352 réponses à ce sujet

[Torax]

 @hoorayforicecream,

Maybe if there are enough posts on the subject. It could shatter the fabrics of space and time and alter the game to fit their liking.

Like Magic! 

[hoorayforicecream]

Torax wrote...

 @hoorayforicecream,

Maybe if there are enough posts on the subject. It could shatter the fabrics of space and time and alter the game to fit their liking.

Like Magic! 

As a thought exercise, I wondered what would happen if random citizenry of Kirkwall tried saying that this or that was illegal to various authority figures. I came to the conclusion that said person would typically either get punched, murder knifed, or imprisoned. Or even some combination of the three.

Then I went back to thinking about a story for the next chapter of 'Snacking' and was a lot happier for it.

[Torax]

I find that threads about the whole ending parts of DA2 are far more tolerable if you're listening to City Hall - Tenacious D

Then I realize I can't change any of the game and then settle on listening to How to Save a Life - The Fray

Then I get over it all and just listen to something fun like Feel Good Inc. - Gorillaz

It all works out in the end.

edited to add.

Bonus Track. The theme of Hawke's tale = Viva La Vida - Coldplay

Modifié par Torax, 17 avril 2011 - 07:44 .

[Paeyne]

The Big Nothing wrote...

One mage bombs a Chantry and the paranoid Templar Knight-Commander uses this to justify the slaughter of every mage in Kirkwall. Still, the true villain is neither mages nor templars, but Anders, who was still a man when he fused with the spirit of Justice; only when he succumbed to his thirst for vengeance and knowingly murdered innocents did he cease to be a man and become an abomination.
The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

- TBN

 

Its nice that you have a passionate opinion.  People should.

I would argue that it is the fact the Right of Annulment exists that is the evil, but that is a 21st century view.

I might only remind you that the general population thought the various Inquistions by the Roman Catholic church from roughly the 12th to 16th century were necessary and just.  Just insert the word heretic for mage and suddenly  we can't look down our noses at the Templars quite so readily without being complete hypocrites..

[TheBlackBaron]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, The Big Nothing? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for the Mages and you curse the Templars. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the Annulment, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

[sassperella]

The Big Nothing wrote...

One mage bombs a Chantry and the paranoid Templar Knight-Commander uses this to justify the slaughter of every mage in Kirkwall. Still, the true villain is neither mages nor templars, but Anders, who was still a man when he fused with the spirit of Justice; only when he succumbed to his thirst for vengeance and knowingly murdered innocents did he cease to be a man and become an abomination.
The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

- TBN

 

Meredith had already called for the rite of annulment way before Anders's 'moment'. Speak to the templar in the Gallows in act 3 Ser Kerrick or something like that, though he may have been killed in some people's playthrough. So she just used Anders as an excuse, regardless of whether it was a fair reason to call annulment on all mages.

The Devine was considering an exalted march on all of kirkwall cleansing the whole city including innocents - ie everyone. See the Seb downloadable content. So should the Chantry be able to kill everyone in the name of their religion?

It's also questionable that Anders's murdered innocents depending on what you believe (see the time of day in game it's night time - just afterwards you're in Lowtown (night) on the map. The only people in the chantry in the explosion were the grand cleric, some templars and one sister - no civilians. As we know from the game the chantry is closed at night.) The argument then falls as to whether you believe the chantry is innocent and that's for another debate.

At the end of the day, everyone was crazy, Kirkwall is built on a Hellmouth - just read the Enigma of Kirwalls you can find lying around throughout the game. It was not a happy place to be and with the Idol from the deeproads as well it was never going to end prettily.

But to the OP it's a game, it's not black and white, Bioware deliberately use a palette of greys when creating their stories and it's up to the player to interpret it how they wish and also to act how they wish within the framework of that story.  Hawke killed many people in the game and some of those could be considered innocent depending on your viewpoint, so it's subjective and while you're entitled to your opinion just remember that in a world like Thedas, when roleplaying a fantasy character you are likely to make decisions you wouldn't make in the real world, but that doesn't make you a bad person.

