Questa discussione ha avuto 945 risposte

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlexXIV wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Indeed and I forgot how we started

Anywho...not sure what to discuss anymore, the issue's been talked to death.

We could always grab a stick and beat another dead horse. There are always more dead horses to beat.

Haven't beaten elves in a while, but they only have a minor role in DA2.

There's Bhelen and Loghain, two very dead horses.
Collector base, but it's still being beaten.

Collector bases are easy. Blow them up. Like Chanties.

Better to preserve them and use them as weapons. Like chan... Damn it..

[Joy Divison]

AlexXIV wrote...

...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...

A couple of problems w/ this.

If such a 'third' choice existed, it would invalidate the premise of the entire game: forcing Hawke to choose between 2 undesirable options.

If such a 'third' choice existed, it would mostly likely be by far the option gamers would opt for because it is easy, laregly conforms to our socio-ethical concepts, and doesn't make you feel all ikky for having to make a difficult choice.

It is highly questionable the Champion of Kirkwall would be afforded the luxury of remaining neutral.  Elthina constantly gets criticized for her inaction and naive desire to forment a peace/compromise in a scenario where compromise is highly unlikely and Hawke would be doing much of the same.  Meredith takes away the option to remain neutral by giving a "You're either with us or against us ulitmatum."

I do not find it unreasonable for Hawke to be forced into a "with us or against us" ultimatum.  She is too important a figure and in revolutionary situations such as France in 1792 and Russia in 1917, those who opted for neutrality or even moderation were often considered "enemies" and arrested/killed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

...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...

A couple of problems w/ this.

If such a 'third' choice existed, it would invalidate the premise of the entire game: forcing Hawke to choose between 2 undesirable options.

By making him / her lazy and useless for 3 years, yes. Obviously in such an instance, it's too late for other alternatives.

[Joy Divison]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

By making him / her lazy and useless for 3 years, yes. Obviously in such an instance, it's too late for other alternatives.

I never said I agreed with the writing in setting up how Hawke got to make an ugly decision between 2 undesierable options, just that it was the point of the game

[Cismontane]

Eowlen, the term genocide refers to a specific thing on earth. The fact Hitler and Stalin decided to eradicate others at the same time they sought to commit genocide does not automatically extend the label of genocide to those other crimes. those other crimes may simply be mass murder. Otherwise, any government that rounded up groups like the mentally I'll and either outright murdered them or incarcerated them in conditions designed to lead to their demise would be guilty of genocide... That would include England and several US states in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Conversely, governments that sought to destroy a cultural or ethnic group identity through non-lethal means can still be held accountable for genocide. Australia, with it's mid 20th century aboriginal pacification policies are a case in point.

Anyway, it all depends on how you want to play the game. I choose to play it using a late Medieval/ early Modern mindset, viewing the Templars as an organization similar to the Inquisition and the mages as a group similar to the converted Moslems in Iberia, I'm the 16th through 18th centuries: a permanent suspect class which was kept under oppressive religious supervision and out of which those suspected (usually incorrectly) of being Apostates (either because they sought to escape the ghettos to which they were consigned or because they were denounced to secretly practices Islam) were subject to being tortured and killed en masse. That situation was similar also in that the Caliphate (the Moslem empire that was pushed out of Iberia by 1492) was, like Tevinter, still regarded as a geopolitical threat to Europe... And thus could be exploited (as a source of fear) by elites to justify the Inquisition's harsher measures.

[TJPags]

Eowien Thiele wrote...

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.

As someone who has defended siding with the templars let me address this:

What many people forget, and what you try to draw a parellel with, is that THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE.  This is a game, a fantasy world, which as you recognize has its own rules, races, laws, etc.

I don't think ANYONE is advocating genocide here on earth.  People are definding their right to choose to take an action IN A GAME which is legal in the world of that game, and which some people feel would constitute genocide if conducted here.  Its not conducted here, so what it would qualify as here is meaningless.

So, yes, this real-world human is defending his right to choose to take an action in a GAME where that action is LEGAL.  Even if some people think it would be considered genocide here on earth.

As for what I would do if there were actual mages among us here - that's hypothetical and theoretical and meaningless.  There are none.  Call me when there are, I'll give you my answer.

[Rifneno]

TJPags wrote...

Eowien Thiele wrote...

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.

As someone who has defended siding with the templars let me address this:

What many people forget, and what you try to draw a parellel with, is that THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE.  This is a game, a fantasy world, which as you recognize has its own rules, races, laws, etc.

