359 réponses à ce sujet

[Paeyne]

TJPags wrote...


So, I'm stuck with a choice of killing 3% good people, or letting 97% bad run free.

Unfortunately this is true and not the only hole in the plot.

Just as one example, if Bethany is taken to the Circle, Hawke (despite indignent protests) never tries to get her out, even after Anders gives him the 'oh by the way there is a secret entrance into the gallows that mages escape through' information.

I posted some time ago that there was at least a half a dozen alternate decisions that could have been made.

Running to the Gallows and getting Bethany (and perhaps the innocent apprentices) out before the SHTF was not one I included but would be perfectly valid based on the information Hawke had.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Paeyne wrote...

TJPags wrote...

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

Even if this was true, you are effectively saying that the 3% who have done nothing wrong are not worth saving.

I am afraid that I can't agree with this.

Now, I will readily agree that determining who those 3% are and effectivly saving that 3% may be nigh impossible under the circumstances, but to simply write that 3% off as unfortunate casualties strikes me as somewhat callous.  Perhaps only one mage in the entire tower is "innocent" but I hold that that single innocent person is worth at least some effort unless the circumstances completely preclude that.  I am unconvinced that those circumstances exist in this case.

Don't you think, that if it was possible, the Templars would be more than happy to save the uncorrupt mages, when an annulment is called? It just so happens that it isn't possible to detect them, so the Templars have to sacrifice the few, to save the many. The Templars don't exactly enjoy that role. Even Meredith is saddened that she have to annull the Circle.

[TJPags]

Paeyne wrote...

TJPags wrote...


So, I'm stuck with a choice of killing 3% good people, or letting 97% bad run free.

Unfortunately this is true and not the only hole in the plot.

Just as one example, if Bethany is taken to the Circle, Hawke (despite indignent protests) never tries to get her out, even after Anders gives him the 'oh by the way there is a secret entrance into the gallows that mages escape through' information.

I posted some time ago that there was at least a half a dozen alternate decisions that could have been made.

Running to the Gallows and getting Bethany (and perhaps the innocent apprentices) out before the SHTF was not one I included but would be perfectly valid based on the information Hawke had.

You make an excellent point.  This was a HUGE swing and miss on this game, for me.

Clearly, Bioware WANTED us to have some stake in this conflict, by putting our sibling in the middle of it.  But once Bethany goes to the Gallows, you don't interact with her.  At all.  Ever.  Sure, she writes one letter.  Sure, MamaHawke mentions visiting her.  But Hawke never does.

This would have been a perfect vehicle to explore this conflict more, to see inside the Gallows, even if we didn't meet another mage.  Just having a chat with Bethany, whether done "officially" (during visiting hours, or by asking a favor of Cullen, or throwing weight around as the Champion) or don'e "unofficially" (by breaking in with the intent to break her out, for instance).

Some people will likely say this is just more evidence that Bioware wanted to "railroad" us into destroying the mages.  I disagree.  I choose to take Bethany at her word in that letter she wrote - that there are one or two Templars that concern her (I think she mentions Alrik by name).  Which implies, to me, the rest are not to be feared, and are not such bad people.

I also choose to take this situation to mean that there are NOT a large group of "good" mages sitting in their rooms in the Gallows.

[Paeyne]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Don't you think, that if it was possible, the Templars would be more than happy to save the uncorrupt mages, when an annulment is called? It just so happens that it isn't possible to detect them, so the Templars have to sacrifice the few, to save the many. The Templars don't exactly enjoy that role. Even Meredith is saddened that she have to annull the Circle.

There is no real indication that Templars not present at the end were even aware of the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Chantry.  They would follow Meridith's orders and feel justified in doing so.

The Right of Annulment means "kill everybody" and has been done on 17 previous occasions.  I don't believe they tried to save the "innocent" on those occasions any more then they did on this one.

By this point Meridith has been driven insane by the idol.  I am not sure she is saddened by what she wants to do or if she is if that means the same as it would to a sane person.

[Paeyne]

TJPags wrote...

I also choose to take this situation to mean that there are NOT a large group of "good" mages sitting in their rooms in the Gallows.

I am not sure that this directly follows.

We know that there are some good mages, even we don't meet them.  Bethany and the few others we do meet can't be the only ones.

Unless the security of the Gallows is so bad the entire prison leaks like a sieve, it is reasonable to assume that there are more mages inside the tower than escape it to the outer city.

It could be plausible that their were a number of good mages that got out and simply left the city rather than staying, but we have no way of knowing.

It would also depend on the number of apprentices at the Kirkwall Circle.  I think it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of them are "innocent" if only based on their age and power level.  Its also likely that they still remain in the Gallows as they probably did not have the opportunity to escape.

