945 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Deztyn wrote...

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.

Question is rather if you agree with the annullment or not. Or if you claim it is the only option. If not (which is the case with my Hawke, and it seems that you see it the same way) then there is no way I am going to support it. Siding with mages is more of a result of not siding with Meredith in my case. Personally I would have walked away or helped the city guards to defend from the mages who are not in the Gallows instead of spearheading the templars into the Gallows. Letting the templars die in the Gallows if they insist and protect the citzens outside. That would be protecting innocents in my book and an option to siding with the mages. Since that's not possible, siding with the mages is the only option that's left for me. Which is why I hate how the whole thing is written. I mean I understand that the plot demands a decision. But they should at least have given us a scenario that actually makes sense and is not such obvious handwaving. Especially in the culmination of the main plot.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 01:56 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

It wouldn't make sense at all for the amges to start caring about the civilians. The mages are fighting for their lives. They aren't gonna bother try and help a population which want them dead.
The only way to help the civilians in Kirkwall, would be to walk away (not an option) or help the Templars.

[In Exile]

But there is no reason not to walk away. Protect the citizens as best as possible and otherwise let Meredith do what she wants. A mage Hawke could have a reason to defend the mages, but otherwse...

[EmperorSahlertz]

If you were to walk away, it would make for a very anti-climaqtic ending of the game.

[In Exile]

If it were up to me, you wouldn't fully walk away. You'd side with Aveline and the civilians. Orisono goes full harvester and starts to trash the Gallows and abominations are all over the place. Without Hawke there, Orsino escapes to Kirkwall and Hawke has to stop it. Meredith follows behind and the two meet. Then she goes bat**** insane again.

This requires dropping the golems of doom from the boss fight, but well, that isn't a bad idea.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you were to walk away, it would make for a very anti-climaqtic ending of the game.

No we had threads that discussed a possible 3rd option which would make sense. Sort of a 2nd templar ending in which Orsino transforms into a Harvester and drives the templars back. And when the harvester is razing the town and nobody can take him Hawke sides with the templars to put him down. And then, like the regular templar ending Meredith wants to see Hawke dead and the second bossfight ensues. So basically ends like the templar ending just that Hawke refuses to be part of it at first and then gets drawn in unvoluntarily. Which looks alot better to me. Hawke could still be a hero for the templars because he/she saved Kirkwall from the Harvester. Also it would make the Harvester look more powerful because the templars could not stop it if not for Hawke. Unlike in the other endings where it is just a bossfight with no real meaning. Not to mention it would have made Hawke look more the hero and not a pawn of Meredith.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 04:19 .

[Xilizhra]

The nonmage civilians are in the hands of the guard now, and the guard is staying out of the fight. There's no point in siding with them, especially since Meredith flat-out says she'll kill you if you don't help her with the Annulment (if Hawke says she won't take sides). Doing that would mean that you'd still be fighting templars and wouldn't have any help from mages either, which won't be helping the nonmage civilians any; the best way to save them is to end the battle as quickly as possible, and kill the lunatic who started it all.

[AlexXIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

The nonmage civilians are in the hands of the guard now, and the guard is staying out of the fight. There's no point in siding with them, especially since Meredith flat-out says she'll kill you if you don't help her with the Annulment (if Hawke says she won't take sides). Doing that would mean that you'd still be fighting templars and wouldn't have any help from mages either, which won't be helping the nonmage civilians any; the best way to save them is to end the battle as quickly as possible, and kill the lunatic who started it all.

I think Meredith has more important things to do than going after Hawke. She can say what she wants but she will have to take care of the mages first and not running after Hawke who is fighting abominations that try to eat civilians. Also either the civilians are in danger by the mages or not. You can't use the mage threat to the civilians in one argument and say there is no threat in the next. Because if you say the mages don't threaten civilians or that the city guards take care of it then there is no reason to kill the mages.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 04:23 .

[Xilizhra]

There really aren't many abominations; one or two clusters on the way to the Gallows at most. And the nonmage civilians are in no danger from the mages regardless; the demons popping through the Veil might be more problematic, but that's what the guard's there for.

[AlexXIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

There really aren't many abominations; one or two clusters on the way to the Gallows at most. And the nonmage civilians are in no danger from the mages regardless; the demons popping through the Veil might be more problematic, but that's what the guard's there for.

Most things Hawke kills in Kirkwall are what guards or templars are there for. But it is always Hawke who has to do it. So it does not really make sense to say Hawke does not have to worry about civilians because there are guards. Then why would Hawke have to do all the quests in Act1 and 2? For fun or out of boredom?

