945 réponses à ce sujet

[TobiTobsen]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

[LobselVith8]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

Yeah, it doesn't sound very pro-Anders. The people are blaming the Circle mages for the actions of an apostate because of his destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry.

[pallascedar]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the Templars, Hawke isn't on the run three years later. He simply vanished.

You say tomAto and I say Tomaato, but it's the same fruit in the end.  Less than three years later, Hawke is no longer Viscount with no good explainaion.  It's a pretty blatent plothole which is why I think the default Hawke will be a mage (or mage sympathizer) Hawke.
-Polars

There isn't a default Warden. Why would there be a default Hawke?

[TJPags]

TobiTobsen wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

Is that the line?  Fair enough.

As Lob says, it certainly shows people ain't happy about what went on.

[AlexXIV]

pallascedar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you side with the Templars, Hawke isn't on the run three years later. He simply vanished.

You say tomAto and I say Tomaato, but it's the same fruit in the end.  Less than three years later, Hawke is no longer Viscount with no good explainaion.  It's a pretty blatent plothole which is why I think the default Hawke will be a mage (or mage sympathizer) Hawke.
-Polars

There isn't a default Warden. Why would there be a default Hawke?

Well yeah ... no ... I don't think there is a default either. But I think mage would be more rewarding. Simply because templar fight for keeping or returning to the status quo. There is not really much to be gained. Mages fight for their freedom, so they fight for change and by that write history.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 23 avril 2011 - 09:12 .

[moilami]

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.

Asking anything about mages from Meredith or Aveline is like asking from typical medieval type dude should women be allowed to vote even though democracy has not yet been implemented.

[Rifneno]

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.

Yes, I did try to understand it.  Then I had to take some antacid to stop throwing up in my mouth.  It's disgusting and immoral to kill a bunch of people for a *possible* threat not just exaggerated but also partially created by religious zealots.  If the Chantry thinks the mage threat is such an earthshattering one, why do they make templar training a secret and control all lyrium trade?  Why not give the public the means to defend themselves?  Because the whole thing is a power play by the Chantry.

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

Kind of scary to see how many people think killing others for a crime they haven't committed is okay isn't it?  I can only hope these people never manage to get any position of authority.

TobiTobsen wrote...

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

I don't think anybody said they were.  When the primary religion preaches fearmongering against a minority, it's pretty much that religion's fault when lynch mob form.

[hoorayforicecream]

There are actually two different lines, based on Hawke's choice.

Choose mages: "Donnic has kept the guard protecting civilians. Meredith will have no support from them."

Choose templars: "Donnic has kept the guard protecting civilians. It's been contained so far but... we really need some luck going ahead."

[TobiTobsen]

Rifneno wrote...

Yes, I did try to understand it.  Then I had to take some antacid to stop throwing up in my mouth.  It's disgusting and immoral to kill a bunch of people for a *possible* threat not just exaggerated but also partially created by religious zealots.  If the Chantry thinks the mage threat is such an earthshattering one, why do they make templar training a secret and control all lyrium trade?  Why not give the public the means to defend themselves?  Because the whole thing is a power play by the Chantry.

"Possible" threat? Did you somehow miss the enormous potential for destruction a blood mage, let alone a abomination has? Furthered by the templars or not, the thin veil in Kirkwall has lead mages to the evil use of blood magic. We see examples in the game. You're not only defending mages like Bethany. You're also defending mages like Houn. It doesn't matter if he wasn't insane before, he is it now and is a threat and you let mages like him loose in the city. I cannot change the faults the chantry has made in the past. I can only try to prevent an incident that would be much more destructive than the one with Connor. If you think that I'm immoral and disgusting for mentioning this as a possible reason for siding with the templars, go ahead.

Rifneno wrote...

I don't think anybody said they were.  When the primary religion preaches fearmongering against a minority, it's pretty much that religion's fault when lynch mob form.

And the reaction of the mob has nothing to do with the fact that a mage just blew up the chantry? The people aren't metagaming. They don't know it was an apostate and probably don't care. Anders did nothing more than prove to the "normal" people that everything bad the chantry says about mages is correct. What they know is that some mage just blew up the biggest center of their faith and, let me remind you that the chantry is not just occupied with opressing mages,  a charity organisation which helps the poor, orphans, escaped slaves and other people. That and one well liked Grand Cleric and probably some Brothers and Sisters. 
Are you really surprised that people could react with anger and hatred after that?