Personally I believe the Right of Annulment is horrendous.  That doesn't mean that magic shouldn't be controlled or mages shouldn't be monitored.  Carte Blanche slaughter is simply unacceptable in my view.  That said, I don't live in Kirkwall, have never met or been harmed by a mage, and was not raised from birth believing in Andraste so my opinion is not really all that important.

[TJPags]

Paeyne wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I also choose to take this situation to mean that there are NOT a large group of "good" mages sitting in their rooms in the Gallows.

I am not sure that this directly follows.

We know that there are some good mages, even we don't meet them.  Bethany and the few others we do meet can't be the only ones.

Unless the security of the Gallows is so bad the entire prison leaks like a sieve, it is reasonable to assume that there are more mages inside the tower than escape it to the outer city.

It could be plausible that their were a number of good mages that got out and simply left the city rather than staying, but we have no way of knowing.

It would also depend on the number of apprentices at the Kirkwall Circle.  I think it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of them are "innocent" if only based on their age and power level.  Its also likely that they still remain in the Gallows as they probably did not have the opportunity to escape.

Personally I believe the Right of Annulment is horrendous.  That doesn't mean that magic shouldn't be controlled or mages shouldn't be monitored.  Carte Blanche slaughter is simply unacceptable in my view.  That said, I don't live in Kirkwall, have never met or been harmed by a mage, and was not raised from birth believing in Andraste so my opinion is not really all that important.

Well, I certainly don't make that statement with any degree of certainty.  I don't state it as fact.  I'm not even trying to use this as an argument to sway your opinion, or anyone else's.

We see a number of mages.  Most are, shall we say, not nice.  Perhaps 3 are what I'd term "innocent" - and yes, I do me what *I'd* term.  I'm not trying to speak for anyone but me.  But we have 3 innocent mages, and countless bad apples.  We simply don't see any others.

Now, we can speculate that any remaning mages are all bad, or are all good, or any combination in between.  However, that's nothing more than pure speculation, and any argument which tries to state anything as fact is hopelessly flawed.

When I say that I don't imagine a large group of innocent mages sitting around in the Gallows, what I mean is, I take the percentages we see in game as representative.  That yes, there are some innocent mages in the Gallows.  But the overwhelming majority are, like most of those we see, bad, or evil, or flawed - take your pick of word there.  Thus, I see the Kirkwall Circle as being in need of destruction.

Now, does that mean I gleefully choose to kill all the mages, or that I find it a reason to celebrate?  No, not at all.  I also think it's a rather tragic thing, and that slaughtering a large group of people is not something to be done lightly.  But it is something that is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

I also choose to take this situation to mean that there are NOT a large group of "good" mages sitting in their rooms in the Gallows.

So she only mentions being afraid of a few templars and you take this to mean that only a few templars are bad, but since she never mentions the other mages one way or another, that means they're bad.  Double standards, double the fun of being objective!

Paeyne wrote...

Personally I believe the Right of Annulment is horrendous.  That doesn't mean that magic shouldn't be controlled or mages shouldn't be monitored.  Carte Blanche slaughter is simply unacceptable in my view.  That said, I don't live in Kirkwall, have never met or been harmed by a mage, and was not raised from birth believing in Andraste so my opinion is not really all that important.

That's kind of the point though isn't it?  We can be fair about it because we didn't all grow up having the Chantry's lies pounding into our heads.  We come in as adults without having someone else's preconceptions about the issue forced on us when we're young and impressionable.

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I also choose to take this situation to mean that there are NOT a large group of "good" mages sitting in their rooms in the Gallows.

So she only mentions being afraid of a few templars and you take this to mean that only a few templars are bad, but since she never mentions the other mages one way or another, that means they're bad.  Double standards, double the fun of being objective!

I see no double standard here. 

In game, I see perhaps 2 or so bad Templars - Alrik, those with him (not sure if there was 1 or 2).  Perhaps Kerras (Kerran?  The one people think is a rapist).  At most, that's 4.  And I kill 3 of them.  Bethany's letter supports that opinion, since she talks about a few Templars being of concern.

She says nothing about mages, other than Ella.  Who I also meet.  And I agree with Bethany's comment, that Ella is a fine example of what a mage should be.  She says nothing about other mages either way.  She provides me with no information.

A double standard would be, if her letter mentioned several good mages, and I chose to believe that only those mages were good.  In other words, taking her "few Templars" as an example, and taking a "few mages" as absolute.  But that's not the case.  She simply doesn't mention other mages.  Leaving me to form my opinion based on other information.  Which I do.

