359 réponses à ce sujet

[Asdara]

caridounette wrote...

Asdara wrote...

caridounette wrote...

Asdara wrote...

It's a problem - but I don't think Bioware restricts people from being able to side with the mages simply because that moral ambiguity always remains.  Even if Orsino turned abomination, does that mean all his underlings will as well?  Does that mean there is not one redeemable soul in that tower?  No.  There will be an innocent in there, somewhere, and you're back to the question: do they die to potentially save the life of someone else?  There's no right answer.

Also, it is a game meant to be roleplayed, not a matter of counting how many innocents stand on each side ofthe fence (everyone has his guess on that part). Trying to be too logical about it ruines the whole <this is a RPG> point of the experiment. When i side with the mages, its a much from an emotional standpoint as a anything moral.

Do i know if my sister can be protected when i side with the templars? I do not. Well some players / Hawke characters can think its a good enough reason to side with the mages. She is the perfect symbol of innocence and the longer she stays in there the more chances she has to be corrupted.

Its hard to think ppl who enact genocides/revolutions  have no  emotional triggers to do so...

One can argue as logically as they want, whne you play, you do get emotionnaly involved (or at least try to, since its hard to understand mages even when you play one) and make choices from that.

The Hawke I'm roleplaying can't have emotions and logic?  I'm not trying to just blow you off here, but it seems like you think I am implying that we don't roleplay and that is far from my stance - I love RP and all its elements and I've made many a purely character based choice, either logical or emotional.  We possess both though, and just because my rouge (1st unspoiled char.) loved her sister didn't mean the circle should win vs. the templars and potentially take over the city afterwards.  Luckily I was able to spare her, but my Hawke was always hoping that Bethany would not have turned and could be saved.  Logically, my Hawke deduced that if her sister was alright she wouldn't have to kill her, and she turned out to be right - yay - but... I digress.

Emotion sometimes overpowers logic, but it never makes logic cease to exist.  You can be both emotional and logical and try to assert one impulse over the other if you try, why couldn't a character with the same range of capability do the same thing?

Im sorry if the intent was misunderstood here. I was certainly not implying you were wrong or did not know how to roleplay. Actually i go about it the same way you do when i play a protemplar Hawke. 

Saving your sister is jsut one emotionnal exemple of why a nonmage Hawke could want to save the circle. I think the logic part has been well covered so far. I did not want to say its emotion vs logic, jsut that when you actually play, even a very clear cut issue can become grey because of personal involvements / beliefs.


Im curious if your sister could not be saved (lets say templar XYZ arrives first and chops her down) how many ppl would prefer siding with mages? 

If Bethany turned, she dies.  Regardless of all else for me, as even my blood-mages are anti-abomination (also, bloodmages never side with the templars under my control).  If she hasn't turned AND I couldn't save her, I'd be very upset with the Templars - and if the option to change sides presented itself just then, I would have to seriously consider it.  Of course, by that point we're already committed, so I'd have to just vent my anger on Meredith when I cut her into tiny tiny pieces.

[nos_astra]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well there have always been excuses. They are not really humans. They are dangerous. They are different. That's not different to real life, many people who were cheering at witches being burned at a stake thought it was the right thing. Whether it is true or not doesn't even matter because the simple truth is that people most of the time know less than they think they do. Is it ever necessary to kill someone? Is there a situation it can't be avoided? The only situation I could think of is self defense when you are attacked. Or defending someone who is being attacked.
 
Kill one innocent so one hundret will live? I wouldn't do it. It is not my place to judge how much a life is worth. Neither would I want to count corpses to justify my actions.

Fact is, the mages gave up. Fact is also, Meredith wants them dead anyway. Also fact is, not all mages deserve to die. If you still can side with the templars, fine. It's not like my moral compass needs to work for everyone. Well but it is my opinion. And I think people in general don't really think hard enough about such things. I know it is not really a fun topic, but important nevertheless. I know it is a game and not real. But people who think about it are real.

