945 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

And the Templars, in this instance, are the mage police.  And they are asking me to assist them in imposing capital punishment on a group which has demonstrated, to me and to my satisfaction, that they are engaging in criminal activity, are corrupt, and dangerous.  En Masse, not in limited numbers.

This is not wiping out an entire city because of a high crime rate.  This is a raid on a building filled with criminals.

Now, you bring up the system, and claim it failed.  Perhaps it did fail in KIrkwall - I'd agree with that.  But did it fail overall?  Across all of Thedas?  I'd say no, not at all.  We see the Ferelden Circle didn't fail.  And that was after a specific attempt at revolt.

Speaking OOC, I don't like the system.  I think it can be a lot better.  I think there can be a lot of changes made.  However, I do think there needs to be some kind of system.

I also question the "plenty of examples of mages who don't" that you mention.  In my game, I saw many more mages breaking the law - breaking the law defined as using blood magic, consorting with demons, not being in the Gallows - than I saw mages NOT breaking the law.  Even Emile broke the law by sneaking out of the Gallows, although he was not a blood mage.

Maybe I just believe in taking a harder stance on crime than many other people.  If so, I'm okay with that.

[TJPags]

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.

She says that in the mage ending, too.

[Cismontane]

Regardless of whether one plays the game based on medieval or modern ethical mindsets (which would influence one's choices), one can't argue that the burden of history asserts a massive influence on everything that happens in the present in this game. The ethical system is what it is because of the ancient wars between Tevinter and Arlathan and because Tevinter mages sought to enter heaven and slay the supreme being. The legacy of the old gods is everywhere. The chantry and the Templars are what they are because the Tevinter magocrats are what they are.

The very physical structure of Kirkwall reflects this legacy, as the Band of Three notes prove. This physical structure influences the behavior of the mages and the Templars and everybody else. I'm kind of surprised that nobody's made note of the veritable mountain of sacrificial bones near the old god idol under the Harriman estate in Act 2. There are thousands upon thousands of corpses around the thing, which your character has to trudge through to get to Allure.... Exactly as the Band of Three described: the Tevinter mages committed genocide by sacrificing slaves to do whatever it is they were trying to do (probably to tear the veil).

One has to view the Mage rebellion and the attitude of the Templars in this context. In this universe, perhaps the elves should consider it a good thing that they have lost their own history.

[nos_astra]

Rifneno wrote...
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.

Children will be butchered. no matter what. The question is how many? And will you directly or indirectly have a hand in it?

By supporting the mages you might cause as many (or more) deaths, we don't know. It is hinted at, but only by Meredith and Aveline. They may or may nor be right, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

Assume they are right, just for a second. Can you?
Just like we were told that the mages we get to spare maybe end up dead or tranqulized. That possibility doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies, I hope they don't since I spared them under the assumption they would survive.

There is a point in an emergency situation when it doesn't matter who caused what and who is more at fault. You need to decide what has to be done now, how to minimize casualties.

Modifié par klarabella, 23 avril 2011 - 03:40 .

[TobiTobsen]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

I didn't said that. Please don't put words in mouth .

TobiTobsen wrote...

It's grey vs. grey at best. More like black vs. black.

I never challenged the fact that supporting the templars is morally questionable at best. Dark grey to black. I just said that we don't have a white vs. black conflict here, because supporting the mages isn't morally white in my opinion. Even if I always support the mages in my playthroughs.

[Rifneno]

klarabella wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
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.

Children will be butchered. no matter what. The question is how many? And will you directly or indirectly have a hand in it?

By supporting the mages you might cause as many (or more) deaths, we don't know. It is hinted at, but only by Meredith and Aveline. They may or may nor be right, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

Assume they are right, just for a second. Can you?
Just like we were told that the mages we get to spare maybe end up dead or tranqulized. That possibility doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies, I hope they don't since I spared them under the assumption they would survive.

There is a point in an emergency situation when it doesn't matter who caused what and who is more at fault. You need to decide what has to be done now, how to minimize casualties.

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

[Cismontane]

Klarabella, I think cullen does he say that it's time to rebuild the Circle in the Templar scenario, so it's possible that any spared mages become the basis of that new circle. I rather think that even Merrill might consider joining. Ironically, it's possible that after the events in the story, Kirkwall has the only functioning circle in Thedas... If a tiny one.

I don't know how effective the annullment really was though. Assuming the attack on the tower happens in real time, I don't really think the Templars had time to reach all cells on all levels. Even if they did, moral was so low at that point that they might not have carried out their orders with much zeal. Presumably, Orsino and the senior enchanters probably hid noncombatant
Mages and children in the upper level cells and told them to bar their doors. I can easily picture Templars saying to themselves, "a 9north is barred and I can hear kids crying in there. Let's just tell Meredith we finished here and move onto the next wing.. It'll get sorted later."I wouldn't be surprised if dozens or scores of mages survived the annulment despite the Templar death squads reporting to their commander that the annulment was complete.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
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.