[Benchmark]

TJPags wrote...

Well, I certainly don't make that statement with any degree of certainty.  I don't state it as fact.  I'm not even trying to use this as an argument to sway your opinion, or anyone else's.

We see a number of mages.  Most are, shall we say, not nice.  Perhaps 3 are what I'd term "innocent" - and yes, I do me what *I'd* term.  I'm not trying to speak for anyone but me.  But we have 3 innocent mages, and countless bad apples.  We simply don't see any others.

Now, we can speculate that any remaning mages are all bad, or are all good, or any combination in between.  However, that's nothing more than pure speculation, and any argument which tries to state anything as fact is hopelessly flawed.

When I say that I don't imagine a large group of innocent mages sitting around in the Gallows, what I mean is, I take the percentages we see in game as representative.  That yes, there are some innocent mages in the Gallows.  But the overwhelming majority are, like most of those we see, bad, or evil, or flawed - take your pick of word there.  Thus, I see the Kirkwall Circle as being in need of destruction.

Now, does that mean I gleefully choose to kill all the mages, or that I find it a reason to celebrate?  No, not at all.  I also think it's a rather tragic thing, and that slaughtering a large group of people is not something to be done lightly.  But it is something that is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

You my friend are using what would be called "Reason with Responsibility". I am afraid that has no place in the world of high fantasy where most of your detractors are interested in vacationing. I find it funny that I read so many posts where people villainize the characters that the writers so obviously tried to show were struggling with the responsibility of representing more than just one level of morality.

Even if the division of "good" mages and "bad" mages was close to 50/50 or even 80/20. A truly responsible leader could not allow the risk of leaving them unchecked.

For one- "good" and "bad" actually means, corrupted or uncorrupted. Just because you have one clean mage doesn't mean they won't see their family butchered by slavers and suddenly go Apocalypto on the entire coastal region.

The main point is however; if mages somehow represented as much as 10 out of 100 people in a population and only 2 out of that 10 actually were secretly using blood magic. It has been shown that unchecked blood mages can subvert and control the most powerful "clean" mages. Once that ball starts rolling, 90 out of your 100 people are suddenly cannon fodder.

Noone could allow that risk. And that is if mages are 10%, they are more likely close to .01% of the population. But that .01% has the ability to suddenly snap and wipe out the other 99.99%.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The disagreement you and I have is that I don't think the actions of mage antagonists condemn an entire population of people any more than the carta represents all dwarves or the myraid of criminal organizations and slavers represent all humans. We know relatively little about the actual mages in the Gallows, and I don't see any sufficient evidence to condemn the Circle of Kirkwall to death, especially when Meredith makes it clear that she's invoking the Right of Annulment because of what Anders did.

I've cut your quote down to this, because I agree that this seems to be the fundamental disagreement between us.

Here's my take on this issue:  If I'm presented with a group of people, I have to judge them on those that I see.  In DA2, I'm presented with many mages.  The overwhelming majority of those mages seem to be blood mages, or otherwise insane lunatics.  And by overwhelming majority, I'm looking at every mage we meet with the exception of Bethany, Emile, and Ella.  And I include in that "overwhelming majority" all the mages who seem to turn into abmoninations during the final battle, even if you side with the mages.

You seem to look on this issue, and think "it doesn't represent every mage in the Gallows".  Now, that may be true.  But I don't see any of those mages.  I don't know how many there are.  There could be 100, there could be 4.  We simply don't know.

I can't judge based on something I don't see.  So I can never accept that those mages we DO see are the abberation, rather than a fair representation of the population of the Gallows.

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

If you had any information to judge that the Circle of Magi is 97% bad, that's one thing, but you don't. You have mage antagonists who mostly comprise apostates and maleficarum who have no noted connection to the Circle of Kirkwall, and saying we should judge a plethora of men, women, and children solely on the antagonists who Hawke deals with. It's like saying Hawke should judge all dwarves in Kirkwall based on the carta members he fights. Hawke never has an opportunity to meet the many denizens of the Gallows, and it isn't accurate to make any judgement on them without any information. All we know is that they're innocent of the deaths Anders caused.

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

In game, I see perhaps 2 or so bad Templars - Alrik, those with him (not sure if there was 1 or 2).  Perhaps Kerras (Kerran?  The one people think is a rapist).  At most, that's 4.  And I kill 3 of them.

Wow.  I don't even know where to begin with that.

Bethany's letter supports that opinion, since she talks about a few Templars being of concern.

She says nothing about mages, other than Ella.  Who I also meet.  And I agree with Bethany's comment, that Ella is a fine example of what a mage should be.  She says nothing about other mages either way.  She provides me with no information.

