352 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Hawke can also feel that the best thing to do is not getting involved and walking away. But that's not possible. I find it rather hard to argue which choice makes more sense if the obviously best one is plot-blocked.

[KnightofPhoenix]

AlexXIV wrote...
Hawke can also feel that the best thing to do is not getting involved and walking away. But that's not possible. I find it rather hard to argue which choice makes more sense if the obviously best one is plot-blocked.

Indeed.

Both choices presented in the game are "bad" and don't come close to fixing the problem, and probably the only person who could have done something to prevent all this, was Hawke who didn't do anything for 3 years.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 avril 2011 - 02:48 .

[Beerfish]

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


 

You can certainly think of it this way of you want to ignore the 10,000 blood mages/abominations/demon possessions/mage conspiracies/serial killer mage/ head circle mage insane bit.

[TJPags]

Oh yay.  Another thread about whether the Right of Anullment was the right thing to do, or whether it's a completely evil thing that should never be done.  Haven't had a chance to discuss this in a while. 

In the game, the Right of Anullment exists.  It is the action of last resort when a Circle is deemed lost and irredeemable, and is invoked to prevent mages who have proven themselves dangerous from escaping the Circle and wreaking havoc on an innocent population.  It has been invoked 17 (I think, may have been 16) times in the history of Thedas.

So, no matter what we, the 21st Century people playing the game think, it exists in Thedas, and it has its rationale.

Now, throughout DA2, we are confronted with many - and I do mean MANY - mages who are, in fact, blood mages and/or abominations.  They attack Hawke, they attack Templars, they attack and kill citizens of Kirkwall.  We are confronted with the fact that there is a Mage Underground, which is actively permitting and helping mages to escape from the Circle, which is illegal under the laws that exist in game.

We have one Templar actively shielding a known apostate from other Templars (yes, Thrask was shielding his daughter, a known mage, from being taken to the Gallows).  Understandable from a personal standpoint, but illegal.  We have a known abomination (Anders) walking around the City with impunity.  We have a known blood mage (Merrill) doing the same.  We have the First Enchanter actively aiding the research of a blood mage necromancer who is committing murder throught the City.

In short, there are plenty of reasons why a person playing this game, and thinking in accordance with the laws and rules of Thedas, may legitimately believe that the Kirkwall Circle is lost and irredeemable. 

There are also indications of Templar abuse of the mages within the Gallows.  There are questions of whether all those mages we see on the street are Circle mages who got out, or are apostates.  In short, there are valid reasons why a person playing the games, and thinking in accordance with the laws and rules of Thedas, may NOT think that the Kirkwall Circle is lost and irredeemable.

Neither side is "right".  Neither side is "wrong".

But claiming that people who believe the Right of Annullment was the right thing to do should be on trial at the Thedas equivelant of the Neuremberg Trials is so far over the top, and insulting, as to be absurd.

[Speakeasy13]

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?

Yes. It's called religion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Speakeasy13 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?

Yes. It's called religion.

/facepalm

[Maria Caliban]

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 never knew World War II started when a Jew bombed the Vatican.

[ReallyRue]

I picked the Annulment once. My character had held a murderous grudge against mages ever since that crazy mage made her mother into a weird stitch-up-doll-wife thing. She was just waiting for an opportunity to kill them all. She had a little bit of blood mage paranoia because of that.

Has anyone chosen the Rite as a mageHawke? What was the reasoning there?

[Addai]

If you actually play the templar ending and listen to the dialogue, Hawke gives the rationale why even a sane, non-evil person can carry out the Right of Annulment. It's to limit casualties in the city by a pre-emptive strike. Not just for the sake of the immediate conflict, but to head off an Exalted March. Yes, it's scorched earth, but this is the call wartime leaders sometimes make, even if they consider the targets friendly fire.

So, to the OP and others echoing, get off your high horses. There are good reasons to choose either ending without being "evil."

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

If you actually play the templar ending and listen to the dialogue, Hawke gives the rationale why even a sane, non-evil person can carry out the Right of Annulment. It's to limit casualties in the city by a pre-emptive strike. Not just for the sake of the immediate conflict, but to head off an Exalted March. Yes, it's scorched earth, but this is the call wartime leaders sometimes make, even if they consider the targets friendly fire.

So, to the OP and others echoing, get off your high horses. There are good reasons to choose either ending without being "evil."

The problem is the rational is horse manure and anyone that's paid any attention to the geography of Kirkwall knows it.  The Circle mages except for the very few that either accompanied Orsino or were exempted from confinement (and with Meredith that would be a VERY small number) are all locked in their cells in the gallows and had been for weeks.  Act 3 makes that very clear and Meredith cracked down further after the events in Best Served Cold.

At the time of the declaration, there was NO chaos in the city and NO threat from a bunch of mages locked away on an isolated island away from the city!

