484 réponses à ce sujet

[Paeyne]

Only in games and on the Internet do we see such absolutes.

I side with the mages and apprentices who may have never used magic to harm anyone.

I side with the Templars who fight mages that think blowing up Chantrys and sticking demons into people (or remaking dead wives for that matter) as acceptable.

I especially side with the people of Kirkwall who want nothing more than to not be blown up by mages or have their doors knocked down by Templars. Not starving to death might be great too.

There is plenty of right and wrong to go around on all sides that I can see.

[IanPolaris]

Paeyne wrote...

Only in games and on the Internet do we see such absolutes.

I side with the mages and apprentices who may have never used magic to harm anyone.

I side with the Templars who fight mages that think blowing up Chantrys and sticking demons into people (or remaking dead wives for that matter) as acceptable.

I especially side with the people of Kirkwall who want nothing more than to not be blown up by mages or have their doors knocked down by Templars. Not starving to death might be great too.

There is plenty of right and wrong to go around on all sides that I can see.

The deal breaker for me is this:  I can easily understand (might not agree with but understand) a decent Hawke who is a law and order type siding with the Templars for the most part all the way up to the end of Act III.  However, when Meridith issues an order calling for the legal genocide of cicle mages including children for an act they clearly did not commit while completely ignoring the obviously guilty party, that is for me (and honestly should be for anyone that isn't explicitly playing an evil or amoral Hawke) a bridge too far.

There is no ambiguity here.  What Meridith is doing is evil and I am more than a little upset that Bioware won't show in full technicolor how evil it is while they don't hestitate to slime mages in Acts 2 and 3 with obviously evil acts.  We should SEE templars breaking into the Gallows daycare and slaughterng all the children in it.  We should see Templar break into the infirmery to kill all the wounded and sick mages in there too.  We should see (earlier in the game) Templars breaking in their new Tranquil love-dolls.

THEN I would say we'd see a balanced protrayal.  As it is right now, it's not even close.

-Polaris

[Camenae]

stobie wrote...

eta question:  Which 3 mages does she spare?  The quest ones, or the 3 Meredith has executed as examples?  Can you stop that?  

If you side with Templars, there are these three mages that come running out after you first break into the Gallows courtyard and beg for their lives.  Then Meredith says kill them, and Cullen says they didn't use blood magic even to save their lives, so perhaps they're good.  And then you have the choice of saying yeah kill them, something I can't remember, or spare them.

[Paeyne]

TheAwesomologist wrote...

I would have loved a third option to help Aveline protect the people. That's how you should be able to become the Viscount of Kirkwall. As it is, it makes no sense whatsoever for the Templars to put an apostate mage in charge of the city just because he helped in their murder-fest.

THIS

[Deified Data]

TJPags wrote...

The Circle at Kirkwall clearly deserves to be wiped out.

Luckily, no matter who you side with, it is.

A sad, sobering truth. Perhaps the Chantry simply shouldn't house mages in a spiritual ground zero where the veil is virtually non-existant. Not all mages are evil, but Kirkwall inevitably makes them so. It ceases to be about education and personal responsibility when the demons claw at your mind 24/7. Stay in the Gallows long enough and it's bound to happen.

The Kirkwall circle should simply be farther from the city, or totally relocated to Starkhaven, or something. As it is, it's a power keg. I'm still capable of sympathizing with mages (the sane ones, anyway), but this game definitely tempered my naivitee in that regard. In Kirkwall, it's not an issue of fairness or who's innocent and who's guilty. Meredith is insane, but she's also quite right in all her suspicions. "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean people aren't out to get you", as the saying goes. It holds particular weight in this scenario.

[IanPolaris]

Why? Either's it's morally defensible to kill people including children for something they didn't do or it isn't.

There isn't much wiggle room here.

-Polaris

[RevilFox]

Interesting. I find it very hard to side with the Templars.