So you're saying that if she claimed there were a few mages she thought were bad like she said about templars, you'd then judge most of the mages good like you do the templars, but since she doesn't mention being creeped out by any of them then that must mean there's so much bad she doesn't even feel it worth mentioning?  Riiight.  Gotcha.

A double standard would be, if her letter mentioned several good mages, and I chose to believe that only those mages were good.  In other words, taking her "few Templars" as an example, and taking a "few mages" as absolute.  But that's not the case.  She simply doesn't mention other mages.  Leaving me to form my opinion based on other information.  Which I do.

Err, you just got through saying she mentions Ella.  I... that...  okay, this is clearly a lost cause.  Nevermind.

[Paeyne]

Benchmark wrote...

You my friend are using what would be called "Reason with Responsibility". I am afraid that has no place in the world of high fantasy where most of your detractors are interested in vacationing. I find it funny that I read so many posts where people villainize the characters that the writers so obviously tried to show were struggling with the responsibility of representing more than just one level of morality.

Even if the division of "good" mages and "bad" mages was close to 50/50 or even 80/20. A truly responsible leader could not allow the risk of leaving them unchecked.

For one- "good" and "bad" actually means, corrupted or uncorrupted. Just because you have one clean mage doesn't mean they won't see their family butchered by slavers and suddenly go Apocalypto on the entire coastal region.

The main point is however; if mages somehow represented as much as 10 out of 100 people in a population and only 2 out of that 10 actually were secretly using blood magic. It has been shown that unchecked blood mages can subvert and control the most powerful "clean" mages. Once that ball starts rolling, 90 out of your 100 people are suddenly cannon fodder.

Noone could allow that risk. And that is if mages are 10%, they are more likely close to .01% of the population. But that .01% has the ability to suddenly snap and wipe out the other 99.99%.

This is a valid argument, even if it isn't one I particularly agree with.

However this argument also contributes to the situation as much as it justifies the response.  As long as mages are treated like walking bombs waiting to go off, the resulting treatment will only serve to increase the likihood that they will, in fact, go off.

Using this argument you really have only three alternatives to prevent the "inevitability" of a few corrupted mages infecting the rest of the mage population resulting in mageageddon on the rest of the population.

1.  Kill all mages when they are found.  Since mages generally come into their magic at a puberty or before, this solution would be morally uncomfortable but its not like the Templars haven't done it before.

2.  Tranquil all mages.  Marginally more morally comfortable.  The 'Tranquil Solution' is a solution even it is considered morally questionable.

3.  Find a way to control  the magic mages can use and prevent demon possession.  Qunari magic control collars anyone?   Lip sewing and bolted face plates are optional.  I am really not sure how this morally stacks up against the other two.  Thats probably a question for another thread.

As I have stated earlier, I find the Right of Annulment loathesome.  However I do recognise that the mage problem is a serious one and the options that Thedas has for a solution are limited.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The disagreement you and I have is that I don't think the actions of mage antagonists condemn an entire population of people any more than the carta represents all dwarves or the myraid of criminal organizations and slavers represent all humans. We know relatively little about the actual mages in the Gallows, and I don't see any sufficient evidence to condemn the Circle of Kirkwall to death, especially when Meredith makes it clear that she's invoking the Right of Annulment because of what Anders did.

I've cut your quote down to this, because I agree that this seems to be the fundamental disagreement between us.

Here's my take on this issue:  If I'm presented with a group of people, I have to judge them on those that I see.  In DA2, I'm presented with many mages.  The overwhelming majority of those mages seem to be blood mages, or otherwise insane lunatics.  And by overwhelming majority, I'm looking at every mage we meet with the exception of Bethany, Emile, and Ella.  And I include in that "overwhelming majority" all the mages who seem to turn into abmoninations during the final battle, even if you side with the mages.

You seem to look on this issue, and think "it doesn't represent every mage in the Gallows".  Now, that may be true.  But I don't see any of those mages.  I don't know how many there are.  There could be 100, there could be 4.  We simply don't know.

I can't judge based on something I don't see.  So I can never accept that those mages we DO see are the abberation, rather than a fair representation of the population of the Gallows.

And when I look at something that's 97% bad, I think "wipe it out and start over".

If you had any information to judge that the Circle of Magi is 97% bad, that's one thing, but you don't. You have mage antagonists who mostly comprise apostates and maleficarum who have no noted connection to the Circle of Kirkwall, and saying we should judge a plethora of men, women, and children solely on the antagonists who Hawke deals with. It's like saying Hawke should judge all dwarves in Kirkwall based on the carta members he fights. Hawke never has an opportunity to meet the many denizens of the Gallows, and it isn't accurate to make any judgement on them without any information. All we know is that they're innocent of the deaths Anders caused.

