945 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Have to agree with Lob and IanPolaris on this one, as self-rigthteous as they are in making the argument. Annulment= everybody dies. I really don't understand the point of the scene with the three mages other than Cullen fanservice. I do have to take issue with the rationale that what you're doing is punishment for Anders' actions- no one in the game ever makes that argument, so it's moot.

@IanPolaris, am I crazy or did we not have a discussion once about killing the Dalish in Origins wherein you tried to justify it despite the fact it means slaughtering the innocents of the clan including the children?

[Torax]

I'm just saying wanting First Enchanter as an end result is reaching at best and not even needed if you are making them ALL tranquil as you like point out cause you dislike the order and the chantry so much. They'd have no one left to make a Circle out of besides Hawke and their companions. Not a single one right? what are you rebuilding with? All the apostates that probably run away or you slaughter after? There is no Circle required if you made them all Tranquil in that setting which is Kirkwall...

[LobselVith8]

Torax wrote...

Lob if all the mages were made Tranquil they'd have no reason to need a First Enchanter...

Allow me to provide David Gaider's explanation, then.

David Gaider wrote...

The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.

[ajm317]

Torax wrote...

I'm just saying wanting First Enchanter as an end result is reaching at best and not even needed if you are making them ALL tranquil as you like point out cause you dislike the order and the chantry so much. They'd have no one left to make a Circle out of besides Hawke and their companions. Not a single one right? what are you rebuilding with? All the apostates that probably run away or you slaughter after? There is no Circle required if you made them all Tranquil in that setting which is Kirkwall...

Mages aren't going to stop being born in the Free Marches.  You need a circle to train and contain the young mages, even if you've already murdered all the old ones.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

@IanPolaris, am I crazy or did we not have a discussion once about killing the Dalish in Origins wherein you tried to justify it despite the fact it means slaughtering the innocents of the clan including the children?

We did but the circumstances are slightly different.  The question was whether picking the Werewolves meant you automatically decided that you were going to slaughter the whole Dalish tribe.  I pointed out that it could be justified (but I also said that it was the worst choice too) by pointing out that when you go to the Dalish, you do NOT intend to destroy the whole tribe.  You are there under the Aegis of the Spirit of the Forest to make the Dalish see the crime that Zathrien has committed and get him to finally end the curse.

You only attack the Dalish after they attack you first (making it clear self defense) AND at no time do you actually kill children.  There is no overriding need or desire to target Dalish children.  OTOH, the RoA rather specifically says ALL mages and that does include children.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

Torax wrote...

I'm just saying wanting First Enchanter as an end result is reaching at best and not even needed if you are making them ALL tranquil as you like point out cause you dislike the order and the chantry so much. They'd have no one left to make a Circle out of besides Hawke and their companions. Not a single one right? what are you rebuilding with? All the apostates that probably run away or you slaughter after? There is no Circle required if you made them all Tranquil in that setting which is Kirkwall...

There'll still be mages and apostates out there, who would need to be taken somewhere.  I don't think running such a reduced circle is a job worthy of the Champion, but a circle would still be needed.

Though given that the Veil in Kirkwall must be even weaker now after Anders bomb and the following mass slaughter, I'd really hope they'd move it to somewhere that's less of a demon magnet.

[Benchmark]

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark,

I remember the conversation and DG was very frank about the rules regarding captured mages and the Right of Annulment. Surrender can not be used to circumvent the cleansing of the circle. That means death or tranquility for all mage prisoners. It is what it is.

-Polaris

I just read the quote in question, kindly provided by lob.

It obviously does not discuss the specifics of the Kirkwall RoA, and it obviously is a theoretical discussion about whether any mages could be rescued. His point is that the RoA is called after a circle is beyond rescuing, presumably all of the mages are guilty. He is commenting that these theoretically guilty mages could be made tranquil rather than being killed outright.

Cullen makes it obvious he is going to presume the mages that surrendered were innocent. No mention of tranquility, no mention of death. Innocent mages to be monitored in a circle, that's the job he signed on for and he is going to do it.

Edit: After rereading the quote I think it should also be pointed out that it does not discuss surrender. It discusses capturing mages to tranquilize rather than kill. I think DG was correct in his assessment that ordering Templars to try and capture enemy mages would be akin to suicide. Like Aztecs trying to capture enemies alive for their rituals and getting stomped by small bands of conquistadors.

Modifié par Benchmark, 19 avril 2011 - 10:52 .

[Torax]

Wulfram wrote...

Torax wrote...

I'm just saying wanting First Enchanter as an end result is reaching at best and not even needed if you are making them ALL tranquil as you like point out cause you dislike the order and the chantry so much. They'd have no one left to make a Circle out of besides Hawke and their companions. Not a single one right? what are you rebuilding with? All the apostates that probably run away or you slaughter after? There is no Circle required if you made them all Tranquil in that setting which is Kirkwall...

