352 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

I also am not required to show it either.  All I have to argue is the negative.  Unless you can show that every member of the circle deserved to die when the order was issued, the Right of Annulment is clearly morally wrong especially when the Circle is isolated and can be quarantined...and the actual guilty party (Anders) tried and punished.

-Polaris

You're acting like Kirkwall is a normal town and it's just another day in the neighborhood.  It's a war, and unfortunately mages cannot be disarmed except by Tranquility.  Too late for that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You're acting like Kirkwall is a normal town and it's just another day in the neighborhood.  It's a war, and unfortunately mages cannot be disarmed except by Tranquility.  Too late for that.

How? The Circle didn't declare war on Kirkwall. Most mages seem content with running from Kirkwall and the few who do harm Kirkwall citizens can hardly be considered as instigating war. Thes one who can be seen as such are the Resolutionists and we only know of one activity, which is to assassinate Leliana and the Grand Cleric. And even then, it wouldn't be a proper declaration of war, as they do not represent the Circle. Neither does Anders.

It became war because Meredith wished it to be war. Despite his idiocy, Orsino clearly did not want this.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2011 - 03:52 .

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Definitely, and without Ander's foolishness. All three are to blame (four if we want to count justice. Five with Hawke).

Have to count Justice, more than Anders even, I don't think Anders would have ever decided to get involved without him. And some versions of Anders definitely wouldn't have ended up blowing the chantry without him.

I personally attribute the most responsability to Meredith, but she is far from being the only one.

For Kirkwall's problems overall, absolutely.

For the problems within Kirkwall's Circle, I still give equal blame to Orsino.

If Merry is willing to let a potentially dangerous apostate run around free for years because she might be useful some time in the future, than certainly she'd be willing to make a few compromises with a First Enchanter who was proven to be useful. Orsino was a total failure. He was supposed to work with Meredith for the benefit of the circle. He was supposed to be an advocate for his people. How can you represent your peoples interests when you are unable and unwilling to work with the one person you're supposed to be pleading their case to?

Likewise, how are you supposed to regulate and supervise a group of people, if you are not willing to cooperate with their representative?

We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

Both are at fault, but I think Meredith had far more options than Orsino. She is in the position of power, she could afford to make the first reconciliatory moves.

I think because Meredith had more power, Orsino needed to be the one to make more of an effort. As long as Meredith could just steamroll over him, there was no reason for her not to. Orsino needed to give her a reason. I'm also not convinced that Meredith 'started it' and not Orsino.

And I am tempted to dismiss the mage helping Meredith argument, because it's gameplay and doesn't make much sense, like her leaving Ander's fate to Hawke also not making sense, but I am not sure it's fair. But I really don't think it makes that much sense. Like Cullen watching you do magic, even blood magic, and not even noticing. That's pushing incompetence to just.....the intelligence of rocks.  

But even so, Hawke is one person. Orsino leads the Circle. That on its own might have prompted Meredith to consider Orsino a threat, more than Hawke. Hence her willingness to be respectful.

It depends on how unreasonable you think Meredith was. If Hawke has the respect of the masses and is supporting Meredith despite being an apostate, it works for me. Less so when Hawke is speaking against her. Anders is certainly a case of gameplay trumping story. No question there.

Modifié par Deztyn, 18 avril 2011 - 03:55 .

[IanPolaris]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Polaris, you can't prove that the Annulment does not save lives. It's clear in the game play that there are demons, abominations, and mages tearing up Lowtown and the Docks away from the Gallows. They clearly can leave the island when they want to.

You can't prove that it does, and given how extreme the Right of Annulment is, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you.