We have plenty of Circle mages.  Grace.  The 3 we hunt down, 2 of whom are blood mages.  Orsino.  The ones we see in Best Served Cold.  The ones we fight during the final battle.

And since we have no information as to whether the random mages that attack us in the street during Act 3 are Circle or apostate, there is nothing wrong with assuming that some, at least, are Circle mages.  Saying otherwise is speculation.  And yes, saying some are Circle is speculation.  But both are equally valid.

Again, you comment on the "plethora" of mages sitting in the Gallows, who you seem to feel are innocent.  And again, I have to point out - first, we have no idea whether there is a "plethora" or what number there are - there could be 100, 1000, or 10.  Second, we have no idea if they are innocent or not.  Assuming they are all innocent is speculation.  Assuming they are all evil is speculation.  Assuming there is some kind of split is speculation.

But assuming some kind of split, while speculation, is reasonable.  Assuming all are innocent or evil is an unreasonable view.  I choose to assume the split is equal to, or at least similar to, the split we see throughout the game.  That may not be correct, but it is not without a basis.

Now, are they innocent of what Anders did?  Probably.  I can't say for sure because we know he had contacts in the Circle.  We know he asks Hawke for help getting the ingredients and planting the bomb.  We know he blows the Chantry even if Hawke doesn't help him.  It is quite possible that at least some Circle mages helped him if Hawke didn't (or even if Hawke did).  But we certainly can't prove any guilt, and I'm willing to accept that they are innocent of it.  Remember, I spared the Circle in my game for exactly this reason.

But the Circle being innocent of Anders action =/= the Circle being full of innocent mages.

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

In game, I see perhaps 2 or so bad Templars - Alrik, those with him (not sure if there was 1 or 2).  Perhaps Kerras (Kerran?  The one people think is a rapist).  At most, that's 4.  And I kill 3 of them.

Wow.  I don't even know where to begin with that.

Bethany's letter supports that opinion, since she talks about a few Templars being of concern.

She says nothing about mages, other than Ella.  Who I also meet.  And I agree with Bethany's comment, that Ella is a fine example of what a mage should be.  She says nothing about other mages either way.  She provides me with no information.

So you're saying that if she claimed there were a few mages she thought were bad like she said about templars, you'd then judge most of the mages good like you do the templars, but since she doesn't mention being creeped out by any of them then that must mean there's so much bad she doesn't even feel it worth mentioning?  Riiight.  Gotcha.

A double standard would be, if her letter mentioned several good mages, and I chose to believe that only those mages were good.  In other words, taking her "few Templars" as an example, and taking a "few mages" as absolute.  But that's not the case.  She simply doesn't mention other mages.  Leaving me to form my opinion based on other information.  Which I do.

Err, you just got through saying she mentions Ella.  I... that...  okay, this is clearly a lost cause.  Nevermind.

Keep on with your ridiculous hyperbole.

1.  Don't know where you want to go with that.  Want to find me some other evil Templars?  Please do.

2.  She says nothing about the mages at all, except Ella.  She singles Ella out.  And Ella is good.  Got it now?

3.  She mentions one mage.  One.  Out of the countless others that everyone wants to speculate are the soul of goodness.  So, yea, you want to take information from that?  Go ahead.

Yes, discussing this with you does seem to be a lost cause. 

[Benchmark]

Paeyne wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

You my friend are using what would be called "Reason with Responsibility". I am afraid that has no place in the world of high fantasy where most of your detractors are interested in vacationing. I find it funny that I read so many posts where people villainize the characters that the writers so obviously tried to show were struggling with the responsibility of representing more than just one level of morality.

Even if the division of "good" mages and "bad" mages was close to 50/50 or even 80/20. A truly responsible leader could not allow the risk of leaving them unchecked.

For one- "good" and "bad" actually means, corrupted or uncorrupted. Just because you have one clean mage doesn't mean they won't see their family butchered by slavers and suddenly go Apocalypto on the entire coastal region.

The main point is however; if mages somehow represented as much as 10 out of 100 people in a population and only 2 out of that 10 actually were secretly using blood magic. It has been shown that unchecked blood mages can subvert and control the most powerful "clean" mages. Once that ball starts rolling, 90 out of your 100 people are suddenly cannon fodder.

Noone could allow that risk. And that is if mages are 10%, they are more likely close to .01% of the population. But that .01% has the ability to suddenly snap and wipe out the other 99.99%.