There'll still be mages and apostates out there, who would need to be taken somewhere.  I don't think running such a reduced circle is a job worthy of the Champion, but a circle would still be needed.

Though given that the Veil in Kirkwall must be even weaker now after Anders bomb and the following mass slaughter, I'd really hope they'd move it to somewhere that's less of a demon magnet.

I doubt they'd pick Kirkwall that was in flames and what not as the choice of where to go...

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark wrote...
Cullen makes it obvious he is going to presume the mages that surrendered were innocent. No mention of tranquility, no mention of death. Innocent mages to be monitored in a circle, that's the job he signed on for and he is going to do it.

No he doesn't. If he did, he would have revoked the Right of Annulment immediately after relieving Meredith of her command.  As acting Knight Commander with no Grand Cleric, he has that authority if that's how he feels.

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

Immediately after relieving Meredith of command he's trying not to get his head chopped off by the spooky sword.

Whether he revokes the Annulment after Meredith's death is unclear. As is whether there'd be any mages left to spare, other than perhaps the 3 saved by the Champion's invervention.

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

@IanPolaris, am I crazy or did we not have a discussion once about killing the Dalish in Origins wherein you tried to justify it despite the fact it means slaughtering the innocents of the clan including the children?

We did but the circumstances are slightly different.  The question was whether picking the Werewolves meant you automatically decided that you were going to slaughter the whole Dalish tribe.  I pointed out that it could be justified (but I also said that it was the worst choice too) by pointing out that when you go to the Dalish, you do NOT intend to destroy the whole tribe.  You are there under the Aegis of the Spirit of the Forest to make the Dalish see the crime that Zathrien has committed and get him to finally end the curse.

You only attack the Dalish after they attack you first (making it clear self defense) AND at no time do you actually kill children.  There is no overriding need or desire to target Dalish children.  OTOH, the RoA rather specifically says ALL mages and that does include children.

-Polaris

How is Zathrian refusing to end the curse grounds for self defense?  And the Spirit looks sad as she accepts the Persuade and clearly says as the scene in the temple ends, "prepare for battle."  All this apart from the fact that the dialogue line actually says "Kill Zathrian.  Kill the Dalish."

Arguing that you don't actually kill children is ridiculous.  Even if you slaughter all the adults, that leaves children defenseless in a haunted forest.

So, all special pleading.  There is more reason to see threat in a Circle rebellion than in a werewolf curse that has nothing to do with your PC.  Seems you're able to justify what you want, and simply have a softer spot for mages than for Dalish elves.

[Benchmark]

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark wrote...
Cullen makes it obvious he is going to presume the mages that surrendered were innocent. No mention of tranquility, no mention of death. Innocent mages to be monitored in a circle, that's the job he signed on for and he is going to do it.

No he doesn't. If he did, he would have revoked the Right of Annulment immediately after relieving Meredith of her command.  As acting Knight Commander with no Grand Cleric, he has that authority if that's how he feels.

-Polaris

He very obviously did, it is almost an exact quote that he makes to Meredith's face. And how can you say what he did after relieving Meredith of her command. All he did in my game is immediately begin a battle to the death with her. Once that was done he kneels silently for a few moments and it fades to black.

Is he the micromachine man? "Meredith I relieve you of command. Stand down. And before we start our battle to the death I herebyassumecommandofallTemplaractivitiesinKirkwallduetothefactthatthereisnoGrandClericIdosoonmyown
authorityandassumeyourresponsibilitiesasKnightCommanderAsfirstorderasKnightCommanderIhereby
immediatleyrescindandrevokethedeclarationoftheRightofAnnulmentandcommandallTemplarscurrently
engagedinsaideventtostanddown...."

Modifié par Benchmark, 19 avril 2011 - 11:02 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Exactly the same, with a slight few conversation changes.

[Jassper]

Joy Divison wrote...

What I do not understand is why the option exists to show mercy to the mages which surrendered. If the Right of Annulment has been invoked, don't they have to die? How is this up for debate?

Because the Right of Annulment is flawed, and what's his name knows it. That's why he agrees if you tell Meredith to spare them.
Image your entire family being murdered because only one of you committed a crime. Doesn't seem right does it. The fact that every mage has the potential to be a blood mage is no different than every human having the potential of being a criminal. So should we through everyone in prison now - or wait until they commit the crime? In that lies the debate.

 

[EmperorSahlertz]

You know what the funny part is? Once again Lob and Polaris are completely twisting DG's words into something he did not say at all. Big surprise there huh?

What Gaider ACTUALLY said is, that if by some happenstance a mage survived an annulment he could IMAGINE (note: keyword here) that all survivers would be tranquilized or outright executed. In no way, form, or function did he at all say that all survivers were either executed, or tranquilized. But I guess it would fit their arguements better if all mages were executed or tranquilized.

