132 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

sphinxess wrote...

They die. However they arent going to show it again after DA:O they got enough flack that time

I don't recall BioWare getting any flack for anything but gay-sex in DA:O.

Which is strange in a game that includes child murder and the heavily-implied rape of your cousin.

[Conduit0]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I would think that children are killed as well. They're just as susceptible to possession as adults... even moreso maybe, since they haven't been through the Harrowing.

If the exclusion of visible child-killing was a conscious decision, then my guess is that they just thought it would be "too much."

Though, Vader did it.

Vader doesn't have to worry about Politian back radical groups trying to censor and/or ban movies the way the game industry does. So yes, I would assume the children are killed as well and the reason we don't see any of it happen is because Bioware gets enough flack from anti-game nutjobs as is.

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure how much worse it is to kill an innocent child compared to an innocent adult. I mean just because you are an adult doesn't mean you deserve to die. That it's a lesser crime to kill you. Not to mention, as some said, a child could be possessed just as adults could.

It's an emotional thing.  People instictively want to protect children.  Less so for adults.  Thus it's a lot harder to rationalize the slaughter of innocent children than it is innocent adults.

Bottom Line:  If you support the Templars in Kirkwall, you either murder children or are a direct accessory to it.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...

sphinxess wrote...

They die. However they arent going to show it again after DA:O they got enough flack that time

I don't recall BioWare getting any flack for anything but gay-sex in DA:O.

Which is strange in a game that includes child murder and the heavily-implied rape of your cousin.

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it. 

[mesmerizedish]

It's spelled flak, peeps.

/petpeeve

[EDIT] I just looked it up. It can also be flack, apparently. So, I was wrong. Sorry guise.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 10 avril 2011 - 11:03 .

[ColdEnd]

Yes, all the mages in the circle are killed, the Right of Annullment assumes that ALL the mages of a circle have been corrupted. Since the Kirkwall Circle admitted the DuPuis boy into the circle at the age of 6; that means that they kill childeren.

So despite the fact that all mages are educated by the likes of First Enchanter Orsino; who supports blood mage serial killers, and who uses his power to turn into a boss better suited to DOOM or Half-Life 2... in spite of the fact that these childeren are little hand grenades primed and ready to go off; taught to go insane and unleash hell at the slightest provocation.

What!?! These socks don't match!!?! RAAAARRRRWWWWW!!!!!

Tes despite all of that... for those of you that sided Templar...the Kirkwall equivilent of Jane Fonda is waiting outside the Gallows to spit on you.

[AlexXIV]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's spelled flak, peeps.

/petpeeve

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 avril 2011 - 11:04 .

[Maria Caliban]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure how much worse it is to kill an innocent child compared to an innocent adult.

In our society, it's quite a bit worse.

You might not disagree with that but most gamers would be far more uncomfortable having to kill children in the Annulment.

[RavenB]

Honestly, it would seem like kind of a PC cop-out if they didn't kill them. I imagine Hawke just doesn't come across the area in which they've stashed the children. Probably someone else did instead. It would make no sense that there were no children at the circle, since it's the only one for quite a distance, and it would make even less sense that they were there and wouldn't be killed. If they aren't killed, it seems like kind of a cheap shot at avoiding bad PR or just not wanting to brand templars as child killers.

But that's what the Right is. It's claiming that every mage in the circle could be compromised. If a child is in the circle, it's because they've shown they've developed magical talent. An untrained child is MORE likely to be possessed with demons running every which way, not LESS. There's no objective reason why sparing them would be safe if you're claiming the adults are too compromised to be salvaged.

The one alternative would be if they'd already fought it out with Meredith before they got to the children and decided at that point that the threat was NOT called under legitimate terms. That's the only legitimate explanation for leaving the children I could see.

[bleetman]

Rifneno wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Hmm? I've
had characters kill off Wynne upon meeting her, and not once do I
remember turning my blades on the children nearby. They just run off.

They "run off" because Bioware didn't watch to catch bad press for a scene with the player brutally slaughtering children who are begging for mercy.  Wynne makes it VERY clear that Annuling the Circle means killing those children.

People who think siding with the templars so they can "spare" some mages need to face facts.

You'll have to remind me where I went about saying anything that contradicts that. I just pointed out the Warden and their entourage doesn't slaughter them in person, which is true.

Is Wynne absolutely clear about threat to the children, incidentally? I took it is the sense that she was protecting them from the demons and abominations infesting the tower. Hence her re-assurance that, should we clear everything along the way to Uldred, the children will be safe.

Not that I don't assume annulment applies to children as much as adults, but I do wish people would stop bandying the word "fact" around. It really isnt that clearly established. If it was, there'd be no need for this topic. All we have are assumptions.

Modifié par bleetman, 10 avril 2011 - 11:13 .