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

When the Right of Annulment happens against the Circle of Magi for an act Anders - a known apostate who is protected only be the Champion's reputation - commits, and furthermore is left alone by Meredith while she then orders the execution of an entire population of mages who aren't responsible for the actions of an ex-Grey Warden, there's no ambiguity. Act III is full of mage antagonists outside of the Circle, but we never actually meet the denizens of the Gallows who are being condemned for Anders' actions.

As for the comment about thinking the devs don't want us to sympathize with the mages, I think it's based on comments David Gaider in some threads where he said people choose mages almost by default and another thread where he countered the statement that the Right of Annulment was happening against the Circle mages who were innocent of what Anders had done with the statement that the mages are only innocent of being Circle mages and that they can explode. Some people took issue with that.

I'd like to say that I agree with everything you said above (wouldn't that be a first time?), but I might disagree with the intention behind some of it. The way the game is made, it's very hard to actually have a solid reason to side with the templars at the big decision, assuming that you want some form of evidence of guilt before joining the templars in bestowing capital punishment. I certainly didn't, and I think the Circle is a reasonable precaution (which would be safer and more effective with less arbitrary templar cruelty, sure). I'll never side with the templars in the end unless I make an irrational character for some reason, and I tend not to be able to stay in character if I do.

I also think that people are writing things such as "Shame on you, Bioware", (yes, this is refering to you, Polaris), for making a world where they explore issues such as "needs of minorities against the majorities" and don't make it entirely self-evident what is best for everyone is rather absurd. I also don't think that making it ambiguous by having morally corrupt people on both sides is the same as trying to make everyone think the templars are right. I also think you are right in that people think Bioware wants you to side with the templars based on what David Gaider has said, but I think they are wrong. I think David Gaider (and Bioware too, I suppose), wants you to keep thinking about it.

There is nothing wrong in reminding the players that people in Thedas are selfish, power-hungry and in some cases ruthless, no matter if they have magic ability or not. People are innocent and guilty on both sides. That is a rather realistic take on it, considering how many horrible crimes that are commited in the real world, sprung out of inequalities in power or selfishness. That's not a part of an agenda supporting either side. Why is there rapist templars if Bioware wanted it to be an easy choice? Furthermore, it wouldn't make any sense to have people who have the power of mages without having a certain percentage of them misusing it badly. That is certainly what would happen in the real world. Not showing this (especially in act III, when that is the prominent theme) would be a weird decision. That would lead people to thinking that the mage question as a whole would be entirely black and white, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

If David Gaider restates one of the fundamental facts about the setting of Dragon Age, it's hardly part of a mage hating agenda. It's been a fact that any mage is at risk of possession, all the time, from the very beginning. What he has said is that innocent people have been locked up, not because they are thought to be guilty but because they actually are dangerous. The way I see it, whether they are innocent or not isn't really the only question to be discussed. However, I think one of the reasons people take offense, is because they have invested time in arguing the mage freedom standpoint, and feel annoyed when some of their standpoints are being weakened by more information from the creators of the setting. I personally believe that David Gaider would make the same types of contributions in a pro-templar discussion, but there aren't quite as many people who are willing to overlook the transgressions of Ser Alrik as there are of Tarohne. The debate seems to be centering around what mages are and are not, rather than what templars are.

Modifié par Aldandil, 11 avril 2011 - 09:55 .

[Deified Data]

IanPolaris wrote...

Why? Either's it's morally defensible to kill people including children for something they didn't do or it isn't.

There isn't much wiggle room here.

-Polaris

The unfortunate truth is that there's no way of knowing. Origins' Connor scenario taught us that even children can house incredibly powerful demons and threaten an entire village - them being young and innocent doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. It's true - people are willing to go to insane measures if it means preserving their safety, but Thedas is no analogue for the real world, and the "mage problem" has no real-world counterpart.