But who am I kidding? They won't care about this clarification.

[Torax]

 EmperorSahlertz, haven't you learned anything yet? There is no middle ground apparently in  vs.

Modifié par Torax, 19 avril 2011 - 11:55 .

[IanPolaris]

Benchmark wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Benchmark wrote...
Cullen makes it obvious he is going to presume the mages that surrendered were innocent. No mention of tranquility, no mention of death. Innocent mages to be monitored in a circle, that's the job he signed on for and he is going to do it.

No he doesn't. If he did, he would have revoked the Right of Annulment immediately after relieving Meredith of her command.  As acting Knight Commander with no Grand Cleric, he has that authority if that's how he feels.

-Polaris

He very obviously did, it is almost an exact quote that he makes to Meredith's face. And how can you say what he did after relieving Meredith of her command. All he did in my game is immediately begin a battle to the death with her. Once that was done he kneels silently for a few moments and it fades to black.

Is he the micromachine man? "Meredith I relieve you of command. Stand down. And before we start our battle to the death I herebyassumecommandofallTemplaractivitiesinKirkwallduetothefactthatthereisnoGrandClericIdosoonmyown
authorityandassumeyourresponsibilitiesasKnightCommanderAsfirstorderasKnightCommanderIhereby
immediatleyrescindandrevokethedeclarationoftheRightofAnnulmentandcommandallTemplarscurrently
engagedinsaideventtostanddown...."

Sorry but no.  Cullen never revokes the Right of Annulment.  He could but he doesn't. 

As for the Dalish, the dialog description lines do NOT reflect what you actually say (see the Alistair hardening line for example).  Like DA2 they are synposis.  If you actually play the pro-Werewolf scene, the Lady of the Forest specifically goes to the Dalish camp to PLEAD FOR PEACE.  You do not kill Dalish Children until the Dalish attack you.  That is self defense.  The clan is told of Zathrien's crime and decide to back him anyway.  Even Meretheri says that Zatherian is the only one to blame in DA2 (if you play a game where you sided with the werewolves such as "No Compromises" prepackage.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lob and I are not twisting anything. Lob even had the courtesy to print DG's exact words and he is very clear. When there is a right of annulment NO MAGE can be taken prisoner. Period. Any mage that somehow survives would have to be executed or perhaps made tranquil. DG clearly speculations that being made tranquil might be an alternative (and the only alternative) to execution during a Right of Annulment. The RIght itself specifically forbids the taking and keeping of mage prisoners. All must die. It is what it is.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Here is the money quote from DG:

"So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright."

Emphasis mine.  During a right of annulment, any mage captured that isn't killed might possibly be made tranquil.  It's very clearly DEATH first or possibly tranquility if the mage gives good head first. (Sorry about the crudity but that's what it amounts to).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 avril 2011 - 12:04 .

[stobie]

Addai67 wrote...

Have to agree with Lob and IanPolaris on this one, as self-rigthteous as they are in making the argument. Annulment= everybody dies. I really don't understand the point of the scene with the three mages other than Cullen fanservice. I do have to take issue with the rationale that what you're doing is punishment for Anders' actions- no one in the game ever makes that argument, so it's moot.

@IanPolaris, am I crazy or did we not have a discussion once about killing the Dalish in Origins wherein you tried to justify it despite the fact it means slaughtering the innocents of the clan including the children?

I remember this.  I had no idea it was the same person, though.  Wow.

[IanPolaris]

stobie wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Have to agree with Lob and IanPolaris on this one, as self-rigthteous as they are in making the argument. Annulment= everybody dies. I really don't understand the point of the scene with the three mages other than Cullen fanservice. I do have to take issue with the rationale that what you're doing is punishment for Anders' actions- no one in the game ever makes that argument, so it's moot.

@IanPolaris, am I crazy or did we not have a discussion once about killing the Dalish in Origins wherein you tried to justify it despite the fact it means slaughtering the innocents of the clan including the children?

I remember this.  I had no idea it was the same person, though.  Wow.

Again it's a false dichotomy.  Whatever the synposis line says, you are NOT (as far as your character knows) committed to killing any Dalish until the Dalish attack you after the Lady of the Forest confronts Zathrien in his camp.  Sure in hindsight you can say it was the wrong move (and I say as much) and the worst choice, but it wasn't evil.  You didn't go in with a policy of slaughter Dalish Children for the lulz.  Even Merethari (play No Compromises in DA2) admits that the Warden and not Zathrien was in the right.

The Right of Annulment is nothing like this.  If Dalish children run away even after the attack begins, you can let them go.  In fact many do survive.  In a Right of Annulment, if mage children run, you are obligated by law to hunt them down and slaighter them to the last one.  See the difference?