There were a number of mages outside the gallows but many (I'd say most) were apostates.  There were a few that Orsino took with him and a few that were outside for some unknown reason (which I find extremely odd myself).  Also you have to judge a morality of an action based on the information available when the action was made.  By that standard, when the Right was issued, there was no demonic or abomination assault on the city.  There was no threat by the circles mages at all (and indeed the act of terrorism wasn't even something the circle did!)  All that happened AFTER Meredith declared war on all mages.  The same applies to Orisino's bloodmagic.  At the time of the declaration, there is no evidence that Orsino is a bloodmage.  At most you know that he was pen-pals with a notorious maleficar...suspicious but not enough to justify the annulment of a whole circle certainly.  Not even Knight Captain Cullen thinks this.

-Polaris

[Foolsfolly]

I can prove the Right of Annulment isn't needed to save Kirkwall lives. Why? Because the mages are already locked away on an island with very restricted (at best) and thus easily guardable access to the city....assuming the very worst about the underground tunnels.

Again I point to the damage to Lowtown and the Docks, the presence of mages, abominations, and demons in those places. And I further move to add the Blood Mage gang that runs Hightown.

The Gallows is not Alcatraz, people seem to be able to just walk out of there whenever they want to.

Therefore, the fact that it's under Templar care and off in the bay is clearly not enough. As the seven years of blood mages and abomination encounters underscores.

And when they go crazy in the end the Annulment will put an end to that. Siding with the mages only removes the small amount of control that exists, allowing them to further run rampant.

It's pretty clear that the choice is: Does this Minority deserve freedom at the expense of a majority. You clearly think they should. I tend to believe that a Kirkwaller deserves the right to not be slaughtered by a blood mage or have their homes destroyed by abominations. If a few innocent die to ensure that then I still saved lives in the long run.

In short, the "save the town" argument is a crock designed to make annulment invokers feel better about it. Meredith doesn't bother and doesn't care about the town. She has mages to kill and makes that attitude crystal clear.

Meredith is insane and no one has ever said otherwise. EVER. Forget about that nonsense. She's as crazy as Anders. The thing to focus on is the fact that a large percentage of the Circle is corrupt, this is fact. The game goes out of its way to have even Pro-Mage characters fighting abominations and crazed mages.

You remove order and law and let those things run wild and people will die. The town guard are useless, the Templars are the only defense that city has and if you slaughter them than many more die.

I also am not required to show it either. All I have to argue is the negative. Unless you can show that every member of the circle deserved to die when the order was issued, the Right of Annulment is clearly morally wrong especially when the Circle is isolated and can be quarantined...and the actual guilty party (Anders) tried and punished.

The game railroads the player in the end. It's an artificial and stupid situation. Hawke's only choice is to side with one crazed idiot or the other. I cannot change that no matter how stupid that is. It's is an absolute flaw of the game.

But there is a choice. Do you let madness escape into the city or do you curb-stomp the madness and restore order and law.

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 18 avril 2011 - 03:58 .

[IanPolaris]

It's a false dilmena. Even if you side with the mages, there is no evidence that you are letting "mages run wild in Kirkwall....Tevinter 2.0". You are defending a group of innocent people from getting legally slaughtered (sure there may be some guilty ones, but if there is even one innocent mage that has been unjustly sentence to death by Meredith, then the moral choice is clear....you defend the one innocent even if it means defending the guilty with that one).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Polaris, you can't prove that the Annulment does not save lives. It's clear in the game play that there are demons, abominations, and mages tearing up Lowtown and the Docks away from the Gallows. They clearly can leave the island when they want to.

You have mages fighting templars in Lowtown and the Docks because the Right of Annulment was invoked, and Hawke has relatively little information about the mages living in the Gallows. At best, we have Orsino and Bethany as the two mages we have interaction with, and they couldn't be more dissimilar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...
For Kirkwall's problems overall, absolutely.

For the problems within Kirkwall's Circle, I still give equal blame to Orsino.

They are so closely entertwined as to be almost insperable. At least that's the way I see it.

