945 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And Cullen is correct in his assesment that mages aren't normal people, they are mages.

Cullen says mages shouldn't be treated like people, and says mages are weapons.

Indeed. They shouldn't be treated as people, they should be treated as mages.

[Urazz]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And Cullen is correct in his assesment that mages aren't normal people, they are mages.

Cullen says mages shouldn't be treated like people, and says mages are weapons.

Indeed. They shouldn't be treated as people, they should be treated as mages.

So are you basically saying mages are weapons and deserved to be treated as such.  That's the kind of thinking that caused them to rebel in the first place.

Sure mages can set a city on fire but why would they under normal circumstances unless they are already insane/evil or are basically driven to that point in desperation.  People will do alot of things when desperate to survive or be free.  Treating mages like the way they were treated in the Kirkwall Circle basically just drives them to that point of desperation to escape that harsh situation.

[tausra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Except that Knight-Commanders do NOT have the right to call an Annulment, just because they have a bad hair day.

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day? Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day? Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day? Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

IanPolaris wrote...

Military Ethics 101 from a person who
was a vet.  If an officer ordered me to execute a legal prisoner of war
illegally, I would be OBLIGATED to refuse that order and report that
officer as soon as I could to my (and his) lawful superiors.  Yes I
could catch hell for that in the short run, and I certainly would be
investigated for violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ (failure to obey a
commissioned officer) but if the order were deemed to be unlawful, I
would be found not-guilty.

If I OBEYED that order and the officer
were later court-martialed, I would be subejct to the same courtmartial
and the same charges with an additional charge for following an illegal
order.

That was settled in Nuremberg.

-Polaris

Only problem here is that the RoA is NOT an illegal order. Meredith followed the chain of command, and initiated the Rite according to due process. With no Grand Cleric she's in charge, and she chose to Annul, as is her right to do so. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Urazz]

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...
Yes, they are subject to a chain of command. Its not right to slaughter them either.

Military Ethics 101 from a person who was a vet. If an officer ordered me to execute a legal prisoner of war illegally, I would be OBLIGATED to refuse that order and report that officer as soon as I could to my (and his) lawful superiors. Yes I could catch hell for that in the short run, and I certainly would be investigated for violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ (failure to obey a commissioned officer) but if the order were deemed to be unlawful, I would be found not-guilty.

If I OBEYED that order and the officer were later court-martialed, I would be subejct to the same courtmartial and the same charges with an additional charge for following an illegal order.

That was settled in Nuremberg.

-Polaris

Would you also protect 99 guilty templars who followed Meredith to protect one who did not follow that order and was innocent?

The thing too is a knight commander issuing the RoA is not illegal. Mad as she was or not doesn't matter she had the right to do it. It is issued when a circle is irredeemable and was made when ONE abomination went riot. Namely Anders in this case.

His actions then only condemned any innocent mages inside to the templar juristiction. Its not a nice scenario but its what it is.

That would only work if he was part of the Circle, he was not. If Anders was still a Circle mage, that would be a whole different can of worms, but he wasn't. He was an apostate.

tausra wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Except that Knight-Commanders do NOT have the right to call an Annulment, just because they have a bad hair day.

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day? Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day? Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day? Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

IanPolaris wrote...

Military Ethics 101 from a person who
was a vet.  If an officer ordered me to execute a legal prisoner of war
illegally, I would be OBLIGATED to refuse that order and report that
officer as soon as I could to my (and his) lawful superiors.  Yes I
could catch hell for that in the short run, and I certainly would be
investigated for violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ (failure to obey a
commissioned officer) but if the order were deemed to be unlawful, I
would be found not-guilty.

If I OBEYED that order and the officer
were later court-martialed, I would be subejct to the same courtmartial
and the same charges with an additional charge for following an illegal
order.

That was settled in Nuremberg.

