a day and I'd go like a month of being obsessed to one movie, and then the next. Short Circuit was one of those...I don't even know how long it's been since I've seen that...

Fair enough, I suppose.

I don't think something's ruined once I know about it, but knowing does change how you see it and play it. I like that first dizzying playthrough. That slight sense of being lost in a new map, learning about characters for the first time, not knowing what choices will affect something later on.

I like that about first playthroughs. I'm interested, for example, on what ME3 will be like and while I'm starved for that game to come out, I don't think I'd go looking for spoilers if they were out. I cannot tell you the joy the Suicide Mission gave me, the whole build up, the choices within the mission, the fact that at each second people could die....it was exillerating. One of my favoirte game moments of my life.

[dgcatanisiri]

I just can't bring myself to support the templars - I can't support executing or tranquilizing an entire Circle for a crime not a one of them commit. I don't care that the people would 'be out for blood.' Anders is responsible. He is an apostate, and a well known one at that. Anders committed the crime himself, with no help from the Circle. And one look at him tells you that he expects to die. And if he dies, he becomes a martyr to the cause. I am not going to create a martyr, no matter how loudly certain people call for his head. The greater punishment is for him to live with his guilt.

My regret with this is that I will miss out on calling Orsino for his support of Leandra's killer, but I'd rather support the mages who will be executed for a crime they didn't commit than wipe them all out for the actions of an apostate.

[IanPolaris]

sphinxess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.

-Polaris

I wish there was a Darth Vader in the Jedi temple moment - kill those mage kids!!!

There was in DAO...and bioware took heat for it, but you'd better believe that if you side with Meridith, you did kill little mage kids (since the circle is a sort of magical community).

-Polaris

[Xewaka]

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...
Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.
-Polaris

But does Kinght-Captain Cullen (now de facto Knight-Commander) continue with the Annullment process after Meredith is deposed? Since he opposed it (the calling of the Right of Annulment) from the beginning, I somehow doubt so.

IanPolaris wrote...
There was in DAO...and bioware took heat for it, but you'd better believe that if you side with Meridith, you did kill little mage kids (since the circle is a sort of magical community).
-Polaris

Considering the game allowed me to spare any surrendering mages, unless the childs were combatants or possessed, I doubt I murdered any.

Modifié par Xewaka, 10 avril 2011 - 09:12 .

[TobiTobsen]

IanPolaris wrote...

sphinxess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.

-Polaris

I wish there was a Darth Vader in the Jedi temple moment - kill those mage kids!!!

There was in DAO...and bioware took heat for it, but you'd better believe that if you side with Meridith, you did kill little mage kids (since the circle is a sort of magical community).

-Polaris

We could say our Darth Vader moment in DAII is the "Kill Bethany" order from Meredith if we side with the templars.

[DKJaigen]

Xewaka wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...
Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.
-Polaris

But does Kinght-Captain Cullen (now de facto Knight-Commander) continue with the Annullment process after Meredith is deposed? Since he opposed it (the calling of the Right of Annulment) from the beginning, I somehow doubt so.

It doesnt matter. If you side with the mages they have fled kirkwall when you battle meredith. if you side with the templars most mages are already death. He simply doesnt have to continue the annulment because their is nothing left to annul.

IanPolaris wrote...
There was in DAO...and bioware took heat for it, but you'd better believe that if you side with Meridith, you did kill little mage kids (since the circle is a sort of magical community).
-Polaris

Considering the game allowed me to spare any surrendering mages, unless the childs were combatants or possessed, I doubt I murdered any.

That only goes for hawke. You dont know if the other templars where in the apprentice quarter and commited mass murder there. Also if you side with the templars it seems that most mages are killed  safe  for the few that surrenderd to you. And you dont know their fate so they might have been killed or made tranquil later

[Xewaka]

DKJaigen wrote...
It doesnt matter. If you side with the mages they have fled kirkwall when you battle meredith. if you side with the templars most mages are already death. He simply doesnt have to continue the annulment because their is nothing left to annul.

I would admit the viability of your statement, if the game didn't show Hawke spearheading the charge and thus being the first in engaging in combat.