I don't think ANYONE is advocating genocide here on earth.  People are definding their right to choose to take an action IN A GAME which is legal in the world of that game, and which some people feel would constitute genocide if conducted here.  Its not conducted here, so what it would qualify as here is meaningless.

So, yes, this real-world human is defending his right to choose to take an action in a GAME where that action is LEGAL.  Even if some people think it would be considered genocide here on earth.

As for what I would do if there were actual mages among us here - that's hypothetical and theoretical and meaningless.  There are none.  Call me when there are, I'll give you my answer.

Seriously?  It needed to be clarified that we're talking hypotheticals of a game world and not real life, personal morals?

[TJPags]

Rifneno wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Eowien Thiele wrote...

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.

As someone who has defended siding with the templars let me address this:

What many people forget, and what you try to draw a parellel with, is that THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE.  This is a game, a fantasy world, which as you recognize has its own rules, races, laws, etc.

I don't think ANYONE is advocating genocide here on earth.  People are definding their right to choose to take an action IN A GAME which is legal in the world of that game, and which some people feel would constitute genocide if conducted here.  Its not conducted here, so what it would qualify as here is meaningless.

So, yes, this real-world human is defending his right to choose to take an action in a GAME where that action is LEGAL.  Even if some people think it would be considered genocide here on earth.

As for what I would do if there were actual mages among us here - that's hypothetical and theoretical and meaningless.  There are none.  Call me when there are, I'll give you my answer.

Seriously?  It needed to be clarified that we're talking hypotheticals of a game world and not real life, personal morals?

Apparently so, since people who side with templars or defend that decision are called morally reprehensible, genocidal monsters, deserving of being on trial at Nuremberg, etc.  And since people want to keep bringing up and posting the UN definition of genocide.  And discussing how scary it is that we would consider such a thing, with concern over how we would act in real life.

So, yea, I do think people need to be reminded its just a game.

So thanks for asking.

[Deztyn]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

You don't have to agree with the Annulment to believe that siding with the Templars is the best option. Would I have invoked the Right myself? Probably not. I do think you can make a compelling case for it in universe, but that's not important.  I don't get to choose the Right. I can only choose what to do when someone else has already made that call.

We can argue all day and night about whether the mages turn to blood magic and demons because of the Annulment, or if they were hiding in the Circle all along. But that doesn't mean much when picking sides. The demons are there now. You can fight a doomed battle to save the innocents you can and risk freeing the corrupted along with them, or you can keep them contained and sacrifice the few for what you hope is the good of the many. There are no guarantees with either choice. We can't say for certain that one path results in less dead innocents.

People get caught up in the game mechanics and forget what a single abomination is really capable of. It's not just a mob any moderately skilled adventurer can kill in a few hits with a perfectly timed cross-class combo. They are monsters who can lay waste to entire villages in days or weeks. We hear about it with Amelia, and with the case in Nevarra that resulted in the Right being created. We've seen it ourselves with Connor. Letting even a single abomination walk away from that Circle is not a chance my Hawkes are willing to take. So I'm a babykiller. I slaughter the helpless little apprentices. I support genocide. And I'll own all that without shame.

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.

I'd have appreciated a "walk away from the whole mess" option. But there's no reason to give a third choice. Helping the guards and protecting civilians would just be a soft Templar ending that leaves the player's moral superiority intact. It makes sense for roleplaying, as would leaving Kirkwall to it's fate. However, it wouldn't work for the narrative, and it would be the cheap and easy choice everyone takes. I prefer Gray vs Gray, I just wish the conflict had been better developed.

Modificata da Deztyn, 25 aprile 2011 - 03:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...
 I prefer Gray vs Gray

It ends up being insane vs insane.

[Deztyn]

Hey, I did just say the conflict could have been developed better.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I know. I just have to keep expressing it over and over again until the shock of complete disappointment wears off.

[Deztyn]

I hated the game my first time through...

...and then I bought Sebastian and played it again anyway.

Just to be sure, you understand.

Modificata da Deztyn, 25 aprile 2011 - 04:36 .

[Cismontane]

I actually think the Mage revolt was adequately built up across DAO, DAO:A and DA2, if you followed all of the backstory and codex cues in addition to the main plot, from the framing of the conflicts between the fraternities in DAO, to Uldred's and Ferelden blood mages' motivations and objectives, to Wynne/Ines' trip to Cumberland and the rise there of the Resolutionists, to the rumors of Tevinter engagement, to the backstory of blood mage guerilla attacks in Kirkwall, increased repression and Anders' statement that the Mage Underground is being crushed, to Leliana's warning, to the actual revolt and Annulment.