-Polaris

Only problem here is that the RoA is NOT an illegal order. Meredith followed the chain of command, and initiated the Rite according to due process. With no Grand Cleric she's in charge, and she chose to Annul, as is her right to do so. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Agreed.  Meredith was legally able to call for a Right of Annulment and so most of the templars under her would be innocent.  The vast majority of the templars weren't there with her when she called for the Rigth of Annulment.  All they know was that the Chantry was destroyed and that the Knight Commander is calling for a RoA.  Hell, I think if Cullen was there when she called for the RoA, he would've stopped her then and there because she was definately acting a bit insane there as well.

Basically the only templars that could've be prosecuted were the ones with her when she made the call for the RoA and were witness to her reasoning on why the RoA was needed and still followed her.  Sadly those templars were killed by Hawke and his party.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

If you're gonna insist they're that evil then they wouldn't call a RoA for the sheer reason that it's dangerous to the tempars under their command. Why get a bunch of their soldiers (which are in limited supply) killed for no reason other than hate?

Look how this RoA turned out.  The mages defended themselves pretty well, regardless of Hawke.  Orsino, while he's an exceptionally powerful mage, was kicking major ass even before the Harvester facepalm moment.  When the other Circles got wind of the fact, in Varric's words "the mighty templars can be defied" they rise up too and survive without Kal-El Hawke defending them or a First Enchanter with a limit break that scares the hell out of Branka.  The fact of the matter is that the major hold the Chantry had over the mages was the illusion that their templars were virtually unstoppable.  By attacking a Circle that isn't in chaos the lose their greatest weapon: an incredible advantage of morale.

This isn't to say I think that the Chantry would try to wipe out all mages if their biggest advantage wasn't an illusion.  I don't think they would.  I think that like most power-abusing religious nuts, they honestly believe they're doing the right thing no matter what.  That's what makes them so dangerous.  Absolute faith.  However, I do believe that many of the Chantry believe magic is a curse and preach as such.  Like any religion you'll have some fairly wide variances in interpretations of their dogma.

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day? Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day? Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day? Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

 

If you try to tame a lion by beating it into submission, it's going to rip out your jugular.  And you'll deserve it.

Only problem here is that the RoA is NOT an illegal order. Meredith followed the chain of command, and initiated the Rite according to due process. With no Grand Cleric she's in charge, and she chose to Annul, as is her right to do so. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Seriously, why do you guys keep quoting Chantry law?  I ****** on Chantry law.  It's one very small step up from Iraqi law under Hussein's reign.  And chances are, what he did was legal in their system too.  That Chantry law is okay with Meredith's evil only strengthens the case that the Chantry has to burn.  

[LobselVith8]

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day?

By an apostate. Why murder men, women, and children of the Circle because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina?

tausra wrote...

Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day?

Mages and templars who wanted to remove the Knight-Commander from power because she installed herself as a dictator. One of the mages who sided with Ser Thrask, Alain, was getting raped by a templar.

tausra wrote...

Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day?

Meredith asks Hawke to hunt down one virgin, one insane blood mage, and one abomination.

tausra wrote...

Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

We have no idea what the mages and apprentices of the Gallows are actually like, we have a fraction of information from mages outside of the Gallows that doesn't help us determine what everyone in the Gallows is like.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 avril 2011 - 02:23 .

[Urazz]

Rifneno wrote...

Seriously, why do you guys keep quoting Chantry law?  I ****** on Chantry law.  It's one very small step up from Iraqi law under Hussein's reign.  And chances are, what he did was legal in their system too.  That Chantry law is okay with Meredith's evil only strengthens the case that the Chantry has to burn.  

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

[Rifneno]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith asks Hawke to hunt down one virgin, one insane blood mage, and one abomination.

I found the virgin part the worst to deal with.  Because I thought it'd be funny if there was an option to suggest to look up Bethany when he's back in the Circle.  Then I felt horrible about myself for hours.  My sense of humor is a sick, sick freak.  

Edit to add:

Urazz wrote...