[Paraxial]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

To be clear, they want to role-play romancing their sister. And she is pretty hot.

[Speakeasy13]

Paeyne wrote...
I would argue that it is the fact the Right of Annulment exists that is the evil, but that is a 21st century view.

I don't think that logic is 21st Century at all. It still happens this day and age.

"Oh, some Muslim terrorists flew an airplane into our buildings, let's go bomb TWO Muslim countries that MIGHT have something to do with it!"

[Speakeasy13]

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, The Big Nothing? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for the Mages and you curse the Templars. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the Annulment, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

I don't disapporve your logic, I just don't think there's a need to glorify the whole them-or-us logic.

That's only one side of things. You're just looking at the result not the cause. Yes we need walls, but where do you build them? Some walls are used to protect us, but often to oppress others. If the area of that wall alrdy violated others, the of course others are going to rebel! It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today. We keep calling certain groups terrorists, but why do they hate us in the 1st place? I'm not saying terrorism was justified, but neither was decades of oppression.

Some ppl are pracmatic, and some are idealistic; some ppl keep walls to protect their families, and some ppl destroy walls and extend the family. No one side is more neccessary than the other.

Modifié par Speakeasy13, 17 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[Veinslay]

Foolsfolly wrote...

The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, The Big Nothing? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for the Mages and you curse the Templars. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the Annulment, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

Nice to see there are still A Few Good Men

[88mphSlayer]

i don't remember people debating over the right of annulment declared in Origins this much - also started by a rogue mage with innocents involved

the way i see it i have little control over meredith or orsino's actions and they're the ones conducting the civil war, if i'm forced to basically kill both of them i'd rather ensure that moderate templars still exist in kirkwall and that i become viscount, than to plant the seeds of further death and destruction by ensuring no moderate templars exist and nobody to rule the city

kirkwall isn't just populated by oppressed mages and templars, there's way more regular innocent people who are being affected, yet nobody cares what happens to them

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 17 avril 2011 - 01:10 .

[AlexXIV]

88mphSlayer wrote...

i don't remember people debating over the right of annulment declared in Origins this much - also started by a rogue mage with innocents involved

the way i see it i have little control over meredith or orsino's actions and they're the ones conducting the civil war, if i'm forced to basically kill both of them i'd rather ensure that moderate templars still exist in kirkwall and that i become viscount, than to plant the seeds of further death and destruction by ensuring no moderate templars exist and nobody to rule the city

kirkwall isn't just populated by oppressed mages and templars, there's way more regular innocent people who are being affected, yet nobody cares what happens to them

DA:O made it clear that there are better options than evoking the RoA. I really think the fact that in DA2 Bioware does not explicitly explain that there were better options makes some people assume that there were no better options. Cullen himself states that the situation in Ferelden was worse and the RoA was not needed. But can you blame people for selective memory? Well, yes you can.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 avril 2011 - 02:08 .

[AlexXIV]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with swords. Who's gonna do it? You? You, The Big Nothing? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for the Mages and you curse the Templars. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the Annulment, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

I don't disapporve your logic, I just don't think there's a need to glorify the whole them-or-us logic.

That's only one side of things. You're just looking at the result not the cause. Yes we need walls, but where do you build them? Some walls are used to protect us, but often to oppress others. If the area of that wall alrdy violated others, the of course others are going to rebel! It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today. We keep calling certain groups terrorists, but why do they hate us in the 1st place? I'm not saying terrorism was justified, but neither was decades of oppression.

Some ppl are pracmatic, and some are idealistic; some ppl keep walls to protect their families, and some ppl destroy walls and extend the family. No one side is more neccessary than the other.

Well it is a move quote and the guy who said it went to prison because he ordered a 'Code Red' on a person who's performance was not as good as of other soldiers. The reason for it was actually that the man was had serious health problems. So the marines, instead of protecting someone who was too weak to defend himself, they killed him.