[hoorayforicecream]

Xilizhra wrote...

There really aren't many abominations; one or two clusters on the way to the Gallows at most. And the nonmage civilians are in no danger from the mages regardless; the demons popping through the Veil might be more problematic, but that's what the guard's there for.

Most people agree to segregate gameplay from the story. If you want to take it all literally, you could also say that there's less than three dozen mages in the tower anyway, so anulling the circle isn't that big a deal.

[Xilizhra]

It's not like Hawke is killing everything dangerous in Kirkwall, she just runs into a lot of dangerous things. The populace isn't all enslaved or eaten, so clearly the guards are still doing their jobs, especially during Hawke's three-year breaks. The battle itself is what's most dangerous for the people of Kirkwall, and ending it as fast as possible is the best thing for them.

[AlexXIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not like Hawke is killing everything dangerous in Kirkwall, she just runs into a lot of dangerous things. The populace isn't all enslaved or eaten, so clearly the guards are still doing their jobs, especially during Hawke's three-year breaks. The battle itself is what's most dangerous for the people of Kirkwall, and ending it as fast as possible is the best thing for them.

No you don't understand. If Hawke was thinking like you say, 'the guards will take care of it' then he/she never would have got into a mess. Hawke running around solving problems is due his/her opinion that the guards and templars need support. So Hawke thinking 'Ah the guards will handle it' is not really Hawke-like. And Hawke does not really have a reason to be drawn into templar-mage conflict either. Unless he/she does have an interest to side with mages or templars, which is not necessarily so. Hawke could as well say 'The templar can handle the mages' as he/she can say 'The guards can handle the random abominations around town'. Which is actually even sillier considering that templars are trained to fight mages and abominations, and the guards are not. So chances that the guards need help are higher than chances that the templars need help.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 04:45 .

[AlexXIV]

I think one problem of the whole game is that in the imporant events things are not shown. You get rushed through and most of what happens you have to assume. I find it kind of ridiculous if a game does have enough ressources for sex and romantic cutscenes, but not for important events such as the main plot culminating. If they need to cut something they should start with romances, not he main plot.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 04:49 .

[Xilizhra]

AlexXIV wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not like Hawke is killing everything dangerous in Kirkwall, she just runs into a lot of dangerous things. The populace isn't all enslaved or eaten, so clearly the guards are still doing their jobs, especially during Hawke's three-year breaks. The battle itself is what's most dangerous for the people of Kirkwall, and ending it as fast as possible is the best thing for them.

No you don't understand. If Hawke was thinking like you say, 'the guards will take care of it' then he/she never would have got into a mess. Hawke running around solving problems is due his/her opinion that the guards and templars need support. So Hawke thinking 'Ah the guards will handle it' is not really Hawke-like. And Hawke does not really have a reason to be drawn into templar-mage conflict either. Unless he/she does have an interest to side with mages or templars, which is not necessarily so. Hawke could as well say 'The templar can handle the mages' as he/she can say 'The guards can handle the random abominations around town'. Which is actually even sillier considering that templars are trained to fight mages and abominations, and the guards are not. So chances that the guards need help are higher than chances that the templars need help.

A lot of the problems Hawke runs into are somehow personal or outside the guard's jurisdiction. She never has to just protect civilians from waves of attackers, but to go out on specific missions that the guard might be able to do given time, but it'd take longer and deprive Hawke of loot. Loot is no longer an issue here, and any threats to the people will be coming to them, with the guards prepared to defend them. Hawke can't solve all of Kirkwall's problems at once here, and hordes of mook shades are less a problem than the templar death squads and their psycho leader, who will continue to be tearing the already weak Veil with their violence and releasing yet more shades. The battle is the threat and Hawke has to end it as fast as possible.

[AlexXIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's not like Hawke is killing everything dangerous in Kirkwall, she just runs into a lot of dangerous things. The populace isn't all enslaved or eaten, so clearly the guards are still doing their jobs, especially during Hawke's three-year breaks. The battle itself is what's most dangerous for the people of Kirkwall, and ending it as fast as possible is the best thing for them.

No you don't understand. If Hawke was thinking like you say, 'the guards will take care of it' then he/she never would have got into a mess. Hawke running around solving problems is due his/her opinion that the guards and templars need support. So Hawke thinking 'Ah the guards will handle it' is not really Hawke-like. And Hawke does not really have a reason to be drawn into templar-mage conflict either. Unless he/she does have an interest to side with mages or templars, which is not necessarily so. Hawke could as well say 'The templar can handle the mages' as he/she can say 'The guards can handle the random abominations around town'. Which is actually even sillier considering that templars are trained to fight mages and abominations, and the guards are not. So chances that the guards need help are higher than chances that the templars need help.