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

Yeah, but I mean I've seen lots of people writing it off as morally okay because it's legal.  I mean... what?!  I think if you could see my face the first time I read one of them you could make out the tiny image of a BSOD in my eyes from where my brain just crashed trying to decipher that logic.  Aren't chevaliers free to openly rape any commoner they please in Orlais?  Someone mind telling me how legality has anything to do with right or wrong?

Modifié par Rifneno, 21 avril 2011 - 02:28 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Urazz wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And Cullen is correct in his assesment that mages aren't normal people, they are mages.

Cullen says mages shouldn't be treated like people, and says mages are weapons.

Indeed. They shouldn't be treated as people, they should be treated as mages.

So are you basically saying mages are weapons and deserved to be treated as such.  That's the kind of thinking that caused them to rebel in the first place.

Sure mages can set a city on fire but why would they under normal circumstances unless they are already insane/evil or are basically driven to that point in desperation.  People will do alot of things when desperate to survive or be free.  Treating mages like the way they were treated in the Kirkwall Circle basically just drives them to that point of desperation to escape that harsh situation.

I said no such thing. I said they should be treated like mages.

[Lewie]

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

louise101 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

louise101 wrote...
Yes, they are subject to a chain of command. Its not right to slaughter them either.

Military Ethics 101 from a person who was a vet.  If an officer ordered me to execute a legal prisoner of war illegally, I would be OBLIGATED to refuse that order and report that officer as soon as I could to my (and his) lawful superiors.  Yes I could catch hell for that in the short run, and I certainly would be investigated for violation of Article 90 of the UCMJ (failure to obey a commissioned officer) but if the order were deemed to be unlawful, I would be found not-guilty.

If I OBEYED that order and the officer were later court-martialed, I would be subejct to the same courtmartial and the same charges with an additional charge for following an illegal order.

That was settled in Nuremberg.

-Polaris

Would you also protect 99 guilty templars who followed Meredith to protect one who did not follow that order and was innocent?

The thing too is a knight commander issuing the RoA is not illegal. Mad as she was or not doesn't matter she had the right to do it. It is issued when a circle is irredeemable and was made when ONE abomination went riot. Namely Anders in this case. 

His actions then only condemned any innocent mages inside to the templar juristiction. Its not a nice scenario but its what it is.

If I had the right to kill you, just because I feel like it, would you say that it is ok because the law allows it?

Except that Knight-Commanders do NOT have the right to call an Annulment, just because they have a bad hair day.

Don't they? It could have been caused by bloodmagic.

Maybe i am mistaken but if the grand cleric is killed would the decision not fall to the knight commander, the chain of command etc. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

It would. But those are extraordinary circumstances. Not only would the Grand Cleric have to die without a clear successor, news of her death would have to reach the Knight-Commander before a successor was chosen, AND the Knight-Commander would need a reason to call the Annulment. An unlikely set of circumstances to happen often.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It would. But those are extraordinary circumstances. Not only would the Grand Cleric have to die without a clear successor, news of her death would have to reach the Knight-Commander before a successor was chosen, AND the Knight-Commander would need a reason to call the Annulment. An unlikely set of circumstances to happen often.

I really wonder what kind of reason the KC needed. We don't really have information what exactly qualifies to deem a Circle beyond salvation. DG mentioned that the Divine could call the KC later to question him/her on the matter. Like to investigate if it was really justified. Just too bad for the mages that they are dead by then. Pretty much a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 avril 2011 - 03:19 .

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith asks Hawke to hunt down one virgin, one insane blood mage, and one abomination.

I found the virgin part the worst to deal with.  Because I thought it'd be funny if there was an option to suggest to look up Bethany when he's back in the Circle.  Then I felt horrible about myself for hours.  My sense of humor is a sick, sick freak.  

Edit to add:

Urazz wrote...

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

Yeah, but I mean I've seen lots of people writing it off as morally okay because it's legal.  I mean... what?!  I think if you could see my face the first time I read one of them you could make out the tiny image of a BSOD in my eyes from where my brain just crashed trying to decipher that logic.  Aren't chevaliers free to openly rape any commoner they please in Orlais?  Someone mind telling me how legality has anything to do with right or wrong?