Children will be butchered. no matter what. The question is how many? And will you directly or indirectly have a hand in it?

By supporting the mages you might cause as many (or more) deaths, we don't know. It is hinted at, but only by Meredith and Aveline. They may or may nor be right, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

Assume they are right, just for a second. Can you?
Just like we were told that the mages we get to spare maybe end up dead or tranqulized. That possibility doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzies, I hope they don't since I spared them under the assumption they would survive.

There is a point in an emergency situation when it doesn't matter who caused what and who is more at fault. You need to decide what has to be done now, how to minimize casualties.

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

If Hitler had won, I bet he would have been viewed as a hero. That's how history works.

[Cismontane]

Many leaders have made the emergency threat argument to justify harsh measures... Not just Hitler. The British did it in Northern Ireland numerous times. We did it after 9/11. The difference with Hitler was that he outright manufactured the emergency. In the case of the Templars, one can hardly argue that the threat was manufactured.

[TobiTobsen]

Rifneno wrote...

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

Before you started comparing people to Hitler, did you try to understand the point we're coming from?
With defending the mages, you're also defending the blood mages in their ranks and let them loose on a city that has no defense against them. With defending a small number of people, you endanger a far greater number.

[AlexXIV]

How many bloodmages can you actually count (by name) in 7 years and how many people do they kill who are not templars? After all we got 3 years to do nothing, twice. Which means that bloodmages are constantly swarming out of the Gallows? Rather not. And the fact that templars disagree with Meredith and actually even ally with mages speaks against who? The mages?

In Kirkwall they made the goat the gardener. They take away young mages away from their families, lock them in a place that used to be a Tevinter stronghold where the Veil is thinner than in most places they let them practice magic, and while looking over their shoulder all the time, don't allow them to leave the tower without permission and even then only in company of templars and they don't manage to stop them from using bloodmagic or to find out who does. They bring mages from Starkhaven, which had fallen because of a mage rebellion and some of them bloodmages to the circle. And then they claim the Circle mages must be killed because they are corrupt.

And Meredith does not know a first thing about being a Knight Commander. No idea how she got the job, but if I had been Grand Cleric I would have asked the Divine to replace her. Instead the Grand Cleric lets her oppress the mages and even send for the Right of Annullment because the Grand Cleric refused. There is so much Chantry/templar failing that you probably could fill a book with it. Yet the ones who are supposed to pay are the mages?

There are plenty solutions without Annullment. Take the mages prisoner, in their rooms like criminals if you must. Search the Gallows, investigate. Tranquil or kill any bloodmage. Replace Orsino who obviously failed as well. Send for the Divine to sent help, maybe a new Grand Cleric to solve the solution. Everything better than evoking the Annullment. Again, there was no immediate threat from the mages. They were not about to seize the town like the Qunari did. They were surrendering actually when Meredith evoked the Right.

If any army kills prisoner of war it is considered a bad thing. And that's even in war.

Granted, the story as it is told is badly done. Because we are not presented with a situation where you only have 2 possible options. We are presented with a situation where you'd have plenty of options but you only get to choose between the two worst. So maybe that's what confuses people.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 04:38 .

[AlexXIV]

Cismontane wrote...

Many leaders have made the emergency threat argument to justify harsh measures... Not just Hitler. The British did it in Northern Ireland numerous times. We did it after 9/11. The difference with Hitler was that he outright manufactured the emergency. In the case of the Templars, one can hardly argue that the threat was manufactured.

So what if I say that Meredith let things get out of hand on purpose. That she had no interest in finding and tranquillizing bloodmages before they caused trouble, to get the citizens riled up against the mages. What if I say that she just waited for someone to step over the bounds to give her a reason. They commit genocide anyway, so it is only a question of time when their victims resist. I don't believe one word of what she says about how sorry she is or whatever. And for me the only difference to hitler is that Meredith is female and in a medivial setting. Mages are to her what jews were to Hitler. All she needed was an excuse for a holocaust.

[AlexXIV]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

Before you started comparing people to Hitler, did you try to understand the point we're coming from?
With defending the mages, you're also defending the blood mages in their ranks and let them loose on a city that has no defense against them. With defending a small number of people, you endanger a far greater number.

Actually I don't think bloodmagic is bad unless it is used for bad purposes or actually harms people. My Warden took the Dark Ritual, was best friend with Morrigan. My Hawke romanced Merrill. I don't make a difference between mages and non-mages, I make a differnce between good and bad people. That's where I am different to many templar supporters.