DKJaigen wrote...
That only goes for hawke. You dont know if the other templars where in the apprentice quarter and commited mass murder there. Also if you side with the templars it seems that most mages are killed  safe  for the few that surrenderd to you. And you dont know their fate so they might have been killed or made tranquil later

Except because as Cullen states, the duty of the Templar is to watch over them, not to kill them on spot for crimes they may have not commited. I believe the Knight-Captain to be a man of honor.

[Oneiropolos]

Honestly, since I looked but couldn't find David Gaider's post on the issue of those mages being made tranquil after...I can't confirm the spirit or context of what he said. I wouldn't PRESUME Cullen would be all "Nope, see, we're going to spare these mages." And then later inform the new viscount, "Oh by the way, those mages you had us save? We totally did! Did you want one as a servant?"

It's not that I doubt David Gaider's word, I've just seen how often it's gotten twisted later in like some bad game of telephone, so without being able to see where he actually said, "Nah, those mages you spared were screwed over too" I have no idea. I have trouble, story wise, seeing why they would be made tranquil IN THIS SITUATION. I would see why the rule would be, in general, that mages that were spared were made tranquil. But in this situation, Cullen steps forward and says he's relieving Meredith of her position and she turns on all the Templars. So one could therefore imply part of the reason the Templars also rose up was because they were tired of being duty bound to commit things like the Right of Anullment when it was so obviously wrong just because you ended up with a psycho case like Meredith as your Knight Commander. I mean, it's not like they had time to do the ritual to make those three tranquil before the champion got outside again. They should have been fighting too. So it would seem to me that the new Knight Commander Cullen would be left to determine what to do with them...and somehow I don't think he'd pick tranquil. Unless he REALLY had to do because of rules he couldn't find a loophole in.

That's why I was curious to see the actual post where David Gaider supposedly said those specific mages were made tranquil. Like I said, I'll happily concede that he said it and it's what happened if only I could read the words.

[GenericPlayer2]

Bethany is a big part of the reason I always side with the mages. Does siding with the templars mean I have to kill her or that she gets killed? Does it mean she stays locked up in the circle?

Edit: At the time it seems pretty unfair to annul the mages for something Anders did. At the time, you have no idea that supporting the templars means you will confront Meredith or 'talk down' Cullen so he spares the mages. Orsino's harvester scene is also pretty surprising if you side with the mages.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 10 avril 2011 - 12:05 .

[TobiTobsen]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Bethany is a big part of the reason I always side with the mages. Does siding with the templars mean I have to kill her or that she gets killed? Does it mean she stays locked up in the circle?

Meredith order you to kill her. You can tell her to shove the order somewhere the sun doesn't shine. And the Circle system is falling apart, so she wouldn't stay locked up in the circle.

[TobiTobsen]

laecraft wrote...

Really? You get to save mages if you side with the templars? Most ironic. Because if you side with mages, you don't get to save a single mage, you know. You only get to watch them ALL die. No matter what you do.

I think I would've forgiven the game everything if I was allowed to save even a single mage. And no, I don't count Bethany, because I always play as a mage, and she dies in prologue.

Actually David Gaider implied that you are not actually saving them. Just saving them from a death by your sword now and a reservation at the local tranquil facility

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 10 avril 2011 - 02:33 .

[Cutlass Jack]

laecraft wrote...

Really? You get to save mages if you side with the templars? Most ironic. Because if you side with mages, you don't get to save a single mage, you know. You only get to watch them ALL die. No matter what you do.

I think I would've forgiven the game everything if I was allowed to save even a single mage. And no, I don't count Bethany, because I always play as a mage, and she dies in prologue.

Yup exactly it. I joined the Mages my first time around purely to save them and they kept jumping on my blades. On the Templar side you actually do more damage control.

Unfortunately Templar side leads to being Vicount, which is exactly what I didn't want to happen. I wanted to give the job to Aveline (if for no other reason than to give her something other than that ugly red band to wear)

I did however save a single mage besides my sister. Emile Du Comcet. I'm not sure I did the world any favors on that one...

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 10 avril 2011 - 02:35 .