[Lewie]

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now. I know the dwarves have major say in 'handovers' i guess, but it has to be processed or its too dangerous. I just checked the codex it seems wrong saying that it kills mages outright, in pure form yes but mages survive lyrium veins in the fade DA:O, unless im mistaken and they are not pure forms, its only outside the danger is?

If the chantry are feeding it to templars and they get addicted, thats a form of control right there. It apparently causes 'emotional instability or psychosis'. If the mages can't access it either, thats control right there so they resort to blood magic.

Those 2 points alone make me wonder who would evidently benefit from all of this? Obviously not templars or mages. Not even the chantry they would know outright war would happen if both side were corrupted.

That blasted idol. 





 

[Rifneno]

TobiTobsen wrote...

"Possible" threat? Did you somehow miss the enormous potential for destruction a blood mage, let alone a abomination has? Furthered by the templars or not, the thin veil in Kirkwall has lead mages to the evil use of blood magic.

If we're blaming the whole for the actions of a few, bombing the Chantry is perfectly acceptable after Petrice and Varnell.

We see examples in the game. You're not only defending mages like Bethany. You're also defending mages like Houn.

And in killing mages like Bethany, you are becoming like Houn.  Only Houn had demons poisoning him with insanity.  You (or rather, your Hawke) is just a goddamn monster.

It doesn't matter if he wasn't insane before, he is it now and is a threat and you let mages like him loose in the city. I cannot change the faults the chantry has made in the past. I can only try to prevent an incident that would be much more destructive than the one with Connor. If you think that I'm immoral and disgusting for mentioning this as a possible reason for siding with the templars, go ahead.

I did.  And you're not just "not changing the Chantry's past faults," you're helping them commit new ones.

And the reaction of the mob has nothing to do with the fact that a mage just blew up the chantry? The people aren't metagaming. They don't know it was an apostate and probably don't care. Anders did nothing more than prove to the "normal" people that everything bad the chantry says about mages is correct. What they know is that some mage just blew up the biggest center of their faith and, let me remind you that the chantry is not just occupied with opressing mages,  a charity organisation which helps the poor, orphans, escaped slaves and other people. That and one well liked Grand Cleric and probably some Brothers and Sisters. 
Are you really surprised that people could react with anger and hatred after that?

Okay so it's not acceptable for us to blame the Chantry for all the murderers and rapists going unchecked in their midst, but it's totally okay for commoners to start attacking any mage because of the actions of one mage?  Who for all they know could be a qunari saarebas seeking vengeance for his fallen comrades?  If the mage path had "innocent" citizens attacking mages for no reason other than sharing a genetic trait with someone who commited a crime, I'd open fire on the crowd without a second thought.  You don't coddle lynch mobs and rioters and you sure as hell don't excuse them.

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now.
 

I'm refering to the legal lyrium trade.  Orzammar's mines are apparently the only decent source of lyrium and their government has an exclusive trade deal with the Chantry.  That's why you see so much "smuggled" lyrium, because anything out of the Chantry's control is "illegal."

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now.
 

I'm refering to the legal lyrium trade.  Orzammar's mines are apparently the only decent source of lyrium and their government has an exclusive trade deal with the Chantry.  That's why you see so much "smuggled" lyrium, because anything out of the Chantry's control is "illegal."

If they have an exclusive trade with the chantry and its legal, that means the smuggling is a money pot and feed addiction bowl then?

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now.
 

I'm refering to the legal lyrium trade.  Orzammar's mines are apparently the only decent source of lyrium and their government has an exclusive trade deal with the Chantry.  That's why you see so much "smuggled" lyrium, because anything out of the Chantry's control is "illegal."

If they have an exclusive trade with the chantry and its legal, that means the smuggling is a money pot and feed addiction bowl then?

Pretty much, yes.  Most of the lyrium smuggling we've seen is mages using it to bribe templars and the like.

[Lewie]

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now.
 

I'm refering to the legal lyrium trade.  Orzammar's mines are apparently the only decent source of lyrium and their government has an exclusive trade deal with the Chantry.  That's why you see so much "smuggled" lyrium, because anything out of the Chantry's control is "illegal."

