945 réponses à ce sujet

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
By the same logic, if you kiss your homosexual partner in public, you should immediately be sentenced to the stocks (at best!) by the local inquistors (templars).

There are neither laws against kissing my homosexual partner in public in my country nor are there laws against it in Thedas. So no, by the same logic it would be perfectly fine.

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
Thedas is not a midaeval world and isn't even an analog to the midaeval world. Thedas and Dragon Age were written with the MODERN audience in mind with moral questions supposed to appeal to MODERN MORALITY.

Ferelden was based on medieval England/Scottland. DA in general was as much influenced by Buffy, the Vampire Slayer (characterization and dialogue) as it was by A Song of Ice and Fire (general mindset, Grey Wardens, grey/grey morality).

Have you missed how often it has been emphasized that DA is not written with good vs. evil in mind?

Modifié par klarabella, 23 avril 2011 - 07:31 .

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Thedas is not a midaeval world and isn't even an analog to the midaeval world. Thedas and Dragon Age were written with the MODERN audience in mind with moral questions supposed to appeal to MODERN MORALITY.

Ferelden was based on medieval England/Scottland. DA in general was as much influenced by Buffy, the Vampire Slayer (characterization and dialogue) as it was by A Song of Ice and Fire (general mindset, Grey Wardens, grey/grey morality).

Have you missed how often it has been emphasized that DA is not written with good vs. evil in mind?

So was Middle Earth.  However the culture in Thedas is emphatically NOT midaeval. It's modern.  It's modern along with the morality of the people specifically to cater to the modern audience.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

klarabella wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Hawke is a child in an apostate mage family, and may be an apostate him/herself. If your Hawke doesn't believe the Chantry is oppressive and the treatment of mages is wrong, then why the hell did he spend his whole life trying to keep himself and/or his sister out of it? With the origin you get given an anti-Templar stance is the only thing that makes sense.

Your lack of imagination makes me sad.
Whoever said Hawke has to be self-sacrificing to a fault? My Hawke certainly loves her sister, but that doesn't mean she doesn't secretly want a normal life (just like Bethany herself does) and as an Andrastian is conflicted about whether the Chantry is right or wrong. Maybe it's wrong to hide Bethany? She trusts her to control her magic, but what if she fails? Only once? Maybe she was always a head-strong girl with a mind of her own who rebelled against her apostate father?

Plaintiff wrote...
That said, roleplaying is not an exact science, I can't help seeing parallels between Thedas and my own, real world. They're there and I know it.

That's your loss then.

Plaintiff wrote...
But Iot roleplaying now and asking me to accept the laws of Thedas just because it's "somewhere else" is dumb. Cultural Relativism is a stupid philosophy. Believing that "right" is decided by what the majority believes at any given locality is asinine. If she insists on being that transient, she  might as well just accept that morality does not exist in objective terms and be done with it.

Which basically means you would be not a good writer or historian, because you can't not judge cultures (imginary or real) that are not as advanced as or own.

That's actually pretty close to the mindset that made the Europeans teach heathens and barbarians their ways, ruining and oppressing their culture (the flaws as well as their uniqueness) because their laws and values are wrong and yours are superior.

Right, because nobody has ever used literature to express a view or prove a point. Never ever.

 I'm gonna skip right past the ad homniems and ask what you mean when you say Thedas isn't as "advanced" as my own culture. In what sense? Technologically? Morally? Assuming morals can "advance" in any objective sense, Thedas is already highly reminiscent of modern Western culture in terms of its attitudes to women and homosexuality, I find it very easy to relate to in a general sense and I still think the treatment of mages is wrong.

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
So was Middle Earth.  However the culture in Thedas is emphatically NOT midaeval. It's modern.  It's modern along with the morality of the people specifically to cater to the modern audience.

How is the culture in Thedas not influenced by medieval concepts? What's modern about it? That you can have sex before marriage? Gender equality? That homosexuality is tolerated?

What else is there?

Modifié par klarabella, 23 avril 2011 - 07:47 .

[Deztyn]

Polaris,

Thedas has a different culture.

Not a medieval culture.

Not a modern culture.

A whole new fantasy culture.

The culture of Thedas.