Yet you play games like DA2, a character who has no legal authority to demand answers or compliance from strangers (no matter what their transgressions might be) and kills them. If they feel threatened and attack, that is, but that's clearly not Hawke's fault, right?

[AlexXIV]

Asdara wrote...

Yes, but (regarding the underlined and bolded) those things weren't true.  They really were human beings.  They weren't actually trying to take over the world's gold reserves and put Germans out of work.  They were perfectly capable of reading and living independently of their master's completely un-Christian care.  And so on. 

The truth of the claim does matter.  It matters more than anything else and transforms an excuse into an actual reason. Maybe not always a good reason.  Maybe not a reason that justifies the action taken - but a reason based in fact and reality - not simply made up qualities to engender hatred and distrust.

A mage can, in fact, be possessed and become a terribly powerful force of destruction, oppression, death, and other things.  

Let me make up what will hopefully be a non-offensive example:  I show you a man who uncontrollably goes off into a killing rage whenever he sees the colors pink, blue, or green - basically all the time then, if he's let outside.  I can keep him locked up, in a room without those colors, for his safety and the safety of others OR I can let him wander about aimlessly killing people, because we don't want to put value on lives.  Can you say he should be walking about?  Or do you want him away somewhere?  Maybe HE doesn't want to slaughter innocents whenever he turns his head the wrong way and prefers to be away, as long as his keepers aren't abusive.  What if they are though?  Now do you want him out again?  Does he want out?  If so, is it because he's decided the value of his quality of life is greater than the lives of those he'll kill if he goes ballistic outside?  Is he right or wrong?  

That's just one guy.  Say you have hundreds of people just like him.  Fine if certain circumstances don't occur, but completely unhinged and dangerous if something goes wrong.  Does a controlled environment seem appropriate?  For there good and ours it would certainly seem so - but as above... what about corruption?  And what's the answer when things become untenable?  When the parameters have been breached that signal a complete breakdown of the containment system?  Neutralization is the option we're given, and it's an option of last resort.  The alternative it to abolish the containment without any back of plan of further containment in place.  Is that responsible?  If so, to whom?

These are the things that get my brain turning about this - choosing either side (and I've chosen both, as I said, across a half-dozen characters by now).  

We don't have a real-life parallel to mages in real life fitting the situation - even the rampages of a mass-muderer are just the acts of an individual with human capabilities only - not fireballs and dream killing options.  We put those guys in prison, sure, but there aren't tens of thousands of them spread across the world all active at once.

So we kill people because they are powerful? We treat them like criminals because others of their race or culture are are? Witches were not killed because they knew something other's didn't. They were killed because they were supposed to be evil. Mages are dangerous. But seeing how the templars wiped them out even if Hawke sided with the mages makes it hard for me to believe that they were such a big threat. I mean they never had a chance.

[Iosev]

In the end, the choice comes down to:

Do you assist in the Right of Annulment, the systematic killing of all of the magi within the tower?

or

Do you protect the magi within the tower from the Right of Annulment?

If you assist in the Right of Annulment, you are ultimately assisting in the deaths of many potential innocents (including children). If you protect the magi, you are ultimately protecting many potentially corrupt magi.

You can try to rationalize that magi are not ordinary people if it makes you feel better about killing all of the magi, but make no mistake, the Right of Annulment is the systematic killing of a certain group of people; in other words, genocide.

[White_Buffalo94]

stobie wrote...

Filament wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

Good analysis. I also didnt like being told I was 'supporting Meredith' during the runup to meeting Grace, when the whole game I had been supporting mages. It felt like railroading.

DId you even bother to talk with her when she was back in the Circle? She believes that she could've never have been found by the Templar unless somebody who knew she was alive, aka you, warned them. She was insane and blaming you for it since act 2, it isn't some random sudden change of character.

And that's why Grace is on par with Mother Petrice in my book for most hated character in the game.