When I choose the Templar side, I do it for Thedas, not for Hawke and co. I don't care if it makes Hawke feel icky killing innocent mages if it saves lives in Thedas. In this case, it doesn't, because the mages revolt either way, but there was no way of knowing that from the get-go. My Hawke had his mother kidnapped and turned into an undead automaton by a blood mage sponsored by Orsino himself - he had his sister kidnapped by a cabal of mages and mage sympathizers who were more than ready to kill her once I interfered with their plans. Honestly, by the end of the game, my Hawke had no mercy left. That, however, doesn't mean I didn't. I sympathize with mages, I really do, but I can't honestly side with them in a playthrough where I'm not one, myself. Given all you've seen and experienced up to that point, there's no way that any well-meaning Hawke could think loosing the mages on the world would be a good idea.

[Paeyne]

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

Only in games and on the Internet do we see such absolutes.

I side with the mages and apprentices who may have never used magic to harm anyone.

I side with the Templars who fight mages that think blowing up Chantrys and sticking demons into people (or remaking dead wives for that matter) as acceptable.

I especially side with the people of Kirkwall who want nothing more than to not be blown up by mages or have their doors knocked down by Templars. Not starving to death might be great too.

There is plenty of right and wrong to go around on all sides that I can see.

The deal breaker for me is this:  I can easily understand (might not agree with but understand) a decent Hawke who is a law and order type siding with the Templars for the most part all the way up to the end of Act III.  However, when Meridith issues an order calling for the legal genocide of cicle mages including children for an act they clearly did not commit while completely ignoring the obviously guilty party, that is for me (and honestly should be for anyone that isn't explicitly playing an evil or amoral Hawke) a bridge too far.

There is no ambiguity here.  What Meridith is doing is evil and I am more than a little upset that Bioware won't show in full technicolor how evil it is while they don't hestitate to slime mages in Acts 2 and 3 with obviously evil acts.  We should SEE templars breaking into the Gallows daycare and slaughterng all the children in it.  We should see Templar break into the infirmery to kill all the wounded and sick mages in there too.  We should see (earlier in the game) Templars breaking in their new Tranquil love-dolls.

THEN I would say we'd see a balanced protrayal.  As it is right now, it's not even close.

-Polaris

I am going to get some hate mail for this but...

You cannot blame Meridith for the final events of Kirkwall.

From everything I have managed to gleam about Meridith, she was a good woman who believed in her service to the Kirkwal community and took that duty seriously over many years.  It was not till she was slowly corrupted over the years by an evil lyrium artifact that her good intentions were turned into fanatacism.

The blame for this situation falls squarely on the shoulders of the Chantry.

Meridith did not invent the Right of Annulment.  This was not something she pulled out of thin air.  She was invested with that power by the Chantry who have stated on at least 17 occasions in the past that the death of all men, women and children in a Circle is justified.

The fact is that the Chantry handed Meridith a weapon and said 'you really shouldn't use this but its there if you need it.'  I find the wisdom of giving any one person the legal right to the mass slaughter of any group extremely suspect.

Not that this same authority hasn't been granted more times in our own history to count.

[Ivers0803]

Its pretty simple, you side with the mages, not Orsino, not the blood mages

[Deified Data]

Ivers0803 wrote...

Its pretty simple, you side with the mages, not Orsino, not the blood mages

There are too many "Circles within Circles" for an over-simplification like that. One cannot side with the mages without siding with the blood mages (including Orsino). When one sides with the mages, one has to accept that you'll be freeing alot of abominations, and that the death-toll will be significant.

[Merela]

For my part, I found quite easy to side with the Templars - even if my Hawke was a mage ; the Circle, that she had spent years to defend, finally revealed itself like a lair of Blood Magic, the First Enchanter was involved in her mother's death and Anders had proved that the fears of the lambda citizen about mages and destructions was totally justified.

Maybe she's wrong. But it's her point of view, it's the way I played her - who here could tell me that I played the game wrongly? Except maybe the Maker, nobody. I don't really care about so-called genocides, slavery, rights of mages or the murder of children. First, because it's a video game. A freaking video game. You allow yourself to do things in video games that you will not in reallity, so I don't know if speaking about such horrors are really accurate. IMO at least. Call me a monster - I just don't care.