We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

But we do know that even before act 1, she is no ordinary Knight Commander. 
Regardless, even if she did try, her efforts would have been in vain because she exposed a major weakness, which brings us to this:

I think because Meredith had more power, Orsino needed to be the one to make more of an effort. As long as Meredith could just steamroll over him, there was no reason for her not to. Orsino needed to give her a reason. I'm also not convinced that Meredith 'started it' and not Orsino.

She had more power, but she created a weakness. Popular sympathy for mages. That weakness is too tempting for any mage not to try and exploit (hence Orsino trying to rally nobles with meh speeches).

Had she played her cards right and secured her negotiating cards, Orsino would have had little choice but to compromise. And add civility and politness in there, and charm but Meredith is far from being charming. She's clearly more of a warrior than anything else.

That's why I view Kirkwall's problems as very entertwined with Circle problems.

And I think "he / she started it!" is for five year olds
All have their fair share of blame. But all in all, I'd put the most responsability on Meredith. But she isn't the only one who started it.

It depends on how unreasonable you think Meredith was. If Hawke has the
respect of the masses and is supporting Meredith despite being an
apostate, it works for me. Less so when Hawke is speaking against her. Anders is certainly a case of gameplay trumping story. No question there.

It works for me too, but more with Hawke being a convenient or useful ally. Perhaps she can find respect as she does have pity on Orsino. But in the logn run, even without the idol, I think Meredith would have gone paranoid over an poastate who is not only loose, but may even challenge her power. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2011 - 04:04 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...
We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

Actually we do.  We have Grand Cleric Elthina holding out for peace saying that she had talked with Orsino and he seemed to be a reasonable man.  Notice that she damns Meredith by her silence and it takes two to negotiate but only one (Meredith) to make negatiations impossible.

Not enough?  We know that from the start of Act 3 (if Ser Karras is alive) that Meredith has gone over the Grand Cleric's head and asked the Divine directly for the Right of Annulment.  If you are willing to put your wn career at risk by bypassing the chain of command (a no-no in a paramilitary order like the Templars), then she is clearly not going to negotiate with the person she is trying to kill....and if you side with her and she gives "Best Served Cold" she tells you straight up she is trying to annul the circle and Orsino along with it and has no intention of negotiating.

Not enough?  If you side with Orisino, you can put Meredith in a box in front of the crowd and essentially force her to admit that she's unilaterally taken the position of Dictator of Kirkwall and then sneers and says that she and only she will decide if she steps down.  This provokes (and rightfully so) an open revolt within the nobles because at the point KC Meredith is taking political authority that she is not entitled to...and doing so openly at the point of a Templar sword.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

I never thought I'd be on the same side as Lob and Polaris at the same time

But I shoudl clarify that I do not necessarily think those who invoke annulment are "immoral". In fact my first post here was my opinion that annulment could be justified. But I think what should not be forgotten is Meredith's culpability. I can understand wanting to fix her mistake (even when I do not feel annulment is doing that), but she should really consider retiring after that. Or a Hawke doing annulment should consider removing her. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2011 - 04:13 .

[Rifneno]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Therefore, the fact that it's under Templar care and off in the bay is clearly not enough. As the seven years of blood mages and abomination encounters underscores.

From what we've seen with the Band of Three, there is no reason to believe it's only seven years.  It's quite likely to have been going on for decades or even centuries there.  And yet the city lives on.  Apparently the mages are not as dangerous as some seem to think.

It's pretty clear that the choice is: Does this Minority deserve freedom at the expense of a majority. You clearly think they should. I tend to believe that a Kirkwaller deserves the right to not be slaughtered by a blood mage or have their homes destroyed by abominations. If a few innocent die to ensure that then I still saved lives in the long run.

Damn right I think they do.  I don't believe in descimination, sorry if that makes me the bad guy.  I believe in innocent until proven guilty.  I've seen as much or more guilt from the Chantry's side as from the mages.  I'm also unconvinced that the Chantry even does lower incidents of abominations and blood mages.  Their heavy-handed policies encourage mages who just want to live a normal life to avoid the system, not learn how to manage their power, take in many cases fight to the death so they won't be made tranquil.  If you try to tame a lion by beating it into submission, somebody's going to get mauled.