Yup! Grace & Petrice edge out all others in my Most Hated.  I'd put the abusive templars in there, Alrik & Kerras, but they lack that awful snarkiness that Grace & Petrice have. (Petrice by a nose, because she makes me want to punch kittens)    On the other hand, I really *like* them as villains - easy to hate!   I was more bothered by *not* hating Meredith or Orsino, but after a while, I find I prefer it this way - it makes the choice more interesting, and it feels more real.  

When I clicked on Grace, she seemed to be whining that I sent her off without food - for 3 years.   Grrr.

Oh my goodness, same here. Petrice, I wanted to kill her myself. Kinda mad I couldn't do it. Grace, I was so mad when she decided to kill you for FREEING THEM. Oh wait, you... you also wanted me to provide you with a hearty meal at certain intervals of the day? What an ungrateful B... I hate them more than I hate Meredith and Orsino honestly. Meredith was a nut, but she was corrupted by an idol. Orsino is on the list with Grace and Petrice because he is a coward that would rather turn into a frikkin Harvester rather than fight and help his fellows. Plus he had a hand in Leandra's death. Anyway, now I am rambling. In short, I agree

[Dave of Canada]

AlexXIV wrote...

Kill one innocent so one hundret will live? I wouldn't do it. It is not my place to judge how much a life is worth. Neither would I want to count corpses to justify my actions.

Your modern day societal morals are showing. I'd also hope that you'd never have to make a tough call in real life.

Fact is, the mages gave up.

When they were cornered and had no chance of winning, funnily enough among the "surrendering mages" there's still a dozen blood mages and we see Orisino go crazy. Therefor, calling off the Anullment would have simply failed what it was trying to accomplish.

Fact is also, Meredith wants them dead anyway.

Yes, she's crazy.

Also fact is, not all mages deserve to die.

You can't tell who does and doesn't, when the majority is beyond hope then you deal with the wound before it festers.

If you still can side with the templars, fine.

You make it seem like the above should make me not want to side with the templar?

It's not like my moral compass needs to work for everyone. Well but it is my opinion.

Yeah, it's opinion. It just gets pretty pathetic when (most of the time) instead of having a reasonable argument all you hear from certain posters (not you) is "You're a closet racist bigot and absolute monster that supports genocide, slavery, rape and innocent murder".

Hell, I've been called these things even before DA2 came out when I was defending the Ferelden Circle.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 06:38 .

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...
*snip*

Well if I had to make the decision in real life it would mean that the one survives and the 100 die probably. Lucky for the one bad for the 100 but I am not making such a judgement based on the fact that I can count. Same btw with the Shepard choice to destroy the massrelay and doom 300000 Batarians. I would have let the Reapers come. They will come eventually anyway. And the galaxy is now as ready as later most likely. Which means ... not ready ... most likely.

Blood magic is not inherently evil. Merrill is a bloodmage. And Hawke can be one. Both survive the Annullment, which doesn't exactly make it very efficient either, does it? And we have no clue if there is a majority of bloodmages. I don't really think so because someone would have to have noticed earlier. It is easier to hide a couple of bad apples in a big basket than a basket of bad apples behind a couple of good ones.

I can't hide that I am a bit disappointed that so many people think that the templars are the morally better option. I am not an unreasonable or stubborn person in general. I have read many threads and posts on the topic. I always end up thinking the mages are the morally higher ground. Not because I think the mages should be free as birds, but because I think in this Annullment situation the templars are doing everything wrong. I am not anti templar or anti chantry in general. But there are alot of things that need improving. And this sepecial situation in Kirkwall shows to me everything that is wrong with the chantry and the circles.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 06:58 .

[Xewaka]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well if I had to make the decision in real life it would mean that the one survives and the 100 die probably.

"The death of a man is a tragedy. The death of a million, a statistic".- Josef Stalin.

arcelonious wrote...
In the end, the choice comes down to:
Do you assist in the Right of Annulment, the systematic killing of all of the magi within the tower?
or
Do you protect the magi within the tower from the Right of Annulment?