-Polaris

[stobie]

Well, I tend to kill out of fury, so I can't argue that part. (I offed the werewolves in one Origins run, because I was so mad at Overwhelm. - I redid the character, though!)

Yes, I do see your point. I don't think they've offered the slightest reason to kill/tranquilize the mages, personally, and I've certainly tried to take the other side in game, just to be fair. I guess I don't have a problem with crazy people running around like living bombs, but I *do* hate the controlling, righteous ones, so there's not much chance of changing opinions now.

Elves & mages represent the same thing to me, summed up best by 'right brained, chaotic, feeling creatures.' There's no way I'm siding against *that,* and the psycho-controllers we see among the templars do very little to enlist understanding. I guess it depends on who we really are - and I wish I had this as a question and answer quiz in real life. (Which side did you pick, & why? Templars because they control crazy people? I see... Next!)

[Crunchyinmilk]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Jeffonl1 wrote...
If you side with the templars you find out that he has been hiding Quentin from the order ... Remember Q? the guy that killed your mother...

Orsino gives a variation of this relevation in the mage ending, too.

Both explanations make it pretty clear Orsino was supporting his reasearch as an ace in the hole and could not have been unaware of the nature of the experiments.  Given his own treatement as a mage of the kirkwall circle its understandable he has little real sympathy for the plight of non-mages, but he's no saint to Meredith's devil.

I honestly feel the Templar side is the better option.  Even as a mage it was a delight to support them.  Once as a devious blood mage that Miranda paints with uncanny precision in her final paranoid rant, which no one believes at that point... and once as mage who blames Orsino in the majority for being unfit for the job. Losing control of his charges and allowing such rampantly dangerous magical practice... even to supporting the serial killer on the sly!

The only time I really felt right supporting the mages was when playing a warrior or rogue Hawke.  Being one sided/bloody minded enough in my desire to protect Bethany that I would free a circle of mages whom I know tear the veil at whim and practice blood magic.  I certainly wouldn't stick around with them once I had my sister free, and judging from Bethany's letters/mindset she'd be right with me in seeking a safe return to a more sane circle of mages.  The Kirkwall cicle is beyond help.

[Lewie]

Well, the circle has failed in kirkwall, the templars have struggled, the mages have been cornered, templars have been cornered. The blood mages are after Meredith, sod the consequences or who they step over, its not even a recognition. Keran was free, cullen was free, bethany was free in the clearest sense. That part of the story is important 3 people who were oppressed and made it.

[LobselVith8]

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Orsino gives a variation of this relevation in the mage ending, too.

Both explanations make it pretty clear Orsino was supporting his reasearch as an ace in the hole and could not have been unaware of the nature of the experiments.  Given his own treatement as a mage of the kirkwall circle its understandable he has little real sympathy for the plight of non-mages, but he's no saint to Meredith's devil.

Orsino and Meredith are both idiots, I don't think anyone on either side of this debate contested that. It's the real crux of the problem because it eliminates any moral ambiguity when Orsino becomes a recycled Harvester and Meredith becomes a Super Saiyan courtesy of a macguffin.

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

I honestly feel the Templar side is the better option.  Even as a mage it was a delight to support them.  

You mean all those mages inside the Gallows who we never meet were difficult to defend?

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

Once as a devious blood mage that Miranda paints with uncanny precision in her final paranoid rant, which no one believes at that point... and once as mage who blames Orsino in the majority for being unfit for the job. Losing control of his charges and allowing such rampantly dangerous magical practice... even to supporting the serial killer on the sly!

You realize the only two Circle mages we meet with any regularity are Orsino and Bethany, right? They couldn't be more dissimilar.

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

The only time I really felt right supporting the mages was when playing a warrior or rogue Hawke.  Being one sided/bloody minded enough in my desire to protect Bethany that I would free a circle of mages whom I know tear the veil at whim and practice blood magic.  I certainly wouldn't stick around with them once I had my sister free, and judging from Bethany's letters/mindset she'd be right with me in seeking a safe return to a more sane circle of mages.  The Kirkwall cicle is beyond help.

We have no idea what the Kirkwall Circle is even like because we hardly meet any of the mages locked up in the Gallows. Any speculation on what they could be like is simply that - speculation.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 avril 2011 - 01:12 .

[stobie]

I haven't yet made myself try siding with the templars. After I hear the kid talking about being molested in his chambers, I can't. I'd like to hear how those who *do* side with them get around that. Thrask & several others say they're there also to protect mages. That would be great, if there was any sign such things had been dealt with - and stopped. I once sent Grace & company to the circle (I was trying to win over Fenris, who is pretty easily won, btw, without resorting to this horror) - and then heard what happened to them. Then I heard the tranquil girl, who was clearly Alrik's previous prey. I don't see how that can be justified. I'd say allowing this sort of thing has given mages every reason to rebel. I'm also not sure why blood magic is any worse than abusing those you are sworn to protect.