Secondly, as an historian student, I feel the need to point that Tedhas, as far I have been able to see, is strongly inspired by the european feudal society. I strogly encourage people to study more closely what "feudal society" means before starting complaining about common rights, or even children, as such notions didn't exist as they do now. As far I have seen, mages have food, have warm clothes, have books, have even bathrooms - just try to tell the lambda ferelden peasant or a Darktown beggar or an alienaged Elf they're not privileged persons. Right, it's not an easy life, it's even a hard one, but it's still easier than the life of most of the people. For "common rights", considering that the only "rights" were the ones kings, lords and the Church had on their people, the mage don't seem to have less rights than normal people, just differents ones. And is killing children bad? Sure it is , but the concept of childhood didn't exist as it does now: as long as you weren't a baby anymore, around the age of 6/7 if I remember correctly, you were a young adult. And weirdly, the idea of killing young adults doesn't sound that bad anymore, does it?

[Deified Data]

laecraft wrote...

Does anyone know how Meredith justifies turning on you if you're a non-mage and a pro-templar?

You're a "foreign, destabalizing element", from Meredith's perspective. She questions how much you had to do with the mage uprising in the first place, i.e. aiding and ebetting Anders, killing Templars, etc.

Modifié par Deified Data, 11 avril 2011 - 10:56 .

[Andronic0s]

It is hard to support them yes, but it is very easy to side with them at the end, the right of Annulment is called over the caprice of one Mad woman rather than because it was right, Anders had nothing to do with the Circle of Kirkwall

It would have been better if a kirkwall circle mage would have done the deed at least then it would make some sense, but the devs had to cram in that "woha" moment in there

Modifié par Andronic0s, 11 avril 2011 - 11:05 .

[sphinxess]

Paeyne wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

Only in games and on the Internet do we see such absolutes.

I side with the mages and apprentices who may have never used magic to harm anyone.

I side with the Templars who fight mages that think blowing up Chantrys and sticking demons into people (or remaking dead wives for that matter) as acceptable.

I especially side with the people of Kirkwall who want nothing more than to not be blown up by mages or have their doors knocked down by Templars. Not starving to death might be great too.

There is plenty of right and wrong to go around on all sides that I can see.

The deal breaker for me is this:  I can easily understand (might not agree with but understand) a decent Hawke who is a law and order type siding with the Templars for the most part all the way up to the end of Act III.  However, when Meridith issues an order calling for the legal genocide of cicle mages including children for an act they clearly did not commit while completely ignoring the obviously guilty party, that is for me (and honestly should be for anyone that isn't explicitly playing an evil or amoral Hawke) a bridge too far.

There is no ambiguity here.  What Meridith is doing is evil and I am more than a little upset that Bioware won't show in full technicolor how evil it is while they don't hestitate to slime mages in Acts 2 and 3 with obviously evil acts.  We should SEE templars breaking into the Gallows daycare and slaughterng all the children in it.  We should see Templar break into the infirmery to kill all the wounded and sick mages in there too.  We should see (earlier in the game) Templars breaking in their new Tranquil love-dolls.

THEN I would say we'd see a balanced protrayal.  As it is right now, it's not even close.

-Polaris

I am going to get some hate mail for this but...

You cannot blame Meridith for the final events of Kirkwall.

From everything I have managed to gleam about Meridith, she was a good woman who believed in her service to the Kirkwal community and took that duty seriously over many years.  It was not till she was slowly corrupted over the years by an evil lyrium artifact that her good intentions were turned into fanatacism.

The blame for this situation falls squarely on the shoulders of the Chantry.

Meridith did not invent the Right of Annulment.  This was not something she pulled out of thin air.  She was invested with that power by the Chantry who have stated on at least 17 occasions in the past that the death of all men, women and children in a Circle is justified.

The fact is that the Chantry handed Meridith a weapon and said 'you really shouldn't use this but its there if you need it.'  I find the wisdom of giving any one person the legal right to the mass slaughter of any group extremely suspect.

Not that this same authority hasn't been granted more times in our own history to count.

This...