You remove order and law and let those things run wild and people will die. The town guard are useless, the Templars are the only defense that city has and if you slaughter them than many more die.

Then the templars should've thought of that before they followed an order of genocide from a lunatic in response to a crime their targets didn't even commit.  Exactly how far is the Chantry allowed to go to "protect the public?"  How about we just get that Tevinter list of every family known to produce a mage and start some wholesale slaughter?  That'd save lots of innocent in the long run!  I've said it before and I'll say it again:  If Andraste came back, she'd be at the head of the army to take down the filth using her name as an excuse for their crimes.

But there is a choice. Do you let madness escape into the city or do you curb-stomp the madness and restore order and law.

Order will be restored when the Chantry is in ashes.  You should watch the ending again if you think you're "stopping the madness."

[Foolsfolly]

You have mages fighting templars in Lowtown and the Docks because the Right of Annulment was invoked

They shouldn't be out of the Gallows in the first place. So they're criminals just for that alone.

and Hawke has relatively little information about the mages living in the Gallows.

Agreed. It's another absolute flaw of the game. So much is about the mages and the templars but we only have hearsay and rumor to base our decisions on. We never step foot inside the Circle and see the conditions for ourselves. We cannot formulate an honest unbiased opinion without all the facts. The game denies us that.

If we knew the Circle and the Templar abuses first hand perhaps we could understand more which side is right and wrong.

But in the end even that doesn't matter because the game forces a stupid "This Monster or this Monster" choice at the end of the game. It stops being about the Mages and Templar abuses because the game abandons those issues the moment Anders blows up the Chantry. Once that happens you have to decide who gets slaughtered and you must consider the consequences of that choice.

Freeing the mages would be a big rallying cry for other Circles (I have no idea how killing them makes Hawke a rallying cry for mages but whatever Varric) but without law and order and a way to enforce it the mages will run rampant.

Look at this way, if you Annul the Circle the people of Kirkwall demand Hawke becomes Viscount. They are overjoyed at being saved by another massive threat to them. If you side with the mages Hawke's a fugitive. Ultimately they both run off (for DLC no doubt) but the fact that Kirkwall celebrates one choice and not the other should show the state of Kirkwall once the mages are "free".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Foolsfolly wrote...
Agreed. It's another absolute flaw of the game. So much is about the mages and the templars but we only have hearsay and rumor to base our decisions on. We never step foot inside the Circle and see the conditions for ourselves. We cannot formulate an honest unbiased opinion without all the facts. The game denies us that.

If we knew the Circle and the Templar abuses first hand perhaps we could understand more which side is right and wrong.

Agreed, add to that character development for Meredith and Orsino. Two encounters and quests at the very end is not enough to formulate a truly informed opinion.

And in such an instance, Hawke would be better served to coordinate efforts with the guards to minimize civilian casualties, and evacuate certain quarters. That would have been an interesting option. And it would fit the conspiracy theory of Hawke instigating all this. His neutrality might be misinterpretted as an attempt to get rid of both sides. Especially if he becomes Viscount after this.

[Foolsfolly]

Damn right I think they do. I don't believe in descimination, sorry if that makes me the bad guy.

It's discrimination with a purpose not just because someone is born a certain way or believes a certain thing. Mages are dangerous. The only country without a Circle is the one with massive amounts of slaves and slavers. The same people who built Kirkwall to make a lake of blood to power some unknown spell.

The entire point of the Fenris character is to remind the player that power corrupts and mages have more power than anyone else.

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

If there is one thing this game taught me it's that Kirkwall would have best been left to the Qunari. Kill them all and let the Maker sort them out.

[Foolsfolly]

Agreed, add to that character development for Meredith and Orsino. Two encounters and quests at the very end is not enough to formulate a truly informed opinion.