This is a valid argument, even if it isn't one I particularly agree with.

However this argument also contributes to the situation as much as it justifies the response.  As long as mages are treated like walking bombs waiting to go off, the resulting treatment will only serve to increase the likihood that they will, in fact, go off.

Using this argument you really have only three alternatives to prevent the "inevitability" of a few corrupted mages infecting the rest of the mage population resulting in mageageddon on the rest of the population.

1.  Kill all mages when they are found.  Since mages generally come into their magic at a puberty or before, this solution would be morally uncomfortable but its not like the Templars haven't done it before.

2.  Tranquil all mages.  Marginally more morally comfortable.  The 'Tranquil Solution' is a solution even it is considered morally questionable.

3.  Find a way to control  the magic mages can use and prevent demon possession.  Qunari magic control collars anyone?   Lip sewing and bolted face plates are optional.  I am really not sure how this morally stacks up against the other two.  Thats probably a question for another thread.

As I have stated earlier, I find the Right of Annulment loathesome.  However I do recognise that the mage problem is a serious one and the options that Thedas has for a solution are limited.

Yes, yes, and yes. All morally wrong, all horrible solutions to a crappy problem that the game refuses to let the player actually solve.

Is it necessary to have Templars that are trained to stop mages? Yes. Could they just all be dwarves instead of humans that poison themselves with lyrium? Sure. Although the actual need for lyrium was brought into question by a conversation with Alistair.

Is it necessary to condemn all mages for the crimes of the few? No, certainly not.

Should any mage ever be fully trusted? No, never. It doesn't even have to be their choice to get a scary new makeover.

Should mages police themselves? No. That system would be doomed to fail, there needs to be a check in place to avoid mages being too lenient with eachother.

Should the Templar system be overhauled. Yes, it certainly has shown it has many flaws. It is definitely not efficient enough and it does let innocent mages get thrown out with the bad ones. If Mages stopped making excuses for eachother and spent time rooting out blood mages, I could see them being more actively involved.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If you had any information to judge that the Circle of Magi is 97% bad, that's one thing, but you don't. You have mage antagonists who mostly comprise apostates and maleficarum who have no noted connection to the Circle of Kirkwall, and saying we should judge a plethora of men, women, and children solely on the antagonists who Hawke deals with. It's like saying Hawke should judge all dwarves in Kirkwall based on the carta members he fights. Hawke never has an opportunity to meet the many denizens of the Gallows, and it isn't accurate to make any judgement on them without any information. All we know is that they're innocent of the deaths Anders caused.

We have plenty of Circle mages.  Grace.  The 3 we hunt down, 2 of whom are blood mages.  Orsino.  The ones we see in Best Served Cold.  The ones we fight during the final battle.

You're referencing an insurrection of mages and templars, and using the mages as examples that the Circle is corrupt. Grace is from the Circle of Starkhaven and Alain was a rape victim who surrenders. If all or most of the mages working with her had been from Starkhaven like Alain was, I'm not certain how that helps your argument. Either way, the antagonists who fight Hawke end up dead. I don't see how a handful of people should condemn countless men, women, and children who are imprisoned in the Gallows. We see a handful of mages who are not using blood magic or turning into abominations when Hawke sides with the mages against Meredith and the Right of Annulment.

Besides the virgin Emile who only wanted to get laid, two of the three mages - Huon and Evelina - were insane after their time in the Gallows, and Evelina was sane during her years in the Ferelden Circle. To contrast the two mages who were driven insane, we have Bethany and Ella.

As for Orsino, he's the First Enchanter, and I still don't see any information that demonstrates that the Circle of Kirkwall is corrupt. To contrast Orsino, we have Tobrius (who knew Malcolm Hawke).

TJPags wrote...

And since we have no information as to whether the random mages that attack us in the street during Act 3 are Circle or apostate, there is nothing wrong with assuming that some, at least, are Circle mages.  Saying otherwise is speculation.  And yes, saying some are Circle is speculation.  But both are equally valid.

It's just as valid to address that you're judging mages inside the Gallows by the actions of mages who are outside of the Gallows.

TJPags wrote...

Again, you comment on the "plethora" of mages sitting in the Gallows, who you seem to feel are innocent.  And again, I have to point out - first, we have no idea whether there is a "plethora" or what number there are - there could be 100, 1000, or 10. 

Because the mages and apprentices are innocent of the crime Anders committed. Meredith never even contests this when she handwaves his existance to purge the Circle of Magi.

TJPags wrote...

Second, we have no idea if they are innocent or not.  Assuming they are all innocent is speculation.  Assuming they are all evil is speculation.  Assuming there is some kind of split is speculation.