[AlexXIV]

Klara, nobody keeps anyone from playing a selfish jerk, or a religious zealot. Does it make sense? As much as any of the other jerks or zealots in the game. Reason why most people side with mages is because they want to be the good guy/girl. And the templar side doesn't leave much room for a good guy unless they are ignorant (as in not really understanding what is going on around them).

That said, there may be a 'grey area' in the general templar vs mage question. Meaning the positions of 'mages should be as free as other people' and 'mages are dangerous, they must be protected from themselves'. The Annullment question though is black and white. Killing everyone instead of looking for more civilized solutions is always a knee-jerk reaction. I am pretty sure if this was ME2 the paragon decision would be to oppose the Annullment and the renegade decision would be to side with Meredith. Because paragon/renegade is not based on the law situation, it is based on the morale situation. And the morale situation is that the Annullment is immoral, even if legal. And there is no imminent threat, like mages would go crazy if you don't instantly wipe them out. The only reason Meredith calls the Annullment in my opinion is because she is incompetent and that she does not see another way. I do.

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

Polaris,

Thedas has a different culture.

Not a medieval culture.

Not a modern culture.

A whole new fantasy culture.

The culture of Thedas.

The culture of Thedas is informed by modern culture just as almost all modern fantasy worlds are.  That's not a point against Dragon Age. It's a simple fact based on the fact that the writers know the AUDIENCE they seek to connect with is the modern audience with modern morals and modern sensibilities.

The same is true in virtually all modern fantasy which means that modern moral standard is an entirely fair yardstick since THAT is the yardstick the audience will be using (often subconciously).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 23 avril 2011 - 09:54 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The only two parts of modern ideas I can see in Thedas, is open homosexuality, and gender equality. The rest is quite medieval.

[Lewie]

IanPolaris wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Polaris,

Thedas has a different culture.

Not a medieval culture.

Not a modern culture.

A whole new fantasy culture.

The culture of Thedas.

The culture of Thedas is informed by modern culture just as almost all modern fantasy worlds are.  That's not a point against Dragon Age. It's a simple fact based on the fact that the writers know the AUDIENCE they seek to connect with is the modern audience with modern morals and modern sensibilities.

The same is true in virtually all modern fantasy which means that modern moral standard is an entirely fair yardstick since THAT is the yardstick the audience will be using (often subconciously).

-Polaris

You think that moral standards apply because thats who you are and simply you apply them to games. People can choose to be the bad guy if they want (since not agreeing with your standard of choice makes you the bad guy). It does not ever have a reflection on who that person is in real life. Many people take games too seriously and many don't. Freedom of choice in a fantasy world is allowed, it has no impact on anyone. Yet you still have keyboard warriors trying to tear you down for simply making a choice of your own. 

Deal with it. 

[nos_astra]

AlexXIV wrote...
Klara, nobody keeps anyone from playing a selfish jerk, or a religious zealot. Does it make sense? As much as any of the other jerks or zealots in the game. Reason why most people side with mages is because they want to be the good guy/girl. And the templar side doesn't leave much room for a good guy unless they are ignorant (as in not really understanding what is going on around them).

Because that's how the world works. There is good and there is evil and nothing in between.

Ignorant is actually a very good description of what my character is. Not ignorant to what is happening at the Circle (although she probably doesn't want look too closely), but ignorant to the label genocide and its implications. She deems it reasonable and justified, if regretable and borderline cruel  (compared to Zevran's past, Isabela's past, Leliana's past, the Qunari mindset). I wouldn't call her evil, but if it pleases you and you can't live without the black and white dichotomy then by all means, my character goes for the evil choice.

AlexXIV wrote...
That said, there may be a 'grey area' in the general templar vs mage question. Meaning the positions of 'mages should be as free as other people' and 'mages are dangerous, they must be protected from themselves'. The Annullment question though is black and white. Killing everyone instead of looking for more civilized solutions is always a knee-jerk reaction.

Hawke can't stop things from happening. She could turn around and leave if the game let her if it wasn't for the civilians. She feels she can do more good if she helps keeping order, like Aveline suggests. It's not like her decicion will never weigh on her concience, but that's something she's got to live with. And depending on how things will be playing out she might regret her decision or maybe not.

Modifié par klarabella, 23 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[AlexXIV]

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

[DKJaigen]

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

This sums it up why i always choose the mage side of this conflict. the templars are just wrong in this case. you cannot blame an entire group for the actions of one person. do you meet **** bloodmages? yeah sure! but you also meet plenty of **** templars.