And in such an instance, Hawke would be better served to coordinate efforts with the guards to minimize civilian casualties, and evacuate certain quarters

Total agreement. I was never one for the "Walk away" third option. I always wanted a "Side with Aveline's Guards" third option. The civilians are my primary concern.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MelfinaofOutlawStar wrote...

If there is one thing this game taught me it's that Kirkwall would have best been left to the Qunari. Kill them all and let the Maker sort them out.

Exterminatus the hell out of them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 avril 2011 - 04:38 .

[LobselVith8]

Foolsfolly wrote...

They shouldn't be out of the Gallows in the first place. So they're criminals just for that alone.

Orsino was in the company of mages, and we have no information on why the other mages were outside the Gallows.

Foolsfolly wrote...

Agreed. It's another absolute flaw of the game. So much is about the mages and the templars but we only have hearsay and rumor to base our decisions on. We never step foot inside the Circle and see the conditions for ourselves. We cannot formulate an honest unbiased opinion without all the facts. The game denies us that.

If we knew the Circle and the Templar abuses first hand perhaps we could understand more which side is right and wrong.

The problem is the end doesn't even bother with addressing the dicotomy between the two sides when it forces Hawke to choose who to side with. Anders is standing right in front of Meredith, and confesses what he did to Grand Cleric Elthina and every clergy member and templar in the Kirkwall Chantry. It's not an issue of whether one agrees with the mages or the templars, but that the man responsible is admitting to killing people because he wanted to end any hope of compromise, and instead Meredith pretty much ignores Anders' existance while declaring the Right of Annulment.

Foolsfolly wrote...

But in the end even that doesn't matter because the game forces a stupid "This Monster or this Monster" choice at the end of the game. It stops being about the Mages and Templar abuses because the game abandons those issues the moment Anders blows up the Chantry. Once that happens you have to decide who gets slaughtered and you must consider the consequences of that choice.

I agree that it ignores the mage and templar debate to force an artifical choice at its conclusion.

Foolsfolly wrote...

Freeing the mages would be a big rallying cry for other Circles (I have no idea how killing them makes Hawke a rallying cry for mages but whatever Varric) but without law and order and a way to enforce it the mages will run rampant.

Hawke seems to be a reminder of templar oppression if he sides with the templars, as opposed to the hero he is among the mages if he sides with the Circle of Kirkwall. I'd assume it's a choice between being the hero of either the mages or the templars, and being the villain of the other.

Foolsfolly wrote...

Look at this way, if you Annul the Circle the people of Kirkwall demand Hawke becomes Viscount. They are overjoyed at being saved by another massive threat to them. If you side with the mages Hawke's a fugitive. Ultimately they both run off (for DLC no doubt) but the fact that Kirkwall celebrates one choice and not the other should show the state of Kirkwall once the mages are "free".

The  "many survivors" leave to the other Circles to spread word about what happened, if we believe what Varric said at the end of DA2.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You're acting like Kirkwall is a normal town and it's just another day in the neighborhood.  It's a war, and unfortunately mages cannot be disarmed except by Tranquility.  Too late for that.

How? The Circle didn't declare war on Kirkwall. Most mages seem content with running from Kirkwall and the few who do harm Kirkwall citizens can hardly be considered as instigating war. Thes one who can be seen as such are the Resolutionists and we only know of one activity, which is to assassinate Leliana and the Grand Cleric. And even then, it wouldn't be a proper declaration of war, as they do not represent the Circle. Neither does Anders.

It became war because Meredith wished it to be war. Despite his idiocy, Orsino clearly did not want this.