That's basically what happens in DA2 as well. The templar's job would have been to protect the mages. And the citizens of Kirkwall. But what they do is murdering the mages and causing the war in the process. If you say that Anders and Meredith were insane/possessed, you have to wonder about Cullen and the other templars. Or Hawke. They were not possessed, so what was their excuse?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 avril 2011 - 02:19 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today.

There are people in our world who have unremovable, exceptionally high chances of instant insanity against their will and can effectively blow up a city block at any given time without any equipment, supplies, or even prior intent?

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...
It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today.

There are people in our world who have unremovable, exceptionally high chances of instant insanity against their will and can effectively blow up a city block at any given time without any equipment, supplies, or even prior intent?

I think he meant the situation that conflicts have to be solved with violence because the people in power on either side are unwilling or unable to find a better solution.

[Asdara]

Didn't want to slog through the argument in the Act 3 Endgame thread eh? I can't say I blame you, but now we're going to rehash it here - hopefully in brief this time - and you'll miss out on all of last week's intellectual triumphs (on both sides).

My stance remains that there is a valid argument for either decision depending on the perspective a character stood from at different points previous in the game. They are both horrific choices that shouldn't have come down to Hawke in the first place, but other structures had been eroded or destroyed by then and the authority derived from being a hero was one of the last standing when it hit the fan.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Big Nothing wrote...

One mage bombs a Chantry and the paranoid Templar Knight-Commander uses this to justify the slaughter of every mage in Kirkwall. Still, the true villain is neither mages nor templars, but Anders, who was still a man when he fused with the spirit of Justice; only when he succumbed to his thirst for vengeance and knowingly murdered innocents did he cease to be a man and become an abomination.
The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice

- TBN
 

Since the game does not offer real choice, let's look at the alternative.

This is the largest Templar force in Thedas, and we know that mages become much more vulnerable to possession when they are under stress. A revolution like that is bound to attract a lot of demons, especially since we know Kirkwall has a thin veil. Now imagine if you side with the mages and you win. Who is going to guard and regulate the mages now during this critical time? What if the people of Kirkwall do indeed want blood, do you fight them as well? Who is going to make sure that mages resist the temptation of possession during all this madness? 

And then, even if you do win, we know that the Chantry is considering an Exalted March. There was a very big chance they would have invaded Kirkwall and more lives would have been lost.
Another point is that maybe Hawke feels like he could fix the mess after he helps the Templars, by becoming Viscount.

All things considered, annulment is as valid and justifiable a choice as saving the mages.
The limitation on choice is partially the result of Hawke's laziness and inability to do anything for 3 years.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2011 - 02:38 .

[Augustei]

The Big Nothing wrote...

One mage bombs a Chantry and the paranoid Templar Knight-Commander uses this to justify the slaughter of every mage in Kirkwall. Still, the true villain is neither mages nor templars, but Anders, who was still a man when he fused with the spirit of Justice; only when he succumbed to his thirst for vengeance and knowingly murdered innocents did he cease to be a man and become an abomination.
The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

- TBN


 

I know, how dare we us evil cruel bastards! How dare we have a choice that is different to yours we should all share the same views and agree on everything. Opinions are bad!

also what KnightofPhoenix  said is pretty spot on

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 17 avril 2011 - 02:37 .

[Dean_the_Young]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...
It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today.

There are people in our world who have unremovable, exceptionally high chances of instant insanity against their will and can effectively blow up a city block at any given time without any equipment, supplies, or even prior intent?

I think he meant the situation that conflicts have to be solved with violence because the people in power on either side are unwilling or unable to find a better solution.

Then it doesn't perfectly mirrors when the entire underlying context is different, does it?

Being able to find a better solution depends on context as well. It always does.

[AlexXIV]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Big Nothing wrote...

One mage bombs a Chantry and the paranoid Templar Knight-Commander uses this to justify the slaughter of every mage in Kirkwall. Still, the true villain is neither mages nor templars, but Anders, who was still a man when he fused with the spirit of Justice; only when he succumbed to his thirst for vengeance and knowingly murdered innocents did he cease to be a man and become an abomination.
The annulment of Kirkwall's Circle was an injustice

- TBN
 

Since the game does not offer real choice, let's look at the alternative.