So there is not a real good moral reason to pick the Templars.  The OP is completely right about that.  I would suggest that some others stop finding excuses for the inexcusable.

-Polaris

[The Big Nothing]

Maria Caliban 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, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

- TBN

I never knew World War II started when a Jew bombed the Vatican.

Attempted genocide is the parallel here. Every facet of an event doesn't need to match up in a comparison.

The Big Nothing: Meredith tried to wipe out a people like a certain 20th century Fuhrer.

Maria Caliban: I didn't realize Meredith had a Chaplin-stache.

Well done.

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 17 avril 2011 - 06:56 .

[Torax]

The Big Nothing wrote...

Maria Caliban 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, and anybody who thinks it was a good call should be standing trial at the Dragon Age equivalent of Nuremberg.

- TBN

I never knew World War II started when a Jew bombed the Vatican.

Attempted genocide is the parallel here. Every facet of an event doesn't need to match up in a comparison.

The Big Nothing: Meredith tried to wipe out a people like a certain 20th century Fuhrer.

Maria Caliban: I didn't realize Meredith had a Chaplin-stache.

Well done.

How do you know she doesn't have a Chaplin-stache  

Modifié par Torax, 17 avril 2011 - 06:58 .

[TJPags]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If you actually play the templar ending and listen to the dialogue, Hawke gives the rationale why even a sane, non-evil person can carry out the Right of Annulment. It's to limit casualties in the city by a pre-emptive strike. Not just for the sake of the immediate conflict, but to head off an Exalted March. Yes, it's scorched earth, but this is the call wartime leaders sometimes make, even if they consider the targets friendly fire.

So, to the OP and others echoing, get off your high horses. There are good reasons to choose either ending without being "evil."

The problem is the rational is horse manure and anyone that's paid any attention to the geography of Kirkwall knows it.  The Circle mages except for the very few that either accompanied Orsino or were exempted from confinement (and with Meredith that would be a VERY small number) are all locked in their cells in the gallows and had been for weeks.  Act 3 makes that very clear and Meredith cracked down further after the events in Best Served Cold.

At the time of the declaration, there was NO chaos in the city and NO threat from a bunch of mages locked away on an isolated island away from the city!

So there is not a real good moral reason to pick the Templars.  The OP is completely right about that.  I would suggest that some others stop finding excuses for the inexcusable.

-Polaris

Oh, we've all seen how effective Meredith and her Templars are at keeping the mages locked away in the Gallows. 

But again - the point goes well beyond the end-game events.  It is perfectly valid, given the events that play out in Kirkwall throughout the game, and the number of blood mages and abominations running rampant in the streets, for someone to conclude that the Kirkwall Circle is lost and irredeemable, thus that the Right of Annullment is warranted.

[Rifneno]

Addai67 wrote...

If you actually play the templar ending and listen to the dialogue, Hawke gives the rationale why even a sane, non-evil person can carry out the Right of Annulment. It's to limit casualties in the city by a pre-emptive strike. Not just for the sake of the immediate conflict, but to head off an Exalted March. Yes, it's scorched earth, but this is the call wartime leaders sometimes make, even if they consider the targets friendly fire.

So, to the OP and others echoing, get off your high horses. There are good reasons to choose either ending without being "evil."

That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

Beerfish wrote...

You can certainly think of it this way of you want to ignore the 10,000 blood mages/abominations/demon possessions/mage conspiracies/serial killer mage/ head circle mage insane bit.

And you can certainly think that way if you ignore the fact we don't even have ballpark numbers on how many mages there are in the Gallows, let alone how many are corrupted.  Any reasonable mind can see that a) Hawke's life is a pre-determined path set up to provide us with combat challenges and not a realistic example of anything about Thedas, the good mages who aren't out summoning demons are likely to be sitting in the Gallows peacefully and never seen by us because they don't want to be made tranquil or worse.

[nos_astra]

Rifneno wrote...
That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

Not exactly the same thing. Hawke is abiding by the law. Anders broke it. Hawke is trying to keep the peace an minimize casualities. Anders was doing the opposite.

Modifié par klarabella, 17 avril 2011 - 07:36 .

[Addai]

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

If you actually play the templar ending and listen to the dialogue, Hawke gives the rationale why even a sane, non-evil person can carry out the Right of Annulment. It's to limit casualties in the city by a pre-emptive strike. Not just for the sake of the immediate conflict, but to head off an Exalted March. Yes, it's scorched earth, but this is the call wartime leaders sometimes make, even if they consider the targets friendly fire.

So, to the OP and others echoing, get off your high horses. There are good reasons to choose either ending without being "evil."

That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

The Right is cleaning up the mess that Anders started.  It's not the same thing and it's not hypocritical.  Anders is an abomination and is clearly out of control.  Killing him is perfectly in tune with a templar ending and is justifiable even if you defend the Circle.

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...

