72 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

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.

You are still a murderer and a willing participant in genocide.  That's a step too far even if I want to play a law and order type.

-Polaris

[Maria Caliban]

No, you're a murderer if you play the game to the end. Even if we grant that darkspawn aren't people, qunari are and you have to kill them to forward the plot.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

You are still a murderer and a willing participant in genocide.  That's a step too far even if I want to play a law and order type.

-Polaris

There is always a higher law. Take a dictatorship and let it be law that a certain group of people are not humans, so it is ok to kill them. So you kill them because you get the order to do so. But what if one day rules change and you are considered a murderer? Your conscience is always the highest law.

[sphinxess]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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").

If Cullen cancels the Right of Annulment he basically tells the world the Templars made an error when they invoked it.....

[AlexXIV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

No, you're a murderer if you play the game to the end. Even if we grant that darkspawn aren't people, qunari are and you have to kill them to forward the plot.

No if you play the game to the end you are a gamer. I at least didn't need to murder anyone to finish the game.

[Beerfish]

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

I think the issue is that the Circle mages were condemned to genocide for an act Anders committed. Many people have a problem with murdering the innocent.

[Maria Caliban]

My first playthrough as a mage had the Templar ending. I agree that it was more satisfying. Really, it feels as though they came up with the Templar-side ending first and then sewed the mage one on to it.

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled?

No, he doesn't.

David said that *normally,* if mages were captured during the Right of Annulment, they could *possibly* be tranquiled.

David has also never said that children mages are killed during the Right, which I am sure Ian will also claim is the case.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 avril 2011 - 10:43 .

[AlexXIV]

Beerfish wrote...

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

In the game you may have to choose one side or the other, but you don't have to in a discussion. There is no reason to say 'all mages are good' or 'all templars are evil'. Fact is though, if you get ordered to kill innocents you have two options. You do it or you refuse. Refusal automatically puts you on the mages side though.

[LobselVith8]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled?

No, he doesn't.

David said that *normally,* if mages were captured during the Right of Annulment, they could *possibly* be tranquiled.

David has also never said that children mages are killed during the Right, which I am sure Ian will also claim is the case.

Gaider addressed that all the mages are usually killed during the Right of Annulment, and that if there are any exceptions, it's the Rite of Tranquility. As for children surviving, Gaider specifically addresses that the templars have a "take no prisoners" mentality during the Right of Annulment because they might escape quarantine or be corrupted. This is addressed when Gaider specifically stated that  the order is "kill everyone."

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 avril 2011 - 10:47 .

[IanPolaris]

Maria Caliban wrote...

My first playthrough as a mage had the Templar ending. I agree that it was more satisfying. Really, it feels as though they came up with the Templar-side ending first and then sewed the mage one on to it.

Oneiropolos wrote...

Do you happen to have the post where Gaider says they became tranquilled?

No, he doesn't.

David said that *normally,* if mages were captured during the Right of Annulment, they could *possibly* be tranquiled.

David has also never said that children mages are killed during the Right, which I am sure Ian will also claim is the case.

The RIght of Annulment is clear and uncompromising.  A mages in a circle must be killed.  It makes no distinctions.  Given we know that children are sent and trained in circles, it most certainly DOES mean to do the RIght of Annulment, you must slaughter children and DAO made that explicitly clear (and generated a bunch of protests for doing so IIRC).  DG has never said othewise which means the codex and game lore stands on this point.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

In the game you may have to choose one side or the other, but you don't have to in a discussion. There is no reason to say 'all mages are good' or 'all templars are evil'. Fact is though, if you get ordered to kill innocents you have two options. You do it or you refuse. Refusal automatically puts you on the mages side though.

Exactly right...and then the Devs (seem to) wonder why so many people prefer the mage side?

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

In the game you may have to choose one side or the other, but you don't have to in a discussion. There is no reason to say 'all mages are good' or 'all templars are evil'. Fact is though, if you get ordered to kill innocents you have two options. You do it or you refuse. Refusal automatically puts you on the mages side though.

Exactly right...and then the Devs (seem to) wonder why so many people prefer the mage side?

-Polaris

Yep, they could have made it that the mages rise up and the templars defend. That would fit better with Orsino becomming a harverster as well. But the way they did it the mages basically surrender and don't want to fight, and Meredith orders to kill all of them anyway. Does not leave much question about the 'heroic' choice. Not to mention that helping the mages is a losing fight, and siding with the templar the winning.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 avril 2011 - 10:52 .