Siding with templars does not mean that you agree with injustices caused by certain ones. Killing ser alrik was more than a pleasure believe me. Some templars failed, and some mages failed. In a city were 2 sides have been pushed to breaking point who should step in and keep order?

Ideally Orsino (deferring that he wasn't into blood magic) and Cullen should have sorted the whole mess out but again we have no say.  Anders should have been dealt with there and then, Meredith arrested and locked up secure (or a death penalty being that she was beyond help) and the gallows searched and cleared out, then templars who had abused their postion dealt with, and any remaining blood mages killed.

[AlexXIV]

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith asks Hawke to hunt down one virgin, one insane blood mage, and one abomination.

I found the virgin part the worst to deal with.  Because I thought it'd be funny if there was an option to suggest to look up Bethany when he's back in the Circle.  Then I felt horrible about myself for hours.  My sense of humor is a sick, sick freak.  

Edit to add:

Urazz wrote...

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

Yeah, but I mean I've seen lots of people writing it off as morally okay because it's legal.  I mean... what?!  I think if you could see my face the first time I read one of them you could make out the tiny image of a BSOD in my eyes from where my brain just crashed trying to decipher that logic.  Aren't chevaliers free to openly rape any commoner they please in Orlais?  Someone mind telling me how legality has anything to do with right or wrong?

Siding with templars does not mean that you agree with injustices caused by certain ones. Killing ser alrik was more than a pleasure believe me. Some templars failed, and some mages failed. In a city were 2 sides have been pushed to breaking point who should step in and keep order?

Ideally Orsino (deferring that he wasn't into blood magic) and Cullen should have sorted the whole mess out but again we have no say.  Anders should have been dealt with there and then, Meredith arrested and locked up secure (or a death penalty being that she was beyond help) and the gallows searched and cleared out, then templars who had abused their postion dealt with, and any remaining blood mages killed.

Orsino dabbled in bloodmagic and supported/protected bloodmages. He'd be the first I kill in any playthrough if I could. I don't even want him to sort out anything. I would have prefered if Hawke and Cullen could have sorted it out. Killed Meredith first, Orsino later. Or the other way round. And restored the Circle. Well but in that case Kirkwall would not have become the reason for a war. I can't say it enough, but if Cullen would have stood up against Meredith before the Annullment and not after it the whole war could have been prevented or at least pushed back a couple of years. And Cullen had the loyality of the templars, not Meredith. Or he could at least have split the templars which also would have prevented an Annullment.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 21 avril 2011 - 03:54 .

[Rifneno]

Cullen is an economy size bottle of extra strength crazy.  He just seems okay because he's surrounded by people on the verge of talking to trees and because he's polite to Hawke.  I don't want him sorting anything out.  The guy's some serious posttraumatic stress disorder going on from the Ferelden Circle incident.  People like that need help, not positions of authority over the minority that messed them up to begin with. 

[tausra]

Rifneno wrote...

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day? Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day? Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day? Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

 

If you try to tame a lion by beating it into submission, it's going to rip out your jugular.  And you'll deserve it.

 Which are they? Poor, misunderstood men and women or are they lions who can snap at any second? You can't have it both ways. You can't be the victim and the mighty force all at once. Mage supporters should clarify their position before even considering a reply.

[tausra]

Rifneno wrote...

Urazz wrote...

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

Yeah, but I mean I've seen lots of people writing it off as morally okay because it's legal.  I mean... what?!  I think if you could see my face the first time I read one of them you could make out the tiny image of a BSOD in my eyes from where my brain just crashed trying to decipher that logic.  Aren't chevaliers free to openly rape any commoner they please in Orlais?  Someone mind telling me how legality has anything to do with right or wrong?