If they have an exclusive trade with the chantry and its legal, that means the smuggling is a money pot and feed addiction bowl then?

Pretty much, yes.  Most of the lyrium smuggling we've seen is mages using it to bribe templars and the like.

In Orzammar your asked to smuggle lyrium to Godwin which made me think if the mages resort to smuggling it, its only because they need it for basically, mana/magic. If mages need it, why don't the chantry provide it. They deny it to mages and feed it to the templars. 

So in effect the chantry has damned good mages to blood magic and demons, and damned the templars to being a mad army. 

Im not sure what made me think that it was restricted to mages someway, thats maybe heresay. I also probably just assumed it was, chantry control.

Modifié par louise101, 24 avril 2011 - 04:01 .

[Rifneno]

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Saying the chantry control the lyrium made my head explode just now.
 

I'm refering to the legal lyrium trade.  Orzammar's mines are apparently the only decent source of lyrium and their government has an exclusive trade deal with the Chantry.  That's why you see so much "smuggled" lyrium, because anything out of the Chantry's control is "illegal."

If they have an exclusive trade with the chantry and its legal, that means the smuggling is a money pot and feed addiction bowl then?

Pretty much, yes.  Most of the lyrium smuggling we've seen is mages using it to bribe templars and the like.

In Orzammar your asked to smuggle lyrium to Godwin which made me think if the mages resort to smuggling it, its only because they need it for basically, mana/magic. If mages need it, why don't the chantry provide it. They deny it to mages and feed it to the templars. 

So in effect the chantry has damned good mages to blood magic and demons, and damned the templars to being a mad army. 

If you have a high enoug coercion and question Godwin, he'll tell you he's basically a templar drug dealer.  He doesn't use the lyrium himself, he sells it to templars whose addiction is higher than what the Chantry is giving them.  But otherwise... yes.  Samson will gripe similarly if you question him, saying the Chantry gets templars addicted to lyrium and then if you just to quit (or are kicked out) like him, you have no way to get the substance you're highly addicted to.  So he winds up on the street panhandling for drug money.

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

Yeah, it doesn't sound very pro-Anders. The people are blaming the Circle mages for the actions of an apostate because of his destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry.

Actually, what she says is a tad more ambiguous; I interpreted it as her saying that the guardsmen were defending civilians and that they, the guards, wouldn't be supporting the templars.

[Lewie]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Lobsel is right.
But I just thought about that... doesn't sound very pro-mage either, eh? "Keep them from siding with the templars". Seems like the general populace is a little bit angry about Anders lightshow.

Yeah, it doesn't sound very pro-Anders. The people are blaming the Circle mages for the actions of an apostate because of his destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry.

Actually, what she says is a tad more ambiguous; I interpreted it as her saying that the guardsmen were defending civilians and that they, the guards, wouldn't be supporting the templars.

'Keep them from siding with templars' makes perfect sense, an all out riot might, unfortunately involve a civilian running out sword in hand, or grabbing a sword and standing in front of the gallows. I guess its simply that the only order that had authority had to be supported by the city guard, for everyones sake.

Thats obviously affected because i trust Aveline. 

Fixed.

Modifié par louise101, 24 avril 2011 - 01:42 .

[TobiTobsen]

Rifneno wrote...

And in killing mages like Bethany, you are becoming like Houn.  Only Houn had demons poisoning him with insanity.  You (or rather, your Hawke) is just a goddamn monster.

And again I'm the ultimate evil for sacrificing the few for the many. I never said I would gleefully jump into the gallows and murder everybody I found. I would feel bad for killing possibly innocents. You on the other hand are totally fine with killing the only defense Kirkwall has against the blood mages and demons that are unleashed and obviously see yourself as some sort of freedom fighter while doing so. You cannot just ignore the corrupt mages you let go free with that. They are in the circle. They are in the streets. Even the First Entchanter is supporting blood magic and necromancy.

Rifneno wrote...

I did.  And you're not just "not changing the Chantry's past faults," you're helping them commit new ones.

The chantry has to change, but blowing everything up is not the best approach for that. Restoring order in the city and trying to change stuff is more effective than sparking a world wide war, if you ask me.

Rifneno wrote...