[RavenB]

The epilogue says that several mages live in the pro-mage path, even if you don't see it. The pro-templar path doesn't mention any. For what epilogues are worth, at least.

[LobselVith8]

sphinxess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.

-Polaris

I wish there was a Darth Vader in the Jedi temple moment - kill those mage kids!!!

^^ This is pretty much why I can't endorse Meredith's Right of Annulment.

I'm going as a rogue now, actually (and I'm looking forward to introducing the aerial murder knife to the slaver who captured Feyrniel).

Oneiropolos wrote...

Honestly, since I looked but couldn't find David Gaider's post on the issue of those mages being made tranquil after...I can't confirm the spirit or context of what he said. I wouldn't PRESUME Cullen would be all "Nope, see, we're going to spare these mages." And then later inform the new viscount, "Oh by the way, those mages you had us save? We totally did! Did you want one as a servant?" 

Gaider made a reference to the fate of mages who survive the Rite of Tranquility at the "Why is the Right of Annulment massacre instead of Tranquility?" thread.

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

[RavenB]

That quote by Gaider doesn't really state context. I'm not sure if we can gather from that what happened to the mages afterward, as the circumstances were unusual. The templars turned against the actual Right and the Knight Commander was killed with your PC character being instated as the current authority, at least for a time. I'm not sure the context he's applying is the same.

It would be nice if we could get some clarification on how many mages survived in pro-mage vs how many survived in pro-templar. I don't think that ALONE would really be a spoiler. It's just translating the vague epilogue.

[LobselVith8]

RavenB wrote...

That quote by Gaider doesn't really state context. I'm not sure if we can gather from that what happened to the mages afterward, as the circumstances were unusual. The templars turned against the actual Right and the Knight Commander was killed with your PC character being instated as the current authority, at least for a time. I'm not sure the context he's applying is the same.

It would be nice if we could get some clarification on how many mages survived in pro-mage vs how many survived in pro-templar. I don't think that ALONE would really be a spoiler. It's just translating the vague epilogue.

How does it not state context? The conclusion of Dragon Age 2 has the Knight-Commander of Kirkwall invoke the Right of Annulment against the entire Circle of Magi (and the only standing Circle throughout the Free Marches as the one in Starkhaven was burned down). The templars never turned against the Right, they turned against the Knight-Commander when Knight-Captain Cullen took authority from her. Why do you think the templars would turn against the Right? It was legal for Meredith to enact it:

David Gaider wrote...

So long as the Grand Cleric was alive and refused Meredith's request for the Right of Annulment, Meredith's only option was to appeal to the Divine. Once the Grand Cleric was dead, and no immediate successor in evidence, Meredith had the legal authority she needed.

This does not mean the Divine could not theoretically call her to the mat later on for choosing wrongly... and one could argue that she was morally obligated to wait for the Divine's answer, but she certainly wasn't legally obligated to do so. Beyond that, one can conjecture until the cows come home with regards to what the repercussions of such a decision would be.

Despite the fact that the Circle didn't technically do anything wrong, it was within Meredith's authority to call for the Right of Annulment. Gaider explains what happens to mages who aren't killed in the Right of Annulment - they are made tranquil. We expressly hear from Varric that there were "many survivors" only if Hawke sides with the mages and we never hear such a comment if Hawke supported the Right of Annulment (because the Right involves the death of the Circle and the Rite of Tranquility for any survivors - i.e. as Karl said, being a "templar puppet").

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 avril 2011 - 04:53 .

[Oneiropolos]

LobselVith8 wrote...


Gaider made a reference to the fate of mages who survive the Rite of Tranquility at the "Why is the Right of Annulment massacre instead of Tranquility?" thread.