It doesn't matter what our perceptions of morality are.  By making a judgment on another's moral in comparison to your own you are acting in an ethnocentric manner. These are the morals of Thedas, not of the real world or our society.  And even if you could try to compare them, in our world many of our morals and perceptions are in dispute.

[Uzzy]

LobselVith8 wrote...

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day?

By an apostate. Why murder men, women, and children of the Circle because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina?

Because, as has been made clear, the Right of Annulment is not brought in just because of the Chantry having been blown up. If it was the only reason, then why had Meredith asked for the Right beforehand? Twice even?

[AlexXIV]

Uzzy wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day?

By an apostate. Why murder men, women, and children of the Circle because an apostate killed Grand Cleric Elthina?

Because, as has been made clear, the Right of Annulment is not brought in just because of the Chantry having been blown up. If it was the only reason, then why had Meredith asked for the Right beforehand? Twice even?

Because she is really bad at her job. I just don't see why the mages should die for that.

[IanPolaris]

Uzzy wrote...
Because, as has been made clear, the Right of Annulment is not brought in just because of the Chantry having been blown up. If it was the only reason, then why had Meredith asked for the Right beforehand? Twice even?

Irrelevant.  The stated reason for the Right of Annulment was because the Chantry had been Blown Up by Magic (by an apostate!)  It is my contention that this had to be the stated reason because had Meredith used any other reason, the RoA would have been illegal because the Grand Cleric and Divine both had turned her down based on those other reasons.

The only reason that matters is the stated reason and frankly it was clear even there, that Meredith was a Fruit Loop.  Even Cullen (who is value-lable fruitloop) thought that Meredith had gone extra crazy but refused to do anything about it making him equally culpable.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

tausra wrote...

It doesn't matter what our perceptions of morality are.  By making a judgment on another's moral in comparison to your own you are acting in an ethnocentric manner. These are the morals of Thedas, not of the real world or our society.  And even if you could try to compare them, in our world many of our morals and perceptions are in dispute.

False.  It matters a great deal.  The entire world of Thedas and the questions posed are designed to appeal and challenge the modern moral mind.  That means it's modern morality that matters.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

tausra wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

tausra wrote...

So having the Chantry and all the clerics and priestesses inside blown up is just a bad hair day? Having blood mages and rogue templars kidnapping innocent Mages is just a bad hair day? Or how about the fact that several mages escaped the circle using blood magic and are now hiding out in Kirkwall, another bad hair day? Yeah, You're right, complete insanity to call for a RoA, I mean everything is completely under control.

 

If you try to tame a lion by beating it into submission, it's going to rip out your jugular.  And you'll deserve it.

 Which are they? Poor, misunderstood men and women or are they lions who can snap at any second? You can't have it both ways. You can't be the victim and the mighty force all at once. Mage supporters should clarify their position before even considering a reply.

I'm just saying that Templar supporters deserve to wind up in the gullet of a harvester.  But lol at the ridiculous notion that someone with power can't be wronged.

Uzzy wrote...

Because, as has been made clear, the Right of Annulment is not brought in just because of the Chantry having been blown up. If it was the only reason, then why had Meredith asked for the Right beforehand? Twice even?

Are you serious?  SHE'S GOT A LYRIUM IDOL MADE OF CRAZY!  Was the subtly of Bartrand cutting up servants and force-feeding pieces of them to other servants lost?

[Uzzy]

IanPolaris wrote...

Uzzy wrote...
Because, as has been made clear, the Right of Annulment is not brought in just because of the Chantry having been blown up. If it was the only reason, then why had Meredith asked for the Right beforehand? Twice even?

Irrelevant.  The stated reason for the Right of Annulment was because the Chantry had been Blown Up by Magic (by an apostate!)  It is my contention that this had to be the stated reason because had Meredith used any other reason, the RoA would have been illegal because the Grand Cleric and Divine both had turned her down based on those other reasons.

The only reason that matters is the stated reason and frankly it was clear even there, that Meredith was a Fruit Loop.  Even Cullen (who is value-lable fruitloop) thought that Meredith had gone extra crazy but refused to do anything about it making him equally culpable.