Meredith is right that the populace will see it as such, as they in fact do.  Again, this is not a drawing room with politicians debating over cigars and brandy.  You don't necessarily have to "declare a war" to be in one.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[Foolsfolly]

The problem is the end doesn't even bother with addressing the dicotomy between the two sides when it forces Hawke to choose who to side with. Anders is standing right in front of Meredith, and confesses what he did to Grand Cleric Elthina and every clergy member and templar in the Kirkwall Chantry. It's not an issue of whether one agrees with the mages or the templars, but that the man responsible is admitting to killing people because he wanted to end any hope of compromise, and instead Meredith pretty much ignores Anders' existance while declaring the Right of Annulment.

Agreed. It makes just as much sense if Meredith watched the Chantry explode, listen to Anders confess, and then ordered the Templars to kill all the elves in the city.

It's stupid. But Hawke can't even attempt to stop or sway Meredith's mind. The plot requires everyone become monsters and idiots to boot. Actual human incentives were too hard to come up with for Act 3.

There's really nothing good about the Act 3 quest line. It's all stupid and everyone involved is stripped of common sense.

Meredith really has no reason to Annul the Circle. But since Hawke can't stop her or change her mind your choice is which side do you slaughter and how will that affect the civilians of Kirkwall. Or the Mages if that's your concern.

I agree that it ignores the mage and templar debate to force an artifical choice at its conclusion.

There's nothing good about the Act 3 quest-line. I think the Templar/Mage alliance mission with Grace is the worst offender at this. There's no discussion, nothing positve done, you just slaughter regardless of Hawke's intentions or allegiance. That was a huge facepalm of a quest.

Hawke seems to be a reminder of templar oppression if he sides with the templars, as opposed to the hero he is among the mages if he sides with the Circle of Kirkwall. I'd assume it's a choice between being the hero of either the mages or the templars, and being the villain of the other.

I accept this. Varric's line should have been written to convey this better.

The "many survivors" leave to the other Circles to spread word about what happened, if we believe what Varric said at the end of DA2.

Heh, Hawke can't even Annul correctly.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I never thought I'd be on the same side as Lob and Polaris at the same time

But I shoudl clarify that I do not necessarily think those who invoke annulment are "immoral". In fact my first post here was my opinion that annulment could be justified. But I think what should not be forgotten is Meredith's culpability. I can understand wanting to fix her mistake (even when I do not feel annulment is doing that), but she should really consider retiring after that. Or a Hawke doing annulment should consider removing her. 

Well I also thought we should have the option of executing Anders after making him fight in the battle.  Sadly we're limited in such things.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

Actually we do.  We have Grand Cleric Elthina holding out for peace saying that she had talked with Orsino and he seemed to be a reasonable man.  Notice that she damns Meredith by her silence and it takes two to negotiate but only one (Meredith) to make negatiations impossible.

Not enough?  We know that from the start of Act 3 (if Ser Karras is alive) that Meredith has gone over the Grand Cleric's head and asked the Divine directly for the Right of Annulment.  If you are willing to put your wn career at risk by bypassing the chain of command (a no-no in a paramilitary order like the Templars), then she is clearly not going to negotiate with the person she is trying to kill....and if you side with her and she gives "Best Served Cold" she tells you straight up she is trying to annul the circle and Orsino along with it and has no intention of negotiating.

Not enough?  If you side with Orisino, you can put Meredith in a box in front of the crowd and essentially force her to admit that she's unilaterally taken the position of Dictator of Kirkwall and then sneers and says that she and only she will decide if she steps down.  This provokes (and rightfully so) an open revolt within the nobles because at the point KC Meredith is taking political authority that she is not entitled to...and doing so openly at the point of a Templar sword.

-Polaris

All things that Hawke wouldn't necessarily know.

[Deztyn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
For Kirkwall's problems overall, absolutely.

For the problems within Kirkwall's Circle, I still give equal blame to Orsino.

They are so closely entertwined as to be almost insperable. At least that's the way I see it.

By the endgame, I agree.

Before that I see them as two seperate issues about to meet in a head on collision (That then causes a massive 200 car pile-up).

We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

But we do know that even before act 1, she is no ordinary Knight Commander. 