This is the largest Templar force in Thedas, and we know that mages become much more vulnerable to possession when they are under stress. A revolution like that is bound to attract a lot of demons, especially since we know Kirkwall has a thin veil. Now imagine if you side with the mages and you win. Who is going to guard and regulate the mages now during this critical time? What if the people of Kirkwall do indeed want blood, do you fight them as well? Who is going to make sure that mages resist the temptation of possession during all this madness? 

And then, even if you do win, we know that the Chantry is considering an Exalted March. There was a very big chance they would have invaded Kirkwall and more lives would have been lost.
Another point is that maybe Hawke feels like he could fix the mess after he helps the Templars, by becoming Viscount.

All things considered, annulment is as valid a reason as saving the mages.
The limitation on choice is partially the result of Hawke's laziness and inability to do anything for 3 years.

Sadly we don't know that. We don't know if Hawke being Viscount does help much. I mean after all Hawke disappears within the next 2-3 years. Aslo we don't know which side saves more innocents. I mean if it was made clear that Hawke siding with the mages would result into less unneccesary deaths, ok. But does it? All we know is that Hawke is going to kill more or less innocent people if he/she sides with the templars.

[KnightofPhoenix]

sassperella wrote...
But to the OP it's a game, it's not black and white, Bioware deliberately use a palette of greys when creating their stories

In act 3, it became all black. Actually red, if that is supposed to represent madness.

[Augustei]

Also yeah our society is quite different to that of Medieval Europe and things based off it.

For example; Vlad Tepes was regarded as a hero by many a people for holding back the Turks...well helping and still to this day even is regarded as a national hero in his country... And yet the guy had the morality of a Satanic fanatic.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 17 avril 2011 - 02:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

AlexXIV wrote...
Sadly we don't know that. We don't know if Hawke being Viscount does help much. I mean after all Hawke disappears within the next 2-3 years. Aslo we don't know which side saves more innocents. I mean if it was made clear that Hawke siding with the mages would result into less unneccesary deaths, ok. But does it? All we know is that Hawke is going to kill more or less innocent people if he/she sides with the templars.

Hawke doesn't know he is going to disapear after 2-3 years.
Hawke can feel that annuling would save more lives.

Not metagaming here. Especially since both choices virtually end up with the exact same result.

[AlexXIV]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...
It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today.

There are people in our world who have unremovable, exceptionally high chances of instant insanity against their will and can effectively blow up a city block at any given time without any equipment, supplies, or even prior intent?

I think he meant the situation that conflicts have to be solved with violence because the people in power on either side are unwilling or unable to find a better solution.

Then it doesn't perfectly mirrors when the entire underlying context is different, does it?

Being able to find a better solution depends on context as well. It always does.

The problem with the better solution is that if one of the both sides proves to be ... unreasonable, then the other side will never have a chance to find a solution. It takes two parties for any compromise.

[Augustei]

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Speakeasy13 wrote...
It's a situiation that perfectly mirrors the world today.

There are people in our world who have unremovable, exceptionally high chances of instant insanity against their will and can effectively blow up a city block at any given time without any equipment, supplies, or even prior intent?

I think he meant the situation that conflicts have to be solved with violence because the people in power on either side are unwilling or unable to find a better solution.

Then it doesn't perfectly mirrors when the entire underlying context is different, does it?

Being able to find a better solution depends on context as well. It always does.

The problem with the better solution is that if one of the both sides proves to be ... unreasonable, then the other side will never have a chance to find a solution. It takes two parties for any compromise.

Two major problems prior to the descision for Annulment being made was

1) Orsino indeed was harboring blood mages a great many of them, and was one himself! Just like Meredith suspected and he should have let her root them out instead of protesting like an idiot.

2) Meredith Apparently sent for the annulment to Justina V before Anders actions (idk if this is true but I keep hearing it)