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

The RIght of Annulment is clear and uncompromising.  A mages in a circle must be killed.  It makes no distinctions.  Given we know that children are sent and trained in circles, it most certainly DOES mean to do the RIght of Annulment, you must slaughter children and DAO made that explicitly clear (and generated a bunch of protests for doing so IIRC).  DG has never said othewise which means the codex and game lore stands on this point.

-Polaris

David Gaider spelled it out in another 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]

Beerfish wrote...

Don't worry, a few posters on this forum make Anders look like a school girl in their zeal for defending mages under any and all circumstance and totally refusng to believe that there is any other alternative than to side with them. You can trot out 1,000 examples of mages going wrong or being a danger and there willl not be one case where it is not the Templars or the chantrys fault. It's ridiculous.

Personally, I would feel the Chantry was disturbingly bloated and in a position of over stepping its bounds even if the mages weren't an issue at all. They're basically forcing their religion in an extremely subtle way at this point. I think the denial of the indepedence of the Ferelden circle was a sign that they were over stepping their bounds, not because it was related to mages, but because they're refusing to meet the requests of a nation's ruler in their own lands with the looming threat of previously placed military force. That would be a scary realization for any ruler, imo. I think that, whoever takes over from there, the Chantry needs to be shrunk back to what it actually is presenting itself as; An organization of religious faith and not a major world power holding more military might and influence than basically any nation in the known world.

So, while I might be strongly against the Chantry, the mage issue is actually only a small issue of what concerns me about their stucture. It did, however, make for a fairly good weak link to set them back at.

[Anariel Theirin]

I just finished my second playthrough last night, and sided with the templars this time. I thought for sure I was going to feel terrible guilt about it, especially since I was playing a mage Hawke, but like the OP, I found it very satisfying. It's not presented in a "let's kill mages, woooo!" way. It's solemn, and regretful, and makes you feel like it's the best and only choice, if not a sad one. And, like others have said, you get the opportunity to save a few mages in the process. That's not something you get on the opposing side. No templars are spared on purpose.

When I sided with the mages, I didn't even see any regretful mages. You see corruption on every corner, and it felt like utter betrayal. Even Orsino betrays you in the end, which felt like a huge stab considering you don't entirely expect it from him.

At least with Meredith, it's presented in a way that acknowledges that you think she's crazy, but also think the annulment is a sad necessity. I felt like Hawke was doing the right thing. I never expected it, but that's how it felt!

[Rockpopple]

I'm gonna try a Templar-sided game with a Virtuous Hawke, and see what happens. lol. But to do that I'm gonna have to leave Bethany in the Deep Roads. I dunno what happens to Bethany in the Templar ending and I'm not gonna risk Hawke having to put his own sister to the sword. o_O

[Rockpopple]

Yeah, that's really my ONLY problem with siding with the Templars in this game.

When the choice is presented to you, Anders just blew up the Chantry. Meredith is like, "Kill all the Mages!" Okay, that's one side of the arguement.

But then the other side of the argument from Orsino is like, "It wasn't the Circle, it was that douche Anders. Oh, and by the way, we give up! We surrender! Just don't kill us!"

At that point my choices are coloured a bit.

If Orsino was like, "Pfft, bring it beotch. I'll cut you first." or "Anders FTW lol @ Chantry", then I can make a clear choice: Mages or Templars.

But instead I'm presented a choice between killing a bunch of people who are surrendering, or defending them from an unjust slaughter.

I'm still gonna go with a virtuous Templar-side game, but that choice at the end of the game is gonna hurt.

[CapnCruuunch]

Rockpopple wrote...

"Pfft, bring it beotch. I'll cut you first." or "Anders FTW lol @ Chantry"

Hah!  Someone needs to do some DA2 machinima.

But I basically agree with your post. I am glad for this thread though. I just started my Rogue Hawke and I was fairly sure that I was gonna be pro-mage again. Might go the Templar route instead based on what I am reading.

I figured if I did a third run, I would do pro-Templar warrior Hawke, but I am not sure if I have a third run in me. My family and friends are starting to wonder where I disappeared to...

[LadyBri]

I did one ending siding with the templars, but it was surprisingly...unsatisfying?

Maybe it was because I was a mean, angry mage who liked the templars better than other mages and didn't mind when Carver joined the templars. Despite all this, I thought it would be kinda cool to be viscount, especially as a mage. However, between the monster I created while roleplaying and pretty much the entire Act III as a templar supporter, I didn't even care about the viscount achievement. I also didn't even care that for once Carver seemed to actually want to be my brother. Once the game was done, credits rolled, and I deleted the character.

Yes, I enjoyed trying it out just to see how wicked a character I could play (because I certainly felt like a bad guy), but I will not be going that route again. I'm sticking with my mages, despite their imperfections and occasional crazy blood mage.