[Torax]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure how much worse it is to kill an innocent child compared to an innocent adult.

In our society, it's quite a bit worse.

You might not disagree with that but most gamers would be far more uncomfortable having to kill children in the Annulment.

I bet a lot of Horde Players in WoW wanted to kill little Anduin Wrynne for like 7+ years.

[Ryzaki]

Ugh. They should've put some child killing in. They're cool with showing nearly every mage as a loon and utterly insane yet we can't see just what the templars are willing to do to the circle? Lame.

DAO had the excuse that the templars were mostly outside and you needed to leave before the finished the rite. DA2 had none.

[AlexXIV]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure how much worse it is to kill an innocent child compared to an innocent adult.

In our society, it's quite a bit worse.

You might not disagree with that but most gamers would be far more uncomfortable having to kill children in the Annulment.

Well it is the same excuse. 'They are dangerous and to uphold law and order', etc. All same baseless argument to me tbh. I mean they are mage children.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 10 avril 2011 - 11:08 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it.

If you say so.

[Rifneno]

bleetman wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Hmm? I've
had characters kill off Wynne upon meeting her, and not once do I
remember turning my blades on the children nearby. They just run off.

They
"run off" because Bioware didn't watch to catch bad press for a scene
with the player brutally slaughtering children who are begging for
mercy.  Wynne makes it VERY clear that Annuling the Circle means killing
those children.

People who think siding with the templars so they can "spare" some mages need to face facts.

You'll have to remind me where I went about saying anything that contradicts that. I just pointed out the Warden and their entourage doesn't slaughter them in person, which is true.

Ahh.  Apologies, I misunderstood.

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it.

If you say so.

...What exactly isn't clear about the "I killed a noble for raping my cousin." dialogue choice? 

[Maria Caliban]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's spelled flak, peeps.

/petpeeve

[EDIT] I just looked it up. It can also be flack, apparently. So, I was wrong. Sorry guise.

That wasn't pies or brownies.

[Conduit0]

Torax wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not sure how much worse it is to kill an innocent child compared to an innocent adult.

In our society, it's quite a bit worse.

You might not disagree with that but most gamers would be far more uncomfortable having to kill children in the Annulment.

I bet a lot of Horde Players in WoW wanted to kill little Anduin Wrynne for like 7+ years.

In the early days you could kill the two kids running around Stormwind, but that got canned pretty quick.

[Maria Caliban]

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it.

If you say so.

...What exactly isn't clear about the "I killed a noble for raping my cousin." dialogue choice? 

Given that I've already agreed with you, I suspect nothing I could say would lead to anything but you continuing to argue.

[ColdEnd]

By the by, if you do side with the Templars, essentially Hawke takes command... and there is one scene where you have the choice to allow some mages to live despite the "Right of Annullment" order from Meredith, and all she does is make a frowny face.

Later, when, you slap her frowny face around a bit... she explodes and the Templars all bow to Hawke... so at that point, I don't think anyone is questioning his decisions.

...bottom line; since you CAN allow some mages to live despite the order; I would assume that childeren would be given a pass on execution as well.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it.

If you say so.

...What exactly isn't clear about the "I killed a noble for raping my cousin." dialogue choice? 

Typo, the CE meant rapping.  Vaughan beats Shianni in a battle rap, and the elves were greatly offended that someone so rich a--actually, I'm just gonna stop with this joke before I cross a line and get banned.

[Ryzaki]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Implied? 

The CE can flat out say it.

If you say so.

...What exactly isn't clear about the "I killed a noble for raping my cousin." dialogue choice? 

Given that I've already agreed with you, I suspect nothing I could say would lead to anything but you continuing to argue.

You...are a very confusing person you know that?

[IanPolaris]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ugh. They should've put some child killing in. They're cool with showing nearly every mage as a loon and utterly insane yet we can't see just what the templars are willing to do to the circle? Lame.

DAO had the excuse that the templars were mostly outside and you needed to leave before the finished the rite. DA2 had none.

The reason is clear enough.  The Devs want you to side/sympathize with the Templars because apparently too many people like the mages in DAO.  If they showed Templars doing what they really do on screen, no one would support the Templars at all.  Killing children on screen is tends to alienate people away from you real fast.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

ColdEnd wrote...

By the by, if you do side with the Templars, essentially Hawke takes command... and there is one scene where you have the choice to allow some mages to live despite the "Right of Annullment" order from Meredith, and all she does is make a frowny face.

Later, when, you slap her frowny face around a bit... she explodes and the Templars all bow to Hawke... so at that point, I don't think anyone is questioning his decisions.

...bottom line; since you CAN allow some mages to live despite the order; I would assume that childeren would be given a pass on execution as well.

Gaider already addressed that during the Right of Annulment, any mages who are spared are forced to undergo the Rite of Tranquility.