-Polaris

Far from being irrelevant, Meredith's reasons for wanting the Right of Annulment are highly important to this debate. In her view, the Circle was no longer under control, and from what we see in Act 3, it's hard to dispute this. The Gallows is, for a prison, highly pourous, with blood mages escaping almost at will. Even the First Enchanter turns out to be one.

As for your contention, you're wrong, as you're ignoring the major change in the situation, namely the Chantry being blown up. Anders did that to remove the chance of compromise, to ignite the conflict that had been simmering between Mages and Templars. Rather then letting an out of control Circle go into full revolt, Meredith took decisive action.

[Lewie]

AlexXIV wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith asks Hawke to hunt down one virgin, one insane blood mage, and one abomination.

I found the virgin part the worst to deal with.  Because I thought it'd be funny if there was an option to suggest to look up Bethany when he's back in the Circle.  Then I felt horrible about myself for hours.  My sense of humor is a sick, sick freak.  

Edit to add:

Urazz wrote...

The only reason why they quote it is because it's the basic law of Thedas for the most part which is more medieval and primative compared to the modern world.  So expect things to be a bit backwards and barbaric in general when applied to the general population.

Yeah, but I mean I've seen lots of people writing it off as morally okay because it's legal.  I mean... what?!  I think if you could see my face the first time I read one of them you could make out the tiny image of a BSOD in my eyes from where my brain just crashed trying to decipher that logic.  Aren't chevaliers free to openly rape any commoner they please in Orlais?  Someone mind telling me how legality has anything to do with right or wrong?

Siding with templars does not mean that you agree with injustices caused by certain ones. Killing ser alrik was more than a pleasure believe me. Some templars failed, and some mages failed. In a city were 2 sides have been pushed to breaking point who should step in and keep order?

Ideally Orsino (deferring that he wasn't into blood magic) and Cullen should have sorted the whole mess out but again we have no say.  Anders should have been dealt with there and then, Meredith arrested and locked up secure (or a death penalty being that she was beyond help) and the gallows searched and cleared out, then templars who had abused their postion dealt with, and any remaining blood mages killed.

Orsino dabbled in bloodmagic and supported/protected bloodmages. He'd be the first I kill in any playthrough if I could. I don't even want him to sort out anything. I would have prefered if Hawke and Cullen could have sorted it out. Killed Meredith first, Orsino later. Or the other way round. And restored the Circle. Well but in that case Kirkwall would not have become the reason for a war. I can't say it enough, but if Cullen would have stood up against Meredith before the Annullment and not after it the whole war could have been prevented or at least pushed back a couple of years. And Cullen had the loyality of the templars, not Meredith. Or he could at least have split the templars which also would have prevented an Annullment.

'Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional distance, and the Order of Templars would rather have soldiers with religious fervor and absolute loyalty than paragons of virtue who might question orders when it comes time to make difficult choices'. (Wiki)

Many arguments are based on todays law and thinking, i am a bit tired of the opinion that in gaming you must slam the law hammer of today into it to make it viable. A templar could not refuse an order from Meredith, i would have preferred cullen to put her in her place but he couldn't.

Modifié par louise101, 21 avril 2011 - 05:22 .

[IanPolaris]

louise101 wrote...
Many arguments are based on todays law and thinking, i am a bit tired of the opinion that in gaming you must slam the law hammer of today into it to make it viable. A templar could not refuse an order from Meredith, i would have preffered cullen to put her in her place but he couldn't.

False.  Templars can and many did.  Keenan (if a templar) after you meet him in Act 3 goes on strike and stops following all orders from the Templars until and unless Meredith is replaced.  In the end even Cullen not only can but does refuse a technically legal order from Meredith and relieves her of command because she has gone too far.

So YES Templars can and do refuse orders.  There are consequences, but the modern day military ethics of following orders is very clearly present just from the game-play evidence alone!

-Polaris