As for the bigger picture. is the current system of templars overseeing the circle the right one.l I can only say NO. If a system collapses  under its own weight then it has failed utterly. And bringing the entire world to the brink of war is good way to show that the system has failed  

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

Even if we pretend that such concepts as Good or Evil exists, then your choice wouldn't simply be between a greater evil or lesser evil.
The real question would then be: Would you commit the "greater" evil, for the "greater" good of all, or would you only find the will to commit the "lesser" evil, for the "lesser" good of all.

To me, if we pretend I believed in such concepts. The Greater evil, is to assist the mages, and it only achieves the lesser good. The lesser evil is to assist the Templars, and it achieves the greater good. So it really is a no brainer to assist the Templars for me.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

Even if we pretend that such concepts as Good or Evil exists, then your choice wouldn't simply be between a greater evil or lesser evil.
The real question would then be: Would you commit the "greater" evil, for the "greater" good of all, or would you only find the will to commit the "lesser" evil, for the "lesser" good of all.

To me, if we pretend I believed in such concepts. The Greater evil, is to assist the mages, and it only achieves the lesser good. The lesser evil is to assist the Templars, and it achieves the greater good. So it really is a no brainer to assist the Templars for me.

I think I know where you are wrong.

You assume siding with the mages means wanting to kill all templars. Or wanting to set all mages free.

But actually the templars are the aggressors, they have the choice. The mages don't. The templars can call off the Annullment anytime and negotiate a peaceful solution. I am kind of disappointed actually that Hawke, if he/she sides with the mages, can't speak against the use of bloodmagic.

That's because the game automatically assumes that siding with the mages means you are ok with bloodmagic and summoning demons. Which I am not. I'd fight off the templars until they stop attacking and are ready for negotiations. That's the defensive tactic. You weaken an unreasonable enemy until he/she is so weak that he/she is ready to negotiate.

Alas you never get to that point because Orsino turns into a harvester and probably kills more mages than templars and after that you are left without any mages outside of your companion-group, so the Annullment is complete I assume. Even though Varric claims that mages survived, I wouldn't know where and when.

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

Even if we pretend that such concepts as Good or Evil exists, then your choice wouldn't simply be between a greater evil or lesser evil.
The real question would then be: Would you commit the "greater" evil, for the "greater" good of all, or would you only find the will to commit the "lesser" evil, for the "lesser" good of all.

To me, if we pretend I believed in such concepts. The Greater evil, is to assist the mages, and it only achieves the lesser good. The lesser evil is to assist the Templars, and it achieves the greater good. So it really is a no brainer to assist the Templars for me.

I think I know where you are wrong.

You assume siding with the mages means wanting to kill all templars. Or wanting to set all mages free.

But actually the templars are the aggressors, they have the choice. The mages don't. The templars can call off the Annullment anytime and negotiate a peaceful solution. I am kind of disappointed actually that Hawke, if he/she sides with the mages, can't speak against the use of bloodmagic.

That's because the game automatically assumes that siding with the mages means you are ok with bloodmagic and summoning demons. Which I am not. I'd fight off the templars until they stop attacking and are ready for negotiations. That's the defensive tactic. You weaken an unreasonable enemy until he/she is so weak that he/she is ready to negotiate.

Alas you never get to that point because Orsino turns into a harvester and probably kills more mages than templars and after that you are left without any mages outside of your companion-group, so the Annullment is complete I assume. Even though Varric claims that mages survived, I wouldn't know where and when.

Siding with Templars kills all the Blood Mages which are in the tower, and keeps the public safe. Siding with mages allow Blood Mages to escape and endanger the public. You are arguing an impossible hypothesis. You cannot negotiate, wether or not you want to is irrelevant. You are past the point of negotiation, when you have to make the choice.

[TJPags]

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

And what if we think the lesser evil is to kill every mage in the Gallows to protect the world from mages who clearly cannot abide by the laws?

[AlexXIV]

TJPags wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

And what if we think the lesser evil is to kill every mage in the Gallows to protect the world from mages who clearly cannot abide by the laws?