Interestingly, the Mage revolt in Kirkwall has something of a RL parallel: the Morisco Revolt in Andalusia, fought from 1567 to 1571, which ultimately resulted in genocide. Basically, the Spanish Inquisition increased repression of the Moriscos (Muslim converts to Christianity - a suspect class) to an intolerable point, deeming entire families to be apostates, taking children away from parents for purposes of religious indoctrination in boot camps, required daily check ins and interviews of suspected apostates, etc. The increased repression was probably calculated by the inquisition and the Aragon crown to spawn a revolt, because they wanted an opportunity to set an example for growing discontent in other regions by slaughtering apostates in that one area. In any event, the revolt took place on cue, but was much worse than planned.. Quickly spreading throughout the kingdom and taking 4 years to crush.

In the end, all the Moriscos - tens of thousands - were either expelled or slaughtered. The order to crush the Moriscos was not rescinded until 1967, and as of 2007 the Spanish legislature was STILL debating restitution to the descendants of the victims!

[Medhia Nox]

@Cismontane - which completely backs my statement than there is NO way for the mage-revolt to win.

===

However, since this is fantasy - the HUGE difference, is that mages are a factual threat to society - while these Moriscos were only perceived as a threat due to prejudice.

Normal people don't attract demons - normal people can't cause huge explosions with a gesture - normal people can't summon demons to fight their battles for them. Mages are NOT normal people - they're born, dangerous anomalies.

And this comes from a staunch mage player. However - while I could idealize "self-control" for myself - I would never trust other people, especially in our current modern age, to practice such a thing as self-control. It's a dying trait.

So - the mages must be regulated.

[Lewie]

It is obvious and absolutely fine that some players see blood magic as not that bad/evil etc. From my perpsective i do simply see it as bad and extremely dangerous. The demons wouldn't spare any mage/templar/man/woman or child they just would kill outright, unless that can be proven as wrong. Whose to say many mages hadn't already been killed by the abominations. Too much is based on speculation. Ultimately it hit me more that letting a danger loose into Thedas was simply a very bad idea, the veil being as it was etc. So many pixels are gone. Maybe people get too emotionally involved, i don't know.

A third option i would have taken it. I don't agree with genocide/terrorism on any scale but i don't apply that way of thinking to games in 15 years i never have and never will. Its as if saying if you side with templars and someone put a big red button on your computer desk, with the result being you kill loads of people you would press it. Its just so ridiculous, and its also rather insulting to people that have suffered these attrocities in real life. Its exactly right to say 'Its just a game'.

[Yakko77]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
 I prefer Gray vs Gray

It ends up being insane vs insane.

Sadly there was no option to channel my inner Cartman and say, "screw you guys... I'm going home" and just least.

[TobiTobsen]

Yakko77 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
 I prefer Gray vs Gray

It ends up being insane vs insane.

Sadly there was no option to channel my inner Cartman and say, "screw you guys... I'm going home" and just least.

Cartman would've never sold the idol in the first place and would've done evil stuff with it. Like... summoning Cthulu to murder his "friends" for not playing with him

[AlexXIV]

TobiTobsen wrote...

Yakko77 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
 I prefer Gray vs Gray

It ends up being insane vs insane.

Sadly there was no option to channel my inner Cartman and say, "screw you guys... I'm going home" and just least.

Cartman would've never sold the idol in the first place and would've done evil stuff with it. Like... summoning Cthulu to murder his "friends" for not playing with him

Actually he would probably be a smaller younger and fatter Meredith. Shouting 'Respect my authority!' while waving the idol.

[Cismontane]

Hehe on the Carter refs...

Medhia, I agree with you that the revolt in Kirkwall was doomed... I don't quite agree that the Morisco's weren't seen as a real threat. Clearly as mere mortals they had no ability to summon demons and, in fact, very few of them were actually Moslem apostates anyway. The inquisition manufactured a lot of the evidence against them. but they were used as a sacrifice to the throne's fears that a vast number of Moriscos in the kingdom constituted a dangerous fifth column to a re-invasion of the land by the Caliphate Empire or simply a wider revolt by the empire's ex-Moslem and ex-Jewish partisans in Spain, who probably constituted half the population in some areas.. And the caliphate was still the most powerful state in the world despite having been thrown out of Spain by plucky Christians. It was just like Leliana saying that a Mage revolt in Kirkwall could not be tolerated because it could lead to support for a new Tevinter.

[Cismontane]

Cartman refs I mean... Darn auto-spellcheck