It's not speculation when Anders freely confessed to the crime.

TJPags wrote...

Now, are they innocent of what Anders did?  Probably.  I can't say for sure because we know he had contacts in the Circle.  We know he asks Hawke for help getting the ingredients and planting the bomb.  We know he blows the Chantry even if Hawke doesn't help him. 

Anders also confesses that he didn't want anyone else to have a hand in what he was doing, which is why he didn't tell Hawke what he was doing.

TJPags wrote...

But the Circle being innocent of Anders action =/= the Circle being full of innocent mages.

When I address that the Circle mages are innocent of the crime Anders committed, it's because Anders fully confessed and revealed he was responsible for the destruction of the Chantry. Furthermore, I don't see how anyone can condemn the Circle due to an absense of knowledge about the majority of the mages who are imprisoned in the Gallows.

[Paeyne]

Benchmark wrote...


Yes, yes, and yes. All morally wrong, all horrible solutions to a crappy problem that the game refuses to let the player actually solve.

Is it necessary to have Templars that are trained to stop mages? Yes. Could they just all be dwarves instead of humans that poison themselves with lyrium? Sure. Although the actual need for lyrium was brought into question by a conversation with Alistair.

Is it necessary to condemn all mages for the crimes of the few? No, certainly not.

Should any mage ever be fully trusted? No, never. It doesn't even have to be their choice to get a scary new makeover.

Should mages police themselves? No. That system would be doomed to fail, there needs to be a check in place to avoid mages being too lenient with eachother.

Should the Templar system be overhauled. Yes, it certainly has shown it has many flaws. It is definitely not efficient enough and it does let innocent mages get thrown out with the bad ones. If Mages stopped making excuses for eachother and spent time rooting out blood mages, I could see them being more actively involved.

I can easily agree with most of this, although I don't know if such a deep seated social problem could be easily solved by one person (the player).

It is a shame that the problem is presented in such a two dimensional way with both sides gravitating to an extreme.  It reminds me a little of the Fable series where you can choose to save children or eat them.

I find myself on the boards reasonably arguing both sides once "kill all mages" and "treat all mages just like regular people" are taken off the table.

It will be interesting to see how the game will progress between the shattered Circles and the renegade Templars in DA3.

I hope that it won't boil down to the "forced to pick the side that least offends you" ending again.

[Benchmark]

Who is Tobrius? And why does him knowing daddy Hawk enter relevance? Does he have any authority in the circle?
And when did Alain tell you he was raped?
And why are you stuck on only Ander's act when TJP is obviously viewing a bigger picture of guilt and innocence than you?

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

Who is Tobrius? And why does him knowing daddy Hawk enter relevance? Does he have any authority in the circle?

Tobrius isn't like Orsino, and I address this point because Orsino doesn't represent the behavior of all the Circle mages simply because he crumbles under the pressure. Bethany would have been a better First Enchanter than he would have.

Benchmark wrote...

And when did Alain tell you he was raped?

Act II.

Benchmark wrote...

And why are you stuck on only Ander's act when TJP is obviously viewing a bigger picture of guilt and innocence than you?

TJP brought up the point and I addressed it, as you can see from the quotes.

Clearly, this discussion isn't going to reach a consensus. I doubt another dozen pages will make any difference.

[LobselVith8]

Paeyne wrote...

I can easily agree with most of this, although I don't know if such a deep seated social problem could be easily solved by one person (the player).

It is a shame that the problem is presented in such a two dimensional way with both sides gravitating to an extreme.  It reminds me a little of the Fable series where you can choose to save children or eat them. 

Would you have preferred to have the opportunity to side with Ser Thrask and provide a middle ground of mages and templars working together?

[Paeyne]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Second, we have no idea if they are innocent or not.  Assuming they are all innocent is speculation.  Assuming they are all evil is speculation.  Assuming there is some kind of split is speculation.

It's not speculation when Anders freely confessed to the crime.

TJPags wrote...

Now, are they innocent of what Anders did?  Probably.  I can't say for sure because we know he had contacts in the Circle.  We know he asks Hawke for help getting the ingredients and planting the bomb.  We know he blows the Chantry even if Hawke doesn't help him. 

Anders also confesses that he didn't want anyone else to have a hand in what he was doing, which is why he didn't tell Hawke what he was doing.

TJPags wrote...

But the Circle being innocent of Anders action =/= the Circle being full of innocent mages.

When I address that the Circle mages are innocent of the crime Anders committed, it's because Anders fully confessed and revealed he was responsible for the destruction of the Chantry. Furthermore, I don't see how anyone can condemn the Circle due to an absense of knowledge about the majority of the mages who are imprisoned in the Gallows.