Really? Because to me, the choice was: Do I restore the order in Kirkwall or do I let it burn in the fires of rioting and rebellion?

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 avril 2011 - 07:00 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's strange that you only get a feel for how an apostate must feel in Kirkwall if Hawke isn't a mage, because Bethany is the only one who expresses any issues with being an illegal mage in a city that's in the grip of templars. You'd think being an apostate would give Hawke a deeper insight into the mage and templar dicotomy in Kirkwall rather than being a warrior or rogue.

Indeed, and I think you posted a cartoon that illustrated this brilliantly not so long ago.  As Apostate_Hawke, I can do open and visible battlemagic literaly in front of the Knight Commander's own office as a penniless Fereldan refugee and no one bothers to arrest/confine me?  Realy?  I can use open bloodmagic when saving Cullen's sorry behind and he forgets I am a mage (let alone maleficar) when we next meet? (Mages aren't like you and me......brilliant!)

Man, oh, man...it's no wonder it's harder to appreciate what it means to be a mage in Thedas in DA2!  You never experience it!

-Polaris

A big issue I had with being a mage. How am I supposed to feel sympathetic towards their plight when as the main protagonist my actions as a mage are ignored? I laughed everytime Anders would say something like "You're a mage, this is your fight as well." or when Carver would voice his concern about me being found out. Cullen was the best, "They're mages! They aren't like you and I!"

Seriously, if you're going to give us the mage class don't put us in a city where mages are oppressed then give us no reason to feel the same way. Kirkwall was a poor place to set the game.

Modifié par MelfinaofOutlawStar, 13 avril 2011 - 07:01 .

[Dave of Canada]

AlexXIV wrote...

Blood magic is not inherently evil. Merrill is a bloodmage. And Hawke can be one. Both survive the Annullment, which doesn't exactly make it very efficient either, does it?

Hawke and Merrill aren't part of the Circle, they aren't anulling every mage.

And we have no clue if there is a majority of bloodmages.

Before the choice:
Blood Mages lingering the streets attacking you and your friends with them mind controlling "innocent" people.
Blood Mages openly practicing open rebellion against the Templar / Meredith. (though this isn't too bad).
Blood Mages kidnapping your friend / romance / sibling.

After the choice regardless of who you side with:
Blood Mages lingering in the streets with gigantic ass demons everywhere, Abominations running rampant.
Blood Mages summoning demons inside the Gallows.
Orsino turns to blood magic and depending on your choice sacrificed mages himself to justify it.

I don't really think so because someone would have to have notice earlier.

Orsino prevents the templar from searching the tower and he's a blood mage himself, I'm assuming he knows.

I can't hide that I am a bit disappointed that so many people think that the templars are the morally better option.

I don't think we're saying this, we're just not denying that it's a gray area. We're just arguing with IanPolaris and the others who deem that people who side with Templar are evil and that if you side with the mages you're "good".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 07:05 .

[AlexXIV]

No Dave, they are not killing every mage, just the Circle. Because it was Anders with the help of Merril and Hawke who blew up the Chantry, while the Circle had nothing to do with it. I hope this doesn't make more sense to you than to me.

[IanPolaris]

Xewaka wrote...

Really? Because to me, the choice was: Do I restore the order in Kirkwall or do I let it burn in the fires of rioting and rebellion?

That's the excuse that Hawke gives if/when he sides with the Templars but the part I bolded is a complete crok as even a cursury look at the game world and game facts show.  The circle mages had all been locked away in the gallows for a long time, and the gallows itself is a highly inaccessible island that used to be  a Tevinter prison!  The only circle mages in Kirkwall are either Orisino's contingent or the very, very few that Meridith permitted outside the circle....and there was no "abominations gone wild" until after Merdith issued the Annulment order.

We are also told by Aveline that the guard is keeping order in the city.

So the bolded part would never happen (and you know would never happen) regardless.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

Xewaka wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Well if I had to make the decision in real life it would mean that the one survives and the 100 die probably.