Sure, but it depends on what you think Meredith's motives are. Is her strictness a reaction to problems within the circle? If so, a more accomodating First Enchanter would have made a big difference. Or did she create the problem by being strict? If that's the case it might not matter that Orsino was a useless moron.

The same applies to her politics. Does she take such an active role in Kirkwall's running because of the moderate Viscount's ineffectiveness at dealing with problems like the refugees? Or is he ineffective partly because of Meredith even then and she's just plain old power hungry?

I'm not sure the game gives us enough information to do anything but guess.

She had more power, but she created a weakness. Popular sympathy for mages. That weakness is too tempting for any mage not to try and exploit (hence Orsino trying to rally nobles with meh speeches).

Had she played her cards right and secured her negotiating cards, Orsino would have had little choice but to compromise. And add civility and politness in there, and charm but Meredith is far from being charming. She's clearly more of a warrior than anything else.

That's why I view Kirkwall's problems as very entertwined with Circle problems.

Oh, I agree. This was certainly the case by Act III. I'm just hung up on ways the Act III situation could have been avoided.

And I think "he / she started it!" is for five year olds
All have their fair share of blame. But all in all, I'd put the most responsability on Meredith. But she isn't the only one who started it.

Now I'm imagining Orsino and Meredith as bratty little siblings with Elthina as their mother.

Elthina: Meredith! Stop tormenting Orsino, and go back to your room like a good girl!
Meredith: But it's not fair! He started it!
Orsino: *Blows a rasberry at Meredith*

... actually that's a pretty accurate view of the game isn't it?

It works for me too, but more with Hawke being a convenient or useful ally. Perhaps she can find respect as she does have pity on Orsino. But in the logn run, even without the idol, I think Meredith would have gone paranoid over an poastate who is not only loose, but may even challenge her power. 

And this is where my utter loathing of the idol peeks through. It's almost impossible to guess what Meredith would do or think without the damn thing because we never get to see her without it. At the very least, I'm inclined to think that as long as she believed she had some measure of control over Hawke (Carver or Bethany) she'd be able to keep working with Hawke indefinitely.

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

*snip*

All things that Hawke wouldn't necessarily know.

That is info from act 3 too. I wouldn't call that early game.

[Deztyn]

IanPolaris wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
We don't really have any proof that Meredith isn't willing to cooperate early in the game though. We do have proof that Orsino wasn't cooperating, and was actively working against Meredith's interests by shielding a serial killer, possibly even during Act I, when Quentin abducted a circle mage.

Actually we do.  We have Grand Cleric Elthina holding out for peace saying that she had talked with Orsino and he seemed to be a reasonable man.  Notice that she damns Meredith by her silence and it takes two to negotiate but only one (Meredith) to make negatiations impossible.

Not enough?  We know that from the start of Act 3 (if Ser Karras is alive) that Meredith has gone over the Grand Cleric's head and asked the Divine directly for the Right of Annulment.  If you are willing to put your wn career at risk by bypassing the chain of command (a no-no in a paramilitary order like the Templars), then she is clearly not going to negotiate with the person she is trying to kill....and if you side with her and she gives "Best Served Cold" she tells you straight up she is trying to annul the circle and Orsino along with it and has no intention of negotiating.

Not enough?  If you side with Orisino, you can put Meredith in a box in front of the crowd and essentially force her to admit that she's unilaterally taken the position of Dictator of Kirkwall and then sneers and says that she and only she will decide if she steps down.  This provokes (and rightfully so) an open revolt within the nobles because at the point KC Meredith is taking political authority that she is not entitled to...and doing so openly at the point of a Templar sword.

-Polaris

Polaris, I was talking about earlier in the game. By Act III, Meredith is just a loon with some rational moments. I'll never contest that.

... now if we can still make a good case for using the Right despite Meredith's large helping of crazy is a different line of conversation.

Modifié par Deztyn, 18 avril 2011 - 05:02 .