Okay so it's not acceptable for us to blame the Chantry for all the murderers and rapists going unchecked in their midst, but it's totally okay for commoners to start attacking any mage because of the actions of one mage?  Who for all they know could be a qunari saarebas seeking vengeance for his fallen comrades?  If the mage path had "innocent" citizens attacking mages for no reason other than sharing a genetic trait with someone who commited a crime, I'd open fire on the crowd without a second thought.  You don't coddle lynch mobs and rioters and you sure as hell don't excuse them.

Yeah... but you obviously excuse and coddle terrorism, blood magic and consorting with demons. I never claimed supporting the templars was righteous, but I refuse to let somebody call me a immoral monster, who somehow thinks that unleashing blood mages and demons on a defensless city let him take the moral high ground over me.

Just out of curiosity: Did you play Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect? If you did, did you kill Balak?

[AlexXIV]

I understand that sacrifcing a few for the greater good is a viable justification. What I don't understand is why some of you are so eager to sacrifice a few for the greater good when there are better options without sacrificing anyone.

You could just stop using the 'demons and bloodmages run through the streets killing citizens' apology because that's never happened. At least not until Meredith evokes the RoA which forces the mages in a desperate fight for their lives.

The mages may not look good resorting to blood magic and summoning demons, but they have more justification than the templars. Because what kind of justification would you need other than that you are fighting for your life? Of course they could just do nothing and let the templars kill them, but will you hold it against them that they don't? After all bloodmagic is the only sort of magic that cannot be neutralized by templars.

[AlexXIV]

TobiTobsen wrote...
Just out of curiosity: Did you play Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect? If you did, did you kill Balak?

I didn't play that. But I have a question for you. Did your Warden let Morrigan perform the Dark Ritual?
And what about Merrill? Did you let her use bloodmagic at any time?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 08:37 .

[TobiTobsen]

AlexXIV wrote...

I understand that sacrifcing a few for the greater good is a viable justification. What I don't understand is why some of you are so eager to sacrifice a few for the greater good when there are better options without sacrificing anyone.

You could just stop using the 'demons and bloodmages run through the streets killing citizens' apology because that's never happened. At least not until Meredith evokes the RoA which forces the mages in a desperate fight for their lives.

The mages may not look good resorting to blood magic and summoning demons, but they have more justification than the templars. Because what kind of justification would you need other than that you are fighting for your life? Of course they could just do nothing and let the templars kill them, but will you hold it against them that they don't? After all bloodmagic is the only sort of magic that cannot be neutralized by templars.

We have Blood Mages in the city as soon as act one. Tarohne and her gang. In act two we have demons in vital places of the city as soon as we just look funny at Tarohnes books. Hightown is crawling with blood mages who enthrall people to fight for them in act three.

As sad as it is, I have no other choice Alex. I would love to work with Thrask and his men after I dispose Grace. But the game forces me to choose between defending ALL the mages or killing ALL the mages. I always support the mages, I just try to present a reason to side with the templars.

Edit:

AlexXIV wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...
Just out of curiosity: Did you play Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect? If you did, did you kill Balak?

I didn't play that. But I have a question for you. Did your Warden let Morrigan perform the Dark Ritual?
And what about Merrill? Did you let her use bloodmagic at any time?

I did the ritual, yes. But more because Morrigan asked me for it and not to save my live. I'm a weak, weak man if it comes to Morrigan. Nonetheless I supported/used Blood magic there. Can't deny that.

Merrill... I'm not quite sure if everything in her talent tree is blood magic. What I never invest points in are the both talents at the top who actually use HP instead of Mana. If the rest is blood magic too, than I'm guilty again.

But like I wrote above, I'm in the mage camp. I just can understand it if people say that they supported the templars, because we can only choose between two extremes. Butchering all the mages to protect the whole city or letting every mage go, even the nasty ones.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 24 avril 2011 - 09:27 .

[Deztyn]

I'm sure the conversation has moved beyond this by now, but I'm going to respond anyway.

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

There are aspects designed to appeal to a modern audience, no doubt there. However, it would be a mistake to assume that means everything in the game has to be viewed and judged by 'our' standards.

Women fight and own property? Well, why wouldn't women fight and own property in Thedas? It's not our world, and in this world their messiah figure was a woman. It makes sense in the context of the world that women wouldn't have the same roles they did in medieval Europe.