"The death of a man is a tragedy. The death of a million, a statistic".- Josef Stalin.

arcelonious wrote...
In the end, the choice comes down to:
Do you assist in the Right of Annulment, the systematic killing of all of the magi within the tower?
or
Do you protect the magi within the tower from the Right of Annulment?

Really? Because to me, the choice was: Do I restore the order in Kirkwall or do I let it burn in the fires of rioting and rebellion?

Hm make the choice to kill one or a million and I may change my mind. Or make it that I know someone of the 100 personally. I couldn't say really, but I would have major problems killing someone in general. Which is probably a good thing. In most cases.

[stobie]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
*snip*

Well if I had to make the decision in real life it would mean that the one survives and the 100 die probably. Lucky for the one bad for the 100 but I am not making such a judgement based on the fact that I can count. Same btw with the Shepard choice to destroy the massrelay and doom 300000 Batarians. I would have let the Reapers come. They will come eventually anyway. And the galaxy is now as ready as later most likely. Which means ... not ready ... most likely.

Blood magic is not inherently evil. Merrill is a bloodmage. And Hawke can be one. Both survive the Annullment, which doesn't exactly make it very efficient either, does it? And we have no clue if there is a majority of bloodmages. I don't really think so because someone would have to have noticed earlier. It is easier to hide a couple of bad apples in a big basket than a basket of bad apples behind a couple of good ones.

I can't hide that I am a bit disappointed that so many people think that the templars are the morally better option. I am not an unreasonable or stubborn person in general. I have read many threads and posts on the topic. I always end up thinking the mages are the morally higher ground. Not because I think the mages should be free as birds, but because I think in this Annullment situation the templars are doing everything wrong. I am not anti templar or anti chantry in general. But there are alot of things that need improving. And this sepecial situation in Kirkwall shows to me everything that is wrong with the chantry and the circles.

Well, I started out being almost entirely pro-mage, but that dwindled. (thanks, Anders - blowing up old people & such isn't really all that endearing.)  The more I thought about it, the more I began to feel he was a just a classic revolutionary who wants to bring about violent change, with an inherent blindness to anyone else.  After the violent change happens, people can say he's right, & it had to happen, but in the end, it was always just a failure of diplomacy & we'll never know if another way *might* have worked.

I still can't bring myself to see mages as any worse than vanishing, back-stabbing rogues.  And I can't bring myself to wipe out all the mages, though in the end, I think there were more sympathetic templars.  (I can't get by the 'kill mage children because...?' part, for one thing)   

I couldn't get up the fervor *for* the mages, either, since you see so many bad ones, & giving those guys extra power seems like a bad idea.  Anders is a *good* mage and manages to wreak havoc.  (Merrill's deeds are more personal and limited, if potentially misguided, though in fairness, she never gets the chance to prove she was right.  The Fade demon incident would tend to indicate that the Keeper had a point, though.)  

After reading these forums for a few weeks, I tend to find *both* defender-sides depressing.  What I'd really do, most likely, is leave them to it & head off, because siding with either seems to lead to disaster.  "You're all nuts - goodbye!" wasn't an option, though. 

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I don't think we're saying this, we're just not denying that it's a gray area. We're just arguing with IanPolaris and the others who deem that people who side with Templar are evil and that if you side with the mages you're "good".

I'm sorry but it's NOT a grey area.  It's crystal clear.  You either commit genocide or you don't.  You either think genocide is justifiable or you do not.  There is nothing grey about it no matter how much DG and Bioware use every emotional tug and string to try to convince you otherwise.

-Polaris

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

I sided with the Templars because at least they have the guts to stab you in the front.

[Dave of Canada]

AlexXIV wrote...

No Dave, they are not killing every mage, just the Circle. Because it was Anders with the help of Merril and Hawke who blew up the Chantry, while the Circle had nothing to do with it.