Then you have a biased view of the events. Which is fine if you choose to roleplay your character like that. Again, you can roleplay what you want. Just if you claim in an out of character discussion that the templars have the morally higher ground I will have to disagree strongly.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 02:35 .

[TJPags]

AlexXIV wrote...

TJPags wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

And what if we think the lesser evil is to kill every mage in the Gallows to protect the world from mages who clearly cannot abide by the laws?

Then you have a biased view of the events. Which is fine if you choose to roleplay your character like that. Again, you can roleplay what you want. Just if you claim in an out of character discussion that the templars have the morally higher ground I will have to disagree strongly.

And if you feel the lesser evil is allowing all those lunatic mages to go free, I'd say YOU have the biased viewpoint.

See how that works?

Now, in an OOC discussion, I'd say neither side has the moral high ground.  The Templars are locking people up because of who they are, under instructions to do so from a relgious organzization which preaches fear.  Both of those are wrong, in my OOC opinion.

However, these particular mages are breaking the law repeatedly, have shown themselves to be corrupt and dangerous, and deserve some damn harsh punishment, again in my OOC opinion.  And yes, I firmly believe in capital punishment.  So killing these particular mages, in my OOC opinion, is justified.

[AlexXIV]

TJPags wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

TJPags wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Even if you have to choose between two evils, one will be the lesser evil. So it is black and white. Because obviouly the lesser evil is to be prefered to the greater evil. Chances of having a choice yet both options being identical are rather small.

For example if the situation had been that Meredith evokes the right, and as a reaction Orsino and the mages attack I would probably side with the templars. Simply because the mages made a choice, and the wrong one. But that's not what is happening. Meredith evokes the Right which basically equals 'declaring war' on the mages, and Orsino instantly capitulates. Yet Meredith insists that giving up is not enough, they all need to die. I don't know what else to say. I am not argueing here for people who don't care.

And what if we think the lesser evil is to kill every mage in the Gallows to protect the world from mages who clearly cannot abide by the laws?

Then you have a biased view of the events. Which is fine if you choose to roleplay your character like that. Again, you can roleplay what you want. Just if you claim in an out of character discussion that the templars have the morally higher ground I will have to disagree strongly.

And if you feel the lesser evil is allowing all those lunatic mages to go free, I'd say YOU have the biased viewpoint.

See how that works?

Now, in an OOC discussion, I'd say neither side has the moral high ground.  The Templars are locking people up because of who they are, under instructions to do so from a relgious organzization which preaches fear.  Both of those are wrong, in my OOC opinion.

However, these particular mages are breaking the law repeatedly, have shown themselves to be corrupt and dangerous, and deserve some damn harsh punishment, again in my OOC opinion.  And yes, I firmly believe in capital punishment.  So killing these particular mages, in my OOC opinion, is justified.

Well we have criminals you know, and we have police. In real life. So the police in a city is going to kill all citizens because the criminal rate is highest in the whole country. I would say that's wrong because it is the politicians job to find solutions. That's why you have leaders. Punishing the victims of a system because the system fails does not seem an appropriate course of action.

The problems in Kirkwall are rather a leadership problem than of 'all mages turn to bloodmagic and summon demons'. Because there are plenty examples of mages that don't. In and outside of Kirkwall. And that the Veil is thin in Kirkwall is not the mages fault either. The templars brought them there.

[TobiTobsen]

I think it's a debatable point whether defending a small part of the city's population, who is clearly streaked with corruption, is the moral high ground. Especially if it's for the hope that a part (that we never see in the first place) of the already small part is not corrupted and if you slaughter the only defense the large rest of the population has against the blood mages, abominations and demons by doing so.
In the templar ending the mages are already attacking the civilians. We know that because Aveline says that Donnic has to defend the "normal" populace against the mages/abominations. So what will happen if there are no more templars? Just guards with zero magic resistance?

There is no white choice, no matter how hard you wish there would be one. It's grey vs. grey at best. More like black vs. black.

[AlexXIV]

TobiTobsen wrote...

I think it's a debatable point whether defending a small part of the city's population, who is clearly streaked with corruption, is the moral high ground. Especially if it's for the hope that a part (that we never see in the first place) of the already small part is not corrupted and if you slaughter the only defense the large rest of the population has against the blood mages, abominations and demons by doing so.
In the templar ending the mages are already attacking the civilians. We know that because Aveline says that Donnic has to defend the "normal" populace against the mages/abominations. So what will happen if there are no more templars? Just guards with zero magic resistance?