Polaris uses this argument frequently and it is a fallacious argument.

The fact that Anders says he acted alone is not proof that he acted alone.

He may be telling the truth and he may be lying.  He has lied in the past.  If he had help from Circle mages, he has every reason to lie to protect them.

You are correct in stating that the Circle cannot be condemned in an absense of knowledge, however they cannot be absolved in an absense of knowledge either.

[Benchmark]

Paeyne wrote...

Benchmark wrote...


Yes, yes, and yes. All morally wrong, all horrible solutions to a crappy problem that the game refuses to let the player actually solve.

Is it necessary to have Templars that are trained to stop mages? Yes. Could they just all be dwarves instead of humans that poison themselves with lyrium? Sure. Although the actual need for lyrium was brought into question by a conversation with Alistair.

Is it necessary to condemn all mages for the crimes of the few? No, certainly not.

Should any mage ever be fully trusted? No, never. It doesn't even have to be their choice to get a scary new makeover.

Should mages police themselves? No. That system would be doomed to fail, there needs to be a check in place to avoid mages being too lenient with eachother.

Should the Templar system be overhauled. Yes, it certainly has shown it has many flaws. It is definitely not efficient enough and it does let innocent mages get thrown out with the bad ones. If Mages stopped making excuses for eachother and spent time rooting out blood mages, I could see them being more actively involved.

I can easily agree with most of this, although I don't know if such a deep seated social problem could be easily solved by one person (the player).

It is a shame that the problem is presented in such a two dimensional way with both sides gravitating to an extreme.  It reminds me a little of the Fable series where you can choose to save children or eat them.

I find myself on the boards reasonably arguing both sides once "kill all mages" and "treat all mages just like regular people" are taken off the table.

It will be interesting to see how the game will progress between the shattered Circles and the renegade Templars in DA3.

I hope that it won't boil down to the "forced to pick the side that least offends you" ending again.

I totally picked the side that offended me least.

I killed Anders without a thought then went to save the mages because instead of making a coherent decision Meredith went into huge B mode.
"I'm coming sister! Just let me murderknife this moron..."

I read in a spoiler that if you help the Templars you can still decide to save the innocent mages when you go into the Tower. That is totally what I am doing next time.

[Paeyne]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Paeyne wrote...

I can easily agree with most of this, although I don't know if such a deep seated social problem could be easily solved by one person (the player).

It is a shame that the problem is presented in such a two dimensional way with both sides gravitating to an extreme.  It reminds me a little of the Fable series where you can choose to save children or eat them. 

Would you have preferred to have the opportunity to side with Ser Thrask and provide a middle ground of mages and templars working together?

Certainly Ser Thrask seemed the most reasonable of all the Templars.  I expect he would make an excellent Knight-Commander.

The currentt system is horribly broken.  It will require reasonable Templars and Mages on both sides to solve.

So... yes.. if I had the option of removing Meridth (and Orsino for that matter) and installing people who would actually try and make headway on the problem I would have probably taken that option.

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

And when did Alain tell you he was raped?

Act II.

[

What? When in Act 2? I only got a scene where the kid tells me he wants me to save him from the crazy blood mages and just wants to go home. Some of the character reactions must really change.

Video or anything?

[LobselVith8]

Paeyne wrote...

Polaris uses this argument frequently and it is a fallacious argument.

The fact that Anders says he acted alone is not proof that he acted alone.

He didn't act alone, not if Hawke helped him.

If you're looking to blame mages from the Circle of Magi when we have no WoG or any in-game evidence, then you're providing speculation. So far, all I see is speculation being used to condemn the mages and apprentices of the Kirkwall Circle when we're never afforded an opportunity to get to know many or most of the mages who are imprisoned.

Paeyne wrote...

He may be telling the truth and he may be lying.  He has lied in the past.  If he had help from Circle mages, he has every reason to lie to protect them.

I believe that a Circle mage is certainly going to stand out in the Chantry full of clergy members and templars.

Paeyne wrote...

You are correct in stating that the Circle cannot be condemned in an absense of knowledge, however they cannot be absolved in an absense of knowledge either.

If Anders confesses to the crime and acknowledges that he wants a war between mages and templars, then I can address his guilt and their innocence. He confessed before the de facto Viscount of Kirkwall.

Unless you're arguing that a majority or many mages helped Anders while being locked in the Gallows, I'm certain this discussion isn't going to go in circles with absolutely no consensus reached...

Modifié par LobselVith8, 16 avril 2011 - 05:13 .