Anders and his destruction of the Chantry wasn't the only reason why the Rite (Right?) was called, though. Meredith was itching to trigger it for a while, she has seen more than enough reason to anull it before and then you've got the destruction of the Chantry which results in:

1) Meredith becomes the one in charge and is now allowed to invoke the Rite (Right?) without needing the go-ahead by anybody else.

2) The public opinion of mages will be sour and they'll demand blood.

Anders destroyed the Chantry willingly knowing that it would eventually cause the templar and mage to fight each other, Meredith not anulling the Circle (when she had full authority) would've only postponed it.

The Circle may have done nothing with the Chantry's destruction but you can't dismiss everything that happens before it and the effect it'll have on the populace.

[Xewaka]

IanPolaris wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Really? Because to me, the choice was: Do I restore the order in Kirkwall or do I let it burn in the fires of rioting and rebellion?

That's the excuse that Hawke gives if/when he sides with the Templars but the part I bolded is a complete crok as even a cursury look at the game world and game facts show.  The circle mages had all been locked away in the gallows for a long time, and the gallows itself is a highly inaccessible island that used to be  a Tevinter prison!  The only circle mages in Kirkwall are either Orisino's contingent or the very, very few that Meridith permitted outside the circle....and there was no "abominations gone wild" until after Merdith issued the Annulment order.
We are also told by Aveline that the guard is keeping order in the city.
So the bolded part would never happen (and you know would never happen) regardless.
-Polaris

If we, as you say, take a cursory look at the game facts, we will notice that the mages have been planning a rebellion for quite a long time now, due to the amount of abominations, demons, and blood mages released into the streets the moment Meredith declared the Right of Annulment. Orsino was horrified at the Chantry blowing up not because of the random and unjustified death and destruction, but because it removed the damper that was allowing him to set his plan in motion, thus forcing him on the defensive, instead of striking the first attack.

AlexXIV wrote...
Hm make the choice to kill one or a million and I may change my mind. Or make it that I know someone of the 100
personally. I couldn't say really, but I would have major problems killing someone in general. Which is probably a good thing. In most cases.

The conscious guilt regardless of either choice proves that there is no good choice.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 avril 2011 - 07:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

I'm sorry but it's NOT a grey area.

Fine.

I support genocide, murder, rape, slavery, racism and whatever else because I'm actually a big fan of those things. I don't do it to save the public, I don't do it to stop a war before it starts killing thousands, I don't do it because I believe it's the right thing to do.

Not gray at all, you're right.

[TheAwesomologist]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
*snip*

Well if I had to make the decision in real life it would mean that the one survives and the 100 die probably. Lucky for the one bad for the 100 but I am not making such a judgement based on the fact that I can count. Same btw with the Shepard choice to destroy the massrelay and doom 300000 Batarians. I would have let the Reapers come. They will come eventually anyway. And the galaxy is now as ready as later most likely. Which means ... not ready ... most likely.

Blood magic is not inherently evil. Merrill is a bloodmage. And Hawke can be one. Both survive the Annullment, which doesn't exactly make it very efficient either, does it? And we have no clue if there is a majority of bloodmages. I don't really think so because someone would have to have noticed earlier. It is easier to hide a couple of bad apples in a big basket than a basket of bad apples behind a couple of good ones.

I can't hide that I am a bit disappointed that so many people think that the templars are the morally better option. I am not an unreasonable or stubborn person in general. I have read many threads and posts on the topic. I always end up thinking the mages are the morally higher ground. Not because I think the mages should be free as birds, but because I think in this Annullment situation the templars are doing everything wrong. I am not anti templar or anti chantry in general. But there are alot of things that need improving. And this sepecial situation in Kirkwall shows to me everything that is wrong with the chantry and the circles.

THIS.

Or rather the game, to me, doesn't do a very good job of showing "good" Templars. You get Thrask and Emeric who both end up dead, and Cullen seems like he's at least willing to listen but doesn't stand up to Meredith until it's too late.