[IanPolaris]

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

Yep. I hear ya.  I hear a lot of excuses and apologizing for evil going on....many of the same excuses that were used in real history to 'justify' the worst attrocities too.  What really gets my goat is that the lead writer of the game seems to tell us that butchering children because of what they might do isn't a morally 'black' choice either.  That profoundly bothers me on a lot of levels.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

Yep. I hear ya.  I hear a lot of excuses and apologizing for evil going on....many of the same excuses that were used in real history to 'justify' the worst attrocities too.  What really gets my goat is that the lead writer of the game seems to tell us that butchering children because of what they might do isn't a morally 'black' choice either.  That profoundly bothers me on a lot of levels.

-Polaris

David never said that. I don't even remember him ever saying that the choice with the Annullment is morally ambivalent. Actually he has been quiet about.

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

David never said that. I don't even remember him ever saying that the choice with the Annullment is morally ambivalent. Actually he has been quiet about.

David very specifically said that we can not consider mages innocent because they are mages.  That sounds like he wants the annulment choice to be morally grey to me.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

David never said that. I don't even remember him ever saying that the choice with the Annullment is morally ambivalent. Actually he has been quiet about.

David very specifically said that we can not consider mages innocent because they are mages.  That sounds like he wants the annulment choice to be morally grey to me.

-Polaris

Well I'd have to see the exact quote and context to believe that. Not that I think you're lying, but it's hard for me to tell what David meant if I read it from you in your words. I mean if mages are not innocents because they are mages it means they are born guilty?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 05:13 .

[Icy Magebane]

Maybe it means that people shouldn't automatically consider them to be innocent victims. That seems to be the prevailing thought among mage supporters: that all mages are worthy of trust and could not possibly fall to the same vices as normal men. All I am hearing is that all mages deserve freedom and the right to choose their lot in life. That's a noble ideal, but it ignores two very important differences between mages and men: their potential to cause harm and the risk of demonic possession. If all mages are allowed to roam free, you're releasing a lot of troublemakers in addition to innocents.

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Maybe it means that people shouldn't automatically consider them to be innocent victims. That seems to be the prevailing thought among mage supporters: that all mages are worthy of trust and could not possibly fall to the same vices as normal men. All I am hearing is that all mages deserve freedom and the right to choose their lot in life. That's a noble ideal, but it ignores two very important differences between mages and men: their potential to cause harm and the risk of demonic possession. If all mages are allowed to roam free, you're releasing a lot of troublemakers in addition to innocents.

David Gaider said it in reference to my comment that mages are innocent of the crime Anders committed, and made a comment about how they are only innocent of being mages and explode.

[TJPags]

Alex, I'm going to address some of your most recent posts, but not quote, because wallotxt gets annoying . . .and this may be long anyway.

1.  I agree that, to me, blood magic is not evil per se.  It's what you do with it.  BUT, in Thedas, blood magic is considered evil per se.  So while I don't think it's evil, I play as if it is.

2.  The Kirkwall Circle is built in a dumb location.  I don't think anyone will disagree on that.  But, there it is.  We can't move it.  So again, while I agree it's dumb, it is what it is, and I personally don't take that much into account when making my in-game choices - because it's not something I can do something about.

3.  Meredith is an ass.  I agree.  But I don't view myself, when I defend templars, as defending Meredith.  I view it as defending what the templars stand for.  And again I can't do anything about Meredith during the game.

4.  I don't like the Chantry.  I don't like it in game, I don't like the concept out of game.  But, when it comes to mages, I agree with the view that mages should not be allowed to roam free, unchecked, to do whatever they like.  Whether we look at is as mages being prone to corruption - some certainly are - or as them being potentially dangerous - and some certainly are - either way, I don't think they can be left without supervision.

5.  I don't like how the Circles in general are run.  That's out of game.  I definitely think there are better ways to handle it, and in other threads, I've laid out scenarios I think are both workable and better.  I won't do that here.  But out of game, I don't like the Circles.  In game, however I have no choice - they are what they are.  I can't change them - unless you want to look at what Anders did, and a full blown mage revolution as we have at the end of DA2 a change.  If we do think of it as a change, its not a change for the better, IMO - see #4.  So in game, I have to accept that I can't change it, it is what it is.

6.  I don't like killing innocent people, in game or out.  I much prefer to let innocent people live.  But, both in game and out, I'd rather kill an innocent person than let 5 guilty ones free.  A lot of people can and will disagree with that, in game or out.  And that's fine.

So, what all this adds up to is the following - when I play DA2, I see a whole lot of mages breaking the law.  I see blood mages, I see mages snaeking out, I see mages attacking people with and without blood magic.  I see known blood mages being put in the Circle with no apparent punishment, I see apostates corrupting templars, I see the First Enchanter aiding a known apostate who is a serial killer.