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

Okay, then I DID read that one in that thread before, just didn't remember that exact response because it didn't trigger anything in my brain as "Wait, crap, what about___". I still would say that doesn't clarify that we know definitively what happened to the mages that are spared considering that, once again, the situation changed with the Knight-Commander who declared the Right being revealed as nuts and trying to kill all the templars too. The conversation of that thread is about the Right of Anullment in general, and the proposition one person makes of why can't everyone be made tranquil instead of killed. So he was explaining that yes, if lesser mages survived, they could by his own word 'theoretically' be made Tranquil. So we still don't know what was done in this specific case. (not arguing with anyone, more musing...uhm...through typing since it's not really out loud.) I think it goes back to the basic argument of what is usually done wasn't in this case because they're not used to the Grand l being blown up, and now we have a Knight-Commander killed and a third person is assuming power.  It makes this situation different and iffie again.
 
Until a writer states it expressly  that Cullen himself choses to continue the anullment to the fullest by even turning those mages tranquil, the fate of the surrendering mages is unknown to me. I think people are too eager to make assumptions on -both- sides, on too little words of the writer or interpreting what we 'think it means'. It's putting us at each other's throats as surely as the characters in the games are. 

Thanks, Lobsel, for pulling up that quote.

[RavenB]

LobselVith8 wrote...

sphinxess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled? I'm not denying they did, because if they did, they did, I just never saw him state that so I'm curious to see his explanation for it.

DG says this in one of his conversations with Lob.  Since Annulement means the purging of the circle no mage can be allowed to continue to exist, so the upshot is that the captured mages have to be killed or tranquilled.

-Polaris

I wish there was a Darth Vader in the Jedi temple moment - kill those mage kids!!!

^^ This is pretty much why I can't endorse Meredith's Right of Annulment.

I'm going as a rogue now, actually (and I'm looking forward to introducing the aerial murder knife to the slaver who captured Feyrniel).

Oneiropolos wrote...

Honestly, since I looked but couldn't find David Gaider's post on the issue of those mages being made tranquil after...I can't confirm the spirit or context of what he said. I wouldn't PRESUME Cullen would be all "Nope, see, we're going to spare these mages." And then later inform the new viscount, "Oh by the way, those mages you had us save? We totally did! Did you want one as a servant?" 

Gaider made a reference to the fate of mages who survive the Rite of Tranquility at the "Why is the Right of Annulment massacre instead of Tranquility?" thread.

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

The question in the thread wasn't about DA II, it was, "Why do templars kill mages during the Right of Annulment instead of making them tranquil?" To which Mr. Gaider gave a pretty generalized explanation of how the Right of Annulment is intended to work under typical circumstances. However, under normal terms, I imagine turning on the Knight-Commander and leaving the city with a non-Chantry, relatively random individual as the "leadership of the moment" is not typical. He's describing what would happen in a normal annulment, which isn't what DA II is.

After Meredith is dead, the authority would (I assume) fall to Cullen. Whether Cullen would continue through with tranquilizing the mages, or whether he would not is pretty subjective when we learn the templars have rebelled at some point since those ending scenes, anyway. I just think you're applying a generalized reply to a situation that was not general, which may or may not be accurate to the context it was meant.

I'm not saying it is or isn't, though. I'm not arguing AGAINST it. It does, in fact, mention survivors in the pro-mage ending and not the pro-templar ending. In the interest of unbiased objectivity, though, that's not a clear enough statement for me to inferr that Mr. Gaider was also talking about the (very) complicated terms in which DA II ended. It would have been nice if he would have been available to answer when someone asked there for clarification as to whether these same circumstance applied at the end of DA II or not, but for now I'm going to take it as a "possibility" and not a "given".

[AlexXIV]

I would consider to side with templars if it didn't turn Hawke into a murderer.

[Herr Uhl]

AlexXIV wrote...

I would consider to side with templars if it didn't turn Hawke into a murderer.

No, you're a murderer if you side with the mages. With the templars you have the law on your side.

[LobselVith8]

Herr Uhl wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I would consider to side with templars if it didn't turn Hawke into a murderer.

No, you're a murderer if you side with the mages. With the templars you have the law on your side.

That doesn't mean it isn't murder, especially when Hawke is killing people for a crime Anders committed.

[AlexXIV]

Herr Uhl wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I would consider to side with templars if it didn't turn Hawke into a murderer.

No, you're a murderer if you side with the mages. With the templars you have the law on your side.

No you're a murderer if you kill innocents. If you defend innocents you are a hero.