Not to mention how Sister Nightingale wants  the Grand Cleric to leave town - the Chantry is leaving Meredith no choice - sooner or later she will have to call for the Right of Annulment.

[IanPolaris]

I feel perfectly justified in saying, "Shame on you bioware".  If you really want to present interesting moral dilemnas and questions in a game, more power to you.  There are many ways the question of freedom vs security could be raised.

However, when you put on technicolar and have the protagonist directly experience the worst of one side while either shoving aside or minimalizing the worst abuses of the other, is...well....cheating.  It goes even futher than that even.

Consider the Templars:  Meridith could well be a model of a Viking Valkryrie (her face is unfortunate, but otherwise....zinga.....) with a strong authoritative (but not masculine voice) that says, "Follow me and trust me".  Cullen is even more obviously designed with visual and auditory cues that says, "I am a hero and I have your best interests at heart, which permits him to say the most outrageous things and you start to nod before realize just how outrageous it was...such as mages are not really people".  The only even remotely creepy Templar we meet is Sir Alrik.

Now consider the mages.  Orisina has that "Count Dracula Prince of Transylvania" look going. Please don't tell me that was accident.  That along with his weasely voice screams, "I am an evil devilworshipping mage....do not trust me" whether the content justifies that reaction or not.  Decimus when you first meet him (the last moments of his life) screams, "I am unkempt hermit insane cult leader" and if you didn't get that message from his appearence alone, the mages worshipping around his feet almost certainly should have completed the picture.  Alain winds up to be the only sane mage, but unlike all the Templars, he is made to look Middle-Eastern and thus appeal to a sub-conscious racism that too many people still have and make him seem even more untrustworthy and shifty than he really is.

This is the pattern throughout DA2.  Not only do we only SEE the abuses of one side, but the entire presentation and caligraphys is horribly skewed against the mages....and then they expect us to say it was an interesting moral choice?!

Shame on you Bioware.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[The Baconer]

Deified Data wrote...
You're a "foreign, destabalizing element", from Meredith's perspective. She questions how much you had to do with the mage uprising in the first place, i.e. aiding and ebetting Anders, killing Templars, etc.

She also calculates that her entire order simultaneously falls to blood magic when Cullen tells her to step down. Make all the rationalizations you want, doesn't make her not a loon.

Paeyne wrote...
The blame for this situation falls squarely on the shoulders of the Chantry.

I agree that Chantry policies play a big part in disasters like this, but what about the atrocities that were commited under her authority? She's the one that orders mages to be confined to their rooms or cells all day. Mages are being illegally (not pulling an Ian here, this is actually illegal) made Tranquil by one of her officers. She's either allowing it, or she completely fails to fix the errors in her damn chain of command. Mages also frequently escape under her watch, which leads to a good lot of them taking up blood magic and infesting the sewers or the streets of Hightown.

Say what you want about the Chantry policy, but Knight Commanders are given a lot of autonomy in running their respective circles. Meredith is a complete failure, and to put the blame entirely on the Chantry or on the idol for events largely caused by her incompetence is ridiculous.

Edit

IanPolaris wrote...
Alain winds up to be the only sane mage, but unlike all the Templars, he is made to look Middle-Eastern and thus appeal to a sub-conscious racism that too many people still have and make him seem even more untrustworthy and shifty than he really is.

Honestly, guy?

Modifié par The Baconer, 11 avril 2011 - 11:20 .

[KingNothing125]

Being a mage sympathizer is a trial of endurance and commitment. Hawke's father was an apostate, Bethany is an apostate, Mage-Hawke is an apostate... it's very clear to me BioWare "intends" Hawke to be a mage sympathizer. Right from the get-go, when you meet Aveline and Ser Wesley, you're meant to protect mages from templars.

But during the game, BioWare keeps giving you reasons to distrust or even outright hate mages. Almost every mage you meet ends up an abomination or a blood mage. Even the First Enchanter shows himself to be weak and susceptible. DA2 needed another Irving, not this sniveling weakling Orsino.