I see a lunatic as the KC.  I see isolated incidents of templar abuse, and hear a whole lot of propoganda from Anders.  I never see any mages in the Gallows, don't even know how many there are.

I decide, based on that, that the Kirkwall Circle is loaded with criminal mages.  I get the choice to kill ALL the mages, because I get no choice to determine which are criminals and which not - although I can take prisoners.  Or I can defend the mages, and let the criminals go free.

That's the choice I see.

Now, in my only complete game, I chose to defend the mages, only because at that point, there was no discussion of punishing Anders.  So I chose to defend the mages who did not blow up the Chantry, as that was the stated reason for the end game battle.  In retrospect, should I complete another game, knowing I can kill Anders either way, and that I can kill Meredith either way, I will side with the templars, and kill the criminals.
 
And I don't consider that evil.

[Icy Magebane]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Maybe it means that people shouldn't automatically consider them to be innocent victims. That seems to be the prevailing thought among mage supporters: that all mages are worthy of trust and could not possibly fall to the same vices as normal men. All I am hearing is that all mages deserve freedom and the right to choose their lot in life. That's a noble ideal, but it ignores two very important differences between mages and men: their potential to cause harm and the risk of demonic possession. If all mages are allowed to roam free, you're releasing a lot of troublemakers in addition to innocents.

David Gaider said it in reference to my comment that mages are innocent of the crime Anders committed, and made a comment about how they are only innocent of being mages and explode.

Cool... looks like I'm batting 0 for 2 today... >.>   Well, the post stands, even if it wasn't what DG was talking about... No harm in revisiting this subject now and again in the hopes that some will realize the folly of releasing so many mages onto the world without even knowing who they're letting out.

[TobiTobsen]

I support what TJ and Icy wrote. As harsh as it is, you cannot compare the average mage with the average civilian. And I judge on what the game presents me, not what I think maybe happens in the Gallows.

I just wanted to show that the conflict is not as black & white as some mage supporters want it to be, but in the end even I supported the mages.

[Lewie]

AlexXIV wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

Before you started comparing people to Hitler, did you try to understand the point we're coming from?
With defending the mages, you're also defending the blood mages in their ranks and let them loose on a city that has no defense against them. With defending a small number of people, you endanger a far greater number.

Actually I don't think bloodmagic is bad unless it is used for bad purposes or actually harms people. My Warden took the Dark Ritual, was best friend with Morrigan. My Hawke romanced Merrill. I don't make a difference between mages and non-mages, I make a differnce between good and bad people. That's where I am different to many templar supporters.

Merril had no malice when she made a deal with a demon, the problem is the demon doesn't give 2 figs about the mage or anyone else. Unless Hawke takes full responsibility for Merrills actions that get Marethari killed, the whole elf clan gets slaughtered, and that was no fairy that came from Marethari. One good intention.

[AlexXIV]

louise101 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ohhh, so worse stuff COULD happen if we don't start slaughtering helpless people?  Well that changes everything!

Hitler had a similar line of thought.  He thought if he could remove what he considered negative traits from the gene pool, humanity would be better off for... who knows how long we'll be around?  Millions of years?  So what's one or two generations of mass murder if it immensely helps the entier species for thousands of generations?  Yet somehow history still views him as a monster!  The nerve, right?

Before you started comparing people to Hitler, did you try to understand the point we're coming from?
With defending the mages, you're also defending the blood mages in their ranks and let them loose on a city that has no defense against them. With defending a small number of people, you endanger a far greater number.

Actually I don't think bloodmagic is bad unless it is used for bad purposes or actually harms people. My Warden took the Dark Ritual, was best friend with Morrigan. My Hawke romanced Merrill. I don't make a difference between mages and non-mages, I make a differnce between good and bad people. That's where I am different to many templar supporters.

Merril had no malice when she made a deal with a demon, the problem is the demon doesn't give 2 figs about the mage or anyone else. Unless Hawke takes full responsibility for Merrills actions that get Marethari killed, the whole elf clan gets slaughtered, and that was no fairy that came from Marethari. One good intention.

Well the clan is upset because the keeper died. Which was the keeper's fault, not Merrills. It's not like Merrill dragged her into the cave and forced her to absorb the demon. The clan attacks Merrill for the sole reason that she is a bloodmage. She hasn't done anything else to them. I avoid killing the clan by taking responsiblitly as it is the only way, but honestly, if they wish to die and I had no choice but to kill them then I wouldn't shed a tear.

@TJ I can respect your decisions because you at least reflect on it and don't cook up some excuse. I wouldn't kill innocents for no reason, but that can be considered as wrong as your view. Because that means I'd maybe rather let 5 innocents die instead of killing one.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 06:16 .

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

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.

She says that in the mage ending, too.

This is incorrect. Aveline says that her husband, Donnic, issued the order to keep the civilians safe and to keep them from siding with the templars.