Oh, we've all seen how effective Meredith and her Templars are at keeping the mages locked away in the Gallows. 

But again - the point goes well beyond the end-game events.  It is perfectly valid, given the events that play out in Kirkwall throughout the game, and the number of blood mages and abominations running rampant in the streets, for someone to conclude that the Kirkwall Circle is lost and irredeemable, thus that the Right of Annullment is warranted.

The assumption is that a full-scale mage revolt is under way.  You know that there is a mage underground that is working with the mages in the Gallows.  Annulling the Circle is a first step in dealing with the larger mage problem in the city.  And again, is also a pre-emptive strike in hopes of averting a full-scale Exalted March.  Anders condemned the mages of Kirkwall, but a sane, reasonable Hawke can act in hopes of preventing a wider slaughter.  It doesn't turn out that way- the Circles do revolt, which justifies the templar ending even further- but that is a perfectly valid rationale given what Hawke knows at the time.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 avril 2011 - 07:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Rifneno wrote...
That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

No it's not. Anders broke the law and tried to start a war. The RoA people are upholding the law and can be trying to avert the war. .

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 avril 2011 - 07:53 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Maybe if I could not go ONE DAY without running into another crazy mage.
Maybe if I could walk down the bloody street without running into a demon.
Maybe if I did not run into mage terrorists, and rebels all across Kirkwall.

Maybe then I would see the RoA as evil.
As it is the entire place has gone nutty, and order has to be returned.

[Rifneno]

klarabella wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

Not exactly the same thing. Hawke is abiding by the law. Anders broke it. Hawke is trying to keep the peace an minimize casualities. Anders was doing the opposite.

The law in this case is idiotic.  Just because someone with enough military backing declared it so does not make it just.  Anders is trying to make the world a better place in the long run, as is Hawke.  Both involve killing people who did nothing wrong.  Both the ends and the means are very similar.

[Addai]

Rifneno wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
That's true to an extent, but most of the people defending the RoA are also condemning Anders for killing innocent people.  Then they're turning around and doing the same thing.  It's hypocritical.

Not exactly the same thing. Hawke is abiding by the law. Anders broke it. Hawke is trying to keep the peace an minimize casualities. Anders was doing the opposite.

The law in this case is idiotic.  Just because someone with enough military backing declared it so does not make it just.  Anders is trying to make the world a better place in the long run, as is Hawke.  Both involve killing people who did nothing wrong.  Both the ends and the means are very similar.

Anders or rather Justice doesn't care about mages.  He is singularly focused on an idea and doesn't care how many people he mows over in the process.  Whatever else he or she is, Hawke is not possessed.

[Rifneno]

Addai67 wrote...
Anders or rather Justice doesn't care about mages.  He is singularly focused on an idea and doesn't care how many people he mows over in the process.  Whatever else he or she is, Hawke is not possessed.

Speculation and semantics.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Honestly, Anders' plan was reckless, moronic, and stupid. He deserves to be executed, as all of that blood is on his hands. What does blowing up the Chantry accomplish? It kills some priests, a lot of civilians, and inspires the insane Meredith to invoke the Rite of Annulment. What did Anders think she would do? The mages are trapped in a prison surrounded by Templars. They are suddenly put in a horrible position of being executed. All so Anders could blow up a building, however symbolic that may be.

As for justifying the Rite of Annulment. Just look at all of the blood mages you fight in the game. Kirkwall is teeming with them. Just look at Orsino and what he's been up to. If I were the Knight Commander and we were encountering that many blood mages, I would consider the Rite of Annulment (although I would also run the Circle differently in the first place).  Again, I would "consider" it.  Emphasis on consider.  I wouldn't jump at any opportunity to use it.

Modifié par Ramus Quaritch, 17 avril 2011 - 08:14 .

[jmbrosendo]

There's no moral high ground on that affair, it's all very greyish. No clear distinction between evil and good, we can confortably lean back to and be aware the choice we made was good or bad.

It's more of a barb against how radicalism can twist and pervert all good intentions, both mages and templars. And always overrules the moderates.

There are no good choices, there is no justifiaction for the actions of any side of the conflict period.


And if you want a good laugh out of some intelligent humour that can explain this better:

Modifié par jmbrosendo, 17 avril 2011 - 08:17 .

[Ramus Quaritch]

jmbrosendo wrote...

There's no moral high ground on that affair, it's all very greyish. No clear distinction between evil and good, we can confortably lean back to and be aware the choice we made was good or bad.

It's more of a barb against how radicalism can twist and pervert all good intentions, both mages and templars. And always overrules the moderates.

There are no good choices, there is no justifiaction for the actions of any side of the conflict period.


And if you want a good laugh out of some intelligent humour that can explain this better:

Very true.  I hear you.  I just wanted to provide a different side of the argument because I see so many pro-mage "Templars are evil" threads.