I only stuck it out because I wanted to be a good older brother for Bethany, but by the time mom got mutilated and killed by a blood mage, aided explicitly or tacitly by the mysterious "O" (Orsino), I was really sick of mages. That is to say nothing of Anders' grand murder plot.

[Deified Data]

IanPolaris wrote...

I feel perfectly justified in saying, "Shame on you bioware".  If you really want to present interesting moral dilemnas and questions in a game, more power to you.  There are many ways the question of freedom vs security could be raised.

However, when you put on technicolar and have the protagonist directly experience the worst of one side while either shoving aside or minimalizing the worst abuses of the other, is...well....cheating.  It goes even futher than that even.

Consider the Templars:  Meridith could well be a model of a Viking Valkryrie (her face is unfortunate, but otherwise....zinga.....) with a strong authoritative (but not masculine voice) that says, "Follow me and trust me".  Cullen is even more obviously designed with visual and auditory cues that says, "I am a hero and I have your best interests at heart, which permits him to say the most outrageous things and you start to nod before realize just how outrageous it was...such as mages are not really people".  The only even remotely creepy Templar we meet is Sir Alrik.

Now consider the mages.  Orisina has that "Count Dracula Prince of Transylvania" look going. Please don't tell me that was accident.  That along with his weasely voice screams, "I am an evil devilworshipping mage....do not trust me" whether the content justifies that reaction or not.  Decimus when you first meet him (the last moments of his life) screams, "I am unkempt hermit insane cult leader" and if you didn't get that message from his appearence alone, the mages worshipping around his feet almost certainly should have completed the picture.  Alain winds up to be the only sane mage, but unlike all the Templars, he is made to look Middle-Eastern and thus appeal to a sub-conscious racism that too many people still have and make him seem even more untrustworthy and shifty than he really is.

This is the pattern throughout DA2.  Not only do we only SEE the abuses of one side, but the entire presentation and caligraphys is horribly skewed against the mages....and then they expect us to say it was an interesting moral choice?!

Shame on you Bioware.

-Polaris

I...don't think they meant for the player to feel antipathy towards Alain because he looks "middle-eastern". The first time that boy showed up in a coven of blood mages, I wrapped it up to coincidence - "He's a good boy being led around by strong-willed companions, he's on the level", I thought. Then he shows up with the group that kidnaps your companion. Once is an accident of fate, but twice is a habit. Alain was most likely a blood mage putting on the "I'm innocent" face. I condemned him to death because he showed up with a cadre of blood mages one time too many.

[Deified Data]

The Baconer wrote...

Deified Data wrote...
You're a "foreign, destabalizing element", from Meredith's perspective. She questions how much you had to do with the mage uprising in the first place, i.e. aiding and ebetting Anders, killing Templars, etc.

She also calculates that her entire order simultaneously falls to blood magic when Cullen tells her to step down. Make all the rationalizations you want, doesn't make her not a loon.

Didn't say she wasn't - that's confirmed by canon.

[IanPolaris]

The Baconer wrote...

Edit

IanPolaris wrote...
Alain winds up to be the only sane mage, but unlike all the Templars, he is made to look Middle-Eastern and thus appeal to a sub-conscious racism that too many people still have and make him seem even more untrustworthy and shifty than he really is.

Honestly, guy?

Yes honestly.  I am going to be rude and crass since no one else will and call out the elephant in the room.  Bioware clearly did not put a random generator to make the appearences of the NPCs.  They are specifically designed to illicit (whether we admit this or not) certain emotional responses from the viewer.....including sub-conscious racism which very much exists unfortunately to this day.

Do you really think it's an accident that the one good mage (other than Bethany who has partial PC armor) we see is of the "dusky complexion" as the 19th century British used to say?  Do you honestly think that wasn't done to illicit a certian subconscious reaction?  All the Templars we meet in DA2 (unlike DAO I might add) are all clearly Nordic and/or Northern European.

If you think this is an accident, I have some coastline in Montana I'd like to sell you.

-Polaris