There is no white choice, no matter how hard you wish there would be one. It's grey vs. grey at best. More like black vs. black.

Well as long people (like you do) defend the templars with false claims you will have a hard time. Do the mages and demons attack before or after Meredith evokes the Annullment? Right, afterwards. So who causes the chaos? Meredith does. Orisno suggested that the templars take the mages as prisoners which would have resulted in no civilian casualties. But Meredith does not give a rats ass, as she does not give a rats ass about the Grand Cleric. She only sees welcome excuses to do what she does best: Killing mages.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 03:06 .

[Rifneno]

TobiTobsen wrote...

I think it's a debatable point whether defending a small part of the city's population, who is clearly streaked with corruption, is the moral high ground. Especially if it's for the hope that a part (that we never see in the first place) of the already small part is not corrupted and if you slaughter the only defense the large rest of the population has against the blood mages, abominations and demons by doing so.
In the templar ending the mages are already attacking the civilians. We know that because Aveline says that Donnic has to defend the "normal" populace against the mages/abominations. So what will happen if there are no more templars? Just guards with zero magic resistance?

There is no white choice, no matter how hard you wish there would be one. It's grey vs. grey at best. More like black vs. black.

I love that people still don't consider mages "civilians."  They aren't on active duty in any armed forces; quite the contrary, even the fairly reasonable Gregior doesn't want mages fighting against darkspawn.  Thus, they are civilians.

"Streaked with corruption" fits both sides.  "Kill the men, save the pretty one for questioning." - Ser Karras, one of Meredith's favorites and a known rapist upon engaging FemHawke's group.  Questioning.  Riiight.  You'll have to forgive me if I don't consider the side that tries to rape Hawke as being the good guys.  As for the templars being the population's "only defense," perhaps they should've thought of that before trying to commit genocide.  The whole "defense of the public" thing only goes so far.  Especially when you have death squads out murdering unarmed women because they gave their mage cousin a bowl of soup.

[TobiTobsen]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well as long people (like you do) defend the templars with false claims you will have a hard time. Do the mages and demons attack before or after Meredith evokes the Annullment? Right, afterwards. So who causes the chaos? Meredith does. Orisno suggested that the templars take the mages as prisoners which would have resulted in no civilian casualties. But Meredith does not give a rats ass, as she does not give a rats ass about the Grand Cleric. She only sees welcome excuses to do what she does best: Killing mages.

We have blood mages and demons in the city since act one. We have a whole gang of blood mages mindcontrolling thugs in Hightown in act three. Like you said the whole city is filled with blood mages, abominations and demons as soon as the RoA is announced. Since teleportation is still not working in Thedas, these mages had to be in the city (without permission) all along, if they aren't  pretty fast swimmers.
But somebdy will probably use the knockout argument that these mages are all apostates.

I'm not saying that choosing the templars is the way to go. I'm just irritated by the fact that most people see supporting the mages as a morally "white" choice.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 23 avril 2011 - 03:22 .

[Rifneno]

TobiTobsen wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well as long people (like you do) defend the templars with false claims you will have a hard time. Do the mages and demons attack before or after Meredith evokes the Annullment? Right, afterwards. So who causes the chaos? Meredith does. Orisno suggested that the templars take the mages as prisoners which would have resulted in no civilian casualties. But Meredith does not give a rats ass, as she does not give a rats ass about the Grand Cleric. She only sees welcome excuses to do what she does best: Killing mages.

We have blood mages and demons in the city since act one. We have a whole gang of blood mages mindcontrolling thugs in Hightown in act three. Like you said the whole city is filled with blood mages, abominations and demons as soon as the RoA is announced. Since teleportation is still not working in Thedas, these mages had to be in the city (without permission) all along, if they aren't  pretty fast swimmers.
But somebdy will probably use the knockout argument that these mages are all apostates.

I'm not saying that choosing the templars is the way to go. I'm just irritated by the fact that most people see supporting the mages as a morally "white" choice.

So if it's been happening all along, that kind of proves the templars suck at their jobs and aren't protecting the public anyway.

I get irritated when people say that butchering terrified children because they "might" do something bad isn't a morally "black" choice.