Same sex relationships aren't much of an issue? Well, why would they be? Even in our world's history  ideas about sexuality vary according to culture. From punishable by death to being considered a character quirk to being actively encouraged in some subcultures-- it depends on where you lived and when. It's not unique to this century.

Thedas is Thedas.

It has it's own rules, it doesn't have to obey 'ours'. There's nothing wrong with you looking at it with your modern morals, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't view the world from the perspective of someone who would live there.

[Cismontane]

I don't think it's really arguable that the Templars didn't make the situation in Kirkwall worse than it already was by being jackbooted thugs about it, but there is a bigger picture too. Remember in DAO:A, when Wynne talks about an open attempt by Circle leaders to separate the Circles from the Chantry, driven by a faction in one of the fraternities? (why she wanted the Warden to go he Wending Wood to fetch Ines the Botanist)... Combine this with warnings from Seeker Leliana and Elthina about the Resolutionists and the Divine's likely jihad against them, and the hinted-at links to Tevinter, and one can guess that there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than Meredith's insanity and justifiable Mage resistance in Kirkwall. It's pretty clear that someone's laying the groundwork for war and a radical restructuring through war of Thedas' power structure. Mages and Templars in Kirkwall may all just be innocent and not-so-innocent pawns in a wider conspiracy and power struggle.

There are shades of some historical precedents in the DA treatment of mages in the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 and the proposals for Moslem Americans after 9/11 - harsh measures, bourne of mass fear and hysteria over a suspected fifth column loyal to a real enemy. In this case, Tevinter - or rather the system of Mage rule it represents - is that real enemy.. And that fear is used to justify the repression of those seen to be likely to retain loyalties to that enemy (one's own local mages).

The closest parallel is probably the situation of the Morranos in Iberia in the decades after the Reconquista in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. The kingdoms of Aragon and Castile had finally pushed the Islamic Caliphate back across the Gibralter Strait and local Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity were expelled. But those who converted were allowed to stay as Morranos - a suspect class. These were placed under the supervision of the Inquisition. Those suspected of secretly adhering to Islam were declared Apostates (literally that's what they were called) and subjected to imprisonment, torture and even execution by fire. Tens of thousands were killed by the Inquisitors, and the class continued to be treated this way until the early 19th century - 350 years after the Caliphate was defeated.

Yes, the Inquisition was wrong, but it came out of more than religious fear and superstition. There was the real military and geopolitical fear that the Caliphate would re-invade and that the Morranos would help them. Tevinter's position in Thedas in DA2's time is similar to that of the Caliphate (and later the Turks) with respect to western Europe in the 16th-18th Centuries: weakened, pushed back but still there and still a much-feared threat.

I'm not trying to justify the Chantry's/Templar's treatment of mages... Just to try to explain it. it may be wrong, but it's also quite understandable, and based on solid evidence on how real human societies react when under geopolitical threats of the nature posed by both the values and the armies of alien powers like Tevinter and the Caliphate.

[Deztyn]

AlexXIV wrote...

I understand that sacrifcing a few for the greater good is a viable justification. What I don't understand is why some of you are so eager to sacrifice a few for the greater good when there are better options without sacrificing anyone.

Uh, what better options?

The player has no choice about the Right of Annulment being called. Once Meredith invokes the Right, justified or not, there is no negotiating for a peaceful solution. It becomes a choice to help free the mages you can or kill them all. Merely defending the Gallows is pointless, the templars are not going to stand down. Best case scenario, you hold them off for awhile until their reinforcements come. Meredith is not going to change her mind no matter how many templars you slaughter. And there's no reason to think that killing Meredith, or Cullen, or Samson, Agatha or legions of unnamed templars will result in the Circle being allowed to stand in the end. It won't. Not even if you kill every templar in the Free Marches. So, the question posed to Hawke is are you willing to help them escape and risk unleashing the dangerous elements of the Circle on the rest of the world, or do you sacrifice the innocents to protect the majority?

I understand questioning the morality of the Right, and talking about what changes could have been made to avoid the whole situation, but arguing that there's other options once Meredith calls the Right is silly. Free them or Kill 'em all. There's no room for anything else in that situation.