A lot of the problems Hawke runs into are somehow personal or outside the guard's jurisdiction. She never has to just protect civilians from waves of attackers, but to go out on specific missions that the guard might be able to do given time, but it'd take longer and deprive Hawke of loot. Loot is no longer an issue here, and any threats to the people will be coming to them, with the guards prepared to defend them. Hawke can't solve all of Kirkwall's problems at once here, and hordes of mook shades are less a problem than the templar death squads and their psycho leader, who will continue to be tearing the already weak Veil with their violence and releasing yet more shades. The battle is the threat and Hawke has to end it as fast as possible.

That's like your opinion. In fact you can decide to pick either side, templar or mages. Now if you join the mages, will this end the battle quicker? Considering the templars even win if you join the mages?

[Xilizhra]

Well, I'm sure as hell not going to participate in mass murder, and I'm rather inclined to stop those who will.

[AlexXIV]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, I'm sure as hell not going to participate in mass murder, and I'm rather inclined to stop those who will.

I feel the same. That's my point. I would rather help the guards and let the templars commit their ... what ever it is ... on their own. Siding with the mages does also leave a slightly bitter taste. Because as some said, not all are innocent. I have no problem killing a bloodmage or otherwise criminal mage. But I don't want to have the blood of innocents on my Hawke's hands. I couldn't defend it later without feeling like a hypocrite. That's why it is no grey area decision for me and I HAVE TO side with the mages. But a 3rd option would give me a templar friendly ending even without taking part in the annullment.

[Xilizhra]

Conveniently, all the non-innocent ones attack you, making them easy to spot.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Conveniently, all the non-innocent ones attack you, making them easy to spot.

I am willing to bet, that when it comes to survival, even the non-blood mages fight back. Just a hunch.

[Xilizhra]

When you side with the mages, I mean.

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Conveniently, all the non-innocent ones attack you, making them easy to spot.

I am willing to bet, that when it comes to survival, even the non-blood mages fight back. Just a hunch.

Yeah they all know what the Right of Annulment means. Namely every mage will be killed most likely. I mean the templars are on edge as anyone else so they won't take chances and leave a mage alone just because he stands there acting innocent. I mean they are not stupid. If not fighting back would mean they are left alone they wouldn't need to fight for their life.

[Eowien Thiele]

There is no morally or ethically justifiable reason to commit genocide. By the real-life Articles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide:

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

( Conspiracy to commit genocide;

© Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.
Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.

A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.

A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals."

By these definitions, the mages are a group defined by physical characteristics (the ability to use magic) who have been systematically harmed by the Chantry and Templars in exactly the ways described as punishable acts under international law. Siding with the Templars is to participate in a genocide, no matter how you rationalize your choice.

[AlexXIV]

Eowien Thiele wrote...

But two things are different in Thedas. First, the law is on the side of genocide. Meaning the treatment of mages is sanctioned by Chantry law, which applies to most countries of Thedas. In Kirkwall it is the law anyway. Also in our world we have no mages, or mutants like in the X-men comics. So our laws (i.e. United Nations) apply only to non-mages.

I think it is still morally highly questionable and hard to defend. Especially if Hawke is supposed to be someone who can talk sense to both groups. I mean how are you going to convince mages to make peace if you have spearheaded an Annullment which will in future probably be seen as a crime. Assuming that the 'change' that is comming means to say bye-bye to Chantry law.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 avril 2011 - 07:05 .

[Eowien Thiele]

AlexXIV wrote...

Eowien Thiele wrote...

But two things are different in Thedas. First, the law is on the side of genocide. Meaning the treatment of mages is sanctioned by Chantry law, which applies to most countries of Thedas. In Kirkwall it is the law anyway. Also in our world we have no mages, or mutants like in the X-men comics. So our laws (i.e. United Nations) apply only to non-mages.

I think it is still morally highly questionable and hard to defend. Especially if Hawke is supposed to be someone who can talk sense to both groups. I mean how are you going to convince mages to make peace if you have spearheaded an Annullment which will in future probably be seen as a crime. Assuming that the 'change' that is comming means to say bye-bye to Chantry law.

You're right, of course, that Thedas and the real world are different - not least because Thedas has non-humans, too!  The thing that gets to me in the discussions of this choice, though, is that real-world humans are making arguments for taking actions that, morally, ethically and legally in the real world, constitute genocide.  Would they use the same logic in a real-world situation?  That thought frankly worries me.