The moment I met Meredith at the end of Act 2 I knew who the big bad was in the game and her writing does a ****** poor job at making her seem even remotely reasonable.

If they had another couple of months to clean up the story in Act 3 I'm sure the moral dilemma would be a harder choice to make. For me at least.

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

No Dave, they are not killing every mage, just the Circle. Because it was Anders with the help of Merril and Hawke who blew up the Chantry, while the Circle had nothing to do with it.

Anders and his destruction of the Chantry wasn't the only reason why the Rite (Right?) was called, though. Meredith was itching to trigger it for a while, she has seen more than enough reason to anull it before and then you've got the destruction of the Chantry which results in:

1) Meredith becomes the one in charge and is now allowed to invoke the Rite (Right?) without needing the go-ahead by anybody else.

2) The public opinion of mages will be sour and they'll demand blood.

Anders destroyed the Chantry willingly knowing that it would eventually cause the templar and mage to fight each other, Meredith not anulling the Circle (when she had full authority) would've only postponed it.

The Circle may have done nothing with the Chantry's destruction but you can't dismiss everything that happens before it and the effect it'll have on the populace.

Well I can't dismiss what happened before. But I also can't dismiss that many probably turned to bloodmagic because Meredith was a bad knight commander, maybe the worst possible. And that the circle of kirkwall was obviously one of the worst. And that the gallows are actually a place where the veil is thinner than in most other places of thedas. I mean if the whole purpose of the cirlce of kirkwall had been to breed bloodmages it could not have done better. As I said, the Chantry and templars did everything wrong.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 07:28 .

[getterg]

My Hawke was 100% for the mages at first, but the level of stupid at the end of the game changed that for me.
*plays through Act III*

Hawke: Hey guys lets work this ou-

Anders: NO THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE EVER *destroys chantry*

*snip annulment, side with mages, kill anders*

Hawke: They're slaughtering completely innocent mag...es

*every 5 seconds a blood mage attacks or an abomination shows up with 10 other demons*

AND THEN, AFTER COMPLETELY SLAUGHTERING THE TEMPLARS WITHOUT A SINGLE LOSS

Orsino: Hey, look, at all those templar corpses! Being the only reasonable mage in this game, I guess its time to use blood magic and attack my allies! btw I was friends with the guy who killed your mom

Oh my god, I have never raged at a game so much

Modifié par getterg, 13 avril 2011 - 07:26 .

[Dave of Canada]

AlexXIV wrote...

But I also can't dismiss that many probably turned to bloodmagic because Meredith was a bad knight commander, maybe the worst possible.

But you admit there's a lot of blood mages?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 avril 2011 - 07:29 .

[AlexXIV]

Dave of Canada wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

But I also can't dismiss that many probably turned to bloodmagic because Meredith was a bad knight commander, maybe the worst possible.

But you admit there's a lot of blood mages? Then you'd probably understand why the Circle's anullment happens even when Orsino surrenders even if you don't support it.

Well it's hard to ignore the waves and waves and more waves ...

As I said I personally don't see bloodmagic as such as an evil. So I'd have a hard time to say kill him, he is a bloodmage. I can see the reasoning of the Annullment, but for once I don't support it, and also I'd have to wonder why the Grand Cleric didn't support it if it was so obvious.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 avril 2011 - 07:31 .

[The Baconer]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's the excuse that Hawke gives if/when he sides with the Templars but the part I bolded is a complete crok as even a cursury look at the game world and game facts show.  The circle mages had all been locked away in the gallows for a long time, and the gallows itself is a highly inaccessible island that used to be  a Tevinter prison!

Then it's odd how many people seem to just come and go, including rogue mages. Or have you not noticed the maleficar that infest parts of the sewers or the Blood Mages roaming the streets of frickin' High Town?

We are also told by Aveline that the guard is keeping order in the city.

But of course you give Aveline the benefit of the doubt when it's part of an argument that favors mages, and doubt her word in every other case.